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

, a Danish historian, flourished about the year 1186, and appears to have been secretary to the archbishop Absalon, by whose orders he wrote a history of Denmark, intituled, “Compendiosa historia regurn Daniae a Skioldo ad Canutum VI.” This work is thought inferior in style to that of Saxo Grammaticus; but, on some points, his opinions are in more strict conformity to what are now entertained by the literati of the North. He was also author of “Historia legum castrensium Regis Canuti magni,” which is a translation into Latin of the law called the law of Witherlag, enacted by Canute the Great, and re-published by Absalon in the reign of Canute VI. with an introduction by Aagesen. on the origin of that law. Both works are included in “Suenonis Agonis filii, Christierni nepotis, primi Daniæ gentis historici, quæ extant opuscula. Stephauus Johannis Stephanius ex vetustissimo codice membraneo ms. regiæ bibliothecæ Hafniensis primus publici juris fecit. Soræ, typis Henrici Crusii,” 1642, 8vo. His history is also printed, with excellent notes, in Langebek’s “Scriptores rerum Danicarum,” vol. I.; and the “Leges castrenses,” are in vol. III.

, a presbyter of Alexandria, the author of thirty books on physic in the Syriac tongue, which he called the Pandects. They were supposed to be written before 620, and were translated out of the Syriac into Arabic, by Maserjawalh, a Syrian Jew, and a physician in the reign of the calif Merwan, about A. D. 683; for then the Arabians began to cultivate the sciences and to study physic. In these he has clearly described the small-pox, and the measles, with their pathognomonic symptoms, and is the first author that mentions those two remarkable diseases, which probably first appeared and were taken notice of at Alexandria in Egypt, soon after the Arabians made themselves masters of that city, in A. D. 640, in the reign, of Omar Ebnol Chatab, the second successor to Mohammed. But both those original Pandects, and their translation, are now lost; and we have nothing of them remaining, but what Mohammed Rhazis collected from them, and has left us in his Continens; so that we have no certain account where those two diseases first appeared; but it is most probable that it was in Arabia Fcelix, and that they were brought from thence to Alexandria by the Arabians, when they took that city.

His works are: 1. “Sermons sur divers textes de l'Ecriture,” Leyderi, 1680. 2. “Panegyrique de M. l'Electeur de Brandenbourg,” Rotterdam, 1684, 4to. Gregorio Led translated this into Italian, and inserted it in his History of Brandenburgh. 3. “Traite de la Verite de la Religion Chretienne.” This treatise on the truth of the Christian Religion has passed through many editions, and has been translated into English, 2 vols. 8vo, and Dutch, and has long been esteemed an able confutation of infidel principles. The abbe Houteville, a steady Catholic, gives it the following character: “The most shining of these treatises in defence of the Christian religion, which were published by the Protestants, is that written by Mr. Abbadie. The favourable reception it obtained, the almost unexampled praise it received on the publication, the universal approbation it still preserves, render it unnecessary for me to join my commendations, which would add so little to the merit of so great an author. He has united in this book all our controversies with the infidels. In the first part, he combats the Atheists; the Deists in the second; and the Socinians in the third. Philosophy and theology enter happily into his manner of composing, which is in the true method, lively, pure, and elegant, especially in the first books.” 4. “Reflexions sur la Presence reelle du Corps de Jesus Christ dans l'Eucharistie,” Hague, 1685, 12mo, and Rotterdam, 1713, but both editions so erroneous as to induce the author to disown them. 5. “Traite de la Divinitie de notre Seigneur Jesus Christ,” Rotterdam, 1689, 8vo. A translation of this was published about the year 1777, by the Rev. Abraham Booth, a dissenting clergyman in London. 6. “L'art de se Connoitre Soimeme; ou, la recherche des Sources de la Morale,” Rotterdam, 1692, 12mo. An edition of this excellent treatise was published at Lyons in 1693, in which all the passages in favour of the Protestant religion are left out. 7. “Defence de la Nation Britannique,” &c. London, 1692, 8vo. This defence of the Revolution in England was in answer to Mr. Bayle’s “Avis important.” 8. “Panegyrique de Marie reine d'Angleterre,” Hague, 1695, 4to. 9. “Histoire de la Conspiration derniere d'Angleterre,” &c. Lond. 1698, 8vo, reprinted in Holland, and translated into English, but at present a very scarce book. It regards what was called the Assassination-plot, and was written by order of king William 111.; the original papers and documents were furnished by the earl of Portland, and sir William Trumball, secretary of state. 10. “La Verite de la Religion lleformee,” Rotterdam, 1718, 2 vols. 8vo. Dr. Henry Lambert, bishop of Dromore, translated this work for the instruction of the Roman Catholics in his diocese. 11. “Le triomphe de la Providence et de la Religion, en l'ouverture des Sept Sceaux par le Fils de Dieu,” &c. Amsterdam, 1723, 4 vols. 12mo. In this commentary on the Revelations, for such it is, the author has been supposed more inclining to conjecture and fancy than in his other works. Besides these he revised, in 1719, the French translation of the Common Prayer, and published some single sermons and small tracts.

, or Ali Ebnol Abbas, as Abulpharagius calls him in his Hist. Dyn. or, as he is usually called, Magus, as being one of the Magi, the followers of Zaradusht or Zoroaster; and not for his learning, as the learned Dr. Freind supposes. He was a Persian physician, and studied under Abu Maher, another Persian doctor, who probably was of the Magian religion also; he wrote his book, or Royal Work, at the request of Bowaia the son of Adadb'ddaula the calif, to whom he dedicates it in the oriental manner, in lofty hyperbolical language, about A. D. 980. It was translated into Latin by Stephen of Antioch in 1127, in which language we have two editions, Venice 1492, and Leyden 1523, fol. There is an Arabic ms copy in 4 vols. folio in the Leyden library, which was brought by James Golius from the East.

In the following year he was preferred to the see of Canterbury, and confirmed April 9, and on the 23d of June he was sworn of his majesty’s most honourable privycouncil. At this time he was in the highest favour both with prince and people, and appears to have taken an active part in all the great transactions in church and state. Although not thought excessively fond of power, or desirous of carrying his prerogative, as primate of England, to an extraordinary height, yet he was resolute in maintaining the rights of the high commission court, and would not submit to lord Coke’s prohibitions. In the case of Vorstius, his conduct was more singular. Vorstius had been appointed to a professorship hi the university of Leyden, and was a noted Arminian. King James, by our archbishop’s advice, remonstrated with the States on this appointment; and the consequence was that Vorstius was banished by the synod of Dort, as will appear more at length in his life. This condact on the part of the archbishop alarmed those who were favourers of Arminianism, and who dreaded Calvinism from its supposed influence on the security of the church; but their fears as far as he was concerned appear to have been groundless, his attachment to the church of England remaining firm and uniform. He had soon, however, another opportunity of testifying his dislike of the Arminian doctrines. The zeal which the king had shewn for removing, first Arminius, and then Vorstius, had given their favourers in Holland so much uneasiness, that the celebrated Grotius, the great champion of their cause, was sent over to England to endeavour to mitigate the King’s displeasure, and, if possible, to give him a better opinion of the Remonstrants, as they then began to be called. On this occasion the archbishop wrote an account of Grotius and his negociation in a letter to sir Ralph Winwood, in which he treats Grotius with very little ceremony. For this he has met with an advocate in archdeacon Blackburn, who, in his Confessional, observes in his behalf, that “his disaffection to Grotius was owing to the endeavours and proposals of the latter, towards a coalition of the Protestants and Papists, which every wise and consistent Protestant, in every period lince the Reformation, as well as Abbot, has considered as a snare, and treated accordingly.” Another affair which occurred in 1613, created no little perplexity to our archbishop, while it afforded him an opportunity of evincing a decidedness of character not common at that period. This was the case of divorce between lady Frances Howard, daughter to the earl of Suffolk, and Robert, earl of Essex, her husband, which has always been considered as one of the greatest blemishes of king James’s reign. The part Abbot took in this matter displayed his unshaken and incorruptible integrity; and he afterwards published his reasons for opposing the divorce, as a measure tending to encourage public licentiousness. If this conduct displeased the king, he does not appear to have withdrawn his favour from the archbishop, as in 1615 he promoted his brother, Robert, to the see of Salisbury. The archbishop was less prudent in recommending -to the king, George Villiers, afterwards the celebrated duke of Buckingham; but of this he lived to repent, and to leave a satisfactory vindication.

Towards the close of 1616, the learned Antonio de Dominis, archbishop of Spalato, took shelter in England, from the persecution with which he was threatened by the Pope, for discovering his dislike both of the doctrine and discipline of the church of Rome, and was very kindly received by his majesty, and hospitably entertained by the archbishop. It was by his means that the archbishop got Father Paul’s History of the Council of Trent transmitted into this country. Mr. Nathaniel Brent was employed on this service, and succeeded in procuring the whole of the manuscript, although with some hazard to himself. In 1618, while lamenting the death of his brother the bishop of Salisbury, which happened in March of that year, he encountered a fresh anxiety from the king’s declaration for permitting sports and pastimes on the Lord’s day. This declaration, usually called the Book of Sports, was ordered to be read in the churches; but the archbishop, being at Croydon when it came thither, had the courage to forbid its being read.

Abelard, unable to support his mortifying reflections, and probably those of his enemies, resolved to retire to a convent; but first, with a selfishness which seems to have been characteristic in him, insisted upon Heloise’s promising to devote herself to religion. She accordingly submitted, and professed herself in the abbey of Argenteuil. Her romantic ardour of affection supported her through this sacrifice, and seems never to have forsaken her to the latest moment of her life. A few days after she had taken her vows, Abelard assumed a monastic habit in the abbey of St. Denys; but, upon the earnest solicitations of his admirers and scholars, he resumed his lectures at a small village in the country, and with his usual popularity. His rival professors, however, soon discovered an opportunity of bringing him under ecclesiastical censures. A treatise which he published about this time, entitled, “The Theology of Abelard,” was said to contain some heretical tenets respecting the Trinity. The work was accordingly presented to the archbishop of Rheims as heretical; and, in a synod called at Soissons in the year 1121, it was condemned to be burnt by the author’s own hand: he was further enjoined to read, as his confession of faith, the Athanasian creed, and was ordered to be confined in the convent of St. Medard; but this arbitrary proceeding excited such general dissatisfaction, that, after a short imprisonment, he was permitted to return to St. Denys. But here, too, his enemies endeavoured to bring him into new disgrace. Having read in Bede’s Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles that Denys (Dionysius) the Areopagite was not Bishop of Athens, but of Corinth, he ventured this passage as a proof, that the patron of the convent, and of the French nation, was not, as commonly believed, the Areopagite, but another St. Dionysius, bishop of Athens. A violent ferment was immediately raised in the convent; and Abelard, being accused to the bishop and the king, as a calumniator of the order, and an enemy to his country, found it necessary to escape with a few friends to the convent of St. Ayoul, at Provins, in Champagne, the prior of which was his intimate friend. But even here persecution, followed him, until at length, with difficulty, he obtained permission to retire to some solitary retreat, on condition that he should never again become a member of a convent.

It was during Abelard’s residence at St. Gildas, that the interesting correspondence passed between him and Heloise, which is still extant, and that he wrote the memoirs of his life which came down to the year 1134. The letters of Heloise, in this correspondence, abound with proofs of genius, learning, and taste, which might have graced a Better age. It is upon these letters that Mr. Pope formed his “Epistle from Eloisa to Abelard,” which, however, deviates in some particulars from the genuine character and story of Heloise, and is yet more seriously censurable on account of its immoral tendency. Here, too, Abelard probably wrote his “Theology,” or revised it, which again subjected him to prosecution. William, abbot of St. Thievry, the friend f Bernard, now abbot of Clairvaux, brought a formal charge against him for heresy in thirteen articles, copied from the “Theology.” Bernard, after an unsuccessful private remonstrance, accused Abelard to pope Innocent II. of noxious errors and mischievous designs. Abelard, with the concurrence of the archbishop of Sens, challenged his accuser to appear in a public assembly, shortly to be held in that city, and make good his accusation. The abbot at first declined accepting the challenge; but afterwards made his appearance, and delivered to the assembly the heads of his accusation. Abelard, instead of replying, appealed to Rome, which did not prevent the council from examining the charges, and pronouncing his opinions heretical. It was, however, judged necessary to inform the bishop of Rome of the proceedings, and to request his confirmation of the sentence. In the mean time, Bernard, by letters written to the Roman prelates, strongly urged them to silence, without delay, this dangerous innovator. His importunity succeeded; for the pope, without waiting for the arrival of Abelard, pronounced his opinions heretical, and sentenced him to perpetual silence and confinement. Immediately upon being informed of the decision, Abelard set out for Rome, in hopes of being permitted to plead his cause before his holiness. In his way he called at Cluni, a monastery on the confines of Burgundy, where he found a 2ealous friend in Peter Maurice, the abbot, and also in Reinardus, the abbot of Citeaux, who negociated a reconciliation between him and Bernard, while Peter, by his earnest remonstrances, procured his pardon at Rome, and he was permitted to end his days in the monastery of Cluni.

“Nor was he uncommon in his moral character. He had not to thank nature for any great degree of sensibility, that source of pain and of pleasure, of virtue and of vice. Thrown, from early youth, into habits which could not meliorate his dispositions, he became selfish, opiniative, and vain-glorious. What did not serve to gratify his own humour, called for little of his regard. He wished to appear above the common feelings of humanity, for his philosophy was not of a nature to make him the friend of man. Of religion he knew little more than the splendid theory; and its amiable precepts were too obvious and familiar to engage the attention, and modify the heart, of an abstruse and speculative reasoner. When he loved Heloise, it was not her person, nor her charms, nor her abilities, nor her virtues, which he loved: he sought only his own gratification; and in its pursuit no repulsion of innocence could thwart him, no voice of duty, of friendship, of unguarded confidence, could impede his headlong progress. He suffered: and from that moment rather he became a man. We may blame him, perhaps, that he should so easily forget Heloise: but I have said that he never really loved her. More than other men, he was not free to command his affections: and from motives of religion, perhaps even of compassion, he wished in her breast to check that ardent flame, which burned to no other purpose than to render her heart miserable, and her life forlorn.

, Aven-Hezer, or Ben-Meir, (Abraham), a celebrated Rabbi, born at Toledo, in Spain, in 1099, called by the Jews, the wise, great, and admirable doctor, was a very able interpreter of the Holy Scriptures, and was well skilled in grammar, poetry, philosophy, astronomy, and in medicine. He was also a perfect master of the Arabic. His style is in general clear, elegant, concise, and much like that of the Holy Scriptures; he almost always adheres to the literal sense, and everywhere gives proofs of his genius and good sense: he however advances some erroneous sentiments, and his conciseness sometimes makes his style obscure. He travelled in most parts of Europe, visiting England, France, Italy, Greece, &c. for the purpose of acquiring knowledge, and far surpassed his brethren both in sacred and profane learning. He wrote theological, grammatical, and astronomical works, many of which remain in manuscript, but the following have been published: 1. “Perus a l'Altora,” or a commentary on the Law, fol. Constantinople, 5262 (1552), a very rare edition. There is likewise another edition printed at Venice, 1576, fol. 2. “Jesod Mora,” intended as an exhortation to the study of the Talmud, Constantinople, 8vo. 1530, by far the most scarce of all his works. 3. “Elegantiæ Grammaticæ,” Venice, 1546, 8vo. 4. “De Luminaribus et Diebus criticis liber,” Leyden, 1496, 4to. of which there have been three editions. 5. “De Nativitatibus,” Venice, 1485, 4to, republished by John Dryander, Col. 1537, 4to. He died in 1174 at the island of Rhodes, in the 75th year of his age, but some have placed his death in 1165.

, or Aben-Mallek, a learned rabbi of the 17th century, who wrote a commentary on the Bible, called in Hebrew the “Beauty of Holiness,” Amst. 1661, fol. Different parts of it have been translated into Latin, and printed, 4to and 8vo, in Germany. This rabbi follows the grammatical sense, and the opinions of Kimchi .

, an eminent dissenting minister in Ireland, was born Oct. 19, 1680: his father was a dissenting minister in Colraine, his mother a Walkiushaw of Renfrewshire, in Scotland. In 1689 he was separated from his parents; his father having been employed by the Presbyterian clergy to solicit some public affairs in London, at a time when his mother, to avoid the tumult of the insurrections in Ireland, withdrew to Derry. He was at this time with a relation, who in that general confusion determined to remove to Scotland; and having no opportunity of conveying the child to his mother, carried him along with him. Thus he happily escaped the hardships of the siege of Derry, in which Mrs. Abernethy lost all her other children. Having spent some years at a grammar-school, he was removed to Glasgow college, where he continued till he took the degree of M. A. His own inclination led him to the study of physic, but he was dissuaded from it by his friends, and turned to that of divinity; in pursuance of which he went to Edinburgh, and was some time under the care of the celebrated professor Campbell. At his return home, he proceeded in his studies with such success, that he. was licensed to preach by the presbytery before he was 21 years of age. In 1708, having a call by the dissenting congregation at Antrim, he was ordained. His congregation was large, and he applied himself to the pastoral work with great diligence. His preaching was much admired; and, as his heart was set upon the acquisition of knowledge, he was very industrious in reading. In 1716, he attempted to remove the prejudices of the native Irish in the neighbourhood of Antrim, who were of the Popish persuasion, and bring them over to the Protestant faith. His labours were not without success, for several were induced to renounce their errors. About the time the Bangorian controversy was on foot in England, encouraged by the freedom of discussion which it had occasioned, a considerable number of ministers and others, in the North of Ireland, formed themselves into a society for their improvement in useful knowledge. Their plan was to bring things to the test of reason and scripture, without having a servile regard to any human authority. Abernethy pursued this design with much zeal, and constantly attended their meetings at Belfast, whence it was called the Belfast society. Debates, however, soon grew warm, and dissensions high among them, on the subject of requiring subscription to the Westminster confession. This controversy, on the negative side of which Abernethy was one of the principal leaders, was brought into the general synod, and ended in a rupture in 1726. The synod determined, that those ministers, who at the time of this rupture, and for some years before, were known by the name of non-subscribers, should be no longer of their body: the consequence of which was, that the ministers of this denomination found everywhere great difficulties arising from jealousies spread among their people. The reputation which Abernethy had acquired began now to decay, and some of his people forsook his ministry, and went to other congregations: and in a short time the number of the scrupulous and dissatisfied so increased, that they were by the synod erected into a distinct congregation, and provided with a minister. There happened about this time a vacancy in the congregation of Wood-street, in Dublin: to this Abernethy had an invitation, which he accepted. When he came to Dublin, he applied himself to study and to the composing of sermons with as great industry as ever. He wrote all his sermons at full length, and constantly made use of his notes in the pulpit. Here he continued his labours for ten years with much reputation: and while his friends, from the strength of his constitution and his perfect temperance, promised themselves a longer enjoyment of him, he was attacked by the gout, to which he had been subject, in a vital part, and died, Dec. 1740, in the 60th year of his age.

, an English divine, was educated at Oxford, where he took the degree of B. A. July 4, 1513, and that of M. A. June 27, 1516, and afterwards proceeding in divinity, became doctor of that faculty. He was not only a man of learning, but a great master of instrumental music, and well skilled in the modern languages. These qualifications introduced him at court, where he became domestic chaplain to queen Catherine, wife of Henry VIII. and tauoht her music and grammar. Strype calls him “the lady Marie’s chaplain.” In 1530 queen Catherine gave him the living of Bradwelljuxta-mare, in Essex; and the affection he bore to his royal mistress engaged him in that dangerous controversy which was occasioned by king Henry’s determination to divorce Catherine that he might be at liberty to marry Anne Bullen. Able opposed this divorce both by word and writing, publishing a tract, entitled, “Tractatus de non dissolvendo Henrici et Catherinæ matrimonio.” Tanner mentions this, or perhaps another tract, by the name of “Invicta Veritas: An answer, that by no manner of Jaw it may be lawful for the king to be divorced from the queen’s grace, his lawful and very wife.” It is not improbable that this was a distinct tract from the former, as in the Stat. 25 Henry VIII. c. 12, he is mentioned as having “caused to be printed divers books against the said divorce and separation animating the said lady Catherine to persist in her opinion against the divorce procured divers writings to be made by her by the name of Queen-­abetted her servants to call her Queen.” In 1534 he was prosecuted for being concerned in the affair of Elizabeth Barton, called the Holy Maid of Kent, and was found guilty of misprision of treason. He was also one of those who denied the king’s supremacy over the church; for which he was imprisoned, and afterwardshanged, drawn, and quartered in Smithfield, July 30, 1540. In a room in Beauchamp’s Tower, in the Tower of London, anciently a place of confinement for state prisoners, are a great number of inscriptions on the wall, written by the prisoners, and among others, under the word Thomas a great A upon a bell, a punning rebus on his name.

, an eminent Greek scholar and commentator, was born at Hamburgh, Dec. 29, 1699. At the age of thirteen, he went to a village called Dabha-usen, or Taubhausen, near the town of Griefenstein, where there was then a French colony, to learn that language; and made so much progress within seven months, that it appeared to be his native tongue. On his return home, he studied Latin and Greek; and, as his father designed him for the church, he was sent, in 1717, to the college of Herborn, a small town in the principality of Nassau-Dillenbuvgh, where, for two years and a half, he went through a course of philosophy, and studied Hebrew and divinity. In 1720, he removed to the university of Utrecht, where the instructions of the celebrated Drakenburgh and Duker inspired him with a decided taste for ancient literature, and he gave up divinity. About the end of 1723, when he had finished his studies at Utrecht, and wished to go through the same course at Leyden, he was appointed vice-director of the college of Middleburgh. In 1725, he was promoted to be rector ofthe same college; and, in 1741, he filled the same office in that of Zwol, in Over-yssel, where he remained until his death, in 1782.

, commonly called IbnHaklma, son to Aaron a Christian physician, was born in 1226, in the city of Malatia. near the source of the Euphrates in Armenia. He is said by some to have followed the profession of his father, and practised with great success, numbers of people coming from the most remote parts to ask his advice; but others doubt this account. However, he would hardly have been known at this time, had his knowledge been confined to physic; but he applied himself to the study of the Greek, Syriac, and Arabic languages, as well as philosophy and divinity; and he wrote a history, which does honour to his memory. It is written in Arabic, and divided into dynasties. It consists of ten parts, being an epitome of universal history from the creation of the world to his own time. Dr. Pococke published it, with a Latin translation in 1663, Oxford, 2 vols. 4to, and added, by way of supplement, a short continuation relating to the history of the Eastern princes. Dr. Pococke had published in 1650, an abridgment of the ninth dynasty, as a “Specimen Histories Arabian.”

, or Abou-Navas, an Arabian poet of the first class, was born in the city of Bassora, in the year 762, and died in 810. He left his native country in order to go to settle at Cufa; but did not continue long there, as the caliph Haroun Al Raschid would have him near his person at Bagdad, and gave him an apartment in his palace with Abou-Massaab and Rekashi, two other excellent poets. His principal works have been collected into a body, called by the Arabians a Diwan t or volume, by various persons; for which reason there is a great difference in the copies of this author.

, a name assumed by a French poetical writer of the 16th century, who likewise sometimes called himself Maistre Tyburce. He resided at the town of Papetourte, whence he published or dated most of his productions, and called himself clerk or royal notary of Pont-St.-Esprit. He died, according to some biographers, in 1540 or 1544; and, according to others, in 1550. He wrote: 1. “Moralite, mystere, et figure de la Passion de N. S. Jesus Christ,” Lyons, printed by Benoit Rigaut, 8vo, without date, and now so rare that only one copy is known to exist, which is in the imperial library of Paris, and formerly belonged to that of La Valliere. 2. “La Joyeulx Mystere des trois Roys,” ms. in the same library. 3. “Farce nouvelle tres bonne et tres joyeuse de la Cornette,” ms. 4. “Le Gouvert d'Humanite, moralité a personnaiges,” printed at Lyons. 5. “Le Monde qui tourne le dos a chascun, et Plusieurs qui n'a point de conscience,” printed also at Lyons. According to the practice of the writers of his age, he assumed a device, which was Jin sans Jin. The titles and dates of his other works are given in the Bibliotheque of De Verdier, and consist of short poems, ballads, rondeaus, songs, &c.

, surnamed Luscus, from his having but one eye, the disciple of Eusebius bishop of Cassarea, whom he succeeded in the year 338 or 340. Though scarce inferior to the former in erudition, eloquence, and reputation, he was deposed by the council of Sardica, together with several other bishops, who had declared themselves of his opinion; and who afterwards assembled at Philippolis, in Thrace; where, in their turn, they fulminated against Athanasius, pope Julius, and the rest of their antagonists. Acacius had also a great share in the banishment of pope Liberius, and bringing Felix into the see of Rome, he gave his name to a sect who were called Acaciani. He was a man of great genius and distinguished learning; and wrote several books before he was made a bishop, and particularly a book against Marceilus of Ancyra, of which Epiphanius has given us a fragment. Some time after he was made a bishop, he wrote the “Life of Eusebius” his predecessor; not now extant, but mentioned in Socrates’ history. St. Jerome says that he wrote 17 volumes of commentaries on Ecclesiastes, or probably a commentary in 17 books; and six volumes of miscellanies. He died in the year 365.

was one of the sons of the preceding, and,on account of the great fame of his poetry, called Unico Aretino; but such of his works as have descended to our days are not calculated to preserve the very extraordinary reputation which he enjoyed from his contemporaries. According to them, no fame could be equal to what he obtained at the court of Urbino and at Rome, in the time of Leo X. When it was known that the Unico was to recite his verses, the shops were shut, and all business suspended; guards were necessary at the doors, and the most learned scholars and prelates often interrupted the poet by loud acclamations. The testimony of his contemporaries, and among them, of the Cardinal Bembo, will not permit us to doubt that his merit was extraordinary; but it is probable that he owed his fame more to his talents at extempore verse, than to those which he prepared by study. In the latter, however, there is an elegance of style, and often the fancy and nerve of true poetry. His poems were first printed at Florence in 1513, under the title “Virginia comedia, capitoli, e strambotti di messer Bernardo, Accolti Aretino, in Firenze (al di Francesco Rossegli),” 8vo; and at Venice, 1519, “Opera nuova del preclarissimo messer Bernardo Accolti Aretino, scrittore apostolico ed abbreviatore, &c.” 8vo, and have been often re-printed. In this volume, his comedy “Virginie,” written, according to the custom of the age, in the ottava rima, and other measures, obtained its name from a natural daughter, whom he gave in marriage to a nobleman, with a large dowry. Leo X. who had an esteem for him, gave him the employment of apostolic secretary; and is likewise said to have given him the duchy of Nepi; but Accolti informs us, in one of his letters to Peter Aretin, that he purchased this with his own money, and that Paul III. afterwards deprived him of it. The dates of his birth and death are not known; but he was living in the time of Ariosto, who mentions him as a person of great consideration at the court of Urbino.

, the brother of Benedetto, and usually called Francis D'Arezzo, or Aretin, from the place of his birth, was born in 1418. The celebrated Francis Philelphus was his preceptor in polite learning; after which he studied law under the ablest professors, and became himself one of their number, teaching that faculty at Bologna, Ferrara, and Sienna. He was for five years secretary to the duke of Milan, and died of the stone at the baths of Sienna, in 1483. He has been accused, but without proof, of the grossest avarice. If he left vast wealth, it was owing to the profits of his profession, of which he was acknowledged to be the ablest and most successful practitioner. A journey which he made to Rome, when Sixtus IV. was Pope, has given rise to another story, equally without proof, that he solicited to be made Cardinal, which the Pope refused, on pretence of the injury that would accrue to learning from such a promotion. Another story is recorded, more to his honour. While professor of law at Ferrara, he had occasion to lecture to his scholars on the advantages of a character known for probity and honour; and, in order to exemplify his doctrine, he went in the night, accompanied by only one servant, broke open the butchers’ stalls, and took away some pieces. The law-students were immediately suspected of the robbery, and two of them, of indifferent character, were imprisoned. The Professor then went before the Duke, demanded their release, and accused himself: having proved the fact, which was with difficulty believed, he took the opportunity to show the advantage of a good character, and the dangers of a bad one.

, grandson of the preceding, and son of. Clearchus Achillini and Poly xena Buoi, was born at Bologna in 1574. After studying grammar, the belles lettres, and philosophy, he entered on the study of the law, and prosecuted it with so much success, that he was honoured with a doctor’s degree at the age of twenty, Dec. 16, 1594, and became a professor of that science at Bologna, Ferrara, and Parma, where he acquired great reputation. His learning was so much admired that an inscription to his honour was put up in the public schools, and both popes and cardinals gave him hopes, which were never realized, of making his fortune. Towards the end of his life he lived principally in a country house called Il Sasso, and died there Oct. 1, 1640. His body was carried to Bologna, and interred in the tomb of his ancestors in the church of St. Martin. He is principally known now by his poetry, in which he was an imitator of Marino, and with much of the bad taste of his age. It has been asserted that he received a gold chain worth a thousand crowns from the court of France, for a poem on the conquests of Louis XIII.; but this reward was sent him by the Cardinal Richelieu, in consequence of some verses he wrote on the birth of the dauphin. His poems were printed at Bologna, 1632, 4to, and were reprinted with some prose pieces, under the title “Rime e Prose,” Venice, 1651, 12mo, He published also in Latin “Decas Epistolarum ad Jacobum Gaufridum,” Parma, 1635, 4to.

, a young man of great erudition, whom Baillet has enrolled among his “Enfans celebres,” and who would have proved one of the ablest critics of his time, had he enjoyed a longer life, was born at Wistock, in the march of Brandenburgh, in 1567. In his seventeenth year he composed some poetical pieces in Latin, which are not very highly esteemed. In 1589, he went to Helmstadt to pursue his studies, and there published some of his poems, which were reprinted after his death, at Leibnitz, in 1605, with those of Janus Lernutius and Janus Gulielmus. They are also inserted in the first volume of the “Delicise Poetarum Germanorum;” and several of his pieces are in the second volume of Caspar Dornavius’ “Amphitheatrum sapientiae Socraticae Jocoseriue,” Hanau, 1619. From Helmstadt, Acidalius went to Italy in 1590, and acquired the esteem and friendship of the most distinguished scholars; and here he studied medicine, but does not appear to have entered into practice. Before he went to Italy, he had begun his commentary on Paterculus, and published his edition of that author at Padua, in the above-mentioned year, 12mo. He adopted the text of Schegkius, but introduced corrections, and such new readings as appeared well founded. For this, however, he has been censured by Boeder, J. Mercier, and Burmann; and it has been said that he himself condemned this early production. His contemporaries appear to have thought more favourably of his labours, as his notes were adopted in the edition of Paterculus published at Lyons, 1595, 8vo; and they were again added to an edition of Tacitus printed after his death, at Paris, in 1608, folio. After remaining three years in Italy, he returned to Germany; and at Neiss, the residence of the bishop of Breslaw, he embraced the Roman Catholic religion. At this place he continued his critical researches on Quintus Curtius, Plautus, the twelve ancient Panegyrics, Tacitus, and some other authors. In 1594, he published, at Francfort, his “Animadversiones in Quintum Curtium,” 8vo; which have been adopted in the Francfort edition of that author, 1597, and Snakenburg’s edition, Leyden, 1724, 4to. His sudden death, May 25, 1595, at the age of 28, put a stop to his useful labours. At that time his observations on Plautus were in the press, and were published the following year at Francfort, 8vo, and again in 1607; and they are inserted in J. Gruter’s “Lampas Critica.” They conferred upon him a wellearned reptitation; and Barthius and Lipsius, with others, bore testimony to his growing merit as a critic. His remarks on the Ancient Panegyrics and on Tacitus were published in 1607, and the former were added to J. Gruter’s edition, Francfort, 1607, 12mo. They are, likewise, examined and compared with those of other scholars, in the fine edition of the Panegyrics published at Utrecht by Arntzenius, in 1790, 4to. His notes on Tacitus are in the edition of that author printed at Paris, 1608, fol. (where he is by mistake called Acidalus); in that of Gronovius, Amsterdam, 1635, 4to, and 1673, 2 vols. 8vo. We also owe to Acidalius, some notes on Ausonius, given in Tollius’ edition of that author, Amsterdam, 1671, 8vo. and notes on Quintilian’s dialogue de Oratoribus, added to Gronovius’ edition of Tacitus, Utrecht, 1721, 4to. It appears by his letters, that he had written observations on Apuleius and Aulus Gellius, but these have not been printed. His letters were published at Hanau, 1606, 8vo r by his brother Christian, under the title of “Epistolarum centuria una, cui accessemnt apologetica ad clariss. virum Jac. Monavium, et Oratio de vera carminis elegiaci natura et constitutione.” In the preface, his brother vindicates his character against the misrepresentations circulated in consequence of his embracing the Roman Catholic religion, particularly with regard to the manner of his death. Spme asserted that he became suddenly mad, and others that he laid violent hands on himself. It appears, however, that he died of a fever, brought on by excess i&f study. It still remains to be noticed, that he is said to have been the author of a pamphlet, published in 1595, entitled, “Mulieres non esse homines,” “Women are not men; i. e. not thinking and reasonable beings;” but he had no other hand in this work than in conveying it to his bookseller, who was prosecuted for publishing it. It was, in fact, a satire on the Socinian mode of interpreting the Scriptures; and a French translation of it appeared in 1744, 12mo.

, one of the writers in the Byzantine history, was born at Constantinople in the year 1220, and brought up at the court of the emperor John Ducas, at Nice. He studied mathematics, poetry, and rhetoric under Theodorus Exapterygus, and learned logic of Nicephorus Blemmidas. In his one-and-twentieth year, he maintained a learned dispute with Nicholas the physician, concerning the eclipse of tLe sun, before the emperor John. He was at length appointed great logothete, and employed in the most important affairs of the empire. John Ducas sent him ambassador to Larissa, to establish a peace with Michael of Epirus. He was also constituted judge by this emperor, to try Michael Comnenus on a suspicion of being engaged in a conspiracy. Theodorus Lascaris, the son of John, whom he had taught logic, appointed him governor of all the western provinces of his empire. When he held this government, in the year 1255, being engaged in a war with Michael Angelus, he was taken prisoner by him. In 1260, he gained his liberty by means of the emperor Palasologus, who sent him ambassador to Constantine prince of Bulgaria. After his return, he applied himself wholly to the instruction of youth, in which employment he acquitted himself with great honour for many years; but being at last weary of the fatigue, he resigned it to Holobolus. In 1272, he sat as one of the judges upon the cause of John Vecchus, patriarch of Constantinople. The year following he was sent to pope Gregory, to settle a peace and re-union between the two churches, which was accordingly concluded; and he swore to it, in the emperor’s name, at the second council of Lyons, in 1274. He was sent ambassador to John prince of Bulgaria in 1382, and died soon after his return. His principal work is his “Historia Byzantina,” Gr. Lat. Paris, fol. 1651. This history, which he was well qualified to write, as he took an active part in public aifajrs, contains the history of about fifty-eight years; i.e. from 1203, when Baldwin, earl of Flanders, was crowned emperor, to 1261, when M. Palseologus put himself in the place of Baldwin II. A manuscript translation of it, by sir William Petty, was in Mr. Ames’s collection. The original was found in the east by Douza, and first published in 1614; but the Paris edition is superior, and now very scarce. His theological writings were never printed. His son Coustantine succeeded him as grand logothete, and was called by the Greeks, the younger Metaphrastes, from his having written the lives of some of the saints in the manner of Simeon Metaphrastes. There is little else in his history that is interesting.

, an English lawyer, and sometime recorder of London, was born in that city, and educated at Peter-house, Cambridge; where he took the degree of B. A. 1764, and of M. A. 1767. After prosecuting his lawstudies, he was admitted to the bar, and began to distinguish himself about the year 1770, when he took an active part in the political contentions of that period. Having sided with Mr. Wilkes in the memorable dispute between that gentleman and his co-patriot Mr. Home, Mr. Wilkes spoke of him at political meetings in such a manner as to draw the public eye upon him; and in 1779 he was chosen recorder of London, although not without a contest with his opponent Mr. Howarth. This situation he retained for some years, while his advancement at the bar was rapid, and highly honourable to his talents. The duties of the recordership he discharged with much ability, strict justice, and humanity. The situation, however, was rendered in some degree irksome by the changes of political sentiment which had taken place among his constituents, the members of the corporation. When he was chosen into this office, the city was out of humour with the court, and Mr. Adair probably owed his election to his being reputedly of Wilkes’s party, who was still rhe idol of the city. A great revolution, however, took place when the coalition-administration (that of lord North and Mr. Fox) was overthrown. Mr. Pitt and his friends, and by consequence the King and court, became highly popular in the city, while Mr. Adair retained his old opinions, took the part of the dismissed ministers, and became a zealous assertor of the whig principles which were then divulged from a newly-erected club, called the Whig club. This could not please his city friends; although such was his impartiality and integrity, that no fault could be found with the manner in which he discharged the duties of his office. The Common-council, however, requiring a closer attendance at their courts than he thought requisite, or was perhaps consistent with his numerous professional engagements in the court of Common pleas, he chose to resign the recordership in 1789; and upon this occasion received the thanks of the Court of Aldermen, and the freedom of the city in a gold box of one hundred guineas value, for his able and upright conduct in that office; and he was ordered to be retained, with the attorney and solicitorgeneral, in all causes in which the city was concerned.

, or Adelard, born about the year 753, was son of count Bernard, grandson of Charles Martel, and cousin-german of Charlemagne. He had been invited to the court in his youth, but, fearing the infection of such a mode of life, had retired; and, at the age of 20 years, became a monk of Corbie in Picardy, and was at length chosen abbot of the monastery. His imperial relation, however, forced him again to attend the court, where he still preserved the dispositions of a recluse, and took every opportunity, which business allowed, for private prayer and meditation. After the death of Charlemagne, he was, on unjust suspicions, banished by Lewis the Meek, to a monastery on die coast of Acquitaine, in the isle of Here. After a banishment of five years, Lewis, sensible of his own injustice, recalled Adalard, and heaped on him the highest honours. The monk was, however, the same man in prosperity and in adversity, and in the year 823 obtained leave to return to Corbie. Every week he addressed each of the monks in particular 5 he exhorted them in pathetic discourses, and laboured for the spiritual good of the country around his monastery. His liberality seems to have bordered on excess; and his humility induced him to receive advice from the meanest monk. When desired to live less austerely, he would frequently say, “I will take care of your servant, that he may be enabled to attend on you the longer.” Another Adalard, who had governed the monastery during his banishment, by the direction of our Adalard, prepared the foundation of a distinct monastery, called New Corbie, near Paderborn, as a nursery for ecclesiastical laboarers, who. should instruct the northern nations. Our Adalard now completed this scheme; went himself to New Corbie twice, and settled its discipline. The success of this truly charitable project was great: many learned and zealous missionaries were furnished from the new seminary, and it became a light to the north of Europe. Adalard promoted learning in his monasteries, for he was himself a man of great learning; and instructed the people both in Latin and French: and after his second return from Germany to old Corbie, he died ill the year 827, aged 73. Such is the account given us of Adalard, a character, there is reason to believe, of eminent piety and usefulness in a dark age. To convert monasteries into seminaries of pastoral education, was a thought far above the taste of the age in which he lived, and tended to emancipate those superstitious institutions from the unprofitable and illiberal bondage in which they had long subsisted. His principal work work was “A treatise on the French Monarchy;” but fragments only of any of his works have come down to our times. Hincmar has incorporated the treatise on the French monarchy in his: fourteenth Opusculum, “for the instruction of king Carloman.” The ancient statutes of of the abbey of Corbie, by our author, are in the fourth volume of D'Achery’s Spicilegium.

, archbishop of Rheims, and chancellor of France, under the reigns of Lothaire and Louis V. was one of the most learned French prelates of the tenth century. Having attained the archbishoprick in the year 969, he called several councils for the establishment of ecclesiastical discipline, which he enforced by his example with much firmness of mind. He also induced men of learning to resort to Rheims, and gave a high renown to the schools of that city. In the year 987, he consecrated Hugh Capet, who continued him in his office of grand chancellor. He died Jan. 5, 988. Several of his letters are among those of Gerbert, afterwards pope Sylvester II.; and two of his discourses are in Moissac’s Chronicle. The cathedral of Rheims was indebted to him for the greater part of its sumptuous furniture.

