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

, a Stoic philosopher, was probably of Pergamus, where he lived till he was very much advanced in years. He constantly refused to accept the favours which kings and generals would have bestowed upon him. Cato the younger, being in Asia at the head of an army, and knowing the merit of this eminent character, was very desirous of having him with him; but thinking that a letter would not prevail upon him to leave his retirement, he resolved to go himself to Pergamus, and by his intreaties and prayeVs he prevailed upon Athenodo, rus to follow him to the camp, whither he returned in a triumphant manner, being more remarkable for his new acquisition than Lucullus or Pompey could be for the conquests they had made. Athenodorus continued with Cato till his death, which happened about fifty before the Christian era. He is perhaps the same who is mentioned by Diogenes Laertius, in the life of Zeno Citticus.

, the son of Sandon, was another celebrated Stoic philosopher. He was born at Tarsus, or perhaps at Cana, a village near it, whence he was surnamed Cananita. He lived at Rome and on account of his learning, wisdom, and moderation, was highly esteemed by Augustus. His opinion and advice bad great weight with the emperor, and are said to have led him into a milder plan of government than he had at first adopted. He obtained, for his fellow-citizens, the inhabitants of Tarsus, relief from a part of the burthen of taxes which had been imposed upon them, and was on this account honoured with an annual festival. Athenodorus was intrusted by Augustus with the education of the young prince Claudius and that he might the more successfully execute his charge, his illustrious pupil became for a while resident in his house. This philosopher retired in his old age to Tarsus, where he died in his eighty-second year. Other particulars of him are given in the General Dictionary, and in the authorities cited by Brucker, but there appear to have been two of the name (besides the one of whom we have before given an account), or there is much confusion in all the writers we have had an opportunity of consulting respecting this one.

, a Jew rabbi, and printer at Amsterdam, to whom we owe one of the most correct editions of the Hebrew bible. It was printed twice, in 1661 and 1667, 2 vols. 8vo, and has been followed by most of the modern editors, particularly Clodius, Magus, Jablonski, J. H. Michaelis, Opitius, Van der Hooght, Houbigant, and Simon. It is also the basis of the edition of Reineccius, reprinted, in 1793, by, the learned Dorderlein. The states-general entertained such a sense of the merit of Athias, in this useful undertaking, that in 1667 they voted him a chain of gold. He is said to have died in 1700. His father, Tobias Athias published a Spanish bible for the use of the Jews, in 1555, according to the Dict. Hist.; but the above dates seem to render this doubtful.

, bishop of Galloway in Scotland, was the son of Henry Atkins, sheriff and commissary of Orkney, and was born in the town of Kirkwall, in the stewartry of Orkney. He was educated in the college of Edinburgh, where he commenced M, A. and from thence went to Oxford in 1637-8, to finish his studies Under the tuition of Dr. Prideaux, the regius professor of divinity. Soon after he was appointed chaplain to James marquis of Hamilton, his majesty’s high-commissioner for Scotland, in which station he acquitted himself so well, that, by the application of his noble patron upon his return to England, he obtained from the king a presentation to the church of Birsa, in the stewartry of Orkney. Here he continued some years, and his prudence, diligence, and faithfulness in the discharge of his office, procured him much veneration and respect from all persons, especially from his ordinary, who conferred upon him the dignity of Moderator of the presbytery. In the beginning of 1650, when James marquis of Montrosc landed in Orkney, Dr. Atkins was nominated by the unanimous votes of the said presbytery, to draw up a declaration in their names, containing the strongest expressions of loyalty and allegiance to king Charles II., for which the whole presbytery being deposed by the assembly of the kirk at that time sitting at Edinburgh, Dr. Atkins was likewise excommunicated as one who held a correspondence with the said marquis. At the same time the council passed an act for the apprehending and bringing him to his trial but upon private notice from his kinsman sir Archibald Primrose, then clerk of the council, he fled into Holland, where he lay concealed till 1653, and then returning into Scotland, he settled with his family at Edinburgh, quietly and obscurely, till 1660. Upon the restoration of the king, he accompanied Dr. Thomas Sydserf, bishop of Galloway (the only Scotch bishop who survived the calamities of the usurpation) to London, where the bishop of Winchester presented him to the rectory of Winfrith in Dorsetshire. In 1677, he was elected and consecrated bishop of Murray in Scotland, to the great joy of the episcopal party; and, in 1680, he was translated to the see of Galloway, with a dispensation to reside at Edinburgh, on account of his age, and the disaffection of the people to episcopacy. At this distance, however, he continued to govern his diocese seven years, and died at Edinburgh of an apoplexy, October 28th, 1687, aged seventy -four years. His body was decently interred in the church of the Grey-friars^ and his death was extremely regretted by all good and pious men.

, lord chief baron of the exchequer, was descended of a very ancient family in Glocestcrshire, and son of sir Edward Atkyns, one of the barons of the exchequer, by Ursula, daughter of sir Thomas Dacres of Cheshunt in Hertfordshire. He was born in 1621, and, after being instructed in grammar-learning in his father’s house, was sent to Baliol college, Oxford. Removing thence to one of the inns of court, he applied himself very closely to the study of the law. In April 1661, at the coronation of king Charles II. he was made a knight of the bath and in September the same year created M. A. in full convocation at Oxford. In 1671 he was appointed a king’s serjeant at law; and in 1672, a judge of the court of common pleas. In 1679, from an apprehension of very troublesome times, he resigned his office, and retired into the country. In July 1683, when lord Russel was first imprisoned, on account of that conspiracy for which he afterwards suffered, sir Robert Atkyns, being applied to for his advice, gave it in the following letter, probably addressed to some of the friends of that nobleman, which manifests his courage and integrity, as well as his prudence and learning

"Sir, I am not without the apprehensions of danger that may arise by advising in, or so much as discoursing of, public affairs yet no fear of danger shall hinder me from performing the duty we owe one to another, to counsel those that need our advice, how to make their just defence when they are called in question for their lives especially if they are persons that have, by their general carriage and conversation, appeared to be men of worth, and lovers of their king and country, and of the religion established among us. I will follow the method you use, and answer what you ask in the order I find it in your letters.

“I cannot see any disadvantage or hazard, by pleading the general plea of Not Guilty. If it fall out upon the proofs, that the crime is only misprision of treason, and not the very crime of treason, the jury must find the prisoner not guilty of treason; and cannot, upon an indictment of treason, find the party guilty of misprision, because he was not indicted for the offence of misprision; and treason and misprision of treason, are offences that the law hath distinguished the one from the other; and therefore, if the proofs reach no farther than to prove a misprision, and amount not to treason, the prisoner may urge it for himself, and say, that the proofs do not reach to the crimes charged in the indictment; and if the truth be so, the court ought so to direct the jury not to find it. Now being in company with others, where those others do consult and conspire to do some treasonable act, does not make a man guilty of treason, unless by some words or actions he signify his consent to it, and approbation of it; but his being privy to it, and not discovering of it, makes him guilty of misprision of treason, which consists in the concealing it; but it makes him not guilty of treason and if the same person be present a second time, or oftener, this neither does not makehim guilty of treason, only it raises a strong suspicion that he likes, and consents to it, and approves of it, or else he would have forborne after being once amongst them. But the strongest suspicion does not sufficiently prove a guilt in treason, nor can it go for any evidence, and that upon two accounts first, dig proofs in case of treason must be plain, and clear, and positive, and not by inference or argument, or the strongest suspicion imaginable. Thus said sir Edward Coke, in many places in his Third Institutes, in the chapter of High Treason. Secondly, in an indictment of high treason there must not only be a general charge of treason, nor is it enough to set forth of what sort or species the treason is, as killing the king, or levying war against him, or coining money, or the like but there must be also set forth some overt or open act, as the statute of the 25th of Edward IIL calls it, or some instance given by the party or offender, whereby it may appear he did consent to it, and consult it, and approve of it; and if the barely being present should be taken and construed to be a sufficient overt or open act, or instance, then there is no difference between treason and misprision of treason for the being present without consenting makes no more than misprision therefore there must be something more than being barely present, to make a man guilty of treason, especially since the law requires an overt or open act to be proved against the prisoner accused. See sir Edward Coke’s Third Institutes, fol. 12. upon those words of the statute. Per overt fact. And that there ought to be direct and manifest proofs, and not bare suspicions or presumptions, be they never so strong and violent; see the same fol. in the upper part of it, upon the word Proveablement. And the statute of the 5th of Edward VI. cap. 2, requires that there should be two witnesses to prove the crime so that if there be but one witness, let him be never so credible a person, and never so positive, yet if there be no other proof, the party ought to be found not guilty; and those two witnesses must prove the person guilty of the same sort or species of treason. As for example, if the indictment be for that species of treason, of conspiring the, king’s death, both witnesses must prove some fact, or words tending to that very sort of treason but if there be two witnesses, and one proves the prisoner conspired the death of the king, and the other witness proves the conspiring to do some other sort of treason, this comes not home to prove the prisoner guilty upon that indictment for the law will not take away a man’s life in treason, upon the testimony and credit of one witness $t is so tender of a man’s life, the crime and the forfeitures are so great and heavy. And as there must be two witBesses, so by the statute made in the thirteenth year of his present Majesty, cap. i. (entitled for the safety of his Majesty’s person) those two witnesses must not only be lawful,” but also credible persons. See that statute in the fifth paragraph and the prisoner must be allowed to object against the credit of all, or any of the witnesses and ff there be but one witness of clear and good credit, and the rest not credible, then the testimony of those that are not credible rriust go for nothing, by the words and meaning of this statute See the statute. Now were I a juryman, I should think no such witness a credible witness, as should appear, either by his own testimony, or upon proof made by others against him, to have been particeps criminis, for that proves him to be a bad, and consequently not so credible a man especially if it can appear the witness has trepanned the prisoner into the committing of the crime Then the witness will appear to be guilty of a far higher crime than the prisoner, and therefore ought not to be believed as a credible witness against the prisoner for he is a credible witness that has the credit of being a good and honest man, which a trepanner cannot have and this trepanning proves withal, that the trepanner did bear a spite and malice against the person trepanned, and intended to do him a mischief, and designed to take away his life. Shall such a one be a credible witness, and believed against him God forbid Then again, it cannot but be believed, that such persons as have been guilty of the same crime, will, out of a natural self-love, be very forward and willing to swear heartily, and to the purpose, in order to the convicting of others, that they may, by this service, merit their pardon and save their own lives and for this reason are not so credible witnesses, such as the statute of 13 Car. II. does require. Read over the whole chapters of sir Edward Coke, of high treason, and of petty treason for in this latter, of petty treason, there is much matter that concerns high treason.

"I wish with all my soul, and I humbly and heartily pray to almighty God, that these gentlemen who have given so great proof of their love to the true religion, and of the just rights and liberties of their country, and of their zeal against popery, may upon their trial appear innocent. I am so satisfied of their great worth, that I cannot easily believe them guilty of so horrid a crime. I pray God stand by them in the time of their distress. I wish I might have the liberty fairly to give them what assistance I could in that wherein I might be any way capable of doing it. I beseech almighty God to heal our divisions, and establish us upon the sure foundation of peace and righteousness. I thank you for the favour you have done me by imparting some public affairs, which might perhaps have been unknown to me, or not known till after a long time, for I keep no correspondence. When there is any occasion, pray oblige me by a farther account, especially what concerns these gentlemen and though I have written nothing here but what is innocent and justifiable, yet that J may be the surer against any disadvantage or misconstruction, pray take the pains to transcribe what notes you think fit, out of this large paper, but send me this paper back again, inclosed in another, by the same hand that brings it.

“There is, nor ought to be, no such thing as constructive treason this defeats the very scope and design of the statute of the 20th of Edward III. which is to make a plain declaration, what shall be adjudged treason by the ordinary courts of justice. The conspiring any thing against the king’s person is most justly taken to be, to conspire against his life but conspiring to levy war, or to seize the guards, is not conspiring against the king’s life for these are treasons of a different species.”

In 1684 he appears to have given a fresh proof of his deep learning, in the case between the king and sir William Williams. An information was exhibited against William Williams, esq. late speaker of the House of Commons, for endeavouring to stir up sedition, and procure ill-will between the king and his subjects, by appointing a certain seditious and infamous libel, entitled “The information of Thomas Dangerfield,” to be printed and published. The defendant pleaded to the jurisdiction of the court, setting forth that he was speaker of the House of Commons, and that, in obedience to their order, he had appointed that narrative to be printed; wherefore he demanded the judgment of the court of king’s bench, whether it ought to take farther cognizance of the matter. Sir Robert Atkyns undertakes, in his argument in support of this plea, to prove three propositions First, that what was. done in this case was done in a course of justice, and that in the highest court of the nation, and according to the law and custom of parliament. Secondly^ that., however, that which was done in this case was not to be imputed to the defendant, who acted in it but as a servant or minister of the parliament, though in a very honourable station. Thirdly, that these, being matters transacted in parliament, and by the parliament, the court of king’s bench ought not to take cognizance of them, nor had any jurisdiction to judge or determine them.

An action was brought in Easter-term, in the second year of king James II. against sir Edward Hales, for acting as a colonel of foot without receiving the sacrament, or taking certain oaths appointed by an act of parliament to be taken within a certain time whereupon being legally indicted in the county of Kent, and convicted, the plaintiff became entitled to the forfeiture of five hundred pounds. To this the defendant pleaded, that the king, by his letters patent, had dispensed with his taking the sacrament or the oaths, and therefore demurred generally; the plaintiff joined in demurrer, and judgment was given in the king’s bench for the defendant. This gave occasion to sir Robert’s excellent inquiry into the power of dispensing with penal statutes, wherein the doctrine of dispensations is largely handled.

At the revolution, which sir Robert zealously promoted, he was received with great marks of distinction by king William, who, in May 1689, made him lord chief baron of the exchequer. In October following, the marquis of Halifax, whom the Lords had chosen for their speaker, desiring to be excused from discharging that office any longer, the lord chief baron Atkyns was immediately elected in his room, and was speaker till the great seal was given to sir John Sommers, in the beginning of 1693.

October 30, 1693, when the lord mayor of London elect was sworn in before sir Robert, in the exchequer, he made a famous speech, wherein, after drawing a terrible picture of the designs of Lewis XIV. and of the means employed to accomplish them, he has the following passage, which will assist our readers in judging of the baron’s character "There is one piece of policy of his, wherein he outdoeth all other princes whatsoever and that is, the great thing of maintaining and managing intelligence. He can tell when your merchant-ships set out, and by what time they shall return nay, perhaps, he does take upon him to know, by the help of some confederacy with him that is prince of the power of the air, that the wind shall not serve in such or such a corner till such a time he knoweth when our royal navy is to be divided, and when it is united.

"And shall I guess how he comes to have such intelligence That were well worth the hearing. I would but guess at it and I would in my guesses forbear saying any thing that is dishonourable to any among ourselves. We all know the scripture tells us, that the good angels are ministers of God for good to the elect it is the comfort of all good men that they are so. It is said, He will give his angels charge over thee, to preserve thee in thy way and, I hope, we are every one of us in our way. But we have reason to believe that the wicked angels are very instrumental in carrying on such designs, as this great man hath undertaken.

"It is a vulgar error that hath obtained among some of us, that these wicked spirits are now confined under chains of darkness in the place of torment. I remember that expression of some of them to our Saviour, Art thou come to torment us before the time It was not then the time of their being tormented it is rather to'be believed that they are wandering about in the air, and there fleeting to and fro, driving on such wicked purposes as this our enemy is engaged in. We know grave and serious historians give us instances of correspondences held both by good and bad spirits here the wicked by God’s permission, the good by his command and particular good providence. So the death of Julian the apostate heathen emperor, who was killed in his wars in Persia, was known in the very moment of it at the city of Rome, at a great distance from the place of battle, to the no little joy of the Christians. And this, I suppose, was by the ministry of a good angel.

“We have instances of another nature, of what has been done by evil angels. In the instant of our Saviour’s passion, if we may believe credible historians, it was known at a vast distance from Jerusalem, at sea among some wh were then on a voyage they heard a voice in the air, crying out of the death of the great god Pan after which followed great bowlings and screechings. Whence we may suppose by the expression, that this was by some wicked spirits that were then hovering in the air, and did communicate this piece of intelligence.”

In June 1695, being then in his 74th year, he resigned his office, and retired to his seat at Saperton-hall in Glocestershire, where he spent the last fourteen years of his life in ease and quiet. He died in the beginning of the year 1709, aged eighty-eight. He was a man of great probity as well as of great skill in his profession, and a warm friend to the constitution. He was twice married, first to Mary daughter of sir George Clerk, of Welford in Northamptonshire, and afterwards to Anne daughter of sir Thomas Dacres. He left behind him an only son, the subject of the next article. His writings are collected into one volume, 8vo, under the title of Parliamentary and Political Tracts, 1734, containing, 1. “The power, jurisdiction, and privilege of Parliament, and the antiquity of the House of Commons asserted occasioned by an information in the king’s bench, by the attorney-general, against the speaker of the House of Commons.” 2. “An Argument in the great case concerning the Election of Members to Parliament, between sir Samuel Barnardiston, plaintiff, and sir William Soame, sheriff of Suffolk, defendant, in the court of king’s bench, in an action upon the case, and afterwards by error sued in the exchequer chamber.” 3. “An inquiry into the power of dispensing w Penal Statutes. Together with some animadversions upct.: a book writ by sir Edward Herbert, lord chief justice of the court of common pleas, entitled, A short account of the Authorities in law upon which judgment was given in sir Edward Hale’s case.” 4. “A Defence concerning the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the realm of England.” 5. “A Defence of the late lord Russel’s Innocency, by way of confutation of a libellous pamphlet, entitled, An Antidote against Poison with two letters of the author of this book, upon the subject of his lordship’s trial.” The first and chief of these letters we have given above. 6. “The lord Russel’s Innocency further defended, by way of reply to an Answer, entitled, The Magistracy and Government of England vindicated. 1 * 7.” The lord chief baron Atkyns*s Speech to sir William Ashurst, lord mayor elect for the city of London, at the time of his being sworn in their majesties court of exchequer.“Besides these tracts, he wrote a treatise against the exorbitant power of the court of Chancery, published in 1695, entitled” An inquiry into the Jurisdiction of the Chancery in causes of Equity,“and annexed to it” The case of Sir Robert Atkyns about a Separate Maintenance,“fol. He was also the author of a tract,” The true and ancient jurisdiction of the House of Peers," fol. 1699, but neither are in the above volume.

, son of the preceding, by Anne, daughter of sir Thomas Dacres of Hertfordshire, was born in 1646, and educated with great care under the eye of his father. He became early attached to the study of antiquities, and as he had a very considerable estate settled upon him, he lived chiefly upon it, pursuing his studies and exercising old English hospitality. He was elected to represent his county in parliament as often as he chose to accept that honour, and his knowledge and integrity induced many of his neighbours to make him the arbitrator of their differences, which he readily undertook, and generally executed to the satisfaction of both parties. He married Louisa, daughter to sir John Carteret, of Hawnes in Bedfordshire but having by her no issue male, his father settled his estate on the male issue of sir Edward Atkyns, which settlement was the unfortunate cause of a law-suit between the father and son. Sir Robert differed in other respects from his father’s opinions, being more attached to the house of Stuart, yet he inherited both his prudence and his probity, and was equally esteemed and beloved by men of all parties. His design of writing “The History of Gloucestershire,” took its rise from an intention of the same sort in Dr. Parsons, chancellor of the diocese of Gloucester, who had been at great pains and trouble to collect the materials for such a work, in the compiling of which he was hindered by the infirm and declining state of his health. Sir Robert, however, did not live to see it published, which was done by his executors. It appeared in 1712, in one volume folio. It was very expensive to the undertaker, who printed it in a pompous manner, adorning it with variety of views and prospects of the seats of the gentry and nobility, with their arms and he has inserted some, which, in Mr. Gough’s opinion, very little deserve it. It were to be wished, says the same excellent antiquary, that more authorities had been given, and the charters and grants published in the original language. The transcripts of all these were collected by Parsons. The price of this work, which was five guineas, has been greatly raised by an accidental fire, Jan. 30, 1712-13, which destroyed most of the copies in the house of Mr. Bowyer, printer, in White Fryars. All the plates, except two or three, falling into the hands of Mr. Herbert, engraver of charts, he caused the lost ones to he supplied, and republished this book in 1768, correcting the literal errors, but without so much as restoring in their proper place several particulars pointed out in the original errata. Great part of this second edition was also destroyed by fire.

Sir Robert resided usually at Pinbury park in Gloucestershire during the summer, and at his house in Westminster during the winter season, where, in 1711, he was seized with a dysentery, of which he died Oct. 29, in the sixtyfifth year of his age. He was interred in the parish church of Saperton, where a noble monument was erected to his memory by Louisa lady Atkyns, his widow and a good many years after a neat monument was erected in Westminster abbey, nearly opposite Shakspeare’s, to the memory of sir Robert Atkyns senior, his brother sir Edward Atkyns, and sir Robert Atkyns, jun.

, a typographical author, born in Gloucestershire, in 1615; studied at Baliol college, Oxford, in 1629, where he was a gentleman commoner, and removed afterwards to Lincoln’s inn. He visited France with a young nobleman, and at his return frequented the court but the civil wars breaking out, he suffered much on account of his loyalty. After the restoration he was a deputy-lieutenant of Gloucestershire. Having been at the expence of above a thousand pounds in law-suits for near twenty-four years, to prove the right of the king’s grant in printing law books, he had some hopes of repairing his finances by his pen and published his “Original and growth of Printing in England,” 4to, 1664. Five years after he published his “Vindication,” &c. containing a relation of several passages in the western wars of England, wherein he was concerned. To which are added his “Sighs and Ejaculations,” 4to, 1669. He was married, but it seems unfortunately, for it is said, that it proved his ruin towards the end of his days. He died a prisoner, for debt, in the Marshalsea, Sept. 14, 1677, and was buried in St. George’s, Southwark, at the expence of baron Atkyns, to whom he was related.

, a French poet, was born at Paris in 1697, educated for the church, and made a canon of Rheims. He passed his iife, however, in Paris, keeping all sorts of company, good and bad, and rendering himself universally agreeable by his impromptus, his songs, and madrigals, some of which were of the satirical kind, and occasionally involved him in quarrels. Towards the close of his life, he renounced the world, and was made a convert to piety by the abbe Gautier, who was afterwards the confessor of Voltaire. The Parisian wits observed that such an attempt was worthy of Gautier, as he was chaplain to the hospital of incurables. The abbe Attaignant died at Paris Jan. 10, 1779. He published

1. “Pieces derobées a un ami,” 1750, 2 vols. 12mo, published by Meunier de Querlon, who dedicated them to the author himself. All the pieces which form this collection were reprinted in his next publication. 2. “Poesies de l'abbé de FAttaignant,” 174*7, 4 vols. 12mo. In 1779 a fifth volume appeared under the title of “Chansons et poesies fugitives deFabbe” de FAttaignant.“S.” Epitre a M. L. P. sur ma retraite,“1769, 8vo. 4. tc Reflexions nocturnes,” 1679, 8vo. It would appear that this abbe lost the reputation he gained as an extempore composer and singer, by turning author, his countrymen being of opinion that very few of his printed works will bear the test of criticism.

, an Augustin monk, was torn at St. Philip of Agire, or Argire, an ancient town of Sicily, and became professor of church history in the university of Catania, and in 1758 provincial of his order in Sicily and Malta. He wrote, 1. a Bilancia della Verita,“Palermo, 1738, 4to. This was an answer to a book entitled” Paulus apostolus in Mari, quod hunc Venetus sinus dicifcur, naufragus," by P. Ignatius Giorgi, a Benedictine of Hagusa. The dispute respected the name of the island on which St. Paul was shipwrecked, called in Latin Melita. Giorgi was of opinion that it was an island in Dalmatia, now called Melada, while Attardi maintained the more common opinion that it was the well known island of Malta.

, generally known in Italy by the name of Father Paul of Florence, was born in that city in 1419. He entered early in life into the religious order of the Servites, that is, the Servants of the Blessed Virgin, instituted first in 1223, in Tuscany, by some Florentine merchants. To great piety he is said to have added a portion of learning, not very common in his time, and Marsilius Ficinus compared his eloquence to the charms of Orpheus. He was intimate with the most learned men of his time, and was often present at the Platonic academy which met in the palace of Lorenzo de Medici. He contributed much to the extent of his order in Piedmont, Savoy, and Switzerland, and became provincial in Tuscany. He died at Florence, in May 1499. His works were, 1. “Vita beati Joachimi,” inserted in Bollandus’s Acts of the Saints. 2. “Quadragesimale de reditu peccatoris ad Deum,” Milan, 1479, 4to. 3. “Breviarium totius juris canonici,” Milan, 1478, 1479, fol. Memmingen, 1486, Basil. 1487, 4to. 4. “Expositio in Psalmos prenitentiales,” Milan, 1479, 4 to. 5. “De origine ordinis Servorum beatae Marias dialogus.” This work, which was written in 1456, and dedicated to Peter de Medici, the son of Cosmo and the father of Lorenzo, was not printed until 1727, Parma, 4to, and Lami published a second edition, more correct, at Florence in 1741, 8vo, with a Life of the author. Attavanti left ajso many works in manuscript.

, a military character, and a man of letters, was born at Bagnacvallo in the kingdom of Naples, about the year 1530, and accompanied the prince of Salerno, general to Charles V. in his expedition against Piedmont. He diverted the fatigues of his campaigns by the study of polite literature, and the cultivation of a poetical taste. His works were, “II Duello,” Venice, 1560, which is a history of celebrated duels, and the laws respecting that remnant of barbarity. “A Discourse on Honour,” 1562, and various poems which have been inserted in collections.

, a learned writer of the sixteenth century, was the son of an able engineer of the same name, and born at Capua. He became a secular priest, and was distinguished not only for his knowledge of modern languages, to which he added the Hebrew, Arabic, and Greek, but for his poetry, and the active part he took in the famous dispute between the academy of La Crusca and Camille Pelegrino, on the subject of Tasso’s “Jerusalem delivered.” Attendolo espoused the cause of Tasso, although himself a member of the academy, and highly respected by his brethren. He was killed by the overturning of a carriage, the wheels of which went over his body, and injured him so much that he died in a few hours. This accident happened in 1592, or 1593. His works are, 1. “Orazione nell‘ essequie di Carlo d’ Austria principe di Spagna,” Naples, 1571, 4to. 2. “Orazione militare, all’ altezza del serenissimo D. Giovanni d' Austria, per la vittoria navale ottenuta dalla Santa Lega nell 7 Echinadi,” Naples, 1573, 4to. 3. “Rime, con un breve discorso dell' epica poesia,” Florence, 1584, 8vo, Naples, 1588, 4to, with additions. 4. “Bozzo di XII. Lezioni sopra la canzone di M. Francesco Petrarca Vergine Bella, &c.” Naples, 1604, 4to, a work left imperfect by the death of the author. 5. “Unita della materia poetica sotto dieci predicamenti e sentiment! ne' due principi della Toscana e Latina poesia, Petrarca eVirgilio,” Naples, 1724, 8vo, the second edition the first is uncommonly rare. He also, after the death of Tansillo, corrected and published his poem, “La Lacrime di S. Pietro,” which the author had left imperfect, but the friends of Tansillo were of opinion he had taken too great liberties, which in the subsequent editions they endeavoured to obviate by restoring the poem more nearly to the state in which Tansillo left it.

, born about the year 1631. He was the son of Francis Atterbury, rector of Middleton Malser, or Milton, in Northamptonshire, who among other ministers subscribed the solemn league and covenant in 1648. He was entered a student of Christ-church, Oxford, 1647, toofc the degree of B. A. Feb. 23, 1649, and was created M. A. by dispensation from Oliver Cromwell the chancellor, March I, 1651. He was one of those who had submitted to the authority of the visitors appointed by the parliament. In 1654 he became rector of Great or Broad Rissington, in Gloucestershire and after the restoration, took a presentation for that benefice under the great seal, and was instituted again to confirm his title to it. Sept. 11, 1657, he was admitted rector of Milton, or MiddletonKeynes, in Bucks; and at the return of Charles II. took the same prudent method to corroborate his title to this living. July 25, 1660, he was made chaplain extraordinary to Henry duke of Gloucester; and D. D. Dec. 1, the same year. Returning from Condon, whither the law-suits he was frequently involved in had brought him, he had the jnisfortune to be drowned near his own house, Dec. 7,1693. He published three occasional Sermons, entitled “The good old Subject or the right Test of Religion and Loyalty,” London, 1684, 4to. “The Ground of Christian Feasts,” 1686, 4to, and “Babylon’s Downfall,” 1691, 4to, ibid.

, eldest son of the preceding, was born at Caldecot, in the parish of Newport Pagnel, in Bucks, on May 2, 1656. He was educated at Westminsterschool under Dr. Busby, and sent to Christ-church, Oxford, at the age of eighteen. He was ordained deacon in Sept. 1679, being then B. A. and priest the year following, when also he commenced M. A. In 1683, he served the office of chaplain to sir William Pritchard, lord mayor of London. In Feb. 1684 he was instituted rector of Symel in Northamptonshire, which living he afterwards resigned upon his accepting of other preferments. July 8, 1687, he accumulated the degrees of bachelor aud doctor of civil law. In 1691 we find him lecturer of St. Mary Hill in London. Soon after his marriage he settled at Highgate, where he supplied the pulpit of the reverend Mr. Daniel Lathom, who was very old and infirm, and had lost his sight and, upon the death of this gentleman, was in June 1695 elected by the trustees of Highgate chapel to be their preacher. He had a little before been appointed one of the six preaching chaplains to the princess Anne of Denmark at Whitehall and St. James’s, which place he continued to supply after she came to the crown, and likewise during part of the reign of George I. When he first resided at Highgate, observing what difficulties the poor in the neighbourhood underwent for want of a good physician or apothecary, he studied physic and acquiring considerable skill, practised it gratis among his poor neighbours. In 1707, the queen presented him to the rectory of Shepperton in Middlesex and in March 1719, the bishop of London collated him to the rectory of Hornsey, which was the more agreeable to him, because the chapel of Highgate being situate in that parish, many of his constant hearers became now his parishioners. In 1720, on a report of the death of Dr. Sprat, archdeacon of Rochester, he applied to his brother, the celebrated bishop, in whose gift this preferment was, to be appointed to succeed him. The bishop giving his brother some reasons why he thought it improper to make him his archdeacon the doctor replied, “Your lordship very well knows that Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury, had a brother for his archdeacon and that sir Thomas More’s father was a puisne judge when he was lord chancellor. And thus, in the sacred history, did God himself appoint that the safety and advancement of the patriarchs should be procured by their younger brother, and that they with their father should live under the protection and government of Joseph.” In answer to this, which was not very conclusive reasoning, the bishop informs his brother, that the archdeacon was not dead, but well, and likely to continue so. He died, however, soon after; and, on the 20tli of May 1720, the bishop collated Dr. Brydges, the duke of Chandos’s brother, to the archdeaconry, after writing thus in the morning to the doctor “I hope you are convinced by what I have said and written, that nothing could have been more improper than the placing you in that post immediately under myself. Could I have been easy under that thought, you may be sure no man living should have had the preference to you.” To this the doctor answered: “There is some shew of reason, I think, for the non-acceptance, but none for the not giving it. And since your lordship was pleased to signify to me that I should overrule you in this matter, I confess it was some disappointment to me. I hope I shall be content with that meaner post in which I am my time at longest being but short in this world, and my health not suffering me to make those necessary applications others do nor do I understand the language of the present times for, I find, I begin to grow an old-fashioned gentleman, and am ignorant of the weight and value of words, which in our times rise and fall like stock.” In this affecting correspondence there is evidently a portion of irritation on the part of Dr. Lewis, which is not softened by his brother’s letters but there must have been some reasons not stated by the latter for his refusal, and it is certain that they lived afterwards in the strictest bonds of affection.

Dr. Lewis Atterbury died at Bath, whither he went for a paralytic disorder, Oct. 20, 1731. In his will he gave some few books to the libraries at Bedford and Newport, and his whole collection of pamphlets, amounting to upwards of two hundred volumes, to the library of Christchurch, Oxford. He charged his estate for ever with the payment of ten pounds yearly to a school-mistress to instruct girls at Newport-Pagnel, which salary he had himself in his lifetime paid for many years. He remembered some of his friends, and left a respectful legacy of one hundred pounds to his “dear brother, in token of his true esteem and affection,” as the words of the will are and made the bishop’s son Osborn (after his grand-daughter, who did not long survive him) heir to all his fortune. This granddaughter was the daughter of Mr. George Sweetapple of St. Andrew’s, brewer, by Dr. Lewis’s only daughter. He had married Penelope, the daughter of Mr. John Bedingfield, by whom he had this daughter, and three sons, none of whom survived him Mrs. Atterbury died May I, 1723, and the grand-daughter in 1732.

His works are, 1. Two volumes of “Sermons,” 1699, 8vo, and 1703. 2. “The Penitent Lady translated from the French of the famous madam la Valliere,” 1684, 12mo. 3. Some Letters relating to the history of the Council of Trent. 4. “An Answer to a popish book, entitled, A true and modest account of the chief points in controversy between the Roman Catholics and the Protestants, By N. Colson,” whose real name was Cornelius Nary, an Irish priest, and author of a Church History from the creation to the birth of Christ some controversial Tracts against Archbishop Synge and an English version of the New Testament. In his “True and modest account” Synge had reflected upon Dr. Tillotson, which induced Atterbury to answer him. 5. “The Re-union of Christians translated from the French,” 1708, and one or two occasional Sermons.

, bishop of Rochester in the reigns of queen Anne and king George I. was born March 6, 1662-3, at Milton or Middleton Keynes, near Newport- Pagnel, Bucks. He was admitted a king’s scholar in 1676 at Westminster-school; and thence, in 1680, was elected a student of Christ-Church college, Oxford, where he soon distinguished himself by his wit and learning and gave early proofs of his poetical talents, in a Latin version of Dryden’s “Absalom and Achitophel,” published in 1682; and in 1684 he edited the “Ανθολογια, seu selecta quædam poematum Italorum qui Latin escripserunt,” which was afterwards enlarged and published by Pope in 1740, with the omission, however, of Atterbury’s excellent preface. In 1687 he made his first essay in controversial writing, and shewed himself as an able and strenuous advocate for the Protestant religion, in “An Answer to some Considerations on the spirit of Martin Luther, and the original of the Reformation.” These Considerations were published under the name of Abraham Woodhead, who was a popish writer, but were really written by Obadiah Walker, master of University college, Oxford. Mr. Atterbury’s answer was soon after animadverted upon by Mr. Thomas Deane, fellow of University college, at the end of “The Religion of Martin Luther, whether Catholic or Protestant, proved from his own works.” This spirited performance of Atterbury induced bishop Burnet to rank the author among the eminent divines who had distinguished themselves by their admirable defences of the Protestant religion. Atterbury also pleads this pamphlet in his speech at his trial, as a proof of his zeal in that cause, and the same was urged by his counsel.

His application to study was intense. In polite literature, and even in mathematical researches, he is known to have eminently excelled, and there are some proofs, in his correspondence, of his attachment to religious duties. Nor was he less distinguished for social qualities. Among his more immediate intimates may be reckoned Smalridge, Whitfield, Hickman, Charlett, Harrington, Newton, King, Travell, Gough, and the two brothers, Robert and John Freind. By his tutors at Westminster, Busby and Knipe, he had been particularly noticed, and at Christ Church he was honoured with the friendship of Dr. Aldrich. While thus successful in the severer paths of study, he occasionally indulged in poetical attempts but, although his attachment to the Muses continued unimpaired throughout life, not many of his poems have been preserved, and some of those have not till lately been ascertained to be his production. It is somewhat singular that his name, as far as we have searched, does not appear in any one of the public complimentary verses which have issued from the unirersky press on public occasions. We have translations of three odes and part of an epistle of Horace, one eclogue from Virgil, an idyllium from Theocritus, two short original songs, a Latin elegy, an impromptu, two Latin epigrams, and one in English, much admired, on the fan of Miss Osborne, the lady whom he afterwards married. These are all his juvenile pieces that have been recovered but there are some elegant epitaphs from his maturerpen, and some political squibs. He is said to have completed a version of Virgil’s Georgics not long before his death, but this has never been ascertained. In 1690, his zeal for the memory of a favourite writer induced him to write a preface to the “Second part of Mr. Waller’s poems.”

