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

, brother of the preceding, and a priest of the Oratory, was born at Marseilles in 1689, gained several academical prizes for his poetical essays, and became superior of the college of his congregation. The delicacy of his health rendering retirement necessary, he went to the chateau d'Ardenne, near Sisteron, where he passed the remainder of his days in study, and rendered himself dear to the poor of the neighbourhood by many acts of charity. He died Dec. 5, 1769. Botany was his favourite pursuit in this retirement, where he formed a garden that was eagerly visited by persons curious in rare plants and flowers; and the result of his studies appeared in the following publications, 1. “Traite de Renoncules,” Paris, 1746, 8vo. 2. “Traite des Tulipes,” 1760, 12mo. 3. “Traite des Oeillets,” 1762, 12mo. 4. “Traite des lacinthes,” 12mo. 5. “Traite de l‘Oreille d’ours,” 8vo. 6. “Lettres interessantes pour les medicins de profession, utiles aux ecclesiastiques,” Avignon, 1759, 2 vols. 12mo. 7. “Annee champetre,” Florence (really Lyons), 1769, 3 vols. 12mo. He was also editor of his brother’s posthumous works.

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

, an English divine, dean of Chester, was a native of Cheshire, and descended from an ancient family of the same name in that county. He was educated in Christ’s college, Cambridge, and in 1673, he became a fellow-commoner of Brazen-nose college, Oxford, partly for the sake of the public library, and partly to enjoy the conversation of the divines of this university. He held the living of St. Botolph Aldgate in London from 1666 to 1682, when king Charles Ij. to whom he was chaplain in ordinary, bestowed on him the deanery of Chester. He attached himself afterwards to the cause of James II. and suffered much in his popularity at Chester, where he died Sept. 18, 1691, and was buried in the cathedral church. By will he bequeathed his books and the principal part of his estate to provide and maintain a public library in the said cathedral of Chester for the use of the city and clergy. His writings were, “Directions concerning the matter and style of Sermons,” 1671, 12mo; “Conjectura circa Enw/tw D. dementis Itomani, cui subjiciuntur castigationes in Epiphanium et Petavium de Eucharistia, de Ccelibatu Ciericorum, et de orationibus pro vita functis,” Lond. 1683, 4to. In the title of this book he latinizes his name into Jacobus de Ardenna. He printed also some single sermons on occasional topics.

, a lawyer and macaronic poet in the sixteenth century, was born at Solliers, in the diocese of Toulon, of a family known from the thirteenth century by the name of La Sable. After studying under Alciatus at Avignon, he began his literary career by writing some wretched books on jurisprudence, and comforted himself for the little demand that was made for them by the fame of his macaronic verses. This species of poetry, which Merlin Coccaio brought into great vogue in Italy, consisted in a confused string of words partly Latin, partly French, partly Provencal, made into a medley of barbarous composition. The principal performance of this kind by our provengal poet is his “Description of the war carried on by Charles V. in Provence,” printed at Avignon, and very scarce of that edition, in 1537; reprinted in 1717 in 8vo, at Paris, under the name of Avignon, and at Lyons, 1760. There are other pieces of macaronic poetry by the same author, “De bragardissima villa de Soleriis, &c.” 1670, in 12mo. He died in 1544, being judge at St. Remi near to Aries.

, a learned civilian and writer, was born in the thirteenth century, according to some at Parma, or, as others report, in Flanders, and he has been sometimes confounded with James of Ravenna, but there is less doubt respecting his productions. He wrote commentaries on the Code and the Digest, which are yet consulted with advantage, and few works of the kind are in higher esteem than what he wrote on the duties of executors, entitled “De Commissariis,” Venice, 1584, folio. His treatise also, “De excussione bonarum,” Cologne, 1591, 8vo, is much valued, and that “De Bannitis” has a distinguished place in the collection of writers on criminal law, published at Francforr, 1587, fol. We have no dates of his birth and death, but he is said to have been law professor both at Padua and Bologna.

, of Milan, but born at Cremona about the year 1574, when his father came thereto be appointed podestat, or governor, was then called Caesar, and did not assume the name of Paul until he entered in his sixteenth year among the regular clerks or theatins, after his father’s death. He made such proficiency in his studies that his theological tutor was obliged to prepare himself with more than common care to answer the objections and doubts of his acute pupil, and he became a very celebrated preacher, although neither his voice nor manner were in his favour. He afterwards taught theology, philosophy, and rhetoric, at Rome and Naples. Isabella of Savoy, afterwards duchess of Modena, chose him for her confessor, and appointed him bishop of Tortona. Here he principally resided, and passed his days in an exemplary manner, and employed his leisure in many works, which have been; published, and for a long period uere highly popular. He died June 13, 1644. His principal Latin works were, 1. “In libros Aristotelis de Generation e et Corruptione,” Milan, 1617, 4to. 2. “De Aquæ transmutatione in sacrificio Missæ,” Tortona, 1622, 8vo. 3. “De Cantici Canticorum sensu, velitatio bina,” Milan, 1640, 4to. 4. “Velitationes sex in Apocalypsim,” Milan, 1647, fol. published by P. Sfondrati, with the life of the author. In Italian he wrote, 5. “Arte di predicar bene,” Venice, 1611, 4to, often reprinted. 6. “Impresse sacre con triplicati discorsi illustrate ed arrichite,” Verona, 1613, 4to, and reprinted and augmented by the author, in 7 vols. 4to, 1621—1635, to which he added an eighth, in 1640, under the title of “La Ritroguardia, &c.” 7. “Delia Tribolazione e suoi rimedii,” Tortona, 1624, 2 vols. 4to, and often reprinted. 8. “Panegirici fatti in diversi occasioni,” Milan, 8vo, no date, but the dedication is dated 1644. There was another edition in 1659, 4to. His Latin sermons, which some authors mention, never existed, nor was it usual in the seventeenth century to preach in Italy in any language but Italian.

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

was of Arezzo in Tuscany, and has been enumerated among the learned men of the fifteenth century. He is praised by Poggius, which Bayle chooses to suspect was done merely because Aretino was an enemy of Philelphus, whom Poggius hated. Philelphus, on the other hand, represents Aretino in a very unfavourable light. He is allowed, however, to have been a good Greek and Latin scholar, and to have given some translations from the former. He was also a pretty good poet, and wrote prose comedies, of which Albert de Eyb has inserted some fragments in his “Margarita Poetica.” But what Bayle considers as the most evident proof of his talents, is, that on the death of Leonard Aretin, in 1443, he was chosen to succeed him in the office of secretary of the republic of Florence. The year of his death is not known.

, celebrated for his musical skill, lived in the eleventh century. He was a native of Arezzo, a city of Tuscany; and having been taught the practice of music in his youth, and probably retained as a chorister in the service of the Benedictine monastery founded in that city, he became a monk professed, and a brother of the order of St. Benedict.

In this retirement he seems to have devoted himself to the study of music, particularly the system of the ancients, and above all to reform their method of notation. The difficulties that attended the instruction of youth in the church offices were so great, that, as he himself says, ten years were generally consumed barely in acquiring the knowledge of the plain-song; and this consideration induced him to labour after some amendment, some method that might facilitate instruction, and enable those employed in the choral service to perform the duties of it in a correct and decent manner. According to the legendary accounts extant in old monkish manuscripts, he would appear to have been inspired, and he seems to lean to this opinion; but graver historians say, that being at vespers in the chapel of his monastery, it happened that one of the offices appointed for that day was the hymn of St. John,

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

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

Whether Guido was the author of any other tracts, is not easy to determine. It nowhere appears that any of his works were ever printed, except that Baronius, in his “Annales Ecclesiastici,” torn. XI. p. 73, has given at length the epistle from him to his friend Michael of Pomposa, and that to Theodald bishop of Arezzo, prefixed to the Micrologus; and yet the writers on music speak of the “Micrologus” as a book in the hands of every one. Martini cites several manuscripts of Guido, namely, two in the Ambrosian library at Milan, the one written about the twelfth century, the other less ancient; another among the archives of the chapter of Pistoja, a city in Tuscany; and a third in the Mediceo-Laurenziano library at Florence, of the fifteenth century: these are said to be the “Micrologus.” Of the epistle to Michael of Pomposa, together with the “Argumentum novi Cantus inveniendi,” he mentions only one, which he says is somewhere at Ratisbon. Of the several tracts above mentioned, the last excepted, a manuscript is extant in Baliol college, Oxford. Several fragments of the two first, in one volume, are among the Harleian Mss. in the British Museum, but very much mutilated.

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

Of his works, it has been justly said by Mr, Roscoe, that whether in prose or verse, sacred or profane, epic or dramatic, panegyrical or satirical, and notwithstanding their great number and variety, not one piece exists which in point of literary merit is entitled to approbation; yet the jcommendations which Aretino received from his contemporaries are beyond example. These would not be worth recording as praise bestowed on such a character, but they are striking and useful features in the character of an age on which some writers have bestowed great commendations on account of its learning and patronage of learned men. Aretino seems to have been born to sport with the passions of the great, and to exalt and perpetuate the vices of the vulgar. As a proof how well he knew how to manage the former, we may state from his latest biographer the following examples of misapplied patronage. Francis I. not only presented him with a chain of gold, and afforded him other marks of his liberality, but requested that the pope would allow him the gratification of his society. Henry VIII. of England sent him at one time three hundred gold crowns, and Charles V. not only allowed him a considerable pension, but on one occasion placed him on his right hand, and rode with him in intimate conversation. Julius III. gave him a thousand crowns, accompanied with a papal bull, nominating him a knight of St. Peter, to which dignity was also annexed an annual income. These favours and distinctions, which were imitated by the inferior sovereigns and chief nobility of Europe, excited the vanity of Aretino to such a degree, that he expected to be created a cardinal, and actually boasted that he had refused that honour. He assumed, however, the titles of “II Divino,” the “Divine,” and “the Scourge of princes.” Medals were struck in honour of him, representing him decorated with a chain of gold, and on the reverse the princes of Europe bringing to him their tribute. On the other hand, however, he was frequently in danger of his life from the persons he had lampooned, and his literary adversaries frequently employed their pens in exposing his vanity and infamous character.

, an eminent Swiss divine and botanist, was born at Berne, in the beginning of the sixteenth century, and rose to great distinction as a teacher of theology at Marpurg, and as a preacher of the reformed religion. His lectures were extremely crowded, and his religious writings very popular. His “Examen Theologicum,” a voluminous work, was printed twelve times within three years. He died at Berne, much lamented, April 22, 1574. His principal theological works are, the “Examen Theologicum,” already noticed: Commentaries on the whole of the New Testament, printed at different times: a Life of Gentilis, with a refutation of his principles, &c. But few of these are now so well known as his reputation for botanical knowledge. On this subject he frequently corresponded with Conrad Gessner, the Pliny of Germany, and with the other eminent botanists of his time. His attention was chiefly directed to the plants growing on the Alps, of which he discovered and described forty of great rarity. Some of them he introduced in gardens, and gave directions for the cultivation of them. He also published a description of two mountains, the Niesen and the Stokhorn, in the canton of Berne, remarkable for their height and the curious plants which grow upon them. It is a small work in the form of a letter, addressed to his friend and countryman Piperinus, and was printed with the works of Valerius Cordus, under the title “Stockhornii et Nessi Helvetia? montium, et nascentium in eis stirpiuni descriptio, impr. in operibus Val. Cordi,” Strasburgh, 1561. Conrad Gessner bestows a high character on Aretius in his “Hortus Germanicus,” and gave the name Aretia to a plant in honour of him, which Haller and Linnaeus have preserved, with equally honourable notice of his skill and useful researches in botany.

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

, an English writer, was the third son of Thomas Argall by Margaret his wife, daughter of John Talkarne of the county of Cornwall. He was born in London, and entered a student in Christ-church in Oxford towards the latter end of queen Mary’s reign. He took the degree of master of arts in 1565, and was senior of the act celebrated the eighteenth of February the same year. Afterwards he applied himself to the study of divinity, and, having taken holy orders, obtained the living of Halesvvorth in Suffolk. Being at a feast at Cheston, a mile distant from that town, he died suddenly at the table, and was buried at Halesworth, Octobers, 1606. During his stay at the university, he was a noted disputant, and a great actor of plays at Christ-church, particularly when the queen was entertained there in 1566. He was esteemed a very good scholar, and was so much devoted to his studies that he lived and died like a philosopher, with a thorough contempt for the things of this world. He wrote “De veva Pctnitentia,” Lond. 1604, 8vo, and “Introductio ad artem Dialecticam,” ibid. 1605, 8vo. In this book, which Mr. Wood calls “very facete and pleasant,” the author says of himself, that “whereas God had raised many of his companions and contemporaries to high dignities in the church, as Dr. Thomas Bilson to the see of Winchester, Dr. Martin Heton to that of Ely, Dr. Henry Robinson to that of Carlisle, Dr. Tobias Mathews to that of Durham, &c. yet he, an unworthy and poor old man, was still detained in the chains of poverty for his great and innumerable sins, that he might repent with the prodigal son, and at length by God’s favour obtain salvation.”