, so called because he was a canon of that church. He was born, according to some writers, at Misnia in the eleventh century; he devoted himself early to the church, and in 1067, was made a canon by Adelbert, archbishop of Bremen, and at the same time placed at the head of the school of that city, a situation equally important and honourable at a time when schools were the only establishments for public instruction. Adam employed his whole life in the functions of his office, in propagating religion, and in compiling his history, “Historia ecclesiastica ecclesiarum Hamburgensis et Bremensis vicinorurnque locorum septentrionalium, ab anno 788 ad annum 1072,” Copenhagen, 1579, 4to; Leyden, 159.5, 4to; Helmstadt, 1670, 4to the latter, edited by John Mader, is the best edition. This work contains the most accurate account we have of the establishment of Christianity in the north of Europe. As Bremen was the centre of the missions for this purpose, in which Adam was himself engaged, and had travelled over the countries visited by Anscharius about 200 years before, he had the farther advantage of making valuable collections from the archives of the archbishoprick, the library of his convent, and the conversations he held with the missionaries. He lived in an age when the dignified clergy were not inattentive to temporal affairs, and yet acquitted himself with much impartiality in writing the history of his patron Adelbert, a man of intrigue and ambition. He made a tour in Denmark, where he was favourably received by the reigning sovereign; and on his return wrote a geographical treatise, which was published at Stockholm, under the title of “Chronographia Scandinavise,” 1615, 8vo, and afterwards at Leyden, with the title “De situ Daniae et reliquarum trans Daniam regionum natura,” 1629. This short work is added to Mader’s edition of his history, and although not without a portion of the fabulous, is curious as the first attempt to describe the North of Europe, particularly Jutland, and some of the islands in the Baltic. We also owe to Adam of Bremen the first accounts of the interior of Sweden, and of Russia, the name of which only was then known in Christian Europe. He even speaks of the island of Great Britain, but chiefly from the accounts of Solinus and Martian us Capella, as his visits did not extend so far. This description of the North has been preserved by Lindenbrog in his “Scriptores rerum Gerrn. septentrional.” Hamburgh, 1706; and Muray, one of the most distinguished professors of Gottingen, has enriched it with a learned commentary. The time of our author’s death is not known.

His brother James died Oct. 20, 1794, also very eminent as an architect, of which that magnificent range of buildings called Portland-place, afford an undeniable proof. Most of his other works were executed in conjunction with his brother.

, a famous Sorbonnic doctor, flourished in the 12th century. This author, who is well known as a monkish writer, and a voluminous author of biography, was born in Scotland, and educated in the monastery of Lindisferne, now called Holy Island, a few miles south of Berwick on Tweed, at that time one of the most famous seminaries of learning in the north of England. He went afterwards to Paris, where he settled several years, and taught school divinity, in the Sorbonne. In his latter years he returned to his native country, and became a monk in the abbey of Melrose, and afterwards in that of Durham, where he wrote the life of St. Columbanus, and the lives of 'some other monks of the 6th century. He likewise wrote the life of David I. king of Scotland, who died 1153. He died in 1195. His works were printed at Antwerp in fol. 1659.

, M. A. an English Non-conformist, of a Cheshire family, was originally educated at Cambridge, where he was admitted M. A. in 1644. He afterwards went to Oxford, then in the power of the Parliament army, and was admitted a student at Brasen-nose college in 1646, when about 20 years of age; and soon after obtained a fellowship. In 1655, he left his fellowship, and was presented to the living of St. Mildred’s, Bread-street, London, where he continued until he was ejected for nonconformity, in 1662. He afterwards preached, as he had opportunity, to a small congregation in Southwark, and died in 1684, at Hoxton. His only original works are, some Sermons in the collection called the Morning Elxercise at Cripplegate, and a Sermon at the funeral of Henry Hurst; but he assisted in the publication of some of his brother’s, Mr. T. Adams, works, and those of Mr. Charnock; and he compiled the commentary on Philippians end Colossians in Poole’s bible. He appears to have been an able scholar, a pious and indefatigable preacher, and a man of moderate sentiments in public affairs. There was another of both his names ejected from the living of Humberstone, in Leicestershire, afterwards an Anabaptist teacher in London.

In 1732, he was presented to the curacy? or, as usually called, the vicarage of St. Chad’s in Shrewsbury, and on this occasion quitted the college. In 1756 he visited Oxford, and took his degrees of B. D, and D. D. and then went back to Shrewsbury, where he discharged the duties of his ministry with exemplary assiduity, patience, and affection; and contributed a very active part in the foundation of the Salop infirmary, and in promoting its success. The year before he went last to Oxford, he was presented to the rectory of Counde in Shropshire, by Mrs. Elizabeth Cressett of that place, and retained it during his life. In 1775, about 43 years after he left college, Dr. Ratcliffe, master of Pembroke college, died; and although Dr. Adams had outlived almost all his contemporaries, the gentlemen of the college came to a determination to elect him, a mark of respect due to his public character, and highly creditable to their discernment. He accordingly became master of Pembroke, July 26, 1775, and in consequence obtained a prebend of Gloucester, which is attached to that office. He now resigned the living of St. Chad, to the lasting regret of his hearers, as well as of the inhabitants at large, to whom he had long been endeared by his amiable character, and pious attention to the spiritual welfare of his flock. He was soon after made archdeacon of Llandaff. Over the college he presided with universal approbation, and engaged the affections of the students by his courteous demeanour and affability, mixed with the firmness necessary for the preservation of discipline. In his apartments here, he frequently cheered the latter days of his old friend Dr. Johnson, whom he survived but a few years; dying at his prebendal house at Gloucester, Jan. 13, 1789, aged 82. He was interred in Gloucester cathedral, where a monument was erected. with an inscription, which celebrates his ingenuity, learning, eloquence, piety, and benevolence. Dr. Adams married Miss Sarah Hunt, by whom he left a daughter, married, in 1788, to B. Hyatt, esq. of Painswick, in Gloucestershire, who died July 1810.

, a Scottish prelate, archbishop of St. Andrew’s. He was born 1543, in the town of Perth, where he received the rudiments of his education, and afterwards studied philosophy, and took his degree of M. A. at the university of St. Andrew’s. In the year 1566 he set out for Paris, as tutor to a young gentleman. In the month of June in the same year, Mary queen of Scots being delivered of a son, afterwards James VI. of Scotland, and first of England, Mr. Adamson wrote a Latin poem on the occasion, in which he styled him king of England and France. This proof of his loyalty involved him in some difficulties, causing him to be arrested in France, and confined for six months; but he escaped by the intercession, of queen Mary, and some of the principal nobility. As soon as he recovered his liberty, he retired with his pupil to Bourges. He was in this city during the massacre at Paris; and, the same bloody persecuting spirit prevailing amongst the Catholics at Bourges as at the metropolis, he lived concealed for seven months at a public-house, the master of which, upwards of 70 years of age, was thrown from the top of the building, and had his brains dashed out, for his charity to heretics. Whilst Mr. Adamson lay thus in his sepulchre, as he called it, he wrote his Latin poetical version of the book of Job, and his tragedy of Herod, in the same language. In 1573, he returned to Scotland; and, having entered into holy orders, became minister of Paisley. In 1575, he was appointed one of the commissioners, by the general assembly, to settle the jurisdiction and policy of the church; and the following year he was named, with Mr. David Lindsay, to report their proceedings to the earl of Moreton, then regent. About this time, the earl made him one of his chaplains, and, on the death of bishop Douglas, promoted him to the archiepiscopal see of St. Andrew’s, a dignity which brought upon him great trouble and uneasiness; for he was extremely obnoxious to the Presbyterian party, and many inconsistent absurd stories were propagated about him. Soon after his promotion, he published his Catechism in Latin verse, a work highly approved, even by his enemies; who, nevertheless, continued to persecute him with great violence. In 1578, he submitted himself to the general assembly, which procured him peace but for a very little time; for, the year following, they brought fresh accusations against him. In the year 1582, being attacked with a grievous disease, in which the physicians could give him no relief, he happened to take a simple medicine from an old woman, which did him service. The woman, whose name was Alison Pearsone, was immediately charged with witchcraft, and committed to prison, but escaped out of her confinement: however, about four years afterwards, she was again found, and burnt for a witch. In 1583, king James came to St. Andrew’s; and the archbishop, being much recovered, preached before him, and disputed with Mr. Andrew Melvil, in presence of his Majesty, with great reputation, which drew upon him fresh calumny and persecution. The king, however, was so well pleased with him, that he sent him ambassador to queen Elizabeth, at whose court he resided for some years. His conduct, during his embassy, has been variously reported by different authofsV Two things he principally laboured, viz. the recommending the king, his master, to the nobility and gentry of England, and the procuring some support for the episcopal party in Scotland. By his eloquent preaching he drew after him such crowds of people, and raised in their minds Such a high idea of the young king, his master, that queen Elizabeth forbade him to enter the pulpit during his stay in her dominions. In 1584 he was recalled, and sat in the parliament held in August at Edinburgh. The Presbyterian party were still very violent against the archbishop. A provincial synod was held at St. Andrew’s in April 1586; where the archbishop was accused and excommunicated: he appealed to the king and the states, but this availed him but little; for the mob being excited against him, it became dangerous to appear in public in the city of St. Andrew’s. At the next general assembly, a paper being produced, containing the archbishop’s submission, he was absolved from the excommunication. In 1588, fresh accusations were brought against him. The year following, he published the Lamentations of the prophet Jeremiah, in Latin verse, which he dedicated to the king, complaining of his hard usage. In the latter end of the same year, he published a translation of the Apocalypse in Latin verse, and a copy of Latin verses, addressed also to his Majesty, when he was in great distress. The king, however, was so far from giving him assistance, that he granted the revenue of his see to the duke of Lenox so that the remaining part of this prelate’s life was very wretched — he having hardly subsistence for his family, notwithstanding his necessities compelled him to deliver to the assembly a formal recantation of all his opinions concerning church government. He died in 1591. His works were printed in a 4to volume in London in 1619, with his Life by Thomas Volusenus, or Wilson. Besides the contents of this volume, our author wrote many things which were never published: such as, six books on the Hebrew republick, various translations of the prophets into Latin verse, Praelections on St. Paul’s Epistles to Timothy, various apologetical and funeral orations; and, what deserves most to be regretted, a very candid history of his own times. His character has. been variously represented, as may be seen in Calderwood and Spotiswood’s Histories, Mackenzie’s Lives of Scottish Authors, and the last edition of the Biographia Britannica. He appears to have been one of those men of whom no just estimate can be formed, without taking into the account the distraction of the times in which he lived.

, D. D. a dissenting clergyman, of considerable learning, was born at Northampton, June 9, 1729, and was educated under Dr. Doddridge, whose manner in the pulpit he closely followed for many years. After being admitted to preach, he removed in 1750, to Spaldwick in Huntingdonshire; where, in 1752, he married miss Reymes of Norwich, a lady who died in 1811, at a very advanced age. A few weeks after his marriage, he was called to be minister of a congregation of dissenters at Market Harborough, Leicestershire. His receiving this appointment was owing to a singular occurrence in the history of popular elections. Two candidates had appeared who divided the congregation so equally that a compromise was impossible, unless by each party giving up their favourite, and electing a third candidate, if one could be found agreeable to all. At this crisis Mr. Addington was recommended, and unanimously chosen. In this place he remained about thirty years, and became highly popular to his increasing congregation by the pious discharge of his pastoral duties, and by his conciliatory manners. In, 1758 he opened his house for the reception of pupils to fill up a vacancy in the neighbourhood of Harborough, occasioned by the rev. Mr. Aikin’s removal to Warrington. This scheme succeeded; and for many years he devoted nine hours each day to the instruction of his pupils, and compiled several books for their improvement; as, 1. “A system of Arithmetic,” 2 vols. 8vo. 2. “The Rudiments of the Greek tongue,” 1761, 12mo. 3. “Eusebes to Philetus; or Letters from a Father to his Son, on a devout temper and life,” 1761, 12mo. 4. “Maxims religious and prudential, with a Sermon to young People,” 12mo. 5. “The Youth’s Geographical Grammar,” 1770, 8vo. 6. “Dissertation on the religious knowledge of the ancient Jews and Patriarchs; to which is annexed a specimen of a Greek and English Concordance,” 1757, 4to; which he had a design of completing, if his health and time had perrnitted. He published also, partly in the country, and partly in London, some occasional funeral and other sermons; two tracts on infant baptism; a collection of psalm tunes, and another of anthems; and his most popular work, “The Life of St. Paul the Apostle,” 1784, 8vo. At length, in 1781 he received an invitation to become pastor of the congregation in Miles’s-lane, Cannon-street; and soon after his removal thither was chosen tutor of a new dissenting academy at Mile-end, where he resided until his growing infirmities, occasioned by several paralytic strokes, obliged him to relinquish the charge. He continued, however, in the care of his congregation till within a few months of his decease, when, from the same cause, he was compelled to discontinue his public services. He died Feb. 6, 1796, at his house in the Minories. In London he was neither so successful or popular as in the country; and his quitting Harborough after so long a residence appears to have displeased his friends, without adding to his usefulness among his new connections.

, son of Dr. Addison mentioned in the last article, and one of the most illustrious ornaments of his time, was born May 1, 1672, at Milston near Ambrosbury, Wiltshire, where his father was rector. Appearing weak and unlikely to live, he was christened the same day. Mr. Tyers says, that he was laid out for dead as soon as he was born. He received the first rudiments of his education at the place of his nativity, under the rev. Mr. Naish; but was soon removed to Salisbury, under the care of Mr. Taylor; and thence to Lichfield, where his father placed him for some time, probably not long, under Mr. Shaw, then master of the school there. From Lichfield he was sent to the Charter-house, where he pursued his juvenile studies under the care of Dr. Ellis, and contracted that intimacy with sir Rich. Steele, which their joint labours have so effectually recorded. In 1687 he was entered of Queen’s college in Oxford; where, in 1689, the accidental perusal of some Latin verses gained him the patronage of Dr. Lancaster, by whose recommendation he was elected into Magdalen college as demy. Here he took the degree of M. A. Feb. 14, 1693; continued to cultivate poetry and criticism, and grew first eminent by his Latin compositions, which are entitled to particular praise, and seem to have had much of his fondness; for he collected a second volume of the Musæ Anglicanæ, perhaps for a convenient receptacle; in which all his Latin pieces are inserted, and where his poem on the Peace has the first place. He afterwards presented the collection to Boileau, who from that time conceived an opinion of the English genius for poetry. In his 22d year he first shewed his power of English poetry, by some verses addressed to Dryden; and soon afterwards published a translation of the greater part of the fourth Georgic upon Bees. About the same time he composed the arguments prefixed to the several books of Dry den’s Virgil; and produced an essay on the Georgics, juvenile, superficial, and uninstructive, without much either of the scholar’s learning or the critic’s penetration. His next paper of verses contained a character of the principal English poets, inscribed to Henry Sacheverell, who was then, if not a poet, a writer of verses; as is shewn by his version of a small part of Virgil’s Georgics, published in the Miscellanies, and a Latin encomium on queen Mary, in the Musae Anglicana?. At this time he was paying his addresses to SacheverelPs sister. These verses exhibit all the fondness of friendship; but, on one side or the other, friendship was too weak for the malignity of faction. In this poem is a very confident and discriminative character of Spenser, whose work he had then never read. It is necessary to inform the reader, that about this time he was introduced by Congreve to Montague, then chancellor of the exchequer: Addison was now learning the trade of a courtier, and subjoined Montague as a poetical name to those of Cowley and of Dryden. By the influence of Mr. Montague, concurring with his natural modesty, he was diverted from his original design of entering into holy orders. Montague alleged the corruption of men who engaged in civil employments without liberal education; and declared, that, though he was represented as an enemy to the church, he would never do it any injury but by withholding Addison from it. Soon after, in 1695, he wrote a poem to king William, with a kind of rhyming introduction addressed to lord Somers. King William had no regard to elegance or literature; his study was only war; yet by a choice of ministers whose disposition was very different from his own, he procured, without intention, a very liberal patronage to poetry. Addison was caressed both by Somers and Montague. In 1697 he wrote his poem on the peace of Ryswick, which he dedicated to Montague, and which was afterwards called by Smith “the best Latin poem since the Æneid.” Having yet no public employment, he obtained in 1699 a pension of 300l. a year, that he might be enabled to travel. He staid a year at Blois, probably to learn the French language; and then proceeded in his journey to Italy, which he surveyed with the eyes of a poet. While he was travelling at leisure, he was far from being idle; for he not only collected his observations on the country, but found time to write his Dialogues on Medals, and four acts of Cato. Such is the relation of Tickell. Perhaps he only collected his materials, and formed his plan. Whatever were his other employments in Italy, he there wrota the letter to lord Halifax, which is justly considered as the most elegant, if not the most sublime, of his poetical productions. But in about two years he found it necessary to hasten home; being, as Swift informs us, “distressed by indigence, and compelled to become the tutor of a travelling squire.” At his return he published his travels, with a dedication to lord Somers. This book, though a while neglected, is said in time to have become so much the favourite of the publick, that before it was reprinted it rose to five times its price. When he returned to England in 1702, with a meanness of appearance which gave testimony to the difficulties to which tie had been reduced, he found his old patrons out of power; but he remained not long neglected or useless. The victory at Blenheim 1704 spread triumph and confidence over the nation; and lord Godolphin, lamenting to lord Halifax that it had not been celebrated in a manner equal to the subject, desired him to propose it to some better poet. Halifax named Addison; who, having undertaken the work, communicated it to the treasurer, while it was yet advanced no further than the simile of the angel, and was immediately rewarded by succeeding Mr. Locke in the place of commissioner of appeals. In the following year he was at Hanover with lord Halifax; and the year after was made under-secretary of state, first to sir Charles Hedges, and in a few months more to the earl of Sunderland. About this time the prevalent taste for Italian operas inclining him to try what would be the effect of a musical drama in our own language; he wrote the opera of Rosajnond, which, when exhibited on the stage, was either hissed or neglected; but, trusting that the readers would do him more justice, he published it, with an inscription to the duchess of Marlborough. His reputation had been somewhat advanced by The Tender Husband, a comedy, which Steele dedicated to him, with a confession that he owed to him several of the most successful scenes. To this play Addison supplied a prologue. When the marquis of Wharton was appointed lord lieutenant of Ireland, Addison attended him as his secretary; and was made keeper of the records in Bermingham’s tower, with a salary of 300l. a year. The office was little more than nominal, and the salary was augmented for his accommodation. When he was in office, he made a law to himself, as Swift has recorded, never to remit his regular fees in civility to his friends “I may have a hundred friends; and if my fee be two guineas, I shall by relinquishing my right lose 200 guineas, and no friend gain more than two.” He was in Ireland when Steele, without any communication of his design, began the publication of the Tatler; but he was not long concealed: by inserting a remark on Virgil, which Addison had given him, he discovered himself. Steele’s first Tatler was published April 22, 1709, and Addison’s contribution appeared May 26. Tickell observes, that the Tatler began and was concluded without his concurrence. This is doubtless literally true; but the work did not suffer much by his unconsciousness of its commencement, or his absence at its cessation; for he continued his assistance to Dec. 23, and the paper stopped on Jan. 2. He did not distinguish his pieces by any signature.

At the publication the wits seemed proud to pay their attendance with encomiastic verses. The best are from an unknown hand, which will perhaps lose somewhat of their praise when the author is known to be Jeffreys. Cato had yet other honours. It was censured as a party play by a scholar of Oxford, and defended in a favourable examination by Dr. Sewel. It was translated by Salvini into Italian, and acted at Florence; and by the Jesuits of St. Omer’s into Latin, and played by their pupils. While Cato was upon the stage, another daily paper, called the Guardian, was published by Steele; to which Addison gave great assistance. Of this paper nothing is necessary to be said but that it found many contributors, and that it was a continuation of the Spectator, with the same elegance, and the same variety, till some unlucky spark from a tory paper set Steele’s politics on fire, and wit at once blazed into faction. He was soon too hot for neutral topics, and quitted the Guardian to write the Englishman. The papers of Addison are marked in the Spectator by one of the letters in the name of Clio, and in the Guardian by a hand. Many of these papers were written with powers truly comic, with nice discrimination of characters, an accurate observation of natural or accidental deviations from propriety but it was not supposed that he tried a comedy on the stage, till Steele, after his death, declared him the author of “The Drummer;” this however he did not know to be true by any cogent testimony; for when Addison put the play into his hands, he only told him it was the work of a gentleman in the company; and when it was received, as is confessed, with cold disapprobation, he was probably less willing to claim it. Tickell omitted it in his collection; but the testimony of Steele, and the total silence of any other claimant, have determined the public to assign it to Addison, and it is now printed with his other poetry. Steele carried “The Drummer” to the playhouse, and afterwards to the press, and sold the copy for 50 guineas. To the opinion of Steele may be added the proof supplied by the play itself, of which the characters are such as Addison would have delineated, and the tendency such as Addison would have promoted. He was not all this time an indifferent spectator of public affairs. He wrote, as different exigencies required, in 1707, “The present state of the War, and the necessity of an augmentation;” which, however judicious, being written on temporary topics, and exhibiting no peculiar powers, has naturally sunk by its own weight into neglect. This cannot be said of the few papers intituled “The Whig Examiner,” in which isexhibited all the force of gay malevolence and humorous satire. Of this paper, which just appeared and expired, Swift remarks, with exultation, that “it is now down among the dead men.” His “Trial of count Tariff,” written to expose the treaty of commerce with France, lived no longer than the question that produced it.

Not long afterwards an attempt was made to revive the Spectator, at a time indeed by no means favourable to literature, when the succession of a new family to the throne filled the nation with anxiety, discord, and confusion; and either the turbulence of the times or the satiety of the readers put a stop to the publication, after an experiment of 80 numbers, which were afterwards collected into an eighth volume, perhaps more valuable than any one of those that went before it: Addison produced more than a fourth part, and the other contributors are by no means unworthy of appearing as his associates. The time that had passed during the suspension of the Spectator, though it had not lessened his power of humour, seems to have increased his disposition to seriousness: the proportion of his religious to his comic papers is greater than in the former series. The Spectator, from its recommencement, was published only three times a week, and no discriminative marks were added to the papers. To Addison Tickell has ascribed 23. The Spectator had many contributors; and Steele, whose negligence kept him always in a hurry, when it was his turn to furnish a paper, called loudly for the letters, of which Addison, whose materials were more, made little use; having recourse to sketches and hints, the product of his former studies, which he now reviewed and completed among these are named by Tickell the “Essays on Wit,” those on the “Pleasures of the Imagination,” and the “Criticism on Milton.”

When the house of Hanover took possession of the throne, it was reasonable to expect that the zeal of Addisoti would be suitably rewarded. Before the arrival of king George he was made secretary to the regency, and was required by his office to send notice to Hanover that the queen was dead, and that the throne was vacant. To do this would not have been difficult to any man but Addison, who was so overwhelmed with the greatness of the event, and so distracted by choice of expression, that the lords, who could not wait for the niceties of criticism, called Mr. Southwell, a clerk in the house, and ordered him to dispatch the message. Southwell readily told what was necessary, in the common style of business, and valued himself upon having done what was too hard for Addison. He was better qualified for the Freeholder, a paper which he published twice a week, from Dec. 23, 1715, to the middle of the next year. This was undertaken in defence of the established government, sometimes with argument, sometimes with mirth. In argument he had many equals; but his humour was singular and matchless.

On the 2d of August 1716, he married the countess dowager of Warwick, whom he had solicited by a very long and anxious courtship. 'He is said to have first known her by becoming tutor to her son. The marriage, if uncontradieted report can be credited, made no addition to his happiness; it neither found them nor made them equal. She always remembered her own rank, and thought herself intitled to treat with very little ceremony the tutor of her son. It is certain that Addison has left behind him no encouragement for ambitious love. The year after, 1717, he rose to his highest elevation being made secretary of state but it is universally confessed that he was unequal to the duties of his place. In the House of Commons he could not speak, and therefore was useless to the defence of the government. In the office he could not issue an orjler without losing his time in quest of fine expressions. What he gained in rank he lost in credit; and finding, by experience, his own inability, was forced to solicit his dismission, with a pension of 1500l. a year. His friends palliated this relinquishment, of which both friends and enemies knew the true reason, with an account of declining health, and the necessity of recess and quiet. He now returned to his vocation, and began to plan literary occupations for his future life. He proposed a tragedy on the death of Socrates; a story of which, as Tickell remarks, the basis is narrow, and to which love perhaps could not easily have been appended. He engaged in a noble work, a defence of the Christian religion, of which part was published after his death; and he designed to have made a new poetical version of the Psalms. It is related that he had once a design to make an English dictionary, and that he considered Dr. Tillotson as the writer of highest authority. Addison, however, did not conclude his life in peaceful studies; but relapsed, when he was near his end, to a political question. It happened that, in 1719, a controversy was agitated, with great vehemence, between, those friends of long continuance, Addison and Steele. The subject of their dispute was the earl of Sunderland’s memorable act, called “The Peerage bill,” by which the number of peers should be fixed, and the king restrained from any new creation of nobility, unless when an old family should be extinct. Steele endeavoured to alarm the ration by a pamphlet called “The Plebeian:” to this an Answer was published by Addison under the title of “The Old Whig.” Steele was respectful to his old friend, though he was Mow his political adversary; but Addison could not avoid discovering a contempt of his opponent, to whom he gave the appellation of “Little Dicky.” The bill was laid aside during that session, and Addison died before the next, in which its commitment was rejected. Every reader surely must regret that these two illustrious friends, after so many years passed in confidence and endearment, in unity of interest, conformity of opinion, and fellowship of study, should finally part in acrimonious opposition. The end of this useful life was now approaching. Addison had for some time been oppressed by shortness of breath, which was now aggravated by a dropsy; and finding his danger pressing, he prepared to die conformably to his own precepts and professions. During this lingering decay, he sent, as Pope relates, a message by the earl of Warwick to Mr. Gay, desiring to see him. Gay, who had not visited him for some time before, obeyed the summons, and found himself received with great kindness. The purpose for which the interview had been solicited was theti discovered: Addison told him, that he had injured him; but that, if he recovered, he would recompense him. What the injury was he did not explain, nor did Gay ever know; but supposed that some preferment designed for him had by Addison' s intervention been withheld. Lord Warwick was a young man of very irregular life, and perhaps of loose opinions. Addison, for whom he did not want respect, had very diligently endeavoured to reclaim him; but his arguments and expostulations had no effect; one experiment, however, remained to be tried. When he found his life near its end, he directed the young lord to be called; and, when he desired, with great tenderness, to hear his last injunctions, told him, “I have sent for you that you may see how a Christian can die.” What effect this awful scene had on the earl’s behaviour is not known: he died himself in a short time. Having given directions to Mr. Tickell for the publication of his works, and dedicated them on his death-bed to his friend Mr. Craggs, he died June 17, 1719, at Holland-house, leaving no child but a daughter, who died in 1797, at Bilton, near Rugby, in Warwickshire.

, a writer of romance in the 13th, century, and probably so called from often wearing the laurel crown, was minstrel to Henry III. duke of Brabant and Flanders. In La Valliere’s collection of Mss. are several metrical romances by this author: 1. “The romance of William of Orange,” surnamed Short-nose, constable of France. There are some extracts from this in Catel’s history of Languedoc. 2. “The romance of the Infancy of Ogier the Dane,” written in rhyme by order of Guy earl of Flanders. Of this are several translations published in the 16th century. 3. “The romance of Cleomades,” written by order of Maria of Brabant, daughter of his patron. This, translated into prose by Philip Camus, has been several times printed; at first, without date, at Paris and Troyes; and at Lyons, 1488, 4to. 4. “The romance of Aymeri of Narbonne.” 5. “The romance of Pepin and Bertha his wife;” the facts taken from the chronicles in the abbey of St. Denis. A sequel to this was written by Girardin of Amiens, as the “Romance of Charlemagne, son of Bertha.” 6. “The romance of Buenon of Commarchis,” the least esteemed of all his productions, perhaps from the insignificance of his hero. The time of the death of Adenez is not known.

, a heretical writer, who probably flourished about the latter end of the third century, was a zealous promoter of the Manichsean doctrine. He wrote a book against the authority of the Old Testament, which was much valued by the Manichees, and was answered by Augustine. The work is lost, but the atfswer remains. He appears to have been sometimes called Addas, although most writers suppose Addas to have been a different person. Additional information respecting him may be found in Lardner’s Works, vol. Ill, pp. 3s?3, 395, 430.

, the Roman emperor, was born at Rome Jan. 24, in the year of Christ 76. His father left him an orphan, at ten years of age, tinder the guardianship of Trajan, and Caelius Tatianus, a Roman knight. He began to serve very early in the armies, having been tribune of a legion before the death of Domitian. He was the person chosen by the army of Lower Mcesia, to carry the news of Nerva’s death to Trajan, successor to the empire. The extravagances of his youth deprived him of this emperor’s favour; but having recovered it by reforming his behaviour, he was married to Sabina, a grand niece of Trajan, and the empress Plotina became his great friend and patroness. When he was quaestor, he delivered an oration in the senate; but his language was then so rough and unpolished, that he was hissed: this obliged him to apply to the study of the Latin tongue, in which he afterwards became a great proficient, and made a considerable figure for his eloquence. He accompanied Trajan in most of his expeditions, and particularly distinguished himself in the second war against the Daci; and having before been quaestor, as well as tribune of the people, he was now successively praetor, governor of Pannonia, and consul. After the siege of Atra in Arabia was raised, Trajan, who had already given him the government of Syria, left him the command of the army; and at length, when he found death approaching, it is said he adopted him. The reality of this adoption is by some disputed, and is thought to have been a contrivance of Plotina; however, Adrian, who was then in Antiochia, as soon as he received the news of that, and of Trajan’s death, declared himself emperor on the llth of August, 117. He then immediately made peace with the Persians, to whom he yielded up great part of the conquests of his predecessors; and from generosity, or policy, he remitted the debts of the Roman people, which, according to the calculation of those who have reduced them to modern money, amounted to 22,500,000 golden crowns; and he caused to be burnt all the bonds and obligations relating to those debts, that the people might be under no apprehension of being called to an account for them afterwards. He went to visit all the provinces, and did not return to Rome till the year 118, when the senate decreed him a triumph, and honoured him with the title of Father of his country; but he refused both, and desired that Trajan’s image might triumph. The following year he went to Mcesia to oppose the Sarmatce. In his absence several persons of great worth were put to death; and though he protested he had given no orders for that purpose, yet the odium fell chiefly upon him. No prince travelled more than Adrian; there being hardly one province in the empire which be did not visit. In 120 he went into Gaul, and thence to Britain, where he caused a wall or rampart to be built, as a defence against the Caledonians who would not submit to the Iloman government. In 121 he returned into France, and thence to Spain, to Mauritania, and at length into the East, where he quieted the commotions raised by the Parthians. After having visited all the provinces of Asia, he returned to Athens in 125, where he passed the winter, and was initiated in the mysteries of Eleusinian Ceres. He went from thence, to Sicily, and saw mount Ætna. He returned to Rome the beginning of the year 129; and, according to some, he went again the same year to Africa; and after his return from thence, to the east. He was in Egypt in the year 132, revisited Syria the year following, returned to Athens in 134, and to Rome in 135. The persecution against the Christians was very violent under his reign; but it was at length suspended, in consequence of the remonstrances of Quadratus bishop of Athens, and Aristides, two Christian philosophers, who presented the emperor with some books in favour of their religion. He was more severe against the Jews; and, by way of insult, erected a temple to Jupiter on mount Calvary, and placed a statue of Adonis in the manger of Bethlehem he caused also the images of swine to be engraved on the gates of Jerusalem.

, pope, who deserves some notice on account of his personal merit, was born in Utrecht, 1459, of parents reputed mean, who procured him a place among the poor scholars in the college of Louvain, where his application was such as to induce Margaret of England, the sister of Edward IV. and widow of Charles duke of Burgundy, to bear the expences of his advancement to the degree of doctor. He became successively a canon of St. Peter, professor of divinity, dean of the church of Louvain, and fastly, vice-chancellor of the university. Recollecting his own condition, he generously founded a college at Louvain, which bears his name, for the education of poor students. Afterwards Maximilian I. appointed him preceptor to his grandson Charles V. and sent him as ambassador to Ferdinand king of Spain, who gave him the bishoprick of Tortosa. In 1517 he was made cardinal, and during the infancy of Charles V. became regent; but the duties of the office were engrossed by cardinal Ximenes. On the death of Leo X. Charles V. had so much influence with the cardinals as to procure him to be chosen to the papal chair, in 1522. He was not, however, very acceptable to the college, as he had an aversion to pomp, expence, and pleasure. He refused to resent, by fire and sword, the complaints urged by Luther; but endeavoured to reform such abuses in the church as could neither be concealed or denied. To this conduct he owed the many satires written against him during his life, and the unfavourable representations made by the most learned of the Roman Catholic historians. Perhaps his partiality to the emperor Charles might increase their dislike, and occasion the suspicion that his death, which took place Sept. 24, 1523, was a violent one. For this, however, we know no other foundation, than a pasquinade stuck upon the house of his physician “To the deliverer of his country.” He is said to have composed an epitaph for himself, expressing, that the greatest misfortune of his life was his being called to govern. He has left some writings, as, 1. “Questiones et Expositiones in IV. Sententiarum,” Paris, 1512 and 1516, fol.; 1527, 8vo. In this he advanced some bold sentiments against papal infallibility. Although he wrote the work before he was pope, he reprinted it without any alteration. 2. “Questiones Quodlibeticae,” Louvain, 1515, 8vo; Paris, 1516, fol. Foppen gives a large list of his other writings. His life was written by Paulus Jovius, Onuphrius Panviuius, Gerard Moringus, a divine of Louvain, and lastly by Caspar Burman, under the title “Analecta Historica de Adriano VI. Trajectino, Papa Romano,” Utrecht, 1727, 4to.

, a Flemish Jesuit, and a native of Antwerp, entered into the society of the Jesuits at Louvain, in 1544, and was principal for many years before they had a college. In 1551, he made solemn profession of the four vows. After the death of St. Ignatius, he was called to Rome to assist in a general congregation for the election of a second general of the society. But, finding himself here involved in disputes and intrigues not suited to his disposition, he retired to Flanders, where he appears to have led a studious and useful life. He died at Louvain, October 18, 1580, after having published, in German, several works of the ascetic kind, one of which, “De Divinis Inspirationibus et de Confessione,” was translated into Latin by Gerard Brunelius, and printed at Cologn, 1601, 12mo.

, professor of the belles lettres, and chancellor of the republic of Florence, was born in 1464, He was a very accomplished scholar in the Greek and Latin languages. Varchi, in one of his lectures, pronounces him the most eloquent man of his time. He died in 1521, in consequence of a fall from his horse. In 1518, he published a Latin translation of Dioscorides “De Materia Medica,” with a commentary. About the end of it he mentions a treatise, “De mensuris, ponderibus, et coloribus,” which he had prepared for publication, but which has not yet appeared. Mazzuchelli speaks largely of him in his “Italian Writers;” and more copious notice is taken of him by the canon Baudini, in his. “Collectio Vetcrum Monumentorum.” The translation of Dioscorides, which he dedicated to pope Leo X. procured him so much reputation, that he was called the Dioscorides of Florence.

, successively bishop of Wilton and archbishop of Canterbury, and one of the greatest luminaries of his dark era, was the son of an earl of Kent, and after receiving a few scanty instructions from an ignorant secular priest, assumed the habit of the Benedictine order of monks in the monastery at Abingdon, over which Athelwold then presided, having been appointed abbot in the year 955. Athelwold, being created bishop of Winchester in the year 693, settled several of the Abingdon monks in his cathedral. Among these was Ælfric; who, in return for the benefit which he had formerly derived from the instructions of Alhelwold, was now eager to show his gratitude, by forwarding the wishes of his benefactor to instruct the youth of his diocese. With this view he drew tip his “Latin-Saxon Vocabulary,” and some “Latin Colloquies.” The former of these works was published by Somner, under the title of a Glossary, Oxon. 1659 (See Somner). During his residence in this city, Ælfric translated, from the Latin into the Saxon language, most of the historical books of the Old Testament: the greatest part of which translations has reached our time, having been printed at Oxford in 1698. Here, likewise, at the request of Wulfsine, bishop of Sherborn, he drew up what has been called his “Canons,” but might more properly be styled, a charge to be delivered by the bishops to their clergy. They are preserved in the first volume of Spelman’s Councils, and were composed, between the years 980 and 987. Some time about this last year, Ælfric was removed to Cerne Abbey, to instruct the monks, and regulate the affairs of that monastery. Here it was that he translated, from the Latin fathers, the first volume of his “Homilies.” After remaining in this place about a year, he was made abbot of St. Alban’s in the year 988, and composed a liturgy for the service of his abbey, which continued to be used there till Leland’s time. In the year 989 he was created Lishop of Wilton, and during his continuance in that see, translated, about the latter end of the year 991, a second volume of “Homilies.” These are the volumes of which Mrs. Elstob issued proposals for a translation, in 1713, accompanied with the original, but did not live to publish the work. Here also Ælfric wrote his “Grammar,” a supplement to his Homilies, and, probably, a tract dedicated to Sigeward or Sigeferth, containing two epistles oil the Old and New Testament, which his biographer concludes to have been written between the years 987 and 991. In 994, he was translated to Canterbury, where, after exerting himself for some years, with equal spirit and prudence, in defending his diocese against the incursions of the Danes, he died Nov. 16, 1005. He was buried at Abingdon, the place where he first embraced the profession of a monk, whence his remains were afterwards transferred to Canterbury, in the reign of Canute.

, a celebrated Roman lawyer, and author of the oldest work on jurisprudence, flourished in the sixth century after the building of Rome. He was successively aedile, consul, and censor. When Cnaeus Flavius divulged his formula, the patricians, who considered themselves as the depositories of the law, composed novels, and endeavoured to conceal them with the utmost care. But Ælius, when scdile, got access to them, and published them. These last obtained the name of theÆlian law, as what Flavius had published were called the Flavian law. It appears also, that notwithstanding what Grotius and Bertrand have advanced, he was the author of a work entitled the “Tripartite,” by far the oldest work on the subject. It was so called as containing, 1. The text of the Law; 2. Its interpretation; and 3. The forms of procedure. He was appointed consul in A. U. C. 556, at the end of the second Punic war; and was distinguished for his homely diet, and simple manners, and his rejecting of presents.

, a nobleman, born at Venice in 1481, carried arms in his youth, and was taken prisoner. On his release he made a vow to dedicate his life to the care of orphans, and accordingly collected a considerable number of them in a house, where they were educated in virtue and industry. This laid the foundation of the regular clerks of St. Maieul, who are also called the fathers of Somasquo, from the place where he first established their community. They were afterwards successively confirmed by the popes Paul III. and Pius IV. Their chief occupation was to instruct young persons in the principles of the Christian religion, and particularly orphans. He appears to have been a man of a most humane disposition; and in 1528, when plague and famine raged in Italy, he sold even his furniture to assist the poor. He died in 1537, and was admitted into the number of saints by Benedict XIV. Andreas Stella, the general of the Somasques, wrote his life.

, or Ængus, an Irish abbot, or bishop, and historian, of the eighth century, called Hagiographus, from his having written the lives of the saints, descended from the kings of Ulster; and was reputed one of the Colidei, or Culdees, worshippers of God, on account of his great piety. The accounts we have of him are rather confused; but it appears that he took extraordinary pains in compiling ecclesiastical history and biography, under the names of martyrology, fastology, &c. Sir James Ware says, that his martyrology was extant in his time. Moreri gives an account of it, or of a different book under the title “De Sanctis Hiberniae,” which shews the vast labour? bestowed on it, or the fertility of his invention in bringing together such a mass of biographical legends. It consists of five books: The first comprehends three hundred and forty-five bishops, two hundred and ninety-nine priests or abbots, and seventy-eight deacons, all men of eminence for their piety. The second book, entitled the Book of homonomies, is a wonderful piece of labour, and comprehends all the saints who have borne the same name. The third and fourth gives an account of their families, particularly the maternal pedigree of two hundred and ten Irish saints. The fifth book contains litanies and invocations of saints, &c. He is said also to have written the history of the Old Testament in very elegant verse, and a psalter called Na-rann, which is a collection, in prose and verse, Latin and Irish, concerning the affairs of Ireland. He is thought to have died either in the year 819, 824, or 830.

, a fellow-labourer with Luther in promoting the Reformation, was born 1499, in the Marche of Brandenburgh. His family name was Huch, or Hsech, which he changed to Æpinus, a custom very common with the learned men of his time. He was originally a Franciscan friar, and entered that society when in England; but on his return to Germany he studied under Luther, whose religious principles he adopted, and propagated with zeal, first at Stralsund, and afterwards at Hamburgh, where, as pastor of the church of St. Peter, and ecclesiastical inspector, he obtained great influence. In 1547, when Charles V. endeavoured to obtrude the Interim on the Protestants, after he had defeated their forces, and after the death of Luther, he opposed this species of formulary, or confession of faith, so called because it was only to take place in the interim, until a general council should decide all the points in question between the Protestants and Catholics. It indeed satisfied neither party, and the Lutheran preachers refused to subscribe to it. Those who did subscribe got the name of adiaphorists, or indifferent or lukewarm persons, against whom Æpinus contended, both in the pulpit and press. He died May 13, 1553, leaving several works, of which Melchior Adam has given the subjects, but no notice of the dates, or proper titles. In learning, zeal, and intrepid spirit, he was equal to most of his contemporaries who opposed the church of Rome.

