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

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.

Here he executed his trust with so much satisfaction to Philip, that he admitted him into his confidence and counsels, an advantage which Aristotle is said have employed for the benefit of his friends and of the public, without any selfish views. He gained likewise the entire affection of his royal pupil, whom he instructed in all the learning of the age; and whose studies he directed in conformity to the prospects of a young, spirited, and ambitious prince. Immediately after the death of Philip, in the year 336 B. C. when Alexander formed the design of his Asiatic expedition, Aristotle returned to Athens, but not before he had prevailed on Alexander to employ his increasing power and wealth in the service of philosophy, by furnishing him, in his retirement, with the means of enlarging his acquaintance with nature. Alexander accordingly employed several thousand persons in different parts of Europe and Asia to collect animals of various kinds, and send them to Aristotle, who, from the information which this collection afforded him, wrote fifty volumes on the history of animated nature, ten of which are still extant. But a dispute which took place between Callisthenes, Aristotle’s nephew, who had accompanied Alexander, and that monarch, eventually produced a coolness, if not a total alienation, between Aristotle and his royal pupil.

Aristotle, upon his return to Athens, conceived the design of becoming a leader in philosophy, by founding a new sect, and chose for his school, the Lyceum, a grove in the suburbs of Athens, where he held daily conversation on subjects of philosophy with those who attended him, walking as he discoursed, whence his followers were called Peripatetics. According to the long-established practice of philosophers among the Grecians, Egyptians, and other nations, Aristotle had his public and his secret doctrine, the former of which he called the Exoteric, and the latter the Acroamatic or Esoteric. Hence he divided his auditors into two classes, to one of which he taught his Exoteric doctrine, discoursing on the principal subjects of logic, rhetoric, and policy; the other he instructed in the Esoteric, or concealed and subtle doctrine, concerning Being, Nature, and God. His more abstruse discourses he delivered in the morning to his select disciples, whom he required to have been previously instructed in the elements of learning, and to have discovered abilities and dispositions iuited to the study of philosophy. In the evening he delivered lectures to all young men without distinction; the former he called his Morning Walk, the latter his Evening Walk, and both were much frequented.

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.

If, without regard to the fictions either of calumny or panegyric, the merit of Aristotle be weighed in the equal balance of historical truth, it will, perhaps, be found, that neither were his virtues of that exalted kind which command admiration, nor his faults so highly criminal as not to admit of some apology. He may, perhaps, be justly censured for having taught his pupil Alexander, principles of morals and policy which were accommodated to the manners of a court, and which might easily be rendered subservient to his ambitious views. And it cannot be doubted that his philosophical doctrines concerning nature were not favourable to the public forms of religion. But neither his doctrine, nor his life, afford sufficient grounds for condemning him as the advocate of immorality or impiety.

As a writer, there can be no doubt that Aristotle is entitled to the praise of deep erudition. At the same time it must be owned, that he is frequently deserving of censure, for giving a partial and unfair representation of the opinions of his predecessors in philosophy, that he might the more easily refute them; and that he seems to have made it the principal object of his extensive reading, to depreciate the wisdom of' all preceding ages. In short, whilst in point of genius we rank Aristotle in the first class of men, and whilst we ascribe to him every attainment which, at the period in which he lived, indefatigable industry, united with superior abilities, could reach, we must add, that his reputation in philosophy is in some measure tarnished by a too daring spirit of contradiction and innovation; and in morals, by an artful conformity to the manners of the age in which he lived.

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.”

It has been doubted, however, by many critics whether all the works which bear his name are genuine. Brucker has given an interesting account of the way in which they have descended to modern times, according to which it appears, that they certainly have suffered much by the ignorance of transcribers and the carelessness of editors. A more obvious cause, too, of their inaccuracy, maybe found in the nature of maiiy of Aristotle’s writings, the subjects of which are in the highest degree abstruse and difficult to be comprehended. For an excellent analysis of his philosophy, we must refer to Brucker, vol. I. p. 268—288, which is illustrated by a profusion of references to authors whose writings will furnish the curious reader with every information he can desire.

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.

Although the philosophy of Aristotle no longer prevails in schools and seminaries, the attention of the English public has lately been directed to the critical and political works of the Stagyrite, by the translations and commentaries of some eminent living scholars. With respect to the “Poetics,” Dr. Warton’s opinion will not be thought overcharged, as that treatise has been revived with the eagerness of rivalship. The first English translation of the “Poetics,” which is rather literal than elegant, appeared in 1775, from an anonymous pen. In 1788, Henry James Pye, esq. the present Laureat, published a translation of the same in 8vo, and another came from the pen of Mr. Twining in 1789, in 4to, the latter accompanied with notes on the translation and original, and two dissertations on poetical and musical imitation. The appearance of this very learned work induced Mr. Pye to revise his translation, and in 1792, he published in 4to, “A Commentary illustrating the Poetic of Aristotle, by examples taken chiefly from the modern poets, and a new and corrected edition of the translation of the Poetic.” In both these works, the author and the subject are illustrated with great ability.

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 noble Milanese, applied to the study of law, and followed the profession at Pavia and Padua. He is the author of a “History of the Wars of Venice,” printed by Burmann, and of another of his native country, which he left in manuscript. The time of his death is not ascertained, but it appears he flourished towards the end of the fifteenth century. The works of his brother Peter, a learned physician, were published in folio, at Milan, in 1539.

, 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.

His character has been represented in various lights, but it appears upon the whole to have been without reproach. Bertius, Curcellaeus, Episcopius, and others, who were his followers, have amply vindicated him; but Hornbeck and some of the Calvinistic writers represent him as an apostate from his original principles. King James I. whose authority may not perhaps be thought of much consequence, reflected on him with great severity in his letter to the States of the United Provinces in 1611. His principles, however, obtained many friends in England, and during the seventeenth century the divines of England were in general attached to them, particularly after the time of Laud, and more openly after the restoration. Before this period, the Puritans, and afterwards the Nonconformists, adhered to the Calvinistic system. How far the articles of the church of England belong to the one or the other, has lately been the subject of a very elaborate and learned controversy, of which some notice will be taken under the article Calvin. In the mean time, we shall state the distinguishing tenets of the Arminians; but it must be remarked that among modern divines there are many shades of opinion, which renders it difficult to lay down any set of principles which shall be admitted by general conseut. The Arminians, however, hold, That God, from all eternity, determined to bestow salvation on those whom he foresaw would persevere unto the end; and to inflict everlasting punishments on those who should continue in their unbelief, and resist his divine succours; so that election is conditional, and reprobation, in like manner, the result of foreseen infidelity and persevering wickedness: That Jesus Christ, by his sufferings and death, made an atonement for the sins of all mankind in general, and of every individual in particular: but that none except those who believe in him can be partakers of divine benefits: That true faith cannot proceed from the exercise of our natural faculties and powers, nor from the force and operation of free will; since man, in consequence of his natural corruption, is incapable either of thinking or doing any good thing: and that, therefore, it is necessary, in order to his conversion and salvation, that he be regenerated and renewed by the operation of the Holy Ghost, which is the gift of God through Jesus Christ: That this divine grace or energy of the Holy Ghost begins and perfects every thing that can be called good in man, and consequently all good works are to be attributed to God alone; that nevertheless this grace is offered to all, and does not force men to act against their inclinations, but may be resisted and rendered ineffectual by the perverse will of the impenitent sinner: That God gives to the truly faithful who are regenerated by his grace the means of preserving themselves in this state, or, according to the more modern Arminians, the regenerate may lose true justifying faith, fall from a state of grace, and die in their sins.

The titles of Arminius’s writings are as follow: 1. “Disputationes de diversis Christianse religionis capitibus.” 2. “Orationes, itemque tractatus insigniores aliquot.” 3. “Examen modesti lihelli Gulielmi Perkinsii, de proedestinationis modo et ordine, itemque de amplitudine gratiae divimc.” 4. “Analysis capitis noni ad Romanos.” 5. “Dissertatio de vero et genuino sensu capitis septimi Epistolse ad Romanos.” 6. “Arnica collatio cum D. Francisco Junio de praeclestinatione per literas habita.” 7. “Epistola ad Hippolytum a collibus.” These were printed in 1629, at Leyden, and in 1635 at Francfort, 4to, and often afterwards.

, 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.

At what time he came to London is uncertain, but in 1135, he published an octavo pamphlet, without his name, entitled, “An Essay for abridging the study of physic: to which is added a Dialogue between Hygeia, Mercury, and Plato, relating to the practice of physic, as it is managed by a certain illustrious society: as also an Epistle from Usbech the Persian, to Joshua Ward, esq.” It is dedicated to the Antacademic philosophers, to the generous despisers of the schools, to the deservedly-celebrated Joshua Ward, John Moor, and the rest of the numerous sect of inspired physicians. The essay, which has been lately reprinted in Billy’s Repository, is an humorous attack on quacks and quackery, with allusions to the neglect of medical education among the practising apothecaries; but the author had exhausted his wit in it, and the dialogue and epistle are consequently flat and insipid.

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.

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.”

Dr. Armstrong’s fame as a poet must depend entirely on his “Art of preserving Health,” which, although liable to some of the objections usually offered against didactic poetry, is yet free from the weightiest; and in this respect he may be deemed more fortunate, as he certainly is superior to Phillips, Dyer, and Grainger. The art of preserving health is so different from those arts which are mechanical, that his muse is seldom invited to an employment beneath her dignity; the means of preserving health are so intimately connected with mind, and depend so much on philosophy, reflection, and observation, that the author has full scope for the powers of fancy, and for many of those ornamental flights which are not only pleasing, but constitute genuine poetry. In considering the varieties of air and exercise, he has seized many happy occasions for picturesque description, and when treating on the passions, he has many striking passages of moral sentiment, which are vigorous, just, and impressive. In Book II. on diet, we discover more judgment than poetical inspiration, and he seems to he aware that the subject had a natural tendency to lower his tone. He seems, therefore, intent in this book principally to render useful precepts familiar, and, if possible, to make them take hold of the imagination. There are, however, descriptive passages even here that are very grand. It would, perhaps, be difficult to select an image more finely conceived and uniformly preserved, than where he inculcates the simple precept that persons who have been exhausted for want of food ought not to indulge when plenty presents itself.

, 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.

In 1771, Dr. Arnold married the daughter of Dr. Arch. Napier, Mus. D. by whom he left two daughters and a son. The latter has already distinguished himself by much excellence both in music and painting.

, 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.

, of the same family as the preceding, became bishop of Urbino, where he died in 1504, in the sixty- third year of his age. He had been the scholar of Philelphus, under whom he studied the Greek language with great diligence. He wrote, 1. “Gonzagidos,” a Latin poem, in honour of Ludovico, marquis of Mantua, a celebrated general, who died in 1478. 2. “Latin epistles,” with those of James Piccolomini, called the cardinal of Pavia, printed at Milan in 1506. From his Gonzagidos, first printed by Meuschenius in his collection entitled “Vitae summorum dignitate et eruditione virorum,” vol. III. Cobourg, 1738, it appears that the author had been present at many of the victories and transactions which he there relates.

, a descendant of the same family, who died March 23, 173.9, practised with great reputation as a physician at Rome. He printed his “Poems” at Modena in 1717, and an academical dissertation, the title of which is, “La vera idea della Medicina,” Reggio, 1730, 4to.

, 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.

, an ancient geographer, who lived about 100 years B.C. wrote a “Description of the Earth,” which is often mentioned by Strabo and Pliny and the only fragments remaining are inserted in the first vol. of Hudson’s Minor Greek Geographers, Qxford, 1703.

, 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.

Ascham’s epistles were published by Mr. Grant, master of Westminster school, in 1576, 1577, 1578, and 1590, London; and there were two editions at Hanau, 1602, 1610; and one at Nuremberg, 1611. The last and best edition is that published by Mr. Elstob, Oxford, 1703, who has added many letters not in the former, but has omitted Ascham’s poems. The elegance of these letters has been universally acknowledged, and the life prefixed by Grant is the foundation of all we know of him. Many particulars, however, might yet be gleaned from his epistles. Ascham’s English works were published by the Rev. James Bennet, 1767, 4to, to which Dr. Johnson prefixed a life, written in his happiest manner, and since added to his works.

, 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.

, a Puritan minister, first settled in Staffordshire, where he became known to Hildersham, Dod, Ball, Langley, and other nonconformists of that time, was educated at Emanuel college, Cambridge, under Dr. Stooker. He exercised his ministry in London twenty-three years. In the time of the civil wars, he was chaplain to the earl of Warwick. As he was a man of fortune and character, his influence was great among the presbyterians. He was some time chaplain to the earl of Manchester, and fell under the displeasure of Cromwell’s party, whom he had disobliged by his violent opposition to the engagement. He had a very considerable hand in restoring Charles II. and went to congratulate his majesty at Breda. Dr. Calamy speaks of him as a man of real sanctity, and a non- conformist of the old stamp. He died in 1662, and was buried the eve of Bartholomew day. Dr. Walker censures him for his zeal against the characters of the clergy in general, in which he shares with many of his brethren. He published several sermons preached before the parliament, or the magistrates, on public occasions, and funeral sermons for Jeremy Whitaker, Ralph Robinson, Robert Strange, Thomas Gataker, Richard Vines, and the countess of Manchester, a treatise on “the power of Godliness,” and prefaces to the works of John Ball, and others.

, a Wiltshire gentleman, descended from the family of that name residing at Nashhill in that county, was born in 1565, and admitted a gentleman commoner of Hart hall in Oxford, in 1580. From the university he removed to the Middle Temple, where he was called to the dignity of barrister at law. After some time he travelled into Holland, France, &c. conversing with the learned, and frequenting the public libraries. Being returned into England, he lived many years in the Middle Temple, and honoured the commonwealth of learning with several of his lucubrations. He died in a good old age, the beginning of October 1641, and was buried in the Temple church the 4th of the same month. He gave several books to that society. His principal works were, 1. “A Relation of the kingdom of Cochin China,” Lond. 1633, 4to, which is chiefly taken from an Italian work of Christopher Barri. 2. A Translation from French into Latin verse of Du Bartas’s “Urania, or heavenly muse,” London, 1589, 4to. 3. A Translation from Spanish into English of “Au manzor, the learned and victorious king that conquered Spain, his life and death,” London, 1627, 4to. 4. A Translation from Italian into English of “II Davide perseguitate,” i.e. David persecuted, London, 1637, written originally by the marquis Virgilio Malvezzi. Wood tells us, that part of the impression of this book had a new title put to it, bearing date 1650, with the picture before it of Charles I. playing on a harp, like king David, purposely to carry off the remaining copies.