, a poet in the reign of king James I. of whose life we have no particulars. He was patronized by Dr. John King; bishop of London: and wrote and published, 1. “The Song of Songs, which was Solomon”, metaphrased in English heroics, by way of dialogue,“Lond. 1621, 4to, dedicated to Henry King, archdeacon of Colchester, son to the bishop of London. 2.” The Bride’s Ornaments: poetical essays upon divine subjects,“London, 1621, 4to, the first dedicated to John Argall, esq. the other to Philip, brother to Henry King. 3.” Funeral Elegy, consecrated to the memory of his ever honoured lord, John King, late bishop of London,“same year. He wrote also a book of” Meditations of Knowledge, Zeal, Temperance, Bounty, and Joy,“and another containing” Meditations of Prudence, Obedience, &c." The author intended these two books for the press at the same time with his poetical works, but the death of his patron deferred the publication of them, and it is uncertain whether they were afterwards published.

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

, son of the preceding, was born at Bologna, May 8, 1712. He studied philosophy and law, and took his doctor’s degree in the latter faculty at Padua in 1736, but having afterwards applied himself to mathematics, he was, in 1740, appointed royal engineer, To all this he added a taste for the classics and Italian literature, which he cultivated in his father’s house, where he principally resided, either at Milan or Bologna, at which last he died in 1754. He published, 1. “Practica del fora Veneto,” Venice, 1737, 4to. 2. An Italian translation of Huet, on the situation of Paradise,“1737., 8vo. 3.” Saggio d'una nuova filosofia,“Venice, 1740, 8vo. 4.” Storia della nascita delle scienze e belle lettere,“&c. Florence, 1743, 8vo. This was to have extended to twelve volumes, but one only appeared. 5.” De praeclaris Jurisconsultis Bononiensibus Oratio,“&c. 1749, 4to, to which is added a letter by his father, dated Milan, where probably this work was published. 6,” II Decamerone,“Bologna, 1751, 2 vols. 8vo, an imitation of Boccaccio, the subjects taken from some curious facts in the English Philosophical Transactions, accounts of travellers, &c. and other remarkable events, and adventures, but more pure in point of morality than the work of his predecessor. 7.” Novissima sisteina di filosofia, &c." Modena, 1753, 8vo. He left also in manuscript, a life of John Gaston, grand duke of Tuscany, and of a female saint of the order of St. Francis.

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

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

, born at Quiers, in Piedmont, in 1513, made considerable progress in the study of medicine, and arrived at great distinction in the theory of his art, He died at Turin in 1572, at the age of 58. His works were collected after his death in 2 vols. in folio, at Venice, 1592, 1606, and at Hanover in 1610, which is the most complete edition. This physician, however, was of lifetle service to the world out of his library. When he was called to reduce his observation to practice, he discovered that he had neither experience nor knowledge of the living subject; but, devoted to study and theory, he censured the writings of Galen with much acrimony, which procured him the title of Censor Medicorum.

, bishop of Tulles, was born May 16, 1673, in the parish of Argentre, in the diocese of Rennes. He distinguished himself as a licentiate, became doctor of the Sorbonne in 1700, almoner to the king in 1709, and the only one upon whom that office was conferred gratuitously; and in 1723 was appointed bishop of Tulles. His favourite study was theology, on which he employed all the time he could spare from the duties of his bishopric, which he discharged with fidelity. He published, 1. “Latin notes on Holden’s `Analysis of Faith,' Paris, 1698.” 2. “Apologie del'amourqui nous fait desirer de posseder Dieu seul, &c. avec des remarques sur les maximes et les principes de M. de Fenelon,” Amst. 1698, 8vo. 3. “Traite de PEglise,” Lyons, 1698, 2 vols. 12mo. 4. “Elementa Theologiae,” Paris, 1702, 4to, with an appendix in 1705, and an apology for some of his sentiments that had been censured. 5. “Lexicon philosophicum,” Hague, 1706, 4to. 6. “De propria ratione qua res supernaturales a rebus naturalibus differunt,” Paris, 1707, 4to. 7. “Martini Grandini opera,” Paris, 1710, 6 vols. 8vo. 8. “Collectio judiciorum de novis erroribus, 1725, 1733, 1736, 3 vols. fol. In this he has collected all the judgments passed upon the errors of heretics by the church, the words condemned, the censures of the universities of Paris, Oxford, Louvaine, Doway, &c. upon false doctrines, and the controversies on theological topics. The work is therefore curious, and contains many papers of importance to ecclesiastical writers; but under the title heresies, the reader must expect to find the principal doctrines of the reformation. 9.” Remarques sur la traduction de l'Ecriture Sainte de Sacy,“4to. 10.” Instruction pastorale,“1731, 4to. 11.” Dissertation pour expliquer en quel sens on peut dire qu‘un jugement de l’Eglise, qui condamneplusieurs propositions de quelque ecrit dogmatique, est une regie de fois,“Tulles, 1733, 12 mo. This curious disquisition was suppressed by order of the council. 12. Several devotional tracts. He was also about to have published” Theologia de divinis litteris expressa," when he died in his diocese, Oct. 27, 1740.

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

, an Italian mathematician, was born at Tagliacozzo in the kingdom of Naples, in 1570; Being involved in his own country in some difficulties, occasioned by his attachment to astrological reveries, ha thought proper to retire to Venice, where the senate, perceiving the extent of his merit, appointed him professor of mathematics in the university of Padua; at the same time conferring on him the title of chevalier of St. Mark in 1636. He died in 1653. His writings are, 1. “De diebus criticis,” 1652, 4to. 2. “Ephemerides,” from 1620, 4 vols. 4to, and 3. Observations on the Comet of 1653, in Latin, printed the same year. His Ephemerides were reprinted at Padua and Lyons, and continued to the year 1700.

, son of the former, was born in 1609, with a decided turn for poetry. Before the age of fifteen, he published an idyllium on the silk-worm, “Bambace e seta, idillio,” Rome, 1624, 12mo. Shortly afterwards, inspired with an ardent emulation by the applauses that were lavished on Marini, the author of the poem of Adonis, he undertook to compose one of the same kind. Having shut himself up in a room, where none were admitted but to bring him his victuals, he finished, in seven months, at the age of seventeen, a poem in twelve cantos, entitled “Endymion,” 1626, 4to. This performance was so much admired, that, though published with his name, the critics could scarcely be persuaded that it was not the work of his father. He is the author of several other pieces of poetry, both Latin and Italian, but the greater part have never been printed. His taste for the belles-lettres did not prevent him from applying to the study of jurisprudence, philology, and antiquities; in the latter he was a contributor to various collections. The precise year of his death is not known: but it is thought to have happened in 1660.

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

, a learned Portuguese theatine monk, was born at Collares in Estremadura, in 1676, and died at Lisbon in 1749. He was one of the iirat members of the Portuguese academy of history, and contributed various historical papers to their Memoirs; but the works on which his reputation chiefly rests, are, 1. i: De Antiquitatibus conventus Bracarugustani, libri IV.“1728, 4to. and 1738, an improved edition. This work evinces the research of a profound antiquary. 2.” Memoires pour servir a Phistoire del'eglise primatiale de Brague,“Lisbon, 1732 44, o vols. 4to. 3.” Regras de lingoa Portugueza." Lisbon, 1725, 8vo. His other works were Sermons, and Lives of the saints.

, a geometrician of the seventeenth century, was born at Lyons in 1597, and died there in 1661. He was the friend of Descartes; this friendship was of service to them both Descartes instructed hisfriend, and Des Argues defended his master against Fermat and Bourdin. He wrote, 1. “Un Traite de Perspective,” fol. 2. “Traite des Sections Coniques, 8vo. 3.” La Pratique du Trait,“8vo. 4.” Traite de la coupe des Pierres,“8vo, an excellent work on stone-cutting. 5.” Maniere de poser l'essieu aux cadrans solaires.“6.” Maniere de graver en taille douce, et a l'eau forte." All these treatises are said to be written with precision, and in a better style than might have been expected from his time.

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

, a celebrated musical performer and composer in the end of the seventeenth and beginning of the eighteenth century, was a native of Bologna, and was diverted from the concerns of the church, to which his parents had intended to educate him, by an early passion for music. He became an opera-composer at Bologna and Venice, and, passing into Germany, was made maestro di capella to the electoral princess of Brandenburgh, for whom he had composed the opera of “Attis.” Both there and in Italy he continued in high estimation as a composer, and as a performer on the violincello, and particularly on the viol d'amore, which he either invented, or brought into notice. In 1716 he visited England, and performed on this instrument, which was a novelty in this country, but went again abroad until 1720, when, at the establishment of the Hoyai Academy of Music, he was invited to return, and was employed to compose several operas. Handel and Bononcini were his contemporaries. After some stay in this country, during which he probably dissipated what he got, he was obliged to publish a book of cantatas by subscription, and then he left England, The place and date of his death are not known.

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

Ludovico was the first-born of his father’s children, and is reported to have surpassed the rest in the endowments of the mind; giving, from his tender years, uncommon presage of a future genius. Being yet in hn rudiments, he composed a kind of tragedv from the story of Pyramus and Thisbe, which he caused to be represented by his brothers and sisters. He applied himself very early to the study of the Latin, in which he made greater progress than almost any one of his age; and, in the very beginning of his studies, he composed and recited an elegfuit Latin oration, which gave the highest expectations of him. Tito Strozza, a man of great learning and consummate knowledge, took particular delight to hear him, and to propose, difticult questions for his solution; often encouraging a dispute, on literary subjects, between him and Hercules his son, a youth whose age and studies agreed with Ariosto. But his father Niculo, having little taste for literature, was desirous, that, as his eldest-born, he should pursue some lucrative profession, and sent him to Padua, to study the civil law, under Angelo Castrinse and 11 Ma'mo; in which employment he spent five years, highly disagreeable to one of his disposition; which circumstance he laments in one of his satires addressed to Bembo. But although Ariosto durst not openly di’sobey his father, he could not so far conquer his inclinations as to desist from perusing trench and Spanish romances, with which languages h6 was well acquainted, having translated two or three of these authors himself into his native tongue; and availed himself, in his future works, of every beauty that occurred in these wild productions of imagination. Nicolo, atlnst, perceiving the aversion his son had to the profession of the law, and the little progress he made therein, permitted him to obey the strong propensity of genius, and is said to have been, in a great degree, influenced by Pandolfo Ariosto, a youth of excellent endowments, and a near kinsman to Ludovico.

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

These multiplied cares obliged him not only to give over his intended prosecution of the Greek language, but almost to abandon the Latin, which he had but lately recovered, had not Pandolfo Ariosto so far stimulated him, that he still continued, in some degree, his studies, till death deprived him of so pleasing a companion. Yet all these disappointments did not much damp the vigour of his poetical genius. In his twenty-ninth year, he acquired an uncommon reputation for his Latin verses, and numerous poems and sonnets full of spirit and imagination. His conversation was coveted by men of the greatest learning and abilities; and cardinal Hippolito of Este, whose court was a receptacle for the most admired personages of the, age, received him into his service, where he continued fifteen years; during which time he formed a design of writing a poem of the romance kind; in which no one had yet written with the dignity of which the subject was capable. The happy versatility of his genius was such, that he could equally adapt himself to every species of poetry; and an Italian writer of his life observes, that whatever he wrote, seemed, at the time, to be his particular study.

At about thirty years of age he began his Orlando; and cardinal Bembo, to whom he communicated his design, would have dissuaded him from writing in Italian, advising him to cultivate the Latin; to which Ariosto answered, that he would rather he the first among the Tuscan writers, than scarcely the second among the Latin. At the same time, it fortunately happened, that he had already written seme stanzas of his Orlando, in which he met with such encouragement, that he determined vigorously to prosecute his design. He chose the subject of Boyardo, which was very popular; and by adopting the fictions of Boyardo, Ariosto had not only an opportunity of bringing the romance of the count to a conclusion, but of celebrating, under the person of Rogero, the family of his patron.

