ANTOINE ISAAC SILVESTRE DE,** a celebrated orientalist, was born at Paris on the 21st September 1758. Although a delicate boy, he soon became a precocious linguist. His ready mind, under the direction of a private tutor, speedily mastered Latin and Greek. He then applied himself to other languages. Hebrew, Syriac, Chaldee, Samaritan, Arabic, and Ethiopic were acquired in succession; Italian, Spanish, English, and German were added; and at the age of twenty-three he appeared before the public as a praece in philology. It was not long before Sacy directed his attention to the history and antiquities of the East. As his studies advanced he continued to lay their results before the learned world. Two memoirs, one on the bursting of the dike of Irem in Arabia Felix, and another on the origin of Arabian literature, were published in the *Recueil de l'Academie des Inscriptions*. Numerous papers on ancient Persian and Arabic history were contributed to the collection entitled *Notices et Extraits des Manuscrits*. He also read before the academy several memoirs on the antiquities of Persia, and especially on the inscriptions found among the ruins of Persepolis. Nor did the turmoil of the Revolution interrupt his engrossing pursuits. He retired to a small country house in the neighbourhood of Paris, and divided his time between the cultivation of his garden and the investigation of the religious system of the Druses. After the revolutionary period the efforts of Sacy for the promotion of oriental learning took a most practical turn. Much of his earnest attention was given to the duties of professor of Arabic and Persian, to which he had been appointed. No less than fifteen years were engrossed in the composition of an Arabic Grammar. He exerted himself to found the Asiatic Society of Paris, a service which was acknowledged by his being made its first president. At the same time, his pen was not slow in advancing the great work of his life. He was a powerful supporter of the *Magasin Encyclopedique* and of the *Mines de l'Orient*; and among other works he published a collection of Arabic extracts entitled *Chrestomathie Arabe*, 1806; the Arabic text of the fables of Pilpay, under the name of *Calila et Dimna*, 1816; the *Pend-Nomeh* (Book of Counsels) in Persian and French, 1819; and the *Sessions de Hariri*, in Arabic, 1822. Towards the close of his life Sacy held a very high position. In the class-room no professor could be more eminent. His information was profound, well-arranged, and ready at command. He explained with precision, clearness, and force. So astonishing, indeed, were his qualifications for teaching that old men, who had themselves written and spoken on the subject, came from all parts to sit at his feet. Nor was it only in his lecture-room that he was esteemed. After the death of Cuvier the French held him up as their great champion in learning. He was universally acknowledged to be the greatest living authority in his own particular branch of study. The influence of his commanding intellect was felt throughout the learned world. Chairs of Chinese, Sanscrit, and Hindustance were established in Paris by his advice. Russian and Prussian institutions for oriental studies were founded under his direction. His pupils filled the principal professorships in Europe; and he had his readers and correspondents in every country. Sacy fell down dead in the street, in a fit of apoplexy, on the 19th of February 1838. At his death he was a peer of France, keeper of the oriental manuscripts in the king's library, and perpetual secretary to the Academy of Inscriptions. His friend Reinhard pronounced his eulogy, which was afterwards published under the title of *Notice Historique et Litteraire sur M. le Baron de Sacy*.

name by which Louis Isaac le Maistre was commonly known. He was born in Paris in 1613, and was educated for the church. The instructions of his uncle, the great Arnauld, and of his spiritual guide, the Abbé de Saint Cyrain, made him a zealous Jansenist. Withdrawing in the company of those of the same mind to the famous suburban retreat of Port-Royal-des-Champs, he commenced a life of opposition to the errors and vices of the Jesuits. For several years he assisted his fellow-recluses in instilling their opinions into a small number of pupils, and in composing works for the better enlightenment of their age. Persecution assailed him in 1661, but his zeal remained unabated. Fleeing before his enemies, he became an outcast for his principles. Till 1666 there was no other hiding-place for him but the dingy recesses of the Faubourg Saint Antoine. For the following three years his studies were prosecuted in a cell of the Bastile. Even after his liberation the attacks of his enemies did not cease. He returned to Port-Royal in 1675, only to be chased from it in 1679. Weary and worn-out, he retired to the house of his cousin, the Marquis de Pomponne, and died there in 1684. The following is a list of the principal works of Sacy:—*Enluminures du Fameux Almanack des Jesuites intitule la Deroute et la Confusion des Jansénistes*, in 8vo, 1654; a French translation of the *De Imitatione Christi*, in 8vo, 1662; a French translation of the New Testament, in 2 vols. 8vo, 1667; and a French translation of the Psalms of David, in 3 vols. 12mo, 1696.

**SADDUCEES** were a famous sect among the ancient Jews, and consisted of persons of great quality and opulence. Respecting their origin there are various accounts and various opinions. Epiphanius, and after him many other writers, contend that they took their rise from Dositheus, a sectary of Samaria, and derived their name from the Hebrew word פֶּסֶך, just or justice, from the great justice and equity which they showed in all their actions; a derivation which neither suits the word Sadducee nor the general character of the sect. They are thought by some, too, to have been Samaritans. But this is by no means probable, as they always attended the worship and sacrifices at Jerusalem, and never at Gerizim.