, an eminent philosopher, chemist, and antiquary, of the seventeenth century, and founder of the noble museum at Oxford, which still bears his name, was the only son of Mr. Simon Ashmole, of the city of Litchfield, in Staffordshire, sadler, by Anne, the daughter of Mr. Anthony Boyer, of Coventry, in Warwickshire, woollen-draper. He was born May 23, 1617, and during his early r education in grammar, was taught music, in which he made such proficiency as to become a chorister in the cathedral at Litchfield. When he had attained the age of sixteen he was taken into the family of James Paget, esq. a baron of the exchequer, who had married his mother’s sister, and as his father died in 1634, leaving little provision for him, he continued for some years in the Paget family, during which time he made considerable progress in the law, and spent his leisure hours in perfecting himself in music and other polite accomplishments. In March 1638, he married Eleanor, daughter of Mr. Peter Manwaring, of Smallwood, in the county Palatine of Chester, and in Michaelmas term the same year, became a solicitor in Chancery. On February 11, 1641, he was sworn an attorney of the court of common pleas, and on December 5th, in the same year, his wife died suddenly, of whom he has left us a very natural and affectionate memorial. The rebellion coming on, he retired from London, being always a zealous and steady loyalist, and on May 9, 1645, became one of the gentlemen of the ordnance in the garrison at Oxford, whence he removed to Worcester, where he was commissioner, receiver, and register of the excise, and soon after captain in the lord Ashley’s regiment, and comptroller of the ordnance. In the midst of all this business he entered himself of Brazen-Nose college, in Oxford, and applied himself vigorously to the sciences, but especially natural philosophy, mathematics, and astronomy; and his intimate acquaintance with Mr. (afterwards sir George) Wharton, seduced him into the absurd mysteries of astrology, which was in those days in great credit. In the month of July, 1646, he lost his mother, who had always been a kind parent to him, and for whom he had a very pious regard. On October 16th, the same year, be was elected a brother of the ancient and honourable society of Free and Accepted Masons, which he looked upon as a high honour, and has therefore given us a particular account of the lodge established at Warrington in Lancashire and in some of his manuscripts, there are very valuable collections relating to the history of the free masons. The king’s affairs being now grown desperate, Mr. Ashmole withdrew himself, after the surrender of the garrison of Worcester, into Cheshire, where he continued till the end of October, and then came up to London, where he became acquainted with Mr. (afterwards sir Jonas) Moore, William Lilly, and John Booker, esteemed the greatest astrologers in 'the world, by whom he was caressed, instructed, and received into their fraternity, which then made a very considerable figure, as appeared by the great resort of persons of distinction to their annual feast, of which Mr. Ashmole was afterwards elected steward. Jn 1647 he retired to Englefield, in Berkshire, where he pursued his studies very closely, and having so fair an opportunity, and the advantage of some very able masters, he cultivated the science of botany. Here, as appears from his own remarks, he enjoyed in privacy the sweetest moments of his life, the sensation of which perhaps was quickened, by his just idea of the melancholy state of the times. It was in this retreat that he became acquainted with Mary, sole daughter of sir William Forster, of Aldermarston, in the county of Berks, bart. who was first married to sir Edward Stafford, then to one Mr. Hamlyn, and lastly to sir Thomas Mainwaring, knt recorder of Reading, and one of the masters in chancery and an attachment took place but Mr. Humphrey Stafford, her second son, had such a dislike to the measure, that when Mr. Ashmole happened to be very ill, he broke into his chamber, and if not prevented, would have murdered him. In the latter end of 1648, lady Mainwaring conveyed to him her estate at Bradfield, which was soon after sequestered on account of Mr. Ashmole’s loyalty but the interest he had with William Lilly, and some others of that party, enabled him to get that sequestration taken off. On the sixteenth of November, 1649, he married lady Mainwaring, and settled in London, where his house became the receptacle of the most learned and ingenious persons that flourished at that time. It was by their conversation, that Mr. Ashmole, who hud been more fortunate in worldly affairs than most scholars are, and who had been always a curious collector of manuscripts, was induced to publish a treatise written by Dr. Arthur Dee, relating to the Philosopher’s stone, together with another tract on the same subject, by an unknown author. These accordingly appeared in the year following but Mr. Ashmole was so cautious, or rather modest, as to publish them by a fictitious name. He at the same time addressed himself to a work of greater consequence, a complete collection of the works of such English chemists, as had till then remained in ms. which cost him a great deal of labour, and for the embellishment of which he spared no expence, causing the cuts that were necessary, to be engraved at his own house in Black-Friars, by Mr. Vaughan, who was then the most eminent artist in that department in England. He imbibed this affection for chemistry from his intimate acquaintance with Mr. William Backhouse, of Swallowfield in the county of Berks, who was reputed an adept, and whom, from his free communication of chemical secrets, Mr. Ashmole was wont to call father, agreeably to the custom which had long prevailed among the lovers of that art, improperly, however, called chemistry for it really was the old superstition of alchemy. He likewise employed a part of his time in acquiring the art of engraving seuls, casting in sand, and the mystery of a working goldsmith. But all this time, his great work of publishing the ancient English writers in chemistry went on and finding that a competent knowlege of the Hebrew was absolutely necessary for understanding and explaining such authors as had written on the Hermetic science, he had recourse to rabbi Solomon Frank, by whom he was taught the rudiments of Hebrew, which he found very useful to him in his studies. At length, towards the close of the year 1652, his “Theatrum Chymicum Britannicum” appeared, which gained him great reputation in the learned world, as it shewed him to be a man of a most studious disposition, indefatigable application, and of wonderful accuracy in his compositions. It served also to extend his acquaintance considerably, and among others the celebrated Mr. Seiden took notice of him in the year 1653, encouraged his studies, and lived in great friendship with him to the day of his death. He was likewise very intimate with Mr. Oughtred, the mathematician, and with Dr. Wharton, a physician of great racter and experience. His marriage with lady -Main-waring, however, involved him in abundance of law-suits with other people, and at last produced a dispute between themselves, which came to a hearing on October 8, 1657, in the court of chancery, where serjeant Maynard having observed, that in eight hundred sheets of depositions taken on the part of the lady, there was not so much as a bad word proved against Mr. Ashrnole, her bill was dismissed, and she delivered back to her husband. He had now for some time addicted himself to the study of antiquity and records, which recommended him to the intimate acquaintance of Mr. (afterwards sir William) Dugdale, whom about this time he attended in his survey of the Fens, and was very useful to him in 'that excellent undertaking. Mr. Ashmole himself soon after took the pains to trace the Roman road, which in Antoninus’s Itinerary is called Bennevanna, from Weeden to Litchfield, of which he gave Mr. Dugdale an account, in a letter addressed to him upon that subject. It is very probable, that after his studies had thus taken a new turn, he lost somewhat of his relish for chemistry, since he discontinued the Theatrum Chemicum, which, according to his first design, was to have consisted of several volumes yet he still retained such a remembrance of it, as induced him to part civilly with the sons of art, by publishing a treatise in prose on the philosopher’s stone, to which he prefixed an admirable preface, in which he wishes to apologize for taking leave of these fooleries. In the spring of the year 1658, our author began to collect materials for his history of the order of the garter, which he afterwards lived to finish, and thereby rendered both the order and himself immortal, the just reward of the prodigious pains he took in searching records in the Tower, and elsewhere, comparing them with each other, and obtaining such lights as were requisite to render so perplexed a subject clear, and to reduce all the circumstances of such a vast body of history into their proper order. In September following he made a journey to Oxford, where he was extremely well received, and where he undertook to make a full and distinct description of the coins given to the public library by archbishop Laud, which was of great use to him in the works which he afterwards composed. He had lodged and boarded sometimes at a house in South Lambeth, kept by Mr. John Tradescant, whose father and himself hud been physic-gardeners there for many years, and had collected avast number of curiosities, which, after mature deliberation, Mr. Tradescant and his wife determined to bestow on Mr. Ashmole, and accordingly sealed and delivered a deed of gift for that purpose, on December 16, 1659. On the restoration of king Charles II. Mr. Ashmole was Dearly introduced into the presence and favour of his majesty, and on June 18, 1660, which was the second time he had the honour of discoursing with the king, he graciously bestowed upon him the place of Windsor herald. A few days after, he was appointed by the king to make a description of his medals, and had them delivered into his hands, and king Henry VHIth’s closet assigned for his use, being also allowed his diet at court. On August 21st, in the same year, he presented the three books which he had published, to his majesty, who, as he both loved and understood chemistry, received them very graciously. On September 3, he had a warrant signed for the office of commissioner of the excise, in consequence of a letter written by his majesty’s express command, to the earl of Southampton, then lord high-treasurer, by Mr. Se^ cretary Morris. About this time, a commission was granted to him as incidental to the care of the king’s medals, to examine the famous, or rather infamous, Hugh Peters, about the contents of the royal library which had fallen into his hands, and which was very carefully and punctually executed, but to very little purpose. On November 2d, he was called to the bar in Middle-Temple hall, and January 15, 1661, he was admitted a fellow of the Royal Society. On February 9th following, the king signed a warrant for constituting him secretary of Surinam in the West Indies. In the beginning of the year 1662, he was appointed one of the commissioners for recovering the king’s goods, and about the same time he sent a set of services and anthems to the cathedral church of Litchfield, in memory of his having been once a chorister there, and he gave afterwards twenty pounds towards repairing the cathedral. On June 27, 1664, the White Office was opened, of which he was appointed a commissioner. On Feb. 17, 1665, sir Edward By she sealed his deputation for visiting Berkshire, which visitation he began on the llth of March following, and on June 9, 1668, he was appointed by the lords commissioners of the treasury, accomptant-general, and country accomptant in the excise. His second wife, lady Main waring, dying, April 1, in the same year, he soon after married Mrs. Elizabeth Dugdale, daughter to his good friend sir William Dugdale, kht. garter king at arms, in Lincoln’s-inn chapel, on Novembers. The university of Oxford, in consideration of the many favours they had received from Mr. Ashmole, created him doctor of physic by diploma, July 19, 1669, which was presented to him on the 3d of November following, by Dr. Yates, principal of Brazen-Nose college, in the name of the university. He was now courted and esteemed by the greatest people in the kingdom, both in point of title and merit, who frequently did him the honour to visit him at his chambers in the Temple, and whenever he went his summer progress, he had the same respect paid him in the country, especially at his 'native town of Litchfield, to which when he came, he was splendidly entertained by the corporation. On May 8, 1672, he presented his laborious work on the most noble order of the garter, to his most gracious master king Charles II. who not only received it with great civility and kindness, but soon after granted to our author, as a mark of his approbation of the work, and of his personal esteem for him, a privy seal for 400 pounds out of the custom of paper. This was his greatest undertaking, and had he published nothing else, would have preserved his memory, as it certainly is in its kind one of the most valuable books in our language. On January 29, 1675, he resigned his office of Windsor herald, which by his procurement, was bestowed on his brother Dugdale, It was with great reluctancy that the earl marshal parted with him, and it was not long after, that he bestowed on him the character of being the best officer in his office. On the death of sir Edward Walker, garter king at arms, Feb_ 20, 1677, the king and the duke of Norfolk, as earl marshal, contested the right of disposing of his place, on which Mr. Ashmole was consulted, who declared in favour of the king, but with so much prudence and discretion as not to give any umbrage to the earl marshal. He afterwards himself refused this high office, which was conferred on his father-in-law sir -William Dugdale, for whom he employed his utmost interest. About the close of 1677, a proposal was made to Mr. Ashmole to become a candidate for the city of Litchfield, but finding himself poorly supported by the very persons who would have encouraged him to stand, he withdrew his pretensions. On the 26th of January, 1679, about ten in the morning, a fire began in the Middle Temple, in the next chambers to Mr. Aslimole’s,- by which he lost a library he had been collecting thirty-three years; but his Mss. escaped, by their being at his house in South Lambeth. He likewise lost a collection of 9000 coins, ancient and modern but his more valuable collection of gold medals were likewise preserved by being at Lambeth his vast repository of seals, charters, and other antiquities and curiosities, perished also in the flames. In 1683, the university of Oxford having finished a noble repository near the theatre, Mr. Ashmole sent thither that great collection of rarities which he had received from the Tradescants before-mentioned, together with such additions as he had made to them; and to this valuable benefaction he afterwards added that of his Mss. and library, which still remain a monument of his generous love to learning in general, and to the university of Oxford in particular. In the beginning of the year 1685, he was invited by the magistrates, and by the dean of Litchfield, to represent that corporation in parliament but upon king James’s intimating to him, by the lord Dartmouth, that he would take it kindly if he would resign his interest to Mr. Levvson, he instantly complied.

