ARC earth, timber, or stone, into the form of mounds, huts, caves, and walls. Thus we do not admit such mounds of earth as that of Alyattes [see ALYATTES], or of Silbury Hill near Marlborough, to possess an architectural character. Neither are the kraals of the Hottentot, nor the rude huts of other nations, entitled to this name, though such habitations undoubtedly have in each nation a particular and a tolerably uniform style of construction. 283 An excavation in a rock is not an architectural work, unless it possess a certain symmetry and certain ornaments which characterize other similar works, so as to enable us to refer it to some class or kind of construction. Where such instances of excavations occur, the ornamental or architectural part is obviously only the copy of models in wood or stone previously erected on the earth. Such is the character of the rock temples of Elephanta, and the rock-cut tombs or temples in Nubia. The rude Pelasgic or Cyclopian walls of Tiryns in the Peloponnesus, and other similar structures in Italy, possess a distinctive character, which is seen in a more advanced and improved state in the military fortifications of Mycenae, where we find also the oldest instance, as far as we know, now existing in Europe, of a construction in stone combined with the sister art of sculpture. We refer to the sculptured figures in high relief, commonly called lions, which stand over the great gateway. But neither are these buildings included in the term architecture, as we shall proceed to show. The existing monuments in Great Britain which are supposed to be anterior to the Roman invasion of this island, are classed, whether correctly or not we shall not here inquire, under the general term of Druidical or Celtic. The most remarkable of these monuments, both for preservation and arrangement, is Stonehenge on Salisbury Plain in Wiltshire. Here we find stones, some of very large dimensions, plaeed upright in the ground, and forming a series of concentric circles. They are not merely rude masses, like those of Avebury near Silbury Hill, but they have evidently undergone some shaping and rubbing down so as to form tolerably regular parallelopipedons. We here observe also two stones placed upright, like posts or pillars, and another large stone placed over them like an architrave or lintel: the lintel is also secured by means of mortises and tenons: all this indicates certainly a regular principle of construction. But, with the exception of a few inquirers who are, perhaps, disposed to over-value Celtic remains, can any careful antiquarian trace the forms of our oldest churches and other antient edifices, to the rude masses of the British monuments in this island? It is an historical fact, that the Romans introduced into England their own principles of building; and it is equally demonstrable that, with the exception, probably, of the arch, Roman architecture, as it is known to us, both from existing specimens and written books, is a modification and adaptation of Grecian architecture; it was probably introduced among the Romans by Greeks, and certainly generally practised by them even under the emperors. [See APOLLODORUS.] If we then trace the progress of architectural construction from the Greeks, through the Romans, to its introduction into western Europe, we may fairly assert that the term architecture, in its strictest sense, implies the adaptation of Grecian models to the buildings of our own times. A building may be well arranged for all purposes of mere convenience, but in this case it is not an architectural construction. The progress which the arts have made in modern times has taught us to combine internal convenience and fitness with beauty of external form, and with durability. If the external arrangement of a building should be compounded of those of several nations, such as Hindoo, Egyptian, and Greek, we should not admit this to be an architectural construction, even if the external form gave pleasure, which, however, is hardly a possible result; for it is essential to the character of an architectural structure, that the general arrangement and ornaments should have a unity of character and be referable to some one model. We have endeavoured briefly to show, what we believe to be strictly demonstrable, that the term architecture, historically explained, is the mode of constructing edifices which we have received from the Romans and the Greeks. But with the establishment of Christianity, and its diffusion over western Europe, a gradual modification was made in the forms of buildings, devoted to religious worship: for it must be observed that it is principally in the religious edifices of a nation that we find the essential principles of its architecture ARC exhibited and preserved. This remark applies with equal This distinction became again so marked in the several The architecture of a people is an important part of their history. It is the external and enduring form of their public life; it is an index of the state of knowledge and social progress. Some speculators, indeed, would regard the noble monuments which decorate our own country, only as the