, called by the Italians PietroLongo, from his tallness, was a celebrated painter, and born at Amsterdam in 1519. His father, who was a stocking-maker, had intended to train him in his own way; but-the mother, finding in him an inclination towards painting, was resolved that her son should pursue his genius, even though she always were forced to spin for her livelihood: and to this her husband at length consented. His first master was Alart Claessen, an eminent painter in Amsterdam, under whom he so distinguished himself, that he soon engaged the attention of the great. When he was about eighteen, he went to Bossu in Hainault, to view the pieces of several masters; thence to Antwerp, where he married and entered into the company of painters. He excelled very particularly in representing a kitchen; and generally, upon all kinds of subjects. An altar-piece of his, viz. a crucifix, setting forth an executioner breaking with an iron bar the legs of the thieves, &c. was much admired. This noble piece was destroyed by the rabble in the time of the insurrection, 1566, although the lady of Sonneveldt, in Alckmaer, offered 200 crowns for its redemption, as the furious peasants were bringing it out of the church: but they tore it to pieces, and trod it under foot. This he afterwards complained of to the populace in terms of such severity, that more than once they were going to murder him. Pilkington, however, speaks of a fine altar-piece of his at Amsterdam, representing the death of the Virgin, as still existing; and of a Nativity and the Wise Men’s Offering at Delft, both excellent performances. He was well skilled in perspective and architecture, and enriched his grounds with elegant ornaments and animals. His figures were well disposed; their attitudes had abundance of variety, and their draperies were well chosen and well cast. He died in 1585, leaving three sons, who succeeded in his profession. He had a mean aspect, which he did not amend by any attention to the exterior; for he always appeared very meanly dressed.

, the fabulist. Of this man, the reputed author of many fables, it is very doubtful whether we are in possession of any authentic biography. The life by Planudes, a monk of the fourteenth century, is universally considered as a series of fictions; and the notices of him in writers of better authority, are not sufficiently consistent to form a narrative. The particulars usually given, however, are as follow. He was born at Amorium, a small town in Phrygia, in the beginning of the sixth century before the Christian aera, and was a slave to two philosophers, Xanthus and Idmon, the latter of whom gave him his liberty, on account of his good behaviour and pleasantry. The philosophers of Greece gained a name by their lofty sentences, clothed in lofty words; Æop assumed a more simple and familiar style, and became not less celeb rated. He taught virtue and ridiculed vice, by giving a language to animals and inanimate things; and composed those fables, which under the mask of allegory, and with all the interest of fable, convey the most useful lessons in morality. The fame of his wisdom spreading over Greece and the adjoining countries, Croesus, the king of Lydia, sent for him, and was his generous benefactor. There he found Solon, whom he soon equalled in favour, however different his mode of conducting himself. Solon preserved his austerity in the midst of a corrupt court, was a philosopher among courtiers, and often offended Croesus by obtruding his advice, who at last dismissed him. “Solon,” said Æsop, “let us not address kings, or let us say what is agreeable.” “By no means,” replied the philosopher, “let us either say nothing, or tell them what is profitable.” Æsop made frequent excursions from the court of Lydia into Greece. When Pisistratus assumed the chief power at Athens, Æsop, who witnessed the dissatisfaction of the people, repeated to them his fable of the frogs petitioning Jupiter for a king. He afterwards travelled through Persia and Egypt, everywhere inculcating morality by his fables. The kings of Babylon and Memphis received him with distinguished honour; and on his return to Lydia, Croesus sent him with a sum of money to Delphi, where he was to offer a magnificent sacrifice to the god of the place, and distribute a certain sum of money to each of the inhabitants. But being offended by the people, he offered his sacrifice, and sent the rest of the money to Sardis, representing the Delphians as unworthy of his master’s bounty. In revenge, they threw him from the top of a rock. All Greece was interested in his fate, and at Athens a statue was erected to his memory. Lurcher, in his notes on Herodotus, fixes his death in the 560th year before the Christian aera, under the reign of Pisistratus. Planudes, who, as already observed, wrote his life, represents him as exceedingly deformed in person, and defective in his speech, for which there seems no authority. It is to this monk, however, that we owe the first collection of Æsop’s Fables, such as we now have them, mixed with many by other writers, some older, and some more modern than the time of Æsop. He wrote in prose; and Socrates, when in prison, is said to have amused himself by turning some of them into verse. Plato, who banished Homer and the other poets from his republic, as the corruptors of mankind, retained Æsop as being their preceptor. Some are of opinion, that Lockman, so famous among the orientals, and Pilpay among the Indians, were one and the same with Æsop. Whatever may be in this, or in the many other conjectures and reports, to be found in the authorities cited below, the fables of Æsop may surely be considered as the best models of a species of instructive composition, that has been since attempted by certain men of learning and fancy in all nations, and particularly our own; nor will it be easy to invent a mode of arresting and engaging the attention of the young to moral truths, more pleasant or more successful. The best editions of Æsop are those of Plantin, Antwerp, 1565, 16mo; of Aldus, with other fabulists, Venice, 1505, fol. and Franckfort, 1610; that called Barlow’s, or “Æsopi Fabularum, cum Vita,” London, 1666, fol. in Latin, French, and English; the French and Latin by Rob. Codrington, with plates by Barlow, now very rare, as a great part of the edition was burnt in the fire of London; Hudson’s, published under the name of Marianus (a member of St. Mary Hall), Oxford, 1718, 8vo. They have been translated into all modern languages; and CroxalPs and Dodsley’s editions deserve praise, on account of the life of Æsop prefixed to each.

, a heretic of the fourth century, and by some surnamed The Atheist, as being tme of the first opposers of the doctrine of the Trinity, was born at Antioch, the son of a person reduced in his circumstances, and was consequently obliged to work at the trade of goldsmith for a livelihood. He afterwards studied, and with considerable success, at Alexandria, whence he returned to Antiech, and was ordained deacon by Leontius, then bishop of that city. What his principles were is not very clear. Theodoret says, he improved upon the bJasphemies of Arius; and for that reason was banished by the emperor Constantius into a remote part of Phrygia. The emperor Julian recalled him, and enriched him with an estate Others insinuate that he was a defender of faith in opposition to works, and leaned to the Antinomian extreme. The displeasure of the orthodox, however, was such that he had the surname of Atheist. Athanasius gives him the same appellation, and Cave says, justly. Epiphanius has preserved a small book, containing forty-seven erroneous propositions of Ætius, which he answered. His followers were called, from his name, ætians. Their distinguishing principle was, that the Son and the Holy Ghost are in all things unlike the Father.

, deacon of the church of Constantinople, in the sixth century, or about 527, presented the emperor Justinian, on his accession to the throne, with a work in seventy-two chapters, which has been called “Charta Regia,” and contains excellent advice on the duties of a Christian prince. This work was long esteemed, and procured the author a place among the best writers of his age. It was first printed, Gr. et Lat. at Venice, 1509, 8vo; and is often printed in the same volume with various editions of Æsop’s fables. The most correct edition is that of Banduri, in a collection entitled “Imperium Orientale,” Paris, 1711, 2 vols. fol. The last edition was published at Leipsic, 1733, 8vo, Gr. et Lat by Graebelius, with notes; but those not of much importance. Louis XIII. in his youth translated it into French, and this was printed in, 1612, 8vo, and often since.

, a learned and industrious English antiquary, and one of the members of the first society of antiquaries, was the son of Clement Agard, of Foston (not Toston, as in the Biog. Brit.) in Derbyshire, by Eleanor, the daughter of Thomas Middleborough, of Egbaston in Warwickshire. He was born 1540, and originally studied law; but it does not appear that he was at either university. He afterwards became a clerk in the Exchequer office; and in 1570 was made deputy chamberlain of the Exchequer, which he held forty-five years. During this time, he had leisure and industry to accumulate large collections of matters pertaining to the antiquities of his country; and his rseal in these researches procured him the acquaintance of that eminent benefactor to English literature and antiquities, sir Robert Cotton, with whom he enjoyed the strictest friendship as long as he lived. Wood, in his Athenae, has made a strange mistake here in ascribing Agard’s proficiency in antiquary knowledge to Sir Robert, who was but just born the year Agard came into office. There can be no doubt, however, that they improved and assisted each other in their pursuits. Agard also could number the most eminent and learned men of the age among his friends and coadjutors. It was in his days, about 1572, that the society of antiquaries was formed by archbishop Parker; and among the names of its original members, we find Agard, Andrews, Bouchier, Camden, Carew, Cotton, Dodderidge, Ley, Spelman, Stow, Dethicke, Lambart, and others. In this society, Agard read these essays, which have since been published by Hearne, in his “Collection of Curious Discourses,” 1720 and 1775, 2. vols. Agard’s discourses are: 1. Opinion touching the antiquity, power, order, state, manner, persons, and proceedings of the high court of parliament in England. 2. On this question, Of what antiquity shires were in England In this essay various ancient manuscripts are cited; and Mr. Agard seems to think king Alfred was the author of this division: it was delivered before the society in Easter term, 33 Eliz. 1591. 3. On the dimensions of the lands in England. In this he settles the meaning of these words, solin, hida, carucata, jngum, virgata, ferlingata, ferlinges, from ancient manuscripts and authentic records in the exchequer. 4. The authority, office, and privileges of heraults [heralds] in England. He is of opinion, that this office is of the same antiquity with the institution of the garter. 5. Of the antiquity or privileges of the houses or inns of court, and of chancery. In this he observes, that in more ancient times, before the making of Magna Charta, our lawyers were of the clergy: that in the time of J^dward I. the law came to receive its proper form; and that in an old record, the exchequer was styled the mothercourt of all courts of record. He supposes that at this time lawyers began to have settled places of abode, but affirms he knew of no privileges. 6. Of the diversity of names of this island. In this we find that the first Saxons, residing in this island, came here under the command of ne Aelle and his three sons, in 43.5; and that the reason, why it was called England rather than Saxon land, was because the Angles, after this part of the island was totally suhdued, were more numerous than the Saxons. He likewise observes, that after this conquest, the name of Briton grew into distaste, and all valued themselves on being Englishmen. This was read, June 29, 1604, and is the last discourse of Agard in the collection. The society was dissolved soon after, and did not revive until the last century.

, a sculptor of Ephesus, the scholar or son of Dositheos. Mr. Fuseli observes, that the name of Agasias does not occur in ancient record; and whether he be the Egesias of Quintilian and Pliny, or these the same, cannot be ascertained; though the style qf sculpture, and the form of the letters in the inscription, are not much at variance with the character which the former gives to the age of Calon and Egesias. There are, therefore, no particulars of his life; but he is well known in the history of the arts, for his admired statue, usually called the Gladiator; formerly in the villa Borghese, and now in the museum at Paris. It was found, with the Apollo Belvidere, at Nettuno, formerly Antium, the birth-place of Nero; where he had collected a great number of the best works brought from Greece by his freed-man Acratus. The form of the letters on the inscription mark the high antiquity of this statue, which is less ideal than the Apollo, but not less admirable. Winkelman calls it an assemblage of the beauties of nature in a perfect age, without any addition from imagination. Fuseli terms it “A figure, whose tremendous energy embodies every element of motion, whilst its pathetic dignity of character enforces sympathy.” It is in perfect preservation, with exception of the right arm, which was restored by Algardi. It is now, however, agreed that it is not the statue of a Gladiator, but apparently one of a groupe. The attention and action of the figure is upwards to some higher object, as a person on horseback; and it is thought to be of a date prior to the introduction of the gladiatorial sports into Greece.

, a Greek historian, who lived in the 6th century, under the emperor Justinian, was born at Myrina in Asia Minor. Some have concluded from Suidas, that he was an advocate at Smyrna; but Fabricius thinks that he was in general an advocate, or scholasticus, as he is called, from having studied the law in the schools appointed for that purpose. In his youth he was strongly inclined to poetry, and published some small pieces of the gay and amatory kind, under the title of “Daphniaca:” he tells us likewise, that he was author of a “Collection of epigrams” written by divers hands, a great part of which are presumed to be extant in the Greek Anthologia, where, however, he calls himself Agathius. These are also in Brunck’s Analecta. There have been doubts about his religion: Vossius and others have supposed him a pagan; and they have concluded this chiefly from a passage in the third book of his history; where, giving a reason why the fortress of Onogoris in Colchis was called, in his time, St. Stephen’s fort, he says, that this first Christian martyr was stoned there, but uses the word φασὶ, they say; as if he did not himself believe what he might think it necessary to relate. But this is by no means conclusive; and Fabricius supposes him, upon much better grounds, to have been a Christian, because he more than once gives very explicitly the preference to the doctrines of Christians: and in the first book he speaks plainly of the Christians as embracing the most reasonable system of opinions.

, a man of considerable learning, and even a great magician, according to report, in the 16th century, was born at Cologn, the 14th of September, 1486, of the noble family of Nettesheim. He was very early in the service of the emperor Maximilian: acted at first as his secretary; but afterwards took to the profession of arms, and served that emperor seven years in Italy, where he distinguished himself in several engagements, and received the honour of knighthood for his gallant behaviour. To his military honours he was desirous likewise to add those of the universities, and accordingly took the degrees of doctor of laws and physic. He was a man of an extensive genius, and well skilled in many parts of knowledge, and master of a variety of languages; but his insatiable curiosity, the freedom of his pen, and the inconstancy of his temper, involved him in so many vicissitudes, that his life became a series of adventures. He was continually changing his situation; always engaging himself in some difficulty or other; and, to complete his troubles, he drew upon himself the hatred of the ecclesiastics oy his writings. According to his letters, he was in France before the year 1507, in Spain in 1508, and at Dole in 1509. At this last place he read public lectures on the work of Reuchlin, “De Verbo mirifico,” which engaged him in a dispute with Catilinet, a Franciscan. These lectures, though they drew upon him the resentment of the monks, yet gained him general applause, and the counsellors of the parliament went themselves to hear them. In order to ingratiate himself into the favour of Margaret of Austria, governess of the Low Countries, he composed a treatise “On the excellence of Women;” but the persecution he met with from the monks prevented him from publishing it, and obliged him to go over to England, where he wrote a “Commentary upon St. Paul’s Epistles.” Upon his return to Cologn, he read public lectures upon those questions in divinity which are called Quodlibitales. He afterwards went to Italy, to join the army of the emperor Maximilian, and staid there till he was invited to Pisa by the cardinal de St. Croix.

In 1709, the war and famine, ^nd public distress rendered his place of much importance, and called forth the qualities of the heart as well as the head. At this critical period, Desmarets, the comptroller-general, appointed a committee of the principal magistrates, among whom was D‘Aguessean, whose zeal and knowledge animated the whole. He contrived to discover the forestallers of provisions; punished the most guilty; and re-established credit and confidence; and from this time, a sense of the value of his public services made him be often consulted on the most difficult points of administration, and employed to draw up memorials for the king. Towards the end of the reign, however, of Louis XIV. he was threatened withdisgrace for having refused to register the famous bull TJnigenitus. On this occasion it was that madame D’Aguesseau, when her husband was about to set out for Versailles, said, “Go, and before the king, forget your wife and children, and lose every thing but your honour.” D'Aguesseau, without perhaps understanding the whole of the doctrines condemned by that bull, thought he perceived, in part of its regulations, something that threatened the rights of monarchy, which he therefore had the courage to defend against the monarch himself. It was this sense of the matter which produced the spirited answer he gave to Quirini, the pope’s nuncio “Is it thus,” said Quirini, “that you manufacture arms against Rome” “No, Monsieur,” replied D'Aguesseau, “these are not arms, but shields.”

D' Aguesseau, it is universally acknowledged, was an excellent and upright magistrate, and of sentiments more liberal than could be tolerated in a corrupt court. His memory was surprising, his apprehension quick, and his knowledge of the law extensive and profound. He understood radically, not only his mother tongue, but also English, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Latin, Greek, and the oriental languages. Studying languages he called an amusement; and reading the ancient poets, the only passion of his youth. He made verses, which were approved by Racine and Boileau, who were almost the only companions of his leisure. His talents he exercised in offices of virtue, but never to shew his superiority; and he himself appeared to be the last man who was acquainted with the advantages he conferred on society. His countrymen fondly compare him to our illustrious Bacon; but although we are not disposed to rank him so high, it may be allowed that his imagination was fertile, his ideas clear, his images striking, his arguments strong, and his Janguage elegant. He was indeed a prodigy of science and virtue, and a model of true elegance and taste; and the sweetness of his temper, with the gentleness and modesty of his deportment and manners, cast a most attractive lustre over his great intellectual acquirements. He was a stranger to no human science, and made them all subservient to the improvement of those religious and moral principles that ennoble human nature. He wasone of the first men of his age, and that was the age of Louis XIV. Another important part of his character we shall give in the words of one of his editors: “The enemies,” says he, “of revealed religion, are perpetually telling us, that it renders man abject and pusillanimous; contracts and shackles the understanding; retards the progress of science, and is only fit for weak and vulgar minds. If there were not a multitude of examples, adapted to confound the abettors of such an extravagant notion, that of the chancellor D'Aguesseau would alone be sufficient for that purpose. This illustrious magistrate, whose sublime genius, and universal knowledge, his country, and indeed the learned world in general, beheld with admiration; who was one of the brightest ornaments of the present age; and who, with unremitting activity, consecrated his talents, and his whole life, to the service of his country, was an humble and zealous disciple of the Christian religion, which he considered as the true philosophy; because it was, according to him, the only guide which could shew man what he was, what he is, and can render him what he ought to be.”

, bishop of Lindisfarne, or Holy island, in the 7th century, was originally a monk in the monastery of Iona, one of the islands called Hebrides. In the year 634, he came into England, at the request of Oswald king of Northumberland, to instruct that prince’s subjects in the knowledge of the Christian religion. At his first coming to Oswald’s court, he prevailed upon the king to remove the episcopal see from York, where it had been settled by Gregory the great, to Lindisfarne, or Holy island; a peninsula joined to the coast of Northumberland by a very narrow neck of land, and called Holy island from its being inhabited chiefly by monks; the beautiful ruins of its monastery are still extant. In this place Aidan was very successful in his preaching, in which he was not a little assisted by the pious zeal of the king; who, having lived a considerable time in Scotland, and acquired a sufficient knowledge of the language, was himself Aidan’s interpreter 9 and explained his discourses to the nobility, and the rest of his court. After the death of Oswald, who was killed in battle, Aidan continued to govern the church of Northumberland, under his successors Oswin and Oswi, who reigned jointly; the former in the province of Deira, the latter in that of Bernicia; but having foretold the untimely death of Oswin, he was so afflicted for his loss, that he survived him hut twelve days, and died in August 6^1, after having sat sixteen years. Bede gives him an extraordinary character; but at the same time takes notice that he was not altogether orthodox in keeping of Easter, in which he followed the custom of the Scots, Picts, and Britons. The same historian ascribes three miracles to bishop Aidan; two of them performed in his lifetime, and the other after his death. He was buried in his church of Lindisfarne; and part of his relics were carried into Scotlaud by his successor Colman in 664.

, a Scotch painter of considerable eminence, was the son of William 8 Aiktnan, of Cairney, esq. and born Oct. 24, 1682. His father intended that he should follow the law, and gave him an education suitable to these views; but the strong predilection of the son to the fine arts induced him to attach himself to painting alone. Poetry, painting, and music have, with justice, been called sister arts. Mr. Aikman was fond of poetry; and was particularly delighted with those unforced strains which, proceeding from the heart, are calculated to touch the congenial feelings of sympathetic minds. It was this propensity which attached him so warmly to Allan Ramsay, the Doric bard of Scotland. Though younger than Ramsay, Mr. Aikman, while at college, formed an intimate acquaintance with him, which constituted a principal part of his happiness at that time, and of which he always bore the tenderest recollection. It was the same delicate bias of mind which at a future period of his life attached him so warmly to Thomson, who then unknown, and unprotected, stood in need of, and obtained the warmest patronage of Aikman; who perhaps considered it as one of the most fortunate occurrences in his life that he had it in his power to introduce this young poet of nature to sir Robert Walpole, who wished to be reckoned the patron of genius, and to Arbuthnot, Swift, Pope, Gay, and the other beaux esprits of that brilliant period. Thomson could never forget this kindness; and when he had the misfortune, too soon, to lose this warm friend and kind protector, he bewailed the loss in strains distinguished by justness of thought, and genuine pathos of expression.

, or Alliacus, an eminent Romish ecclesiastic, and cardinal, was born at Compiegnein 1350, of an obscure family. He eame very young to study at P.aris, and was admitted into the college of Navarre in 1372. From this time he began to distinguish himself by his writings in philosophy, in which he fol lowed the principles of Occham, and the Nominalists; and his reputation made him be chosen to assist at the synod of Amiens, in which he made a, discourse to the priest, although he was then only a subdeacon. He received the doctor’s degree at Paris, April 11, 1380, and next year he made a discourse in the presence of the duke of Anjou, in the name of the university, to show that it was necessary to assemble a general council in order to put an end to schism. That same year he was made canon of Noyon, and continued there to the year 1384, when he was recalled to Paris, to be superior of the college of Navarre. Here he taught divinity, and acquired increased reputation by his lectures and sermons. From his school came Gerson, Clemangis, and Giles D‘Eschamps, the most famous divines of that time. The university of Paris could not find any person more capable of maintaining her cause against Monteson, at pope Clement VIL’s tribunal, than this learned doctor. She accordingly deputed him to Avignon, where he pleaded the cause of the university with so much force, that the pope and cardinals confirmed the judgment passed by that seminary. Having returned from this mission, he was honoured, in 1389, with three considerable dignities, that of chancellor of the church and university, and almoner and confessor to king Charles VI. In 1394 he was appointed treasurer of the holy chapel at Paris, and was sent by the king to Benedict XIII. to treat with him about the peace of the church. He was afterwards successively elected to two bishoprics: that of Puy, in Velay, in 1395, and that of Cam bray next year. He took possession of the latter, and laid down his charge of chancellor of the university in favour of John Gerson. After this he employed his time in extinguishing schism, as it was called, and assisted at the council of Pisa. At length pope John XXIII. made him cardinal of Chrysogonus in 1411. He assisted in that quality at the general council of Constance, and was one of those who took the greatest share in its transactions, and composed several sermons upon subjects handled there. He then returned to Cambray, where he died in 1425. He wrote many works, some of which were published after the invention of printing; as his “Commentaries on the Master of Sentences,” which are inserted in the appendix to the “Fasciculus rertim expetendarum,” 1490; a volume “of Tracts and Sermons,” about the same time. He wrote also on Astrology, in which he was a believer. His principal works, however, confirm the opinion which the Roman Catholic writers give of his learning and talents; and learning so extraordinary is to be venerated in an age of comparative darkness: but it is a great deduction from, his character that, although he possessed superior understanding and liberality to many of his contemporaries, and even is supposed to have leaned a little towards freedom of opinion, he was an implacable persecutor of schism, that is, the first beginnings of the Reformation; and was a principal agent in bringing John Huss to the stake, and in disturbing the ashes of Wickliffe.

, an eminent English nonconformist divine, who flourished in the latter end of the sixteenth, and beginning of the seventeenth centary, but it is not known when or where he was born. In 1590 he joined the Brownists, and by his adherence to that sect shared in their persecutions. He was well versed in the Hebrew language, and wrote many excellent commentaries on the holy scriptures which gained him great reputation. The Brownists having fallen into great discredit in England, they were involved in many fresh troubles and difficulties; so that Ainsworth at length quitted his country, and fled to Holland, whither most of the nonconformists, who had incurred the displeasure of queen Elizabeth’s government, had taken refuge. At Amsterdam Mr. Johnson and he erected a church, of which Ainsworth was the minister. In conjunction with Johnson he published, in 1602, “A confession of faith of the people called Brownists;” but being men of violent spirits, they split into parties about certain points of discipline, and Johnson excommunicated his own father and brother: the presbytery of Amsterdam offered their mediation, but he refused it. This divided the congregation, half of which joining Ainsworth, they excommunicated Johnson, who made the like return to that party. The contest grew at length so violent, that Johnson and his followers removed to Embden, where he died soon after, and his congregation dissolved. Nor did Mr. Ainsworth and his adherents live long in harmony, for in a short time he left them, and retired to Ireland; but when the heat and violence of his party subsided, he returned to Amsterdam, and continued with them until his death. Dr. Heylyn’s account of their contentions at Amsterdam, sufficiently shows what implicit obedience some men expect who are not much inclined to pay it, either to the church or the state.

, provost of Queen’s college, Oxford, was born in Westmoreland in 1559, educated in grammatical learning under the care of Bernard Gilpin, usually called the Northern Apostle, and by him sent to St. Edmund’s hall, Oxford, in 1579. He was then 19 years of age, and was maintained at the university by Gilpin, who afterwards left him a handsome legacy by his last will. Mr. Airay soon removed from St. Edmund’s hall to Queen’s college, and in 1583, took his bachelor’s degree, was made tabarder, and in 1586 he commenced master of arts and was chosen fellow. About this time he went into orders, and became a constant preacher in the university, particularly in the church of St. Peter in the east. In 1594, he took the degree of B. D. and March 9, 1598-9, was elected provost of his college; and in 1606 he was appointed vice-chancellor. He wrote the following pieces: 1. “Lectures upon the whole Epistle of St. Paul to the Philippians,” London, 1618, 4to. 2. “The just and necessary Apology touching his Suit in Law, for the Rector of Charlton on Otmore, in Oxfordshire,” London, 1621, 8vo. 3. “A Treatise against bowing at the Name of Jesus.” The lectures were preached in the church of St. Peter in the east, and were published by Christopher Potter, fellow, and afterwards provost of Queen’s college, with an epistle of his own composition prefixed to them. Airay ranks among the zealous Puritans, who were mostly Calvinists, and was a great supporter of his party in the university, where he was considered as a man of sincere piety, integrity, and learning. In 1602 when Dr. Howson, then vice-chancellor, wished to repress the practice of some Puritan divines of Oxford who preached against the ceremonies and discipline of the church, Dr. Airay and one or two otherlj were ordered to make submission by the queen’s commissioners who had investigated the matter; and this the others did, but Dr. Airay, according to Ant. Wood, appears to have been excused. In 1604, when king James, in commemoration of his escape from the Gowrie conspiracy, not only appointed an anniversary, but that there should always be a sermon and service on Tuesdays throughout the year, Dr. Airay introduced this last custom into Oxford, first at All Saints church, and then at St. Mary’s, with a rule that the sermons should be preached by the divines of the colleges in their respective turns. In 1606, when vice-chancellor, he was one of the first to call Mr. Laud, afterwards the celebrated archbishop, to task for preaching sentiments which were supposed to favour popery. He died in Queen’s college, Oct. 10, 1616, aged fiftyseven, and was buried in the chapel. He bequeathed to the college some lands lying in Garsington, near Oxford.

, an eminent botanist, was born m 1731, at a small village near Hamilton, in Lanarkshire. He had been early initiated in horticulture; and in 1754, coming for employment to the southern parts of the kingdom, he attracted, in the following year, the notice of Mr. Philip Miller, author of the Gardener’s Dictionary, who was at that time superintendant of the botanical garden at Chelsea. The instructions which he received from that eminent gardener, it is said, laid the foundation of his futnre fortune. His attention to his profession procured for him a recommendation to the late princess dowager of Wales, and his present majesty. In 1759, he consequently was appointed to superintend the botanical garden at Kew, an opportunity for the exertion of his talents which was not neglected. The most curious plants were collected from every part of the world, and his skill in the cultivation of them was evinced by his attention to the various soils and degrees of warmth or cold which were necessary for their growth. The borders in the garden were enlarged for the more free circulation of the air where it was required, and the stoves were improved for the reception of plants, and, as near as it was thought possible, adapted to the climates from which they were produced. His professional abilities were not unnoticed by the most eminent botanists of the time; and in 1764 he became acquainted with sir Joseph Banks, when, equally honourable to both, a friendship commenced which subsisted for life. In 1783, Mr. Haverfield, having been advanced to a higher station, was succeeded by Mr. Aiton, in the more lucrative office of superintending the pleasure and kitchen gardens at Kew, with which he was permitted to retain his former post. His labours proved that his majesty’s favours were not injudiciously bestowed; forin 1789 he published an ample catalogue of the plants at Kew, with the title of “Hortus Kewensis,” 3 vols. 8vo. In this catalogue was given an account of the several foreign plants which had been introduced into the English gardens at different times. The whole impression of this elaborate performance was sold within two years, and a second and improved edition was published by his son William Townsend Aiton in 1810. Though active and temperate, Mr. Aiton had for some time been afflicted with a complaint which is thought by the faculty to be incurable. It was that of a scirrhous liver, nor was it to be surmounted by the aid of medicine, though every possible assistance was liberally bestowed. He died on February 1st, 1793, in the 63d year of his age, having left behind him a wife, two sons, and three daughters. He had been distinguished by the friendship of those who were most celebrated for their botanical science. The late earl of Bute, sir Joseph Banks, the late Dr. Solander, and Mr. Dryander, were the friends to whom he always was inclined to declare his acknowledgements for their kindness, and to the three latter for the assistance which they afforded hint in completing the “Hortus Kewensis.” He was assiduous in his employment, easy in his temper, and faithful to his duty. As a friend, a husband, and a father, his character was exemplary. On his burial in the church-yard at Kew, his pall was supported by those who knew and esteemed him; by sir Joseph Banks, the Rev. Dr. Goodenough, Mr. Dryander, Dr. Pitcairn, Mr. Dundas of Richmond, and Mr. Zoffany. The king, attentive to his faithful servants, demonstrated his kindness to Mr. Aiton, by appointing his eldest son to his father’s places. There is a portrait of our author in the library at sir Joseph Banks’ s, Soho square, which is thought a good likeness. He holds in his hand a plant called, in compliment to him, Aitonia, by the celebrated Thunberg.

, a Spanish writer, born at Medina del Campo, in Castile, about the end of the sixteenth century. After having studied the law at Salamanca, he entered into the service of Anthony Perez, secretary of state under Philip II. He was in high esteem and confidence with his master, upon which account he was imprisoned after the disgrace of this minister, and kept in confinement eleven years, when Philip III. coming to the throne, set him at liberty, according to the orders given by his father in his will. Alamos continued in a private capacity, till the duke of Olivarez, the favourite of Philip IV. called him to public employments. He was appointed advocate-general in the court of criminal causes, and in the council of war. He was afterwards chosen member of the council of the Indies, and then of the council of the king’s patrimony, and a knight of the order of St. James. He was a man of wit as well as judgment, but his writings were superior to his conversation. He died in the 88th year of his age. His Spanish translation of Tacitus, and the aphorisms which he added in the margin, gained him great reputation: the aphorisms, however, have been censured by some authors, particularly by Mr. Amelot, who says, “that instead of being more concise and sententious than the text, the words of the text are always more so than the aphorism.” This work was published at Madrid in 1614, and was to have been followed, as mentioned in the king’s privilege, with a commentary, which, however, has never yet appeared. The author composed the whole during his imprisonment. He left several other works which have never yet been printed.

, cardinal priest of the Roman church, and styled Cardinal of England, was the son of John Allen, by Jennet Lyster, sister to Thomas Lyster, of Westby, in Yorkshire, and was born at Rossal in Lancashire, in 1532. His father, according to Camden, was a gentleman of a reputable family, and had him educated at home until his fifteenth year, 1547, when he was entered of Oriel college, Oxford, and had for his tutor Morgan Philips, or Philip Morgan, a zealous Roman Catholic, and usually called the Sophister, which was a title, in the learning of those times, highly honourable. Young Alan made a rapid progress both in logic and philosophy, and was elected a fellow of his college, and took his bachelor’s degree in 1550. In the Act celebrated July 16, he went out junior of the act, having completed his degree of M. A. with the distinguished reputation of great parts, learning, and eloquence. Of this we have a proof in his being chosen principal of St. Mary hall, in 1556, when only twenty-four years of age, and the same year he served the office of proctor. In 1558, he was made canon of York; but on the accession of queen Elizabeth, when the reformed religion was again established, although he remained for a short time at Oxford, yet, as he refused to comply with the queen’s visitors in taking the oaths, &c. his fellowship was declared void; and in 1560 he found it necessary to leave England, and retire to Louvain, then a general receptacle of the expatriated English Catholics, and where they had erected a college. Here his talents and zeal recommended him to his countrymen, who looked up to him as their supporter, while they were charmed with his personal appearance, and easy address, chastened by a dignified gravity of manners.

No part of the failure of this vast enterprize, however, was attributed to Alan, to whom the king of Spain now gave the archbishopric of Mecklin, and would have had reside there, as a place where he might more effectually promote the popish and Spanish interests in England; but the pope had too high an opinion of his merit to suffer him to leave Rome, where, therefore, he continued to labour in the service of his countrymen, and in promoting the Catholic faith. Some have asserted, that he and sir Francis Inglefield assisted Parsons, the Jesuit, in composing-his treasonable work concerning the succession, which he published under the name of Doleman, in 1593, and which was reckoned of such dangerous consequence, that it was made capital by law for any person to have it in his custody. Others, however, maintain that he had no hand in it, and that he even objected to it, because of its tendency to promote those dissentions which had for so many years distracted his native country; and this last opinion is probable, if what we have been told be true, that towards the close of his life he had changed his sentiments, as to government, and professed his sorrow for the pains he had taken in promoting the invasion of England. It is even asserted, by a very eminent popish writer (Watson), that when he perceived that the Jesuits intended nothing but desolating and destroying his native land, he wept bitterly, not knowing how to remedy it, much less how to curb their insolence. Such conduct, it is added, drew upon him the ill-will of that powerful society, who chose now to represent him as a man of slender abilities, and of little political consequence. On his death-bed, he was very desirous of speaking to the English students then at Rome, which the Jesuits prevented, lest he should have persuaded them to a loyal respect for their prince, and a tender regard for their country. He is generally said to have died of a retention of urine; but, as the Jesuits had shown so much dislike, they have been accused of poisoning him. Of this, however, there is no proof. He died Oct. 6, 1594, in the sixty-third year of his age; and was buried with great pomp in the chapel of the English college at Rome, where a monument was erected to his memory, with an inscription setting forth his titles and merits. What these merits were, the reader has been told. We have seen cardinal Alan in three characters: that of a zealous propagandist; of apolitical traitor to his country; and lastly, repenting the violence of his endeavours to ruin his country on pretence of bringing her back to popery. In the first of these characters he seems to have acted from the impulse of a mind firmly persuaded that every deviation from popery was dangerous heresy; and the only weapons he employed were those of controversy. As a writer, the popish party justly considered him as the first champion of his age; and both his learning and eloquence were certainly of a superior stamp. But in his worst character, as a traitor, there is every reason to think him influenced by the Jesuits, who at that time, and ever while a society, had little scruple as to the means by which they effected their purposes. Yet even their persuasions were not sufficient to inspire him with permanent hostility towards the political existence of his country. Some writers, not sufficiently attending to his history, have called him a Jesuit; but in all controversies between the Jesuits and the secular priests, the latter always gloried in cardinal Alan, as a man to whom no Jesuit could be compared, in any respect.

At Rome, and every where abroad, he was styled Cardinal of England, and regarded as the protector of the nation. After his death, however, and when all hopes of conquering England had vanished, less notice was taken of English priests, and few of them were made bishops; nor was it until the reign of Charles II. when the popish interest was supposed likely to gain the ascendancy in England, that Philip Thomas Howard, younger brother to the Duke of Norfolk, was created cardinal, and sometimes called the Cardinal of England.

, lord Fortescue of the kingdom of Ireland, a baron of the exchequer, and puisne judge of the king’s bench and common pleas in the reigns of George I. and II. was born March 7, 1670, being the second son of Edmund Fortescue, of London, esq. and Sarah, daughter of Henry Aland, of Waterford, esq. in honour of whom he added Aland to his name. He was descended from sir John Fortescue, lord chief justice and lord high chancellor of England under king Henry VI. He was educated probably at Oxford, as that university, in complimenting him with a doctor’s degree, by diploma, in 1733, alluded to his having^tudied there. On leaving the university he became a member of the Inner Temple, where he was chosen reader in 1716, 2 Geo. I. as appears by a subscription to his arms, and was called to the bar about the time of the Revolution. For his arguments as pleader in the courts of justice, the reader is referred to the following authorities; viz. the Reports of Mr. justice Fortescue Aland; Mr. serjeant Carthew; Mr. recorder Comberbach; lord chancellor (of Ireland) Freeman; lord chief baron Gilbert’s Cases; Mr. justice Levintz; Mr. justice Lutwyche; lord chief justice Raymond; Mr. Serjeant Salkeld; Mr. serjeant Skinner; and Mr. justice Ventris.

, or Alain de L‘Isle, surnamed the Universal Doctor, from his extensive knowledge, was born about the middle of the twelfth century, not at Lille in Flanders, as most biographers have asserted, but either at L’Isle, in the Comtat-Venaissain, according to the abbe Le Beuf, or in the island or peninsula of Madoc in the Bordelais. In all the accounts we have of him, he seems to be mistaken for the preceding. He appears to have taught theology in the university of Paris; but it is not true that he ever was a lay-brother of the Cistertians, or fed the sheep belonging to that abbey, or that he was called to Rome to assist at a general council. He died in the early part of the thirteenth century, in the abbey of the Cistertians, whither, after the example of many distinguished persons of his time, he retired to pass the remainder of his days. He was buried in the abbey with an inscription of seven lines, the last four of which Casimir Oudin, the ecclesiastical biographer and historian, discovered to have been added long after his death, and with a view to authenticate the stories that he had been a lay-brother, &c. But although our accounts of him are imperfect and confused, it appears that he enjoyed the esteem and admiration of his contemporaries, and that it was usual to say, “To have seen Alanus, is enough.” Sufficiat vobis vidisse Alanum. Among his works are, 1. “Anti-Claudianus, seu de viro optimo, et in omni virtute perfecto, lib. ix. Carmine,” Basil, 1536, and Antwerp, 1621. 2. “De planctu naturæ contra Sodomiæ vitium,” published with notes by Leo Allatius. 3. “Contra Albigenses, Waldenses, Judæos, et Paganos,” Paris, 1618, 8vo. 4. “Dicta de Lapide philosophico,” Leyden, 1600, 8vo. All his works, both prose and verse, were collected by Charles de Visch, and published at Antwerp, 1654, fol. but some of them have been attributed to the preceding Alanus. His “Parables” have been translated into French, Paris, 1492, fol. and by Denys Janot, 8vo, without a date.

, son of the preceding, was born Nov. 22, 1572. Aftet having received the principles of education in the college of Itzehoe, which he left at the age of sixteen, he passed rive years in the college of Luneburgh, and went from that to Wittemherg, where he distinguished himself by the able defence of his theses. In 1595, he was called home, and made joint rector of the college of Krempen, and afterwards chosen pastor of the church of that place. He died May 8, 1644. aged 72 years and six months. His works, in Latin, are, 1. “Christianus, hoc est, de nomine, ortu, &c. Christianorum,” Leipsic, 1637, 1640. “Pericopa pentateuchi biblica, triglossometrica,” &c. 1618, 4to. 3. “De diversis ministrorum. gradibus contra Bezam.” 4. “Defensiotractationis,” &c. a defence of the preceding against Beza’s answer, Francfort, 1600.

When Germany became an unsafe residence for the friends of the reformatiou, and the contest respecting the interim was eagerly pursued, Alasco, whose fame had reached England, was invited thither by archbishop Cranmer. This illustrious founder of the English church had for some time afforded a quiet asylum to such learned foreigners as bad been expatriated on account of their religion; and had at one time residing at Lambeth palace, those celebrated reformers Bucer, Martyr, Fagius, Ochin, and others of inferior note. Alasco arrived accordingly about the year 1548, and was introduced not only to the archbishop, but by his means to sir John Cheke, sir William Cecil, and to the duke of Somerset, the protector. In a conference with the latter, he was encouraged to request that be and his congregation might have leave to come over to London, and be protected in the exercise of their religion; and he urged that such a favour would be a matter of policy as well as charity, as by this step many useful manufactures might be introduced into England. He requested also that they might be incorporated by the king’s jetters patent; and some old dissolved church, or monastery, given them as a place of worship. Having proposed these measures, and obtained the assistance of the archbishop and other friends of rank and power, to assist in forwarding them, he returned again to Embden, where be corresponded with the archbishop and Cecil, As soon as they informed him that his request would be complied with, he again came to England, and brought with him a considerable number of German Protestants, who found an asylum for their persons, and toleration for their principles, under the mild reign of Edward VI. Three hundred and eighty of these refugees were naturalized, and erected into a species of ecclesiastical corporation, which was governed by its own laws, and enjoyed its own form of worship, although not exactly agreeing with that of the church of England. A place of worship in London, part of the once splendid priory of the Augustine friars, in the ward of Broad-street, which is still standing, was granted to them July 24, 1549, with the revenues belonging to it, for the subsistence of their ministers, who were either expressly nominated, or at least approved of by the king. His majesty also fixed the precise number of them, namely, four minisiers and a superintendant. This last office was conferred on Alasco, who, in the letters patent, is called a person of singular probity, and great learning; and it was an office which comprehended many important duties. It appears that as among the refugees from the Continent there were sometimes concealed papists, or dangerous enthusiasts, a power was given to Alasco to examine into their characters, and none were tolerated in the exercise of their religion but such as were protected by him. His office likewise extended not only over this particular congregation of Germans, but over all the other foreign churches in London, of which we find there was a French, a Spanish, and an Italian church or congregation; and over their schools and seminaries, all which were subject to his inspection, and declared to be within his jurisdiction. In 1552, we find him using his influence to procure for a member of the French church the king’s licence to set up a printing-house for printing the liturgy, &c. in French, for the use of the French islands (Jersey and Guernsey) under the English government.

