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

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

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

, a celebrated critic, chronologer, antiquary, and grammarian, for such Priscian calls him, flourished at Rome in the time of Alexander Severus, and is supposed to have been of the Martian family. His talents as a grammarian appear only in his book “concerning Accents,” frequently cited by Sidonius Apollinaris, and other things, which are lost; and not in his “De die jiatali,” which is the only piece remaining of him. This treatise was written about the year 238, and dedicated to Quintus Cerellius, a Roman of the equestrian order, of whom he speaks very highly in his 15th chapter. Vossius, in one place, calls this “a little book of gold;” and, in another, declares it to be “a most learned work, and of the highest use and importance to chronologers, since it connects and determines with great exactness some principal aeras in history.” It is however a work of a miscellaneous nature, and treats of antiquities as well as chronology. It was printed at Hamburgh in 1614, with a commentary by Lindenbrog, whose notes were adopted afterwards in an edition printed at Cambridge, in 1695; and there is an edition by Havercamp, 1743, reprinted at Leyden, 1767, 8vo. Sir John Hawkins has translated Censorinus’s remarks on music, which are curious.

, in Latin Corderius, lived in the sixteenth century, and was an eminent teacher. He understood the Latin tongue critically, was a man of virtue, and performed his functions with the utmost diligence, mixing moral with literary instruction. He spent his long life in teaching children at Paris, Nevers, Bordeaux, Geneva, Neufchastel, Lausanne, and lastly again at Geneva, where he died September the 8th, 1564, at the age of eighty-five, having continued his labours until three or four days before his death. He studied divinity for some time at Paris in the college of Navarre, about the year 1528, after he had taught a form in the same college but he left off that study in order to apply himself to his former functions of a grammarian. He had taught at Nevers in 1534, 1535, and 1536. Calvin, who had been his scholar at Paris in the college de la Marche, dedicated his Commentary on the 1st Epistle to the Thessalonians to him. It is not exactly known of what province Mathurin Cordier was; some say he was born in Normandy; others pretend he was born in the earldom of Perche. He published several books for the use of schools, among which were, 1. “Epistres Chrestiennes,” Lyons, 1557, 16to. 2. “Sentences extraictes de la Saincte Escriture pour Tinstruction des Enfans,” Latin and French, 1551. 3. “Cantiques spirituels en nombre 26,” 1560. 4. “Le Miroir de la Jeunesse, pour la former a bonnes mceurs, et civilite de la vie,” Paris, 16to. 5. “L‘ Interpretation et construction en Francois des distiques Latins, qu’on attribue a Caton,” Lyons, 8vo, and since, perhaps, above an hundred times. His “Colloquia” have long been used in schools, and have been printed, says Bayle, a thousand times.

In 1541, Henry VIII. granted him, by patent, the office of master of the grammar-school of Reading, with a certain tenement called “a scole-house,” with a stipend of ten pounds, issuing out of the manor of Cholsey, belonging to the late dissolved monastery of Reading. A few years after he had obtained this patent, which he appears, to have had the power of assigning during his life, he quitted Reading, and travelled over great part of the continent, teaching the learned languages. Leland, in some Latin verses, among his “Encomia,” addressed to Cox, speaks of his visiting the universities of Prague, Paris, and Cracow, and that he was known to Melancthon, who was Greek professor at Wittemberg. In the latter part of his life he kept a school at Caer-leon, and is said to have survived until the reign of Edward VI. Bale says that he was instructed in all the liberal arts, that he was a grammarian, a rhetorician, and a poet; a sound divine, and a diligent preacher of God’s word. It is needless after this to add that he was of the reformed religion. In Edward Vlth’s time, he was one of the licensed preachers.