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

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

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

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

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

The term of his government being expired, he returned to court, where, finding the duke took great delight in theatrical representations, he applied himself to the drama; and, besides the “Cassaria” and “Suppositi,” he composed “La Lena,” and “II Negromante,” in prose and verse, and the “Scolastica” in verse; though the last was Jeft imperfect by his death, and the fifth act added by his brother Gabriele. Of these comedies, four were first printed in prose, and afterwards turned into verse. They were performed with universal applause, before many faniilies of rank, the actors being generally persons of condition; insomuch, that when the Lena was first acted, in 1528, signer Don Francisco of Este, afterwards marquis of Massa, spoke the prologue himself.

Ariosto now appeared to lead a life of tranquillity; which was the more agreeable to him, as he was not so deeply engaged by the duke, but that he had sufficient leisure to pursue his studies; the service of Alphonso being far more easy than that of Hippolito. About this time he published his Satires, besides those he had formerly written; in the whole, to the number of seven, till, being again involved in family difficulties, and harassed with law-suits, he was obliged, for some time, to lay aside his compositions. At last, having brought his affairs to a happy crisis, he purchased a piece of ground opposite the church of St. Benedict, where he built a commodious dwelling; which, some say, he was enabled to do by the liberality of the duke. He had a garden adjoining to this house, the usual scene of his poetical meditations. Here he passed the remainder of his life, as much as possible secluded from all public employments. Having attained the 59th year of his age, he was seized, on the last day 'but one of the year 1532, with a lingering illness, though some say his illness first came upon him in October or November, about which time the ducal palace took fire, which accident consumed the superb theatre that had been built for the exhibition of his comedies; in the sameyear he had sent his Furioso to the press with his last improvements, corrected and enlarged as we now have it. Some physicians attributed the cause of his malady to the custom he had of eating fast, and chewing his victuals little, that occasioned an indigestion; the means they made use of to remove this co nplaint brought on a consumption, which, in spite of all the assistance of medicine, at last put a period to his life, at Ferrara, on the 6th of June, or, as others say, on the 8th of July, 1533.

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

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

The name of this poet is still held in that kind of veneration by his countrymen with which the English consider their Shakspeare. Antonio Zatta, in his edition of Ariosto' s works of 1772, relates, that a chair and ink-standish, which, according to tradition, belonged to Ariosto, were then in the possession of II signor Dottore Giovanni Andrea Barotti, at Ferrara, and that a specimen of his hand -writing was preserved in the public library of that city. The republic of Venice did him the honour to cause his picture to be painted, and hung up with the senators and other illustrious men in the great council hall, which was afterwards destroyed by fire. It appears, however, that Ariosto did not finally receive from his professed patrons those rewards, or obtain that establishment, to which he thought his merits had entitled him. Probably the government of Grafagnana added more to his reputation than his fortune; and, from what he says in several parts of his Satires, he was by no means satisfied with his patrons of Ferrara. Nothing particular is recorded of the benefactions of the cardinal to him, before he incurred the displeasure of that prelate. The duke, indeed, gave him two assignments on certain gabels or taxes, the first of which ceased with the abolition of the tax; and the second, which produced him only twenty-five crowns every fourth month, collected, as he says himself, with great trouble, was contested and withheld from him during the wars of Lombardy; and some say, that the cardinal, upon withdrawing his patronage, deprived him of this slender advantage^ Such were the great advantages which he derived from those in whose service he had engaged, and whose names he had immortalized by his Muse.

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

With respect to pope Leo X. the acknowledged patron of literature and arts, whom Fornari calls particularly liberal to poets, and by whom he relates that Ariosto was highly esteemed, he is said to have made him a present of some hundred crowns for the prosecution of his work, though Ariosto himself is sile'nt upon that head; and yet in the verses published by Gabriele Simeoni, in his satire upon Avarice, it is said in a note, that “Leo X. gave Ariosto several hundred crowns to complete his work.” Upon the exaltation of this pontiff to the papal chair, be paid a visit to him, with great expectations of advantage. The pope gave him a very gracious reception, and a bull or licence entitling him to the profits of his poem; and he left Home dissatisfied in his expectation, but bore testimony to the pope’s honourable reception of him.

But it seems that Ariosto had raised his thoughts to some great ecclesiastical preferment; on which occasion signor Rolli observes, that one reason why he was not preferred was, that he was devoted to Alphonso of Ferrara, whom the pope hated, and therefore could not give our author a cardinal’s hat. Leo died in 1521, six years after the finst publication, and the year in which Ariosto published the third edition of his poem. Perhaps had he lived longer, the poet might have experienced further marks of his generosity.

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

Notwithstanding what has been mentioned of his personal bravery in the engagement between the pope’s vessels and the duke’s, he is reported to have been naturally of a timid disposition: when on horseback he would alight oa the least appearance of danger; he was particularly timorous on the water; and when he went out of a vessel, would always stay till the last, frequently using this expression: “De puppe novissimus exi.” In every other respect his temper was firm and unruffled.

He was of an amorous constitution, and very apt to receive impressions from every beautiful object; violent in his attachments, impatient of a rival; but in his amours he was discreet, cautious, and secret. It has been said that he might possibly allude to this by the sculpture of his ink-standish, on the top of which was a Cupid, with his fore-finger placed on his lip, as an emblem of silence. This disposition to gallantry, which he retained to the last year of his life, is confirmed by many parts of his writings. The names of the women, whom he loved, do not appear to'be mentioned, except one whom he is said to have been strongly attached to, of the name of Geneura, to whom he is supposed to allude in one of his sonnets.

In his early life he contracted an intimacy with a noble Florentine called Nicolo Vespucci, whom he accompanied into Florence in 1513, being then thirty-nine years old, to perfect himself in the Tuscan dialect, and to be present at the magnificent ceremony used at the feast of St. Baptist; here he fell violently in love with a kinswoman of Vespucci, whom he found preparing a dress of silver embroidered with purple for her sons to appear in at, the jousts. It has been the opinion of some, that he was privately married, but that he was obliged to keep it secret for fear of forfeiting some church benefices which he enjoyed; some go so far as to say that his wife’s name was Alexandra.

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

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

, an Italian lawyer, and a scholar of great learning, was born at Cremona, Feb. 3, 1657, the son of Louis Arisi and Lucia Negri, both of distinguished families in that place. His infirm state of health in his infancy made him be consigned, for some time, to the care of a private tutor; but he afterwards studied philosophy in the Jesuits’ college. In 1674, his father sent him to Rome to study law, from whence, in 1677, he went to Bologna with a view to continue that pursuit, but the death of his father obliged him next year to return to his own country. Still desirous, however, to complete his course, he went first to Pavia, where he obtained a doctor’s degree, and then to Milan for six months, where he improved himself under an able advocate. On his return to Cremona, he divided his time between his professional studies, and that of polite literature, particularly poetry, for which he had a very early taste. Connecting himself, by correspondence or personal acquaintance, with the most eminent scholars of nis time, he became a member of many of the Italian academies; and the extensive knowledge and probity he displayed as a lawyer, occasioned his being employed in many public transactions, in which he acquitted himself to the entire satisfaction of the government of his country. He died of a lingering disorder, Jan. 25, 1743. Mazzuchelli’s list of his works, printed and manuscript, amounts to sixtyfour articles. The most esteemed of the printed works are, 1. “La Tirranide soggiogata,” an oratorio for St. Anthony of Padua, Cremona, 1677, 4to, and he published three others in different years for the festival of that saint. 2. “Cremona litterata, sen in Cremonenses, doctrina et litterariis dignitatibus eminentiores, chronologic^ adnotationes,” 3 vols. fol. The first two were published at Parma, 1702 and 1705, and the third at Cremona, 1741. 3. “Scnatorum Mediolanensium ex collegio judicum Cremonae ab ipso erecto, usque ad hocc tempora continuata series,” &c. Cremona, 1705, fol. 4. “Rime per le sacre stimate del Santo Patriarca Francesco,” &c. Cremona, 1713, 4to, an astonishing instance of superstitious poetry, containing no less than three hundred and twenty-five sonnets on the marks on the body of St. Francis. He published many other poems separately, and in collections.

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

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

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

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

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

, the Proconnesian, an ancient Greek historian and poet, flourished in the time of Cyrus 5 and of Crœsus, about 565 years B. C. He is said to have written an epic poem, in three books, on the war of the Arimaspes, or Scythian hyperboreans, which is now lost. Longinus quotes six verses from it in his treatise on the Sublime, and Tzetzes six others. He had also composed a book on Theogony, or the history of the gods, which is likewise lost. Herodotus, Pliny, Pausanias, and Suidas, relate the grossest absurdities about this author, as, that his soul could leave his body at pleasure, and that he wrote poems after he was dead, &c.

, the sophist, was a native of Adriani, a small town in Mysia, and was disciple of Polemon the rhetorician of Smyrna, son of Eudaimon, a philosopher and priest of Jupiter in his own country. He also heard Herod at Athens, and Aristocles at Pergamus. He is supposed to have flourished about the year 176 of the Christian era. He appears to have been a good writer and an able orator. He is credulous, indeed, and superstitious, but there are many excellent passages in his writings in favour of truth and virtue, and he seems to have considered private virtue as indispensable to public character. A man of such eminence was no doubt an ornament to the heathen religion; and his eloquent hymns to the gods, and his other orations, must have had powerful attractions. To the city of Smyrna he was a great benefactor, for when, it was almost destroyed by an earthquake, he so pathetically represented their calamities, in a letter to the emperor Marcus, that this prince could not forbear weeping at some parts of it, and presently promised to restore the city. Besides this letter, he published a monody, bewailing the unhappy circumstances of the people of Smyrna, and after that wrote an oration, or epistle, in the year 173, congratulating tjiem on their restoration. In this last he celebrates not only the favour and liberality of the emperor, but likewise the generous compassion of many others, among whom Tillemont thinks he glanced at the Christians. Lardner has produced several passages from him, among his “Testimonies of ancient Heathens.” Aristides’s constitution was infirm, yet it is supposed he reached his sixtieth or seventieth year. The best edition of his works was published by Dr. Jebb, 2vols. 4to, Oxford, 1722—30.

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

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

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

, a writer on music, is supposed to have lived about the beginning of the second century of the Christian sera, a little before Ptolemy. There are three books of his extant on Greek music, which he treats sometimes more like a moralist than a professional man, but affords many curious particulars and opinions on, the art as practised in his days. Dr. Burney frequently quotes his work, which was printed with notes, Gr. and Lat. by Meibomius, among the a Antiquae musicse auctores," Amst. 1652, 4to.

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

, a Greek philosopher of the Stoic sect, was a native of the island of Chios, and a disciple of Zeno, from whom, however, he differed, and set up a new sect. He rejected logic and natural philosophy, the one as useless^ and the other as above the human comprehension. He departed after some time from the precepts of morality, and would have no relative duties taught, but merely general ideas of wisdom. He held that the nature of God was not intelligible, and hence it has been thought that he respected the contemplation of divine things. He became very voluptuous in his old age, as indeed he had begun to be in his youth. His death is said to have been occasioned by the sun scorching his bald head. He flourished about 260 B. C.

was a Roman lawyer of great celebrity, under the emperor Trajan, about the year 110. Pliny has bestowed the highest praises on him, as excelling in all manner of learning, public and civil law, history, and antiquities, and not less estimable for his integrity and personal virtues. It is a considerable deduction from his character, however, that he appears to have meditated suicide during an illness, provided the physicians should pronounce it incurable. He is said to have lived to an extreme old age after this, but the fact seems doubtful, and to have been the author of some books, which have not descended to us, but are mentioned by Aulus Gellius.

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

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

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

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

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

Aristotle continued his school in the Lyceum twelve years; for, although the superiority of his abilities, and the novelty of his doctrines, created him many rivals and enemies, during the life of Alexander, the friendship of that prince, unbroken in this respect, protected him from insult. But after Alexander’s death, in 324 B. C. his adversaries and rivals instigated Eurymedon, a priest, to accuse him of holding and propagating impious tenets. What these were we are not expressly informed; but such was the vigour of their prosecution, that he thought proper to retire from Athens. Alluding to the fate of Socrates, of which he appears to have been apprehensive, he told his friends that he was not willing to give the Athenians an opportunity of committing a second offence against philosophy. He retired, accordingly, with a few of his disciples, to Chalcis, where he remained till his death in 322 B. C. in the sixty-third year of his age. Many idle tales are related concerning the manner of his death. It is most likely that it was the effect of premature decay, in consequence of excessive watchfulness and application to study. His body was conveyed to Stagyra, where his memory was honoured with an altar and a tomb.

Aristotle was twice married; first to Pythias, sister to his friend Hermias, and after her death, to Herpilis, a native of Stagyra. By his second wife he had a son named Nicomachus, to whom he addressed his “Great Morals.” His person was slender; he had small eyes, and a shrill voice, and when he was young, a hesitation in his speech. He endeavoured to supply the defects of his natural form, by an attention to dress; and commonly appeared in a costly habit, with his beard shaven, and his hair cut, and with rings on his fingers. He was subject to frequent indispositions, through a natural weakness of stomach; but he corrected the infirmities of his constitution by a temperate regimen.

