siege to Haarlem, where the nobles had taken refuge before the expedition into Amsterland. Jan van Persyn, a valiant knight, one of its defenders, issuing forth by night, and getting in the rear of the besiegers, set fire to their baggage and threw them into confusion; and the townsmen at the same time making a sally, the Kennemerlanders were totally defeated; after which Utrecht was with some difficulty retaken, and the old order of things re-established. These events, according to Beka, took place in 1268, but they are placed by some historians in 1272. about his person, which afforded them an opportunity of revenge. They were easily drawn into a conspiracy of Gerrits van Velsen against the count, which while attributed by tradition to the resentment of Van Velsen for insults offered to him by Floris, is by some historians, and more especially by Bilderdyk, ascribed to the machinations of King Edward I. of England, (whose daughter, Elizabeth, was married to Floris's son), in revenge for a treaty which the Count of Holland had entered into with the King of France. The object of the plot was to seize the person of Floris and convey him to England, where he was to be placed in confinement, while his son, who was then in England, was to be proclaimed count. An ambush was laid for Floris near Utrecht, and Gijsbrecht van Amstel accepted the dishonourable office of drawing him into it. The count had gone to sleep, as was his custom after dinner, when Amstel came to his bedside, waked him up, and told him the weather was so fine for falconry that it was a shame to sleep so long. The count proposed before they started to drink "St. Gertrude's cup," which was a name at that time given to a stirrup-cup. Van Amstel pledged him; and such was the horror excited by his treachery that from that time forward the phrase was altered in Holland to "St. John's cup," to avoid recalling this circumstance to memory. On the road they were beset by Van Velsen and his confederates, who seized the count, strapped him on to a horse, and made off with him towards the coast. The news spread rapidly; the country rose in arms; the conspirators were obliged to take by-ways through marshes. Five days after the seizure of Floris, Van Velsen, riding in front, came on a body of the men of Naarden concealed among some standing corn, and demanded what they wanted. "The man you bring," was the reply, "the Count of Holland." Gijsbrecht van Amstel, on whom it might have been supposed that the vengeance of his fellow nobles would have fallen most heavily, appears to have been after these events more prosperous than ever. He seems, while he made use of the insurgents to crush his private enemies, to have succeeded in persuading the finally successful party that he had only adopted the opposite side by coercion, and with a view of preventing mischief. He now accompanied Floris the Fifth in his expedition to Friesland to recover the bones of his father, King William; and he obtained possession of the castle of Vredeland, originally built to check him, not by the fortune of war, which he had already tried in vain, but as a pledge from the bishop, Jan van Nassouwen, for a sum of money advanced to him. Once in possession of this fortress, he levied such intolerable tolls on the Utrechters, that after years of useless complaint they applied to the pope, who in 1288 deposed Jan van Nassouwen as a dilapidator of the revenues of his see, and appointed Jan van Zirck in his stead. The new bishop offered to redeem Vredeland from the hands of Gijsbrecht, and on his refusal declared war; but being defeated in battle, he applied for assistance to Count Floris, who laid siege to the castle. It was defended by Arend, or Arnoud van Amstel, Gijsbrecht's brother, till Gijsbrecht, approach-"You shall never have him," replied Van ing to relieve it, was defeated and taken prisoner, when Vredeland was surrendered. Hermann van Woerden, the constant ally of Gijsbrecht, who held the castle of Montfort in a similar manner, sustained a siege for a year, after which Floris, taking it by storm, ordered all the defenders except two to be beheaded. Van Amstel and Van Woerden were kept in prison for seven years, after which they were set at liberty, but on conditions which humbled them deeply. Amsterdam had already been granted to Jan van Persÿn, the defender of Haarlem; most