marks of slavish submission to a hierarchy. But it may safely be asserted that the progress which man has made in the arts is mainly due to the influence of religious systems; and that the great improvements which have thus been gradually effected have at last descended to the humblest dwellings. We have considered that the architecture of a country is inseparable from its history; and it is for this reason, among others, that we propose the subdivision, which the reader will see at the end of this article. A few remarks, however, may not be inappropriate on the supposed origin of the forms of architecture, and here we speak with reference to that of the Greeks. Whatever connexion, or rather resemblance, there may be between Greek and Egyptian, and between Egyptian and Hindoo architecture, will be most appropriately discussed under those separate heads. It is difficult to conceive that a Greek temple is any thing else than the improved and decorated form of a wooden construction. That wood would be used for the ordinary construction of dwellings, before baked clay or stone, seems natural, because it is more easily worked and more readily adapted to any required form. A rude cabin with its upright posts, its horizontal cross timbers, and its roof of wood, presents enough as a basis. A rectangular chamber for the inmates, a portico to screen them from the sun, posts to support it, with sloping roofs to carry off the rain, present all the essential elements of a Greek temple. Such an edifice, probably, was the antient wooden temple of Neptune, in Arcadia, which tradition attributed to Agamedes and Trophonius. This venerable monument of antiquity was preserved by the care In the agora or of the emperor Hadrian, who ordered it to be cased with a new edifice. (Pausan. Arcad. 10, 2.) public place of Elis, the same traveller saw a curious structure in the shape of a temple, but without walls; the roof was supported by columns of oak. An old man told Pausanias that it was the tomb of Oxylus. (6. 24.) In opposition to this hypothesis, for it is not a matter which admits of proof, it is alleged, that we do not find barbarous nations, who use wood or sticks for their huts, adopting a construction such as we have described, and that in none of them do we trace these supposed elements of Greek architecture. The wonder would be if we did find a barbarous nation possessing these elements of knowledge, for a nation that had them would soon cease to be barbarous. But all nations have not an architecture of their own, nor have all nations a style of sculpture of their own, nor do all 202 [Temple of Neptune nations possess the power of forming geometrical figures and reasoning on their properties; and yet all these are the essential elements of architecture. For reasons which we cannot understand, the same faculties are not given to all the children of men: to some races is given the power to invent, to others a capacity to receive the inventions of others; but to some is denied the power of even receiving and adapting what others have invented. Though we conceive, then, that Grecian architecture arose from the rude fabric of a wooden dwelling, we do not conceive that the edifice of stone attained either the beauty of proportion or the richness of ornament, till it called in the aid of sculpture. Building, that is, the putting together of timber frame-work, may be older than sculpture, but sculpture combined with building produced architecture. From the Homeric poems we deduce only very vague ideas as to the structure of temples and palaces; we find no distinct indication of the arrangement of columns, which are the very essence of Greek architecture. But the arts of design, and even the arts of working in metal, had attained some excellence. (See in the Iliad, book 18, the description of the shield of Achilles.) We find epithets derived from metal applied to the house of Alcinous and other buildings, from which we infer that they were structures of wood, and that the decorations were of metal; but we find no trace of columnar arrangement, or of an edifice of stone. (Odyss. vii. 84, &c.; iv. 45. &c.) Even in the time of Pausanias (x. 5. 11) there still existed at Lacedæmon the temple of Minerva, called the house of copper,' from which it would appear, that this and other antient temples were mainly of wood, and ornamented with metal. That the oldest material of sculpture was wood, is a fact in itself probable enough, and attested by the authority of Pausanias (viii. 17). Many of these wooden statues of high antiquity remained after the wooden temple itself had been exchanged for a more substantial edifice of stone. The We believe, then, that Grecian architecture was only the improved and decorated wooden edifice, and that the ornamental parts of the stone structure, even in their simplest form, were derived from the art of the sculptor. sculptor and the architect, in fact, were often united in the same person; and even when it became usual to separate these arts into two distinct branches, we can have no doubt that the skill of the architect, and the taste, at least, of the sculptor, were generally