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

, 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 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.

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

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

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

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.

, 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.

, 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.

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.

, 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:

, 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.

, 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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

, of Padua, or of Portugal, of the religious order of St. Francis, and the Thaumaturgus of his age, was the son of Martin Bulhan or Bouillan, and of Mary of Trevera, and born at Lisbon in the year 1195. He first joined the community of the canons of the cathedral of Lisbon, and then associated with the regular canons of St. Vincent in the suburbs of that city, where he lived a retired and austere life, and afterwards became one of the order of St. Francis. He left off his baptismal name of Ferdinand, and adopted that of Antony. Conceiving the design of going to Africa, he embarked for that continent; but his vessel being blown back to Messina, he found himself obliged to remain in Italy, where he studied theology, and preached with much reputation. He afterwards visited Montpellier, Thoulouse, and Padua, and made many converts by the earnestness of his preaching; and his discourses, we are told, were confirmed by miracles. Pope Gregory IX had so high an opinion of him that he named him “The Ark of the New Testament, and the secret Depository of sacred learning.” His long Stay at Padua procured him the surname by which he is distinguished. In this place he died, June 13, 1231, in the thirty-sixth year of his age, and was canonized in the following year by pope Gregory above mentioned. His body was placed in the superb church which bears his name. There are several sermons of this saint extant, and some other works. Father Jean of the Hague, a 4 religious of the same order, and professor of theology, printed a new edition of his works in 1641, to which he added those ascribed to St. Francis, and a life of Antony. These works are entitled, “Sermones dominicales adventus, quadragesimæ, ac reliqui omnes de tempore. Sermones de Sanctis. Interpretatio vel expositio mystica in sacram Scripturam. Concordantiæ morales sacrorum bibliorum.” This last is divided into five books.

, first geographer to the king of France, member of the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres, and of the society of antiquaries, London, and joint-geographer of the academy of sciences, was born at Paris on the 11th of July, 1697. His father’s name was Hubert Bourignon, and his mother’s Charlotte Vaugon.

M. d'Anville discovered a taste for geography from his earliest years, excited by meeting accidentally with a chart when about twelve years old, and throughout the course of his youthful studies, he paid less attention to the language or sentiment of a classic than to the maps of the countries treated of, which he endeavoured to delineate, and to trace the sites of battles, and the march of generals. He had so improved himself in this branch that, at the age of twenty-two, he published some charts which obtained the approbation of the abbe de Longuerre, whose opinion was then considered as highly honourable. In these charts, it has been said that he exhibited every thing that was known, and was ignorant in nothing but that of which it was impossible for him to have acquired a knowledge at the time he delineated them.

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

In the pursuit of all his studies he had every advantage of nature and disposition, a strong memory, an indefatigable ardour, and a depth of judgment which enabled him to compare, select, and decide upon the most accurate principles. While thus employed, he was elected a member of the academy of belles lettres, whose volumes he enriched with many valuable papers. The accuracy of M. d'Anville’s maps will, perhaps, appear the more extraordinary when it is considered that he had never travelled, and knew very little either of geometry or astronomy. When the question of the oblate figure of the earth was debated among the astronomers, he endeavoured to resolve it from the geographical knowledge he had acquired, and published a work entitled “Mesure conjecturale de la terre sous l’equateur,” and his result was contrary to that which had been founded on astronomical observations.

In 1773, the academy of sciences appointed him joint-­geographer, and although he was now enfeebled by age, he wished to testify his respect for the honour, by presenting the society with some memoirs. In the first and most important of these, he corrected an egregious error which had appeared in every map, respecting the situation of Mesopotamia, and this he had been enabled to do by examining the astronomical observations of the Arabians.

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

His constitution was delicate, and yet, until he was nearly sixty years of age, he studied at the rate of fifteen hours a day: his habits of temperance, and regularity, and the pleasing varieties of a study which was every day becoming easier, and every day becoming honourable, no doubt made such excessive application more safe than it might have proved under less prudent management, or less favourable circumstances. In 1730 he married Mad. Testard, by whom he left two daughters; one of them took the veil, and the other was married to M. de Hauteclair, treasurer of France. His wife died about a year before him, but such was his imbecility of mind at that time, that he was incapable of being made acquainted with his loss.

Besides his numerous maps, he published the following treatises, “Geographic ancienne abregée,” 1768, 3 vols. 12mo. “Traité des Mesures itineraires anciennes et modernes,” 1769, 8vo. “Dissertation sur l‘etendue de l’ancienne Jerusalem,” 1747, 8vo. “Memoir sur l'Egypt ancienne et moderne, avec une description de Golphe Arabique,” 1766, 4to. “Etats formés en Europe apres la chute de l'empire Romain en Occident,” 1771, 4to. “Notice de l'ancienne Gaul, tirée des monumens Remains,” 1761, 4to. “Proposition d'une mesure de la terre dont il resulte une diminution considerable vers sa circonference sur les paralleles,” 1735, 12mo. “Mesure conjecturale de la terre sur l‘equateur, en consequence de l’etendue de la mer du Sud,” 1736, 12mo. “Analyse geographique de l'Italie,” 1744, 4to. “Eclaircissement sur la carte du Canada,” 1755, 4to. “Memoire sur la carte des côtes de la Grèce,” 1751, 4to. “L'empire Turc considéré dans son etablissment et ses accroissemens,” 1772, 12mo. “L'empire de Russie, considéré dans son origine et ses accroissemens,” 1772, 12mo. “Memoires sur la Chine,” 1776, 8vo. “Memoires sur la mer Caspienne, sur le cour de l'Euphrate et du Tigre, sur la Mesopotamie et l'Irak,” 1774. Besides these, he was the author of two Memoirs in the academy of sciences, and of thirty-seven in the volumes of the royal academy of inscriptions and belles lettres, beginning with vol. XXVI. His “Compendium of Ancient Geography” was translated into English, and published in two volumes 8vo, in 1791, illustrated with maps, and with very useful prolegomena and notes by the translator.