, a once celebrated writer of the Sociriian persuasion, was born in Franconia in 1590, and after some early education received from his father, studied at Nuremberg, and other German schools or universities. He was brought up in the Lutheran church, but in the course of his reading, having formed to himself a set of opinions nearly coinciding with those of Socinus, he declined the offers of promotion in the Lutheran church, where he probably would not have been favourably received, and determined to go to Poland, where such opinions as his were no bar to advancement. In 1612 he went to Racow, and besides becoming a preacher, was appointed Greek professor and afterwards rector of the university. His theological works form a considerable part of the works’ of the “Fratres Poloni,” and he engaged in a controversy with Grotius, who had written against Socinus, and a correspondence, of great politeness, took place between them, which made Grotius be suspected of inclining too much to the opinions of his antagonist. He certainly carried his politeness very far, when he told Crellius that “he was, grieved to see so much enmity between those, who call themselves Christians, for such trifling matters,” these matters being no less than the doctrine of the Trinity, and the divinity and atonement of Jesus Christ. Crellius, we are told, like many of his descendants, would not be called a Socinian, but an Artemonite, after Artemon, who lived in the reign of the emperor Severus, and denied the pre-existence and divinity of Christ. Crellius’ opinions on other subjects will not probably procure him much respect, at least from one sex. In his “Ethics,” he is said to maintain that it is lawful for men upon certain occasions to beat their wives! Crellius died at Racow, of an epidemic fever, 1633. Father Simon’s opinion of him may be quoted as generic. “Crellius is a grammarian, a philosopher, and a divine throughout. He has a wonderful address in adapting St. Paul’s words to his own prejudices. He supports the doctrines of his sect with so much subtlety, that he does not seem to say any thing of himself, but to make the scriptures speak for him, even where they are most against him.”

The word inoculiis, in the first of these, alludes to his having the sight of only one eye, which when Christopher Massaeus objected to him, calling him Polyphemus, Despauter replied with rather more warmth than was justified by the provocation; and with some degree of vanity, added, “You call me Polyphemus. I am Polyphemus and Euphemus too. Italy, France, and Germany applaud my diligence, while you can expect hereafter to be ranked among the Cacophemi, the Zoilus’s, the Bavins’ s, &c.” Vossius supports this character so far as to declare that Despauter saw clearer into the grammatical art with one eye, than all his contemporaries with tsvo. It is certain that his grammar was long the only one used in the schools on the continent, and has been republished in an hundred abridged forms, for the use of scholars of every country; but has received so many successive improvements and alterations, that little of the original remains. His fame, as a grammarian, to those who study the histciy of that art, will be found to rest on his very scarce work, entitled “Joan. Despauterii Ninivitae Commentarii Grammatici,” Paris, printed by Robert Stephens, 1537, folio. This is the finest and most complete edition, and forms a collection of all the treatises which he had published separately; viz. 1. “Rudimenta.” 2. “Syntaxis.” iJ. “Ars versificatoria.” 4. “De accentibus.” 5. “De carminum generibus.” 6. “De Figuris.” 7. “Ars Epistolica;” and 8. “Orthographia,” which is not quite finished. Although his grammar is now in less estimation, he deserves to be remembered among the most useful scholars of his time, and among the benefactors to learning on its revival.

, a most laborious Italian writer, was born at Venice in 1508. His family was one of the most ancient in the republic, but reduced in circumstances. Lewis remained the whole of his life in his native city, occupied in his numerous literary undertakings, which procured him some personal esteem, but little reputation or wealth. Perhaps his best employment was that of cor-, rector of the press to the celebrated printer Gabriel Giolito, whose editions are so much admired for the beauties of type and paper, and yet with the advantage of Dolce’s attention, are not so correct as could be wished. As an original author, Dolce embraced the whole circle of polite literature and science, being a grammarian, rhetorician, orator, historian, philosopher, editor, translator, and commentator; and as a poet, he wrote tragedies, comedies, epics, lyrics, and satires. All that can be called events in his life, were some literary squabbles, particularly with Ruscelli, who was likewise a corrector of Giolito’s press. He died of a dropsical complaint in 1569, according to Apostolo Zeno, and, according to Tiraboschi, in 1566. Baillet, unlike most critics, says he was one of the best writers of his age. His style is flowing, pure, and elegant; but he was forced by hunger to spin out his works, and to neglect that frequent revisal which is so necessary to the finishing of a piece. Of his numerous works, a list of which may be seen in Niceron, or Moreri, the following are in some reputation: 1. “Dialogo della pittura, intitolato I'Aretino,” Venice, 1557, 8vo. This work was reprinted, with the French on the opposite page, at Florence, 1735. 2. “Cinque priini canti del Sacripante,” Vinegia^ 1535, 8vo. 3. “Primaleone,” 1562, 4to. 4. “Achilles; 1 * and” Jineas,“1570, 4to. 5.” La prima imprese del conte Orlando," 1572, 4to. 6. Poems in different collections, among others in that of Berni. And the Lives of Charles V. and Ferdinand the First.

or Eutychus, a grammarian of the sixth century, was a disciple of Priscian, and wrote a treatise “De aspiratione.” which is noticed by Cassiodorus, in the ninth chapter of his work on Orthography. He left also two books, " De discernendis conjugationibus, which Joachim Camerarius printed along with some pieces by Victorinus and Servius, at Tubingen, in 1537, 4to; but Eutyches’ s work is said to be printed more completely in the edition of the ancient grammarians by Putchius, at Hanover, 1605, 4to. Simler says that the commentary of one Sedulius, on Eutyches’s work, is in the library at Zurich.

