1 Furnaces. "of Veffels, in order to prevent the ingress "or egrefs of Air, and hinder Bodies, while in "Diftillation, from flying away." Lutes are of different kinds, according to the different Matters to be diftilled; one Sort being proper for aqueous and fpirituous Matters, another for acetous, another for foffil Acids; another for volatile Alcalies, &c.To this head alfo belong the Coating, or Lining of fuch Veffels, as are to be exposed to a vehement Fire; and from time to time laid open to the Air, which otherwife makes them crack. The Volume ends with an account of Fur883. naces," or those Machines, by means whereof, "the Fire requifite in the Operations of Che 66 mistry is contained, and directed upon the Vef"fels, and the Subject to be changed, therein." The Conditions of a good Furnace are, that it produce the Effects required from it with. the leaft Expence; afford a conftant, equable Degree of Heat, and allow of being eafily managed. How each of these Conditions may be obtained, the Author particularly confiders; and proceeds to give us divers kinds of Structure fuited thereto. The moft fimple one is of Wood; which he calls the Students Furnace, and may fuffice for most of the Operations: but for a stronger Fire, he defcribes another portable one made of Iron; a third, called Balneum Mariæ; a fourth, fit for the melting of Metals; a fifth, for the procuring of acid Salts from Nitre, &c. For the fixth, or Effay Furnace, he refers to the Defcription of it given by Agricola and Ercker. Having gone thro' the Matter of this Part, and endeavoured to do Juftice to the excellent Author; we muft now look back and endea endeavour to do equal Juftice to the Reader. A Journalist, however great his Admiration may be of a Book, fhould never be fo far poffeffed therewith, as to be hindered thereby from noting the Defects of it. We cannot but observe, then, that the Author's Theory does not appear to quadrate with the Characteristic he himself gives us of a Theory; viz. that it confift of general Rules, and Axioms; whereas a great part of this, confifts of particular Facts, and Experiments. That his Facts are not all of them over-Authentic E. gr. when he afferts that Air will not penetrate Leather *: And that fome of them are plainly contradictory; E. gr. when in one place, he fays, that Gold is the fimpleft of all Bodies †, and in another that Quickfilver is fo ||: In one place, that there is no Magnet of Fire +, and in another, that Alcohol is fuch a Magnet §. 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 Glafs That his Expperiments are for the most part extremely fimple, 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 Obfervations of the Thermometer. That his Definitions, under a Stiffness and Precifenefs, fometimes carry a fhew of more Accuracy, than they have.That his Corollaries are often drawn too flightly, and accumulated with too much Affectation; that his Inductions are fometimes very partial, and defective; and by no means come up to thofe fevere Laws of Enquiry, laid down by Lord Bacon, and exemplified in his piece de Forma Calidi. Cc 3 For *P.432.†P.34.P. 36. ‡P.188. §P.343, ** P.399 . ||P.614° For the Point of Doctrine, we will not every where warrant his Orthodoxy; particularly in his favorite Tenet, that "what we "ufually call producing of new Fire, is only "collecting and determining the old; and that "Fire, as well as Air, tho' corporeal, is "without Gravity." Without examining the Sufficiency of this Syftem, for folving many of the Phænomena of Fire (E. gr. the inftantaneous vitrifying of Steel and Flint by Collifion; the Accenfion of fpirituous Fumes, by applying a Candle † ; 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 fo in all, and thus makes Rarefattion 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 little too Sanguine, and have not too much of the Lumen Madidum, for a real purfuer of Truth: whether he do not betray too much Fondness for fingular Opinions, and too much Difpofition to admire, exclaim, and exaggerate: In fine, whether he do not feem to have too much of the Profefforial or Sophiftical Spirit; and to have been too much used to declaim, and dictate, in the Schools, for a Philofopher of the Old Rock, we leave others to decide, V. Hook's Microgr. p. 55 AR +V. Newt. Opt. Qu, 19. ARTICLE XX. Anacreontis Teij Ode & Fragmenta, Græce & Latine, cum Notis Joannis Cornelij de Pauw. 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. MR R. Pauw, in his Preface, delivers his O. pinion touching the Author of these Odes; and infinuates first, that he is fully perfuaded they were composed by different Authors; fince fome of them are extreme elegant, and fome quite otherwife: which is a convincing Proof they were not all done by one and the fame Perfon. In the fecond place, he is not fatisfied, 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) 'tis plain, fays he, they were not written by Anacreon, who was a moft polite Writer; but by fome ignorant Pedant. But neither have we fufficient Grounds to afcribe the others to Anacreon, tho' they may feem well worthy of fo great a Poet. For the manufcript Copies, by which Stephens (and after him others) was induced to attribute them to Anacreon, are no ways to be relied upon, fays Mr. Pauw; fince they afcribe them all indifferently to that Poet, who certainly could never have wrote feveral moft wretched Odes we find in that Collection. As therefore the bad Odes are falfely afcribed to Anacreon, so may the good ones; for we cannot doubt but others, befides Anacreon, were capable of making elegant Anacreontic Verses. Befides, Anacreon wrote, as we are told by Suidas, Iwyxws that is, in the Ionic Dialect, which is quite different from the Dialect ufed by the Authors of thefe 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 that 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 inferted among his other Compofitions. 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 Compofitions paffed 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. Hitherto Mr. Pauw; who however is fo kind, as to allow every one the Freedom of judging in the prefent Question as they think fit. Atque bac mea eft, fays he, de bis Sententia, quam Ji fequi velis, bene eft; fin minus, fentias ipfe, prout libet. Mr. Pauw does not reflect, as the Reader may have obferved, that the best Authors have been ftrangely mangled and corrupted, thro' the Ignorance of Transcribers; but afcribes whatever he finds amifs, to the Au thors themfelves, which is not a fair way of arguing. A's to Mr. Pauw's Notes, they contain, we muft own, a great deal of Learning and Eru dition and are very much to the purpofe. However, |