head-quarters of the Persian troops, being joined by a great number of the natives to whom the Persian yoke was very offensive. The Persian commandant of Memphis marched out of the city to give him battle, and was defeated and forced to retire within the walls. By this success Amyntas and his troops were so elated that they commenced a general plunder of the neighbourhood, and allowed themselves to be surprised by the Persian troops, who sallied out from the city and cut them off to a man whilst they were pillaging, Amyntas himself being among the slain. (Diodorus, xvii. 48. Arrian, Anab. ii. Quintus Curtius, iv. 1.; Thirlwall, Hist. of Greece, v. 160. 191.)

R. W-n.

AMYNTAS, the son of ARRABÆUS, one of the officers of Alexander's cavalry who distinguished himself in the battle of the Granicus. This Amyntas seems to be alluded to on other occasions in Q. Curtius, but without any positive data to distinguish him from Amyntas the son of Andromenes. (Arrian, Anab. i. 14.; Q. Curtius, iv. 13.) R. W-n.

AMYNTAS I. ('Αμύντας), the son of Alcetas, was the ninth or (according to Herodotus and Thucydides) the sixth king of MACEDONIA, at least, of the Temenid dynasty. He had succeeded to the throne before в. с. 510, the time of the expulsion of the Pisistratidæ from Athens, as we learn from the fact of his having offered Anthemus, a city of Macedonia, to Hippias, the banished tyrant. Three years afterwards we find him giving earth and water to the ambassadors sent by Megabazus, the general of the Persian king Darius, in token of submission to the supremacy of that monarch. These ambassadors were slain on account of their insults to the ladies of the court of Amyntas, and the Persian general Bubares was sent by Megabazus to avenge their death. Instead of doing this, he was bought off by bribes and the hand of Gygæa, the daughter of Amyntas, and the matter was hushed up. At the time of this event, Amyntas was already advanced in years, and his son Alexander had grown up to manhood. Some chronologists assign to him a reign of fifty, others of forty-two years, but there is no positive testimony on which their calculations rest. He was succeeded by his son Alexander I. (Herodotus, v. 18. 94. viii. 139.; Clinton, Fasti Hellen. ii. 221.) R. W-n.

AMYNTAS II., the son of Tharraleus, a collateral descendant of Amyntas I., and the fifteenth king of MACEDONIA (according to Herodotus the twelfth), ascended the throne B. c. 394, and reigned twenty-four years. Within little more than a year after his accession, Macedonia was invaded by the Illyrians, and Amyntas defeated by them in battle. Finding himself unable to resist them, and in despair of maintaining possession of

them to the rising state of Olynthus, and left the country. From some accounts it would appear that the Illyrians supported another claimant to the throne of the name of Argæus, and kept him in possession of the sovereignty for the space of two years. At the end of this time (according to Diodorus not long after his expulsion), Amyntas was restored to his kingdom by the Thessalians, and, having expelled the Illyrians from the country, he demanded from the Olynthians the restitution of the ceded territory, the revenues of which they had collected for their own use. They refused to give it up; and Amyntas, finding himself unable to cope with their power, applied to Sparta for succour, by whose assistance Olynthus was at last obliged to yield. Amyntas thus regained the whole of his kingdom; nor are we informed of any subsequent invasion of it by his old enemies the Illyrians. Diodorus (xvi. 2.), indeed, states, that Amyntas was obliged to pay them tribute, and to give up his son Philip as a hostage to them; and if this happened after the reduction of Olynthus, it would follow that he was again threatened by them.

Though Amyntas continued to keep up a close alliance with Sparta, he also endeavoured to conciliate the friendship of Athens, more especially towards the end of his reign. For example, he professed to favour the claim of the Athenians on Amphipolis, and even went so får as to adopt Iphicrates, the Athenian general, as his son. He died in B. c. 370, а year, as Diodorus observes, remarkable for the death of two other Grecian princes, Jason of Thessaly, and Agesipolis II. of Lacedæmon. He left three sons by his wife Eurydice, Alexander, Perdiccas, and Philip, the first of whom succeeded him as king of Macedonia.