, of Florence, son of John Peter Fontius, born in 1445, was a historian, an orator, and a grammarian, and in high esteem with Picus Mirandula, Marsilius Ficinus, Jerome Donatus, and all the literati of his age and country. He had the care of collecting books for the library of Matthew Corvinus, king of Hungary at Buda. He wrote a commentary on Persius, printed at Venice in 1491, and some orations, which were republishecl together at Frankfort, in 1621, 8vo; and died in 1513.

, or Joannes de Garlandia, a grammarian, is said to have been a native of Garlande en Brie in Normandy; hut as he came into England soon after the Conquest, Bale, Pitts, Tanner, have supposed him an Englishman, and Prince has enrolled him among the “Worthies of Devon.” He was not dead in 1081. His works have not all b.een printed but among those that have, are, 1. “A Poem on the contempt of the World,” improperly attributed to St. Bernard, Lyons, 1489, 4ta 2. Another poem, entitled “Floretus, or Liber Floreti;” on the Doctrines of Faith, and almost the whole circle of Christian morality. 3. A treatise on “Synonimes,” and another on Equivoques,“or ambiguous terms, Paris, 149O, 4 to, and reprinted at London by Pynson in 149.6, and again in 1500. 4. A poem in rhymed verses, entitled” Facetus,“on the duties of man towards God, his neighbour, and himself, Cologne, 1520, 4to the three poems are often printed together. 5.” Dictionarium artis Alchymiae, cum ejusdem artis compendio," Basle, 1571, 8vo.

, was one of the Byzantine historians, but biographers are not agreed as to the period when he lived. Some years ago, professor Walchius published in the Gottingen Transactions an inquiry into this subject, but was obliged to confess that he could arrive at no probable conclusion. Some place Glycas in the twelfth, and some in the fifteenth century. No ancient record or writer mentions even his name, and all that is known of him has been gleaned from his works. It appears that he was a native of Constantinople; but passed a great part of his life in Sicily. Some have thought he was a monk, but this is uncertain, nor do we know whether he lived in public life, or in retirement. His letters, however, show that he was a grammarian, and was acquainted with theology, history sacred and profane, and other branches of knowledge; and such was his reputation that he was frequently consulted by monks, bishops, and the most celebrated doctors of his time. His “Annals,” by which only he is now known, contain an account of the patriarchs, kings, and emperors, and, in a word, a sort of history of the world as far as the emperor Alexis Comnenus, who died in 1118, including many remarks on divinity, philosophy, physic, astronomy, &c. Leunclavius first translated this work into Latin, and the whole was published by father Labbe, Paris, 1660, fol. Some of his letters have been published in the “Deliciae eruditorum,” Florence, 1736, and other collections.

