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

, an eminent bookseller, who began business at Leyden about the year 1682, and devoted his attention principally to geographical works and the construction of maps. A catalogue appeared at Amsterdam in 1729 of his publications, which are very numerous. Those in highest esteem are: 1. “A collection of Travels in France, Italy, England, Holland, and Russia,” Leyden, 1706, 30 vols. 12mo. 2. “A collection of Voyages in the two Indies,” Leyden, 1706, 8 vols. fol.; another edition, 29 vols. 8 vo, 1707-1710. This consists chiefly of an abridgment of De Bry’s collection, with some additions. 3. “A collection of Voyages in the Indies by the Portuguese, the English, the French, and the Italians,” 4 vols. fol. Leyden. These three works are in Dutch. 4. An “Atlas of two hundred Maps,” not in much estimation. 5. “A Gallery of the World,” containing an immense quantity of maps, topographical and historical plates, but without letter-press, in 66 vols. fol. which are usually bound in 35. He also continued Graevius’ “Thesaurus,” or, an account of the modern Italian writers, with the “Thesaurus Antiquitatum Siciliæ.” He died about 1730.

, a Danish poet, born at Wibourg in 1616, was professor of poetry at Sora, and afterwards lecturer in theology at Ripen, in Jutland. Among his poems are: 1. “De hommagio Frederici III. Daniae et Norw. Regis,” Hafnioe, 1660, fol.; and 2. “Threni Hyperborei” on the death of Christian IV. All his pieces are inserted in the “Delicioe quorundam Poetarum Danorum, Frederici Rostgaard,” Leyden, 1695, 2 vols. 12mo. He died in February 1664, leaving a son, Severin Aagard, who wrote his life in the above collection.

, a Briton, who suffered martyrdom with another, St. Julius, during the persecution under the emperor Dioclesian, in the year 303, and about the same time with St. Alban, the protomartyr of Britain. What the British names of Aaron and Julius were, we are not told; nor have we any particulars of their death. They had each a church erected to his memory in the city of Caer-Leon, the antient metropolis of Wales, and their festival is placed, in the Roman Martyrology, on the first of July.

, who flourished in the sixteenth century, was a Florentine, of the order of Jerusalem, and a voluminous writer on Music. He first appeared as an author in 1516. when a small Latin tract in three books. “De institutione Harmonica,” which he wrote originally in Italian, was translated into Latin, and published at Bologna, by his friend Job. Ant. Flaminius, of Imola, 4to.

, lord of Someldyck and Spyck, one of the most celebrated negociators of the United Provinces, was the son of Cornelius Aarsens, (who was greffier, or secretary of state, from 1585 to 1623,) and was born at the Hague in 1572. His father put him under the care of Duplessis Mornay at the court of William I. prince of Orange. The celebrated John Barnevelt sent him afterwards as agent into France; and, after residing there some time, he was recognised as ambassador, the first whom the French Court had received in that capacity from the United States; and the king, Louis XIII. created him a knight and baron. After holding this office for fifteen years, he became obnoxious to the French Court, and was deputed to Venice, and to several German and Italian princes, on occasion of the troubles in Bohemia. But such was the dislike the French king now entertained against him, that he ordered his ambassadors in these courts not to receive his visits. One cause of this appears to have been a paper published by Aarsens in 1618, reflecting on the French king’s ministers. In 1620 he was sent as ambassador to England, and again in 1641: the object of this last embassy was to negociate a marriage between prince William, son to the prince of Orange, and a daughter of Charles I. Previous to this, however, we find him again In France, in 1624, as ambassador extraordinary, where it appears that he became intimate with and subservient to the cardinal Richelieu; who used to say that he never knew but three great politicians, Oxenstiern, chancellor of Sweden, Viscardi, chancellor of Montferrat, and Francis Aarsens. His character, however, has not escaped just censure, on account of the hand he had in the death of Barnevelt, and of some measures unfriendly to the liberties of his country. He died in 1641. The editors of the Diet. Historique attribute to him “A Journey into Spain, historical and political,” published by De Sercy at Paris, 1666, 4to, and often reprinted; but this was the work of a grandson, of both his names, who was drowned in his passage from England to Holland, 1659.

, was born at Uzes on the llth of November 1679. His father died in the second year after his birth. As his parents were protestants, the mother removed him from France, to prevent his being educated in the Romish faith; but it being difficult to find a secure retreat, he was sent from one place to another, and at last was obliged to wander among the mountains of Cevennes, and to change his residence as often as his concealment was discovered, until at length he found a safe asylum in Geneva. In the mean time his mother was confined in the castle of Somieres; but nothing could shake her fortitude, or alter her resolution to have her son educated in her own persuasion. Her health was much impaired by confinement, under which she probably must have died, had not a fortunate occurrence required the commander of the fort to visit Paris. His brother, who occupied his place, interested himself in behalf of his prisoner, and obtained her enlargement. Having surmounted various perils, she arrived at Geneva two years after her son. The small share which she had been able to save from the wreck of a fortune which once had been considerable, she expended in the education of young Abauzit, who made a very rapid progress in his studies. Mathematics and natural history chiefly attracted his attention; tut he cultivated almost every department of literature. In 1698 he visited Hoiland, where he became acquainted with the most celebrated literary characters of the place, Bayle, Jurieu, and the Basnages. From Rotterdam he went to England, where he conversed with St. Evremond and sir Isaac Newton. With the latter he afterwards engaged in an epistolary correspondence, and received a compliment which must be esteemed highly honourable. “You,” says Sir Isaac, “are a very fit person to judge between Leibnitz and me.”

William III. invited Abauzit to settle in England, and ordered Michael le Vassor to offer some advantageous proposals; which, however, were not accepted. Filial aflectioil, or attachment to the country in which he had obtained a refuge, recalled him to Geneva; where, in 1723, the University offered him the chair of philosophy, which he declined, ple‘ading the weakness of his constitution, and his inability to do credit to the appointment. Jn 1726, he lost his mother, to whom he had ever been most affectionately attached. In the same year he was admitted a citizen of Geneva, and appointed librarian to the city. He profited by such a favourable opportunity to improve in useful literature. Principally attached to antiquities, he now dedicated to his newly-adopted country the fruit of his labours and his talents. In 1730, he published a newedition of the History and State of Geneva, which had been originally written by David Spon, and printed in two vols. 12mo. The work having already passed through three editions, was committed to Abauzit. Not contented with the mere republication, he corrected the errors, gave two dissertations on the subject, and annexed the public acts and memorials, that were necessary as proofs and illustrations. To these were added a copious variety of learned and useful notes, in which he gave an ample detail of facts which were but imperfectly related in the text. Modest himself, he was not ambitious of fame, but assisted others by his labours. Among those who derived benefit from his learning and researches, M. de Meiran alone had the gratitude to acknowledge his obligation. The labours of Abauzit were assiduous, and his knowledge was extensive. While he declined public notice his name was known, and his communications were frequent to most of the celebrated mathematicians, philosophers, and divines in Europe. Notwithstanding the simplicity of his manners, thismoclestphilosopher was not, perhaps, without a small share of vanity. For he employed himself in discovering what to his apprehension seemed errors in the different translations of the Bible. He could believe nothing but what he saw, or was suggested by his own ideas, or could be reduced to mathematical demonstration, and, becoming sceptical, wished to divest’ the scriptures of several miracles. He even made some efforts in poetry; but they were soon forgotten. He is acknowledged to have excelled more in diligence, accuracy, and precision, than in taste or genius. Voltaire, who had as great an aversion to miracles as Abauzit, esteemed and consulted him. As a citizen of Geneva, the philosopher was active in the dissensions of 1734. He exerted himself in support of the aristocratic party, though he had much of republican zeal. His industry was indefatigable, and he seemed to have written and acted from the conviction of his own mind. In religion he adopted and supported the doctrines of Arianism. Though declining praise, he acquired the esteem of many of the most eminent characters in Europe, and received an elegant compliment from Rousseau: “No,” says he, “this age of philosophy will not pass without having produced one true philosopher. I know one, and I freely own, but one; but what I regard as my supreme felicity is, that he resides in my native country, it is in my own Country that he resides: shall I presume to name him, whose real glorv it is to remain almost in obscurity? Yes, modest and learned Abauzit, forgive a zeal which seeks not to promote your fame. I would not celebrate your name in an age that is unworthy to admire you. I would honour Geneva by distinguishing it as the place of your residence: my fellowcitizens are honoured by your presence. Happy is the country where the merit that seeks concealment is the more revealed.” The reader will appreciate the merit of Abauzit, in proportion to the value he sets on the esteem of Voltaire or the praises of Rousseau. He, however, who could gain the approbation of two such opposite characters, could have been no ordinary person. He died on the 20th of March 1767.

Ahauzit left behind him some writings, chiefly theological. Of these the principal was an “Essay upon the Apocalypse,” written to shew that the canonical authority of the book of Revelation was doubtful, and to apply the predictions to the destruction of Jerusalem. This work was sent by the author to Dr. Twells, in London, who translated it from French into English, and added a refutation, with which Abauzit was so well satisfied, that he desired his friend in Holland to stop an intended impression. The Dutch editors, however, after his death, admitted this essay into their edition of his works, which, besides, comprehends “Reflections on the Eucharist,” “On Idolatry,” “On the Mysteries of Religion,” “Paraphrases and explanations of sundry parts of Scripture,” several critical and antiquarian pieces, and various letters. An edition without the Essay on the Apocalypse, was printed at Geneva in Oct. 1770, and translated into English in the same year by Dr. Harwood.

These writings afford an idea of the merit of Abauzit as a divine. To judge of the depth of his physical and mathematical knowledge, it must be remembered that he defeuded Newton against father Castel; that he discovered an error in the “Principia,” at a time when there were few people in Europe capable of reading that work; and that Newton corrected the error in the second edition. Abauzit was one of the first who adopted the grand conceptions of Newton, because he was a geometrician sufficiently learned to see their truth. He was perfectly acquainted with many languages; he understood antient and modern history so exactly, as to be master of all the principal names and dates; he was so accurate a geographer, that the celebrated Pococke concluded, from his minute description of Egypt, that he must, like himself, have travelled in that country; he had a very extensive 'knowledge of physics; and lastly, he was intimately conversant with medals and antient manuscripts. All these different sciences were so well digested and arranged in his mind, that he could in an instant bring together all that he knew upon any subject. Of this the following example has been given. Rousseau, in drawing up his Dictionary of Music, bad taken great pains to give an accurate account of the music of the antients. Conversing with Abauzit upon the subject, the librarian gave him a clear and exact account of all that he had with so much labour collected. Rousseau concluded that Abauzit had lately been studying the subject: but this learned man, of whom it might almost literally be said that he knew every thing, and never forgot any thing, unaffectedly confessed, that it was then thirty years since he had inquired into the music of the antients. It was probably owing to the strong impression which this incident made upon the mind of Rousseau, that the only panegyric which his wretched temper ever permitted him to write upon a living person, was what is given above upon Abauzit. It yet remains to be noticed that an edition of his works was printed at Amsterdam in 2 vols, after that of Geneva, and, according to the editors of the Diet. Historique, considerably different from it.

, 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.

, a physician, a native of Eusnibio, a man who is said to have surmounted the prejudices of his age, and wrote 1. “De admirabili Viperae natura, et de mirificis ejusdem facultatibus,” of which there are four editions, 1589—1660. 2. “Discussse concertationes de Rebus, Verbis, et Sententiis controversis,” Pisaur. 1594, 4to. There is no account of his death.

, or Abbot of Fleuri, a Benedictine monk of the tenth century, was born in the territory of Orleans, and educated in the abbey of Fleuri, and afterwards at Paris and Rheims, where he distinguished himself in all the learning of the times, and particularly in mathematics, theology, and history. Oswald, bishop of Worcester, in 985, applied to the abbey of Fleuri to obtain a proper person to preside over the abbey of Ramsay, which he had founded, or rather re-established. Abbo was sent over to England for this purpose, and much caressed by king Ethelred and the nobility. Returning to Fleuri upon the death of the abbot, he was declared his successor. Here he experienced many vexations from some of the bishops, against whom he asserted the rights of the monastic order. His enemies charged him with some acrimony against his persecutors. In his justification, he wrote an apology, which he addressed to the kings Hugh and Robert. Some time afterwards he dedicated to the same princes a collection of canons on the duties of kings and the duties of subjects. King Robert, having sent him to Rome to appease the wrath of Gregory V. who had threatened to lay the kingdom under an interdict, the pope granted him all he requested. Abbo, on his return from this expedition, set about the reform of the abbey of Reole in Gascony. He was here slain in a quarrel that rose between the French and the Gascons, in 1004. His works are: 1. “Epitome de vitis Pontificum,” taken from Anastasius Bibliothecarius, and published with an edition of that author by Busscus, Mentz, 1602, 4to. 2. “Vita S. Edmundi Anglorum Orientalium regis & martyris,” printed in Surius’ Lives of the Saints. There is a ms. of it in the Cottonian Library. 3. “Collectio, seu epitome Canonum,” printed by Mabillon. 4. “Epistola ad abbatem Fuldensem,” in Baluze’s Miscellanies, 1678, 8vo. 5. “Letters to Hugh, king of France, to St. Bernard, Gregory,” &c. and his Apology, are inserted whole, or in fragments, in his Life by Aimonius, a monk of Fleuri, and his pupil.

, archbishop of Canterbury, was born at Guildford, in Surrey, Oct. 29, 1562, the son of Maurice Abbot, a clothworker in that town, and Alice March, who, having been sufferers by the persecution in queen Mary’s reign, educated their children in a steady zeal for the Protestant religion. George was sent, with his elder brother Robert, to the free-school of Guildford, where he was educated under Mr. Francis Taylor, and in 1578 was entered of Baliol college, Oxford. On April 31, 1582, he took the degree of bachelor of arts, and Nov. 29, 1583, was elected probationer fellow of his college. After taking his master’s degree, Dec. 17, 1585, he entered into holy orders, became a celebrated preacher in the University, and was sometime chaplain to Thomas lord Buckhurst. In 1593, March 4, he commenced bachelor of divinity, and proceeded doctor of that faculty May 9, 1597. On September 6 he was elected master of University college, to which he afterwards proved a benefactor. About this time some differences took place between him and Dr. Laud, which subsisted as long as they lived.

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.

In 1619 he executed a design which he had long formed, of founding an hospital at Guildford, where, on the 5th of April, he was present when sir Nicholas Kempe laid the first stone. The archbishop endowed it with lands to the value of three hundred pounds per annum: one hundred of which was to be employed in setting the poor to work, and the remainder for the maintenance of a master, twelve brothers, and eight sisters, who were to have blue clothes, and gowns of the same colour, and half-a-crown a week each. Oct. 29, being the anniversary of the archbishop’s birth, is commemorated at Guildford; and the archbishop of Canterbury for the time being is visitor of the hospital. Towards the end of this year, the Elector Palatine accepted of the crown of Bohemia, which occasioned great disputes in king James’s councils. Some were desirous that his majesty should not interfere in this matter, foreseeing that it would produce a war in Germany; others were of opinion, that natural affection to his son and daughter, and a just concern for the Protestant interest, ought to engage him to support the new election. The latter was the archbishop’s sentiment; and not being able at that time to attend the privy council, he wrote his mind with great boldness and freedom to the secretary of state. The archbishop, now in a declining state of health, used in the summer to go to Hampshire for the sake of recreation; and, being invited by lord Zouch to hunt in his park at Branzill, he met there with the greatest misfortune that ever befel him; for he accidentally killed that nobleman’s keeper, by an arrow from a cross-bow, which he shot afc one of the deer. This accidentthrew him into a deep melancholy; and he ever afterwards kept a monthly fast on Tuesday, the day on which this fatal mischance happened. He also settled an annuity of 20l. on the widow. There were several persons who took advantage of this misfortune, to lessen him in the king’s favour; but his majesty said, “An angel might have miscarried in this sort.” But his enemies representing, that, having incurred an irregularity, he was thereby incapacitated for performing the offices of a primate, the king directed a commission to ten persons, to inquire into this matter. The points referred to their decision were, 1. Whether the archbishop was irregular by the fact of involuntary homiciue 2. Whether that act might tend to scandal in a churchman 3. How his grace should be restored, in case the commissioners should find him irregular All agreed, that it could not be otherwise done, than by restitution from the king; but they varied in the manner. The bishop of Winchester, the lord chief justice, and Dr. Steward, thought it should be done by the king, and by him alone. The lord keeper, and the bishops of London/ Rochester, Exeter, and St. David’s, were for a commission from the king directed to some bishops. Judge Doddridge and sir Henry Martin were desirous it should be done both ways, by way of caution. The king accordingly passed a pardon and dispensation; by which he acquitted the atchbishop of all irregularity, scandal, or infamation, and declared him capable of all the authority of a primate. From that time an increase of infirmities prevented his assistance at the council. But when, in the last illness of James I. his attendance was required, he was attentive to the charge till the 27th of March 1625, the day on which the king expired. Though very infirm, and afflicted with the gout, he assisted at the ceremony of the coronation of Charles I. whose favour, however, he did not long enjoy. His avowed enemy, the duke of Buckingham, soon found an opportunity to make him feel the weight of his displeasure. Dr. Sibthorp had in the Lent assizes 1627 preached before the judges a sermon at Northampton, to justify a loan which the king had demanded. This sermon, calculated to reconcile the people to an obnoxious measure, was transmitted to the archbishop with the king’s direction to license it; which he refused, and gave his reasons for it : and it was not licensed by the bishop of London, until after the passages deemed exceptionable had been erased. On July 5, lord Conway, who was then secretary of state, made him a visit; and intimated to him, that the king expected he should withdraw to Canterbury. The archbishop declined this proposal, because he had then a law-suit with that city; and desired that he might rather have leave to retire to his house at Ford, five miles beyond Canterbury. His request was granted; and, on Oct. 9 following, the king gave a commission to the bishops of London, Durham, Rochester, Oxford, and Bath and Wells, to execute the archiepiscopal authority; the cause assigned being, that the archbishop could not at that time in his own person attend those services which were otherwise proper for his cognizance and direction. The archbishop did not remain long in this situation; for, a parliament being absolutely necessary, he was recalled about Ciuistmas, and restored to his authority and jurisdiction. On his arrival at court he was received by the archbishop of York and the earl of Dorset, who conducted him to the king, and his regular attendance was from that time required. He sat in the succeeding parliament, and continued afterwards in the full exercise of his office. On the 24th of August 1628, the archbishop consecrated to the see of Chichester Dr. Richard Montague, who had before been active in supporting the pretence of irregularity which had been alleged against him. Laud, bishop of London, one of his former enemies, also assisted at the consecration. When the petition of right was discussed in parhament, the archbishop dehvercd the opinion of the House of Lords at a conference with the House of Commons, offering some propositions from the former, and received the thanks of sir Dudley Digges. Dr. Manwaring, having preached before the House of Commons two sermons, which he afterwards published, and in which he maintained the king’s authority in raising subsidies without the consent of parliament, was brought before the bar of the House of Lords, by impeachment of the Commons. Upon this occasion the archbishop, with the king’s consent, gave the doctor a severe admonition, in which he avowed his abhorrence of the principles maintained in the two discourses. The interest of bishop Laud being now very considerable at court, he drew up instructions, which, having the king’s name, were transmitted to the archbishop, under the title of “His majesty’s instructions to the most reverend father in God, George, lord archbishop of Canterbury, containing certain orders to be observed and put in execution by the several bishops in his province.” His grace communicated them to his suffragan bishops; but, to prove that he still intended to exercise his authority in his own diocese, he restored Mr. Palmer and Mr. Unday to their lectureships, after the dean and archdeacon of Canterbury had suspended them. In other respects he endeavoured to soften their rigour, as they were contrived to enforce the particular notions of a prevailing party in the church, which the archbishop thought too hard for those who made the fundamentals of religion their study, and were not so zealous for forms. His conduct in this and other respects made his presence unwelcome at court; so that, upon the birth of the prince of Wales, afterwards Charles H. Laud had the honour to baptize him, as dean of the chapel. It appears, ho.vever, from almost the last public act of his life, that Abbot was not so regardless of the ceremonial parts of religious duty in the church of England as his enemies have represented him; for he issued an order, dated the 3d of July 1633, requiring the parishioners of Crayford in Kent to receive the sacrament on their knees, at the steps ascending to the communion table. On the 5th of August, in the same year, he died at Croydon, worn out with cares and infirmities, at the age of 71, and was according to his own direction buried in the chapel of Our Lady, within the church dedicated to the Holy Trinity at Guildford. A stately monument was erected over the grave, with the effigies of the archbishop in his robes. He shewed himself, in most circumstances of his life, a man of great moderation to all parties; and was desirous that the clergy should attract the esteem of the laity by the sanctity of their manners, rather than claim it as due to their function. His notions and principles, however, not suiting the humour of some writers, have drawn upon him many severe reflections. Heylin asserts, “That marks of his benefactions we find none in places of his breeding and preferment;” an aspersion which is totally groundless. Dr. Wellwood has done more justice to the merit and abilities of our prelate: “Archbishop Abbot,” says he, “was a person of wonderful temper and moderation; and in all his conduct shewed an unwillingness to stretch the act of uniformity beyond what was absolutely necessary for the peace of the church, or the prerogative of the crown, any farther than conduced to the good of the state. Being not well turned for a court, though otherwise of considerable learning and genteel education, he either could not, or would not, stoop to the humour of the times; and now and then, by an unseasonable stiffness, gave occasion to his enemies to represent him as not well inclined to the prerogative, or too much addicted to a popular interest; and therefore not fit to be employed in matters of government.”

Others of the contemporary historians, besides Heylin, have given unfavourable characters of the archbishop; but their accounts disagree. Lord Clarendon likewise bears hard on his religious principles and general character. “He had,” says his lordship, “been master of one of the poorest colleges in Oxford, and had learning sufficient for that province.” The Editor of the Biog. Britannica has here supplied the name (Balliol), a blunder which lord Clarendon was not likely to have made, as our archbishop was master of University College, and his brother Robert, master of Balliol. It is rather singular, however, that his lordship should undervalue the “learning sufficient for that province.” He also notices, as extraordinary, that he was promoted to the bishoprick of Lichfield and Coventry “before he had been parson, vicar, or curate of any parish church in England, or dean or prebendary of any cathedral church in England; and was in truth totally ignorant of the true constitution of the church of England, and the state and interest of the clergy.” Here again his lordship seems to have forgot, that he was dean of Winchester before he was bishop of Lichfield, and that the chief cause of uis promotion was the service he rendered to his majesty by procuring the establishment of episcopacy in Scotland. Upon the whole of his character as drawn by lord Clarendon, the late right hon. Arthur Onslow, speaker of the House of Commons, offers the following remarks: “That worthy prelate did surely deserve a better representation to posterity. He was a very wise and prudent man, knew well the temper and disposition of the kingdom with respect to the ceremonies and power of the church, and did therefore use a moderation in the point of ecclesiastical discipline, which if it had been followed by his successor, the ruin that soon after fell on the church might very likely have been prevented. His being without any credit at court from the latter end of king James’s reign will bring no dishonour on his memory, if it be considered that his disgrace arose from his dislike of, and opposition to, the imprudent and corrupt measures of the court at that time, and from an honest zeal for the laws and liberties of his country, which seemed then to be in no small danger, and it was a part truly becoming the high station he then bore. His advice upon the affair of the Palatinate and the Spanish match shewed his knowledge of the true interest of England, and how much it was at his heart; and his behaviour and sufferings in the next reign, about the loan and Sibthorp’s sermon, as thoy were the reasons of his disgrace at that time, so ought they to render his memory valuable to all who wish not to see the fatal counsels and oppression of those times revived in this nation. The duke of Buckingham was his enemy, because the archbishop would not be his creature; and the church perhaps might have been thought to have been better governed, if he had stooped to the duke, and given in to the wantonnesses of his power: but he knew the dignity of his character, and loved his country too well to submit to such a meanness, though very few of his brethren had the courage or honesty to join with him in this, and, if the archbishop himseif is to be credited, his successor’s rise was by the practice of those arts this good man could not bend to. As to his learning, we need no better testimony of it than his promotion by king James, who had too much affectation that way to prefer any one to such a station who had not borne the reputation of a scholar; but there are other proofs of his sufficiency in this, even for the high place he held in the church. If he had some narrow notions in divinity, they were rather the faults of the age he had his education in, than his; and the same imputation may be laid on the best and most learned of the Reformers. His warmth against Popery became the office of a Protestant bishop; though even towards Papists there is a remarkable instance of his mildness and charity, which shewed that his zeal against their persons went no farther than the safety of the state required. His parts seem to have been strong and masterly, his preaching grave and eloquent, and his style equal to any of that time. He was eminent for piety and a care for the poor; and his hospitality fully answered the injunction king James laid on him, which was, to carry his house nobly, and live like an archbishop. He had no thoughts of heaping up riches; what he did save was laid out by him in the erecting and endowing of an handsome Hospital for decayed tradesmen and the widows of such, in the town of Guildford, in the county of Surrey, where he was born and had his first education; and here I cannot omit taking notice that the body of statutes drawn by himself for the government of that house, is one of the most judicious works of that kind I ever saw, and under which for near one hundred years that hospital has maintained the best credit of any that I know in England. He was void of all pomp and ostentation, and thought the nearer the church and churchmen came to the simplicity of the first Christians, the better would the true ends of religion be served; and that the purity of the heart was to be preferred to, and ought rather to be the care of a spiritual governor, than the devotion of the hands only. If under this notion some niceties in discipline were given up to goodness of life, and when the peace of the church as well as of the kingdom was preserved by it, 'twas surely no ill piece of prudence, nor is his memory therefore deserving of those slanders it has undergone upon that account. It is easy to see that much of this treatment has been owing to a belief in the admirers and followers of archbishop Laud, that the reputation of the latter was increased by depreciating that of the former. They were indeed men of very different frames, and the parts they took in the affairs both of church and state as disagreeing. In the church, moderation and the ways of peace guided the behaviour of the first, rigour and severity that of the last. In the state they severally carried the like principles and temper. The one made the liberty of the people and the laws of the land the measure of his actions; when the other, to speak softly of it, had the power of the prince and the exalting the prerogative only, for the foundation of his. They were indeed both of them men of courage and resolution; but it was sedate and temperate in Abbot, passionate and unruly in Laud. It is not however to be denied that many rare and excellent virtues were possessed by the latter; but it must be owned too, he seems rather made for the hierarchy of another church and to be the minister of an arbitrary prince, and the other to have had the qualifications of a Protestant bishop and the guardian of a free state .”

, eldest brother to the archbishop, was born also in the town of Guildford in 1560; educated by the same schoolmaster; and afterwards sent to Balliol college, Oxford, in 1575. In 1582 he took his degree of M. A. and soon became a celebrated preacher; to which talent he chiefly owed his preferment. Upon his first sermon at Worcester, he was chosen lecturer in that city, and soon after rector of All Saints in the same place. John Stanhope, esq. happening to hear him preach at Paul’s cross, was so pleased with him, that he immediately presented him to the rich living of Bingham in Nottinghamshire. In 1594 he became no less eminent for his writings than he had been for his excellence in preaching. In 1597 he took his degree of D. D. In the beginning of king James’s reign he was appointed chaplain in ordinary to his majesty; who had such an opinion of him as a writer, that he ordered the doctor’s book “De Antichristo” to be reprinted with his own commentary upon part of the Apocalypse. He had also acquired much reputation for his writings against Dr. William Bishop, then a secular priest, but afterwards titular bishop of Chalcedon. In 1609 he was elected master of Balliol college; which trust he discharged with the utmost care and assiduity, by his frequent lectures to the scholars, by his continual presence at public exercises, and by promoting discipline in the society. In May 1610 the king nominated Dr. Abbot one of the fellows in the college of Chelsea, which had been, lately founded for the encouragement and promotion of polemical divinity. In November 1610 he was made prebendary of Normanton in the church of Southwell; and in 1612 his majesty appointed him regius professor of divinity at Oxford; in which station he acquired the character of a profound divine, though a more moderate Calvinist than either of his two predecessors in the divinity-chair, Holland and Humphrey: for he countenanced the sublapsarian tenets concerning predestination. He was not, however, less an enemy to Dr. Laud than his brother; and in one of his sermons pointed at him so directly, that Laud intended to have taken some public notice of it.

The fame of Dr. Abbot’s lectures became very great; and those which he delivered upon the supreme power of kings against Bellarmine and Suarez afforded the king so much satisfaction, that, when the see of Salisbury became vacant, he named him to that bishoprick; and he was consecrated by his own brother, the archbishop of Canterbury, Dec. 3, 1615. It would appear that he had enemies who would have deferred his promotion for various reasons. When he came to do homage, the king said, “Abbot, I have had very much to do to make thee a bishop; but I know no reason for it, unless it were because thou hast written against one,” alluding to Dr. Bishop before-mentioned. In his way to Salisbury, he took a solemn farewell of Oxford, and was accompanied for some miles by the heads of houses and other eminent scholars, who deeply regretted his departure. On his arrival at Salisbury he bestowed much attention on his cathedral, which had been neglected, and raised a considerable subscription for repairs. He afterwards visited the whole of his diocese, and preached every Sunday while his health permitted, which was not long, as the sedentary course he had pursued brought on the stone and gravel, which ended his pious and useful life, March 2, 1617. He had enjoyed his bishoprick only two years and three months, and was interred in the cathedral. He was twice married; the last time, which is said to have given offence to his brother the archbishop, about half a year after his promotion to the see. The lady, whose name seems to have escaped the researches of his biographers, was Bridget Cheynell, wU dow, and mother of the famous Francis Cheynell. By his first wife he left one son, or more, and a daughter who was married to sir Nathaniel Brent, warden of Merton college. All his biographers concur in the excellence of his character, his eminent piety, charity, and learning. One of them has attempted a parallel between the two brothers, viz. that “George was the more plausible preacher, Robert the greater scholar; George the abler statesman, Robert the deeper divine; gravity did frown in George, and smile in Robert.”

