off the mask, and marched to Memphis, the 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 ARRABEUS, 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. ('Aμúvras), 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 B. c. 510, the time of the expulsion of the Pisistratida 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

his dominions, he made over a portion 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 far as to adopt Iphicrates, the Athenian general, as his son. He died in B. c. 370, a 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 concert 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 (1. c.) and Ælian (V. H. xii. 43.) call him Menelaus; the chronologist Dexippus styles him Aridæus. Amyntas the

villiers, 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.

66

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 in