According to a statement, which however rests on the unsupported testimony of Justin (vii. 4. 5.), Amyntas was not blessed with domestic happiness, his wife having in coneert with her paramour conspired against him. The plot was discovered, and he forgave her. According to the same author, his two sons Alexander and Perdiccas perished by her arts after the death of their father. It is worthy of remark that Nicomachus, the father of Aristotle, was the surgeon of Amyntas, and his intimate friend. (Diogen. Laert. V. Aristot.)

The transactions between Amyntas and the Olynthians have been recorded according to the account of Diodorus. Xenophon (Hellen. v. 13.) gives a different representation of them. A reasonable explanation of the discrepancy will be found in Thirlwall's "History of Greece," v. 11. There is also a doubt as to the name of the father of Amyntas II. Justin (l. c.) and Ælian (V. Η. xii. 43.) call him Menelaus; the chronologist Dexippus styles him Aridæus. Amyntas the

is a different person from Amyntas II., though supposed by the Scholiast to be the same. (Diodorus, xiv. 89. 92. xv. 19. 60.; Æschines, Fals. Legat. p. 31.; Isocrates, Archid. p. 125.; Thirlwall, Hist. of Greece, v. 11. 161.; Clinton, Fasti Hellen. vol. ii., Append. p. 225.) R. W-n.

AMYNTAS III., the son of Perdiccas III. brother of the great Philip of Macedon, and the grandson of Amyntas II., can hardly be called a king of MACEDONIA, though he was legitimately entitled to the crown. On the death of his father (в. с. 359) Amyntas III. was left an infant and the rightful heir to the throne. Consequently Philip did not immediately assume the title of king, but acted at first as a guardian and regent for his nephew till his plans were matured, when he openly set him aside, and ascended the throne. Amyntas afterwards married a daughter of Philip, named Cynane. He was put to death on a charge of being concerned in a plot against the life of his cousin, Alexander the Great, a short time before the latter left Macedonia for Asia. This is the same Amyntas to whom Plutarch alludes (Alexandri Magni Fortuna, i. 327.). (Thirlwall, Hist. of Greece, v. 166. 177. vi. 99.; Justin, vii. 5.; Q. Curtius, vi. 9.; Polyænus, viii. 60.; Photius, Biblioth. Cod. 92.)

R. W-n.

AMYNTIA'NUS ( ̓Αμυντιανός), a Greek historian who lived in the reign of the Emperor Marcus Antoninus, to whom he dedicated a work on the life of Alexander the Great. In the introduction he promised in his style to equal the grandeur of the exploits of his hero; but Photius censures his style, and also remarks that many important matters were omitted in the work. For these reasons, Photius gives no extracts from it, but merely notices some other works by the same author, such as parallel biographies (βίοι παράλληλοι) of the elder Dionysius and the Emperor Domitian, in two books, of Philip of Macedonia and Augustus, likewise in two books, and a separate life of Olympias, the mother of Alexander the Great. (Photius, Biblioth. Cod. cxxxi.) The scholiast on Pindar (Olymp. iii. 52.) mentions a work on elephants by one Amyntianus, who is perhaps the same person as Amyntianus the

historian.

L. S.

AMYOT, JAQUES, is chiefly known in our times for the high merit which belongs to him as having been one of the most distinguished among those early writers of French prose, whose works gave consistency and elegance to the modern language. He was born at Melun in 1513; and, overcoming, it is said, formidable obstacles interposed by poverty, studied successively at Paris and at Bourges. His first preferment was the professorship of Greek and Latin in the university of Bourges, an appointment obtained for him through the patronage of