A few paritculars [sic] hitherto unnoticed by his biographers may be gleaned from Wood’s Annals, published by Mr. Gutch. It appears that in 1596 the corporation of London requested the two universities to send them a list of persons properly qualified for the professorships of Gresham college, just founded. On this occasion Mr. Abbot, then M. A. of Balliol college, was chosen with three others, but the election ultimately fell upon a gentleman of Cambridge. In 1612, Dr. John Howson, one of the canons of Christ church, preaching at St. Mary’s, reflected on the Annotations to the Geneva translation of the Bible, “as guilty of misrepresenting the divinity of Christ and his Messiahship.” For this he was afterwards suspended, or forced to recant, by Dr. Abbot, then pro-vicechancellor. Wood thinks this the more hard, because king James had been known to censure the partiality of these annotations. While king’s professor of Divinity, he had neither the canonry of Christ church, nor the rectory of Ewelme usually annexed; and his only profits were some fees from those who performed exercises in divinity, and a salary of forty pounds a-year paid by the dean and canons of Christ church. In dislike to Laud, as already noticed, he shared amply with his brother; but Wood’s account of the sermon he preached against him is more particular than that in the Biographia, and throws some light on the controversies as well as the manners of the times. “On Shrove Sunday towards the latter end of this year (1614), it happened that Dr. Laud preached at St. Mary’s, and in his sermon insisted on some points which might indifferently be imputed either to Popery or Arminianism (as about this time they began to call it), though in themselves they were by some thought to be no other than the true doctrine’s of the Church of England. And having occasion in th-it sermon to touch upon the Presbyterians and their proceedings, he used some words to this etfect, viz. `that the Presbyterians were as bad as the Papists.' Which being directly contrary to the judgment and opinion of Dr. Robert Abbot, the king’s professor of Divinity, and knowing how much Dr. Laud had been distasted by his brother when he lived in Oxford, conceived he could not better satisfy himself and oblige his brother, now archbishop of Canterbury, than by exposing him (on the next occasion) both to shame and censure, which he did accordingly. For preaching at St. Peter’s in the East upon Easter-day (1615) in the afternoon, in the turn of the vicechancellor, he pointed at him so direptly, that none of the auditors were so ignorant as not to know at whom he aimed. Dr. Laud, being not present at the first preaching of the sermon, was by hiss friends persuaded to shew himself at St. Mary’s the Sunday after, when it should come to be repeated (according to the ancient custom in this university); to whose persuasions giving an unwilling consent, he heard himself sufficiently abused for almost an hour together, and that so palpably and grossly, that he was pointed to as he sate.” It appears that Laud consulted his patron, Dr. Neal, bishop of Lincoln, who probably dissuaded him from taking any notice of the matter, as we do not find that he wrote any answer, or vindication.

Bishop Abbot’s works are: 1. “The mirror of Popish Subtleties,” Lond. 4to, 1594. 2. “The exaltation of the kingdom and priesthood of Christ,” sermons on the first seven verses of the 110th Psalm, 4to, Lond. 1601. 3. “Antichristi demonstratio, contra fabulas Pontificias, et ineptam Rob. Bellarmini de Antichristo disputationem,” Lond. 4to, 1603, 8vo, 1603, a work much commended by Scaliger. 4. “Defence of the reformed Catholic of Mr. W. Perkins, against the bastard counter-Catholic of Dr. William Bishop, seminary priest,” in three parts, 4to, 1606, 1607, 1609. 5. “The Old Way; a sermon at St. Mary’s, Oxon.” 4to, Lond. 1610. This was translated into Latin by Thomas Drax. 6. “The true ancient Roman Catholic; being an apology against Dr. Bishop’s reproof of the defence of the reformed Catholic,” 4to, 1611. This work was dedicated to prince Henry, who returned the author thanks in a letter written with his own hand; a circumstance which seems to have escaped Dr. Birch in his life of that prince. 7. “Antilogia; adversus apologiam Andreae Eudaemon-Johannis, Jesuitse, pro Henrico Garnetto Jesuita proditore;” Lond. 4to. 1613. The true name of the apologist was Isaac Casaubon. 8. “De gratia et perseverantia Sanctorum, Exercitationes habitse in Academiae Oxon.” Lond. 4to, 1618; Francfort, 8vo, 1619. 9. “In Ricardi Thomsoni Angli-Belgici diatribam, da amissione et intercessione justificationis et gratiae, animadversio brevis.” Lond. 4to, 1618. Thomson was a Dutchman, born of English parents, and educated at Clarehall, Cambridge. Our author finished this book on the last day of his life, and it was published by his brother the archbishop and Dr. Featley his chaplain. 10. “De Suprema Potestate Regia, exercitationes habitse in Academia Oxoniensi, contra Rob. BellarminunV et Franciscum Suarez,” Lond. 4 to, 1619, also a posthumous publication. He left behind him various sermons in manuscript, lectures on St. Matthew, and commentaries on some parts of the Old and New Testament, particularly a commentary in Latin upon the whole epistle to the Romans, in four folio volumes, which was given to the Bodleian library by Dr. Edward Corbet, rector of Haseley in Oxfordshire, his grandson by his only daughter the wife of sir Nathaniel Brent .

, a clergyman of the Church of England, but whether belonging to the archbishop’s family is uncertain, was originally of the university of Cambridge, and was incorporated master of arts of Oxford, July 14, 1607. He was afterwards vicar of Cranbrooke in Kent, and minister of South wick in Hampshire. When Ephraim Udall, the lawful rector of St. Augustine’s, Watling-street, was sequestered by authority of the House of Commons in 1643, the living was given to Mr. Abbot, which he enjoyed until his death, at a very advanced age, in 1653. He published “Four Sermons,” 8vo, Lond. 1639, dedicated to Curie, bishop of Winchester, who had been his patron; and some other single sermons, a small catechism, &c.

There was about the same time a Robert Abbot of Hatfield, mentioned by Dr. Pulteney, as a learned preacher, and an excellent and diligent herbalist, who assisted the celebrated Johnson in his works .

, a German writer of high character, was born Nov. 25, 1738, at Ulm, where he received his education, and in 1751 produced his first dissertation, under the title of “Historia vitae magistra,” in which he maintained two theses, the one on burning mirrors, the other on the miracle of the dial of Ahaz. In 1756, he went to the university of Halle, where he was invited by professor Baumgarten to live in his house. Here he published a thesis “De Extasi,” and studied chiefly philosophy and the mathematics; and from 1758, when he received the degree of M. A. he confined himself to these, giving up divinity, to which he had been originally destined. In 1760, he was appointed professor-extraordinary of philosophy in the university of Francfort-on-the-Oder, and in the midst of the war which then raged, inspirited his fellow-­citizens by a work on “Dying for our Country.” In the following year, he passed six months at Berlin, and left that city to fill the mathematical chair in the university of Rinteln, in Westphalia; but, becoming tired of an academical life, began to study law, as an introduction to some civil employment. In 1763, he travelled through the south of Germany, Switzerland, and part of France; and, on his return to Rinteln, at the end of that year, published his work “On Merit,” which was re-printed thrice in that place, and obtained him much reputation. In 1765, the reigning prince of Schaumburg Lippe bestowed on him the office of counsellor of the court, regency, and consistory of Buckeburgh; but he did not long enjoy the friendship of this nobleman, or his promotion, as he died Nov. 27, 1766, when only in his twenty-eighth year. The prince caused him to be interred, with great pomp, in his private chapel, and honoured his tomb by an affecting epitaph from his own pen. Abbt was highly esteemed by his contemporaries, who seem agreed that, if his life had been spared, he would have ranked among the first German writers. He contributed much to restore the purity of the language, which had become debased before his time, as the Germans, discouraged by the disastrous thirty years war, had written very little, unless in French or Latin.

, a name admitted into various biographical collections, without much propriety. It has usually been said that Abdias was an impostor, who pretended that he had seen our Saviour, that he was one of the seventy-two disciples, had been an eye-witness of the lives and martyrdom of several of the apostles, and had followed St. Simon and St. Jude into Persia, where he was made the first bishop of Babylon. From what he saw, he compiled a work entitled “Historia certaminis Apostolici.” This work Wolfgang Lazius, a physician of Vienna, and historiographer to the emperor Ferdinand I. (hereafter noticed) found in manuscript in a cave of Carinthia, and believing it to be genuine, originally written in Hebrew, translated into Greek by one Europius, a disciple of Abdias, and into Latin by Afrieanus, published it at Basil in 1551, after which it was several times reprinted, but, on examination both by Papist and Protestant writers, was soon discovered to be a gross imposture, from the many anachronisms which occur. Melancthon, who saw it in manuscript, was one of the first to detect it; and the greater part of the learned men in Europe, at the time of publication, were of opinion that Abdias was a fictitious personage, and that it was neither written in Hebrew, nor translated into Greek or Latin: Fabricius has proved from internal evidence that it was first written in Latin, but that the author borrowed from various ancient memoirs, which were originally in Greek. As to the age of the writer, some have placed him in the fifth and some in the sixth century, or later. The object of the work is to recommend chastity and celibacy .

, an eminent Persian historian and philosopher, was born at Bagdad, in the 557th year of the Hegira, or the 1161st of the Christian aera. Having been educated with the greatest care by his father, who was himself a man of learning, and resided in a capital which abounded with the best opportunities of instruction, he distinguished himself by an early proficiency, not only in rhetoric, history, and poetry, but also in the more severe studies of Mahommedan theology. To the acquisition of medical knowledge he applied with peculiar diligence; and it was chiefly with this view that he left Bagdad, in his 28th year, in order to visit other countries. At Mosul, in Mesopotamia, whither he first directed his course, he found the attention of the students entirely confined to the chemistry of that day, with which he was already sufficiently acquainted. He therefore removed to Damascus, where the grammarian Al Kindi then enjoyed the highest reputation; and with him Abdcllatiph is said to have engaged in a controversy on some subjects of grammar and philology, which was ably conducted on both sides, but terminated in favour or our author.

At this time Egypt had yielded to the arms of Saladin, who was marching against Palestine for the purpose of wresting that country from the hands of the Christians; yet towards Egypt Abdollatiph was irresistibly impelled by that literary curiosity which so strongly marked his character. The defeat, however, of the Saracens by the English king Richard, had plunged the Sultan into melancholy, and prevented our traveller from being admitted into his presence; but the favours which he received evinced the munificence of Saladin, and he pursued his purpose, visiting Cairo, where his talents procured him a welcome reception. From this he withdrew, in order to present himself before the Sultan, who, having concluded a. truce with the Franks, then resided in Jerusalem. Here he was received by Saladin with every expression of esteem, and Saladin granted him a liberal pension, which was increased by his son and successor, till the unnatural ambition of his uncle forced him from the throne of Egypt 9-nd of Syria; and thus our traveller was compelled to resort again to Damascus, after a short abode at Jerusalem; where his oral lectures, and his written treatises, were equally the objects of general admiration. At Damascus he distinguished himself chiefly by his medical skill and knowledge; but nothing could detain him from travelling in pursuit of higher improvement, and on this account, he left Damascus, and after having visited Aleppo, resided several years in Greece. With the same view he travelled through Syria, Armenia, and Asia Minor, still adding to the number of his works, many of which he dedicated to the princes whose courts he visited. After this, sentiments of devotion induced him to undertake a pilgrimage to Mecca; but he first determined to pay a visit to his native pountry, and had scarcely reached Bagdad, when he was suddenly attacked by a distemper, of which he died, A. D, 1223, in the 63d year of his age.

, brother of the preceding, was also born at Riez, and became a surgeon and medical writer of considerable eminence. His publications are: 1. “Htstoire des Os,” Paris, 1685, 12mo. 2. “Traité des plaies d'Arquebusades,” Paris, 1696, 12mo. 3. “Le parfait Chirurgien d'armée,” 1696, 12mo, reckoned his most useful work. He wrote also some poetry. He died Nov. 9, 1697, leaving a son who wrote two unsuccessful dramas .

Abel was a man who well knew the world, and kept on tolerable terms with society, though a natural irascibility, and disposition to say strong things, sometimes rendered him overbearing and insolent in company. His greatest failing was a love of the bottle, in which he indulged to a degree that probably shortened his life. He died in London, June 20, 1787 .

, the son of Berenger, of noble descent, was born at Palais, near Nantes, in Bretagne, in 1079. Such was the state of learning at that time, that he had no other field for the exercise of his talents, which were exceedingly promising, than the scholastic philosophy, of which he afterwards became one of the most celebrated masters. After the usual grammatical preparation, he was placed under the tuition of Rosceline, an eminent metaphysician, and the founder of the sect of the Nominalists. By his instructions, before the age of sixteen, he acquired considerable knowledge, accompanied with a subtlety of thought and fluency of speech, which throughout life gave him great advantage in his scholastic contests. His avidity to learn, however, soon induced him to leave the preceptor of his early days, and to visit the schools of several neighbouring provinces. In his 20th year, he fixed hist residence in the university of Paris, at that time the first seat of learning in Europe. His master there was William de Champeaux, an eminent philosopher, and skilful in the dialectic art. At first he was submissive and humbly attentive to de Champeaux, who repaid his assiduity by the intimacy of friendship; but the scholar soon began to contradict the opinions of the master, and obtained some victories in contending with him, which so hurt the superior feelings of the one, and inflamed the vanity of the other, that a separation became unavoidable; and Abelard, confident in his powers, opened a public school of his own, at the age of 22, at Melun, a town about ten leagues from Paris, and occasionally the residence of the court.

While Abelard confesses the ambition which induced him to take this step, it must at the same time be allowed that he had not overrated the qualifications he could bring into this new office. Notwithstanding every kind of obstacle which the jealous de Champeaux contrived to throw in his way, his school was no sooner opened than it was attended by crowded and admiring auditories; and, as this farther advanced his fame, he determined to remove his school to Corbeil, near Paris, where he could maintain an open contest with his old rival. This was accordingly executed; the disputations were frequent and animated; Abelard proved victorious, and de Champeaux was compelled to retire with considerable loss of popular reputation. After an absence of two years spent in his native country for the recovery of his health, which had been impaired by the intenseness of his studious preparations, and the vehemence and agitation incident to such disputes, Abelarjl found, on his return to Corbeil, that de Champeaux had taken the monastic habit among the regular canons in the convent of St. Victor, but that he still taught rhetoric and logic, and held public disputations in theology. On this he immediately renewed his contests, and with such success, that the scholars of his antagonist came over in crowds to him, and even the new professor, who had taken the former school of de Champeaux, voluntarily surrendered the chair to our young philosopher, and even requested to be enrolled among his disciples. De Champeaux, irritated at a mortification so public and so decisive, employed his interest to obtain the appointment of a new professor, and to drive Abelard back to Melun. Means like these, however, even in an age not remarkable for liberality, were not likely to serve de Champeaux’s cause; and the consequence was, that even his friends were ashamed of his conduct, and he was under the necessity of retiring from the convent into the country. Abelard then returned to Paris, took a new station at the abbey on Mount Genevieve, and soon attracted to his school the pupils of the new professor. De Champeaux, returning to his monastery, made another feeble attempt, which ended in another victory on the part of his rival, but being soon after made bishop of Chalons, a termination was put to their contests.

An incident now occurred in his life, which has given him more popular renown than his abilities as a philosopher, a theologian, or a writer, could have conferred, but which has thrown a melancholy shade on his moral character. About this time, there was resident in Paris, Heloise, the niece of Fulbert, one of the canons of the cathedral church, a lady about eighteen years of age, of great personal beauty, and highly celebrated for her literary attainments. Abelard, who was now at the sober age of 40, conceived an illicit passion for this young lady, flattering himself that his personal attractions were yet irresistible. Fulbert, who thought himself honoured by the visits of so eminent a scholar and philosopher, while he had any reason to place them to his own account, welcomed him to his house, as a learned friend whose conversation might be instructive to his niece, and was therefore easily prevailed upon, by a handsome payment which Abelard offered for his board, to admit him into his family as an inmate. When this was -concluded upon, as he apprehended no danger from one of Abelard’s age and gravity, he requested him to devote some portion of his leisure to the instruction of Heloise, at the same time granting him full permission to treat her in all respects as his pupil. Abelard accepted the trust, and, we gather from his own evidence, with no other intention than to betray it. “I was no less surprized,” he says, “than if the canon had delivered up a tender lamb to a famished wolf,” &c. In this infamous design he succeeded but too well, and appears to have corrupted her mind, as, amidst the rage of her uncle, and the reflections which would naturally be made on such a transaction, every other sentiment in her breast was absorbed in a romantic and indecent passion for her seducer. Upon her pregnancy being discovered, it was thought necessary for her to quit her uncle’s house, and Abelard conveyed her to Bretagne, where she was delivered of a son, to whom they gave the name of Astrolabus, or Astrolabius. Abelard now proposed to Fulbert to marry his niece, provided the marriage might be kept secret, and Fulbert consented; but Heloise, partly out of regard to the interest of Abelard, whose profession bound him to celibacy, and partly from a less honourable notion, that love like hers ought not to submit to ordinary restraints, at first gave a peremptory refusal. Abelard, however, at last prevailed, and they were privately married at Paris; but in this state they did not experience the happy effects of mutual reconciliation. The uncle wished to disclose the marriage, but Heloise denied it; and from tbis time he treated her with such unkindness as furnished Abelard with a sufficient plea for removing her from his house, and placing her in the abbey of Benedictine nuns, in which she had been originally educated. Fulbert, while he gave the provocation, pretended that Abelard had taken this step in order to rid himself of an incumbrance which obstructed his future prospects. Deep resentment took possession of his soul, and he meditated revenge; in the pursuit of which he employed some ruffians to enter Abelard’s chamber by night, and inflict upon his person a disgraceful and cruel mutilation, which was accordingly perpetrated. The ruffians, however, were apprehended, and punished according to the law of retaliation; and Fulbert was deprived of his benefice, and his goods confiscated.

The spot which he chose was a vale in the forest of Champagne, near Nogent upon the Seine, where, accompanied by only one ecclesiastic, he erected a small oratory, which he dedicated to the Trinity, but afterwards enlarged, and consecrated it to the Third Person, the Comforter, or Paraclete. In this asylum he was soon discovered, and followed by a train of scholars. A rustic college arose in the forest, and the number of his pupils soon increased to six hundred. But his enemies St. Norbert and St. Bernard, who enjoyed great popularity in this neighbourhood, conspired to bring him into discredit, and he was meditating his escape, when, through the interest of the Duke of Bretagne, and with the consent of the abbot of St. Denys, he was elected superior of the monastery of St. Gildas, in the diocese of Vannes, where he remained several years.

About this time Suger, the abbot of St. Denys, on the plea of an ancient right, obtained a grant for annexing the convent of Argenteuil, of which Heloise was now prioress, to St. Denys, and the nuns, who were accused of irregular practices, were dispersed. Abelard, informed of the distressed situation of Heloise, invited her, with her companions, eight in number, to take possession of the Paraclete. Happy in being thus remembered in the moment of distress by the man of her affections, she joyfully accepted the proposal; a new institution was established; Heloise was chosen abbess; and, in 1127, the donation was confirmed by the king. Abelard, now abbot of St. Gildas, paid frequent visits to the Paraclete, till he was obliged to discontinue them through fear of his enemies the monks, who not only endeavoured to injure him by gross, insinuations, but carried their hostility so far as to make repeated attempts upon his life.

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.

, a historian, born at Strasburgh, and who died about 1646, is perhaps better known by the name of John Louis Gottfried, or Gothofredus, which he used in most of his numerous works. Under his proper name, he published only the first volume of the “Theatre of Europe,” which contains the history of Europe from 1617 to 1628; and the 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th volumes of the “Mercurius Gallo-Belgicus,” begun by Gothard Arthus, and containing the annals of Europe, but particularly of France, from 1628 to 1636, Francfort, 1628—1636, 8vo. The Mercurius is in Latin, but the Theatre in German. The second volume of the latter bears the name of Avelin; but Christian Gryphius, in his account of the historians of the seventeenth century, attributes it to John George Schleder, who also compiled some of the subsequent volumes. The best edition of the “Theatre of Europe” is that published at Francfort, from 1662 to 1738, in 21 vols. fol. illustrated by the engravings of Matthew Maittaire. The volumes composed by Abelin, Schleder, and Schneider, are most esteemed; the others, composed by their continuators, have neither the same reputation or merit.

, an English musician, was celebrated for a fine counter-tenor voice, and for his skill on the lute. Charles II. of whose chapel he was, and who admired his singing, had formed a resolution of sending him to the carnival at Venice, in order to shew the Italians what England could produce in this way; but the scheme was dropped. Abell continued in the chapel till the Revolution, when he was discharged as being a Papist. Upon this he went abroad, and distinguished himself by singing in public in Holland, at Hamburgh, and other places; where, acquiring considerable wealth, he set up a splendid equipage, and affected the man of quality, though at intervals he vyas so reduced, as to be obliged to travel through whole provinces with his lute slung at his back. In rambling he got as far as Poland, and at Warsaw met with a very extraordinary adventure. He was sent for to court; but, evading to go by some slight excuse, was commanded to attend. At the palace he was seated in a chair, in 'the middle of a spacious hall, and suddenly drawn up to a great height, and the king, with his attendants, appeared in a gallery opposite to him. At the same instant a number of wild bears were turned in, when the king bid him choose, whether he would sing, or be let down among the bears Abell chose to sing, and declared afterwards, that he never sung so well in his life.

, a Spanish Jew, who died in 1685, was prefect of a synagogue in London, and the author of a Spicilegium of explanations of various passages in the Hebrew bible, published at Amsterdam, folio, about the time of his death. He published also some other works in considerable esteem with Hebrew scholars.

, Abhengnefit, or Albenguefit, an Arabian physician, who flourished in the 12th century, is the author of 1. “De virtutibus Medicinarum et Ciborum,” translated from the Arabic into Latin by Gerard of Cremona, and published at Strasburgh, 1531, fol. 2. “DeBalneis,” Venice, 1553, fol.

, 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 .

, a horticultural writer of considerable note, and to whose taste and writings the English garden is considerably indebted, was the son of a respectable gardener near Edinburgh, and descended of a good family. The father, having early discovered a predilection in the son for that profession in which he was himself allowed to excel, afforded him every encouragement; and, as his mind was solely bent on this delightful pursuit, his proficiency in horticulture, &c. soon outstripped his years. To increase his knowledge in the different branches of gardening, he came to London at the age of eighteen, and worked in Hampton court, St. James’s, Kensington, Leicester, &c. gardens. His taste in laying out grounds, and his progress in botany, were so highly appreciated, that he was advised to publish something on those subjects; but his extreme diffidence for a long time counteracted the wishes of his friends. At length he was induced to commence author: having submitted his manuscript to Mr. Griffin, bookseller, of Catherine-street, in the Strand, Mr. Griffin candidly told him he was not a judge of the subject, but, with permission, he would consult a friend of his who was allowed to be so, Mr. Mawe, gardener to the duke of Leeds. Mr. Abercrombie consented. Mr. Mawe bore testimony to the merit of the production, and prefixed his name to the publication, in order to give it that celebrity to which it was so justly entitled, for which he received a gratuity of 20 guineas. The work was published under the title of “Mawe’s Gardener’s Calendar;” the flattering reception which it experienced induced the real writer to publish another work under his own name; “The Universal Dictionary of Gardening and Botany,” in 4to. This was followed by “The Gardener’s Dictionary,” “The Gardener’s Daily Assistant,” “The Gardener’s Vade Mecum,” “The Kitchen Gardener and Hot-Bed Forcer,” “The HotHouse Gardener,” &c. &c. Some of these are hasty compilations, without much display of botanical knowledge; but they were in general popular, and most of them were translated into French, German, &c. Mr. Abercrombie’s industry enabled him to bring up a large family, and to give them a good education; but he survived them all, except one son, who has more than once distinguished himself at sea in the service of his country. He died at his apartments, Chalton-street, Somers Town, in the 80th year of his age, 1806.

, a physician and historian, was the son of Alexander Abercromby, of Fetternear, in Aberdeenshire, and brother of Francis Abercromby, who was created lord Glasford in July 1685. He was born at Forfar, in the county of Angus, in 1656, and educated in the university of St. Andrew’s, where he took the degree of doctor in medicine in 1685. Some accounts say that he spent Ims youth in foreign countries, was probably educated in the university of Paris, and that his family were all Roman Catholics, who partook of the misfortunes of James II.; others, that on his return to Scotland he renounced the Protestant religion, at the request of king James, and was by him appointed one of the physicians to trie court, which he was obliged to relinquish at the Revolution. Soon after he attached himself to the study of antiquities, and published, “The Martial Achievements of Scotland,” 2 vols. fol. 1711 and 1715, to which he was encouraged by a large list of subscribers. The first volume abounds in the marvellous, but the second is valuable on account of its accurate information respecting the British history in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. He wrote also a treatise on Wit, 1686, which is now little known, and translated M. Beague’s very rare book, “L‘Histoire de la Guerre d’Escosse,” 1556, under the title of “The History of the Campagnes 1548 and 1549: being an exact account of the martial expeditions performed in those days by the Scots and French on the one side, and the English and their foreign auxiliaries on the other: done in French by Mons. Beague, a French gentleman. Printed in Paris 1556, with an introductory preface by the translator,” 1707, 8vo. The ancient alliance between France and Scotland is strenuously asserted in this work. He died about the year 1716, according to Mr. Chalmers, or, as in the last edition of this Dictionary, in 1726, about the age of 70, or rather 72.

In the former edition of this work it is said that he never made any distinguished figure in the physical profession. There was, however, a David Abercromby, a contemporary and countryman of his, who published in London some medical tracts on the venereal disease, the pulse, &c. which were collected in one volume, entitled, “D. Abercrombii Opuscula Medica hactenus edita,” Lond. 1687, 12mo. Of him no memoirs have been preserved; but his works are analysed in the Act. Lips, 1685, 1686, 1687. Saxius denominates him “medicus et philologus,” and attributes to him a humorous publication, entitled, “Fur Academicus,” Amsterdam, 1689, 12mo.

When the great, and, in its plan, highly judicious enterprize against Holland was undertaken, sir Ralph Abercromby held a principal command under his royal highness the duke of York; and it was confessed, even by the enemy, that no victory could have conferred more honour than the great talents, activity, and bravery he displayed in forwarding the purposes of that expedition, which failed, partly from the want of a judicious co-operation on the part of our allies, the Russians, but perhaps chiefly from the conduct of the Dutch themselves, who still were deluded by the professions and pretended amity of the French.

A more favourable enterprize, however, soon afforded our gallant hero an opportunity of immortalizing his name. This was the memorable expedition ordered in 1801 to dispossess the French of Egypt. To this destination, sir Ralph conducted the English army and fleet in perfect health and spirits, and landed at Aboukir on the 8th of March, 1801, after a severe battle, in which the English were victorious. The landing, the first dispositions, the attack, and the courage opposed to attack, the high confidence of the army in their general, and the decided superiority of the British infantry under his command over the French, which was thought the bravest and best disciplined infantry in Europe, all demonstrated that the best qualities of the greatest commanders were united in sir Ralph Abercromby. But it was his destiny to fall in the moment of victory. After having repulsed the French in a general attack upon our army near Alexandria, the French again, on the 21st March, made a second advance, which was contested with unusual obstinacy, and they were again forced to retreat. On this memorable occasion, he received a mortal wound in the thigh, which he concealed until the enemy were totally routed, when he fell from his horse through loss of blood. He was conveyed from the field of battle on board the admiral’s ship, where he died on the 28th, and was interred under the castle of St. Elmo, in La Valetta, in the island of Malta. The following just and admired tribute to his memory was contained in the dispatch from lord Hutchinson, who succeeded him in the chief command:——“We have sustained an irreparable loss, in the person of our never to be sufficiently lamented commander in chief, sir Ralph Abercromby, who was mortally wounded in the action, and died on the 28th of March, I believe he was wounded early; but he concealed his situation from those about him, and continued in the field giving his orders with that coolness and perspicuity which had ever marked his character, till long after the action was over, when he fainted through weakness and loss of blood. Were it permitted for a soldier to regret any one who has fallen in the service of his country, I might be excused for lamenting him more than any other person; but it is some consolation to those who tenderly loved him, that, as his life was honourable, so his death was glorious; His memory will be recorded in the annals of his country; will be sacred to every British soldier, and embalmed in the recollection of a grateful posterity.” In private life, sir Ralph in his manners had somewhat of reserve; but was truly amiable, honourable, and virtuous, attached to his country and to his profession, and in every relative duty most exemplary. He was one of a family distinguished for bravery or talents. His brother James, a lieutenant-colonel in the 22d foot, was killed in America, 1774, at the battle of Bunker’s Hill. The character and high rank of his surviving brother, sir Robert Abercrombie, K. B. are well known. Another, Alexander, one of the Scotch Judges, died in 1795, a man of high reputation in the law, and not less distinguished for his taste in the belles lettres. He was the author of ten papers in the Mirror, and nine in the Lounger, two well-known periodical papers published at Edinburgh. Sir Ralph sat in three parliaments for the county of Clackmannan.

, 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.

, or Abgarus, a name given to several of the kings of Edessa in Syria, one of whom is said to have written a letter to our Saviour, and to have received an answer, and at the same time an handkerchief, on which was impressed the portrait of Jesus Christ Eusebius is the first who has reported this story, which has generally obtained more belief from Protestant than from Popish writers. Father Simon and M. du p in pronounce the letters to be forgeries, while Dr. Parser, in his “Demonstration of the Law of Nature and the Christian Religion,” Dr. Cave, in his Literary History, and Dr. Grabe, in his “Spicilegium Patrum,” and others, are inclined to think them genuine. Dr. Lardner, however, in his “Testimonies of ancient Heathen Authors,” argues with much force of reasoning against their authenticity. The letters being short, are inserted here as curiosities. “The copy of the letter which was written by Abgarus the toparch to Jesus, and sent to him at Jerusalem by the courier Ananias:

“Abgarus, toparch of Edessa, to Jesus the good saviour, who has appeared at Jerusalem, sendeth greeting. I have heard of thee, and of thy cures, performed without herbs, or other medicines. For it is reported that thou makest the blind to see, and the iame to walk; that thou cleansest lepers, and easiest out unclean spirits and demons, and healest those who are tormented with diseases of a long standing, and raisest the dead. Having heard of all these things concerning thee, I conclude in my mind one of these two things either that thou art God come down from heaven to do these things, or else thou art the Son of God, and so performest them. Wherefore I now write unto thee, entreating thee to come to me, and to heal my distemper. Moreover, I hear that the Jews murmur against thee, and plot to do thee mischief. I have a city, small indeed, but neat, which may suffice for us both.”

