SARDANAPALUS, commonly said to have been the last king of Assyria. According to Ctesias the Assyrian empire lasted one thousand three hundred and six years. The first king was Ninus, who was succeeded by his wife Semiramis, whose son Ninyas was followed by thirty kings, son following father immediately. All were luxurious, effeminate, and slothful. Sardanapalus, the last of the line, was wealthy and powerful. He is said to have built two towns, Anchiale and Tarsus, in one day. Arbaces, his satrap in Media, having one day procured admission to his master, found him occupied in so unmanly a way that he was indignant, and resolved to throw off his allegiance. A conspiracy was formed; and Arbaces, supported by Belesys, a Babylonian priest, marched at the head of an army against Sardanapalus, who, getting together his army, went forth and defeated the rebels twice or thrice; but was afterwards obliged to shut himself up in Nineveh. Here he sustained a siege for two years, though deserted by all the provinces. When he found further resistance hopeless he caused a pyre to be raised, on which he burnt himself, his wives, his concubines, and his treasures. Thus Assyria fell into the hands of the Medes, who united it to their own country under one and the same rule. The time of Sardanapalus' downfall is uncertain. Clinton gives 606 b.c. as the end of the Assyrian empire. The narrative of Ctesias is repeated by Diodorus Siculus, whose statements are followed by Justin and others. The whole account, however, is legendary and fabulous. Internal improbabilities demand its rejection from the page of authentic history. Ctesias, on whose authority it rests, lived long after the events he recounts, and evidently either related a current tradition, or collected various legends into one. The character of Sardanapalus alone suffices to throw discredit on the narrative. A man sunk in effeminacy for years, would scarcely be transformed all at once into a valiant warrior leading his hosts to battle, sustaining a two years' siege against veteran hosts, and committing an act of frantic heroism at last. K. O. Müller thinks that Sardanapalus was identical with the god Sandon; and Movers takes the same view. It is enough to say, that both the Old Testament and Herodotus are irreconcilable with the narrative of Ctesias respecting the termination of the Assyrian empire.—S. D.
SARJEANT or SERJEANT, John, secretary of the secular clergy in England, and in that capacity the opponent in controversy of Hammond, Tillotson, Tenison, and other distinguished divines, was born at Barrow in Lincolnshire about 1621, and educated at St. John's college, Cambridge. On the recommendation of the masters and seniors of that college he became secretary to Morton, bishop of Durham, but was converted to popery; and after studying in the English college of secular priests at Lisbon entered in 1652 upon his career as a controversialist in England. He died in 1707.
SARPI, Pietro or Paolo, the historian of the council of Trent, was born in 1552 in Venice, and received his earliest education in a school for the young Venetian nobility, which was presided over by his maternal uncle. At fourteen he became a novice in the order of the Servites, on which occasion he exchanged his baptismal name, Pietro, for Paolo. In his twentieth year he took the monastic vows, and at twenty-two received orders as a priest. He was equally distinguished for intellectual capacity and moral strictness. He was fond of solitude, spoke little, was always earnest, and up to his thirtieth year neither drank wine nor ate flesh. He was devoted to science, and distinguished himself both in physical and metaphysical studies. In physics he made some important discoveries, and in mental science he put forth a theory of knowledge bearing much resemblance to Locke's. He was also an able divine, and taught theology both in Mantua and Venice. He resided for some time in Milan, soon after taking orders, where Cardinal Borromeo made use of his talents and attainments in introducing some improvements into the institutions of his diocese. This high patronage, however, did not prevent a complaint from being lodged against him in the office of the Inquisition at Rome for having taught that the doctrine of the Trinity could not be proved from the first chapter of Genesis. The complaint was rejected, but the incident serves to reveal how early his views began to diverge from the dogmatic and exegetic traditions of the Roman church. Ere long he was made a doctor in theology, provincial of his order in the territory of Venice, and general procurator of the same. In the dispute between Venice and Pope Paul V. he took a leading part on the side of Venetian patriotism, having been nominated a member of the Venetian