« ZurückWeiter »
“. of Vessels, in order to prevent the ingress 6 or egress of Air, and hinder Bodies, while in “ Distillation, from flying away.”
Lutes are of different kinds, according to the different Matters to be distilled ; one Sort · being proper for aqueous and spirituous Mat
ters, another for acetous, another for foffil
them crack. Furnaces, The Volume ends with an account of Fur883. naces, 6 or those Machines, by means whereof,
46 the Fire requisite in the Operations of Che-
by Ahe refers : For the ocuring of
from Nitre, &c. For the sixth, or Esay Furnace, he refers to the Description of it given by Agricola and Ercker.
Having gone thro’ the Matter of this part, and endeavoured to do Justice to the excellent Author; we must now look back and
endeavour to do equal Justice to the Reader. A Journalist, however great his Admiration may be of a Book, should never be so far poffeffed therewith, as to be hindered thereby from noting the Defects of it.
We cannot but observe, then, that the Au, thor's Theory does not appear to quadrate with the Characteristic he himself gives us of a Theory ; viz. that it consist of general Rules, and Axioms; whereas a great part of this, consists of particular Faets, and Experiments. That his Faets are not all of them over-Authentic ; E. gr. when he asserts that Air will not penetrate Leather *. And that some of them are plainly contradictory; E. gr. when in one place, he says, that Gold is the simplest of all Bodies t, and in another that Quicksilver is so 1: In one place, that there is no Magnet of Fire , and in another, that Alcohol is such a Magnet ß. In one place, that the natural State of Water is to be Ice**. in another, that Water when turn'd to Ice is no longer Water but Glass III. That his Expperiments are for the most part extreinely simple, to a degree which would denominate many of them trivial; and hardly entitle them to the Name of Experiments; the chief of them being only Observations of the Thermometer. That his Definitions, under a Stiffness and Preciseness, sometimes carry a. shew of more Accuracy, , than they have. That his Corollaries are often drawn too nightly, and accumulated with too much Affectation; that his Inductions are sometimes very partial, and defective; and by no means : ,come up to those severe Laws of Enquiry, laid down by Lord Bacon, and exemplified in his piece de Forma Calidi... iCc2" *
For *P.432.4 P.34./P:36. P,188.SP.343, ** P.399. P.614
another place, that the that Water when
For the Point. of Do&trine, we will not every where warrant his Orthodoxy ; particularly in his favorite Tenet, that " what we < usually call producing of new Fire, is only “ colletting and determining the old ; and that • Fire, as well as Air, tho' corporeal, is " without Gravity.” Without examining the Sufficiency of this System, for solving many of the Phænomena of Fire (E. gr. the instantaneous vitrifying of Steel and Flint by Collision * ; the Accension of spirituous Fumes, by applying a Candle t; the Explosion of Fire in Gun-powder || ;) we may at least say, that it is founded on a faulty Bottom: the Criterion of Fire, which he fixes in order to arrive at it, being defective. Finding in certain Bodies which he has tried, that Fire makes a Rarefaction ; he infers that it does so in all, and thus makes Rarefaction the Definition of Fire : whereas had he pursued his Experiments, he might have found certain Bodies, and particularly Cedar-wood, wherein Fire makes no Rarefaction at all.
- Whether, thro' the whole, the Author do not appear a litele too Sanguine, and have not too much of the Lumen Madidum, for a real pursuer of Truth: whether he do not betray too" much Fondness for singular Opinions, and too much' Disposition to admire; exclaim, and exaggerate : In fine, whether he do not seem to have too much of the Profesorial or Sophisical Spirit ; and to have been too much used to declaim, and dietate, in the Schools, for a Philosopher of the Old Rock, we leave others to decide,
AR * V. Hopk's Microgr. p. 85. +V. News. Opt. Qu. 19 | Id. ib.
ho Rarefularly Cedave found
ARTICLE XX. Anacreontis Teij Odæ & Fragmenta, Græce
& Latine, cum Notis Joannis Cornelij · de Pauw. i
That is, The Odes and Fragments of Anacreon of
Teos in Greek and Latin, with the Notes of John Cornelius de Pauw. Utrecht, 1732. 4. P. P. 315.
M R . Pauw, in his Preface, delivers his O.
IV pinion touching the Author of these Odes; and insinuates first, that he is fully persuaded they were composed by different Authors ; since some of them are extreme elegant, and some quite otherwise : which is a convincing Proof they were not all done by: one and the same Person. In the second place, he is not satisfied, whether, or not, Anacreon was truly the Author of any one Ode contained in this Collection. As to the bad ones ( which in his Opinion are bad indeed ) 'cis plain, says he, they were not written by Anncreon, who was a most polite Writer ; but by some ignorant Pedant. But neither have we fufficient Grounds to ascribe the others to Ana. creon, tho' they may seem well worthy of so 'great a Poet. For the manuscript Copies, by. which Stephens (and after him others) was induced to actribute them to Anacreon, are no ways to be relied upon, says Mr. Pauw; since they ascribe them all indifferently to that Poet, who certainly could never have, wrote several most wretched Odes we find in that Collection. As therefore the bad Odes Cc4
Tobialectured ich is quite diha
are falsely ascribed to Anacreon, so may the good ones; for we cannot doubt but others, besides Anacreon, were capable of making ele- . gant Anacreontic Verses. Besides, Anacreon wrote, as we are told by Suidas, lwyixãs that is, in the Ionic Dialect, which is quite different from the Dialect used by the Authors of these Odes. 'Tis true, continues our Critic, that Gellius quotes out of Anacreon an Ode contained in this Collection. But from thence we can only infer that chat Ode in Gellius's time (that is, when there were no Pauw's to be found) was believed to have been written by Anacreon, and inserted among his other Compositions. But is this any Proof that Anacreon was truly the Author of it? Nequaquam, ita fim felix ! For who doubts but in Gellius's time feveral Compositions passed under Anacreon's Name, which were none of his? Forgery is as antient as the World, and more things have been forged in the Republic of Letters, than we know, or dare to declare, Hicherto Mr. Pauw; who however is so kind, a's to allow every one the Freedom of judging in the present Question as they think fit. Atque hæc mea est, says he, de bis Sententia, quam si sequi velis, bene eft ; fin - minus, sentias ipse, prout libet. Mr. Pauw does not reflect, as the Reader may have observed, that the best Authors have been strangely mangled and cor- . rupted, thro' the Ignorance of Transcribers ; but ascribes whatever he finds amiss, to the Aur thor's themselves, which is not a fair way of arguing.
As to Mr. Pauw's Notes, they contain, we must own, a great deal of Learning and Erụ. dition ; and are very much to the purpose.