“Abgarus, thou art happy, forasmuch as thou hast believed in me, though thou hast not seen me. For it is written concerning me, that they who have seen me should not believe in me, that they who have not seen me might believe and live. As for what thou hast written to me, desiring me to come to thee, it is necessary that all those things, for which I am sent, should be fulfilled by me here; and that, after fulfilling them, I should be received up to him that sent me. When, therefore, I shall be received up, I will send to thee some one of my disciples, that he may heal thy distemper, and give life to thee, and to those who are with thee.”

, 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 magistrate of the city of London, was one of the younger sons of James Abney, esq. of Willesley, in the county of Derby, where his ancestors had resided for upwards of five hundred years. He was born January 1639; and, as his mother died in his infancy, his father placed him at Loughborough school, in Leicestershire; to be under the eye of his aunt, lady Bromley, widow of sir Edward Bromley, a baron of the Exchequer in the reigns of queen Elizabeth and James I. At what time he came to London, we are not told; but he appears to have carded on business with success and reputation, as in 1693 he was elected sheriff of London, and in the following year he was chosen alderman of Vintry ward, and about the same time received the honour of knighthood from king William. In 1700, some years before his turn, he was chosen lord mayor, and employecd his influence in favour of the Protestant religion with much zeal. He had the courage, at this critical juncture, when the king of France had proclaimed the Pretender king of Great Britain, to propose an address from the Corporation to king William, although opposed by the majority of his brethren on the bench; and he completely succeeded. The example being followed by other corporations, this measure proved of substantial service to the king, who was thereby encouraged to dissolve the Parliament, and take the sense of the people, which was almost universally in favour of the Protestant succession. The zeal sir Thomas had displayed in this affair, as well as his steady adherence to the civil and religious privileges established by the Revolution, rendered him so popular, that his fellow-citizens elected him their representative in parliament. He was also one of the first promoters of the Bank of England, and for many years before his death was one of its directors. He died Feb. 6, 1721-2, aged 83, after having survived all his senior brethren of the court of Aldermen, and become the father of the city. He was a man of strict piety and independence of mind, and munificent in his charities. Having been educated among the dissenters, he attended their places of worship in common, but in his magistracy attended the church, on all public occasions, and. wjien solicited to support pubirc charities. The most remarkable circumstance of his hospitality, is the kind and lasting asyr lum which he provided for the celebrated Dr. Watts at his house at Stoke Newington. That eminent divine was attacked by an illness in 1712, which incapacitated him for public service. “This calamitous state,” says Dr. Johnson, “made the compassion. of his friends necessary, and drew upon him the attention of sir Thomas Abney, who received him into his house; where, with a constancy of friendship and uniformity of conduct not often to be found, he was treated for thirty-six years with all the kindness that friendship could prompt, and all the attention that respect could dictate. Sir Thomas died about eight years afterwards, but he continued with the lady and her daughters to the end of his life.”

Sir Thomas was married, first, to a younger daughter of the Rev. Joseph Caryl, by whom he had seven children, who all died before him. In 1700 he married Mary Guuston, eldest daughter of John Gunston, of Stoke Newington, esq. by whom he had a son, who died in infancy, and three daughters, who survived him; the last, Elizabeth, dying unmarried in 1782, aged 78. By this second wife, sir Thomas became possessed of the manor of Stoke Newington, and lived in the manor-house.

, or Aboanifa, surnamed Alfqqman, was the son of Thabet, and born at Cousa, in the year of the Hegira 80, and of the vulgar sera 700. He is the most famous of all the doctors of the orthodox musSuimans, concerning the matters of their law; for he held the first place among the four chiefs of particular sects, who may be followed implicitly in their decisions on points of right. He was not, however, in high estimation during his life, as the calif Almanzor had him put into prison at Bagdat, for refusing to subscribe to the opinion of absolute and determinate predestination, which the mussulmans term cad ha: but Abu-Joseph, sovereign Judge, and a sort of chancellor of the empire under the calif Hadi, brought his doctrine into such reputation, that, in order to be a good mussulman, it was necessary to be a Hanifite. Nevertheless he died in the prison of Bagdat; and it was not till 335 years after his death that Melikshah, sultan of the race of the Seljuk dynasty, caused to be built for him in the same city a noble mausoleum, to which he added a college particularly for those who made profession of his sect. This was in the year 485 of the Hegira, of the vulgar sera 1092. Several of the most illustrious authors among the Mohammedans have written, in a style of commendation, the life of this doctor; Zamakhsehari, Korderi, Marghinani, Deinouri, Sobahazmouni, are of that number r and some of them have even found his name in the Old Testament, and assert that he was foretold in the sacred writings, as well as their prophet. All the historians agree that he excelled not only in the knowledge, but also in the practice of the mussuhnau law: for he led a life of great austerity, entirely detached from the manners of the world; which has caused him to be considered as the first chief and iman of the law by all the orthodox, and he is only rejected by the Shiites, or followers of Ali. The author of Rabialabrar relates the opinion of this doctor concerning the authority of tradition in these terms: “As to what regards the things we have received from God and from his prophet, we respect them with perfect submission: as to what is come down to us from the companions or contemporaries of the prophet, we select the best of it; but as to what the other doctors who succeeded them have left us, we look upon it as coming from persons who were men like us.” Houssain-Vaez, expounding that verse of the chapter of Amram, where God says he has prepared Paradise for those who restrain their anger, and pardon such as have trespassed against them, relates a fact of Abou-Hanifah that deserves to be noted. That doctor, having received a blow on the face, said to him who had the audacity to strike him “I might return you injury for injury; hut I will not do it. 1 might carry my complaint to the calif; but 1 will not complain. I might at least lay before God in my prayers the outrage you have done me; but I will not. Lastly, I might, at the day of judgment, require God to avenge it; but, far from doing so, if that terrible day were to arrive this moment, and my intercession might avail, I would not enter into Paradise, except in your company.”

The principal writings of Abou-Hanifah are: “The Mesnad,” i. e. The Support, in which he establishes all the points of Mussulmanism on the authority of the Koran, and that of tradition. A treatise, “Filkelam, on scholastic theology;” and a catechism, or instruction, under the title of “Moallem,” that is, The Master; in which he maintains that the faithful who adhere to the faith, never become the enemies of God, though they fall into many sins; that sins do not cause a man to lose the faith, and that grace is not incompatible with sin. These propositions, and others of a like nature, gave a handle to Vazai to write against him the book “Ekhtelaf Abi-Hanifah,” or, The contradictions of Abou-Hanifah.

, a native of Biroun, in the province of Khovarezme, who flourished about the beginning of the eleventh century, attained the title of Ai-Mohakapad, or the subtle philosopher, on account of his knowledge of the sciences, and particularly his skill in astrology. He was contemporary and rival to Avicenna, a more celebrated Arabian writer. Abou-rihan wrote some treatises oa Geography, the fixed stars, and the sphere.

, a famous rabbi, was born at Lisbon in 1437,. of a family who boasted their descent from king David. He raised himself considerably at the court. of Alphonso V. king of Portugal, and was honoured with very high offices, which he enjoyed till this prince’s death; but, upon his decease, he felt a strange reverse of fortune under the new king. Abrabanei. was in his 45th year, when John II. succeeded his father Alphonso. All those who had any share in the administration of the preceding reign were discarded: and, if we give credit to our rabbi, their death was secretly resolved, under the pretext of their having formed a design to give up the crown of Portugal to the king of Spain. Abrabanei, however, suspecting nothing, in obedience to the order he received to attend his majesty, set out for Lisbon with all expedition; but having, on his journey, heard of what was plotting against his life, fled immediately to his Castilian majesty’s dominions. A party of soldiers were dispatched after him, with orders to bring him dead or alive: however, he made his escape, but his possessions were confiscated. On this occasion he lost all his books; and also the beginning of his Commentary upon the book of Deuteronomy, which he much regretted. Some writers affirm, that the cause of his disgrace at this time was wholly owing to his bad behaviour; and they are of the same opinion in regard to the other persecutions which he afterwards suffered. They affirm that he would have been treated with greater severity, had not king John contented himself with banishing him. They add that by negociating bills of exchange (which was the business he followed in Castile), he got introduced at the court of Ferdinand and Isabella: that he amassed prodigious wealth, by practising the usual tricks and frauds of the Jewish people, that he oppressed the poor, and by usury made a prey of every thing; that he had the vanity to aspire at the most illustrious titles, such as the noblest houses in Spain could hardly attain, and that being a determined enemy of the Christian religion, he was the principal cause of that storm which fell upon him and the rest of his nation. Of the truth of all this, some doubt may be entertained. That he amassed prodigious wealth seems not very probable, as immediately on his settling in Castile, he began to teach and write. In 1484, he wrote his “Commentary upon the books of Joshua, Judges, and Samuel.” Being afterwards sent for to the court of Ferdinand and Isabel, he was advanced to preferment; which he enjoyed till 1492, when the Jews were driven out of the Spanish dominions. He used his utmost endeavours to avert this dreadful storm; but all proved ineffectual; so that he and all his family were obliged to quit the kingdom, with the rest of the Jews. He retired to Naples; and, in 1493, wrote his “Commentary on the books of the Kings.” Having been bred a courtier, he did not neglect to avail himself of the knowledge he had acquired at the courts of Portugal and Arragon, so that he soon ingradated himself into the favour of Ferdinand king of Naples, and afterwards into that of Alphonso. He followed the fortune of the latter, accompanying him into Sicily, when Charles VIII. the French king, drove him from Naples. Upon the death of Alphonso he retired to the island of Corfu, where he began his “Commentary on Isaiah” in 1495; and, about this time, he had the good fortune to find what he had written on the book of Deuteronomy. The following year he returned to Italy, and went to Monopoli in Apulia, where he wrote several books. In 1496 he finished his “Commentary on Deuteronomy;” and also composed his “Sevach Pesach,” and his “Nachalath Avoth.” In the succeeding year he wrote his “Majene Hajeschua;” and in 1498 his “Maschmia Jeschua,” and his “Commentary on Isaiah.” Some time after, he went to Venice, to settle, the disputes betwixt the Venetians and Portuguese relating to the spice trade; and on this occasion he displayed so much prudence and capacity, that he acquired the favour and esteem of both those powers. In 1504 he wrote his “Commentary on Jeremiah;” and, according to some authors, his “Commentary on Ezekiel, and the twelve minor propnets.” In 1506 he composed his “Commentary on Exodus;” and died at Venice in 1508, in the 71st year of his age. Several of the Venetian nobles, and all the principal Jews, attended his funeral with great pomp. His corpse was interred at Padua, in a burial-place without the city. Abrabanel wrote several other pieces, besides what we have mentioned, the dates of which are not settled, and some have not been printed. The following list appears in the Leipsic Journal (Nov. 1686), and is probably correct: 1. “Commentaries on Genesis, Leviticus, and Numbers.” 2. “Rach Amana.” 3. “Sepher Jeschuoth Moschici, a treatise on the traditions relating to the Messiah.” 4. “Zedek Olammim, upon future rewards and punishments.” 5. “Sepher Jemoth Olam, a history from the time of Adam.” 6. “Maamer Machase Schaddai, a treatise on prophecy and the vision of Ezekiel, against rabbi Mainionides.” 7. “Sepher Atereth Sekenim.” 8. “Miphaloth Elohirn, works of God.” 9. “Sepher Schamaim Chadaschim.” 10. “Labakath Nebhiim.” His “Commentary on Haggai” was translated into Latin by Adam Sherzerus, and inserted in the Trifolium Orientale, published in Leipsic in 1663, where his “Commentary on Joshua, Judges, and Samuel,” was also printed in 1686, folio. In this same year his “Annotations on Hosea,” with a preface on the twelve minor prophets, were translated into French by Francis ab Husen, and published at Leyden. In 1683, Mr. de Veil, a converted Jew, published at London Abrabanel’s preface to Leviticus. His commentaries on the Scriptures, especially those on the prophets, are filled with so much rancour against our Saviour, the church, the pope, the cardinals, the whole clergy, and all Christians in general, but in a particular manner against the Roman catholics, that father Bartolocci was desirous the Jews should be forbid the perusal of them. And he tells us that they were accordingly not allowed to read or to keep in their houses Abrabanel’s commentaries on the latter prophets. He was a man of so great a genius, that most persons have equalled him, and some even preferred him, to the celebrated Maimonides. The Jews set a high value upon what he has written to refute the arguments and objections of the Christians; and the latter, though they hold in contempt what he has advanced upon this head, yet allow great merit in his other performances, wherein he gives many proofs of genius, learning, and penetration. He does not blindly follow the opinions of his superiors, but censures their mistakes with great freedom. The persecutions of the Jews, under which he had been a considerable sufferer, affected him to a very great degree; so that the remembrance of it worked up his indignation, and made him inveigh against the Christians in the strongest terms. There is hardly one of his books where he has omitted to shew his resentment, and desire of revenge; and whatever the subject may be, he never fails to bring in the distressed condition of the Jews. He was most assiduous in his studies, in which he would spend whole nights, and would fast for a considerable time. He had a great facility in writing; and though he discovered an implacable hatred to the Christians in his compositions, yet, when in company with them, he behaved with great politeness, and would be very cheerful in conversation.

, bishop of Caria, in the 8th century, attached himself to the party of the learned Photins, during the disputes which at that time disturbed the church at Constantinople. He undertook, with Zachary, bishop of Chalcedon, an embassy to the emperor Lewis L to present to him a book which Photius had written against pope Nicholas, and to endeavour to persuade him to shake off the pope’s yoke. On his journey he was recalled by Basil, who had usurped the empire; and soon afterwards, finding it no longer safe to support the interest of Photius, he prudently abandoned it, and, before the council of Constantinople, entreated pardon, which was granted, and he restored to his place in the council. Forty-two treatises, written by him against Jews, Mahometans, and heretics, were collected by Gretser, and published in 4to, at Ingolstadt, 1606. Andrew Arnold published another treatise by him “De Unione et Incarnatione,” Paris, 1685, 8vo, the manuscript of which, it is said, he found in the Bodleian library.

The Eastern nations are generally extravagant in their applause of men of learning; and have bestowed the highest encomiums and titles upon Abulfafagius, as, the prince of the learned, the most excellent of those who most excel, the example of his times, the phoenix of his age, the glory of wise men, &c. Our historian, Gibbon, esteems him “eminent both in his life and death. In his life he was an elegant writer of the Syriac and Arabic tongues, a poet, physician, and a moderate divine. la his death, his funeral was attended by his rival the Nestorian patriarch, with a train of Greeks and Armenians, Who forgot their disputes, and mingled their tears over the grave of an enemy.” His death took place in 1286.

, a learned Arabian geographer and historian, was born at Damas in 1275, succeeded in 1310 to the rights of his ancestors, the emirs and shieks of Hamah in Syria. He did not however obtain peaceful possession before the year 1319, and in 1320 was acknowledged sultan or king by the caliph of Egypt. He died in 1331, or 1332. His writings are a lasting monument of his knowledge in geography and many other sciences. Attached, however, as he was to study, he appears to have for some time led a military life, and in his youth followed his father in many df his expeditions, particularly in the wars against the Tartars and French in Syria. He speaks in his writings of other expeditions in which he bore a part before he arrived at the throne. His works are: 1. A system of Universal Geography, under the title of “Tekn-yni el Boldaan,” or Geographical Canons, which ends at the year 1321. It consists of preliminary matter, a general view of land, water, rivers, mountains, &c. twenty-four tables of longitude and latitude, with marginal notes descriptive of 'the countries, and twentyfour chapters describing the principal towns. There are manuscripts of this work in the Imperial Library at Paris, in the Vatican, and in the Bodleian. That in the library of the university of Leyden was written under the inspection of the author, with some notes, supposed to be by his own hand. 2. “An Universal History,” from the creation of the world to the birth of Mahomet, which forms about fifty or sixty pages. Various portions of these two works have been translated; as, 1. “Chorasmiai et Mavaralnahrai;” i.e. “Regionum extra fluvium Oxum descriptio, Arab, et Lat. ex interpret. Joan. Graevii ,” London, 1650, 4to. reprinted by Dr. Hudson, in his Collection of the lesser Geographers, Oxford, 1698 1712, 4 vols. 8vo. with a description of Arabia by Abulfeda, Arab, et Lat. and the same, translated into French, was added, by Ant. de la Roque, to his “Voyage en Palestine,” Paris, 1717, 12mo. 3. “Caput primum Geographic ex Arabico in Latinum translat. promulgari jussit L. A. Muratorius, in Antiq. Italicis medii sevi,” Dissert. 54, p. 941, 942. 4. “Tabula Syriae, Arab, et Lat. cum notis Koehleri, et animadversionibus Jo. Jac. Reiskii,” Lips. 1766, 4to. 5. “Annales Moslemici, Arab, et Lat. a Jo. Jac. Reiskio,” Lips. 1754, 4to. 6. “Abulfedae Annales Moslemici, Aral), et Lat. opera et studiis J. J. Reiske, sumptibus atque auspiciis P. F. Suhmii, nunc primum edidit J. G. Ch. Adler,” Copenhagen, 1789—1794, 5 vols. 4to. 7. “Descriptio Egypti, Arab, et Lat. ed. Jo. Dav. Michaelis,” Gottirigen, 1776, 4to. 8. “Africa, Arab, cum notis; excudi curavit I. G. Kickhorn,” Gottingen, 1790, 8vo. Eickhorn’s notes and additions are in the 4th vol. of the “Bibliotheque Theologique Universelle,” with M. Rinck’s additions and corrections. 9. “Tabulae qusedam Geographicae et alia ejusdem argurnenti specimina, Arabice,” by Fred. Theoph. Rinck, Lips. 1791, 8vo. 10. “Geographia Latina facta ex Arabico, a Jo. Jac. Reiskio.” 11. “Abulfedae descriptio regionum Nigritarum,” printed at the end of Rinck’s edition of Macrizi’s “Historia regum Islamiticorum in Abyssinia,” Leyden, 1790, 4to. 12. “Tabula septima ex Abulfedoe Geographia, Mesopotamiam exhibens, Arabice, cura E. F. C. Rosenmuller, notas adspersit H. E. G. Paulus,” 1791; inserted in the “Nouveau Repertoire de la Litterature Orientale,” vol. 3. 13. “Abulfedae Arabia; descriptio,” faith a Commentary by Chr. Rommel, Gottingen, 1801, 4to. In 1728, Gagnier published the prospectus of a translation of Abulfeda’s Geography, and had made some progress in the printing of it, when he died. This occasioned the mistake of some Bibliographers, who speak of this translation as having been published at London in 1732, fol. Gagnier, however, published, 14. “De Vita et rebus gestis Mohammedis liber, Arab, et Lat. cum notis,” Oxford, 1725, fol. 15. “Auctarium ad vitam Saladini, extractum ex Abulfedos Historia universali, cum versione Lat. Alb. Scultens;” this appears at the end of Bohadinus’s Life of Saladine, Leiden, 1732, or 1755, fol. 16. “Climats Alhend et Alsend,” translated into Latin from Abulfeda, may be found in Thevenot’s Voyages, Paris, 1696, 2 vols. fol. And, 17. In Muratori’s Italian Historians, is the History of the Saracens. 18. The last publication we shall notice, is, some extracts respecting the history of Africa and Sicily, under the empire of the Arabs, by Gregorio, in his collections for a history of Sicily, 1790. It remains yet to be mentioned, that a manuscript of Abulfeda’s Universal History is in the library of St. Germain-des-Pres, and another in the French imperial library. Several chapters of the first part of the Universal History, which had never been published, are printed, Arab, et Lat. in the new edition of Pococke’s “Specimen Historise Arabum,” by Professor White, of Oxford, 1806.

, khan of the Tartars, worthy of a place in this Dictionary, as well on account of his literary talents as from the circumstance of his being the only Tartar historian with whom the nations of Europe are acquainted. He was born in the city of Urgens, capital of the country of Kharasm, in the year of the hegira 1014, answering to the year 1605 of the Christian sera. He was the fourth, in order of birth, of seven brothers, and descended in a direct line, both on nis father’s and his mother’s side, though By different branches, from Zingis khan. His youth was marked by misfortunes, which contributed not a little to form his character, and to fit him for the government. of his states when he came to the sovereignty of the country of Kharasm, which happened in the year of the hegira 1054. He reigned 20 years; and, by his conduct and courage, rendered himself formidable to all his neighbours, A short time before his death, he resigned the throne to his son Anuscha Mohammed Bayatur khan, in order to devote the remainder of his life to the service of God. It was in his retreat that he wrote the famous “Genealogical History of the Tartar’s;” but, being attacked by the mortal disease that put an end to his life in the year 1074 of the hegira, corresponding to 1663 of our sera, before he could complete it, when dying he charged his son and successor to give it the finishing hand, which he did accordingly two years afterwards. As a specimen of the style and manner of this historian, the reader will not be displeased to see the preface to that work, which, in English, is as follows; “There is but one God; and before him none other did ever exist, as after him no other will be. He formed seven heavens, seven worlds, and eighteen creations. By him, Mohammed, the friend of God, was sent, in quality of his prophet, to all mankind. It is under his auspices that I, Abulgasi Bayatur khan, have taken in hand to write this book. My father, Ariep Mohammed khan, descended in a direct line from Zingis khan, and was, before me, sovereign prince of the country of Kharasm. I shall treat in this book of the house of Zingis khan, and of its origin; of the places where it was established, of the kingdoms and provinces it conquered, and to what it arrived at last. It is true that, before me, many writers, both Turks and Persians, have employed their pens on this subject; and! have in my own possession 18 books of these several authors, some of which are tolerably well composed. But, perceiving that there was much to correct in many places of these books, and, in other places, a number of things to be added, I thought it necessary to have a more accurate history: and, especially as our countries are very barren in learned writers, I find myself obliged to undertake this work myself; and, notwithstanding that, before me, no khan has thought proper to take this trouble upon him, the reader will do me the justice to be persuaded that it is not from a principle of vanity that I set up for an author, but that it is necessity alone that prompts me to meddle in this matter that, if I were desirous of glorying in any thing, it could, at most, be only in that conduct and wisdom which I hold as the gift of God, and not from myself. For, on one hand, I understand the art of war as well as any prince in the world, knowing how to give battle equally well with few troops as with numerous armies, and to range both my cavalry and my infantry to the best advantage. On the other hand, I have a particular talent at writing books in all sorts of languages, and I know not whether any one could easily be found of greater ability than myself in this species of literature, except, indeed, in the cities of Persia and India; but, in all the neighbouring provinces of which we have any knowledge, I may venture to flatter myself that there is nobody that surpasses me either in the art of war or in the science of good writing; and as to the countries that are unknown to me, I care nothing about them. Since the flight of our holy prophet, till the day that I began to write this book, there have elapsed 1074 years [1663 of the Christian aera]. I call it A Genealogical History of the Tartars; and I have divided it into nine parts, in conformity with other writers, who universally hold this number in particular regard.”

The original manuscript of this history was purchased by some Swedish officers, who happened to be prisoners in Siberia, from a merchant, and had it translated into the Russian language. Count Strahlenberg translated it into German; and a French translation was published at Leyden, 1726, 12mo. Martiniere has copied it almost entirely in his Geographical Dictionary.

, 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.

, or Habib Ebn Aws Al-Hareth Ebn Kais, an Arabian poet of great eminence in his time, was born in the 190th year of the hegira, or A. D. 805, at Jasem, a little town between Damascus and Tiberias. He was educated in Egypt, and died at Mawsel, in the year 845. His poems consist chiefly of eulogiums on several of the caliphs, who richly rewarded him. He collected his compositions into a volume, entitled, “Al Hamasah,” according to D'Herbelot; but, according to Dr. Pococke, this was a selection from the ancient Arabic poets made by him, and not his own compositions. He was long considered as the prince of Arabian poets, and none but Al Motanabbi disputed precedence with him. Bakhteri, another celebrated poet, candidly as well as critically said of him, “Such verses as are good in Abu Temam excel the best of mine; but such of mine as are bad, are mortt endurable than where he falls off.”

The age and country of Abydenus are uncertain, the name Abydos being common to four cities. As Berosus, however, finished his work at Alexandria, under Ptolemy Philadelphia, it may be probable that our Abydenus, who followed him, was an Egyptian priest belonging to the temple of Osiris at Abydos, and that he flourished under the first Ptolemys, while the love of letters was encouraged at the court of Alexandria. Some writers have supposed that he was quoted by Suidas, because he mentions Paloephatus-Abydenus, a historian. This person, however, whose proper name was Palsephatus, was the disciple and friend of Aristotle, and may have written the histories of Cyprus, Delos, and Athens, which Suiclas attributes to him, after Philo of Heraclea, and Theodore of Ilium; but the history of Arabia, which Suidas also attributes to him, from the nature of the' subject, must belong to the author of the history of the Assyrians and Chaldeans, or perhaps been a different title to the same work. Such is the opinion of Malte-Bruu; but Vossius has ventured on another conjecture, although without giving his authority.

, 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.

, bishop of Bercea in Syria, in the fourth and beginning of the fifth century, was at the council of Constantinople, held in the year 381, in which were present 150 bishops. He was the friend of Epiphanius Flavianus, and the enemy of John Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople, whom he caused to be deposed. He also, when 110 years of age, wrote to the emperor Theodosius the younger, to advise him to confirm the sentence pronounced against Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, who had been deposed in a conventicle of schismatics. Notwithstanding these rigorous proceedings, Theodoret assures us that he was eminent both for his wisdom and the sanctity of his life. He died about the year 432.

was of an illustrious family, being descended on the father’s side from Justin, nephew to Justinian emperor of Constantinople, and also from the dukes of Athens, Bohemia, and Corinth. His ancestors bad enjoyect very honourable posts in the kingdom of Naples, and had also been viceroys of Sicily, and generals. Some of them had filled very high employments in the republic of Florence, had been ambassadors to several powers of Europe, were related to all the princes of the Morea and adjacent islands, raised to the dignity orcardinal; and had erected several splendid Carthusian monasteries in Florence, Naples, &c. Our author, the son of Neri Acciaioli and Lena Strozzi, was born at Florence in 1428. His first preceptors were James Ammanati, afterwards cardinal of Pavia, and Leonard d'Arezzo. He afterwards studied Greek under Argyropilus, and became one of the first Greek scholars of his time. He was one of the celebrated literary parties at which Lorenzo de Me.lici presided. Excelling in rhetoric, philosophy, and mathematics, he would have attained a very high rank in the republic of letters, if his weak state of health, and the part he took in the affairs of his country, had not interrupted his studies. He filled several employments in the state, and gave universal satisfaction. In 1475 he was gonfalonier, or ensign of the republic, and died in 1478 at Milan, when on his way to Paris as ambassador from the Florentines. This circumstance was a subject of the sincerest grief to the Florentines, who well knew how to appreciate the virtues of their fellow-citizens, and omitted no opportunity of inciting the patriotism of the living, by the honours they bestowed on the memory of the dead. A sumptuous funeral was decreed to his remains, which were brought to Florence for that purpose. Lorenzo de Medici and three other eminent citizens were appointed curators of his children, and the daughters had considerable portions assigned them from the public treasury. The celebrated Angelo Politian wrote his epitaph, and Christopher Landino pronounced the funeral oration. His works are: 1. “Expositio super libros Ethicorum Aristotelis, in novam traductionem Argyropili,” Florence, 1478, fol. 2. “In Aristotelis libros octp Politicorum commentarii,” Venice, 1566, 8vo. 3. In the Latin translation of Plutarch, he translated the lives of Alcibiades and Demetrius, and added to the same collection those of Hannibal and Scipio from his own pen, with a life of Charlemagne. 4. “The Latin history of Florence, by Leonard d'Arezzo, translated into Italian,” Venice, 1473, fol. and often reprinted. He left some other works, orations, letters, and miscellanies, both in prose and verse, which have not been committed to the press.

, a Latin tragic poet, the son of a freed-man, and according to St. Jerome, born in the consulship of Hostilius Mancinus and Attilius Serranus, in the year of Rome 583; but there appears somewhat of confusion and perplexity in this chronology. He made himself known before the death of Pacuvius, a dramatic piece of his being exhibited the same year that Pacuvius brought one upon the stage, the latter being then 80 years of age, and Accius only 30. We do not know the name of this piece of Accius, but the titles of several of his tragedies are mentioned by various authors. He wrote on the most celebrated stories which had been represented on the Athenian stage, as Andromache, Andromeda, Atreus, Clytemnestra, Medea, Meleager, Philocletes, the civil wars of Thebes, Tereus, the Troades, &c. He did not always, however, take his subjects from the Grecian story; for he composed one dramatic piece wholly Roman: it was entitled Brutus, and related to the expulsion of the Tarquins. It is affirmed by some, that he wrote also comedies; which is not unlikely, if he was the author of two pieces, “The Wedding,” and “The Merchant,” which have been ascribed to him. He did not confine himself to dramatic writing; for he left other productions, particularly his Annals, mentioned by Macrobius, Priscian, Festus, and Nonius Marcellus. Decimus Brutus, who was consul in the year of Rome 615, and had the honour of a triumph for several victories gained in Spain, was his particular friend and patron. This general was so highly pleased with the verses which Accius wrote in his praise, that he had them inscribed at the entrance of the temples and monuments raised out of the spoils of the vanquished. Though this might proceed from a principle of vanity, and may not be so much a proof of his affection for the poet as his love of applause; yet it proves that Brutus had an opinion of Accius’s poetry, and Brutus was far from being a contemptible judge. He has been censured for writing in too harsh a style, but was in all other respects esteemed a very great poet. Aulus Gellius tells Us, that Accius, being on his way to Asia, passed through Tarentum, where he paid a visit to Pacuvius, and read to him his play of Atreus; that Pacuvius told him his verse was lofty and sonorous, but somewhat harsh and crude. “It is as you observe,” said Accius; “nor am I sorry for it, since my future productions will be better upon this account; for as in fruit so in geniuses, those which are at first harsh and sour, become mellow and agreeable; but such as are at first soft and sweet, grow in a short time not ripe, but rotten.” Accius was so much esteemed by the public, 'that a comedian was punished for only mentioning his name on the stage. Cicero speaks with great derision of one Accius who had written a history; and, as our author wrote annals, some insist that he is the person censured; but as Cicero himself, Horace, Quintilian, Ovid, and Paterculus, have spoken of our author with so much applause, he cannot be supposed the same whom the Roman orator censures with so much severity. Nothing remains of Accius, but some few fragments collected by Robert Stephens, and the titles of his pieces. He is supposed to have died at an advanced age, but the precise time is not known.