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

To this general character by Brucker, it may be added, that no philosopher ever enjoyed so long a reign in the schools, or came nearer to our own times in the extent of his doctrine. The charm is, indeed, now broken: Christianity, the revival of letters and of sound learning since the reformation, and especially the introduction of experimental philosophy, have tended to lessen the value of the labours of this distinguished philosopher. Much praise, however, may be yet attributed to him, on permanent ground. His Dialectics show how the reasoning faculties may be employed with skill and effect; his ten celebrated Categories have not yet been convicted of great error, and his political and critical writings have very recently obtained the attention and approbation of some of our most eminent scholars and critics. “Whoever surveys,” says Dr. Warton, “the variety and perfection of his productions, all delivered in the chastest style, in the clearest order, and the most pregnant brevity, is amazed at the immensity of his genius. His Logic, however neglected for those redundant and verbose systems, which took rise from Locke’s Essay on the Human Understanding, is a mighty effort of the mind; in which are discovered the principal sources of art and reasoning, and the dependences of one thought on another; and where, by the different combinations he hath made of all the forms the understanding can assume in reasoning', which he hath traced for it, he hath so closely confined it, that it cannot depart from them, without arguing inconsequentially. His Physics contain many useful observations, particularly his History of Animals. His Morals are perhaps the purest system in antiquity. His Politics are a most valuable monument of the civil wisdom of the ancients, as they preserve to us the descriptions of several governments, and particularly of Crete and Carthage, that otherwise would have been unknown. But of all his compositions, his Rhetoric and Poetics are most complete: no writer has shewn a greater penetration into the recesses of the human heart than this philosopher, in the second book of his Rhetoric, where he treats of the different manners and passions that distinguish each different age and condition of man; and from whence Horace plainly took his famous description in the Art of Poetry. La Brnyere, Rochefoucalt, and Montaigne himself, are not to be compared to him in this respect. No succeeding writer on eloquence, not even Tully, has added any thing new or important on this subject. His Poetics seem to have been written for the use of that prince, with whose education Aristotle was honoured, to give him a just taste in reading Homer and the tragedians; to judge properly of which was then thought no unnecessary accomplishment in the character of a prince. To attempt to understand poetry without having diligently digested this treatise, would be as absurd and impossible, us to pretend to a skill in geometry without having studied Euclid. The fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth chapters, wherein he has pointed out the properest methods of exciting terror and pity, convince us that he was intimately acquainted with these objects, which most forcibly affect the heart. The prime excellence of this precious treatise is the scholastic precision, and philosophical closeness, with which the subject is handled, without any address to the passions or imagination. It is to be lamented that the part of the Poetics, in which he had given precepts for comedy, did not likewise descend to posterity.”

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

The first edition of Aristotle’s works was in Latin by Averroes, Venet. 1472—3, 4 vols. fol. The first Greek edition, usually reckoned thetiditioprinceps, is that of Aldus, in six volumes, 1495, fol. which is very rare. His distinct treatises have been published so often, that it is impossible to enumerate then) in this place, but the reader will find a copious list in the Bibliographical Dictionary. The best editions of the entire works are those of Casaubon, Ludg, 1590, 1606, 2 vols. fol. and of Duval, 2 or 4 vols. fol. Par. 1629.

Of Aristotle’s other writings, Mr. Ellis published the “Treatise on Government,” 4to, 1778. In 1797 Dr. Gillies made the English reader acquainted with tl Aristotle’s Ethics and Politics, comprising his practical Philosophy.“This elaborate work was illustrated by introductory matter and notes; the critical history of Aristotle’s life, and a new analysis of his speculative writings, the whole comprised in 2 vols. 4to. In 1801, Mr. Thomas Taylor published a quarto volume of which we shall give only the title,” The Metaphysics of Aristotle, translated from the Greek; with copious notes, in which the Pythagoric and Platonic Dogmas respecting numbers and ideas are unfolded from ancient sources. To which is added, a dissertation on Nullities and diverging Series; in which the conclusions of the greatest modern mathematicians on this subject are shown to be erroneous, the nature of infinitely small quantities is explained, and the To tv or the one of the Pythagoreans and Platonists, so often alluded to by Aristotle in this work, is elucidated." Mr. Bridgman in 1804, published a Synopsis of the Virtues or Vices, 8vo; and in 1807, the same gentleman gave “The paraphrase of Andronicus Rhodius on the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle,” a work which we regret we had not seen while preparing the article of Andronicus. As to the commentators on Aristotle, they are so numerous as to include the learned of all ages until within a century, and many hundreds are noticed in this Dictionary.

, the most ancient musical writer of whose works any remains are come down to us, flourished in the fourth century B. C. He was born at Tarentum, a city in that part of Italy called Magna Graecia, now Calabria. He was the son of a musician, whom some call Mnesias, others Spintharus. He had his first education at Mantinrea, a city of Arcadia, under his father and Lampyrus of Erythrse; he next studied under Xenophilus, the Pythagorean, and lastly, under Aristotle. Suidas, from whom these particulars are taken, adds, that Aristoxenus took offence at Aristotle’s bequeathing his school to Theophrastus, and traduced him ever after, but this has been contradicted by other writers. His “Harmonics,” the defects of which have been very ably pointed out by Dr. Burney, are all that are come down to us, and together with Ptolemy’s Harmonics, were first published by Gogavinus, but not very correctly, at Venice, 1562, 4to, with a Latin version. John Meursius next translated the three books of Aristoxenus into Latin, from the manuscript of Jos. Scaliger, but, according to Meibomius, very negligently. With these he printed at Leyden, 1616, 4to, Nicomachus and Alypius, two other Greek writers on music. After this Meibomius collected these musical writers together, to which he added Euclid, Bacchius senior, Aristides Quintilianus; and published the whole with a Latin version and notes at the Elzivir press, Amst. 1652, dedicated to Christina queen of Sweden. Aristoxenus is said by Suidas to have written 452 different works, some of which are frequently quoted by ancient authors. The titles of several of them, quoted by Athenaeus and others, have been collected by Meursius in his notes upon this author, and by Tonsius and Menage, all which Fabricius has digested into alphabetical order.

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

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

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

Before closing this article, it may be necessary to mention an elaborate work, by the late rev. Mr. John Whitaker, B. D. rector of Ruan Lanyhorne, in Cornwall, entitled “The Origin of Arianism disclosed,” 1791, 8vo. In this, the learned author endeavours to trace back Arianism to an earlier source than him from whom it derived its popular name, and maintains that it originated with the Jews, in the time of our Saviour, and that they, in the beginning of the second century, forsook their ancient creed, which Was Trinitarian, and professed a new belief in the mere humanity of the Messiah, which they transmitted afterward both to Christians and Mahommedans.

, an eminent improver on English manufactures, was a native of Derbyshire, and in his early days, followed the humble occupation of a barber at Wirksworth, where, if we are not mistaken, his father had carried on the same trade. About the year 1767, he quitted both his occupation and residence, and went through the country buying hair. Soon after he became acquainted with a mechanic, with whom in concert he contrived, or, from whom, as some think, he learned the structure of a machine for spinning cotton, which after various adventures, and incredible perseverance, he brought to such perfection, as to become of the greatest advantage to the commerce of his country. He afterwards erected cotton works at Crumford in Derbyshire, and realized an immense fortune. In 1786, he served the office of high sheriff for that county, and was knighted on presenting an address to his majesty. He died at Crumford, August 3, 1792. Various opinions have been entertained of his right to the honour of inventing the machines by which he became enriched, and the kingdom so essentially benefited; but it is universally allowed that he discovered that spirit and perseverance in bringing them to perfection which were wanting in all preceding attempts.

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

In 1738 Arlaud destroyed her himself in a fit of superstitious piety, yet with such a degree of tenderness, that he cut her to pieces anatomically: this was done at Geneva, where her two hands are still preserved in the library. Mons. de Champeau, the French resident, obtained the head and one foot; but it is unknown what became of the rest. These facts are extracted from the poems of Mons. de Bar, printed at Amsterdam in 3 vols. 1750. In the third volume is an ode to the Leda in question. The painter died May 25, 1743.

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

, a Benedictine monk, and voluminous historian of his order, was born at Ancona, and after being admitted into the church became an abbé. He died in the monastery of Foligno, May 4, 1737. His works are, 1. “Bibliotheca Benedictino-Casinensis,” an account of the lives and writings of the members of the congregation of Mont-Cassin, 2 parts, fol. 1731, 1732. 2. “Catalog! tres monachorum, episcoporum reformatorum, et virorum sanctitate illustrium e congregatione Casinensi,” Assise, 1733, fol. The third of these catalogues was printed partly at Assise, and the rest at Rome, under the title “Continuatio catalogi, &c.” 1734. 3. “Additiones et correctiones bibliothecsE Benedicto-Casinensis,” Foligno, 1735, fol. Besides these he published, in Italian, a life of St. Margaret Corradi, in Italian, 1726, 12mo, said to be much inferior to what he wrote afterwards. He, also left in manuscript, as the conclusion of his labours in honour of the Benedictines, “Bibliotheca synoptica ordinis sancti Benedicti.”

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

, an English physician and poet, was born in the parish of Castleton in Roxburghshire, where his father and brother were clergymen; and having completed his education at the university of Edinburgh, took his degree in physic, Feb. 4, 1732, with much reputation. His thesis De Tabe purulente was published a usual. He appears to have courted the muses while a student. His descriptive sketch in imitation of Shakspeitre was one of his first attempts, and received the cordial approbation of Thomson, Mallet, and Young. Mallet, he informs us, intended to have published it, but altered his mind. His other imitations of Shakspeare were part of an unfinished tragedy written at a very early age. Much of his time, if we may judge from his writings, was devoted to the study of polite literature, and although he cannot be said to have entered deeply into any particular branch, he was more than a superficial connoisseur ia painting, statuary, and music.

In 1737, he published “A synopsis of the history and cure of the Venereal disease,” probably as an introduction to practice in that lucrative branch; but it was unfortunately followed by his poem “The CEconomy of Love,” which, although it enjoyed a rapid sale, has been very properly excluded from every collection of poetry, and is supposed to have impeded his professional career. In 1741, we find him soliciting Dr. Birch’s recommendation to Dr. Mead, that he might Be appointed physician to the forces then going to the West Indies.

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

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

In 1760, he was appointed physician to the army in Germany, where in 1761 he wrote a poem called “Day,” addressed to Mr. Wilkes. It was published in the same year, probably by some person to whom Mr. Wilkes had lent it. The editor, in his prefatory advertisement, professes to lament that it is not in his power to present the public with a more perfect copy of this spirited letter. He ventures to publish it exactly as it came into his hands, without the knowledge or consent of the author, or of the gentleman to whom it is addressed. His sole motive is to communicate to others the pleasure he has received from a work of taste and genius. He thinks himself secure of the thanks of the public, and hopes this further advantage will attend the present publication, that it will soon be followed by a correct and complete edition from the author’s own manuscript.

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

In this poem he was supposed to reflect on ChurchilJ, but in a manner so distant that few except of Churchill’s irascible temper could have discovered any cause of offence. This libeller, however, retorted on our author in “The Journey,” with an accusation of ingratitude, the meaning of which is said to have been that Dr. Armstrong forgot certain pecuniary obligations he owed to Mr. Wilkes. About the same time a coolness took place between Dr. Armstrong and Mr. Wilkes on political grounds. Armstrong not only served under government, as an army physician, but he was also a Scotchman, and could not help resenting the indignity which Wilkes was perpetually attempting to throw on that nation in his North Briton. On this account they appear to have continued at variance as late as the year 1773, when our author called Wilkes to account for some reflections on his character which he suspected he had written in his favourite vehicle, the Public Advertiser. The conversation which passed on this occasion was lately published in the Gentleman’s Magazine (1792), and is said to have been copied from minutes taken the same afternoon, April 7, 1773, and sent to a friend: but as the doctor makes by far the worst figure in the dialogue, it can be no secret by whom the minutes were taken, and afterwards published.

After the peace, Dr. Armstrong resided some years in London, where his practice was confined to a small circle, but, where he was respected as a man of general knowledge and taste, and an agreeable companion. In 1770, he published two volumes of “Miscellanies,” containing the articles already mentioned, except the CEconomy of Love (an edition of which he corrected for separate publication in 1768), and his Epistle to Mr. Wilkes. The new articles were the Imitations of Shakspeare and Spenser, the Universal Almanack, and the Forced Marriage, a tragedy, which was offered to Garrick about the year 1754, and rejected. A second part of his Sketches was likewise added to these volumes, and appeared to every delicate and judicious mind, as rambling and improper as the first.