The time of his entering into the church is not exactly known but may be very nearly ascertained by his “Epistolary Correspondence;” where a letter to his father in 1690 is highly expressive of a superior genius, impatient of the shackles of an humble college life whilst the father’s answer displays the anxiety, together with a mixture of the severity, of the paternal character, offended by the quemlousness of the son, and his dissatisfaction. He had taken the degree of B. A. June 13, 1684 (when he was little more than twenty-two years old) ayd that of M.A. April 20, 1687; and it has been ingeniously conjectured, that he had applied to the college for permission to take pupils whilst he xv.is B. A. only (winch is unusual), and that he was refused. After passing two or three years more in the college, he then seems to have thought too highly of himself (when now become M. A.) to take any at all, and to be “pinned down, as,” he says, “it is his hard luck to be, to this scene.” This restlessness appears to have broken out in October 1690, when he was moderator of the college, and had had Mr. Boyle four months under his tuition, who a took up half his time,“and whom he never had a thought of parting with till he should leave Oxford; but wished he” could part with him to-morrow on that score.“The father tells him in November,” You used to say, when you had your degrees, you should be able to swim without bladders. You used to rejoice at your being moderator, and of the quantum and sub-lecturer but neither of these pleased you; nor was you willing to take those pupils the house afforded you when master nor doth your lecturer’s place, or nobleman satisfy you.“In the same letter the father advises his marrying into some family of interest,” either bishop’s or archbishop’s, or some courtier’s, which may be done, with accomplishments, and a portion too.“And to part of this counsel young Atterbury attended for he soon after married Miss Osborn, a relation (some say a niece) of the duke of Leeds, a great beauty, who lived at or in the neighbourhood of Oxford, and by whom he had a fortune ofTOOO/. In February 1690-1, we find him resolved” to bestir himself in his office in the house,“that of censor probably, an officer (peculiar to Christ Church) who presides over the classical exercises he then also held the catechetical lecture founded by Dr. Busby. About this period he probably took orders, and entered into” another scene, and another sort of conversation;“for in 1691 he was elected lecturer of St. Bride’s church in London, and in October 1693, minister and preacher at Bridewell chapel. An academic life, indeed, must have been irksome and insipid to a person of his active and aspiring temper. It was hardly possible that a clergyman of his fine genius, improved by study, with a spirit to exert his talents, should remain long unnoticed and we find that he was soon appointed chaplain to king William and queen Mary. The earliest of his sermons in print was preached before the queen at Whitehall, May 29, 1692. In August 1694 he preached his celebrated sermon before the governors of Bridewell and Bethlem,” On the power of charity to cover sins“to which Mr. Hoadly (afterwards bishop) published sorne^” Exceptions“in the postscript to his” Second Letter to Dr. Atterbury,“mentioned hereafter. In this he accuses Atterbury, and not without reason, of endeavouring to maintain the proposition that” God will accept one duty (charity) in lieu of many others.“In” October that year he preached before the queen p “The scorncr incapable of true wisdom” which was also warmly attacked by a friend of sir Robert Howard, author of “The History of Religion,” supposed to be alluded to in this sermon. The pamphlet was entitled “A two-fold Vindication of the late archbishop of Canterbury, and the Author of the History of Religion, &c.” 1696, 8vo.

The share he took in the controversy against Bentley is now very clearly ascertained. In one of the letters to his noble pupil, dated “Chelsea, 1698,” he says, “the matter had cost him some time and trouble. In laying the design of the book, in writing above half of it, in reviewing a good part of the rest, in transcribing the whole, and attending the press,” he adds, “half a year of my life went away.” His pupil, afterwards lord Orrery, about the year 1695, obliged the world with a new edition of Phalaris’s Epistles in the preface to which, he complains of Dr. Bentley, the king’s library-keeper, who had (pro solitd sud humanitate) denied him the inspection of a valuable manuscript. This sarcasm so exasperated the doctor, that, in order to his revenge on Mr. Boyle, he published a long letter to Dr. Wotton, who was then employed in writing on the State of ancient and modern Learning in which he undertakes to prove, that the Epistles, which go under the name of Phalaris, are spurious, and probably the work of some modern sophist. This drew from Mr. Boyle a reply, so full of satire and raillery, that, on which side soever truth and argument may be supposed to lie, the wit, and the laugh too, were evidently on Mr. Boyle’s. This reply was said to be written, jointly, by a select club of ingenious men belonging to Christ Church among whom. Atterbury is now clearly proved to have been the chief.

In 1700, a still larger field of activity opened, in which Atterbury was engaged four years with Dr. Wake (afterwards archbishop of Canterbury) and others, concerning the rights, powers, and privileges of convocations in which he displayed so much learning and ingenuity, as well as zeal for the interests of his order, that the lower house of convocation returned him their thanks; and in consequence of this vote a letter was sent to the university of Oxford, expressing, that, “whereas Mr. Francis Atterbury, late of Christ Church, had so happily asserted the rights and privileges of an English convocation, as to merit the solemn thanks of the lower house for his learned pains upon that subject; it might be hoped, that the university would be no less forward in taking some public notice of so great a piece of service to the church and that the most proper and seasonable mark of respect to him, would be to confer on him the degree of doctor in divinity by diploma, without doing exercise, or paying fees.” The university approved the contents of this letter, and accordingly created Mr. AtterburyD.D. Out author’s work was entitled, “The Rights, Powers, and Privileges of an English Convocation stated and vindicated, in answer to a late book of Dr. Wake’s, entitled ‘ The Authority of Christian Princes over their Ecclesiastical Synods asserted,’ &c. and several other pieces,” 8vo. The fame of this work was very great; but it was censured by Burnet, and in November the judges had a serious consultation on it, as being supposed to affect the royal prerogative. Holt, then chief justice, was strongly of that opinion, and the same idea was encouraged by archbishop Tenison, Dr. Wake, and others. Endeavours were made to prejudice king William against him, but his majesty remained indifferent; and on the other hand, Atterbury gained the steady patronage of sir Jonathan Trelawny, bishop of Exeter, of Lawrence earl of Rochester, and of bishop Sprat. In December 1700, he published a second edition of “The Rights,” considerably enlarged, and with his name, and a dedication to the two archbishops. This was immediately answered by Drs. Kennet, Hody, and Wake. Another controversy of some importance was at this time also ably agitated by Atterbury, the execution of the prtemunienles, a privilege enjoyed by the several bishops of issuing writs to summon the inferior clergy to convocation. Bishops Compton, Sprat, and Trelawny, were his strenuous supporters on this occasion, and by the latter he was presented to the archdeaconry of Totness, in which he was installed Jan. 29, 1700-1. His attendance in convocation was regular, and his exertions great. In placing Dr. Hooper in the prolocutor’s chair, as the successor of Dr. Jane in the examination of obnoxious books in the controversy between the lower and upper houses in considering the methods of promoting the propagation of religion in foreign parts and in preparing an address to the king, his zeal distinguished itself. About this time he was engaged, with some other learned divines, in revising an intended edition of the Greek Testament, with Greek Scholia, collected chiefly from the fathers, by Mr. archdeacon Gregory. On the 29th of May he preached before the House of Commons; and on Aug. 16, published “The power of the Lower House of Convocation to adjourn itself,” which was a sort of analysis of the whole controversy. He also published “A letter to a clergyman in the country, concerning the Choice of Members, &c.” Nov. 17, 1701; a second, with a similar title, Dec. 10, 1701; and a third, in defence of the two former, Jan. 8, 1701-2. In October he published “The parliamentary origin and rights of the Lower House of Convocation, cleared, &c.” At this period he was popular as preacher at the Rolls Chapel, an office which had been conferred on him by sir John Trevor, a great discerner of abilities, in 1698, when he resigned JBridewell, which he had obtained in 1693. Upon the accession of queen Anne, in 1702, Dr. Atterbury was appointed one of her majesty’s chaplains in ordinary and, in July 1704, was advanced to the deanery of Carlisle but, owing to the obstacles thrown in his way by bishop Nicolson, he was not instituted tintil Oct. 12, and the same year Sir Jonathan Trelawny bestowed on him a canonry of Exeter. About two years after this, he was engaged in a dispute with Mr. Hoadly, concerning the advantages of virtue with regard to the present life, occasioned by his sermon, preached August 30, 1706, at the funeral of Mr. Thomas Bennet, a bookseller. The doctrine of this sermon Mr. Hoadly examined, in “A letter to Dr. Francis Atterbury, concerning Virtue and Vice,” published in 1706.; in which he undertakes to shew, that Dr. Atterbury has extremely mistaken the sense of his text. Dr. Atterbury, in a volume of Sermons published by himself, prefixed a long preface to the sermon at Mr. Bennet’s funeral in which he replies to Mr. Hoadly’s arguments, and produces the concurrent testimonies of expositors, and the authorities of the best writers, especially our English divines, in confirmation of the doctrine he had advanced. In answer to this “Preface,” Mr. Hoadly published in 170&, “Asecond letter,” &c. and in the Preface to his “Tracts,” tells us, these two letters against Dr. Atterbury were designed to vindicate and establish the tendency of virtue and morality to the present happiness of such a creature as man is which he esteems a point of the utmost importance to the Gospel itself. In Jan. 1707-8 he published a volume of Sermons, 8vo, and in the same year “Reflections on a late scandalous report about the repeal of the Test Act.” In 1709, he was engaged in a fresh dispute with Mr, Hoadly, concerning Passive Obedience, occasioned by his Latin sermon, entitled “Concio ad Clerum Londinensem, habita in Ecclesia S. Elphegi.” Atterbury, in his pamphlet entitled “Some proceedings in Convocation, A. D. 1705, faithfully represented,” had charged Mr. Hoadly (whom he sneeringly calls “the modest and moderate Mr. Hoadly”) with treating the body of the established clergy with language more disdainful and reviling than it would have become him to have used towards his Presbyterian antagonist, upon any provocation, charging them with rebellion in the church, whilst he himself was preaching it up in the state.“This induced Mr. Hoadly to set about a particular examination of Dr. Atterbury' s Latin Sermon; which he did in a piece, entitled” A large Answer to Dr. Atterbury’s Charge of Rebellion, &c. London a 1710,“wherein he endeavours to lay open the doctor’s artful management of the controversy, and to let the reader into his true meaning and design which, in an” Appendix“to the” Answer,“he represents to be” The carrying on two different causes, upon two sets of contradictory principles“in order to” gain himself applause amongst the same persons at the same time, by standing up for and against liberty; by depressing the prerogative, and exalting it by lessening the executive power, and magnifying it by loading some with all infamy, for pleading for submission to it in one particular which he supposeth an mcroachment, and by loading others with the same infamy for pleading against submission to it, in cases that touch the happiness of the whole community.“” This,“he tells us,” is a method of controversy so peculiar to one person (Dr. Atterbury) as that he knows not that it hath ever been practised, or attempted by any other writer.“Mr. Hoadly has likewise transcribed, in this Appendix, some remarkable passages out of our author’s” Rights, Powers, and Privileges, &c." which he confronts with others, from his Latin Sermon.

In 1710 came on the celebrated trial of Dr. Sacheverell, whose remarkable speech on that occasion was generally supposed to have been drawn up by our author, to whom Sacheverell, in his last will, bequeathed 500l. in conjunction with Smalridge and Freind. The same year Dr. Atterbury was unanimously chosen prolocutor of the lower house of convocation, and had the chief management of affairs in that house. This we learn from bishop Burnet.In his account of this convocation, having observed, that the queen, in appointing a committee of bishops to be present, and consenting to their resolutions, not only passed over all the bishops made in king William’s reign, but a great many of those named by herself, and set the bishops of Bristol and St. David’s, then newly consecrated, in a distinction above all their brethren, by adding them to the committee, upon the indisposition of the archbishop and others, he adds “All this was directed by Dr. Atterbury, who had the confidence of the chief minister and because the other bishops had maintained a good correspondence with the former ministry, it was thought fit to put the marks of the queen’s distrust upon them, that it might appear with whom her royal favour and trust wa^ lodged.” May 11, 1711, he was appointed, by the convocation, one of the committee for comparing Mr. Whiston’s doctrines with those of the church of England and, in June following, he had the chief hand in drawing up “A Representation of the present State of Religion.” In 1712, Dr. Atterbury was made dean of Christ Church, notwithstanding the strong interest and warm applications of several great men in behalf of his competitor Dr. Smalridge but, “no sooner was he settled there,” says Stackhouse, “than all ran into disorder and confusion. The canons had been long accustomed to the mild and gentle government of a dean, who had every thing in him that was endearing to mankind, and could not therefore brook the wide difference that they perceived in Dr. Atterbury. That imperious and despotic manner, in which he seemed resolved to carry every thing, made them more tenacious of their rights, and inclinable to make fewer concessions, the more he endeavoured to grasp at power, and tyrannize. This opposition raised the ferment, and, in a short time, there ensued such strife and contention, such bitter words and scandalous quarrels among them, that it was thought adviseable to remove him, on purpose to restore peace and tranquillity to that learned body, and that tether colleges might not take the infection a new method of obtaining preferment, by indulging such a temper, and pursuing such practices, as least of all deserve it In a word,” adds this writer, “wherever he came, under one pretence or other, but chiefly under the notion of asserting his rights and privileges, he had a rare talent of fomenting discord, and blowing the coals of contention which made a learned successor (Dr. Smalridge) in two of his preferments complain of his hard fate, in being forced to carry water after him, to extinguish the flames, which his litigiousness had every where occasioned.” The next year saw him at the top of his preferment, as well as of his reputation for, in the beginning of June 1713, the queen, at the recommendation of lord chancellor Harcourt, advanced him to the bishopric of Rochester, with the deanery of Westminster in commendam he was confirmed July 4, and consecrated at Lambeth next day.

At the beginning of the succeeding reign, his tide of prosperity began to turn and he received a sensible mortification presently after the coronation of king George I. Oct. 20, 1714, when, upon his offering to present his majesty (with a view, no doubt, of standing better in his favour) with the chair of state and royal canopy, his own perquisites as dean of Westminster, the offer was rejected, not without some evident marks of dislike to his person. At the close of this year he is supposed to have written a pamphlet, deemed a libel by government, “English Advice to the Freeholders of England.” Bolingbroke and Swift were also supposed to have had a hand in it. During the rebellion in Scotland, which broke out in the first year of this reign, Atterbury gave an instance of his growing disaffection to the established government, in refusing to sign the “Declaration” of the bishops. In that juncture of affairs, when the Pretender’s declaration was posted up in most market towns, and, in some places, his title proclaimed, it^was thought proper, by most bodies of men, to give the government all possible assurance of their fidelity iand allegiance and accordingly there was published “A Declaration of the archbishop of Canterbury, and the bishops in and near London, testifying their abhorrence of the present rebellion and an exhortation to the clergy, and people under their care, to be zealous in the discharge of their duties to his majesty king George.” This paper both Atterbury and Smalridge refused to sign, on pretence of a just offence taken at some unbecoming reflections cast on a party, not inferior to any, they said, in point of loyalty. But Atterbury' s refusal of signing the declaration of his episcopal brethren, during the rebellion in Scotland, was not the only testimony he at that time afforded of his disaffection to government. Another remarkable proof of it was his conduct to an ingenious and learned clergyman, Mr. Gibbin, curate of Gravesend. When the Dutch troops, which came over to assist in subduing the rebellion, were quartered at that place, the officers requested of Mr. Gibbin the use of his church one Sunday morning for their chaplain to preach to their soldiers, alleging that the like favour had been granted them in other parishes, and promising that the service should begin at six in the morning, that it might not interfere with that of the town. The request was granted, the chaplain preached, and his congregation was dismissed by nine o'clock. But Dr. Atterbury was so in^ censed at this transaction, that he suspended Mr. Gibbiu for three years. The suspension, however, was deemed so injurious by the inhabitants of Gravesend, that they subscribed a sum to Mr. Gibbin more than double the income of his church and the affair being represented to the king, his majesty* gave him the rectory of NorthFleet in Kent, which living he afterwards exchanged for Birch, near Colchester in Essex, where he died July 29, 1752. He was a very ingenious, learned, and worthy clergyman, who had greatly improved and enlarged his mind, by his travels into France, Italy, and other countries, with Mr. Addison. A farther striking instance (if true) of bishop Atterbury’s attachment to the Pretender, is related, by the author of the “Memoirs of lord Chesterfield,” from Dr. Birch’s manuscript papers, and was often mentioned by the late bishop Pearce (who appears to have been always severe on the memory of Atterbury) “Lord Harcourt leaving the old ministry, provoked Atterbury’s abusive tongue. He, in return, declared, that on the queen’s death, the bishop came to him and to lord Bolingbroke, and said, nothing remained but immediately to proclaim king James. He further offered, if they would give him a guard, to put on his lawn sleeves, and head the procession.” Whatever may be in this, it is certain that from the time he perceived himself slighted by tile king he constantly opposed the measures of the court in the House of Lords, and drew up some of the most violent protests with his own hand. In 1716, we find him advising dean Swift in the management of a refractory chapter.

April 26, 1722, he sustained a severe trial in the loss of his lady, by whom he had four children; Francis, who died an infant; Osborn , student of Christ-church; Elizabeth, who died Sept. 29, 1716, aged seventeen; and Mary, who had been then seven years married to Mr. Morice.

In this memorable year, the government, on a suspicion of his being concerned in a plot in favour of the Pretender, had him apprehended August 24, and committed prisoner to the Tower. Two officers, the under-secretary, and a messenger, went about two o'clock in the afternoon to the bishop’s house at Westminster, with orders to bring him and his papers before the council. He happened to be in his night-gown when they came in, and being made acquainted with their business, he desired time to dress himself. In the mean time his secretary came in, and the officers went to search for his papers in the sealing of which the messenger brought a paper, which he pretended to have found in his close-siool, and desired it might be sealed up with the rest. His lordship observing it, and believing it to be a forged one, desired the officers not to do it, and to bear witness that the paper was not found with him. Nevertheless they did it and, though they behaved themselves with some respect to him, they suffered the. messengers to treat him in a very rough manner, threatening him, if he did not make haste to dress himself, they would carry him away undrest as he was. Upon which he ordered his secretary to see his papers all sealed up, and went himself directly to the Cockpit, where the council waited for him. The behaviour of the messengers upon this occasion seems to have been very unwarrantable, if what the author of “A letter to the Clergy of the Church of England,” &c. tells us, be true, that the persons directed by order of the king and council to seize his lordship and his papers, received a strict command to treat him with great respect and reverence. However this was, when he came before the council, he behaved with a great deal of calmness, and they with much civility towards him. He had liberty to speak for himself as much as he pleased, and they listened to his defence with a great deal of attention; and, what is more unusual, after he was withdrawn, he had twice liberty to re-enter the council-chamber, to make for himself such representations and requests as he thought proper. It is said, that while he was under examination, he made use of our Saviour’s answer to the Jewish council, while he stood before them “If I tell you, ye will not believe me and if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go.” After three quarters of an hour’s stay at the Cockpit, he was sent to the Tower, privately, in his own coach, without any noise or observation.

This commitment of a bishop upon the suspicion of hightreason, as it was a thing rarely practised since the Reformation, occasioned various speculations among the people. March 23, 1723, a bill was brought into the House of Commons, for “inflicting certain pains and penalties on Francis lord bishop of Rochester” a copy of which was sent to him, with notice that he had liberty of counsel and solicitors for making his defence. Under these circumstances, the bishop applied, by petition, to the House of Lords, for their direction and advice, as to his conduct in this conjuncture and April 4, he acquainted the Speaker of the House of Commons, by a letter, that he was determined to give that house no trouble, in relation to the bill depending therein but should be ready to make his defence against it, when it should be argued in another house, of which he had the honour to be a member. On the 9th, the bill passed the House of Commons, and was the same day sent up to the House of Lords for their concurrence. May 6, being the day appointed by the lords for the first reading of the bill, bishop Atterbury was brought to Westminster, to make his defence. The counsel for the bishop were, sir Constantine Phipps and William Wynne, esq. for the king, Mr. Reeve and Mr. Wearg. The proceedings continued above a week; and on Saturday, May 11, the bishop was permitted to plead for himself, which he did in a very eloquent speech. On Monday the 13th he was carried, for the last time, from the Tower, to hear the reply of the king’s counsel to his defence. On the 15th, the bill was read the third time, and, after a long and warm detiate, passed on the 16th, by a majority of 83 to 43. On the 27th, the king came to the house, and confirmed it by his royal assent. June 18, 1723, this eminent prelate, having the day before taken leave of his friends, who, from the time of passing the bill against him, to the day of his departure, had free access to him in the Tower, embarked on board the Aldborough man of war, and landed the Friday following at Calais. When he went on shore, having been informed that lord Bolingbroke, who had, after the rising of the parliament, received the king’s pardon, was arrived at the same place on his return to England, he said, with an air of pleasantry, “Then I am exchanged” and it was, in the opinion of Mr. Pope on the same occasion, “a sign of the nation’s being afraid of being over-run with too much politeness, when it could not regain one great man, but at the expence of another.” But the severity of his treatment did not cease even with his banishment. The same vindictive spirit pursued him in foreign climes. NoBritish subject was even permitted to visit him without the king’s sign manual, which Mr. Morice was always obligee! to solicit, not only for himself, but for every one of his family whom he carried abroad with him, for which the fees of office were very high.

When bishop Atterbury first entered upon his banishment, Brussels was the place destined for his residence 5 but, by the arts and instigations of the British ministers, he was compelled to leave that place, and retire to Paris. There, being solicited by the friends of the Pretender to enter into their negociations, he too readily complied, as appears by his correspondence published at Edinburgh in 1768, 4to; but, that he might appear to avoid them, he changed his abode for Montpelier in 1728, and after residing there about two years, returned to Paris, where he died February 15, 1731-2. The affliction which he sustained by the death of his daughter, in 1729, was thought to have hastened his own dissolution.

How far the bishop was attached in his inclinations to the Stuart family, to which he might be led by early prejudices of education, and the divided opinions of the times, is now too obvious to admit of controversy. But that he should have been weak enough to engage in a plot so inconsistent with his station, and so clumsily devised (to say the least of it, and without entering into his solemn asseverations of innocence), is utterly inconsistent with that cunning which his enemies allowed him. The duke of Wharton, it is well known, was violent against him, till convinced by his unanswerable reasoning.

It has been said that Atterbury’s wishes reached to the bishopric of London, or even to York or Canterbury. But those who were better acquainted with his views, knew that Winchester would have been much more desirable to him than either of the others. And it has been asserted, from respectable authority, that that bishopric was offered to him whenever it should become vacant (and till that event should happen, a pension of 5000l. a-year, besides an ample provision for Mr. Morice) if he would cease to give the opposition he did to sir Robert Wai pole’s administration, by his speeches and protests in the House of Lords. When that offer was rejected by the bishop, then the contrivance for his ruin was determined on but surely no contrivance could have been successful, had he been innocent of the treason laid to his charge.

In his speech in the House of Lords, the bishop mentions his being “engaged in a correspondence with two learned men (Bp. Potter and Dr. Wall) on settling the times of writing the four Gospels.” Part of this correspondence is now published. The same subject the bishop pursued during his exile, having consulted the learned of all nations, and had nearlybrought the whole to a conclusion when he died. These laudable labours are an ample confutation of bishop Newton’s assertion, that Atterbury “wrote little whilst in exile, but a few criticisms on French authors.”

His body was brought over to England, accompanied by his manuscripts, which underwent a strict examination but as nothing of his is now to be found in the State-paper office, it is probable that the whole was lost by neglect, or wilfully destroyed. He was interred on the 12th of May following, in Westminster abbey, in a vault which, in 1722, had been prepared by his directions. There is no memorial over his grave nor could there well be any, unless his friends would have consented (which it is most probable they refused to do) that the words implying him to have died bishop of Rochester should have been omitted on his tomb. The funeral was performed in a very private manner, attended only by his son-in-law Mr. Morice, and his two chaplains, Dr. Savage and Mr. Moore. Upon the urn which contained his bowels was inscribed,

Some time before his death, he published a Vindication of himself, bishop Smalridge, and Dr. Aldrich, from a charge brought against them by Mr. Oldmixon, of having altered and interpolated the copy of lord Clarendons “History of the Rebellion.” Bishop Atterbury’s Sermons are extant in four volumes in 8vo those contained in the two first were published by himself, and dedicated to his great patron sir Jonathan Trelawny, bishop of Winchester those in the two last were published after his death, by Dr. Thomas Moore, his lordship’s chaplain. Four admirable Visitation charges accompany his Epistolary Correspondence, which was completed in 1798, by Mr. Nichols, in 5 vols. 8vo containing also all his tracts, and a vast mass of curious and interesting ecclesiastical history. To the last volume is prefixed a life, written with great care and accuracy, and correcting the many mistakes of preceding biographers. It is needless to add how much the present article stands indebted to Mr. Nichols’s labours.

As to bishop Atterbury’s character, however the moral and political part of it may have been differently represented by the opposite parties, it is universally agreed, that he was a man of great learning and uncommon abilities, a fine writer, and a most excellent preacher. His learned friend Smalridge, in the speech he made, when he presented him to the upper house of convocation, as prolocutor, styles him “Vir in nullo literarum genere hospes, in plerisque artibus et studiis diu et feliciter exercitatus, in maxime perfectis literarum disciplinis perfectissimus.” In his controversial writings, he was sometimes too severe upon his adversary, and dealt rather too much in satire and invective but this his panegyrist imputes more to the natural fervour of his wit, than to any bitterness of temper, or prepense malice. In his sermons, however, he is not only every way unexceptionable, but highly to be commended. The truth is, his talent as a preacher was so excellent and remarkable, that it may not improperly he said, that he owed his preferment to the pulpit, nor any hard matter to trace him, through his writings, to his several promotions in the church. We shall conclude bishop Atterbury’s character, as a preacher, with the encomium bestowed on him by the author of “The Tatler” who, having observed that the English clergy too much neglect the art of speaking, makes a particular exception with regard to our prelate; who, says he, “has so particular a regard to his congregation, that he commits to his memory what he has to say to them, and has so soft and graceful a behaviour, that it must attract your attention. His person,” contnues this author, “it is to be confessed, is no small recommendation but he is to be highly commended for not losing that advantage, and adding to a propriety of speech (which might pass the criticism of Longinus) an action which would have been approved by Demosthenes. He has a peculiar force in his way, and has many of his audience, who could not be intelligent hearers of his discourse, were there no explanation as well as grace in his action. This art of his is used with the most exact and honest skill. He never attempts your passions till he has convinced your: reason. All the objections which you can form are laid open and dispersed, before he uses the least vehemence in his sermon; but when he thinks he has your head, he very soon wins your heart, and never pretends to shew the beauty of holiness, till he has convinced you of the truth of it.” In his letters to Pope, &c. bishop Atterbury appears in a pleasing light, both as a writer and as a man. In ease and elegance they are superior to those of Pope, which are more studied. There are in them several beautiful references to the classics. The bishop excelled in his allusions to sacred as well as profane authors.

The following anecdote was first communicated to the public by the late Dr. Maty, on the credit of lord Chesterfield: “I went,” said lord Chesterfield, “to Mr. Pope, one morning, at Twickenham, and found a large folio Bible, with gilt clasps, lying before him upon his table and, as I knew his way of thinking upon that book, I asked him jocosely, if he was going to write an answer to it It is a present, said he, or rather a legacy, from my old friend the bishop of Rochester. I went to take my leave of him yesterday in the Tower, where I saw this Bible upon his table. After the first compliments, the bishop said to me,” My friend Pope, considering your infirmities, and my age and exile, it is not likely that we should ever meet again and therefore I give you this legacy to remember me by it. Take it home with you, and let me advise you to abide by it.“” Does your lordship abide by it yourself“” I do.“If you do, my lord, it is but lately. May I beg to know what new light or arguments have prevailed with you now, to entertain an opinion so contrary to that which you entertained of that book all the former part of your life r” The bishop replied, “We have not time to talk of these things, but take home the book; I will abide by it, and I recommend you to do so too, and so God bless you.” It has been justly remarked^ that whatever were the bishop’s faults, we do not recollect any thing that indicates a disbelief or a doubt of the truth of Christianity. His actions and writings rather display him in the light of a zealous supporter of religion than in that of an infidel. His sermons on the miraculous propagation of the Gospel, and on a standing revelation’s being the best means of conviction, not to mention others of his discourses, are important evidences of his attachment to the Christian religion. It is observable, that he generally treats unbelievers with contempt, as an ignorant, superficial, and conceited set of men, which he vyould scarcely have done had he been of the same sentiments for, though a man may conceal, or deny, or even persecute the opinions which he himself holds, it is not very likely that he should appear to despise the retainers of them. With respect to the above anecdote related by Dr. Maty, the late Mr. Badcock, from a zeal to vindicate the bishop’s character, as if it were insinuated that he had once been an unbeliever, wrote a letter in which he endeavoured to deny the authenticity of the anecdote but, in our opinion, without arriving at that conclusion.

, was a celebrated Roman knight, to whom Cicero wrote a great number of letters, which contain the general history of the times. These are still extant, divided into seventeen books but it is the excellence of Atticus’s private character which has procured him a place in most collections of this description. He was a man of such prudence, that, without departing from his neutrality, he preserved the esteem and affection of all parties. He sent money to the younger Marius, who had been declared an enemy to the commonwealth yet was so much in favour with Sylla, that this Roman general would always have had him with him. He kept himself quiet at Rome during the war between Caesar and Pompey, without giving offence to the one or the other, and he sent money to Brutus, while he was doing kind offices to An­%ony. Afterwards, in the cruel divisions which arose between Antony and Augustus, he contrived to preserve the friendship of both, difficult as it must have been in the case of two such antagonists. The strict friendship he had with Cicero., did not hinder him from being intimate with Hortensius and he was the cause (as Nepos, his biographer, tells us) that these two rivals not only ceased from mutual reproaches, but even lived together upon very good terms. The contests between the parties of Cinna and Marius induced him to go to Athens young, where he continued a long time, and became such a favourite with the Athenians, that the day he left them was a day of mourning. He never attempted to raise himself above the rank of life in which he was born, which was that of knight, although he might have obtained the highest posts in the republic but he chose to renounce all pretensions to them, because, in the then prevailing corruption, he could neither gain nor discharge them according to the laws, and as a man of integrity; no inconsiderable proof of his virtue, notwithstanding he has been charged with avarice and political duplicity. He did not marry till he was fifty-three, and had only a daughter, who was married to Agrippa from which marriage came a daughter, whom Augustus betrothed to Tiberius almost as soon as she was born. He reached the age of seventy-seven years, almost without knowing bodily illness but when his last sickness, which was slight for three months, at length became painful, he sent for Agrippa, his son-in-law, and two other persons, and declared to them a resolution to put an end to his life, by abstinence from food. Agrippa remonstrated with tears, but all in vain. After two days abstinence, the fever left him, and the disease abated but Atticus persisted, and died three days after. This happened in the year of Rome 721.

Atticus was extremely fond of polite literature, and was ranked among authors of reputation, for he wrote Annals, which Cicero declares to have been of great use to him. He was of the sect of Epicurus and, though many have thought it impossible for a denier of a Providence to equal in morality an acknowledger of the Gods, yet Bayle defies any one to shew a person of greater integrity than Atticus among the most bigoted of the Pagans. Much, however, is not gained by exalting the characters of the most eminent of the Pagan heroes, and it is generally done with an insidious purpose.

, patriarch of Constantinople in the beginning of the fifth century, was born at Sebastia, now Soustia, a city of Armenia. He was first educated by the Macedonian monks in the principles of their sect, but when arrived at riper years, he embraced the faith of the Catholic church. In the year 406, being then a priest, he was chosen to succeed St. Chrysostom, who had been deprived of the see of Constantinople, but met with much obstruction from the friends of Chrysostom, and from all the bishops of the East, who considered Chrysostom as unjustly deprived, and refused to communicate with the new patriarch. Atticus, upon this, procured an edict from the emperor to compel them, but finding this produced no other effect than schism and confusion, after the death of Chrysostom he ordered his name to be put in the Diptychs, or ecclesiastical tables, in which were inserted the names of persons who had died in the peace and communion of the church, and those names were read at the altar during divine service. He also wrote to St. Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, earnestly intreating him to do the same, but Cyril answered that he should by that step appear to condemn those who had deposed Chrysostom. Both these letters are extant in Nicephorus Calixtus’s Ecclesiastical History. There is another letter of his extant to Calliopius, by which he appears to have been a man of moderate principles towards those who differed from him in opinion. There are likewise some fragments of a homily on the birth of Christ, in the general collection of the Councils, and a fragment of a letter of his to Eupsychius, quoted by Theodoret. Writers differ much in their estimate of his general character and learning.

, a French Jesuit and painter, attached to the mission to Pekin, was born at Dole, in Tranche-Comté, July 31, 1702, and at first took lessons in painting, and made considerable proficiency under his father, who was an artist. He then went to Rome, under the patronage of the marquis de Brossa, and on his return, painted some pictures at Lyons, which procured him great reputation. In his thirtieth year he entered among the Jesuits, in the humble character of a lay- brother, and some, years afterwards, when the missionaries of Pekin demanded the services of a painter, he obtained the appointment, and went to China about the end of 1737. He had no sooner arrived at Pekin than he offered the emperor a painting of the Adoration of the Kings, with which the emperor was so much pleased that he ordered it to be placed in his interior apartment. Notwithstanding this promising outset, he underwent many mortifications, in being obliged to comply with the bad taste of the Chinese in what paintings he executed for them, and was so teazed by the emperor himself, that, in order to please him, he was obliged to take lessons from the Chinese artists but finding that a compliance with their instructions must spoil his performances, and injure his reputation, he declined painting for his majesty. Ddring the years, however, from 1753 to 1760, distinguished by many victories gained by the emperor Kien Long, he had frequent orders for battlepieces, &c. which he executed so much to the satisfaction of that monarch, that he created him a mandarin, and when Attiret refused to accept it, the minister of state told him he should have the revenues, although he declined the honour. The missionaries speak in the highest terms of his talents, modesty, and piety. He died at Pekin, Dec. 8, 1768, and the emperor defrayed the expences of his funeral the large pictures he painted for the emperor are in the palace, but never shown the missionaries can exhibit only one picture, “The Guardian Angel,” which is in the chapel of the Neophites, in the French missionary church at Pekin. There is nothing of Attiret' s in print, except a letter in the “Recueil des Lettres Edifiantes,” vol. XXVII. which was translated by the late Rev. Joseph Spence, under his assumed name of sir Harry Beaumont, entitled “A particular account of the emperor of China’s gardens near Pekin, in a letter from father Attiret, a French missionary, now employed by that emperor to paint the apartments in those gardens, to his friend at Paris,” London, 1752, 8vo.

, F. R. S. an eminent mathematician, was born in 1746, and admitted of Westminster school in 1759, from whence he was elected to Trinity college, Cambridge, in 1765, where he took his bachelor’s degree in 1769 and his master’s in 1772. He was for some time a tutor, and for many years a fellow of that college, and read to the whole university lectures upon several branches of experimental philosophy, part of which he published under the title of “An Analysis of a course of Lectures on the principles of Natural Philosophy, read in the university of Cambridge, by G. A. &c.” 1784, 8vo. These lectures were much attended and justly admired“. The right hon. Wm. Pitt having been one of his auditors, was induced to form a more intimate acquaintance with him; and discovering that his talents might be eminently useful in the public service, bestowed upon him, in 1784, the place of patent searcher of the customs, London, that he might be enabled to devote a larger portion of his time to financial calculations, in which Mr. Pitt employed him, not more to his own satisfaction than to the advantage of the revenue. He continued in this employment under that eminent statesman, until his declining health rendered him incapable of intense application. In 1784, he also published” A treatise on the rectilinear Motion and Rotation of Bodies, with a description of original Experiments relative to the subject," 8vo. He contributed several papers to the Philosophical Transactions, and was honoured, on one occasion, with the Copleian medal. He died at his house in Westminster, July 1807, and was interred in St. Margaret’s church, justly esteemed by a numerous list of friends, and by the friends of science.