, an eminent lawyer and historian of the fifteenth century, and the first of that ancient Tuscan family who acquired a name for literary talents, was born at Arezzo, in 1415. His father was Michel Accolti, a civilian of Florence, and his mother a daughter of Roselli of Arezzo, also a lawyer. After a classical education, he studied the civil law, and was made professor at Florence, where his opinions acquired him much popularity. The Florentines, after conferring on him the rights of citizenship, chose him in 1459 to be secretary of the republic, in the room of Poggius, which office he retained until his death in 1466. The account of his transactions in public affairs are preserved in four books, with a great collection of his letters to foreign princes, which evince his sagacity as a statesman, and his politeness as a writer. He married Laura Frederigi, the daughter of a lawyer and patrician of Florence, by whom he had a numerous family, of whom Bernard and Peter will be noticed hereafter. His memory is said to have been so retentive, that on one occasion, after hearing the Hungarian ambassador pronounce a Latin address to the magistrates of Florence, he repeated the whole word for word. His inclination for the Study of history made him relax in the profession of the law, and produced: 1. “De bello a Christianis contra Barbaros gesto, pro Christi sepulchre et Judaea recuperandis, libri quatuor,” Venice, 1532, 4to, and reprinted at Basle, Venice, and Florence, the latter edition with notes by Thomas Dempster, 1623, 4to, and at Groninguen, by Henry Hoffnider, 1731, 8vo. It was also translated into Italian, by Francis Baldelli, and printed at Venice, 1549, 8vo. Yves Duchat of Troyes in Champagne, translated it into French and Greek, and printed it at Paris, 1620, 8vo. This is a work of considerable historical credit, and in the succeeding century, served as a guide to TorquatoTasso, in his immortal poem, the Gerusalemme liberata. It was dedicated to Piero de Medici, and not to Cosmo, as Moreri asserts. Paulo Cortesi, a severe censor, allows that it is a work of great industry, and that it throws considerable light on a very difficult subject. A more recent critic objects to the purity of his style, and the length of the speeches he puts in the mouths of his principal personages. 2. “De praestantia virorum sui aevi,” Parma, 1689, or 1692, the tendency of which is to prove that the moderns are not inferior to the ancients. It appeared originally in the Bibliotheque of Magliabechi, and has been often reprinted since, particularly at Coburg, in 1735, in the first volume of John Gerard Meuschen’s “Vitae summorum dignitate et eruditione virorum.”

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.

, an eminent lawyer, who first collected the various opinions and decisions of his predecessors, in the Roman law, into one body, was born at Florence, in 1151, or, according to some writers, in 1182. He was the scholar of Azzo, and soon became more celebrated than his master. Yet it is thought that he did not begin the study of law before he was forty years old. When professor at Bologna, he resigned his office in order to complete a work on the explanation of the laws, which he had long meditated, and in which he was now in danger of being anticipated by Odefroy. By dint of perseverance for seven years, he accumulated the vast collection known by the title of the “Great Gloss,” or the “Continued Gloss” of Accursius. He may be considered as the first of glossators, and as the last, since no one has attempted the same, unless his son Cervot, whose work is not in much esteem; but he was deficient in a proper knowledge of the Greek and Roman historians, and the science of coins, inscriptions, and antiquities, which are frequently necessary in the explanation of the Roman law. On this account, he was as much undervalued by the learned lawyers of the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries, as praised by those of the twelfth and thirteenth, who named him the Idol of Lawyers. They even established it as a principle, that the authority of the Glosses should be universally received, and that they should rally round this perpetual standard of truth. The different studies pursued in the ages of Accursius’ friends and enemies, will account for their different opinions of his merits; the one consisted of accumulated learning, interpretation, and commentary, the other approached nearer to nature and facts, by adding the study of antiquities, and of the Greek and Latin historians. Another reason probably was, that Accursius, who has been careless in his mode of quotation, became blamed for many opinions which belong to Irnerius, Hugolinus, Martinus Bulgarus, Aldericus, Pileus, &c. and others his predecessors, whose sentiments he has not accurately distinguished. The best edition of his great work is that of Denis Godefroi, Lyons, 1589, 6 vols. fol, Of his private life we have no important materials. He lived in splendour at a magnificent palace at Bologna, or at his villa in the country; and died in his 78th year, in 1229. Those who fix his death in 1260 confound him with one of his sons of the same name. All his family, without exception, studied the law; and he had a daughter, a lady of great learning, who gave public lectures ou the Roman law in the university of Bologna. Bayle doubts this; but it is confirmed by Pancirollus, Fravenlobius, and Paul Freyer. The tomb of Accursius, in the church of the Cordeliers at Bologna, is remarkable only for the simplicity of his epitaph “Sepnlchrum Accursii glossatoris legum, et Francisci ejus filii.”

, a native of Aquila, in the kingdom of Naples, and one of the most eminent critics of his time, flourished in the beginning of the sixteenth century, and lived for thirty-three years in the court of Charles V. who had a great respect for him. He was well acquainted with the Greek, Latin, French, Spanish and German languages, was one of the most indefatigable antiquaries of the age, and enriched Naples with a great number of monuments of antiquity. His favourite employment was to correct the editions of ancient authors by the aid of manuscripts, which he sought out with great care; and his first work is a lasting proof of his industry and acuteness. This was his “Diatribae in Ausonium, Solinum, et Ovidium,” Rome, 1524, fol. The frontispiece is an engraving of antique statues, among which are the Apollo Belvidere, and a Minerva, and two bas-reliefs of the rape of Proserpine and the death of Meleager. At the end of the work is a fable entitled “Testudo.” The Diatribe have been reprinted, but not entirely, as the titlepage asserts, in the variorum edition of Ausonius, printed at Amsterdam, 1671, 8vo. They are also incorporated in the Delphin edition, by John Baptist Souchay, Paris, 1730, 4to.

In Accorso’s time, it was the fashion with many Latin writers to make use of obsolete words. This he endeavoured to ridicule, and with considerable success, in a dialogue entitled “Osco, Volsco, Romanaque eloquentia interlocutoribus, dialogus ludis Romanis actus, &c.” 1531, 8vo, without place, or the name of the author; but La Monnoie thinks it must have been printed before, as it is quoted by Tori in his “Champ-Fleuri,” which appeared in 1529. At the end of this volume is a small work, entitled “Volusii Metiani, jurisconsulti antiqui distributio. Item vocabula ac notae partium in rebus pecimiariis, pondere, numero, et mensura.” The Dialogue was reprinted at Rome, 1574, 4to, with the author’s name, and with the title of “Osci et Volsci Dialogas ludis Romanis actus a Mariangelo Accursio.” There is another 4to edition, without date or name of the author. In the imperial library of Paris are two editions, both of Cologne, 1598. It appears by the dedication of the fable Testudo, that Accorso was employed on a history of the house of Brandenbourg; but this, and his other works, were lost on the death of his son Casimir, who was a man of letters, and had intended to publish all his father’s works. Toppi, in his Biblioteca Napolet. among other inaccuracies, attributes to Accorso a work entitled “De Typographies artis Inventore, ac de libro primum omnium impresso;” but the mistake seems to have arisen from a few manuscript notices on the subject, written by our author in a copy of Donatus’ grammar, a very early printed book.

, a Greek poet, a native of Eretria, the son of Pythodorus, flourished, according to Saxius, between the 74th and 82d olympiad, or between 484 and 449 before the Christian æra, and consequently was the contemporary of Æschylus. He was both a tragic and satirical poet, having, according to some, composed thirty tragedies, and according to others, more than forty. These are all lost, except some fragments which Grotius collected in his “Fragmenta Tragic, et Comicorum Græcorum.” Achæus carried off the poetical prize only once. His satirical pieces have likewise perished, but Athenseus quotes them often. There was another Greek poet of the same name, quoted by Suidas, who also composed tragedies, of which there are no remains,

, a learned Prussian divine, was born at Geneva in 1696, took orders in 1722, and in 1724 was promoted to the church of Werder in Berlin. He enjoyed the protection of the prince-royal of Prussia; and having in 1730 accompanied the son of M. de Finkenstein to Geneva, was admitted into the society of pastors. Eight years after, the king of Prussia appointed him counsellor of the supreme consistory, and in 1740, a member of the French directory, with the title of Privy-counsellor. Having been received into the academy of Berlin in 1743, he was also appointed inspector of the French college, and director of the Charity-house. He died in 1772. He was long the correspondent of the Jesuits Colonia, Tournemine, Hardouin, Poreus, and of father Le Long, and Turretine, Trouchin, and Vernet of Geneva. He often preached before the royal family of Prussia; and such were his powers of oratory, that a celebrated French comedian at Berlin, who there taught the theatrical art, recommended his pupils to hear Achard. He was of a very feeble constitution, and for twenty years subsisted entirely on a milk-diet. In the Memoirs of the Academy of Berlin, for 1745, there is the outline of a very considerable work, in which he proves the liberty of the human mind against Spinosa, Bayle, and Collins. Two volumes of “Sermons sur divers textes de l'Ecriture Sainte,” were published at Berlin after his death.

was born at Avignon, Jan. 29, 1679, of a noble and ancient family. After having embraced the ecclesiastical profession, he became not only distinguished by the excellence of his doctrines, but particularly by his charitable exertions during the plague in 1721; and his subsequent promotions had no other effect on him than to increase his zeal and his piety. Pope Clement XII. informed of his talents and conciliating spirit, employed him in the capacity of apostolic vicar, to settle the disgraceful disputes that had arisen among the missionaries of China. Achards, who was then bishop of Halicarnassus, undertook this commission; and after a tedious voyage of two years, and two years’ residence in China, where he ineffectually laboured to accomplish the object of his mission, died at Cochin, April 2, 1741, a martyr to his indefatigable and benevolent zeal. The Abbe Fab re, his secretary, published an account of this mission, entitled “Lettres edifiantes et curieusessurla visite apostolique de M. de la Baume, eveque d'Halicarnasse, a la Cochinchine,” Venice, 1746, 4to, & 1753, 3 vols. 12mo, with the translation of a funeral oration delivered on his death by a Chinese priest.

, an eminent painter, was born at Cologne, in 1556, of a good family. He discovered a taste for his art from his earliest years, and at the age of eleven, painted a portrait with such success, as to induce his parents to encourage his studies. After having been for some time taught by a very indifferent painter, he became the disciple of de Georges, or Jerrigh, a good portrait-painter, with whom he remained six years; and afterwards improved himself by studying and copying the works of Spranger. In his twenty-second year he went to Italy, and was introduced at Venice to a Flemish artist, named Gaspard Reims. This man no sooner learned that Van Achen was a German, than he recommended him to an Italian who courted necessitous artists that he might make, a trade of their labours. With him Van Achen made some copies, but, being unable to forget the reception which Reims had given him, he painted his own portrait, and sent it to him. Reims was so struck with the performance, that he apologized to Van Achen, took him into his house, and preserved the portrait all his life with great veneration. At Venice, he acquired the Venetian art of colouring, and thence went to Rome to improve his design, but never quitted the mannered forms of Spranger. His best performances at Rome were a Nativity for the church of the Jesuits, and a portrait of Madona Venusta, a celebrated performer on the lute. His talents, however, and polite accomplishments, recommended him to several of the greatest princes of Europe, and particularly to the elector of Bavaria, and the emperor Rodolph, by both of whom he was patronized and honoured. He was one of that set of artists who, in the lapse of the sixteenth century, captivated Germany and its princes by the introduction of a new style, or rather manner, grossly compounded from the principles of the Florentine and Venetian schools. He died at Prague in 1621.

, a celebrated publicist, and considered by some as the father of the t science of Statistics, was born at Elbing, a Prussian tpwn, Oct. 20, 1719. He received his academical education at Jena, Halle, and Leipsic. In 1746 he took up his residence at Marbourg, where he taught history, the law of nature and nations, and statistics, of which he appears to have formed very just notions, but at first confined himself to a knowledge of the constitutions of the different states. In 1748 he went to Gottingen, where, some years after, he became one of the professors of that university, and one of its greatest ornaments: here he remained until his death, May 1, 1772. He. had often travelled in Switzerland, France, Holland, and England; and published several works on the states of Europe, and political law and oeconomy. Those in highest estimation are, his “Constitution des. royaumes et etats d'Europe,” and “Elementa Juris Naturae,” of which six editions were printed in a very short time, each retouched and improved with great care. In his researches on the subjects of national wealth, resources, and means of prosperity, he availed himself, of the observations of all historians and travellers, and was much assisted by Hermann Conring, of Helmstadt, and Eberhard Otto, who had made large collections for the same purpose. Achenwall gave his new science the name of Statistics, or Scientia Statistica. His last work was “Observations sur les Finances de la France.”

, a Benedictine of the congregation of St. Maur, was born at St. Quintin, in Picardy, in 1609. He became celebrated as the editor of valuable manuscripts which lay buried in libraries. The first piece he published was the epistle ascribed to St. Barnabas. Father Hugh Menard, a monk of the same congregation, intended to publish this epistle, and for that purpose had illustrated it with notes, but having been prevented by death, D'Acheri gave an edition of it under the title of “Epistola Catholica S. Barnabas Appstoli, Gr. & Lat. cum notis Nic. Hug. Menardi, et eiogio ejusdem auctoris,” Paris, 1645, 4to. In 1648 he collected into one volume the “Life and Works of Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury,” Paris, fol. The Life is taken from an ancient manuscript in the abbey of Bee; and. the works are, Commentaries on the epistles of St. Paul, taken from a manuscript in the abbey of St. Melaine de Rennes, and a treatise on the Sacrament, against Berenger. The appendix contains the Chronicle of the Abbey of Bee from its foundation in 1304 to 1437; the life of St. Herluinus, founder and first abbot, of some of his successors, and of St. Austin the apostle of England, and some treatises on the eucharist. His catalogue of ascetic works appeared the same year, entitled “Asceticorum, vulgo spiritual] nm opusculorum, quae inter Patrum opera reperiuntur, Indiculus,” Paris, 1648, 4to. This curious work was reprinted by father Remi, at Paris, in 1671. In 16.51, D'Aclieri published the “Life and Works of Guibert, abbot of Nogent-sous-Couci,” and the lives of some saints, and other pieces, Paris, fol. There is much antiquarian knowledge in this work, respecting the foundation, Sac. of abbeys, but the dates are not always correct. In 1653 he republished father Grimlaic’s “Regie des Solitaires,” 12mo, Paris, with notes and observations. His most considerable work is “Veterum aliquot scriptorum, qui in Gallice bibliothecis, rnaxime Benedictinorum, latuerunt, Spieilegium, &c.” 1653 1677, 13 vols. 4to. Under the modest title of Spicilegium, it contains a very curious collection of documents pertaining to ecclesiastical afiairs; as acts, canons, councils, chronicles, lives of the saints, letters, poetry, diplomas, charters, &c. taken from the libraries of the different monasteries. This work becoming scarce and much sought after, a new edition was published in 1725, in 3 vols. fol. by Louis-FrancisJoseph de la Barre, with some improvements in point of arrangement, but at the same time some improper liberties taken with the text of D‘Acheri, and particularly with his learned prefaces. D’Acheri contributed also to Mabillon’s “Acta Sanctorum ordinis S. Benedicti,” &c. He lived a life of much retirement, seldom going out, or admitting trifling visits, and thus found leisure for those vast labours already noticed, and which procured him the esteem of the popes Alexander VII. and Clement X. who honoured him with medals. Although of an infirm habit, he attained the age of seventy-six, and died in the abbey of St, Germain-des-Pres, April 29, 1685. He was interred under the library of which he had had the care for so many years, and where his literary correspondence is preserved. There is a short eloge on him in the Journal de Trevoux for Nov. 26, 1685; but that of Maugendre, printed at Amiens in'1775, is more complete. Dupin says he was one of the first learned men that the congregation of St. Maur produced.

, younger brother of the preceding, was born at Bologna in 1466, where he died in 1558. He was learned in the Greek and Latio languages, in theology, philosophy, and music, and the study of law and antiquities, but is most celebrated as a poet, although his works are not free from the faults peculiar to his age. Yet he gave even these a turn so peculiarly original, that they appear to have been rather his own than acquired by imitation. He published, among many other works: 1. A scientific and moral poem, written in the ottava rima, entitled “II Viridario,” Bologna, 4to, which contains eulogiums on many of his learned contemporaries. 2. “II Fedele,” also in heroics. These are both scarce, as they never were reprinted. 3. “Annotazioni della lingua volgare,” Bologna, 1.536, 8vo. This was intended as an answer to those who complained of the provincialisms in his style. 4. He also published a collection of poems pu the death of Seraphin dall' Aquila, mentioned in the preceding article, Bologna, 1504, 4to. He has more stretch of mind than most of his contemporaries.

, an Arabian author, who is supposed to have lived about the fourth century, and is styled the son of Seirim, wrote a book “On the interpretation of Dreams, according to the doctrine of the Indians, the Persians, and the Egyptians,” which, with all its absurdities, has been translated into Greek and Latin, and published, together with “Artemidorus on Dreams and Chiromancy,” by M. Rigault in Paris, 1603, 4to. The original is lost.

, 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.

, LL. D. an English divine and civilian, of whose birth and family we have no account. During the reign of queen Mary, he travelled in France and Italy, where he studied the civil law. In 1560, he was public orator at Cambridge; and, in the following year, created doctor of laws. In 1562, he was admitted an advocate in the Arches court; and afterwards lived in the family of archbishop Parker, who gave him a prebend, probably that of Southwell. In 1567, he was vicar-general to Home, bishop of Winchester; and, in 1575, the archbishop of Canterbury permitted him to hold the rectory of Elington, alias Wroughton, in the diocese of Sarum, with any other benefice. In 1576, he was appointed master of the faculties, and judge of the prerogative court, in Ireland, after he had been turned out of all the situations he held in England, on account of his dissolute conduct. When, he died is not known. He wrote, in his better days:

, a learned Orientalist, and professor of divinity at Breslaw, was born at Bernstadt, March 6, 1654. It is said that, at six years of age, he could speak Hebrew. He died Nov. 4, 1704. His most celebrated works are some chapters of a polyglot Koran, which he intended to have completed. The specimen, which is very scarce, is “Tetrapla Alcoranica, sive Specimen Alcorani quadrilinguis Arabici, Persici, Turcici, et Latini,” Berlin, 1701, fol. He published also, “Obadias Armenus et Latinus, cum annotationibus,” Leipsic, 1680, 4to. In printing this work, in which he followed as his guides Ambrose Theseus and Francis Rivoli, he was obliged to have the Armenian types cast at his own expence. He corresponded with many learned contemporaries, as Longuerue, Spanheim, and Leibnitz, who, however, did not approve his notion of the Armenian being the ancient language of Egypt.

, a divine, philosopher, and civilian of the sixteenth century, was born at Trent, where he was afterwards in orders; but, being disposed to a liberality of sentiment not tolerated there, he went to Switzerland in 1557, and made profession of the Protestant religion on the principles of Calvin. From thence he went to Strasburgh, and lastly to England, where he was hospitably received. Queen Elizabeth gave him a pension, not as a divine, but as an engineer. In gratitude, he addressed to her his book on the “Stratagems of Satan,” a work in which are unquestionably many sentiments of greater liberality than the times allowed, but, at the same time, a laxity of principle which would reduceill religions into one, or rather create an indifference about the choice of any. It was first printed at Basle, in 1565, under the title of “De stratagematibus Satanae in religionis negotio, per superstitionem, errorem, heresim, odium, calumniam, schisma, &c. libri VIII.” It was afterwards often reprinted and translated into most European languages. His latest biographer says, that this work may be considered as the precursor of Lord Herbert of Cherbury, and thoso other English philosophers who have reduced the articles of religion to a very small number, and maintain that all sects hold its essential principles. Acontius, however, had his enemies and his supporters; and even the former could allow that, in many respects, he anticipated the freedom and liberality of more enlightened times, although he was, in many points, fanciful and unguarded. A better work of his is entitled “De methodo sive recta investigandarum, tradendarumque artium, ac scientiarum ratione, libellus,” Basle, 1558, 8 vo. This has often been reprinted, and is inserted in the collection “De Studiis bene instituejulis,” Utrecht, 1658. His “Ars muniendorum oppidorum,” in Italian and Latin, was published at Geneva in 1585. In one of the editions of his “Stratagemata,” is an excellent epistle by him, on the method of editing books. He had also made some progress in a treatise on logic, as he mentions in the above epistle, and predicts the improvements of after-times.

, a celebrated Spanish author, born at Medina del Campo, about the year 1539. At the age of fourteen, he entered the society of the Jesuits, where he had already four brothers, all of whom he excelled in knowledge and enterprize. In 1571 he went to the East Indies, and became second provincial in Peru. In 1588, he returned to Spain, rind acquired the good graces of Philip II. by entertaining him with accounts of the New World. He then went to Italy-, to render a more particular account to the general of the Jesuits, Claude Aquaviva, with whom he had afterwards a difference, of little importance now, relative to certain ecclesiastical offices, and became superior of the order at Valladolid, and rector of Salamanca; at which last place he died, Feb. 15, 1600. He wrote: 1. “Historia natural y moral de las Indias,” Seville, 1590, 4to; also 1591, 8vo, a corrected edition; and again, Madrid, 1608 and 1610; a work in great estimation, and often quoted by Dr. Robertson. It has been translated into Latin and French; the latter by Robert Regnault, who says that the original became scarce, the Spaniards having burnt all the copies; but in this he has mistaken Acosta for Acuna. It has also been translated into Flemish, Italian, and German. 2. “De Natura Novi Orbis, libri duo,” Salamanca, 1589 and 1595, 8vo. This was translated by the author into Spanish, and added to the preceding work. 3. “De Promulgatione Evangelii apud Barbaros,” Salamanca, 1588, 8vo, Cologne, 1596. 4. “De Christo revelato, libri novem,” Rome, 1590, 4to; Lyons, 1591, 8vo. 5. “Conciones, tomi tres,” Salamanca, 1596, 4to, and often reprinted.

, a Portuguese, born at Oporto towards the close of the sixteenth century. He was educated in the Romish religion, which his father also sincerely professed, though descended from one of those Jewish families who had been forced to receive baptism. Uriel had a liberal education, having been instructed in several sciences; and at last studied the law. He had by nature a good temper and disposition; and religion had made so deep an impression on his mind, that he ardently desired to conform to all the precepts of the church. He applied with constant assiduity to reading the scriptures and religious books, carefully consulting also the creed of the confessors; but difficulties occurred, which perplexed him to such a degree, that, unable to solve them, he thought it impossible to fulfil his duty, with regard to the conditions required for absolution, according to good casuists. At length, he began to inquire, whether several particulars mentioned about a future life were agreeable to reason; and imagined that reason suggested many arguments against them. Acosta was about two-and-twenty when he entertained these doubts; and the result was, that he thought he could not be saved by the religion which he had imbibed in his infancy. He still, however, prosecuted his studies in the law; and, at the age of five-and-twenty years, was made treasurer in a collegiate church. Being naturally of an inquisitive turn, and now made uneasy by the popish doctrines, he began to study Moses and the prophets; where he thought he found more satisfaction than in the Gospel, and at length became convinced that Judaism was the true religion: but, as he could not profess it in Portugal, he resigned his place, and embarked for Amsterdam, with his mother and brothers; whom he had ventured to instruct in the principles of the Jewishreligion, even when in Portugal. Soon after their arrival in this city they became members of the synagogue, and were circumcised according to custom; and on this occasion, he changed his name of Gabriel for that of Uriel. A little timewas sufficient to shew him, that the Jews did neither in their rites nor morals conform to the law of Moses, and of this he declared his disapprobation: but the chiefs of the synagogue gave him to understand, that he must exactly observe their tenets and customs; and that he would be excommunicated if he deviated ever so little from them. This threat, however, did not in the least deter him; for he thought it would be beneath him, who had left the sweets of his native country purely for liberty of conscience, to submit to a set of rabbis who had no jurisdiction: and that it would shew both want of courage and piety, to stifle his sentiments on this occasion. He therefore persisted in his invectives, and, in consequence, was excommunicated. He then wrote a book in his justification; wherein he endeavours to shew, that the rites and traditions of the Pharisees are contrary to the writings of Moses; and soon after adopted the opinions of the Sadducees, asserting, that the rewards and punishments of the old law relate only to this lite; because Moses nowhere mentions the joys of heaven or the torments of hell. His adversaries were overjoyed at his embracing this tenet; foreseeing, that it would tend greatly to justify, in the sight of Christians, the proceedings of the synagogue against him. Before his book was printed, there appeared a piece upon the immortality of the soul, written by a physician in 1623, who omitted nothing he could suggest to make Acosta pass for an atheist. This, however, did not prevent him from writing a treatise against the physician, wherein he endeavoured to confute the doctrine of the soul’s immortality. The Jews now made application to the magistrates of Amsterdam; and informed against him, as one who wanted to undermine the foundation of both Jewish and Christian religions. Hereupon he was thrown into prison, but bailed out within a week or ten clays after; but all the copies of his pieces were seized, and he himself fined 300 florins. Nevertheless, he proceeded still farther in his scepticism. He now began to examine, whether the laws of Moses came from God; and he at length found reasons to convince him, that it was only a political invention. Yet, such was his inconsistency, that he returned to the Jewish church, after he had been excommunicated 15 years; and, after having made a recantation of what he Jiad written, subscribed every thing as they directed. A few days after, he was accused by a nephew, who lived in his house, that he did not, as to his eating and many other points, conform to the laws of the synagogue. On this he was summoned before the grand council of the synagogue; and it was declared to him, that he must be again excommunicated, if he did not give such satisfaction as should be required; but he found the terms so hard, that he could not comply. The Jews then again expelled him jfrom their communion; and he afterwards suffered various hardships and persecutions, even from his own relations. After remaining seven years in a most wretched situation, he at length declared he was willing to submit to the sentence of the synagogue, having been told that he might easily accommodate matters; for, that the judges, being satisfied with his submission, would soften the severity of the discipline; they made him, however, undergo the penance in its utmost rigour. These particulars, relating to the. life of Acosta, are taken from his piece, entitled “Exemplar humanae vitce,” published and refuted by Limborch. It is supposed that he composed it a few days before Jus death, after having determined to lay violent feands on himself. He executed this horrid resolution a little after he had failed in his attempt to kill his principal enemy; for the pistol, with which he intended to have shot him as he passed his house, having missed fire, he immediately shut the door, and shot himself with another pistol. This happened at Amsterdam, but in what year is not exactly known; but most authors are inclined to place it in 1640, or 1647.

, the name of an aneient scholiast on Horace, who flourished in the seventh century. His scholia were published under the title “Expositio in Horatii Flacci Opera,” Mediolani, 1474, 4to. It forms the third edition of Horace, according to Dr. Harwood, and is so scarce as to have escaped the notice of Maittaire. A copy was purchased at Dr. Askew’s sale, by Mr. Mason, for nine guineas and a half; or, according to the editor of the Bibliographical Dictionary, for £6. 10s. It was reprinted at Venice in 1490, fol. Michael Bentius added the scholia to his edition, Basil, 1527, 8vo. Fabricius enumerates Aeron among the ancient commentators on Terence and Persius.

, 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.

. The name Actuarius was given to all the court physicians of Constantinople, although the subject of this article is the only one known by it. His father’s name was Zacharias. Authors are not agreed as to the time in which he lived. Wolfgang Justus places him in the eleventh century; Moreau in the twelfth; Fabricius in the thirteenth, and Lambecius in the fourteenth. He was the first Greek author who recommended the use of cassia, senna, manna, and other mild purgatives, and the first who mentions distilled waters. He is reckoned superior to the Arabian physicians, but inferior to the great physicians of his nation. He wrote 1. A work on “Therapeutics,” in six books, of which there is no Greek edition; but a Latin translation by Henry Mathisius of Bruges, entitled “Methodi Medendi libri Sex,” Venice, 4to, 1554; Paris, 1566, 8vo. The work was composed by Actuarius for the use of an ambassador in the north. 2. Two books on “Animal Spirits,” of which Goupil published a Greek edition, Paris, 1557, 8vo, with a Latin version by Mathisius. This was reprinted by Fischer, Gr. and Lat. Leipsic, 1774, 8vo, with the addition of two books of Actuarius on regimen. 3. Seven books “On Urines,” of which there is no Greek edition; but Ambrose Levon de Nole published a Latin version, 1519, 4to. and this was revised by Goupil, illustrated with notes, and reprinted under the title “De Urinis Hbri septem.” Paris, 1548, 8vo; Basil, 1558, 8vo; Utrecht, 1670, 8vo. 4. A Treatise on the “composition of Medicines,” with the commentaries of John Ruellius; but this is little more than the fifth and sixth books of the Therapeutics. The medical writings of our author were collected and printed, Paris, 1526, 8vo; and again in 1556. In 1567, Henry Stephens published an edition of the whole of his works, fol. translated by different authors amongf the “Medicae artis Principes.” We have also “Actuarii opera,” Paris, 8vo; Leyden, 1556, 3 vols. 12mo. There are some of his works in many libraries which remain in manuscript.

, a Spanish Jesuit and missionary, was born at Burgos, 1597. He was sent on a mission to the American Indians, and on his return in the year 1641, published in Spanish, by permission of the king, “Nuevo Descubrimiento del gran rio de las Amazones,” 4to; but the projects expected from his discoveries respecting this river, were discountenanced afterwards by the house of Braganza, and Philip IV. ordered all the copies of this curious work to be destroyed, so that for many years two only were known to exist; one in the Vatican library, and another in the possession of Marin Leroi de Gomberville, who translated it into French, and published it, under the title of “Relation de la riviere des Amazones,” Paris, 1682, 2 vols. 12mo, with a curious dissertation; but some passages of the text are not very faithfully translated. This was afterwards reprinted in the second volume of Wood’s Rogers’ s Voyage round the world. Acuna went to the East Indies some time after the publication of his work, and is supposed to have died at Lima about or soon after 1675.

, 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.