On the death of his father-in-law, sir William Dugdale, Jan. 10, 1686, Mr. Ashmole declined a second time the office of garter king at arms, and recommended his brother Dugdale, in which, though he did not fully succeed, yet he procured him the place of Norroy. This was one of the last public acts of his life, the remainder of which was spent in an honourable retirement to the day of his demise, which happened on May 18, 1692, in the seventy-sixth year of his age. He was undoubtedly a great benefactor to, and patron of, learning. His love of chemistry led him to preserve many valuable Mss. relating to that science, besides those that he caused to be printed and published. He was deeply skilled in history and antiquities, as sufficiently appears by his learned and laborious works, both printed and manuscripts. He was likewise a generous encourager and protector of such ingenious and learned men as were less fortunate in the world than himself, as appears by his kindness to sir'George Wharton in the worst of times, his respect to the memory of his friend Mr. John Booker, and the care he took in the education of the late eminent Dr. George Smalridge. His corpse was interred in the church of Lambeth in Surrey, May 26 1692, and a black marble stone laid over his grave, with a Latin inscription, in which, though there is much to his honour, there is nothing which exceeds the truth. He may be considered as one of the first and most useful collectors of documents respecting English antiquities, but the frequent application of the epithet genius to him, in the Biographia Britannica, is surely gratuitous. His attachment to- the absurdities of astrology and alchemy, and his association with Lilly, Booker, and other quacks and impostors of his age, must ever prevent his being ranked among the learned wise, although he never appears to have been a confederate in the tricks of Lilly and his friends, and certainly accumulated a considerable portion of learning and information on various useful topics. His benefaction to the university of Oxford will ever secure respect for his memory. It was towards the latter end of October 1677, that he made an offer to that university, of bestowing on it all that valuable collection of the Tradescants, which was so well known to the learned world, and which had been exceedingly improved since it came into his possession, together with all the coins, medals, and manuscripts of his own collecting, provided they would erect a building fit to receive them to which proposition the university willingly assented. Accordingly, on Thursday the 15th of May 1679, the first stone of that stately fabric, afterwards called Ashmole’s Museum, was laid on the west side of the theatre, and being finished by the beginning of March 1682, the collection was deposited and the articles arranged by Robert Plott, LL.D. who before had been intrusted with their custody. This museum was first publicly viewed, on the 2 1st of May following, by his royal highness James duke of York, his royal consort Josepha Maria, princess Anne, and their attendants, and on the 24th of the same month, by the doctors and masters of the university. In a convocation held on the 4th of June following (1683) a Latin letter of thanks, penned by him who was then deputy orator, being publicly read, was sent to Mr. Ashmole at South Lambeth, In July 1690, he visited the university with his wife, and was received with all imaginable honour, and entertained at a noble dinner in his museum; on which occasion Mr. Edward Hannes, A. M. the chemical professor, afterwards an eminent physician, made an elegant oration to him. His benefaction to the university was very considerably enlarged at his death, by the addition of his library, which consisted of one thousand seven hundred and fifty-eight books, of which six hundred and twenty were manuscripts, and of them three hundred and eleven folios, relating chiefly to English History, Heraldry, Astronomy, and Chemiftry, with a great variety of pamphlets, part of which had been sorted by himself, and the rest are methodized since, and a double catalogue made one classical, according to their various subjects, and another alphabetical. He bequeathed also to the same place, two gold chains and a medal, the one a filigreen chain of ninety links, weighing twenty-two ounces, with a medal of the elector of Brandenburg, upon which is the effigies of that elector, and on the reverse, a iHew of Straelsund, struck upon the surrender of that important city; a collar of S. S. with a medal of the king of Denmark; and a gold medal of the elector Palatine; and a George of the duke of Norfolk, worn by his grandfather when he was ambassador in Germany. All these he had received as acknowledgments of the honour which he had done the garter, by his labours on that subject. This museum has been since enriched by the Mss. of Anthony Wood, Aubrey, and others. It has been remarked as something extraordinary, that Mr. Ashmole was never knighted for his services as a herald. It is perhaps as extraordinary that the university of Oxford bestowed on him the degree of doctor of physic, who never regularly studied or practised in that faculty, unless we conceive it as a compliment to his chemical studies.

Mr. Ashmole' s published and unpublished works are, 1. The work above mentioned, published under a fictitious name, “Fasciculus Chemicus or, chymical collection, expressing the ingress, progress, and egress, of the secret Hermetick science, out of the choicest and most famous authors. Whereunto is added, the arcanum, or grand secret of Hermetick philosophy. Both made English by James Hasolle, esq. qui est Mercuriophilus Anglicus,” London, 1650, 12mo, with a hieroglyphical frontispiece, representing the mystic absurdities of the alchy mists.

2. “Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum, containing several poetical pieces of our famous English philosophers, who have written the Hermetique mysteries, in their own ancient language. Faithfully collected into one volume, with annotations thereon, by Elias Ashmole, esq. qui est Mercuriophilus Anglicus,” London, 1652, 4to. The authors published in this collection are, Thomas Norton’s ordinal of Alchemic~ George Rrpley’s compound of Alchemic; Pater Sapientice, i.e. the father of wisdom, by an anonymous writer; Hermes’ s Bird, written originally in Latin, by Raymund Lully, and done into English verse by Abbot Cremer, of Westminster; Sir Geoffrey Chaucer’s Chanons Yeoman’s tale Dastin’s Dream, which seems to be a version of the Latin poem of John Dastm, entitled his Vision Pearce, the black monk, on the Elixir Richard Carpenter’s work, which some think, and not without reason, ought rather to be ascribed to John Carpenter, bishop of Worcester, who was one of the best chemists of his time Hunting of the Green Lion, by Abraham Andrews but there is also a spurious piece with the same title Breviary of Natural Philosophy, by Thomas* Charnock Ænigmas, by the same person Bloomfield' s Blossoms, which is likewise entitled the Camp of Philosophy, by William Bloomfield Sir Edward Kelle’s work his letter to G. S. Gent. (It is somewhat strange that this gentleman’s name, even by Mr. Ashmole, is written Keiley, though sir Edward himself wrote it Kelle.) Dr. John Dee’s Testament, which appears to be an epistle to one John Gwin, written A. D. 1568, and a third letter, the first two being wanting; Thomas Robinson, of the Philosopher’s Stone Experience and Philosophy, by an anonymous author the Magistery, by W. B. i. e. William Bloomfield John Gower, on the Philosopher’s Stone George Ripley’s Vision verses belonging to Ripley’s Scrowle Mystery of Alchymists preface to the Medulla of George Ripley; Secreta Secretorum, by John Lydgate Hermit’s Tale, anonymous description of the Stone the Standing of the Glass, for the time of the putrefaction and congelation of the medicine Ænigma Philosophicum, by William Bedman Fragments by various authors. 3. “The Way to Bliss, in three books, made public by Elias Ashmole, esq; qui est Mercuriophilus Anglicus,” London, 1658, 4to. This was the work in which he took his leave of the astrologers and aichymists, and bestowed his attention on the studies which produced, 4. “The Institution, Laws, and Ceremonies of the most noble Order of the Garter. Collected and digested into one body by Elias Ashmole, of the Middle Temple, esq. Windesore herald at arms. A work furnished with variety of matter relating to honour and noblesse” London, 1672, folio. He was not only so happy as to receive those extraordinary marks of the sovereign’s favour, mentioned above, but was complimented in an obliging manner by his royal highness the duke of York; who, though then at sea against the Dutch, sent for his book by the earl of Peterborough, and afterwards told our author he was extremely pleased with it. The rest of the knights-companions of the most noble order received him and his book with much respect and civility, and the regard shown him abroad was more singular. It was reposited, by the then pope, in the library of the Vatican. King Christie of Denmark, sent him, in 1674, a gold chain and- medal, which, with the king’s leave, he wore on certain high festivals. FredericWilliam, elector of Brandenburg!), sent him the like present, and ordered his boot to be translated into High Dutch. He was afterwards visited by the elector Palatine’s, the grand duke of Tuscany’s, and other foreign princes’ ministers, to return him thanks for this book, which he took care should be presented them, and thereby spread the fame of the garter, the nation, and himself, all over Europe. Yet it does not appear that this laborious and exquisite performance advanced at all the design he had formed some years before, of being appointed historiographer to the order, to which proposal some objections were made, and by our author fully answered, although we find no mention of this circumstance in any memoirs of Mr. Ashmole hitherto extant. 5, “The Arms, Epitaphs,. Feuestral Inscriptions, with the draughts of the Tombs, &c. in all the churches in Berkshire.” It was penned in 1666, and the original visitation taken in the two preceding years, in virtue of his deputatien from sir Edward Byshe, elariencieux king at arms, and published under the title of “The Antiquities of Berkshire,” 3 vols. 8vo, 1717, 1723, and at Reading in 1736, fol. 6. “Familiarum iilustrium Imperatorumque Romanorum Numismata Oxonire in Bodleianae Bibliotbecoe Archivis descripta et explanata.” This work was finished by the author in 1659, and given by him to the public library in Oxford, in 1666, in 3 vols, folio, as it was fitted for the press. 7. “A description and explanation of the Coins and Medals belonging to king Charles II.” a folio ms. in the king’s cabinet. 8. “A brief ceremonial of the Feast of St. George, held at Whitehall 1661, with other papers relating to the Order.” 9. “Remarkable Passages in the year 1660, set down by Mr. Elias Ashmole.” 10. “An account of the Coronation of our Kings, transcribed from a ms. in the king’s private closet.” 11 “The proceedings on the day of the Coronation of king Charles II.” mentioned by Anthony Wood, as printed in 1672, but he owns he never saw it. 12. “The Arms, Epitaphs, &c. in some churches and houses in Staffordshire,” taken when he accompanied sir William Dugdale in his visitation. 13. “The Arms, Epitaphs, Inscriptions, &c. in Cheshire, Shropshire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, &c.” taken at the same time. Bishop Nicolson mentions his intention to write the history and antiquities of his native town of Litchfield. 14. “Answers to the objections urged.against Mr. Ashmole’s being made historiographer to the order of the Garter,” A. D. 1662. 15. “A Translation of John Francis Spina’s book of th Catastrophe of the World; to which was subjoined, Ambrose Merlin’s Prophecy.” It is doubtful whether this was ever published. What, indeed, he printed, was but a very small part of what he wrote, there being scarcely any branch of our English history and antiquities, on which he has not left us something valuable, of his own composing, in that vast repository of papers, which make several folios in his collection of Mss. under the title of, 16. CoU lections, Remarks, Notes on Books, and Mss. a wonderful proof of industry and application. 17. “The Diary of his Life,” written by himself, which was published at London, 1717, in 12mo, with the following title “Memoirs of the life of that learned antiquary, Elias Ashmole, esq. drawn up by himself by way of diary, with an appendix of original letters. Published by Charles Burman, esquire.” The copy from whence these papers were published, was in the hand-writing of Dr. Robert Plott, chief keeper of the Ashmolean museum at Oxford, and secretary of the Royal Society, and was transcribed by him for the use of a near relation of Mr. Ashmole’s, a private gentleman in Staffordshire. They had been collated a few years before, by David Perry, M. A. of Jesus’ college in Oxford. The appendix* contains a letter of thanks, dated January 26, 1666, from the corporation at Litchfield, upon the receipt of a silver bowl presented to them by Mr. Ashmole a preface to the catalogue of archbishop Laud’s medals, drawn up by Mr. Ashmole, and preserved in the public library at Oxford a letter from Dr. Thomas Barlow, afterwards bishop of Lincoln, to Mr. Ashmole, dated December 23, 1668, on the present of his books, describing archbishop Laud’s cabinet of medals a letter from John Evelyn, esq. to recommend Dr. Plott to him for reader in natural philosophy, and another from Mr. Joshua Barnes, dated from Emanuel college, Cambridge, October 15, 1688, wherein he desires Mr. Ashmole’s pardon, for having reflected upon his Order of the Garter, in his own history of king Edward III. with Mr. Ashmole’s answer to that letter, dated October 23 following. It is from this diary, which abounds in whimsical and absurd memoranda, that the dates and facts in his life have been principally taken.

, one of the most learned critics of his age, was a native of Derbyshire, where he was born about 1665. He was admitted of Queen’s college, Cambridge, May 18, 1682, and having taken his degree of B. A. was elected fellow of that college, April 30, 1687, to be admitted to profits upon a future vacancy, which did not happen till April 9, 1690. He became chaplain to bishop Patrick, by whom he was presented to the rectory of Rattenden in Essex, March 10, 1698-9, which living he exchanged, in June following, for a chaplainship of Chelseacollege or hospital and that preferment also he soon after quitted, on being collated by his patron to a prebendal stall in the cathedral of Ely, July 3, 1701, and the next day to the mastership of Jesus’ college, Cambridge, both vacant by the death of Dr. Say well the same year he proceeded to his degree of D. D. and was elected vice-chancellor of the university in 1702. His mastership and prebend (both of which he was in possession of above fifty years) were the only preferments he held afterwards, not choosing to accept of any parochial benefice, but leading a very retired and studious life in his college, except when statutable residence, and attendance at chapters, required his presence at Ely, on which occasions he seldom or never failed to be present, till the latter part of his life. He died in March 1752, in the eighty-seventh year of his age, and was buried in Jesus’ college chapel. He had great knowledge in most branches of literature, but particularly in ecclesiastical antiquities and in chronology. In the classics he was critically skilled. Dr. Taylor always spoke with rapture of his correction of the inscription to Jupiter Urios, which he considered as uncommonly felicitous anct Mr. Chishull on the same occasion calls him “Aristarchus Cantabrigiensis summe eruditus.” There were many valuable pieces of his published in his life-time, but without his name, among which are “Locus Justini Martyris emendatus in Apol. I. p. 11. ed. Thirlby,” in the Bibliotheca Literaria, published by the learned Mr. Wasse of Aynho, Northamptonshire, 1744, No. VIII. “Tully and Hirtius reconciled as to the time of Caesar’s going to the African war, with an account of the old Roman year made by Ceesar,” ib. No. III. p. 29. “Origen de Oratione,” 4to, published by the Rev. Mr. Reading, keeper of Sion college library“and he is also supposed to have contributed notes to Reading’s edition of the Ecclesiastical Historians, 3 vols. fol.” Hierpclis in Aurea Carmina Pythagorea Comment." Lond. 1742, 8vo, published with a preface by Dr. Richard Warren, archdeacon of Suffolk. Dr. Harwood pronounces this to be the best edition of a most excellent work that abounds with moral and devotional sentiments. After his death a correct edition of Justin Martyr’s Apologies was published from his Mss. by the Rev. Mr. Keller, fellow of Jesus’ college, Cambridge, and rector of Kelshali in Herefordshire. It is too honourable for the parties not to be mentioned, that it used to be observed, that all the other colleges, where the fellows chuse their master, could not show three such heads, as the only three colleges where the masters are put in upon them: viz. Bentley of Trinity, by the crown; Ashton of Jesus, by the bishop of Ely; and Waterland of Magdalen, by the earl of Suffolk.