, at first an advocate, afterwards an ecclesiastic, and abbé of Auhignac and Meimac, was born at Paris in 1604. Cardinal Richelieu, whose nephew he educated, bestowed on him his two abbeys, and the protection of that minister gave him consequence both as a man of the world and as an author. He figured by turns as a grammarian, a classical scholar, a poet, an antiquary, a preacher, and a writer of romances; but he was most known by his book entitled “Pratique du Theatre,” and by the quarrels in which his haughty and presumptuous temper engaged him, with some of the most eminent authors of his time. The great Corneille was one of these, whose disgust first arose from the entire omission of his name in the celebrated book above mentioned. He was also embroiled, on different accounts, with madame Scuderi, Menage, and Richelet. The warmth of his temper exceeded rhat of his imagination, which was considerable; and yet he lived at court a good deal in the style of a philosopher, rising early to his studies, soliciting no favours, and associating chiefly with a few friends, as unambitious as himself, he describes himself as of a slender constitution, not capable of taking much exercise, or even of applying very intensely to study, without suffering from it in his health; yet not attached to any kind of play. “It is,” ays he, “too fatiguing for the feebleness of my body, or too indolent for the activity of my mind.” The abbé d'Aubignac lived to the age of seventy-two, and died at xnours in 1676. His works are, 1. “Pratique du Theatre,” Amsterdam, 1717, two vols. 8vo; also in a 4to edition published at Paris; a book of considerable learning, but little calculated to inspire or form a genius. 2. “Zenobie,” a tragedy, in prose, composed according to the rules laid down in his “Pratique,” and a complete proof of the total inefficacy of rules to produce an interesting drama, being the most dull and fatiguing performance that was ever represented. The prince of Condé said, on the subject of this tragedy, “We give great credit to the abbé d'Aubignac for having so exactly followed the rules of Aristotle, but owe no thanks to the rules of Aristotle for having made the abbé produce so vile a tragedy.” He wrote a few other other tragedies also, which are worse, if possible, than Zenobia. 3. “Macaride; or the Queen of the Fortunate Islands,” a novel, Paris, 1666, 2 vok 8vo. 4. “Conseils d'Ariste à Celimene, 12mo. 5.” Histoire da terns, ou Relation du Royaume de Coqueterie,“12mo, 6.” Terence justifié,“inserted in some editions of his” Pratique.“7.” Apologie de Spectacles," a work of no value. A curious book on satyrs, brutes, and monsters, has been attributed to him; but, though the author’s name was Hedelin, he does not appear to have been the same.

, or Horus Apollo, was a grammarian, according to Suidas, of Panoplus in Egypt, who taught first at Alexandria, and then at Constantinople, under the reign of Theodosius, about the year 380. There are extant under his name two books “concerning the Hieroglyphics of the Egyptians,” which Aldus first published in Greek in 1505, folio. They have often been republished since, with a Latin version and notes; but the best edition is that by Cornelius de Pauw at Utrecht, in 1727, 4to. Meanwhile there are many Rorapollos of antiquity; and it is not certain, that the grammarian of Alexandria was the author of these books. Suidas does not ascribe them to him; and Fabricius is of opinion, that they belong rather to another Horus Apollo of more ancient standing, who flourished about 1500 B. C. and wrote upon Hieroglyphics in the Egyptian language, and from whose work an extract rather than a version has been made of these two books in Greek.

Josephus’s “Jewish Antiquities,” in 20 books, written in Greek, is also a very noble work; their history is deduced from the origin of the world to the 12th year of Nero, when the Jews began to rebel against the Romans. At the conclusion of the “Antiquities,” he subjoined the “History of his own Life,” although in the editions of his Works it has usually been considered as a distinct production. He wrote also two books against Apion, a grammarian of Alexandria, and a great adversary of the Jews. These contain many curious fragments of ancient historians. We have also a discourse of his “upon the Martyrdom of the Maccabees,” which is a master-piece of eloquence; but its authenticity has been doubted, and Whiston would not admit it in his translation. The works of Josephus, with Latin versions, have been often published but the best editions are those of Hudson, Oxford, 1720, 2 vols. fol. and of Havercatnp, at Amsterdam, 1727, in 2 vols. folio. They have also been translated into modern languages; into English by L'Estrange, and again by Whiston, in 2 Vol$. fol.

