Page:Imperial Dictionary of Universal Biography Volume 1.pdf/296

ATT Bagna-Cavallo, in the duchy of Ferrara, in the beginning of the sixteenth century. He wrote a treatise "On the Duel," and "A Discourse on the Point of Honour." The former was published at Venice in 1560, and the latter in 1563, and both, corrected and revised by the author, were republished in 1565.  ATTENDOLO,, an Italian scholar and poet, was born at Capua, and died in 1592 or 1593. He became a secular priest, and was distinguished for his knowledge of languages, particularly Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic. Among his works are several sermons, and a number of poems.  * ATTERBOM,, a Swedish poet, was born in 1790, in the village of the Ostrogoths, where his father was pastor. He was a devoted admirer of German literature, to which he dedicated much of his leisure. In 1819 he was appointed teacher of German to the prince royal, afterwards king of Sweden. He was author of a variety of works, both in prose and verse.—(Conversations-Lexicon.)  ATTERBURY,, son of Lewis Atterbury, born at Milton, March 6, 1662; was educated at Westminster school, and thence elected to Christ Church in Oxford, where he distinguished himself by an admirable Latin translation of Dryden's "Absalom and Achitophel," and by a charming epigram on the white fan of a lady, whom he afterwards made his wife. He received the degree of M.A. April 20, 1687, and soon entered into the Roman catholic controversy, by writing a thoughtful treatise on the origin of the Reformation. While tutor to the honourable Mr. Boyle, afterwards Lord Orrery, he took part in the celebrated discussion on the genuineness of the epistles of Phalaris. The keen wit and ingenuity of Lord Orrery's answer to Bentley on that subject were attributed to Atterbury; but neither tutor nor pupil was a match for Bentley in critical scholarship. About the same time we find him in London, chaplain to King William and Queen Mary (1694), and as preacher at Bridewell, delivering several remarkable sermons; while he assailed Dr. Wake, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, in an angry controversy on the privileges and powers of convocation. About the year 1696, a pamphlet was published, supposed to be written by Dr. Binckes, which insisted on the right of the clergy to frequent synods, according to the canons of the Christian church, and the constitution of the realm. Dr. Wake thought that the arguments advanced in this publication impugned the authority of Christian princes over their convocations, and issued a reply, designed to maintain the royal supremacy. To this treatise Atterbury published an answer in 1700, without his name. In the preface he terms Dr. Wake's book "a shallow, empty performance, written without any knowledge of our constitution, or any skill in the particular subject of debate. The best construction," continues he, "that has been put upon Dr. Wake's attempt by candid readers, is, that it was an attempt to advance the prerogative of the prince in church matters as high, and to depress the interest of the subject spiritual as low as ever he could, with any colour of truth." To this book. Dr. Wake, in 1703, published a rejoinder. The result of the controversy was advantageous to both parties. Dr. Wake was made a bishop, and Atterbury received from the university the degree of doctor of divinity. Meanwhile, in the year 1700, he was made archdeacon of Totness, and canon-residentiary of Exeter. Queen Anne, on her accession to the throne, appointed him her chaplain; and in 1704, he was presented to the deanery of Carlisle. On the 30th of August, 1706, he preached in St. Paul's cathedral the celebrated sermon on the funeral of Mr. Thomas Bennet, the bookseller, which engaged him in a warm dispute with Hoadley, afterwards bishop of Hereford. His text was, "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable;" and he endeavoured to prove, that were there no future life, men would be really more miserable than beasts, and the best men more miserable than the worst. This position Hoadley considers dangerous and unmoral. "The apostle," says he to Atterbury, "speaks of Christians professing faith in Christ; you speak of persons practising the moral precepts of religion. The apostle speaks of the condition of such Christians in a state of the most bitter persecution; you speak of the condition of virtuous persons in the ordinary course of God's providence. . . You have mistaken the assertion itself, which the apostle layeth down, the persons concerning whom he intends it, the times to which he manifestly limits it, and the conclusion which he designed should be drawn from it." This home charge soon drew from Atterbury a masterly vindication