, a clergyman in the time of the usurpation, was the son of Thomas Ashton, and born at Teuerdly in Lancashire, in 1631. At sixteen years of age, he was admitted a servitor of Brazen-nose college in Oxford, and took the degree of B. A. February 7, 1650. He was chosen fellow of his college, and took holy orders. Mr. Wood tells us, he was a “forward and conceited scholar,” and “became a malapert preacher in and near Oxford.” Being appointed to preach at St. Mary’s, on Tuesday (a lecture-day) July 25, 1654, he gave so great effence by a very indecent sermon, that he was in a fair way of expulsion but, by the intercession of friends, the matter was compromised yet he was obliged, about two years after, to quit his fellowship upon some quarrel which he had with Dr. Greenwood, principal of his house. In 1656, he was intrusted with a commission from the protector to be chaplain to the English forces in the island of Jersey, but was soon after displaced upon the arrival of a new governor. After the king’s restoration, he was beneficed somewhere near Hertford in Hertfordshire; where, Mr. Wood says, “he soon after finished his restless course. 111 He published, 1.” Blood-thirsty Cyrus unsatisfied with blood; or, the boundless cruelty of an Anabaptist’s tyranny, manifested in a letter of colonel John Mason, governor of Jersey, 3d Nov. 1659; wherein he exhibits seven false, ridiculous, and scandalous articles against quartermaster William Swan," &c. London, 1659, in one sheet 4to. 2. “Satan in Samuel’s Mantle, or, the cruelty of Germany, acted in Jersey; containing the arbitrary, bloody, and tyrannical proceedings of John Mason, of a baptised church, commissionated to be a colonel, and sent over into the island of Jersey, governor, in July 1656, against several officers and soldiers in that small place,” &c. London, 1659, in four sheets in 4to.

, an English divine, the son of Dr, Ashton, usher of the grammar school at Lancaster (a place of only thirty-two pounds per annum, which he held for near fifty years), was born in 1716, educated at Eton, and elected thence to King’s college, Cambridge, 1733. He was the person to whom Mr. Horace Walpole addressed his epistle from Florence, in 1740, under the title of “Thomas Ashton, esq. tutor to the earl of Plymouth.” About that time, or soon after, he was presented to the rectory of Aldingham in Lancashire, which he resigned in March 1749; and on the 3d of May following was presented by the provost and fellows of Eton to the rectory of Sturminster Marshall in Dorsetshire. He was then M. A. and had been chosen a fellow of Eton in December 1745. In 1752 he was collated to the rectory of St. Botolph, Bishopsgate; in 1759 took the degree of D. D. and in May 1762, was elected preacher at Lincoln’s Inn, which he resigned in 1764. In 1770 he published, in 8vo, a volume of sermons on several occasions to which was prefixed an excellent metzotinto by Spilgbury, from an original by sir Joshua Reynolds, and this motto, “Insto pnepositis, oblitus praeteritorum.” Dr. Ashton died March 1, 1775, at the age of fifty-nine, after having for some years survived a severe attack of the palsy. His discourses, in a style of greater elegance than purity, were rendered still more striking by the excellence of his delivery. Hence he was frequently prevailed on to preach on public and popular occasions. He printed a sermon on the rebellion in 1745, 4to, and a thanksgiving sermon on the close of it in 1746, 4to. la 1756, he preached before the governors of the Middlesex hospital, at St. Anne’s, Westminster a commencement sermon at Cambridge in 1759; a sermon at the annual meeting of the chanty schools in 1760; one before the House of Commons on the 30th of January 1762; and a spital sermon at St. Bride’s on the Easter Wednesday in that year. All these, with several others preached at Eton, Lincoln’s inn, Bishopsgate, &c. were collected by himself in the volume above mentioned, which is closed by a “Clerum habita Cantabrigige in templo beatae Mariae, 1759, pro gradu Doctoratus in sacra theologii.” His other publications were, 1. “A dissertation on 2 Peter i. 19,” 1750, 8vo. 2. In 1754, the Rev. Mr. Jones of St. Saviour’s, delivered a sermon at Bishopsgate-churcb, which being offensive to Dr. Ashton, he preached against it; and an altercation happening between the two divines, some pamphlets were published on the occasion, one of which, entitled “A letter to the Rev. Mr. Thomas Jones, intended as a rational and candid answer to his sermon preached at St. Botolph, Bishopsgate,” 4to, was probably by Dr. Ashton. 3. “An extract from the case of the obligation of the electors of Eton college to supply all vacancies in that society with those who are or have been fellows of King’s college, Cambridge, so long as persons properly qualified are to be had within that description,” London, 1771, 4to, proving that aliens have no right at all to Eton fellowships, either by the foundation, statutes, or archbishop Laud’s determination in 1636. This is further proved in, 4. “A letter to the Rev. Dr. M. (Morell) on the question of electing aliens into the vacant places in Eton college. By the author of the Extract,” 1771, 4to. 5. “A second letter to Dr. M.” The three last were soon after re-published under the title of “The election of aliens into the vacancies in Eton college an unwarrantable practice. To which are now added, two letters to the Rev. Dr. Morell, in which the cavils of a writer in the General Evening Post, and others, are considered and refuted. Part I. By a late fellow of King’s college, Cambridge.” London, 1771, 4to. Part II. was never published. He lived long in habits of intimacy with Horace Walpole, afterwards earl of Orford, who, Mr. Cole informs us, procured him the Eton fellowship but a rupture separated them. Mr. Cole adds, what we have some difficulty in believing, that the “Sermon on Painting,” in lord Orford’s works, was preached by Dr. Ashton at Houghton, before the earl of Orford (sir Robert Walpole) in 1742.

, rector of Hanwell, near Banbury in Oxfordshire, was the son of Robert Ashwell of Harrow on the Hill, in Middlesex, and was born in the parish of St. Martin, Ludgate, London, Nov. 18, 1612. He was admitted a scholar of Wadham college, Oxford, in 1627, took the degrees in arts, was elected fellow, and became a celebrated tutor in that house. In the time of the great rebellion he continued in Oxford, and preached several times before the king, court, and parliament. A little before the surrender of the garrison of Oxford, he had the degree of B. D. conferred upon him and about the latter end of 1658 he was presented to the living of Hanwell, having been before, as Mr. Wood thinks, chaplain in the family of sir Anthony Cope, lord of the manor of Hanwell. He had the character of a very peaceable and religious man, and was well versed in logic, the schoolmen, and fathers. He wrote, 1 “Fides Apostolica, or, a discourse asserting the received authors and authority of the Apostles’ Creed,” Oxon, 1653, 8vo; to which was added a double appendix, the first touching the Athanasian, the second the Nicene creed. Baxter, who, in his “Reformed Pastor,” had advanced some things against this work, expressed his regret afterwards, in his “Catholic Theology,” for having said any thing against it. 2. “Gestus Eucharisticus, concerning the Gesture to be used at the receiving the Sacrament,” Oxon. 1663, 8vo. 3. “De Socino et Socinianismo a treatise on the Socinian heresy,” said to be part of a greater work in manuscript. 4. “De Ecclesia, &c. a dissertation concerning the church of Rome;” also a part of his great work on Controversies, published at Oxford, 1688, 4to. 5. “An Answer to Plato Redivivus,” in manuscript. He also translated, from Pocock’s edition, “Philosophus Autodidactus, sive Epistola Abi Gioaphar Ebn Tophail de Hai Ebn Yokdan,” &c. Lond. 1686, 8vo. Our author died at Hanwell, Feb. 8, 1693, and was buried in the church of that place, of which he had been thirty-­five years rector.

, a dissenting minister, was born in Northamptonshire 1709, and served an apprenticeship to a carpenter but having a taste for learning, he was entered a student in the academy kept by Dr. Doddridge, where he made great proficiency in all sorts of useful knowledge. He was afterwards ordained minister of a dissenting congregation at Daventry; and became master of the academy kept by the excellent Dr. Doddridge, by the doctor’s express desire in his will. He died much respected at Daventry, 1774, aged sixty-five. His principles are said to have been those of moderate Calvinism. He published three “Funeral Sermons,” on the deaths of Dr. Watts, Mr. Floyd, and Mr. Clark a “Collection of Tunes and Anthems;” a “Hebrew Grammar;” and an “Introduction to Plane Trigonometry.”

, count de Camerano, a nobleman ef Asti in Piedmont, flourished about 1550. In his youth he followed the profession of arms, and was sent by the duke of Savoy, with four hundred men, to assist Maximilian II. when he held a diet to oppose the army of Soliman, an event which is said to have been commemorated by a medal, with the inscription, “Fredericus Asinarius co. Camerani.” Asinari amused his leisure hours with poetry, and submitted his compositions to the celebrated Annibal Caro and they were afterwards published in various collections. 1 “Two Sonnets,” in the second part of the “Scelta di Rime di diversi excellenti Poeti,” by Zabata, 1579, 12mo. 2. “Four Canzoni, and a Sonnet,” in the “Muse Toscane” of Gherard Borgogni, 1594, 8vo. 3. “Eighty-two pieces, sonnets, canzoni, madrigals,” &c. in Borgogni’s “Rime di diversi illustri Poeti,” Venice, 1599, 12mo. Among his other works, which remain in manuscript, there are, in the library of Turin, “Vari Sonetti e Canzoni” “II Tancredi,” a tragedy “Tre libri delle transformazioni” and “Tre libri dell‘ via d’Orlando.” Copies of these are also in the library of St. Mark at Venice. The tragedy of Tancred was printed at Paris, 1587, 8vo, under the title of “Gismonda,” one of the dramatis persons, and attributed to Torquato Tasso. Next year an edition was printed at Bergamo, 4to, in which this error was corrected, but another substituted by stating, that it was the performance of Ottavio Asinari, the father of our author and the editor, Gherard Borgogni, either was; or affected to be ignorant of the edition previously printed at Paris.

, daughter of sir William Askew, of Kelsay, in Lincolnshire, knight, was born in 1529. She received a liberal and learned education, and manifested in early life a predilection for theological studies. Her eldest sister, after having been contracted in marriage to the son of Mr. Kyme, of Lincolnshire, died before the nuptials were completed. Her father, on this event, unwilling to lose a connection which promised pecuniary advantages, compelled his second daughter Anne, notwithstanding her reluctance, to become the wife of Mr. Kyme, a marriage which probably laid the foundation of her future misfortunes. Her husband was a bigoted Roman Catholic, while she, by studying the scriptures and the opinions of the reformers, became a convert, which so disgusted him that he turned her out of doors. Conceiving herself, by this treatment, at liberty to sue for a separation, she came to London, where she was favourably received by some of the ladies of the court, and by the queen, who secretly favoured the reformed religion. But at length she was accused, by her husband and the priests, of holding heretical opinions respecting the sacrament and, in 1545, was apprehended, and repeatedly examined by Christopher Dare, the lord mayor, the bishops, chancellor, and others, to whose questions she replied in a firm, easy, and unconstrained manner, and even with some degree of wit and ridicule. She was then committed to prison for eleven days, and prohibited from any communication with her friends. During this confinement, she employed herself in composing prayers and meditations, and in fortifying her resolution to endure the trial of her principles.

On the 23d of March, a relation, who had obtained permission to visit her, endeavoured to bail her, and his earnest application to the mayor, to the chancellor, and to Bonner, the bishop of London, was at length successful. On this occasion she was brought before the bishop, who affected concern for what she had suffered, while he endeavoured to entrap her by ensnaring questions. Mr. Britagne, her relation, and Mr. Spilman, of Gray’s inn, became her sureties. But a short time after, she was again apprehended, and summoned before the king’s council, at Greenwich, when Wriothesely the chancellor, Gardiner bishop of Winchester, and other prelates, once more ques ­tioned her on the doctrines of the church of Rome. She replied with firmness, and without prevarication, and ou finding her impracticable, her judges determined on other measures, and remanded her to Newgate, though she was at the time suffering under a severe indisposition. Having entreated, in vain, to be allowed a visit from Dr. Latimer, she addressed a letter to tke king himself, declaring “That respecting the Lord’s supper, she believed as much as had been taught by Christ himself, or as the Catholic church required.” But' still refusing her assent to the popish meaning, her letter served only to aggravate her crime. She then wrote to the chancellor, inclosing her address to the king, but with no better success. From Newgate she was conveyed to the Tower, where she was interrogated respecting her patrons at court with several ladie^of whiph she held a correspondence, but, heroically maintaining her fidelity, she refused to make any discoveries of that kind. This magnanimity, so worthy of admiration, so incensed her barbarous persecutors, that they endeavoured by the rack to extort from her what she had refused to their demands, but she sustained the torturewith unshaken fortitude and meek resignation. Wriothesely, with unmanly and infernal rage, commanded, with menaces, the lieutenant of the Tower to strain the instrument of his vengeance, and when he refused, he himself became executioner, and every limb of the innocent victim was dislocated. When recovered from a swoon into which she fell, she remained sitting two hours on the bare ground, calmly reasoning with her tormentors, who were confounded by her courage and resolution. Pardon was afterwards offered if she would recant, but having rejected every offer of the kind, she was condemned to be burnt at the stake, which was accordingly executed, July 16, 1546. She bore this inhuman punishment with amazing courage and firmness, adhering to the last to the principles of her faith.

, M. D. an excellent scholar and promoter of literature, was born at Kendal in Westmoreland, in 1722. His father, Dr. Adam Askew, was in such high estimation at Newcastle, that he was considered as another Radcliffe, and consulted by all the families of consequence for many miles round. Anthony was educated at Sedburgh school, and from thence removed to Emanuel college, in Cambridge, where he continued until he took his degree of B. A. in December 1745. He then went to Leyden, and resided there twelve months, with the view of being initiated into the science of medicine. In the following year we find him in the suite of his majesty’s ambassador at Constantinople. Returning from thence through Italy, he came to Paris in 1749, and was admitted a member of the academy of belles lettres. He had here an opportunity of purchasing a considerable number of rare and valuable Mss. and printed books in the classics, and in various branches of science, and of laying the foundation of an elegant and extensive library, which soon after his death was sold by Baker and Leigh, Tavistock-street, for upwards of 5000l.