, or Avanzi Giammarie, a celebrated Italian lawyer, was born Aug. 23, 1564. He was educated with great care, and discovered so much taste for polite literature, that Riccoboni, his master, said, he was the only youth he had ever known who seemed to be born a poet and orator. His father wished him to study medicine, but his own inclination led him to study law, in which he soon became distinguished. At Ferrara he acquired an intimacy with Tasso, Guarini, Cremonini, and other eminent characters of that time. He afterwards retired to Rovigo, and practised as a lawyer, but was singularly unfortunate in his personal affairs, not only losing a considerable part of his property by being security for some persons who violated their engagements, but having his life attempted by assassins who attacked him one day and left him for dead with eighteen wounds. He recovered, however, but his brother being soon after assassinated, and having lost his wife, he retired, in 1606, to Padua, where he died, March 2, 1622, leaving several children, of whom Charles, his second son, became a learned physician and botanist. Avanzi wrote a poem “Il Satiro Favola Pastorale,” Venice, 1587, and dedicated it to the emperor Ferdinand, who rewarded him amply, and wished to bring him to his court, by the offer of the place of counsellor of state. He left in manuscript, a church history, “Historia Ecclesiastica a Lutheri apostasia;” and “Concilia de rebus civilibus et criminalibus.”

, marquis of, one of the ericouragers of useful learning in France, was born at Nismes, in 1686, and became a member of the academies of Marseilles and Nismes. He was of a very distinguished family, whose fame he perpetuated by the probity of his character, his love of science, and the patronage he extended to learning and learned men. He formed also one of the most complete libraries in his time. Among other contributions to literary undertakings, he gave Menard the materials of his collection, entitled “Pieces fugitives pour i'histoire de France,” published in 1759, 3 vols. 4to, and himself published an “Historical Geography,” 8vo, which was not much esteemed. He had, however, a perfect acquaintance witn history and genealogies. He died at his chateau d'Aubais, near Nismes, March 5, 1777, at the advanced age of 92.

, a learned physician of the sixteenth century, was born at Vendome, and became a doctor of medicine and philosophy. He died at Lausanne in 1586. His principal works are, 1. “De Metallorum ortu et causis, contra Chymistas, brevis explicatio,” Ley den, 1575, 8vo. 2. “*Duae Apologeticae Responsiones ad Josephum Quercetanum,” ibid. 1576. 3. “Progymnasmata in Johan. Fernelii librum de abditis rerum naturalium et medicamentorum causis,” Basil, 1579, 8vo. 4. “Semeiotica, sive ratio dignoscendarum sediura male affectarum, et affectuum preter naturam,” Lausanne, 1587, and Leyden, 1596, 8vo. 5. “Libellus de Peste,” Lausanne, 1571, 8vo. 6. “Des natures et complexions des hommes, &c.” Lausanne, 1571, Paris, 1572. This w uspect is a French translation. The original is not mentioned by Manget or Haller.

, a French lawyer, was born in 1642 and died in 1733, leaving his library to the city of Lyons, on condition that it should be open for the use of the public. He published a new edition of the “Dictionnaire de Richelet” in 3 vols. 1728, fol. which has been superseded by more recent editions. He was also the editor of “Un recueil de Factums,” 2 vols. Lyons, 1710, 4to, and the author of a little romance, entitled “Retour de l‘isle d’Amour,” which he published at his father’s request, when he was only sixteen years of age.

, sieur de Massouignes, was born in 1534, at Poitiers, and became an advocate of parliament at Paris, where he died in 160U He published, 1. “Histoire des guerres de Chretiens centre les Turcs, sous Godefroy de Bouillon,” Paris, 1559, 4to. 2. “Vers au chancelier de L'Hopital,” 8vo. Scevola de St. Marthe has translated these poems into Latin verse. 3. “Le Retranchemens,” 1585, 8vo. This is a collection of such of his pieces as he thought worthy of being handed down to posterity; among them is an “Essay on Self-knowledge,” and a eulogium on the president Thuanus.

, a minister of the reformed church of Paris in the seventeenth century, was born at Chalons sur Marne in 1595. He was admitted a minister at the synod of Charenton in 1618, and promoted to the church of Chartres, from whence he was removed to Paris in 1631. He wrote a very celebrated work, entitled “L‘Eucharistie de l’ancienne Eglise,” 1633, fol. proving from history and argument, the opinions of the Protestants on the subject of transubstantiation and the real presence. This excited much controversy, and was attempted to be confuted by Arnauld and other divines in the work entitled “La Perpetuite de la Foi.” M. Aubertin died at Paris, April 5, 1652. His last moments were disturbed by the harsh conduct of the rector of St. Sulpice, who endeavoured to obtain from him an acknowledgment of error, but M. Aubertin declared that he persevered in the reformed religion.

, a lawyer of Paris, born in 1617, became an indefatigable student, it being his practice to rise at five o'clock every morning, and study without intermission till six in the evening. He scarcely made any visits, and received still fewer, and though he had taken his oath as avocat au conseil, he preferred the silent commerce of his books to the tumult of affairs. The “Remarques de Vaugelas” was his only book of recreation. He died of a fall in 1695, at upwards of 78. Several works of his are to be met with, very inferior in respect of style, but they are not deficient in historical anecdotes and useful remarks. The chief of them are, 1. “Histoire generale des Cardinaux,” 5 vels. 1642, 4to, composed from the memoirs of Naud6 and of du Puy. 2. “Memoire pour rhistoire du Cardinal de Richelieu,” 1660, 2 vols. folio, and 1667, 5 vols. in 12 mo. 3. “Histoire de me me ministre,” 1660, folio. The materials here are good, but the best use has not been made of them. The cardinal, whom the author praises without restriction, is not painted in his proper colours, and the author has obviously laid himself open to the charge of flattery. Nor has he discovered much judgment, for, in striving to make too honest a man of the cardinal, he has not made him a politician, which was his distinguishing characteristic. Guy Patin, in his cxxxvith letter to Charles Spon, speaks in a very contemptuous manner of this history: “The duchess of Aiguillon,” says he, “has just had the history of her uncle the cardinal de Richelieu printed, composed from the memoirs she has furnished herself, by M. Aubery; but it is already fallen into contempt, being too much suspected from the quarter from whence it originates, and on account of the bad style of the wretched writer, who, lucro addictus & addductus, will not fail to play the mercenary, and to prostitute his pen to the direction of that lady.” It is said that the queen-mother answered the bookseller Berthier, who expressed his fear that certain persons of the court, of whom the historian spoke by no means advantageously, would bring him into trouble: “Go, pursue your business in peace, and put vice so much to shame, that nothing but virtue shall dare to be seen in France.” 4ubery is one of those who doubt whether the Testament published under the name of the cardinal de Richelieu be really by him. 4. “Histoire du cardinal Mazarin,” 1751, 4 vols. 12mo, a work in still less credit than the foregoing; but, as it was composed from the registers of the parliament, many of which have since disappeared, it contains several particulars not to be found any where else. Cardinal Mazarin, whose portrait is much over-charged, and but a very faint likeness, is very often lost among the great number of facts heaped together, and in which he sometimes plays but a very interior part, 5. “Traite historique de la preeminence des Rois de France/' 1649, 4to. 6.” Traite des justes pretensions du Roi de France sur PEmpire," 1667, 4to, which caused him to be thrown into the Bastille, because the princes of Germany thought the ideas of Aubery to be the same with those of Louis XIV. He was, however, soon set at liberty, and even his confinement was made easy.

, sieur du Maurier, accompanied his father on his embassy into Holland, from whence he proceeded to Berlin, to Poland, and to Rome. On his return to Paris, he acquired the favour of the queen-mother; but this not being followed by promotion, he relinquished his attendance at court, and retired to his estate to pass the remainder of his days in reading and compilation, and there he died in 1687. His “Memoires pour servir a l'histoire de Hollande,” 2 vols. 12mo, have been and are still quoted by all historians, though the facts related in them greatly displeased the Dutch. His grandson published in 1737, “Memoirs of Hamburgh,” in 12mo, also by him. We are likewise indebted to him for a relation of the execution of Cabrieres and Merindol, Paris, 1645, in 4to.

, the son of William Aubespine, who was ambassador from the French court in England, became bishop of Orleans in 1604. He was remarkable for his zeal as a divine, and his great application as a student, and was employed, as his father had been, in many public transactions. He died at Grenoble, Aug. 15, 1630, in the 52d year of his age. His writings are, “De veteribus ecclesiae ritibus,” 1622, 4to, a work which discovers much knowledge of ecclesiastical antiquities; “Un traite de Tancienne police de l'Eglise,” respecting the administration of the eucharist. He published also notes on the Councils, and on Tertullian. His brother Charles became marquis de Chateau-Neuf, and an eminent statesman in the seventeenth century.

, daughter of Claude d'Aubespine, baron of Chateauneuf, and wife of Nicolas de Neufville de Villeroi, secretary of state, was a French lady whose beauty and talents rendered her one of the ornaments of the courts of Charles IX. Henry III. and Henry IV. Ronsard has celebrated her in a sonnet, in which he quaintly advises her to substitute the laurels she had merited for the hawthorn (aubespine) which composed her name. She died at Villeroi in 1506, and Bertaud, bishop of Seez, wrote an epitaph on her. She is said to have translated Ovid’s epistles, and to have written several original works in verse and prose, none of which, however, we find specified in our authorities. Her statue, in white marble, is in the present French museum.

, a very celebrated French Protestant, was son to John D‘Aubigne, lord of Brie, in Saintonge, and born in 1550 at St. Maury. He made such proficiency under his preceptors, that at eight years old he was able to translate the Crito of Plato. Having lost his father, who left him only his name and his debts, at the age of thirteen, he betook himself to the profession of arms, for which a spirit and zeal particularly ardent and persevering seemed to have qualified him. He accordingly attached himself to Henry then king of Navarre, who made him successively gentleman of his bed-­chamber, marshal of the camp, governor of the island and castle of Maillezais, vice-admiral of Guienne and Bretagne, and what D’Aubigne valued most, his favourite. But he lost this last honour by a want of subserviency to his pleasure, and a stern and uncourtly inflexibility. It is well known that ingratitude was not the failing of Henry IV. yet he expended so much in conciliating the catholic lords, that he was often incapable of rewarding his old servants as they deserved, and with the utmost esteem for D‘Aubigne, he had bestowed little else upon him, and was probably not sorry for any pretence to get rid of him. D’Aubigne, displeased with his conduct, left the court, and although Henry intreated and demanded his return, continued inexorable, until he accidentally learnt that upon a false report of his being made a prisoner at the siege of Limoges, the king had ordered him to be ransomed at a great expence. Penetrated by this mark of returning kindness, he again came to court, but persisted in giving the king both advice and reproaches, in a blunt and sometimes satirical manner, which the king scarcely knew how to tolerate, while he felt conscious of the value of so sincere a friend and counsellor.

Many curious anecdotes are reported of his freedoms with the king. Before he returned to the court, he sent one of his pages to announce to the sovereign that he was upon the road. The king asked him from whence he came? The page said, “Yes, yes;” and to every question that was put to him, still returned “Yes, yes.” On the king’s asking him why he continued to answer his questions in that manner, he replied, “Sire, I said yes yes, because kings drive away from their presence all persons who will not make use of those words to every thing which their sovereigns require of them.” While equerry to the king, and lying one night with the Sieur de la Force in the guard chamber, he whispered in his companion’s ear, “Certainly our master is the most covetous, and most ungrateful mortal upon earth.” Receiving no answer, he repeated the accusation, but la Force, being scarcely awake, did not hear him distinctly, and asked, “What do you say, D'Aubigne?” “Cannot you hear him?” said the king, who was awake, “he tells you I am the most covetous and most ungrateful mortal on earth.” “Sleep on, sire,” replied D'Aubigne, “I have a good deal more to say yet.” The next day, Aubigne tells us in his memoirs, the king did not look unkindly on him, but still gave him nothing. After, however, sometimes pleasing and sometimes displeasing the king and court by these freedoms, he again found it necessary to retire, and passed the rest of his days at Geneva, where he died in 1630, in the 80th year of his age. It was here probably, where he was received with great respect and honour, that he employed his pen on those various works which entitle him to a distinguished place in the republic of letters. These were his universal history, entitled “Histoire Universelle depuis 1550 jusq'en 1601, avec un histoire abregée de la mort de Henry IV.” 3 vols. folio, printed at St. Jean d'Angeli, although the title page says Maille, 1616—18—20, and reprinted in 1626, with additions and corrections. The first edition is in most request by the curious, as having some strokes of satire in it which are omitted in the other. His style is not uniform, and he often departs from the dignity of history to indulge in a jocose garrulity, accompanied with impassioned coarse passages, which are, however, highly characteristic of the writer. The first volume was burnt by order of the parliament of Paris, on account of the freedoms he had taken with the royal personages, particularly Henry III. The first and second parts of this history, which contain the wars of the prince of Condé and of the admiral Coligny, the massacre of St. Bartholomew, and the first transactions of the League, are given rather in a succinct form, but the third, which continues the detail until the peace of Henry the Great, is the most full and most correct. He wrote also some “Tragedies,” 1616, 4to and 8vo; “A collection of Poetical pieces,” printed at Geneva, 1630, 8vo; a very satirical piece entitled “La Confession de Sancy;” and in 1731, was printed “Baron de Foeneste,” 12mo, said to be his, which is a more gross composition. In the same year his Memoirs, written by himself, were printed, and have been translated into English. His son, Constant D'Aubigne, a most profligate character, was the father of madame de Maintenon.

, an eminent English antiquary, descended from an ancient family in Wiltshire, was born at Easton-Piers in that county, Nov. 3, 1625 or 1626. He received the first rudiments of his education in the grammar-school at Malmesbury, under Mr. Robert Latimer; who had also been preceptor to the famous Thomas Hobbes, with whom Mr. Aubrey commenced an early friendship, which lasted as long as Mr. Hobbes lived. In 1642, Mr. Aubrey was entered a gentleman-commoner of Trinity college at Oxford, where he pursued his studies with great diligence, making the history and antiquities of England his peculiar object. About this time the famous “Monasticon Anglicanum” was talked of in the university, to which Mr. Aubrey contributed considerable assistance, and procured, at his own expence, a curious draught of the remains of Osney abbey near Oxford, which were entirely destroyed in the civil wars. This was afterwards engraved by Hollar, and inserted in the Mouasticon with an inscription by Aubrey. In 1646 he was admitted of the Middle Temple, but the death of his father hindered him from pursuing the law. He succeeded to several estates in the counties of Wilts, Surrey, Hereford, Brecknock, and Monmouth, but they were involved in many law-suits. These suits, together with other misfortunes, by degrees consumed all his estates, and forced him to lead a more active life than he was otherwise inclined to. He did not, however, break off his acquaintance with the learned at Oxford or at London, but kept up a close correspondence with the lovers of antiquity and natural philosophy in the university, and furnished Anthony Wood with a considerable part of the materials for his two large works. W r ood, however, in his own life, does not speak very respectfully of his assistant. He calls him a pretender to antiquities, and after giving an account of the origin of their acquaintance, of the gay appearance which Aubrey made at Oxford, and of his subsequent poverty, Wood adds, “He was a shiftless person, roving and magotie-headed, and sometimes little better than erased. And being exceedingly credulous, would stuff his many letters sent to A. W. with folliries and mis-informations, which sometimes would guide him into the paths of error.”

Aubrey preserved an intimacy with those great persons^ who then met privately, and were afterwards formed into the Royal Society. Soon after the restoration, he went into Ireland, and returning from thence, in the autumn of 1660, narrowly escaped shipwreck near Holyhead. On the 1st of Nov. 1661, he was so unfortunate as to suffer another shipwreck. In 1662, he was admitted a fellow of the Royal Society. In June 1664, he travelled through. France into Orleans, and returned in the month of October. In 1666, he sold his estate in Wiltshire; and was at length obliged to dispose of all he had left, so that, in the space of four years, he was reduced even to want yet his spirit remained unbroken. His chief benefactress was. the lady Long of Dray cot in Wilts, who gave him an apartment in her house, and supported him as long as he lived. When his death happened is uncertain we are only told in general that he died suddenly on a journey to Oxford in his way to Dray cot and he was there buried, as near as can be conjectured, in 1700. He was a man of an excellent capacity, and indefatigable application; a diligent searcher into antiquities, a good Latin poet, an excellent naturalist, but somewhat credulous, and tinctured with superstition.

The character Mr. Malone has given him, in his “Historical account of the English Stage,” is worthy of transcription, as the opinion of one who has had every opportunity to investigate his merits. “That,” says Mr. Malone, “the greater part of his life was devoted to literary pursuits, is ascertained by the works which he has published, the correspondence which he held with many eminent men, and the collections which he left in manuscript, and which are now reposited in the Ashtnolean Museum. Among these collection* is a curious account of our English poets and many other writers. While Wood was preparing his Athenoe Oxonienses, this manuscript was lent to him, as appears from many queries in his hand-writing in the margin and his account of Milton, with whom Aubrey was intimately acquainted, is (as has been observed by Mr. Warton) literally transcribed from thence. Wood afterwards quarreled with Mr. Aubrey, whom in the second volume of his Fasti, p. 262, he calls his friend, and on whom, in his History of the University of Oxford he bestows the highest encomium; and, after their quarrel, with his usual warmth, and, in his loose diction, he represented Aubrey as a pretender, &c. But whatever Wood in a peevish humour may have thought or said of Mr. Aubrey, by whose labours he highly profited, or however fantastical Aubrey may have been on the subject of chemistry and ghosts, his character for veracity has never been impeached and as a very diligent antiquary, his testimony is worthy of attention. Mr. Toland, who was well acquainted with him, and certainly a better judge of men than Wood, gives this character of him” Though he was extremely superstitious, or seemed to be so, yet he was a very honest man, and most accurate in his account of matters of fact. But the facts he knew, not the reflections he made, were what I wanted."

The manuscripts mentioned by. Mr. Malone, now in the Museum at Oxford, are, “An Apparatus for the Lives of our English mathematical and other writers an Interpretation of Villare Anglicanum Designatio de Easton-Piers in com. Wilts A volume of Letters and other papers of E. Ashmole’s, relating chiefly to Dr. Dee and sir Edward Kelly two volumes of Letters from eminent persons to John Aubrey, esq.” His principal works besides are, 1. “The Life of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury,” a manuscript written in English, but never published the principal part has been used by Dr. Blackbourne, in his Vitae Hobbianse auctarium,“published in 1681. 2.” Miscellanies on the following subjects 1. Day-fatality. 2. Local fatality. 3. Ostenta. 4. Omens. 5. Dreams. 6. Apparitions. 7. Voices. 8. Impulses. 9. Knockings. 10. Blows invisible. 11. Prophecies. 12. Marvels. 13. Magic. 14. Transportation in the air. 15. Visions in a beril or speculum. 16. Converse with angels and spirits. 17. Corpse candles in Wales. 18. Oracles. 19. Extasies. 20. Glances of love and envy. 21. Second-sighted persons. 22. The discovery of two murders by apparitions,“often reprinted. 3.” A Perambulation of the county of Surry, begun 1673, ended 1692.“This work the author left behind him in manuscript it was published, 1719, in five volumes 8vo, and is now scarce. 4.” Monumenta Britannica, or a discourse concerning Stone-henge and Rollich-stones in Oxfordshire“a manuscript. This is said to have been written at the command of Charles II t who meeting Mr. Aubrey at Stone-henge, as his majesty was returning from Bath, conversed with him in relation to that celebrated monument of antiquity; and also ^approved of his notion concerning it, which was this, that both it and the stones in Oxfordshire were the remains of places dedicated to sacred uses by the Druids, long before the time of the Roman invasion. See a letter from Mr. Paschal to Mr. Aubrey, prefixed to his Memoirs. 5.” Architectonica sacra,“a Dissertation concerning the manner of our Church-building in England,” a manuscript in the Museum at Oxford. 6. " The Idea of universal Education.' 5 There are besides many letters of our author relating to natural philosophy, and other curious subjects, published in several collections.

, an eminent civilian in queen Elizabeth’s reign, is said to have been a native of Cantre in Brecknockshire. He was educated at Oxford, where he took* his bachelor’s degree in law, and was elected fellow of All Souls college in 1547. He was made regius professor of civil law, Oct. 7, 1553, and proceeded D. C. L. in 1554. He was also principal of New Inn hall, Oxford, from 1550, probably to 1560, but the exact year has not been ascertained. He executed the office by deputies, as he was about that time judge advocate of the queen’s army at St. Quintin in France. He also was successively, advocate in the court of arches, master in Chancery, chancellor to archbishop Whitgift, and lastly, by the special favour of queen Elizabeth, he was made one of the masters of requests in ordinary. He died July 23, 1595, aged 66, and was buried in St. Paul’s cathedral under a monument which perished in the destruction of that church in 1666. Dr. Aubrey was a man of high character in his time, and is mentioned with great respect by Thuanus. His only writings remain in manuscript, except a few letters published in Strype’s Life of Grindal. He wrote some letters to Dr. Dee respecting the dominion of the seas and something respecting the reformation of the court of Arches in 1576.

, a celebrated painter of flowers, plants, birds, fish, &c. w&s born at Chalons sur Marne, about the middle of the seventeenth century. He was first employed to make drawings in the king’s garden, and discovered such accuracy, that Tournefort engaged him to go with him to the Levant in that voyage which he took in 1700. On his return he succeeded Joubert as king’s painter in the royal garden, where he continued the fine collection of natural history begun at Blois by the famous Nicholas Robert, by order of Gaston of Orleans. Aubriet 1 s most celebrated work, is a volume of paintings of sea-fish which Louis XIV. kept alive in his managerie, and which are admirably executed. The plates of Vaillant’s “Botanicou Parisiense,” 1727, were also done from, his designs and the imperial library is enriched by three superb volumes of fish, butterflies, birds, c. The collection, above-mentioned, begun by Nicholas Robert, and continued by Joubert and Aubriet, forms sixty-six folio volumes, which are now deposited in the library belonging to the botanical garden, Paris. Aubriet died at Paris in 1740, upwards of eighty-nine years of age.

, a native of Burgundy, was made treasurer of the finances, and provost of the merchants of the city of Paris. He built the Bastille by order of Charles V. king of France, in 1369, as a fortress against the English but being accused of heresy by the clergy, he was condemned to be immured between two walls, where he doubtless would have ended his days, had he not have been set at liberty by the Maillotins, who wanted to make him their captain in their insurrection upon account of the taxes. But that night he made his escape from them into Burgundy, where he soon after died in 1382. From this person the Hugonots are said to have derived their name, which seems not very consistent with the conjectures of most historians.

, a French Benedictine of the congregation of St. Vannes, was born at Deyvillier, near Epinal, in 1736, and became prior of the house of Commercy, in which he continued to live after the suppression of the monastic orders. He was a man in very general esteem for abilities and amiable manners, both among his fellow ecclesiastics, and with the public at large. He is likewise praised for his humility, of which the following instance is given. Having written his “Questions Philosophiques sur la religion naturelle,” he solicited permission from the keeper of the seals to publish it, without having first consulted the superiors of his order, and for this he was condemned to dine in the refectory, upon bread and water, and on his knees, to which he submitted. Among other literary works, he was employed to continue “L'Histoire des auteurs sacres et ecclesiastiques,” begun by Flavigny, which was submitted to the revisal and highly approved by the congregation of St. Maur; but as that ancient order, once so celebrated in the republic of letters, began to be remiss in their exertions, this work never appeared. In 1775, he published his “Ami philosophique,” a performance well received by the public, and which procured him a very flattering letter from prince Charles of Lorraine. D'Alembert also bestowed high praises on it, a circumstance we should have thought rather suspicious, if we were not assured that Aubry, in all his writings, was a zealous defender of religion. Besides this and the “Questions philosophiques” above mentioned, he published 1. “Theorie de Tame des betes et de celle qu'on attribue a la matiere organisee.” 2. “Questions metaphysiques sur l'existence et la nature de Dieu.” 3. “Questions aux philosophes du jour.” 4. “L'Anti Condillac, ou harangues aux ideologues modernes.” 5. “La nouvelle theorie des etres.” 6. “Aubade, ou lettres apologetiques, &c.” Aubry died about the end of the year 1809.

, a French physician, and superintendant of the mineral waters of Luxeil, where he died in 1795, published a much esteemed work, under the title of “Les Oracles de Cos,” Paris, 1775; of which a second edition was published by Didot in 1781, with an “Introduction a la therapeutique de Cos.” This work is intended to connect the observations of Hippocrates with his maxims, as the best commentary on that ancient author. It contains likewise a curious dissertation on the ancient history of the medical science. He is particularly praised by his countrymen for his happy talent in compressing much valuable matter in a small compass, and thus affording a convenient and useful manual to students.

, president in the election, or court of assessors of Orleans, was a learned lawyer, and esteemed an excellent Latin poet in the sixteenth century. He studied at Bologna under Alciat, and on his return to France, wrote the greater part of his poems. The elogium on Venice induced that republic to bestow upon him the order of St. Mark, with the chain of gold of the order. Henry III. of France also granted him letters of nobility, and permitted him to add to his arms two fleur-de-lis of gold. Notwithstanding these honours, he continued to act as assessor at Orleans for the space of fifty years. He died Dec. 24, 1598, aged about eighty years. “He wrote” Roma, poema,“Paris, 1555, 4to. 2.” Venetia, poema- r Venice, 1583, 4to. 3. “Partenope,” Paris, 1585. These three werepublished together at Hanau, according to Bayle or Hanover, according to Moreri, in 1603. He wrote other poems which would have probably been published by his son, had he lived longer but he died five days after his father.

, an able astronomer and mathematician, was born at Saorgio, near Nice, in Provence, in 1714. At the age of sixteeeri he entered the order of St. Dominic, and made rapid progress in his studies, not only in sacred literature, but in mathematics, and the languages. In his thirty-fifth year he was appointed second librarian of the Casanata, and ten years aftenvards first librarian, which office he held until his death. His studies were extended to mathematics, astronomy, antiquities, natural history, criticism, and bibliography but astronomy was his favourite pursuit, on which he published many pieces. He was appointed by the late pope Pius VI. to make mineralogical observations on the new mines of Tolfa. He died July 3, 1794. His published works are, 1. “Mercurius in sole visus, observatio habita Romae, &c.” Rome, 1753, 4to. 2. “Phenomena ccelestia observata,” Rome, 1754, 8vo. 3. “Otia astronomica,” Rome, 1755, 4to. 4. “Novissimus Mercurii transitus,” Rome, 1756, 8vo. 5. “Passaggio di Venere, &c.” 4to, without place or date, but most probably 1761. 6. “Transitus Veneris, &c.” 1762. This appears to be cither the same work as the preceding, or a Latin translation. 7. “Investigatio Parallaxis Solaris, &c.” Rome,. 1765, 8vo, published under the anagrammatical name of Dadeus Ruffus. 8. “De Solis Parallaxi commentarius,” Rome, 1766, 8vo. 9. “Dimostrazione della theoria, &c.” of the Comet of the year 1769, published in a literary journal at Rome, 1770. 10. “Letere typografiche,” under the name of the abbe Nicolas Ugolini de Foligno, addressed to Xavier Laire, author of the historical essay on the Roman typography of the 15th century, Mentz, 1778, 8vo, a satirical attack on father Laire. 11. “Catalogus historico-criticus Romanarum editionum saeculi 15.” Rome, 1783, 4to. 12. “Catalogus librorum typis impressorum bibliothecae Casanatensis, praestantioribus notis et observationibus illustratus,” 4 vols. fol. 1762, 1768, 1775, 1788. 13. “Specimen historico-criticum editionum Italicarum ssGCuli 15,” Rome, 1794, 4to. In some of the foreign journals, are other essays by him on astronomical subjects.

, a French geographer, iyas a native of Draguignan in Provence, or according to other accounts, of Marseilles, and flourished about the beginning of the 18th century. In 1698, he was appointed envoy extraordinary to the courts of Mantua, Parma, and Modena. His work entitled “Geographic Ancienne, Moderne, & Historique,” Paris, 3 vols. 4to, 1689, 1691, and 5 vols. 12mo. Paris, 1694, has been much esteemed, as uniting very skilfully details of history with geography. It comprehends however only a part of Europej but that so well executed, that it is to be regretted he did not finish it. He died at Nancy, 1733, aged 76.

, a French nobleman, was born at Clermont in 1565. His life was a continued series of misfortunes and escapes. He was one of the king’s magistrates in 1590, when he was attacked and dangerously wounded by eleven of those men who were endeavouring to raise the country against Henry IV. and in favour of the league. He had scarcely recovered, when, in company with his father, he was again attacked and wounded by the same men. He determined now to quit Gascony, and pass into Hungary but his servant with whom he set out robbed him and left htm destitute with some difficulty, however, he reached Paris, where he found friends was introduced to court, plunged into all manner of pleasures, and forgot his former losses and his former resolutions. But here he fell sick, and had scarcely recovered, when he wounded a false friend in a duel, and was obliged to make his escape. He wandered for & considerable time from place to place, spent much money, contracted debts, became poor, and lost his friends. Again he surmounted his difficulties, when for some crime he was thrown into prison he vindicated his innocence, plunged again into a set of adventurous troubles, and at last was assassinated in 1630. He was a voluminous writer both in verse and prose, published Romances and books of Devotion translated Cervantes’ novels, and a work entitled “Usage des Duels,” 1617, 8vo. His works shew some marks of genius, but partook too much of the irregularities of their author to enjoy long reputation.

, an English prelate, was the son of James, lord Audley, by Eleanor his wife, but in what year he was born does not appear. He was educated in Lincoln college in Oxford, and in the year 1463 took the degree of bachelor of arts in that university, and it is presumed, that of master of arts also, but the register at that period is imperfect. In 1471, he became prebendary of Farendon in the church of Lincoln, and in October, 1475, attained the like preferment in the church of Wells. On Christmas day the same year, he became archdeacon of the East riding of Yorkshire, and had other considerable preferments, which he quitted, on his being promoted to the bishopric of Rochester, in 1480, In 1492, he was translated to Hereford, and thence in 1502, to Salisbury, and about that time was made chancellor of the most noble order of the Garter. He was a man of learning, and of a generous spirit. In 1518, he gave four hundred pounds to Lincoln college to purchase lands, and bestowed upon the same house the patronage of a chantry, which he had founded in the cathedral church of Salisbury. He was a benefactor likewise to St. Mary’s church in Oxford, and contributed towards erecting the curious stone pulpit therein. Bishop Godwin likewise tells us, that he gave the organs but Anthony Wood says, that does not appear. He gave, however, 200l. to Chichele’s chest, which had been robbed a very considerable benefaction at that time. He died Aug. 23, 1524, at Ramsbury in the county of Wilts, and was buried in a chapel which he erected to the honour of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, in the cathedral of Salisbury, being then, doubtless, a very old jnan, as he had sat forty-four years a bishop.