state council. He was a determined antagonist of the temporal power of the papacy. He held that the power of princes was independent of the papal power, being derived immediately from God; and that the privileges and exemptions of the clergy were not of divine right, but dependent upon the will of secular rulers. These and similar principles he put forward in several publications during the progress of the dispute, and ably defended them against the attacks both of Bellarmine and Baronius. The court of Rome was highly incensed against him, and on the 30th of October, 1606, he was summoned, on pain of excommunication, to appear before the Inquisition to answer for his opinions. But he disobeyed the summons, and published his reasons for disobedience. In 1607 the dispute was terminated by a treaty of compromise, and Sarpi's safety was provided for in the treaty. But he remained an object of fanatical hatred at Rome, and more than one attempt was made upon his life. Bellarmine had the magnanimity to put him on his guard against one of these attempts. In the same year he published an account of this remarkable passage in the Venetian annals, and at a later period he gave to the world a history of the Inquisition. But his principal work, and that by which he is best known, is his "History of the Council of Trent," which was brought out in Geneva in 1619. The place chosen for its publication indicated its spirit, and it is no marvel that it was honoured with a place in the Index Expurgatorius. Bungener, in his history of the same council, has remarked with great candour, yet with severe justice, upon Sarpi's work and that of his antagonist, Pellavicini, that while "differing profoundly in their qualities and in their views, they were but too much alike in their faults. In both we find diffuseness and dryness, no plan, no philosophy, an absence, in fine, of all that is now looked for in a historian. Sarpi's work is nothing better than a long satire, lifeless and insipid, often, too, inaccurate and unfair. Pellavicini's is but a long and dull apology, more accurate in its details, but feeble in its reasonings, and in the aggregate childish and false. After having read the former, who blames everything, you dread being too severe; after having read the latter, who approves of everything, you are reassured. The weakness of the defence clearly enough attests the weakness of the cause—you feel that severity is only justice. Pellavicini ought to be put on the Index Expurgatorius, as well as Sarpi." Sarpi died in 1623. His collected works appeared in Italy in a first edition in 1722; and in a second and more complete edition in 1763. It has often been surmised that he was a protestant in disguise, but he never attained a decided conviction of the dogmatic errors of Rome, and he continued to read mass daily to the end of his life.—P. L.
SARSFIELD, Patrick, an eminent military officer who fought for King James at the Revolution. He was descended by the father's side from an English family long settled in Ireland, but his mother was of noble Irish blood. He was one of the wealthiest Roman catholics in Ireland, arid was firmly attached to his hereditary faith. He long held a commission in the English Life Guards, served for some time on the continent, and fought with distinguished courage against Monmouth at the battle of Sedgemoor, in which he was severely wounded. He adhered to the cause of James after the Revolution, and was not only adored by his own countrymen on account of his intrepidity, frankness, and good-nature, combined with his vast stature and strength, but, unlike the other Irish officers, was greatly respected by the English. He had, Avaux wrote, "more personal influence than any man in Ireland, and was indeed a gentleman of eminent merit; brave, upright, honourable, careful of his men in quarters, and certain to be always found at their head on the day of battle." In 1689 he was one of the members for the county of Dublin in the parliament summoned by James. At the battle of the Boyne he commanded the Irish horse, who fought with conspicuous courage. He subsequently dislodged the English from Sligo, and effectually secured Galway from their attacks. It was largely owing to his urgent advice that the Jacobite officers resolved to defend Limerick; and the brilliant exploit which he performed in surprising and destroying William's artillery, contributed materially to the memorable and successful resistance made by that city. The extraordinary devotion entertained towards Sarsfield by the Irish made his colleagues jealous of him, and unfortunately for themselves they slighted his advice, and, in opposition to his remonstrances, fought the battle of Aughrim (1691), which ruined the cause of James in Ireland. After the