Gibbon has drawn the character of Leibnitz with great force and precision, as a man whose genius and studies have ranked his name with the first philosophic names of his age and country; but he thinks his reputation, perhaps, would have been more pure and permanent, if he had not ambitiously grasped the whole circle of human science. As a theologian, says Gibbon (who is not, perhaps, the most impartial judge of this subject), he successively contended with the sceptics, who believe too little, and with the papists who believe too much; and with the heretics, who believe otherwise than is inculcated by the Lutheran confession of Augsburgh. Yet the philosopher betrayed his love of union and toleration* his faith in revelation was accused, while he proved the Trinity by the principles of logic; and in the defence of the attributes and providence of the Deity, he was suspected of a secret correspondence with his adversary Bayle. The metaphysician expatiated in the fields of air; his pre-established harmony of the soul and body might have provoked the jealousy of Plato; and his optimism, the best of all possible worlds, seems an idea too vast for a mortal mind. He was a physician, in the large and genuine sense of the word like his brethren, he amused him with creating a globe and his Protogæa, or primitive earth, has not been useless to the last hypothesis of Buffon, which prefers the agency of fire to that of water. “I am not worthy,” adds Gibbon, “to praise the mathematician; but his name is mingled in all the problems and discoveries of the times; the masters of the art were his rivals or disciples; and if he borrowed from sir Isaac Newton, the sublime method of fluxions, Leibnitz was at least the Prometheus who imparted to mankind the sacred fire which he had stolen from the gods. His curiosity extended to every branch of chemistry, mechanics, and the arts; and the thirst of knowledge was always accompanied with the spirit of improvement. The vigour of his youth had been exercised in the schools of jurisprudence; and while he taught, he aspired to reform the laws of nature and nations, of Rome and Germany. The annals of Brunswick, and of the empire, of the ancient and modern world, were presented to the mind of the historian; and he could turn from the solution of a problem, to the dusty parchments and barbarous style of the records of the middle age. His genius was more nobly directed to investigate the origin of languages and nations; nor could he assume the character of a grammarian, without forming the project of an universal idiom and alphabet. These various studies were often interrupted by the occasional politics of the times; and his pen was always ready in the cause of the princes and patrons to whose service he was attached; many hours were consumed in a learned correspondence with all Europe; and the philosopher amused his leisure in the composition of French and Latin poetry. Such an example may display the exte^nt and powers of the human understanding, but even his powers were dissipated by the multiplicity of his pursuits. He attempted more than he could finish; he designed more than he could execute: his imagination was too easily satisfied with a bold and rapid glance on the subject, which he was impatient to leave; and Leibnitz may be compared to those heroes, whose empire has been lost in the ambition of universal conquest.”

, a celebrated sophist of antiquity, was born of an ancient and noble family at Antioch, on the Orontes, in the year 314. Suidas calls his father “Phasganius” but this was the name of one of his uncles; the other, who was the elder, was named Panolbius. His great-grandfather, who excelled in the art of divination, had published some pieces in Latin, which occasioned his being supposed by some, but falsely, to be an Italian. His maternal and paternal grandfathers were eminent in rank and in eloquence; the latter, with his brother Brasidas, was put to death by the order of Dioclesian, in the year 303, after the tumult of the tyrant Eugenius. Libanius, the second of his father’s three sons, in the fifteenth year of his age, wishing to devote himself entirely to literature, complains that he met with some “shadoxvs of sophists.” Then, assisted by a proper master, he began to read the ancient writers at Antioch; and thence, with Jasion, a Cappadocian, went to Athens, and residing there for more than four years, became intimately acquainted with Crispinus of Heraclea, who, he says, “enriched him afterwards with books at Nicomedia, and went, but seldom, to the schools of Diophantus.” At Constantinople he ingratiated himself with Nicocles of Lacedosmon (a grammarian, who was master to the emperor Julian), and the sophist Bermarchius. Returning to Athens, and soliciting the office of a professor, which the proconsul had before intended for him when he was twenty- five years of age, a certain Cappadocian happened to be preferred to him. But being encouraged by Dionysius, a Sicilian who had been prefect of Syria, some specimens of his eloquence, that were published at Constantinople, made him so generally known and applauded, that he collected more than eighty disciples, the two sophists, who then filled the chair there, raging in vain, and Bermarchius ineffectually opposing him in rival orations, and, when he could not excel him, having recourse to the frigid calumny of magic. At length, about the year 346, being expelled the city by his competitors, the prefect Limenius concurring, he repaired to Nice, and soon after to Nicomedia, the Athens of Bithynia, where his excellence in speaking began to be more and more approved by all; and Julian, if not a hearer, was a reader and admirer of his orations. In the dame'city, he says, “he was particularly delighted with the friendship of Aristaenetus;” and the five years which he passed there, he styles “the spring or any thing else that can be conceived pleasanter than spring, of his whole life.” Being invited again to Constantinople, and afterwards returning to Nicomedia, being also tired of Constantinople, where he found Phoenix and Xenobius, rival sophists, though he was patronised by Strategius, who succeeded Domitian as prefect of the East, not daring on account of his rivals to occupy the Athenian chair, he obtained permission from Gallus Cassar to visit for four months, his native city Antioch, where, after Gallus was killed, in the year 354, he fixed his residence for the remainder of his life, and initiated many in the sacred rites of eloquence. He was also much beloved by the emperor Julian, who heard his discourses with pleasure, received him with kindness, and imitated him in his writings. Honoured by that prince with the rank of quaestor, and with several epistles of which six only are extant, the‘ last written by the emperor during’ his fatal expedition against the Persians, he the more lamented his death in the flower of Ms age, as from him he had promised himself a certain and lasting support both in the worship of idols and in his own studies. There was afterwards a report, that Liba­Ihus, with the younger Jamblichus, the master of Proclus, inquired by divination who would be the successor of Valens, and ia consequence with difficulty escaped his cruelty, Irenaeus attesting the innocence of Libanius. In like manner he happily escaped another calumny, by the favour of duke Lupicinus, when he was accused by his enemy Fidelis, or Fidustius, of having written an eulogium on the tyrant Procopius. He was not, however, totally neglected by Valens, whom he not only celebrated in an oration, but obtained from him a confirmation of the law against entirely, excluding illegitimate children from the inheritance of their paternal estates, which he solicited from the emperor, no doubt for a private reason, since, as Eunapius informs us, he kept a mistress, and was never married. The remainder of his life he passed as before mentioned, at Antioch, to an advanced age, amidst various wrongs and oppressions from his rivals and the times, which he copiously relates in his life, though, tired of the manners of that city, be had thoughts, in his old age, of changing his abode, as he tells Eusebius. He continued there, however, and on various occasions was very serviceable to the city, either by appeasing seditions, and calming the disturbed minds of the citizens, or by reconciling to them the emperors Julian and Theodosius. That Libanius lived even to the reign of Arcadius, that is, beyond the seventieth year of his age, the learned collect from his oration on Lucian, and the testimony of Cedrenus; and of the same opinion is Godfrey Olearius, a man not more respectable for his exquisite knowledge of sacred and polite literature than for his judgment and probity, in his’ ms prelections, in which, when he was professor of both languages in the university of his own country, he has given an account of the life of this sophist.