guerite. While he held that office, he extended his literary reputation by translations from Heliodorus and Plutarch; and, having apparently by this time entered the church, he was entrusted, in 1551, with a delicate mission to the Council of Trent, which he discharged with so happy a mixture of boldness and dexterity as to earn the character of a skilful diplomatist and man of business. Possessing such a combination of accomplishments, he had excellent claims to the appointment which he received about the year 1558, as tutor to Henry the Second's sons, (afterwards Charles IX. and Henry III.); and, contriving to retain the favour of his royal pupils as they successively ascended the throne, he continued, during the remainder of his life, to receive one lucrative and dignified office after another. His most considerable preferments were, the post of grand almoner of France, conferred upon him in 1560, and the bishopric of Auxerre, to which he was raised in 1570. During this most prosperous period of his life, he is represented as having exhibited a rapacity in seeking wealth, and a parsimony in using it, which, as well as his readiness of wit, the memoirs of the time depict in several characteristic anecdotes. Upon one occasion, when he asked from Charles IX. a new abbacy, in addition to several which he already held, the king demurred to granting the application: "Did you not once assure me," he asked, "that your ambition would be quite satisfied with a revenue of a thousand crowns?" " True, sire," replied the bishop, "but there are some appetites which grow as you feed them." Amyot died at the seat of his diocese in 1593, leaving a fortune which, for the times, was very considerable.

are

Amyot's genuine works, principally translations into French from the classical tongues, the following: -1. A translation of Heliodorus's Greek Romance, "Theagenes and Chariclea." Paris, 1547, fol., 1549, 8vo. ; an amended translation made from better manuscripts, in 1559, fol. &c. &c. 2. A translation of seven books of Diodorus Siculus, being from the eleventh to the seventeenth inclusive. Paris, 1554, fol., 1587, fol. 3. A translation of Longus's Greek romance, "Daphnis and Chloe." 1559, 8vo. &c. &c. 4. Translations of the Parallel Lives and Moral Treatises of Plutarch. The first appearance of any of these translations seems to have been the edition of the Lives published at Paris in 1544, 4 vols. folio. The following are named as the earliest of the subsequent Parisian editions : "Les Vies," 1559, 2 vols. fol.; “Les Vies et les Œuvres Morales," 1565-1575, 4 vols. fol., and 15671574, 13 vols. small 8vo. Modern Parisian editions of the complete works of Plutarch in Amyot's translation, are those of 1784, 18 vols. 8vo.; 1783-1787, by Brotier and Vauvilliers, 22 vols. 8vo.; 1801-1806, the same edition improved by Clavier, 25 vols. 8vo.; and an edition in 1810-1812, 16 vols. 8vo. No difference of opinion has ever arisen with regard to the merit of these celebrated translations as specimens of old French style. But the learning and accuracy of the translator have been repeatedly questioned. Some of the most severe of the animadversions are cited, with an expression of partial dissent, by Dacier (" Les Vies de Plutarque, t. i. p. ix. -xv. 1721). For the charge against him of having read his Plutarch chiefly in Latin and Italian there does not seem to be any ground: the best modern critics of the author seem to admit the assertions which Amyot makes in his two prefaces, that he had not only studied the original Greek with diligence, but had collated several manuscripts for the purpose of amending the text. (See Reiske's Plutarch, vol. i. p. xxxv. Leipzig, 1774). The best judges have recognized the translation as being in general accurate, and the number of errors is not greater than that which might have been expected in the execution of a task so extensive and so difficult. Probably, however, there is much truth in the assertion that the bishop owed a good deal to the critical advice of Turnebus and other contemporary scholars, and perhaps a little likewise to Xylander's Latin translation. At all events there is some reason for the remark upon which that suspicion is partly rested, namely, that the easiest passages of Plutarch, where Amyot may be presumed to have relied upon his own scholarship, are often worse translated than some of the most difficult, in which it is inferred that he consulted his learned friends. The old English Plutarch of Sir Thomas North (1579, fol.), in which Shakspeare studied Roman history, is an avowed translation, not from the original, but from the French of Amyot. 5. "Lettre à M. de Morvillier," being an account of the author's mission to Trent; in the memoirs of the council by Vargas, in the memoirs by Dupuy, and in Pithou's "Ecclesiæ Gallicanæ Status," 1594. 6. "Projet de l'Eloquence Royale composé pour Henry III.," not printed till 1805, 8vo. and 4to. (Moreri, Dictionnaire, art. "Amyot;" Niceron, Memoires, t. iv. p. 45 -57.; Bayle, Dictionnaire, art. "Amyot;" Baillet, Jugemens des Sçavans, t. iii. p. 521. No. 935.; Teissier, Eloges des Hommes Savans, t. iv. p. 122. 1715.)

