The Origin of Laws, Arts, and Sciences, and their progrefs amongst antient nations.

T is natural amongst all civilized nations, not only to look forward, and to confider carefully, the means of amending the inftitutions under which they live, the poffibility of improving arts, and the methods of extending science; but alfo to trace things backwards, in order to discover what laws their ances tors introduced, what arts were firft invented, how science was firft cultivated, and, in short, how things came to be precisely in that state in which they behold them; what the inquifitive have done, in almost every country, this judicious and worthy perfon, with whole character, however, farther than his writings declare it, we have no acquaintance, attempts to do for the world in general; and to undertake boldly, an arduous but a very useful tafk, which may be ftiled, The Hiftory of the Efforts of Human Understanding to facilitate Human Happiness.

The view of our learned Author, is to treat these fubjects in their origin and their progress, within a period, below which others have already laboured to fet them in a clear and certain light. He therefore bounds his work with the reign of Cyrus, about which time most of thofe great men arofe, whom we find celebrated by the first Authors of antiquity. It is eafy to difcern from hence, that an equal fund of knowlege and of patience muft be neceffary to the man who ventured upon fo laborious an undertaking; to the accurate performance of which, nothing could be more neceffary, than laying down a proper plan.

In the first place then, he diftributes the whole of his work, under three epochs. The first begins at the deluge, and comes down to the death of Jacob. The fecond, from the demife of that patriarch, to the establishment of monarchy amongst the Jews. The third, from the foundation of the Jewish monarchy, to the return of that nation from their captivity, under Cyrus. He has purfued this divifion with the moft fcrupulous exactness. At the beginning of the fecond period, he takes up the hiftory of laws, arts, and fciences, precisely where he left them at the clofe of the firft; and in like manner, at the beginning of the third, as he had brought them down to the end of the second. By this means the Author speaks three times of the fame fubject, amongst the fame people; but the pictures with which he prefents his Readers are very far from being the fame; what fixed their attention in one period, difappears in the next, to make way for details as much, or more, interefting than the former. In confequence of this method, the progrefs of every branch of human knowlege is clearly difcerned, and the mind is occupied with fo much the more fatisfaction, as the choice of the matter

is more varied. It may be proper to add here, that our Author follows, in general, the chronology of our learned and famous Archbishop Ufher.

The Author divides his periods and his volumes in the fame manner, so that the first period is contained in the first volume; the fecond, in the fecond; and the laft, in the third. Each volume is divided into fix books. In the first, he speaks of laws under two divifions; the former regarding private property, the rites of marriage, religious worship, and penal laws: the latter refpects the municipal inftitutions in every nation. The fecond book treats of arts, and in this we find the origin of agriculture, vefture, architecture, the working of metals, defign, graving, fculpture, goldfmith's work, writing. The third gives us in like manner, the hiftory of the sciences, under the capital heads of Medicine and the Mathematics. To the former he refers, furgery, anatomy, botany, and pharmacy: arithmetic, aftronomy, geometry, mechanics, geography, &c. are ranged under the latter. The fourth book comprehends commerce, navigation, and every thing of that kind. In the fifth, we find the history of the art of war; and the manners and customs of antient nations, are the fubject of the laft.

On each of thefe heads things are stated with all the plainnefs and precifion imaginable, from the most antient and authentic Authors, cited with great accuracy and fidelity. Imagination has no fhare in this work, and it is very rarely that even conjecture finds admiffion. Whenever it does, it appears with propriety, in the Author's learned notes, in which he modeftly difcuffes thofe embarraffed and perplexed points which would have very much difturbed the order of his work, if the folution or explanation of them had been undertaken in the text. This account may ferve to give the English Reader a competent idea of the learned Author s defign, which, in the opinion of foreign Writers, he has executed with fuch indefatigable labour, unaffected candour, and wonderful perfpicuity, that, together with the apparent utility of the performance, will fecure it a lafting reputation.

Hiftoire de Zenobie, Impératrice-Reine de Palmyre. Par M. Euvoi de Hauteville, B. D. C. &c. A Paris, chez les Freres Eftienne, 1758. 12mo. pp. 480. That is,

The Hiftory of Zenobia, Emprefs Queen of Palmyra, The general refpect and admiration, which in foreign countries as well as our own, have been paid to the description of the ruins of Palmyra, publifhed by the ingenious Mr. Wood, has created a fingular attention to the hiftory of that antient city, and particularly to this great Princefs, who both raised it to the

fum

1

fummit of profperity, and was alfo the cause of its destruction. Upon these motives, our Author believed the Public would afford a favourable reception to the hiftory of Zenobia; which, with great care and diligence, he has collected from various antient Writers, difpofed the facts in a natural and eafy order, and related them with great life and spirit.

Zenobia was defcended from the Royal House of the Ptolemy's in Egypt, and the spouse of Odenatus; or, as it is written in fome Authors, Odanathus; who, for any thing that appears before his marriage, never rofe to any higher dignity than chief magiftrate in his own city. He was unquestionably a perfon of great merit, and extraordinary abilities, both in peace and war. After the Emperor Valerian was taken prifoner by the Perfians, Odenatus efpoufed the caufe of the Romans, and not only protected the frontiers of the empire, but even invaded the Perfian dominions, and penetrated as far as Ctefiphon, which was then their capital. On this account, the Emperor Gallienus affociated him in the empire, and gave him the title of Auguftus, which he bore for about four years.