of his arguments in the form of a preface to the sermons, published in 1708. In 1711 he was made dean of Christchurch, and in June, 1713, on the death of Dr. Spratt, he was yet further advanced to the see of Rochester and deanery of Westminster. He was not popular at Christchurch, and his opponents declared that he was promoted to restore tranquillity to the university which he disturbed, and the college over which he sought to tyrannize. It was not long before Queen Anne's death that he obtained his bishopric. His friends for the most part were men poising two successions in their hands, and doubtful whether they should favour the Pretender (whom in their hearts they preferred) or allow the claims of George of Hanover. It was said that as Lambeth was opposite to Westminster, and the archbishop old and infirm, Atterbury looked with a longing eye to the primacy; but his party split into two factions at the critical moment that preceded the death of Queen Anne. As soon as this event was known, he offered to put on his lawn sleeves, and go forth and proclaim King James. This daring honour was not accepted by his associates. George I. ascended the throne, and the bishop's chances of promotion were lost. As dean of Westminster he officiated at the coronation of the new king, and, when the ceremony was concluded, wished to present him with the royal canopy and chair of state, which were the perquisites of the dean; but the offer being rejected, the bishop's heart was filled with resentment. Had the Tories been continued in office during the new reign, they would probably have never tampered with the Pretender. Instated by exclusion, they began to conspire. Declarations in favour of the Pretender were posted in the markets, and in some places his title was proclaimed. When the bishops set forth a loyal declaration, testifying their abhorrence of rebellion and their allegiance to King George, Atterbury refused to sign it. Meanwhile his party were indefatigable in opposition. It was confidently affirmed that their movements were not intended so much to embarrass the ministry as to change the dynasty. They complained that the law was violated, in order that they might upset the constitution; and as the father of the Pretender had been excluded in 1688, so now the son was to be set on the throne for the same reasons and upon the same principles. Meanwhile a secret conspiracy was at work to secure these objects, and Atterbury was too prominent a person not to be suspected of participating in it. He was accordingly apprehended, August 24, 1722. He was taken before the council, and immediately committed to the Tower. The commitment of a bishop under such circumstances, gave rise to various speculations. His friends laid the whole blame on the ministry. His enemies declared that he had tampered with the Pretender even in the reign of Queen Anne; that he had even proposed to receive his son as heir of the throne, to educate him in the protestant faith, and to act as lord protector during his minority. Atterbury was brought to trial before the House of Lords on Monday, May 6, 1723, and after a long debate condemned to banishment, by a majority of eighty-three to forty-three. On Tuesday, June 8, he embarked on board the Aldborough man-of-war, and landed the Friday following at Calais. He went thence to Brussels, and not long after to Paris, where he softened the rigours of his exile by study and conversation; and as there is too much reason to fear, by abortive schemes of rebellion against the royal line of Hanover. He was well acquainted with the French language, which he learned late in life. He died in Paris, February 15, 1731. His body was brought to England, and privately interred in Westminster abbey, on the 12th of May following. Whatever may be thought of his political character, it is universally agreed that he was one of the greatest men of the age for genius and skill in polite literature, that he wrote Latin with a purity worthy of Cicero, and his own language in a manner superior to most of his contemporaries. In the House of Lords he was an excellent speaker. His character as a preacher is well described in the Tattler, Vol. II., No. 66. His subjects were chosen with skill; his method was clear and perspicuous; and he cast an air of novelty and invention around the commonest topics of the pulpit. His opponents describe him as quarrelsome and litigious, but if we may judge from his portraits, his disposition appears to have been gentle and engaging, his gravity free from arrogance, and his mien the very type of finished elegance.—T. J.  ATTERBURY,, a celebrated composer of glees and part songs, born in 1740. His most popular works were, "Come let us all a-Maying go," glee, four voices; "With 