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

, a modem Latin poet, was born at Naples about the year 1472, and to oblige his father studied law; but, from an irresistible inclination, devoted himself to poetry, travelling frequently to different parts of Naples, and to Rome, where he formed an intimacy with several members of the academy, and, according to a very common practice then, assumed the classical name of Janus Anysius. He is said to have been an ecclesiastic, but we have no account of him in that profession. As a Latin poet he acquired great reputation, which, it is thought, he would have preserved in the opinion of posterity, had he been more select in what he published. Ctelio Calcagnini, however, bestows the highest praise on him, as inimitable, or rarely equalled. He died about the year 1540. His works are entitled, 1. “Jani Anysii Pomata et Satyrae, ad Pompeium Columnam cardinalem,” Naples, 1531, 4to; but in this title we ought to read “Sententias” instead of “Satyrae,” which no where appear. His “Sententiae,” in iambic verse, were reprinted in “Recueil des divers auteurs sur l'education des enfans,” Basil, 1541, and his Eclogues in “Collection des auteurs bucoliques,” ibid. 1546, 8vo. 2. “Satyrae ad Pompeiurn Columnam cardinalem,” Naples, 1532, 4to. 3. “Protogenos,” a tragedy, Naples, 1536, 4to. The hero is Adam, but the piece is prolix, and in a bad style: the oppositipn it met with occasioned his next publications. 4. “Commentariolus in tragcediam: Apologia: Epistolae: Correctiones,” pieces printed without date. 5. “Epistolae de religione, et epigrammata,” Naples, 1538, 4to. Anysius had a brother Cosmo, a physician by profession, and also a Latin poet. His works published at Naples, 1537, 4to, consist of different pieces of poetry, satires, epigrams from the Greek, and a commentary on the satires of his brother Janus.

, a man of singular character and learning of the seventeenth century, was born in Transylvania, in the village of Apatza, and was sent at the expense of the government of his country to Utrecht, where he studied the Oriental languages, theology, and philosophy, with such distinguished success as to be offered the rank of professor. But this he refused out of regard to his country, to which he returned in 1653. He was then appointed to teach geography, natural philosophy, and astronomy, in the college of Weissenburgh, but having declared in favour of the philosophy of Descartes, and many of the opinions of the reformed church, his enemies were so inveterate as to sentence him to be thrown from the top of a high tower. By powerful intercession, however, they were induced to change his sentence to banishment. He now went to Clausenburgh, and taught for some time, but a fresh persecution arose, in which he would probably have been sacrificed, had he not died a natural death in 1659. He wrote “Dissertatio continens introductionem ad philosophiam sacram,” Utrecht, 1650. 2. “Magyar Encyclopedia!, &c.” an Encyclopedia in the Hungarian language, Utrecht, 1653. 3. “A system of Logic,” in the same, Weissenburgh, 1636. 4. “Oratio tie studio sapientiae,” Utrecht, 1655. 5. “Dissertatio de politia ecclesiastica,” Clausenburgh, 1658.

, a lawyer, the contemporary of Luther, was one of the professors of the university of Wittemberg, and assisted in the reformation. He was born at Nuremberg, in 1486, of which place his father was a citizen. Having married a nun while canon of Wurzburgh, he was arrested by orders of the bishop, but protected by an imperial regiment in the garrison of^ Nuremberg. He was, however, obliged to resign all his preferments, in lieu of which he was afterwards appointed advocate of the republic of Nuremberg, and counsellor to the elector of Brandenburgh. He died at Nuremberg in 1536. He published a defence of his marriage, addressed to the prince bishop of Wurzburgh, entitled l.“DefensioJo. Apelli pro suo conjugio,” with a preface by Luther, Wittemberg, 1523, 4to. 2. “Methodica dialectices ratio, adjurisprudentiam accommodata,” Norimb. 1535, 4to. This is a treatise on the Roman law, or rather a system of logic applicable to that study, and divested of the rage for allegory which had long prevailed in the schools. Reusner reprinted it in his “Cynosura.” 3. “Brachylogus juris civilisj sive corpus legum,” an abridgment of the civil law, which was long thought to be a production of the sixth century, and was even attributed to the emperor Justinian.

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

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

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

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

, one of the finest orators of his time, was a Gaul by birth, and flourished in the first century. His inclination leading him to travelling, he extended his journey as far as Britain, but afterwards returned to Rome, where he fixed his residence, attended the bar, and acquired great reputation for wit and eloquence. Although considered at Rome as a foreigner, this circumstance did not prevent his rising to the highest offices, as he became senator, questor, tribune, and prsetor; but none of these promotions had charms so attractive to him as his original profession. He is most celebrated for his “Dialogue on the corruption of eloquence,” the object of which is to prefer the modern to the ancient eloquence. This dialogue is supposed to have been written in the 16th year of Vespasian, or the year 74 of our aera, and his death has been fixed at the year 83. The dialogue, however, has been attributed to Quintilian and to Tacitus, and is usually printed in their works, but modern critics are of opinion it was not written by either, and D. Rivet, from whom this article is taken, attributes it, in his literary history of France, to Aper, and advances such proofs as appear to have great weight. An excellent dissertation on it may be seem in Murphy’s translation of Tacitus, vol. IV. p. 445.

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

. There were three ancient Romans of this name, all very illustrious; not for genius, for virtue, for great or good qualities, but for gluttony: or, if we may soften the term in complaisance to the growing taste of the times we write in, for the art of refining in the science of eating. The first lived under Sylla, the second under Augustus and Tiberius, and the third under Trajan. The second however is the most illustrious personage of the three, and is doubtless the same of whom Seneca, Pliny, Juvenal, Martial, &c. so much speak. Athenaeus places him under Tiberius, and tells us, that he spent immense sums in gratifying his appetite, and invented divers sorts of cakes, which bore his name. We learn from, Seneca, that he lived in his time, and kept as it were a school of gluttony at Rome; that he spent two millions and an half in entertainments; that, finding himself very much in debt, he was forced at length to look into the state of his affairs; and that, seeing he had but 250,000 crowns remaining, he poisoned himself from an apprehension of being starved with such a sum. Dion relates the same story. Pliny mentions very frequently the ragouts he invented, and calls him the completest glutton that ever appeared in the world: “nepotutn omnium altissimus gurges.” The third Apicius lived under Trajan: he had an admirable secret to preserve oysters, which he shewed by sending Trajan some as far as Parthia, very fresh when they arrived.

The name of Apicius was applied long after to several sorts of meat: it made also a sect among the cooks. There is extant a treatise, “De re culinaria,” under the name of Caelius Apicius, which is judged by the critics to be very ancient, though they do not suppose it to be written by any of the above three. A fair edition of it was given by Martin Lister, with the title of “De obsoniis et condimentis, sive de arte coquinaria,” London, 1705, 8vo, and reprinted at Amsterdam in 1709, 12mo. Bernhold published a new edition at Lubeck, in 1791, 8vo. It was humourously ridiculed by Dr. King in his “Art of Cookery.”

