a borough and market town in the county of Sussex, 57 miles from London. It is situated on the declivity of a hill, on the north bank of the river Arun, which is navigable for vessels of 200 tons, and consists of two principal streets, containing several houses of a superior class. Adjoining to it is the magnificent castle of the dukes of Norfolk. The municipal government is vested in a mayor, four aldermen, and twelve councillors. It returns one member to parliament. Its chief trade is in corn and timber. Pop. in 1851, 2748.

Arundel, Thomas, archbishop of Canterbury, born in 1335, was the second son of Robert, Earl of Arundel and Warren. At 22 years of age he was raised to the bishopric of Ely, to the church and palace of which he was a great benefactor. In 1386 he was appointed lord chancellor of England; two years after he was translated to the see of York, and in 1396 was advanced to the primacy of Canterbury, when he resigned the chancellorship. This was the first instance of the translation of an archbishop of York to the see of Canterbury. Scarce was he fixed in this see, when he had a contest with the university of Oxford about the right of visitation. The affair was referred to the king, Richard II., who determined it in favour of the archbishop. At his visitation in London, he revived an old constitution, by which the inhabitants of the respective parishes were obliged to pay to their rector one halfpenny in the pound out of the rent of their houses. In 1398, in the parliament held at London, the Commons, with the king's leave, impeached the archbishop, together with his brother Richard Earl of Arundel, and the Duke of Gloucester, of high treason. He was sentenced to be banished, and within forty days to depart the kingdom on pain of death. He retired, first to France, and then to the Court of Rome, where Pope Boniface IX. gave him a kind reception, and nominated him to the Scottish archbishopric of St Andrews. He was engaged in the plot to depose Richard, and place the Duke of Lancaster on the throne; and returning to England along with him, he was restored to his see on Henry's accession. Two years after, the Commons moved that the revenues of the church might be applied to the public service; but Arundel opposed the measure with such vigour that it was thrown aside. In the year 1408 his zeal for the suppression of heresy was directed against the followers of Wickliffe. The most eminent victim of his persecution was Sir John Oldcastle, Lord Cobham. He also procured a synodical constitution, which prohibited the translation of the Scriptures into the vulgar tongue. This prelate died at Canterbury on the 20th February 1413, of an inflammation in his throat, with which he was seized, as affirmed by the Lollards, while pronouncing sentence upon Lord Cobham.

ARUNDELIAN or OXFORD MARBLES. These interesting relics of antiquity, which include the famous Parian Chronicle, derive their name from Thomas Earl of Arundel, or from his grandson the Hon. Henry Howard, (afterwards Duke of Norfolk) who presented the collection to the University of Oxford in the year 1667. They were purchased for the first proprietor in 1624 by Mr William Petty, an able antiquary employed by the Earl of Arundel to collect marbles, books, statues, and other curiosities in Italy, Greece, and Asia Minor. On their arrival in London in the year 1627 they were placed in the gardens of Arundel House, the site of which is now occupied by Arundel, Norfolk, Surrey, and Howard Streets in the Strand.

The PARIAN CHRONICLE, or Marmor Chronicon, was, when found, a large oblong slab of Parian marble, on which was engraved in capital letters a chronological compendium of the principal events of Greece during a series of 1318 years, beginning with the reign of Cecrops, B.C. 1582, and ending with the archonship of Diognetus, B.C. 264. This marble originally measured three feet seven inches and two feet eleven inches on the two sides respectively, its breadth being two feet seven inches; but the chronicle of the last 90 years is lost, so that the part now remaining ends at the archonship of Diotimus, 354 years before the birth of Christ; and in this fragment the inscription is at present so much corroded and effaced that the sense must in some measure be supplied by conjecture.

Immediately on their arrival they excited the greatest curiosity, and were examined by some of the most eminent literary men of the period; among others by Sir Robert Cotton, Selden, Patrick Young, and Richard James. Selden, along with Patrick Young, or, as he styled himself in Latin, Patricius Junius, and Richard James, immediately commenced their operations by cleaning and examining the marble containing the Smyrnæan and Magnesian league, and afterwards proceeded to the Marmor Chronicon. The following year Selden published a small volume in quarto, including about 39 inscriptions copied from the marbles.

In the turbulent reign of Charles I., and the subsequent usurpation, Arundel House was often deserted by the illustrious owners; and, in their absence, some of the marbles were defaced and broken, and others either stolen or used for the ordinary purposes of architecture. The chronological marble, in particular, was unfortunately broken and defaced. The upper part, containing 31 epochs, is said to have been worked up in repairing a chimney-piece or hearth in Arundel House.

Selden's work becoming very scarce, a new edition of the inscriptions, by Prideaux, was printed at Oxford in 1676. In 1732 Maittaire obliged the public with a more comprehensive view of the marbles than either of his predecessors. Lastly, Dr Chandler published, in 1763, a new and improved copy of the marbles; in which he corrected the mistakes of the former editors, and in some of the inscriptions, particularly that of the Parian chronicle, supplied the lacunæ by many ingenious conjectures.

The Arundelian marbles, though generally regarded as genuine relics of antiquity, were, however, discovered in some instances to differ somewhat from the most authentic historical accounts. Sir Isaac Newton and several other eminent philosophers paid little or no regard to them; and their absolute authenticity has been severely questioned in an express dissertation upon the subject by the Rev. J. Robertson, published in 1788, entitled The Parian Chronicle. In this dissertation much ingenuity as well as learning is displayed, and the arguments are doubtless possessed of considerable force and plausibility; but Mr Robertson's dissertation has been ably answered, and the authenticity of the Parian chronicle vindicated, by several writers; particularly the late Professor Porson, in an examination of Mr Robertson's Dissertation, in the Monthly Review for January 1789. See also Hewlett's Vindication, and the Archaeologia, vol. ix.

ARUSPICES, or HARUSPICES, in Roman Antiquity, an order of priests who pretended to foretell future events by inspecting the entrails of victims killed in sacrifice; and who were consulted on occasion of portents and prodigies. The aruspices were chosen from the best families; yet although their employment was of the same nature as that of the augurs, and they were much honoured, they never acquired the same political importance, being regarded rather as mere interpreters of the will of the gods, than as possessing any religious authority. Their college, as well as those of the other religious orders, had its particular registers and records.