combined in the same individual. We believe this was the case also with the old cathedral architects of England, who frequently not only adapted the exterior forms of their edifices for the reception and display of sculpture, but had good taste enough to take care that at Pæstum in Italy.] these ornaments were in harmony with the whole design, and worthy of the edifice which was to receive them. Specimens of sculpture of great excellence may be observed on the exterior of many of our cathedrals: for instance, on the west end of Salisbury cathedral. In attempting to discover what was the model of the wooden construction which we have assumed to be the parent of the architectural edifice, we meet with a variety of theories which are unsatisfactory. But it seems to have escaped the observation of many writers, that the nation to which Europe is indebted for the elements of its architecture is also the nation to which we are indebted for our knowledge of geometry. That law of the mind which gave birth to the simple forms of the triangle, the circle, and the square, gave to man the elements of all his works of art. We are not aware of any nation that has had a system of architecture which has not also had a style of sculpture; nor do we know of any nation that has carried architecture to perfection, or even to a degree of excellence in its kind, that has not also had a system of geometry and arithmetic. Without such an extension of these general remarks as would interfere with the details belonging to the separate heads into which the various styles of architecture are divided, we could not attempt to bring down the history of the art to our own days, and trace its various stages of application in the public and private edifices of our own and other countries. We have therefore only to mention that the terms of architecture must be sought under their respective heads, as ARCH, ARCHITRAVE, &c.; that the general principles of construction will be found under BUILDING, and of architecture, as a fine art, under PROPORTION; and that the more important styles and æras of architecture will be thus distributed : BABYLONIAN ARCHITECTURE ITALIAN ARCHITECTURE EGYPTIAN ENGLISH ETRUSCAN GOTHIC GREEK HINDOO MOORISH NORMAN PELASGIAN PERSEPOLITAN PERUVIAN ROMAN The principles of military architecture will be treated of under CASTLE, and FORTIFICATION; those of naval architecture under SHIP; and the most approved principles of domestic architecture under HOUSE. ARCHITRAVE, from a Greek word and a Latin one, meaning, when put together, the principal beam, is the lower [Part of the west front of St. Paul's Cathedral.] part of any structure supported by pillars, or the lower beam which rests upon the columns and joins them together, on which the whole entablature (or ornamental part which comes immediately above the columns) rests. It was also I called by the Greeks and Romans epistylion, or that which is on the columns. Thus, when pillars support an arch, the voussoirs (see ARCH) supply the place of an architrave, by which name they are sometimes called. In the same way the flat-beam, or row of stones coming immediately above a door or window, is called the architrave. The architrave may have only one face or two, that is, may appear as one beam, resting on and joining the contiguous columns (see the temple of Pæstum), or as two beams, the upper of which projects a little in front of the lower, as at a in the preceding cut. The proportions, &c., will be described under the heads of GRECIAN and ROMAN ARCHITECTURE. ARCHIVE, or ARCHIVES, a chamber or apartment where the public papers or records of a state or community are deposited: sometimes, by a common figure, applied to the papers themselves. By some the word archive is supposed to have been derived from the Greek Apxeia (Archeia), a term used by Josephus in the sense of public registers, and considered to have been transmitted to us through the Latin of the middle age. The Greek word archeion seems, in its primary signification, to mean a council-house or state-house, or a body of public functionaries,' as the Ephori at Sparta. (See Aristot. Politic. book ii.; and Pausan. iii. 11.) Others derive it from arca, a chest;' such being, in early times, a usual depository for records. So Isidorus, Orig. lib. xx. c. 9 -Archa dicta, quod arceat visum atque prohibeat. Hinc et archivum, hinc et arcanum, id est secretum, unde cæteri arcentur.It is called Archa, because it does not allow. (arc-eat) us to see what is in it. Hence also Archivum and Arcanum, that is, a thing kept secret, from which people are excluded, (arc-entur.) The Temple of Saturn, built in the time of the Republic, was the chief repository of the archives as well as of the public treasure of antient Rome. In England the archives of the Court of Chancery are kept partly (i. e. to the year 1483) at the Tower of London, and partly in the Rolls Chapel, Chancery-lane. The national archives of France are preserved in the Hôtel Soubise at Paris; those of the Courts of Justice. in La Sainte Chapelle at the Palais de Justice. ARCHIVOLT, or ARCHIVAULT, means, literally, the principal turning, or