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

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

His character is said to have been that of a man of learning and genius, of considerable abilities in his profession, of great benevolence and goodness of heart, fond of associating with men of parts and genius, but indolent and inactive, and therefore totally unqualified to employ the means that usually lead to medical employment, or to make his way through a crowd of competitors. An intimate friendship always subsisted between him and Thomson the poet, as well as other gentlemen of learning and genius; and he was intimate with, and respected by sir John Pringle, at the time of his death. In 1753, Dr. Theobald addressed two Latin Odes, “Ad ingenuum viriim, turn naedici^, tum-poeticis facultatibus praestantem, Joannem Armstrong, M. D.”

, an English divine and commentator, was born at London, educated at Bishop Stortford school, and admitted a pensioner of Bene't college, Cambridge, in 1714, under the tuition of Mr. Waller. After taking the degree of B. A. being disappointed of a fellowship, he removed to Ernanuel College, March 10, 1718, where he proceeded M.A. and was elected fellow in June 24, 1720. He commenced B. D. seven years after, as the statutes of that house required, and continued there till the society presented him to the rectory of Thurcaston in Leicestershire. Whilst fellow of that college, he printed two copies of Sapphics on the death of king George; a sermon preached at Bishop Stortford school-feast, August 3, 1726; and another at the archdeacon’s visitation, at Leicester, April 22, 1737. A third, preached at Thurcaston, October 9, 1746, was published under the title of “The Parable of the Cedar and Thistle, exemplified in the great victory at Culloden,” 4to. In 1744 he published his celebrated “Commentary on Wisdom,” in folio; that on “Ecclesiasticus,” in 1748; on “Tobit,” &c. and another on the Daemon Asmodeus, translated from Calmet, in 1752. He married a daughter of Mr. Wood, rector of Wilford, near Nottingham; and died Sept. 4, 1756. His widow survived him till Apri. 11, 1782.

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

, was born in 1638, at Villa Franca in the province of Nice, and in his seventeenth year began the study of theology at the college of Brera in Milan, where he obtained his doctor’s degree, and was afterwards appointed apostolic prothonotary. The time of his death is not mentioned. Besides some devotional works, he published, 1. “Un Discours sur Inauguration du pape Alexandre VII. et un Eloge de l'eveque de Nice.” 2. “Honorato II. principi Monacaeo, &c. poeticae gratulationes,” Milan, 4to. 3. “La gloria vestita a lutto per la morte di Carlo Emmamielle II. duca di Savoia,” Turin, 1676, 4to, a poem in the ottava rima. 4. “II Giardin del Piemonte oggi vivente nell' anno 1673, diviso in principi, dame, prelati, abati, cavalieri, ministri, &c.” Turin, 1683, 8vo, a collection of odes and sonnets in compliment to the principal personages of the court of Turin at that time.

, a political writer of considerable note during the administration of sir Robert Walpole, was originally bred an attorney, but began at the early age of twenty, to write political papers, and succeeded Concanen in the British Journal. His principal paper was the “Free Briton,” under the assumed name of Francis Walsingham, esq. in defence of the measures of sir Robert Walpole, into whose confidence he appears to have crept by every servile profession, and according to the report of the secret committtee, he received no less than 10,997l. 6s. Sd. from the treasury; but this seems improbable, unless, perhaps, he acted as paymaster-general to the writers on the same side. He is said to have enjoyed for himself a pension of 400l. per annum, which, we may suppose, ceased with the reign of his patron. Dr. Wa'rton thinks Arnall had great talents, but was vain and careless, and after having acquired sufficient for competence, if not for perfect ease, he destroyed himself, having squandered as fast as he received. He is said to have died about 1741, aged twentysix, but other accounts say July 1736. Of his talents, we can form no very high opinion from his writings, and, as Mr. Coxe has justly observed of sir Robert Walpole’s writers in general, they were by no means equal to the task of combating Pulteney, Bolingbroke, and Chesterfield, those Goliaths of opposition. Mr. Arnall wrote the “Letter to Dr. Codex (Dr. Gibson), on his modest instructions to the crown,” in the case of Dr. Rundle, appointed bishop of Londonderry: “Opposition no proof of Patriotism;” “Clodius and Cicero,” and many other tracts on political and temporary subjects.

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

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

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

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

, a surgeon of some eminence in London, was originally a native of France, and a member of the Academy of surgery at Paris, which city he left about the year forty-six or seven, and came to reside in London. Here he published several works, particujarly on Ruptures; the first was entitled “Dissertations on Ruptures,” 1749,in 2 vols. 12mo, and in 1754 he published “Plain and familiar instructions to persons afflicted with Ruptures,” 12mo; “Observations on Aneurism,” 1760; “Familiar instructions on the diseases of the Urethra and Bladder,” 1763; “Dissertations on Hermaphrodites,” 1765; “A discourse on the importance of Anatomy,” delivered at Surgeons’ hall, Jan. 21, 1767, 4to. His principal work appeared in 1768, entitled “Memoires de Chirurgie, avec des remarques sur l'etat de la Medicine et de la Chirurgie en France et en Angleterre,” 2 vols. 4to. This is the only work he published in French, after his coming to England It consists of eleven memoirs, two of which are translated from the English of Dr. Hunter’s Medical Commentaries, on the Hernia Congenita, and a particular species of Aneurism. He appears, as a practitioner, to have possessed much skill, and as a writer to have been industrious in collecting information on the topics which employed his pen, but was somewhat deficient in judgment, and not a little credulous. So much was he attached to the ancient prejudices of his church, that he employs one of the memoirs in these volumes on the question, whether a rupture should incapacitate a man from performing the functions of the Romish priesthood, which he, however, is disposed to decide in the negative. Ie informs us in this work, that he had studied rupture cases for the space of fifty years, and that the same study had been cultivated in his family for the space of 200 years. The only notice we have of his reputation in his own country is to be found in the dis course on Anatomy which he delivered in Surgeons’ hall. In this he informs us that he had the honour to instruct Adelaide of Orleans, princess of the blood, and a very accomplished lady, in the operations of surgery.

, eldest son of Anthony Arnauld, and advocate-general to Catherine de Medicis, was born at Paris in 1550, or, according to some, in 1560, and in that city he was educated, and took his degree of M. A. in 1573. Some time after, he was admitted advocate of the parliament of Paris, in which capacity he acquired great reputation by his integrity and extraordinary eloquence. Henry IV. had great esteem for Arnauld; and his majesty once carried the duke of Savoy on purpose to hear him plead in, parliament. He was appointed counsellor and attorneygeneral to queen Catherine of Medicis. Mr. Marion, afterwards advocate-general, was one day so pleased with hearing him, that he took him into his coach, carried him home to dinner, and placed him next his eldest daughter, Catherine, and afterwards gave her to him in marriage. One of the most famous causes which Arnauld pleaded, was that of the university against the Jesuits, in 1594. There was published about this time a little tract in French, entitled “Franc et veritable discours,” &c. or, A frank and true discourse to the king, concerning the re-establishment of the Jesuits, which they had requested of him. Some have ascribed this to Arnauld, but others have positively denied him to be the author. Some have supposed that Arnauld was of the reformed religion; but Mr. Bayle has fully proved this to be a mistake. His other works were, 1. “Anti-Espagnol,” printed in a collection of discourses on the present state of France, 1606, 12mo, and in the “Memoires de la Ligue, vol. IV. p. 230. 2.” La Fleur de Lys,“1593, 8vo. 3.” La Delivrance de la Bretagne.“4.” La Premiere Savoisienne,“8vo. 1601, 1630. 5.” Avis au roi Louis XIII. pour bien regner,“1615, 8vo. 6. The first and second” Philippics" against Philip II. of Spain, 1592, 8vo. He died Dec. 29, 1619, leaving ten children out of twenty-two, whom he had by his wife Catherine.

, eldest son of the preceding, was born at Paris in 1589. He was introduced at Court when very young, and employed in many considerable offices, all which he discharged with great reputation and integrity. No man was ever more esteemed amongst the great, and none ever employed more generously the influence he had with them, in defence of truth and justice. He quitted business, and retired to the convent of Port Royal des Champs, at fifty-five years of age; where he passed the remainder of his days in a continual application to works of piety and devotion. He enriched the French language with many excellent translations: he also wrote poems on sacred and other subjects. Mr. Arnauld, during his retirement at Port Koyal des Champs, after seven or eight hours study every day, used to divert himself with rural amusements, and particularly with cultivating his trees, which he brought to such perfection, and had such excellent fruit from them, that he used to send some of it every year to queen Anne of Austria, which this princess liked so well, that she always desired to be served with it in the season. He died at Port Royal, Sept. 27, 1674, in his 86th year. He married the daughter of the sieur le Fevre de la Boderie, famous for his embassy to England, and had by her three sons and five daughters. He wrote a great many devotional works, of which there is a catalogue in Moreri, and in the Journal de Savans for Sept. 9, 1695. He also enriched the French language by some translations of the “Confessions of St. Augustine,” 8vo and 12 mo; a translation, rather elegant than faithful, of “Josephus,” 5 vols. 8vo; “Lives of the Saints,” 3 vols. 8vo; the “Works of St. Theresa,” 1670, 4to; and “Memoirs of his own Life,” 2 vols. 12mo, 1734.

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

In 1679, Mr. Arnauld withdrew from France, being informed that his enemies did him ill offices at court, and had rendered him suspected to the king. From this time he lived in obscurity in the Netherlands, still continuing to write against the Jesuits with great acrimony. He wrote also several pieces against the Protestants, but he was checked in his attacks upon them by an anonymous piece, entitled “L' Esprit de M. Arnauld.” The principal books which he wrote after his departure from France were, a piece concerning Malbranche’s System of Nature and Grace, one on the Morals of the Jesuits, and a treatise relating to some propositions of Mr. Steyaert. In this last performance he attacks father Simon, concerning the inspiration of the scriptures, and the translating of the Bible into the vulgar tongue. A catalogue of all his works may be seen in Moreri, and a complete collection of them was printed at Lausanne 1777 1783, in 45 volumes 4to. They may be divided into five classes, 1. Belles lettres and philosophy. 2. On the controversy respecting Grace. 3. Writings against the Calvinists. 4. Writings against the Jesuits: and 5. Theological works. The re-publication of all these in so voluminous a form, may surely be ranked among the most extraordinary speculations of modern bookselling.

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

The Jesuits have been much censured for carrying their resentment so far as to get the sheet suppressed, which Mr. Perrault had written concerning Mr. Arnauld, in his collection of the portraits and panegyrics of the illustrious men of the French nation. The book was printed, and the portraits engraved, when the Jesuits procured an order to be sent to the author and bookseller, to strike out Mr. Arnauld and Mr. Pascal, and to suppress their eulogiums. But although we have transcribed this instance of Jesuitical bigotry, we apprehend there must be some mistake in it. The Jesuits might have endeavoured to exclude Arnauld from Perrault’s work, but it is certain that he appears there.

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

was born in 1623, and studied at Leyden, Wittemberg, Leipsic, and Strasburg, and died at Rostock in 1683, after having been professor of logic three years. His works are, 1. “Dissertatio de Philosophia veterum,” Rostock, 1650, 4to. 2. “Discursus politicus de principiis constituentibus et conservantibus rempublicam,” ibid. 1651. 3. “De vera usu Logicesin Theologia,” ibid. 1650.

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

Arndt maintained some doctrines which embroiled him with those of his own communion: he was of opinion, that the irregularity of rrfanners which prevailed among Protestants, was occasioned by their rejecting of good works, and contenting themselves with a barren faith; as if it was sufficient for salvation to believe in Jesus Christ, and to apply his merits to ourselves. He taught that the true faith necessarily exerted itself in charity; that a salutary sorrow preceded it; that it was followed by a perfect renewal of the mind; and that a sanctifying faith infallibly produces good works. His adversaries accused him of fanaticism and enthusiasm: they endeavoured to represent him as symbolizing in his opinions with the followers of Weigelius and the Rosicrusian philosophers; and they imputed to him many of the errors and absurdities of those visionaries, because in some subjects he expressed himself in a manner not very different from theirs, and because he preferred the method of the mystical divines to that of the scholastics.