, an Arabic prince of Batan in Mesopotamia, was a celebrated astronomer, about the year 880, as appears by his observations. He is also called Muhammed ben Geber Albatani (Mahomet, the son of Geber) and Muhamedes Aractensis. He made astronomical observations at Antioch, and at Racah or Aracta, a town of Chaldea, which some authors call a town of Syria or of Mesopotamia. He is highly spoken of by Dr. Halley, as a man of great acuteness, and accuracy in making observations. Finding that the tables of Ptolemy were imperfect, he computed new ones, which were long used as the best among the Arabs: these were adapted to the meridian of Aracta or Racah. He composed in Arabic a work under the title of “The Science of the Stars,” comprizing all parts of astronomy, according to his own observations and those of Ptolemy. The original of this, which has never been published, is in the library of the Vatican. It was translated into Latin by Plato of Tibur, and was published at Nuremberg in 1537, with some additions and demonstrations of Regiomontanus; and the same was reprinted at Bologna in 1645, with this author’s notes. Dr. Halley detected many faults in these editions. (Philos. Trans, for 1693, No. 204.) In this work Albategni gives the motion of the sun’s apogee since Ptolemy’s time; as well as the motion of the stars, which he makes one degree in seventy years. He made the longitude of the first star of Aries to be 18 2‘; and the obliquity of the ecliptic 23 35’; and upon his observations were founded the Alphonsine tables of the moon’s motion.

, an Italian lawyer, the sort of Alberic Rosiati of Bergamo, one of the most learned men of his time, was born at Arezzo, near Florence, in the fourteenth century. He studied under the celebrated Baldi, and made a rapid progress in philosophy, law, history, &c. He afterwards became an advocate at Arezzo, but went to Florence in 1349. Here his learning, talents, and integrity, procured him one of those titles which were frequently bestowed at that time on men of celebrity. He was called doctor solids veritatis. By the republic of Florence he was entrusted to negociate several very important affairs, particularly with the Bolognese in 1558; and as the recompense of his services, he was ennobled. He died at Florence in 1376, leaving three sons; two eminent in, the church, and one as a lawyer. His works are principally “Commentaries on the Digest,” on “some books of the Civil Code,” and consultations, much praised by Bartholi. His father, mentioned above, wrote on the sixth book of the Decretals, a work much esteemed and often reprinted, and a Dictionary of Law, with other professional treatises.

, a Lutheran divine, born, according to some, in Weteraw, or, according to others, at a small village near Francfort on the Main, studied divinity at Wittemberg, and became one of the most zealous adherents of Luther, who had a great friendship for him. He was for some time preacher to Joachim II. elector of Brandenburgh, but on a dispute respecting the revenues of the clergy, he lost that situation, and travelled intw various places, maintaining the doctrines of the reformation. In 1548 he was a preacher at Magcleburgh; but the Interim, proposed by Charles V. and fatal to so many of the Protestant clergy, oblige'd him to leave that place, and reside in a private station at Hamburgh. He was afterwards appointed &uperintendant-general of New Brandenburgh, in Mecklenburgh, where he died May J, 1553. He collected from the book, written by Albizzi (See Albizzi), of the conformities of St. Francis with Jesus Christ, the most remarkable absurdities and follies, and published them under the title of the “Alcoran of the Cordeliers.” He printed this collection in German, in the year 1531, without name of place or printer; and again in Latin at Wittemberg, in 1542 4, and called the Alcoran, because the Franciscans of his time paid as much veneration to the conformities as the Turks do to their alcoran. Luther honoured the compilation of his disciple with a preface. Conrad Baudius augmented it with a second book, translated it into French, and published it in 1556, one vol. 12mo; afterwards at Geneva, in 1560, in 2 vols. 12 mo. The last edition of this satirical work is that of Amsterdam in 1734, in 3 vols. 12mo, with copper-plates. There is also of this Albert, “Judicium de Spongia Erasmi, Roterodami;” and several other pieces in Latin and German, particularly a collection of forty-nine fables, called “The book of Wisdom and Virtue,” Francfort, 1579, 8 vo, in German verse. His satirical turn pervades all his writings.

, sometimes called Argentinensis, lived in the fourteenth century, and wrote a history, or chronicle, from the time of the emperor Ilodolphus I. to that of Charles IV. or from the year 1270 to 1378. Cuspiuian quotes him often, and has given a fragment of the work; and Ursticius has published the whole in his collection of German historians. There is usually joined to it, the fragment of a chronicle, from the year 631 to 1267. His other works are enumerated in Du Pin’s Bibliotheque for the fourteenth century.

lived in the thirteenth century, in the reign of the emperor Frederic II. While he was judge and governor of Gavardo, he was taken prisoner, and in confinement wrote a treatise, entitled “De dilectione Dei et proximi, de formula vitae honestac.” He afterwards wrote two others, “De consolatione et consilio,” and “De doctrina loquendi et tacendi.” Bastian de Rossi, called in the academy of De la Crusca l'Inferiguo, published an Italian edition, compared with several manuscripts, under the title of “Trattati di Albertano, &c.” Florence, 1610, 4to, a very rare book. There was a second edition, finely printed, at Mantua, 1732, 4to.

, otherwise called Ridolfo Fioraventi, a celebrated mechanic, born at Bologna, lived in the 15th century. Astonishing performances are ascribed to this artist. In 1455 he transported, at Bologna, the campanile of St. Mary del Tempis, with all its bells, to the distance of 35 paces. In the town of Cento he righted that of the church of St. Blaise, which was got five feet and a half out of its perpendicular. Being invited to Hungary, he rebuilt several bridges on the Danube, and constructed many other works, with which the reigning sovereign was so highly satisfied, that he created him a chevalier, and allowed him to coin money with the impress of his own bust. He was likewise employed by Ivan Vassillievitch, grand duke of Russia, in the construction of several churches.

, professor of Divinity in the university of Leyden, was born 1698, at Asse in Holland. After the example of Eisner, Raphelius, and the celebrated Lambert Bos, who had been his tutors at the university of Franeker, and of some other divines who have been called sacred philologians, he collected from prophane authors all the parallel passages in favour of the Greek phrases in the New Testament, with a view to defend the style of the evangelists and apostles against those critics who maintain that it is barbarous and full of Hebraisms. The result of his labours he published in 1725, under the title of “Observationes Philologicæ in sacros Novi Feederis libros,” 8vo, Leyden; and encouraged by the reputation he derived from this work, he next published “Periculum criticum in quo loca quædam cum V. ac N. T. tum Hesychii et aliorum, illustrantur, vindicantur, emendantur,” Leyden, 1727, 8vo. In this he displayed an uncommon acquaintance with the Greek lexicographers and grammarians, and some years after conceived a design of a new edition of Hesychius. While making collections for this undertaking, Fabricius sent him an unpublished glossary of the words of the New Testament, which he thought worthy of publication by itself, with a comment and some critical pieces. It appeared accordingly in 1735, under the title “Glossarium Græcum in sacros N. T. libros. Accedunt miscellanæ critica in glossas nomicas, Suidam, Hesychium, et index auctorum ex Photii lexico inedito,” Leyden, 8vo. Ten years after, in 1746, the first volume of his edition of Hesychius made its appearance, and fully, gratified the expectations of the learned world. He had arrived at the letter K in the second volume, when he was attacked by the cholic of Poitou, and although restored ia some measure by the waters of Aix-la-Chapelle, he was obliged to desist from his labours for about three years. He then resumed them, but the manuscript was left unfinished at his death, which was occasioned by the erysipelas, Aug. 13, 1762. The Hesychius was afterwards completed by Rhunkenius, Leyden, 1766. This is the best edition, and is thought by some critics to be one of the best edited books the learned world can boast.

, called also Albertus Teutonicus, Frater Albertus de Colonia, Albertus Ratisbonensis, and Albertus Grotus, of the family of the counts of Bollstrcdt, was born, according to some, in 1193, and according to others, in 1205, at Lavingen in Suabia. It has been supposed that the epithet of Great, which was certainly conferred upon him by his contemporaries, in whose eyes he appeared a prodigy of learning and genius, was the family name Grsot, but none of the counts of Bollstcedt ever bore such a name. He received his early education at Pavia, where he surpassed all his schoolfellows, and that every circumstance belonging to him might have an air of miracle, it is said that he owed his rapid progress to a vision in which the holy Virgin appeared to him, and promised that he should be one of the greatest luminaries of the church. By the advice of one of his masters, the celebrated dominican Jordanus, he resolved to enter into that order in 1221. After having for some time taught the scholars of the society, he went to Paris, and gave lectures on Aristotle with great applause. As the Aristotelian philosophy had been just before forbidden by a papal bull, some of the biographers of Albertus have questioned his lecturing on the subject at Paris; but the fact is recorded by all the ancient writers on his history, and it is even probable that he was the means of having the bull rescinded as he was permitted publicly to comment on Aristotle’s physics. In 1254, his reputation was such among the Dominicans, that he was raised to the dignity of provincial in Germany. In this character he took up his residence at Cologn, a city at that time preferable to most others for a man so addicted to study, and for which he entertained so strong a predilection, that neither the invitation of pope Alexander IV. to come to Rome, nor his promotion to the bishopric of Ratisbon, in 1260, were inducements sufficient to draw him from Cologn for any considerable time. It was at Cologn probably, that he is said to have constructed an automaton, capable of moving and speaking, which his disciple, the celebrated Thomas Aquinas, broke in pieces, from a notion that it was an agent of the devil. This city is likewise said to have been the site of another of his miracles, that of raising flowers in winter to please William, count of Holland. Such tricks, or such reports of his ingenuity, procured him the reputation of a magician, in an age in which he probably had attained only a superior knowledge of mechanics. What he really did, or how far he was indebted to the arts of deception, in these and other performances, it is difficult to determine; but we know that the most common tricks, which now would only make a company of illiterate villagers stare, were then sufficient to astonish a whole nation.

, also called Bartholomew of Pisa, was born in the fourteenth century at Rivano in Tuscany, and was of the order of the Franciscans, or Friars minorites; and derived much fame in the eyes of his brethren by a work in Latin, on the “Conformity of St. Francis with Jesus Christ,” which he presented to the chapter of his order in 1399. (See Albert, Erasmus.) The impiety of this work may be partly guessed from the title; but as Tiraboschi has thought proper to blame the Protestants who either answered it seriously, or turned it into ridicule, and according to him raised a clamour against the friars, who could not be supposed responsible for the act of an individual, it may be necessary to remind the readers of that learned historian, that the friars did in fact take upon them a very high degree of responsibility. They not only bestowed the highest praise on Albizzi; but after receiving his book in a full chapter, the representatives of the whole order, they presented him with a complete dress which St. Francis wore in his life-time. This foolish book, which not only raises St. Francis above all other saints, but impiously compares him with the Saviour, was first printed at Venice, fol. without date, or printer’s name. The second edition, which Dr. Clarke calls the first, was printed at Milan, 1510, a folio of 256 leaves in the black letter, and sells on the continent at from ₤5. to ₤20. The third was also printed at Milan, 1513, in the same form, and type, with a new preface by Mapelli, a Franciscan. All these are uncommonly scarce, and hardly ever to be found complete. Jeremy Bucchi, another Franciscan, published a new edition at Bologna in 1590, in which he omitted many passages, and added the lives of the illustrious men of the order of St. Francis; but as this did not sell, the first two leaves were cancelled, and it was again published in 1620, as a new work. It contains the approbation of the chapter-general, dated Aug. 2, 1399. This work, with more alterations and omissions, was again published at Cologn in 1632, under the title “Antiquitates Franciscanae, sive Speculum vitae B. Francisci et sociorum,” &c. The last we shall notice is that of father Valentine Maree, ' or Marcus, a reco^let, or reformed Franciscan, entitled “Traite de conformites du disciple avec le maitre, c'est a dire, de S. Francois avec J. C. en tout le mysteres de sa naissance, vie, passion, mort, &c.” Liege, 1658, 4to. Although in this many extravagances are retrenched, there is yet enough to demonstrate its folly. Some other works, sermons, &c. have been attributed to Albizzi, which are little known.

, a descendant of the preceding, was born at Lyons in 1753, and died at Paris, 1789. He passed the greater part of his life in travelling and writing, and was a member of various academies. His works are: 1. “Dialogue 'entre Alexandre et Titus,” 8vo; in which he pleads the cause of humanity against those who are called heroes and conquerors. 2. “Observations d‘un citoyen sur le nouveau plan d’impositions,” 1774, 8vo. 3. “Œuvres diverses, lues le jour de sa reception a l'academie de Lyon,” 1774, 8vo. 4. “Eloge de Quesnoy,” 1775, 8vo; since inserted in the “Necrologe des Hommes celebres.” His attachment to the economists induced him to pay this respect to one of the chief of those writers. 5. “Eloge de Chamousset,” 1776, 8vo. 6. “La Paresse,” a poem; pretended to be translated from the Greek of Nicander, 1777, 8vo. 7. “CEuvres diverses,” 1778, 12mo; consisting of fables, verses, a memoir addressed to the economical society of Berne, and a letter to a suffragan bishop. 8. “Discours,” &c. on the question whether the Augustan age ought to be preferred to that of Louis XIV. as to learning and science, 1784, 8vo. This he determines in favour of the age of Louis; but a severe criticism having appeared in the Journal de Paris, he published an answer, dated Neufchatel, but printed at Paris. 9. “Discours politiques, historiques, et critiques, sur quelques Gouvernments de l'Europe,” 1779, &c. 3 vols. 8vo. The governments are Holland, England, Germany, Italy, Spain; and his remarks are chiefly valuable where he treats of commerce, agriculture, and the other subjects which the French cecjpnomists studied. In matters of government, legislation, manners, &c. he is jejune, superficial, and confused; sometimes through prejudice, and sometimes through wilful ignoranoe. This is particularly striking in his accounts of the constitutions of England and Holland. His account of Spain is perhaps the best. 10. “Discours prononcé a la seance de la societé d'agriculture de Lyon,” 1785, 8vo. 11. “Eloge de Count de Gebelin,” 1785, 8vo. This learned Protestant being denied Christian burial, according to the laws then established in France, Count d'Albon caused him to be buried in his garden, at Franconville, in the valley of Montmorency, and erected a handsome monument to his memory. These gardens, which were laid out in the English fashion, are described in a set of nineteen plates published in 1780; and they are also described by Dulaure in his “Curiosites des environs de Paris.” His numerous writings, his attachment to Quesnoy, and his liberality to count de Gebelin, procured him a considerable share of celebrity during his life, although his character was tinged with some personal oddities, and peculiarities of opinion, which frequently excited the pleasantry of his contemporaries. It is given as an instance of his vanity, that when he had erected some buildings for the accommodation of the frequenters of a fair, he inscribed on the front: “Gentium commodo, Camillus III.”

, a celebrated Arabian surgeon; called also Albucasa, Albuchasius, Buchasis, Bulcaris-Ga-Laf, Alsaharavius, and Azaravius, but whose proper name was Aboul-Casem-Khalaf-Ben-Abbas, was a native of Alzahrah, a city of Spain. He is supposed to have lived about the year 1085; but Dr. Freind thinks he is not so ancient, as in treating of wounds, he describes the arrows of the Turks, a nation which scarcely made any figure until the middle at least of the twelfth century. From what he says of surgery being in a manner extinct in his time, the same historian supposes that he lived long after Avicenna; as in the time of the latter, surgery was in good repute. Albucasis, however, revived it, and is the only one among the ancients who has described the instruments in each operation, and explained the use of them; and the figures of these instruments are in both the Arabic manuscripts now in the Bodleian library (Marsh, N 54, and Huntington, N 156.) The use of the cautery was very common with him, and he appears to have ventured upon incisions of the most hazardous kind. In Dr. Freind’s history is a very elaborate analysis of his works and practice. His works, collected under the title of “Al-Tacrif,” or the method of practice, have been translated and often printed in Latin, Venice, 1500, and 1520, folio; Augsburgh, 1519; Strasburgh, 1532; and Basil, 1541.

, or Abou-Machar, a noted Arabian astrologer and philosopher, was born at Balkh in the Khorasan, about the year 805 or 806. For a long time he was addicted to the Mahometan traditions, and a determined enemy to philosophy; but in his forty-seventh year he began to study the sciences, and acquired the reputation of an astronomer and astrologer; and, although he is now principally known by his writings on astrology, he cannot be refused a place among the most distinguished easterns, who have made astronomical observations. The table called Zydj Abou-Machar was calculated from his observations; but the work from which he derives his principal reputation, is his treatise on astrology, entitled “Thousands of years;” in which, among other singular positions, he maintains that the world was created when the seven planets were in conjunction in the first degree of Aries, and will end when they shall assemble in the last degree or Pisces. He died in 885. His astrological work was published at Venice, 1506, 8vo; with the title “De magnis conjunctionibus, annorum revolutionibus, ac eorum perfectionibus;” but his “Introductio ad Astronomiam” was printed before this in 4to,. Augsburgh, 1489; and reprinted at Venice, 1490, 1506, and 1515, 4to.

He then steered to a place called Rapander to winter; but the enemy soon obliged him to remove, and take shelter between the continent and the island of Divar, where he was informed his enemies were also preparing to make an attack upon him,. In this extremity, being very scarce of provisions, he determined to make a desperate effort on a strong castle, called Pangin. Accordingly, having stationed a force to prevent succours being sent to it, he proceeded under cover of the night, and succeeded in surprising both the fort and camp of the enemy, both which were taken without much resistance. Such an unexpected turn of good fortune determined him not only to object to offers of peace, but also to make an attack on Goa. In this he succeeded, having in the attack killed 3000 of the enemy, and began to aim at greater enterprizes. Having collected his forces, he sailed from Goa for the island of Sumatra, and in every voyage made many captures; there having concluded a treaty with the princes of this island, he proceeded to the city of Malacca, and made himself master of it. Having settled affairs there, he returned to Goa, laid siege to the city of Benastar, and having been unsuccessful, consented to a peace with the Zamorin. He then built a fort at Calicut, and sailed to Aden, in hopes of making himself master of it, but was disappointed, and obliged to return. Soon after he fell sick and died, Dec. 16, 1515, having first had the mortification to hear of his being recalled by the king.

, a celebrated Roman orator in the time of Augustus, was a native of Novarre, and advanced to the office of sedile, but he left it on account of an insult offered to him by some persons who had lost their suit. He then went to Rome, where he associated himself v.-ith Munacius Plancus, the orator, but rivalship soon parted them, and he formed a separate auditory, and at length ventured to plead causes. In this office, he met with a disgrace which obliged him to renounce it. In the warmth of pleading he one day made use of an expression which he meant only as a nourish: “Swear,” said he to his adversary, “by the ashes and by the memory of your fathers, and you shall gain your cause.” After he had amplified this thought, the advocate on the opposite side coolly replied, “We accept the condition;” and the judges admitting the oath, Albutius lost his cause, and his temper, at least, if not his credit. We hear no more of him, until he returned to Novarre, old and afflicted with an abscess, when he called the people together, and explained to them in a long speech the reasons that hindered him from desiring to live, and so starved himself to death. Seneca the father gives him the singular character of one who could neither bear nor offer an injury. A passage in Quintilian seems to intimate that he composed a “Treatise on Rhetorick.”

, a celebrated and learned lawyer, was the son of a rich merchant of Milan, according to Pancirolus, and born in that city in 1492. After having studied the liberal sciences under Janus Parrhasius at Milan, he attended the law-lectures of Jason at Pavia, and those of Charles Ruinus at Bologna. Then taking a degree in law in his twenty-second year, he followed his profession at the bar, in the city of Milan, till he was called to the law-chair by the university of Avignon. He discharged his office with so much capacity, that Francis I. thought he would be a very proper person to promote the knowledge of the law in the university of Bourges, and accordingly prevailed on him to remove thither in 1529; and the next year he doubled his salary, which before was six hundred crowns. Alciati acquired here great fame and reputation; he interspei’sed much polite learning in his explication of the law, and abolished that barbarous language, which had hitherto prevailed in the lectures and writings of the lawyers. Francis Sforza, duke of Milan, thought himself obliged to bring back to his native country a man who could do it so much honour; and this he compassed at last, by giving him a large salary and the dignity of a senator. Alciati accordingly went to teach the law at Pavia, but soon after removed to the university of Bologna, where he continued four years, and then returned to Pavia; from whence he went to Ferrara, being solicited thither by duke Hercules d'Este, who was desirous to render his university famous. It resumed its reputation under a professor so much followed; but at the end of four years Alciati left it, and returned to Pavia. Paul III. gave him an honourable reception as he passed by Ferrara, and offered him ecclesiastical preferment; but Alciati was contented with that of prothonotary, and would not give up his profession of the law. He seems to rejoice that he had refused Paul’s offers, in a letter to Paulus Jovius, whom the pope had a long time amused with fallacious promises: “I am very glad,” says he, “that I did not suffer myself to be deceived by this pope’s offers, who, under the promise of a great recompense, wanted to draw me to Rome.” The emperor created Alciati a count-palatin and a senator; and Philip, afterwards king of Spain, presented him with a golden chain as he passed by Pavia.

Alcibiades went to Sparta, where he was well received. In the spring, when Agis king of Sparta invaded Attica, he gave him advice to seize and fortify Dicelea. This was a severe stroke on the Athenians; but their misfortunes fell much heavier on them in Sicily, and their allies began to waver. They afterwards had some slight successes at sea, which discouraged the Peioponnesians; but Alcibiades exerted his eloquence to persuade them to continue the war; he advised them to send a small fleet to Ionia, promising to engage the cities to revolt from the Athenians, and to negociate a league between Sparta and theking of Persia, the advantages of which he pointed out to them. The Lacedemonians entering into his measures, he passed over into Ionia, and there actually effected what he had promised. He also found means to draw Tissaphernes, the king of Persia’s lieutenant, into a league with them. The Spartans, however, were displeased with the terms of it, and seeking to have them altered, the Persians likewise grew displeased. Alcibiades did not long continue in favour with the Spartans; and having debauched the wife of Agis, that prince conceived the most inveterate hatred against him, and persuaded the Lacedemonians to send orders, to their general in Ionia to put the Athenian to death. Alcibiades gained some intelligence of this, retired to Tissaphernes, and laying aside the Lacedemonian, as he had before done the Athenian, became a perfect Persian. By the politeness of his address, he gained so much on Tissaphernes, although a professed enemy to all Greeks, that he gave his name to his gardens of pleasure, after he had spent immense sums in adorning them; they were afterwards called Alcibiades. When the Athenian saw that Tissaphernes placed a confidence in him, he gave him much information respecting the affairs of Greece; told him that it was not the interest of the Persian monarch that Athens should be destroyed, but that she and Sparta should be supported as rivals to each other, and that then the Greeks would never have an opportunity to turn their united arms against his master; but added, that if it should become necessary to rely on one of them, he advised him to trust to Athens, because she would be content with the dominion of the sea; but that the pride of the Spartans would always stimulate them to new conquests, and excite in them a desire of setting the Greek cities in Asia at liberty.

, an ancient musician, and one of the early cultivators of lyric poetry, was a native of Sardis, and flourished about 670 B. C. Heraclides of Pontus assures us that he was a slave in his youth at Sparta, but that by his good qualities and genius, he acquired his freedom, and a considerable reputation in lyric poetry. He was consequently an excellent performer on the cithara, and, if he was not a flute player, he at least sung verses to that instrument; Clemens AleKandnnus makes him author of music for choral dances; and, according to Archytas Harmoniacus, quoted by Athenseus, Alcman was one of th first and most eminent composers of songs on love and gallantry. If we may credit Suidas, he was the first who excluded hexameters from verses that were to be sung to the Jyre, which afterwards obtained the title of lyric poems. And Ælian tells us, that he was one of the great musician! who were called to Lacedcemon, by the exigencies of the state, and that he sung his airs to the sound of the flute. All the evolutions in the Spartan army were made to the sound of that instrument; and as patriotic songs accompanied by it were found to be excellent incentives to public virtue, Alcman seems to have been invited to Sparta, in order to furnish the troops with such compositions. Alcman was not more remarkable for a musical genius, than for a voracious appetite, and Ælian numbers him among the greatest gluttons of antiquity. This probably brought on the morbus pediculosus, of which he died. His tomb was still to be seen at Lacedæmon, in the time of Pausanias. But nothing, except a few fragments, are now remaining of the many poems attributed to him by antiquity. These have been published by Stephens, among other lyric fragments, at the end of his edition of Pindar, 1560; and have been often reprinted.—There is said to have been another Alcman of Messina, also a lyric poet.

, one of the fevr learned Englishmen of the eighth century, was born in the north of England, and educated at York, under the direction of archbishop Egbert, as we learn from his own letters, in which he frequently calls that great prelate his beloved master, and the clergy of York the companions of his youthful studies. As he survived the venerable Bede about seventy years, it is hardly possible that he could have received any part of his education under him, as some writers have asserted; nor does he ever call that great man his master, though he speaks of him with the highest veneration. It is not well known to what preferments he had attained in the church before he left England, although some say he was deacon of the church of York, and abhot of Canterbury. The occasion of his leaving his native country was, his being sent on an embassy by Offa, king of Mercia, to the emperor Charlemagne, who contracted so great an esteem and friendship for him, that he earnestly solicited, and at length prevailed upon him, to settle in his court, and become his preceptor in the sciences. Alcuinus accordingly instructed that great prince in rhetoric, logic, mathematics, and divinity; which rendered him one of his greatest favourites. He was treated with so much kindness and familiarity by the emperor, that the courtiers called him, by way of eminence, “the emperor’s delight.”

, the first bishop of Durham, was promoted to that see in the year 990, being the twelfth of the reign of king Ethelred. He was of a noble family; but, according to Simeon of Durham, more ennobled by his virtues and religious deportment. He sat about six years in the see of Lindisfarne, or Holy Island in Northumberland, during which time that island was frequently exposed to the incursions of the Danish pirates. This made him think of removing from thence; though Simeon of Durham says, he was persuaded by an admonition from heaven. However, taking with him the body of St. Cuthbert, which had been buried there about 113 years, and accompanied by all the monks and the rest of the people, he went away from Holy Island; and after wandering about some time, at last settled with his followers at Dunelm, now called Durham, where he gave rise both to the city and cathedral church. Before his arrival, Dunelm consisted only of a few scattered huts or cottages. The spot of ground was covered with a very thick wood, which the bishop, with the assistance of the people that followed him, made a shift to cut down, and clear away. After he had assigned the people their respective habitations by lot, he began to build a church of stone; which he finished in three years time, and dedicated to St. Cuthbert, placing in it the body of that saint. From that time the episcopal see, which had been placed at Lindisfarne by bishop Aidan (see Aidan), remained fixed at Durham; and the cathedral church was soon endowed with considerable benefactions by king Ethelred, and other great men.

, an eminent scholar and divine, was son of Henry Aldrich of Westminster, gentleman, and born there in 1647. He was educated at Westminster under the celebrated Busby, and admitted of Christ Church, Oxford, in 1662. Having been elected student, he took the degree of M. A. in April 1669; and, entering soon after into orders, he became an eminent tutor in his college. Feb. 1681, he was installed canon of Christ Church; and in May accumulated the degrees of B. and D. D. In the controversy with the papists under James II. he bore a considerable part; and Burnet ranks him among those eminent clergj T men who “examined all the points of popery with a solidity of judgment, a clearness of arguing, a depth of learning, and a vivacity of writing, far beyond any thing which had before that time appeared in our language.” In short, he had rendered himself so conspicuous, that, at the Revolution, when Massey, the popish dean of Christ Church, fled beyond sea, the deanry was conferred upon him, and he was installed in it June 17, 1689. In this station he behaved in a most exemplary manner, zealously promoting learning, religion, and virtue in the college where he presided. In imitation of his predecessor bishop Fell, he published generally every year some Greek classic, or portion of one, as a gift to the students of his house. He wrote also a system of logic, entitled “Artis Logicae compendium;” and many other things. The publication of Clarendon’s History was committed to him and bishop Sprat; and they were charged by Oldmixon with having altered and interpolated that work; but the charge was sufficiently refuted by Atterbury. In the same year that he became dean of Christ Church he was appointed one of the ecclesiastical commissioners who were to prepare matters for introducing an alteration in some parts of the church service, and a comprehension of the dissenters. But he, in conjunction with Dr. Mew, bishop of Winchester, Dr. Sprat, bishop of Rochester, and Dr. Jane, regius professor of divinity in the university of Oxford, either did not appear at the meetings of the committee, or soon withdrew from them. They excepted to the manner of preparing matters by a special commission, as limiting the convocation, and imposing upon it, and they were against all alterations whatever. Besides attainments in polite literature, classical learning, and an elegant turn for Latin poetry, of which some specimens are in the Musae Anghcanae, he possessed also great skill in architecture and music; so great, that, as the connoisseurs say, his excellence in either would alone have made him famous to posterity. The three siues of the quadrangle of Christ Church, Oxford, called Peck water-square, were designed by him; as was also the elegant chapel of Trinity college, and the church of All-Saints in the High-street; to the erection of which Dr. Ratcliff, at his solicitation, was a liberal contributor. He cultivated also music, that branch of it particularly which related both to his profession and his office. To this end he made a noble collection of church music, and formed also a design of writing a history of the science; having collected materials, which are still extant in the library of his own college. His abilities indeed as a musician have caused him to be ranked among the greatest masters of the science: he composed many services for the church, which are well known; as are also his anthems, to the number of near 20. In the “Pleasant Musical Companion,” printed 1726, are two catches of his; the one, “Hark the bonny Christ Church Bells,” the other entitled “A Smoking Catch;” for he himself was, it seems, a great smoaker. Besides the preferments already mentioned, he was rector of Wem in Shropshire. He was elected prolocutor of the convocation in February 1702, on the death of Dr. Woodward, dean of Sarum. He died at Christ Church, December 14, 1710. The tracts he published in the popish controversy were two, “Upon the Adoration of our Saviour in the Eucharist,” in answer to O. Walker’s discourses on the same subject, printed in 1687, and 1688, 4to. We have not been able to get an account of the Greek authors he published, except these following: 1. Xenophontis Memorabilium, lib. 4, 1690, 8vo. 2. Xenophontis Sermo de Agesilao, 1691, 8vo. 3. Aristese Historia 72 Interpretum, 1692, 8vo. 4. Xenophon, de re equestri, 1693, 8vo. 5.Epictetus etTheophrastus, 1707, 8vo. 6. Platonis, Xenopliontis, Plutarchi, Luciani, Symposia, 1711, 8vo. This last was published in Greek only, the rest in Greek and Latin, and all printed at Oxford. His logic is already mentioned. He printed also Elements of Architecture, which was elegantly translated and published in 1789, 8vo. with architectural plates, by the rev. Philip Smyth, LL. B. fellow of New College, and now rector of Worthing, Shropshire. He had a hand in Gregory’s Greek Testament, printed at Oxford in 1703, folio; and some of his notes are printed in Havercamp’s edition of Josephus.

Aleander’s memory is now to be respected only as a man of learning. He wrote a considerable number of works, the greater part of which have not been published. Those which have, are but insignificant: 1. “Lexicon GraecoLatinum,” Paris, 1512, fol.; a work compiled by six of his scholars, and revised, corrected, and enriched by notes from his pen. 2. “Tabulae sane utiles Graecarum musarum adyta compendio ingredi volentibus,” Argent. 1515, 4to, often reprinted. It is, however, only an abridgement of Chrysoloras’s Greek grammar. “De Concilio habendo,” a work of which he wrote only four books, and which was consulted as authority in the proceedings of the council of Trent, remains among his unpublished writings; and in the Vatican there is another manuscript, which Mazzuchelli considers as his best. It contains letters and papers respecting his offices of nuncio and legate, and his transactions against the heresies, as they are called, of Luther; and their importance appears by the use which cardinal Pallavicino made of them in his history of the council of Trent. Aleander ranks likewise among Latin poets from his verses “Ad Julium et Neasram,” published in Toscanus’s collection, entitled “Carmina illustrium poetarum Italorum.” The reason given by his admirers for the few works published by him, is his frequent and active employments in the church, and his being more familiar with extempore eloquence than with composition.

, called the younger, to distinguish him from his grand-uncle the cardinal, was born, according to La Motte, in 1574, in the principality of Friuli, and studied at Padua, where he became so distinguished in early life, that Baillet has classed him among his “Enfants celebres par leurs etudes.” He afterwards studied law with equal reputation, and in his twenty-sixth year published his commentaries on the institutions of Caius. When he went to Rome, he was employed as secretary under cardinal Octavio Bandini, and discharged this office with great honour for almost 20 years. He was one of the first members of the Academy of Humourists, wrote a learned treatise in Italian on the device of the society, ftnd displayed his genius on many different subjects.

While at Leipsic, he was employed to translate the first liturgy of Edward VI. into Latin, for Bucer’s use, who did not understand English. He appears to have been highly esteemed for probity and learning. Henry VIII. familiarly called him “his scholar,” and Cranmersaid he was “virum in theologia perductum.” Melancthon and Ales were inseparable companions, and Beza pronounced him one of the greatest ornaments of his country. He wrote with most spirit on the doctrine of the Trinity, against Valentine Gentilis; and on the divinity of Jesus Christ against Servetus.

It was at Anchyala, a town of Cilicia, that he was shewn a monument of Sardanapalus, with this inscription “Sardanapalus built Anchyala and Tarsus in a day Passenger, eat, drink, and enjoy thyself all else is nothing.” This, probably, moved his contempt very strongly, when he compared such petty acquisitions to what he projected. From Cilicia he marched forwards to Phoenicia, which all surrendered to him, except Tyre; and it cost him a siege of seven months to reduce this city. The vexation of Alexander, atbeing unseasonably detained by this obstinacy of the Tyrians, occasioned a vast destruction and carnage; and the cruelty he exercised here is among the deepest stains on his character. After besieging and taking Gaza, he went to Jerusalem, where he was received by the high priest; and, making many presents to the Jews, sacrificed in their temple. He told Jadduas (for that was the priest’s name), that he had seen in Macedonia a god, in appearance exactly resembling him, who had exhorted him to this expedition against the Persians, and given him the firmest assurance of success. Afterwards, entering Ægypt, he went to the oracle of Jupiter Ammon, and upon his return built the city of Alexandria. It was now that he took it into his head to assume divinity, and to pretend himself the son of the said Jupiter Ammon, for which his mother Olympias would sometimes rally him, not unpleasantly, “Pray,” she would say, “cease to be called the son of Jupiter: thou wilt certainly embroil me in quarrels with Juno.” Policy, however, was at the bottom of this: it was impossible that any such belief should be really rooted in his breast, but he found by experience that this opinion inclined the barbarous nations to submit to him; and therefore he was content to pass for a god, and to admit, as he did, of divine adoration. So far, indeed, was he from believing this of himself, that he used among his friends to make a jest of it. Thus, afterwards, when he was bleeding from a wound he had received, “See here,” says he, “this is your true genuine blood, and not that ixpp, or thin fine liquor, which issues, according to Homer, from the wounds of the immortals.” Nay, even his friends sometimes made free with this opinion, which shews that he did not hold it sacred: for once, when it thundered horridly loud, and somewhat terrified the company, the philosopher Anaxarchus, who was present, said to Alexander, “And when wilt thou, son of Jupiter, do the like” “Oh,” said Alexander, “I would not frighten my friends.”

, one of the most celebrated followers of Aristotle, flourished about the year 200. He was so called from Aphrodisea, a town in Caria, where he was born. He penetrated, with such success, into the meaning of the most profound speculations of his master, that he was not only respected by his contemporaries as an excellent preceptor, but was followed by subsequent Aristotelians among the Greeks, Latins, and Arabians, as the best interpreter of Aristotle. On account of the number and value of his commentaries, he was called, by way of distinction, “The Commentator.” Under the emperor Septimus Severus he was appointed public professor of the Aristotelian philosopln r, but whether at Athens or Alexandria is uncertain. In his works he supports the doctrine of Divine Providence; upon this head he leaned towards Platonism, but on most other subjects adhered strictly to Aristotle. In his book concerning the soul, he maintains that it is not a distinct substance by itself, but the form of an organized body.

, a young writer of very promising talents, was born in Ireland in 1736, whither his father, a dissenting teacher at Stratford upon Avon, had removed; and from whence, on his death, the widow and family returned to England. After having gone through a grammatical education, John was sent to the dissenting academy at Daventry, where he prosecuted his studies with commendable diligence, and was afterwards put under the tuition of Dr. Benson, who had sometimes young students under his care, after they had finished their university or academical education, for the purpose of instructing them in a more critical acquaintance with the sacred writings. He afterwards entered into the ministry, which he exercised in and near Birmingham, but principally at a small village called Longdon, about twelve miles from that place. On Saturday, Dec. 28, 1765, he returned to rest, in perfect health, between eleven and twelve o'clock, intending to officiate at Longdon next day but at six in the morning he was found dead in his bed; an event which was sincerely deplored by his friends, both as a private and a public loss.

, of Paris, a writer of romance in the twelfth century, was a native of Bernay in Normandy, and one of the authors of the romance of “Alexander,” written in verses of twelve feet, which have been since called Alexandrines, from the name of the hero, and not of the poet, who was not the inventor of them. This romance was begun by Lambert li Cors (the little) of Chateaudun; and various other poets, besides our Alexander, assisted in completing it. Manuscripts of all their performances are in the imperial library at Paris, under the three titles of: 1. “Le roman d'Alexandre,” by Lambert li Cors, and Alexander of Paris 2. “Le Testament d'Alexandre,” by Pierre de St. Cloud: 3. “Li Roumans de tote Chevalerie ou Ja Geste d'Alisandre,” by Thomas de Kent. This last is written in the French language introduced into England by William the Conqueror, a mixture of the Norman and Anglo-Saxon. 4. “La Vengeance d'Alexandre,” by Jehan le Venelais, or li Nivelois. 5. “Vœu de Paon,” partly by Jehan Brise-Barre. The other writers who contributed to this collection are, Guy de Cambray, Simon de Boulogne, surnamed le Cterc, or the learned, Jacques de Longuyon, and Jehan de Motelec. The first part of the romance of Alexander appeared about the year 1210, under the reign of Philip Augustus, and not that of Louis VII. as has been asserted. It contains many flattering allusions to the events of the reigns of both those princes, and is very well written for the time; many of the verses are harmonious, and the descriptive part animated, but this character belongs chiefly to the first part: the continuators were very unequal to the task. In the 16th century, an abridgement of the romance appeared at Paris, printed by Bonfons, but without date, under the title “Histoire du tres-noble et tres-vailiant roi Alexandre-le-Grant, jadis roi et seigneur de tout le monde, avec les grandes prouesses qu'il a faites en son temps.”

, a celebrated Roman lawyer, was born in the year of Rome 713, at Cremona, from whence he came to Rome and studied under Servius Sulpicius. His distinguished talents and probity of character raised him at length to the rank of consul. He was the first who made those collections of the civil law, which are called Digests; but none of his writings are now extant. There have been several persons of the same name, whose characters have been confounded, as may be seen by a reference to our authorities.

