uced many able magistrates, among whom was Anthony, the grandfather of the chancellor, who was first president of the parliament of Bourdeaux. Henry-Francis, the subject of
, a French statesman
of great worth and talents, was born at Limoges, Nov. 7,
1668, the son of Henry d'Aguesseau, then intendant of
the Limoisin, and afterwards counsellor of state. The
family was distinguished for having produced many able
magistrates, among whom was Anthony, the grandfather
of the chancellor, who was first president of the parliament
of Bourdeaux. Henry-Francis, the subject of the present
article, was educated under his father in every species of
knowledge which promised to qualify him for the office of
magistrate. After being admitted, in 1690, an advocate,
he became, a few months after, advocate-general of the
parliament of Paris, at the age of only twenty-two years.
The king, in appointing one so young to an office of very
great consequence, was guided solely by the recommendation of his father. “I know him,
” said his majesty, “to
be incapable of deceiving me, even in the case of his own
son;
” and the young advocate completely justified the confidence reposed in him. The celebrated Denis Talon, who
had obtained great reputation in the same office, declared
that he should have been willing to conclude his career as
that young man had begun his. After having performed
the functions of his office with reputation equal to his commencement, he became procurator-general; and the nature
of his new office furnished him with occasion to display
new talents in the public service. In particular, he introduced a complete system of reformation in the management of the hospitals, by which abuses were prevented
or corrected; and he restored order and discipline in the
tribunals, by which the criminal code was greatly improved.
In questions respecting estates, he discovered much acuteness and knowledge of antiquities.
, president of the parliament of Bourdeaux, a man of learning in the seventeenth
, president of the parliament of
Bourdeaux, a man of learning in the seventeenth century,
acquired considerable fame by publishing in 1623, a book
entitled “Enchyridion physicse restitutae.
” He did not
put his name to this, but it is proved to be his by several
of his acquaintance, as well as by the device at the beginning, “Spes mea est in agno,
” and before the treatise
of chemistry, “Pene nos unda Tagi,
” which are both anagrams of his name. It was the first work that appeared in
France, professing to contain a complete system of physics
contrary to that of Aristotle. The author, however, while
he says that he has only re-established the ancient philosophy, has added many things of his own invention. He
confutes the opinion of materia prima, which was held to
be extended every where without being any where perceived, and incessantly tending to the uuion of forms
without having any, being the basis and support of contraries, viz. of the elements which are said to be produced
out of it. He shows that this system of nature is imaginary, that there is no contrariety in the elements, and
that which is observed in them proceeds from the excess of
their qualities, and that when they are tempered there is
no contrariety in them. Yet he believes that there is a
materia prima from whence the elements result and become
the second matter of things, which are earth and water;
for he holds neither air nor fire for elements. The elements, according to his notion, are not transformed into
each other: water only becomes vapour, and vapour water,
by circulation. He places the real fire of the world in the
sun, which he calls not only the eye of the universe, but
the eye of the creator of the universe, by which he beholds
in a sensible manner his creatures, and which is the first
agent of the world. The rest of his book abounds in curious particulars concerning the origin of things, their subsistence and various alterations, relating to the design of
this philosopher to treat of chemical matters. He therefore subjoins another treatise, entitled “Arcanum Hermeticae philosophic opus,
” in which he discourses of the matter of the philosopher’s stone and its digestions, of the
degrees of fire, of the figure of the vessels and furnace, of
the composition of the elixir and its multiplication. This
book was translated into French under the title of “La
Philosophic des Anciens retablie en sa purete.
” In Le Rozier des
Guerres;
” and added to it a treatise of his own upon the
institution of a young prince. This ms. was found at
Nerac in the king’s closet. Mr. d'Espagnet thought his
edition to be the first, but it had been printed in 1523, in
folio, which edition is more complete than this of 1616.
In the ms. of Nerac, was wanting all the second part, and
the three last chapters of the first. For this account the
reader is referred to Naude“'s
” Addition a Phistoire de
Louis XI.“p. 72; and to
” Syntagma de studio militari,“p. 73. The prologue alone suunces to convince us that
Louis XI. is not the author of that work, as the title pretends, though he speaks in it as giving instructions to the
dauphin his son. See the
” Bibliotheque Choisie“of M.
Colomie’s. In the publication of the
” Rozier des Guerres,“he punctually retains the old spelling and in his advertisement to the reader gives this reason for it
” This little
tract, du Rozier,“says he,
” seemed to me so good that I
would not embellish or disguise it, but have left in its native simplicity: and though the language of it is not in use
in our times, yet it may be understood, being so full of
good sense and meaning, that with all its jargon it may
silence the affected diction of the court and bar. 1 have
also carefully preserved the orthography; because in adding or diminishing a letter, a word is often changed, and
of ancient made modern. By this means, in my judgment, the language of Philip de Commines, in his history,
has been corrupted: the editors, thinking to mend the
spelling, and polish the diction, have destroyed the marks
of its antiquity, so that the style of his book is not the
style of his times; as we may judge both by this little
manuscript, and by many others of the same age, which are
to be found in famous libraries, especially by the history of
Charles VI. written by John Juvenal des Ursins, and
lately published by the sieur de Godefroy. I imagine this
error proceeds from the insufficiency of the correctors;
who, pretending to correct the orthography, have adulterated it, and thereby rendered themselves plagiaries."