The most famous work of Arndt, is his “Treatise of true Christianity,” in the German language. The first book of it was printed separate in 1605 at Jena, by Stegman: he published the three others in 1608. The first is called the “Book of Scripture:” he endeavours in it to shew the way of the inward and spiritual life, and that Adam ought to die every day more and more in the heart of a Christian, and Christ to gain the ascendant there. The second is called “The Book of Life:” he proposes in it to direct the Christian to a greater degree of perfection, to give him a relish for sufferings, to encourage him to resist his enemies after the example of his Saviour. The third is entitled “The Book of Conscience:” in this he recalls the Christian within himself, and discovers to him the kingdom of God seated in the midst of his own heart. The last book is entitled “The Book of Nature:” the author proves here, that all the creatures lead men to the knowledge of their Creator. This work was translated into many different languages, and among the rest into English, the first part, or the Book of Scripture, 1646, 12mo; and afterwards the whole was published at London 1712, 8vo, and dedicated to queen Anne, by Mr. Boehm; but the editions of 1720, one of which is in 3, and the other in 2 vols. 8vo, are the most complete.

, a Lutheran divine, and ecclesiastical antiquary, was born at Gustro,n, in 1626, and succeeded his brother Christian (the subject of the article before the last) as the logic professor at Rostock in 1633. He was afterwards appointed almoner to Gustavus Adolphus, duke of Mecklenburgh, and died in 1685, after having published a great many writings, philosophical, historical, and controversial. The greater part are enumerated by Niceron, vol. XLIII. Those most celebrated in his time, were: 1. “Lexicon antiquitatum Ecclesiasticarum,” Greifswaki, 1667, 1669, 4to. 2. “Genealogia Scaligerorum,” Copenhagen, 1648. 3. “Trutina statuum Europae Ducis de Rohan,” Gustron, 1665, 8vo, often reprinted. 4. “Laniena Sabaudica,” Rostock, 1655, 4to. 5. “Exercit. de Claudii Salmasii erroribus in theologia,” Wittembero-, 1651, 4to. 6. “Observat. ad Franc. Vavassoris librum de forma Christi,” Rostock, 1666, 8vo. 7. Some Latin poems, and a Latin translation of the History of Wailenstein from the Italian of Gualdi, with notes, ibid. 1669. [For his Son, Charles Arndt, see next entry]

, [son of Joshua Arndt], was born in 1673 at Gustron, and died in 1721, professor of Hebrew at Rostock. His principal works are: 1. “Schediasma de Phalaride, M. Antonini scriptis, et Agapeti Scheda regia,” Rostock, 1702, 4to. 2. “Schediasmata Bibliothecæ Græcæ difficilioris,” ibid. 3. “Bibliotheca politico-heraldica,” 1705, 8vo. 4. “Systema literarium, complectens prsecipua scientiæ literariæ monumenta,” Rostock, 1714, 4to, a work which entitles him to rank among the founders of bibliography. 5. “Dissertationes philologicæ,” on Hebrew antiquities principally, ibid. 1714, 4to. 6. The life of his father, under the title “Fama Arndtiana reflorescens,” 1697, 4to, with an appendix, 1710, 4to, and many articles in the Leipsic Memoirs.

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

Having succeeded so well in a serious opera, Mr. Arne tried his powers at a burletta, and set Fielding’s Tom Thumb, under the title of “The Opera of Operas,” to music, after the Italian manner, which had afterwards a considerable run. In 1738, he established his reputation as a lyric composer, by the admirable manner in which he set Milton’s Comus. In this masque he introduced a light, airy, original, and pleasing melody, wholly different from that of Purcell or Handel, whom all English composers had hitherto either pillaged or imitated. Indeed, says Dr. Burney, to whom we are indebted for all that is valuable in this memoir, the melody of Arne at this time, and of his Vauxhall songs afterwards, forms an era in English music; it was so easy, natural, and agreeable to the whole kingdom, that it had an effect upon our national taste; and till a more modern Italian style was introduced in the pasticcio English operas of Messrs. Bickerstaff and Cumberland, it was the standard of all perfection at our theatres and public gardens, In 1762, Arne quitted the former style of melody, in which he had so well set Comus, and furnished Vauxhall and the whole kingdom with such songs as had improved and polished our national taste; and when he set the bold translation of Metastasio’s opera of Artaserse, he crowded the airs with all the Italian divisions and difficulties which had ever been heard at the opera. This drama, however, by the novelty of the music to English ears, and the talents of the original performers, Tenducci, Peretti, and Miss Brent, had very great success, and still continues to be represented whenever singers of superior abilities can be procured. But in setting Artaxerxes, though the melody is less original than that of Comus, Arne had the merit of first adapting many of the best passages of Italy, which all Europe admired, to our own language, and of incorporating them with his own property, and with what was still in favour of former English composers.

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

To this character of Arne’s genius, which we were unwilling to interrupt by details of less importance, we may now add, that besides those mt niioued, he composed the opera of Eliza, Love in a Village, the masque of Britannia, the oratorios of the Death of Abel, Judith, and Beauty and Virtue; the musical entertainment of Thomas and Sally, the Prince of the Fairies, the songs in As You Like It, the Merchant of Venice, the Arcadian Nuptials, King Arthur, the Guardian Outwitted, the Rose, Caractacus, and Elfrida, besides innumerable instrumental pieces, songs, cantatas, &c. &c. The degree of doctor of music was conferred on Mr. Arne, by the university of Oxford in 1759. He died in the sixty-eighth year of his age, on March 5, 1778. He married, in 1736, Miss Cecilia Young, a pupil of Geminiani, and a favourite singer of those times. In his private character Dr. Arne was a man of pleasure, addicted to promiscuous gallantry, and so much a lover of gaiety and expensive enjoyments, that he left scarcely any property behind him.

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

Brescia, 1565, 8vo. 4. “Meteoria, owero discorso intorno alle impression! imperfette umide e secche, &c.” Brescia, 1568, 4to. In this work he appears to have studied meteorology, with a view to the preservation of health and the improvement of agriculture. 5. “Dieci Veglie degli ammendati costumi dell' umana vita,” Brescia, 1577, 4to, a moral work much esteemed in Italy, but unnoticed by Fontanini in his “Italian Library.” 6. “La Medicina d'Amore;” mentioned by Mazzuchelli and other bibliographers, but it is doubted whether it was ever printed. Haym, however, gives it, with the title of “Dialogo della Medicina d'Amore di Bartolomeo Arnigio,” Brescia, 1566, 12mo.

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

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

, of Gaul, was a writer for the semi-pelagian doctrines, about the year 460, and wrote a “Commentary on the Psalms,” which was printed at Basle, 1537 and 1560, 8vo, and at Paris in 1539; Erasmus was the editor of one edition, and prefixed a preface to it. It is not a work of extraordinary merit, but obtained reputation for some time, by being mistaken for the production of Arnobius the African, in the preceding article.

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

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

, a learned writer of Nuremberg, was born in that city in 1627, where he became professor of history, rhetoric, and poetry, and was connected with the most learned men of his time. His principal works are, 1. “Catonis grammatici diroe cum commentario perpetuo,” Leyden, 1652, a very scarce edition. 2. “O ratio de Jano et Januario.” 3. “Ornatus linguae Latins,” printed four times at Nuremberg. 4. “Testimonium Flavianum de Christo,” Nuremberg, 1661, 12mo. This is to be found in the second volume of Havercamp’s Josephus. 5. “De Parasitis,” Nuremberg, 1665, 12mo. 6. “Notae ad Jo. Eph. Wagenseilii commentarium in Sotam,” Nuremberg, 1670, 4to. 7. “Letters to Nich. Heinsius,” in Burmann’s collection, vol. V. He died in 1656.

, pastor and inspector of the churches of Perleberg, and historiographer to the king of Prussia, was born at Annaburg in Misnia, in 1666. He was a man of considerable eloquence and extensive reading, but he disturbed the tranquillity of the church by his singular opinions in theology, and especially by his “Ecclesiastical History,” in which he seemed to place all opinions, orthodox or heretic, on the same footing, but considered the mystic divines as superior to all other writers, and as the only depositaries of true wisdom. He wished to reduce the whole of religion to certain internal feelings and motions, of which, perhaps, few but himself or his mystical brethren could form an idea. As he advanced in years, however, he is said to have perceived the errors into which he had been led by the impetuosity of his passions, and became at last a lover of truth, and a pattern of moderation. His principal works were this “Ecclesiastical History,” which was printed at Leipsic in 1700, and his “History of Mystic Theology,” written in Latin. He died in 1714. There is a very elaborate account of his life and writings in the General Dictionary, and of his opinions in Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History.

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

, professor of divinity at Franeker, was born at Lesna, a city of Poland, Dec. 17, 1618. He was educated in the college of Lesna, particularly under Comenius, and was afterwards created subdeacon to the synod of Ostrorog, at the age of fifteen, and in that quality accompanied Arminius for two years in his visitation of the churches of Poland, after which he was sent to Dantzick, in 1635, and applied himself to the study of eloquence and philosophy. He returned to Poland in 1638, and pursued his divinity studies for about a year, after which he was sent into Podolia to be rector of the school of Jablonow. Having exercised that employment three months, he performed the office of a minister the two following years at a nobleman’s house. As it was observed that his talents might be of great service to the church, it was thought proper that he should visit the most celebrated academies. With this view he set out, in 1641, and after visiting Franeker, Groningen, Leyden, and Utrecht, he came over to England; but unfortunately this purpose was frustrated by the rebellion, which then raged in its utmost violence, and had suspended the literary labours of Oxford and Cambridge. On his return to his own country, he preached with great success and approbation, and in 1651 was chosen to succeed Cocceius as professor of divinity at Franeker, which office he discharged until his death, Oct. 15, 1680, after a long illness, in which he gave many instances of his piety, and resignation to the Divine will. His works are very numerous, and were written principally against the Socinian tenets. Among these Bayle enumerates his “Refutation of the Catechism of the Socinians,” his “Anti-Bidellus,” “Anti-Echardus,” his book “against Brevingius,” his “Apology for Arnesius against Erbermann,” the defender of Bellarmin; “Theological disputes on select subjects,” “Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews,” &c. He wrote with learning and spirit, and had a powerful host of enemies to contend with in Poland, where Socinian opinions were very extensively disseminated.

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

About 1,771 he purchased Marybone gardens, for which he composed some excellent burlettas and other pieces, to which he added some ingenious fire-works. This scheme succeeded; but in 1776, the lease of the gardens expired, and they were let for the purposes of building. We find Dr. Arnold afterwards employed by Mr. Colman, then manager of Covent-garden, as musical composer, and when he purchased the Haymarket theatre, Dr. Arnold was there engaged in the same capacity, and continued in it for life. On the death of Dr. Nares, in 1783, he was appointed his successor as organist and composer to his majesty’s chapel at St. James’s; and at the commemoration of Handel in Westminster Abbey in 1784, was appointed one of the sub-directors. In 1786, he beu,an to publish an uniform edition of Handel’s works, and about the same time published four volumes of cathedral music. In 1789, he was appointed director and manager of the performances held in the academy of ancient music, a post of honour in which he acquitted himself with the highest credit. In private life, he is allowed to have possessed those virtues which engage' and secure social esteem. He died at his house in Duke-street, Westminster, Oct. 22, 1802, in his sixty-third year. His published works amount to, four Oratorios, eight Odes, three Serenatas, forty-seven Operas, three Burlettas, besides Overtures, Concertos, and many smaller pieces.

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

His work, which has been sometimes called “The Custftmesof London,” and sometimes “Arnolde’s Chronicle,” contains a medley of information respecting the magistrates, charters, municipal regulations, assizes of bread, &c. mostly taken from a work of the same kind which is still remaining among the Cottonian Mss. (Julius B. I.) The first edition was printed at Antwerp by John Doesborowe, without date, place, or printer’s name, but probably in 1502. The second was printed by Peter Treveris, about 1520, or 1521, and a third, longo intervallo, at London, 1811, as part of a series of the English chronicles undertaken by some of the principal booksellers of London, and printed with great care and accuracy. It is to the learned preface to this last edition that we are indebted for the preceding particulars respecting Arnolde, and to it likewise we may refer the reader for a discussion on the origin of the celebrated poem, “The Nut-brown Maid,” printed in the same edition.