Mr. Steevens having published a second edition of his Shakspeare, in 1778, Mr. Malone, in 1780, added two supplementary volumes, which contained some additional notes, Shakspeare’s poems, and seven plays which have been ascribed to him. There appears up to this time to have been no interruption to their friendship; but, on the contrary, Mr. Steevens, having formed a design of relinquishing all future editorial labours, most liberally made a present to Mr. Malone of his valuable collection of old plays, declaring that he himself was now become “a dowager commentator.” It is painful to think that this harmony should ever have been disturbed, or that any thing should have created any variance between two such men, who were so well qualified to co-operate for the benefit of the literary world. Mr. Matone, having continued his researches into all the topics which might serve to illustrate our great dramatist, discovered, that although much had been done, yet that much still remained for critical industry; and that a still more accurate collation of the early copies than had hitherto taken place was necessary towards a correct and faithful exhibition of the author’s text. His materials accumulated so fast, that he determined to appear before the world as an editor in form. From that moment he seems to have been regarded with jealousy by the elder commentator, who appears to have sought an opportunity for a rupture, which he soon afterwards found, or rather created. But it is necessary to go back for a moment, to point out another of Mr. Malone’s productions. There are few events in literary history more extraordinary in all its circumstances than the publication of the poems attributed to Rowley. Mr. Malone was firmly convinced that the whole was a fabrication by Chatterton; and, to support his opinion, published one of the earliest pamphlets which appeared in the course of this singular controversy. By exhibiting a series of specimens from early English writers, both prior and posterior to the period in which this supposed poet was represented to have lived, he proved that his style bore no resemblance to genuine antiquity; and by stripping Rowley of his antique garb, which was easily done by the substitution of modern synonymous words in the places of those obsolete expressions which are sprinkled throughout these compositions, and at the same time intermingling some archaeological phrases in the acknowledged productions of Chatterton, he clearly showed that they were all of the same character, and equally bore evident marks of modern versification, and a modern structure of language. He was followed by Mr. Warton and Mr. Tyrwhitt, in his second Appendix; and the controversy was soon at an end. While Mr. Malone was engaged in his Shakspeare, he received from Mr. Steevens a request of a most extraordinary nature. In a third edition of Johnson and Steevens’s Shakspeare, which had been published under the superintendance of Mr. Reed, in 1785, Mr. Malone had contributed some notes in which Mr. Steevens’s opinions were occasionally controverted. These he was now desired to retain in his new edition, exactly as they stood before, in order that Mr. S. might answer them. Mr. Malone replied, that he could make no such promise; that he must feel himself at liberty to correct his observations, where they were erroneous; to enlarge them, where they were defective; and even to expunge them altogether, where, upon further consideration, he was convinced they were wrong; in short, he was bound to present his work to the public as perfect as he could make it. But he added, that he was willing to transmit every note of that description in its last state to Mr. Steevens, before it went to press; that he might answer it if he pleased; and that Mr. Malone would even preclude himself from the privilege of replying. Mr. Steevens persisted in requiring that they should appear with all their imperfections on their head; and on this being refused, declared that all communication on the subject of Shakspeare was at an end between them. In 1790, Mr. Malone’s edition at last appeared and was sought after and read with the greatest avidity. It is unnecessary to point out its merits; the public opinion upon it iias been long pronounced. It cannot indeed be strictly said that it met with universal approbation. Mr. Ritson appeared against it in an angry and scurrilous pamphlet, replete with misrepresentations so gross, and so easy of detection, though calculated to mislead a careless reader, that Mr. Malone thought it worth his while to point them out in a letter which he published, addressed to his friend Dr. Farmer. Poor Ritson, however, has not been the only one who has attempted to persuade the world that they have been mistaken in Mr. Malone’s character as a critic. Mr. Home Tooke in particular, who, whatever were his talents as a grammarian, or his knowledge as an Anglo-Saxon, had by no means an extensive acquaintance with the literature of Shakspeare’s age, has mentioned Mr. Malone and Dr. Johnson with equal contempt, and immediately after proceeds to sneer at Mr. Tyrwhitt. It may readily be supposed that Mr. Malone would not feel very acutely the satire which associated him with such companions. But, to counterbalance these puny hostilities, his work gained the highest testimonies of applause from all who were best qualified to judge upon the subject, and from men whose approbation any one would be prpud to obtain. Dr. J. Warton, in a most friendly letter, which accompanied a curious volume of old English poetry which had belonged to his brother Thomas, and which he presented to Mr. Malone as the person for whom its former possessor felt the highest esteem and the most cordial regard, observes to him that his edition is by far, very far, the best that had ever appeared. Professor Person, who, as every one who knew him can testify, was by no means in the habit of bestowing hasty or thoughtless praise, declared to Mr. Malone’s biographer, that he considered the Essay on the three parts of Henry the Sixth as one of the most convincing pieces of criticism that he had ever read; nor was Mr. Burke less liberal in his praises.