, descended of an ancient and honourable family, of the county of Essex, was born in 1488. He was by nature endowed with great abilities, from his ancestors inherited an ample fortune, and was happy in a regular education, but whether at Oxford or Cambridge is not certain. At what time he was entered of the Inner-Temple, does not appear, but in 1526 he was autumn reader of that house, and is thought to have read on the statute of privileges, which he handled with so much learniag and eloquence, as to acquire great reputation. This, with the duke of Suffolk’s recommendation, to whom he was chancellor, brought him to the' knowledge of his sovereign, who at that time wanted men of learning and some pliability he was, accordingly, by the king’s influence, chosen speaker of that parliament, which sat first on the third of November, 1529, and is by some styled the Black Parliament, and by others, on account of its duration, the Long Parliament. Great complaints were made in the house of commons against the clergy, and the proceedings in ecclesiastical courts, and several bills were ordered to be brought in, which alarmed some of the prelates. Fisher, bishop of Rochester, inveighed boldly against these transactions, in the house of lords, with which the house of commons were so much offended, that they thought proper to complain of it, by their speaker, to the king, and Fisher had some difficulty in excusing himself. The best historians agree, that great care was taken by the king, or at least by his ministry, to have such persons chosen into this house of commons as would proceed therein readily and effectually, and with this view Audley was chosen to supply the place of sir Thomas More, now speaker of the lords’ house, and chancellor of England. The new house and its speaker justified his majesty’s expectations, by the whole tenor of their behaviour, but especially by the passing of a law, not nowfound among our statutes. The king, having borrowed very large sums of money of particular subjects, and entered into obligations for the repayment of the said sums, the house brought in, and passed a bill, in the preamble of which they declared, that inasmuch as those sums had been applied by his majesty to public uses, therefore they cancelled and discharged the said obligations, &c. and the king, finding the convenience of such a parliament, it sat again in the month of January, 1530-1. In this session also many extraordinary things were done amongst the rest, there was a law introduced in the house of lords, by which the clergy were exempted from the penalties they had incurred, by submitting to the legatine power of Wolsey. On this occasion the commons moved a clause in favour of the laity, many of themselves having also incurred the penalties of the statute. But the king insisted that acts of grace ought to flow spontaneously, and that this was not the method of obtaining what they wanted; and the house, notwithstanding the intercession of its speaker, and several of its members, who were the king’s servants, was obliged to pass the bill without the clause, and immediately the king granted them likewise a pardon, which reconciled all parties. In the recess, the king thought it necessary to have a letter written to the pope by the lords and commons, or rather by the three estates in parliament, which letter was drawn up and signed by cardinal Wolsey, the archbishop of Canterbury, four bishops, two dukes, two marquisses, thirteen earls, two viscounts, twenty-three barons, twenty-two abbots, and eleven members of the house of commons. Thepurport of this letter, dated July 13, above three weeks after the parliament rose, was to iMigage the pope to grant the king’s desire in the divorce business, for the sake of preventing a civil war, on account of the succession, and to threaten him if he did not, to take some other way. To gratify the speaker for the great pains he had already taken, and to encourage him to proceed in the same way, the king made him this year attorney for the duchy of Lancaster, advanced him in Michaelmas term to the state and degree of a serjeant at law, and on the 14th of November following, to that of his own serjeant. In January, 1531-2, the parliament had its third session, wherein the grievances occasioned by the excessive power of the ecclesiastics and their courts, were regularly digested into a book, which was presented by the speaker, Audley, to the king. The king’s answer was, He would take advice, hear the parties accused speak, and then proceed to reformation. Jn this session, a bill was brought into the house of lords, for the better securing the rights of his majesty, and other persons interested in the eare of wards, which rights, it was alleged, were injured by fraudulent wills and contracts. This bill, when it came into the house of commons, was violently opposed, and the members expressed a desire of being dissolved, which the king would not permit but after they had done some business, they had a recess to the month of April. When they next met, the king sent for the speaker, and delivered to him the answer which had been made to the roll of grievances, presented at their last sitting, which afforded very little satisfaction, and they seemed now less subset viciit. Towards the close of the month, one Mr. Themse moved, That the house would intercede with the king, to take back his queen again. The king, extremely alarmed at this, on the 30th of April, 1532, sent for the speaker, to whom he repeated the plea of conscience, which had induced him to repudiate the queen, and urged that the opinion of the learned doctors, &c. was on his side. On the 11th of May the king sent for the speaker again, and told him, that he had found that the clergy of his realm were but half his subjects, or scarcely so much, every bishop and abbot at the entering into his dignity, taking an oath to the pope, derogatory to that of their fidelity to the king, which contradiction he desired his parliament to take away. Upon this motion of the king’s, the two oaths he mentioned were read in the house of commons and they would probably have complied, if the plague bad not put an end to the session abruptly, on the 14th of May; and two days after, sir Thomas More, knt. then lord chancellor of England, went suddenly, without acquainting any body with his intention, to court, his majesty being then at York Place, and surrendered up the seals to the king. The king going out of town to EastGreenwich, carried the seals with him, and on Monday, May 20, delivered them to Thomas Audley, esq, with the title of lord keeper, and at the same time conferred on him the honour of knighthood. September 6, sir Thomas delivered the old seal, which was much worn, and received a new one in its stead, yet with no -higher title: but on January 26, 1533, he again delivered the seal to the king, who kept it a quarter of an hour, and then returned it with the title of lord chancellor. A little after, the king granted to him the site of the priory of Christ Church, Aldgate, together with all the church plate, and lands belonging to that house. When chancellor he complied with the king’s pleasure as effectually as when speaker of the house of commons. For in July 1535, he sat in judgment on sir Thomas More, his predecessor, (as he had before on bishop Fisher,) who was now indicted of high-treason upon which indictment the jury found him gnilty, and the lord chancellor, Audley, pronounced judgment of death upon him. This done, we are told, that sir Thomas More said, that he had for seven years bent his mind and study upon this cause, but as yet he found it no where writ by any approved doctor of the church, that a layman could be head of the ecclesiastical state. To this Audley returned, “Sir, will you be reckoned wiser, or of a better conscience, than all the bishops, the nobility, and the whole kingdom” Sir Thomas rejoined, “My lord chancellor, for one bishop that you have of your opinion, I have a hundred of mine, and that among those that have been saints and for your one council, which, what it is, God knows, I have on my side all the general councils for a thousand years past; and for one kingdom, I have France and all the ether kingdoms of the Christian world.” As our chancellor was very active in the business of the divorce, he was no less so in the business of abbies, and had particularly a large hand in the dissolution of such religions houses as had not two hundred pounds by the year. This was in the twenty-seventh of Henry VIII, and the bill being delayed long in the house of commons, his majesty sent for the members of that house to attend him in his gallery, where he passed through them with a stern countenance, without speaking a word the members not having received the king’s command to depart to their house, durst not return till they knew the king’s pleasure so they stood waiting in the gallery. In the mean time the king went a hunting, and his ministers, who seem to have had better manners than their master, went to confer with the members to some they spoke of the king’s steadiness and severity to others, of his magnificence and generosity. At last the king came back, and passing through them again, said, with an air of fierceness peculiar to himself, That if his bill did not pass, it should cost many of them their heads. Between the ministers’ persuasions and the king’s threats, the matter was brought to an issue the king’s bill, as he called it, passed and by it, he had not only the lands of the small monasteries given him, but also their jewels, plate, and rich moveables. This being accomplished, methods were used to prevail with the abbots of larger foundations to surrender. To this end, the chancellor sent a special agent to treat with the abbot of Athelny, to offer him an hundred marks per annum pension which he refused, insisting on a greater sum. The chancellor was more successful with the abbot of St. Osithes in Essex, with whom he dealt personally and, as he expresses it in a letter to Cromwell, the visitor-general, by great solicitation prevailed with him but then he insinuates, that his place of lord chancellor being very chargeable, he desired the king might be moved for addition of some more profitable offices unto him. In suing for the great abbey of Walden, in the same county, which he obtained, besides extenuating its worth, he alleged under his hand, that he had in this world sustained great damage and infamy in serving the king, which the grant of that should recompense. But if the year 1536 was agreeable to him in one respect, it was far from being so in another; since, notwithstanding the obligations he was under to queen Anne Bullen, he was obliged, by the king’s command, to be present at her apprehension and commitment to the Tower. He sat afterwards with Cranmer archbishop of Canterbury, when he gave sentence of divorce on the pre-contract between the queen and the lordPiercy and on the 15th of May, in the same year, he sat in judgment on the said queen, notwithstanding we are told by Lloyd, that with great address he avoided it. The lengths he had gone in serving the king, and his known dislike to popery, induced the northern, rebels in the same year, to name him as one of the evil counsellors, whom they desired to see removed from about the king’s person which charge, however, his majesty, as far as in him lay, wiped off, by his well- penned answer to the complaints of those rebels, wherein an excellent character is given of the chancellor. When the authors of this rebellion came to be tried, the chancellor declined sitting as lord high steward, which high office was executed by the marquis of Exeter, on whom shortly after, viz. in 1538, Audley sat as high-steward, and condemned him, his brother, and several t other persons, to suffer death as traitors. In the latter end of the same year, viz. on the 29th of November, 30 Hen. VIII. the chancellor was created a baron, by the style of lord Audley of Walden in the county of Essex, and was likewise installed knight of the garter. In the session of parliament in 1539, there were many severe acts made, and the prerogative carried to an excessive height, particularly by the six bloody articles, and the giving the king’s proclamation the force of a law. It does not very clearly appear who were the king’s principal counsellors in these matters but it is admitted by the best historians, that the rigorous execution of these laws, which the king first designed, was prevented by the interposition of the lord Audley, in conjunction with Cromwell, who was then prime minister, and the duke of Suffolk, the king’s favourite throughout his whole reign. In the beginning of 1540, the court was excessively embarrassed. What share Audley had in the fall of Cromwell afterwards is not clear, but immediately after a new question was stirred in parliament, viz. How far the king’s marriage with Anne of Cleves, was lawful This was referred to the judgment of a spiritual court and there are yet extant the depositions of Thomas lord Audley, lord chancellor, Thomas, archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas, duke of Norfolk, Charles, duke of Suffolk, and Cuthbert, lord bishop of Durham, wherein they jointly swear, that the papers produced to prove the retraction of the lady Anne’s contract with the duke of Lorrain, were inconclusive and unsatisfactory. Other lords and ladies deposed to other points, and the issue of the business was, that the marriage was declared void by this court, which sentence was supported by an act of parliament, affirming the same thing, and enacting, That it should be high-treason to judge or believe otherwise. This obstacle removed, the king married the lady Catherine Howard, niece to the duke of Norfolk, and cousin -german to Anne Bullen. Nothing is clearer from history, than that the chancellor was closely attached to the house of Norfolk and yet in the latter end of the year 1541, he was constrained to be an instrument in the ruin of the unfortunate queen information of her bad life before her marriage, being laid first before the archbishop of Canterbury, and by him communicated to the chancellor. The king then appointed lord Audley one of the commissioners to examine her, which they did, and there is yet extant a letter subscribed by him and the other lords, containing an exact detail of this affair, and of the evidence on which, in the next session of parliament, the queen and others were attainted. The whole of this business was managed in parliament by the chancellor, and there is reason to believe, that he had some hand in another business transacted in that session which was the opening a door for the dissolution of hospitals, the king having now wasted all that had accrued to him by the suppression of abbies. Some other things of the like nature were the last testimonies of the chancellor’s concern for his master’s interest but next year a more remarkable case occurred. Jn the 34th of Henry VIII. George Ferrers, esq. burgess for Plymouth, was arrested, and carried to the compter, by virtue of a writ from the court of king’s bench. The house, on notice thereof, sent their serjeant to demand their member in doing which, a fray ensued at the compter, his mace was broke, his servant knocked down, and himself obliged to make his escape as well as he could. The house, upon notice of this, resolved they would sit no longer without their member, and desired a conference with the lords where, after hearing the mutter, the lord chancellor Audley declared the contempt was most flagrant, and referred “the punishment thereof to the house of commons whereupon Thomas Moyle, esq. who was then speaker, issued his warrant, and the sheriff of London, and several other persons, were brought to the bar of the house, and committed, some to the Tower, and some to Newgate. This precedent was gained by the king’s want of an aid, who at that time expected the commons would offer him a subsidy the ministry, and the house of lords, knowing the king’s will gave the commons the complimerit of punishing those who had imprisoned one of their members. Dyer, mentioning this case, sap,” The sages of the law held the commitment of Ferrers legal, and though the privilege was allowed him, yet was it held unjust.“As the chancellor had led a very active life, he grew now infirm, though he was not much above fifty years old, and therefore began to think of settling his family and affairs. But, previous to this, he obtained from the king a licence to change the name of Buckingham college in Cambridge, into that of Magdalen, or Maudlin some will have it, because in the latter word his own name is included. To this college he was a great benefactor, bestowed on it his own arms, and is generally 'reputed its founder, or restorer. His capital seat was at Christ-Christ in town, and at Walden in Essex and to preserve some remembrance of himself and fortunes, he caused a magnificent tomb to be erected in his new chapel at Walden. About the beginning of April, 1544, he was attacked by his last illness, which induced him to resign the seals but he was too weak to do it in person, and therefore sent them to the king, who delivered them to sir Thomas Wriothesley, with the title of keeper, during the indisposition of the chancellor a circumstance not remarked by any of our historians. On the 19th of April, lord Audi ey made hU will, and, amongst other things, directed that his executors should, upon the next New-year’s day after his decease, deliver to the king a legacy of one hundred pounds, from whom, as he expresses it,” he had received all his reputations and benefits." He died on the last of April, 1544, when he had held the seals upwards of twelve years, and in the fifty-sixth of his life, as appears by the inscription on his tomb. He married Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas iGrey, marquis of Dorset, by whom he had two daughters, Margaret and Mary; Mary died unmarried, and Margaret became his sole heir. She married first lord Henry Dudley, a younger son of John duke of Northumberland, and he being slain at the battle of St. Quintin’s, in Picardy, in 1557, she married a second time, Thomas duke of Norfolk, to whom she was also a second wife, and had by him a son Thomas, who, by act of parliament, in the 27th of Elizabeth, was restored in blood; and in the 39th of the same reign, summoned to parliament by his grandfather’s title, as baron of Walden, In the 1st of James I. he was created earl of Suffolk, and being afterwards lord hightreasurer of England, he built on the ruins of the abbey of Walden, that nee noble palace, which, in honour of our chancellor, he called Audley-End.

The case of George Ferrers is a very remarkable one in the history of parliamentary privilege, and has been greatly agitated in the warm debates which have been carried on upon that subject, during the present reign. An account of it may be seen in many writers, and more recently in a publication of Mr. HatselPs, chief clerk of the house of commons. Mr. Hatsell is of opinion, from the many new and extraordinary circumstances attending the case of Ferrers, that the measures which were adopted, and the doctrine which was now first laid down with respect to the extent of the privileges of the house of commons, was more owing to Ferrers’s being a servant of the king, than that he was a member of the house of commons.

, a native of Provence, went to Paris in his youth, there studied law, and became a member of the counsel of the house of Orleans. In 1708 he published a work entitled “Traite de Porigine de la Regale, et des causes de son etablissement,” 4to, in eight books, in which he had introduced a dissertation on the authenticity of canon 22 distinct. 63 of the first part of the canon law, which had been rejected by Baronius and Bellarmin, and some other able writers, even in France. The consequence was, that his work was condemned in a brief of pope Clement XI. in 1710, and this censure was repealed a few months after by a sentence of the parliament of Paris. These circumstances contributed not a little to the reputation of the author, who is said to have died the year following.

, a French philosopher, was born at Lyons in 1714, was brought up to the church, and became a professor of philosophy in his native country. In conjunction with the intendant Michaudiere, he drew up a state of the population of the district of Lyons, which was published under the name of Mezence, who was secretary to the intendant. In 1769, the abbe Audra was appointed professor of history in the college of Toulouse, and, we are told, filled that chair with distinction. It was here he wrote the first volume of his “General History,” which proved thecause of his death. The archbishop of Toulouse issued a mandate in which he condemned the work as being replete with dangerous principles; and the author’s mortification on hearing of this affected his brain to such a degree, as to carry hinj off in twenty- four hours, Sept. 17, 1770. Voltaire and D'Alembert praise this history, as likely to give offence only to bigots and fanatics, from which we may safely infer that the archbishop’s opinion of it was not ill founded.

, the first of this famijy who is mentioned as an artist, was born in 1592, and died in 1677. He was the son of Louis Audran, an officer belonging to the wolf-hunters, in the reign of Henry IV. of France. Claude appears to have become an engraver rather late in life, and his prints, which are but few, are not held in much estimation. Yet, though he acquired no great reputation by his own works, it was no small honour to be father to three great artists, Germain, Claude, and Gerard, the last of whom has immortalized the name of the family.

, is generally believed to have been brother of the preceding Claude, but others have asserted that he was cousin-german to him only. It is, however, universally agreed that he was born at Paris in 1594. In his infancy he discovered much taste, and an apt disposition for the arts; and, to perfect himself in engraving, of which he appears to have been chiefly fond, he went to Rome, where he produced several prints that did him great honour. What master he studied under at Rome cannot easily be determined. The style he adopted is very like that of Cornelius Bloemart, but still neater Mr. Strutt thinks that the prints of Lucas Kilian and of the Sadelers may have laid the first foundation on which he built. On his return to his own country, he settled at Paris, where he died in 1674, without having ever been married. The abbé Marolles, who always speaks of this artist with great praise, attributes one hundred and thirty prints to him amongst which, the “Annunciation,” from Annibale Caracci, and the “Assumption,” from Domenichino, are the most esteemed.

, was the eldest son of Claude, and was born in 1631, at Lyons, where his parents then resided. Not content with the instructions of his father, be went to Paris, and perfected himself under his uncle Carl and upon his return to Lyons, published several prints which did great honour to his graver. His merit was in such estimation, that he was made a member of the academy established in that town, and chosen a professor. He died at Lyons, in 1710, and left behind him four sons, all artists, namely, Claude, Benoist, John, and Louis.

, the second of this name, and second son to Claude, the founder of the family, was born at Lyons in 1639, and went to Rome to study painting, where he succeeded so well, that, at his return, he was employed by Le Brun, to assist him in the battles of Alexander, which he was then painting for the king of France. He was received into the royal academy in the year 1675, and died unmarried at Paris in 1684. His virtues, says abbe Fontenai, were as praiseworthy as his talents were great. M. Heineken mentions him as an engraver, but without specifying any of his prints.

, the most celebrated artist of the family, was the third son of the first-mentioned Claude Audran, and born at Lyons in 1640. He learned from his father the first principles of designing and engraving following the example of his brother, he went to Paris, where his genius soon began to manifest itself and his reputation brought him to the knowledge of Le Brun, who employed him to engrave the “Battle of Constantine,” and the “Triumph” of that emperor, and for these works he obtained apartments at the Gobelins. At Rome, where he went for improvement, he is said to have studied under Carlo Maratti, in order to perfect himself in drawing and in that city, where he resided three years, he engraved several fine plates among; the rest the portrait of pope Clement IX. M. Colbert, a great encourager of the arts, was so struck with the beauty of Audran’s works, whilst he resided at Rome, that he persuaded Louis XIV. to recall him. On his return, he applied himself assiduously to engraving, and was appointed engraver to the king, From whom he received liberal encouragement. In 1681, he was named counsellor of the royal academy and died at Paris in 1703. He had been married, but left no male issue behind him.

Mr. Strutt considers Gerard Audran as the greatest engraver, without any exception, that ever existed in the historical line, an opinion, which, he thinks, a careful examination of “The Battles of Alexander” alone, will justify. His great excellency, above that of any other engraver, was, that though he drew admirably himself, yet he contracted no manner of his own but transcribed on copper simply, with great truth and spirit, the style of the master, whose pictures he copied. On viewing his prints, we lose sight of the engraver, and naturally say,* it is Le Brun, it is Poussin, &c. “This sublime artist,” says the Abbe Fontenai, borrowing chiefly from M. Basan, “far from conceiving that a servile arrangement of strokes, and the too frequently cold and affected clearness of the graver, were the great essentials of historical engraving, gave worth to his works by a bold mixture of free hatchings and dots, placed together apparently without order, but with an inimitable degree of taste and has left to posterity most admirable examples of the style in which grand compositions ought to be treated. His greatest works, which have not a very flattering appearance to the ignorant eye, are the admiration of true connoisseurs, and persons of real taste. He acquired the most profound knowledge of the art by the constant attention and study which he bestowed upon the science of design, and the frequent use he made of painting from nature. He always knew how to penetrate into the genius of the painter he copied from and often improved upon, and sometimes even surpassed him.” Mr. Strutt has given a list of his principal engravings, divided into four classes, to which we refer the reader.

was the second son of Germain Audran, and was born at Lyons in 1661, where be learned the first principles of design and engraving, under the instruction of his father. But soon after going to Paris, his uncle Gerard took him under his tuition, and Bcnoit so greatly profited by his instructions, that though he never equalled the sublime style of his tutor, yet he acquired, and deservedly, great reputation. His manner was founded upon the bold, clear style of his uncle. His outlines were firm and determined his drawing correct the heads of his figures are in general very expressive and the other extremities well marked. He was honoured with the appellation of the king’s engraver, and received the royal pension. He was made an academician, and admitted into the council in 1715. He died unmarried at Louzouer, where he had an estate, in 1721.

, the third son of Germain Audran, was also born at Lyons, in 1667, and after having received instructions from his father, went to Paris, to study the art of engraving under his uncle Gerard. At the age of twenty years, the genius of this great artist began to display itself in a surprising manner: and his future success was such, that in 1707, he obtained the title of engraver to the king, and had a pension allowed him by his majesty, with apartments in the Gobelins and the following year he was made a member of the royal academy. He was eighty years of age before he quitted the graver and near ninety in 1756, when he died at his apartments, assigned him by the king. He left three sons behind him, one of whom, Benoit, was also an engraver, and died in 1735, but very inferior to his uncle of the same name.

The most masterly and best prints of John Audran are those, in Mr. Strutt’s opinion, which are not so pleasing to the eye at first sight. In these the etching constitutes a great part and he has finished them in a bold, rough style. The scientific hand of the master appears in them on examination. The drawing of the human figure, where it is shewn, is correct. The heads are expressive, and finely finished the other extremities well marked. He has not, however, equalled his uncle. He wants that harmony in the effect his lights are too much and too equally covered and there is not sufficient difference between the style in which he has engraved his back grounds and his draperies. This observation refers to a fine print by him, of “Athaliah,” and to such as he engraved in that style.

, the last son of Germain Audran, was born at Lyons in 1670, from whence he went to Paris, after the example of his brothers, to complete his studies in the school of his uncle Gerard. He died suddenly at Paris, in 1712, aged 42, before he had produced any great number of prints by his own hand but, it is presumed, he assisted his brothers in their more extensive works. Benedict Audran, the son of John, was also an engraver of some note, and died in 1772.

, a Spanish writer, and a native of Tordesillas, is principally known as the author of the “Continuation, or second part of the history of Don Quixote,” which was published under the title “La Segunda Parte del Ingenioso Hidalgo D. Quixote de la Mancha,” 1614, 8vo. This, without being absolutely contemptible, is still very inferior to Cervantes’ s admirable production. It was afterwards translated, or rather imitated and new-modelled by Le Sage, and from this edition, an English translation was published about fifty or sixty years ago, in 2 vols. 8vo, but from the English work no proper judgment can be formed of the original. A more recent translation, which we have not seen, appeared in 1807. Pope has versified a tale from it in his Essay on Criticism.

, a Spaniard by birth, but ranks among the Arabian writers and philosophers of the twelfth century, wrote a commentary upon Euclid, and philosophical and theological epistles. He was intimately conversant with the Peripatetic philosophy, and applied it to the illustration of the Islamic system of theology, and to the explanation of the Koran. On this account, he was suspected of heresy, and thrown into prison at Corduba. He is said to have been poisoned at Fez, in the year i 137, or according to others, in 1129. His works were translated into Latin, and were well known to Thomas Aquinas, and the old schoolmen.

, author of the Annals ofBavaria, was born of mean parentage, in 1466, at Abensperg in the country just named. He studied first at Ingolstadt, and afterwards in the university of Paris. In 1503, he privately taught eloquence and poetry at Vienna; and in 1507, publicly taught Greek at Cracow in Poland. In 1509, he read lectures on some of Cicero’s pieces at Ingolstadt and in 1512, was appointed to be preceptor to prince Lewis and prince Ernest, sons of Albert the Wise, duke of Bavaria. He also travelled with the latter of those two princes. After this he undertook to write the “Annals of Bavaria,” being encouraged by the dukes of that name; who settled a pension upon him, and gave him hopes that they would defray the charges of the book. This work, which gained its author great reputation, was first published in 1554, by Jerome Zieglerus, professor of poetry in the university of Ingolstadt but, as he acknowledges in the preface, he retrenched the invectives against the clergy, and several stories which had no relation to the history of Bavaria. The Protestants, however, after long search, found an uncastrated manuscript of Aventin’s Annals, which was published at Basil in 1580, by Nicholas Cisner.

In 1529, he was forcibly taken out of his sister’s house at Abensperg, and hurried to a gaol the true cause of which violence was never known but it would probably have been carried to a much greater length, had not the duke of Bavaria interposed, and taken this learned man into his protection. In his 64th year he made an imprudent marriage, which disturbed his latter days. He died in 1534, aged 68, leaving one daughter, who was then but two months old. Jt was supposed, from the inquiries made by the Jesuits, that he was a Lutheran in sentiment and the adherents to the church of Rome make use of this argument to weaken the force of his testimony against the conduct of the popes, and the vicious lives of the priests for the Annals of Aventin have been often quoted by Protestants, to prove the disorders of the Romish church.

, an eminent Arabian physician, flourished about the end of the eleventh or the beginning of the twelfth century. He was of noble descent, and born at Seville, the capital of Andalusia, where he exercised his profession with great reputation. His grandfather and father were both physicians. The large estate he inherited from his ancestors rendered it unnecessary for him to practise for gain, and he therefore took no fees from the poor, or from artificers, though he refused not the presents of princes and great men. His liberality extended even to his enemies; for which reason he used to say, that they hated him not for any fault of his, but rather out of envy. Dr. Freind thinks that he lived to the age of 135, that he began to practise at 40 or, as others say, at 20, and had the advantage of a. longer experience than almost any one ever had, as he enjoyed perfect health to his last hour. He left a son, known also by the name of Ebn Zohr, who followed his father’s profession, was in great favour with Al-Mansor emperor of Morocco, and wrote several treatises of physic. Avenzoar was contemporary with Averroes, who, according to Leo Africanus, heard the lectures of the former, and learned physic of him. Avenzoar, however, is reckoned by the generality of writers an empiric, although Dr. Freind observes that this character suits him less than any of the Arabians. He wrote a book on the “Method of preparing Medicines,” which is much esteemed. It was translated into Hebrew in the year 1280, and thence into Latin by Paravicius, and printed at Venice in 1490, fol. and again in 1553.

was born at Florence the 19th of March 1662, the youngest of the three sons of John Francis Averani. Benedict, the eldest, made himself famous for his eloquence and the thorough knowledge he had of the Greek and Roman classics while Nicholas, the other brother, so greatly excelled in jurisprudence and all kinds of mathematical learning, as to be reckoned among the foremost in those studies. Joseph received the first rudiments of learning from his father, after which he was put under the tuition of Vincent Glarea, a Jesuit, who then gave public lectures on rhetoric at Florence, with whom he made uncommon progress. He was taught Greek by Antonius Maria Salvini, and advanced so rapidly in his studies, that, in a short time, whether he wrote in Italian, or Latin, or Greek, he shewed an intimate acquaintance with the ancient writers. Young as he was, however, he did not confine himself to oratorical performances alone, but exercised himself in poetry, for which he had much taste. He next applied to the study of the peripatetic philosophy, taking for his guide John Francis Vannius, the Jesuit. After pursuing a variety of studies, with astonishing success, he at length attached himself to mathematics and natural philosophy. When at Pisa he applied to the study of the law and at his leisure hours, in the first year of his residence there, he translated Archimedes with the commentaries of Eutocius Ascalonita out of Greek into Latin, adding many remarks of his own in explanation and illustration of those books which treat of the sphere and cylinder, the circles, the spheroids and conies, and the quadrature of the parabola. He shortly after wrote a treatise on the Momenta of heavy bodies on inclined planes, in defence of Galileo against the attacks of John Francis Vannius, but did not publish it. He cleared up many obscurities in Apollonius Pergaeus. These and other studies did not retard the wonderful progress he made in jurisprudence, which induced Cosmo III. of Medicis to appoint him public teacher of the institutes of civil law in the academy of Pisa. It is to be lamented that none of the orations which he made in this capacity have reached us, except one on the principles of jurisprudence, medicine, and theology. He published two books of the interpretations of the law. The applause with which these were received, induced him to join to them three more books, in the composition and arrangement of which he passed many years. He made a great variety of discoveries in experimental philosophy. He applied himself earnestly to ascertain the time in which sound is propagated, and to discover whether its velocity is retarded by contrary and increased by fair winds. These and other experiments he made at the request of Laurentio Magoloti, who communicated them to the royal society of London i.nd the society in return admitted Averani as an honorary member. Upon the death of his brother Benedict, he sought for consolation in composing an elegiac poem in his praise, and in writing his life in Latin. He died on the 22d of September 1738, lamented as one of the ablest and best of men.

His works are, 1. “De libertate civitatis Florentine ejusque dominis,” Pisa, 1721, 4to. 2. “Esperienze fatte collo specchio ustorio di Firenze sopra le gemme, ~e le pietre dure,” printed in vol. VI. of the Galleria di Minerva, and the same appeared in vol. VIII. of the Italian Literary Journal. 3. “Disputatio de jure belli et pacis,” Florence, 1703. 4. “Prefazione alle Poesie Toscane di Ansaldo Ansaldi,” ibid. 1704. 5. “Vita Benedicti Averanii,” prefixed to his works, 3 vols. 1717, fol. 6. “Dissertatio de Rapressaliis habita Pisis,” 1713, published in Migliorucci’s Institut. Juris Canon. 1732. 7. “Interpretationum Juris libri duo,” Leyden, 1716, 8vo, “Libri Tres posteriores” of the same, ibid. 1746, 8vo. 8. “O ratio de juris prudentia, medicina, theologia per sua principia addiscendis, Pisis habita,” Verona, 1723, 8vo, published by one of his pupils Bernard Tanucci, under the fictitious name of Draunerus Cibartttus. 9. “Lezioni soprala Passione di nostro Signer,” Urbino, 1738. 10. “Dissertatio de Calculorum seu Latrunculorum ludo,” Venice, 1742, in vol. VII. of “Miscellanea di vari opuscoli.” 11. “Lezioni Toscane,” S vols. Florence, 1744, 1746, 1761, 4to. 12. “Monumenta Latina Posthuma Josephi Averanii Florentini,” Florence, 1768. He left also in ms. a treatise on the sphere, his defence of Galileo, some Latin poems, and other works.

, elder brother to Joseph, was born at Florence in 1645. His preceptor in rhetoric was Vincent Glarea, who soon confessed that his pupil went beyond him. He read almost incessantly the best Italian and Latin writers. And having at first employed a considerable time in the perusal of the poets, epecially the epic, he afterwards applied himself wholly to the reading of Cicero, and of the historians. From the works of the rhetoricians he proceeded to those of the philosophers, and particularly admired and followed Plato. He bestowed an indefatigable attention upon those parts in the writings of the philosophers, which in any manner related to eloquence, the attainment of which he sought with incredible ardour. Amidst these occupations he sometimes renewed his poetical exercises. At his father’s request he composed a Latin poem in praise of St. Thomas Aquinas. This, with many others of our author’s poems, is lost. Those of his poems which are extant, most of which he composed. in his youth, shew that if he had chosen to addict himself exclusively to this study, he might have attained a very high rank. His father afterwards sent him to Pisa to study jurisprudence, and he exercised himself daily in writing to perfect his style. Nor did he write in Latin only for he translated Sallust, and Celsus, and other Latin authors, into Greek and some Greek elegies of his are extant. He was created chief of the academy of Apathists. On the death of the cardinal Leopold of Medicis, he was ordered to compose verses in his praise, which were so much approved, that similar tasks were imposed upon him on the deaths of other princes. In the year 1676, the place long Tacant of teacher of Greek in the Lyceum of Pisa was bestowed upon him by the archduke Cosmo III. After filling this office six years, he was advanced to the dignity of teacher of humanity. In this he succeeded Gronovius, who, by the rudeness and asperity of his manners, had given so much offence to the college, that he was obliged to quit the academy in less than a year after his entering on his office in it. Benedict wrote well in Italian, as appears by the Lezioni which he recited in the Tuscan academy, and in the academy of the Apathists. In his youth he cultivated Italian poetry, and several of his Italian poems are preserved at Rome. He was invited to be professor of humanity in the academy of Pavia on the death of the former professor in 1682, and the same offer was soon after made to him by pope Innocent XI. who was desirous of bringing into the Roman Archigymnasium so eminent a man. In 1688 he was induced by the solicitations of his friends to publish the first book of his Orations. He died in 1707. The dissertations he made in the academy at Pisa, a posthumous work, his orations and poems republished, and his letters then first printed, were all published together at Florence in 3 vols. 1717, folio.

, a French statesman, was born at Paris in 1720. He was counsellor in the parliament of Paris, and so distinguished for talent and probity, that he was appointed minister of state, and comptroller of the finances, by Lewis XV. in 1763; but was unfortunate in his administration, having formed some injudicious plans respecting grain, which ended in increasing the wants they were intended to alleviate. He afterwards retired to Gambais, where he employed himself in rural improvements, until the fatal period of the revolution, when he was arrested, brought to Paris, and guillotined Oct. 1794, on an accusation of having monopolised corn. He had been a member of the academy, and published, 1. “Code penal,” 1752, 12mo. 2. “De la pleine souverainete du roi sur la province de Bretagne,” 1765, 8vo. 3. “Memoire sur le proces criminel de Robert d'Artois, pair de France,” inserted in the account of the Mss. of the national library. 4. “Experiences de Gambais sur les bles noirs ou caries,” 1788, 8vo.

, a very celebrated Arabian philosopher, and whom Christians as well as Arabians esteemed equal, if not superior to Aristotle himself, was born about the middle of the 12th centufy, of a noble family at Corduba, the capital of the Saracen dominions in Spain. He was early instructed in the Islamitic law, and, after the usual manner of the Arabian schools, united with the study of Mahometan theology that of the Aristotelian philosophy. These studies he pursued under Thophail, and became a follower of the sect of the Asharites. Under Avenzoar he studied the science of medicine, and under Ibnu-Saig he made himself master of the mathematical sciences. Thus qualified, he was chosen, upon his father’s demise, to the chief magistracy of Corduba. The fame of his extraordinary erudition and talents soon afterwards reached the caliph Jacob Al-Mansor, king of Mauritania, the third of the Almohadean dynasty, who had built a magnificent school at Morocco and that prince appointed him supreme magistrate and priest of Morocco and all Mauritania, allowing him still to retain his former honours. Having left a temporary substitute at Corduba, he went to Morocco, and remained there till he had appointed, through the kingdom, judges well skilled in the Mahometan law, and settled the whole plan of administration after which he returned home, and resumed his offices.

This rapid advancement of Averroes brought upon him the envy of his rivals at Corduba who conspired to lodge an accusation against him, for an heretical desertion of the true Mahometan faith. For this purpose, they engaged several young persons among their dependants, to apply to him for instruction in philosophy. Averroes, who was easy of access, and always desirous of communicating knowledge, complied with their request, and thus fell into the snare that had been laid for him. His new pupils were very industrious in taking minutes of every tenet or opinion advanced by their preceptor, which appeared to contradict the established system of Mahometan theology. These minutes they framed into a charge of heresy, and attested upon oath, that they had been fairly taken from his lips. The charge was signed by an hundred witnesses. The caliph listened to the accusation, and punished Averroes, by declaring him heterodox, confiscating his goods, and commanding him for the future to reside among the Jews, who inhabited the precincts of Corduba where he remained an object of general persecution and obloquy. Even the boys in the streets pelted him with stones, when he went up to the mosque in the city to perform his devotions. His pupil, Maimonides, that he might not be under the necessity of violating the laws of friendship and gratitude, by joining the general cry against Averroes, left Corduba. From this unpleasant situation Averroes at last found means to escape. He fled to Fez, but had been there only a few days, when he was discovered by the magistrate, and committed to prison. The report of his flight from Corduba was soon carried to the king, who immediately called a council of divines and lawyers, to determine in what manner this heretic should be treated. The members of the council were not agreed in opinion. Some strenuously maintained, that a man who held opinions so contrary to the law of the prophet deserved death. Others thought that much mischief, arising from the dissatisfaction of those among the infidels who were inclined to favour him, might be avoided, by only requiring from the culprit a public penance, and recantation of his errors. The milder opinion prevailed and Averroes was brought out of prison to the gate of the mosque, and placed upon the upper step, with his head bare, at the time of public prayers and every one, as he passed into the mosque, was allowed to spit upon his face. At the close of the service, the judge, with his attendants, came to the philosopher, and asked him whether he repented of his heresies. He acknowledged his penitence, and was dismissed without further punishment, with the permission of the king. Averroes returned to Corduba, where he experienced all the miseries of poverty and contempt. In process of time the people became dissatisfied with the regent who had succeeded Averroes, and petitioned the king that their former governor might be restored. Jacob Al-Mansor, not dar.ng to show sucli indulgence to one who had been infamous for heresy, without the consent of the priesthood, called a general assembly, in which it was debated, whether it would be consistent with the safety of religion, and the honour of the law, that Averroes should be restored to the government of Corduba. The deliberation terminated in favour of the penitent heretic, and he was restored, by the royal mandate, to all his former honours. Upon this fortunate change in his affairs, Averroes removed to Morocco, where he remained till his death, which happened, as some say, in 1195, or according to others in 1206.

Averroes is highly celebrated for his personal virtues. He practised the most rigid temperance, eating only once in the day the plainest food. So indefatigable was his industry in the pursuit of science, that he often passed whole nights in study. In his judicial capacity, he discharged his duty with great wisdm and integrity. His humanity would not permit him to pass the sentence of death upon any criminal; he left this painful office to his deputies. He possessed so great a degree of self- command and patient lenity, that, when one of his enemies, in the mklst of a public discourse, sent a servant to him to whisper some abusive language in his ear, he took no other nptice of what passed, than if it had been a secret message of business. The next day, the servant returned, and publicly begged pardon of Averroes for the affront he had offered him upon which Averroes only appeared displeased, that his patient endurance of injuries should be brought into public notice, and dismissed the servant with a gentle caution, never to offer that insult to another, which had in the present instance passed unpunished. Averroes spent a great part of his wealth in liberal donations to learned men, without making any distinction between his friends and his enemies for which his apology was, that, in giving to his friends and relations, he only followed the dictates of nature but, in giving to his enemies, he obeyed the commands of virtue. With uncommon abilities and learning, Averroes united great affability and urbanity of manners, and may, in tine, be justly reckoned one o: the greatest men of his age.

In philosophy, he partook of the enthusiasm of the times with respect to Aristotle, and paid a superstitious deference to his authority but extravagant as he was in this respect, it is unquestionably true, that he was unacquainted with the Greek language, and read the writings of his oracle in wretched Arabic translations, taken immediately from Latin or Syriac versions. The necessary consequence was, that his “Commentaries on Aristotle” were nothing better than a confused mass of error and misrepresentation. Yet such is the power of prejudice, that many learned men, since the revival of letters, have passed high encomiums upon Averroes as an excellent commentator. His writings of this kind were exceedingly numerous, and were so much admired by the Jews, that many of them were translated into Hebrew. Besides these, he wrote “a paraphrase of Plato’s Republic” and a treatise in defence of philosophy against Al-Gazal, entitled “Happalath hahappalah,” commonly cited under the name of “Destructorium Destructorii,” and many other treatises in theology, jurisprudence, and medicine. He took great pains to improve the theory of medicine by the help of philosophy, and particularly to reconcile Aristotle and Galen, but it does not appear that he practised physic. Few of his writings are to be met with, except in Hebrew or Latin translations. His “Commentary on Aristotle” was published in Latin at Venice, in folio, 1495. An edition of his works was published in 4to, at Lyons, in 1537 another, in folio, with the former Latin translations, by Bagolin, at Venice, in 1552 and a third by Mossa, at Venice, in 1608.

Much has been asserted concerning the impiety of Averroes, but as Brucker thinks, without sufficient proof. It is probable, however, that he adhered with more devotion to Aristotle than to Mahomet, or any other legislator for it appears that, after Aristotle, he held the eternity of the world, and the existence of one universal intellect, inferior to Deity, the external source of all human intelligence, and consequently denied the distinct existence and immortality of the human soul.

, a very ancient English historian, of whose personal history, however, we know little. In the title of his history he calls himself register of the archbishop of Canterbury’s court, His design seems to have been to compose a history of the reign of Edward III. from such authentic materials as came to his hands but when he had laboured about thirty years, he was surprised by death, in the latter end of 1356, or in the beginning of the year following. In this work we have a plain narrative of facts, with an apparent candour and impartiality but his chief excellence lies in his accuracy in point of dates, and his stating all public actions from records, rather than from his own notions. This work, however, remained long in manuscript, and undiscovered by some of our most industrious antiquaries. It was unknown to Leland and to Bale, and the first who mentioned it and had seen it was Fox the martyrologist. ^Archbishop Parker had also perused it, and so had Stowe, who mentions Avesbury in his Chronicle, and from him Pits ventures to tell us, that he flourished about 1340, but does not add that he had any acquaintance with his works. Du Fresne, in his Index of Writers, places Avesbury in the same year. Mr. Jocelyn, however, who was chaplain to archbishop Parker, never saw this ms. though in his patron’s possession, nor did it fall under the inspection of Anthony Wood.