arch, and is applied to any orna editions of Corelli's Sonatas, the principal base staff is assigned to the violone (double-base), or arcileuto. According to Kircher (Musurgia, lib. vi.), this instrument had fourteen notes, the highest whereof was A, the fifth line in the base, the lowest the double G below; and possessed considerable power. It was about five feet in extreme length, and proportionally large in the body. As Luscinius does not notice the arch-lute in his Musurgia, printed in 1536, it is to be inferred that it was invented subsequently to that time. At the commencement of the last century this instrument was much in use; Handel employed it in many of his early operas. The office of Lutenist still continues as part of the establishment of the Chapel-royal, though the place has been a sinecure for nearly a century. A'RCHON, a Greek word written in Roman characters, signified originally one who had rule or command, either civil or military. In modern usage it is known only as the title of certain magistrates of the Athenians, of whom we propose to give some account in this article. On the abolition of regal government at Athens (see CODRUS), the chief power was still intrusted to a single magistrate, or archon, without the title of king (Bartec), which was more directly associated with the idea of arbitrary rule. The new office was hereditary; at least it is said to have been enjoyed successively by lineal descendants of Medon, the first archon, who was himself a son of Codrus, the last king. The Athenians were fond of attributing to Theseus the origin of their democracy; by which probably they meant, that many of his regulations had a popular tendency, and that his general reformation of the state, which was favourable to that part of the population which had possessed no political rights, was accompanied by a permanent relaxation of regal authority. (Plut. Vit. Thes. c. 25.) The prerogative of the archon was still further limited; for he was made responsible to his fellow citizens for the acts of his government. (Paus. iv. 5, 10.) Tradition told of thirteen hereditary archons, after whom the chief magistrate was appointed to his office for ten years, but was still taken from the Medontidæ, or de scendants of Medon. We have the name of Charops and of five others after him as decennial archons. (Vell. Paterc. 1, 8.) Another revolution, which is placed by Newton B. C. 607, limited the duration of the office to a single year, at the same time dividing the charge of administration between the chief inagistrate and eight others, thus forming a council of state, which consisted of nine magistrates or archons. Hence they are sometimes mentioned by the Greek writers under the general designation of The Nine. These officers had their distinguishing titles and duties, of which we shall presently speak, when we have carried a little farther the general history of this new constitution. We have seen that the first archon was, like his royal predecessor, the head of the government. The decennial archons had, doubtless, the same place and character, and the annual magistrates for a time exercised collectively the political power before vested in a single ruler. Their names and number, and in great measure the particular civil duties assigned to them, remained unaltered whilst Athens continued to possess an independent government; but the course of events wrought a most important change as to their position in the state. This change, to which in earlier times there was a gradual approximation, was effected mainly by the increased activity of the ecclesia, or popular assembly, which received its first impulse from the regulations of Solon, was urged on more effectually by the reformation of Cleisthenes, and was confirmed by the consequences of the Persian war, by which the thetes, or lowest class of citizens, which supplied the naval strength of Athens, were taught to know their power. (Aristot. Polit. 2, 9, 4.) From the time that the ecclesia interfered habitually and directly with the government of the republic, the actual minister of state was the person who enjoyed the confidence of the people, which neither the office of archon nor any other office could procure. The inevitable consequence was, that the archons sunk from ministers of state into municipal officers of high rank. We have thought it worth while to point attention to this fact, from having had occasion to observe that young students of Athenian history are sometimes perplexed by the apparent inconsistency of the accounts given them of the first appointment of archons with the little notice bestowed. upon these magistrates in the general history of the republic. They read of important public measures, and of the persons who originated and executed them, whilst the name of archon seldom occurs in Grecian history, except as marking the year in which certain events took place. (See . Thucyd. ii. 2.) Pericles, without the office of archon, to which it was not his chance ever to attain, enjoyed a degree of power which was not possessed during the freedom of the republic by any other citizen. Perhaps no one who read with the