, an English author, who lived in the reigns of James I. and Charles I. but whose private history is involved in much obscurity, was son of Robert Markham, esq. of Gotham, in the county of Nottingham. He bore a captain’s commission under Charles I. in the civil wars, and was accounted a good soldier, as well as a good scholar. One piece of dramatic poetry which he has published will shew, says Langbaine, that he sacrificed to Apollo and the muses, as well as to Mars and Pallas. This play is extant under under the title of “Herod and Antipater,” a tragedy, printed in 1622. Markham published a great many volumes upon husbandry and horsemanship: one upon the latter, printed in quarto, without date, he dedicated to prince Henry, eldest son to James I. In husbandry he published “Liebault’s La Maison rustique, or the country -farm,” in 1616. This treatise, which was at first translated by Mr. Richard Surfleit, a physician, Markham enlarged, with several additions from the French books of Serris and Vinet, the Spanish of Albiterio, and the Italian of Grilli. He published other books of husbandry, particularly “The English Husbandman, in two parts,” Lond. 1613 1635, with the “Pleasures of Princes in the Art of Angling.” Granger mentions “The whole Art of Angling,” 1656, 4to, in which he says Markham very gravely tells us that an angler should “be a general scholar, and seen in all the liberal sciences; as a grammarian, to know how to write or discourse of his art in true and fitting terms. He should have sweetness in speech to entice others to delight in an exercise so much laudable. He should have strength of argument to defend and maintai n his profession against envy and slander,” &c. Markham also wrote a tract entitled “Hunger’s prevention, or the whole Art of Fowling,” 1621, 8vo. In military discipline he published “The Soldier’s Accidence and Grammar,” in 1635. But he appears to have been earliest distinguished by his talents for poetry. In 1597 he published “Devereux Vertues tears for the loss of the most Christian king Henry, third of that name king of France, and the untimely death of the most noble and heroical Walter Devereux, who was slain before Roan, in Fraunce,” a translation from the French, 4to. He was the author also of “England’s Arcadia, alluding his beginning from sir Philip Sydney’s ending,” 1607, 4to. The extracts from Markham in “England’s Parnassus,” are more numerous than from any other minor poet. The most remarkable of his poetical attempts appears to have been entitled “The Poem of Poems, or Sion’s Muse, contaynyng the diuine Song of king Salomon, deuided into eight eclogues,” J 596, 16mo. This is dedicated to “the sacred virgin, divine mistress Elizabeth Sydney, sole daughter of the everadmired sir Philip Sydney.” Bishop Hall, who was justly dissatisfied with much of the spiritual poetry with which his age was overwhelmed, alludes to this piece in his “Satires” (B. I. Sat. VIII.); and says that in Markham’s verses Solomon assumes the character of a modern sonneteer, and celebrates the sacred spouse of Christ with the levities and in the language of a lover singing the praises of his mistress. For this censure, Marston in his “Certayne Satires” (Sat. IV.) endeavours to retort upon Hall.