, called in German Brenkwitz, a celebrated astronomer and mathematician, was born at Leisnig or Leipsic in Misnia, 1495, and made professor of mathematics at Ingolstadt in 1524, where he died in 1552, aged fifty-seven. He wrote treatises upon many of the mathematical sciences, and greatly improved them, especially astronomy and astrology, which in that age were much the same thing: also geometry, geography, arithmetic. He particularly enriched astronomy with many instruments, and observations of eclipses, comets, &c. His principal work was the “Astronomicum Caesareum,” published in folio at Ingolstadt in 1540, and which contains a number of interesting observations, with the descriptions and divisions of instruments. In this work he predicts eclipses, and constructs the figures of them in piano. In the second part of the work, or the “Meteoroscopium Planum,” he gives the description of the most accurate astronomical quadrant, and its uses. To it are added observations of five different comets, viz. in the years 1531, 1532, 1533, 1538, and 1539: where he first shows that the tails of a comet are always projected in a direction from the sun.

Apian also wrote a treatise, entitled “Cosmographia,” of which there have been many editions, from 1529, when Frisius published it in 4to, to 1575. In 1533 he made, at Norimberg, a curious instrument, which from its figure he called Folium Poputi, which, by the sun’s rays, shewed the hour in all parts of the earth, and even the unequal hours of the Jews. In 1534 he published his “Inscriptiones sacro-sanctae Vetustatis variae,” Ingost. fol. and in the same year his “Instrumentum Sinuum, sive Prinii Mobilis,” fol. with 100 problems; and was the author of many other works; among which may be mentioned the Ephemerides from the year 1534 for several years, and books upon Shadows, Arithmetical Centilogues: books upon Arith metic, with the rule of Coss (Algebra) demonstrated; upon Guaging; Almanacks, with Astrological directions; a book vipon Conjunctions; Ptolemy with very correct figures, drawn in a quadrangular form; Ptolemy’s works in Greek; books of Eclipses; the works of Azoph, a very ancient astrologer; the works of Gebre; the perspective of Vitello, of Critical Days, and of the Rainbow; a new Astronomical and Geometrical Radius, with various uses of sines and chords; Universal Astrolabe of Numbers; maps of the world, and of particular countries, &c.

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

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

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

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

, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, about the year 177, presented to Marcus Aurelius an apology for the Christians, which was praised for its eloquence and truth. He wrote other works against the heretics of his time, and especially the Montanists, but these are all lost. Eusebius mentions Five books against the Gentiles; two books of Truth; and two against the Jews. As he had spoken in his Apology of the victory of Marcus Antoninus, which happened in the year 174, and of the thundering legion, Lardner places him at the year 176 or 177, though possibly he was then in the decline of life. There are two fragments ascribed to him in the preface to the Paschal, or, as it is often called, The Alexandrian Chronicle, but these are doubtful.

, the elder, a grammarian and divine, was a native of Alexandria, and flourished about the middie of the fourth century. When, under the reign of Julian, the Christians were prohibited the use of the Greek and Roman classics in their schools, he drew up a grammar in a Christian form, and translated the books of Moses, and the whole history of the Hebrews down to the time of Saul, in Greek heroic verse, divided, in imitation of Homer, into twenty-four books. He translated other parts of the Old Testament into verse, which Sozomen has praised, but of which it is now impossible to form a judgment. He was the father of the Apollinarius in the next article.

, the younger, is mentioned by Jerom, in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical writers, as bishop of Laodicea in Syria. Jerom adds that he employed his younger days chiefly in grammatical studies, and afterwards published innumerable volumes upon the holy scriptures, and died in the time of the emperor Theodosius; he mentions his thirty books against Porphyry, as being then extant, and esteemed the most valuable of his works. Apollinarius is placed by Cave as flourishing about the year 370, but Tillemont thinks he was bishop of Luodicea in the year 362, at the latest. Lardner thinks it certain tnat he flourished in the time of the emperor Julian, and afterwards; and it seems probable that he died about the year 382. He %vrote commentaries upon almost all the books of holy scripture, none of which have descended to our time except a “Paraphrase on the Psalms,” which has been often reprinted in Greek and Latin, and of which an account may be seen in Fabricius. In his early days, he wrote and preached the orthodox faith, but afterwards swerved so far from it, as to be deemed a heretic, and thus became the founder of a sect called the Apollinarians. This sect denied the proper humanity of Christ, and maintained that the body which he assumed was endowed with a sensitive and not a rational soul; but that the divine nature supplied the place of the intellectual principle in man. Their doctrine was first condemned by a council at Alexandria in the year 362, and afterwards in a more formal manner by a council at Rome in the year 375, and by another council in the year 378, which deposed Apollinarius from his bishopric. He is said to have held the doctrine of the Millenium, or the personal reigh of Christ on earth for a thousand years. The reader may find a very elaborate account of him and of his writings in Dr. Lardner’s works, vol. IV. p. 380—397.

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

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

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

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

Apollonius, not meeting at first with that encouragement which he expected at Alexandria, removed to Rhodes, where he set up a school for rhetoric, and gave lectures for a considerable time; thence acquiring the name of Rhodius. Here it was that he corrected and put the finishing hand to his Argonautics, which being publicly recited, met with universal applause, and the author was complimented with the freedom of the city. He is said to have written a book “Concerning Archilochus,” a treatise “Of the origin of Alexandria,” “Cnidos,” and other works. He published his poem of the Argonautics at Alexandria, upon his return thither, when sent for by Ptolemy Euergetes, to succeed Eratosthenes as keeper of the" public library. It is supposed that he died in this office, and that he was buried in the same tomb with his master Callimachus. The ancient Scholia upon his Argonautics are still extant: they are thought to be written by Tarrhscus, Theon, and others.