of his other lands were restored to Gijsbrecht, to be held, not in free sovereignty as before, but as a fief from Count Floris and the bishop, to whom he was bound to do homage and swear fealty. Floris, who was of an open disposition, after this appointed Van Amstel and Van Woerden councillors of state, and had them familiarly Velsen, turning back and drawing his sword; and before aid could arrive he had wounded Floris mortally. Van Woerden and Van Amstel immediately fled. Van Velsen, who took refuge in the castle of Kronenburch, was besieged by the people, taken prisoner, and, with all the other conspirators who could be seized, was put to a cruel death. The murder of Floris took place on Wednesday, the 27th of June, 1296. After that day the history of Van Amstel is obscure, though there are two traditions respecting him: one, that he settled in Prussia and founded a town there called Holland; another, that in old age he returned and died in Amsterland. The death of Count Floris and the fall of the house of Amstel form an important epoch in the history of Holland. The aristocracy never recovered from the odium of the treacherous murder of Floris, and from the consequent destruction of so many of the old nobility. Meijer, in a dissertation on the same circumstance, sees in the fall of the power of Gijsbrecht the consummation of a gradual conquest of the Frankish portion of the nation over the Frieslandish. This view is perhaps fanciful. It is certain that after these events the history of Holland assumes a different character, becomes less German, and no longer offers such frequent spectacles of the feuds of princes. | his uncle at Rendsburg in Holstein. He studied law at the university of Kiel, where he was appointed, in 1704, professor of private and public law. In the political differences between the Duke of Holstein and the king of Denmark, Frederic IV., Amthor showed himself favourable to Denmark, in consequence of which he was compelled to abandon his professorship at Kiel. It is said that he incurred the hatred of the Duke of Holstein for having published a poem in honour of Frederic IV. In 1714 he became a counsellor of justice in the town of Rendsburg, which was situated in the Danish part of Holstein; and in 1719 he was appointed counsellor of justice at Copenhagen, where he died on the 11th of February, 1721. Strangely enough Gijsbrecht is repeatedly spoken of by the old chroniclers as a "simple old man," a character which the history of his life will hardly sustain. He is also shown in a favourable point of view by Vondel in his play of "Gijsbrecht van Amstel," the most celebrated in the Dutch language on a national subject, and which was at one Amthor wrote numerous odes, elegies, and time invariably performed in Amsterdam on letters in verse: he also made a translation Christmas eve. The incidents are entirely of some parts of the fourth and fifth book of fictitious. Gijsbrecht is represented as a per- Virgil's "Eneis." His poetry is stiff, bomsecuted hero, sustaining a siege in Amster-bastic, and void of thought and feeling; and dam for his part in the death of Count Floris; and when the town is taken by a stratagem, minutely copied from that of the Trojan horse, he is rescued from death and sent to Prussia by the personal interference of the angel Raphael, as much to Gijsbrecht's surprise as that of the reader. (Beka and Heda, De Episcopis Ultrajectinis, edit. of 1643, p. 83-99.; Het oude Goudtsche Kronycxken, edit. of 1663, p. 68-75.; Wagenaar, Vaderlandsche Historie, ii. 397. iii. 77.; Wagenaar, Amsterdam beschreeven, iii. 1-48.; Bilderdyk, Geschiedenis des Vaderlands, ii. 196-267.; Kok, Vaderlandsch Woordenboek, iii. 817822.; Mrs. Davies, History of Holland, London, 1841, 8vo. i. 119-124.; Vondel, Gijsbrecht van Amstel.) T. W. AMTHOR, CASPAR, was born at Exdorf, near Schleusingen, and in 1594 was appointed_professor of physics in the latter town. He wrote-1. "Memorabilium Medicorum Pars continens Curationes per Euporista tam Galenica quam Chymica." Jena, 1632, 4to. 2. " Chrysioscopion sive Aurilogium," Jena, 1632, 4to., a dissertation on the properties of gold, after the manner of Paracelsus. 