, an eminent Italian poet of the last century, was born at Asti, in Piedmont, Jan. 17, 1749, of an ancient family, and sent for education to Turin, where he was principally under the care of the count Benoit Alfred, his father’s cousin. His progress, however, was for some time very slow, partly owing to bad health, and partly to temper; and when his tutor died, he left the academy at the age of sixteen, almost as ignorant as he entered it, and without having acquired a taste for any thingbut riding. His next passion was for travelling, in which he appeared to have no-other object than moving from one place to another. In less than two years he visited a great part of Italy, Paris, England, Holland, and returned to Piedmont, without having sought to know any thing, to study any thing, or to gratify any curiosity. His second tour was yet more extensive and more rapid: in eighteen months he travelled through Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Russia, Prussia, and returning through the Spa and Holland, went again to England. During this second visit to London, he engaged in affairs of gallantry, and discovered many oddities of behaviour, but in neither of his visits did he give himself the trouble to learn the language. After remaining in London seven months, he returned, with the utmost expedition, by Holland, France, Spain, and Portugal, and arrived at Turin, May 5, 1772. A violent attachment to a lady of quality of this place engrossed his mind for two years, but had the happy effect of first inspiring him with a taste for poetry and poetical composition. After some imperfect attempts, he wrote a sort of tragedy, called “Cleopatra,” which he procured to be acted at Turin, June 16, 1775, with a small piece “The Poets,” by way of farce, in which the author endeavoured to turn his own tragedy into ridicule. The success of these two pieces, although confined to only two representations, decided Alfieri to become an author, and proved the commencement of a new life. At this time, he knew French very imperfectly, scarcely any thing of Italian, and nothing of Latin. The French he determined to forget altogether, but to cultivate Italian and Latin, and study the best authors in both. The study, accordingly, of the Latin and the pure Tuscan languages, and of dramatic composition, upon a new plan of his own invention, occupied all his time, and gave employment to that activity and sprightliness of mind and fancy which had hitherto been dissipated on trifles. His first two tragedies were “Philip II.” and “Polinice;” and these were followed at short intervals, by “Antigone,” “Agamemnon,” &c. to the amount of fourteen, within less than seven years; and within the same space, he wrote several pieces in prose and verse, a translation of Sallust, “A Treatise on Tyranny,” “Etruria avenged,” in four cantos, and five “Odes” on the American revolution. He afterwards recommenced his travels, and added to his collection of tragedies, “Agis,” “Sophonisba,” “Brutus I.” “Brutus II.” and others. Although he had a dislike to France, he came thither to print his theatre, and with him the lady of his affections, the princess of Schomberg, the wife of the last prince of the house of Stuart, who, when set at liberty by the death of her husband, bestowed her hand on Alfieri. On his arrival in France, he found that nation ripe for a revolution, to the principles of which he was at first inclined, and expressed his opinion very freely in “Parigi Shastigliato,” an ode on the taking of the Bastille; but the horrors of revolutionary phrenzy which followed, induced him to disavow publicly the principles which he had professed, and he resolved to lose the property that he had acquired in France, rather than to appear to maintain them any longer. Accordingly he left France ia August 1792, and the following year, his property in the funds was confiscated, and his furniture, papers, and books sequestered and sold at Paris. In 1794, he published a declaration in the gazette of Tuscany, in which he avowed some of the works left behind him, and disavowed others which he thought might be found among his papers, or altered without his consent, and published as his. Among the latter was his “Etruria avenged,” and the “Treatise on Tyranny” above mentioned; but it is certain that he had caused an edition of these and some other pieces of the same stamp to be published at Kell, about the time he arrived in France, and now disavowed them merely because he had changed his opinions. From this time, ruminating on the unjust treatment he had received at Paris, he never ceased to express his contempt of the French nation in what he wrote, but he resumed his pen and his studies with more eagerness than ever. At the age of forty-eight he began the study of Greek, and continued it with his usual ardour, and the rest of his life was employed in making translations from that language, and in writing comedies, tragedies, and satires. His incessant labours at length brought on a complaint of which he died at Florence (where he had resided from the time of his leaving France), Oct. 8, 1803, and was interred in the church of St. Croix, where his widow erected a splendid monument to his memory, executed by Canova, between the tombs of Machiavel and Michael Angelo. The inscription was written by himself, and is as flattering as his life, written also by himself, and published at Paris, 1809, and in English at London, 1810, 2 vols. His posthumous works, in 13 volumes, were published in 1804, at Florence, although with London on the title: they consist of a number of translations, and some original dramas in a singular taste, and not very likely to be adopted as models. A French translation of his dramatic works was published at Paris, 1802, 4 vols. 8vo. Petitot, the translator, has added some judicious reflexions on the forms given to the Italian tragedy by Alfieri, and notwithstanding its weak parts, this collection is a mine which some new authors have frequently worked. His lofty expression, or attempt at expression, and his anxious search for forcible thoughts, sometimes render him obscure; and he appears to have encumbered his genius with more designs than it could execute. Of his personal character, various accounts have been given. In his “Life,” he is sufficiently favourable to himself; but there are few traits in his character that are not rather objects of warning than of imitation. From his youth he appears to have been the slave of passion and temper, averse to the restraints of a well-regulated mind, and consequently many of his opinions, whether good or bad, were hastily conceived, and hastily abandoned.

, Alfergani, or Fargani, was a celebrated Arabic astronomer, who nourished about the year 800. He was so called from the place of his nativity, Fergan, in Sogdiana, now called Maracanda, or Samarcand, anciently a part of Bactria. He is also called Ahmed (or Muhammed) Ben-Cothair, or Katir. He wrote the Elements of Astronomy, in 30 chapters or sections. In this work the author chiefly follows Ptolomy, using the same hypotheses, and the same terms, and frequently citing him. There are three Latin translations of Alfragan’s work. The first was made in the twelfth century, by Joannes Hispalensis; and was published at Ferrara in 1493, and at Nuremberg in 1537, with a preface by Melancthon. The second was by John Christman, from the Hebrew version of James Antoli, and appeared at Francfort in 1590. Christman added to the first chapter of the work an ample commentary, in which he compares together the calendars of the Romans, the Egyptians, the Arabians, the Persians, the Syrians, and the Hebrews, and shews the correspondence of their years.

Upon his death, Alfred succeeded to the crown, agreeably to the will of king Æthelwolf and the appointment of Æthelred. This happened in the year 871, and the 22d of Alfred’s age. He had scarce time to attend the funeral of his brother, when he was obliged to fight for the crown he had so lately received. He engaged the Danish army at Wilton, and at the beginning of the battle had the advantage; but, in the pursuit, the Danes, discovering his weakness, rallied, and drove him out of the field. Soon after a treaty was concluded; but the Danes paid little regard to it, roaming up and down the country, and pillaging wherever they came. They at last put an end to the kingdom of Mercia, and obliged Burrhed, the king, not only to quit his dominions, but the island. Alfred fitted out a fleet to guard the coasts; and a squadron of five Danish ships approaching the coast, one of them was taken. A considerable army of Danes, however, having contrived to land, marched as far as Grantbndge, and quartered in that neighbourhood. Next summer they advanced to Werham: here Alfred met them witn all the forces he could raise; but not finding himself strong enough to engage them, he concluded a peace, and the Danes swore never more to invade his dominions; but in a little time they broke their faith; for being on the road to Mercia, they met a body of English horse, advancing in a peaceable manner, under the faith of the treaty: of them they slew the greater part, and soon after surprised Exeter. The king immediately marched against them with what forces he could collect, and besieged them in that city. While things were in this situation, his majesty’s fleet, having engaged a numerous one of the enemy, sunk many and dispersed the rest, which, attempting to gain some of the English ports, were driven on the coasts, and all miserably perished. This so terrified the Danes, that they were again obliged to sue for peace, and give hostages. However, in 877, having obtained newaids, they came in such numbers into Wiltshire, that the Saxons, giving themselves up to despair, would not make head against them; many fled out of the kingdom, not a few submitted, and the rest retired every man to the place where he could be best concealed. In this distress, Alfred, conceiving himself no longer a king, laid aside all marks of royalty, and took shelter in the house of one who kept his cattle. He retired afterwards to the isle of Æthelingey in Somersetshire, where he built a fort for the security of himself, his family, and the few faithful servants who repaired thither to him. When he had been about a year in, this retreat, having been informed that some of his subjects had routed a great army of the Danes, killed their chiefs, and taken their magical standard he issued his letters, giving notice where he was, and inviting his nobility to come and consult with him. Before they came to a final determination, Alfred, putting on the habit of a harper, went into the enemy’s camp; where, without suspicion, he was everywhere admitted, and had the honour to play before their princes. Having thereby acquired an exact knowledge of their situation, he returned in great secrecy to his nobility, whom he ordered to their respective homes, there to draw together each man as great a force as he could; and upon a day appointed there was to be a general rendezvous at the great wood, called Selwood, in Wiltshire. This affair was transacted so secretly and expeditiously, that in a little time the king, at the head of an army, approached the Danes before they had the least intelligence of his design. Alfred, taking advantage of the surprise and terror they were in, fell upon them, and totally defeated them at Æthendune, now Eddington. Those who escaped fled to a neighbouring castle, where they were soon besieged, and obliged to surrender at discretion. Alfred granted them better terms than they could have expected: he agreed to give up the whole kingdom of the East-Angles to such as would embrace the Christian religion; on condition that they should oblige the rest of their countrymen to quit the island, and, as much as it was in their power, prevent the lauding of any more foreigners. For the performance thereof he took hostages; and when, in pursuance of the treaty, Guthruna, the Danish captain, came with thirty of his chief officers to be baptized, Alfred answered for him, at the font, and gave him the name of Athelstan; and certain laws were drawn up betwixt the king and Guthrum, for the regulation and government of the Danes settled in, England. In 884-, a fresh number of Danes landed in Kent, and laid siege to Rochester; but, the king coming to the relief of that city, they were obliged to abandon their design. Alfred’s success was now complete, chiefly owing to his fleet, an advantage of his own creating. Having secured the sea coasts, he fortified the rest of the kingdom with castles and wailed towns; and he besieged and recovered from the Danes the city of London, which he resolved to repair and keep as a frontier.

After some years respite, Alfred was again called into the field; as a body of Danes, being worsted in the west of France, appeared with a fleet of 250 sail on the coast of Kent, and having landed, fixed themselves at Appletree. Shortly after, another fleet of eighty vessels coming up the Thames, the men landed, and built a fort at Middleton. Before Alfred marched against the enemy, he obliged the Danes, settled in Northumberland and Essex, to give him hostages for their good behaviour. He then moved towards the invaders, and pitched his camp between their armies, to prevent their junction. A great body, however, moved off to Essex; and, crossing the river, came to Farnham in Surrey, where they were defeated by the king’s forces. Meanwhile the Danes settled in Northumberland, in breach of treaty, and notwithstanding the hostages given, equipped two fleets; and, after plundering the northern and southern coasts, sailed to Exeter, and besieged it. The king, as soon as he received intelligence, marched against them; but, before he reached Exeter, they had got possession of it. He kept them, however, blocked up on all sides, and reduced them at last to such extremities, that they were obliged to eat their horses, and were even ready to devour each other. Being at length rendered desperate, they made a general sally on the besiegers, but were defeated, though with great loss on the king’s side. The remainder of this body of Danes fled into Essex, to the fort they had built there, and to their ships. Before Alfred had time to recruit himself, another Danish leader, whose name was Laf, came with a great army out of Northumberland, and destroyed all before him, marching on to the city of Werheal in the west, which is supposed to be Chester, where they remained the rest of that year. The year following they invaded North Wales; and, after having plundered and destroyed every thing, they divided, one body returning to Northumberland, another into the territories of the east Angles; from whence they proceeded to Essex, and took possession of a small island called Meresig. Here they did not long remain; for having parted, some sailed up the river Thames, and others up the Lea-road; where drawing up their ships, they built a fort not far from London, which proved a great check upon the citizens, who went in a body and attacked it, but were repulsed with great loss. At harvest-time the king himself was obliged to encamp with a body of troops in the neighbourhood of the city, in order to cover the reapers from the excursions of the Danes. As he was one day riding by the side of the river Lea, after some observation, he began to think that the Danish ships might be laid quite dry; which he attempted, and so succeeded therein, that the Danes deserted their fort and ships, and marched away to the banks of the Severn, where they buikt a fort, and wintered at a place called Quatbrig . Such of the Danish ships as could be got off, the Londoners carried into their own road; the rest they burnt and destroyed. The Danes in a little time began again to invade the territories of the West Saxons both by land and sea; but they did more mischief as pirates than as robbers, for, having built long and largeships, they became masters at sea, and depopulated all the coast. Alfred built some large gallies, and sent them to cruize on the coasts of the Isle of Wight and Devonshire, the sea thereabouts being greatly infested by six piratical vessels, which were all taken or destroyed except one: and such of the Danes as landed when their ships ran ashore, were taken prisoners, and brought before the king at Winchester, who sentenced them to be hanged as piratical murderers and enemies to mankind.

Alfred enjoyed a profound peace during the three last years of his reign, which he chiefly employed in establishing and regulating his government for the security of himself and his successors, as well as for the ease and benefit of his subjects in general. Before his reign, though there were many kings who took the title, yet none could properly be called monarch of the English nation; for notwithstanding there was always, after the time of Egbert, a prince who held a kind of pre-eminence over the rest, yet he had no dominion over their subjects, as Alfred had in the latter part of his reign; for to him all parts of England, not in the possession of the Danes, submitted, which was greatly owing to the fame of his wisdom and mildness of his government. He is said to have drawn up an excellent system of laws, which are mentioned in the Mirror of Justice, published by Andrew Home, in the reign of Edward I. as also a collection of Judgments; and, if we may credit Harding’s chronicle , they were used in Westminster-hall in the reign of Henry IV. In the chronicle said to be written by John Brompton, we meet some laws ascribed to king Alfred. They are in number 51; and before them is a preface, wherein the king recites many things concerning the excellency and use of laws. In the close he says, he collected from the laws of his ancestor king Ina, such as seemed to him most reasonable; and having communicated them to the learned men of his kingdom, he, with their assent, published them to be the rule of his people’s actions. These laws borrowed from king Ina were, if we believe himself, many of them taken from the British constitutions; and those, if credit is to be given to their authors, were excerpts from the Greek and Trojan laws. Although there remain but few laws which can be positively ascribed to Alfred, yet his biographers inform us, that to him we owe many of those advantages which render our constitution so dear and valuable, and that to him we are indebted for trial by jury; and if we rely on sir John Spelman’s conjecture, his institutions were the foundation of what is called the common law, so styled either on account of its being the common law of all the Saxons, or because it was common both to Saxons and Danes 1. It is said also, but this is a disputed point, that he was the first who divided the kingdom into shires; what is ascribed to him is not a bare division of the country, but the settling a new form of judicature; for, after having divided his dominions into shires, he subdivided each shire into three parts, called tythings, which though now grown out of date, yet there are some remains of this ancient division in the ridings of Yorkshire, the laths of Kent, and the three parts of Lincolnshire. Each tything was divided into hundreds or wapentukes, and these again into tythings or dwellings of ten householders each of these householders stood engaged to the king, as a pledge for the good behaviour of his family, and all the ten were mutually pledges for each other; so that if any one of the tything was suspected of an offence, if the headboroughs or chiefs of the tything would not be security for him, he was imprisoned; and if he made his escape, the ty thing and hundred were fined to the king. Each shire was under the government of an earl, under whom was the reive, his deputy, since, from; ji cs, called shire-reive, or sheriff . Alfred also framed a book called the Book of Winchester, and which contained a survey of the kingdom; and of which the Doomsday book, still preserved in the exchequer, is no more than a second edition.

, an adventurer, who acted a most distinguished part against the Ottoman empire in the last century, was born in Natolia in 1728, and received at his birth the name of Joseph. His father was a Greek priest, of a distinguished family, who educated him with great care, designing him to succeed him: but, at thirteen years of age, Joseph being hunting in a neighbouring forest, robbers fell on his company, and carried him off to Grand Cairo: here he was sold to Ibrahim, a lieutenant of the janisaries, who had him circumcised, clothed him in the dress of the mamalukes, and called him Ali: he gave him masters in the Turkish and Arabic languages, and in horsemanship, and, by kind treatment, made him by degrees satisfied with his new station. In a course of years, he succeeded in these languages, shewed wonderful dexterity in the use of his arms, and became so dear to his master, that he raised him rapidly in his household, and created him a cachef or governor, at the age of twenty-two.

, an English lawyer and antiquary, was born at Great Hadham in Hertfordshire, about the end of the seventeenth century, and was educated at Eton; whence he went to King’s college, Cambridge, and took his bachelor’s degree in 1707, and his master’s in 1711. He afterwards studied law, was called to the bar, and by the influence of Arthur Onslow, speaker of the house of commons, became a master in chancery. His reputation as a lawyer was inconsiderable, but he was esteemed a good classical scholar, and a man of wit and convivial habits. He became afterwards an alderman of the corporation of Guildford, and an useful magistrate in that neighbourhood. He died April 11, 1754, and was buried in the Temple church. He collected a biographical account of the members of Eton college, which by his will, dated 1753, he ordered to be placed in the libraries of the two colleges, and a third copy to be given to his patron, Mr. Onslow. He also compiled, at his leisure hours, or rather made collections for, an English dictionary of obsolete words, of words which have changed their meaning, as villain, knave, and of proverbial or cant words, as helter-skelter, which he derived from hiiariter cderiter. It is not known what became of this manuscript. He bequeathed his fortune, and probably his books, to a brother who was a Turkey merchant.

, an eminent mathematician of the sixteenth century, was born at Uttoxeter in Staffordshire, Dec. 21, 1542, and was a descendant, through six generations, of Henry Allen, or Alan, lord of the manor of Buckenhall in that county. He was admitted scholar of Trinity college, Oxford, June 4, 1561, became fellow in 1565, and in 1567, took his master’s degree. From a strong inclination to a retired life, and a dislike to entering into holy orders, to which, according to the statutes, he ftmst have been called, he quitted the college, resigned his fellowship, and went to Gloucester-hall (now Worcester college), in 1570. Here he studied very closely, and acquired a high reputation for his knowledge in antiquity, philosophy, and mathematics. Having received an invitation from Henry earl of Northumberland, a great friend and patron of the mathematicians, he spent some time at the earl’s house, where he became acquainted with those celebrated mathematicians Thomas Harriot, John Dee, Walter Warner, and Nathanael Torporley. Robert earl of Leicester had a particular esteem for Mr. Allen, and would have conferred a bishopric upon him, but his love of solitude and retirement made him decline the offer. He was also highly respected by other celebrated contemporaries, sir Thomas Bodley, sir Henry Savile, Mr. Camden, sir Robert Cotton, sir Henry Spelman, Mr. Selden, &c. His great skill in the mathematics made the ignorant and vulgar look upon him as a magician or conjuror: and the author of a book, intituled “Leicester’s Commonwealth,” has absurdly accused him of using the art of figuring, to bring about the earl of Leicester’s schemes, and endeavouring, by the black art, to effect a match betwixt him and queen Elizabeth. It is more certain the earl placed such confidence in Allen, that nothing material in the state was transacted without his knowledge, and he had constant information, by letter from Allen, of what passed in the university. Allen was very curious and indefatigable in collecting scattered manuscripts relating to history, antiquity, astronomy, philosophy, and mathematics, which collections have been quoted by several learned authors, &c. There is a catalogue of them, bearing date 1622, among Anthony Wood’s papers in the Ashmolean museum. He published in Latin the second and third books of Ptolemy, “concerning the Judgment of the Stars,” or, as it is commonly called, of the quadripartite construction, with an exposition. He wrote also notes on many of Lilly’s books, and some on John Bale’s work, “De scriptoribus Maj. Britanniae.” Having lived to a great age, he died at Gloucester-hall, Sept. 30, 1632, and was buried with a solemnity suited to the greatness of his character. He bequeathed a valuable portrait of himself, which has since been engraven, to the president of Trinity college and his successors. Mr. Burton, the author of his funeral oration, calls him not only the Coryphaeus, but the very soul and sun of all the mathematicians of his time. Mr. Selden mentions him as “omni eruditionis genere summoque judicio ornatissimus, cele-” berrimae academies Oxoniensis dec us insignissimum; a person of the most extensive learning and consummate judgment, the brightest ornament of the university of Oxford.“Camden says, he was” Plurimis optimisque artibus Ornatissimus; skilled in most of the best arts and sciences.“Mr. Wood has transcribed part of his character from a manuscript in the library of Trinity college, in these words:” He studied polite literature with great application; he was strictly tenacious of academic discipline, always highly esteemed both by foreigners and those of the university, and by all of the highest stations in the church of England and the university of Oxford. He was a sagacious observer, and an agreeable companion.

, a non-conformist clergyman of Norwich, was born in that city in 1608, and educated at Caius college, Cambridge. He appears to have been minister of St. Edmund’s, Norwich, where he was silenced by bishop Wren, in L636, for refusing to read the book of Sports, and other non-compliances peculiar to the times. Two years afterwards he went to New England, and was a preacher at Charlestown until 1651, when he returned to Norwich, and had the rectory of St. George’s, from which he was ejected for nonconformity in 1662, and during the same period he preached in a meeting called the congregational church. He afterwards preached in the latter place, as he had opportunity, and without molestation, till the time of his death, Sept. 21, 1673. He published several pious practical treatises; but the work which obtained him most reputation, was his “Chain of Scripture Chronology, from the creation to the death of Christ, in seven periods,” 1639, 4to. One of his biographers compares him to Bucholtzer, who, being weary of controversy, betook himself to chronology, saying that he would rather compute than dispute.

, an eminent English divine, was born in March 1619, at Uppington near the YVrekin in Shropshire. He was at first educated at a free-school in that neighbourhood, and afterwards removed to one at Coventry, taught by Philemon Holland the translator. In 1636, he was sent to Oxford, and entered a commoner in Christ-church, under the tuition of Mr. Richard Busby, afterwards master of Westminster school. Six months after his settlement in the university, Dr. Fell, dean of Christ-church, having observed the parts and industry of young Allestry, made him a student of that college, where he applied himself to his books with great assiduity and success. When he had taken the degree of bachelor of arts, he was chosen moderator in philosophy, in which office he continued till the disturbances of the kingdom interrupted the studies and repose of the university. In 1641, Mr. Allestry, amongst other of the Oxford students, took ar;ns for the king, under sir John Biron, and continued therein till that gentleman withdrew from Oxford, when he returned to his studies. Soon after, a party of the parliament forces having entered Oxford and plundered the colleges, Mr. Allestry narrowly escaped being severely handled by them. Some of them having attempted to break into the treasury of Christ-church, and having forced a passage into it, met with nothing but a single groat and a halter, at the bottom of a large iron chest. Enraged at their disappointment, they went to the deanry, where having plundered as much as they thought fit, they put it all together in a chamber, locked it up, and retired to their quarters, intending next day to return and dispose of their prize; but, when they came, they found themselves disappointed, and every thing removed out of the chamber. Upon examination it was discovered, that Mr. Allestry had a key to the lodgings, and that this key had been made use of. Upon this he was seized, and would probably have suffered severely, had not the earl of Essex called away the forces on a sudden, and by that means rescued him from their fury. In October following, he took arms again, and was at the battle fought betwixt the king and the parliament’s forces under the command of the earl of Essex upon Keinton-field in Warwickshire; after which, understanding that the king designed immediately to march to Oxford, and take up his residence at the deanry of Christ-church, he hastened thither to make preparations for his majesty’s reception; but in his way was taken prisoner by a party of horse from Boughton-house, which was garrisoned by lord Say for the parliament: his confinement, however, was but short, as the garrison surrendered to the king. And now Mr. Allestry returned again to his studies, and the spring following took his degree of master of arts. The same year he was in extreme danger of his life by a pestilential distemper, which raged in the garrison at Oxford; but as soon as he recovered, he entered once more into his majesty’s service, and carried a musquet in a regiment formed out of the Oxford scholars. Nor did he in the mean time neglect his studies, “but frequently (as the author of the preface to Dr. Allestry’s Sermons expresses it) held the musquet in one hand and the book in the other, unitinEf the watchfulness of a soldier with the lucubrations of a student.” In this service he continued till the end of the war; then went into holy orders, and was chosen censor of his college. He had a considerable share in that test of loyalty, which the university of Oxford gave in their decree and judgment against the Solemn League and Covenant. In 1648, the parliament sent visitors to Oxford, to demand the submission of that body to their authority: those who refused to comply were immediately proscribed; which was done by writing their names on a paper, and affixing it on the door of St. Mary’s church, signifying that such persons were, by the authority of the visitors, banished the university, and required to depart the precincts within three days, upon pain of bein,; taken for spies of war, and proceeded against as such. Mr. Allestry, amongst many others, was accordingly expelled the university. He now retired into Shropshire, and was entertained as chaplain to the honourable Francis Newport, esq. and upon the death of Richard lord Newport, that gentleman’s father, in France, whither he had Hed to avoid the violence of the prevailing party, was sent over to France to take care of his effects. Having dispatched this affair with success, he returned to his employment, in which he continued till the defeat of king Charles II, at Worcester. At this time the royalists wanting an intelligent and faithful person to send over to his majesty, Mr. Allestry was solicited to undertake the journey, which he accordingly did; and having attended the king at Roan, and received his dispatches, returned to England. In 1659, he went over again to his majesty in Flanders; and upon his return was seized at Dover by a party of soldiers, but he had the address to secure his letters, by conveying them to a faithful hand. The soldiers guarded him to London, and after being examined by a committee of the council of safety, he was sent prisoner to Larnbeth-house, where he contracted a dangerous sickness. About six or eight weeks after, he was set at liberty; and this enlargement was perhaps owing to the prospect of an approaching revolution; for some of the heads of the republican party, seeing every thing tend towards his majesty’s restoration, were willingby kindnesses to recommend themselves to the royal party.

It may appear surprising, how one of Mr. Alleyn’s profession should be enabled to erect such an edifice as Dulwich college, and liberally endow it for the maintenance of so many persous. But it must be observed that he had some paternal fortune, which, though small, probably laid the foundation of his future affluence; and it is to be presumed that the profits he received from acting, to one of his provident and managing disposition, and one who by his excellence in playing drew after him such crowds of spectators, must have considerably improved his fortune: besides, he was not only an actor, but master of a playhouse, built at his own expence, by which he is said to have amassed considerable wealth. This was the Fortune play-house, near Whitecross street, by Moorfields. There is a tradition in the neighbourhood of this place, that in digging the foundation of this house, there was found a considerable treasure; so that it is probable the whole or greatest part of it might fall to Mr. Alleyn. He was also keeper of the king’s wild beasts, or master of the royal bear-garden, which was frequented by vast crowds of spectators: and the profits arising from these sports are said to have amounted to 500l. per annum. He was thrice married; and the portions of his two first wives, they leaving him no issue to inherit, probably contributed to this benefaction. Such donations have been frequently thought to proceed more from vanity and ostentation than real charity; but this of Mr. Alleyn has been ascribed to a very singular cause. Mr. Aubrey mentions a tradition, that Mr. Alleyn, playing a daemon with six others, in one of Shakspeare’s plays, was, in the midst of the play, surprised by an apparition of the devil, which so worked on his fancy, that he made a vow, which he performed by building Dulwich college. Whatever may be in this story, he began the foundation of this college, under the direction of Inigo Jones, in 1614; and the buildings, gardens, &c. were finished in 1617, in which he is said to have expended about 10,Ooo/. After the college was built, he met with some difficulty in obtaining a charter for settling his lands in mortmain; for he proposed to endow it with 800l. per annum, for the maintenance of one master, one warden, and four fellows, three whereof were to be clergymen, and the fourth a skilful organist; also six poor men, and as many women, besides twelve poor boys, to be educated till the age of fourteen or sixteen, and then put out to some trade or calling. The obstruction he met with arose from the lord chancellor Bacon, who wished king James to settle part of those lands for the support of two academical lectures; and he wrote a letter to the marquis of Buckingham, dated Aug. Is, 1618, entreating him to use his interest with his majesty for that purpose . Mr. Alleyn’s solicitation was, however, at last complied with, and he obtained the royal licence, giving him full power to lay his foundation, by his majesty’s letters patent, bearing date the 2 1st of June, 1619; by virtue whereof he did, in the chapel of the said new hospital at Dulwich, called “The College of God’s Gift,” on the 13th of September following, publicly read, and published, a quadripartite writing in parchment, whereby he created and established the said college; he then subscribed it with his name, and fixed his seal to several parts thereof, in presence of several honourable persons, and ordered copies of the writings to four different parishes. Those honourable persons were Francis lord Verulam lord chancellor; Thomas earl of Arundel, earl marshal of England; sir Edward Cecil, second son to the earl of Exeter; sir John Howard, high sheriff of Sussex and Surrey; sir Edward Bowyer, of Camberwell; sir Thomas Grymes of Peckham; sir John Bodley, of Stretham; sir John Tonstal, of L'arshalton; and divers other persons of great worth and respect. The parishes in which the said writings were deposited, were St. Botolph’s without Bishopsgate, St. Giles’s without Cripplegate, St. Saviour’s in Southwark, and the parish of Camberwell in Surrey. The contents or heads of the said statutes, or quadripartite writings, containing the laws and rules of this foundation, are as follow: 1. A recital of king James’s letters patent. 2. Recital of the founder’s deed quadripartite. 3. Ordination of the master, warden, &c. 4. Ordination of the assistant members, &c. 5. The master and warden to be unmarried, and always to be of the name of Alleyn or Allen. 6. The master and warden to be twenty-one years of age at least. 7. Of what degree the fellows to be. 8. Of what degree the poor brothers and sisters to be. 9. Of what condition the poor scholars are to be. 10. Of what parishes the assistants are to be. 11. From what parishes the poor are to be chosen, and the members of this college. 12. The form of their election. 13. The warden to supply when the master’s place is void. 14. The election of the warden. 15. The warden to be bound by recognizance. 16. The warden to provide a dinner for the college upon his election. 17. The form of admitting the fellows. 18. The manner of electing the scholars. 19. Election of the poor of Camberwell. 20. The master and warden’s oath. 21. The fellow’s oath. 22. The poor brother’s and sister’s oath. 23. The assistant’s oath. 24. The pronunciation of admission. 25. The master’s office. 26. The warden’s office. 27. The fellow’s office. 23. The poor brother’s and sister’s office. 29. Thac of the matron of the poor scholars. 30. The porter’s office. 31. The office of the thirty members. 32. Of residence. 33. Orders of the poor and their goods. 34. Of obedience. 35. Orders for the chapel and burial. 36. Orders for the school and scholars, and putting them forth apprentices. 37. Order of diet. 38. The scholars’ surplices and coats. 39. Time for viewing expences. 40. Public audit and private sitting days. 41. Audit and sitting chamber. 42. Of lodgings. 43. Orders for the lands and woods. 44. Allowance to the master and warden of diet for one man a piece, with the number and wages of the college servants. 45. Disposition and division of the revenues. 46. Disposition of the rent of the Blue-house. 47. The poor to be admitted out of other places, in case of deficiency in the parishes prescribed. 48. The disposition of forfeitures. 49. The statutes to be read over four several times in the year. 50. The dispositions of certain tenements in St. Saviour’s parish, Southwark.

, called Galanino, an eminent painter of history and portraits, received his education in the school of the Caracci, and in all his compositions retained the admirable style of his master. He had naturally a melancholy turn of mind, and was of a retired and solitary disposition: this induced him to avoid the conversation of his friends, and devote himself to the study of his art; but by this plan he became so necessitous, that he was compelled to paint portraits to procure a subsistence. In this branch, however, his success was astonishing; and he grew into the highest esteem, not only for the resemblance visible at first sight, and the beauty of his colouring, but also for a new and unusual boldness of manner, by which his portraits seemed absolutely to breathe. None of his contemporaries could enter into competition with him; and the Italian writers place him in the same rank of merit with Vandvck. He was born at Bologna in 1578, and died in 1638.

, called Bronzing, an eminent painter, was born at Florence in 1535, and was the disciple of Agnolo Bronzino, likewise a distinguished painter, who educated him with all the tenderness of a parent, Allori having been deprived of his own father, when he was but five years old. He was very studious, and applied himself diligently, not only to imitate the manner of his master, but the different manners of those masters who were in the greatest reputation. When he commenced painter, his first work was a crucifixion, intended for an altar-piece, which was much praised, but his success in portrait-painting induced him to employ a great deal of his time in that branch. Michael Angelo was the master whose works he studied with the greatest attention, and he designed a picture of the Last Judgment, after the manner of that great genius, which is preserved at Rome, and will perpetuate the honour of Allori. He died in 1607, aged 72. It is said that he wrote some burlesque poems, and a dialogue on Design. The existence of this last is denied by his French biographer, but we find its title in Haym’s Biblioteca Italiana, “Dialogo di Alessandro Allori pittore Florentine sopra l'arte del disegnare le figure principiando da Muscoli, Ossa, Nervi, Vene, Membra, Notomia, e figura perfetta,” Florence, 1590.

, called also Bronzing, was the son and disciple of the preceding, and born in Florence in 1577. For some time he followed the manner of Alexander, but, afterwards studying design from the works of Santi di Titi, md colouring from the lively and elegant tints of Cigoli, he formed to himself a manner entirely different. He executed several large designs for altars, yet had a particular excellence in painting small pictures, in which he introduced a number of minute figures, so exquisite for correctness of drawing, so round and relieved by the colouring, and touched with so much delicacy, that it seemed surprising how either the hand or the eye could execute them. His portraits were also in high esteem. His best pictures were those of Judith, St. Francis, and St. Julian. The last mentioned, long one of the chief ornaments of the Pitti palace, is now in the imperial collection at Paris, and shews him to have been one of the finest colourists of the Florentine school. He died at the age of forty-two, in consequence of a wound in his foot. Amputation was recommended, but he refused his consent, and continued deliberately using his pencil to the last moment of his life.

, a Portugueze priest, who had the courage in Portugal to study and teach philosophy, xipon more rational and experimental principles than had ever been known in that country, was born in 1722. His most celebrated work, written in Portuguese, and entitled “Itecreaceo Filosofica,” 5 vols. 8vo, 1751, occasioned a revolution in the philosophical studies of the Portugueze, and would probably have involved the author in much danger, had not the Jesuits been soon after banished from that kingdom. He was nevertheless a zealous advocate for the pretensions of the court of Rome, at the time of the famous rupture between Joseph II. and that court; and this rendered him so obnoxious to the marquis de Pombal, that he was obliged to seek an asylum in France, during the ministry of that nobleman. On his return to Portugal, the royal academy of sciences of Lisbon was eager to admit him a member; but it was soon evident that Almeida had not kept pace with the progress which the nation had made in twenty-five years, and he was suffered to eclipse himself, although without losing any of the respect due to his former services in promoting liberal science. He published, after his return to Lisbon, a moral romance, called “The Happy Independant,” which had little success; and it was said that a better title would have been “The Happy Impertinent.” He died in 1805, leaving behind him several manuscripts, for the publication of which he had obtained the permission of the Censor. His works altogether are said to amount to forty volumes, besides five of translations; but we have not been able to obtain a list of their titles or subjects. At the time of his death he was a member of the Royal Academy of Lisbon, and of the Royal Society of London.

The works which he more publicly avowed are, “Anecdotes of the Life of the Earl of Chatham,” 2 vols. 4to, and 3 vols. 8vo; “Biographical, Literary, and Political Anecdotes of several of the most eminent persons of the present age, never before printed,” 3 vols. 8vo, 1797. Both contain many curious particulars of the political characters and contests of his day, picked up from the various members of parliament who frequented his shop, and confided in him. His last publication was a collection of Mr. Wilkes’s pamphlets and letters, with a life, in which he praises that gentleman in the most extravagant manner, while he relates facts concerning his character that elsewhere might have been accounted defamation. In all his political career he was attached to the party which supported Wilkes, and opposed the measures of government in the early part of the present reign. At that time it was not surprising that many of his pamphlets were popular, or that he should be able to boast of an intimacy with men of rank in the political world. He had the hardihood to publish writings which booksellers of established reputation would have rejected, and he ran little risk, as the expence of printing was defrayed by his employers, while he had the profits of the sale. Even of those which, upon his own authority, we have given as his productions, it is highly probable he was rather the editor than the author. In those wbich more recently appeared under his name, there is very little of the ability, either argumentative or narrative, which could give consequence to a political effusion. About the year 1782, he retired from business as a bookseller; but in a tew years he married the widow of Mr. Parker, printer of a newspaper called the General Advertiser, of which he then was proprietor and editor: the speculation however injured his fortune, and he became a prisoner in the king’s bench fora libel, and was afterwards an outlaw. Extricated at length from his difficulties, he retired again into Hertfordshire, where he died December 12, 1806, leaving his widow in great distress.

, king of Leon and Castile, who has been surnamed The Wise, on account of his attachment to literature, is now more celebrated for having been an astronomer than a king. He was born in 1203, succeeded his father Ferdinand III. in 1252, and died in 1284, consequently at the age of 81. The affairs of the reign of Alphonsus were very extraordinary and unfortunate, but we shall here only consider him in that part of his character, on account of which he has a place in this work, namely, as an astronomer and a man of letters. He acquired a profound knowledge of astronomy, philosophy, and history, and composed books upon the motions of the heavens, and on the history of Spain, which are highly commended. “What can be more surprising,” says Mariana, “than that a prince, educated in a camp, and handling arms from his childhood, should have such a knowledge of the stars, of philosophy, and the transactions of the world, as men of leisure can scarcely acquire in their retirements? There are extant some books of Alphonsus on the motions of the stars, and the history of Spain, written with great skill and incredible care.” In his astronomical pursuits he discovered that the tables of Ptolemy were full of errors, and was the first to undertake the task of correcting them. For this purpose, about the year 1240, and during the life of his father, he assembled at Toledo the most skilful astronomers of his time, Christians, Moors, or Jews, when a plan was formed for constructing new tables. This task was accomplished about 1252, the first year of his reign; the tables being drawn up chiefly by the skill and pains of Rabbi Isaac Hazan, a learned Jew, and the work called the Alphonsine Tables, in honour of the prince, who was at vast expences concerning them. He fixed the epoch of the tables to the 30th of May 1252, being the day of his accession to the throne. They were printed for the first time in 1483, at Venice, by Radtolt, who excelled in printing at that time; an edition extremely rare: there are others of 1492, 1521, 1545, &c.

, Alvredus, or Aluredus, an ancient English historian, was born at Beverley in Yorkshire, and received his education at Cambridge. He returned afterwards to the place of his nativity, where he became a secular priest, one of the canons, and treasurer to the church of St. John, at Beverley. Tanner, in a note, informs us, that he travelled for improvement through France and Italy, and that at Rome he became domestic chaplain to cardinal Othoboni. According to Bale and Pits, he flourished under king Stephen, and continued his annals to the year 1136. Vossius is supposed to come nearer the truth, who tells us that he flourished in the reign of Henry I. and died in 1126, in which same year ended his annals. His history, however, agrees with none of these authors, and it seems probable from thence that he died in 1128 or 1129. He intended at first no more than an abridgment of the history of the ancient Britons; but a desire of pursuing the thread of his story led him to add the Saxon, and then the Norman history, and at length he brought it down to his own times. This epitome of our history from Brutus to Henry I. is esteemed a valuable performance; it is written in Latin, in a concise and elegant style, with great perspicuity, and a strict attention to dates and authorities: the author has been not improperly styled our English Florus, his plan and execution very much resembling that of the Roman historian. It is somewhat surprising that Leland has not given him a place amongst the British writers: the reason seems to have been that Leland, through a mistake, considers him only as the author of an abridgment of Geoffrey of Mou mouth’s history but most of the ancient writers having placed Geoffrey’s history later in point of time than that of Alredus, we have reason to conclude that Alredus composed his compendium before he ever saw the history of Geoffrey, We have also the authority of John Withamsted, an ancient writer of the fifteenth century, who, speaking of our author, says, that he wrote a chronicle of what happened from the settlement of Brutus to the time of the Normans, in which he also treated of the cities anciently founded in this kingdom, and mentioned the names by which London, Canterbury, and York were called in old times, when the Britons inhabited them; and this testimony agrees with the book, as we now have it. Some other pieces have been ascribed to Alredus; but this history, and that of St. John of Beverley, seem to have been all that he wrote. This last performance was never printed, but it is to be found in the Cotton library; though not set down in the catalogues, as being contained in a volume of tracts: it is entitled “Libertates ecclesias S. Johannis de Beverlik, cum privilegiis apostolicis et episcopahbus, quas magister Alueredus sacrista ejusdein ecclesiao de Anglico in Latinum transtulit: in hoc tractatulo dantur carta3 Saxonicsc R. R. Adelstani, Eadwardi Confessoris, et Willelmi, quas fecerunt eidem ccclesiae, sed imperito exscriptore mendose scriptas. The liberties of the church of St. John of Beverley, with the privileges granted by the apostolic see, or by bishops, translated out of Saxon into Latin, by master Alured, sacrist of the said church. In this treatise are contained the Saxon charters of the kings Adelstan, Edward the Confessor, and William the Conqueror, granted by them to this church; but, through want of skill in the transcriber, full of mistakes.” Mr. Hearne published an edition of Alredus’s annals of the British History, at Oxford, in 1716, with a preface of his own. This was taken, from a manuscript belonging to Thomas Rawlinson, esq. which Hearne says is the only one he ever saw.

, a celebrated Lutheran minister at Nuremberg, published in the sixteenth century several works in Divinity, as “Conciliationes locorum scripturæ,” 1528, 8vo, Latin and German; “Annotationes in Jacobi Epistolam;” “De Peccato Originali” and “De Sacramento altaris.” He likewise published “Sylva Biblicorum nominum,” Basil, 1535; and “Notes upon Tacitus de situ, moribus, et populis Germanise,” Nuremberg, 1529, 1536, and at Amberg, 1609, 8vo. He was at the conferences at Berne in 1528, which paved the way to the reformation of that canton. His principles appear to have inclined to Antinomianism, and he attacked the authority of the Epistle of St. James with great indecency: this afterwards was introduced in the dispute between Grotius and Rivet, of which an account may be seen in Bayle. Althamerus, who died about 1540, was sometimes called Andrew Brentius from the place of his nativity, Brentz, near Gundelfingcn, in Swabia; and sometimes he assumed the fictitious name of Palaeo Sphyra, 1. Arnold Ballenstad published a life of him in 1740.