Of late years his reputation has rather increased in this country. Mr. Hayley has bestowed great praise on him. “His poems,” says this excellent critic, “abound in animated description, and in passages of the most tender and pathetic beauty. How finely painted is the first setting forth of the Argo! and how beautifully is the wife of Chiron introduced, holding up the little Achilles in her arms, and shewing him to his father Peleus as he sailed along the shore! But the chief excellence in our poet, is the spirit and delicacy with which he has delineated the passion of love in his Medea. That Virgil thought very highly of his merit in this particular, is sufficiently evident from the minute exactness with which he has copied many tender touches of the Grecian poet.” The best editions of Apollonius are those printed at Oxford in 4to, by Dr. John Shaw, fellow of Magdalen college, 1777, and by the same in. 8vo, 1779, that of Brunck, Argeritora, 1780, 4to and 8vo; that of Flangini; Rome, 4to, 1794, and of Beck, Leipsic, 1797, 2 vols. 8vo. The princeps editio is a quarto, dated Florent. 1496, a copy of which sold at the Pinelli sale for seventeen guineas. Several English poets have contended for the honour of transfusing the heauties of Apollonius into our language. Dr. Broome published many years ago, the Loves of Jason and Medea, and the story of Talus. Mr. West also published some detached pieces. In 1771, Mr. Ekins translated the third Book of the Argonautics, and a part of the fourth, 4to, with very valuable preliminary matter. In 1780, two translations of the Argonautics appeared, the one, a posthumous work of Fawkes, the other by Edward Burnaby Green; and in 1803, another translation was published in 3 vols. 12mo, by Mr. Preston.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, a physician and astrologer, was born in 1250, at the village of Abano near Padua, of which the Latin name is Aponus, and hence he is frequently called Petrus de Apono, or Aponensis. He is also sometimes called Petrus de Padua. When young, he went, with a view to study Greek, to Constantinople, or according to others, to some of the islands belonging to the Venetian republic. Having afterwards a desire to study medicine and mathematics, he returned, and spent some years at Padua, and at Paris, where he was admitted to the degree of doctor of philosophy and medicine. He was, however, recalled to Padua, and a professorship of medicine founded for him. He attained great reputation as a physician, and is said to have been very exorbitant in his fees. We are not told what his demands were in the place of his residence, but it is affirmed that he would not attend the sick in any other place under 150 florins a day; and when he was sent for by pope Honorius IV. he demanded 400 ducats for each day’s attendance. But these reports are thought to have been exaggerated, as perhaps are many other particulars handed down to us, such as his abhorrence of milk, which was so great, that he fainted if he saw any person drink it.

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

, a learned Greek, a native of Constantinople, came into Italy about the middle of the fifteenth century, but being unfavourably treated by cardinal Bessarion whom he visited, he returned to the island of Crete, and wrote some books; one of them entitled “Iowa, or the Violet-bed,” a collection of apophthegms, has not been published, but of his collection of proverbs, an epitome was published at Basil, 1538, in 8vo, and afterwards the whole in Gr. and Lat. by Pontinus, Leyden, 16.19, 4to, and at tho same place, by P. Paulinus, 1653, 4to. The epitome published at Basil is a very rare book, but a copy is in the British Museum.

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

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

Of all this voluminous work there remains only what treats of the Punic, Syrian, Parthian, Mithridatic, and Spanish wars, with those against Hannibal, the civil wars, and the wars in Illyricum, and some fragments of the Celtic or Gallic wars. Appian was published by Henry Stephens with a Latin version, at Geneva, 1592, in folio; but the best editions are those of Tollius, Gr. and Lat. 2 vols. 8vo, Amst. 1670, and of Schweigheuser, Lips. 1784, 3 vols. 8vo, of which last the editor of the Bibliographical Dictionary has given a very particular account.

, an English writer of the sixteenth century, descended from an ancient and honourable family in Wales. He was educated at Oxford, but in what hall or college is uncertain: probablyin the ancient hotel, now Pembroke college, in which several of his name were educated about the same period. In 1534, he was admitted bachelor of civil law. Patronised by William earl of Pembroke, he pursued his studies with alacrity, and became eminently learned, particularly in the history and antiquities of his own country. Wood says, that in 1046-7 he was knighted, with many others, by Edward, lord protector of England, and that he died in the reign of queen Mary. Pitts gives him the character of a learned and elegant writer. He wrote, 1. “Fides historiae Britannia, contra Polyd. Virgilium,” a manuscript in the Cotton library. 2. “Defensio regis Arthuri.” 3. “Historic Brifanniae defensio,” 1,573. 4. “Cambria? descriptio,” corrected and augmented by Humph. Lhuyd, and translated into English by David Powel, Oxon. 1663, 4to. 5. De Variis antiquitatibus Tractatum de Eucharistia of the restitution of the Coin, written in 1553, all in manuscript in New College library.

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

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

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

Apuleius was extremely indefatigable in his studies, and composed several books, some in verse, and others in prose; but most of them are lost. He took pleasure in declaiming, and was heard generally with great applause; when he declaimed at Occa, the audience cried out with one voice, that they ought to confer upon him the honour of citizen. The citizens of Carthage heard him with much satisfaction, and erected a statue to him; and several other cities did him the same honour. The time of his death is not known, but after his Apology took effect, he is said to have passed his clays qu etly in study.

His printed works have gone through forty-three editions, nine of which appeared in the fifteenth century. The first, which is very rare, and was not mutilated by the Inquisition, was printed at Rome by order of cardinal Bes sarion, and Andrea, bishop of Aleria, was editor, 1469, fol. This volume consisted of, J. The “Golden Ass,” on which his reputation chiefly rests, and of which there have been many separate editions and translations into French, Italian, Spanish, German, English (by William Adlington, 1571, &c.) Of the episode of Psyche, there have been an equal number of separate editions and translations, and some French ones superbly ornamented with engravings. 2. His Apology, entitled “Oratio de Magia,” Heidelberg, 1594, 4to, &c. 3. “Florida,” or fragments of his speeches, some on history and mythology, Strasburgh, 1516. 4. “Three books on philosophy, entitled” De habitudine doctrinarum et nativitute Platonis.“5.” De Deo Socratis,“which St. Augustine refuted, Paris, 1624, 16mo. 6.” De Mundo,“which has been considered as an exact translation of what Aristotle wrote on the same subject, Memmingon, 1494, fol. and Ley a' en, 1591, 8vo, with that of Aristotle in Greek. Another list of works has been attributed to him on douhtful authority, as a Latin translation of Asclepius” De Natura. Deorum;“a book” De nominibus, virtutibus, seu medicaminis herbarum;“another,” De notis adspiratioms, et de diphthongis;“” De ponderibus, mensuris, ac signis cujusque;“” Aneehomenos,“a heroic poem, and” Ratio Spheres Pvthagoricae." Besides these a great number of his writings, on almost every subject, are said to have been lost. Daniel William Moller published an essay on his life and works, Altdorf, 1691, 8vo.