At length, after being so long buried in obscurity, the indefatigable Mr. Hearne printed it at Oxford, from a ms. belonging to sir Thomas Seabright, along with some other curious tracts, under the title of “Roberti de Avesbury Historia de mirabilibus gestis Edvardi III. hactenus inedita,” e Th. Sheld. 1720, 8vo. This ms. was the same that had formerly been in the hands of archbishop Parker, from whom it passed to Mr. William Lambard, the celebrated antiquary; from him to Thomas Lambard; and at length it came to sir Roger Twysden, and with the rest of his valuable library, was purchased by sir Thomas Seabright. Besides these there are two other Mss. in being, one in the Harleian collection in the British Museum, and the other in the university library at Cambridge, with both which the accurate printed edition was compared. All these Mss. are thought to be as old as the time in which our author flourished. There is joined to this history, and in the same hand-writing, a French chronicle, from the first planting of Britain to the reign of king Edward III.; but this Mr. Hearne conceived to be the work of some other author, and therefore did not print it. There were likewise added to the ms copies, certain notes of a miscellaneous nature, under the title of “Minutiae,” which Mr, Hearne has preserved, although of opinion they were not written by Avesbury.

, in Latin Augentius, a native of Villeneuve, in the diocese of Sens in Champagne, lived in the sixteenth century, and was esteemed on account of his learning and writings. The office of the king’s professor in the Greek tongue in the university of Paris was designed for him in 1574, and he took possession of it in 1578. He was also preceptor to the son of that Francis Olivier who was chancellor of France, as appears from the preliminary epistle of a book, which he dedicated to Anthony Olivier bishop of Lombes, and uncle to his pupil, dated from Paris the 1st of March 1555. The time of his death is not certainly known but Francis Parent, his successor in the professorship of the Greek tongue, entered upon it in 1595, and Moreri gives that as the date of Auge’s death. He wrote, 1. “A consolatory oration upon the death of Messire Francis Olivier, chancellor of France,” Paris, 1560. 2. “Two dialogues concerning Poetical Invention, the true knowledge of the Art of Oratory, and of the Fiction of Fable,” Paris, 1560. 3. “A discourse upon the Decree made by the parliament of Dole in Burgundy with relation to a man accused and convicted of being a Werewolf.” 4. “The institution of a Christian Prince, translated from the Greek of Synesius, bishop of Syrene, with an oration concerning the True Nobility, translated from the Greek of Phiio Judseus,” Paris, 1555. 5. “Four homilies of St. Macarius the Egyptian,” Paris, and Lyons 1559. 6. “A letter to the noble and virtuous youth Anthony Thelin, son of the noble Thelin, author of the book entitled `Divine Tracts,' in which is represented the true Patrimony and Inheritance which fathers ought to leave to their children.” This letter is printed in the beginning of the above-mentioned “Divine Tracts,” Paris, 1565. He revised and corrected them, Paris, 1556. 6. “A French translation of the most beautiful Sentences and Forms of Speaking in the familiar Epistles of Cicero.” The “Discourse upon the Decree,” &c. relates to a man convicted of having murdered and eat one or two persons, for which he was burnt alive.

, a distinguished French critic, was born at Paris, Dec. 12, 1724, embraced the clerical profession, and obtained the chair of the professor of belles lettres in the college of Rouen. The bishop of Lescar No6 made him his grand vicar, and usually called him his grand vicar in partibus Atheniensium, in allusion to his intimate acquaintance with the Greek language, from which he had made translations of the greater part of the orators, with much purity. He was received into the academy of Inscriptions, where he was much esteemed for his learning and personal virtues. He lived, it is said, among the great, and told them truth, and to his opponents was remarkable for canckmr and urbanity. In his private character he appears to have been distinguished for a love of letters, and an independent and philosophic spirit which kept him from soliciting patronage or preferment. He died Feb. 7, 1791. His principal works were, “The Orations of Demosthenes and Eschines on the crown,” Rouen,. 1768, 12mo; “The whole works of Demosthenes and Eschines,” 6 vols. 8vo, 1777 and 1788. This is accompanied with remarks upon the genius and productions of these two great orators, with critical notes on the Greek text, a preliminary discourse concerning eloquence; a treatise on the jurisdiction and laws of Athens and other pieces, relative to Grecian laws and literature, which have great merit. His countrymen, however, do not speak highly of his translations, as conveying the fire and spirit of the original. They say he is exact and faithful, but cold. In 1781 he published, in 3 vols. 8vo, “The Works of Isocrates.” This is thought preferable to the former, yet still the French critics considered the translator as better acquainted with Greek than French the truth perhaps is, that the French language is less capable of receiving the fire and sublimity of the great orators than those critics are willing to suspect. In 1783 he published the “Works of Lysias,” 8vo; in 1785 “The homilies, discourses, and letters ef S. John Chrysostom,” 4 vols. 8vo; in 1787, “Select orations of Cicero,” in 3 vols. 8vo; in 1788, “Orations from Herodotus, Thucydides, and the works of Xenophon,” 2 vols. 8vo. In 1789, he published “Projet d' Education Publique” at least such is the title of the work, but we suspect it to be a re-publication of some “Discourses on Education, delivered in the Royal college at Rouen, to which are subjoined, Reflections upon Friendship,” which appeared first in 1775, and were commended for their spirit, taste, and judgment. Some political works were published in his name after his death, and a piece entitled De la Tragedie Grecque,“1792, 8vo. To his works also may be added an edition of” Isocrates, in Gr. and Lat." 3 vols. 8vo, and 4to, a very beautiful book. As an editor and critic, he discovers, in all his editions, much taste and judgment; but perhaps his countrymen do him no injury in supposing that the latter in general predomU nated.

, a French Jesuit, was born in 1530, at Allernan, a village in the diocese of Troyes, and became noted for his extraordinary skill in the conversion of heretics, that is, llugonots, or Protestants, of whom he is said to have recovered many thousands to the church. He was often in danger from his unsought services, and was once narrowly saved from the gallows by a minister of the reformed church, who hoped to gain him over to his party. This, however, only served to excite his ardour in the cause of proselytism, and he distinguished himself very remarkably at Lyons during the ravages of the plague. Henry III. appointed him to be his preacher and confessor, the first time in which this latter honour had been conferred. He was, however, either so conscientious or so unfortunate as neither to gain the affections of his prince, nor to preserve the good opinion and confidence of the Jesuits. After the death of Henry III. his superiors recalled him to Italy, and sent him from house to house, where he was considered as an excommunicated person, travelling on foot in the depth of winter; and of such fatigues he died in the sixty-first year of his age, in 1591. He wrote some controversial works in a very intemperate style. One of his pieces was published in 1568, under the title of “Pedagogue d‘armes a un Prince Chretien, pour entreprendre et achever heureusement une bonne guerre, victorieuse de tous les ennemis de son etat et de l’eglise.” Father Dorigny published the life of Auger in 1716, 12mo.

, an Italian, highly praised by Paul Jovius, and as much condemned by Scaliger, was born in 1441, at Rimini, of a noble family. He studied at Padua, and was professor of belles lettres in several universities, particularly Venice and Trevisa in the latter place he obtained the rank of citizen, and died there in 1524. His principal poem, “Chrysopoeia,” or the art of making, gold, occasioned his being supposed attached to alchymy but there is no foundation for this, unless his employing 'the technicals of the art in the manner of a didactic poet, who studies imagination more than utility. Leo X. to whom he dedicated the work, is said to have rewarded him by an empty purse, the only article he thought necessary to a man who could make gold. This poem was first printed at Venice, with, another on old age, entitled “Geronticon,” 1515 and as some proof that it was seriously consulted by alchymists, it has obtained a place in Grattorolo’s collection of alchymical authors, Bale, 1561, fol. in vol. III. of the “Theatrum Chemicum,” Strasburgh, 1613, and in Mangel’s “Bibl. Chemica.” His other Latin poems, consisting of odes, satires, and epigrams, were published under the title “Carmina,” Verona, 1491, 4to, and at Venice, 1505, 8vo. They are superior to most of the poetry of his age in elegance and taste, and in Ginguene’s opinion, approach nearly to the style and manner of the ancients. Augurello was also an accomplished Greek scholar, and well versed in antiquities, history, and philosophy, and in his poetry, without any appearance of pedantry, he frequently draws upon his stock of learning.

, an eminent father of the church, was born at'Tagasta, Nov. 13, in the year 354, of his father Patricius, a citizen of that place, and his mother Monica, a lady of distinguished piety. He first applied to his studies in his native place, and afterwards at Madora and Carthage. In this latter city his morals became corrupted, and he had a son born to him, named Adeodat, the fruit of a criminal connexion. He then became a proselyte to the sect of the Manichaeans, and an able defender of their opinions. The perusal of some part of Cicero’s philosophy is said first to have detached him from his immoral conduct; but one thing, Baillet says, gave him uneasiness in this work, and that was his not finding the name of Jesus, which had been familiar to him from his infancy in the writings of the celebrated Roman. He resolved, therefore, to read the holy scriptures, but the pride of his heart, and his incapacity to taste the simple beauties of these, made him still give the preference to Cicero. In the mean time he acquired considerable fame in the schools of eloquence, and was a professor of it successively at Tagasta, at Carthage, at Rome, and at Milan, whither he had been sent by the prefect Symmachus. St. Ambrose was at this time bishop of Milan, and Augustin, affected by his sermons, and by the tears of his mother Monica, began to think seriously of forsaking his irregularities and his Manichasism. He was accordingly baptised at Milan in the year 387, in the thirty-second year of his age, and renouncing his rhetorical pursuits, studied only the gospel. On his return to Tagasta, he betook himself to fasting and prayer, gave his property to the poor, and formed a society ainorrg some of his friends. Some time after, being at Hippo, Valerius, then bishop of that diocese, ordained him a priest abaut the commencement of the year 391. Next year we find him disputing with great success against the Manichees, and in the year 392 he gave so learned an exposition of the symbol of faith, in the council of Hippo, that the bishops were unanimously of opinion he ought to be chosen one of their number. In the year 395, another council appointed him coadjutor to Valerius, in the see of Hippo, and it was in this situation that the spirit and virtues of Augustin began to display themselves. He established in the espiscopal mansion a society of clerks, with whom he lived, and became more active in his opposition to heresies, particularly the Manichuean, converting one Felix, a very celebrated character among them. Nor did he less prove his judgment and eloquence in a conference between the Catholic 1 bishops and the Donatists at Carthage in the year 411, where he bent his endeavours to procure unity in the church. His great work “On the city of God,” now made its appearance.

In the year 418, a general council was held at Carthage against the Pelagians. Augustin, who had formerly refuted their errors, now prepared nine articles against them, and evinced a zeal on the subject, which procured him the title of the “Doctor of grace.” After having thus triumphed over the enemies of the church, he had to contend with those of the empire. The Vandals, who had passed from Africa into Spain, under the conduct of their king Genseric, in the year 428, made themselves masters of a considerable part of that country, but Carthage and Hippo resisted them a long time. Augustin, when consulted by his associates, whether they ought to escape by flight, or wait for the barbarians, gave his opinion for the latter, as more becoming their duty and when the episcopal city was besieged by a great army, he encouraged his flock by his example and exhortations, He dreaded, nevertheless, lest Hippo should fall into the hands of the enemy, and prayed to God that he might be taken away before that calamity happened. His prayer, it would appear, was answered, as he was cut off, during the siege, by a violent fever, on the 2Sth of August, in the year 430, at the age of seventy-six. The Vandals, who took Hippo the year following, showed respect to his library, his works, and his body. The catholic bishops of Africa carried his body to Sardinia, the place to which they were driven by Thrasamond, king of* the Vandals and Luitprand, king of Lombardy, caused it to be conveyed, nearly two hundred years after, to Pavia. His works have been printed at Paris in 1679 and 1700, in eleven volumes, folio. But the author of the Bibliographical Dictionary says, there are two editions under the same date, and that the first is preferred, and is distinguished by the preface at the beginning of the first volume. In the first edition there are only five lines of the preface on the first page in the second edition there are more. In the tenth volume of the first edition there is a little tract, of half a leaf, preceding page 747, before the book “De Corruptions et Gratia,” which is not found in the second edition. There was another edition in 12 vols. fol. published also by the Benedictines at Antwerp, 1700 1703.

The character of Augustin has been depreciated by some modern writers, and ought undoubtedly to be considered with a reference to the time he lived, and the state of learning and religion. There is neither wisdom nor candour, however, in collecting and publishing the frailties of his early years, nor in denying that he may justly be ranked among those illustrious characters, in a dark age, who preserved and elucidated many of those doctrines which are held sacred in days of more light and knowledge. Mosheim’s character seems candid and just. The fame of Augustin, says that ecclesiastical historian, filled the whole Christian world and not without reason, as a variety of great and shining qualities were united in his character. A sublime genius, an uninterrupted and zealous pursuit of truth, an indefatigable application, an invincible patience, a sincere piety, a subtile and lively wit, conspired to establish his fame upon the most lasting foundations. It is, however, certain, that the accuracy and solidity of his judgment were, by no means, proportionable to the eminent talents now mentioned, and that, upon many occasions, he was more guided by the violent impulse of a warm imagination, than by the cool dictates of wisdom and prudence. Hence that ambiguity which appears in his writings, and which has sometimes rendered the most attentive readers uncertain with respect to his real sentiments and hence also the just complaints which many have made of the contradictions that are so frequent in his works, and of the levity and precipitation with which he set himself to write upon a variety of subjects, before he had examined them with a sufficient degree of attention and diligence. It ought to be added, that almost all Augustin’s works have been printed separately and often, particularly his “City of God,” and his “Confessions.”

, archbishop of Tarragona, one of the most learned men of his age, was born at Saragossa, in 1516. His parents were, Anthony Augustin, vicechancellor of Arragon, and Elizabeth, duchess of Cardonna. He was well skilled in civil and canon law, the belles lettres, ecclesiastical history, languages, and antiquities. His first promotion was to be auditor of Rota then he was made bishop of Alisa, afterwards of Lerida,and distinguished himself greatly in the council of Trent. The archbishopric of Tarragona was conferred upon him in 1574, and here he died in 1586, aged seventy. His character appears to have been excellent, and such was his charity that he left not enough to defray the expences of his funeral. His works are much valued. The principal are, 1. “De emendatione Gratiani Dialogorum,” Tarrac. 1587, 4to, a curious and much esteemed work. Baluze has given an excellent edition of this, with notes, 1672, 8vo. 2. “Constitutionum Provincial! um Ecclesiae Tarraconensis, lib. V.” Tarracon, 1580, 4to; and again in 1593. 3. “Canones Penitentiales,” Tar. 1582, 4to. 4. “De Nominibus Propriis Pandectse Florentini, cum notis A. Augustini,” 1579, folio. 5. “Antique Collectiones Decretalium,” Paris, 1621, fol. 6. “Epitome Juris Pontificis,” 3 torn. Tar. and Rome, 1587, 1611, folio. 7. “Dialog. XI. de las Medallas,” Tarrag. 1587, 4to and folio, and in Latin, 1617, fol. The 4to edition of these dialogues on medals, in Italian, is preferable, as the medals of the dialogues, from the third to the eight, are not in the edition of 1587, a remark which the editor of the Bibliographical Dictionary has by mistake made upon the “Emendatio Gratiani.”

, or by contraction Austin (St.), usually styled the Apostle of the English, and the first archbishop of Canterbury, was originally a monk in the convent of St. Andrew at Rome, and was educated under St. Gregory, afterwards pope Gregory I. who undertook the conversion of the island of Britain. His inducement to this, in the life of St. Gregory, written by John Diaconus, introduces us to a string of puns, which we must refer to the manners and taste of the times, without surely impeaching the seriousness of Gregory, who in his present situation, as well as when pope, had no other visible motive for his zea], than the propagation of Christianity. Walking in the forum at Rome, he haprfened to see some very handsome youths exposed to sale, and being informed that they were of the island of Britain, and that the inhabitants of that island were Pagans, he regretted that such handsome youths should be destitute of true knowledge, and again asked the name of the nation. “Angli” was the answer on which he observed, “In truth they have angelic countenances, and it is a pity they should not be coheirs with angels in heaven.” When informed that they came from the province of Deira (Northumberland), he observed, “It is well, de mz, snatched from the wrath of God, and called to the mercy of Christ and when, in answer to another interrogatory, he was told that the name of their king was Ella, he said,” Alleluia, should be sung to God in those regions." More seriously impressed with a sense of his duty on this occasion, he requested pope Benedict to send some persons to our island on a mission, and offered to be one of the number. He was himself, however, too much a favourite with the Roman citizens to be suffered to depart, and it was not until he became pope, that he was enabled effectually to pursue his purpose. After his consecration in the year 595, he directed a presbyter, whom he had sent into France, to instruct some young Saxons, of seventeen or eighteen years of age, in Christianity, to act as missionaries and in the year 597, he sent about forty monks, including perhaps some of these new converts, with Augustine at their head. Having proceeded a little way on their journey, they began to dread the attempt of committing themselves to a savage and infidel nation, whose language they did not understand. In this dilemma, doubtful whether to return or proceed, they agreed to send back Augustine to Gregory, to represent their fears, and intreat that he would release them from their engagement. Gregory, however/ in answer, advised them to proceed, in confidence of divine aid, undaunted by the fatigue of the journey, or any other temporary obstructions, adding, that it would have been better not to have begun so good a work, than to recede from it afterwards. He also took every means for their accommodation, recommending them to the attention of Etherius, bishop of Aries, and providing for them such assistance in France, that at length they arrived safely in Britain.

Before proceeding to their success here, it is necessary to advert to some circumstances highly in their favour. Christianity, although not extended over the kingdom, was not at this period unknown in Britain, notwithstanding it had been much persecuted by the Saxons. They were at this time, however, disposed to look upon their Christian brethren with a more favourable eye, and the marriage of Ethelbert, king of Kent, in the year 570, with Birtha, or Bertha, daughter of Cherebert, king of France, a Christian princess of great virtue and merit, contributed not a little to abate the prejudices of that prince and his subjects against her religion, for the free exercise of which she had stipulated in her marriage contract. She was also allowed the use of a small church without the walls of Canterbury, where Luidhart, a French bishop, who came over in her retinue, with other clergymen, publicly performed all the rites of Christian worship, and by these means Christianity had some, although probably a very confined influence.

It is easy to suppose that a queen, thus sincere in her principles, would be very earnest in persuading her husband to give Augustine and his followers a hospitable reception, and Ethelbert accordingly assigned Augustine an habitation in the isle of Thanet. By means of French interpreters, whom the missionaries brought with them, they informed the king that they were come from Rome, and brought with them the best tidings in the world eternal life to those who received them, and the endless enjoyment of life hereafter. After some days, Ethelbert paid them a visit but being afraid of enchantments, things which, true or false, were then objects of terror, chose to receive them in the open air. The missionaries met him, singing litanies for their own salvation, and that of those for vvhojse sake they came thither; and then, by the king’s direction, unfolded the nature of their mission, and of the religion they wished to preach. The substance of the king’s answer was, that he could not, without further consideration, abandon the religion of his forefathers, but as they had come so far on a friendly errand, he assigned them a place of residence in Canterbury, and allowed them to use their best endeavours to convert his subjects. The place assigned them was in the parish of St. Alphage, on the north side of the High or King’s street, where, in Thorn’s time, the archbishop’s palace stood, now called Stable-gate. Accordingly they entered the city, singing in concert a short litany, recorded by Becle, in these words “We pray thee, O Lord, in all thy merc^, that thine anger and thy fury may be removed from this city, and from thy holy house, for we have sinned. Alleluia.”

In this city they employed example and precept in the introduction of their doctrines. They prayed, lasted, watched, preached, wherever they had opportunity, and received only bare necessaries in return. They practised also what they taught, and showed a firmness and zeal, even, to death, if it should be necessary, which produced considerable effect on the people and at length the king himself was converted, and gave the missionaries his license to preach every where, and to build or repair churches. The king, however, declared that no compulsion should be used in making converts, although he could not avoid expressing greater partiality to those who embraced Christianity.

During this success, Augustine went to France, and was there, by the archhishop of Aries, consecrated archbishop of the English nation, thinking that this new dignity would give additional influence to his exhortations. When he returned into Britain, he sent Laurentius the presbyter, and Peter the monk, to acquaint Gregory with what had been done, and to consult him upon several points of doctrine and discipline. Some of these points savour, undoubtedly, of the superstitious scruples of the monastic, austerity, but others lead to some information respecting the early constitution of the church. To his inquiries concerning the maintenance of the clergy, Gregory answered, that the donations made to the church were, by the custom of the Roman see, divided into four portions one for the bishop and his family to support hospitality, a second to the clergy, a third to the poor, and a fourth to the reparation of churches. As the pastors were all monks, they were to live in common, but such as chose to marry were to be maintained by the monastery. With respect to diversities of customs and liturgies, Gregory’s answer was truly liberal, implying that Augustine was not bound to follow the precedent of Rome, but might select whatever parts or rules appeared the most eligible and best adapted to promote the piety of the infant church of England, and compose them into a system for its use. Gregory also, at Augustine’s request, sent over more missionaries, and directed him to constitute a bishop at York, who might have other subordinate bishops yet in such a manner, that Augustine of Canterbury should be metropolitan of all England. He sent over also a valuable present of books, vestments, sacred utensils, and holy relics. He advised Augustine not to destroy the heathen temples, but only to remove the images of their gods, to wash the walls with holy water, to erect altars, deposit relics in them, and so gradually convert them into Christian churches not only to save the expence of building new ones, but that the people might be more easily prevailed upon to frequent those places of worship to which they had been accustomed. He directs him further, to accommodate the ceremonies of the Christian worship, as much as possible, to those of the heathen, that the people might not be too much startled at the change and in particular, he advises him to allow the Christian converts, on certain festivals, to kill and eat a great number of oxen, to the glory of God, as they had formerly done to the honour of the devil. It is quite unnecessary, in our times, to offer any remark on this mixture of pious zeal with worldly policy.

The next great event of Augustine’s life was his attempt to establish uniformity of discipline and customs in the island, and as a necessary step to gain over the British (Welch) bishops to his opinion. These Britons, from the first time of planting Christianity in the island, had constantly followed the rules and customs left them by their first masters. But the church of Rome had made certain alterations in the manner of celebrating divine service? to which it pretended all other churches ought to conform, The churches of the West, as being the nearest to Rome, were the most easily gained and almost all of them, excepting those of France and Milan, conformed at last to the Roman ritual. But Britain still continued, as kwere, a world apart. Since the embassy of Lucius to pope Eleutherius, the Britons bad very little communication with the bishops of Rome. They acknowledged them only as bishops of a particular diocese, or, at most, as heads of a patriarchate, on which they did not think the British church ought to be any way dependent. They were so far from receiving orders from the pope, that they were even strangers to his pretensions. But Augustine, full of zeal for the interests of the see of Rome, made an attempt to bring them to acknowledge the superiority of the pope over all other churches. For this purpose he invited the Welch bishops to a conference, and began to admonish them to enter into Christian peace and concord, that they might join with him in converting the Pagans but this proved fruitless, as they would hearken to no prayers or exhortations, and Augustine, therefore, had recourse to a miracle. A blind man. was introduced to be healed, and was healed by Augustine’s prayers, when those of the ancient Britons failed. They were obliged, therefore, to confess that Augustine was sent of God, but pleaded the obstinacy of their people as a reason for their non-compliance. A second synod was appointed, attended by seven British bishops, and many of their learned men, belonging to the ancient monastery of Bangor, of which Dinoth was at that time abbot. Before these came to the synod, they asked the advice of a person of reputed sanctity, whether they should give up their own traditions on the authority of Augustine or not. “Let humility,” said he, “be the test; and if you find, when you come to the synod, that he rises up to you at your approach, obey him if not, let him be despised by you.” On such precarious evidence was a matter to rest which they thought so important. It happened that Augustine continued sitting on their arrival, which might easily have been the case without any intentional insult but it answered the purpose of the Britons, already averse to join him, and they would now hearken to no terms of reconciliation. Augustine proposed that they should agree with him only in three things, leaving other points of difference undetermined namely, to observe Easter at the same time with the rest of the Christian world to administer baptism after the Roman manner; and to join with him in preaching the gospel to the English but all this they rejected, and refused to acknowledge his authority. This provoked Augustine to tell them, that if they would not have peace with brethren, they should have war with enemies and it hap, pened afterwards, that in an invasion of the Pagan Saxons. of the North, the Bangorian monks were cruelly murdered; but this was lon^ after the death of Augustine, who, nevertheless, has been accused by some writers of exciting the animosity which ended in that massacre. For this there seems no solid foundation. Augustine betrayed an improper warmth, and was not free from ambition but in all his history we can find no instance of a sanguinary spirit, or any inclination to propagate Christianity by any other weapons than those he had at first employed. The Britons undoubtedly had a right to their independence, and Augustine is not to be praised for endeavouring to destroy what had so long existed, and over which he had no legal controul.

Augustine died in the year 604, at Canterbury, and was buried in the church-yard of the monastery that was called after his name, the cathedral not being then finished but after the consecration of that church, his body was taken tip, and deposited in the north porch, where it lay, till, in 1091, it was removed and placed in the church by Wido, abbot of Canterbury. The miracles ascribed by popish writers to Augustine may now be read as other legendary tales, as monuments of weakness and superstition, nor do such writers gain any credit to their cause, by asserting that to be true, which they know to be contrary to the economy of providence and nature, and the appearance of which, for the purposes of conversion, could not be produced without implicating the parties in a charge of wilful delusion.

, duke of Brunswick and Lunenburg, was a man of learning, and a patron of men of learning. He published several works, among which his “Evangelical Harmony,” written in German, is much esteemed by Protestants. He published also, in 1636, a “Treatise on the Cultivation of Orchards, which is still consulted in Germany. The” Steganographia," under the name of Gustavus Selenus, which was published in Latin, at Lunenburg, in 1624, folio, was also the work of this prince, who died in 1666, in the eighty-seventh year of his age.

, an Italian poet, was born at Vincenza, and employed his fortune, which was very considerable, in patronising and associating with men of genius and talents. He is supposed to have died about 1607. His poems, consisting of “Three Epistles,” highly praised by Mazzuchelli, Crescembini, and Quadrio, were first printed in 1605, and were reprinted in 1615 and 1627. They were inserted likewise in some of the collections.

, Abou-Ali- Alhussein-Ben-Abdoullah, EfiN-SiNA, called Avicenes, the prince of Arabian philosophers and physicians, was born at Assena, a village in the neighbourhood of Bokhara in the year 980. His father was from Balkh in Persia, and had married at Bokhara. The first years of Avicenna were devoted to the study of the Koran, and the belles lettres, and so rapid was his progress that, when he was but ten years old, he was perfectly intelligent in the* most hidden senses of the Koran. Abou-Abdouliah, a uative of Napoulous in Syria, at that time professed philosophy at Bokhara with the greatest reputation. Avicenna studied under him the principles of logic but soon disgusted with the slow manner of the schools, he set about studying alone, and read all the authors that had written on philosophy, without any other help than that of their commentators. Mathematics likewise had great charms for him, and after reading the first six propositions of Euclid, he reached to the last, without a teacher, having made himself perfect master of them, and treasured up all of them equally in his memory.

Possessed with an extreme avidity to be acquainted with every science, he likewise devoted himself to the study of medicine. Persuaded that this divine art consists as much in practice as in theory, he sought all opportunities of seeing the sick and afterwards confessed, what can seldom be denied, that he had learned more from experience than from all the hooks he had read. He was now only in his sixteenth year, and already was celebrated as the luminary of his age. He resolved, however, to resume his studies of philosophy, which medicine had interrupted and he spent a year and a half in this painful labour, without ever sleeping all this time a whole night together. If he felt himself oppressed by sleep, or exhausted by reading, a glass of wine refreshed his wasted spirits, and gave him new vigour for study if in spite of him his eyes for a few minutes shut out the light, we are told that he then recollected and meditated upon all the things that had occupied his thoughts before sleep. At the age of twentyone, he conceived the bold design of incorporating, in one work, all the objects of human knowledge, and carried it into execution in an Encyclopedia of twenty volumes, to which he gave the title of the “Utility of Utilities.”

Several great princes had been taken dangerously ill, and Avicenna was the only one who could know their ailments, and administer a remedy. His reputation consequently increased daily, and all the kings of Asia desired to retain him in their families. Mahmoud, the first sultan of the dynasty of Samanides, was then the most powerful prince of the east. Imagining that an implicit obedience was due by all to his will, he wrote a haughty letter to Mamoun, sultan of Kharism, ordering him to send Avicenna to him, who was at his court, with several other learned men but as Avicenna had himself been used to the most flattering distinctions, he resented this imperious command, and refused to go. The sultan of Kharism, however, obliged him to depart with the others who had been demanded.

Avicenna pretended to obey, but, instead of repairing to Gazna, he took the road to Giorgian. Mahmoud, who had gloried in the thought of keeping him at his palace, was greatly irritated at his flight, and dispatched portraits of this philosopher to all the princes of Asia, with orders to have him conducted to Gazna, if he appeared in their courts. But Avicenna eluded the most diligent search, and arrived in the capital of Giorgian, where, under a disguised name, he performed many admirable cures. Cabous then reigned in that country, and a favourite nephew having fallen sick, he consulted the most able physicians, none of whom were able to discover his disorder, or to give him any relief. Avicenna was at last consulted, who discovered, as soon as he felt the young prince’s pulse, that his disorder was concealed love, and he commanded the person, who had the care of the different apartments in the palace, to name them all in their respective order. A more lively motion in the prince’s pulse, at hearing mentioned one of those apartments, betrayed a part of his secret. The keeper then had orders to name all the slaves that inhabited that apartment. At the name of one of those beauties, the young prince, by the extraordinary beating of his pulse, completed the discovery of what he in vain desired to keep concealed. Avicenna, now fully assured that this slave was the cause of his illness, declared that she alone had the power to cure him. The Sultan’s consent being necessary, he expressed a desire to see his nephew’s physician, and had scarcely looked at him when he knew in his features those of the portrait sent to him by Mahmoud but Cabous, far from forcing Avicenna to repair to Gazna, retained him for some time with him, and heaped honours and presents on him.

Avicenna passed afterwards into the court of Nedjmeddevle, sultan of the race of the Bouides. Being appointed first physician to that prince, he found means to gain his confidence* to so great a degree, that he raised him to the post of Grand Vizir, but he did not long enjoy that dignity. Too great an attachment to pleasures made him lose at the same time his poSt, and his master’s favour. From that time Avicenna felt all the rigours of adversity, wandered about as a fugitive, and was often obliged to shift the place of his habitation to secure his life from danger. Certain propositions he had advanced, and which seemed to contradict the sense of the Koran, were alleged against him as very criminal. He is said, however, to have abjured his errors before the end of his life. He died at Hamadan, aged 58 years, in the 428th year of the Hegira, and of the Christian ara 1036.

Such are the reputed events of the life of this extraordinary man, of whose genius and studies the most wonderful tales have been told. He enjoyed so great a reputation after his death, that till the twelfth century, he was preferred in philosophy and medicine to all his predecessors. His works were highly popular even in the European schools. His style is said to be clear, elegant, and solid. Physic is indebted to him for the discovery of cassia, rhubarb, and tamarinds and from him also came the art of making sugar. Dr. Freind, however, is inclined to undervalue the medical knowledge in his works. He wrote, On the utility and advantage of the sciences, on innocence and criminality, health and remedies, canons of physic in fourteen books, his chief work On astronomical observations, mathematics, theological demonstrations, on the Arabic language, and many other subjects of morals and metaphysics. Hebrew and Latin versions of his works are still extant, but in Brucker’s opinion, the translators do not appear to have been sufficiently masters of the Arabic tongue to do justice to their author. The last edition of the “Canon Medicinae” was printed at Venice in 2 vols. in 1608, fol.

, a Latin poet, flourished under Theodosius the elder, in the fifth century. We have by him a translation in verse of the Phænomena of Aratus, Venice, 1488, 4to, and Madrid, 1634, 4 to of the description of the Earth by Dionysius of Alexandria; and of some fables of Æsop, far inferior to those of Phædrus for purity and elegance of diction. His translation of Æsop in elegiac verses is to be found in the Phaedrus of Paris, 1747, 12mo, and the Variorum edition of Amsterdam, 1731, in 8vo. He also turned all the books of Livy into iambic verse: a very strange undertaking, of which it is not easy to conceive the use at that time, although at present it may supply in part what is wanting of that historian.

, descended from a family originally of Nanci in Lorraine, but long established at Paris, was born in the latter city in 1653. From his earliest years, he discovered a taste for architecture, and studying the art with eagerness, soon made very considerable progress. At the age of twenty he was sent to an academy at Rome, founded by the king of France for the education of young men of promising talents in painting, architecture, &c. He was accompanied in the voyage by the celebrated Antony Desgodets, whose measurements of the ancient Roman edifices are so well known. They embarked at Marseilles about the end of 1674, with all the impatience of youthful curiosity, but had the misfortune to be taken by an Algerine corsair, and carried into slavery. Louis XIV. no sooner heard of their disaster, than he made interest for the liberation of Desgodets and A viler, and likewise for John Foi Vaillant, the celebrated antiquary, who had been a passenger with them. Sixteen months, however, elapsed before the Algerines admitted them to be exchanged for some Turkish prisoners in the power of France. Aviler and his friends obtained their liberty, Feb. 22, 1676. During their slavery, Aviler could not conceal his art, although the admiration with which it struck the Algerines, might have afforded them a pretext for detaining one who could be so useful to them. On the contrary, he solicited employment, and had it at least there was extant some time ago, an original plan and elevation of a mosque which he made, and which was built accordingly at Tunis. On being released, however, he went to Rome, where he studied for five years with uninterrupted assiduity, and on his return to France was appointed by M. Mansart, first royal architect, to a considerable place in the board of architecture. While in this situation, iie began to collect materials for a complete course of architectural studies. His first design was to reprint an edition of Vignola, with corrections but perceiving that the explanations of the plates in that work were too short, he began to add to them remarks and illustrations in the form of commentary and, what has long rendered his work valuable, he added a complete series, in alphabetical order, of architectural definitions, which embrace every branch, direct or collateral, of the art, and which have been copied into all the subsequent French dictionaries. He prefixed also a translation of Scamozzi’s sixth book, which treats of the orders.

While Aviler remained as subordinate to Mansart, "he conceived that he could not acquire any high distinction in his profession, and therefore accepted an invitation to go to Montpeliier, where he built a magnificent triumphal arch, in honour of Louis XIV. from a design by M. D'Orbay, who was one of his friends, and had assisted him in completing his literary work. This arch was finished in 1692, and highly approved, and A viler afterwards constructed various edifices at Beziers, Nismes, Montpeliier, and at Toulouse, where he built the archiepiscopal palace. In 1693 the states of Languedoc, as a testimony of their esteem, created the title of architect to the province, a mark of distinction which induced him to reside there during life; but this was not long, as he died in -1700, when only forty-seven years of age.

He published, 1. “CEuvres d'architecture de Vincent de Scamozzi,” translated from the Italian, Paris, 1685, Ley den, 1713, fol. This being only an extract from Scamozzi, whose method was no longer followed, the work had not much success. 2. “Cours d'architecture, qui comprend les ordres de Vignole, avec des commentaires, et plusieurs nouveaux dessins,” Paris, 1691, 2 vols. 4tr, and a third edit. 1699, and again in 1710, 1720, and 173S the latter the best edition, with the lives of Aviler and Vignola, by Marietta the printer. Aviler also wrote a sonnet on the death of the chevalier Bernin in the Merc tire of Jan. 168 1.