W. S.

AMYOT, JOSEPH. [AMIOT.] AMYRAUT (his Latinized name is Amyraldus), MOSES, an eminent French Protestant divine, of an ancient family, was born at Bourgueil in Touraine, in September, 1596. His father, intending him for the legal profession, of which some of his near relations were members, sent him to the college of Poitiers, where he applied to the law with great diligence. At this time his thoughts

were turned in another direction by his countryman, M. Bouchereau, the Protestant pastor of the church of Saumur, who advised him to study divinity. The perusal of the Institutes of Calvin having also inspired a taste and awakened the desire for theological inquiries, he determined to act upon his friend's suggestion. He immediately communicated his purpose to his father, who reluctantly acceded to his wishes. Amyraut now entered with great zeal upon his theological studies at Saumur; and being in due course admitted a minister, was placed over the church of St. Aignan in the province of Maine. After a residence of eighteen months at St. Aignan, he removed to Saumur, where he became the successor in the pastoral office of M. Daillé, who had settled at Charenton, In 1633, soon after his removal to Saumur, the Academic Council appointed him professor of divinity in the university of that city, Lewis Cappel and Joshua de la Place being chosen at the same period to occupy other professors' chairs. It is stated as a circumstance by no means common in academic history, that these learned persons felt for one another the most cordial esteem, and lived on terms of intimate friendship. Amyraut, being deputed in 1631 to attend the Synod of Charenton, was chosen by that body to appear on their behalf before the king, to convey to him their remonstrances against certain infractions of the edicts of pacification made in favour of the Protestants. It was then the rule at the French court that the Protestants, when they appeared in the royal presence, should address the king on their knees. Amyraut, on his own suggestion, was instructed by the synod to procure the abolition of this ceremony. When he applied for an audience with the king, he explained to the secretary of state and to Cardinal Richelieu the nature of his instructions. They at first remonstrated, and the king seemed inexorable. Amyraut, however, managed the affair with so much address, that he won over the cardinal, and he was permitted to appear in the royal presence and to make his address standing, according to the form observed by the Roman Catholic clergy. Richelieu was so much pleased with the temper and ability displayed on this occasion by Amyraut, that he ever afterwards treated him with great respect.

A Roman Catholic of distinction having, in a friendly conversation, in the presence of Amyraut, objected to the doctrine of predestination as stated by Calvin, he immediately undertook its vindication, and published a treatise upon the subject, in which he laboured to reconcile the predestinarianism of the Genevese reformer with the doctrine of universal grace. This work, which was charitably meant to conciliate parties who were thought to be only apparently divided, produced an extraordinary ebullition of indignant and hostile feeling throughout the whole Protestant community, and involved the author in a protracted and virulent controversy. The Calvinistic divines reprobated the book with one voice in the strongest terms. At their head appeared Du Moulin, who charged the author, with even more than usual theological acrimony, with impugning the decrees of the synod of Dort, and promulgating the heresy of Arminius. The controversy, being thus sustained by the influence of high names, raised so strong a prejudice against Amyraut that the subject was brought before the synod of Alençon, several deputies to that assembly being instructed to consent to nothing short of Amyraut's deposition. Amyraut, having been heard in his defence, and having proved to the satisfaction of many of his judges the correctness of his representation of Calvin's opinion, was honourably acquitted, but enjoined silence for the future on the matter in controversy. He felt, however, too confident in the justice of his cause to submit to this restriction, and complaints were preferred before the national synod of Charenton of his infraction of the injunction. In answer to these complaints he pleaded the conduct of his opponents, who had not ceased to assail him. The synod settled the disputes by an amicable compromise, or "holy amnesty," as it was called, conceding to Amyraut the liberty of writing in his defence against the attacks of foreign authors. The controversy had by this time raised up zealous combatants in Holland and elsewhere; and Amyraut's first use of the concession of Charenton was to publish an answer to the attack of Spanheim in his work, in three volumes, on universal grace. On the same side had enlisted also Rivet, Des Marets, and other writers, whilst Amyraut was supported by the talents of Daillé, Mestrezat, Blondel, and Claude.