Having finished his travels, he returned to Cambridge, and in the year 1750 commenced M. D. He was soon after admitted fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, and of the Royal Society, in London. What time could be afterwards spared from attending his professional engagements was dedicated to the conversation of literary men, and to increasing and arranging his collection of books. He died at Hampstead, in the neighbourhood of London, Feb. 27, 1774. Amongst his books and Mss. was a complete collection of the editions of Æschylus, some illustrated with ms notes, and likewise one or two, if not more, Mss. of the same author; which were collected purposely for the intention of publishing at some future period an edition of JEschylus. In 1746, he printed a specimen of this intended edition in a small quarto pamphlet under the following title “Novae Editionis Tragoediarum Æschyli Specimen, curante Antonio Askew, M. B. Coll. Emman. apud Cantabrigienses hand ita pridem socio commensal!, Lugduni Batavorum, 1746.” This pamphlet, which is now become extremely scarce, was dedicated to Dr. Mead, and consisted only of twenty-nine lines, namely, from v. 563 to v. 596 of the Eumenides (edit. Schultz). It contained various readings from his Mss. and printed books, and the Notse Variorum. Dr. Askew was indeed reckoned one of the best Grecians in England. Dr. Taylor, usually called Demosthenes Taylor, was his great friend, from a similarity of taste and study, and left him his executor, and heir to his noble collection of books and manuscripts.

, a Swiss painter, was born 1499, at Zurich, and painted portraits with so much life, nature, and character, that his reputation was little inferior to that of Holbein. His drawings in water-colours, of birds, fishes, dead game, and flowers, though done with great simplicity and freedom, are nearly deceptions. He is said to have furnished the designs for Conrad Gesner’s “Historia Animalium” nor was he ignorant of historic composition. Many of Rodolph Meyer’s etchings for Murer’s ' Helvetia Sancta" were drawn from his originals. To record his merit, a medal was struck, with his head, name, and age, in front and on the reverse, a death’s skull, with a moral sentence in rhyme. That he should have been suffered, after such a pledge of public esteem, to live and die in indigence, is not easily accounted for. He died in 1571.

, doctor of theSorbonne, and provisor of the college of Harcourt, was born at Vire in 1682. He was the scholar of Thomas Corneille, and the friend of la Motte-Houdar, and appointed principal of the college of Harcourt. He died at Issy, October 11, 1767, at the age of eighty-five. He had borne off the prize of poetry at the French academy in 1709, and those of the idyllium and the poem at the floral games in 1711. The ode on the existence of God, and the immortality of the soul, is his best performance. His poems crowned at the academic Franchise, and at that of the jeux^floreau, add less lustre to his name, as his versification is low, and his style deficient in force and ornament. But Asseliri distinguished for his zeal in behalf of letters, and his adherence to integrity. His poetical works, and an address to the deists in behalf of truth, were published at Paris, 1725, 8vo.

, a Flemish painter, was born at Antwerp in 1610, and was a disciple of Esaias Vandervelde, and under the guidance of so able a master, he became an excellent painter of landscape. His companions nicknamed him Crabbetje, from a crooked turn in his fingers and his hand, which caused him to hold his pallet with some degree of awkwardness. And yet, by the lightness, freedom, and spirit of his touch, it could not be supposed that his hand had the smallest imperfection. He was one of the first Flemish painters who adopted the clean and bright manner of landscape painting. He studied after nature in the country about Rome, improving his taste by the delightful situations of towns, villas, antiquities, figures, and animals, which he sketched upon paper, to make a proper use of them in his designs. In the style of his landscape he chose particularly to imitate Claude Lorraine but in other parts of his painting he seemed fond of making Bamboccio his model. He enriched his landscapes with the vestiges of noble buildings, and the views of such seats as he observed to be beautiful, by their situation or construction. His colouring is extremely bright and clear his skies are warm his touch is free and firm his figures and animals are w r ell drawn, and judiciously disposed and his pictures justly merit the approbation which they have always received.

Of the personal history of this artist very little is known. He married at Lyons in 1645, the daughter of a merchant of Antwerp, who happened accidentally to be in that place, and died at Amsterdam in 1660, in the fiftieth year of his age. Perelle has engraved some of his landscapes, and of his Italian ruins.

, keeper of the Vatican, and archbishop of Tyre, who died at Rome in his eightieth year, Jan. 14, 1768, was a very able scholar in the languages of the East. During the years from 1719 to 1728, he published a work of great importance to the collectors of Oriental manuscripts, in the manner of Herbelot, entitled “Bibliotheca Orientalis, Clementino-Vaticana, recensens, manuscriptos codices, Syriacos, Arabicos, &c. jussu et munificentia Clem. XI.” Rome, 1719—1728, 4 vols. fol. He published also, 2. An edition of the works of EphremSyrus, Rome, 1732—1734, 6 vols. fol. 3. “De Sanctis Ferentinis in Tuscia Bonifacio ac Redempto episcopis, &c. dissertatio,” Rome, 1745. 4. “Italicae historiae scrip tores ex Bibl. Vatic. &c. collegit et prgefat. notisque illustravit J. S. Assemanus,” Rome, 1751—1753, 4 vols. 4to. 5. “Kalendaria ecclesise universas,” Rome, 1755— 1757, 6 vols. 4to. His edition of Ephrem is by far the best.

, nephew of the preceding, and archbishop of Apamea, succeeded his uncle in the charge of the Vatican library, and became equally celebrated as an eastern scholar and a man of general learning. His works are, 1. “Bibliothecae Mediceo-Laurentianse et Palatinoe codicum manuscr. Orientalium catalogus,” Florence, 1742, 2 vols. fol. with notes by Gori. 2. “Acta sanctorum martyrum Orientalium et Occidentalium &c. Rome, 1748, 2 vols. fol. In conjunction with his uncle, he published” Bibl. Apost. Vatic, codic. Mss. Catal." Rome, 1756 1769. This was to have consisted of 4 vols. and he had printed some sheets of the fourth, when an accidental fire destroyed the manuscript. The time of his death is not mentioned.

, a celebrated rabbi, in the year 476, in conjunction with Hammai, another rabbi^ composed the Talmud of Babylon, so called from the place of their residence. This collection of visions has had the honour of two commentators, the rabbi Mair in the year 547, and another Asser, who died in 1328, and was printed by Elzivir at Leyden, in 1630, 4to, and again with all its commentators at Amsterdam in 1644, in 12 vols. folio.

, or Asser, or Asker (called, by Pitts, John,) a learned monk of St. David’s, and historian, was of British extraction, probably of that part of South Wales called Pembrokeshire, and was bred up in the learning of those times, in the monastery of St. David’s (in Latin Menevia), whence he derived his surname of Menevensis. There he is said to have had for his tutor Johannes Patricius, one of the most celebrated scholars of his age, and had also the countenance of Nobis, or Novis, archbishop of that see, who was his relation but it does not appear that he was either his secretary or his chancellor, as some writers would have us believe. From St. David’s he was invited to the court of Alfred the Great, merely from the reputation of his learning, probably about the year 880, or somewhat earlier. Those who had the charge of bringing him to court, conducted him from St. David’s to the town of Dene (Dean) in Wiltshire, where the king received him with great civility, and shewed him in a little time the strongest marks of favour and affection, insomuch that he condescended to persuade him not to think any more of returning to St. David’s, but rather to continue with him as his domestic chaplain and assistant in his studies. Asserius, however, modestly declined this proposal, alledging, that it did not become him to desert that holy place where he had been educated, and received the order of priesthood, for the sake of any other preferment. King Alfred then desired that he would divide his time between the court and the monastery, spending six months at court, and six at St. David’s. Asserius would not lightly comply even with this request, but desired leave to return to St. David’s, to ask the advice of his brethren, which he obtained, but in his journey falling ill at Winchester of a fever, he lay there sick about a year and as soon as he recovered he went to St. David’s, where, consulting with his brethren on the king’s proposal, they unanimously agreed that he should accept it, promising themselves great advantages from his favour with the king, of which, at that time, they appear to have had need, to relieve them from the oppressions of one Hemeid, a petty prince of South Wales. But they requested of Asserius, that he would prevail on the king to allow him to reside quarterly at court and at St. David’s, rather than that he should remain absent six months together. When he came back he found the king at Leoneforde, who received him with every mark of distinction. He remained with him then eight months at once, reading and explaining to him whatever books were in his library, and grew into so great credit with that generous prince, that on Christmas-eve following, he gave him the monasteries of Anigresbyri, and Banuwille, that is, Ambrosbury in Wiltshire, and Banwell in Somersetshire, with a silk pall of great value, and as much incense as a strong man could carry, sending together with them this compliment, “That these were but small things, and by way of earnest of better which should follow them.” Soon after, he had Exeter bestowed upon him, and not long after that, the bishopric of Sherburn, which, however, he seems to have quitted in the year 883, though he always retained the title, as Wilfred archbishop of York was constantly so styled, though he accepted of another bishopric. Thenceforward he constantly attended the court, in the manner before stipulated, and is named as a person, in whom he had particular confidence, by king Alfred, in his testament, which must have been written some time before the year 885; since mention is made there of Esna bishop of Hereford, who died that year. He is also mentioned by the king, in his prefatory epistle placed before his translation of Gregory’s Pastoral, addressed to Wulfsig bishop of London and there the king does not call him bishop of Sherburn, but “my bishop,” acknowledging the help received from him and others in that translation. It appears to have been the near resemblance, which the genius of Asserius bore to that of the king, that gained him so great a share in his confidence and very probably, it was on this account, that Asserius drew up those memoirs of the life of Alfred which we still have, and which he dedicated and presented to the king in the year 893. la this work we have a curious account of the manner in which that prince and our author spent their time together. Asserius tells us, that having one day, being the feast of St. Martin, cited in conversation a passage of some famous author, the king was mightily pleased with it, and would have him write it down in the margin of a book he carried in his breast; but Asserius finding no room to write it there, and yet being desirous to gratify his master, he asked king Alfred whether he should not provide a few leaves, in which to set dawn such remarkable things as occurred either in reading or conversation the king was delighted with this hint, and directed Asserius to put it immediately in execution. Pursuing this method constantly, their collection began to swell, till at length it became of the size of an ordinary Psalter and this was what the king called his “Hand-book, or Manual.” Asserius, however, calls it Enchiridion. In all probability, Asserius continued at court during the whole reign of Alfred, and, probably, several years after but where, or when he died is doubtful, though the Saxon Chronicle positively fixes it to the year 910. The editor of his life in the Biog. Brit, takes Asser the monk, and Asser bishop of Sherburnj for one and the same person, which some however have denied, and asserts him to have been also archbishop of Sk David’s, upon very plausible authority. He admits, however, i that if there was such a reader in the public schools at Oxford as Asser the monk, he must have been some other person of the same name, and not our author but this point rests almost wholly on the authority of Harpsfiekl nor is the account consistent with itself in several other respects,as sir John S'pelman has justly observed. There is no less controversy about the works of Asserius, than about his preferments for some alledge that he never wrote any thing but the Annals of king Alfred whereas, Pitts gives us the titles of no less than five other books of his writing, and adds, that he wrote many more. The first of these is a “Commentary on Boetius,” which is mentioned by Leland, on the authority of the Chronicle of St. Neot’s but he probably only explained this author to king Alfred when he made his Saxon translation. The second piece mentioned by Pitts, is the Anjials of Alfred’s life and reign. The third he styles “Annales Britannia;,” or the Annals of Britain, in one book, mentioned also by Leland and Bale, and which has been since published by the learned Dr. Gale. The fourth piece, he calls “Aurearum Sententiarum Enchiridion, lib. 1” which is without question the Manual or common-placebook made for king Alfred, and reckoned among his works by Pitts himself. Leland has also spoken of this Enchiridion, as an instance of the learning and diligence of Asser, which it certainly was and though the collections he made concerning this author, are much better and larger than those of Bale and Pitts, yet he modestly, upon this subject, apologizes for speaking so little and so obscurely of so great a man. The next in Pitts’ s catalogue, is a “Book of Homilies,” and the last, “A Book of Epistles” but the existence of these seems unsupported by any authority; nor is it known where he was interred. He appears to have been one of the most pious and learned prelates of the age in which he lived.

His “Life of Alfred” was first published by archbishop Parker at the end of “Walsinghami Hist.” London^lS?^ fol. and it was reprinted by Camden ia his “Anglia, Normanica, &c.” Francfort, 1603. It was again reprinted; in a, very elegant octavo volume, by Mr. Wise, at Oxford, 1722.

, son of Mr. Assheton, rector of Middleton in Lancashire, was born in 1641 and being instructed in grammar-learning at a private country-school, was removed to Brazen-Nose college at Oxford, in 1658 and elected a fellow in 1663. After taking both his degrees in arts, he went into orders, became chaplain to the duke of Ormond, chancellor of that university, and was admitted doctor of divinity in January 1673. In the following month he was nominated to the prebend of Knaresburgh, in the church of York and whilst he attended his patron at London, obtained the living of St. Antholin. In 1670, by the duke’s interest with the family of the St. Johns, he was presented to the rectory of Beckenbam, in Kent and was often unanimously chosen proctor for Rochester in convocation.