, an ingenious English musician, was born probably at Newcastle, where he exercised his profession during the whole of his life. In 1736, July 12, he was appointed organist of St. John’s church in that town, which he resigned for the church of St. Nicholas in October following. In 1748, when the organ of St. John’s required repair, which would amount to 160l. Mr. Avison offered to give 100l. if the parish would raise the other 60l. upon condition that they appointed him organist, with a salary of 20l. and allow him to supply the place by a sufficient deputy. This appears to have been agreed upon, and the place was supplied by his son Charles. In 1752 he published “An essay on Musical Expression,” London, 12mo. In this essay, written with neatness and even elegance of style, he treats of the power and force of music, and the analogies between it and painting of musical composition, as consisting of harmony, air, and expression and of musical expression so far as it relates to the performer. To the second edition, which appeared in 1753^ was added, an ingenious and learned letter to the author, concerning the music of the ancients, now known to be written by Dr. Jortin. Mr. Avison’s treatise was very favourably received, but some were dissatisfied with his sentiments on the excellencies and defects of certain eminent musicians, and particularly his preference of Marcello and Geminiani, or at least, the latter, to Handel. In the same year, therefore, was published, “Remarks on Mr. Avison’s essay, &c. wherein the characters of several great masters, both ancient and modern, are rescued from the misrepresentations of the above author and their real merit ascertained and vindicated. In a letter, from a gentleman to his friend in the country.” In this tract, which was written by Dr. Hayes, professor of music at Oxford, Mr. Avison is treated with very little ceremony, and accused of being ignorant, or neglectful of our ancient English musicians, and of having spoke too coldly of the merits of Handel. It is also insinuated that he was obliged to abler pens for the style and matter of his essay. This last was probably true, as both Dr. Brown and Mr. Mason are supposed to have assisted him, but in what proportions cannot now be ascertained. Mr. Avison wrote a reply to Dr. Hayes, nearly in the same uncourtly style, which was republished in the third edition of his essay in 1775. Avison had been a disciple of Geminiani, who, as well as Giardini, had a great esteem for him, and visited him at Newcastle, where the latter played for his benefit. Whenever Geminiani affected to hold Handel’s compositions cheap, it was usual with him to say, “Charley Avison shall make a better piece of music in a month’s time.” Avison died at Newcastle, May 10, 1770, and was succeeded in the church of St. Nicholas, by his son Edward, who himself died in 1776, and in the church of St. John, by his son Charles, who resigned in 1777. Avison assisted in the. publication of Marcello’s music to the psalms adapted to English words. Of his own composition there are extant five collections of concertos for violins, forty-four in number; and two sets of sonatas for the harpsichord, and two violins, a species of composition little known in England till his time. The music of Avison is light and elegant, but wants originality, a consequence of his too close attachment to the style of Geminiani.

, son to the senator Isychius, and brother to Apollinaris, bishop of Valentia, was promoted in the beginning of the sixth century to the archbishopric of Vienna, which his father had also held for some years. His principal object was the refutation and conversion of the Arians, and during his conferences, for this purpose with the Arian bishops before Goudeband king of Burgundy, who was an Arian, he converted his son Sigismorid. Cave thinks he converted the king himself, and when he found him concealing his principles, urged him to a public profession of them. He wrote also in defence of pope Symmachus, and died in the year 523. His principal works were Letters, Sermons, and Poems his Letters, 87 in number, contain many curious particulars of the civil and ecclesiastical history of the times. Of his Homilies, one only is extant on Rogation day, in which he gives the origin of the days so called. In all his works, his style is harsh, obscure, and intricate. His poems were printed at Francfort in 1507, and at Paris and Lyons in 1508, 1509, and 1536 but his whole works were published at Paris by father Sirmond, in 1643, fol. and since that Luc d'Achery published in his Spicilegium, the conference with the Arian bishops.

, the son of Antonio Aulisio, was born at Naples, Jan. 14, 1649 (or 1639, according to Diet. Hist.), studied Latin under Floriati and Martena, and made such rapid and successful progress in his other studies, that at the age of nineteen, he taught rhetoric and poetry with reputation. We are also told, that he understood, and could write and speak all the languages of the East and West, and that he acquired a knowledge of them without the aid of a master. He was equally well acquainted with the sciences, and yet with all this knowledge he was for a long time extremely poor, owing to the loss of his father and mother, and the charge of a younger brother and five sisters. At the age of twenty-six he taught as professorextraordinary, without any salary, but about eight years after he obtained the chair of the institutes, which was worth about one hundred ducats, and at forty he held that of the code, worth one hundred and forty. From his forty-sixth year to the end of his life, he was principal professor of civil law, with a salary of 1100 ducats. He died Jan. 29, 1717, in the sixty-eighth year of his age. As he had been a public teacher at Naples about fifty years, he acquired, according to custom, the title of Count Palestine, and was interred with the honours due to that rank. For twenty-three years, also, he had been superintendant of the school of military architecture, by order of Charles II. with a salary of twenty-five ducats per month. During all this time he lived a retired life, and had no ambition to exchange it for the bustle of ambition. In the course of his studies, he became a great admirer of Plato, and when his maternal uncle Leonardi di Capoa, wrote a work agreeable to the principles of Des Cartes, Aulisio became his antagoist but instead of argument, substituted satirical verses, which contributed little to his own fame, and excited the displeasure of his uncle’s learned friends. This dispute induced him to break off all correspondence with them, and employ his time on several works, particularly, 1. “De Gymnasii constructione De Mausolei architectura; de Harmonia Timaica, et numeric niedicis.” These three were printed in a quarto volume, Naples, 1694. 2. “Commentarii juris civilis ad tit. Pandect.” 3 vols. 4to. 3. “Delle Scuole sacre,” 1723, 4to. 4. “Historia deortu et progressu Medicinse,” Venice, 1700. His life is prefixed to the “Scuole sacre.”

, commonly known by the name of Richard de Bury, was born at St. Edmundsbury, in Suffolk, in 1281. His father, sir Richard Aungervyle, knt. dying when he was young, his uncle John de Willowby, a priest, took particular care of his education and when he was fit sent him to Oxford, where he studied philosophy and divinity, and distinguished himself by his learning, and regular and exemplary life. When he had finished his studies there, he became a Benedictine monk at Durham. Soon after he was made tutor to prince Edward, afterwards king Edward III. Being treasurer of Guienne in 1325, he supplied queen Isobel, when she was plotting against her husband king Edward II. with a large sum of money out of that exchequer, for which being questioned by the king’s party, be narrowly escaped to Paris, where he was forced to hide himself seven days in the tower of a church. When king Edward III. came to the crown, he loaded his tutor Aungervyle with honours and preferments, making him, first, his cofferer, then treasurer of the wardrobe, archdeacon of Northampton, prebendary of Lincoln, Sarum, and Lichfield, and afterwards keeper of the privy seal. This last place he enjoyed five years, and was in that time sent twice ambassador to the pope. In 1333 he was promoted to the deanery of Wells, and before the end of the same year, being chosen bishop of Durham, he was consecrated about the end of December, in the abbey of the black canons of Chertsey in Surrey. He was soon afterwards enthroned at Durham, on which occasion he made a grand festival, and entertained in the hall of his palace at Durham, the king and queen of England, the queen-dowager of England, the king of Scotland, the two archbishops, and five bishops, seven earls with their ladies, all the nobility north of Trent, with a Tast concourse of knights, esquires, and other persons of distinction. The next year he was appointed high-chancellor, and in 1336, treasurer of England. In 1338 he was twice sent with other commissioners to treat -of a peace with the king of France, though to no purpose.

This prelate was not only one of the most learned men ef his time, but also a very great patron and encourager of learning. Petrarch he frequently corresponded with, and had for his chaplains and friends the most eminent men of the age. His custom was, to have some of his attendants read to him while he was at meals, and when they were over, to discourse with his chaplains upon the same subject. He was likewise of a very bountiful temper. Every week he made eight quarters of wheat into bread, and gave it to the poor. Whenever he travelled between Durham and Newcastle, he distributed eight pounds sterling in alms; between Durham and Stockton, tire pounds between Durham and Auckland, five marks and between Durham and Middleham, five pounds. But the noblest instance of his generosity and munificence was the public library he founded at Oxford, for the use of the students. This library he furnished with the best collection of books that was then in England, fixed it in the place where Durham, now Trinity-college, was built afterwards, and wrote a treatise containing rules for the management of the library, how the books were to be preserved, and upon what conditions lent out to scholars. The title of this book is, “Philobiblon, sou de Amore Librorum et Institutione Bibliothecae,” cum Appendice de Mss. Oxoniensibus, per Thorn. James, printed at Oxford in 1599, 4to. It was, however, first printed at Spires in 1483, and there are several ms copies in the libraries of Oxford and Cambridge. This prelate died at Auckland, April 24, 1345, and was buried in the south part of the cross aile of the cathedral of Durham.

, widow of the count d'Aunoy, and niece of the celebrated madame Desloges, died in 1705, She wrote with ease, though negligently, in the department of romance. Readers of a frivolous taste still peruse with pleasure her “Tales of the Fairies,” 4 vols. 12mo, and especially her “Adventures of Hippolytus earl of Douglas,” in 12mo. a piece containing much warmth and nature in the style, and abundance of the marvellous in the adventures. Her “Memoires historiques de ce qui s’est passe de plus remarquable en Europe depuis 1672, jusqu'en 1679,” are a medley of truth and falsehood. Her “Memoirs of the court of Spain,” where she had lived with her mother, in 2 vols. present us with no favourable idea of the Spanish nation, which she undoubtedly treats with two much severity, iter “History of John, de Bourbon, prince de Carency,” 1692j 3 vols. 12mo, is one of those historical romances that are the offspring of slender parts, in conjunction with alluring effusions of gallantry. Her husband, the count d' Annoy, being accused of high treason by three Normans, very narrowly escaped with his head. One of his accusers, struck with remorse of conscience, declared the whole charge to be groundless.

was born at Bergamo, of an ancient and noble family, but derived greater renown from her talents than her birth. She excelled in Italian poetry, and merited such a commentator and admirer as Tasso. Her poems were collected in 1561. She was married to a nobleman of Brescia in the Venetian state, where she died. Calvi has made very honourable mention of her in his account of the writers of Bergamo.

, of Verceil in Italy, lived under the government of Cosmo de Medicis, grand duke of Florence, whose piety and magnificence he celebrated in a poem in elegiac verse, consisting of two books. It was printed in the 12th volume of Lami’s “Delicice Eruditorum.” The late edition of the Dictioiinaire Historiqtie gives the following brief notices of others of this name: Jerome Avogadro, a patron of learning and learned men, who first edited the works of Vitruvius. Nestor-Denis Avogadro, a native of Novaro, who published a Lexicon, of which an edition was printed at Venice in 1488^ fol. To the subsequent editions were added some treatises by the same author, on the eight parts of speech, on prosody, &c. —Peter Avogadro, who lived at Verona about 1490, He wrote Literary Memoirs of the illustrious mqii of his country tin Essay on the origin of Mont-de-Piete in Italy, and another “De Origine gentis Rizzonae.” The marquis Maffei speaks in high praise of this author in his “Verona Illustrata.”

, a native of La Perousa, and canon of St. John of Lateran, died at Rome in 1637. His knowlege of history made him be considered by pope Urban VIII. as one of the most learned historians of his age. He published an “Abridgement of Tursellin’s Universal History,” in 1623; another of “Baronius’s Annals,” and another of Bzovius’s great work on ecclesiastical history, in 9 vols. folio. He wrote also “A History of the Revolt of Bohemia against the Emperors Matthias and Ferdinand,” Rome, 1625. This last is written in Italian, the others in Latin.

, born at Palermo, in 1625, and died in the same city in 1710, quitted the bar, to devote himself to literature. He was but poorly provided with the goods of fortune but he comforted himself in his poetical studies. There are a great number of works by him, several in Latin, but most in Italian. The latter are more esteemed than the former. Among these are reckoned, a “History” (in good repute) “of the great men of Sicily,” Palermo, 1704, 4to, and a “History of the Viceroys of Sicily,” ibid. 1697, folio.

, called also Pamphille, a French poet of the sixteenth century, was born at Beauvais, but we have no particulars of his life, except that he was an advocate of parliament. The editors of the “Annales Poetiques” have inserted his best productions in their collection, and among others his “Tuteur d'Amour,” in four cantos, praised for elegance, tenderness, and fancy. His other works are, 1. “Le cinquante-deuxieme Arret d'Amour, avec les ordonnances sur le fait des masques,” 8vo, 1528. 2. “La genealogie des dieux poetiques,” 12mo, 1545. 3. “Aureus de utraque potestate libellus, in hunc usque diem non visus, Somnium Viridarii yulgariter nuncupatus,” 1516, 4to.

, a French historian, was born at Caen in 1675, and admitted & Paris into the society of the Jesuits, Sept. 15, 169 1, The fatigues he underwent in this society injured his health, and after his theological studies he was sent to Alengon, where he was employed as procurator of the college. He died either there or at Quimper, April 24, 1719. He is the author of two works which have been often reprinted. 1. “Memoires chronologiques et dogmatiques, pourservir a l‘histoire ecclesiastique, depuis 1600jusqu’en 1716, avec des reflexions et des remarques critiques,” 4 vols. 12mo, 1720. 2. “Memoires pour servir a l‘histoire universelle de l’Europe, depuis 1600 jusqu'en 1716, &c.” 4 vols. 12mo, Paris, 1725, reprinted the same year at Amsterdam, and again in 1757.

, a French Franciscan of the order called* Minimes, was born at Paris Jan. 1, 1652, and was educated in the Jesuits’ college. In the course of his studies, and after taking orders, he acquired very high reputation for learning, and particularly for his eloquence and zeal as a preacher and devotional writer. He died at Paris, May 16, 1729. Moreri has given a long list of his religious treatises, all of which were frequently reprinted, and admired in France, when religion was more prevalent than now. He also wrote a work on Algebra, but committed it to the flames sometime before his death, and it was with much difficulty he was persuaded to publish his “Genealogie de la maison de Fontaine- Soliers, issue dela Case Solare, souveraine d'Aste en Piemont,” 1680, 4to, which has procured him a place in Le Long’s Bibliotheque of the French historians.

was born at Noto, a town of Sicily, in 1369. He applied himself to the study of the Greek language, and went to Constantinople to collect Greek manuscripts. Here he became acquainted with, and was highly respected by, the emperor John Palaeologus, who found him afterwards at Ferrara when he went to assist at a council assembled by Eugene IV. Aurispa bepame secretary to this pope and also to Nicholas V. his successor, who bestowed upon him two rich abbeys. He died at Rome in 1459, in the 90th year of his age. He translated part of the works of Archimedes, Hierocles’s Commentary on the Golden verses of Pythagoras, and published some poems and letters. His translation of Hierocles was printed at Basle in 1543, 8vo. By a part of the preface, quoted by Gesner, it appears that he made this translation when in his eightieth year.

, a native of Bohemia, of the sixteenth century, was teacher of languages in the university of Wittemberg. He compiled “Compendium Hebrææ Chaldeæque grammatices,” Wittemberg, 8vo, 1525, Basle, 1531); and “De Hebræis urbium, regionum, &c, nominibus, liber è veteri instrumento congestus,” ibid. 1526, 1529, 8vo. This second edition was much enlarged by the author. He also assisted Luther in the translation of the Bible. He died in 1543.

, an eminent poet of the fourth century, was the son of a physician, and born at Itourdeaux. Great care was taken of his eJucation, the whole family interesting themselves in it, either because his genius was very promising, or that the scheme of his nativity, which had been cast by his grandfather on the mother’s side, led them to imagine that he would rise to great honour. Whatever their motive, it is allowed that he made an uncommon progress in classical learning, and at the age of thirty was chosen to teach grammar at Bourdeaux, He was promoted some time after to be professor of rhetoric, in which office he acquired so great a reputation, that he ivas sent for to court to be preceptor to Gratian the emperor Valentinian’s son. The rewards and honours conferred on him for the faithful discharge of his office remind us of Juvenal’s maxim, that when fortune pleases she can liaise a man from a rhetorician to a consul. He was actually appointed consul by the emperor Gratian, in the year 379, after having filled other considerable posts; for, besides the dignity of questor, to which he had been nominated by Valentinian, he was made prefect of the pnetorium in Italy and Gaul after that prince’s death. His speech returning thanks to Gratian on his promotion to the consulship is highly commended. The time of his death is uncertain he was living in 392, and lived to a great age. He hud several children by his wife, who died young. The emperor Thcodosius had a great esteem for Ausonius, and pressed him to publish his poems. There is a great inequality in his productions; and in his style there is a harshness, which was perhaps rather the defect of the times Le lived in, than of his genius. Had he lived in Augustus’s reign, his verses, according to good judges, would have equalled the most finished of that age. He is generally supposed to have been a Christian some ingenious authors indeed have thought otherwise, and the indecency of many of his poems make us not very anxious to claim him. The editio princeps of his works was published at Venice, 1472, fol. of which there are four copies in this country, in the libraries of his majesty, the museum, earl Spencer, and Mr. Wodhull. De Bure was not able to find one in France. The two best editions, the first yery uncommon, are those of Amsterdam, 1671, 8yo, and Bipont, 1785, 8vo.

, a French and Latin poet, voluminous enough to require some notice, although his works are now perhaps but little known or valued even in his own couutry, was born at Charolles about the year 1529, the son of Syacre or Fiacre des Autels, a gentleman of the same couutry. He inherited little from this father, except, as he informs us, a chateau, rather noble than rich. For some time he studied law at Valencia, but it does not appear with what view poetry was his favourite pursuit, although he succeeded very seldom but what was wanting in genuine poetry was made up by an obtrusive display of Greek and Latin, in the manner of Ronsard, whom he called his friend. Like other poets, he affected to have a mistress for whom he cherished a Platonic affection, but it appears that he was married at the age of twenty-four. His death is said to have happened about 1580. MorerL enumerates many volumes of his poems, sonnets, elegies, pieces in imitation of Rabelais, Ronsard, &c. The following are of a different description, and respect a controversy on the orthography of the French language. 1. “Traite touchant Pancienne ecriture de la Langue Francoise, et de sa Poesie,” Lyons, 16 mo, published under the anagranmiatical name of Glaumalis de Vezelet. Louis Meigret, las opponent in the controversy, immediately published his “Defenses touchant son Ortographc Francoise centre les censures et calomnies de Glaumalis,” Paris, 1550, 4to. Autels followed this by “Repliqucs aux furicuses defenses de Louis Meigret,” 16mo, Lyons, 1551, which Meigret answered the same year. Griiter thought some of his Latin poetry of sufficient merit to obtain a place in the “Deliciae poetarum Gallorum,” 1609.

, historiographer of France under Louis XII. abbot of Angle in Poitou, was originally of Saintonge, and of the same family from which, according to some authors, the famous Barbarossa descended. He wrote the history of France from 1490 to 1508, with great fidelity, but M. Gamier says, that “Louis XII. who usually employed the most celebrated pens, chose, with less than his ordinary discernment, Jean d‘Authon, to write the particular history of his reign’: for, though he had bestowed several benefices upon him though he made him commonly travel in the suite of the army, and gave orders to his ministers and generals to conceal nothing frorn Jiim of all that was worthy of being handed down to posterity, he was less happy in this respect than a great number of his predecessors. Authon is but a cold proser, nice in giving the particulars of little matters, but deficient in unfolding motives, &c.” Theodore Godefroi published the four first years of his history in 1620, 4to, and the two last which had appeared in 1615, in 4to, with “l'Histoire de Louis XII.” by Seyssel the three others, whieh have not yet been sent to the press, are now in the Imperial library. This historian died in January 1523, according to Moreri, or 1527 in Diet. Hist, which gives the following productions from his pen: 1. “Les Epistres envoyees au roy par les 6tats de France, avec certaines ballades et rondeaux,” Lyons, 1509, 4to. 2. “L'exil de Gennes le Superbe,” 1508, 4to. 3. te Diverses pieces sur la mort de Thomassine Espinolle (Spinola) ms."

, a philosopher who flourished about 340 years before the Christian oera. He was the preceptor of Arcesilas, the son of Seuthes. He wrote several treatises on astronomy, of which Joseph Auria, of Naples, translated into Latin the only ones extant, on the sphere, and the stars.

, advocate of the parliament of Bourdeaux, was born in 1587, at Agenois. He undertook an edition of the “Corps du Droit,” the expence of which the chancellor had promised to defray, but in this our author was disappointed, and was exposed to the demands of his creditors, when he was relieved by the generosity of le Bret, a counsellor of state. Automne was a man of study, and wrote several works on professional subjects, which were much approved. The most celeb rated of these is his “Commentaire surla Coutume de Bourdeaux,” the best edition of which was published by Dupin, in 1728, fol. with notes. He wrote also a “Conference du Droit Romain avec le Droit Franois y” 1644, 2 vols. fol. and “Censura Gallica in Jus Civile Romanum,” Paris, 1625, 8vo, or according to Saxius, 1613. Some of these works are thought to be deficiennn judgment and in perspicuity of arrangement. He is said to have been the editor of Juvenal and Persius, with copious notes in Latin, 2 vols. 8vo, Paris, 1607, which we do not find mentioned in any of the lists of editions of those poets, yet it is noticed by Saxius. Moreri thinks he died about 162^, but in the Diet. Historique it is said he died in 1666 at the age of ninety-nine years, which does not correspond with the date of his birth, which we have given from Moreri.

, a painter from necessity and a poet by taste, died in indigence, in constant attachment to his two professions, at Paris, his birth-place, in the hospital of Incurables, in 1745. D'Autreau, although of a gloomy and melancholy character, wrote comedies that excited laughter, and continue to amuse upon the stage. He was almost sixty when he first turned his thoughts to the drama, an employment that demands all the vivacity and imagination of youth but his plots are too simple, the catastrophe is immediately perceived, and the pleasure of surprise is lost. His dialogue, however, is natural, his style easy, and some of his scenes are in the true comic taste. The Italian theatre has preserved his “Port a PAnglois,” in prose “Democrite pretendu fou,” in three acts, and in verse. The theatres of France have represented “Clorinda,” a tragedy in five acts the “Chevalier Bayard,” in five acts and the “Magie de l'Amour,” a pastoral in one act, in verse. He gave at the opera, “Platee, ou la Naissance de la Comedie,” the music by the celebrated Rameau. “Le Port a l'Anglois” is the first piece in which the Italian players spoke French. The works of d‘Autreau were collected in 1749, in 4 vols. 12mo, with a good preface by Pesselier. The most known of the pictures of this painter, is that of Diogenes, with the lanthern in his hand, in search of an honest man, and finding him in the cardinal de Fleury. D’Autreau lived very retired, de*. spising all that the generality of mankind esteem, and agreeing with the public in no one thing except in the little concern he took about himself.

, an eminent French musician and composer, was born at Clermont in Auvergne, Oct. 4, 1713. Instead of giving any extraordinary proofs of voluntary application, or early pregnancy of genius, he merely complied with the desire of his father, who was a musician, in turning his thoughts, or rather employing his time, in that pursuit. About his eighteenth year, however, an entire change appeared to have taken place in his mind, which became suddenly seized with the most violent enthusiasm, and such was his application night and day, that he soon became a capital performer on the violin, and was in 1739 thought worthy of the honour of being admitted into his majesty’s chamber band. With no other help in composition than the works of Rameau, he composed a trio for two violins and a bass, which he presented to that celebrated author, who, flattered by such a mark of respect, offered the young composer his advice and friendship. Auvergne began to compose a number of works for the court and the opera, which were much admired. In 1766, having the direction of the spiritual concert entrusted to him, and being unable to treat with Mondonville, who asked an exorbitant price for his Motets, Auvergne, undismayed by the vast reputation which the Orpheus of Languedoc (as Mondonville was called) had acquired in that species of composition, turned his own talents to it, and with such success, that his “Te Deum,” “De Profundis,” and his “Miserere,” were considered as first-rate works. In 1753, he composed the music of the first comic opera that was exhibited in France, and thus prepared the way for that style in which Monsigny, Gretry, and Daleyrac have since so ably distinguished themselves. Auvergne was director of the opera from 1767 to 1775, and from 1785 to 1790. Although in this time he had not Studied to accumulate a fortune, he lived in very easy circumstances until the revolution, when he lost all his places, and was thrown into a state approaching to indigence. Jn 1796, he went to Lyons, and was consoled in liis age and poverty by his sisters and his second wife, and here he died Feb. 12, 1797, justly regretted hy all who knew him. Besides the music already mentioned, he composed the following operas, “Canente,” “Enee et Lavinie,” and “Hercule mourant,” all in his younger days, but the dates not specified “Les Amours de Tempe,” 1752 “Les Fetes d'Euterpe,” 1758; “Polyxene,” 1763; “La Venitienne.” He also retouched some former operas, and composed the music of several ballets performed at Versailles and.Fontainbieau. It seems remarkable that so popular a composer, and one who had contributed so much to “gladden life” in the gay metropolis of France, should have been left to end his days in obscurity and poverty.

, born in the Hainaut, lived some time with the abbé des Fontaines, who formed his taste. He entered afterwards into the light -horse-guards, and was killed in the buttle of Dettingen, in 1743, at the age of 3 I He was a man of genius and imagination. His writings are 1. “Memoirs of madame de Barneveldt,” a romance, 2 vols. 12mo. 2. “An abridgment of the history of France and of the Roman history,” by question and answer, 2 vols. 12mo. which was recommended as useful to young persons. It used to be, and sometimes yet is, attributed to the abbe des Fontaines, who only revised it, but overlooked several inaccuracies in the dates and negligences in the style. 3. The three first volumes, and half of the fourth, of the “History of Paris,” in 5 vols. 12mo. 4. The eight first volumes of the “Lives of the illustrious men of France,” in 12mo. The ninth and the tenth were published in 1744, by his brother, canon of Prempntre. The work was continued by the abbe Pereau and M. Turpin. D'Auvigny’s part is written with spirit, and contains curious anecdotes and facts but little known. But the author prefers the ornaments of style to historical precision, and sometimes adopts the romantic tone. His cjiction is in general either laboriously inflated, or too negligent.

was a French astronomer, and a picmber of the old academy of France, into which he was received in 1666. He is principally known for having brought to perfection the micrometer, an instrument usually fitted to a telescope, in the focus of the objectglass, for measuring small angles or distances. This he published in 1666, but Mr. Townley, in the Philosophical Transactions, claims it for one of our countrymen, Mr. Gascoigne. He relates that from some scattered letters and papers of this gentlemen, who was killed in the grand rebellion, he had learned that before its breaking out, he had invented a micrometer, of as much effect as that made by M. Auzout, and had made use of it for some years not only in taking the diameters of the planets, and distances upon land, but in determining other matters of nice importance in the heavens, as the moon’s distance, &c. Mr. Gascoigne’s instrument also fell into the hands of Mr. Townley, who says farther, that by the help of it he could make above 40,000 divisions in a foot. The French writers endeavour to deny all this, and conclude with an assertion, as illiberal as it is false, that every nation has a zeal for its literary glory, but that in England alone this zeal is pushed to ardour and to injustice. Auzout, however, was an astronomer of acknowledged abilities. He died in 1691.

, a physician, of a Spanish family, studied at Antwerp, about the beginning of the sixteenth century, and took his doctor’s degree in medicine at Louvain in 1556. He practised chiefly at Brussels, and was appointed physician -pensionary to that city. He was also esteemed among his learned contemporaries, on account of his poetical talents, and taste in polite literature. His works are 1. “Populariaepigrammata medica.” 2. “Carmen pro vera Medicina.” 3. “De Lue pestilenti.” 4. “Elegiarum liber unus,” printed together, Antwerp, 1562, 4to.

, a patron of learning, was the second son of William Aylesbury by his wife Anne, daughter of John Poole, esq. and was born in London in 1576. He was educated at Westminster school, and, in 1598, became a student of Christ church, Oxford where he distinguished himself by his assiduous application to his studies, especially the mathematics. In June 1605, he took his degree of M. A. After he quitted the university, he was employed as secretary to Charles earl of Nottingham, then lord high admiral of England, in which post he had an opportunity of improving his mathematical knowledge, as well as of giving many proofs of it. On this account when George Villiers, duke of Buckingham, succeeded the earl of Nottingham as high admiral, Mr. Aylesbury not onlv kept his employment, but was also, by the favour of that‘powerful duke, created a baronet, April 19, 1627, having been before made master of requests, and master of the mint. These lucrative employments furnished him with the means of expressing his regard for learned men. He not only made all men of science welcome at his table, and afforded them all the countenance he could but likewise gave to such of them as were in narrow circumstances, regular pensions out of his own fortune, and entertained them at his house in Windsor-park, where he usually spent the summer. Walter Warner, who, at his request, wrote a treatise on coins and coinage, and the famous Mr. Thomas Harriot, were among the persons to whom he extended his patronage, and Harriot left him (in conjunction with Robert Sidney and viscount Lisle) all his writings and all the Mss. he had collected. Mr. Thomas Allen of Oxford, likewise, whom he had recommended to the duke of Buckingham, confided his manuscripts to sir Thomas, who is said to have been one of the most acute and candid critics ef his time. By this means he accumulated a valuable library of scarce books and Mss. which were either lost at home during the civil wars, or sold abroad to relieve his distresses; for in 1642 his adherence to the king, occasioned his being turned out of his places, and plundered of his estates. This he bore with some fortitude, but the murder of his sovereign gave him a distaste of his country, and retiring with his family to Flanders, he lived for some time at Brussels, and afterwards at Breda, where in 1657 he died. He left a son William, who, at the request of Charles I. undertook to translate D’Avila’s History of the Civil Wars of France, which appeared in 1647 but in the second edition, published in 1678, the merit of the whole translation is given to sir Charles Cotterel, except a few passages in the first four books. The calamities of his country affected this gentleman too, and in 1657, when Cromwell fitted out a fleet to go on an expedition to the West Indies, and to carry a supply to the island of Jamaica, Mr. Aylesbury, from pure necessity, engaged himself as secretary to the governor, and died on the island soon after. His surviving sister, the countess of Clarendon, became heiress of what could be recovered of the family estate.

, master in chancery, was educated in Trinity hall, Cambridge, where in 1614 he commenced LL. D. It was his usual practice to relax himself after his severer studies with poetry. Besides his “Divine and Moral Speculations” in verse, London, 1654, 8vo, he wrote “Susanna, or the Arraignment of the two Elders,” inverse, Lond. 1622, 8vo. Mr. Wood starts a question whether he was author of” Britannia Antiqua illustrata,“published under the name of Aylett Sammes, but said to be written by his uncle. Certain it is that the nominal author was unequal to it, though much learning and labour have been spent on it to very little purpose. The Censura Literaria attributes to Dr. Aylett four pastoral eclogues, entitled” A Wife not ready made, but bespoken" the dedication of which is signed R. A. and the second edition was published in 1653, 8vo.

, an eminent English prelate, descended from a very ancient and honourable family, seated at Aylmer-hall, in Norfolk, was born in 1521, and being a younger brother, was either recommended by his relations, or recommended himself by his pregnant parts, to the marquis of Dorset (Henry Grey), afterwards duke of Suffolk, who honoured him with the title of his Scholar, and gave him an exhibition at the university of Cambridge. When he had there attained competent learning, the marquis took him home, where he became tutor to his children, amongst whom was the lady Jane, who for some days was styled queen, and who, under Aylmer’s tuition, acquired the Latin and Greek tongues, reading and writing in the latter with ease and elegance, By his care also, she received right principles of religion, as he imbibed the opinions of the primitive reformers and having for his patrons the duke of Suffolk and the carl of Huntingdon, in the reign of Edward VI., was for some time the only preacherin Leicestershire; where he had great success in inculcating the, Protestant religion. When the celebrated Ascliam, in a visit to lady Jane in 1550, asked her how so young a lady (not then ahove fourteen) could have arrived at such perfection both in philosophy and the Greek language, she bore the following testimony to the merit of her tutor “1 will tell you,” said she, “and tell you truth, which, perchance, you will marvel at. One of the greatest benefits which ever God gave me, is that he sent so sharp and severe parents, and so gentle a schoolmaster. For when I am in presence either of father or mother, whether I speak, keep silence, sit, stand, or go eat, drink, be merry or sad be sewing, placing, dancing, or doing any thing else, I must do it, as it were, in such weight, measure, and number, and even so perfectly, as God made the world, or else, I am so sharply taunted, so cruelly threatened, yea, presently sometimes with pinches, nips, and bobs (or other ways, which I will not name, for the honour I bear them), so without measure misordereo”, that I think myself in hell, till time come that I must go to Mr. Elmer, who teachfeth me so gently, so pleasantly, with fair allurements to learning, that I think all the time nothing while I am with him and when I am called from him, 1 fall a weeping, because whatsoever I do else but learning, is full of grief, trouble, fear, and wholly misliking unto me and this my book hath been so much my pleasure, and bringeth daily to me more pleasure, and more yet, in respect to it, all other pleasures, in very deed, be but trifles and troubles unto me." Mr. Ascharn was so affected with this interview, that in a letter to lady Jane, dated the eighteenth of January, 1551, he speaks of it in rapture, and by a beautiful apostrophe, addressing himself to Mr. Ay liner, felicitates him on his having so ingenious a scholar, in a strain of compliment, which he says the great Sturmius made use of to him, speaking of his happiness, in having the lady Elizabeth for his pupil. In this letter it is, that he desires Mr. Aylmer, to whom be foresaw it would be shewn, to engage the lady Jane, to write a letter in Greek to himself, and another to Sturmius, and also desires they might continue to live in the same learned friendship and intercourse, which they had hitherto done.

The first preferment bestowed upon Aylmer, was the archdeaconry of Stow, in the diocese of Lincoln, which giving him a seat in the convocation, held in the first year of queen Mary, he boldly opposed that return to Popery, which he saw approaching. He was one of six$ who, in the midst of all the violence of that assembly, offered to dispute all the controverted points in religion, against the most learned champions, of the Papists. But when the supreme power began to employ force, archdeacon Aylmer withdrew^ and escaped abroad in almost a miraculous manner*. He resided first at Strasbourg, afterwards at Zurick in Switzerland, and there in peace followed his studies, employing all his time in acquiring knowledge, or in assist^ ing other men of study. His thoughts, though in a distant country, were continually employed in the service of England, and of Englishmen. He published (as Strype supposes) lady Jane Grey’s letter to Harding, who had been her father’s chaplain, and who apostatized. He assisted Fox in translating the History of English Martyrs into Latin, and also in the version of archbishop Cranmer’s Vindication of the book on the Sacrament, against Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, which, however, was never printed. During these employments he found leisure to visit most of the universities of Italy and Germany, and had an offer from the duke of Saxony, of the Hebrew professorship of Jena, which he refused, on the prospect of speedily returning home* It was during his exile likewise that he wrote the only work of consequence which he ever published, in answer to the famous Scotch reformer, John Knox. In 1556, John Knox printed, at Geneva, a treatise under this title “The first Blast against the monstrous regiment and empire of Women,” to shew that, by the laws of God, women could not exercise sovereign authority. The objects of this attack were the two queens, Mary of Lorrain, then regent of Scotland, and Mary queen of England. It was violent, but not unargumentative, and he could appeal with effect to the laws of France, and to the recent proposal of Edward VI. to adopt the same laWi He intended a second, and a third part; but finding it gave offence to many of his brethren, and being desirous to strengthen rather than invalidate the authority of Elizabeth, he relinquished his design. Still as this first tended to injure the Protestant religion in the minds of Princes, and those in authority, Mr. Aylmer resolved to employ his

* Fuller says that the ship in which and that Aylmer, who was a man of

he embarked was searched, and that he low stature, sat on one side of it, while

sel, with a partition in the middle other. pen in the performance of a duty incumbent upon him, as a Christian divine, and a good subject. His piece was entitled, “An Harborowe for faithfull and trewe subjects, against the late blowne Blaste, concerning the government of Women. Wherein bee confuted al such reasons as a straunger of late made in that behalfe. With a briefe Exhortation to obedience.” Strasbourg, April 26, 1559, dedicated to the earl of Bedford, and lord Robert Dudley (afterwards earl of Leicester, then) master of the queen’s horse. This book is written with great vivacity, and at the same time discovers its author’s deep and general learning. It contains, however, some sentiments rather more in favour of the Puritan* than he afterwards held, a circumstance which was objected to him by some of that party, when in discharge of his episcopal duty he found it necessary to repress their endeavours to assimilate the church of England with that of Geneva.

