Page:Cyclopaedia, Chambers - Supplement, Volume 1.djvu/209

 A R G

A R G

Afc&fetffiS'A, a medicinal plant* nearly rclcmbling cinquefoil> of fume ufe as a cooler and aftringent.

Argentina is called in Englifh, Silver Weed, or Wild Tanfey, and among the botanifts, Poteniilla and Pentaphglloittes, An- tiently there was a diftilled water* and a confervc ordered from its flowers, but they are now out of ufc. Aileyn, Dipenf. p. 17. See Pentaphyllotdes.

ARGESTES Agyfir«i is ufed by Vitruvius for the wind, which blows from' that quarter of the horizon, which is 75°. from the fouth, and weftward. Vitruv. Archit. 1. i.e. 6. Ricciolus, followed by other moderns-, ufes Argefies for the wind which blows at 22. 30'. from the welt towards the north ; coinciding with what is otherwife called weft north weft. Ricciol. Aftron. Reform. 1, 10. p. 452. Wolf Elcm. Geogr.

%' 2I2 ' ARGETENAR, in aftronomy, a ftar of the fourth magnitude,

in the flexure of the conftellation Eridanus. Vital, Lex. Math.

p. 62. See Eridanus, Cycl.

Argetenar is reprefented in Bayer, by the Greek letter r. Its

longitude according to Hevelius in 1700, was 5. 53'. 22". and

its latitude 38. 28'. 47". fouth ward. Hevel. Prodrom. Aftrom.

p. 286. Wolf Ub.cit. p. 164.

ARGONAUTIC, fomething belonging to the Argonauts. See the article Arconauts, Cycl.

The Argonautic expedition is one of the grcatcft epochas, or periods of hiftory, which Sir Ifaac Newton endeavours to fettle, and from thence to rectify the antient chronology. This he fhews by feveral authorities, to have been one gene- ration or about thirty years earlier than the taking of Troy ; and forty three years later than the death of Solomon. Vid. Pref. Stat. Repub. Lett. T. 1. p. 274. feq. la confirmation of this he gives an agronomical proof which may be reduced to what follows ; the fphere appears to have been firft formed at the time of the Argonautic expedition, partly from the teftimony of Laertius, who obferves that Mu- lasus one of the Argonauts made a fphere ; partly from this, that Chiron, another of the Argonauts, is faid by an antient ■writer to have firft framed the conftellations ; and partly alfo from this, that moil of the antient conftellations delineated on the fphere, are no other than the heroes embarked in that voyage. Sir Ifaac Newton fhews, the firft fphere was probably formed by Chiron and Mufaeus ; two of the number of the Argonauts, for the ufe of this expedition itfelf. Now it is more than probable, that in the firft fphere, the colures, or cardinal points of the equinoxes and folftices, were jn the middle of the conftellations, Aries, Cancer, Chela, and Capricorn : confequently this was their fituation at the time of the Argonautic expedition. And by computing backwards from the prefent fituation of the colures, to the time when they muft have been in the middle of thefe afte- lifms, we find it coincides very nearly with the time before alledged. Id. Ibid. p. 277. feq.

Argonautica, Argonautic;, in literary hiftory, poems on the Subject of the expedition and actions of the Argonauts. We have the Argonautics of Orpheus in epic verfe published with notes by H. Stephens, and fince by Efchenbachius. Vid. Fabric. Bibl. Graec. 1. 3. c. 21. §. 3. Id. Ibid. 1. 1; c. 18. p. 112. Bibl. Univ. T. 15. p. 97. feq. TheArgonautt'conof ValeriusFlaccusis ftillextantin eightbooks in Latin heroics, compofed in imitation of Apollonius, but not compleated, at leaft is not now to be found complete. Burman obferves that the imitator has often fur patted his ori- ginal a ; fome give it the fecond place after the jEneid. Bur- man has given a fine edition of it at Leiden, 1724, 4 b — [» Fabric. Bibl. Lat. 1. 2. c. 14. §. 2. feq. Id. Bibl. Graec. 1. 3. c. 21. §. 4. b Act. Erud. Lipf. An. 1724. p. 281. feq. Giorn. de Letter, d' Ital. T. 33. P. 2. p. 487.] The Argonautics of Apollonius Rhodius is an heroic poem, •confifling of four books ; it has both its beauties and defects. •Quintilian calls it mn contemnendum opus. Tanaquil Faber cenfures it for the inequality of the ftile ; Cafaubon for the inaccuracy of the geography ; Rapin for the want of agree- able and interefting incidents and events ; Heinfius taxes the periodology, ceconomy, &c. V. Fabric, loc. cit. Heder. Schul. Lex. p. 378.

ARGUMENT (Cycl.)— Argument from Affefiton, Argu- rnentum sb amors, ftaiids eppofed to the Argwnentum ab invi- dia ; as in the latter, the paflions are engaged to make a per- fon appear odious ; fo the former is a method of engaging the reafon by means of the affections, and of prefenting an author in fuch a light, as may prejudice readers in his behalf. Bibl. Germ. T. 5. p. 220.

M. Fabrkius of Helmftaldt has a diiTertation on the Argumen- tum ab amore.

Argumentum ad ignamam, or the lazy Argument, a me- thod of reafoning which always concludes in favour of Inac- tion, Mem. de Trev. Am 1729. p. 1713. This the Greeks call Agya- x*y& 9 q. d. idle, fluggilh teafon. It is reducible to this or fome other equivalent form, either it is decreed by deltiny that you fhall recover of this dlfeafe, or it is decreed you fhall not recover ; but the defigns of deftiny will be accomplifhcd whether you imploy a phyfietan or not, it 13 therefore ufelefs to call in a phyfidan, Cicero 3 deFato. c. 12.