3. " Nosocomium Infantile et Puerile." Schleusingen, 1638, 4to. (Haller, Bibliotheca Med. Prac. t. ii. p. 600.; Biographie Médicale.) Wolff justly observes, that it is scarcely AMU'LIO, or DA MULA, MARC ANJOACHIM ULRIC AMTHOR was born at TO ́NIO, cardinal, was born at Venice on the Schleusingen, and wrote " De Monstris, Dis- 12th of February, 1505. He studied jurisputatio Physica." Jena, 1652, 4to. It is chiefly prudence at Padua, and is mentioned by occupied in determining what should be the Papadopoli as one of the most celebrated definition of a monster; and the author, students of the university of that city. He writing especially against Martin Weinrich's early displayed great ability, and was much treatise De Ortu Monstrorum," includes employed by the Venetian government in under the name all things animate or inani- public affairs. In 1553 he went as ambassamate, which are unnaturally or imperfectly dor to the Emperor Charles V. He was one generated and formed. (Amthor, De Mon- of the three reformers of the university of stris.) J. P. Padua in 1556 and 1560, and podestà at VeA'MTHOR, CHRISTOPH HEINRICH, rona about 1558. On the conclusion of the was born in 1678 at Stollberg in Thuringia, peace between France and Spain in 1559, he and received his education in the house of was deputed as ambassador to carry the con The gratulations of his government to the King of Spain, and shortly after his return from this mission, he was sent as resident ambassador to Rome. Here his virtues, learning, and skill in public business speedily gained him the favour and confidence of the pope, Pius IV., who in all measures connected with the re-opening of the council of Trent, acted under his advice. The bishopric of Verona being then vacant, the pope was desirous of conferring it upon Amulio, and, unknown to him, ordered the papal nuncio at Venice to communicate his wishes to that government; but the Venetians, suspecting that Amulio had solicited the dignity in violation of the ancient laws of the republic, answered by appointing Girolamo Soranzo his successor, and recalling him to Venice. Upon this the pope wrote with his own hand, exculpating Amulio from all knowledge of the intended promotion, and requesting that he should be retained in his post of ambassador. request was complied with, and the pope shortly afterwards made him deacon, and in 1561, much against his desire, cardinal-priest, with the title of Saint Marcello. This promotion was extremely offensive to the Venetian government, which strictly forbade all public rejoicings by the friends of the new cardinal, and so long as he lived was never reconciled either with him or his family. The jealous republic could not, however, check the general satisfaction at this just acknowledgment of Amulio's merit. In 1562 he was by the same pope made bishop of Rieti, and in 1565 librarian of the Vatican on the death of Cardinal Alfonso Caraffa, by whom the post had been previously held. He was employed by the papal see in numerous commissions of the highest importance, and died at Rome on the 13th of March, 1570: he was buried at Venice. He left his extensive library to Luigi Malipiero, and directed that a college should be erected in Padua for Venetian nobility. This was done, and exists at the present day in the Prato della Valle. Dolce speaks of him as well skilled in the Greek language, and Agostino Superbi as a good Latin poet. him; and others in the Barberini library at Rome. Ciacconio (more correctly Chacon) and others mention among his works. "Italian and Latin Orations," and a treatise "On the sublime Style of Speaking." Superbi and Apostolo Zeno add to the list a work entitled "On the active and contemplative Life." He also wrote a work "On the Episcopal Power," which he addressed with a letter dated from Rome 26th July, 1567, to Cardinal Carlo Borromeo, preserved in the Ambrosian library at Milan, vol. xxv. of the collection of letters addressed to Saint Carlo. Amulio likewise drew up the Constitution published by Pope Pius IV. against those papal nuncios who endeavoured to obtain cardinalships by means of letters obtained from royal personages. (Superbi, Trionfo glorioso d'Heroi illustri di Venetia, 82.; Pallavicino, Istoria del Concilio di Trento, ii. 152, &c.; Ciacconio, Vita Pontificum Romanorum et Cardinalium, iii. 929.; Mazzuchelli, Scrittori d'Italia; Cardella, Memorie storiche de' Cardinali, v. 33—35.) J. W. J. AMULIUS. [FABULLUS.] AMUSCO, JOANNES DE VALVERDE DE, or HAMUSCO. [VALVERDE DE AMUSco.] AMY, N., was an advocate in the parliament of Aix. Few particulars are recorded of his life. He is known as having written several works on the application of the principles of science to the construction of various apparatus of use in domestic economy. His works are as follows:- 1. "Experimental Observations on the Waters of the Seine and the Marne" ("Observations expérimentales sur les Eaux des Rivières de Seine, de Marne, &c."). 