, a physician, a native of Scotland, but many years settled at Bath, was afterwards physician to the commander in chief, and the colonial troops, of the island of Antigua, and subsequently of the Leeward islands, and also one of the judges of the court of King’s Bench and Common pleas in Antigua. His abilities as a physician have never been questioned, and his private character is said to have been in some respects amiable; but he possessed an irritability of temper, joined, as it generally is, with extraordinary self-conceit, which occasioned his being constantly engaged in disputes, and often with men, such as Philip Thicknesse, equally rulous and turbulent. Towards the end of his life, his writings partook much of his temper, and although read with some degree of pity, were soon thrown aside. Some account of one of his last quarrels may be seen in the dedication, to the first volume of Thicknesse' s Memoirs. He died at a very advanced age, April 24, 1802, at Harrowgate in Yorkshire. His first publications were on Regimen and the Materia Medica, in vol. VIII and IX of Duncan’s Medical Commentaries: 2. “Medical Cautions for the consideration of Invalids, those especially who resort to Bath,” 8vo, 1786, and a much enlarged edition, 1787. 3. “A philosophical and medical sketch of the Natural History of the Human Body and Mind,” 8vo, 1787. 4. “Unanswerable objections against the Abolition of the Slave-Trade,” 8vo, 1789. He was examined on this subject by the privy-council; but his objections have been long since fully answered. 5. “Essays on Fashionable Diseases,” 8vo, 1789. 6. “An essay on a Non-descript, or newlyinvented Disease,” 8vo, 1790. 7. “A candid inquiry into the truth of certain charges of the dangerous consequences of the Suttonian or Cooling regimen, under Inoculation for the Small Pox,” 8-vo, 1790. 8. “Anecdotes of the Life, Adventures, and Vindication of a Medical Character, metaphorically defunct, by Benjamin Goosequill and Peter Paragraph,” 8vo, 1790. This rambjing and incoherent production contains some particulars of his life, but more of his quarrels with his contemporaries. 9. “Two Sermons; the first addressed to British seamen, the second to the British West India slaves,” 8vo, 1791. Most of these were published for the benefit of the Bath, hospital, or the tin-miners of Cornwall.

, 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.

, LL.D. an eminent schoolmaster and useful writer in Scotland, was born June 1741, at Coats of Burgle, in the parish of Rafford, in the county of Moray, His parents were poor, but gave him such education as a parish school afforded; and after having unsuccessfully endeavoured to procure an exhibition at King’s college, Aberdeen, he was encouraged, in 1753, to go to the university of Edinburgh, where he surmounted pecuniary difficulties with a virtuous and honourable perseverance, such as are rarely to be found; and improved his opportunities of knowledge with great assiduity and success. In 1761 he was elected schoolmaster to Watson’s hospital, an establishment for the education of the poor, and continued to improve himself in classical knowledge by a careful perusal of some of the best and most difficult authors. In 1767, he was appointed assistant to the rector of the high school of Edinburgh, and in 1771 successor to the same gentleman, and filled this honourable statiou during the remainder of his life, raising the reputation of the school much higher than it had been known for many years. He would have perhaps raised it yet higher, had he not involved himself, not only with his ushers, but witk the patrons and trustees of the school, in a dispute respecting the proper grammar to be taught; Dr. Adam preferring one of his own compiling to that of Ruddiman, which had long been used in all the schools in Scotland, and was esteemed as near perfection as any work of the kind that had ever been published. The ushers, or undermasters, were unanimous in retaining Ruddtmaw’s grammar, for which they assigned their reasons; and Dr. Adam was as resolute in teaching from his own. The consequence was, that Dr. Adam taught his class by one grammar, and the four uncler-masters theirs by another. The inconvenience of this mode was soon felt; and the patrons of the school, who were the Magistrates of Edinburgh, after referring the question at issue to the principal of the university, the celebrated Dr. Robertson, together with the professors of the Greek and Latin languages, issued an order in 1786, directing the rector and other masters of the High School, to instruct their scholars by Ruddi man’s Rudiments and Grammar, and prohibiting any other grammar of the Latin language from being made use of. Dr. Adam, however, disregarded this and a subsequent 'order to the same purpose, and continued to use his own rules, in his daily practice with the pupils of his own class, and without being any further interrupted . The work which gave rise to this dispute was published in 1772, under the title of “The Principles of Latin and English Grammar,” and is undoubtedly a work of very considerable merit, and highly useful to those who are of opinion that Latin and English grammar should be taught at the same time.

, a French translator of some note, was born at Vendome in 1663, and after finishing his studies, entered into the service of the prince of Conti, who appointed him to be his secretary. He was elected into the French academy in 1723, in room of the abbe Fleury. He translated part of De Thou’s history, which has London on the title, but was printed at Paris, 1734, 16 vols, 4to. This he undertook with Charles Le Beau, the abbes Mascrier, Le Due, Fontaines, Prevost, and father Fabre. He translated also the memoirs of Montecuculli, Amsterdam, 1734, 12mo; an account of the cardinal Tournon; Atheneus; and other works. He died Nov. 12, 1735.

, an eminent French sculptor, was born at Nancy, Feb. 10, 1700. He was the son of Jacob-Sigisbert Adam, also a sculptor of considerable note. At the age of eighteen, he came to Metz; but a desire to extend his reputation made him repair to Paris, where he arrived in 1719. After exercising his profession about four years, he obtained the first prize, and then went to Rome, with a royal pension, where he remained ten years. While here, he was employed by the cardinal de Polignac in restoring the twelve marble statues known as the “family of Lycomedes,” which had been discovered among the ruins of the villa of Marius, about two leagues from Rome, and acquitted himself with great success in a branch of the art which is seldom rewarded or honoured in proportion to its difficulties. He afterwards restored several antique sculptures, of which the king of Prussia had got possession, and which he conveyed to Berlin. When an intention was formed of erecting that vast monument at Rome known by the name of the “Fountain of Trevi,” he was one of the sixteen sculptors who gave in designs; but, although his was adopted by pope Clement XI I. the jealousy of the Italian artists prevented his executing it. At this time, however, advantageous offers were made by his own country, to which he returned, after being chosen a member of the academies of St. Luke, and of Bologna. His first work, after his return to France, was the groupe of the “Seine et Marne” for the cascade at St. Cloud. He was then employed at Choisi; and, in May 1737, was elected a member of the French academy, and professor. The piece he exhibited on his admission was “Neptune calming the waves,” with a Triton at his feet; and not “Prometheus chained to the rock,” as some biographers have asserted, which was the production of his brother Nicholas. He then executed the groupe of “Neptune and Amphitrite” for the bason at Versailles, on which he was employed five years, and was rewarded, besides the stipulated price, with a pension of 500 livres. One of his best works was the figure of “St. Jerome,” now at St. Roch. His other works are, a groupe of five figures and of five animals, at Versailles, in bronze; the bas-relief of the chapel of St. Elizabeth, in bronze; two groupes in bronze of hunting and fishing at Berlin; “Mars caressed by Love,” at Bellevue; and a statue representing the enthusiasm of poetry. In all these there are undoubted proofs of genius, but proofs likewise of the bad taste in sculpture which prevailed in his time, and induced him, after the example of Bernini and others, to attempt efforts which can only be successful in painting. In 1754, he published “Recueil de Sculptures antiques Græcques et Romanies,” fol. for which he made the designs. Most of these he had purchased from the heirs of cardinal de Polignac. He died of an apoplexy, May 15, 1759.

, a very useful biographer, lived in the 17th century. He was born in the territory of Grotkaw in Silesia, and educated in the college of Brieg, where the dukes of that name, to the utmost of their power, ^encouraged learning and the reformed religion as professed by Calvin. Here he became a firm Protestant, and was enabled to pursue his studies by the liberality of a person of quality, who had left several exhibitions for young students. He was appointed rector of a college at Heidelberg, where he published his first volume of Illustrious Men in the year 1615. This volume, which consists of philosophers, poets, writers on polite literature, historians, &c. was followed by three others; that which treats of divines was printed in 1619; that of the lawyers came next; and finally, that of the physicians: the two last were published in 1620. All the learned men, whose lives are contained in these four volumes, lived in the 16th, or beginning of the 17th century, and are either Germans or Flemings; but he published, in 16 18, the lives of twenty divines cf other countries, in a separate volume. All his divines are Protestants. He has given but a few lives, yet the work cost him a great deal of time, having been obliged to abridge the pieces from whence he had materials, whether they were lives, funeral sermons, eulogies, prefaces, or memoirs of families. He omitted several persons who deserved a place in his work, as well as those he had taken notice of; which he accounts for, from the want of proper materials and authorities. The Lutherans were not pleased with him, for they thought him partial; nor will they allow his work to be a proper standard whereby to judge of the learning of Germany. His biographical collections were last published in one vol. fol. at Franc-fort, under the title, “Dignorum laude Virorum, quos Musa vetat mori, immortalitas.” His other works were, 1. “Apographum-Monumentorum Heidelbergensium,” Heidelberg, 1612, 4to. 2. “Parodice et Metaphrases Horatianse,” Frapcfort, 1616, 8vo. 3. “Notae io Orationem Julii Caesaris Scaligeri pro M, T. Cicerone contra Ciceronianum Erasmi,” 1618; and he reprinted Erasmus’s dialogue “De optimo genere dicendi,” 1617. The Oxford catalogue erroneously ascribes to him the history of the churches of Hamburgh and Bremen, which, we have just seen, was the work of Adam de Bremen. His biographical works are, however, those which have preserved his name, and have been of great importance to all subsequent collections. He died in 1622.

, a French grammarian, born at Paris, in 1716, was the pupil of Louis Le Beau, and many years professor of rhetoric in the college of Lisieux. The duke de Choiseul, who had a friendship for him, sent him to Venice as charge d'affaires to that republic, where he resided twelve years. On his return to France, he published his various elementary treatises, which have been much approved by teachers. 1. “La vraie maniere d'apprendre une Langue quelconque, vivante ou morte, par le moyen de la langue Française,” 1787, 5 vols. 8vo, and often reprinted. This work includes a French, Latin, Italian, English, and German grammar. 2. “Les quatre chapitres, de la Raison, de l‘Amour de soi, de l’Amour du prochain, de la Vertu,” 1780. Besides these, he published literal translations of Horace, 1787, 2 vols. 8vo. Phoedrus, and Dr. Johnson’s Rassclas. He died in Paris, 1792, leaving behind him the character of a man of talents, an able linguist, and of amiable manners.

, 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.

, or Adamnanus, abbot of the monastery of Hey, or Icolmkil, was born in 624, but whether in Scotland or Ireland is uncertain. He appears to have been a man of considerable learning, and, according to Bede, of a peaceable disposition; yet he enforced the discipline of the church with much severity, and partook of the credulity of the times. He died Oct. 23, 704, in the eightieth year of his age. Having hospitably entertained a French bishop, the latter, who had been in Palestine, communicated such particulars to him, as enabled him to write a description of that country, “De locis Terras Sanctse, lib. tres.” This was first published by Serrarius, at Ingoldstadt, 1619, and afterwards by Mabillon, “Saec. Benedict.” He wrote also a life of St. Columba, published by Canisius and Surius.

, an ingenious classical scholar, was born Aug. 12, 1690, at Bolsema in Tuscany. When an infant, he was sent to Rome, to his uncle the abbe Andrea Adami, an excellent musician, in the service of cardinal Ottoboni. At eleven years of age, he was placed by the cardinal in a school at Rome, where he made surprising progress in his studies; but, having taken an active part in some disturbances in that school, he fled to Leghorn to escape punishment, and went on board a French privateer. Having experienced numerous vicissitudes in this service, he became tired of a wandering life, and, after an absence of twenty-six months, was forgiven and received by his uncle. He now resumed his studies, applied to the Hebrew, Arabic, and Syriac, but particularly the Greek, of which he acquired a critical knowledge. Such was his reputation, that cardinal Imperiali made him his librarian in 1717; but he did not enjoy the situation long, as he died of a pulmonary complaint, brought on by incessant study, Jan. 9, 1719. His principal work, “Arcadicorum,” vol. I. was published at Rome, 1716, 4to, dedicated to cardinal Ottoboni, who defrayed the whole expence. This work contains, in four books, the history of Arcadia, from the earliest times to the reign of Aristocrates, the last king; and is replete with valuable quotations from ancient authors, and learned digressions; which occasioned his friend Facciolati to say, that it was like a city in which there were more foreigners than natives. His untimely death prevented the continuation of it. Among his manuscripts, which he bequeathed to cardinal Imperiali, were a history of Peloponnesus: the works of Libanius, with many additions; a collection of inscriptions, for the most part unpublished, &c.

, late president of the United States of America, and a political writer of considerable reputation, was descended from one of the families who founded the colony of Massachusets, and was born at Braintree, in that colony, Oct. 19,1735. Before the revolution which separated America from Great Britain, he had acquired much reputation in the profession of the law; and on the eve of that event, he published “An essay on canon and feudal Law.” He afterwards employed his pen in the American papers, and contributed essentially to widen the breach between the mother country and her colonies. He was still, however, a friend to loyal measures; and when captain Preston was tried for his life, for ordering the soldiers to fire upon a mob, pleaded his cause with spirit and eloquence, and Preston was acquitted. This in some measure injured Mr. Adams’s character with the more violent party, but had so little effect on the more judicious, that he was elected a member of Congress in 1774, and re-elected in 1775. He was one of the first to perceive that a cordial reconciliation, with Great Britain was impossible; and was therefore one of the chief promoters of the resolution, passed July 4, 1776, declaring the American States free, sovereign, and independent. When, in the course of the war, the States entertained hopes of assistance from the courts of Europe, Mr. Adams was sent, with Dr. Franklin, to that of Versailles, to negociate a treaty of alliance and commerce. On their return, he assisted in forming a constitution for the state of Massachusets. He was then employed by America as her plenipotentiary to the States General of Holland; and contributed not a little to bring on the war between those States and Great Britain. He afterwards went to Paris, and assisted in concluding the general peace. His temperate advice, On this occasion, respecting the loyalists, again alarmed the republican party, who began to consider him as a partizan of England. He was the first ambassador America sent to this country, where, with true republican simplicity, and in a manner suitable to the embarrassed finances of his country, he resided in the first floor of a bookseller in Piccadilly, and afterwards as a lodger in the same street.

Although America had obtained independence, she still required a form of government or constitution adapted to her rank among other nations, and calculated to concentrate the powers of sovereignty. Mr. Adams was among the first who proposed the present form, and was seconded by Washington, Hamilton, and others, who were termed federalists; and the change took place in 1787. Washington was elected president, and Mr. Adams vice-president. But the party in opposition to this measure were not silenced; and when the French revolution took place, they in general were found to attach themselves to the interests of France, in opposition to those of Great Britain. Mr. Adams, however, pursued his even course, and vindicated his principles and theory in an able publication, entitled, “A defence of the Constitution of Government of the United States of America,” 1787 88, 3 vols. 8vo, which he afterwards republished under the title of “History of the principal Republics,” 3 vols. 8vo, 1794. The leading idea which runs through this work is, that a mixture of the three powers, the regal, the aristocratical, and the democratical, properly balanced, composes the most perfect form of government, and secures the greatest degree of happiness to the greatest number of individuals.

When Mr. Washington was a second time chosen president, Mr. Adams was again chosen vice-president; and when the former intimated his intention to retire, Mr. Adams was elected his successor, in preference to Mr. Jefferson, who was the idol of the republican or anti-federalist party. At the conclusion of his term of president, Mr. Adams, now advanced in years, retired from public affairs, and died at New York Oct. 2, 1803, aged 68, if our date of his birth be correct, but most of the journals fixed his age at 82. His vigour and independence of mind, firmness and moderation, have placed him in the first rank of American statesmen; and his death was justly considered as a public loss.

In his latter years he was much afflicted with the stone, which hastened his end; he died Feb. 24, 1667, at 81 years of age. The stone was taken from the body, and was of such extraordinary magnitude as to weigh 25 ounces, and is preserved in the laboratory at Cambridge. He felt no reluctance at the approach of his dissolution, and seemed perfectly prepared for death, often saying “Solum mild superest sepulchrum,” All my business is to fit me for the grave. His funeral sermon was preached by Dr. Hardy, at St. Catharine Cree Church, before his children and many of his relations. His descendants enjoyed the title down to the late sir Thomas Adams, who died a captain in the royal navy.

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.

Dr. Adams’s first publications were three occasional sermons, printed 1741, 1742, 1749', but his principal work was an “Essay on Hume’s Essay on Miracles,” 8vo, 1752, which was long considered as one of the ablest answers that appeared to Mr. Hume’s sophistry, and was distinguished for acuteness, elegance, and urbanity of style. Hume, whom he once met in London, acknowledged that he had treated him much better than he deserved. This work was followed by other occasional sermons, which the author collected into a volume, and published in 1777. One only of these sermons involved him in a controversy. It was entitled “On true and false Doctrine,” preached at St. Chad’s Sept. 4, 1769, and touched upon some of the principles of the Methodists, in consequence of Dr. Adams having lent his pulpit to the Rev. William Romaine, who had there preached a sermon, the tendency of which our author thought it his duty to counteract. This produced a, series of pamphlets between the friends of the respective parties; but it is somewhat singular that neither our author nor Mr. Romaine took any part in the controversy, nor did Mr. Romaine publish the sermon which had occasioned it. The dispute turned principally on the degreeof Calvinism to be found in the Articles, &c. of the Church of England.

, 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.

, an eminent French naturalist, was born at Aix in Provence, April 7, 1727. His father, of Scotch origin, appears to have been in the service of Vintimille, then archbishop of that city. When the latter was translated to the see of Paris, Adanson was brought thither at three years of age, educated with great care, and soon gave proofs of uncommon application. As he was small of stature, he appeared much younger than he was; and, when he carried off the university prizes, many jokes were passed upon him. Needham, however, the celebrated naturalist, known by his microscopical disc-jveries, happening to be a witness of his success, presented him with a microscope; adding, that one who knew the works of men so well ought to study those of nature. This circumstance first induced him to study natural history, but without neglecting the usual course pursued in the university of Paris. In natural history, Reaumur and Bernard de Jussieu, were his guides, and he divided his time between the royal gardens and the museums of these learned men; and, when the system of Linnæus began to be published, it afforded him new matter for speculation. His parents had intended him for the church, and had procured him a prebend; but such was his thirst for general science, that he resigned it, and determined to travel into some country not usually visited or described. Senegal was the first object of his choice, thinking that its unhealthy climate had prevented its being visited by any other naturalist. Accordingly, he set out in 1748, in the 21st year of his age; and, after visiting the Azores and the Canaries, landed on the island of Goree, on the coast of Senegal; where he made a vast collection of specimens, animal, vegetable, and mineral, which he classified and described in a manner which he thought an improvement on the systems of Tournefort and Linnæus. He extended his researches also to the climate, geography, and manners of the people. He was engaged in this employment for five years, entirely at his own expence; and, in 1757, published the result in his “Histoire naturelle de Senegal,” 4to; an abridged translation of which, very ill executed, was published in London, 1759, 8vo. His classification of the Testacea, in this work, is universally allowed to be and ingenious. In 1756, soon after his return, having been elected a corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences, he read a paper on the Baobab, or calabash tree, an enormous vegetable, that had almost been accounted fabulous; and afterwards, a history of the tree which produces Gum Arabic. He would not, however, perhaps, have proceeded in these studies, had it not been for the generous encouragement afforded him by M. de Bombarde, a zealous patron of science. This induced him to publish his “Families des Plantes,” 2 vols. 8vo, 1763, a work of vast information, and which would have created a new revolution in the botanical world, had not the genius of Linnæus been predominant. But, although this work was neglected at the time, discoveries have since been advanced as new, which are to be found in it. About five years after, he determined to give a new edition, and had made the necessary corrections, and many additions; but, while employed on this, he coneived the more extensive plan of a complete Encyclopaedia, and he was persuaded that Lewis XV. would encourage such an undertaking. Flattered by this hope, he devoted his whole time to the collection of materials. In 1775, having got together an immense quantity, he submitted them to the Academy, under the title of an account of his manuscripts and plates, from 1771 to 1775, arranged according to the method he discovered when at Senegal, in 1749. These consisted of, 1. The universal order of Nature, in 27 vols. 8vo. 2. The natural history of Senegal, 8 vols. 8vo. 3. A course of natural history. 4. An universal vocabulary of natural history, one vol. fol. of 1000 pages. 5. A dictionary of natural history. 6. Forty thousand figures, and as many specimens of objects already known. 7. A collection of thirty-four thousand specimens of his own collection. It may easily be conceived that the academicians were astonished at this proposal; but the committee, appointed to examine his labours, did not find the collection equally valuable in all its branches, and, therefore, he did not meet with the encouragement he expected. His intention was to have published the entire work at once; but it was thought that, if he had published it in parts, he might probably have been successful. He published, however, a second edition of his “Families of the Plants,” which is, in fact, an encyclopaedia of botany. After this, he published no considerable work, but furnished some papers for the Academy, which have not been printed, and wrote the articles on exotics in the Supplement to the Encyclopaedia. In 1753, he laid before the French East India Company the plan of forming on the coast of Africa a colony, where all sorts of colonial produce might be cultivated, without enslaving the Negroes. This first effort, however, to procure the abolition of the slave-trade was not then attended to. In 1760, indeed, when the English were in possession of Senegal, they made him very liberal offers to communicate his plan, which he refused, from a love for his own country. He was equally disinterested in. refusing the princely offers made, in 1760, by the emperor of Germany, and, in 1766, by Catherine of Russia, and, lastly, by the king of Spain, if he would reside in their dominions. In France, however, he frequently travelled into various parts, in pursuit of his favourite science.

, 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 Lancelot Addison a. clergyman, born at Mauldismeaburne in the parish of Crosby Ravens worth in Westmoreland, in 1632, was educated at the grammar school of Appleby, and afterwards sent to Queen’s college, Oxford, upon the foundation. He was admitted B. A. Jan. 25, 1654, and M. A. July 4, 1657. As he now had greatly distinguished himself in the univer? sity, he was chosen one of the terras filii for the act celebrated in 1658; but, his oration abounding in personal satire against the ignorance, hypocrisy, and avarice of those then in power, he was compelled to make a recantation, and to akk pardon on his knees. Soon after he left Oxford, and retired to Petworth in Sussex, where he resided till the restoration. The gentlemen of Sussex having recommended him to Dr. King, bishop of Chester, as a man who had suffered for his loyalty and attachment to th.e constitution of church and state; the bishop received him kindly, and in all probability would have preferred him, had he not, contrary to his lordship’s approbation, accepted of the chaplainship at Dunkirk; where he continued till 1662, when, the place being delivered up to the French, he returned to England. The year following he went chaplain to the garrison at Tangier, where he resided some years; and came back to England in 1670, with a resolution to return to Tangier. He was appointed chaplain in ordinary to his majesty soon after his coming over; but had no thoughts, however, of quitting his chaplamship at Tangier, until it was conferred upon another, by which Mr. Addison became poor in his circumstances. In this situation of his affairs, a gentleman in Wiltshire bestowed on him the rectory of Milston, in Wilts, worth about 120l. per annum. Soon after he was also made prebendary of Minor pars altaris, in the cathedral of Sarum; and took the degrees of B. and D. D. at Oxford, July 6, 1675. His preferments, though not very considerable, enabled him to live in the country with great decency and hospitality; and he discharged his duty with a most conscientious diligence. In 1683 the commissioners for ecclesiastical affairs, in consideration of his former service at Tangier, conferred upon him the deanry of Lichfield, in which he was installed July 3; was collated to the archdeaconry of Coventry Dec. 8, 1684, and held it with his deanry in commendam. In the convocation, which met Dec. 4, 1689, dean Addison was one of the committee appointed by the lower house to acquaint the lords, that they had consented to a conference on the subject of an address to the king. He died April 20, 1703, and was buried in the church-yard of Lichfield, at the entrance of the west door, with the following epitaph “Hie jacet Lancelotus Addison, S. T. P. hujus ecclesiae decanus, necnon archidiaconus Coventrise, qui obiit 20 die Aprilis, ann. Dom. 1703, aetatis suae 71.” He was twice married; first to Jane, daughter of Nathaniel Gulston, esq., and sister to Dr. William Gulston, bishop of Bristol, by whom he had, Jane, who died in her infancy; Joseph, or whom in thenext article; Gulston, who died governor of Fort St. George in the East Indies; Dorothy, married first to Dr. Sartre, prebendary of Westminster, secondly to Daniel Combes, esq.; Anne, who died young; and Lancelot, fellow of Magdalen college, Oxford, an able classical scholar.

, 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.

“This species of instruction was continued, and perhaps advanced, by the French; among whom La Bruyere’s Manners of the Age, though written without connection, deserves great praise. Before the Tatler and Spectator, if the writers for the theatre are excepted, England had no masters of common life. No writers had yet undertaken to reform either the savageness of neglect, or the impertinence of civility; to teach when to speak, or to be silent; how to refuse, or how to comply. We wanted not books to teach us more important duties, and to settle opinions m philosophy or politics; but an arbiter elegant iarum, a judge of propriety, was yet wanting, who should survey the track of daily conversation, and free it from thorns and prickles, which tease die passer, though they do not wound him. For this purpose nothing is so proper as the frequent publication of short papers, which we read not as study but amusement. If the subject be slight, the treatise likewise is short. The busy may find time, and the idle may find patience.

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.

Adelung’s other works are: 1. “Glossarium manuale ad scriptores medii et infimae Latinitatis,” FJalle, 1772 84, 6 vols. 8vo, an abridgement of Du Cange and Charpentier. 2. Three “German Grammars:” the first is a treatise on the origin, changes, structure, &c. of the language, Leipsic, 1782, 2 vols. 8vo; the two others are school-books, and have been often reprinted. 3. “A treatise on the German Style,” Berlin, 1785, 1788, 1790, 2 vols.; esteemed one of the best books, in any language, on the philosophy of rhetoric. 4. “Supplements to Jcecher’s Dictionary of Literary Men,” 1784 and 1787, 2 vols. 4to; this goes no farther than letter I. 5. “History of Human Folly, or he Lives of the most celebrated Necromancers, Alchymists, Exorcists, Diviners, &c.” in seven parts, Leipsic, 1785 to 1789. 6. “A species of Cyclopedia of all the Sciences, Arts, and Manufactures, which contribute to the comforts of human life,” four parts, Leipsic, 1778, 1781, 1788; a work of great accuracy, and very comprehensive. 7. “Essay on the history of the Civilization of Mankind,” Leipsic, 1782, 1788. 8. “The history of Philosophy,” 3 vols. ibid. 1786, 1787, 8vo. 9. “Treatise on German Orthography,” 8vo, 1787. Many of the best German writers, and Wieland among the rest, have adopted his principles in this work; and their example, in the opinion of his biographer, may supply the want of the decisions of an academy, or national centre for improvements in language. 10. “The history of the Teutones, their language and literature before the general migration,” Leipsic, 1806, 8vo. 11. “Mithridate, or a universal table of Languages, with the Lord’s Prayer in one hundred languages,” Berlin, 1806, 8vo. The first volume of this work, which contains the Asiatic languages, was printed immediately before his death; the second, comprizing the languages of Europe, was completed and published in 1809, by an eminent philologist, M. John Severin Vater, then professor at Halle, now at Konigsberg, who has also promised a third volume. These two last works are inferior to those published by Adelung in his younger days; but his Mithridate is thought superior to the work which Conrad Gessner published under the same title about two centuries before. It must be observed, however, that this does not detract from that Author’s merit, as Adelung had not only Gessner’s work before him, but the improvements of two centuries on the subject.

, 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.

, of an ancient family in Dauphiny, and a bold and enterprising spirit, was born in 1513. After having served in the army with great distinction, he espoused the cause of the Huguenots from resentment to the duke of Guise in 1562. He took Valence, Vienne, Grenoble, and Lyons, but signalized himself less by his prowess and his activity than by his atrocious acts of vengeance. The Catholic writers say, that in regard to persons of their communion he was what Nero had been of old to the primitive Christians. He put his invention to the rack to find out the most fantastic punishments, and enjoyed the barbarous satisfaction of inflicting them on all that fell into his hands. At Montbrison and at Mornas, the soldiers that were made prisoners were obliged to throw themselves from the battlements upon the pikes of his people. Having reproached one of these wretches with having retreated twice from the leap without daring to take it: “Mons. le baron,” said the soldier, “with all your bravery, I defy you to take it in three.” The composed humour of the man saved his life. His conduct was far from being approved even by the most violent of Ins party; admiral Coligny and the prince of Conde were so shocked at his cruelties, that the government of Lyons was taken from him; and piqued at this, Des Adrets was upon the point of turning Catholic; but he was seized at Romans, and would have been brought to the scaffold, if the peace, just then concluded, had not saved him. He afterwards put his design in execution, and died despised and detested by both parties, Feb. 2, 1587. He left two sons and a daughter, who had no issue, gome time before his death, Des Adrets, being at Grenoble, where the duke de Mayenne then was, he wanted to revenge the affronts and threats that Pardaillan had given him on account of the murder of his father. He repeated several times, that he had quitted his solitude to convince all such as might complain of him, that his sword was not grown so rusty but that it could always right him. Pardaillan did not think himself obliged to take any notice of this bravado of a swordsman then in his 74th year: and Des Adrets went back again content with his rhodomontade. The ambassador of Savoy once meeting him on the high road alone, with only a stick in his hand, was surprised at seeing an old man, notorious for his barbarous executions, walking without a companion and quite defenceless, and asked him of his welfare. “I have nothing to say to you,” answered Des Adrets coldly, “unless it be to desire you to acquaint your master, that you met the baron des Adrets, his very humble servant, on the high road, with a white stick in his hand and without a sword, and that nobody said any thing to him.” One of the sons of the baron des Adrets was engaged in the massacre of St. Bartholomew. He had been page to the king, who ordered him one day to go and call his chancellor. The magistrate, who was then at table, having answered him, that as soon as he had dined he would go and receive the commands of his majesty “What!” said the page, “dare you delay a moment when the king commands Rise, and instantly be gone” Whereupon he took hold of the table-cloth by one corner, and drew the whole of the dinner down upon the floor. M. de la Place relates this anecdote (rather improbable it must be confessed) in his “Pieces interessantes,” torn. IV; and adds, that the story being told to Charles IX. by the chancellor, the monarch only laughed, and said “that the son would be as violent as the father.” To this day the name of Adrets is never pronounced in Dauphiny without horror. Such the story usually reported of this extraordinary character; but it is said that Maimbourg, Brantome, Moreri, and Daniel have given some exaggerated accounts of his cruelties. Thnanus has justified him from some of the accusations, and particularly in affair of Mornas, where he was not present.