After the accession of queen Elizabeth, Aylmer returned home, and was one of the eight divines appointed to dispute with as many popish bishops at Westminster, in the presence of a great assembly. In 1562, he obtained the archdeaconry of Lincoln, by the favour of Mr. secretary Cecil and in right of this dignity, sat in the famous synod held the same year, wherein the doctrine and discipline of the church, and its reformation from the abuses of popery, were carefully examined and settled. In this situation he continued for many years, and discharged the duty of a good subject to the government under which he lived, in church and state being one of the -queen’s justices of the peace, as also an ecclesiastical commissioner. In October, 1573, he accumulated the degrees of bachelor and doctor in divinity, in the university of Oxford. The next year the archbishop of Canterbury made choice of him, to answer a book written in Latin against the government of the church of England but after thoroughly considering it, Dr. Aylmer declined the task, which some in those days (perhaps unjustly) attributed to discontent, because he was not made a bishop. To this dignity he had been often named by Parker, then archbishop of Canterbury, but always prevented either by the interest of the archbishop’s enemies, or his own, the latter never failing to suggest, that in the same book where Aylmer had made his court to the queen, he had also shewn his spleen against episcopacy. At last, in the year 1576, on Dr. Edwin Sandys being promoted to the archbishopric of York/ Dr. Ayltner was made bishop of London, not without the furtherance of his predecessor, who was his intimate friend, and had beeii his fellow-exile. Yet, immediately after his promotion, bishop Aylmer found, or thought he found, cause to complain of the archbishop and although his grace assisted at his consecration, on the 24th of March, 3576, bishop Aylmer sued him for dilapidations, which after some years prosecution he recovered. In 1577, our bishop began his first visitation, wherein he urged subscriptions, which some ministers refused, and reviled such as complied, calling them dissemblers, and comparing them to Arians and Anabaptists, he was also extremely assiduous in public preaching, took much pains in examining such as came to him for ordination, and kept a strict eye over the Papists and Puritans in which he acted not only to the extent of episcopal authority, but wrote freely to the treasurer Burleigh, as to what he thought farther necessary. When the plague rageed in London, in the year 1578, our bishop shewed a paternal care of his clergy and people, and without exposing the former to needless perils, took care that these last should not be without spiritual comforts. In 1581 came out Campion’s book, shewing the reasons why he had deserted the reformed, and returned to the popish communion. It was written in very elegant Latin, and dedicated to the scholars of both universities and the treasurer Burleigh thought that it should be answered, and referred the care thereof to our bishop, who though he gave his opinion freely upon the subject, as to the mode in which it should be done, yet declined the task himself on account of the great business he had upon his hands, and it was undertaken and ably executed by Dr. Whitaker. Aylmer was indeed no great friend to controversy, which he thought turned the minds of the people too much from the essence of religion, made them quarrelsome and captious, indifferent subjects, and not very good Christians. On this account, he was more severe with the Puritans than the Papists, imprison ing one Woodcock, a stationer or bookseller, for vending a treatise, entitled “An Admonition to Parliament,” which tended to subvert the church as it was then constituted. He had likewise some disputes with one Mr. Welden, a person of a good estate and interest, in Berkshire, whom he procured to be committed by the ecclesiastical imssioners. These proceedings roused the Puritans, who treated him as a persecutor, and an enemy to true religion but this did not discourage the bishop, who thought the peace of the church was to be secured by the authority of its fathers, and therefore he executed his episcopal power, as far and as often as he thought necessary. Thus he suddenly summoned the clergy of London to his palace on Sunday, September 27, 1579, at one o'clock. On this summons forty appeared and the dean being likewise present, the bishop cautioned them of two things, one was, not to meddle with the Ubiquitarian controversy the other, to avoid meddling with the points treated in Stubb’s book, entitled “The Dfscovery of a gaping Gulph,” &c. written against the queen’s marriage with Monsieur, the French king’s brother, and in which it was suggested, that the queen wavered in her religion. This method being found very effectual, he summoned his clergy often, and made strict inquiries into their conduct, a practice as much approved by some, as censured by others and his unpopularity, perhaps, might occasion, in some measure, that violence with which he was prosecuted before the council, in May 1579, for cutting down his woods, when he was severely checked by the lord treasurer but notwithstanding his angry letters to that great nobleman, and his long and laboured defence of himself, he was, at length, by the queen’s command, forbidden to fell any more.

On the 6th of April, in the same year, there was a dreadful earthquake and in the dead of the night of the 1 st of May, it was felt again, which, as it exceedingly terrified the people, so the bishop, that he might turn their concern to a proper object, and at the same time exhibit to them reasonable grounds of comfort, composed certain prayers to be made use of in the public service. In 1581, the bishop had an angry contest with the lord Rich, who kept one Wright a puritan minister in his house, and would have compelled the bishop to license him to preach in his diocese but on a hearing before the ecclesiastical commissioners, Wright was committed to the Fleet, and others who had interfered in this affair, to other prisons. This increased the number of his enemies, of whom he had not a few before, who daily suggested that he was a violent man, and sought to vest too great a power in churchmen and these representations had such effect, that sometimes messages were sent to him, to abate somewhat of the rigour of his proceedings. His lordship, however, still supported the ecclesiastical commission, by his presence and authority; and though a milder course might have made him more popular, yet he thought it better to suffer himself, than that the church should. He began, however, to have many doubts concerning the treasurer, from whose hands his reproofs usually came but upqn the winding up of his cause before the council about felling of woods, he saw clearly, that he had no friend equal to the treasurer, who, though he endeavoured by his admonitions to prevent his falling into difficulties, yet generously exerted his utmost power to help him out of them, so far as was consistent with equity, and the good of the common weal. From this time forward, therefore, thebishop applied chiefly to the treasurer, for any favours he expected from court, particularly with regard to the business of his translation. He became exceedingly solicitous to be removed from London, either to Winchester or Ely; but, though he had many fair promises, his interest was insufficient, and in the mean time new informations, some with little, many with no cause at all, were exhibited against him, and gave him not a little uneasiness, although, on a thorough examination, his conduct escaped the censure of his superiors. In 1583 he performed his triennial visitation, and having discovered many scandalous corruptions in the ecclesiastical courts, especially in the business of commuting penances, he honestly represented what came to his knowledge to the privy council. About this time also he suspended certain ministers, accused of nonconformity and it appears, that upon a thorough examination of the matter, his lordship did impartial justice, in restoring one Mr. Giffard, whom he had twice suspended, when those who had charged him were able to make nothing out. In this year also he committed Mr. Thomas Cartwright, the celebrated Puritan minister, who had written against the hierarchy. Yet for this his lordship incurred the queen’s displeasure and a little after was informed that he stood accused to her majesty, for impairing the revenues of his bishopric, of which he purged himself, by exhibiting a state of the bishopric as it then stood, compared with the condition it was in when he became bishop. Other difficulties. he met with, on account of the share he had in executing her majesty’s ecclesiastical commission, from which there were Continual appeals to the privy council, where the lords who favoured the Puritans, did not fail to object to the bishop’s conduct, which contributed not a little to irritate his warm temper. In 1585 he composed a prayer to be used on account of the rainy unseasonable weather, which he recommended to private families, as well as directed to be read with the public prayers. He also used his interest to quiet the murmurs of the common people in London, against the crowds of strangers who fled hither, to avoid the persecutions raised against them, for embracing the Protestant religion. In the summer of the year 1586, the, bishop went his next triennial visitation, and at Maiden in Essex, narrowly escaped an outrageous insult, intended against him by some disaffected persons. In 1587, the bishop entered into a new scene of trouble, on account of one Mr. Robert Cawdry, schoolmaster, whom the lord Burleigh had presented to the living of South LufFenhara in Rutlandshire, where, after preaching sixteen years, he was convened before the ecclesiastical commission, and at length, the bishop sitting as judge, deprived. Cawdry would not submit to the sentence upon which the matter was re-examined by the ecclesiastical commission, at Lambeth, where to deprivation, degradation was added. Cawdry, however, still refusing to submit, made new and warm representations to the lord Burleigh, who favoured him as much as with justice he could but after near five years contest, the bishop’s and archbishop’s sentences were supported, both by the civil and common lawyers. In 1588, his lordship restored one Mr. Henry Smith, a very eloquent and much admired preacher, whom he had suspended for contemptuous expressions against the book of Common Prayer, which Smith denied. In 1589, he expressed his dislike of certain libels against the king of Spain, giving it as his reason, that on so glorious a victory, it was better to thank God, than insult men, especially princes. That year also he visited his diocese, though he was grown old and very infirm, and suspended one Dyke at St. Alban’s, though he had been recommended by the lord treasurer. In 1591 he caused the above-mentioned Mr. Cartwright to be brought before him out of the Fleet, and expostulated with him roundly, on the disturbance he had given the church. In 1592, he strongly solicited in favour of Dr. Bullingham, and Dr. Cole, that they might be preferred to bishoprics, but without success, which his lordship foresaw. For he observed when he applied for them, that he was not so happy as to do rmieh good for his friends yet he added, he would never be wanting in shewing his good will, both to them and to the church. About this time, casting his eye on Dr. Bancroft, a rising and very active man, he endeavoured to obtain leave to resign his bishopric to him, as a man every way fit for such a charge but in this also he was disappointed, which it seems lay heavy at his heart for even on his death-bed, he expressed his earnest desire that Bancroft might succeed him. In 1592, the bishop assisted at his son’s visitation, as archdeacon of London, and exerted himself with as much zeal and spirit as he had ever shewn in his life. His great age, and great labours, however, weighed him down by degrees, and he died June 3, 1594, and his body being brought from his palace at Fulham, was interred in St. Paul’s cathedral before St. George’s chapel, under a fair stone of grey marble, with an inscription which was demolished by the republicans in Cromwell’s time. Bishop Aylmer married Judith Bure&, or Buers, of a very good family in Suffolk, by whom he had a very numerous offspring, viz. seven sons, and two or three daughters. As to the personal qualities of the bishop, they were, as those of most men are, good and bad, the former, perhaps, too much magnified by his friends, as the latter were by his enemies. He was solidly and extensively learned in all things that became either a great churchman, or a polite man, to know. He was very well versed in the three learned languages, had read much history, was a good logician, and very well skilled in the civil law. As a divine, he had studied, and understood the scripture thoroughly could preach, not only rhetorically but pathetically and in the course of his life-time, never buried his talent . He was in his heart, from the conviction of his head, a Protestant, and opposed Popery warmly, from a just sense of its errors, which he had the courage to combat openly in the days of queen Mary, and the honesty to suppress in the reign of queen Elizabeth. With all this, and indeed with a temper occasionally soured and irritable, he was a good-natured, facetious man, one extremely diligent and painful in the several employments he went through of too generous a temper to be corrupted, and of much too stout a one to be brow-beaten. He was a magnificent man in his house, as appears by his household, which consisted of fourscore persons, to whom he was a liberal and kind master. After his fatigues he was wot to refresh himself, either with conversation or at bowls. As to his failings, his temper was without doubt warm, his expressions sometimes too blunt, and his zeal not guided by wisdom. His enemies charged him with an exorbitant love of power, which displayed itself in various extraordinary acts of severity, with covetousness, which prompted him to spoil his see, and injure a private man; with intemperate heat against Puritans, with a slight regard of the Lord’s day, and with indecencies in ordinary speech some of which charges must be allowed a foundation, while on the other hand they appear to have been greatly exaggerated. But upon the whole there must have been many errors in a conduct which his superiors so often reproved. At the time of his decease he left seven sons, and either two or three daughters. His sons were, first, Samuel, who was bred to the law. He was stiled, of Claydon-hall in the county of Suffolk, and was high-sheriff of that county in the reign of king Charles I. and by two wives left a numerous posterity. His second, Theophilus, a most worthy divine, archdeacon of London, rector of Much-Hadham in Hertfordshire, and doctor of divinity. He was chaplain to king James, an able and zealous preacher, and, like his father, zealous against the Puritans, but so charitable, that he left his own family in indifferent circumstances. He lived a true pattern of Christian piety, and died heroically, closing his own eyelids, and with these words in his mouth, “Let my people know that their pastor died undaunted, and not afraid of death I bless my God, I have no fear, no doubt, no reluctancy, but a sure confidence in the sin-overcoming itierits of Jesus Christ.” This happened January 1625. He was buried in his own parish church, and the excellent primate Usher preached his funeral sermon, no inconsiderable proof of his merit. His third, John, who for some eminent service was knighted, and styled sir John Aylmer, of Rigby in the county of Lincoln, knt. Fourth, fifth, and sixth, Zachary, Nathaniel, and Edmund, of whom we know nothing particularly, except that Zachary and Edmund were the warmest friends that age produced. When Edmund lay sick, Zachary continued with him night and day till his death, and when a person came to measure the body, in order to make a coffin, Zachary would be measured also, and in a very short space took possession of the coffin made for him at the same time with that of his deceased brother. These gentlemen seem to have been divines. His seventh, Tobel, i.e. God is good. Archbishop Whitgift was his godfather, and the reason he was thus named, was his mother’s being overturned in a coach, without receiving any hurt, when she was big with child. He wrote himself Tobel Aylmer, of Writtle, in the county of Essex, gentleman. He married a gentleman’s daughter in that county, and had by her several children. As to the bishop’s daughters, Judith, the eldest, married William Lynch, of the county of Kent, esq. the second, Elizabeth, married sir John Foliot of Perton, in the county of Worcester, knt. Either a third daughter, or else lady Foliot, took for her second husband Mr. Squire, a clergyman, a man of wit, but very debauched, and a great spendthrift, though he had large preferments. He made a very unkind husband to his wife, which her father, the bishop, so much resented, that, as Martin MarPrelate phrasss it, “He went to buffets with his son-inlaw, for a bloody-nose .” This Squire died poor, lerving a son named John, who was well educated, and provided for as a clergyman, at the ex pence, and by the procurement of his uncle, Dr. Theophilus Aylmer, which he repaid with the utmost gratitude. To all his children our bishop, by his will, bearing date the 22d of April, 1594, bequeathed large legacies, as also some to his grand-children, appointing his two sons, Samuel and Theophilus, his executors, with Dr. Richard Vaughan, who was also his relation.

, was of a good family in Hampshire, and educated at Winchester school. He then went to Oxford, and was admitted perpetual fellow of New college, after he had served two years of a probation this was in 1652. He took his degrees in civil law, and that of doctor in 1663. He was esteemed an excellent Greek scholar, and a good Greek and Latin poet, as appears by a book which he composed when a young man, entitled “Musse Sacrse sen Jonas, Jeremia? threni, et Daniel, Graeco redditi carmine,” Oxon. 1652. He also wrote many Greek and Latin verses, which are dispersed in various books. He died at Petersfield, April 6, 1672, and was buried in the church of Havant in Hampshire.

, bart. V.P.A.S. and F.R.S. of Framfield in Sussex, was descended from a Saxon family, anciently seated at Bocton Alof near Wye, in the county of Kent, in the reign of Henry III. who removed to Hornchurch, in the county of Essex, in that of Henry IV. and to Sudbury in that of Edward IV. Sir William Ayloffe of Great Braxtead, in the county of Essex, was knighted by James I. May 1, 1603, and created a baronet, Nov. 25, 1612; and from his eldest son by his third wife, the late baronet was the fourth in descent, and fifth in title. His father Joseph, a barrister, who married a daughter of Bryan Ayliffe, an eminent merchant of London, and died in 1717, and his grandfather, were both of Gray’s Inn. He was born about 1703, received the early part of his education at Westminster school, admitted of Lincoln’s Inn 1724, and in the same year was entered a gentleman-commoner at St. John’s college, Oxford, which college he quitted about 1728; elected F.A.S. Feb. 10, 1731-2, one of the first council under their charter, 1751 vice-president, 17; and F.R.S. June 3, 1731. He prevailed on Mr. Kirby, painter in Ipswich, to make drawings of a great number of monuments and buildings in Suffolk, of which twelve were engraved, with a description, 1748, and others remain unpublished. He had at that time an intention to write a history of the county, and had drawn up proposals for that purpose but, being disappointed of the materials which he had reason to expect for so laborious a work, they were never published. On the building of Westminsterbridge he was appointed secretary to the commissioners, 1737 and on the establishment of the Paper-office on the respectable footing it at present is, by the removal of the state-papers from the old gate at Whitehall to new apartments at the Treasury, he was nominated the first in the commission for the care and preservation of them. In 1747 he circulated “Proposals for printing by subscription, Encyclopaedia; or, a rational Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, and Trade. By several eminent hands. Methodized, digested, and now publishing at Paris, by M. Diderot, fellow of the Imperial and Royal Academies of Paris and St. Petersburgh and, as to the mathematical part, by M. d'Alembert, member of the Royal Academy of Sciences at Paris and Berlin, aud F. R. S. Translated from the French, with additions and improvements;” in which was to be included a great variety of new articles, tending to explain and illustrate the antiquities, history ecclesiastical, civil, and military, laws, customs, manufactures, commerce, curiosities, &c. of Great Britain and Ireland by sir Joseph Ayloffe, bart. F. R. S. and of the Society of Antiquaries of London, and author of “The Universal Librarian.” Of this work a prospectus was published, in one large sheet, dated Dec. 14, 1751 and the first number of the work itself, June 11, 1752. This nuftiber being badly received by the public, the further prosecution of the business seems to have been dropped. See some account of it in the Gentleman’s Mag. 1752, p. 46. It was proposed to have been finished by Christmas 1756, in ten quarto volumes, price nine guineas, the last two to contain upwards of six hundred plates. In 1772 he published, in 4to, “Calendars of the Ancient Charters, &c. and of the Welsh and Scottish Rolls now remaining in the Tower ofLondon, &c.” (which was begun to be printed by the late Rev. Mr. Morant), and in the introduction gives a most judicious and exact account-of our public records. He drew up the account of the ehapel of London-bridge, of which an engraving was published by Vertue, 1748, and again by the Society of Antiquaries, 1777. His historical description of the interview between Henry VIII. and Francis I. on the Champ de Drap d'Or, from an original painting at Windsor, and his account of the paintings of the same age at Cowdray, were inserted in the third volume of the Archaeologia, and printed separately, to accompany engravings of two of these pictures by the Society of Antiquaries, 1775. His account of the body of Edward I. as it appeared on opening his tomb, 1774, was printed in the same volume, p. 376. Having been educated, as has been observed, at Westminster, he acquired an early affection for that venerable cathedral and his intimate acquaintance witfi every part of it displayed itself in his accurate description of five monuments in the choir, engraved in 1779 by the same society; who must reckon, among the many obligations which they owe to his zeal and attention to their interests, the last exertions of his life to put their affairs on the most respectable and advantageous footing, on their removal to their new apartments in Somerset Place. He superintended the new edition of Leland’s Collectanea, in 9 vols. 8vo, 1770, and also of the Liber Niger Scaccarii, in 2 vols. 8vo, 1771, to each of which he added a valuable appendix to the latter the charters of Kingston-on-Thames, of which his father was recorder. He also revised through the press a new edition of Hearne’s “Curious Discourses,” 1771, 2 vols. 8vo and likewise the “Registrum Roffense,” published by Mr. Thorpe in 1769, folio. At the beginning of the seventh volume of Somers’s Tracts is advertised, “A Collection of Debates in Parliament before the Restoration, from Mss. by sir Joseph Ayloffe, bart.” which is supposed never to have appeared. In January 1734, he married Mrs. Margaret Railton (daughter and heiress of Thomas Railton, esq. of Carlisle, in the county of Cumberland, and relict of Thomas Railton, esq. who died in the commission of the peace for the city of Westminster, Sept. 4, 1732) and by this lady he had one son of his own name, who died of the small-pox, at Trinity hall, Cambridge, at the age of twentyone, Dec. 19, 1756. Sir Joseph died at his house at Kennington-lane, Lambeth, April 19, 1781, aged seventy-two; and was buried in a vault in Henclon church, with his father and his only son. His extensive knowledge of our national antiquities and municipal rights, and the agreeable manner in which he communicated it to his friends and tjie public, made him sincerely regretted hy all who had the pleasure of his acquaintance. Such of his Mss. as had not been claimed by his friends, were sold by auction, February 27, 1782.

, a Piedmontese author, accompanied the bishop of Maurienne into France in quality of chaplain. He afterwards retired to Holland, where he embraced the Calvinistic persuasion, but some years after he feigned a desire to re-enter the Romish communion. Clement, keeper of the king’s library, procured him a passport for returning to France. The cardinal de Noailles obtained a pension for him, and placed him in the seminary of foreign missions. In the mean time Clement gave him full liberty in the king’s library; but, so ungrateful was he for all the advantages he derived from it, that he purloined several of the books, and among others, the original of the synod of Jerusalem, held in 1672. He got this manuscript printed in Holland, with the letters of Cyril Lucar, and some other pieces, under the title of “Monumens authentiques de la religion des Grecs, et de la faussete de plusieurs confessions de foi,” 1715, in 4to. This work was answered in a spirited manner by the abbe Renaudot. We have likewise, byAymon, 1. “Les Synodes nationaux des Eglises reformees de France,” printed in 1710, 2 vols. 4to. 2. “Tableau de la Cour de Rome,” 1707, 12mo, a satirical work. 3. A bad translation of the “Letters and memoirs of the nuncio Visconti,” 1719, 2 vols. 12mo.

, in Latin Ærodius, lieutenant-criminal in the presidial of Angers, was born there in 1536. He studied Latin and philosophy at Paris, and law at Toulouse from thence he went to Bourges for the advantage of the public lectures of Duarenus, Cujas, and Doneau, three of the most excellent civilians of that age. Having taken the degree of bachelor at Bourges, he returned to his own country, where he read public lectures upon the civil law, and pleaded several causes. He returned to Paris some time after, and became one of the most famous advocates in the parliament. He published there, in 1563, “The Declamations of Quintilian,” which he corrected in a variety of places, and illustrated with notes. The year following he published, in the same city, a treatise “ coneerning the power of Redemption,” written by Francis Grimaudet, the king’s advocate at Angers, and wrote a preface to it concerning “the nature, variety, and change of Laws.” In 1567 he published “Decretorum Rerumve apud diversos populos et omni antiquitate judicatarum libri duo accedit tractatus de origine et auctoritate rerum judicatarum,” which he much enlarged in the subsequent editions. He left Paris the year following, in order to take upon him the office of lieutenant-criminal in his own country, and performed it in such a manner as to acquire the name of “the rock of the accused.” Some other writings came from his pen, political or controversial, but that which acquired most fame among foreigners was his treatise “De Patrio Jure,” on the power of fathers, written in French and Latin, and occasioned by his son having been seduced by the Jesuits. His father, for the purposes of education, had put him under their tuition, but perceiving that he had a lively genius, a strong memory, and other excellent qualifications, he very earnestly desired both the provincial of that order, and the rector of the college, not to solicit him to enter into their society, which they readily promised, but soon broke their word and, though he made the greatest interest, and even prevailed on the king of France and the pope to take his part, he could never recover him from their snares. The young man answered his father’s book, but his superiors were ashamed to publish it, and employed Richeome, the provincial of the Jesuits at Paris, to answer it, but even this they did not venture to publish. Peter Ayrault died July 21, 1601. His son not until 1644.

, an eminent English penman of the seventeenth century. It is difficult to fix the time and place of his birth we find him, early in life, in a menial capacity with sir William Ashurst, who was lord mayor in 1694, to whom, and in which year, he dedicated his “Arithmetic made easy,” a book which was well received by the public, and has passed through several editions the twelfth was printed in 1714, with an addition in book-keeping by Charles Snell. In 1695, he published his “Tutor to Penmanship,” engraved by John Sturt, in oblong folio. It is dedicated to king William III. and though a very pompous book, is valuable on many accounts; the writing being plain and practical, and much more useful than his “A-la-­mode Secretary,” another writing-book he published from the hand of the same engraver. In 1700 he published his “Paul’s school round hand.” It is no more than a set of copies, ornamented but is clear and bold, and was engraved by Sturt. He lived then at the Hand and Pen in St. Paul’s Church-yard, and is said to have gained 800l. per annum by teaching and the sale of his works. We have another of his performances under the title of the “Penman’s Daily Practice,” which he calls a cyphering book it contains examples of all the hands now in use, in thirtyfour plates done by the same engraver, but has no date. He died about 1705, of an apoplexy.

, esq. a lieutenant in the first regiment of foot-guards, only son of the rev. Dr. Francis Ayscough (who was tutor to lord Lyttelton at Oxford, and at length dean of Bristol) by Anne, fifth sister to his lordship, who addressed a poem to the doctor from Paris, in 1728, printed in Dodsley’s second volume. And there are some verses to captain Ayscough in the second lord Lyttelton’s poems, 1780. Captain Ayscough was also author of Semiramis, a tragedy, 1777, and the editor of the great lord Lyttelton' s works. In September, 1777, he went to the continent for the recovery of his health, and wrote an account of his journey, which, on his return, he published under the title of “Letters from an Officer in the Guards to his Friend in England, containing some accounts of France and Italy, 1778,” 8vo. He received, however, but a temporary relief from the air of the continent. After lingering for a short time, he died Oct. 14, 1779, a few weeks only before his cousin, the second lord Lyttelton, whose family owes little to his character, or that of the subject of this short article. Two young men of more profligate morals have seldom insulted public decency, by calling the public attention to their many licentious amours and adventures.

, a very useful contributor to the literary history of his country, was the son of George Ayscough of Nottingham, a respectable tradesman, who unfortunately launched into speculations which impaired his fortune. His son Samuel, after receiving a school education, assisted his father in the business of a farm for some time, and afterwards was reduced to work as a labouring miller for the maintenance of his father and sister. While at this humble occupation, which did not procure the very moderate advantage he expected, an old schoolfellow and friend, hearing of his distress, about 1770, sent for him to London, and obtained for him at first the office of an overlooker of some paviours in the street. Soon after, however, he assisted in the shop of Mr. Rivington, bookseller, of St. Paul’s Church-yard, and then obtained an employment in the British Museum, at a small weekly stipend. Here he discovered a degree of knowledge, which, if not profound, was highly useful, in arranging and cataloguing books and Mss. and his services soon recommended him to an increase of salary, and to some extra employment in regulating the libraries of private gentlemen, the profits of which he shared with his father, whom he sent for to town, and maintained comfortably until his death, Nov. 18, 1783.

About 1785 he was appointed assistant-librarian to the British Museum, on the establishment, and soon after went into orders, and was ordained to the curacy of Normantou upon Soar in Nottinghamshire. He was also appointed assistant-curate of St. Giles’s in the Fields; and in all these situations conducted himself in such a manner as to gain the friendship of many distinguished characters. In 1790 he was appointed to preach the Fairchild lecture on Whit-­Tuesday, at Snoreditch church, before the Royal Society, which he continued to do till 1804, when he completed the series of the discourses in fifteen sermons.

His labours in literature were of the most useful cast, and manifested a patience and assiduity seldom to be met with, and his laborious exertions in the vast and invaluable library of the British Museum form a striking instance of his zeal and indefatigable attention. He soon acquired that slight degree of knowledge in several languages, and that technical knowledge of old books and of their authors, and particularly that skill in decyphering difficult writing, which amply answered the most useful purposes of the librarian, as well as the visiting scholar. He assisted also in the adjustment of the records in the Tower, and in theformation of many useful indexes and catalogues, some of which will be noticed hereafter. By these means his situation became very comfortable, and about a year before his death it was rendered yet more so, by his being presented with the living of Cudham in Kent, by lord chancellor Eldon. He wrote a very accurate account of this parish irt the Gentleman’s Magazine a few weeks before he died, and by an affecting coincidence, it appeared in that excellent repository the same month in which his death was announced. This event happened on the 30th of October, 1804, at his apartments in the British Museum, in the fifty-ninth year of his age.

Mr. Ayscough was a man of a benevolent and charitable disposition, and frequently consulted how he might exereise these virtues, without reflecting that his means were circumscribed. Having experienced much distress himself with regard to pecuniary matters, he was ever ready to alleviate it in others, and became a patron almost before he ceased to be a dependant. In his office in the Museum he will long be remembered for the pleasure he seemed to take in assisting the researches of the curious, and imparting the knowledge he had acquired of the vast resources in that national repository. With somewhat of roughness, or bluntness, in his manner, he delighted in volunteering his services in all cases where the visitors wished for information and there was a preciseness and regularity in all the arrangements he had made, which enabled him to do this with a facility which often cannot be acquired by veteran bibliographers.

In 1783 Mr. Ayscough published a small political pamphlet, entitled “Remarks on the Letters of an American Farmer or, a detection of the errors of Mr. J. Hector St. John pointing out the pernicious tendency of those letters to Great Britain.” But among his more useful labours must be particularly distinguished his “Catalogue of the Manuscripts preserved in the British Museum, hitherto unclescribed, consisting of five thousand volumes, including the collections of sir Hans Sloane, bart. and the Rev. Thoraas Birch, D. D. and about five hundred volumes bequeathed, presented, or purchased at various times” 2 vqls 1782, 4to. This elaborate catalogue is upon a new plan, for the excellence of which an appeal may safely be made to every visitor of the Museum since the date of its publication. Mr. Ayscough assisted afterwards in the catalogue of printed books, 2 vols. folio, 1787, of which about twothirds were compiled by Dr. Maty and Mr. Harper, and the remainder by Mr. Ayscough. He was also, at the time of his death, employed in preparing* a new catalogue of the printed books, and had completed a catalogue of the ancient charters in the Museum, amounting to about sixteen thousand. As an index-maker his talents are well known by the indexes he made for the Monthly Review, the Gentleman’s Magazine, the British Critic, &c. and especially by a verbal index to Shakspeare, a work of prodigious labour. It remains to be* added, that his knowledge of topographical antiquities was very considerable, and that perhaps no man, in so short a space of time, emerging too from personal difficulties, and contending with many disadvantages, ever acquired so much general knowledge, or knew how to apply it to more useful purposes. The leading facts in this sketch are taken from the Gentleman’s Magazine for December 1804. To that miscellany, we believe, he was a very frequent contributor, and what he wrote was in a style which would not have discredited talents of which the world has a higher opinion.