1749, 12mo. 2. "On the Construction of a new domestic Fountain, approved by the Academy of Sciences of Paris" ("Nouvelles Fontaines domestiques, approuvées par l'Académie des Sciences"). Paris, 1750, 12mo. work on filtrating fountains ("Nouvelles Fontaines filtrantes "). 1752-1754, 12mo. 4." Remarks upon Vessels made of Copper, Lead, and Tin" ("Réflexions sur les Vaisseaux de Cuivre, de Plomb, et d'E'tain "). 1751, 12mo. We can find none of these works in libraries to which we have had access in London. He died in the year 1760. (Querard, La France Litteraire; his name is given on the authority of Watt's Bibliotheca Britannica.) 3. A E. L. Some of his letters are printed in Farrius's "Orationes, &c. ex Actis Consilii Tridentini," Venice, 1567, p. 125.; in vol. xx. of Labbe's " Consilia," Venice, 1733, p. 521.; and in Pino's "Nuova Scelta di Lettere di diversi Nobilissimi Huomini," lib. i. p. 87. and 106. Venice, 1582. With these exceptions, all that he wrote appears to be still unprinted. Pallavicino availed himself of his MS. letters in his " History of the Council of Trent." AMYAND, CLAUDIUS, in the beginA collection of these letters, according toning of the last century, served as a surgeon Montfaucon, "Bibl. MSS.," vol. i. 1093., exists at Paris, in the Choiseul. library, now annexed to the Bibliothèque du Roi, No. 391., entitled "Register of the Letters of Amulio, Ambassador of Venice." Some are in the library of the Vatican, with a MS. oration by in the English army in Flanders. In 1716 he was elected a fellow of the Royal Society, and he afterwards became surgeon to St. George's Hospital, and sergeant-surgeon to the king. He died in 1740. Mr. Amyand published several interesting papers in the "Philosophical Transactions," and seems to have been a good practical surgeon. The titles of these papers are as follows: 1. "A Relation of an Idiot at Ostend, with two other Chirurgical Cases," vol. xxvi. p. 670., 1708. It contains the account of an idiot, thirty-three years old, who in the year before his death, swallowed, at different times, twenty-eight iron, brass, and leaden instruments, of various kinds (nails, screws, compasses, a knife, &c.), which all together weighed between two and three pounds. The brass and lead, it is said, were not impaired, though they had lain more than eight months in the stomach; but "the iron pieces were extremely corroded. . . . and three or four nails, mightily indamaged, did appear as if some particular menstruum or dissolvent had been poured upon them." 2. "Three Cases," vol. xxxvii. p. 258. 1732. The first, a congenital protrusion and exposure of the intestines; the second, a case of dysmenorrhea; the third, one of hour-glass contraction of the stomach. 3. "An extraordinary Case of the Foramen Ovale of the Heart being found open in an Adult," vol. xxxix. p. 172. 1735. The patient had no symptoms of the defect. 4. "Of an Inguinal Rupture, with a Pin in the Appendix Cæci incrusted with Stone; and some Observations on Wounds in the Guts," vol. xxxix. p. 329. 1736. The hernia was of that rare form, a congenital protrusion of the appendix vermiformis, and had become complicated by a pin having lodged in the appendix and produced ulceration through the groin. The patient recovered after the operation. 5. "Of an Obstruction of the Biliary Ducts, and an Imposthumation of the Gall Bladder, discharging upwards of eighteen Quarts of Bilious Matter in twenty-five Days," vol. xi. p. 317. 1738. 6. "Of a Bubonocele, or Rupture in the Groin, with the Operation made upon it," vol. xl. p. 361. 1738. He endeavours to show that the intestine in a hernia is most commonly strangulated by the constriction of the omentum protruded with it. 7. "An Observation of a Fracture of the Os Humeri by the Power of the Muscles only," vol. xliii. p. 293. 1745. 8. "Of an Iliac Passion occasioned by an Appendix in the Ileon," vol. xliii. p. 369. 1745. 9. "Some Observations on the Spina Ventosa," vol. xliv. p. 193. 