, the historian of Mazara in Sicily, and a very eminent physician, who studied Latin at Mazara, rhetoric at Panorma, and philosophy and medicine at Naples, under the celebrated Augustine Niphus. He took his doctor’s degree at Salernum in 1510. He afterwards practised physic with great success at Palermo, and was made a burgess of that city. Charles V. afterwards appointed him to be his physician, and physician-general of Sicily. He died in 1560. His history is entitled “Topographia inclytae civitatis Mazariae,” Panorm. 1515, 4to. He wrote also some medical treatises on the plague, on bleeding, on the baths of Sicily; and “Epistola ad Conjugem,” a Latin poem, Panorm. 1516.

, 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.

Adrian reigned 21 years, and died at Baiae in 139, in the 63d year of his age. The Latin verses he addressed to his soul on his death-bed, shew his uncertainty and doubts in regard to the other world. He was a prince adorned with great virtues, but they were mingled with great vices. He xvas generous, industrious, polite, and exact; he maintained order and discipline; he administered justice with indefatigable application, and punished rigorously all those who did not faithfully execute the offices with which they were entrusted: he had a great share of wit, and a surprising memory; he was well versed in most of the polite arts and sciences, and is said to have written several works. On the other hand, he was cruel, envious, lascivious, superstitious, and so weak as to give himself up to the study of magic.

, the only Englishman who ever had the honour of sitting in the papal chair. His name was Nicholas Brekespere; and he was born about the end of the 11th century, at Langley, near St. Alban’s, in Hertfordshire. His father having left his family, and taken the habit of the monastery of St. Alban’s, Nicholas was obliged to submit to the lowest offices in that house for daily support. After some time he desired to take the habit in that monastery, but was rejected by the abbot Richard: “He was examined,” says Matthew Paris, “and being found insufficient, the abbot said to him, Wait, my son, and go to school a little longer, till you are better qualified.” But if the character given of young Brekespere by Pitts be a just one, the abbot was certainly to be blamed for rejecting a person who would have done great honour to his house. He was, according to that author, a handsome and comely youth, of a sharp wit and ready utterance; circumspect in all his words and actions, polite in his behaviour, neat and elegant; full of zeal for the glory of God, and that according to some degree of knowledge; so possessed of all the most valuable endowments of mind and body, that in him the gifts of heaven exceeded nature: his piety exceeded his education; and the ripeness of his judgment and his other qualifications exceeded his age. Having met however with the above repulse, he resolved to try his fortune in another country, and went to Paris; where, though in very poor circumstances, he applied himself to his studies with great assiduity, and made a wonderful proficiency. But having still a strong inclination to a religious life, he left Paris, and removed to Provence, where he became a regular clerk in the monastery of St. Rufus. He was not immediately allowed to take the habit, but passed some time by way of trial, in recommending himself to the monks by a strict attention to all their commands. This behaviour, together with the beauty of his person, and prudent conversation, rendered him so acceptable to those religious, that after some time they entreated him to take the habit of the canonical order. Here he distinguished himself so much by his learning and strict observance of the monastic discipline, that, upon the death of the abbot, he was chosen superior of that house; and we are told that he rebuilt that convent. He did not long enjoy this abbacy: for the monks, being tired of the government of a foreigner, brought accusations against him before pope Eugenius III. who, after having examined their complaint, and heard the defence of Nicholas, declared him innocent; his holiness, however, gave the monks leave to choose another superior, and, being sensible of the great merit of Nicholas, and thinking he might be serviceable to the church in a higher station, created him cardinal-bishop of Alba, in 1146.

In 1148 Eugenius sent him legate to Denmark and Norway; where, by his fervent preaching and diligent instructions, he converted those barbarous nations to the Christian faith; and we are told, that he erected the church of Upsal into an archiepiscopal see. On his return to Rome, he was received by the pope and cardinals with great marks of honour: and pope Anastatius, who succeeded Eugenius, happening to die at this time, Nicholas was unanimously chosen to the holy see, in November, 1154, and took the name of Adrian. When the news of his promotion reached England, Henry II. sent Robert, abbot of St. Alban’s, and three bishops, to Rome, to congratulate him on his election; upon which occasion Adrian granted to the monastery of St. Alban’s, the privilege of being exempt front all episcopal jurisdiction except that of Rome. Next year, king Henry having solicited the pope’s consent that he might undertake the conquest of Ireland, Adrian very readily complied, and sent him a bull for that purpose, of which the following is a translation: “Adrian, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his most dear son in Christ, the illustrious king of England, sendeth greeting and apostolical benediction. Your magnificence is very careful to spread your glorious name in the world, and to merit an immortal crown in heaven, whilst, as a good catholic prince, you form a design of extending the bounds of the church, of instructing ignorant and barbarous people in the Christian faith, and of reforming the licentious and immoral; and the more effectually to put this design in execution, you desire the advice and assistance of the holy see. We are confident, that, by the blessing of God, the success will answer the wisdom and discretion of the undertaking. You have advertised us, dear son, of your intended expedition into Ireland, to reduce that people to the obedience of the Christian faith; and that you are willing to pay for every house a yearly acknowledgment of one penny to St. Peter, promising to maintain the rights of those churches in the fullest manner. We therefore, being willing to assist you in this pious and laudable design, and consenting to your petition, do grant you full liberty to make a descent upon that island, in order to enlarge the borders of the church, to check the progress of immorality, and to promote the spiritual happiness of the natives: and we command the people of that country to receire and acknowledge you as their sovereign lord; provided the rights of the churches be inviolably preserved, and the Peter pence duly paid: for indeed it is certain (and your highness acknowledges it) that all the islands, which are enlightened by Christ, the sun of righteousness, and have embraced the doctrines of Christianity, are unquestionably St. Peter’s right, and belong to the holy Roman church. If, therefore, you resolve to put your designs in execution, be careful to reform the manners of that people; and commit the government of the churches to able and virtuous persons, that the Christian religion may grow and flourish, and the honour of God and the preservation of souls be effectually promoted; so shall you deserve an everlasting reward in heaven, and leave a glorious name to all posterity.” His indulgence to this prince was so great, that he even consented to absolve him from the oath he had taken not to set aside any part of his father’s will. The reason of this was, that Geoffry Plantagenet, earl of Anjou, had by the empress Maud, three sons, Henry, Geoffry, and William. This prince, being sensible that his ovrn dominions would of course descend to his eldest son Henry, and that the kingdom of England and duchy of Normandy would likewise fall to him in right of his mother, thought fit to devise the earldom of Anjou to his second son Geoffry; and to render this the more valid, he exacted an oath of the bishops and nobility, not to suffer his corpse to be buried till his son Henry had sworn to fulfil every part of his will. When Henry came to attend his father’s funeral, the oath was tendered to him; but for some time he refused to swear to a writing, with the contents of which he was unacquainted. Howerer, being reproached with the scandal of letting his father lie unburied, he at last took the oath with great reluctance. But after his accession to the throne, upon a complaint to pope Adrian that the oath was forced upon him, he procured a dispensation from his holiness, absolving him from the obligation he had laid himself under: and in consequence thereof, he dispossessed his brother Geoffry of the dominions of Anjou, allowing him only a yearly pension for his maintenance.

Adrian, in the beginning of his pontificate, boldly withstood the attempts of the Roman people to recover their ancient liberty under the consuls, and obliged those magistrates to abdicate their authority, and leave the government of the city to the pope. In 1155, he drove Arnold of Bresse and his followers out of Rome. The same year he excommunicated William king of Sicily, who ravaged the territories of the church, and absolved that prince’s subjects from their allegiance. About the same time, Frederic, king of the Romans, having entered Italy with a powerful army, Adrian met him near Sutrium, and concluded a peace with him. At this interview, Frederic consented to hold the pope’s stirrup whilst he mounted on horseback. After which his holiness conducted that prince to Rome, and in St. Peter’s church placed the imperial crown on his head, to the great mortification of the Roman people, who assembled in a tumultuous manner, and killed several of the imperialists. The next year a reconciliation was brought about between the pope and the Sicilian king, that prince taking an oath to do nothing farther to the prejudice of the church, and Adrian granting him the title of king of the two Sicilies. He built and fortified several castles, and left the papal dominions in a more flourishing condition than he found them. But notwithstanding all his success, he was extremely sensible of the disquietudes attending so high a station, and complained of them to his countryman John of Salisbury. He died Sept. 1, 1159, in the fourth year and tenth month of his pontificate, and was buried in St. Peter’s church, near the tomb of his predecessor Eugenius. Besides some writings attributed to this ambitious pope, not yet printed, there are, in Labbe’s Concilia, forty-two letters; and Martene, Balusius, Usher, Marca, &c. have brought others to light, as may be seen in Fabric. Biblioth. Lat. med. setat. and Cave. The most remarkable of those letters are what contain the word beneficium. In Aventini Annal. Bajor. are letters between the emperor and the pope, the authenticity of which is still disputed; and those betwixt the bishops of Germany and the pope, and the letter of licence to Henry II. to conquer Ireland, are in Wilkins’s Concil. Britan. The famous peace with king William, which so nearly concerns the Sicilian monarchy, is in Baronius’s Annals.

, 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.

, bishop of Bath and Wells in the reigns of Henry VII. and VIII. was descended of an obscure family at Cornetto, a small town in Tuscany; but soon distinguished himself by his learning and abilities, and procured several employments at the court of Rome. In 1448 he was appointed nuncio extraordinary to Scotland, by pope Innocent VIII. to quiet the troubles in that kingdom; but, upon his arrival in England, being informed that his presence was not necessary in Scotland, the contests there having been ended by a battle, he applied himself to execute some other commissions with which he was charged, particularly to collect the pope’s tribute, or Peter-pence, his holiness having appointed him his treasurer for that purpose. He continued some months in England, during which time he got so far into the good graces of Morton, archbishop of Canterbury, that he recommended him to the king; who appointed him his agent for English affairs at Rome; and, as a recompense for his faithful services, promoted him first to the bishoprick of Hereford, and afterwards to that of Bath and Wells. He was enthroned at Wells by his proxy Polydore Vergil, at that time the pope’s sub-collector in England, and afterwards appointed by Adrian archdeacon of Wells. Adrian let out his bishoprick to farmers, and afterwards to cardinal Wolsey, himself residing at Rome, where he built a magnificent palace, on the front of which he had the name of his benefactor Henry VII. inscribed: he left it after his decease to that prince and his successors. Alexander VI, who succeeded Innocent VIII, appointed Adrian his principal secretary, and vicar-general in spirituals and temporals; and the same pope created him a cardinal-priest, with the title of St. Chrysogonus, the 31st of May, 1503. Soon after his creation, he narrowly escaped being poisoned at a feast, to which he was invited with some other cardinals, by the pope and his son Caesar Borgia.

In the pontificate of Julius II. who succeeded Alexander, Adrian retired from Rome, having taken some disgust, or perhaps distrusting this pope, who was a declared enemy of his predecessor: nor did he return till there was a conclave held for the election of a new pope, where he probably gave his voice for Leo X. Soon after he was unfortunately privy to a conspiracy against Leo. His embarking in the plot is said to have been chiefly owing to his crediting and applying to himself the prediction of a fortune-teller, who had assured him, “that Leo would be cut off by an unnatural death, and be succeeded by an elderly man named Adrian, of obscure birth, but fa-­mous for his learning, and whose virtue and merit alone had raised him to the highest honours of the church.” Th conspiracy being discovered, Adrian was condemned to pay 12,500 ducats, and to give a solemn promise that he would not stir out of Rome. But being either unable to pay this fine, or apprehending still farther severities, he privately withdrew from Rome; and in a consistory held the 6th of July 1518, he was declared excommunicated, and deprived of all his benefices, as well as his ecclesiastical orders. About four years before, he had been removed from his office of the pope’s collector in England, at the request of king Henry VIII, and through the instigation of cardinal Wolsey. The heads of his accusation, drawn up at Rome, were, “That he had absented himself from that city in the time of Julius II. without the pope’s leave; that he had never resided, as he ought to have done^ at the church of St. Chrysogonus, from which he had his title; that he had again withdrawn himself from Rome, and had not appeared to a legal citation; and that he had engaged in the conspiracy of cardinal Petrucci, and had signed the league of Francis Maria, duke of Urbino, against the pope.” He was at Venice when he received the news of his condemnation: what becarme of him afterwards is uncertain. Aubery says, he took refuge among the Turks in Asia; but the most common opinion is, that he was murdered by one of his servants for the sake of his wealth. Polydore Vergil tells us, there is to be seen at Riva, a village in the diocese of Trent, a Latin inscription on one Polydorus Casamicus, the pope’s janitor, written by cardinal Adrian; in which he laments his own wretched condition, extolling the happiness of his friend, whose death had put an end to his miseries. Polydore Vergil gives Adrian a high character for his uncommon learning, his exquisite^ judgment in the choice of the properest words, and the truly classical style of his writings; in which he was the first, says that author, since the age of Cicero, who revived the purity of the Latin language, and taught men to draw their knowlege from the sources of the best and most learned authors. The only works of his that are published are, 1. “De Vera Philosophia;” 2. “De Sermone Latino et de Modis Latine loquendi,” 1515, Rome, fol.

, the son of the preceding, was born in 1513, or, as some say, 1511, and died at Florence in 1579. In his youth, he carried arms in defence of the liberties of his country, and afterwards devoted his time to study. For thirty years he taught rhetoric in the university of Florence, and enjoyed the friendship of the most celebrated of his contemporaries, Annibal Caro, Varchi, Flaminio, and the cardinals Bembo and Contarini. His chief work, which forms a continuation of Guicciardini, is the history of his own time, entitled “Deir Istoria de' suoi tempi,” from 1536 to 1574. Florence, 1583, fol. This is a most scarce edition, and more valued than that of Venice, 1587, 3 vols. 4to. The abbé Lenglet du Fresnoy, Bayle, and particularly Thuanus, who has derived much assistance from this work, speak highly of his correctness as a historian. He had the best materials, and among others, some memoirs furnished by the grand duke of Tuscany, Cosmo I. who advised him to the undertaking. He is said to have written funeral orations on the grand duke, on Charles V. and the emperor Ferdinand; but we know only of his oration on the grand duchess, Jane of Austria, which was translated from Latin into Italian, and published at Florence in 1579, 4to. In 1567 he published “Lettera a Giorgio Vasari sopra gli antichi Pittori nominati da Plinio,” 4to. This letter, oa the ancient painters mentioned by Pliny, which is rather a treatise on painting, is inserted by Vasari in the second volume of his lives of the painters. Vasari speaks of him as an enlightened amateur of the fine arts, and one whose advice was of much importance to him when he was employed at Florence in the palace of the grand duke.

, son of the preceding, born in 1533, was so distinguished for his studies, as to obtain, when very young, the professorship of rhetoric which his father held in the university of Florence. So our authority; but there seems to be some mistake in this date, as he could not be very young when he succeeded his father as professor of rhetoric, if his father filled that chair for the space of thirty years. He was, however, a member of the academy of Florence, and published his father’s history. His own works are, 1. An Italian translation of “Demetrius Phalereus” on eloquence, which he left in manuscript, and which was not published until 1738, by Antony Francis Gori, who prefixed a long account of the life and writings of the translator; 2. Two Lectures on the “Education of the Florentine Nobility,” printed in the “Prose Fiorentine,” vol. IV. He also translated Plutarch’s Morals, not yet published, but much commended by Ammirato and others. There are two copies in the Laurentian library; Adrian died in 1604.

, a Spanish painter, born at Cordova, was a lay friar of the order of the bare-footed Carmelites. Of his works, which are not numerous, and are to be seen only at the place of his birth, the most remarkable is a Crucifixion, in the manner of Sadeler, whose style was much admired by him. He was so diffident of his own talents that he frequently destroyed his pictures as soon as he had executed them, and some were preserved by his friends, who begged them from him in the name of the souls in purgatory, for whom he constantly put op his prayers. He died at Cordova in 1650.

was born in the beginning of the tenth century, in the environs of Condat, now St. Claude. He studied at the abbey of Luxeuil, which had then a very famous school, under the direction cf the Benedictines. Being charmed with their mode of life and doctrines, he entered into the order, and became abbot. His principal writings are the lives of some saints, which arc not free from the superstitions of the times. Calmet has printed his life of St. Mansuetus; and Mabillon, his life of St. Valbert, or Wandalbert. Cave mentions other works of his, but he deserves more credit as one of those who laboured in diffusing learning. Such was his reputation, that many bishops applied to him to establish schools in their dioceses, and he was even consulted by crowned heads on these and other subjects of importance. He died in Champagne in the year 992.

, a Nestorian priest, lived, according to Vossius, under the emperor Zeno, about the year 483; but Cave is of opinion that he lived some years later, as he continued his history five books after the deposing of Peter the Fuller. This was an Ecclesiastical History, beginning with the reign of Theodosius the younger, when Nestorius published his opinions, and ending with the reign of Zeno, and the deposition of Peter the Fuller, who had usurped the see of Antioch. He wrote likewise a treatise against the council of Chalcedon. Photius praises his style, but censures his principles. There is only a fragment extant of his history in the Concilia, vol. VII. and in the collections of Theodoras Lector.

, a Grecian physician and philosopher, who flourished in the eighth century, under the emperor Tiberius II. He turned Benedictine at last, and left a great many tracts behind, some of which have been in so much credit as to be read in the schools. The principal are “De Pulsibus,” and “De Venenis.” Some think there is another of tnis name and profession, a Benedictine also, and physician to Philip Augustus king of France, to whom they attribute a work in Latin hexameters, on the same subject, Paris, 1528, in 4to; but this is perhaps only another version. Being accidentally wounded with an arrow, he would not suffer the wound to be dressed, that he might have an opportunity of exercising his fortitude in pain.

, a learned Englishman of the thirteenth century, was born at St. Alban’s, and as Fuller conjectures, in the parish of St. Giles’s in that town, now destroyed. He was educated at Paris, where he became eminent in logic and philosophy. He then turned his studies to medicine, and became not only professor of that faculty in the university, but a celebrated practitioner in the city, and was employed about the person of Philip the French king. From Paris he removed to Montpellier, where he studied the diseases of the mind; and on his return to Paris, confined himself entirely to the study of divinity, and soon became a doctor in that faculty, and a professor in the schools. In 1223 he joined the Dominicans, and was the first Englishman of that order. This occasioned his removal to Oxford, where the Dominicans had two schools, in which he became a professor and lecturer both in the arts and in divinity, and was of great service to the Dominicans by his personal credit and reputation. A close intimacy took place between him and the celebrated Grossetete, bishop of Lincoln, who obtained leave of the general of the Dominicans that Ægidius might reside with him as an assistant in his diocese, at that time the largest in England. Leland, Bale, and Pitts ascribe some writings to him, but they seem to be all of doubtful authority.

, 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.

, an historian and rhetorician, born at Praeueste in Italy, about the year 160, taught rhetoric at Rome, according to Perizonius, under the emperor Alexander Severus. He was surnamed MEXryXaxro--, Honeytongue, on account of the sweetness of his style. He was likewise honoured with the title of sophist, an appellation in his days given only to men of learning and wisdom. He loved retirement, and devoted himself to study; and his works shew him to have been a man of excellent principles and strict integrity. He greatly admired and studied Plato, Aristotle, Isocrates, Plutarch, Homer, Anacreon, Archilochus, &c.; and, though a Roman, gives the preference to the writers of the Greek nation. His two most celebrated works are his “Various History,” and that “Of Animals.” He wrote also an invective against Heliogabalus, or, as some think, Domitian; but this is not certain, for he gives the tyrant, whom he lashes, the fictitious name of Gynnis. He composed likewise a book “Of Providence,” mentioned by Eustathius; and another on divine appearances, or the declarations of providence. Some ascribe to him also the work entitled “Tactica, or De re Militari;” but Perizonius is of opinion, that this piece belonged to another author of the same name, a native of Greece. There have been several editions of his “Varipus History.” The Greek text was published at Rome in 1545, by Camillas Peruscus. Justus Vulteius gave a Latin translation, which was printed separately in 1548; and joined to the Greek text in a new edition, by HenricusPetrus, at Basil, 1555. It contains likewise the works of several other authors, who have treated on such subjects as ^lian. John Tornaesius published three several editions at Lyons, in 1587, 1610, and 1625. All these were eclipsed by that of John Schefferus, in 1647 and 1662: he rectified the text in many places, and illustrated the whole with very learned notes and animadversions. Perizonius gave a new edition in two volumes, 8vo, at Leyden, 1701. He followed the translation of Vulteius, which he rectified in many places, together with the Greek text, illustrating the most intricate passages with learned notes. The nextand best edition of this work is that of Abraham Gronovius, who has given the Greek text and version of Vulteius, as corrected by Perizonius, together with the notes of Conrad Gessner, John Schefferus, Tanaquil Faber, Joachim Kuhnius, and Jac. Perizonius; to which he has added short notes of his own, and the fragments of Ælian, which Kuhnius collected from Snidas, Stobaeus, and Eustathius. His treatise on animals is in many respects a curious and important work, but, like that of Pliny, often disgraced with ridiculous and fabulous accounts.

, a physician of the second century, under the reign of Adrian, was the first who employed the Theriaca, both as a remedy and preservative, in the plague. Galen in his treatise on the subject, considers him as one of the first of his masters, and praises him also for his great knowledge and success.

, 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 German physician of considerable eminence, was born at Rostock, Dec. 13, 1724, and died at Dorpt, in Livonia, Aug. 1802. He is best known to the learned world by his “Tentamen theoriæ Electricitatis et Magnetismi,” Petersburgh, 4to; of which M. Haüy published an abridgement and analysis, Paris, 1787, 8vo. In 1762 he also published “Reflections on the distribution of Heat on the surface of the Earth,” translated afterwards into French by Raoult de Rouen, and wrote several papers in the memoirs of the academy of Petersburgh. He was likewise among the first who made correct experiments on the electricity of the tourmalin, and published the result in a small volume, 8vo, Petersburgh, 1762. His reputation has been much greater on the continent, than among the philosophers of our country; probably owing to the very slight and almost unintelligible account which Dr. Priestley has given of his “Tentamen,” in his history of Electricity. The hon. Mr. Cavendish has done it more justice in the Philosophical Transactions, vol. LXI, where his own excellent dissertation is an extensive and accurate explanation of JEpinus’s theory. But a more elaborate analysis has since appeared in Dr. Gleig’s supplement to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, to which we refer our readers.

, 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.

, an Arian presbyter, or monk, of the fourth century, had a contest with Eustathius for the bishoprick of Sebastia and Armenia; and being disappointed, endeavoured to lessen the power and dignity of the episcopal order, by maintaining that bishops were not distinguished from presbyters by any divine right, but that according to the institution of the New Testament, their offices and authority were absolutely the same.As about this time there were some bishops who had given offence by their arrogance, these opinions of Ærius became highly popular, and he was enabled to form a considerable sect, named Brians. He also condemned prayers for the dead, stated fasts, and the celebration of Easter; but whether these were constituent principles with his followers, does not appear. Both they and he, however, were opposed by the Arians; and by the church at large, excluded from churches and cities, and obliged to associate in private places and deserts, as long as they continued a party. It is perhaps unnecessary to add, that their opinion respecting the equality of bishops and presbyters has been since adopted by the modern presbyterians, and has been ably combated by writers in favour of the established church.

, 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.

, a Socratic philosopher, in the fourth century B. C. was an Athenian of mean birth, but discovered an early thirst after knowledge, and, though oppressed by poverty, devoted himself to the pursuit of wisdom, under the tuition of Socrates. When he first became his disciple, he told Socrates, that the only thing which it was in his power to present him, in acknowledgment of his kind instructions, was himself. Socrates replied, that he accepted and valued the present, but that he hoped to render it more valuable by culture. Æschines adhered to this master with unalterable fidelity and perseverance, and enjoyed his particular friendship. Having spent many years in Athens, without being able to rise above the poverty of his birth, he determined, after the example of Plato and others, to visit the court of Dionysius, the tyrant of Sicily, who at this time had the reputation of being a general patron of philosophers. On his arrival at Syracuse, though slighted on account of his poverty by Plato, he was introduced to the prince by Aristippus, and was liberally rewarded for his Socratic dialogues. He remained in Sicily till the expulsion of the tyrant, and then returned to Athens. Here, not daring to become a public rival of Plato or Aristippus, he taught philosophy in private, and received payment for his instructions. Afterwards, in order to provide himself with a more plentiful subsistence, he appeared as a public orator; and Demosthenes, probably because he was jealous of his abilities (for he excelled in eloquence), became his opponent. The time when he died is not known. He wrote seven Socratic dialogues, in the true spirit of his master, on temperance, moderation, humanity, integrity, and other virtues, under the titles, Miltiades, Callias, Rhinon, Aspasia, Alcis, Axiochus, and Telauges. Of these only three are extant, the best edition of which is by Le Clerc, Amsterdam, 1711, 8vo. There is another valuable edition, with the notes of Horneus, Leovard. 1788, 8vo.

, a celebrated Greek orator, contemporary with Demosthenes, to whom he was little inferior, was born at Athens 327 years B. C. He is said to have been of distinguished birth, although Demosthenes reports that he was the son of a courtezan: but whatever his birth may have been, his talents were very considerable. His declamations against Philip king of Macedon, first brought him into notice. Demosthenes and he were rivals; but Demosthenes having vanquished him in a solemn debate, he went to Rhodes, and opened a school there, beginning his lectures by reading the two orations which occasioned his removal thither. When they excessively applauded that of Demosthenes, he was generous enough to say, “What would you have thought if you had heard him thunder out the words himself” He afterwards removed to Samos, where he died at the age of 75. There are only three of his orations extant, which however are so very beautiful, that Fabricius compares them to the three graces. One is against Timarchus his accuser, whom he treated so severely, as to make him weary of life; and some have said, that he did actually lay violent hands upon himself. Another is an “Apology” for himself against Demosthenes, who had accused him of perfidy in an “Embassy” to Philip. The third “against Ctesiphon,” who had decreed the golden crown to Demosthenes. This excellent, oration, together with that of Demosthenes against it, was translated by Cicero into Latin, as St. Jerome and Sidonius inform us. The three orations were published by Aldus 1513, and by Henry Stephens among other orators, 1575, in Greek. They are, as might have been necessarily expected, inserted in Reiske’s valuable edition of the Grecian orators. There are also attributed to Æschines twelve epistles, which Taylor has added to his edition of the orations of Demosthenes and Æschines. They have also been published, with various readings, by I. Samuel Sammet, Leipsic, 1772, 8vo. Wolfius has given them in his edition of Demosthenes, with a Latin version and notes, 1604; and this edition is most esteemed. The abbe Auger published a French translation of Æschines and Demosthenes, in 6 vols. 8vo, Paris, 1789 and 1804. Of his contest with Demosthenes, Dr. Blair gives this opinion Demosthenes appears to great advantage, when contrasted with JEschines, in the celebrated oration pro Corona. Æschines was his rival in business, and his personal enemy; and one of the most distinguished orators of that age. But when we read the two orations, Æschines is feeble in comparison of Demosthenes, and makes much less impression on the mind. His reasonings concerning the law that was in question, are indeed very subtile; but his invective against Demosthenes is general, and ill supported; whereas Demosthenes is a torrent, that nothing can resist. He bears down his antagonist with violence; he draws his character in the strongest colours; and the particular merit of that oration is, that all the descriptions in it are highly picturesque.

, one of the most eminent tragic poets of ancient times, was born at Athens. Authors differ in regard to the time of his birth, some placing it in the 65th, others in the 70th olympiad; but according to Stanley, who relies on the Arundelian marbles, he was born in the 63d olympiad, or about 400 years B. C. He was the son of Euphorion, and brother to Cynegirus and Aminias, who distinguished themselves in the battle of Marathon, and the sea-fight of Salamis; at which engagement Æschylus was likewise present. In this last action, according to Diodorus Siculus, Aminias, the younger of the three brothers, commanded a squadron of ships, and behaved with so much conduct and bravery, that he sunk the admiral of the Persian fleet, and signalized himself above all the Athenians. To this brother our poet was, upon a particular occasion, obliged for saving his life. Ælian relates, that Æschylus, being charged by the Athenians with certain blasphemous expressions in some of his pieces, was accused of impiety, and condemned to be stoned to death. They were just going to put the sentence in execution, when Aminias, with a happy presence of mind, throwing aside his cloak, shewed his arm without a hand, which he had lost at the battle of Salamis, in defence of his country. This sight made such an impression on the judges, that, touched with the remembrance of his valour, and the friendship he shewed for his brother, they pardoned Æschylus. Our poet however resented the indignity of this prosecution, and resolved to leave a place where his life had been in danger. He became more determined in this resolution, when he found his pieces less pleasing to the Athenians than those of Sophocie’s, though a much younger writer. Simonides had likewise won the prize from him, in an elegy upon the battle of Marathon. Suidas having said that uÆschylus retired into Sicily, because the seats broke down during the representation of one of x his tragedies, some have taken this literally, without considering that in this sense such an accident did great honour to ^schylus; but, according to Joseph Scaliger, it was a phrase amongst the comedians; and he was said to break down the seats, whose piece could not stand, but fell to the ground. Some affirm, that Æschylus never sat down to compose but when he had drunk liberally. This perhaps was in allusion to his excessive imagination, which was apparent in an abrupt, impetuous, and energetic style. They who co.uld not relish the sublimer beauties of language, might perhaps have ascribed his rapid and desultory manner, rather to the fumes of wine than to the result of reason. He wrote a great number of tragedies, of which there are but seven remaining; viz. Prometheus, the Seven Champions before Thebes, the Persae, the Agamemnon, the Choephorae, the Eumenides, and the Suppliant Virgins; and in these it is evident, that if he was not the father, he was the great improver of the Grecian stage. In the time of Thespis there was no public theatre to act upon; the strollers drove about from place to place in a cart. Æschylus furnished his actors with masks, and dressed them suitably to their characters. He likewise introduced the buskin, to make them appear more like heroes; and the ancients give Æschyius the praise of having been the first who removed murders and shocking sights from the eyes of the spectators. He is said likewise to have lessened the number of the chorus; but perhaps this reformation was owing to an accident; in his Eumenides, the chorus, which consisted of fifty persons, appearing on the stage with frightful habits, had such an effect on the spectators, that the women with child miscarried, and the children fell into fits; which occasioned a law to be made to reduce the chorus to fifteen. Mr. Le Fevre has observed, that Æschylus never represented women in love, in his tragedies, which, he says, was not suited to his genius; but in representing a woman transported with fury, he was incomparable. Longinus says, that Æschylus has a noble boldness of expression; and that his imagination is lofty and heroic. It must be owned, however, that he affected pompous words, and that his sense is too often obscured by figures. But, notwithstanding these imperfections, this poet was held in great veneration by the Athenians, who made a public decree that his tragedies should be played after his death. When Æschylus retired to the court of Hiero king of Sicily, this prince was then building the city of Ætna, and our poet celebrated the new city by a tragedy of the same name. After having lived some years at Gela, we are told that he died of a fracture of his skull, caused by an eagle letting fall a tortoise on his head; and that this death is said to have been predicted by an oracle, which had foretold that he should die by somewhat from the heavens. He died, however, by whatever means, according to Mr. Stanley, in the 69th year of his age. He had the honour of a pompous funeral from the Sicilians, who buried him near the river Gela; and the tragedians of the country performedplays and theatrical exercises at his tomb; upon which was inscribed an epitaph, celebrating him only for his valour at the battle of Marathon.