, who flourished in the twelfth century, was probably born, and certainly educated at St. Alban’s abbey, of which period of his life he speaks with pleasing recollection in his poem “De Laude sapientiae Divinae.” He completed his education at Paris, and took the order of St. Augustine. He became the friend, associate, and correspondent of Peter of Blois, or Petrus Blesensis, and was afterwards abbot of Cirencester, in which office he died in 1217. He was much attached to the studious repose of the monastic life, yet he frequently travelled into Italy. His compositions are various, and, as Mr. Warton observes, crowd the department of Mss. in our public libraries. He has left numerous treatises of divinity, philosophy, and morality, and was also a poet, a philologist, and a grammarian. He wrote a tract on the mythology of the ancient poets, Esopian fables, and a system of 'grammar and rhetoric. Mr. Warton, who examined his elegiac poem “De vita motiastica,” says it contains some finished lines; but gives the highest praise to the poem already mentioned, “De divina sapientia.”

, was a grammarian and peripatetic philosopher of Tivoli, by whom we have a treatise “De Proprietate Sermonis, sive da varia significatione verborum.” He is supposed to have flourished in. the fourth century. His work is valuable only because he introduces several fragments of ancient writers not to be found elsewhere. The best edition is that by Mercer, printed at Paris, 1614, 8vo, with notes. The first editions, of 1471, and 1476, and 1480, are of great rarity, but all in the Spencer collection.

was a Greek philosopher, of whom a treatise in explication of ancient fables has been several times reprinted in Greek and Latin; the best edition is that of Fischer, Lips. 1761. But little is known of him, and there are several ancient writers of this name; one an Athenian, placed by the poets before the time of Homer; one a native of Puros, who lived under Artaxerxes Mnemon; and one, a grammarian and philosopher, born at Athens or in Egypt, posterior to Aristotle. Which of these is author of the work already noticed, is not at all certain.

, an eminent Roman historian, was born at Amiternum in 86 B. C. The rank of his ancestors is uncertain, but from some circumstances. in his writings, it is not improbable that his family was plebeian. Having passed his more early years at his native town, he was removed to Rome, where he had the advantage of profiting by the lessons of Atticus Praetextatus, surnarned Philologus, a grammarian and rhetorician of great celebrity. Under this teacher he applied -to learning with diligence, and made uncommon progress. It appears, that he had turned his thoughts in his younger days to the writing of history, for which he had unquestionably great talents; but, as he himself intimates in his preface to the history of Catiline’s conspiracy, he was diverted from this pursuit by the workings of ambition. His early lift; too, appears to have been stained by vice, which the gross enormities of his more advanced years render highly probable. In this respect he has found an able advocate in his late learned translator and commentator; but although Dr. Steuart’s researches have removed some part of the reproaches of ancient authors, enough remains to shew that Sallust partook largely of the corruption of the age in which he lived, and added to it by his own example. The story of his having been detected in an adulterous intercourse with the wife of Milo, who, after a severe whipping, made him pay a handsome sum of money, may rest upon little authority, or may be altogether discarded as a fiction, but the general conduct of Sallust shows that the noble sentiments in his works had no influence on his conduct.

, an able grammarian, lived at Constantinople towards the end of the fifth, or the beginning of the sixth century. He composed a geographical dictionary, which comprized, not only the names of places, and those of their inhabitants, the origin of cities, population, colonies, c. but also historical, mythological, and grammatical illustrations. There remains only of this work a very indifferent extract or abridgment, made by Hermolaus, a grammarian, and dedicated by him to the emperor Justinian. A fragment, indeed, has been recovered, which contains the article Dodona and some others, enough to make us regret the loss of the entire work.