least attention would find the difficulty, if he were not in some measure led to it by popular works on Grecian antiquities, which too commonly present an accumulation of facts and authorities without sufficiently discriminating the times to which the different statements refer. The annual archons, from their first appointment down to the time of Solon, were taken from the eupatridæ, or nobles, to which class all political power seems to have been confined. This is rather assumed from what we know of the progress of civil and political society at Athens, than asserted on any authority of much weight. The establishment by Solon of a timocracy, or government in which political power was distributed with reference to property, put an end to the claims of noble blood; but since the archons were by this regulation taken from the wealthiest class of citizens (oi nevtakoσioμidiμvo), the noblest families probably still continued chiefly to supply the archons for each year, till the celebrated law of Aristeides, enacted about B. C. 479, threw open the offices of state to the whole body of the people. (Plut. Vit. Arist. c. 1. and c. 22.) From this time no qualification was requisite in an Athenian citizen for the office of archon but fair fame and freedom from bodily defect. The mode of appointment presents some difficulties, from the want of precise information. It appears that the archons were originally elected by suffrage, and the elective franchise was probably confined to the noble class from which they were taken. By Solon, eligibility to the office, and perhaps the right of suffrage, were enlarged, but the mode of appointment remained the same. In after times, and even as early as the first Persian invasion of Greece, the appointment was by lot. The case of Aristeides seems to have been an exception to the general rule, and may be attributed, per haps, to his high character and eminent services. (Aristot. Polit. 2, 9, 2; Herod. 6, 109; Plut. Vit. Arist. c. i. p. 481, ed. Reisk, compared with p. 479.) We have no information which enables us to fix the time when the change was effected. It has been attributed, with some probability, to Cleisthenes, but we know only with certainty that they were at one time elected, and at some subsequent period appointed by lot. It must not be supposed that all the citizens were eager to avail themselves of the double opportunity offered by the new mode of appointment and the law of Aristeides. It seems that the poorest of them declined the hazard of the lot, which might throw upon them a burdensome honour. (Xen. Rep. Athen. 1, 3.) Of the nine archons, one, usually termed the archon, was chief, and had the title of eponymus (ovvμoc), or namegiver, because the year in which he served the office was called by his name, as among the Romans the year was distinguished by the names of their consuls. Thus his name appears at the head of all public decrees (see Dem. De Cor. Thucyd. 5. 19), and generally in all solenn records of state. Of the remaining eight, one was called the king (Basıλɛég), another the polemarch, and the last six had the general title of thesmothet. Before admission to their office they were subjected, like other public officers, to the examination, called dokimasia (that is, trial or examination), for the purpose of ascertaining that they were Athenians of pure blood, whole of limb, and without blemish in their characters. With reference to the last point, they were asked if they had treated their parents kindly. When once invested with their office and adorned with the chaplet, the distinguishing mark of it (Esch. contra Tim. p. 3, 33), they were especially protected by the laws from all insult and outrage, and were exempted even from those public burdens which were not included in the general exemption granted to their most favoured citizens, the descendants of Harmodius and Aristogeiton. (Dem. contra Lept. p. 462, 20; and p. 465, 17.) There is reason to believe that they were members of the council of Areopagus by virtue of their office. (See ARKOPAGUS.) It is certain that they passed from their annual magistracy to a permanent seat in that council. Their public duties had reference for the most part to the administration of justice. In some courts, and in certain causes, they were the presiding judges. On some occasions they had the execution only of the sentence pronounced by other judges; but it seems to have formed a large if not the most considerable part of their legal duties to bring causes into court (iσáyur, Dem. contra Lacr. p. 940, 5-20) to be tried before the proper tribunal, not in the character of public prosecutors, but on application from the plaintiff or accuser, in which case their province was somewhat similar to that of an English grand jury in finding and ignoring bills. Sometimes, perhaps, the application to the archon was a form of little more importance as to the responsibility of the archon, than that in English law of suing out a writ. To each of the first three archons, and collectively to the six thesmothetæ, a distinct province and peculiar duties were assigned. Incidental notices of these are to be found