, Duke of Atri in the kingdom of Naples, and son of Julius Aqua viva, count of Converse no, added to the splendour of his birth a great share of learning, which rendered him very illustrious towards the end of the fifteenth, and beginning of the sixteenth century. He was at first addicted to the military art, and distinguished himself by his bravery, although he was unfortunate, and in the last battle in which he fought, was wounded and taken prisoner. When released he appears to have devoted his time to study and the conversation of men of letters, by whom he was highly esteemed. Alexander ab Alexandro dedicated to him his “Dies Geniales” and “Pontanus,” two of his works. He died in 1528, aged seventy-two years. His works were, an “Encylopædia,” left very imperfect; and Bayle says he composed a book “De re Equestri.” His best known work is “Disputationes de Virtute morali,” Helenop. 1609, 4to, which it seems doubtful whether Bayle ever saw. His brother Belisarius also became an author, and published a treatise “De Venatione,” and others “De Aucupio,” “De Principum liberis educandis,” and “De Certamine Singulari.” These were first printed at Naples, 1519, fol. and reprinted at Basil, 1578, 8vo, by Leunclavius, with Manuel Palæologus on the Education of Kings.

, son to John Jerome, duke of Atri, was born at Naples in 1542, and in 1581 was elected general of the Jesuits, in which station he conducted himself with great mildness and prudence, and died Jan. 31, 1615. He left several religious works: among others, “Industrie ad curandos animae morhos,” Paris, 1603, 8vo, and Rome, 1606, 8vo. A French translation of this was published at Paris in 1776, 12mo, under the title of “Manuel des Superieurs.” He wrote also Meditations in Latin, on the forty-fourth and ninety-tnird Psalms. His most celebrated work drawn up for the use of his order, entitled “Ratio Studiorum,” and published at Rome in 1586, 8vo, was suppressed by the Inquisition, and much displeased the Jesuits and Dominicans, by containing more liberal sentiments than were consistent with their interest. It was republished in 1591, but in a mutilated state. Another work of his, less known, was “Epistoiae Prtepositorum Generalium, ad Patres et Frutres societatis Jesu. Instructio ad augendum spiritum in societaie,” Rome, 4 615, 8vo.

, of Sinope in Pontus, lived in the time of the emperor Adrian in the second century, by whom he is said to have been sent to assist in the rebuilding of Jerusalem, where he embraced Christianity; but, his attacument to judicial astrology having subjected him to censure among the Christians, he became a Jew, and was advanced to the rank of Rabbi. He now employed himself in acquiring a perfect knowledge of the Hebrew language, and translated the Old Testament into Greek. But although he made this apparently a literal translation, he is said to have given some passages respecting Jesus Christ a trim more favourable to the Jewish prejudices than the Septuagint translation. Fragments only of this translation of Aquila’s have descended to us. Some particulars of him may be found in Cave, and in the ecclesiastical historians of his period.

, so called from Aquila, a city of Abruzzo in the kingdom of Naples, was born there in 1466, and gained considerable fame by his Italian poems, but more by his talents as an Improvisator!, which were in high esteem with the princes and patrons of literature in his country. He was the contemporary and rival of Tebaldeo di Ferrara, and together they contributed not a little to the refinement of Italian poetry, but their reputation sunk before that of Sannazarius and Bembo. Aquilano died at Rome, Aug. 10, 1500. His poems, consisting of sonnets, eclogues, epistles, &c. were printed at Rome in 1503, 8vo, but the best edition is that of the Giunti, 1516.

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

, commonly called the Angelical Doctor, of the ancient family of the counts of Aquino, descended from the kings of Sicily and Arragon, was born in the castle of Aquino, in the Terra di Lavoro, in Italy, about the year 1224. At five years of age he was committed to the care of the monks of Mount Cassino, with whom he remained till he was sent to the university of Naples. In the year 1241 he entered into the order of the preaching friars at Naples, without the knowledge of his parents. His mother, being informed of this, used her utmost efforts to induce him to leave this society; to prevent which, the Dominicans removed him toTerracina, and from thence to Anagna, md at last to Rome. His mother followed him thither, and when she could not obtain leave of the monks to see him, by the assistance of her two elder sons, she seized the youth in his journey to Paris, to which he was sent by the monks of his order, and caused him to be shut up in her castle; whence, after a confinement of two jears, he made his escape, and fled first to Naples, and then to Rome. In 1244 he went to Paris with John, the master of the Teutonic order, and from thence removed to Cologne, to hear the lectures of Albertus Magnus. Here he remained till he was invited again to Pans, to read lectures upon the “Book of Sentences,” which he did with great applause, before a very large audience. In the year 1255 he was created D. D. at Paris. He returned to Italy about the year 1263, and was appointed definitor of his order, for the province of Rome; and having taught school divinity in most of the universities of Italy, he re-settled at last at Naples, where he received a pension from king Charles. Here he spent his time in study, in reading of lectures, and exercises of piety; and was so far from any views of ambition or profit, that he refused the archbishopric of that city when it was offered him by Clement IV. In 1274 he was sent for to the second council of Lyons, by pope Gregory X. that he might read before them the book he had written against the Greeks, at the command of Urban IV.; but he fell sick on his journey, at the monastery of Fossanova, near Terracina, where he died on the 7th of March, aged fifty years.

The whole Western world, after his decease, began to load the memory of Thomas Aquinas with honours. The Dominican fraternity removed his body to Thoulouse; pope John XXII. canonized him; Pius V. gave him the title of the Fifth Doctor of the Church; the learned world honoured him with the appellation of The Universal and the Angelic Doctor; and Sixtus Senensis tells us, that he approached so nearly to St. Augustin in the knowledge of true divinity, and penetrated so deeply into the most abstruse meanings of that father, that, agreeably to the Pythagorean metempsychosis, it was a com non expression among all men of learning, that St. Augustin’s soul had transmigrated into St. Thomas Aquinas. Rapin speaks also of him with high honour, and represents him as one of the great improvers of school-divinity. Lord Herbert of Cherbury, in his Life and Reign of Henry VIII. tells us, that one of the principal reasons, which induced this king to write against Martin Luther, was, that the latter had spoken contemptuously of Aquinas. The authority of Aquinas indeed has been always very great in the schools of the Roman Catholics. But notwithstanding all the extravagant praises and honours which have been heaped upon this saint, it is certain that his learning was almost wholly confined to scholastic theology, and that he was so little conversant with elegant and liberal studies, that he was not even able to read the Greek language. For all his knowledge of the Peripatetic philosophy, which he so liberally mixed with theology, he was indebted to the defective translations of Aristotle which were supplied by the Arabians, till he obtained, from some unknown hand, a more, accurate version of his philosophical writings. Adopting the general ideas of the age, that theology is best defended by the weapons of logic and metaphysics, he mixed the subtleties of Aristotle with the language of scripture and the Christian fathers; and, after the manner of the Arabians, framed abstruse questions, without end, upon various topics of speculative theology. He excelled, therefore, only in that subtile and abstruse kind of learning which was better calculated to strike the imagination, than to improve the understanding. He maintained what is commonly called the doctrine of free-will, though he largely quoted Augustin, and retailed many of his pious and devotional sentiments. His Aristotelian subtleties enabled him to give a specious colour to the absurd doctrine of transubstantiation, which in him found a vehement defender. He held many other erroneous opinions, but it must be acknowledged, there are in his writings, and particularly in the account of his discourses during his last sickness, traces of great devotion, and a strain of piety very similar to that of St. Augustin. Aquinas left a vast number of works, which were printed in seventeen volumes in folio, at Venice in 1490; at Nuremberg in 1496; Rome 1570; Venice 1594; and Cologne 1612; and many times after.