He has been justly compared to Shakspeare for energy of style and sentiment, for expression of character and passion, often by the happiest use of trivial circumstances. His merits have been skilfully analysed by the author of the Observer, No. 132, 133, and 134, who, it is nowknown, derived his materials from the unpublished writings of Dr. Bentley and perhaps yet better by the abbé Barthelemy, in his Anacharsis.

, 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 Greek historian, wrote a romantic history of Alexander the Great but it is not known at what time he lived. His work was translated into Latin by one Julius Valerius, who is not better known than Æsop. Freinshemius has the following passage concerning this work: “Julius Valerius wrote a fabulous Latin history of Alexander, which by some is ascribed to Æsop, by others to Callisthenes. Hence Antoninus, Vincentius, Uspargensis, and others, have taken their romantic tales.” Barthius, in his Adversaria, says: “There are many such things in the learned monk, who some years ago published a life of Alexander the Great, full of the most extravagant fictions; yet this romance had formerly so much credit, that it is quoted as an authority even by the best writers. Whether this extraordinary history was ever published I know not; I have it in manuscript, but I hardly think it worthy of a place in my library.” It is the same author that Franciscus Juretus mentions under the name of Æsop. The work was published in German at Strasburgh, 1486.

, a celebrated actor, who flourished about the 670th year of Rome. He and Roscius were contemporaries, and the best performers who ever appeared upon the Roman stage; the former excelling in tragedy, the latter in comedy. Cicero put himself under their direction to perfect his action. Æsop lived in a most expensive manner, and at one entertainment is said to have had a dish which cost above 800l.; this dish we are told was filled with singing and speaking birds, some of which cost near 50l. Pliny (according to Mr. Bayle) seems to refine too much, when he supposes that JEsop found no other delight in eating those birds but as they were imitators of mankind; and says that Æsop himself being an actor was but a copier of man; and therefore he should not have been lavish in destroying those birds, which, like himself, copied mankind. The delight which Æsop took in this sort of birds proceeded, as Mr. Bayle observes, from the expence. He did not make a dish of them because they could speak, but because of their extraordinary price. JEsop’s son was no less luxurious than his father, for he dissolved pearls for his guests to swallow. Some speak of this as a common practice of his, but others mention his falling into this excess only on a particular day, when he was treating his friends. Horace speaks only of one pearl of great value, which he dissolved in vinegar, and drank.

, was an architect of the 6th century, under the reign of Anastasius I. emperor of the east, who stowed many honours upon him, and admitted him into his council. He is said to have built the great wall, ordered by Anastasius, to preserve Constantinople from the inroads of the Huns, Goths, and Bulgarians. It was eighteen leagues in length, and twenty feet in breadth. He built also several edifices in Constantinople, particularly the Cbalcis in the grand palace.

, a Greek painter, highly praised by Cicero and Lucian, painted a picture, which he exhibited at the Olympic games, the subject of which was the nuptials of Alexander the Great and Roxana. It was so much applauded, that Proxenidas, who was one of the judges appointed to decide on the merits of the artists, enchanted with the talents of Ætion, bestowed on him his daughter in marriage. Lucian says that he saw this picture in Italy, and gives a very accurate description of it, from which Raphael sketched one of his richest compositions.

, a physician of Armicla, a town of Mesopotamia, lived about the end of the 5th or the beginning of the 6th century. The work for which he is now known is his­“Tetrabiblos,” a compilation from all the physicians who preceded him, particularly Galen, Archigenes, Dioscorides, &c. He describes also some new disorders, and throws out some opinions, not known before his time, respecting the diseases of the eye, and the use of outward applications. Partaking of the credulity of his time, he describes all the pretended specifics, charms, and amulets in vogue among the Egyptians, which forms a curious part of his writings. What he says on surgical topics is thought most valuable. The work, by the various transcribers, has been divided into four Tetrabiblons, and each into four discourses; and originally appears to have consisted of sixteen books. The first eight only were printed in Greek, at Venice, by the heirs of Aldus Manutius, 1534, fol. The others remain in manuscript in the libraries of Vienna and Paris. There have been many editions in Latin, of the translation of Janus Cornarius, under the title of “Contractse ex veteribus Medicinae Tetrabiblos,” Venice, 1543, 8vo; Basle, 1542, 1549, fol.; another at Basle, 1535, fol. translated by J. B. Montanus; two at Lyons, 1549, fol. and 1560, 4 vols. 12mo, with the notes of Hugo de Soleriis; and one at Paris, 1567, fol. among the “Medicae artis principes.” Dr. Freind has adverted to Mtius, in his history, more than to almost any ancient writer, but has not the same opinion of his surgical labours as is expressed above. Some writers have confounded this JEtius with the subject of the preceding article.

, a famous orator, born at Nismes, fifteen or sixteen years B. C. and flourished under Caligula, Claudius, and Nero. He was elected to the prsetorship; but, not being afterwards promoted according to his ambitious expectations, and desirous at any rate to advance himself, he turned informer against Claudia Pulchra, cousin of Agrippina, and pleaded himself in that affair. Having gained this cause, he was ranked amongst the first orators, and got into favour with Tiberius, who hated Agrippina: but this princess not thinking Domitius the author of this process, did not entertain the least resentment against him. The encomiums passed by the emperor on the eloquence of Domitius, made him now eagerly pursue the profession of an orator; so that he was seldom without some accusation or defence, by which he acquired a greater reputation for his eloquence than his probity. In the 779th year of Rome, he carried on an accusation against Claudia Pulchra; and the year following, Quintilius Varus her son was impeached by him and Publius Dolabella. It was not surprising that Afer, who had been poor for many years, and squandered the money got by former impeachments, should return to this practice; but it was matter of great surprise that one who was a relation of Varus, and of such an illustrious family as that of Publius Dolabella, should associate with this informer. Afer had a high reputation as an orator for a considerable time, but this he lost by continuing to plead when age had impaired the faculties of his mind.

Afflitto’s works are: 1. “Commentarius in Constitutiones Siciliae et Neapolis,” Francfort, 1603, fol. 2. “Commentarius-buper tres libros Feudorum,” Venice, 1534, fol.; Lyons, 1548, and 1560 4 Francfort, 1598, 1608, 1629. 3. “Decisiones Neapolitans antiquse et novae,” Venice, 1564, 1600, and 1635, fol.; and Francfort, 1616, and 1635, fol. 4. “Lecturæ super consuetudinibus Neapolitani Siciliaeque regni,” Leyden, 1535, fol.; reprinted under different titles, and with the additions of other writers on the subject. 5. “De Jure Protomiseos cum Baldo et Marantha, Tr. Tr. xviii.” Francfort, 1571, and 1588; reprinted at Spires, 1603, 8vo. 6. “Enumeratio u fisci,” Basle, 1550, fol. 7. “Lecturse super 7 Codicis Justiniani,” 1560. 8. “De consiliariis principum et officialibus eligendis, ad justitiam regendam,” Naples; a very scarce work. The frequent editions of these voluminous works sufficiently prove the high estimation in which they were held. The family of Afflito has produced other celebrated men, as 1. John Afflito, an eminent mathematician, particularly skilled in the art of fortification, and employed as an engineer by John of Austria in some of his wars. He published, in Spanish, a treatise on the subject, 2 vols. 4to, and a volume of “Theological and Philosophical Miscellanies.” He died at Naples, 1673. 2. Gaetan-Andre D‘Afflitto, advocate-general, who published law-pleadings and decisions at Naples, 1655. And lastly, Cæsar D’Afflitto, who left a work on the feudal laws.

, a native of Bussetto, a small town in the duchy of Piacenza, was appointed in 1768 by the Infant don Ferdinand to be professor of philosophy at Guastalla, where he wrote his “Historia di Guastalla,” 4 vols. 4to. It commences with the reign of Charlemagne; comprizes the three dynasties who governed that state: viz. the Torelli’s, the Gonzago’s, and the Bourbons, dukes of Parma; and finishes in 1776. On account of this work, he was appointed superintendant of the valuable library of Parma. He is a diffuse writer, as he allows in his preface, but his researches are valuable and correct. Writing under a prince so particular as the last Infant, he was obliged to suppress some things of a delicate kind. He wrote also “Historia di Parma,” printed there 2 vols. 4to, and other works respecting the antiquities and the lives of the sovereigns of these states. He left a manuscript history of Peter Louis Farnese, which the Infant would not suffer to be published. He died at the age of sixty, about the beginning of the present century.

, a Latin poet, who wrote several comedies in imitation of Menander. He was a man of wit and sense. Quintilian blames him for the licentious amours in his plays. He lived about 100 years before the vulgar sera, according to Vqssius. Only some fragments of this poet are come down to our times, which are inserted in the “Corpus Poetarum” of Maittaire, London, 1713, folio.

, a Christian historian, was born at Nicopolis in Palestine, in the third century. He composed a chronology, to convince the heathens of the antiquity of the true religion, and the novelty of the fables of Paganism. This work was divided into five books, and is a sort of universal history, from the creation of Adam, to the reign of the emperor Macrinus. No more, however, is extant than what we find of it in the Chronicon of Eusebius. He wrote a letter to Origen concerning the history of Susannah, which he deemed to be spurious, and another to Aristides, to reconcile the genealogical tables of St. Matthew and St. Luke. It was in consequence of his entreaties, that the emperor Heliogabalus rebuilt the city of Nicopolis, which he founded on the spot where the village of Emmaus stood. A mathematical work, entitled “Cæstus,” has been attributed to him. The fragments which remain of this author were printed among the “Mathematici Veteres,” at Paris, in 1693, fol. and were translated into French by M. Guiscard, in his “Mernoires Militaires des Grecs et des Remains,” Paris, 1774, 3 vols. 8vo. It is supposed that the ancient part of the work of Julius Africanus, was an abridgment of the famous work of Manetho, an Egyptian priest, who flourished about 300 years before Christ. (See Manetho). A great part of Africanus’s Chronography is extant in Georg. Syncellus, edit. Paris, 1652, from whence, not being then published, it was borrowed by Scaliger in his edition of Eusebius’s Chronicon in Greek. Africanus is placed by Cave at the year 220, who likewise supposes that he died in an advanced age, about the year 232. But Dr. Lardner does not think that he was then in an advanced age, or died so soon. Of his character, he says, that we may glory in Africanus as a Christian. For it cannot but be a pleasure to observe, that in those early days there were some within the inclosure of the church of Christ, whose shining abilities rendered them the ornament of the age in which they lived; when they appear also to have been men of unspotted characters, and give evident proofs of honesty and integrity.

, a Spanish missionary of the 17th century, who lived under the reigns of Philip III. and Philip IV. was a barefooted Augustin, and celebrated for his apostolic zeal. These religious had a principal hand in the rapid, but for the most part short-lived, progress of the Catholic faith in Japan; and converted the populous nation of the Tagalians, or Tagaleze, Malayans by descent, who inhabited Lucon, one of the Philippine islands, and who remain Christians to this day. In 1640, Aganduru was appointed by his brethren, and with the authority of Philip IV. to go to Rome and offer to the pope, Urban VIII. the homage and obedience of these new converts. He wrote a “History of Conversions in Japan and the Philippine islands, with a detail of his religious embassy:” and a “General History of the Moluccas and the Philippines,” 2 vols. from the discovery of them, to the middle of the seventeenth century.

, 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 voluminous geographer and historian, was a native of Gnidus; and in his youth reader to the historian Heraclides, and afterwards tutor to Ptolomy Alexander, who reigned in Egypt about the year 104 B. C. according to Dodwell. Agatharchides was attached to the doctrine of the Peripatetics. Among the numerous works he wrote on history and geography, the ancients mention the following: 1. “On the Red Sea,” in five books, which is a kind of periplus of the gulph of Arabia; with many curious particulars of the Sabeans, and other nations of Arabia Felix. The fragments of this work preserved by Diodorus and Photius, were printed by Henry Stephens, 1557, 8vo; and collected more fully by Hudson in his “Geographi minores,” vol. I. M. Gosselin also has dommerited on them in his “Recherches sur la Geographic.” 2. “On Asia,” a work of the historical kind, in ten books; quoted by Diodorus, Phlegon, Lucian, Athenaeus, Phothis, and Pliny. 3. “Of Europe;” a large work, of which Athenasus quotes the 28th, 34th, and 38th books. As the name of Agatharchides occurs in many authors of reputation, it is to be regretted that so many of his works have perished. It is uncertain whether he was the same with Agatharchides of Samos, who wrote on the Phrygian history, and on that of Persia, quoted by Diodorus, Josephus, and Photius.

, an ancient painter, the son of Eudemus, was borti at Samos, and practised his art at Athens. He painted with great facility, and was distinguished for his skill in animals, ornaments, and decorations. Alcibiades employed him to decorate his magnificent house; and, according to Demosthenes (in his oration against Midias), while thus employed, he contrived to seduce the mistress of Alcibiades, who having discovered the intrigue, punished him no otherwise than by close imprisonment until he completed his work; and then dismissed him with many rich presents. Plutarch in his lives of Alcibiades and Pelopidas, speaks only of the imprisonment, which he imputes solely to Alcibiades’ impatience to have his house finished. From his connexion with Zeuxis and Alcibiades, it is probable that he lived about the ninety-fifth olympiad, or 400 years B. C.; but this does not accord with Vitruvius’s account, who informs us that Agatharcus was the first who painted scenes for the theatre; and wrote a treatise on the subject, under the direction of Æschylus, who died 480 B. C. This anachronism has given rise to the conjecture that there may have been two painters of the name.

, 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.

He wrote an “History of Justinian’s reign” in five books, at the desire of Eutychianus, secretary of state, who was his intimate friend, and probably furnished hinty with many important materials for the purpose. It begins at the 26th year of Justinian’s reign, where Procopius ends; and, as Evagrius says, was carried down to the flight of Cosroes the younger to the Romans, and his restoration by Mauritius: but the same Evagrius adds, that the work was not then published. It was printed in Greek, with Bonaventure Vulcanius’s Latin version and notes, at Leyden, 1594, in 4to; and at Paris in the king’s printinghouse, 1660, in folio, to accompany the other Byzantine historians. His manner is prolix, and his style too much interspersed with poetical flights; but his facts are said to be accurate.

, or Agathon, a Greek poet, of Athens, and not of Samos as Gyraldi asserts, wrote several tragedies and comedies, of which only some fragments remain. Aristotle speaks of one, “The Flower,” with great praise. His first tragedy received the prize at the Olympic games. He was a man of expensive manners, and kept a magnificent table; at which the wits of his days used to assemble. Grotius has collected the fragments left of his dramas from Aristotle and Athenseus, in his collection of the fragments of Greek tragedies and comedies. He was the first who hazarded invented subjects. His comedies were written with elegance, but his tragedies abounded in antitheses and symmetrical ornaments. He lived about 735 B. C; but Barthelemi places him much earlier.

, or Egelnoth, or Æthelnoth, in Latin Achelnotus, archbishop of Canterbury in the reign of Canute the Great, succeeded to that see in the year 1020. This prelate, surnamed the Good, was son of earl Agilmer, and, at the time of his election, dean of Canterbury. After his promotion he went to Rome, and received his pall from pope Benedict VIII. In his way thither, as he passed through Pavia, he purchased, for an hundred talents of silver and one of gold, St. Augustine’s arm, which was kept there as a relic; and sent it over to England, as a present to Leofric, earl of Coventry. Upon his return, he is said to have raised the see of Coventry to its former lustre. He was much in favour with king Canute, and employed his interest with that monarch to good purposes. It was by his advice the king sent over large sums of money for the support of the foreign churches: and Malmsbury observes, that this prince was prompted to acts of piety, and restrained from excesses, by the regard he had for the archbishop. King Canute being dead, Agelnoth refused to crown his son Harold, alleging that the late king had enjoined him to set the crown upon none but the issue of queen Emma; that he had given the king a promise upon this head, and that he was resolved to be true to his engagement. Having declared himself with this freedom, he iaid the crown upon the altar, with an imprecation against those bishops who should venture to perform the ceremony. Harold, who was greatly chagrined at this disappointment, endeavoured, both by menaces and large offers, to prevail upon the archbishop, but in vain: and whether he was afterwards crowned by any other person is uncertain. Agelnoth, after he had held the see of Canterbury seventeen years, died Oct. 29, 1038. Three works have been attributed to him “A panegyric on the blessed Virgin Mary;” “A letter to Earl Leofric, concerning St, Augustine;” and “Letters to several persons.”

, a sculptor of Rhodes, who flourished probably in the fifth century B. C. is renowned for having executed, in concert with his son Athenodorus and Polydoros, that stupendous monument of Grecian art, the Laocoon.' It is supposed that this is the same groupe which decorated the baths of Titus in the time of Pliny, to whom we owe our knowledge of the names of the artists. It has been astonishingly preserved ever since to exhibit the perfection of the Greek artists in the imitation of nature and passion. It was discovered in the sixteenth century, in the baths of Titus, and in the very spot where, according to Pliny, it had attracted admiration in his time. The only circumstance which suggests a doubt on this subject is, that Pliny represents the groupe to have been formed of one solid block, whereas the present is evidently composed of several; but it is probable that time has rendered the fissures between the pieces more visible than when Pliny saw it. Julius II. bestowed a very liberal reward on Felix de Fredis who discovered the Laocoon, and it remained in Rome until the arrival of the French army, when that and other celebrated monuments of art were removed to the museum at Paris. Borghini and Winkelraan place the Laocoon and its sculptors in the most brilliant sera of the art in Greece; but of this some doubts have been entertained. Lessing, in his ingenious dissertation on poetry and painting, of which the Laocoon is both the title and the subject, endeavours to prove that the statue was made after the sublime passage in Virgil, in which Laocoon’s story is given; and from a consideration of the exquisite finishing of this groupe, compared with the works of the Grecian artists, he is of opinion that it was executed under the Caesars. Be this as it may, the Laocoon has immortalised the names of Agesander, Athenodorus, and Polydorus.

, a surveyor and engraver in the sixteenth century, whose original plates are now extremely rare. He first drew a plan of London, which, though referred to the time of Henry VIII. and Edward VI. appears from several circumstances to have been made early in Elizabeth’s reign, about 1560, on wood. It was republished in 1618, with alterations, in six sheets, cut in wood, and re-engraved by Vertue in 1748. The plates were bought by the Society of Antiquaries, and published in 1776. His next performances were plans of Oxford and Cambridge, about 1578. The former is the oldest plan of the city of Oxford extant. It was engraved at the expence of the university in 1728, with ancient views, on the borders, of the colleges and schools as they originally stood. This plate was unfortunately destroyed at the fire which consumed so much literary property belonging to Mr. Nichols, in 1808. The only other plan of Aggas’s workmanship, now known, is one of Dumvich in SulVolk, dated March, 1589, on vellum, and not engraved. Ames attributes to him a work entitled “A Preparative to platting of Landes and Tenements for suweigh, &c.” 1596. He is supposed to have been related to Edward Aggas, the son of Robert Aggas, of Stoke-nayland in Suffolk, who was a bookseller of some note from 1576 to 1594; and from one or ether probably descended Robert Aggas, or Angus, a landscape painter and scene painter, whose best work extant is a landscape now in Painter-stainers hall. He died in London, 1679, aged about sixty.

, an eminent divine of a very ancient family in Cumberland (whose name was de Aguilon, corruptly Aglionby), the son of Edward Aglionby, esq. and Elizabeth Musgrave of Crookdayke, was admitted a student of Queen’s College, Oxford, in 1583. Being elected fellow, he went into orders, and became an eloquent and learned preacher. Afterwards he travelled abroad, and was introduced to the acquaintance of the famous cardinal Bellarmin. On his return he was made chaplain in ordinary to Queen Elizabeth, and in 1600 took the degree of D. D. About that time he obtained the rectory of Islip, near Oxford, and in 1601 was elected principal of St. Edmund’s hall. He was likewise chaplain in ordinary to king James I. and, according to Wood, had a considerable share in the translation of the New Testament ordered by the king in 1604. The Biog. Brit, says, that Wood mentions no authority for this assertion; but Wood, in his Annals, gives his name among the other Oxford divines who were to translate the Gospels, Acts, and Apocalypse. Dr. Aglionby died at Islip, Feb. 6, 1609-10, aged fortythree, and was buried in the chancel of the parish church. He was eminent for his learning, deeply read in the Fathers, and a distinguished critic in the languages. His son George Aglionby was eighth dean of Canterbury, byappointment of Charles I. but was never installed, nor reaped any advantage by it, as the parliament had then (1642) seized on the profits of those capitular bodies, which were within the power of their arms, and he survived his nomination but a few months, dying at Oxford Nov. 1643, aged forty. From this family probably descended William Aglionby, a gentleman of polite learning, who was envoy from Queen Anne to the Swiss Cantons, and author of a book entitled “Painting illustrated, in three dialogues, with the lives of the most eminent painters from Cimabue to Raphael,” Lond. 1685, 4to. In Macky’s Characters (really written by Mr. Davis, an officer in the customs) he is thus spoken of “He has abundance of wit, and understands most of the languages well knows how to tell a story to the best advantage; but has an affected manner of conversation is thin, splenetic, and tawny complexioned, turned of sixty years old;” to which Swift added in manuscript, “He had been a Papist.” In a collection of letters published some years ago, there are several from Dr. William Aglionby, F. R. S. dated from 1685 to 1691, principally written from different parts of the continent, and probably by the same person, who is styled Doctor in Swift’s Works.

, archbishop of Ravenna in the ninth century, wrote the history of his predecessors in that see, in a bold style, and with little respect for the interests or character of the court of Rome, by which his grandfather or great-grandfather had been put to death. There are many curious facts in this collection of lives, but also several mistakes in dates. It was published by father Bacchini, in 1708, with notes, under the title “Agnelli qui et Andreas, abbatis S. Marias ad Blachernas, liber pontificalis, sive vituc Pontificum Ravennatum, &c.” 2-vols. 4to. Muratori reprinted it in his collection of Italian historians. Spreti, who wrote on the history of Ravenna, Vossius, and Moreri, have confounded Agnelli with, one of the same name who lived in the sixth century, and is supposed to have written a letter in the Bibliothec. Patrum, “De ratione Fidei ad Armenium.”

, an Italian lady of great learning, was born at Milan, March 16, 1718. Her inclinations from her earliest youth led her to the study of science, and at an age when young persons of her sex attend only to frivolous pursuits, she had made such astonishing progress in mathematics, that when in 1750 her father, professor in the university at Bologna, was unable to continue his lectures from infirm health, she obtained permission from the pope, Benedict XIV. to fill his chair. Before this, at the early age of nineteen, she had supported one hundred and ninety-one theses, which were published, in 1738, under the title “Propositiones Philosophicæ.” She was also mistress of Latin, Greek, Hebrew, French, German, and Spanish. At length she gave up her studies, and went into the monastery of the Blue Nuns, at Milan, where she died Jan. 9, 1799. In 1740 she published a discourse tending to prove “that the study of the liberal arts is not incompatible with the understandings of women,” This she had written when scarcely nine years old. Her “Instituzioni analitiche,” 1748, 2 vols. 4to, were translated in part by Antelmy, with the notes of M. Bossut, under the title of “Traites elementaires du Calcul differentiel et du Calcul integral,” 1775, 8vo: but more completely into English by that eminent judge of mathematical learning, the late rev. John Colson, M. A. F. R. S. and Lucasian professor of mathematics in the university of Cambridge. This learned and ingenious man, who had translated sir Isaac Newton’s Fluxions, with a comment, in 1736, and was well acquainted with what appeared on the same subject, in the course of fourteen years afterward, in the writings of Emerson, Maclaurin, and Simpson, found, after all, the analytical institutions of Agnesi to be so excellent, that he learned the Italian language, at an advanced age, for the sole purpose of translating that work into English, and at his death left the manuscript nearly prepared for the press. In this state it remained for some years, until Mr. Baron Maseres, with his usual liberal and active spirit, resolved to defray the whole expence of printing a handsome edition, 2 vols. 4to, 1801, which was superintended in the press by the rev. John Hellins, B. D. F. R. S. vicar of Potter’s-pury, in Northamptonshire. Her eloge was pronounced by Frisi, and translated into French by Boulard.

, archbishop of Lyons, was one of the most celebrated and learned prelates of the ninth century. Dr. Cave and Olearius tell us he was a Frenchman, but Du Pin says there is no absolute proof of this. He was born in the year 779, as father Mabillon deduced from a short martyrology, upon which Agobard seems to have written some notes with his own hand. In the year 782 he came from Spain to France. Leidrade, archbishop of Lyons, ordained him priest in the year 804, and nine years after he was appointed coadjutor, or corepiscopus to that prelate, and when, in the year 816, Leidrade returned to a monastery at Soissons, Agobard was substituted in his room with the consent of the emperor, and the whole synod of the French bishops, who highly approved of the choice which Leidrade had made of a successor. This ordination, however, was objected to, as it is contrary to the canons, that a bishop should choose his successor himself. Agobard notwithstanding enjoyed the see quietly till he was expelled from it by the emperor Louis le Debormaire, because he had espoused the party of his sou Lothaire, and been one of the chief authors of deposing him in the assembly of bishops at Compiegne in the year 833. For Lewis, having secured himself against the injustice and violence which had been offered by Lothaire and the bishops of his party, prosecuted the latter in the council of Thionville in the year 835. Agobard, who had retired to Italy, with the other bishops of his party, was summoned three times before the council, and refusing to appear, was deposed, but no person was substituted in his room. His cause was again examined in the year 836, at an assembly held at Stramiac near Lyons: but it continued still undetermined, on account of the absence of the bishops, whose sole right it was to depose their brother. At length, the sons of the emperor having made their peace with him, they found means to restore Agobard, who was present in the year 838, at an assembly held at Paris; and he died in the service of his sovereign, in Xaintonge, June 5, in the year 840. This church honoured him with the title of saint. He had no less share in the affairs of the church, than those of the empire; and he shewed by his writings that he was a much abler divine than a politician. He was a strenuous defender of ecclesiastical discipline, very tenacious of the opinions he had once espoused, and very vigorous in asserting and defending them. Dupin, however, acknowledges that he was unfriendly to the worship of images, and it appears that he held notions on that subject which would have done honour to more enlightened times. He wrote a treatise entitled “Adversus dogma Faslicis ad Ludovicum Imp.” against Felix Orgelitanus, to shew that Christ is the true son of God, and not merely by adoption and grace. He wrote likewise several tracts against the Jews, a list of which may be seen in the General Dictionary, 10 vols. fol. from whence our account of him is principally taken. His style is simple, intelligible, and natural, but without elevation or ornament. He reasons with much acuteness, confirming his arguments, as was the custom then, by the authority of the fathers, whom he has largely quoted. His works were buried in obscurity for several ages, Until Papirius Masso found a manuscript of them by chance at a bookseller’s shop at Lyons, who was just going to cut it to pieces to bind his books with. Masso published this manuscript at Paris in 1603 in 8vo, and the original was after his death deposited in the king of France’s library. But Masso having suffered many errors to escape him in his edition, M. Baluze published a more correct edition at Paris, 1666, 2 vols. 8vo, from the same manuscript, and illustrated it with notes. He likewise added to it a treatise of Agobard entitled “Contra quatuor libros Amalarii liber,” which he copied from an old manuscript of Peter Marnæsius, and collated with another manuscript of Chifflet. This edition has been likewise reprinted in the “Bibliotheca Patrum.”

, an eminent antiquary, lived in the seventeenth century. Under the pontificate of Urban VIII. he resided in the court of cardinal Barberini; and afterwards pope Alexander VII. who had a great esteem for him, gave him the appointment of examiner of antiquities in the Roman territory. He published the two following works, which are now scarce, and much valued. 1. “La Sicilia di Filippo Paruta descritta con Medaglie, con la giunta di Lionardo Agostini,” Rome, 1649, folio. This isa new edition of Paruta’s Sicilian medals, which was originally published at Palermo, 1612, folio, under the title “Delia Sicilia di Filippo Paruta descritta con Medaglie, parte prima.” This first part, which has become very rare, contains only engravings of the medals, to which a description was promised, in a second. part, which never appeared. Agostini used the same plates as Paruta, and added about four hundred medals to those in Paruta’s edition, but still without explanations. After his death, Paruta’s plates having fallen into the hands of Marco Maier, a bookseller, he published at Lyons, in 1697, anew edition, in folio, entitled, “La Sicilia di Filippo Paruta descritta con Medaglie, e ristampata con aggiunta di Lionardo Agostini, hora in miglior ordine disposta da Marco Maier, arrichita d'una descrittione compendiosa di quella famosa isola.” But notwithstanding the explanations and historical additions of this editor, this edition is less valued than those of Paruta and Agostini. The best and most complete is that which Havercamp published in Latin, at Leyden, 1723, 3 vols. folio, with a commentary; these form the sixth, seventh, and eighth volumes of Grsevius’s Thesaurus. The other work of Agostini is, 2. “Le Gemme antiche figurate di Lionardo Agostini, con le annotazioni del sig. Gio. Pietro Bellori,” part I. Rome, 1636 and 1657, 4to; part II. Rome, 1670; reprinted 1686, 2 vols. 4to. In 1702, Dominique de Rossi published an enlarged edition at Rome, 2 vols. 4to; and in 1707, a fourth edition was published at the same place in four large vols. 4to, with a vast number of additions by Maflfei. The first, however, is still in highest esteem on account of the beauty of the plates, which were executed by Galestruzzi; and the editors of the Orleans gems in 1780 seem to undervalue the labours of Maffei and Gronovius, who translated this work into Latin, Amsterdam, 1685, 4to, reprinted at Franeker, 1694. Joecher, in his Dictionary of learned Men, attributes to Agostini a work entitled “Consiglier di pace,” which was written by Lionardo Agosti.