, an eminent English admiral in the last century, descended from a very good family in Lincolnshire, and entered early into the sea-service, where he obtained the character of an able and experienced officer, and the honour of knighthood from king Charles I. This, however, did not hinder him from adhering to the parliament, when by a very singular intrigue he got possession of the fleet, and so zealous he was in the service of his masters, that when in 1648, the greatest part of the navy went over to the prince of Wales, he, who then commanded the Lion, secured that ship for the parliament, which was by them esteemed an action of great importance. As this was a sufficient proof of his fidelity, he had the command given him in a squadron, that was employed to watch the motions of the prince of Wales and accordingly sailed to the coast of Ireland, where he prevented his highness from landing, and drew many of the seamen to that service from which they had deserted. The parliament next year sent him with a considerable number of ships, and the title of admiral, to the coast of Ireland, which commission he discharged with such vigour, that the parliament continued him in his command for another year, and ordered an immediate provision to be made for the payment of his arrears, and presented him with one hundred pounds. After the war was finished in Ireland, sir George Ayscue had orders to sail with a small squadron, to reduce the island of Barbadoes but his orders were countermanded, as the parliament received information, that the Dutch were treating with sir John Grenville, in order to have the isles of Scilly put into their hands, and therefore it was thought necessary to reduce these islands first. Blake and Ayscue were employed in this expedition, in the spring of 1651, and performed it with honour and success, sir John Grenville entering into a treaty with them, who used him very honourably, and gave him fair conditions, after which Blake returned to England, and Ayscue proceeded on his voyage to Barbadoes. The parliament were at first pleased, but when the conditions were known, Blake and Ayscue were accused of being too liberal. Blake resented this, and threatened to lay down his commission, which he said he was sure Ayscue would also do. Upon this, the articles were honourably complied with, and sir George received orders to sail immediately to the West Indies. Sir George continued his voyage, and arrived at Barbadoes October 26, 1651. He then found his enterprize would be attended with great difficulties, and such as had not been foreseen at home. The lord Willoughby, of Parham, commanded there for the king, and had assembled a body of 5,Ooo men for the defence of the island. He was a nobleman of great parts and greater probity, one who had been extremely reverenced by the parliament, before he quitted their party, and was Dow extremely popular on the island. Sir George, however, shewed no signs of concern, but boldly forced his passage into the harbour, and made himself master of twelve sail of Dutch merchantmen that lay there, and next morning he sent a summons to the lord Willoughby, requiring him to submit to the authority of the parliament of England, to which his lordship answered, that he knew no such authority, that he had a commission from king Charles II. to be governor of that island, and that he would keep it for his majesty’s service at the hazard of his life. On this, sir George thought it not prudent to land the few troops he had, and thereby discover his weakness to so cautious an enemy. In the mean time, he receivect a letter by an advice-boat from England, with the news of the king’s being defeated at Worcester, and one intercepted from lady Willoughby, containing a very particular account of that unhappy affair. He now summoned lord Willoughby a second time, and accompanied his summons with lady Willoughby’s letter, but his lordship continued firm in his resolution. All this time, sir George anchored in Speights bay, and stayed there till December, when the Virginia merchant fleet arriving, he made as if they were a reinforcement that had been sent him, but in fact, he had not above 2000 men, and the sight of the little army on shore made him cautious of venturing his men, till he thought the inhabitants had conceived a great idea of his strength. The Virginia ships were welcomed at their coming in, as a supply of men of war, and he presently ordered his men on shore: 159 Scotch servants aboard that fleet, were added to a regiment of 700 men, and some seamen, to make their number look more formidable. One colonel Allen landed with them on the 17th of December, and found lord Willoughby’s forces well entrenched, near a fort they had upon the sea- coast. They attacked him, however, and, in a sharp dispute, wherein about sixty men were killed on both sides, had so much the advantage, that they drove them to the fort, notwithstanding that colonel Allen, their commander, was killed by a musket shot, as he attempted to land. After other attempts, sir George procured colonel Moddiford, who was one of the most leading men on the place, to enter into a treaty with him, and this negociation succeeded so well, that Moddiford declared publicly for a peace, and joined with sir George to bring lord Willoughby, the. governor, to reason, as they phrased it but lord Willoughby never would have consented if an accident had not happened, which put most of the gentlemen about him into such confusion, that he could no longer depend upon their advice or assistance. He had called together his officers, and while they were sitting in council, a cannon-ball beat open the door of the room, and took off the head of the centinel posted before it, which so frighted all the gentlemen of the island, that they not only compelled their governor to lay aside his former design, but to retire to a. place two miles farther from the harbour. Sir George Ayscue, taking advantage of this unexpected good fortune, immediately ordered all his forces on shore, as if he intended to have attacked them in their entrenchments, which struck such a terror into some of the principal persons about the governor, that, after rhature deliberation on his own circumstances, and their disposition, he began to alter his mind, and thereupon, to avoid the effusion of blood, both parties appointed commissaries to treat. Sir George named captain Peck, Mr. Searl, colonel Thomas Moddiforcl, and James Colliton, esq. the lord Willoughby, sir Richard Peers, Charles Pirn, esq. colonel Ellice, and major Byham, who on the 17th of January agreed on articles of rendition, which were alike comprehensive and honourable. The lord Willoughby had what he most desired, indemnity, and freedom of estate and person, upon which, soon after, he returned to England. The islands of Nevis, Antigua, and St. Christopher, were, by the same capitulation, surrendered to the parliament. After this, sir George, considering that he had fully executed his commission, returned with the squadron under his command to England, and arriving at Plymouth on the 25th of May, 1652, was received with all imaginable testimonies of joy and satisfaction by the people there, to whom he was well known before, as his late success also served not a little to raise and heighten his reputation. It was not long after his arrival, before he found himself again obliged to enter upon action for the Dutch war which broke out in his absence, was then become extremely warm, and he was forced to take a share in it, though his ships were so extremely foul, that they were much fitter to be laid up, than to be employed in any farther service. On the 21st of June, 1652, he came to Dover, with his squadron of eleven sail, and there joined his old friend admiral Blake, but Blake having received orders to sail northward, and destroy the Dutch herring fishery, sir George Ayscue was left to command the fleet in the Downs. Within a few days after Blake’s departure he took five sail of Dutch merchantmen, and had scarcely brought them in before he received advice that a fleet of forty sail had been seen not far from the coast, upon which he gave chace, fell in amongst them, took seven, sunk four, and ran twenty-four upon the French shore, all the rest being separated from their convoy. The Dutch admiral, Van Tromp, who was at sea- with a great fleet, having information of sir George Ayscue’s situation, resolved to take advantage of him, and with no“less than one hundred sail, clapped iji between him and the river, and resolved to surprize such ships as should attempt to go out or, if that design failed, to go in and sink sir George and his squadron. The English admiral soon discovered their intention, and causing a signal to be made from Dover castle, for all ships to keep to sea, he thereby defeated the first part of their project. However, Van Tromp attempted the second part of his scheme, in hopes of better success, and on the 8th of July, when it was ebb, be began to sail towards the English fleet but, the wind dying away, he was obliged to come to an anchor about a league off, in order to expect the next ebb. Sir George, in the mean time, caused a strong platform to be raised between Deal and Sandown castles, well furnished with artillery, so pointed, as to bear directly upon the Dutch as they came in the militia of the county of Kent were also ordered down to the sea-shore notwithstanding which preparation, the Dutch admiral did not recede from his point, but at the next ebb weighed anchor, and would have stood intothe port but the wind coming about south-west, and blowing directly in his teeth, constrained him to keep out, and being straightened for time, he was obliged to sail away, and leave sir George safe in the harbour, with the small squadron he commanded. He was soon after ordered to Plymouth, to bring in under his convoy five East- India ships, which he did in the latter end of July and in the first week of August, brought in four French and Dutch prizes, for which activity and vigilance in his command he was universally commended. In a few days after this, intelligence was received, that Van Tromp’s fleet was seen off the back of the isle of Wight, and it was thereupon resolved, that sir George with his fleet of forty men of war, most of them hired merchantmen, except flag ships, should stretch over to the coast of France to meet them. Accordingly, on the 16th of August, between one and two o'clock at noon, they got sight of the enemy, who quitted their merchantmen, being fifty in number. About four the fight began, the English Admiral with nine others charging through their fleet; his ships received most damage in the shrouds, masts, sails, and rigging, which was repaid the Dutch in their hulls. Sir George having thus passed through them, got the weather-gage, and charged them again, but all his fleet not coming up, and the night already entered, they parted with a drawn battle. Captain Peck, the rear-admiral, lost his leg, of which, soon after, he died. Several captains were wounded, but no ship lost. Of the Dutch, not one was said to be lost, though many were shot through and through, but so that they were able to proceed on their voyage, and anchored the next day after, being followed by the English to the isle of Bassa; but no farther attempt was made by our fleet, on account, as it was pretended, of the danger of the French coasts, from whence they returned to Plymouth- Sound to repair. The truth of the matter was, some of sir George’s captains were a little bashful in this affair, and the fleet was in so indifferent a condition, that it was absolutely necessary to refit before they proceeded again to action. He proceeded next to join Blake in the northern seas, where he continued during the best part of the month of September, and took several prizes and towards the latter end of that month he returned with general Blake into the Downs, with one hundred and twenty sail of men of war. On the 27th of that mojith a great Dutch fleet appeared, after which, Blake with his fleet sailed, and sir George Ayscue, pursuant to the orders he had received, returned to Chatham with his own ship, and sent the rest of his squadron into several ports to be careened. Towards the end of November, 1652, general Blake lying at the mouth of our river, began to think that the season of the year left no room to expect farther action, for which reason he detached twenty of his ships to bring up a fleet of colliers from Newcastle, twelve more he had sent to Plymouth, and our admiral, as before observed, with fifteen sail, had proceeded up the river in order to their being careened. Such was the situation of things, when Van Tromp appeared with a fleet of eighty- five sail. Upon this Blake sent for the most experienced officers on board his own ship, where, after a long consultation, it was agreed, that he should wait for, and fight the enemy, though he had but thirtyseven sail of men of war, and a few small ships. Accordingly, on the 29th of November, a general engagement ensued, which lasted with great fury from one in the afternoon till it was dark. Blake in the Triumph, with his seconds the Victory and the Vanguard, engaged for a considerable time near twenty sail of Dutch men of war, and they were in the utmost danger of being oppressed and destrdyed by so unequal a force. This, however, did not hinder Blake from forcing his way into a throng of enemies, to relieve the Garland and Bonadventure, in doing which he was attacked by many of their stoutest ships, which likewise boarded him, but after several times beating them off, he at last found an opportunity to rejoin his fleet. The loss sustained by the English consisted in five ships, either taken or sunk, and several others disabled. The Dutch confess, that one of their men of war was burnt towards the end of the fight, and the captain and most of his men drowned, and also that the ships of Tromp and Evertson were much disabled. At last, night having parted the two fleets, Blake supposing he had sufficiently secured the nation’s honour and his own, by waiting the attack of an enemy, so much superior, and seeing no prospect of advantage by renewing the fight, retired up the river but sir George Ayscue, who inclined to the bolder but less prudent counsel, was so disgusted at this retreat, that he laid down his commission. The services this great man had rendered his country, were none of them more acceptable to the parliament, than this act of laying down his command. They had long wished and waited for an opportunity of dismissing him from their service, and were therefore extremely pleased that he had saved them this trouble however, to shew their gratitude for past services, and to prevent his falling into absolute discontent, they voted him a present of three hundred pounds in money, and likewise bestowed upon him three hundred pounds per annum in Ireland. There is good reason to believe, that Cromwell and his faction were as well pleased with this gentleman’s quitting the sea-service for as they were then meditating, what they soon afterwards put in execution, the turning the parliament out of doors, it could not but be agreeable to them, to see an officer who had so great credit in the navy, and who was so generally esteemed by the nation, laid aside in such a manner, both as it gave them an opportunity of insinuating the ingratitude of that assembly to so worthy a person, and as it freed them from the apprehension of his disturbing their measures, in case he had continued in the fleet; which it is highly probable might have come to pass, considering that Blake was far enough from being of their party, and only submitted to serve the protector, because he saw no other way left to serve his country, and did not think he had interest enough to preserve the fleet, after the defection of the army, which perhaps might not have been the case, if sir George Ayscue had continued in his command. This is so much the more probable, as it is very certain that he never entered into the protector’s service, or shewed himself at all willing to concur in his measures though there is no doubt that Cromwell would have been extremely glad of so experienced an officer in his Spanish war. He retired after this to his country-seat in the county of Surrey, and lived there in great honour and splendor, visiting, and being visited by persons of the greatest distinction, both natives and foreigners, and passing in the general opinion of both, for one of the ablest sea-captains of that age. Yet there is some reason to believe that he had a particular correspondence with the protector’s second son, Henry; since there is still a letter in being from him to secretary Thurloe, which shews that he had very just notions of the worth of this gentleman, and of the expediency of consulting him in all such matters as had a relation to maritime power. The protector, towards the latter end of his life, began to grow dissatisfied with the Dutch, and resolved to destroy their system without entering immediately into a war with them. It was with this view, that he encouraged the Swedes to cultivate, with the utmost diligence, a maritime force, promising in due time to assist them with a sufficient number of able and experienced officers, and with an admiral to command them, who, in point of reputation, was not inferior to any then living. For this reason, he prevailed on sir George, by the intervention of the Swedish ambassador and of Whitelock, and sir George from that time began to entertain favourable thoughts of the design, and brought himself by degrees to think of accepting the offer made him, and of going over for that purpose to Sweden and although he had not absolutely complied during the life of the protector, he closed at last with the proposals made him from Sweden, and putting every thing in order for his journey, towards the latter end of the year 1658, and as soon as he had seen the officers embarked, and had dispatched some private business of his own, he prosecuted his voyage, though in the very depth of winter. This exposed him to great hardships, but on his arrival in Sweden, he was received with all imaginable demonstrations of civility and respect by the king, who might very probably have made good his promise, of promoting him to the rank of high-admiral of Sweden, if he had not been taken off by an unexpected death. This put an end to his hopes in that country, and disposed sir George Ayscue to return home, where a great change had been working in his absence, which was that of restoring king CharJes It. It does not at all appear, that sir George had any concern in this great affair but the contrary may be rather presumed, from his former attachment to the parliament, and his making it his choice to have remained in Sweden, if the death of the monarch, who invited him thither, had not prevented him. On his return, however, he not only submitted to the government then established, but gave the strongest assurances to the administration, that he should be at all times ready to serve the public, if ever there should be occasion, which was very kindly taken, and he had the honour to be” introduced to his majesty, and to kiss his hand. It was not long before he was called to the performance of his promise for the Dutch war breaking out in 1664, he was immediately put into commission by the direction of the duke of York, who then commanded the English fleet. In the spring of the year 1665, he hoisted his flag as rear-admiral of the blue, under the earl of Sandwich, and in the great battle that was fought the third of June in the same year, that squadron had the honour to break through the centre of the Dutch fleet, and thereby made way for one of the most glorious victories ever obtained by this nation at sea. For in this battle, the Dutch had ten of their largest ships sunk or burned, besides their admiral Opdam’s, that blew up in the midst of the engagement, by which the admiral himself, and upwards of five hundred men perished. Eighteen men of war were taken, four fire-ships destroyed, thirteen captains, and two thousand and fifty private men made prisoners and this with so inconsiderable loss, as that of one ship only, nnd three hundred private men. The fleet being again in a condition to put to sea, was ordered to rendezvous in Southwold-bay, from whence, to the number of sixty sail, they weighed on the fifth of July, and stood over for the coast of Holland. The standard was borne by the gallant earl of Sandwich, to whom was viceadmiral sir George Ayscue, and sir Thomas Tyddiman rear-admiral, sir William Perm was admiral of the white, sir William Berkley vice-admiral, and sir Joseph Jordan rear-admiral. The blue flag was carried by sir Thomas ^Vllen, whose vice and rear, were sir Christopher Minims, and sir John Harman. The design was, to intercept de Ruyter in his return, or, at least, to take and burn the Turkey and East-India fleets, of which they had certain intelligence, but they succeeded in neither of these schemes; de Ruyter arrived safely in Holland, and the Turkey and India fleets took shelter in the port of Bergen in Norway. The earl of Sandwich having detached sir Thomas Tyddiman to attack them there, returned home, and in his passage took eight Dutch men of war, which served as convoys to their East and West India fleets, and several merchantmen richly laden, which finished the triumphs of that year. ^The plain superiority of the English over the Dutch at sea, engaged the French, in order to keep up the war between the maritime powers, and make them do their business by destroying each other, to declare on the side of theweakest, as did the king of Denmark also, which, nevertheless, had no effect upon the English, who determined to carry on the war against the allies, with the same spirit they had done against the Dutch alone. In the spring, therefore, of the year 1666, the fleet was very early at sea, under the command of the joint admirals for a resolution having been taken at Court, not to expose the person of the duke of York any more, and the earl of Sandwich being then in Spain, with the character of ambassador-extraordinary, prince Rupert, and old general Monk, now duke of Albemarle, were appointed to command the fleet; having under them as gallant and prudent officers as ever distinguished themselves in the English navy, and, amongst these, sir William Berkley commanded the blue, and sir George Ayscue the white squadron. Prince Rupert, and the duke of Albemarle, went on board the fleet, the twenty-third of April, 1666, and sailed in the beginning of May. Towards the latter end of that month, the court was informed, that the French fleet, under the command of the duke of Beaufort, were coming out to the assistance of the Dutch, and upon receiving this news, the court sent orders to prince Rupert to sail with the white squadron, the admirals excepted, to look out and fight the French, which command that brave prince obeyed, but found it a mere bravado, intended to raise the courage of their new allies, and thereby bring them into the greater danger. At the same time prince Rupert sailed from the Downs, fthe Dutch put out to sea, the wind at north-east, and a fresh gale. This brought the Dutch fleet on the coast of Dunkirk, and carried his highness towards the Isle of Wight but the wind suddenly shifting to the south-west, and blowing hard, brought both the Dutch and the duke to an anchor. Captain Bacon, in the Bristol, first discovered the enemy, and by firing his guns, gave notice of it to the English fleet. Upon this a council of war was called, wherein it was resolved to fight the enemy, notwithstanding their great superiority. After the departure of prince Rupert, the duke had with him only the red and blue squadrons, making about sixty sail, whereas the Dutch fleet consisted of ninety-one men of war, carrying 4716 guns, and 22,460 men. It was the first of June when they were discerned, and the duke was so warm for engaging, that he attacked the enemy before they had time to weigh anchor, and, as de Ruyter himself says in his letter, they were obliged to cut their cables and in the same letter he owns, that to the last the English were the aggressors, notwithstanding their inferiority and other disadvantages. This day’s fight was very fierce and bloody for the Dutch, confiding in their numbers, pressed furiously upon the English fleet, while the English officers, being men of determined resolution, fought with such courage and constancy, that they not only repulsed the Dutch, but renewed the attack, and forced the enemy to maintain the fight longer than they were inclined to do, so that it was ten in the evening before their cannon were silent. The following night was spent in repairing the damages suffered on both sides, and next morning the fight was renewed by the English with fresh vigour. Admiral Van Tromp, with vice-admiral Vander Hulst, being on board one ship, rashly engaged among the English, and were in the utmost danger, either of being taken or burnt. The Dutch affairs, according to their own account, were now in a desperate condition but admiral de Ruyter at last disengaged them, though not till his ship was disabled, and vice-admiral Vander Hulst killed. This only changed the scene for de Ruyter was now as hard pushed as Tromp had been before; but a reinforcement arriving, preserved him also, and so the second day’s fight ended earlier than the first. The duke finding that the Dutch had received a reinforcement, and that his small fleet, on the contrary, was much weakened, through the damages sustained by some, and the Joss and absence of others of his ships, took, towards the evening, the resolution to retire, and endeavour to join prince Rupert, who was coming to his assistance. The retreat was performed in good order, twenty- six or twentyeight men of war that had suffered least, brought up the rear, interposing between the enemy and the disabled ships, three of which, being very much shattered, were burnt by the English themselves, and the men taken on board the other ships. The Dutch fleet followed, but at a distance. As they thus sailed on, it happened on the third day that sir George Ayscue, admiral of the white, who commanded the Royal Prince (being the largest and heaviest ship of the whole fleet) unfortunately struck upon the sand called the Galloper, where being threatened by the enemy’s fire-ships, and hopeless of assistance from his friends (whose timely return, the near approach of the enemy, and the contrary tide, had absolutely rendered impossible), he was forced to surrender. The Dutch admiral de Ruyter, in his letter to the States-general, says, in few words, that sir George Ayscue, admiral of the white, having run upon a sand -bank, fell into their hands, and that after taking out the commanders, and the men that were left, they set the s’mp on fire. But the large relation, collected by order of the States out of all the letters written to them upon that occasion, informs us, that sir George Ayscue, in the Royal Prince, ran upon the Galloper, an unhappy accident, says that relation, for an officer who had behaved very gallantly during the whole engagement, and who only retired in obedience to his admiral’s orders. The unfortunate admiral made signals for assistance but the English fleet continued their route so that he was left quite alone, and without hope of succour in which situation he was attacked by two Dutch fire-ships, by which, without doubt, he had been burnt, if lieutenant-admiral Tromp, who was on board the ship of rear-admiral Sweers, had not made a signal to call off the fire-ships, perceiving that his flag was already struck, and a signal made for quarter, upon which rear-admiral Sweers, by order of Tromp, went on board the English ship, and brought off sir George Ayscue, his officers, and some of his men, on board his own vessel, and the next morning sir George was sent to the Dutch coast, in order to go to the Hague in a galliot, by order of general de Ruyter. The English ship was afterwards got off the sands, notwithstanding which, general de Ruyter ordered the rest of the crew to be taken out, and the vessel set on fire, that his fleet might he the less embarrassed, which was accordingly done. But in the French relation, published by order of that court, we have another circumstance, which the Dutch have thought fit to omit, and it is this, that the crew gave np the ship against the admiral’s will, who had given orders /or setting her on fire. There were some circumstances which made the loss of this ship, in this manner, very disagreeable to the English court, and perhaps this may be the reason that so little is said of it in our own relations. In all probability general de Ruyter took the opportunity of sending sir George Ayscue to the Dutch coast the next morning, from an apprehension that he might be retaken in. the next day’s fight. On his arrival at the Hague he was very civilly treated but to raise the spirits of their people, and to make the most of this dubious kind of victory, the states ordered sir George to be carried as it were in triumph, through the several towns of Holland, and then confined him in the castle of Louvestein, so famous in the Dutch histories for having been the prison of some of their most eminent patriots, and from whence the party which opposed the prince of Orange were styled the Louvestein faction. As soon as sir George Ayscue came to this castle, he wrote a letter to king Charles II. to acquaint him with the condition he was in, which letter is still preserved in the life of the Dutch admiral, de Ruyter. How long he remained there, or whether he continued a prisoner to the end of the war, is uncertain, but it is said that he afterwards returned to England, and spent the remainder of his days in peace. Granger observes very justly, that it is scarcely possible to give a higher character of the courage of this brave admiral, than to say that he was a match for Van Tromp or de Ruyter.

, a Spanish statesman and writer, was born in 1731, at Barbanales, near Balbastro in Aragon. An early enthusiasm for the fine arts procured him the friendship of the celebrated artist Mengs, who was first painter to the king of Spain. After the death of Charles III. A zara constructed, in honour of his memory, a temple, in an antique form, in the church of St. James, which, although not faultless, discovered very considerable talents and taste in architecture. He was, however, soon employed in political concerns, and was sent to Rome, under the pontificate of Clement XIII. as ecclesiastical agent at the chancery of Rome. He was afterwards attached to the Spanish embassy, and took a very active part in various important negociations between the courts of Spain and Rome. In 1796 he was employed in a more difficult undertaking, to solicit the clemency of the conqueror of Italy in behalf of Rome, where the French nation had been insulted, and he at least acquired the esteem of general Buonaparte. About the same time he became acquainted with Joseph Bonaparte, then French ambassador at Rome. Being afterwards sent to Paris, in a diplomatic character, he was favourably received, and found some relief from the recollection that he had left behind him his valued friends, his fine library, and museum of paintings and antiques. During this mission he experienced alternate favour and disgrace, being recalled by his court, exiled to Barcelona, and sent again to Paris with the rank of ambassador. His health, however, was now much impaired, and when he was indulging the hope of being able to return to Italy, and pass the rest of his time in the enjoyment of his friends and favourite pursuits, his constitution suddenly gave way, and he expired January 26, 1797. He left a very considerable fortune in furniture, pictures, busts, &c. but appears to have lost his other property. He translated, 1. Middleton’s life of Cicero, and some fragments of Pliny and Seneca, under the title of “Historia della Vida di M. T. Ciceroni,” Madrid, 1790, 4 vols. 4to and also published, 2. “Introduzione alia storia naturale e alia Geografia fisica di Spagna,” Parma, 1784, 2 vols. 8vo. 3. “Opere di Antonio-Raffaele Mengs,” Parma, by Bodoni, 1780, 2 vols. 4to, of which a copious account may be seen in the Monthly Review, vol. LXV. 1781. This was afterwards translated into English, and published 1796, 2 vols. 8vo.

, an Italian rabbi of the sixteenth century, published his works in one volume, at Mantua, in 1574. The book is entitled “Meor en ajim,” or “Light of the Eyes.” It discusses several points of history and criticism, and proves that the author is much better acquainted with Christian learning and literary matters than the Jews in ge^ fieral, whose reading is confined to their own authors. He examines also some points of chronology, and has translated into Hebrew, a piece of Aristeus’s concerning the Septuagint version.

, or Azo Portius, a celebrated lawyer of the twelfth century, distinguished himself first at Bologna, about 1193. He had studied under John Bosiani of Cremona, and acquired such reputation, that he was called “Master of the Law,” and “the Source of Law.” The envy, however, which such merit attracted, made him leave Italy, and go to Montpellier, where he succeeded Placentinus. He was afterwards recalled to Bologna, and became yet more celebrated. It is said that he had a thousand auditors. In the warmth of dispute he threw a candlestick at the head of his antagonist, who died in consequence. Azon was then taken up, and tried, although the accident happened without any evil intent The action, however, might be pardoned according to the intent of the law ad bestias de pœnis, which moderates the punishment to any person who excels in any science or art. Azon, whether from the length of his imprisonment, or from his mind being occupied or abstracted, cried out, ad bestias, ad bestias, meaning that his acquittal would be found in that law. But this being reported to the judges, who were ignorant of it, they imagined that he insulted them, and treated them like beasts, and not only condemned him to death, but deprived him of the honour of burial. This sentence was executed in 1200, or according to some, in 1225. Others deny that this was the end of Azon, and treat the story as what it very much resembles, a fiction. Contius published his Law Commentaries" in 1577.

, a learned Jesuit of the sixteenth century, was a native of Lucca, in the diocese of Carthagena, in Spain. His merit preferred him to eminence in his society, where he was rector of several colleges. He professed humanity with reputation in many other places, particularly at Alcala, and at Rome, where he died in 1603. He published “Institutionum Moralium, tomi tres,” Rome, 1600, fol. often reprinted at Leyden, Venice. Cologne, &c. He wrote also “In Cantica Canticorum commentaria juxta historicum et allegoricum sensum,” which does not appear to have been printed.

, commonly called Navarre (doctor Navarrus), was born of a noble family, Dec. 13, 1491, at Varasayn, near Pampeluna in Navarre. He was first educated, and took the habit, in the monastery of regular canons at Roncevaux, and afterwards studied at Alcala and at Ferrara, where he made such progress in law, as to be employed in teaching that science at Toulouse and Cahors. Some time after, he returned to Spain, and was appointed first professor of canon law at Salamanca, an office he filled with high reputation for fourteen years, at the end of which John III. king of Portugal, chose him law-professor of his new-founded university at Coimbra, and gave him a larger salary than had ever been enjoyed by any French or Spanish professor. After filling this chair also, with increasing reputation, for sixteen years, he was permitted to resign, and went first into Castile, and afterwards to Rome, on purpose, although in his eightieth year, to plead the cause of Bartholomew de Caranza, archbishop of Toledo, who was accused of heresy before the inquisition, and whose cause, first argued in Spain, was by the pope’s order removed to Rome. Azpilcueta exerted himself to the utmost, but without success, which we cannot be surprised at when we consider that the inquisitors were his opponents and although they could prove nothing against Caranza, they contrived that he should die in prison. Azpilcueta, however, was honourably received at Rome pope Pius V. appointed him assistant to cardinal Francis Alciat, his vice-penitentiary, and Gregory XIII. never passed his door without a visit, or met him in the street, without enjoying some conversation with him. He was much consulted, and universally esteemed for learning, probity, piety, and chanty. Antonio informs us that he used to ride on a mule through the city, and relieve every poor person he met, and that the creature of itself would stop at the sight of a poor person until its master relieved him. He died June 21, 1586, then in his ninetyfourth year. His works, which are either on morals or common law, were published, Rome, 1590, 3 vols. Lyons, 1591, Venice, 1602.

, an eminent Dutch painter, was born at Haerlem, Feb. 20, 1633, and at a very early age placed under the care of his uncle Piemans, who painted in the manner of Velvet Bruegfcel, and soon inspired his nephew with a taste for the art. Baan afterwards studied under Bakker at Amsterdam, with whom he practised assiduously every particular from which he could receive improvement, spending the whole day at the pencil, and the evenings in designing. At that time the works of Vandyck and Rembrandt were in great vogue, and after much consideration he appears td have leaned towards an imitation of Vandyck, whom, some thought, he equalled. Houbraken says he xvas invited by Charles II. to come to England, where he made portraits of the king, queen,- and principal nobility at court, and was much admired for the elegance of his attitudes, and for his clear, natural, and lively tone of colouring. After continuing some time in England, he went to the Hague, and there painted a noble portrait of the duke of Zell, for which he received a thousand Hungarian ducats, amounting to near 500l. He then painted for the, duke of Tuscany, who placed his portrait among those of other famous painters in the Florence gallery. When Louis XIV. was at Utrecht, he sent for him, but Baan declined the invitation for political reasons. This did not lessen him, however, in the opinion of that monarch, who frequently consulted him on the purchase of pictures. These, marks of distinction, and his fame as a painter, created him. many enemies, one of whom, an artist of Friesland, formed the execrable design of assassinating him, and came to Amsterdam for that purpose. After being long disappointed in an opportunity in the streets, he asked permission to see Baan’s paintings, and while the latter was showing them, drew a poignard to stab him, but a friend of Baan’s, who happened to enter the room at the instant, laid hold of his arm the villain, however, escaped, and could not afterwards be found. Baan was of an amiable disposition, Son­cial and obliging. He died at Amsterdam in 1702.

, son of the above, was born at the Hague in 1673, learned the art of painting from his father, and became very early an artist of distinction. In 1693 he came to England, and painted several excellent portraits for the nobility, particularly one of the duke of Gloucester. He was much solicited to remain in England, but had predetermined to visit Rome, where, and at Florence, his talents procured him great fame, and much money, the latter of which he had not the prudence to keep. His pictures are excellently handled, and he approached near to the merit of his father in portraits, and in other branches of the art he probably would have far surpassed him, if he had appropriated more of his time to his studies, and had not died at so early a period of life. He only reached his twenty- seventh year.

, a native of Angers, born in 1651, was canon, grand vicar, and dean, of the faculty of theology in that city, and much noted for his learning and virtues. He arranged and transcribed, into 18 vols. the “Conferences” of the diocese of Angers, a work much esteemed in France. His style is clear, neat, and methodical, without any of the jargon of the schools. La Blandiniere, who continued this work by adding ten volumes, does not deserve so much praise. Babin published also, in 1679, but without his name, “An account of the proceedings of the university of Angers, respecting Jansenism and Cartesianism,” 4to. He died Dec. 19, 1734, in his eightythird year.

, a learned English prelate in the end of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth century, was born in Nottinghamshire, according to Fuller, but in Devonshire, according to Izacke and Prince. After having received the first rudiments of learning, he was sent to Trinity college, Cambridge, of which he became fellow. On the 15th of July, 1578, he was incorporated M.A. at Oxford, as he stood in his own university. After studying other branches of learning, he applied to divinity, and became a favourite preacher in Cambridge, the place of his residence. When he was D. D. he was made domestic chaplain to Henry earl of Pembroke, president of the council in the marches of Wales, and is supposed to have assisted lady Mary Sidney, countess of Pembroke, in her version of the psalms into English metre. By his lordship’s interest, however, he was constituted treasurer of the church of Landaff, and in 1588 was installed into the prebend of Wellington, in the cathedral of Hereford. Through his patron’s further interest, he was advanced to the bishopric of Landaff, and was consecrated Aug. 29, 1591. In Feb. 1594, he was translated to the see of Exeter, to which he did an irreparable injury by alienating from it the rich manor of Crediton in Devonshire. In 1597 he was translated to Worcester, and was likewise made one of the queen’s council for the marches of Wales. To the library of Worcester cathedral he was a very great benefactor, for he not only fitted and repaired the edifice, but also bequeathed to it all his books. After having continued bishop of Worcester near thirteen years, he died of the jaundice, May 17, 1610, and was buried in the cathedral of Worcester, without any monument.

As to his character, it is agreed, that in the midst of all his preferments he was neither tainted with idleness, pride, nor covetousness, and was not only diligent in preaching but in writing books, for the understanding of the holy scriptures. He was an excellent and animating preacher. His works were printed first in 4to then, with additions, in folio, in 1615; and again in 1637, under this title: “The works of Gervase Babington, &c. containing comfortable notes upon the five books of Moses. As also an exposition upon the Creed, the Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer. With a conference betwixt Man’s frailty and faith and three Sermons.” His style is good, although not without the quaintnesses peculiar to the times. Miles Smith, afterwards bishop of Gloucester, wrote a preface to this volume.

, or Babrius, was a Greek poet who turned Esop’s fables into choliambics, that is, verses with an iambic foot in the fifth place, and a spondee in the sixth or last. Suidas frequently quotes him, but the age and country in which he lived are unknown. Avienus the fabulist, in Prsef. Fab. seems to intimate, that Babrius was prior to Phaedrus, who wrote under the reign of Augustus or Tiberius. Mr. Tynvhitt, the learned author of the “Dissertatio de Babrio,” published at London in 1776, produces a passage from the Homeric lexicon of Apollonius, which appears to be a quotation from Babrius, and as Apollonius is supposed to have lived about the time of Augustus, or some what earlier, Babrius must have written before that period. From the fragments published in the above-mentioned work, Babrius appears to have been a valuable writer his representations are natural, his expressions lively, and his versification harmonious.

, a Christian bishop and martyr, of the third century, became bishop of Antioch in the year 238, and governed that see thirteen years. It is said he died for maintaining the Christian faith, but authors are not agreed about the time or manner of his martyrdom. Eusebius and St. Jerom say, that upon his professing himself a Christian, in the reign of Decius, he was put in prison and died there. St. Chrysostom, who wrote a panegyric upon Baby las, relates that he was brought out of prison and publicly executed. This is supposed to have taken place in the year 250. His relics were highly respected at Antioch, where two churches were built in honour of his memory, and it is said, that when his relics were brought thither, the oracle of Apollo was struck dumb.

, marquis of St. Philippe, was born in Sardinia, of an ancient family, originally Spanish, and rendered his name known, not only by his learning, but by his important employments under Charles II. and Philip V. After the death of Charles II. he served under the dukeof Anjou his successor, and during the revolt in Sardinia conducted himself with wisdom and loyalty. Philip V. rewarded his services by creating him a marquis. He died at Madrid in 1726, much esteemed. His learned “History of the Monarchy of the Hebrews” was translated into French, and published in 2 vols. 4to, and 4 vols. 8vo. He wrote also “Memoirs of the history of Philip V. from 1699 to 1725,” which abound rather too much in military relations, but the whole is said to be scrupulously exact in point of fact.

, a very learned Italian scholar of the seventeenth century, was born Aug. 31, 1651, at Borgo-san-Donino, in the duchy of Parma. In 1653 his father went to reside at Parma, where he spared no expence in the education of this son, although his fortune was considerably reduced by family imprudence. For five years he studied the classics, under the tuition of the Jesuits, and in his sixteenth year entered the order of St. Benedict, on which occasion he adopted the name of that saint, in lieu of Bernardine, his baptismal name. Soon after, his father died, leaving his widow and three children with very little provision. Bacchini, however, pursued his studies, and took lesson in scholastic philosophy from Maurice Zapata; but by the advice of Chrysogonus Fabius, master of the novices of his convent, he studied mathematics, as the foundation of a more useful species of knowledge than the physics and metaphysics of the ancients. He afterwards applied to divinity with equal judgment, confining his researches to the fathers, councils, and ecclesiastical history. When he had completed his course, his abbé wished him to teach philosophy, but he had no inclination to teach that scholastic philosophy which he did not think worth learning and having obtained leave, on account of his health, to retire to a monastery in the country, he remained there two years, during which he studied the science of music, and on his recovery began to preach, agreeably to the desire of his superiors. In 1677, Arcioni, abbe of St. Benedict at Ferrara, having appointed him. his secretary, he was obliged to follow him to Arezzo, Venice, Placentia, Padua, and Parma. While at Piacentia, in 1679, he pronounced a funeral oration on Margaret de Medicis, mother of the duke of Parma, which was printed there. In 1681 he formed an acquaintance with Magliabecchi, the cardinal Noris, and many other eminent men of the age. In 1683, on account of his health, he solicited permission to resign his office as secretary to the abbe“, and as public preacher, which was granted; and having his time again in his own hands, he began to arrange the library belonging to his monastery, and to consult the fathers and sacred critics, and studied with assiduity and success the Greek and Hebrew languages. In 1635 he was appointed counsellor of the inquisition at Parma, and ne^t year had a visit of three days from father Mabillon and father Germain, and about the same time began to conduct the” Giornale de Letterati." In this he was encouraged and assisted by Gaudentio Roberti, who was eminent in polite literature. Bacchini accordingly began the Parma journal, in imitation of that published at Rome, and continued it monthly, but without his name, until 1690. But afterwards, when at Modena, he resumed it for 1692 and 1693, after which, the death of Roberti, who defrayed all the expence, obliged him again to discontinue it. In 1695, however, Capponi engaged to furnish the books and all necessary expences, and he edited itfor 1696 and 1697, when it was concluded. The whole make nine small volumes 4to, the first five printed at Parma, and the rest at Modena.

In the mean time, in 1688, the duke of Parma appointed him his theologian, at the request of Roberti; and the same year, at the solicitation of Leo Strozza, he wrote his dissertation on the ancient sistrum, a musical instrument, which was published under the title, “De Sistrorum figuris ac differentia ad illustriss. D. D. Leonem Strozza, ob Sistri Romani effigiem communicatum, ctissertatio,” Bononia, 1691, 4to. The death of the abbe Arcioni, and some disputes with his brethren at Parma, rendering it necessary for him to leave that city, the duke of Modena invited him thither in 1690, and soon after he was appointed first examiner, and then one of the counsellors of the inquisition. He had also the appointment of professor of sacred literature at Bologna, but on account of the distance he gave but few lectures, although he retained the title of professor. On the death of the duke of Modena, Sept. 1694, his uncle the cardinal d'Est succeeded him, and became a yet more liberal patron to Bacchini.

In 1696 he published his monastic history, under the title of “DelP Istoria del Monasterio di S. Benedetto di Polirone nella Stato di Mantoua Libri cinque,” Modena, 1696, 4to. This was to have been succeeded by a second volume, but some unwelcome truths in the first having given offence, what he had prepared remained in manuscript The same year he travelled over various parts of Italy, visiting chiefly the libraries and the learned, who received him with the respect due to his talents. At Florence he passed some days with his friend Magliabecchi at Mount Cassin, and at St. Severin, the libraries were laid open, with permission to copy what he pleased and the cardinal d'Aguirre wished much to have procured him a place in the Vatican library, but being unsuccessful, Bacchini returned to Modena, where the duke made him his librarian. While putting the books in order here, he found the lives of the bishops of Ravenna by Agnelli (see Agnelli), which he committed to the press, with chronological dissertations and remarks, and the whole was ready for publication in 1702, but the censors at Rome hesitated so long in granting their permission, that it was not published before 1708. In the course of preparing this work, he wrote a dissertation on ecclesiastical hierarchy, entitled “De Ecclesiasticae Hierarchise origine dissertatio,” Mutina (i.e. Modena), 1703, 4to. In 1704 he was elected prior of the monastery of Modena, and in 1705 he published, under the name of the abbe and monks of the monastery of Parma, “Isidori Clarii ex Monacho Episcopi Fulginatis Epistolse ad amicos, hactenus ineditac,” Modena, 1705. Two years after, he was made chancellor of his order, and in 1708 was elected, in the general chapter, abbé of the monastery of St. Mary at Ragusa. In 1711 and 1719, other promotions of a similar kind were conferred upon him, but he was obliged to remove from place to place on account of his health, injured by a complication of disorders, which at last proved fatal, at Bologna, Sept. 1, 1721. Bacchini, according to the report of all his biographers, was one of the most learned men of his time few equalled and none surpassed him in Italy. His learning was universal, and his taste exquisite. "When young he was much admired for his pulpit eloquence, and it was thought would have proved one of the first preachers of his time, if his delicate temperament could have permitted that exertion. He was critically skilled in Greek and Hebrew, ancient and modern philosophy, and mathematics, but was perhaps most deeply conversant in sacred and profane history and chronology, and he was remarkably expert in decyphering ancient manuscripts. Few men, it may be added, were more admired in their time, or could enumerate among their friends so many men of high rank and learning; of the latter, Bacchini lived in habits of intimacy with Ciampini, Magliabecchi, Muratori, Gimma, Fontanini, Mabillon, Montfaucon, and the marquis Scipio Maffei, and in all his intercourse with the great or the learned, he preserves the character of a modest and humble man.

, the Greek lyric poet, was born at Julis, a town in the isle of Ceos. He was the nephew of Simonides, and the contemporary and rival of Pindar. Both sung the victories of Hiero at the public games. Besides odes to athletic victors, he was author of love verses, prosodies, dithyrambics, hymns, &c. The emperor Julian was a great admirer of his writings, and Hiero preferred him to Pindar. He flourished 452 B. C. and was the last of the nine lyric poets so famous in Greece. There are some fragments of his still in being, printed along with those of Alcceus, at the end of an edition of Pindar, Antwerp, 1567, 16 mo.

, an eminent Italian physician, was born at St. Elpidio, in the march of Ancona. He became professor of medicine at Rome, and first physician to pope Sixtus V. and was celebrated for great skill and his works prove that he had great learning. The time of his death is uncertain, but he was alive in 1596. His works are, 1. “DeThermis, libri septem,” Venice, 1571, 1588, fol. and at Padua, 1711. The first is a rare book, and the last has the addition of an eighth book. That printed in 1622 iis mutilated. 2. “De Naturali Vinorum Historia,” Rome, 1596, fol. a very scarce book, of which, however, there is a copy in the British Museum. 3. “De Venenis et Antidotis Prolegomena,” Rome, 1586, 4to. 4. “De Gemmis ac lapidibus pretiosis in S. Scriptura relatis,” Rome, 1577, 4to, and Franc. 1643, 8vo, by Gabelchoverus. 5. “Tabula simplicium Medicamentorum,” Rome, 1577, 4to. 6. “De Conviviis Antiquorum.”