, son of the above Henry, was born at Heidelberg the 27th of September 1618, at which time his father was deputy at the synod of Dort. He went through his studies at Groningen with great success; and being desirous to acquire knowledge in the Oriental languages, removed to Embden in 1638, to improve himself under the rabbi Gamprecht Ben Abraham. He came over to England in 1640, where he became acquainted with many persons of the greatest note; he preached here, and was ordained a priest of the church of England by Dr. Prideaux, bishop of Worcester. He had once resolved to pass his life in England, but afterwards accepted the Hebrew professorship at Groningen, offered him upon the death of Goraarus. He entered upon this office the 13th of January 1643, the very day that Samuel des Marets was installed in the professorship of divinity, which had been held by the same Gomarus. Alting was admitted doctor of philosophy the 21st of October 1645, preacher to the academy in 1647, and doctor and professor of divinity in 1667. He had visited Heidelberg in 1662, where he received many marks of esteem from the elector Palatine, Charles Lewis, who often solicited him to accept of the professorship of divinity, but he declined this offer. In a little time a misunderstanding arose betwixt him and Samuel des Marets, his colleague, owing to a difference in their method of teaching, and in many points in their principles. Alting kept to the scriptures, without meddling with scholastic divinity: the first lectures which he read at his house upon the catechism, drew such vast crowds of hearers, that, for want of room in his own chamber, he was obliged to make use of the university hall. His colleague was accustomed to the method and logical distinctions of the schoolmen; had been a long time in great esteem, had published several books, and to a sprightly genius had added a good stock of learning; the students who were of that country adhered to him, as the surest way to obtain church preferment, for the parishes were generally supplied with such as had studied according to his method. This was sufficient to raise and keep up a misunderstanding betwixt the two professors. Alting had great obstacles to surmount: a majority df voices and the authority of age were on his adversary’s side. Des Marets gave out that Alting was an innovator, and one who endeavoured to root up the boundaries which our wise forefathers had made between truth and falsehood; he accordingly became his accuser, and charged him with one-and-thirty erroneous propositions. The curators of the university, without acquainting the parties, sent the information and the answers to the divines of Leyden, desiring their opinion. The judgment they gave is remarkable: Alting was acquitted of all heresy, but his imprudence was blamed in broaching new hypotheses; on the other hand, Des Marets was censured for acting contrary to the laws of charity and moderation. The latter would not submit to this judgment, nor accept of the silence which was proposed. He insisted on the cause being heard before the consistories, the classes, and the synods; but the heads would not consent to this, forbidding all writings, either for or against the judgment of the divines of Leyden; and thus the work of Des Marets, entitled “Audi et alteram partem,” was suppressed. This contest excited much attention, and might have been attended with bad consequences, when Des Marets was called to Leyden, but he died at Groningen before he could take possession of that employment. There was a kind of reconciliation effected betwixt him and Alting before his death: a clergyman of Groningen, seeing Des Marets past all hopes of recovery, proposed it to him; and having his consent, made the same proposal to Alting, who answered, that the silence he had observed, notwithstanding the clamours and writings of his adversary, shewed his peaceable disposition; that he was ready to come to an agreement upon reasonable terms, but that he required satisfaction for the injurious reports disseminated against his honour and reputation; and that he could not conceive how any one should desire his friendship, whilst he thought him such a man as he had represented him to be. The person, who acted as mediator, some time after returned, with another clergyman, to Alting, and obtained from him a formulary of the satisfaction he desired. This formulary was not liked by Des Marets, who drew up another, but this did not please Alting: at last, however, after some alterations, the reconciliation was effected; the parties only retracted the personal injuries, and as to the accusations in point of doctrine, the accuser left them to the judgment of the church. Alting, however, thought he had reason to complain, even after he was delivered from so formidable an adversary. His complaint was occasioned by the last edition of Des Marets’s system, in which he was very ill treated: he said, his adversary should have left no monuments of the quarrel; and that his reconciliation had not been sincere, since he had not suppressed such an injurious book. The clergy were continually murmuring against what they called innovations; but the secular power wisely calmed those storms, which the convocations and synods would have raised, threatening to interdict those who should revive what had obtained the name of the Maresio-Altingian controversy. Alting enjoyed but little health the last three years of his life; and being at length seized with a violent fever, was carried off in nine days, at Groningen, August 20, 1679. His works, which consist of dissertations on various points of Hebrew and Oriental antiquities; commentaries on many of the books of the Bible; a Syro-Chaldaic Grammar; a treatise on Hebrew punctuation, &c. &c. were collected in 5 vols. fol. and published by Balthasar Boeker, Amst. 1687, with a life by the same editor.

, a philosopher of Alexandria, flourished in the fifth century, and was contemporary with Jamblicus. He was one of the most subtle dialecticians of his time, was much followed, and drew away the hearers of Jamblicus. This occasioned some conferences between them, but no animosity, as Jamblicus wrote his life, in which he praised his virtue and steadiness of mind. Alypius died very old, in the city of Alexandria. In stature he was so remarkably diminutive as to be called a dwarf.

, a learned Hindoo, and counsellor to the celebrated rajah Vikramaditeya, lived in the first century B. C. He is the author of a Dictionary of the Sanscrit, which is esteemed very correct and complete. It is called “Amara-Kocha,” or the treasure of Amara, and is not in the alphabetical order, but divided into sections, as the names of the gods, the stars, the elements, &c. in the manner of some vocabularies. It is written in a species of verse, and the explanations are given in the different Indian languages. Father Paulin, of St. Bartholomew, published at Rome in 1798, the first part of this dictionary under the title “Amara-Singha, sectio prima, de caelo, ex tribus ineditis codicibus manuscriptis,” 4to. There is a manuscript of the whole in the imperial library of Paris.

, or more commonly Amalric or Almeric (de Chartres), professor of logic and theology at Paris, in the thirteenth century, was a nadve of Bene in the diocese of Chartres, and rendered himself famous for the singularity of his opinions, and the multitudes who became his followers, and suffered for their adherence. Adopting the metaphysics of Aristotle, he formed to himself a new system of religion, which has been thus explained. Aristotle supposes that all beings are composed of matter, which has in itself neither form nor shape: this he calls the first matter. This Amauri called God, because it is a necessary and infinite being. He acknowledged in God, three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to whom he attributed the empire of the world, and whom he regarded as the object of religious worship. But as this matter was endowed with a property of continual motion, it necessarily followed that this world must some time have an end, and that all the beings therein must return to that first matter, which was the supreme of all beings the first existing, and the only one eternal. Religion, according to Amauri’s opinion, had three epochas, which bore a similitude to the reign of the three persons in the Trinity. The reign of God had existed as long as the law of Moses. The reign of the Son would not always last; the ceremonies and sacrifices, which according to Amauri constituted the essence of it, would not be eternal. A time would come when the sacraments should cease, and then the religion of the Holy Ghost would begin, in which men would have no need of sacraments, and would render a spiritual worship to the Supreme Being. This epocha was the reign of the Holy Ghost, which according to Amauri was foretold by the scripture, and which would succeed to the Christian religion, as the Christian religion had succeeded to that of Moses. The Christian religion therefore was the reign of Jesus Christ in the world, and every man under that law ought to look on himself as one of the members of Jesus Christ. Amauri had many proselytes, but his opinions were condemned by pope Innocent III. His disciples added that the sacraments were useless, and that no action dictated by charity could be bad. They were condemned by the council of Paris in 1209, and many of them burned. Amauri appealed to the pope, who also condemned his doctrines; but for fear of a rigorous punishment he retracted his opinions, retired to St. Martin des Champs, and died there of chagrin and disappointment. His bones were afterwards dug up and burnt by order of the council of Paris. As there is much confusion in the accounts given of Amauri’s system, it may be necessary to add, that Spanheim, Fleury, and others, are of opinion that most of the heresies imputed to him, are without foundation, and represent him as having only taught that every Christian ought to believe himself a member of Jesus Christ, otherwise they cannot be saved, and that Dinant and his other disciples fell into those errors which he was accused of having taught. It seems not improbable that his inveighing against the worship of saints and images would in that age form the principal article against him; and it is certain that many of his disciples were men of distinguished piety, remarkable for the gravity and austerity of their lives, and for suffering death, in all its dreadful forms, with the utmost resolution.

a French cardinal and statesman of the illustrious house of Amboise in France, so called from their possessing the seignory of that name, was born in 1460. Being destined at a very early age for the church, he was elected bishop of Montauban when only fourteen. He was afterwards made one of the almoners to Lewis XI. to whom he behaved with great prudence. After the death of this prince in 1480, he entered into some of the intrigues of the court with a design to favour the duke of Orleans, with whom he was closely connected; but those intrigues being discovered, d‘Aniboise and his protector were both imprisoned. The duke of Orleans was at last restored to his liberty; and this prince having negotiated the marriage of the king with the princess Anne of Britanny, acquired great reputation and credit at court. Of this his favourite d’Amboise felt the happy effect as, soon after, the archbishopric of Narbonne was bestowed on him; but being at too great a distance from the court, he changed it for that of Rouen, to which the chapter elected him in 1493. As soon as he had taken possession of his new see, the duke of Orleans, who was governor of Normandy, made him lieutenant-general, with the same power as if he had been governor in cbief. This province was at that time in great disorder: the noblesse oppressed the people, the judges were all corrupted or intimidated; the soldiers, who had been licentious since the late wars, infested the high-ways, plundering and assassinating all travellers they met; but in less-than a year, d‘Amboise by his care and prudence established public tranquillity. The king dying in 1498, the duke of Orleans ascended the throne, by the name of Lewis XII. and d’Amboise became his prime minister. By his first operation in that office, he conciliated the affection of the whole nation. It had been a custom when a new monarch ascended the throne, to lay an extraordinary tax on the people, to defray the expences of the coronation, but by the counsel of d‘Amboise this tax was not levied, and the imposts were soon reduced one tenth. His virtues coinciding with his knowledge, he made the French nation happy, and endeavoured to preserve the glory they had acquired. By his advice Lewis XII. undertook the conquest of the Milanese in 1499. Lewis the Moor, uncle and vassal of Maximilian, was then in possession of that province. It revolted soon after the conquest, but d’Amboise brought it back to its duty. Some time after he was received at Paris with great magnificence, in quality of legate from the pope. During his legation, he laboured to reform many of the religious orders, as the jacobins, the cordeliers, and those of St. Germain des Pres. His disinterestedness was equal to his zeal. He never possessed more than one benefice, two thirds of which he employed for the relief of the poor and the support of the churches. Contenting himself with his archbishopric of Rouen and his cardinal’s hat, he was not, like his contemporaries, desirous to add abbeys to it. A gentleman of Normandy having offered to sell him an estate at a very low price, in order to portion his daughter, he made him a present of a sum sufficient for that purpose, and left him the estate. He obtained the purple after the dissolution of the marriage between Lewis XII. and Joan of France, to which he greatly contributed: and, on having procured for Caesar Borgia, son of pope Alexander VI. the duchy of Valentinois, with a considerable pension, his ambition was to be pope, with a view to the reform of abuses, and the correction of manners. After the death of Pius III. he might have succeeded in his wishes, and took measures to procure the tiara, but cardinal Julian de Rovera (afterwards Julius II.) found means to circumvent him; and the Venetians having contributed to his exclusion, he took the first opportunity to excite Lewis XII. to make war on them, a circumstance which seems not a little to detract from his character. This celebrated cardinal died in 15 10, in the convent of the Celestines at Lyons, of the gout in his stomach, aged 50 years. It is reported that he often repeated to the friar who attended him in his illness, “Brother John, why have I not during my whole life been brother John?” This minister has been greatly praised for having laboured for the happiness of France; but he has been equally censured for having advised his master to sign the treaty of Blois in 1504, by which France ran the risk of being dismembered. He governed both the king and the state; laborious, kind, honest, he possessed good sense, firmness, and experience, but he was not a great genius, nor were his views extensive. The desire he had to ease the people in their taxes, procured him during his life, but much more after his death, the title of father of the people. He merited this title still more, by the care he took to reform the administration of justice. Most of the judges were venal, and the poor, and those who had no support, could never obtain justice, when their opposers were either powerful or rich. Another evil not less enormous troubled the kingdom; law-suits were spun out to such a length, were so expensive, and accompanied by so much trick and chicanery, that most people rather chose to abandon their rights than engage in the recovery of them by suits which had no prospect of coming to an end. D‘Amboise resolved to remedy this abuse. He called to his assistance many lawyers and civilians, the most learned and of the greatest integrity; and charged them to form a plan, by which justice might be administered without partiality, the duration of lawsuits abridged and rendered less ruinous, and the corruption of the judges prevented. When these commissioners had made their report, d’Amboise undertook the laborious task of examining into the changes they had proposed in the old laws, and the new regulations they designed to establish; and after having made some changes, these new regulations were published throughout the kingdom. As he was governor of Normandy, he made a progress through that province for the express purpose of seeing his new code properly established.

Still, however, Justina, the empress, continued his enemy, although he had, by his talents in negociation, averted for a tune the invasion of Italy from the court of Milan. In the year 386, she procured a law to enable the Arian congregations to assemble without interruption; and Auxentius, a Scythian, of the same name with the Arian predecessor of Ambrose, was now introduced, under the protection of the empress, into Milan. He challenged Ambrose to hold a disputation with him in the emperor’s court, but the latter denied that it was any part of the emperor’s business to decide on points of doctrine; adding, “Let him come to church, and upon hearing, let the people judge for themselves; and if they like Auxuutius better, let them take him; but they have already declared their sentiments.” Auxentius then demanded that a party of soldiers might be sent to secure for himself the possession of the church called Basilica; and it was represented as a very unreasonable thing, that the emperor should not be allowed one place of worship agreeable to his conscience. This, however, was not the fair question, for the emperor, if he chose to exert his authority, might have commanded any, or all the churches. The fact was, that Ambrose was now requested to do what he could not do conscientiously; namely, by his own deed to resign a church into the hands of the Arians, and thereby, indirectly at least, acknowledge their creed. He therefore refused, telling the officers that if the emperor had demanded his house or land, money or goods, he would have freely resigned them, but that he could not deliver up that which was committed to his care. And although another attempt was made to obtain forcible possession of one or two churches, and violent commotions were about to ensue, Ambrose persisted in his principles of duty, and his resistance was effectual.

Notwithstanding this weight of personal character, which crushed every attempt of his enemies, we find some accounts of superstitious practices upon record, which it is difficult to reconcile to his general conduct. Being called upon by the people to consecrate a new church, he answered that he would comply, if he could find any relics of martyrs there, and we are told that it was revealed to him in a vision at night, in what place he might find the relics; but this last circumstance is not to be found in the epistle which he writes on the subject. He describes, however, the finding the bodies of two martyrs, Protasius, and Gervasius; the supposed miracles wrought on the occasion; the dedication of the church; the triumph of the Orthodox; and the confusion of Arianism, If these miracles were not real, we know not how to exculpate Ambrose from at least conniving at the imposture, or being deluded himself, neither of which are very consistent with the strength of understanding and independence of mind which he displayed on other occasions.

, a noted presbyterian teacher in the times of the usurpation, was son of a clergyman, and descended from the Ambroses of Ambrose-hall, in Lancashire. In the beginning of the year 1621 he was admitted of Brazen-nose college in Oxford, where he took the degree of bachelor of arts. Afterwards he went into holy orders, and officiated in some little cure in his own county. Being in very low circumstances, he was often obliged to the bounty of William earl of Bedford for the relief of himself and family. Mr. Wood thinks that lord procured him to be inserted in the list of his majesty’s preachers, appointed for the county of Lancaster. Afterwards, when the times changed, in 1641, he left the church of England, and went over to the presbyterian party, took the covenant, and became a preacher at Preston, and afterwards at Garstang, in his own county. He was very zealous and very active against the clergy of the established church, especially after he was appointed assistant to the commissioners for ejecting such whom they called scandalous and ignorant ministers and school-masters. In 1&62 he was ejected for nonconformity. It was usual with him to retire every year for a month, into a little hut in a wood, when he shunned all society, and devoted himself to religious contemplation. He had, according to Calamy, a very strong impulse on, his mind of the approach of death: and took a formal leave of his friends at their own houses, a little before his departure, and the last night of his life, he sent his “Discourse concerning Angels,” to the press. Next day he shut himself up in his parlour, where, to the surprise and regret of his friends, he was found expiring. The time of his death is stated to have been in 1663-4, in the seventysecond year of his age, but at the bottom of the portrait prefixed to his works, is the inscription “aetat.5.9. 1663.” This contradiction has not been reconciled by Granger. His works were printed in a large folio volume, in 1674, 1682, and 1689, and often since. They consist of pious tracts on various subjects, and have ever been popular.

, an eclectic philosopher of the third century, was a native of Tuscany, and the contemporary of Porphyry, and studied the principles of the Stoic philosophy under Lysimachus. He became afterwards acquainted with the writings of Numenius, and from him learned and adopted the dogmas of Plato, but at last, about the year 246, became the disciple of Plotinus. For twenty-four years he associated with this master, and probably never would have quitted him, if Plotinus, on account of his health, had not been obliged to go to Campania. Amelius then settled at Apamea in Syria, and it was no doubt his long residence here which led Suidas into the mistake that he was a native of the place. The word Amelius in Greek signifies negligent, but no epithet could ever be worse applied than to him. Porphyry therefore tells us that he preferred being called Amerius, and he is accordingly recorded under this name by Eunapius in his lives of the Greek sophists. His disciples also bestowed on him the title of noble. He wrote nearly an hundred treatises, none of which have descended to our times. One of them was a discussion on the difference between the doctrines of Numenius and Plotinus. Eusebius, Theodoret, and St. Cyril, quote a passage from Amelius in which he brings the beginning of the Gospel of St. John in confirmation of the doctrine of Plato on the divine nature. He had an adopted son, Justin Hesychius, to whom he left his writings. The time of his death is not known.

, called by some Abraham Nicholas, but, according to Niceron, Nicholas only appears in his baptismal register, was born February. 1634, at Orleans. He was much esteemed at the court of France, and appointed secretary of an embassy which that court sent to the commonwealth of Venice, as appears by the title of his translation of father Paul’s history of the council of Trent; but he afterwards published writings which gave such offence, that he was imprisoned in the Bastile. The first works he printed were the “History of the Government of Venice, and that of the Uscocks, a people of Croatia:” in 1683, he published also translations into French of Machiavel’s Prince, and father Paul’s history of the council of Trent, and political discourses of his own upon Tacitus. These performances were well received by the public, but he did not prefix his own name to the two last mentioned works, but concealed himself under that of La Mothe Josseval. His translation of father Paul was attacked by the partisans of the pope’s unbounded power and authority. In France, however, it met with great success; all the advocates for the liberty of the Gallican church promoting the success of it to the utmost of their power; though at the same time there were three memorials presented to have it suppressed. When the second edition of this translation was published, it was violently attacked by the abbé St. Real, in a letter he wrote to Mr. Bayle, dated October 17, 1685, and Amelot defended himself, in a letter to that author. In 1684, he printed, at Paris, a French translation of Baltasar Gracian’s Oraculo manual, with the title of “l'Homme de Cour.” In his preface he defends Gracian against father Bouhours’ critique, and gives his reasons why he ascribes this book to Baltasar and not to Laurence Gracian. He also mentions that he had altered the title, because it appeared too ostentatious and hyperbolical; that of “l'Homme de Cour,” the Courtier, being more proper to express the subject of the book, which contains a collection of the finest maxims for regulating a court-life. In 1686, he printed “La Morale de Tacite;” in which he collected several particular facts and maxims, that represent in a strong light the artifices of court-flatteries, and the mischievous effect of their conversations. In 1690, he published at Paris a French translation of the first six books of Tacitus’s annals, with his historical and political remarks, some of which, according to Mr. Gordon, are pertinent and useful, but many of them insipid and trifling. Amelot having employed his peri for several years on historical and political subjects, began now to try his genius on religious matters; and in 1691 printed at Paris a translation of “Palafox’s theological and moral Homilies upon the passion of our Lord.” Frederic Leonard, a bookseller at Paris, having proposed, in the year 1692, to print a collection of all the treaties of peace between the kings of France and all the other princes of Europe, since the reign of Charles VII. to the year 1690, Amelot published a small volume in duodecimo, containing a preliminary discourse upon these treaties; wherein he endeavours to show the insincerity of courts in matters of negociation. He published also an edition of. cardinal d'Ossat’s letters in 1697, with several observations of his own; which, as he tells us in his advertisement, may serve as a supplement to the history of the reigns of Henry III. and Henry IV. of France. Amelot died at Paris, Dec. 8, 1706, being then almost 73 years of age, and left several other works enumerated by Niceron, who objects to his style, but praises his fidelity. The freedom with which he wrote on political subjects appears to have procured for him a temporary fame, unaccompanied with any other advantages. Although he was admired for his learning and political knowledge, he was frequently in most indigent circumstances, and indebted to the bounty of his friends.

, a learned printer of the fifteenth century, was born at Rutlingen, in Suabia, and settled at Basil. He was the first who made use of the round type, instead of the Italic and Gothic. In 1506, he published the first edition of the works of St. Augustine, corrected by himself, with a type known long by the name of the St. Augustine type. He began also the works of St. Jerome; but his death, which took place in 1515, prevented his finishing them, and he left them to the care of his sons, by whom they were published. All his editions are valued for their accuracy. Boniface, his eldest son, who died in 1562, was for thirty years law professor at Basil, five times rector of the university, and went through the different offices of magistracy with the reputation of a man of great integrity. In 1659, was printed at Basil, 4to, the “Bibliotheca Amerbachiana,” a scarce work, which throws considerable light on the history of printing, and mentions many early editions omitted in our largest catalogues. Erasmus and Boniface Amerbach contributed to this Bibliotheca. Boniface had a son Basil, also a man of learning, syndic of the city, and rector of the university. He contributed much to the cabinet of pictures, and medals, and to the library which his father had founded. He founded likewise some charitable establishments, and a new professorship in the university, called the Amerbachian.

Of Mr. Ames’s character, the opinion seems to be uniform, that he possessed an amiable simplicity of manners, and exemplary integrity and benevolence in social life. Mr. Cole, who bears him no ojood will, because, as he asserts, he was an Anabaptist, allows that he “was a little, friendly, good-tempered man, a person of vast application, and industry in collecting old printed books, prints, and other curiosities, both natural and artificial.” It is confessed, on the other hand, that he had not much of what is called literature, and knew nothing of composition. His preface to the “Typographical Antiquities” commences in the form of a preamble to an act of parliament, “Whereas it appears from reason and ancient history,” &c. His style, indeed, very much resembles that of his brother antiquary and equally laborious collector, Strype. With all this, he appears to have been a man entitled to high respect for his acquisitions; they were entirely his own, and instigated by a laudable desire to be useful. The dates in the preceding account of his life will be sufficient to prove the absurdity of Horace Walpole’s flippant notice of him, in which he says, that Mr. Ames took to the study of antiquities “late in life,” and thac he was “originally” a ship-chandler. The truth is, and it is to the honour of his industry, that he was always an antiquary, and always a ship-chandler, but principally in articles of ironmongery. It is necessary to add that an enlarged edition of the “Typographical Antiquities” was published by the late learned and industrious Mr. William Herbert, of whom some account will be given in its proper place. This was extended to three volumes quarto, the first of which appeared in, 1785, the second in 1786. and the third in 1790, a work of inestimable value to the antiquary, the historian, and the general scholar. To the first volume, Mr. Gough prefixed “Memoirs of Mr. Joseph Ames,” from which all that is valuable in the present article has been taken; and the same has been retained, with many additional particulars, in the new and very splendid edition of Ames and Herbert, by the rev. Thomas Frognall Dibdin, F. S. A. of which one volume was published in 1810 and a second in 1812, which promise ample gratification to the lovers of typographical antiquities.

In 1732, on the change of the administration usually called that of lord North, the command of the army, and the lieutenant-generalship of ordnance, were put into other hands. In 1787, he received another patent of peerage, as baron Amherst, of Montreal, with remainder to his nephew, William Pitt Amherst. On the staff being reestablished, he was, Jan. 22, 1793, again appointed to the command of the army in Great Britain, although at that time, general Conway, the duke of Gloucester, sir George Howard, the duke of Argyle, the hon. John Fitz-­william, and sir Charles Montagu, were his seniors. On the 10th of February 1795, the command of the army being given to the duke of York, an offer of earldom, and the rank of field marshal, were made to lord Amherst, who then declined accepting them, but on the 30th July 1796, accepted the rank of field-marshal. His increasing age and infirmities, had, however, rendered him unfit for public business nearly two years before this period, and he now retired to his seat at Montreal in Kent, where he August 3, 1797, in the eighty-first year of his age. and was interred in the family vault in Seven Oaks church, on the 10th. Lord Amherst had been twice married; first, to Jane, only daughter of Thomas Dallison, of Manton, in Lincolnshire, esq. who died Jan. 7, 1765; and secondly, to Elizabeth, eldest daughter of general George Gary, brother to viscount Falkland, who survived him; but by neither had he any issue. His two brothers had distinguished themselves in the service of their country; John, an admiral of the blue, died Feb. 12, 1778 and William, already mentioned, a lieutenant-general in the army, died May 13, 1781. His son inherits lord Amherst’s title and estate.

, an English political and miscellaneous writer, was born at Marden in Kent, but in what year is uncertain, although by a passage in his Terras Filius, it would appear to be about 1706. Under the tuition of his grandfather, a clergyman, he received his grammatical education at Merchant-Taylor’s school in, London; and thence was removed to St. John’s college, Oxford, whence he was expelled on a charge of libertinism, irregularity, and his insulting 1 behaviour towards the president of the college. From his own account of the matter, in the dedication of his poems to Dr. Delaune, president of St. John’s, and in his “Teme Filius,” we may collect that he wished to have it understood, that he was solely persecuted for the liberality of his sentiments, and his attachment to the cause of the Revolution and of the Hanover-succession. Whatever were the causes of his expulsion, ius resentment, on the account of it, although violent, was impotent. He made it his business to satirize the learning and discipline of the university of Oxford, and to libel the characters of its principal members. This he did in a poem published in 1724, called “Oculus Britanniae,” and in his “Terrae Filius,” a work in which is displayed a considerable portion of wit, intermixed with intemperate satire. The full title of the work is, “Terrae Filius; or the secret history of the university of Oxford; in several essays. To which are added, Remarks upon a late book, entitled, University Education, by R. Newton, D. D. principal of Hart Hall,” 2 vols. 12mo, printed for R. Francklin, 1726. Amidst all the malignity and exaggeration with which the Terrae Filius abounds, it contains some curious anecdotes relative to the principles, manners, and conduct of several members of the university, for a few years after the accession of king George I.; but they are to be read with caution. It had been an ancient custom in the university of Oxford, at public acts, for some person, who was called Terrae Filius, to mount the rostrum, and divert a large crowd of spectators, who flocked to hear him from all parts, with a merry oration in the fescennine manner, interspersed with secret history, raillery, and sarcasm, as the occasions of the times supplied him with matter. Wood, in his Athenae, mentions several instances of this custom; and hence Mr. Amhurst took the title of his work. It was originally written in 1721, in a periodical paper, which came out twice a week, and consists of fifty numbers.

Soon after Mr. Amhurst quitted Oxford, he seems to have settled in London, as a writer by profession. He published a volume of “Miscellanies,” (principally written at the university), on a variety of subjects; partly originals, and partly paraphrases, imitations, and translations; and consisting of tales, epigrams, epistles, love-verses, elegies, and satires. They begin with a beautiful paraphrase on the Mosaic account of the creation, and end with a very humorous tale upon the discovery of that useful instrument a bottle-screw. Mr. Amhurst was -the author, likewise, of an “Epistle to sir John Blount,” bart. one of the directors of the South-Sea Company in 1720; of the “British General,” a poem sacred to the memory of his grace John duke of Marlborough; and of “Strephon’s revenge,” a satire on the Oxford toasts. Our poet, who had a great enmity to the clergy, and who had early, at Oxford, displayed his zeal against what he called priestly power, discovered this particularly in a poem entitled the “Convocation,” in five cantos; a kind of satire against all the writers who had opposed bishop Hoadly, in the famous Bangorian controversy. He translated also, Mr. Addison’s Resurrection, and some other of his Latin poems. But the principal literary undertaking of Mr. Amhurst was, his conducting “The Craftsman,” which was carried on for a number of years with great spirit and success; and was more read and attended to than any production of the kind which had hitherto been published in England. Ten or twelve thousand were sold in a day; and the effect which it had in raising the indignation of the people, and in controlling the power of the Walpole administration, was very considerable. This effect was not, however, entirely, or chiefly, owing to the abilities of Mr. Amhurst, He was assisted by lord Bolingbroke and Mr. Pulteney, and by other leaders of the opposition, whose fame and writings were the grand support of the “Craftsman.” Nevertheless, Mr. Amhurst’s own paper’s are allowed to have been composed with ability and spirit, and he conducted the “Craftsman” in the very zenith of-its prosperity, with no small reputation to himself. July 2, 1737, there appeared in that publication an ironical letter, in the name of Colley Gibber, the design of which was to ridicule the act that had just passed for licensing plays. In this letter, the laureat proposes himself to the lord chamberlain to be made superintendant of the old plays, as standing equally in need of correction with the new ones; and produces several passages from Shakspeare, and other poets, in relation to kings, queens, princes, and ministers of state, which, he says, are not now fit to be brought on the stage. The printer, &c. having been laid hold of by order of government, Mr. Amhurst hearing that a warrant from the duke of Newcastle was issued against him, surrendered himself to a messenger, and was carried before his grace to be examined. The crime imputed to hini was, that “he was suspected to be the author of a paper suspected to be a libel.” As no proofs were alleged against him, nor witnesses produced, an examination of this kind could not last long. As soon as it was over, he was told that the crime being bailable, he should be bailed upon finding sufficient securities to answer for his appearance and trial; but these terms being imposed upon him, be absolutely refused. Upon this refusal, he was remanded back into custody, and the next day brought his habeas corpus, and was then set at liberty, by consent, till the twelve Judges should determine the question, “Whether he was obliged to give bail for his good behaviour, as well as his appearance, before he was entitled to his liberty.” This determination was impatiently expected by the public, and several days were fixed for hearing counsel on both sides, but no proceedings of that kind took place, and the question remained undetermined until the days of Wilkes.

Notwithstanding this show of firmness, and his other services, Mr. Amhurst was totally neglected by his coadjutors in the Craftsman, when they made their terms with the crown; and he died soon after, of a fever, at Twickenham. His death happened April 27, 1742; and his disorder was probably occasioned, in a great measure, by the ill usage he had received. Mr. Ralph, in his “Case of Authors,” speaks with much indignation upon the subject. “Poor Amhurst, after having been the drudge of his party for the best part of twenty years together, was as much forgotten in the famous compromise of 1742, as if he had never been born! and when he died of what is called a broken heart, which happened a few months afterwards, became indebted to the charity of a bookseller for a grave; not to be traced now, because then no otherwise to be distinguished, than by the freshness of the turf, borrowed from the next common to cover it.” Mr. T. Davies the bookseller, in his character of Mr. Pulteney, expresses himself concerning the treatment of Mr. Amhurst in the following terms: “But if the earl of Bath had his list of pensioners, how comes it that Arnhurst was forgotten? The fate of this poor man is singular: He was the able associate of Bolingbroke and Pulteney, in writing the celebrated weekly paper called ‘ The Craftsman.’ His abilities were unquestionable: he had almost as much wit, learning, and various knowledge, as his two partners: and when those great masters chose not to appear in public themselves, he supplied their places so well, that his essays were often ascribed to them. Am-, hurst survived the downfall of Walpole’s power, and had reason to expect a reward for his labours. If we excuse Bolingbroke, who had only saved the shipwreck of his fortunes, we shall be at a loss to justify Pulteney, who could with ease have given this man a considerable income. The utmost of his generosity to Amhurst, that I ever heard of, was a hogshead of claret! He died, it is supposed, of a broken heart, and was buried at the charge of his honest printer, Richard Francklin.” Mr. Amhurst was, however, one of those imprudent and extravagant men, whose irregularities, in spite of their talents, bring them at length into general disesteem and neglect; although this does not excuse the conduct cf his employers. His want of purity in morals was no objection to their connection with him, when he could serve their purpose. And they might have easily provided for him, and placed him above necessity during the remainder of his days. The ingratitude of statesmen to the persons whom they make use of as the instruments of their ambition, should furnish an instruction to men of abilities in future times; and engage them to build their happiness on the foundation of their own personal integrity, discretion, and virtue.

Marcellus Marcini being chosen pope in 1555, under the name of Marcellus II. Ammirato, who knew that Nicolao Majorano, bishop of Molfetta, a city near Barri, had been formerly a friend of the pope’s, persuaded him to go to Rome, and congratulate him upon his election, with a view, by attending the bishop in his journey, to procure some place under the nephews of that pope; but, as they were preparing for this journey, the death of Marcellus put a stop to their intended scheme, and destroyed their hopes; upon which Ammirato retired to a country-seat of his father’s, where he applied himself closely to his studies. At last he was determined to return to Naples, in order to engage again in the study of the law, and to take his degrees in it; his relish for this profession was not in the least increased, but he thought the title he might procure would be of advantage to him. He had not, however, been six months at Naples, before he grew weary of it, and entered successively into the service of several noblemen as secretary. Upon his return to Lucca, he was appointed by this city to go and present a petition to pope Pius IV. in their favour, which office he discharged with success. Upon his return to Lucca, he was appointed by the city of Naples to settle there, and write the history of that kingdom; but the cold reception he met with from the governors who had sent for him, disgusted him so much, that he left the city with a resolution to return no more, and although they repented afterwards of their neglect of him, and used all possible means to bring him back, he continued inflexible. He then went to Rome, where he procured a great many friends; and, having travelled over part of Italy, visited Florence, where he resolved to settle, being engaged by the kind reception which the Grand Duke gave to men of letters. He was appointed to write the history of Florence, and received many instances of that prince’s bounty, which he increased after this publication, by presenting him with a canonry in the cathedral of Florence. This easy situation now gave him an opportunity of applying himself more vigorously to his studies, and writing the greatest part of his works. He died at Florence the 30th of January, 1601, in the 69th year of his age. His works are as follow: 1. “Arguments,” in Italian verse, of the cantos of Ariosto’s Orlando Furioso, which were first published in the edition of that poem at Venice, in 1548, in 4to. 2. “II Decalione dialogo del poeta,” Naples, 1560, 8vo. 3. “Istorie Florentine dopo la fondatione di Fierenze insino all' anno 1574,” printed at Florence, 1600, in 2 vols. folio. 4. “Discorsi sopra Cornelio Tacito,” Florence, 1598, 4to. 5. “Delle famiglie nobili Napolitane,” part I. at Florence, 1580, in folio; part II. at Florence, 1651, folio. 6. “Discorsi delle famiglie Paladina et PAntoglietta,” Florence, 1605, in 4to. 7. “Albero et storia della famiglia de conte Guidi, coll' agiunte de Scipione Ammirato Giovane,” Florence, 1640 and 1650. 8. “Delle famiglie Florentine,” Florence, 1615, folio. 9. “Vescovi de Fiesoli di Volterra, e d‘Arezzo, con l’aggiiinta di Scipione Ammirato il Giovane,” Florence, 1637, 4to. 10. “Opuscoli varii,” Florence, 1583, in 8vo. 11. “Rime varie,” printed in a collection of poems by different authors. Venice, 1553, in 8vo. 12. “Poesi Spirituali,” Venice, 1634, in 4to, 13. “Annotazioni sopra la seconde parte de Sonetti di Bernardino Rota fatti in morte di Porzia Capece sua moglia,” Naples, 1560, in 4to. He left a manuscript life of himself, which is said to have been deposited in the library of the hospital of St. Mary. He made his secretary, Dei Bianco, his heir, on condition of taking his name, who accordingly called himself Scipio Ammirato the younger. He was editor of some of his benefactor’s works, particularly of his history of Florence, a performance of great accuracy and credit.

, surnamed Saccas, one of the most celebrated philosophers of his age, was born in Alexandria, and flourished about the beginning of the third century. His history and his opinions have been the subject of much dispute among modern writers, to some of whom we shall refer at the close of this article, after stating what appears to be the probable account. In the third century, Alexandria was the most renowned seminary of learning. A set of philosophers appeared there who called themselves Eclectics, because, without tying themselves down to any one set of rules, they chose what they thought most agreeable to truth from different masters and sects. Their pretensions were specious, and they preserved the appearance of candour, moderation, and dispassionate inquiry, in words and declarations, as their successors, the modern free-thinkers, have since done. Ammonius Saccas seems to have reduced the opinions of these Eclectics to a system. Plato was his principal guide; but he invented many things of which Plato never dreamed. What his religious profession was, is disputed among the learned. Undoubtedly he was educated a Christian; and although Porphyry, in his enmity against Christianity, observes that he forsook the Gospel, and returned to Gentilism, yet the testimony of Eusebius, who must have known the fact, proves that he continued a Christian all his days. His tracts on the agreement of Moses and Jesus, and his harmony of the four gospels, demonstrate that he desired to be considered as a Christian. His opinion, however, was, that all religions, vulgar and philosophical, Grecian and barbarous, Jewish and Gentile, meant the same thing at bottom. He undertook, by allegorizing and subtilizing various fables and systems, to make up a coalition of all sects and religions; and from his labours, continued by his disciples, some of whose works still remain, his followers were taught to look on Jew, philosopher, vulgar Pagan, and Christian, as all of the same creed. Longinus and Plotinus appear to have been the disciples of Ammonius, who is supposed to have died about the year 243. His history and principles are discussed by Dr. Lardner, in his Credibility, and by Mosheim in his history, the translator of which differs from Dr. Lardner in toto, and has been in this respect followed by Milner in his Church History recently published.

In 1755 he published “Memoirs, containing the lives of several ladies of Great Britain.” “A history of antiquities, productions of nature, and monuments of art.” “Observations on the Christian religion, as professed by the established church and dissenters of every denomination.” “Remarks on the writings of the greatest English divines: and a review of the works of the writers called Infidels, from lord Herbert of Cherbury to the late lord viscount Bolingbroke. With a variety of disquisitions and opinions relative to criticism and manners; and many extraordinary actions. In several letters,” 8vo.

“This may appear strange to many; but it must be to those who are not acquainted with me. I was so far from having a vanity to be known to Dr. Swift, or to be seen among the fortunate at his house (as I have heard those who met there called), that I am sure it would not have been in the power of any person of consideration to get me there. What I wanted in relation to the dean I had. This was enough for me. I desired no more of him. I was enabled by the means related to know the excellencies and the defects of his understanding; and the picture I have drawn of his mind, you shall see in the appendix aforenamed; with some remarks on his writings, and on the cases of Vanessa and Stella.

The monthly reviewers of the time having given an account of this work unsatisfactory to the author, he published (for there can be little doubt but he was the author) a pamphlet entitled “A letter to the Reviewers, occasioned by their account of a book called Memoirs. By a lady.” 3vo. 1755. This lady signs herself Maria de Large; and subjoined are some remarks signed Anna Maria Gornwallis.

, a native of Cappadocia, bishop of Iconium in the fourth century, was the friend of St. Gregory Nazianzen and St. Basil. He assisted at the first general council of Constantinople in the year 381, and presided at the council of Sidae. In the year 383, he contrived the following method of persuading the emperor to prohibit the assemblies of the Arians: observing that Theodosius encouraged the Arians, he went to his palace, and approaching Arcadius, his son, caressed him as if he had been an infant, but did not treat him with the customary respect. Theodosius, enraged at an affront offered to himself in the person of his son, ordered the bishop to be thrust out of the palace, when, turning to Theodosius, he cried, “My lord, you cannot bear that your son should be injured, and are displeased at those who do not treat him with respect; can you then doubt, that the God of the universe also abhors those who blaspheme his son?” Theodosius, upon this, called back the bishop, begged his pardon, and soon after published severe laws against the assemblies of the Arians. St. Amphilochius died about the year 394. Very few of his works remain. Jerome mentions but one, concerning the “Divinity of the Holy Spirit,” which is not extant. The principal is an Iambic poem of considerable length, in which is inserted a catalogue of the books, of the Old and New Testament. Cave and Dupin say that it was the production of Gregory Nazianzen, but Combesis and Tillemont contend for its belonging to Amphilochius. The fragments which remain of his other works are in the Bibl. Patrum, and there is a letter of his concerning synods, published by Cotelerius. Father Combesis published all he could collect, in 1644, fol. Greek and Latin, but he has inserted some pieces on very doubtful authority.

, an associate of Luther in the reformation, was born in 1483, near Wurtzen in Misnia, of a noble family. After studying divinity, he became one of the clergy of Wittemberg, and preached also at Magdeburgh and Naumburgh. In 1527, he accompanied Luther, to whose doctrines he was zealously attached, to the diet of Worms, and on his return, was in the same carriage with that reformer, when he was seized by order f the elector of Saxony, and conducted to Wartburgh. In 1573, he concurred in drawing up the articles of Smalcalde, and was, in 1542, appointed bishop of Naumburgh by the elector John Frederick, who disapproved of the choice which the chapter had made of Julius de Pflug. But, five years after, when his patron was taken prisoner by Charles V. he was obliged to surrender the bishopric to Pflug, and retire to Magdeburgh. He afterwards assisted in founding the university of Jena, which was intended as a rival to that of Wirtemberg, and died at Eisenach, May 14, 1565. The principal thing objected to him by the popish writers, and by some of his biographers, is, that in a dispute with G. Major, he maintained that good works were hurtful to salvation: but however improper this expression in the heat of debate, it is evident from his writings, that he meant that good works impeded salvation by being relied on as the cause of it, and that they were the fruit and effect of that faith to which pardon is promised. He was one of the boldest in his time in asserting the impiety and absurdity of the principal popish doctrines, but from his bigotted adherence to Lutheran principles, had too little respect for the other reformers who were of different sentiments in some points. Moreri is wrong in asserting that he formed a sect called by his name. Thesame principles were held by many of the Lutheran divinos. He wrote on the “Lord’s Supper,” and some other controversial pieces enumerated by JVlelchior Adam, Joecher, and Adelung.