scattered over the Greek classics, especially in the Attic orators; more systematic accounts occur in the earlier lexicographers and antiquarians, among whom Julius Pollux may be particularly distinguished, whose authority would have more weight if we were better acquainted with the sources from which their information was derived and the times to which their accounts refer. Copious collections have been made from them by modern compilers, of whom, perhaps, the most popular in our language is that of Archbishop Potter. We shall present our readers with only a brief outline, suflicient to convey a general view of the separate jurisdiction of these magistrates in the later times of the Athenian republic. It seems to have been the duty of the chief archon, or epónymus, to throw his official protection around those whose interests were most liable to be overlooked in the ordinary execution of the law. Hence he was the appointed guardian of orphans and minors. He was also charged with a more general superintendence in matters which concerned the safety and good order of the state than was committed to his colleagues. The king archon was more especially concerned with rehgious matters. He was required to preside at the performance of the most solemn sacrifices. He had a certain control over the ministers of religion, and either himself tried offenders, or originated trials, in cases of impiety. It is hardly necessary to observe that in the early periods of regal government, kings were almost universally the chief ministers of religion. It is commonly supposed that the title of this archon was intended to denote the transfer of an important part of the king's prerogative to the magistrate who, in the department of religion, supplied his place. The office of the polemarch was doubtless in its first institution that which the name implies, to command in war; and even as late as the battle of Marathon, we find the polemarch Callimachus acting an important part in the council of war which preceded it, and commanding in virtue of his office the right wing of the Athenians in the engagement: but, in later times, when the generals of the republic were immediately chosen by the people, the polemarch was confined to the discharge of civil duties, and particularly had cognizance of matters which concerned the | strangers and metics (resident aliens) at Athens, exercising a jurisdiction, in this respect, not unlike that of the prætor peregrinus at Rome. Gell. x. 12.) Probably this Archytas is the person recorded in Aristotle (Politic, book 8) as the inventor of that useful toy, a child's clappers or rattle (λaray"). Many works are ascribed to him, and we have still several small pieces under his name, but there seems good reason to doubt whether they are the genuine productions of Archytas. Archytas is said to have been drowned, as Horace intimates in the Ode quoted above. There is a Treatise on the Ten Categories, or on the Nature of The All, published in Greek by Camerarius (Lips. 1564. Venet. 1571), and a fragment on Mathe. matics, edited, with some other opuscula, by Stephens (Paris, 1557), reprinted at Copenhagen, 1707. The fragments of the works attributed to Archytas are chiefly known from the quotations of Stobæus. (See Schmidt, Diss. de Archyta Turentino, Jena, 1683; Navarro, Tentamen de Archytæ Tarentini Vita atque Operibus, Hafn. (Copenhag.) 1819; Montuela, Histoire des Mathém. vol. i. p. 143; Bardili, De Archyta Tur. in Nov. Act. Soc. Lat. Jenens. vol. i. p. 1.) ARCIS-SUR-AUBE, a town in France, in the departThe thesmothetæ should, according to the meaning of ment of Aube, and the capital of an arrondissement to which their title, have been legislators, or propounders of laws. It it gives name. It is ninety-three miles E.S.E. of Paris, was not, however, their office to introduce laws, but rather and sixteen miles N. of Troyes, the capital of the departto watch over the conduct of those who put themselves for- ment. It is on the S. or left bank of the Aube, which beward as legislators, and also annually to examine the exist- gins to be navigable here, and by means of this river it ing laws for the purpose of removing contradictory and carries on a considerable trade with Paris in corn, wine, superfluous enactments-to keep, as it were, the statute-wood, iron, and mill-stones. There are manufactories of book in a pure and consistent state. (Dem. contra Lacr. cotton hose here; and a tribunal de première instance, or subp. 940, 10, and 12; contra Zenoth. p. 890, 10; Lys. contra ordinate court of justice, under the jurisdiction of the assize Andoc. p. 104, 15; Herod. 