He was the projector of the scheme' for providing a maintenance for clergymen’s widows and others, by a jointure payable by the Mercers’ company. The bringing this project to perfection took up his thoughts for many years for, though encouraged by many judicious persons to prosecute it, he found much difficulty in providing such a fund as might be a proper security to the subscribers. He first addressed himself to the corporation of the clergy, who declared they were not in a capacity to accept the proposal. Meeting with no better success in his next application to the Bank of England, he applied himself to the Mercers’ company, who agreed with him upon certain rules and orders, of which the following are the chief

1, “That the Company will take in subscriptions at any time, till the sum of 100,000l. be subscribed, but will never exceed that sum, 2. That all married men, at the age of thirty years or under, may subscribe any sum not exceeding 1000l. That all married men, not exceeding the age of forty years, may subscribe any sum” not exceeding 500l. And that all married men, not exceeding the age of sixty years, may subscribe any sum, not exceeding 300l. And that the widows of all persons, subscribing according to these limitations, shall receive the benefit of 30 per cent, per annum, according to the former proposal^ free of all taxes and charges, at the two usual feasts of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and St. Michael the Archangel and that the first of these payments shall be made at the first of the said feast days, which shall happen four months or more after the decease of the person or persons so subscribing excepting such as shall voluntarily make away with themselves, or by any act of theirs occasion their own death either by duelling or committing any crime, whereby they shall be sentenced, and put to death by justice in any, or either of these cases, the widows to receive no annuity; but, upon delivering up the company’s bond, to have the subscription money paid to them. 3. That no seafaring men may subscribe, who follow it as their business or vocation; nor others, who go farther than Holland, Ireland, or the coasts of England and that any person may subscribe for any others, whom he shall nominate in his last will, during the natural life of his wife, if she survive, and his intention be declared in his subscription." The company had several meetings in committees with the doctor, about settling a sufficient security in which they satisfied him that their estates, being clear rents, amounted to 2888l. Ss. lOd. besides the payments of the benefactors, to be paid out of the same which, by a moderate calculation, would yield, when the leases came out, above 13,500l. per annum. All things being agreed upon, the deed of settlement was executed by the company and trustees, at a general court of the said company, held on Wednesday the 4th of October, 1699. This deed is enrolled in the high court of chancery, and an authentic copy of it kept by the company but owing to some miscalculations, the scheme did not ultimately succeed, as originally planned.

A few years before his death, he was invited to accept the headship of the college, then vacant, but modestly declined it. He died at Beckenham, Sept. 1711, in the seventieth year of his age, and was buried in the chancel of that church. The writer of his life gives him the highest character for piety, probity, and inflexible adherence to the doctrines and interests of the church of England. His general sentiments and turn of mind may be discovered in the titles of his various works 1. “Toleration disapproved and condemned by the authority and convincing reasons of, I. That wise and learned king James, and his privycouncil, Anno Reg. II do II. The honourable Commons assembled in this present parliament, in their Votes, &c. Feb. 25, 1662. III. The Presbyterian ministers in the city of London, met at Sion College, December 18, 1645. IV. Twenty eminent divines, most (if not all) of them members of the late assembly; in their Sermons before the two houses of parliament on solemn occasions. Faithfully collected by a very moderate hand, and humbly presented to the serious consideration of all dissenting parties,” Oxford,! 670. He published a second edition of this book, the same year, with his name, and the pro-vice-chancellor of Oxford’s imprimatur, prefixed to it. 2. “The Cases of Scandal and Persecution being a seasonable inquiry into these two things I. Whether the Nonconformists, who otherwise think subscription lawful, are therefore obliged to forbear it, because the weak brethren do judge it unlawful II. Whether the execution of penal laws upon Dissenters, for non-communion with the Church of England, be persecution Wherein they are pathetically exhorted to return into the bosom of the church, the likeliest expedient to stop the growth of Popery,” London, 1674. 3. “The Royal Apology or, An Answer to the Rebel’s Plea wherein are the most noted anti-monarchical tenets, first published by Doleman the Jesuit, to promote a bill of exclusion against king James I. secondly, practised by Bradshaw, and the regicides, in the actual murder of king Charles I. thirdly, republished by Sidney, and the associates to depose and murder his present majesty,” London, 1685, the second edition. 4. “A seasonable Vindication of their present Majesties,” London. 5. “The Country Parson’s Admonition to his Parishioners against Popery with directions how to behave themselves, when any one designs to seduce them from the Church of England,” London, 1686. 6. “A full Defence of the former Discourse against the Missionaries Answer being a farther examination of the pretended Infallibility of the Chuvch of Rome” or, as it is intitled in the first impression, “A Defence of the Plain Man’s Reply to the Catholic Missionaries,” &c. 1688. 7. “A short Discourse against Blasphemy,” 1691. 8. “A Discourse against Drunkenness,” 1692. 9. “A Discourse against Swearing and Cursing,” 1692. 10. “Directions in order to the suppressing of Debauchery and Proprmneness,” 1693. 11. “A Conference with an Anabaptist; Part I. Concerning the subject of Baptism: being a Defence of Infant-Baptism,” 1694. It was occasioned by a separate congregation of Anabaptists being set up in Dr. Assheton’s parish but the meeting soon breaking up, the author never published a second part. 12. “A Discourse concerning a Death-bed Repentance.” 13. “A Theological Discourse of last Wills and Testaments,” London, 1696, 14. “A seasonable Vindication of the blessed Trinity being an answer to this question, Why do you believe the doctrine of the Trinity Collected from the works of the most reverend doctor John Tillotson, late lord archbishop of Canterbury, and the right reverend doctor Edward Stillingfleet, now lord bishop of Worcester,” London, 1679. 15. “A brief state of the Socinian Controversy, concerning a Trinity in Unity” collected from the Works of Dr, Isaac Barrow, London, 1698. 16. “The Plain Man’s Devotion, Part I. In a method of daily Devotion and, a method of Devotion for the Lord’s Day. Both fitted to the meanest capacities,” 1698. 17. “A full Account of the rise, progress, and advantages of Dr. Assheton’s Proposal (as now improved and managed by the worshipful company of Mercers, London,) for che benefit of Widows of Clergymen, and others, by settled Jointures and Annuities, at the rate of thirty per cent. With directions for the widow how to receive her annuity, without any delay, charges, or deductions. ‘ Plead for the widow,’ Isa. i. 17. 1713. 18.” A Vindication of the Immortality of the Soul, and a Future State,“London, 1703. 19.” A brief exhortation to the Holy Communion, with the nature and measures of Preparation concerning it fitted to the meanest capacities,“1705. 20.” A Method of Devotion for sick and dying persons with particular directions from the beginning of Sickness to the hour of Death,“London, 1706. 21.” The Possibility of Apparitions being an answer to this question ‘ Whether can departed souls (souls separated from their bodies) so appear, as to be visibly seen, and converse here on earth’ This book was occasioned by the remarkable story of one dying at Dover, and appearing to her friend at Canterbury. 22. “Occasional Prayers from bishop Taylor, bishop Cosins, bishop Kenn,” &c. and “A devout collection of Divine Hymns and Poems, on several occasions,” London, 1708. 23. “A seasonable Vindication of the Clergy being an answer to some reflections in a late book, entitled The Rights of the Christian Church asserted, &c. Humbly submitted to the serious consideration of the nobility and gentry of Great Britain. By a Divine of the Church of London,” 1709. 24. “Directions for the Conversation of the Clergy collected from the Visitation Charges of the. right reverend father in God, Edward Stillingfleet, D. D. late lord bishop of Worcester,” London, 1710. 25. "Two Sermons one preached before the Sons of the Clergy, at St. Paul’s, December 6, 1699 the other before the Honourable Society of the Natives of the County of KenVat St. Mary le Bow, Nov. 21, 1700. Mr. Wood mentions another Sermon on the Danger of Hypocrisy, preached at Guildhall chapel, Aug. 3, 1673.

called the Ape of Scarron, was born at Paris in 1604, the son of an avocat of parleinent. At eight years old he ran away from his father’s house, stopped at Calais, where he gave himself out for the son of Csesar Nostradamus and having set up for a quack, he succeeded in restoring to health a patient who fancied himself sick. The people of Calais, thinking that he derived his medical skill from magic, were upon the point of throwing him into the sea, and it was with difficulty that he saved himself from their fury by flight. After many more adventures at London, at Turin, and in various other places, he came to Montpellier, where some irregular amours drew upon him the notice of the magistrate. He then strolled about from one country to another, and at length arrived at Rome, where his satires upon the court procured him to be imprisoned in the inquisition. Being returned to France, he was sent to the Bastille and afterwards was conducted to the Chatelet for the same crime for which he had been arrested at Montpellier. But, finding protectors, he was liberated at the end of six months. He died in 1679. His poetry was collected into three vols. 12mo, 1678. Among these pieces is a part of the Metamorphoses of Ovid translated, under the title of “Ovid in good humour.” It is a burlesque version, in which, as in all works of that nature, there are a thousand instances of dullness, and a thousand ruore of indecency, for one lively and ingenious turn of wit. We find also the rape of Proserpine, from Claudian, whom he makes harangue in the manner of declaimers. Assouci published also his adventures in a style of buffoonery, 3 vols. 12 mo, 1678. Upon the whole he appears to have been one of those writers that may be passed over with very slight notice, a man, with some talent for humour, but destitute of principle.

, a learned and ingenious lady, was the daughter of Mr. Astell, a merchant at Newcastle-uponTyne, where she was born about 1668. Her uncle, who was a clergyman, having discovered her superior capacity, generously undertook to be her preceptor and, under his tuition, she learned Italian and French, and made a considerable progress in logic, philosophy, and the mathematics. At the age of twenty, she left Newcastle and went to London, where, and at Chelsea, she spent the remaining part of her life. Here she assiduously prosecuted her studies, and acquired very considerable attainments in all the branches of polite literature. When the Rev. John Morris published his “Practical Discourses upon divine subjects,” several excellent letters passed between him and Mrs. Astell upon the love of God, which, at the request of Mr. Morris, she suffered him to publish in 1695, without her name, a precaution which their merit rendered useless. Having often observed and lamented the defects in the education of her sex, which, she said, were the principal causes of their running into so many follies and improprieties, she published in 1696, an ingenious treatise, entitled, “A serious Proposal to the Ladies, for the advancement of their true and greatest interest,” &c. and, some time after, a second part, under the same title, with this addition “wherein a Method is offered for the Improvement of their Minds.” Both these performances were published together in 1696, and had, in some measure, the desired effect. The scheme, indeed, in her proposal, seemed so rational, that a certain opulent lady, supposed to be the queen, intended to have given 10,000l. towards the erecting a sort of college for the education and improvement of the female sex and as a retreat to those ladies who preferred retirement and study to the noise and hurry of the world. Bishop Burnet, hearing of the design, went to the lady, and powerfully remonstrated against it, telling her it would look like paving the way for popish orders, and that it would be reputed a nunnery; in consequence of which the design was relinquished. About seven years after, she printed “An Essay in Defence of the Female Sex. In a Letter to a Lady. Written by a Lady.” These publications did not prevent her from being as intent on her studies as ever and when, she accidentally saw needless visitors coming, whom she knew to be incapable of conversing on useful subjects, instead of ordering herself to be denied, she used to look out at the window, and jestingly tell them, “Mrs. Astell was not at home.” In the course of her studies she became intimately acquainted with many classic authors. Those she admired most were Xenophon, Plato, Hierocles, Tully, Seneca, Epictetus, and M. Antoninus. In 1700, she published a book entitled “Reflections-on Marriage,” occasioned, as it is said, by a disappointment she experienced in a marriage-contract with an eminent clergyman. However that might be, in the next edition of her book, 1705, she added a preface, in answer to some objections, which perhaps is the strongest defence that ever appeared in print, of the rights and abilities of her own sex.

When Dr. D' Avenant published his “Moderation a Virtue,” and his “Essay on Peace and War,” she answered him in 1704, in a tract entitled “Moderation truly stated.” The same year D' Avenant published a new edition of his works, with remarks on hers, to which she immediately replied in a postscript, and although without her name, she was soon discovered, and distinguished with public approbation. Some eminent men of the time bear testimony to the merit of her works, as Hickes, Walker, Norris, Dodwell, Evelyn, and bishop Atterbury, who praises her controversial powers, but with a hint that a little more urbanity of manner would not have weakened her arguments. Among her other works was “An impartial Inquiry into the Causes of Rebellion and Civil Wars in this kingdom, in an examination of Dr. Rennet’s Sermon, Jan. 30, 1703-4.” “A fair way with Dissenters and their Patrons, not writ by Mr. Lindsay, or any other furious jacobite, whether a clergyman or a layman but by a very moderate person and dutiful subject of the queen,” 1704. “The Christian Religion, as practised by a daughter of the Church of England,” 1705. This was suspected to be the work of Atterbury. “Six familiar Essays upon Marriage, Crosses in Love, and Friendship,” 1706. “Bart'lemy Fair, or an Inquiry after Wit,” 1700, occasioned by colonel Hunter’s celebrated Letter on Enthusiasm. It was republished in 1722, without the words * Bart‘lemy Fair.’ Although living and conversing with the fashionable world, she led a pious life, generally calm and serene, and her deportment and conversation were highly entertaining and social. She used to say, the good Christian only has reason, and he always ought to be cheerful and that dejected looks and melancholy airs were very unseemly in a Christian. But though she was easy and affable to others, she was severe towards herself. She was abstemious in a very great degree frequently living many days together on bread and water and at other times, when at home, rarely eat any dinner till night, and then sparingly. She would frequently say, abstinence was her best physic and that those who indulge themselves in eating and drinking, could not be so well disposed or prepared, either for study, or the regular and devout service of their Creator.

She enjoyed an uninterrupted state of health, till a few years before her death, when a cancer in her breast, which she concealed, except from a few of her most intimate acquaintance, impaired her constitution very much. She managed it herself, till it was absolutely necessary to submit to amputation, which she did without discovering the least timidity or impatience, without a groan or a sigh; and shewed the same resolution and resignation during her whole illness. When she was confined to her bed by a gradual decay, and the time of her dissolution drew near, she ordered her shrowd and coffin to be made, and brought to her bed-side, and there to remain in her view, as a constant memento of her approaching fate, and to keep her mind fixed on proper contemplations. She died May 24, 1731, in the 63d year of her age, and was buried at Chelsea.