, bishop of Lisieux, in the twelfth century, was treasurer of the church of Bayeux, archdeacon of Seez, and in 1141, succeeded John, his uncle, io the bishopric of Lisieux. In 1147 he travelled beyond seas with Louis the Young, king of France, and returned in 1149. In 1,154, he was present at the coronation of Henry II. king of England, whom he endeavoured to keep steadfast to the orthodox faith, as appears by the letters of pope Alexander III. He espoused the cause of Thomasa Becket, and travelled to England, on purpose to effect a reconciliation between Becket and the king, but finding that his interference was useless, and likely to involve himself with Henry, he resolved to retire to a monastery. Many years after he was made canon regular of the abbey of St. Victor at Paris, where he died August 31, 1182. He wrote several works, and among others, a volume of letters, two speeches, one delivered in the council held at Tours, 1163, and the other on occasion of ordaining a bishop, and some pieces of poetry, all printed by Odo Turnebus, the son of Adrian, Paris, 1585, under the title “Epistolae, conciones, et epigrammata,” and afterwards inserted in theBibliotheca Patrum. D'Acheri, in the second volume of his Spicilegium, has a treatise by Arnoul, “De Schismate orco post Honoriill. discessum, contra Girardum episcopum Engolismensem,” the legate of Peter of Leon, the antipope: and in the thirteenth volume, a sermon and five letters. ArnoiFs letters are chiefly valuable for the particulars they contain of the history and discipline of his times, and his poetry is favourably spoken of, as to correctness of verse.

, an ex-jesuit, was born in 1689, and died at Besancon in 1753. He was the author of some curious pieces. The first was a collection of French, Italian, and Spanish proverbs, a scarce little work in 12mo, Besançon, 1733, and published under the assumed name of Antoine Dumont, to prevent any unpleasant consequences to the author for some humorous attacks which it contains on the Jansenists. In 1738, he published under the same name, in Latin, “A treatise on Grace,” but his most considerable work is “Le Precepteur,” Besançon, 1747, 4to, somewhat on the plan of Dodsley’s Preceptor; and Sabathier says, there are many useful reflections in this work, although it is not well written. Arnoult attached great importance to a new plan for the reformation of French orthography, and intended to have introduced it in an edition of Joubert and Danet’s French and Latin and Latin and French dictionaries, but this he did not live to execute.

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

, brother of the preceding, was born in 1703, at Arnheim, and died in 1763. He was professor of the belles lettres, first at Utrecht, then at Goude, and at Delft, and lastly at Amsterdam. His first work was a dissertation “De MilHario aureo,” Utrecht, 17_'S, 4to, reprinted in 1769 by. Oelrichs in his “Thesaurus Dissert, selectissimarum.” In 1735, he published a Variorum edition of the Disticha Catonis, of which an improved reprint was made at Amsterdam in 1754, with two dissertations by Withof, on the author and text of the Distichs. There are also by him sortie academical orations, “Pro Latina eruditorum lingua,” Goude, 1737, 4to; “De Gneca Latini sermonis origine,” Delft, 1741, 4to; “De Mercuric,” Amst. 1746, 4to; and he left manuscript remarks and corrections on the Pseudo-Hegesippus in the hands of his nephew, the subject of the next article.

, son of John Arntzenius, was born at Nimeguen in 1734. He followed the track of study pointed out by his father and uncle, and became law professor at Groninguen, and afterwards at Utrecht, where he died April 7, 1797, after having long enjoyed high reputation for learning and critical acumen. Saxius has a long list of his works. His orations on various subjects of law and criticism, enumerated separately by Saxius, were published under the title of “Miscellanea,” Utrecht, 1765, 8vo. Besides which he published an edition of “Sedulius,” with notes, Leuw. 1761, 8vo, of “Arator,” Zutphen, 1769, 8vo; “Institutiones Juris Belgici,” Gron. 1783, 1788; and an edition of the “Panegyric! Veteres,” 2 vols. 4to, Utrecht, 1790, 1797.

, was born at Merancourt, near Verdun, in Lorraine, 1629. He became dominican in 1644, and died at Padua in 1692, professor of metaphysics. We have of his, 1. “Clypeus Philosophise! Thomistica,” Padua, 1686, 8 vols. 8vo. 2. “A commentary on the Sum of St. Thomas,” 1691, 2 vols. folio. There is a third production of his in being, on the league between the emperor and the king of Poland, against the grand signior, whom he menaces with the demolition of his empire; and, in order to give weight to this denunciation, he brings together a series of prophecies, ancient and modern. This book appeared at Padua in 1684.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The best editions of Arrian are, that of Gronovius, Gr. & Lat. Leyden, 1704, fol; of Raphelius, Gr. & Lat. Amsterdam, 1757, 8vo; and of Schmeider, Leipsic, 1798, 8vo. Schmeider also published the “Indica cum Bonav. Vulcanii interpret. Lat.” 8vo. ibid. 1798. DodwelPs “Dissertatio de Arriani Nearcho,” in which the authenticity of the voyage of Nearchus is contested, is affixed to this edition of the Indica, in connexion with Dr. Vincent’s able refutation of that attack. The expedition was translated into English by Mr. Rook, Lond. 1729, 2 vols. 8vo. illustrated with historical, geographical, and critical notes, with Le Clerc’s criticism on Quintus Curtius, and some remarks on Perizonius’s vindication of that author. Rook also added the Indica, the division of the empire after Alexander’s death, Raderus’s tables, and other useful documents.

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

, a Latin poet of the twelfth century, was born at Settimello near Florence, and for some time was curate of Calanzano. Disturbed by the vexations he met with from certain enemies, he gave up his benefice, and became so poor that he was obliged to subsist on charity; from which circumstance he obtained the surname of Il Povero. He painted his disgrace and his misfortunes in elegiac verse, in a manner so pure and pathetic, that they were prescribed as models at all public schools. They remained in manuscript in various libraries until about a century ago, when three editions of them were published in Italy. The first is that of 1684, 8vo; the second is incorporated in the History of the Poets of the middle ages by Leiser and the third was printed at Florence in 1730, 4to, with a very elegant translation into Italian, by Dominic Maria Manni.

, a native of Corsica, was professor of law at Padua, where he died May 28, 1765. He was remarkably tenacious of his opinions, and carried on a long controversy with some antiquaries relative to the explanation of an ancient epitaph. His principal writings are, “A History,” in Latin, “of the war of Cyprus,” in seven books; and a “Life of Franciscus Maurocenus.”

, of Bergamo, was born there Dec. 1, 1610; and died July 28, 1645. He applied himself to the study of the Greek language, and was employed by the cardinal Frederick Boromeo, in deciphering the Greek manuscripts of the Ambrosian library. He wrote some “Eulogies,” and “Discourses,” which were collected and published at Bergamo in 1636; “The Theatre of Virtue,” and other pieces, which are noticed by Vaerini in his history of the writers of Bergamo.

, of a noble family of Mantua, flourished about the year 1546. Enjoying much intimacy with Possevin and Franco, he imbibed their taste for poetry, and composed “Maritime Eclogues,” which were printed with the “Maritime Dialogues” of Botazzo, at Mantua, in 1547. Arrivabene was no less distinguished as a prose writer, and there are many of his letters and essays in Ruffinelli’s collection, published at Mantua about the same time.

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

Dr. Arrowsmith is represented as a learned and able divine, but somewhat stiff-and narrow; his natural temper is said to have been incomparably better than his principles, and all agree that he was a man of a most sweet and engaging disposition. This, says Dr. Salter, appears through all the sourness and severity of his opinions, in his “Tactica Sacra,” a book written in a clear style, and with a lively fancy in which is displayed at once much weakness and stiffness, but withal great reading and a very amiable candour towards the persons and characters of those, from whom he found himself obliged to differ. This book he dedicated to the fellows and students of his college, and published it in 1657, to supply the place of his sermons, which his ill health would not permit him to preach in the chapel. He also printed three sermons; and in 1659 his friends, Horton and Dillingham, masters’ of Queen’s and Emanuel colleges, published a collection pf his theological aphorisms in quarto, with the title of "Armilla Catechetical Dr. Whichcote, in one of his letters, speaks of him with high respect, although he had no agreement with him in his principles, which were Calvinistic. Mr. Cole praises him for being remote from the latitudinarian principles of modern times.

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

, archbishop of Monembasia, or Malvasia in the Morea, was a learned philologist of the fifteenth century. He was the particular friend of pope Paul III. and wrote to him some very elegant letters. He submitted also to the Romish church, which gave so much offence to the heads of the Greek church, that they excommunicated him. There are of his extant, a “Collection of Apophthegms,” printed at Rome, in Greek and another “Collection of Scholia on seven of the tragedies of Euripides,” printed at Venice in 1518, 8vo Basil, 1544; and again at Venice in 1533. His collection of Apophthegms, or “Praeclara dicta Philosophorum,” has no date of year. The time of his death is uncertain, but he was alive in 1535.

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

, an Italian poet, was born at Mazzareno in Sicily, 1628, and had an early passion for poetry, and a strong inclination for arms. He finished his studies at 15 years of age, about which time he fought a duel, in which he mortally wounded his adversary. He saved himself by taking shelter in a church and it was owing to this accident that he afterwards applied himself to the study of philosophy. His parents being dead, and himself much embarrassed in his circumstances, he resolved to quit his country, and seek his fortune elsewhere. He accordingly went to Candia, at the time when that city was besieged by the Turks, and displayed there so much bravery, that he obtained the honour of knighthood in the military order of St. George. When he was upon his return for Italy, he was often obliged to draw his sword, and was sometimes wounded in these rencounters but his superior skill generally gave him the advantage. He rendered himself so formidable even in Germany, that they used to style him Chevalier de Sang. Ernest duke of Brunswic and Lunenburg appointed him captain of his guards, but no appointment could de tach him from the Muses. He was member of several academies in Italy, and became highly in favour with many princes, especially the emperor Leopold. He died Feb. 11, 1679, at Naples, where he was interred in the church of the Dominicans, with great magnificence the academy DegP Intricati attended his funeral, and Vincent Antonio Capoci made his funeral oration. His works are, 1. “DelP Encyclopedia poetica,” 2 parts, 1658, 1679, 12mo; and a third, Naples, same year. 2. “La Pasife,” a musical drama, Venice, 1661, 12mo. 3. “La Bellezza atterrata, elegia,” Naples, 1646; Venice, 1661, 12mo.

, born at Bonieux in the comtat-Venaissin, went to Paris in 1706, when very young, and filled in a distinguished manner the several chairs of that capital. He was afterwards made curate of S. Mery in which preferment he instructed his flock by his discourses, and edified it by his example. He was appointed bishop of Cavaillon in 1756, and died in 1760, aged 54 leaving behind him the reputation of an exemplary prelate and an amiable man. His works are 1. “Panegyric on S. Louis,” 1754, 4to. 2. “Discourse on Marriage;” on occasion of the birth of the due de Bourgogne, 1757, 4to. 3. Several Charges, and Pastoral Letters. In all his writings a solid and Christian eloquence prevails, and his sermons, which have not been printed, are said to have been models of a familiar and persuasive style.

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

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

When Artedi and Linnæus were at Upsal, they reciprocally constituted themselves heirs to each other’s books and manuscripts. Linnæus was now ready to assert his right, that he might rescue at least the fame of his deceased friend from oblivion. But the landlord of Artedi, at whose house his situation had compelled him to contract some small debts, would not deliver up his effects, which he threatened to sell by public auction. Through the generous liberality, however, of Dr. Cliffort, a princely patron of natural history, the wish of Linnæus was accomplished. Cliffort purchased the manuscripts, and made him a present of them. The principal one was the general work on fishes, which Linnæus published under the title “Petri Artedi, Sueci medici, Ichthyologia, sive opera omnia de Piscibus,” Leyden, 1738, 4to with the life of the author. But a more valuable edition was published by Dr. Walbaum of Lubeck, 3 vols. 4to, 1788, 1789, 1792; including not only all the modern discoveries and improvements; but a history of the science of ichthyology, from the earliest accounts to the present times. Schneider also published a new edition of a part of this work, under the title “Petri Artedi Synonymia Piscium,” Leipsic, 1789, 4to.

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

, a hermetic philosopher, lived about 1130. Rewrote 1. “Clavis majoris sapientiae,” printed in the Chemical Theatre, Francfort, 1614, 8vo Strasburgh, 1699, and afterwards translated into French. 2. “Liber secretus.” 3. “De characteribus planetarum, cantu et motibus avium, rerum praeteritarum et futurarum, lapideque philosophic.” 4. “De vita propaganda,” a work, of the merit of which we may judge from being gravely told that he wrote it at the age of 1025 years. 5. “Speculum speculorum.” Artephius’ treatise on the philosopher’s stone, was translated into French by Peter Arnauld, and printed with those of Synesius and Flamel, Paris, 1612, 1659, and 1682, 4to, no inconsiderable proof of the attention bestowed on that delusion.