Several difficulties have been raised in regard to his “Summa Theologia?,” which have occasioned some authors to doubt whether he was really the author of it. There is a very accurate examination of these difficulties in Casimir Oudins’ “Commentarius de scriptoribus ecclesia? antiquis eorumque scriptis;” wherein he determines, that Thomas Aquinas is the real author of the “Summa Theologiae.”

, a miscellaneous writer of considerable fame, was born at Naples in 1654, and died at Rome in 1740. He was of the order of Jesuits, and a celebrated teacher of rhetoric. His works, which discover much learning and taste, ere written in Latin. The principal are, “Poemata,” Rome, 1702, 3 vols.; “Orationes,” 1704, 2 vols. 8vo;“” Lexicon Militare,“in 2 vols. folio, 1724. This contains, under some of the articles, very learned dissertations on the military art. Another lexicon, entitled” Nomenclator Agriculture,“1736, 4to, is not held in the same esteem. He published also,” Historical Miscellanies,“1725, and an interesting” History of the war in Hungary,“1726, 12mo, under the title of” Fragmenta historica de bello Hungarise."

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

, son of the preceding, and a bachelor of medicine, was a miscellaneous writer at Paris, where he died about the year 1797, without leaving a reputation equal to that of his father. Yet some of his publications were useful. In the list we find, J. “Contes mis en vers par un petit cousin de Rabelais,” 1775, 8vo. 2. “Lettres sur les homines cel bres dans les sciences,” 1752, 2 vols. re-published in 1753, under the title of “Siecle litteraire de Louis XV.” 3. “Semaine Litteraire,” 1759, 4 vols. 12mo. 4. “Almunach litteraire, ou Etrennes d Apollon,” 1777 93, 17 vols. a collection of miscellanies in prose and verse. He published some other works with less success, and it used to be said, in allusion to his father’s profession,

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

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

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

, an Arabian historian of the fifteenth century, is principally known as the author of a life of Timour, or Tamerlane, entitled “The wonderful effects of the divine decrees in the affairs of Timour,” a work in which there is a considerable display of eastern fancy, but many obscurities of style. It was published by Golius, at Leyden, 1636, and by Manger, with a Latin translation, 1767, and 1772, 2 vols. 4to. The imperial library at Paris contains two excellent manuscripts of this work. The author died in 1450.

, a celebrated poetess of Italy, in the sixteenth century, was the natural daughter of Peter Tagliava d'Aragon, archbishop of Palermo, and a cardinal, himself an illegitimate descendant of the royal house of Aragon. Her father made a settlement on this daughter sufficient to enable her to live genteelly. She was beautiful in her person, and highly accomplished by taste and education. She spoke and wrote in Latin and Italian with the ability of the most eminent scholars, and enjoyed during life great reputation for the elegance of her manners and writings. The most distinguished scholars of the time celebrated her praises, and were proud to be ranked among her admirers. She resided mostly at Ferrara and Rome, and when advanced in age, went to Florence under the protection of the duchess Leonora of Toledo, an.d at that place she died very old, but the time is not mentioned. Her works, which have not preserved the high character bestowed by her admirers, are, 1. “Rime,” Venice, 1547, 8vo, and often reprinted. 2. “Dialogo deli‘ infinita d’Amore,” Venice, 1547. 3. “II Meschino, o il Guerino, poema,” in the ottava rima, Venice, 1560, 4to.

, memorable for his erudition, and for superior abilities disgraced by an enormous crime, was born at Ramsgill, in Netherdale, Yorkshire, and received but a mean education, as it appears that all his mental acquirements, which were prodigious, were the result of indefatigable diligence and application, assisted by uncommon talents. His father was a gardener at Newby, whom he attended in that occupation, and where his propensity to Jiterature first discovered itself. Mathematics now engaged his attention, and he soon understood quadratic equations, and their geometrical constructions. Prompted by an irresistible thirst of knowledge, he determined to make himself master of the learned languages. He got and repeated all Lilly’s grammar by heart. He next undertook Camden’s Greek grammar, which he also repeated in the same manner. Thus instructed, he entered upon the Latin classics, and at first pored over five lines for a whole day; never, in all the painful course of his reading, leaving any passage till he thought he perfectly comprehended it, Having accurately perused all the Latin classics, both historians and poets, he went through the Greek Testament, and then applied to Hesiod, Homer, Theocritus, Herodotus, Thucydides, and all the Greek tragedians. In the midst of these literary pursuits, he went, in 1734, on the invitation of William Norton, esq. to Knaresborough, where he became much esteemed; and here, with indefatigable Diligence, he acquired the knowledge of the Hebrew.tongue. In April 1744 he came again to London, and taught both Latin and writing, at Mr. Painblanc’s, in Piccadilly, above two years. He next went, in the capacity of writingmaster, to a boarding-school at Hayes, in Middlesex, kept by the Rev. Anthony Hinton. He at length succeeded to several other places in the south of England, making use of every opportunity for improvement. He was afterwards employed in transcribing the acts of parliament to be registered in Chancery, and about the beginning of December 1757, went down to the free-school at Lynn. From his leaving Knaresborough to this period, which was a long interval, he had attained the knowledge of history and antiquities, and also of heraldry and botany. Few plants", either domestic or exotic, were unknown to him. Amidst all this, he ventured upon the Chaldee and Arabic, but had not time to obtain any great knowledge of the latter. He found the Chaldee easy enough, on account of its connection with the Hebrew. He then investigated the Celtic, as far as possible, in all its dialects; began collections, and made comparisons between that, the English, the Latin, the Greek, and even the Hebrew. He had made notes, and compared above three thousand words together, and found such a surprising affinity, that he was determined to proceed through the whole of all these languages, and form a comparative lexicon. He was also far from being a contemptible poet.