His works are, 1. His translation of “Heliodorus,” 1547, fol. and 1549, 8vo, republished and retouched in 1559, fol. in consequence of his meeting with a complete manuscript of Heliodorus in the Vatican; and from this last edition all those of Lyons, Paris, and Rouen have been copied. 2. “Diodorus Siculus,” Paris, 1554, fol. and 1587, containing only seven books, viz. book XI. to XVII. 3“Daphnis and Cloe,” from Longus, 1559, 8vo, of which there have been many, and some very splendid editions, particularly that called the Regent’s edition, 1718, 12mo, one by Didot, 1798, large 4to, and one at Florence, 1810, large 8vo, by M. Courier. 4. “Plutarch’s Lives and Morals,” 1559, 2 vols. fol. Vascosan’s edition in 13 vols. 12mo, 1567—1574, was long in the highest estimation; the Lives occupy six of these, and the Morals seven, but vol. VI. ought to contain the lives of Hannibal and Scipio by L'Ecluse, which is not the case in all the copies. There have since, however, appeared two more valuable editions, the one in 22 vols. 8vo, 1783—87, with the notes of Brottier and Vauvilliers, and the other in 25 vols. 1801—1806, edited by M. Clavier, with considerable additions. 6. “Lettre a M. de Morvillier,” dated Sept. 8, 1551, containing an account of the author’s journey to Trente. This is printed in Vargas and Dupuy’s histories of the Council of Trent. 7. “Œuvres mélées,” 1611, 8vo, is mentioned in Niceron, but it is doubtful whether such a collection exists. 8. “Projet de l'Eloquence royale, compose pour Henry III. roi de France,” printed for the first time in 1805, 8vo and 4to. Not long before his death he was solicited to write the history of his country, but his answer was, “I love my sovereigns too well to write their lives.”

Amyraut, being a man well acquainted with the world, was very entertaining in conversation, which contributed no less than the reputation of his learning to render him the favourite of many persons of quality, though of opposite principles in religious matters among those who particularly distinguished him, were the marshals de Breze and de la Meilleriac, Mr. le Goux de la Berchere, first president of the parliament of Burgundy, and cardinal Mazarin. What gained him the favour of this cardinal was, in all probability, his openly declaring in favour of the obedience due to sovereigns, which proved very advantageous to the court of France during the troubles of the league against cardinal Maaarin, called de la Fronde. In his Apology, published in 1647, in behalf of the protestants, he excuses very plausibly the civil wars of France; but he declares at the same time, that he by no means intends to justify the taking up of arms against the lawful sovereign upon any pretence whatsoever; and that he always looked upon it as more agreeable to the nature of the gospel and the practice of the primitive church, to use no other arms but patience, tears, and prayers. Yet, notwithstanding his attachment to this doctrine, he was not for obeying in matters of conscience, which plainly appeared when the seneschal of Saumur imparted to him an order from the council of state, enjoining all those of the reformed religion to hang the outside of their houses on Corpus Christi day. The seneschal notified this order to him the eve of that holiday, entreating hini at the same time to persuade the protestants to comply with it. To this Amyraut made answer, that, on the contrary, he would go directly and exhort his parishioners against complying with it, as he himself was resolved not to obey such orders: that in all his sermons he had endeavoured to inspire his hearers with obedience and submission to superior powers-, but not when their consciences were concerned. ' Having thus acquainted the seneschal with his resolution, he went from house to house, laying before his parishioners the reasons why he thought they ought not to obey the order of the council, and the king’s lieutenant not thinking it proper to support the seneschal, the matter ended without disturbance.

Amyraut was a man of such charity and compassion, that he bestowed on the poor his whole salary during the last ten years of his life, without distinction of 'saffholic or protestant. He died the 8th of February 1664, and was interred with the usual ceremonies of the academy. He left but one son, who was one of the ablest advocates of the parliament of Paris, but fled to the Hague after the revocation of the edict of Nantes: he had also a daughter, who died in 1645, a year and a half after she had been married. His works are chiefly theological, and very voluminous; but, notwithstanding his fame, few of them were printed a second time, and they are now therefore scarce, and perhaps we may add, not in much request. He published in 1631 his “Traite des Religions,” against those who think all religions indifferent, and five years after, six “Sermons upon the nature, extent, &c. of the Gospel,” and several others at different times. His book of the exaltation of Faith, and abasement of Reason, “De Pelevation de la foi, &c.” appeared in 1641; and the same year was published in Latin the “Defence of Calvin with regard to the doctrine of absolute reprobation,” which in 1644 appeared in French. He began his “Paraphrase on the Scripture” in 1644: the Epistle to the Romans was paraphrased the first; then the other Epistles; and lastly the Gospel but like Calvin, he did not meddle with the Revelations, nor did he prefix his name to his Paraphrases lest it should deter the Roman Catholics from perusing them. He pub^ lishedin 1647 an “Apology for the Protestants,” “A treatise of Free Will,” and another “De Secessione ab Ecclesia Romana, deque pace inter Evangelicos in negotio Religionis constituenda.” But he treated this subject of the re-union of the Calvinists and Lutherans more at length in his “Irenicon” published in 1662. His book of the “Vocation of Pastors” appeared in 1649. He had preached on this subject before the prince of Tarento, at the meetings of a provincial synod, of which he was moderator. The prince desired the sermon might be printed, and the subject treated more at length, it being then the common topic of all missionaries. Mr. Amyraut, therefore, not only printed his sermon, but published a complete treatise upon that important controversy, and dedicated them both to the said prince. His Christian Morals, “Morale Chre-= tienne,” in six vols. 8vo, the first of which was printed in 1652, were owing to the frequent conferences he had with Mr. de Villornoul, a gentleman of an extraordinary merit, and one of the most learned men of Europe, who was heir in this respect also to Mr. du Plessis Mornai his grandfather by the mother’s side. He published also a treatise of dreams, “Traité des Songes;” two volumes upon “the Millenium,” wherein he refutes an advocate of Paris, called Mr. de Launoi, who was a zealous Millenarian; the “Life of the brave la None, surnamed Iron-arm,” from 1560 to the time of his death in 1591, Leyden, 1661, 4to; and several other works, particularly a poem, entitled “The Apology of St. Stephen to his Judges.” This piece was attacked by the missionaries, who asserted that the author had spoke irreverently of the sacrament of the altar; but he published a pamphlet in which he defended himself with great ability.

, a famous philosopher, was born in Scythia. He was brother to Cadovides king of Scythia, and the son of Gnurus by a Greek woman, which gave him the opportunity of learning both languages to perfection. Sosicrates, according to Laertius, affirmed, that he came to Athens in the forty-seventh olympiad, or 592 B.C. under Eucrates the Archon, And Hermippus tells us, that as soon as he arrived there, he went to Solon’s house, and knocked at his door, and bid the servant, who opened it, go and tell his master, that Anacharsis was there, and was come on purpose to see him, and continue with him for $ome time. Solon returned him an answer, that it was better to contract friendship at home. Anacharsis went in upon this, and said to Solon, that since he was then in his own country and in his own house, it was his duty to entertain him as his guest, and therefore he desired him to enter into an intimate friendship with hi;n. Solon, surprized at the vivacity of his repartee, immediately engaged in a friendship with him, which lasted as long as they lived. Solon instructed him in the best discipline, recommended him to the favour of the noblest per ons, and sought all means of giving him respect and honour. Anacharsis was kindly received by every one for his sake, and, as Theoxenus attests, was the only stranger whom they incorporated into their city. He was a man of a very quick and lively genius, and of a strong and masterly eloquence, and was resolute in whatever he undertook. He constantly wore a coarse double garment. He was very temperate, and his diet was nothing but milk and cheese. His speeches were delivered in a concise and pathetic style, and as he was inflexible in the pursuit of his point, he never failed to gain it, and his resolute and eloquent manner of speaking passed into a proverb; and those who imitated him were said to speak in the Scythian phrase. He was extremely fond of poetry, and wrote the laws of the Scythians, and of those things-which he had observed among the Greeks, and a poem of 900 verses upon war. Crœsus, having heard of his reputation, sent to offer him money, and to desire him to come to see him at Sardis; but the philosopher answered, that he was come to Greece in order to learn the language, manners, and laws of that country, that he had no occasion for gold or silver, and that it would be sufficient for him to return to Scythia a better man and more intelligent than when he came from thence. He told the king, however, that he would take an opportunity of seeing him, since he had a strong desire of being ranked in the number of his friends. After he had continued a long while in Greece, he prepared to return home, and passing through Cyricum, he found the people of that city celebrating in a very solemn manner the feast of Cybele. This excited him to make a vow to that goddess, that he would perform the same sacrifices, and establish the same feast in honour of her in his own country, if he should return thither in safety. Upon his arrival in Scythia he attempted to change the ancient customs of that country, and to establish those of Greece, but this proved extremely displeasing to the Scythians, and fatal to himself. As he had one day entered into a thick wood called Hylaea, in order to accomplish his vow to Cybele in the most secret manner possible, and was performing the whole ceremony before an image of that goddess, he was discovered by a Scytman, who went and informed king Saulius of it. The king came immediately, and surprised Anaenarsis in the midst of the solemnity, and shot him dead with an arrow. Laertius tells us, that he was killed by his brother with an arrow as he was hunting, and that he expired with these words: “I lived in peace and safety in Greece, whither I went to inform myself of its language and manners, and envy has destroyed me in my native country.” Great respect, however, was paid to him after his death by the erection of statues. He is said to have invented the potter’s wheel, but this is mentioned by Homer long before he lived, yet he probably introduced it into his country.

, a Greek poet of great celebrity, was born at Teos, a sea-port of Ionia. Madam Dacier endeavours to prove from Plato, that he was a kinsman of Solon’s, and consequently allied to the Codridae, the noblest family in Athens; but this is not sufficiently supported. The time when he flourished is uncertain; Eusebius placing it in the 62d, Suidas in the 52d, and Mr. le Fevre in the 72d olympiad. He is said to have been about eighteen years of age, when Harpagus, the general of Cyrus, came with an army against the confederate cities of the lonians and Æolians. The Milesians immediately submitted themselves; but the Phocseans, when they found themselves unable to withstand the enemy, chose rather to abandon their country than their liberty; and getting a fleet together, transported themselves and families to the coast of France, where, being hospitably received by Nannus the king of the country, they built Marseilles. The Teians soon followed their example; for, Harpagus having made himself master of their walls, they unanimously went on board their ships, and, sailing to Thrace, fixed themselves in the city Abdera. They had not been there long, when the Thracians, jealous of their new neighbours, endeavoured to give them disturbance; and in these conflicts it seems to be, that Anacreon lost those friends whom he celebrates in his epigrams. This poet had much wit, but was certainly too fond of pleasures, for love and wine had the disposal of all his hours. In the edition of Anacreon and Sappho published in 1789 by Fred. G. Born, of Leipsiclc, this editor endeavours to defend Anacreou against the charges of inebriety and unnatural lust, and with considerable success. These imputations, however, have been cast on his memory by the majority of writers, except, perhaps, Ælian. How long Anacreon continued at Samos is uncertain, but it is probable he remained there during the greatest part of the reign of Polycrates; for Herodotus assures us, that Anacreon was with that prince in his chamber, when he received a message from Oraetes governor of Sardis, by whose treachery Polycrates was soon after betrayed and inhumanly crucified. It seems to have been a little before this, that Anacreon left Samos and removed to Athens; having been invited thither by Hipparchus the eldest son of Pisistratus, one of the uiost virtuous and learned princes of his time; who, as Plato assures us, sent an obliging letter, with a vessel of fifty oars to convey him over the Ægean sea. After Hipparchus was slain by the conspiracy of Harmodius and Aristogiton, Anacreon returned to Teos, where he remained till the revolt of Hisfciseus, when he was obliged once more to remove to Abdera, where he died. The manner of his death is said to have been very extraordinary; for they tell us he was choaked with a grape-stone, which he swallowed as he was drinking some new wine. A small part only of Anacreon’s works remain. Besides odes and epigrams, he composed elegies, hymns, and iambics: the poems which are extant consist chiefly of bacchanalian songs and lovesonnets; and with respect to such subjects, they have been long regarded as standards of excellence. They are distinguished by their native elegance and grace from every other kind of poetical composition: and the voluptuous gaiety of all his songs is so characteristic, that his style and manner have produced innumerable imitations, called Anacreontics, Little can be said, however, of the moral purity of his sentiments, and it is to be feared that the fascinations of the Anacreontic school have been most destructive to the morals and prudence of the young and gay.

, so called because he was librarian of the church of Rome, was a native of Greece, and one of the most learned men of his age. He flourished about the middle of the ninth century, and was abbot of St. Mary’s trans Tiberim. His chief work, the “Liber Pontincalis,” or the lives of the Popes from St. Peter to Nicholas I. is of a doubtful character: Blondel and Salmasius bestow great encomiums on it, while Hailing, a Roman catholic writer of note, depreciates it as much. To the last edition of this book is joined Ciampinius’s examination of the validity of the facts therein mentioned; and from this we learn that he wrote only the lives of Gregory IV. Sergius II. Leo IV. Benedict III. and Nicholas I. and that the lives of the other popes in that book were done by different authors. Anastasius is said to have assisted at the eighth general council held at Constantinople in the year 869, of which he translated the acts and canons from Greek into Latin. The time of his death is a disputed point, as indeed are many particulars relating to him. Bayle has a very elaborate article on his history, which Cave had previously examined, and Blondel, in his “Familier eclaircissement,” and Boeder in his “Bibl. critica,” have likewise entered deeply into the controversy. He wrote a great number of translations, more valued for their fidelity than elegance, yet they have all been admitted into the popish collections of ecclesiastical memoirs and antiquities. The first edition of the “Liber Pontincalis” was printed at Mentz, 1602, 4to, and two more editions appeared in the last century, one in four vols. fol. by Francis and Joseph Bianchini, 1718—1735, and the other in three vols. 4to, by the abbé Vignoli, 1724—1753, besides an edition by Muratori, in his collection of Italian writers, enlarged by learned dissertations, from which it would appear that Anastafcius was rather the translator, or compiler of those lives, and that he took them from the ancient catalogues of the popes, the acts of the martyrs, and other documents preserved among the archives of the Roman church. The Vatican library then consisted of little else, although it appears that there was before his time a person honoured with the title of librarian.

, called the Sinaite, because he was a monk of mount Sinai, flourished in the seventh century. We have several writings of this recluse: 1. “Odegos,” or the Guide on the true way, in Gr. and Lat. Ingoldstadt, 1606, 4to. 2. “Contemplationes in Hexameron,” GreecoLat. Londini, 1682, 4to, published by Allix. 3. “Cinq livres dogmatiques de Theologie.” 4. “Some sermons.” His works were published at Ingolstadt, 1606, 4to, by the Jesuit Gretser, and inserted in the Biblioth. Pp.

, an eminent divine, of the reformed church at Metz, was born March 17, 1617. He studied from the ninth or tenth year of his age in the Jesuits’ college, then the only one at Metz where there was an opportunity of being instructed in polite literature. In this college he gave such proofs of genius, that the heads of the society left nothing unattempted in order to draw him over to their religion and party, but he continued firm against their attacks, and that he might be the more enabled to withstand them, took the resolution of studying divinity, in which he was so indefatigable, that his father was often obliged to interpose his authority to interrupt his continual application, lest it suould injure his health. He went to Geneva in the year 1633, and performed his course of philosophy there under Mr. du Pattr, and his divinity studies under Spanheim, Diodati, and Tronchin, who had a great esteem for him. He left Geneva in April 1641, and offered himself to the synod of Charenton, in order to take upon him the office of a minister. His abilities were greatly admired by the examiners, and his modesty by the ministers of Paris; and the whole assembly was so highly satisfied with him, that they gave him one of the most considerable churches, which was unprovided for, that of Meaux, where he exercised his ministry till the year 1653, and became extremely popular, raising an extensive reputation by his learning, eloquence, and virtue, and was even highly respected by those of the Roman catholic communion. He displayed his talents with still greater reputation and success in his own country, where he was minister from the year 1653, till the revocation of the edict of Nantes in 1685. He retired to Francfort after that fatal blow; and having preached in the French church at Hanau, the whole assembly was so edified by it, that they immediately called together the heads of the families, in order to propose that he might be desired to accept of the office of minister among them. The proposition was agreed to; and they sent deputies who prevailed on him, and he began the exercise of his ministry in that church about the end of the year 1685. It was now that several persons who had quitted the French church, for some disgust, returned to it again. The professors of divinity, and the German and Dutch ministers, attended frequently upon his sermons. The count of Hanau himself, who had never before been seen in that church, came thither to hear Mr. Ancillon. His auditors came from the neighbouring parts, and even from Francfort, and people, who understood nothing of French, flocked together with great eagerness, and said, that they loved to see him speak; a degree of popularity which excited the jealousy of two other ministers, who at length rendered his situation so uneasy that he was induced to abandon voluntarily a place from which they could not force him. If he had chosen to rely upon the voice of the people, he might have still retained his situation, but it was his opinion that a faithful pastor ought not to establish his own interests upon any division between a congregation and its ministers, and as through his whole life he had been averse to parties, and had remonstrated often against cabals and factions, he would not take advantage of the disposition which the people were in towards him, nor permit them to act. Having therefore attempted every method which charity suggested without success, he resolved to quit Hanau, where he had to wrangle without intermission, and where his patience, which had supported several great trials, might possibly he at last overcome; and for these reasons he left it privately. He would now have returned to Francfort to settle, but in consideration of his numerous family, he preferred Berlin, where he received a kind reception from the elector of Brandenbourg. He was also made minister of Berlin, and had the pleasure of seeing his eldest son made judge and director of the French who were in that city, and his other son rewarded with a pension, and entertained at the university of Francfort upon the Oder, and at last minister in ordinary of the capital. He had likewise the satisfaction of seeing his brother made judge of all the French in the states of Brandenbourg, and Mr. Cayart, his son-in-law, engineer to his electoral highness. He enjoyed these circumstances undisturbed, till his death at Berlin, September 3, 1692, aged seventy-five years. His marriage was contracted in a very singular way: The principal heads of families of the church of Meaux seeing how much their minister distinguished himself, and hearing him sometimes saying, that he would go to Metz to see his father and relations, whom he had not seen for several years, were apprehensive lest they should lose him. They thought of a thousand expedients in order to fix him with them for a long time; and the surest way in their opinion was to marry him to some rich lady of merit, who had an estate in that country or near it. One of them recollected he had heard, that Mr. Ancillon having preached one Sunday in the morning at Charenton, he was universally applauded; and that Mr. Macaire especially, a venerable old gentleman, of very exemplary virtue and piety, and possessed of a considerable estate at Paris and about Meaux, had given him a thousand blessings and commendations, and said aloud to those who sat near him in the church, that he had but one daughter, who was an only child, and very dear to him; but if that gentleman, speaking of Mr. Ancillon, should come and ask her in marriage, he would give her with all his heart. Upon this, they went to ask him, whether he still continued in that favourable opinion of him; he replied, that he did; and accompanied that answer with new expressions of his esteem and affection for Mr. Ancillon; so that the marriage was concluded in the year 1649, and proved a very happy one, although there was a great disparity of years, the young lady being only fourteen.

, a younger brother of a good family, either of Broughton, or of Flixborough in Lincolnshire, descended originally from Scotland. He received the first part of his education in the country, and went afterwards to Lincoln college in Oxford: from thence he removed to the Inner Temple, where he read law with great assiduity, and in due time was called to the bar. In the ninth of queen Elizabeth, he was both Lent and Summer reader; in the sixteenth of that queen, double reader, notes of which readings are yet extant in manuscript; and in the nineteenth year of queen Elizabeth, he was appointed one of the queen’s Serjeants at law. Some time after, he was made a judge; and, in 1581, being upon the Norfolk circuit at Bury, he exerted himself against the famous Browne, the author of those opinions which were afterwards maintained by a sect called from him Brownists: for this conduct of judge Anderson, the bishop of Norwich wrote a letter to treasurer Burleigh, desiring the judge might receive the queen’s thanks. In 1582, he was made lord chief justice of the common pleas, and the year following received the honour of knighthood. In 1586, he was appointed one of the commissioners for trying Mary queen of Scots; on the 12th of October, the same year, he sat in judgment upon her; and on the 25th of the same month, he sat again in the star-chamber, when sentence was pronounced against this unhappy queen. In 1587, he sat in the star-chamber on secretary Davison, who was charged with issuing the warrant for the execution of the queen of Scots, contrary to queen Elizabeth’s command, and without her knowledge. After the cause had been heard, sir Roger Manwood, chief baron of the exchequer, gave his opinion first, wherein he extolled the queen’s clemency, which he said, Davison had inconsiderately prevented; and therefore he was for fining him ten thousand pounds, and imprisonment during the queen’s pleasure. Chief justice Anderson spoke next, and said that Davison, had done justum, non juste,—that is, he had done what was right, but not in a right manner, which, Granger observes, is excellent logic for finding an innocent man guilty.

, an eminent engraver, was a native of Mantua; for which reason he frequently added to his name or monogram Intagliat, Mantuano, which has led some to mistake him for Andrew Mantegna. Others called him Andreassi; and others, from a resemblance in their monograms, have confounded him with Altdorfer. The time of his birth does not appear; but he died in 1623, at a very advanced age. He engraved in wood only, in a peculiar style, distinguished by the name of chiaro-scuro, which is performed with two, three, or more blocks of wood, according to the number of tints required, and these are stamped upon the paper one after another, so as to produce the effect of a washed drawing; but the invention was not his, Hugo da Carpi & Antonio da Trento having preceded him. He carried, however, the mechanical part of the work to a far greater degree of perfection, and we often find in his prints a correct and determined outline. His great merit as an artist is acknowledged by all who are conversant in prints; and his drawing is excellent, executed with great spirit, and in a very masterly style. The heads of his figures, though slight, are characteristic and expressive; and he has displayed great judgment in the management of his various tints. His works are justly considered as admirable transcripts from the sketches of many of the greatest painters.

Andreas had a beautiful daughter, named Novella, whom he is said to have instructed so well in all parts of learning, that when he was engaged in any affair, which hindered him from reading lectures to his scholars, he sent his daughter in his room; when, lest her beauty should prevent the attention of the hearers, she had a little curtain drawn before her. To perpetuate the memory of this daughter, he entitled his commentary upon the Decretals of Gregory X. “the Novelloe.” He married her to John Calderinus, a learned canonist. The first work of Andreas was his Gloss upon the sixth book of the Decretals, Rome 1476, and five editions afterwards at Pavia, Basil, and Venice. This work he wrote when he was very young. He wrote also Glosses upon the Clementines, Strasburgh, 147 I, and Mentz, Rome, and Basil, four times; and a Commentary in Regulas Sexti, which he entitled “Mercuriales,” because he either engaged in it on Wednesdays, diebus Mercurii, or because he inserted his Wednesday’s disputes in it. He enlarged the Speculum of Durant, in the year 1347, but this is taken literally from Ostradus. Andreas died of the plague at Bologna in 1348, after he had been a professor forty-five years, and was buried in the church of the Dominicans. Many eulogiums have been bestowed upon him: he was called archidoctor decretorum; in his epitaph he has the title of “Rabbi doctorum, lux, censor, normaque morum;” or, rabbi of the doctors, the light, censor, and rule of manners; and it is said that pope Boniface called him “lumen mundi,” the light of the world. Bayle objects, that Andreas followed the method of the Pyrrhonists too much; that he proved his own opinion very solidly when he chose, but that he often rather related the sentiments of others, and left his readers to form their own determination.

, a biographer, to whom works of this description are highly indebted, was born Nov. 25, 15.88, at Desschel, a small town in Brabant, from which he has been sometimes called Desselius. He studied polite literature, first in his own country, under Valerius Hontius, a very able teacher, and afterwards for three years at Antwerp, under Andreas Schottus, a learned Jesuit, who taught him Greek; and he was taught Hebrew at the same time by John Hay, a native of Scotland, and likewise one of the society of Jesuits. After having attended a course of philosophy at Douay, he was appointed Hebrew professor at Louvain in 1612. In 1621 he was created LL. D. In 1628 he was appointed regius professor of civil law, and, in 1638, keeper of the newly-founded university library. His life appears to have been principally devoted to the composition of his numerous works, and the care of the press in publishing other works of celebrity. He died at Louvain, 1656, leaving behind him the character of a man of amiable manners and extensive learning.

, or more properly Andrea Del Sarto, so called from his father’s trade, that of a tailor, but whose family name was Venucci, was born at Florence in 1488, and at first instructed in his art by Barile, a mean painter, with whom he spent three years, at the end of which Barile placed him with Peter Cosimo, then accounted one of the best painters in Italy. Under him, he made astonishing proficiency, and his abilities began to be acknowledged, but Cosimo' s morose temper obliged him to leave him, and seek instruction in the works of other artists. As he had, while with Cosimo, employed himself in designing after Vinci, Raphael, and Buonaroti, to whose works he had access at Florence, he persisted in the same practice, formed an admirable taste, and excelled his young rivals at home or abroad, in correctness, colouring, and knowledge of his art. Having contracted a friendship with Francesco Bigio, they determined to live together, and painted a great many works in the churches and convents of Florence, jointly, but Andrea’s reputation began to predominate, and seemed fixed by his representation of the preaching of St. John, executed for the Carmelites at Florence. Some time after this, he went to Rome to study the models of art in that city, but it is thought he did not remain there long enough to reap all the benefit which he might. The excellence of his pencil, and his power of imitation, were remarkably displayed in the copy he made of Leo X. between cardinal Medici and cardinal Rom, the head and hands by Raphael, and the draperies by Julio Romano. The imitation was so exact, that Julio, after the most minute inspection, and being told that it was a copy, could not distinguish it from the original. His superior talents might have raised him to opulence, if his imprudence had not reduced him to shame and poverty. The French king, Francis I. who was extremely partial to his works, invited him to his court, defrayed the expences of his journey, and made him many valuable presents. For a portrait, only, of the Dauphin, an infant, he received tjjree hundred crowns of gold, and he painted many other pictures for the court and nobility, for which he was liberally rewarded. While employed on a picture of St. Jerome, for the queen dowager, he received letters from his wife, soliciting his return to Florence, and, to indulge her, of whom he was excessively fond, he asked, and obtained a few months absence. It was on this occasion that the king, confiding in his integrity, made him several princely presents, and intrusted him with large sums of money to purchase statues, paintings, &c.; but Andrea instead of executing his commission, squandered away not only his own, but the money intrusted to him, became poor, and despised, and at last died of the plague, in his forty-second year, abandoned by his wife, and by all those friends who had partaken of his extravagance. His principal works were at Florence, but there were formerly specimens in many of the palaces and churches of Italy and France. All the biographers and critics of painters, except perhaps Baldinucci, have been lavish in their praises of Andrea. Mr. Fuseli, in his much improved edition of Pilkington, observes, that, on comparing the merits of his works, they seem to have obtained their full share of justice. As a Tuscan, says that judicious critic, the suavity of his tone, and facility of practice, contrast more strikingly with the general austerity and elaborate pedantry of that school, and gain-him greater praise than they would, had he been a Bolognese or Lombard. It cannot, however, be denied, that his sweetness sometimes borders on insipidity; the modesty, or rather pusillanimity of his character, checked the full exertion of his powers; his faults are of the negative kind, and defects rather than, blemishes. He had no notions of nature beyond the model, and concentrated all female beauty in his Lucrezia (his wife), and if it be true that he sacrificed his fortune and Francis I. to her charms, she must at least have equalled in form and feature his celebrated Madonna del Sacco; hence it was not unnatural that the proportions of Albert Durer should attract him more than those of Michael Angelo. His design and his conceptions, which seldom rose above the sphere of common or domestic life, kept pace with each other; here his observation was acute, and his ear open to every whisper of social intercourse or emotion. The great peculiarity, perhaps the great prerogative, of Andrea appears to be that parallelism of composition, which distinguishes the best of his historical works, seemingly as natural, obvious, and easy, as inimitable. In solemn effects, in alternate balance of action and repose, he excels all the moderns, and if he was often unable to conceive the actors themselves, he gives them probability and importance, by place and posture. Of costume he was ignorant, but none ever excelled, and few approached him in breadth, form, and style of that drapery which ought to distinguish solemn, grave, or religious subjects.

, professor of history and Greek at Groningen, was born at Braunfels, in the county of Solras, August 10th, 1604. His father was minister to count de Solms-Braunfels, and Inspector of the churches which belong to that county, and his mother, daughter to John Piscator, a famous professor of divinity at Herborn, in the county of Nassau. He performed his humanity-studies at Herborn, and then studied philosophy at the same place, under Alstedius and Piscator, after which he went to Bremen, where he lived seven years. He was one of the most constant auditors of Gerard de Neuville, a physician and a philosopher; and, as he had a desire to attain a public professorship, he prepared himself for it by several lectures which he read in philosophy. He returned to his own country in 1628, where he did not continue long, but went to Groningen, on the invitation of his kind patron, Henry Alting. He read there, for some time, lectures upon all parts of philosophy, after which Alting made him tutor to his sons, and wheo they had no longer occasion for his instruction, he procured him the same employment with a prince Palatine, which lasted for three years; part of which he spent at Leyden, and part at the Hague, at the court of the prince of Orange. He was called to Groningen in 1634, to succeed Janus Gebhardus, who had been professor of history and Greek. He filled that chair with great assiduity and reputation till his death, which happened October 17, 1676. He was library -keeper to the university, and a great frierAi to Mr. Des Cartes, which he shewed both during the life and after the death of that illustrious philosopher. He married the daughter of a Swede, famous, among other things, for charity towards those who suffered for the sake of religion.

Nor did he in the highest dignities, which he possessed, remit of his application to study. Even in those days, when it might have been supposed that he would have relaxed from his former diligence, yet from the hour he rose, (his private devotions being finished) to the time he was called to dinner, which, by his own order, was not till twelve at noon at the soonest, he continued at his studies, and would not be interrupted by any who came to speak to him, or upon any occasion, public pray or excepted So that he would be displeased with scholars, who attempted to speak with him in the morning, and said, that he doubted they were no true scholars who came to speak with him before noon. After dinner for two or three hours space he would willingly pass the time, either in discourse with his guests or other friends, or in dispatch of his own temporal affairs, or of those who by reason of his episcopal jurisdiction attended him. Having discharged which, he returned to his study, where he spent the rest of the afternoon, till bed-time, except some friend engaged him to supper, and then he ate but sparingly.

is said to have been the first who wrote theatrical pieces, or what were called regular plays, for the Roman stage, about the year 240 B. C. It is also said that he was a slave, of Greek origin, and that he received his name from Livius Salinator, whose children he taught, and who at length gave him his liberty. His dramatic productions were probably rude both in plan and style. Livy, the historian, ascribes to him the barbarous invention of dividing the declamation and gestures, or speaking and acting, between two persons, which was never thought of by the Greeks. Andronicus, who was a player as well as a writer, it is supposed, adopted it to save himself the fatigue of singing in his own piece, to which he, like other authors of his time, had been accustomed. But being often encored, and hoarse with repeating his canticle or song, he obtained permission to transfer the vocal part to a young performer, retaining to himself only the acting: Duclos, however, and after him Dr. Burney, are inclined to think that the words of the historian mean no more than that the singing was separated from the dancing, a thing credible enough, but absurd in the highest degree, when applied to speaking and acting. Andronicus also composed hymns in honour of the gods. There are fragments of his verses, collected from the grammarians and critics, in the “Comici Latini,” the “Corpus poetarum,” and the “Collectio Pisaurensis.”

, commonly called Massaniello, one of the names introduced in biographical collections, although more properly belonging to history, was a fisherInan of Naples, and the author of a temporary revolution, which ended as such tumultuous measures generally end, without meliorating the state of the people who have been induced to take an active part in them. In 1623, when this man was born, the kingdom of Naples was subject to the house of Austria, and governed by a viceroy. The Neapolitans had supported the government in this house with great loyalty and liberality, and submitted themselves to many voluntary impositions and burthensome taxes in support of it. But in 1646, the necessities of the king requiring it, a new donative was projected, and a design was formed to lay a fresh tax upon fruits, comprehending 9,11 sorts, dry or green, as far as mulberries, grapes, figs, apples, pears, &c, The people, being thus deprived of their ordinary subsistence, took a resolution to disburden themselves, not only of this, but of all other insupportable exactions formerly imposed. They made their grievances known to the viceroy by the public cries and lamentations of women and children, as he passed through the market place, and petitioned him, by means of the cardinal Filomarino, the archbishop, and others, to take off the said tax. He promised to redress the grievance, and convened proper persons to find out some method to take off the tax on ifruits. But the farmers, because it was prejudicial to their interest, found some secret means to frustrate his endeavours, and dissuaded him from performing his promise to the people; representing to him, that all the clamour was made by a wretched rabble only, not worth regarding.

After the retirement of the prince, the people, finding themselves without a head, called out for Massaniello to be their leader and conductor, which charge he accepted. They appointed Genoino, a priest of approved knowledge, temper, and abilities, to attend his person; and to him they added for a companion the famous Bandito Perrone. Massaniello, by his spirit, good sense, and bravery, won the hearts of all the people, insomuch that they became willing to transfer unto him solemnly the supreme command, and to obey him accordingly. A stage was erected in the middle of the market-place, where, clothed in white like a mariner, he with his counsellors gave public audience, received petitions, and gave sentence in all causes both civil and criminal. He had no less than 150,000 men under his command. An incredible multitude of women also appeared with arms of various sorts, like so many Amazons. A list was made of above 60 persons, who had farmed the taxes, or been some way concerned in the custom-houses; and, as it was said they had enriched themselves with the blood of the people, and ought to be made examples to future ages, an order was issued, that their houses and goods should be burnt; which was executed accordingly, and with so much regularity, that no one was suffered to carry away the smallest article. Many, for stealing mere trifles from the flames, were hanged by the public executioner in the market-place, by the command of Massaniello.

, da Fiesole, so called from the place where he was born, in 1387. He was at first the disciple of Giottino, but afterwards became a Dominican friar, and in that station was as much admired for his piety as his painting. His devout manner procured him the name of Angelico, or the angelic painter, and it is said that he never took up his pencil without a prayer, and had his eyes filled with tears when representing the sufferings of our Saviour. Nicholas V. employed him in his chapel, to paint historical subjects on a large scale, and prevailed on him soon after to decorate several books with miniature paintings. Although there are in his best paintings considerable defects, yet he was a most skilful instructor, and his amiable temper procured him many scholars. He always painted religious subjects; and it is given as a proof of his extraordinary humility, that he refused the Archbishopric of Florence when tendered to him by Nicholas V. as the reward of his talents. With respect to the objections made to his pictures, we are farther told, that he purposely left some great fault in them, lest his self-love might be too much flattered by the praises that would have been bestowed; a practice, however absurd in an artist, not unsuitable to monkish ideas of mortification. He died in 1443.

, a writer of the seventeenth century, was a monk of the order of the minorites of St. Francis, and a native of Marsalla in Sicily. He was also vicar-general of his order at Madrid, and became afterwards one of the fathers of the Observance. He was living in 1707, as in that year Mongitore speaks of him, among living authors, in his “Bibl. Sicula.” This monk published two volumes, the nature of which may be judged from the titles: the first was called “Lux magica, &c. ccelestiurn, terrestrium, et inferorum origo, ordo, et subordinatio cunctorum, quoad esse, fieri, etoperari, viginti quatuor voluminibus divisa,” Venice, 1685, 4to. This he published under the assumed name of Livio Betani, but prefixed his name to the second, entitled “Lux magica academica, pars secunda, primordia rerum naturulium, sanabilium, infirmarum et incurabilium continens,” Venice, 1687, 4to. These, as appears by the first, were to be followed by twenty-two more volumes on the same subjects.

, abbot of Centula, or St. Riquier, in the ninth century, was descended from a noble family of Neustria. He was educated at the court of Charlemagne, where he studied the languages with that prince and the other courtiers, under the learned Alcuinus, who afterwards considered him as his son. Charlemagne, having caused his son Ppin to be crowned king of Itaiy, made Angilbert that prince’s first minister: he then went with him into Italy, and returned some years after to France, when Charlemagne gave him his daughter Bertha in marriage; but some historians say that this marriage was rendered necessary by the lady’s being delivered previously of twins. Whatever truth may be in this, Angilbert, being now sonin-law to Charlemagne, was made duke or governor of the coast of France from the Scheldt to the Seine, and the kin? also made him his secretary and prime minister; but Alcuinus, abbot of Corbie, prevailed on him to become a monk in the monastery of Centula, or St. Riquier, with the consent both of his wife and the king. Notwithstanding his love of solitude, he was frequently obliged to leave the monastery, and attend to the affairs of the church and state, and was three times sent to the court of Rome; he also accompanied Charlemagne thither, in the year 800, when that prince was crowned in that city emperor of the West. He died on the 18th of February 814. Angilbert had such a taste for poetry, that Charlemagne called him his Homer. There are but few of his works remaining, except a history of his monastery, which Mabillon has inserted in his “Annales de l'ordre de St. Benoit.” As to the “Histoire de premieres expeditions de Charlemagne pendant sa jeunesse et avant son regne,” 1741, 8vo, with the title of Homer, given him by Charlemagne, either because he delighted in that poet, or because he was himself a poet; it is in fact a romance written by Dufresne de Francheville.

, an eminent Italian paintress, was born at Cremona in 1533, of a distinguished family. The author of the Museum Fforentinum is guilty of a very remarkable anachronism, in regard to Sophonisba; for he hxes her birth in 1559, in which year it w absolutely impossible she could have been born. This appears incontestabiy from Vasari, who tells us, that she painted the portrait of the queen of Spain, by order of Pope Paul IV. in 1561; and to prove this fact, he inserts the letter which she sent along with the picture to the Pope, and also the Pope’s answer, both dated in 1561; Sophonisba’s from Madrid the 16th of September, and the Pope’s from Rome the 15th of October; at which time, according to the Museum Florentinum, she could have been only two years old, if born in 1559. The first instructor of this eminent paintress was Bernardini Campo of Cremona; but she learned colouring and perspective from Bernardo Gatti, called Soiaro. One of her first performances was the portrait of her father, placed between his two children, with such strong characters of life and nature, with a pencil so free and firm, and so lively a turn of colour, that her work was universally applauded, and she was acknowledged an incomparable painter of portraits. Through every part of Italy she is distinguished by no other name than that of Sophonisba. But although portraits engrossed the greatest part of her time, yet she designed several historical subjects, with figures of a small size, touched with abundance of spirit, and with attitudes easy, natural, and graceful. By continual application to her profession she lost her sight; and it is recorded thatVandyck, having had an opportunity of conversingjwith Sophonisba, used to say, that he received more beneficial knowledge of the two principles of his art from one blind woman, than by studying all the works of the greatest masters of Italy. At Lord Spencer’s, at Wimbledon, there is a portrait of Sophonisba, playing on the' harpsichord, painted by herself; an old woman appears as her attendant; and on the picture is written, Jussu Patris. And at Wilton, in the Pembroke collection, is the marriage of St. Catherine, painted by Sophonisba. One of her sisters, named Lucia Angusciola, painted portraits, and gained by her performances a reputation not inferior to Sophonisba, as well in regard to the truth and delicacy of her colouring, as the justness of the resemblance. And another of her sisters, named Europa Angusciola, from her infancy manifested an extraordinary turn for painting, and shewed such taste and elegance in her manner of design, as to procure a degree of applause almost equal to Lucia or Sophonisba.

, commonly called Michael of Bologna, a Romish divine of distinguished learning in the fourteenth century, was born at Bologna in Italy, where he entered of the order of the Carmelites; but studied afterwards in the university of Paris, and there received the degree of doctor. In the general chapter of his order, which was held at Ferrara in 1354, in that of Bourdeaux in 1358, and in that of Treves in 1362, he was named regent of the convent at Paris. After arriving at other honours in the Romish church, he fell under the displeasure of the pope Urban VI. and retired to the convent of Bologna, where he wrote a great many books, and where he died Nov. 16, 1400, according to father Lewis de Sainte Terese; or Dec. 1, 1416, according to Trithemius and Du Pin. The editors of the General Dictionary incline to the former date. Of his works, there were published, “Super Sententias libri IV.” Milan, 1510; and Venice, 1632, fol. “Commentaria in Psalmos,” which was first published at Alcala in 1524, under the name of Igr.otus, as the author was not then known; and republished in the same manner at Lyons in 1588 and 1603. These and commentaries by him on other parts of the holy scriptures were afterwards published with his name, first at Venice, in 3 vols. 4to; and at Paris in 1626, in two vols. folio; and at Lyons in 1652 and 1673, in the same form. The manuscripts he left besides are very numerous, and were preserved with great care. One of them was a dictionary of the words occurring in the Bible, which was unfinished.