6, 109, 111; Lys. contra Pancl. court of Paris. The population in 1826 was about 3000. p. 166, 32, and 40.) It appears that the whole college of archons was sometimes assembled in council (Dem. contra Meid. p. 542, 2); but we have no information respecting the authority which they collectively exercised. Arcis was injured by the allies in 1814, but has since been much enlarged and improved: 48° 32' N. lat., 4° 9′ E. long. from Greenwich. The arrondissement of Arcis comprehends ninety communes, and has a population of about 33,000 persons. For further information on the various and important duties assigned to the different archons, in addition to this brief and general notice, the reader is referred to the authorities mentioned above; but we would remind the young student, in his inquiries, that the reliance to be placed on the accuracy of even a credible and well-informed author must depend in some measure on the circumstances under which his information is given; and this should especially be kept in mind when, as in the subject of the present article, all our information, so far as it is supplied by the Greek classics, is obtained, not from regular essays, but from incidental notices. Our meaning in this caution will be best explained by an instance. The subject of inquiry may be the manner in which certain officers were appointed; and this, as in the case of the archons, may have varied at different times. The mode of appointment may, according to a common practice with the Athenians, be implied by an epithet familiarly joined with the title of the office. Now, it is possible that an author, who when writing professedly on the subject would have given minutely accurate in-villon, and published in French at Amsterdam in 1764, and formation, may use this epithet, familiar to him, inaccurately with reference to the times of which he is speaking, if the circumstance indicated by it is of no importance to the subject immediately before him. Evidence drawn from a casual expression must often be taken into account, but then it should be carefully rated at its proper value. ARCHYTAS, a native of the Greek city Tarentum in Italy; of whose life we can give only a very unsatisfactory account. His father's name is variously given as Hestiæus, Mnesarchus, or Mnesagoras; but however that may be, all ancient accounts concur in considering him a man of extraordinary talents, uniting the merits of a philosopher, mathematician, statesman, and general. Even the period at which he lived is disputed; but if the ol epi Apxvrav Ilvayopuoi signify Archytas, he must have been contemporary with the younger Dionysius (Plut. Dion. 20.) and with Plato. Archytas belonged to the Pythagorean school, and was himself probably the founder of a sect. He is distinguished more particularly for his knowledge of mathematics, Te maris et terræ numeroque carentis arena The poor gift of a little dust confines, Thee now (Archytas), who could'st measure well and for his discoveries in practical mechanics. In what way ARCKENHOLZ, JOHN, a Swede, was born in Finland in 1695. He studied at Upsal, after which he travelled over Europe, and resided at Paris a long time. There he wrote, in French, Considerations Politiques sur la France par rapport à la Suede, in which he spoke unfavourably of the former country, and censured the administration of Cardinal Fleury. Having communicated his MS. to several persons, he was arrested on his return to his own country and obliged to apologize to the cardinal minister. King Frederic I., of the house of Hesse Cassel, appointed him, in 1746, librarian and keeper of the cabinet of medals at Cassel, where he remained for twenty years. He wrote, in French, the Mémoires de Christine, Reine de Suede, 4 vols. quarto, Amsterdam, 1751, also Lettres sur les Lapons et les Finnois, 8vo. Frankfort, 1756, and Recueil des Sentimens et des Propos de Gustave Adolphe, Stockholm, 1769. From Arckenholz's MS. account of that prince, joined to other Memoirs, a history of Gustavus Adolphus was compiled by M. Mauafterwards translated into German under the title of Geschichte Gustav. Adolphs, 2 vols. 8vo. Breslau, 1775. Arckenholz's manuscript on France and Sweden was published in Büsching's Historical Magazine. Arckenholz had been commissioned by the states of Sweden to write the history of Frederic I., but he never completed it, his mental faculties having grown weak; he died in 1777, at the age of eighty-two. ARCOLE, a village in the Venetian States, about fifteen miles S.S.E. of Verona, lies in the midst of a low marshy country, through which the Alpone flows, a torrent which comes from the mountains near Vicenza, and empties itself into the Adige about three miles below Arcole. It is situated on the left or eastern bank of the Alpone, farthest from Verona. The ground between the left bank of the Adige and the right bank of the Alpone is one impervious marsh, intersected by two or three causeways, one of which leads to a narrow bridge over the Alpone, and to the village of Arcole beyond it. It was along this causeway that the French, under Bonaparte, having crossed the Adige at the village of Ronco, advanced on the morning of the 15th November, 1796, with the view of surprising the rear of the Austrian army under General Alvinzi, which was then posted on the heights of Caldiero near Verona. Two battalions of Croats and Hungarians were posted at Arcole, with some artillery, and they stoutly defended the bridge. Three times the French column attempted to storm it, amidst a shower of grape-shot and musketry, and three times it was repulsed with great loss. Bonaparte himself was thrown from the causeway into the marsh, and was near |