, of Valerano, an eminent musician, was born in 1593, and was the scholar of Bernardo Nanini, and successor to Soriano in the pontifical chapel. Antinio Liberati speaks of him as one of the most scientific and ingenious composers of his time, in every species of music then cultivated; and adds, that when he was master of the chapel of St. Peter’s church at Rome, he astonished the musical world with his productions for four, six, and eight choirs or choruses; some of which might be sung in four or six parts only, without diminishing or enervating the harmony. Father Martini, who bears testimony to the truth of this eulogium, has inserted an Agnus Dei, in eight parts, of this composer, which is truly a curious production, three different canons being carried on at the same time, in so clear and natural a manner, both as to melody and harmony, that this learned father, who had been long exercised in such arduous enterprizes, speaks of it as one of the greatest efforts of genius and learning in this most difficult kind of composition. Agostino died in 1629, in the prime of life.

, a Provencal gentleman and poet, of the twelfth century, died in 1181, leaving behind him the character of a man, learned, amiable, witty, and elegant in person and manners. He married Jausserande de Lunel, in praise of whom he wrote many verses, dedicated to Ildefonso, the first of the name, king of Arragon, prince of Provence, and count of Barcelona, in whose court he held the rank of first gentleman. He complained that in his time the passion of love was not properly understood, and therefore wrote a treatise or poem, entitled “La maniera d'Amar del temps passat.” In this he maintains, in a chain of reasoning, that no one can be happy unless he is a good man; that no one can be a good man unless he is in love; and that no man knows how to love who is not careful of his mistress’s honour. None of his writings have been published. The family of Agoult still exists in Dauphiny and Provence.

was born at the colony of Forum-Julii, or Frejus in Provence, A. D. 40, in the reign of Caligula. His father’s name was Julius Græcinus, a man of senatorian rank, and famous for his eloquence. He was put to death by Caligula for refusing to accuse Marcus Silanus. His mother’s name was Julia Procilla, a lady of exemplary virtue. He studied philosophy and civil law at Marseilles, as far as was suitable to his character as a Roman and a senator. His first service in war was under Suetonius Paulinus in Britain; and upon his return to Rome he married Domitia Decidiana, with whom he lived in the utmost harmony and tranquillity. He was chosen questor: in Asia at the same time that Salvius Titianus was pro-consul there; and he preserved his integrity, though that province was extremely rich, and Titianus, who was very avaricious, would have readily countenanced his extortions in order to screen his own. He was afterwards chosen tribune of the people, and then praetor, under the emperor Nero. In Vespasian’s time he was made legate to Vettius Bolanus in Britain, and upon his return was ranked among the patricians by that emperor, and afterwards appointed governor of Aquitania; which post he held for three years, and upon his return was chosen consul, and then governor of Britain, where he distinguished himself by his courage and conduct in several campaigns. He subdued the Ordovices, or people of North Wales, and the island Mona, or Anglesey; and then reformed the abuses occasioned by the avarice or carelessness of the former governors, putting a stop to all manner of extortions, and causing justice to be impartially administered.

Vespasian dying about this time, Titus his son, knowing Agricola’s great merit, continued him in the government. In the spring he marched towards the north, where he made some new conquests, and ordered forts to be built for the Romans to winter in. He spent the following winter in endeavouring to bring the Britons to conform to the Romish eustoms. He thought the best way of diverting them from rising and taking arms, was to soften their rough manners by the more refined amusements of Rome; and soon after, the country was adorned with magnificent temples, porticoes, baths, and other fine public and private edifices. The British nobles had their sons educated in learning, and they who before had the utmost aversion to the Roman language, now made it their study. They wore likewise the Roman habit; and, as Tacitus observes, they were brought to consider those things as signs of politeness, which were only so many badges of slavery. In his third campaign he advanced as far as the river Tweed; and in his fourth he subdued the nations between the Tweed and the firths of Edinburgh and Dumbarton, into which the Clyde and the Tay discharge themselves. Here he built castles and fortresses, in order to shut up the nations which were yet unconquered. In his fifth campaign he marched beyond the firths, where he subdued some nations, and fixed garrisons along the western coasts over-against Ireland, designing to make a descent upon that island, having had perfect information of its state from a chief who had been banished from thence. In his sixth campaign he passed the firth of Forth, ordering his fleet, the first which the Romans ever had upon those seas, to row along the coasts, and take a view of the northern parts. He was advancing farther northwards, when he was informed that the northern nations were marching against him with a formidable army, which he routed. In the following spring the Britons raised an army of thirty thousand men, commanded by Galgacus, who endeavoured to rouse their patriotism by an admirable speech which may be seen in Tacitus, and which seems adapted to the case of every nation about to lose its liberties by the invasion of a powerful enemy. Agricola on this occasion likewise addressed his soldiers in a very eloquent harangue, which was so prevailing, that the Britons were routed, with the loss of ten thousand killed; whereas but three hundred and forty of the Romans were killed. Domitian, being informed of this victory, grew jealous of the conqueror, and recalled him under pretence of making him governor of Syria. His death was suspected to have been occasioned by poison given him by that emperor; and, as Tacitus remarks, happened very seasonably for him, as he did not live to witness the calamities brought upon his country by the cruelty of Domitian. He died Aug. 23, A. D. 93, in the fifty-fourth year of his age. It is scarcely needful to remind our readers that his life was affectionately written by his son-in-law Tacitus, who gives him a very high character, but not more than is warranted by contemporary authority; at least we are acquainted with no documents that can detract from it.

, a Saxon divine, born at Isleben, April 20, 1492, was an eminent doctor of the Lutheran church, though chargeable with vanity, presumption, and artifice. Bayle gives rather a confused account of his life, from which, however, it appears that he made himself distinguished in 1538, upon the following occasion. Luther, in the course of his ministry, was insisting upon the necessity of imprinting deeply in the minds of the people, that doctrine of the gospel, which represents Christ’s merits as the source of man’s salvation; and while he was eagerly employed in censuring and refuting the popish doctors, who mixed the law and the gospel together, and represented eternal happiness as die-fruit of legal obedience, Agricola took an opportunity to declaim against the law, maintaining that it was neither fit to be proposed to the people as a rule of manners, nor to be used in the church as a means of instruction; and that the gospel alone was to be inculcated and explained both in the churches and in the schools of learning. This was the foundation of the sect of Antinomians, who appeared in England during the usurpation of Cromwell, and carried their extravagant doctrines to a higher pitch than this Agricola. But the fortitude, vigilance, and credit of Luther suppressed the followers of Agricola for the present; and Agricola himself, intimidated by the opposition of so powerful an adversary, acknowledged and renounced his system. His recantation, however, does not seem to have been sincere, since we are told that, when his fears were dispelled by the death of Luther, he returned to his errors, and gained many proselytes. Still it has been pleaded on the part of Agricola, by Mosheim, that the full extravagance of Antinomianisra is not to be attributed to him, and that his principal fault lay in some harsh and inaccurate expressions, that were susceptible of dangerous and pernicious interpretations. If therefore, we follow the intention of Agricola, without interpreting, in a rigorous manner, the uncouth phrases and improper expressions he so frequently and so injudiciously employed, his doctrine, Mosheim thinks, will plainly amount to this; “That the ten commandments, published during the ministry of Moses, were chiefly designed for the Jews, and on that account might be lawfully neglected and laid aside by Christians; and that it was sufficient to explain with perspicuity, and to enforce with zeal, what Christ and his apostles had taught in the New Testament, both with respect to the means of grace and salvation, and the obligations of repentance and virtue.” He died at Berlin in 1566.

, one of the most learned men of the fifteenth century, was born in 1442, in the village of Bafflon, or Bafteln, near Groningen, in Friseland. Melchior Adam says, his parents were of one of the most considerable families in Friseland; but Ubo Emmius, in his history of that country, represents him as of mean extraction; and Bayle, who appears to have examined the matter with his usual precision, inclines to the latter opinion. He was, however, sent to school, where he made an uncommon progress, and had scarcely taken his degree of M. A. at Louvain, when he was offered a professorship, which he did not accept, as it would have prevented his travelling for farther improvement, a course usually taken by the learned men of those times. He went from Louvain to Paris, and from thence to Italy, residing two years at Ferrara, where he learned Greek and taught Latin, and disputed in prose and verse with Guarinus and the Strozzas, and where the duke honoured him with particular attention. He read lectures likewise on philosophy in this city, and his auditors were so well pleased as to wish he had been an Italian. At his return to his own country, he had the offer of many considerable employments; and at last accepted of a post at Groningen, and attended the court of Maximilian I. for six months, upon the affairs of that city. After this, which the gratitude of his masters did not render a very profitable employment, he resumed his travels for many years, in the course of which he refused the presidentship of a college at Antwerp, and fixed at length in the Palatinate, influenced by the persuasions of the bishop of Worms, whom he had instructed in the Greek language. He came to reside here in 1482, and passed the rest of his life, sometimes at Heidelberg, and sometimes at Worms. The Elector Palatine was pleased to hear him discourse concerning antiquity, and desired him to compose an “Abridgement of Ancient History,” which he performed with great accuracy. He also read public lectures at Worms; but his auditors being more accustomed to the subleties of logic than to polite literature, he was not so popular as he deserved. About the fortieth year of his age, he began to study divinity; and having no hope to succeed in it without a knowledge of Hebrew, he applied himself to that language, in which he had made considerable pro-­gress, when he was seized with an illness, which put an end. to his life and labours, on the 28th of October, 1485. He died in a very devout manner, and was buried in the church of the minor friars at Heidelberg. He is thought to have inclined a little to the principles of the reformers. He was accomplished in music and poetry, although he used these talents only for his amusement. There are but two works of his extant: “De Inventione Dialectica,” printed at Louvain, 1516; and at Cologne in 1539, along with his “Abridgement of Ancient History,” under the title “R. Agricolffi lucubrationes,” 2 vols. 4to. Erasmus gives a very exalted character of his learning and abilities; and by some of his admirers he was compared to Virgil in verse, and to Politian in prose.

In the year 1515 he read lectures upon Mercurius Trismegistus at Pavia. He left this city the same year, or the year following; but his departure was rather a flight than a retreat. By his second book of letters we find, that his friends endeavoured to procure him some honourable settlement at Grenoble, Geneva, Avignon, or Metz: he chose the last of these places; and in 1518 was employed as syndic, advocate, and counsellor for that city. The persecutions raised against him by the monks, because he had refuted a vulgar notion about St. Anne’s three husbands, and because he protected a countrywoman who was accused of witchcraft, obliged him to leave the city of Metz. The abuse which his friend Jacobus Faber Satulensis, or Jacques Faber d'Estaples, had received from the clergy of Metz, for affirming that St. Anne had but one husband, had raised his indignation, and incited him to maintain the same opinion. Agrippa retired to Cologn in the year 1520, leaving without regret a city, which those turbulent inquisitors had rendered hostile to all polite literature and real merit. He^eft his own country in 1521, and went to Geneva: here his income must have been inconsiderable, for he complains of not having enough to defray his expences to Chamber!, in order to solicit a pension from the duke of Savoy. In this, however, his hopes were disappointed; and in 1523 he removed to Fribourg in Switzerland. The year following he went to Lyons, and obtained a pension from Francis I. He was appointed physician to the king’s mother; but this was not much to his advantage; nor did he attend her at her departure from Lyons, in August 1525, when she went to conduct her daughter to the borders of Spain. He was left behind at Lyons, and was obliged to implore the assistance of his friends in order to obtain his salary; and before he received it, had the mortification of being informed that he was struck off the list. The cause of his disgrace was, that, having received orders from his mistress to examine by the rules of astrology, what success would attend the affairs of France, he too freely expressed his dislike that she should employ him in such idle curiosities, instead of things of consequence: at which she was highly offended; and became yet more irritated against him, when she understood that his astrological calculations promised new successes to the constable of Bourbon. Agrippa finding himself thus abandoned, gave way to the utmost rage and impetuosity of temper: he wrote several menacing letters, and threatened to publish some books, in which he would expose the secret history of those courtiers who had worked his ruin: nay, he proceeded so far as to say, that he would for the future account that princess, to whom he had been counsellor and physician, as a firuel and perfidious Jezebel.

He now resolved to remove to the Low Countries; this he could not do without a passport, which he at length obtained, after many tedious delays, and arrived at Antwerp in July 1528. The duke de Vendome was the principal cause of these delays; for he, instead of signing the passport, tore it in pieces in a passion, protesting he would never sign a passport for a conjuror. In 1529, Agrippa had invitations from Henry VIII. king of England, from the chancellor of the emperor, from an Italian marquis, and from Margaret of Austria, governess of the Low Countries: he preferred the last, and accepted of being historiographer to the emperor, which was offered him by that princess. He published, by way of introduction, the “History of the Coronation of Charles V.” Soon after, Margaret of Austria died, and he spoke her funeral oration. Her death is said in some measure to have been the life of Agrippa, for great prejudices had been infused into that princess against him: “I have nothing to write you (says he in one of his letters) but that I am likely to starve here, bein entirely forsaken by the deities of the court; what the great Jupiter himself (meaning Charles V.) intends, I know not. I now understand what great danger I was in here: the monks so far influenced the princess, who was of a superstitious turn, as women generally are, that, had not her sudden death prevented it, I should undoubtedly have been tried for offences against the majesty of the cowl and the sacred honour of the monks; crimes for which I should have been accounted no less guilty, and no less punished; than if I had blasphemed the Christian religion.” His treatise, “Of the Vanity of the Sciences,” which he published in 1530, greatly enraged his enemies; and that which he soon after printed at Antwerp, “Of the Occult Philosophy,” afforded them fresh pretexts for defaming his reputation. Cardinal Campej us, the pope’s legate, however, and the cardinal de la Mark, bishop of Liege, spoke in his favour; but could not procure him his pension as historiographer, nor prevent him from being thrown into prison at Brussels, in the year 1531. When he regained his liberty, he paid a visit to the archbishop of Cologn, to whom he had dedicated his Occult Philosophy, and from whom he had received a very obliging letter in return. The inquisitors endeavoured to hinder the impression of his Occult Philosophy, when he was about to print a second edition with emendations and additions; however, notwithstanding all their opposition, he finished it in 1533. He staid at Bonne till 1535; and when he returned to Lyons, he was imprisoned for what he had written against the mother of Francis I.; but he was soon released from his confinement, at the desire of several persons, and went to Grenoble, where he died the same year. Some authors say, that he died in the hospital; but Gabriel Naude affirms, it was at the house of the receiver-general of the province of Dauphiny.

Agrippa had been twice married. Speaking of his first wife, lib. II. ep. 19. “I have (says he), the greatest reason to return thanks to Almighty God, who has given me a wife after my own heart, a virgin of a noble family, well behaved, young, beautiful, and so conformable to my disposition, that we never have a harsh word with each other; and what completes my happiness is, that in whatever situation my affairs are, whether prosperous or adverse, she still continues the same, equally kind, affable, constant, sincere, and prudent, always easy, and mistress of herself.” This wife died in 1521. He married his second wife at Geneva, in 1522. The latter surpassed the former very much in fruitfulness; he had but one son by the former, whereas the latter was brought to bed thrice in two years, and a fourth time the year following. The third son by this marriage had the cardinal Lorrain for his godfather. She was delivered of her fifth son at Antwerp, in March 1529, and died there in August following. Some say that he married a third time, and that he divorced his last wife; but he mentions nothing thereof in his letters. Mr. Bayle saysj that Agrippa lived and died in the Romish communion; but Sextus Senensis asserts, that he was a Lutheran. Agrippa, in some passages of his letters, does indeed treat Luther with harsh epithets; however, in the 19th chapter of his Apology, he speaks in so favourable a manner of him, and with such contempt of his chief adversaries, that it is likely Sextus Senensis’s assertion was founded upon that passage. Bishop Burnet, in his History of the Reformation, speaks of Agrippa as if he had been an advocate for the divorce of Henry VIII. Mr. Bayle refutes this, and says that the ambassador of the emperor at London wrote to Agrippa, desiring him to support the interest of the queen: Agrippa replied, that he would readily engage, if the emperor would give him orders for that purpose; and declares that he detested the base compliance of those divines who approved of the divorce: and with regard to the Sorbonne, “I am not ignorant (says he), by what arts this affair was carried on in the Sorbonne at Paris, who by their rashness have given sanction to an example of such wickedness. When I consider it, I can scarce contain myself from exclaiming, in imitation of Perseus, Say, ye Sorbonnists, what has gold to do with divinity What piety and faith shall we imagine to be in their breasts, whose consciences are more venal than sincere, and who have sold their judgments and decisions, which ought to be revered by all the Christian world, and have now sullied the reputation they had established for faith and sincerity, by infamous avarice.” Agrippa was accused of having been a magician and sorcerer, and in. compact with the devil; but it is unnecessary to clear him, from this imputation. Bayle justly says, that if he was a conjuror, his art availed him little, as he was often in want of bread.

, archbishop of Amasia m Natolia, was born at Bologna, Nov. 20, 1570. He had the advantage of being educated under tfee care of Philip Sega, his uncle, who was raised on account of his distinguished merits to the rank of cardinal, by pope Innocent IX; and of Jerom Agucchio, his brother, who was made cardinal by pope Clement VIII. in 1604. His application to study mis early, rapid, and assiduous, but particularly in. the study of polite literature. This recommended him so much to cardinal Sega, that he carried him with him te France, when he went thither as legate from the pope. After the death of Sega, Agucchio was appointed secretary to cardinal Aldobrandini, nephew to pope Clement VIII. and attended him when he went legate to Henry IV. of France, of which journey he wrote a very elegant account. The cardinal, after his return, committed the management of his house to Agucchio, which province he executed till the death of pope Clement VIII. and of his brother the cardinal Agucchio, when want of health obliged him to retire from the court. But after he had recovered, and had passed some time at Rome in learned retirement, cardinal Aldobrandini brought him again into his former employment, in which he continued till the cardinal’s death. He then became secretary to Gregory XV. which place he held until the death of that pontiff. In 1624, Urban VIII. sent him as nuncio to Venice, where he became generally esteemed, although he maintained the rights of the see of Rome with the utmost rigour. The contagious distemper which ravaged Italy in 1630, obliged him to retire to Friuli, where he died in 1632. He was a man of very extensive learning, but appears in his private character to have been somewhat austere and narrow. His works are: “A treatise upon Comets and Meteors,” “The Life of Cardinal Sega, and that of Jerom Agucchio his brother,” and a letter to the canon Barthelemi Dolcini on the origin of the city of Bologna, “L'Antica fondazione e dominio della citta di Bologna,” Bologna, 1638, 4to. He left also various letters and moral treatises, not published.

, 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.

Aguesseau himself considered it as an honour to be recalled in a time of danger, and immediately began to repair the mischief done in his absence, by ordering the payment of the notes issued by the bank, as far as was possible; and although the loss to individuals was great, this measure was less odious than a total bankruptcy, which had been proposed. But a new storm burst forth in this corrupt court, which he was unable to oppose with his usual firmness. The regent, who had cajoled the parliament to nullify the will of Louis XIV. now solicited him to register the declaration of the king in favour of the bull Unigenitus. This was done in compliance with Dubois, now become archbishop of Cambray, and wfro, expecting a cardinal’s hat, had flattered the court of Rome with hopes of hayiug the bull registered. D‘Aguesseau had refused this, as we have seen, in the reign of Louis XIV. without being influenced by any spirit of party, but purely from his attachment to the rights of the crown. But now, when chancellor, he seemed to view the matter in another light; he thought it his duty to negociate with the parliament; and the parliament rejected his propositions, and was banished to Pontoise. The regent then imagiued he might register the declaration in the grand council. In this solemn assembly D’Aguesseau met with a repartee which he no doubt felt. Perelle, one of the members, having opposed the registration with much spirit, D'Aguesseau asked him where he had found all his arguments against it “In the pleadings of the deceased M. chancellor D'Aguesseau,” answered Perelle, very coolly; nor was this the only instance in which he was treated with ridicule on this change in his sentiments and conduct. In the mean time the court having threatened to send the parliament to Blois, the chancellor offered to resign the seals; but the regent requested him to retain them: and at length the parliament consented to register the disputed declaration with certain modifications. D‘Aguesseau, however, did not enjoy his honours long. In 1722, he refused to yield precedence to cardinal Dubois, the first minister; and this statesman, who wished to keep at a distance from court every man of virtue and dignity of character, procured the chancellor to be again banished, and he was not recalled until 1727, but without having the seals restored to him. In the mean time the court and parliament were still at variance on ecclesiastical affairs, and the cardinal Fleuri wished to engage D’Aguesseau’s influence in favour of the court; but the latter had unfortunately lost his credit in a great measure, and was considered as a deserter from the cause which he Jiad once defended with so much spirit.

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.”

, surnamed El-Razy, an Arabian lexicographer and lawyer, was the contemporary of the celebrated Djewhary. Besides some works on the vnbject of jurisprudence, he is the author of an “Arabic Dictionary,” entitled “Moudjimi-Alloghat,” of which there is a manuscript copy in the Leyden library, and another in the Bodleian. Golius, who made use of it in his Arabic dictionary, thinks that it was prior to that. of Djewhary. Ahmed died in Hamdan, about the year 999 of the Christian æra.

, or Abou Amrou, a native of Djaen, was the first Spanish Arab who composed small epic poems in the style of the orientals. The fragments which Dobi has preserved in his Bibl. Arab. EspagnoL. prove that he excelled in that high species of poetry. He also left a historical work on “the Annals of Spain.” He died of the gout, brought on by intemperance, in the year 970.

, 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.

With respect to the miracles ascribed to Aidan, they will not now bear a serious discussion. It is said that he prescribed oil to calm a turbulent sea; and Dr. Kippis, in the new edition of the Biographia Britannica, supposes from this that the good bishop might have some acquaintance with the property (lately brought to light by Dr. Franklin) which oil has of stilling waves. But in the bishop’s case, we must have a miracle or nothing; for the quantity he prescribed was contained in a phial, which could not have calmed the sea; and Dr. Franklin’s discovery has never been of the smallest use in any respect. Of the excellence of his character, as an ecclesiastic, much may be believed. His speech to a priest who employed harsh measures in converting the English, is a great proof of his good sense. “Your want of success, brother,” said he, “seems to me to be owing to your want of condescension to the weakness of your unlearned hearers; whom, according to the apostolic rule, you should first have fed with the milk of a milder and less rigid doctrine, till, being nourished by degrees with the word of God, they were become capable of relishing the more perfect and sublime precepts of the Gospel.” The reason he gave for foretelling Oswin’s death is also very striking. “I forsaw that Oswin’s life was but short; for in my life, I never saw so humble a prince before. His temper is too heavenly to dwell long among us; and indeed the nation does not deserve the blessing of snch a governor.”

, two brothers, whose history cannot be separated, as they were connected in all their pursuits, and shared alike in their success. They were born at Vire, in Normandy, about the middle of the sixteenth century; and were among the number of those who were encouraged bj the patronage of Francis I. to cultivate polite learning. After having studied law and medicine for some time at Paris and Poitiers, they retired to Normandy, and dedicated themselves to poetry only. Long and painful sickness, however, interrupted their joint labours, and shortened both their lives. Robert died at the age of fortynine, and Anthony two or three years after. Their reputation rests principally on their translations of Virgil and Horace into French verse. The former, which is most praised by French critics, was published in 1582, 4to; and reprinted the following year in 8vo, with the Latin; and a translation of the More turn and some other pieces attributed to Virgil. In their translation of Horace, which appeared in 1588, they failed totally in conveying the spirit, grace, and elegance of the favourite of Maecenas. There is also some original poetry of theirs at the conclusion of a collection of verses in their praise, published by their countryman, Pierre Lucas Salliere, under the title of “Le Tombeau de Robert et Antoine le chevalier, freres, sieurs d'Aigneaux,” Caen, 12 mo, 1591.

, 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.

Mr. Aikman, having prosecuted his studies for somt time in Britain, found that to complete them it would be necessary to go into Italy, to form his taste on the fine models of antiquity, which there alone can be found in abundance. And as he perceived that the profession he was to follow, could not permit him to manage properly his paternal estate, situated in a remote place near Arbroath in the county of For far in Scotland, he thought proper to sell it, and settle all family claims upon him, that he might be at full liberty to pursue his studies. In the year 1707 he went to Italy, and having resided chiefly at Rome for three years, and taken instructions from, and formed an acquaintance with the principal artists of that period, he chose to gratify his curiosity by travelling into Turkey. He went first to Constantinople, and from thence to Smyrna. There he became acquainted with all the British gentlemen of the factory; who wished him to forsake the pencil, and to join them in the Turkey trade: but, that scheme not tuking place, he went once more to Rome, and pursued his former studies there, till the year 1712, when he returned to his native country: he now followed his profession of painting for some time, applauded by the discerning few; though the public, too poor at that period to be able to purchase valuable pictures, were unable to give adequate encouragement to his superior merit. John duke of Argyll, who equally admired the artist and esteemed the man, regretting that such talents should be lost, at length prevailed on Mr. Aikman to move with all his family to London, in the year 1723, thinking this the only theatre in Britain where his talents could be properly displayed. Under the auspices of this nobleman, he formed habits of intimacy with the first artists, particularly with sir Godfrey Kneller, whose studies and dispositions of mind were very congenial to his own.

, 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.

Ainsworth’s learned writings, however, were esteemed even by his adversaries, who, while they refuted his extravagant tenets, yet paid a proper deference to his abilities; particularly Dr. Hall, bisbop of Exeter, who wrote with great strength of argument against the Brownists. But nothing could have effect upon him, or make him return home so he died in exile. His death was sudden, and not without suspicion of violence for it is reported, that having found a diamond of great value, he advertised it; and when the owner, who was a Jew, came to demand it, he offered him any gratuity he would desire. Ainsworth, though poor, requested only of the Jew, that he would procure him a conference with some of his rabbis, upon the prophecies of the Old Testament relating to the Messiah, which the Jew promised; but not having interest to obtain such a conference, it was thought that he contrived to get Ainsworth poisoned. This is said to have happened in 1622. He was undoubtedly a person of profound learning, and deeply read in the works of the rabbis. He had a strong understanding, quick penetration, and wonderful diligence.

His most esteemed works are his annotations on some books of the Bible. Those on the Psalms were printed 1612, 4to; on the Pentateuch, 2 vols. 4to, 1621, and again in 1627, fol. and 1639; which last edition Wendler and Vogt have inserted among scarce books. The Song of Solomon, which makes part of this volume, was printed separately in 1623, 4to. He published also several treatises of the controversial kind, as, 1. “A Counter-poison against Bernard and Crashaw,” 1608, 4to, and 1612, which Anthony Wood improperly attributes to Henry Jacob. Bishop Hall answered this tract; yet, whenever he mentions Ainsworth, it is with the highest praise as a man of learning. 2. “An Animadversion on Mr. Richard Clyfton’s Advertisement, who, under pretence of answering Charles Lawne’s book, hath published another man’s private letter, with Mr, Francis Johnson’s answer thereto; which letter is here justified, the answer hereto refuted, and the true causes of the lamentable breach that has lately fallen out in the English exiled church at Amsterdam, manifested: printed at Amsterdam, by Giles Thorp, Aid. 1613,” 4to; 3. “A treatise of the Communion of Saints;” 4. “A treatise of the Fellowship that the Faithful have with God, his Angels, and one with another, in this present life, 1615,” 8vo; 5. “The trying out of the Truth between John Ainsworth and Henry Ainsworth, the one pleading for, and the other against popery,” 4to; 6. “An Arrow against Idolatry;” 7. “Certain Notes of Mr. Ainsworth’s last Sermon on 1 Pet. ii. 4, 5, printed in 1630,” 8vo.

Be wise and meditate thy end.” Of his private life, little else is known, except that in 1721 or 1724, he was elected a fellow of the society of Antiquaries; and honourable notice is taken of him in the history of the society prefixed to the first volume of the Archæologia. He published, 1. “Monumenta Vetustatis Kempiana, &c.” 1720, 8vo. The greatest part of this collection was originally made by Mr. John Gailhard, who had been governor to George, first lord Carteret, and sold to his lordship for an annuity of 200l. After lord Carteret’s death in 1695, Mr. John Kemp bought a considerable part of the collection duriug the minority of John lord Carteret, afterwards earl Granville, and more after his death. Some years after Kemp’s death, the collection was sold by auction. 2. “Irtiov, sive ex veteris monumenti Isiaci descriptione Isidis Delubrum reseratum,” 1729, 4to. 3. “De Clypeo Carnilli antique,” 1734, which had before appeared at the end of “Museum Woodwardianum,” the latter part of which was drawn up by Ainsworth, though Dr. Woodward himself had described most of the statues, tables, and vases, and written large notes upon most of them. But the work which has contributed most to Mr. Ainsworth’s name is his well-known Latin Dictionary. About the year 1714, it having been suggested to some principal booksellers, that a new compendious English and Latin Dictionary, upon a plan somewhat similar to Faber’s Thesaurus, was much wanted, Mr. Ainsworth was considered as a proper person to execute what proved to be a long and troublesome undertaking: and how well he completed it has been sufficiently shewn by the approbation bestowed on it by a succession of the ablest teachers and scholars. The first edition appeared in 1736, 4to, in which Dr. Patrick appears to have assisted Ainsworth; and the second edition in 1746 was entirely entrusted to Patrick’s care, who introduced many additions and improvements. Dr. Ward also contributed to this edition. The third edition irt 1751 was superintended by Mr.Kimber, but with little or no variation. In 1752 another appeared, greatly improved by Mr. William Young (the parson Adams of Fielding), and an editor far superior to either of the preceding. An abridgment in 2 vols. 8vo, 1758, by Mr. Nathanael Thomas, is chiefly valuable for the clearness of the print, and the facility of reference. In 1773, Dr. Morell corrected, for the third time, the quarto edition, and continued to improve it as far as the edition of 1780; the last edition of 1808 was revised by a gentleman, whose name we are not at liberty to mention, amply qualified for the task. By a curious list of the sums given to the various editors of this work, published by Mr. Nichols, we learn that Ainsworth received for the first edition, 66 6l. 17s. 6d., and-for what he had contributed to the second, his executors were paid 2501.