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

, canon of the cathedral church at Vienna, was born in that metropolis, the th of March 1704. He shewed an early inclination for literature and bibliographical inquiries, and wrote some verses, which he afterwards judiciously suppressed. His first publication, in 1739, was a piece entitled “Relation, d'une assemblee tenue au bas de Parnasse, pour la reforme des Belles Lettres,” 12mo. Mr. Sabathier, with more spleen than reason, observes that the place for this assembly was very happily chosen. But Artigni is more advantageously known by his “Memoires d'histoire, de critique & de litterature,” Paris, 1749, & seqq. 7 vols. 12mo. Though this book is a compilation, it sufficiently proves him to have been endowed with the spirit of disquisition and criticism. It is, however, necessary to mention that the most interesting articles are taken from the manuscript history of the French poets by the late abbé Brun, dean of S. Agricola at Avignon. This history existed in ms. in the library belonging to the seminary of S. Sulpice de Lyon, where the abbe le Clerc, the friend of abbe* Brun, had lived a long time and it was by means of some member of the seminary that the abbe* d' Artigni procured it. Before his death he was employed on an abridgement of the Universal History, part of which was found among his manuscripts. He died at Vienna the 6th of May 1768, in his 65th year. He was of a polite, obliging, and cheerful temper and his conversation was rendered highly agreeable by the great number of anecdotes and pleasant stories with which his memory was stored.

, an eminent landscape painter, was born at Brussels in 1613, and having been carefully instructed in the art of painting by Wildens (as some authors imagine), he perfected himself by a studious observation of nature. His landscapes have an agreeable solemnity, by the disposition of his trees, and the breaking of his grounds the distances are well observed, and die away perspectively, with a bluish distance of remote hills and his figures are properly and very judiciously placed. His pencil is soft, his touch light and free, particularly in the leafing of his trees; and there is generally a pleasing harmony in the whole. It is said that Teniers either painted or retouched the figures of his landscapes. He is remarkable for always ornamenting the stems of his trees with moss, ivy, or other plants, the extremities of which are often loosely hanging down. His pictures are coloured with a force resembling those of Titian, except that sometimes they are a little too dark. Mechlin, Brussels, Ghent, and the gallery of Dusseldorp, were ornamented with many of his pictures. In the course of his practice, he acquired a good fortune, but is said to have dissipated it by giving entertainments to persons of rank. He died in 1665, aged fifty- two.

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

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

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

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

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

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

, an eminent Russian physician, counsellor of state, and member of many academies, was born at Petersburgh of German parents, in 1729, and died in that city in 1807. He studied in the university of Gottingen, under Haller, and his reputation is in a great measure owing to the respect he preserved for that celebrated school, and to the princely contributions he made to it. His fortune enabled him to make vast collections during his various travels, a part, of which he regularly sent every year to Gottingen. In particular he enriched the library with a complete collection of Russian writers, a beautiful Koran, Turkish manuscripts, and many other curious articles and he added to the museum a great number of valuable articles collected throughout the Russian empire, curious habits, armour, instruments, minerals, medals, &c. He was also a liberal contributor to Blumenbach’s collection. As a writer, he had a principal part in the Russian Pharmacopoeia, Petersburgh, 1778, 4to, and wrote many essays, in Latin and German, on different subjects of physiology and medicine, of which a list may be seen in the “Gelehrtes Deutschland” of M. Meusel, fourth edition, vol. I. p. 98. What he published on the plague has been highly valued by practitioners, and there are two curious papers by him In No. 171 and 176 of our Philosophical Transactions. His memory was honoured by Heyne with an elegant eulogium, “De Obitu Bar. de Asch, ad vivos amantissimos J. Fr. Blumenbach, et J. D. Reuss,” 4to.

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

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

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

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

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

, an ancient physician, was a native gf Prusa, in Bithynia, and contemporary with Mithridates (about the year 110 B.C.), to whose court ne refused to go, when invited by magnificent promises. He first went to Rome, to teach rhetoric, but not finding much encouragement, he began to practise physic, of which he had little knowledge, and to conceal his ignorance, affected to condemn the medicines and modes of practice then in use. He confined himself to such remedies as were simple and palatable, and soon was considered as a favourite practitioner. He appears from Pliny’s account to have been much of the quack, and occasionally sufficiently bold and adventurous in his prescriptions. He desired, among other boasts, that he might not be considered as a physician, if ever he were sick and his reputation perhaps was not lessened in this respect, by his being killed by a fall. He wrote several books quoted by Pliny, Celsus, and Galen, but fragments only remain, of which an edition was published by Jumpert, under the title “Malagmata hydropica, &c.” Weimar, 1794, 8vo.

, an ancient grammarian of Padua who, it is generally supposed, was acquainted with Virgil. Yet Jerome says, that he flourished under the Vespasians, which is rather at too great a distance for one and the same man but Jerome’s account is rejected by more recent writers, who think that he lived under the empire of Augustus, and died under that of Nero, aged eighty-five. His “Enarrationes in Ciceronis Orationes,” were first published at Venice, in 1477, which is a veryscarce edition. They were afterwards published at Florence, 8vo, 1513, and have since been incorporated in the editions of Cicero, by Grnter, Gronovius, and Olivet. He had also written a life of Virgil, and another of Sallust, the loss of which may be regretted.

, a physician of Cremona, of the sixteenth century, was the first who discovered the lacteal veins in the mesentery, while he was dissecting for another purpose. He published a dissertation “De lacteis venis,” wherein his discovery is displayed, with plates in three colours. The first edition of this curious work is of Milan, 1627 but it was afterwards reprinted at Basle in 1628, 4to, and at Leyden, 1640. The author professed anatomy at Pavia, about 1620, with great success, and died there in 1626.

, an ingenious English writer and lawyer, who lived about the end of the seventeenth, and beginning of the eighteenth century. He was entered of the society of Lincoln’s inn, and having been recommended to Mr. Eyre, a very great lawyer, and one of the judges of the king’s bench, in the reign of king William, this gentleman gave him assistance in his studies. Under so able a master, he quickly acquired a competent knowledge of the laws, and was soon noticed as a rising man in his profession. He had an uncommon vein of wit and humour, of which he afforded the world sufficient evidence in two pamphlets; one intituled, “Several assertions proved, in order to create another species of money than gold and silver” the second, “An essay on a registry for titles of lands.” This last is written in a very humorous style.

In the year 1698, Mr. Asgill published a treatise on the possibility of avoiding death, intitled “An argument, proving that, according to the covenant of eternal life, revealed in the scriptures, man may be translated from hence into that eternal life without passing through death, although the human nature of Christ himself could not thus be translated till he had passed through death,” printed originally in 1700, and reprinted several years since. This raised a considerable clamour, and Dr. Sacheverell mentioned it among other blasphemous writings, which induced him to think the church in danger. In 1699, an act being passed for resuming forfeited estates in Ireland, commissioners were appointed to settle claims and Mr. Asgill being at this time somewhat embarrassed in his circumstances, resolved to go over to Ireland. On his arrival there, the favour of the commissioners, and his own merit, procured him great practice, the whole nation almost being then engaged in law-suits, and among these there were few considerable, in which Mr. Asgill was not retained on one side or other, so that in a very short space of time he acquired a considerable fortune. He purchased a large estate in Ireland and the influence this purchase gave him, occasioned his being elected a member of the House of Commons in that kingdom. He was in Munster when the session began and, before he could reach Dublin, he was informed, that, upon a complaint, the House had voted the last-mentioned book of his to be a blasphemous libel, and had ordered it to be burnt however, he took his seat in the house, where he sat only four days, before he was expelled for this performance, and being about the same time involved in a number of law-suits, his affairs soon grew much embarrassed in Ireland, so that he resolved to return to England, where, in 1705, he was chosen member for the borough of Bramber, in the county of Sussex, and sat for several years but in the interval of privilege in 1707, being taken in execution at the suit of Mr. Holland, he was committed to the Fleet. The houses meeting in November, Mr. Asgill applied and on the 16th of December was demanded out of custpdy by a serjeant at arms with the mace, and the next day took his seat in the house. Between his application and his discharge, complaint was made to the house of the treatise for which he had been expelled in Ireland, and a committee was appointed to examine it of this committee, Edward Harley, esq. was chairman, who made a report, that the book contained several blasphemous expressions, and seemed to be intended to ridicule the scriptures. Thursday, the 18th of September 1707, was appointed for him to make his defence, which he did with considerable spirit, but as he still continued to maintain the assertions he had laid down in that treatise, he was expelled. From this time, Mr. Asgill’s affairs grew more desperate, and he was obliged to retire, first to the Mint, and then became a prisoner in the King’s Bench, but removed himself thence to the Fleet, and in the rules of one or other of these prisons continued thirty years, during which time he published a multitude of mall political tracts, most of which were well received. He also drew bills and answers, and did other business in his profession till his death, which happened some time in November 1738, when he was upwards of fourscore, or, as some thought, upwards of an hundred years of age. The most considerable of his works are. 1. “De jure divino; or, an assertion, that the title of the house of Hanover to the succession of the British monarchy (on failure of issue of her present majesty), is a title hereditary, and of divine institution,” 1710, 8vo. 2. His “Defence on his Expulsion to which is added, an Introduction and Postscript,” 1712, 8vo. Of the first pamphlet there were several editions; and, not long after it was published, he sent abroad another treatise, under the title of “Mr. Asgill’s Apology for an omission in his late publication, in which are contained summaries of all the acts made for strengthening the protestant succession.” 3. a The Pretender’s declaration abstracted from two anonymous pamphlets, the one entitled Jus sacrum the other. Memoirs of the chevalier de St. George; with memoirs of two other chevaliers in the reign of Henry VII.“1713, 8vo. 4.” The succession of the house of Hanover vindicated, against the Pretender’s second declaration, in folio, entitled, The hereditary right of the crown of England asserted, &c.“1714, 8vo. This was in answer to Mr. Bedford’s famous book. 5.” The Pretender’s declaration from Plombiers, 1714, Englished; with a postscript before it in relation to Dr. Lesley’s letter sent after it,“1715, 8vo. Besides these, hewrotean” Essay for the Press,“the” Metamorphoses of Man,“”A question upon Divorce,“1717,” A treatise against Woolston," and several other pieces.

, LL.D. a dissenting minister at Pershore, in Worcestershire, of whom we have not been able to recover any particulars, was the author of some useful works. The first was “The easiest introduction to Dr. Lowth’s English Grammar,” 12mo, 1766. His next, “A new and complete Dictionary of the English Language,” 2 vols. 8vo, 1775, the plan bf which was extensive beyond any thing of the kind ever attempted, and perhaps embraced much more than was necessary or useful. It is valuable, however, as containing a very large proportion of obsolete words, and such provincial or cant words as have crept into general use. In 1777, he published “Sentiments on Education, collected from the best writers, properly methodized, and interspersed with occasional observations,” 2 vols. 12mo. In this there are few original remarks, but those few shew an acquaintance with the best principles of virtuous and useful education, in which, we have been informed, the author employed some part of his time. Dr. Ash died in the 55th year of his age at Pershore, March 1779.

, an English divine and antiquary, was born Dec. 5, 1724, in Red Lion street, Glerkenwell, and educated at Croydon, Westminster, and Eton schools. In October 1740, he was admitted of St. John’s college, Cambridge, and took his degrees, B. A. 1744, M. A. 1748, B.D. 1756. He was presented by a relation to the rectory of Hungerton, and in 1759 to that of Twyford, both in Leicestershire, but resigned the former in 1767, and the latter in 1769. In 1774 he was elected F. 8. A. and the same year accepted the college rectory of Barrow, in Suffolk, where he constantly resided for thirty-four years. In Oct. 1780, he was inducted into the living of Stansfield, in Suffolk, owing to the favour of Dr. Ross, bishop of Exeter, who, entirely unsolicited, gave him a valuable portion of the vicarage of Bampton, in Oxfordshire but this being out of distance from his college living, he procured an exchange of it for Stansfield. Dr. Ross’s friendship for him began early in college, and continued uniformly steady through all changes of place and situation. In 1793, he gradually lost his sight, but retained, amidst so severe a privation to a man of literary research, his accustomed chearfulness. In his latter days he had repeated paralytic attacks, of one of which he died, June 12, 1808, in the eighty-fourth year of his age. Mr. Ashby published nothing himself, but was an able and obliging contributor to many literary undertakings. In the Archaeologia, vol. III. is a dissertation, from his pen, on a singular coin of Nerva, found at Colchester. The Historian of Leicestershire has repeatedly acknowledged his obligations to Mr. Ashby, particularly for his dissertation on the Leicester milliary. His services have been also amply acknowledged by Mr. Nichols for assistance in the life of Bowyer by Mr. Harmeij in the preface to his “Observations on Scripture”; and by Dames Barrington, in his work on the Statutes, p. 212 but both the last without mentioning his name. The late bishop Percy, Mr. Granger, and Mr. Gough, have acknowledged his contributions more pointedly. His valuable library and manuscripts were sold by Mr. Deck, bookseller at Bury, by a priced catalogue.