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

, a celebrated Italian anatomist, was born at Bologna, about the year 1530. He studied under Vesalius and his uncle Bartholomew Maggius, took his doctor’s degree at Bologna, and was soon after appointed professor of surgery and anatomy, which office he held for thirty-two years, and until his death, April 7, 1589. He studied with most attention the anatomy of the muscles, and arrived at some knowledge of the doctrine of the circulation of the blood. He wrote, 1. “De humano foetu liber,” Venice, 1571, 8vo, Basil, 1579, and Leyden, 1664. In this work he explains at great length the structure of the uterus, the placenta, &c. The Venice editions of 1587 and 1595, 4to, have the addition of some anatomical observations, and an essay on tumours by Arantius. 2. “In Hippocratis librum de vulneribus capitis commentarius brevis, ex ejus lectionibus collectus,” Lyons, 1580, Leyden, 1639, 1641, 12mo.

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

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

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

, was born in Glasgow, 1700, and educated in the university of that city, where he took his degrees, and afterwards kept an academy in the north of Ireland. He wrote several poems, which have been published in one vol. 12mo and undertook a translation of Virgil, but did not live to finish it. He was a person of fine taste, and much esteemed by the learned in general. He died 1734, aged 34.

, principal of the university of Aberdeen, was the son of the baron of Arbuthnot, and was born in the year 1538. He studied philosophy and the classics in the university of Aberdeen, and civil law in France, where he was five years under the care of the famous Cujacius. Having taken the degree of licentiate, he returned home in 1563, and appeared very warmly in support of the reformed religion. At this time queen Mary was resident in her kingdom; but the earl of Murray having the supreme direction of all things, the reformed church of Scotland was in a very flourishing condition. The friends of Mr. Arbuthnot prevailed upon him to take orders, but whether he received them from a bishop or from presbyters is uncertain. In 1568, he assisted as a member of the general assembly, which was held in the month of July at Edinburgh. By this assembly he was intrusted with the care of revising a book which had given offence, entitled “The Fail of the Roman Church,” printed by one Thomas Bassenden, in Edinburgh. The exception taken to it was, that the king had the style of the supreme head of the church: at the s,ame time there was another complaint against this Bassenden, for printing a lewd song at the end of the Psalm book. On these matters an order was made, forbidding the printer to vend any more of his books till the offensive title was altered, and the lewd song omitted. The assembly also made an order, that no book should be published for the future, till licensed by commissioners of their appointment.

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

, a celebrated wit and physician in queen Anne’s reign, was the son of an episcopal clergyman of Scotland, nearly allied to the noble family of that name. He had his education in the university of Aberdeen, where he took the degree of doctor of physic. The revolution deprived the father of his church preferment; and though he was possessed of a small paternal estate, vet necessity obliged the son to seek his fortune abroad. He came to London, and at first, as it is said, for his support taught the mathematics. About this time, viz. 1695, Dr. Woodward’s “Essay towards a natural history of the Earth” was published, which contained such an account of the universal deluge, as our author thought inconsistent with truth: he therefore drew up a work, entitled “An examination of Dr. Woodward’s account of the Deluge, &c. with a comparison between Steno’s philosophy and the doctor’s, in the case of marine bodies dug up out of the earth, &c.” 1695, 8vo, which gave him no small share of literary fame. His extensive learning, and facetious and agreeable conversation, introduced him by degrees into practice, and he became eminent in his profession. Being at Epsom when prince George of Denmark was suddenly taken ill, he was called in to his assistance. His advice was successful, and his highness recovering, employed him always afterwards as his physician. In consequence of this, upon the indisposition of Dr. Hannes, he was appointed physician in ordinary to queen Anne, 1709, and admitted a fellow of the college, as he had been some years of the Royal Society.

His gentle manners, polite learning, and excellent talents, entitled him to an intimate correspondence and friendship with the celebrated wits of his time, Pope, Swift, Gay, and Parnell, whom he met as a member of the Scriberus club. In 1714 he engaged with Pope and Swift in a design to write a satire on the abuse of human learning in. svery branch, which was to have been executed in the humorous manner of Cervantes, the original author of this species of satire, under the history of feigned adventures. But this project was put a stop to by the queen’s death, when they had only drawn out an imperfect essay towards it, under the title of the first book of the “Memoirs of Martinus Scriblerus .” “These Memoirs,” says Dr. Johnson, “extend only to the first part of a work, projected in concert by Pope, Swift, and Arbuthnot. Their purpose was to censure the abuses of learning by a fictitious life of an infatuated scholar. They were dispersed; the design was never completed; and Warburton laments its miscarriage, as an event very disastrous to polite letters. If the whole may be estimated by this specimen, which seems to be the prooduction of Arbuthnot, with a few touches perhaps by Pope, the want of more will not be much lamented; for the follies which the writer ridicules are so little practised, that they are not known; nor can the satire be understood but by the learned; he raises phantoms of absurdity, and then drives them away. He cures diseases that were never felt For this reason, this joint production of three great writers has never attained any notice from, mankind.”

The queen’s death, and the disasters which fell upon his friends on that occasion, deeply affected our author’s spirits; and to divert his melancholy, he paid a visit to his brother, a banker at Paris. His stay there, however, was but very short; he returned to London, and having lost his former residence at St. James’s, took a house in Dover-street. In 1727, he published “Tables of ancient Coins, Weights, and Measures,” 4to. He continued to practise physic with good reputation, and diverted his leisure hours in writing papers of wit and humour. He contributed in 1732 towards detecting and punishing the scandalous frauds and abuses that had been carried on under the specious name of the “The Charitable Corporation.” The same year he published his “Essay concerning the nature of Aliments, the choice of them, &c.” which was followed the year alter by the “Effects of Air on Human Bodies.” He was apparently led to the subjects of these treatises by the consideration of his own case; an asthma, which gradually increasing with his years, became shortly after desperate and incurable. In 1734 he retired to Hampstead, in hopes of finding some small relief for this affliction, but died at his house in Cork-street, Burlington-gardens, Feb. 27, 1734-5. He was married, and had children, particularly George and Anne; the former enjoyed a place of considerable profit in the exchequer-office, and was one of the executors to Pope’s will, and the other a legatee.