1746; containing several cases of necrosis in which sequestra were removed by the aid of the trephine. The manuscripts of several of these papers and of some other unpublished cases, are in the MS. "Royal Society Papers," in the library of the British Museum. (Additional MSS. 4433-4436). Haller (Bibliotheca Chirurgica, t. ii. p. 150.) says that Mr. Amyand wrote a letter in favour of Mrs. Stephens' method of treating calculous diseases. (Amyand's Papers in the Philosophical Transactions; Gentleman's Magazine, 1740.) J. P. AMYCLEUS ('Аμʊкλaîos), a Greek sculptor, a native of Corinth. He was employed, with two other sculptors, Chionis and Diyllus, to execute part of a group of figures dedicated by the Phocians, at Delphi, on the occasion of Tellias of Elis leading them against the Thessalians. The period of these artists is about the commencement of the Persian wars, or about 500 B. c. (Pausanias, x. 13.) R. W. jun. AMYNANDER ('Aμúvavôpos), a king of Athamania, a district in the west of Greece, to the north of Ætolia. He married Apamia, the daughter of one Alexander of Megalopolis, who claimed descent from Alexander the Great. Amynander was a personage of some importance in the wars between Philip V., king of Macedon, and the Romans, and Antiochus Magnus, king of Syria, and the same people, from B. C. 209 to B. c. 189. We first of all read of him attempting to mediate a peace between Philip, king of Macedon, and the Etolians, B. c. 209. Subsequently to this, he appears as an ally of the Romans, whom he joined after their first successes over Philip (B. C. 200), and in conjunction with the Etolians, rendered them some important service in their war against that king, especially in Thessaly, many cities of which, dependent upon Macedonia, he captured. On one occasion, a short time before the battle of Cynoscephalæ, he was sent to Rome by the Roman general, T. Quintius Flamininus, in company with the ambassadors of the other Grecian allies, of the Romans, and those of Philip, to negotiate a peace with the senate. The negotiation failed, and Philip was soon afterwards reduced to a dependent ally of the Romans, by the result of the battle of Cynoscephalæ, in which Amynander fought on the Roman side (B. c. 197). Amynander was rewarded for his services by the Thessalian cities which he had taken during the war. Not long after this event, the Etolians became the enemies of the Romans, and invited Antiochus, king of Syria, to their aid. By the advice and persuasion of Philip of Megalopolis, the brother-in-law of Amynander. who, on the strength of his alleged descent from Alexander the Great, was encouraged by the Etolians and Antiochus to look forward to the throne of Macedonia as the reward of his exertions, Amynander was induced to join the confederacy against the Romans, and their new ally Philip, king of Macedonia. The Romans were, as usual, successful in the contest which followed; and, Philip having marched into Athamania, Amynander fled from his kingdom and took refuge in Ambracia, a neighbouring city, where he remained for some time in exile. Athamania continued under the government of Philip till the defeat of Antiochus in Asia, B. c. 190. By that time the Macedonian magistrates and officers of that country had rendered themselves so un popular, that the inhabitants began to regret their native prince, and accordingly letters were sent to him in Etolia, where he then was, inviting his return. With the help of the Etolians he effected his restoration, and immediately sent an embassy to Rome, deprecating the anger of the senate, and excusing himself for having had recourse to the assistance of the Etolians in regaining his kingdom. It would appear that he succeeded in making his peace with the Romans, for shortly afterwards we read of him interceding with them on behalf of the Etolians (B. C. 189). This is the last occasion on which mention is made of him. (Livy, xxvii. xxxi. xxxii. xxxv. xxxvi. xxxviii.; Polybius, Hist. xvii. c. 1., Legat. iv. ix. xxvi. xxviii.) R. W-n. AMYNTAS, a Greek writer quoted by Athenæus as the author of a work sometimes simply styled the Era@μót, i. e. "Stages," or Stations," sometimes the "Persian Stages," sometimes "The Stages of Asia." From the passages quoted by Athenæus it appears to have contained much information about the natural products and habits of the countries and