In the Jewish Talmud we are told that the Sadducees derived their name from Sadoc, and that the sect arose about 260 years before Christ, in the time of Antigonus of Soch, president of the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem, and teacher of the law in the principal divinity school of that city. Antigonus had often in his lectures, it seems, taught his scholars that they ought not to serve God as slaves do their masters, from the hopes of a reward, but merely out of filial love for his own sake; and from this Sadoc and Baithus inferred that there were no rewards at all after this life. They therefore separated from their master, and taught that there was no resurrection nor future state. This new doctrine quickly spread, and gave rise to the sect of Sadducees, which in many respects resembled the Epicureans. Dr Prideaux thinks that the Sadducees were at first no Saddeuces, more than what the Carmites are now; that is, they would not receive the traditions of the elders, but acknowledged the written word only; and the Pharisees being great promoters of those traditions, these two sects hence became directly opposite to each other. Afterwards the Sadducees imbibed other doctrines which rendered them a sect truly impious. They denied the resurrection of the dead, and the existence of angels, and the spirits or souls of men departed. They held that there is no spiritual being but God only; and that as to man, this world is his all. They did not deny but that we had reasonable souls; but they maintained that this soul was mortal, and, by a necessary consequence, they denied the rewards and punishments of another life. They pretended also that what is said of the existence of angels and of a future resurrection is nothing but illusions. St Epiphanius, and after him St Augustin, have advanced that the Sadducees denied the Holy Ghost; but neither Josephus nor the evangelists accuse them of any error like this. It has been also imputed to them that they thought God corporeal, and that they received none of the prophecies. It is difficult to apprehend how they could deny the being of angels, and yet receive the books of Moses, where such frequent mention is made of angels and of their appearances. Grotius and Le Clerc observe that it is very likely they looked upon angels, not as particular beings subsisting of themselves, but as powers, emanations, or qualities, inseparable from the Deity, as the sunbeams are inseparable from the sun. Or perhaps they held angels not to be spiritual, but mortal, just as they thought that substance to be which animates us and thinks in us. The ancients do not tell us how they solved this difficulty, that might be urged against them from so many passages of the Pentateuch, where mention is made of angels. As the Sadducees acknowledged neither punishments nor recompenses in another life, so they were inexorable in chastising the wicked. They observed the law themselves, and caused it to be observed with the utmost rigour by others. They admitted none of the traditions, explications, or modifications of the Pharisees; they kept to the text of the law, and maintained that only what was written was to be observed. The Sadducees are accused of rejecting all the books of Scripture except those of Moses; and to support this opinion, it is observed that our Saviour makes use of no Scripture against them, but passages taken out of the Pentateuch. But Scaliger produces good proofs to vindicate them from this reproach. He observes that they did not appear in Israel till after the number of the holy books was fixed; and that if they had been to choose out of the canonical Scriptures, the Pentateuch was less favourable to them than any other book, since it often makes mention of angels and their apparition.

Besides, the Sadducees were present in the Temple, and at other religious assemblies, where the books of the prophets were read indifferently, as well as those of Moses. They were in the chief employments of the nation; many of them even were priests. Would the Jews have suffered in these employments persons that rejected the greater part of their Scriptures? Menasse Ben-Israel says expressly that they did not indeed reject the prophets, but that they explained them in a sense very different from that of the other Jews. Josephus assures us that they denied destiny or fate; alleging that these were only sounds void of sense, and that all the good or evil that happens to us is in consequence of the good or evil side we have taken, by the free choice of our will. They said also that God was far removed from doing or knowing evil, and that man was the absolute master of his own actions. This was roundly to deny a providence; and upon this footing I know not, says Calmet, what could be the religion of the Sadducees, or what influence they could ascribe to God in things here below. However, it is certain that they were not only tolerated among the Jews, but that they were admitted to the high priesthood itself. John Hircanus, high priest of the nation, separated himself in a signal manner from the sect of the Pharisees, and went over to that of Sadoc. It is said also that he gave strict command to all the Jews, on pain of death, to receive the maxims of this sect. Aristobulus, and Alexander Jannaeus, son of Hircanus, continued to favour the Sadducees; and Maimonides assures us, that under the reign of Alexander Jannaeus they had in possession all the offices of the Sanhedrim, there only remaining of the party of the Pharisees, Simon the son of Secra. Caiaphas, who condemned Jesus Christ to death, was a Sadducee: as was also Ananus the younger, who put to death St James the brother of our Lord. At this day the Jews hold as heretics the small number of Sadducees which are to be found among them.

The sect of the Sadducees was much reduced by the destruction of Jerusalem, and by the dispersion of the Jews; but it afterwards revived. At the beginning of the third century it was so formidable in Egypt that Ammonius, Origen's master, when he saw them propagate their opinions in that country, thought himself obliged to write against them, or rather against the Jews, who tolerated the Sadducees, though they denied the fundamental points of their religion. The Emperor Justinian mentions the Sadducees in one of his novels; banishes them out of all places of his dominions; and condemns them to the severest punishments, as people that maintained atheistical and impious tenets, denying the resurrection and the last judgment. Ananus, or Ananus, a disciple of Juda, son of Nachman, a famous rabbi of the eighth century, declared himself, as it is said, in favour of the Sadducees, and strenuously protected them against their adversaries. They had also a celebrated defender in the twelfth century, in the person of Alpharagus, a Spanish rabbi. This doctor wrote against the Pharisees, the declared enemies of the Sadducees, and maintained by his public writings that the purity of Judaism was only to be found among the Sadducees; that the traditions avowed by the Pharisees were useless; and that the ceremonies, which they had multiplied without end, were an insupportable yoke. The rabbi Abraham Ben David Italleri replied to Alpharagus, and supported the sect of the Pharisees by two great arguments,—that of their universality, and that of their antiquity. He proved their antiquity by a continued succession from Adam down to the year 1167; and their universality, because the Pharisees are spread all the world over, and are found in all the synagogues. There are still Sadducees in Africa and in several other places. They deny the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the body; but they are rarely found, at least there are but few who declare themselves friendly to these opinions.