The result of this celebrated controversy was not a little remarkable. The opinions advanced by Amyraut, for the purpose, not of opposing the system of Calvin, but of removing a prejudice against what he deemed a misapprehension of his doctrine of predestination, roused against him nearly all the Protestant divines of France, who would suffer no departure from what they considered the strict letter of the Institutes. Yet these opinions, which certainly approximated to the systems of Pelagius and Arminius, gradually gained the ascendancy, and were so generally adopted in France as to be publicly received by the universities of the Huguenots; and by the dispersion of the French Protestants after the revocation of the edict of Nantes, they were rapidly spread through Holland and other countries where the refugees found an asylum.

Notwithstanding Amyraut maintained opinions thought by many to be a departure

from orthodoxy, so highly were his general merits appreciated that he continued to be regarded with great respect in his own religious community. Even those who most warmly controverted his alleged heresies did not doubt his sincerity, and whilst they repudiated his creed, esteemed and venerated the amiable and intrepid advocate.

Amyraut also lived on terms of intimate friendship with the highest dignitaries in the Roman Catholic church. Richelieu consulted him upon a scheme which he had for the reunion of the Protestant and Roman Catholic churches. The writer of the life of Amyraut in the "Biographie Universelle " treats Bayle's account of this matter as a fable; but his denial of its accuracy, which is, however, accompanied by no proofs, relates merely to the details of a conversation said to have been held on the subject between Amyraut and the Jesuit Audebert. The main statement is not impugned as to Richelieu's communication. Cardinal Mazarin also showed him unusual courtesy. This favourable notice may be in part attributed to the cardinal's appreciation of his merits. It is not, however, improbable that it may be chiefly ascribed to the language which Amyraut had used and the conduct he had manifested in defence of the royal cause and prerogative during the political troubles which had then recently agitated France. Though himself a prominent member of the great religious body against whom the powers of the government had been directed, and who owed the public profession of their faith to their own firm resistance to oppression, Amyraut had publicly maintained the doctrine of implicit obedience to the sovereign authority. In 1647 he published an apology for the Protestants of France, in extenuation of their conduct in the civil wars, in which he states that he will not justify the taking up arms against one's prince on any occasion whatever, deeming it more consonant with the interests of the Gospel and the practice of the church to employ no other arms than patience, tears, and prayers. And in 1650 he wrote another work in the same spirit, on the sovereignty of kings, occasioned by the execution of Charles I. of England, in which, as well as in the preface to his Latin version of the Psalms, dedicated to Charles II., he maintains the doctrine of passive obe.. dience. He makes an exception, it is true, in relation to cases of conscience, the nature of which may be inferred from his own conduct in a particular instance. The seneschal of Saumur having communicated to him an order of the council of state, that the Protestants should place hangings before their houses on Corpus Christi day, and requested his assistance to obtain their compliance, he not only refused to give his help, but declared that he would go round from house to house and recommend them to disobey the order. The order was in consequence revoked.

Amyraut died in the month of July, 1664, and was buried with the usual academic ceremonies. Notwithstanding his avowed principles and public profession as a Protestant divine, no member of the clerical order was held in more general esteem. His amiable temper, his candid and conciliatory disposition, his varied attainments, the solidity of his judgment, and his great powers of conversation, caused his society to be courted and his advice solicited by all persons.

To

the poor, without distinction of creed, he was a constant and liberal benefactor, and he appropriated to their use, for the last ten years of his life, the whole of his professional income. Amyraut was married, and had a son and daughter. The latter died in 1645, eighteen months after her marriage with the king's advocate at Saumur. mitigate the grief of his wife on this occasion, he published a pleasing work on the state of the faithful after death. His son became a

To

learned advocate in the parliament of Paris; but on the revocation of the edict of Nantes, he took up his residence at the Hague.