SUPFL. VoL. I,

The Turks are fo convinced of a fatality in all things, that they actually remain inactive in the time of a plague, without ufing any precaution to prefervc themfelves from the contagion. Hence it is, that all quarentines, and other means for ftopping the pfogrefs of this diftemper, are unknown among them, V. Leibn. Eff. de Theod. in Pref. p. 10. feq. Mem. of Liter. T. 3. p. 4.7,

Argumentum ad ignorantiam, that drawn from our igno- rance and unacquaintednefs with things, and importing that there are many reafons for or agairift fuch an opinion which we are unacquainted withal, or incapable of penetrating into. In the difpute about the nature and origin of the fouls of* brutes, we are frequently expofud to the Argument which Mr. Lock calls ad ignorantiam, being forced to own we are igno- rant of an infinity of things which might be alledged againft their immateriality and confequently immortality. V. Le Clerc t Bibl. Choif. T. 9. p. 38.

There are no kind of Arguments more frequent than thofe ab jgnoraniia duel a, wherein people conclude that a thing is falfe becaufe they do not understand how it can be true, not eon- fidcring that there are an infinite number of things, of which we can give no account, whofc truth neverthelefs is not to be queftioned, e.gr. the communication of motion, the caufe of gravity, or elafticity, the union of foul and body, csV, V. Le Clerc. Bibl. Anc. Mod. T. 27. P. 379. feq.

Argumentum ab invidia duclum, that made ufe of to render an adverfary's opinion odious. Wolf. Log. §. 1050. 1 his kind of Argument is chiefly framed by drawing falfe or obnoxious confequences from a doctrine which another delivers for true.

This Argument is but too frequent among divines ; fome have therefore called it the theological Argument. M. Le Clerc has a diflertation cxprefs on the Argumentum theologicum ab invi- dia duel urn.

The progrefs of arguing ab invidia may be reduced to the following heads. 1. The opinion or doctrine oppofed is ill explained. 2. It is compared with the doctrine of fome other infamous or odious writers. 3. Odious names and appella* tions are beftowed on it. 4. The point in queftion is exag- gerated, or the difference widened. 5. The author is re- proached for departing from the common forms of fpeecb* 6. The reafons on which his doctrine is fupported are ftu- dioufiy concealed. 7. The inconveniences which arife from the contrary doctrine are fuppreffed. 8. Invidious confe- quences are drawn from the adverfary's doctrine. 9. Mali- cious fufpiclons are call on them. 10. Their novelty is al- ledged againft them as a crime. It. Thofe in authority are urged to fupprefs them. 12. Several matters are brought into the controverfy foreign to the merits of it, merely to create hatred. 13. Things indifferent are always taken on the worfe fide. 1 4. An appeal is made from proper judges to improper. It is ncedlefs to give inftances of the ufe of this way of argu- ing ; our polemical writers are full of little elfe, it is indeed the eafieft of all others : ideots may ufe it, if they have but malice and impudence enough j and generally the weakeft and moft fhatnelefs are the moft forward, and go fartheft in it. A perfon who is a ftranger to the method of demonftrating, thinks a thing neceflarily follows from another, which has no* connection with it ; he that is utterly ignorant of all principles, being unable to prove any thing by intrinfic Arguments, always flies to extrinfic ones, to the drawing of confequences by the Argumentum ab invidia. Id. Ibid. p. 121 2* Some have given thefe the denomination of confeqmntarii. Wolf. Logic. §. 1040.

Argumentum a tuto, that drawn frorri the confideration of its being fafer to chufe one fide of the queftion than the other s fuppofing the evidence equal on both fide3. The Argument for chriftianity drawn a tttto is reducible to this, that it is fafer and better to believe there is a God, and that Chrift is the fon of God, and redeemer of mankind, than to deny it ; by reafon a miftake is of much lefs mifchie-* vous confequence on the former fide than the latter* Dr. Gaftrel ftates it thus ; that which promifes me great happinefs, if I believe it, and infinite mifery*, if I difbelieve it, I am under an obligation to believe ; but chriftianity, csV. The Argument a tuto or a tutiori, from the fafer fide* has been much ufed by fome divines, efpecially againft Atheifts and infidels ; its authority has been the fubjedt of great dis- putes ; as it aims to convince by ether means than that of evidence. Clark and Leibnitz allow it only a moral force. This way of arguing was firft ftarted by Arnobius, and has been adopted by feveral other advocates for chriftianity, as Pafchal, Tillotfon, Gaftrel, BV. M. Jurieu openly owns, it was by this argument he was induced to believe the myfte- ries of chriftianity ; lord Shaftfburyj PfafEus, and fome others have endeavoured to explode it.

The only cafe where this Argument may be had recourfe to is, when the reafons for and againft the propofition are exactly- equal ; the propofition ittuft alfo be of fuch nature as to ad- mit of nothing certairt to be concluded of its truth or falfe* hood from the proper evidence.

The ufe of the Argument a tuto, fuppofes wc can believe

what we will without other reafon than our own pleafure or

conveniency ; and that the undcrftanding, tho' preflid by an

3 F equal