, one of the most celebrated Italian poets of the sixteenth century, was born about 1517, at Sutri in Tuscany, of very poor parents. After receiving such education as he could afford, he came to Rome and engaged himself as a corrector of the press; but an intrigue with his master’s wife, in which he was detected, obliged him to leave Rome^with a little money and a few cloaths, of which he was stripped by robbers. He then begged his way to Vienna, and there got immediate employment from Franceschi, the bookseller; and, while with him, wrote his translation of Ovid, and some of his original works. He then returned to Rome, which his reputation as a poet had reached, but his misfortunes also followed him; and after having lived for some time on the sale of his cloaths and books, he died partly of hunger, and partly of a disease contracted by his imprudent conduct, in an inn near Torre de Nona. The exact date of his death is not known, but it appears by a letter addressed to him by Annibai Caro, that he was alive in 1564. His translation of the Metamorphoses still enjoys a high reputation in Italy, and Varchi and some other critics chuse to prefer it to the original. This is exaggerated praise, but undoubtedly the poetry and style are easy and elegant; although from the many liberties he has taken with the text, it ought rather to be called an imitation than a translation. The editions have been numerous, but the best is that of the Giunti, Venice, 1584, 4to, with engravings by Franco, and notes and arguments by Orologi and Turchi. He also began the Æneid, but one book only was printed, 1564, 4to; soon after which period it is supposed he died. His other works are: 1. “Œdipo,” a tragedy, partly original and partly from Sophocles. It had great success in representation, and was played in a magnificent temporary theatre built for the purpose by Palladio in 1565. 2. “Canzoni,” addressed to the dukes of Florence and Ferrara. 3. “Poetical arguments for all the cantos of Orlando Furioso.” 4. Four “Capitoli,” or satires, printed in various collections of that description. It appears by these last that he was gay and thoughtless in the midst of all his misfortunes.

, or according to his epitaph, which Bayle follows, Nannius (John), commonly called Annius of Viterbo, where he was born about 1432, was a Dominican friar, and highly respected among his brethren for his extensive knowledge of Greek, Latin, and the oriental languages. He was also a zealous preacher, and his reputation having reached Rome, he was invited thither, and received with great respect by the members of the sacred college, and the popes Sixtus IV. and Alexander VI. This last conferred upon him in 1499, the honourable situation of master of the sacred palace, vacant by the promotion of Paul Moneglia to the bishopric of Chios. Annius, however, had some difficulty in preserving the favour of characters so profligate as Alexander, and his son Caesar Borgia; but the duchess de Valentinois, wife to Caesar, and as virtuous as he was abandoned, rendered Annius every service in her power. Her husband, probably on this account, and tired with the advice and remonstrances presented to him either by her or by Annius, determined to get rid of the latter, and, it is thought, procured him to be poisoned. Whatever may be in this report, Annius died Nov. 13, 1502, in his seventieth year.

, one of the early propagators. of Christianity, and the first who introduced it into Denmark and Sweden, and hence called the apostle of the north, was born at Picardy, Sept. 8, in the year 801. He was educated in a Benedictine convent at Corbie, from whence he went to Corvey, in Westphalia, where he made such progress in his studies, that, in the year 821, he was appointed rector of the school belonging to the convent. Harold, king of Denmark, who had been expelled from his dominions, and had found an asylum with Lewis, the son and successor of Charlemagne, who had induced him to receive Christian baptism, was about to return to his country, and Lewis enquired for some pious person, who might accompany him, and confirm both him and his attendants in the Christian religion. Vala, the abbot of Corbie, pointed out Anscarius, who readily undertook the perilous task, although against the remonstrances of his friends. Aubert, a monk of noble birth, offered to be his companion, and Harold accordingly set out with them, but neither he nor his attendants, who were rude and barbarous in their manners, were at all solicitous for the accommodation of the missionaries, who therefore suffered much in the beginning of their journey. When the company arrived at Cologne, Hadebald, the archbishop, commiserating the two strangers, gave them a bark, in which they might convey their effects; but, when they came to the frontiers of Denmark, Harold, finding access to his dominions impossible, because of the power of those who had usurped the sovereignty, remained in Friesland, where Anscarius and Aubert laboured with zeal and success, both among Christians and Pagans, for about two years, when Aubert died. In the year 829, many Swedes having expressed a desire to be instructed in Christianity, Anscarius received a commission from the emperor Lewis to visit Sweden. Another monk of Corbie, Vitmar, was assigned as his companion, and a pastor was left to attend on king Harold, in the room of Anscarius. In the passage, they fell in with pirates, who took the ship, and all its effects, On this occasion, Anscarius lost the emperor’s presents, and forty volumes, which he had collected for the use of the ministry. But his mind was determined, and he and his partner having reached land, they walked on foot a long way; now and then crossing some arms of the sea in boats. At length they arrived at Birca, from the ruins of which Stockholm took its rise, though built at some distance from it. The king of Sweden received them favourably, and his council unanimously agreed that they should remain in the country, and preach the gospel, which they did with very considerable success.

Anscarius, however, although reduced to poverty, and deserted by many of his followers, persisted with uncommon patience in the exercise of his mission in the north of Europe, till the bishopric of Bremen was conferred upon him, and Hamburgh and Bremen were from that time considered as united in one diocese. But it was not without much pains taken to overcome his scruples, that he was induced to accept of this provision for his wants. Having still his eye on Denmark, which had been his first object, and having now gained the friendship of Eric, the king, he was enabled to plant Christianity with some success at Sleswick, a port then called Hadeby, and much frequented by merchants. Many persons who had been baptized at Hamburgh resided there, and a number of Pagans were induced to countenance Christianity in some degree. At length, through the friendship of Eric, he was enabled to visit Sweden once more, where he established the gospel at Birca, from whence it spread to other parts of the kingdom. After his return to Denmark, he died Feb. 3, in the year 864. Without being exempt from the superstitions of his age, Anscarius was one of the most pious, resolute, indefatigable, and disinterested propagators of Christianity in early times. The centuriators only bear hard on his character, but Mosheim more candidly allows that his labours deserve the highest commendation. His ablest defender, however, is the author of the work from which this account is abridged.

The king had an interview with the archbishop about mid-lent, 1103, in which he laboured both by threats and promises, to bring him to do homage for the temporalities of his see, but when he found him inflexible, he joined with the bishops and nobility in desiring Anselm to take a journey to Rome, to tiy if he could pe; suade the pope to relax, and Anselm accordingly set out, April 29. At the same time, the king dispatched one William Warelwast to Home, who, arriving there before Anselm, solicited-for the king his master, but to no purpose, as the pope persisted in refusing to grant the king the right of investiture. But, at the same time, his Holiness wrote a very ceremonious letter to the king of England, entreating him to wave‘ the contest, and promising all imaginable, compliance in other matters. Anselm, having taken leave of the court of Rome, returned to Lyons, where he received a sharp and reprimanding letter from a monk, acquainting him with the lamentable condition of the province of Canterbury, and blaming him for absenting himself at such a critical time. During the archbishop’s stay at Lyons, the king sent another embassy to Rome, to try if he could prevail with the pope to bring Anselm to a submission. But the pope, instead of being gained, excommunicated some of the English court, who had dissuaded the king from parting with the investitures, yet he declined pronouncing any censure against the king. Anselm, perceiving the court of Rome dilatory in its proceedings, removed from Lyons, and made a visit to the countess Adela, the conqueror’s daughter, at her castle in Blois. This lady inquiring into the business of Anselm’s journey, he told her that, after a great deal of patience and expectation, he must now be forced to excommunicate the king of England. The countess was extremely concerned for her brother, and wrote to the pope to procure an accommodation. The king, who was come into Normandy, hearing that Anselm designed to excommunicate him, desired his sister to bring him with her into Normandy, with a promise of condescension in several articles. To this Anselm agreed, and waited upon the king at a castle called L’Aigle, July 1105, where the king restored to him the revenues of the archbishopric, but would not permit him to come into England, unless he would comply in the affair of the investitures, which Anselm refusing, continued in France, till the matter was once more laid before the pope. But now the English bishops, who had taken part with the court against Anselm, began to change their minds, as appears by their letter directed to him in Normaiuly, in which, after having set forth the deplorable state of the church, they press him to come over with all speed, promising to stand by him, and pay him the regard due to his character. This was subscribed by Gerrard archbishop of York, Robert bishop of Chester, Herbert bishop of Norwich, Ralph bishop of Chichester, Samson bishop of Worcester, and William elect of Winchester. Anselm expressed his satisfaction at this conduct of the bishops, but acquainted them that it was not in his power to return, till he was farther informed of the proceedings of the court of Rome. In the mean time, being told, that the king had fined some of the clergy for a late breach of the canons respecting marriage, he wrote to his highness to complain of that stretch of his prerogative. At length the ambassadors returned from Rome, and brought with them a decision more agreeable than the former, for now th pope thought fit to make some advances towards gratifying the king, and though he would not give up the point of investitures, yet he dispensed so far as to give the bishops and abbots leave to do homage for their temporalities. The king, who was highly pleased with this condescension in the pope, sent immediately to invite Anselm to England; but the messenger finding him sick, the king himself went over into Normandy, and visited him at the abbey of Bee, where all differences between them were completely adjusted. As soon as Anselm. recovered, he embarked for England, and landing at Dover, was received with extraordinary marks of welcome, the queen herself travelling before him upon the road, to provide for his better entertainment. From this time very little happened in the life of this celebrated prelate, excepting only his contest with Thomas, archbishop elect of York, who endeavoured to disengage himself from a dependency on the see of Canterbury; but although Anselm died before the point was settled, Thomas was obliged to comply, and make his submission as usual to the archbishop of Canterbury. Anselm died at Canterbury, in the seventy-sixth year of his age, and the seventeenth of his prelacy, April 21, 1109.

His private life is allowed to have been pious, humble, and exemplary, and his works, which are partly scholastical, and partly devotional, prove that he was a man of first learning and genius in his time. Like Augustine, whom he seems to have followed as his model, and whose “Meditations,” as they are called, are chiefly abstracts from Anselm’s works, he abounds both in profound argumentation on the most abstruse and difficult subjects, and in devout sentiments on practical religion. Brucker, after remarking that he applied the subtlety of logic to theology, gives as an example of his refinement, his arguments for the being of God, derived from the abstract idea of the deity, afterwards resumed by Des Cartes. His writings on the will of God, on free will, truth, the consistency of the doctrine of divineprescience, with that of predestination, and other points, which abound in logical and metaphysical abstractions, entitle him to the honour of having largely contributed towards preparing the way for the scholastic system, which soon afterward universally prevailed.

, commonly called father, of Paris, of the Augustine order, died at Paris, in the 69th year of his age, in 1691. He was the author of a very elaborate work, entitled “Histoire genealogique et chronologique de la maison de France, et des grands officiers de la couronne,” 1673, 2 vols. 4to. The second edition was published with considerable additions in 1712, by M. du Fourni, auditor of accounts, who did not, however, put his name to it. In 1725 father Ange, an Augustin monk, and Simplicien, of the same order, projected a continuation of this work which extended to nine vols. fol. and appeared in 1726 and the following years. It contains a vast stock of historical information, derived from sources not easily accessible, and much biographical matter. Bayle mentions that Anselme had made preparations for a general history of the sovereign house of Europe, part of which he left in manuscript.

, an eminent naval commander, and distinguished nobleman, of the eighteenth century, was descended from an ancient and respectable family, which had long been settled in Staffordshire. He was born at Shugborough manor, in the parish of Colwich, in that county, on the 23d April, 1697, being the third son of William Anson, esq. by Elizabeth, eldest daughter and coheir of Robert Carrier, esq. of Wirksworth in Derbyshire. The navy being Mr. Anson' s choice, he went early to sea; and on the 9th of May 1716, was made second lieutenant of his majesty’s ship the Hampshire, by sir John Norris, commander in chief of a squadron sent to the Baltic. In the following year, he was again in the Baltic, in the fleet commanded by sir George Byng; and on the 15th of March, 1717-8, was appointed second lieutenant of the Montague, belonging to sir George Byng’s squadron, in the expedition to Sicily; and was present in the celebrated action near that island, by which the Spanish fleet was effectually destroyed, and the designs of the king of Spain against Sicily received a very considerable check. On the 19th June 1722, he was preferred to be master and commander of the Weazel sloop; and on the first of February 1723-4, he was raised to the rank of post-captain, and to the command of the Scarborough man of war. In this ship he was ordered to South Carolina, in which station he continued above three years; and while he resided in that province, he erected a town, Anson Bourgh, and gave name to a county, which is still called Anson county. Being commanded home in October 1727, he returned to England in the following spring, and was paid off in May 1728. On the 11th of October, in the same year, he was appointed captain of the Garland man of war, and went out in her to South Carolina; from whence he was ordered back, in December 1729, and the ship was put out of commission at Sheerness. He did not, however, remain long out of employ, for on the 1.5th of May 1731, the command of the Diamond, one of the squadron in the Downs, was bestowed upon him, which he held about three months, when the Diamond was paid off. On the 25th January 1731-2, he was again called into public service, and appointed captain of the Squirrel man of war; in which ship he was ordered, in the following April, for South Carolina. This was the third time of his being placed upon that station, and it was probably peculiarly agreeable to him, on account of the property he had acquired, and the settlement he had made in the province. Here he continued till the spring of the year 1735, when, in consequence of an order given in December 1734, he returned to England; and, in the month of June, was paid off at Woolwich. In these several employments he conducted himself with an ability and discretion which gave general satisfaction. On the 9th of December 1737, he was put into the command of the Centurion, and, in. February following, ordered to the coast of Guinea; and returned home in July 1739. In this voyage he executed with great prudence and fidelity, the directions of government; and obliged the French to desist from their attempt to hinder our trade on that coast, wthout coming to any action, at a time when it would have been/very inconvenient to the British court to have had an open rupture with France.

, an ingenious poet of the eighteenth century, was born Oct. 31, 1724. He was the son of the Rev. Christopher Anstey, D. D. by Mary, daughter of Anthony Thompson, esq. of Trumpington, in Cambridgeshire. He was first educated at Bury St. Edmunds, under the Rev. Arthur Kinsman, and thence removed to Eton, where he was distinguished for industry and talents. In 1742 he succeeded to a scholarship of King’s College, Cambridge, and soon added to his fame as a classical scholar by the Tripos verses which he wrote for the Cambridge commencement, while an undergraduate in the year 174.5. In the same year he was admitted fellow of King’s College, and in 1746 took his bachelor’s degree. He was, however, interrupted in his progress towards his master’s degree by having engaged in an opposition to what he conceived to be an innovation in the constitution of his college. King’s college had immemorially exercised the right of qualifying its members for their degrees within the walls of their own society, as is the case in New college, Oxford, without that regular performance of acts and exercises generally in use in the university schools, and required of other colleges. It was, however, proposed as a salutary regulation, and a fit employment for the bachelor fellows of King’s, that they should occasionally compose Latin declamations, and pronounce them in the public schools, a regulation altogether new and unprecedented in the annals of King’s College. Mr. Anstey, who was at that time of six years standing in the university, and the senior bachelor of his year, finding himself suddenly called upon to make a Latin oration upon a given subject, attempted to resist it, but, finding that impossible, delivered a harangue composed of adverbs, so ingeniously disposed as to appear somewhat like sense, but was, in fact, a burlesque upon the whole proceeding. He was immediately ordered to descend from the rostrum, and another declamation prescribed, in which he gave so little satisfaction, that he was refused his master’s degree in 1749. He succeeded, however, so well in his opposition to this innovation, that no more Latin declamations were required of the bachelors of King’s college.

, a learned heraldic writer, was of a Cornish family, seated at St. Neot’s, being son of John Anstis of that place, esq. by Mary, daughter and coheir of George Smith. He was born September 28th or 29th, 1669, admitted at Exeter College in Oxford in 1685, and three years afterwards entered of the Middle Temple. As a gentleman of good fortune, he became well known in his county, and the borough of St. Germain returned him one of their members in the first parliament called by queen Anne. Opposing what was called the Whig interest, he distinguished himself by his voting against the bill for occasional conformity: for which his name appeared amongst the “Tackers” in the prints of that time. He was appointed in 1703 deputy-general to the auditors of imprest, but he never executed this office; and in the second year of queen Anne’s reign, one of the principal commissioners of prizes. His love of, and great knowledge in the science of arms so strongly recommended him, that April 2, 1714, the queen gave him a reversionary patent for the place of Garter. Probably this passage in a ms letter to the lord treasurer, dated March 14, 1711-12, relates to his having the grant. He says, “I have a certain information it would be ended forthwith, if the lord treasurer would honour me by speaking to her majesty at this time, which, in behalf of the duke of Norfolk, I most earnestly desire, and humbly beg your lordship’s assistance therein. If it be delayed for some days, I shall then be back as far as the delivery of my petition. I am obliged to attend this morning at the exchequer, about the tin affair, and thereby prevented from waiting upon your lordship.” If it does relate to the reversionary patent, it is evident that he long wished, and with difficulty obtained it. In the last parliament of Anne he was returned a member for Dunheved, or Launceston, and he sat in the first parliament of George I. He fell under the suspicion of government, as favouring a design to restore the Stuarts, was imprisoned, and at this critical time Garter’s place became vacant, by the death of the venerable sir Henry St. George. He immediately claimed the office, but his grant was disregarded; and, October 26,1715, sir John Vanbrugh, Clarenceux, had the appointment. Unawed by power, fearless of danger, and confident in innocence, he first freed himself from all criminality in having conspired against the succession of the illustrious house of Brunswick, and then prosecuted his claim to the office of garter, pleading the right of the late queen to give him the place. It was argued, that in a contest about the right of nomination in the reign of Charles II. the sovereign gave it up, only retaining the confirmation of the earl marshal’s choice: Mr. Anstis urged, that Charles only waved his claim. The matter came to a hearing April 4, 1717, and the competitors claimed under their different grants; but the controversy did not end until April 20, 1718, when the right being acknowledged to be in Mr. Anstis, he was created Garter. He had, for some time previous to this decision in his favour, resided in the college, and by degrees gained the good opinion and favour of the government. He even obtained a patent under the great seal, giving the office of garter to him, and his son John Anstis junior, esq. and to the survivor of them: this passed June 8, 1727, only two days before the death of George I. He died at his seat, at Mortlake in Surrey, on Sunday, March 4, 1744-5, and was buried the 23d of that month, in a vault in the parish church of Dulo in Cornwall. In him, it is said, were joined the learning of Camden and the industry, without the inaccuracy, of sir William Dugdale. He was certainly a most indefatigable and able officer at arms; and though he lived to the age of seventy-six, yet there is room to wonder at the extent of his productions, especially as he was a person of great consequence, and busied with many avocations out of the college. In 1706, he published a “Letter concerning the honour of Earl Marshal,” 8vo. “The form of the Installation of the Garter” 1720, 8vo. “The Register of the most noble Order of the Garter, usually called the Black-Book, with a specimen of the Lives of the Knights Companions,” 1724, 2 vols. folio. “Observations introductory to an historical Essay on the Knighthood of the Bath,” 1725, 4to, intended as an introduction to the history of that order, for which it is there said the Society of Antiquaries had begun to collect materials. His “Aspilogia,” a discourse on seals in England, with beautiful draughts, nearly fit for publication, from which Mr. Drake read an abstract to the Society in 1735-6, and two folip volumes of Sepulchral Monuments, Stone Circles, Crosses, and Castles, in the three kingdoms, from which there are extracts in the Archa?ologia, vol. XIII. were purchased, with many other curious papers, at the sale of Mr. Anstis’s library of Mss. in 1768, by Thomas Astle, esq. F. R. and A. S. Besides these he left five large folio volumes on the “Office, &c. of Garter King at Arms, of Heralds and Pursuivants, in this and other kingdoms, both royal, princely, and such as belonged to our nobility,” now in the pos session of George Nayler, esq. York herald, and genealogist of the Order of the Bath, &c. “Memoirs of the Families of Talbot, Carew, Granvile, and Courtney.” “The Antiquities of Cornwall.” “Collections, relative to the parish of Coliton, in Devonshire,” respecting the tithes, owing to a dispute which his son, the Rev. George Anstis, the vicar, then had with the parishioners, in the court of exchequer in 1742. The late Dr. Ducarel possessed it. “Collections relative, to All Souls’ college, in Oxford.” These were very considerable, and purchased by the colllege. Sixty-four pages of his Latin Answer to “the Case of Founders’ Kinsmen,” were printed in 4to, with many coats of arms. His “Curia Militaris, or treatise on the Court of Chivalry, in three books:” it is supposed that no more than the preface and contents were ever published. Mr. Reed had those parts; the whole, however, was printed in 1702, 8vo; probably only for private friends. Mr. Prior mentions this Garter in an epigram:

a French ecclesiastic and antiquary, was born at Frejus, July 25, 1643. When he had finished his studies, he succeeded an uncle, in a canonry of the cathedral of that city, and wrote a treatise “De periculis Canonicorum,” on the dangers to which the lives of canons are liable: this curious piece his brother Charles intended to publish, but it remains in manuscripj;. In 1680, he published, what was accounted more valuable, a Latin dissertation on the foundation of the church of Frejus, and its history, lives of the bishops, &c. This was intended as an introduction to a complete history of the city and church of Frejus, which is still in manuscript. In 1684, on the recommendation of father La Chaise, under whom he had studied theology at Lyons, he was appointed grand-vicar and official to J. B. de Verthamon, Mshop of Pamiers, who employed him in restoring peace to his diocese, which had been disturbed by the regale, a right so called in France, by which the French king, upon the death of a bishop, Claimed the revenues and fruits of his see, and the colladon of all benefices vacant in the diocese, before the appointment of a new bishop. Antelmi was so successful in this undertaking, that the bishop on his arrival found his diocese in perfect tranquillity. He then continued to prosecute his studies, and wrote several works, particularly his disquisition concerning the genuine writings of Leo the Great, and Prosper Aquitanus, “De veris operibus, &c.” 1689. In this he maintains that the Capitula concerning the grace of God, the Epistle to Demetrius, and the two books of the Calling of the Gentiles, ascribed to Leo, were really written by Prosper. Father Quesnel was his opponent on this subject, and was the first who ascribed these books to Leo, while Baronius, Sirmond, Labbe, and Noris, conjectured that pope Celestine was the author. Quesnel answered Antelmi, and, in M. du Pin’s opinion, with success, Antelmi’s other and more interesting work, was on the authorship of the Athanasian Creed, “Nova de Symbolo Athanasiano disquisitio,” Paris, 1693, 8vo. Quesnel ascribed this creed to Virgilius or Vigilius Thapsensis, an African bishop in the sixth century; Antelmi, and Pithon before him, to a French divine. The General Dictionary gives a summary of the arguments on both sides.

Tradition has connected the name of St. Anthony with that of a very painful disorder, the erysipelas. Hence he is sometimes represented with a fire by his side, signifying that he relieves persons from the inflammation called by his name; but he is always accompanied by a hog, on account of his having cured the disorders of that animal. To do him the greater honour, the Romanists in several places keep at common charges a hog denominated St. Anthony’s hog (whence qur vulgarism of Tantony pig) for which they have great veneration. Some have St. Anthony’s picture on the walls of their houses, hoping by that to be preserved from the plague: and the Italians, who do not know the true signification of the fire painted at the side of them, conclude that he preserves houses from being burnt, and invoke him on such occasions. In 1095, an order of religious was founded in France, called the order of St. Anthony, the members of which were to take care of persons afflicted with St. Anthony’s fire.

, a noted empiric and chemist in the latter end of the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth centuries, was the son of an eminent goldsmith in the city of London, who had an employment of considerable value in the jewel-office undef the reign of queen Elizabeth. He was born April 16, 1550; and having been carefully instructed in the first rudiments of learning while at home, was, about the year 1569, sent to the university of Cambridge, where he studied with great diligence and success, and some time in the year 1574 took the degree of master of arts. It appears from his own writings, that he applied himself for many years in that university, to the theory and practice of chemistry, with sedulous industry. He came up to London, probably before he attained the age of forty, and began soon after his arrival to publish to the world the effects of his chemical studies. In the year 1598, he sent abroad his first treatise, concerning the excellency of a medicine drawn from gold; but, not having taken the necessary precautions of applying to the college of physicians for their licence, he was, some time in the year 1600, summoned before the president and censors. Here he confessed that he had practised physic in London at least more than six months, and had cured twenty persons of several diseases, to whom he had given purging and vomiting physic, and to others, a diaphoretic medicine, prepared from gold and mercury, as their case required; but acknowledged that he had no licence, and being examined, in several parts of physic, and found inexpert, he was interdicted practice. About a month after, he was committed to the Counter-prison, and fined in the sum of five pounds “propter illicitam praxin” that is, for prescribing physic against the statutes and privilege of the college; but upon his application to the lord chief justice, he was set at liberty, which gave so great umbrage to the college, that the president and one of the censors waited on the chief justice, to request his favour in defending and preserving the college privileges; upon which Mr. Anthony submitted himself, promised to pay his fine, and was forbidden practice. But not long after he was accused again of practising physic, and upon his own confession was fined five pounds; which, on his refusing to pay it, was increased to twenty pounds, and he committed to prison till he paid it; neither were the college satisfied with this, but commenced a suit at law against him in the name of the queen, as well as of the college, in which they succeeded, and obtained judgment against him; but after some time, were prevailed upon by the intreaties of his wife, to remit their share of the penalty, as appears by their warrant to the keeper of the prison for his discharge, dated under the college seal, the 6th of August, 1602. After his release, he seems to have met with considerable patrons, who were able to protect him from the authority of the college; and though Dr. Goodall tells us, that this learned society thought him weak and ignorant in physic, yet he contrived to obtain the degree of doctor of physic in some university. This did not hinder new complaints being brought against him, by Dr. Taylor, and another physician, who grounded their proceedings chiefly on his giving a certain nostrum, which he called “Aurum potabilt!,” or potable gold, and which he represented to the world as an universal medicine. There were at this time also several things written agaiust him, and his manner of practice, insinuating that he was very inaccurate in his method of philosophizing, that the virtues of metals as to physical uses were very uncertain, and that the boasted effects of his medicine were destitute of proof. Dr. Anthony, upon this, published a defence of himself and his Aurum potabile in Latin, written with a plausible display of skill in chemistry, and with an apparent knowledge of the theory and history of physic. This book, which he published in 1610, was printed at the university press of Cambridge, and entitled “Medicinac Chymicae, et verj potabilis Auri assertio, ex lucubrationibus Fra. Anthonii Londinensis, in Medicina Doctoris. Cantabrigise, ex officina Cantrelli Legge celeberrimae Academics Typographi,” 4to. It had a very florid dedication to king James prefixed. He, likewise, annexed certificates of cures, under the hands of several persons of distinction, and some of the faculty; but his book was quickly answered, and the controversy about Aurum potabile grew so warm, that he was obliged to publish another apology in the Englis language, which was also translated into Latin, but did not ans.wer the doctor’s expectation, in conciliating the opinion of the faculty, yet, what is more valuable to an empiric, it procured the genera' good-will of ordinary readers, and contributed exceedingly to support and extend his practice, notwithstanding all the pains taken to decry it. What chiefly contributed to maintain his own reputation, and thereby reflected credit on his medicine, was that which is rarely met with among quacks, his unblemished character in private life. Dr. Anthony was a man of unaffected piety, untainted probity, of easy address, great modesty, and boundless charity; which procured him many friends, and left it not in the power of his enemies to attack any part of his conduct, except that of dispensing a medicine, of which they had no opinion. And though much has been said to disgredit the use of gold in medicine, yet some very able and ingenious men wrote very plausibly in support of those principles on which Dr. Anthony’s practice was founded, and among these the illustrious Robert Boyle. The process of making the potable gold is given in the Biog. Britannica, but in such a contused and ignorant manner that any modern chemist may easily detect the fallacy, and be convinced that gold does not enter into the preparation. The time Jn which Anthony flourished, if that phrase may be applied tq him, was very favourable to his notions, chemistry being then much admired and very little understood. He had therefore a most extensive and beneficial practice, which enabled him to live hospitably at his house in Bartholomew close, and to be very liberal in jiis alms to the poor. He died May 26, 1623, and was buried in the church of St. Bartholomew the Great, where a handsome monument was erected to his memory. His principal antagonists were, Dr. Matthew Gwinne, of the college of physicians, who wrote “Aurum non Aurum, sive adversaria in assertorem Chymiæ, sed veræ Medicinæ desertorem Franciscum Anthonium,” Lond. 1611, 4to, and Dr. Cotta, of Northampton, in 1623, in a work entitled, “Cotta contra Antonium, or an Ant-Antony, or an Ant-Apology, manifesting Dr. Anthony his Apology for Aurum potabile, in true and equal balance of right reason, to be false and counterfeit,” Oxford, 4to. Dr. Anthony by his second wife had two sons: Charles, a physician of character at Bedford, and John, the subject of the following article.

, son of the above, to whose practice he succeeded, made a handsome living by the sale of his father’s medicine called Aurum potabile. He was also author of “Lucas redivivus, or The gospel physician, prescribing (by way of meditation) divine physic to prevent diseases not yet entered upon the soul, and to cure those maladies which have already seized upon the spirit,” 1656, 4to. He died April 28, 1655, aged 70, as appears by the monument erected for his father and himself in the church of St. Bartholomew the Great in London.

, one of four poets of the same name mentioned by Suidas, was a native of Ciaros, according to Ovid, and of Colophon, according to others. The anonymous author of the description of the olympiads makes him contemporary with Lysander, and even with Plato, who, when a youth, is said to have been present when Antimachus’s poem the “Thebaid” was read. The learned author of the travels of Anacharsis places him in the fifth century B. C. Whenever he lived, we must regret that scarcely any of his writings have descended to posterity, as he had such reputation as to be accounted next to Homer, and it is said that the emperor Adrian preferred him to that illustrious poet. Besides the “Thebaid,” he wrote the “Lydian.” Being violently enamoured of Chryseis, he followed her into Lydia, her native country, where she died in his arms. On his return home, he perpetuated his affliction in a poem to her memory, and called from her name, which is praised by Ovid. We find a fragment of Antimachus in the Analects of Brunck, and Schellenberg published what else remains, in 1786, under the title “Antimachi Colophonii lleliquias nunc primum conquirere et explicare instituit C. A. G. Schellenberg, Accessit Epistola Frid. Aug. Wolfi.”

, an Athenian orator, called the Rhamnusian from the place of his birth, Rhamnus in Attica, is said to have been the first who reduced eloquence to an art, and who taught and harangued for hire. Thucydides was one of his disciples. He wrote several works. Sixteen of his orations were printed in the collection of the ancient Greek orators by Stephens in 1.575, fol. and before that by Aid us in 1513, fol. His death is said to have taken place in the year 411 B. C. He was condemned to die for favouring the party of the four hundred tyrants at Athens, and on this occasion made an able but unsuccessful defence of his conduct.

In the year 170 Antoninus made vast preparations against the Gennans, and carried on the war with great vigour. During this war, in the year 174, a very extraordinary event is said to have happened, which, according to Dion Cassius, was as follows: Antoninus’s army being blocked up by the Quadi in a very disadvantageous place, where there was no possibility of procuring water; and in this situation, being worn out with, fatigue and wounds, oppressed With heat and thirst, and incapable of retiring or engaging the enemy, instantly the sky was covered with clouds, and there fell a vast quantity of rain. The Roman army were about to quench their thirst, when the enemy came upon them with such fury, that they must certainly have been defeated, had it not been for a shower of hail, accompanied with a storm of thunder and lightning, which fell upon the enemy, without the least annoyance to the Romans, who by this means gained the victory. In the year 175 Antoninus made a treaty with several nations of Germany. Soon after, Aviclius Cassius, governor of Syria, revolted from the emperor: this insurrection, however, was suppressed by the death of Cassius, who was killed by a centurion named Anthony. Antoninus behaved with great lenity towards those who had been engaged for Cassius; he would not put to death, nor imprison, nor even sit in judgment himself upon any of the senators engaged in this revolt; but he referred them to the senate, fixing a day for their appearance, as if it had been only a civil affair. He wrote also to the senate, desiring them to act with indulgence rather than severity; not to shed the blood of any senator or noble, or of any other person whatsoever, but to allow this honour to his reign, that even under the misfortune of a rebellion, none had lost their lives, except in the first heat of the tumult: “And I wish,” said he, “that I could even recal to life many of those who have been killed; for revenge in a prince hardly ever pleases, since, even when just, it is considered too severe.” In the year 176 Antoninus visited Syria and Egypt; the kings of those countries, and ambassadors also from Parthia, came to visit him. He staid several days at Smyrna, and after he had settled the affairs of the east, went to Athens, on which city he conferred several honours, and appointed public professors there. From thence he returned to Rome with his son Commodus, whom he chose consul for the year following, though he was then but sixteen years of age, having obtained a dispensation for that purpose. On the 27th of Sept. the same year, he gave him the title of imperator; and on the 23d of Dec. he entered Rome in triumph, with Commodus, on account of the victories gained over the Germans. Dion Cassius tells us that he remitted all the debts which were due to himself and the public treasury during forty-six years, from the time that Adrian had granted the same favour, and burnt all the writings relating to those debts. He applied himself likewise to correct many enormities, and introduced several excellent regulations. He moderated the expences laid out on gladiators; nor would he suffer them to fight but with swords which were blunted like foils, so that their skill might be shewn without any danger of their lives. He endeavoured to clear up many obscurities in the laws, and mitigated, by new decrees, the severity of the old laws. He was the first, according to Capitolinus (Vit. Anton, cap. xxvii.) who appointed the names of all the children, born of Roman, citizens, to be registered within thirty days after their birth; and this gave him occasion to establish public registers in the provinces. He renewed the law made by Nerva, that no suit should be carried on against the dead, but within five years after their decease. He made a decree, that all the senators should have at least a fourth part of their estate in Italy. Capitolinus gives an account of several other regulations which he established. In the year 171 he left Rome with his son Commodus, in order to go against the Marcomanni, and other barbarous nations; and the year following gained a considerable victory over them: he would, in all probability, have entirely subdued them in a very short time, had he not been taken with an. illness, which carried him off on the 17th of March 180, in the fifty-ninth year of his age, and nineteenth of his reign. The whole empire regretted the loss of so valuable a prince, and paid the greatest regard to his memory; he was ranked amongst the gods, and every person almost had a statue of him in their houses. His book of “Meditations” has been much admired. It is written in Greek, and consists of twelve books; there have been several editions of it in Greek and Latin, two of which were printed before the year 1635, when the learned Meric Casaubon, prebendary of Canterbury, published a second edition of his translation of this work into English, dedicated to Laud, archbishop of Canterbury. It was also translated, in a very inelegant style, by Jeremy Collier. There was an edition afterwards printed at Glasgow, which is more correct; but the best is that published by the rev. R. Graves, 1792, 8vo. Of the learned Gataker’s two editions, Cambridge, 1652, 4to, Gr. and Lat. and London, 1697, the former is preferred. It is perhaps unnecessary to remark, that the valuable “Itinerary,” called Antoninus’s, does not belong to this, or any emperor of the name.

, so called because he was of that city, was also named Antonello. He was born in 1426, and died in 1475. He was the first of the Italians who painted in oil. Having seen at Naples a picture which king Alfonso had just received from Flanders, he was so struck with the liveliness, force, and softness of the colours, that he quitted his business to go and find out John Van Eyck, who he had been told was the painter of it. The consequences of this journey were, that Van Eyck communicated to him his secret; and on. the return of Antonio to Venice, Bellin artfully inveigled it out of him, and published it abroad. In the mean time, Antonio had intrusted it to one of his scholars, named Dominico. This Dominico, being called to Florence, gratuitously imparted it to Andrew del Castagno, who, actuated by the basest ingratitude and the greediness of gain, assassinated his friend and benefactor. All these incidents happening in rapid succession, occasioned the mystery of painting in oil to be quickly spread over all Italy. The schools of Venice and Florence were the foremost to adopt it; but that of Rome did not hesitate long to follow their example. Although we have given 1426 and 1475 as the dates of his birth and death, they are not absolutely settled by any of his biographers. Gallo is of opinion that he was born in 1447, and died in 1496. Vasari leaves the matter in doubt.

, a very learned and useful Spanish biographer, was born at Seville in 1617. His father was made president of the admiralty established in that city by Philip IV. He received his early education among the dorainicans, and studied philosophy and divinity afterwards at Salamanca, under the ablest masters, particularly Francis Ramos del Manzano, who was afterwards preceptor to the king and preceptor to Charles II. He then returned to Seville, and entirely devoted to study, passed the whole of his time in the Benedictine convent, where Benedict de la Serra, the abbot, had collected a very copious library, and where Antonio first planned and composed his valuable “Bibliotheca Hispana.” When considerably advanced in this work, he brought it with him to Rome in 1659, at which time he was sent thither by Philip IV. in the character of agent-general of affairs concerning the crown of Spain, the two Sicilies, and the inquisition, and he continued in this office twenty-two years, at the end of which Charles II. recalled him to Madrid, and made him a member of his council. Notwithstanding these profitable employments, he was so charitable to the poor, as frequently to be in want himself, but was considerably relieved by a canonry of Seville, which pope Alexander VII. bestowed upon him, on the recommendation of the cardinal of Aragon. He died at Madrid in 1684, and was then a ktiight of the order of St. James. It is said that among his papers was found a commission appointing him one of the supreme council of justice, but it is certain that he never filled that office. He left no property, but a library of thirty thousand volumes. His publications were, 1. “De exilio, sive de exilii poena antiqua et nova, exsulumque conditione et juribus, libri tres,” Antwerp, 1659, fol. The editor of the Biog. Universell-e speaks of a previous edition, 1641; but this we do not find in the author’s account in his “Bibl. Hispana.” This is said to have been written when he was only twenty-three years old. 2. “Bibliotheca Hispana Nova,” Rome, 1672, 2 vols. fol. and lately reprinted by Francis Perez Bayer, of Valeutia, at Madrid, 1783, 2 vols. fol. In this work, Antonio, according to the custom of the time, arranges his authors in the alphabetical order of their Christian names, a fault not conveniently remedied by his indexes, which are intended to divide his authors into classes. The collection is unquestionably creditable to Spanish learning and industry, b-ut many of the persons here recorded have long been in the land of oblivion, and among these we may surely reckon the greater part of an hundred and sixty authors who have written on the immaculate conception. 3. “Bibliotheca Hispana vetus, complectens scriptores qui ab Octaviani Augusti imperio usque ad annum M. floruerunt,” Rome, 1696, 2 vols. fol. The M. in this title should be M. D. Antonio having left no means of defraying the expence of this publication, cardinal d'Aguirre took the whole upon himself, and employed Emmanuel Mars, a learned Valentian, as editor. The authors are here ranged in chronological order, with proper indexes, &c. The “Bibliotheca Nova,” although published first, is in fact a sequel to this last, which has also been reprinted by Bayer at Madrid, 1788. Baillet prefers Antonio’s work to every thing of the kind, and Morhof considers it as a model. David Clement prefers it to all the Bibliothecas except that of Quetif and Echarcl. He thinks him blameable, however, for not giving the titles of books in their proper language, an objection to which other biographers, and particularly the French, until lately, have been justly liable. One other publication of Antonio was printed for the first time so lately as 1742, at Valentia, under the titla of “Censura de historias fabulas, obra postuma,” fol. ornamented with plates, and published by D. Gregoire Mayans y Siscar. We know not whether this be part of a work in which Antonio tells us he was long engaged, and which was to be called “Trophaeum historico-ecclesiasticum Deo veritatis erectum ex manubiis pseudo-historicorum, qui Flavii Lucii Dextri, M. Maximi, Helecoe, Braulionis, Luitprandi, et Juliani nomine circumferuntur; hoc est, Vindiciae verae atque iludum notae Hispanarum rerum historise, Germanarum nostros gentislaudum non ex GermanoFuldensibus chronicis emendicatarum in libertatem et puritatem plena assertio,” a work which Bayle thinks would have been of dangerous consequence, as people seldom like to be set right as to the fabulous stories which have long flattered their vanity.

Anthony, losing his father when young, launched at once into all the excess of riot and debauchery, and wasted his whole patrimony before he had put on the manly gown. His comely person, lively wit, insinuating address, made young Curio fond of him, who involved himself on his account in a debt of 50,000l. which greatly afflicting old Curio, Cicero was called in to heal the distress of the family; who advised the father to discharge the debt of the son, but to insist upon it as a condition, that he should have no farther commerce with Anthony. Afterwards Anthony went abroad to learn the art of war under Gabinius, who gave him the command of his horse in Syria; where he signalized his courage in the restoration of Ptolemy king of Egypt. Anthony shewed, on this occasion, that he had a tender and compassionate disposition; for Ptolemy was so enraged at the inhabitants of Pelusium for their revolt, that they had all been put to death by his order, if Anthony’s intercession had not saved them. He performed afterwards some noble exploits, which gained him high reputation as a commander.

Anthony fled in great confusion, wanting even the necessaries of life; and this very man, who had hitherto wallowed in luxury and intemperance, was obliged to live for some days upon roots and water. He fled to the Alps, and was received by Lepidus, with whom, and Octavius, he formed the second triumvirate, as it has usually been called. When these three conferred, they would easily be persuaded, that the patriots wanted only to destroy them all, which could not be done so effectually, as by clashing them against one another. They therefore combined, proscribed their respective enemies, and divided the empire among themselves. Cicero fell a sacrifice to the resentment of Anthony, who indeed was charged with most of the murders then committed; but they were rather to be put to the account of his wife Fulvia, who, being a woman of avarice, cruelty, and revenge, committed a thousand enormities of which her husband was ignorant, insomuch that, his soldiers once bringing to him the head of a man killed, as they supposed, by his order, he denied that he had ever seen or known him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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