, an Arian writer, in the fourth century, was a sophist of Cappadocia, who forsook Gentilism, and embraced Christianity. He afterwards published some works in favour of Arianism, which were extant in the time of Socrates, the ecclesiastical historian, who also informs us that Asterius, although he was very much with the Arian bishops, was refused admission into their order, because he had once sacrificed to the heathen gods. This lapse of Asterius is supposed to have happened about the year 304, and probably in Maximian’s persecution. Jerom says he wrote commentaries on the epistle to the Romans, and upon the gospels, psalms, &c. which were much read by the men of his party. None of these remain, however, unless as quoted by Eusebius, and Athanasius, who calls him “a cunning sophist, and a patron of heresy.”

, a native of Antioch, and bishop of Amasea in Pontus, in the fourth century, was the author of many homilies, part of which were published by Rubenius, and part by the fathers Combesis and Richer. They were translated into French by Maucroix in 1695, and have been admired for their eloquence. The first fourteen are evidently by Asterius, Iput the others appear doubtful, among which are those on Daniel and Susannah, St. Peter and St. Paul. In the last the supremacy of the church of Rome is maintained against the pretensions of all the churches in the East and West.

, an eminent English antiquary, was descended from an ancient family of the same name, resident at, and lords of the manor of Fauld in Staffordshire. His father, Daniel Astle, who was keeper of Needwood forest, died in 1774, and was buried in Yoxal church, where is a neat mural monument erected to his memory. His eldest son, the subject of this article, imbibed an early taste for the study of antiquities, particularly that abstruse and laborious part of it, the decyphering of ancient records, in which the profession of an attorney, to which he was brought up at Yoxal, gave him an opportunity of excelling, far beyond any of his contemporaries. His father was about to fix him in a good country situation, to practise in the profession he had so aptly learnt; but his genius and enthusiasm, fortunately for himself and the public at large, frustrated that design, and induced him to come to London, where alone his taste could be indulged and his talents rewarded. About 1763, he obtained the patronage of Mr. Grenville, then first lord of the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer, who employed him as well in his public as private affairs, and joined him in a commission with the late sir Joseph Ayloffe, bart. and Dr. Ducarel, for superintending the regulation of the public records at Westminster. On the death of his colleague, Mr. Topham was substituted, and both were removed by Mr. Pitt during his administration". Previously, however, to this, if we mistake not, he had enjoyed the patronage of lord Townshend, and soon after he was introduced to the rev. Philip Morant, author of the History of Essex, a gentleman of good property in that country, whose daughter and heiress he soon after married, and by that means, at her father’s death, possessed his estate.

In 1765, he was appointed receiver-general of sixpence in the pound on the civil list. In 1766 he was consulted by the committee of the House of Lords, concerning the printing of the ancient records of parliament. To the superintendance of this work he introduced his father-in-law Mr. Morant; and on his death in 1770, was himself appointed by the House of Lords to carry on the work, a service in which he was employed till its completion five years afterwards. He was then appointed, on the death of Henry Rooke, esq. his majesty’s chief clerk in the record-office in the Tower of London and on the decease of sir John Shelly, he succeeded to the office of keeper of the records. He likewise became a member of the Royal and Antiquary societies, and of several learned bodies on the continent, and was one of the trustees of the British Museum. Of the Antiquary Society, he was long a useful and distinguished member, and contributed several valuable articles to the Archaeologia, in vols. IV. VII. XI XII. and XIII. He published also The Will of king Henry VII.“1775, 4 to.” A Catalogue of the Mss. in the Cottonian Library to which are added, many emendations and additions with an appendix, containing an account of the damage sustained by the fire in 1731 and also a catalogue of the charters preserved in the same library,“which was communicated by him to S. Hooper, who published them in 1777, 8vo.” The Origin and Progress of Writing, as well hieroglyphic as elementary illustrated by engravings taken frem, marbles, Mss. and charters, ancient and modern also, some account of the origin and progress of Printing, 1784,“4to. A new edition was published in 1803, with one additional plate from a ms. in the British Museum, marked Nero, D. IV.; and a portrait of Mr. A. painted by Howard, and engraved by Shelton, in which the accidental loss of an eye when at school is concealed. ”The Will of king Alfred,“found in a register of Newminster, Winchester, in the possession of the rev. George North, and given by Dr. Lort, his executor, to Mr. Astle, 1769, was printed at Oxford, with the illustrations of Mr, Manning, under the superintendance of sir H. Croft, 1788, 4to.” An account of the Seals of the King’s Royal Burghs and Magnates of Scotland, with five plates, 1793," foJ. The Calendar to the Patent Rolls in the Tower of London, reaching from 3 John to 23 Edward IV. containing grants of offices and lands, restitutions of temporalities to bishops, abbots, and other ecclesiastical persons confirmations of grants made to bodies corporate, as well ecclesiastical as civil ‘, grants in fee farm special licences grants of offices special and general patents of creations of peers; and licences of all kinds which pass the great seal and on the backs of these rolls are commissions to justices of the peace, of sewers, and all commissions which pass the great seal. The Calendar of these Rolls, published by his Majesty’s command, in pursuance of an address of the House of Commons, on the report of the Commissioners for inquiring into the state of the Public Records, is printed from four ms volumes procured, in 1775, by Mr. Astle, for public use, from the executors of Henry Rooke, esq. his predecessor in the office of keeper of the Tower records, collated with two Mss. in the Cottonian library, marked Titus C. II. and III. which appear to have been compiled in the reign of James I. by some experienced clerk, who seems to have selected from the records themselves what appeared to him most useful and interesting. They supply many omissions and deficiencies in the Tower copy and, after all, this Calendar, though entitled to great merit, is only a selection, various entries appearing on the Patent Rolls not entered here and therefore, though this work will be found to yield abundant information, no one is to be deterred from an examination of any record mentioned elsewhere as being on the Patent Roll because it is not mentioned here. Mr. A’s report on the state of the records under his care will be found in the report of the Committee abovementioned.

His principal residence for some years before his deatji was at Battersea-rise, a beautiful eminence adjoining to Clapham common, where his house was richly furnished with objects to instruct and delight an antiquary, particularly his library, which contained a large and choice collection of books and manuscripts amongst the latter was a series of original Saxon charters, hitherto unequalled in number, beauty, and preservation. Here he departed this life, Dec. 1, 1803, in the 69th year of his age after having been for some time afflicted with a dropsical complaint. He left eight sons and daughters.

By the direction of his will, his library was to be sold by public auction but it was purchased by the Royal Institution for iOOOl. His manuscripts were to be offered on certain terms to the marquis of Buckingham and on his declining the purchase, to the British Museum. Those who know the value of the latter national repository will wish he had bequeathed them unconditionally. It was here he first obtained employment in the preparation of the Harleian catalogue of Mss. and he had long enjoyed the honour of being one of the trustees. Mr. Astle was, however, a valuable contributor to the history and antiquities of his country, and very liberal in giving assistance to gentlemen employed in any species of historical investigation. His principal work is his “Origin and Progress of Writing,” some very acute remarks on which may be seen in the Monthly Review for October, 1784. His “Preface and Index to the Catalogue of the Harleian Collection of Mss.” was published in 1763.

, an artist, more indebted to fortune than genius, for the distinction he obtained, was born at Wemm in Shropshire, where his father practised physic. When of an age to assume a profession, he was sent to London, and placed as a pupil under Mr. Hudson. He afterwards visited Rome, and was there about the same time with sir Joshua Reynolds. After returning to England, he resided some months at a friend’s house in London, and went thence to Dublin, where he practised as a painter for three years, and with such success as to acquire 3000l. On his return, he accidentally bemame acquainted with the opulent widow of sir William Daniel, whom he married, and eventually got possession of the Duckenfield estate, valued at 5000l. per annum. He then bought Schomberg house in Pall-mall, which he divided into three houses, inhabiting the centre house himself, now Mr. Payne’s. Towards his latter days, he began to repent of having passed much of his life in dissipation and by a transition not very uncommon, dreaded being reduced to want. He died at his house, Duckenfield-lodge, Cheshire, Nov. 14, 1787, and was buried at the church of that village. As an artist, his talents were by no means of an inferior class, particularly in portrait painting but he had not much delight in his profession, and when he obtained a fortune, practised no longer.

, an officer of note in king Charles I-.'s army, was son of sir Arthur Aston of Fulham in Middlesex, who was the second son of sir Thomas Aston, of Aston, of Bucklow-hundred in Cheshire; “an ancient and knightly family of that county.” He was a great traveller, and made several campaigns in foreign countries. Being returned into England about the beginning of the grand rebellion, with as many soldiers of note as he could bring with him, he took part with the king against the parliament. He commanded the dragoons in the battle of Edge- hill, and with them did his majesty considerable service. The king, having a great opinion of his valour and conduct, made him governor of the garrison of Reading in Berkshire, and commissary-general of the horse in which post he three times repulsed the earl of Essex, who, at the head of the parliament army, laid siege to that place. But sir Arthur being dangerously wounded, the command was devolved on colonel Richard Fielding, the eldest colonel in the garrison. Sir Arthur was suspected of taking this opportunity to get rid of a dangerous command. Some time after, he was appointed governor of the garrison of Oxford, in the room of sir William Pennyman deceased. In September following, he had the misfortune to break his leg by a fall from his horse, and was obliged to have it cut off, and on the twenty-fifth of December, he was discharged from his command, which was conferred on colonel Gage. After the king’s death, sir Arthur was employed in the service of king Charles IL and went with the flower of the English veterans into Ireland, where he was appointed, governor of Drogheda, commonly called Tredagk; “at which time (Mr. Wood tells us) he laid an excellent plot to tire and break the English army.” But at length Cromwell having taken the town, about the tenth of August 1649, and put the inhabitants to the sword, sir Arthur the governor was cut to pieces, and his brains beaten out with his wooden-leg. Wood says, that he was created doctor of physic, May 1,

1641, and that he left behind him a daughter, Elizabeth Thompon, alias Aston. According to Clarendon’s account, sir Arthur’s conduct was not upon the whole favourable to the royal cause, and as a commander he seems never to have been popular.

, a brave and loyal gentleman, was the son of John Aston, of Aston in Cheshire, esq. by his wife Maud, daughter of Robert Needham, of Shenton in Shropshire. He was entered a gentleman commoner of Brazen-nose college in Oxford, in 1626-7, but was soon called home by his relations, and, being married, was created a baronet in July 1628. In 1635 he was high-sheriff of Cheshire, and firmly attached to the cause of Charles I. Upon the approach of the rebellion, he wrote some pieces against the Presbyterians, and was afterwards the first man in his county that took part with the king. During the civil war, he raised a party of horse for his majesty’s service, which was defeated by a party of rebels under sir William Breerton of Honford, near Nantwich in Cheshire, July 28, 1642; but sir Thomas escaped with a slight wound. Some time after, he was taken in a skirmish in Staffordshire, and carried prisoner to Stafford, where endeavouring to make his escape, a soldier gave him a blow on the head, which, with other wounds he had a little before received, threw him into a fever, of which he died March 24, 1645. His body was carried to Aston, and interred in the chapel belonging to his own house. His writings were, “A Remonstrance against Presbytery,” Lond. 1641, 4to. “A short survey of the Presbyterian discipline.” “A brief review of the Institution, Succession, and Jurisdiction of the ancient and venerable order of the Bishops.” These two last were printed with the “Remonstrance.” He also made “A collection of sundry Petitions presented to the King and Parliament,” 4to, 1642.

, a learned Italian antiquary, was born at Venice, Jan. 16, 1672, and soon made very extraordinary proficiency in classical and polite literature. In 1698, he lost his parents, and went into the church, where his merit procured him the offer of preferment, which his love of a literary life induced him for the present to decline. He became member and secretary of the academy of the Animosi at Venice, and was likewise a member of that of the Arcades of Rome, under the name of Demade Olimpico. He likewise carried on an extensive correspondence with the most eminent scholars of his age, both Italians and foreigners, particularly Alexander Burgos, bishop of Catania father Guglielmini, Fardella, Lazzarini, Apostolo Zeno, Scipio Maffei, Poleni, Morgagni, &c. In his latter days he was master of the choir, and canon of the ducal church of St. Mark and died in Venice, June 23, 1743.“He wrote, 1.” Commentariolum in antiquum Alcmanis poetse Laconis monumentum,“Venice, 1697, fol. reprinted in the” Galleria di Minerva,“and by Sallengre in the” Novus Thesaurus antiquitatum Romanarum,“Hague, 1718, fol. 2.” De Deo Brotonte Epistola,“reprinted in both the above collections. 3. Many letters and dissertations on Medals, &c. in various collections. 4.” Mantui, tragredia sacra musice recitanda,“Venice, 1713. 5.” Supplices, tragredia sacra," ibid. 1713; besides many lesser pieces in Greek, Latin, and Italian, in the collections.

, born in the province of Cosenza in the kingdom of Naples in 1651, was first a Carmelite, and afterwards professor of mathematics and natural philosophy. He died in 1702, leaving the following publications, 1. “A dissertation on the life of the Fcetus in utero” 1686. 2. “A translation of the Elements of Euclid,” 1691. 3. “A treatise on the power of the Holy See,” 1693. 4. “A translation of Apollonius on Conic Sections,” 1702, 4to.

, the name, or assumed name of a person who lived in the ninth century, and wrote “The life of the emperor Lewis le Debonnaire,” at whose court he is supposed to have enjoyed some office. He is said to have had many conferences with that prince on astronomical s’ubjects. The life was written in Latin, and has been translated into French by the president Cousin. The original is in Du Chesne’s Collection of Historians.