people of Asia described in it. No data are furnished by Athenæus to determine when or where he lived. R. W-n. AMYNTAS ('Aμúvras), a Galatian, was originally a scribe of Deiotarus, the tetrarch and afterwards king of Galatia; but he was subsequently employed by his king as a gene 66 ral. In B. C. 42 he was sent with auxiliary troops to assist Brutus and Cassius, and fought in the battle of Philippi. Immediately after the battle, however, he forsook the party of the republicans and joined that of Antonius, who, after the death of Deiotarus in B. C. 40, rewarded Amyntas with the sovereignty of Galatia and of some parts of Lycaonia and Pamphylia. Hence Plutarch calls him king of Lycaonia, and Strabo, the successor of Deiotarus in Galatia. Just before the battle of Actium, Amyntas and the younger Deiotarus, surnamed Philadelphus, abandoned the cause of Antonius and joined that of Octavianus, who for this reason left him in the undisturbed possession of his dominions, while the other princes who had been raised to this rank by Antonius were deprived of their dominions. (Dion Cassius, xlvii. 48.; xlix. 32.; Plutarch, Anton. 61. 63.; Appian, De Bell. Civ. v. 75.; Strabo, xii. 567.; Velleius Pat. ii. 84.; Dion Cassius, 1. 13.; li. 2.) L. S. AMYNTAS, the son of ANDROMENES, was one of the generals of Alexander the Great, and one of four brothers who all held important commands. During Alexander's campaign in Asia, he employed Amyntas to procure and conduct reinforcements from Macedonia, which came up with Alexander at Babylon, or as Arrian states, at Susa (B. C. 331). About a year after this, Amyntas and his three brothers were charged by Alexander, when in Drangiana, with being parties to a plot alleged to have been formed against him by Philotas, who had just been put to death on this charge, and of whom the four brothers were intimate friends. The suspicions against them were increased by the conduct of the youngest brother, who fled as soon as he heard of the arrest and torture of Philotas. Amyntas was first called upon for his defence, and he pleaded his cause so well before an assembly of the Macedonian soldiers that both himself and his brothers were acquitted. The youngest brother was brought back to the camp; Alexander was reconciled to them all, and Amyntas soon afterwards died in his service. According to the defence which Q. Curtius puts into the mouth of Amyntas, it would seem that Olympias, the mother of Alexander, had endeavoured to prejudice her son against Amyntas, in consequence of his having incurred her displeasure by compelling her to give up some conscripts who had taken shelter in her palace when he was raising the levies for the king in Macedonia. acting thus, indeed, Amyntas had only obeyed the king's command; but it is not improbable that the complaints of his mother rendered Alexander more open to suspicions and misrepresentations against him. (Arrian, Anab. iii. 16.; Q. Curtius, iv. 6. vii. 2.; Thirlwall, Hist. of Greece, vi. 274.) R. W-n. In AMYNTAS, the son of ANTIOCHUS, was a Macedonian who from some cause or other fled from his country in the time of Alexander the Great, probably from the consciousness of having been a party to some of the plots formed against that king. He took refuge in the dominions of the King of Persia, and was at Ephesus with a body of Greek mercenaries when Alexander ap-. proached that city on his way to Upper Asia, after the battle of the Granicus (B. c. 334). From Ephesus he joined King Darius, and a short time before the battle of Issus we read of him counselling Darius to await the approach of Alexander in a great plain not far from the pass of Amanus in Cilicia; advice which, wise and prudent as it was, Darius was too impatient and confident to follow. After the battle of Issus (B. c. 333), Amyntas with a body of 4000 Greek mercenaries escaped to Tripolis on the coast of Phoenicia, where they embarked for Cyprus. From Cyprus he proceeded with the troops to Egypt, having, as it would seem, formed the project of making himself master of that country, then under Persian rule. The Persian satrap of Egypt had fallen in the battle of Issus; and accordingly Amyntas had no difficulty in persuading the Greek mercenaries that Egypt would be an easy conquest, nor in gaining admission at Pelusium, under the pretence of having a commission from Darius. He then threw |