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

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

, a celebrated Greek philosopher, about 300 years before the Christian sera, was born at Pitane, in Eolis. He founded what in the history of ancient philosophy is denominated the Second Academy. He was a man of great learning, and versed in the writings of the ancients, remarkable for the severity of his criticisms; but, in his private character, no enemy to the utmost licentiousness of his age. He had, however, a great number of disciples. His doctrines were different in many respects from what his predecessors had taught; but, instead of reforming their errors, he plunged into as great and perhaps more pernicious absurdities. It was the opinion of his school that we could know nothing, nor even assure ourselves of the certainty of this position: thence they inferred that we should affirm nothing, but always suspend our judgment. They advanced, however, that a philosopher was able to dispute upon every subject, and force conviction whichever side of the question he chose to adopt; and that there were always reasons of equal force, both in the affirmative and negative of every argument. Neither our senses nor our reason were to have any credit. Stanley and Brucker, in their Histories of Philosophy, may be consulted for a detail of the reveries of Arcesilaus; and Bayle has an elaborate article on the same subject, Arcesilaus is said to have died of excess, in his 75th year, in the fourth year of the 134th olympiad. He appears to have been a man of good taste, as he studied Homer with a relish approaching to reverence.

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

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

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

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

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

Many wonderful stories are told of his various discoveries and machines; and when Hiero was once admiring them, Archimedes replied, “These effects are nothing. Give me some other place to fix a machine upon, and I shall move the earth.”

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

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

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

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

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

, the son of the senator Philip Archinto, was born at Milan, July 30, 1669, and after studying at Brera and Ingoldstadt, travelled in. France, Germany, Holland; and then resided so long at Home, that he did not return to Milan until the year 1700. Two years after he instituted an academy for the sciences and mechanics. This he enriched with an extensive and curious library, and a collection of the finest mathematical instruments that could be procured in Italy, France, and England. It is to him the public owe the Palatine society (see Argellati), whose valuable editions began with Muratori' s vast collection of the Italian historians. He received very high honours in his country, being appointed by the emperor Leopold, a gentleman of the bed-chamber; and by Charles II. and Philip V. of Spain, a knight of the golden fleece, and a grandee of Spain. There is nothing of his in print, except some notes on Arnulphus’ history in the “Scrip. Rer. Ital.” and a work published at Venice after his death, entitled “Tabulae, pracipua scientiarum et artium capita digesta per ordinem, &c.” But he left a great many manuscripts on scientific subjects, written some in Latin and some in Italian, and a collection of Latin poems.

, chaplain to Louis XIV. was born at Riom in Auvergne in 1645, the son of a lawyer. As his father managed the affairs of the cardinal de Bouillon, he obtained, by the interest of that prelate, a place of one of the king’s chaplains, and that of keeper of the ornaments, which was created purposely for him. In 1678, he was appointed to the abbey of St. Gilbert neuf-fontaines, in the diocese of Clermont, where he died in 1717. He wrote the “History of the Chapel of the kings of France,” Paris, 1711, 2 vols. 4to. containing a variety of curious matter, not only on the chapel, but on the great almoners, first almoners, confessors, &c. He was licentiate in theology of the faculty of Paris.

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

, a Swedish historian, was born at Helsingfors, Feb. 9, 1695, and died July 14, 1777. He published various political works, principally relating to the history of his own country, none of which have been very highly esteemed. He was, however, indefatigable in his researches for the materials of history and biography; and about the time of his death, a “History of Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden,” was published at Breslaw in 2 vols. 8vo. originally written by Mauvillon, a Frenchman; but now much improved from the Mss. of M. Arckenholz. He published in his life-time, “Memoirs concerning Christina, queen of Sweden,” 4 vols. 4to, Amst. 1751—1760, a work which may be consulted with advantage, although it has few of the charms of elegance or conciseness. A long account of this writer may be seen in Adelung’s continuation of Jocher’s Lexicon.

, a good Latin poet of the sixteenth century, the second son of count Oderic, privy counsellor to the emperor Maximilian, was born Dec. 3, 1479, at Arco, a small town of the Tyrol, in the diocese of Trente, and an ancient fief of his family. He was at first page to the emperor Frederic III. the father of Maximilian; but devoting himself much to study, acquired a critical knowledge of the ancient languages, and spoke all the modern ones as easily as his own. He afterwards served in the army; but the death of his brother having enabled him to succeed to his paternal estates, he obtained leave to retire, and was afterwards in several public employments. Still the love of literature predominated, and induced him to form an intimacy with Paul Jovius, Annibal Caro, Flaminio, Fracastorius, and other eminent men of his time. He is thought to have died about the end of 1546. His poems were first published, at Mantua, in 1546, 4to, under the title of “Nicolai Archii comitis Numeri,” a very rare edition, but reprinted by Comino, with the poems of Fumano and Fracastorius, Padua, 1759, 2 vols. 4to. He wrote other works, which are yet in manuscript. One of his descendants, count Gumbattista D'Arco, imperial intendant at Mantua, and a member of the royal academy of that city, was also author of some works in great estimation, particularly a learned essay on the famous troubadour Sordello, and an eloge on count de Firmian (1783). He was a liberal patron of the arts, and Mantua is indebted to him for the fine original bust of Virgil.

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

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

, a French poetical and miscellaneous writer, was born at Marseilles, where his father was a commissioner of the gallies, March 3, 1684, and studied first at Nancy, and afterwards at home under the eye of his parents. His first verses were engraven on the trees, and his long residence in the country inspired him to write in the pastoral style. His parents in vain solicited him to engage in some profession, but he shelved an invincible repugnance, and was afterwards enabled to pursue his inclinations. He married in 1711, and some time after came to Paris, where he connected himself with Du Bos, Danchet, and Fontenelle; and during his essence here, he wrote his fables. In 1724, he returned to Provence, and was a competitor for some academical prizes, and in 1727, published his performances. He died at Marseilles, March 27, 1748. His principal works are, 1. “Recueil de Fables nouvelles en vers,” 1747, 12mo. 2. “Œuvres posthumes,” Marseilles, 1764, 4 vols. 12mo, consisting of a volume of new fables, a comedy, the Novelist, in three acts, odes, epigrams, epistles in prose and verse, and an academical discourse. His preliminary Essay on Fable, in the first volume, is considered as an ingenious performance.