, a very celebrated French physiciaiTj was born in 1684, at Sauve in the diocese of Alais. His father, who was a Protestant clergyman, bestowed great pains upon his early education, after which he was sent to the university of Montpelier, where he was created M. A, in 1700. He then began the study of medicine; and in two years obtained the degree of bachelor^ having upon that occasion written a dissertation on the cause of fermentation, which he defended in a very able manner. On Jan. 25, 1703, he was created doctor of physic, after which, before arriving at extensive practice, he applied to the study of medical authors, both ancient and modern, with uncommon assiduity. The good effects of this study soon appeared; for in 1710 he published a treatise concerning muscular motion, from which he acquired very high reputation. In 1717 he was appointed to teach medicine at Montpelier, which he did with such perspicuity and eloquence that his fame soon rose to a very great height; the king assigned him an annual salary, and he was at the same time appointed to superintend the mineral waters in the province of Languedoc. But as Montpelier did not afford sufficient scope for one of his celebrity, he went to Paris with a great numher of manuscripts, which he designed for the press. Soon afterwards, however, he left it, having in 1729 accepted the office of first physician to the king of Poland, which was then offered to him; but here his stay was very short, as he disliked the ceremonious restraint of a court. He again therefore returned to Paris, and upon the death of the celebrated Geoffroy, in 1731, he was appointed regins professor. The duties of this office he discharged in such a manner as toanswer the most sanguine expectations; and he drew, from the other universities to that of Paris, a great concourse of medical students, foreigners as well as natives. At the same time he was not more celebrated as a professor than as a practitioner, and his private character was in all respects truly amiable. He reached a very advanced age, and died May 5, 1766. Of his works, which are very numerous, the following are the principal 1. “Origine de la Peste,” 1721, 8vo. 2. “De ia Contagion cle la Peste,” 1724. 8vo. 3. “De Motu Musculari,” 1710, 12mo. 4. “Memoires pour servir a l'Histoire naturelle cle Languedoc,” 1737, 4to. 5. “De Morbis Veuereis, libri’sex,” 1736, 4 to, afterwards enlarged to -t 8vo Vols. and translated into French by Jault, 4 vols. 12mo, “Traitedes maladies desFemmes,” 1761—1765, 6vols. 12tno. 7. “L'Art crAccoucher reduit a ses principles,” 1766, 12mo. 8. “Theses de Phantasia,” &c. 9. “De motus Fermentativi causa,” 1702, 12mo. 10. “Memo ire sur la Digestion,” 1714, 8vo. 11.“Tractatus Pathologicus,” 1766, 8vo. Besides these, in 1759 he published “Trait des Tumeurs,” 2 vols. 12mo; and one or two treatises not connected with medicine, one with the singular title of “Conjectures sur les Memoires originaux qui ont servi a Moise pour ecrire la Genese,” Paris, 1753, 12mo, and a dissertation on the immateriality and immortality of the Soul, Paris, 1755. His work on the venereal disease, and those on the diseases of women, and on midwifery, have been translated into English.

, a native of Cagli, in the duchy of Urbino, came to Rome in 1532, where he was distinguished for his taste and eloquence; but having a reluctance to any regular profession which might have afforded him an opportunity and means to cultivate literature, he soon fell into extreme poverty. In 1560, however, he became corrector of the press at Venice, and there had like to have been sacrificed to the rage of a student belonging to the university of Padua, who having committed a work to his correction, Atanagi adopted it and published it under his own name. This is theonly incident recorded of this eccentric genius, whom the Italians consider as a very pure writer, and one of their best critics. He published,

, an eminent father of the Christian church, of the fourth century, was born at Alexandria, of heathen parents. He was noticed, when very young, by Alexander, bishop of that see, who took care to have him educated in all good learning, and when of age, ordained him deacon. He took him in his company when he attended the council of Nice, where Athanasius distinguished himself as an able and zealous opposer of the Arians. Soon after the dissolution of the council, Alexander died, and Athanasius was appointed to succeed him in the government of the church of Alexandria. This was in the year 326, when Athanasius is supposed to have been about twenty-eight years of age.

Arius and some of the principal of his followers renounced their opinions, and subscribed to the Nicene faith, by which means they obtained the countenance and favour of the emperor Constantine, who wrote letters to Athanasius, insisting upon his re-admitting Arius into the church, and receiving him into communion but this he peremptorily and inflexibly refused to do, though urged warmly by sovereign authority, and menaced with the rod of imperial vengeance. While thus he lay under the emperor’s displeasure, his enemies took the opportunity of bringing against him many grievous accusations, which, however, appeared in the end to be false and groundless. Among others, they charged him with threatening that he would take care no corn should be carried from Alexandria to Constantinople and said, that there were four prelates ready to testify that they had heard such words from his own mouth. This so much incensed the emperor, that he exiled him into France though some writers intimate, that this sentence was not the effect of his resentment, but his policy, which indeed is more probable. It was the desire of the emperor to remove all frivolous disputes about words, to allay the heats and animosities among Christians, and to restore peace and unanimity to the church, and perhaps he looked upon Athanasius as a great obstacle to his favourite design, as he could by no means be brought to communicate with the Arians.

After the death of the emperor, he was recalled by his successor Constantine the younger, and restored to his see, and received by his people with great joy. This emperor’s reign was short, and his enemies soon found means to draw down upon him the displeasure of Constantius so that, being terrified with his threats, he sought his safety by flight, and by hiding himself in a secret and obscure place. Julius, at this time bishop of Rome, being greatly affected with the injurious treatment of Athanasius, sought him out in his obscurity, and took him under his protection. He summoned a general council at Sardis, where the Nicene creed was ratified, and where it was determined, that Athanasius, with some others, should be restored to their churches. This decree the emperor shewed great unwillingness to comply with, till he was influenced by the warm interposition of his brother in the west for at this time the empire was divided between the two surviving brothers. Being thus prevailed upon, or rather indeed constrained by necessity, he wrote several letters with his own hand, which are still extant, to Athanasius, to invite him to Constantinople, and to assure him of a safe conduct. He restored him, by an edict, to his bishopric wrote letters both to the clergy and laity of Alexandria to give him a welcome reception and commanded that such acts as were recorded against him in their courts and synods, should be erased.

When the emperor restored Athanasius, he told him, that there were several people in Alexandria who differed in opinion from him, and separated themselves from his communion; and he requested of him, that he would permit them to have one church for themselves. The bishop replied, the emperor’s commands should be obeyed; but he humbly presumed to beg one favour in return, viz. that he would be pleased to grant one church in every city for such as did not communicate with the Arians. The proposal was made at the suit, and through the insinuations, of the Arians who, when they heard the reply, and had nothing either reasonable or plausible to object to it, thought proper to desist from their suit, and make no more mention of it. This is one proof among many others, that the Arians had no reason to reproach Athanasius with intolerant principles. At the death of Constans, which happened soon afterwards, he was again deposed, ana Constantius gave orders that he should be executed wherever he was taken. He was re-instated by Julian; but, before the end of that apostate’s reign, was again obliged to have recourse to flight for safety. When orthodoxy found a patron in Jorian, and the Nicene creed became again the standard of catholic faith, Athanasius recovered his credit and his see, which he enjoyed unmolested in the time of Valentinian and even Valens, that furious and persecuting Avian, thought it expedient to let him exercise his function unmolested, because he found there was a great multitude of people in Egypt and Alexandria, who were determined to live and die with Athanasius. He died in peace and tranquillity in the year 373, after having been bishop forty-six years. His works were published in Greek and Latin, at Heidelberg, 1601; at Paris, 1627; at Cologne, 1686; but the best edition is that given by Montfaucon, at Paris, 1698, in 3 vols. folio. There has been a reprint of this, however, at Padua, in 1777, 4 vols, folio, which some prefer as being more complete and more elegantly printed.

Photius greatly extols Athanasius as an elegant, clear, and excellent writer. It is controverted among learned men, whether Athanasius composed the creed commonly received under his name. Baronius is of opinion that it was composed by Athanasius when he was at Rome, and offered to pope Julius as a confession of his faith which circumstance is not at all likely, for Julius never questioned his faith. However, a great many learned men have ascribed it to Athanasius as cardinal Bona, Petavius, Bellarmine, and Rivet, with many others of both communions. Scultetus leaves the matter in doubt; but the best and latest critics- make no question but that it is to be ascribed to a Latin author, Vigilius Tapsensis, an African bishop, who lived in the latter end of the fifth century, in the time of the Vandalic Arian persecution. Vossius and Quesnel have written particular dissertations in favour of this opinion. Their arguments are, 1. Because this creed is wanting in almost all the manuscripts of Athanasius’ s works. 2. Because the style and contexture of it do not bespeak a Greek but a Latin author. 3. Because neither Cyril of Alexandria, nor the council of E^phesus, nor pope Leo, nor the council of Chalcedon, have ever mentioned it in all that they say against the Nestorians or Eutychians. 4. Because this Vigilms Tapsensis is known to have published others of his writings under the borrowed name of Athanasius, with which this creed is commonly joined. These reasons have persuaded Pearson, Usher, Cave, and Dupin, critics of the first rank, to come into the opinion, that this creed was not composed by Athanasius, but by a later and a Latin writer.

With respect to the writings of Athanasius, it has been justly observed, that there is little important in them, but what relates to the Avian controversy, in which he was occupied during the greater part of his life. What Photius asserts of his style may be allowed but in his life of Anthony the monk, and some other of his pieces, we find him giving too much support to the superstitions and follies of the monastic system. In other respects, he is one of the ablest supporters of the Trinitarian doctrine, and in his private conduct, although occasionally exasperated by oppression, he was in general consistent and upright.

, or Adelard, was a learned monk of Bath in England, who flourished about 1150, as appears by some manuscripts of his in the libraries of Corpus Christi and Trinity colleges, Oxford. Vossius says, he was universally learned in all the sciences of his time, and that, to increase his knowledge, he travelled into France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Egypt, and Arabia. He wrote many books himself, and translated others from different languages among the latter, he translated from Arabic into Latin, Euclid’s Elements, at a time before any Greek copies had been discovered, and “Erichiafarim” upon the seven planets. He wrote a treatise on the several liberal arts, another on the astrolobe, another on the causes of natural compositions, besides several on physics and on medicine. Some manuscripts of his referred to by Vossius remain in the colleges in Oxford as in Oriel, “De decisionibus naturalibns,” and “De philosophia Danielis,” in Corpus Christi,

De causis naturalium Compositionum," and in Trinity college, his translation of Euclid, besides several in the Bodleian but others appear to have been taken away.

, a Greek grammarian, born at Naucratis in Egypt, flourished in the third century. He was one of the most learned men in his time, and had read so much, and had such an uncommon memory, that he might be styled the Varro of the Greeks. Of all his writings none remain but the work entitled “The Deipnosophists,” or, the Sophists discoursing at Table. Here an infinite variety of facts and quotations are preserved, which are to be met with no where else and hence, as Bayle truly observes, it is probable that this author is more valued by us than he was by his contemporaries, who could consult the originals from which these facts and quotations were taken. Athenaeus is supposed to have been injured by transcribers the omissions, transpositions, and false readings in him being extremely numerous. The work consists of fifteen books, the two, first and beginning of the third of which are wanting, but, with many hiatuses in the rest, have been supplied from an abridgment which is extant. It was first printed in 1514, by Aldus Manutius, Venice, folio, and reprinted under the inspection of Casaubon, Leyden, 1600, folio. The last edition is that of Shweighaeuser, Strasburgh, 1801—1807, 14 vols. 8vo, which Mr. Dibdin has copiously described, and highly praised. The French critics, and perhaps others, have, however, objected that this editor was not sufficiently versed in the rules of Greek versification, and that he neglected to consult some modern critics, in whose works he might have found many passages of Athenaeus corrected.

, of Byzantium, an engineer under the emperor Gallienus, about the year 200 before the Christian era, was employed by that prince to fortify such parts of Thrace and lllyricum, as were exposed to the incursions of the Scythians. He is the reputed author of a treatise on “The Machines for War,” which was printed in the collection of the works of the ancient Mathematicians, Paris, 1693, fol. Gr. and Lat.

, a physician, born at Attalia, a city of Cilicia, was contemporary with Pliny, in the first century, and was the founder of the Pneumatic sect. His doctrine was, that the fire, air, water, and earth, are not the true elements, as is generally supposed, but that their qualities are so, namely, heat, cold, moisture, and dryness. To these he added a fifth element, which he called spirit ('Evsufta.) whence hisisect had its name. He thought that this spirit penetrated all bodies, and kept them in their natural state this he borrowed from the Stoics, whence Galen calls Chrysippus, one of the most famous of those philosophers, the Father of the Pneumatic sect; but Athenaeus was the first who applied it to physic. He thought that, in the greatest part of diseases, this spirit was the first that suffered and that the pulse was only a motion caused by the natural and involuntary dilatation of the heat in the arteries and heart. We have but very little of this famous author remaining, and must look for a further account of the doctrines of his sect In the writings of Aretseus.

, an Athenian philosopher, who became a convert to Christianity. He was remarkable for his zeal, and also for his great learning, as appears from the Apology which he addressed to the emperors Aurelius and Commodus, about the year 180. Bayle thinks that this Apology was not actually presented, but only published. Besides the Apology, there is also remaining of Athenagoras, a piece upon the Resurrection, both written in a style truly Attic. They have been printed often, but the best edition is that of Dechair, Gr. and Lat. Oxon. 1706, 8vo. His works are also to be found in the Bibliotheca Patrum. Dr. Waterland gives an account of him in his “Importance of the doctrine of the Trinity,” which, Athenagoras held. In 1599, a romance, pretendedly translated from Athenagoras, was printed at Paris by Daniel Guillemot in 1612, with the following title: “Du vrai et parfait Amour, escrit en Grec par Athenagoras, philosophe Athenien, contenant les Amours honestes de Theogone et de Charide, de Pherecides et de Melangenie” i. t. “Of true and perfect Love, written in Greek by Athenagoras, an Athenian philosopher; containing the chaste loves of Theogonus and Charidea, of Pherecides and Melangenia.” Martin Fumee, lord of Genille, had made this translation, and sent it, in 1569, to Mr. de Larnane, secretary to cardinal d'Armagnac. It was found in the papers of Bernard de San- Jorry, who published it in 1612. Huetius speaks very largely of this book, and conjectures that Philander was the real author of it. He tells us that this Fumee boasted that he had the original Greek by means of Lamane, protonotary to cardinal d'Armagnac. There is no doubt, however, that it was not the production of Athenagoras but Cave, from whom we borrow the preceding account, does not appear to have seen the first edition, which was published at Paris, 1599.