Amyraut was a voluminous author. He wrote with equal ease in Latin and French. Some of his works have been already mentioned. The principal of his writings are the following: -1. A Treatise on Religion. 1631. 2. On the Nature, Extent, &c. of the Gospel. 1636. 3. The Exaltation of Truth and the Abasement of Reason. 1641. 4. Defence of Calvin, in regard to the Doctrine of absolute Reprobation, in Latin and French. 1641, 1644. 5. Paraphrase on the Scriptures; begun in 1644, published without his name. 6. An Apology for the Protestants. 1647. 7. A Treatise on Free Will (Latin). 8. On Separation from the Church of Rome (Latin). 1617. 9. Irenicon, designed to promote the Re-union of the Calvinists and Lutherans. 1648. 10. On the Calling of Pastors. 1649. 11. Christian Morality, 6 vols. 8vo., a work of singular merit, composed with great care. 12. A Treatise on Dreams. 13. A Treatise on the Millennium. 14. A Life of the celebrated Commander Francis Le Noue. 15. A Poem, entitled " Apology of St. Stephen for his Judges." (Bayle, Dict.; Moreri, Dict.; Biographie Universelle.)

T. R.

AMYRTÆUS ('Αμυρταῖος). During the Persian dominion in Egypt, several attempts were made to throw off the yoke of the Persians, and these attempts, supported by the Greeks, had sometimes partial success, inasmuch as Egyptian princes were enabled to maintain an independent position in a part of the country. One of these attempts was made in B. c. 463, by Inarus, a Libyan prince, who was afterwards joined by an Egyptian, Amyrtæus of Sais. Inarus was defeated in B. c. 456, by treachery; but Amyrtæus maintained himself in the marshes

of Lower Egypt with the support of his troops for several years. Three years after the defeat of Inarus, the Athenians, who had supported the Libyan rebel with no success, now again sent a fleet of sixty sail, at the request and for the support of Amyrtæus. But the fleet soon after returned without having effected any thing, and Amyrtæus was left to himself. The period of his reign in the marshes of Lower Egypt is reckoned at six years. After his death, that part of the country seems to have maintained its independence from Persia for upwards of a century. (Thucydides, i. 110, 111.; Herodotus, ii. 140.; iii. 15.; Georg. Syncellus, Chronographia, p. 142. and 488. ed. Dindorf.) According to Ctesias (p. 120. ed. Bähr), Amyrtæus was the name of the king of Egypt in whose reign the country was conquered by Cambyses, whereas, according to Herodotus (iii. 10.), the king's name was Psammenitus.)

AMYTIS. [CYRUS.]

L. S.

ANACAO'NA, or, "flower of gold," the sister of Behechio, cacique or king of Xaragua, one of the five kingdoms into which Hayti was divided at the time that Columbus discovered the island in 1492, was the wife of Caonabo, a Carib, who, entering Hayti as an adventurer, had made himself master of the kingdom of Maguana, and was the most powerful chief in the island. Caonabo was jealous of the white strangers, and made war on them; but was finally captured in 1494 by a stratagem of Alonso de Ojeda. That captain visiting him as a friend, persuaded him that a pair of polished steel handcuffs which he brought with him were royal ornaments, and considered as marks of dignity in Spain, he fitted them on, as a great favour; he also, as another favour, allowed Caonabo to mount on horseback, and he then carried him off from the midst of his army to Columbus. The ship in which Caonabo was embarked to be sent to Spain was lost in a tempest, and Anacaona, now a widow, retired to live with her brother Behechio, whose kingdom she assisted him in governing. She had probably not been much attached to Caonabo; at least, after his death she showed great partiality to the Spaniards. Don Bartholomew Columbus, the brother of the discoverer, on a visit to Xaragua in 1496, was received with great festivity; and Behechio, though he had previously opposed the white men, readily agreed to pay him a tribute of cotton, it was said, at the persuasion of his sister. In the next year, when Don Bartholomew returned to Xaragua to collect the tribute, he was lodged one night at a village belonging to Anacaona, in which she kept her simple treasures, consisting of manufactured articles of cotton, with chairs, tables, and various furniture made of ebony and other rich woods, of all of which she made liberal presents to the Spaniards. She manifested the utmost de