Odenatus, though happy and honoured in his life, was miferable and unfortunate in his death, being murdered, with his eldeft fon, Herodes, whom he had by a former wife, by a kinfman of his, whofe name was Mæonius. Our Hiftorian is at great pains to vindicate his heroine from the imputation of being an affociate in this confpiracy, with which fhe is exprefly charged by Trebellius Pollio. It is, however, certain, that after the decease of her husband, fhe herself affumed, and bestowed the imperial title upon her fon Waballathus. It may not be amifs to remark, that it is from infcriptions and coins only, that we are acquainted with this young Prince's name, who is mentioned only by one Hiftorian, Vopifcus, and then by the name of Balatus.

Zenobia, to whom our Author, after this period, always gives the title of Emprefs-Queen, extended her dominions on every fide, and at length fubdued Egypt, which the held during the fhort reign of the Emperor Claudius Gothicus; but when Aurelian affumed the purple, he refufed the title of Auguftus to Waballathus, though it seems he would have permitted him that of Vice-Cæfar, and Governor of the Eastern Empire. This was a dimunition the haughty spirit of Zenobia could not bear, and thereupon a war enfued, wherein her armies were feveral times defeated by Aurelian, and a great part of her dominions were conquered. She was at length befieged in her capital; which, however, was fo gallantly defended, that Aurelian offered her terms, which the rejected in a very fpirited letter. The place, notwithstanding, was afterwards taken, and the Emperor alfo made

him

himself master of the person of Zenobia, in an attempt by which the endeavoured to escape.

We are told by Zofimus, that fhe threw the blame of the letter, which irritated Aurelian extremely, upon the famous Longinus, Author of an admirable treatife On the Sublime; from which our Author endeavours to vindicate her. This, however, is certain, that Longinus was put to death. Zenobia was carried to Rome, and led in triumph by Aurelian. In respect to religion, as Athanafius tells us, which is likewife confirmed by Photius, Zenobia was a Jewels. The famous Heretic, Paulus Samofatenus, was at her court, and fome, particularly St. Chryfoftom and Theodoret, think, that it was out of complaifance to her, that he published thofe opinions for which he was condemned in the council of Antioch (of which city he was Bifhop) anno Domini 270. This Princess lived at Tivoli in peace, and even with a certain degree of magnificence; but that he was married to a Roman Senator, and that the Emperor efpoufed one of her daughters, are facts to which our Author, (following therein the fentiment of Baronius) affords no credit. Few pieces of antient history have appeared in a more florid or elegant dress than this of Zenobia; in which, however, Mr. de Hauteville has adhered clofely to facts, though from the vivacity of his ftile, which is rather too much ornamented, one might be tempted to fufpect the contrary.

Differtation fur l'Origine et le Progrès de l'Art de Graver en Bois, pour eclaircir quelques traits de l'Hiftoire de l'Imprimerie, et prouver que Guttemberg n'en eft pas l'Inventeur. Par Mr. Fournier le jeune, Graveur et Fondeur de Characteres d'Imprimerie. A Paris, chez Barbou. 8vo. pp. 92. That is,

A Differtation on the Origin and Progrefs of the Art of graving in Wood, in order to explain fome things relating to the Hiftory of Printing, and to prove that Guttemberg was not the Inventor.

There have been few points more warmly disputed, than who was the Inventor of the noble and ufeful art of Printing; though the opinion which is at prefent thought to be best founded, alcribes it to John Guttemberg, a gentleman, or, as fome fay, a Knight of Mentz. In regard to the date, it feems to be pretty much agreed, to have been about the middle of the fifteenth century. Mr. Fournier has, however, undertaken to overturn both thefe notions, and not only to deprive Guttemberg of the honour of this invention, but alfo to place it much higher in point of In the management of this controverfy, he draws great advantages from his being an artift, as well as an Author, and

time.

having thereby a more accurate and diftinct conception of the lights that might be received from the practice of Graving in Wood, and its relation to the firft attempts in Printing.

He lays it down, that a perfon cannot be faid to have invented, or introduced a new art, if the operations essential to that art actually exifted, and were in common ufe before his time. Now this, he fays, was in reality the cafe, with refpect to Guttemberg's effays in Printing; for the art of Graving in Wood was in his days a difcovery of long ftanding, and yet this comprehended every thing that was requifite to his method of Printing; and therefore Mr. Fournier concludes, that notwithftanding the common opinion, he has no just title to the honour paid him.

It must be acknowleged, that in this Differtation there ap pears a great power of reafoning, as well as a profound acquaintance with the fubject, by which Mr. Fournier has rendered his notion very plaufible, and his performance equally elegant and entertaining. But towards the close he introduces a diftinction between Typography and Printing. The former, in which the impreffion was made from tables cut on, or in, wood, is all that he allows to Guttemberg; and he fhews very fully, that fomething of the like kind had been practifed in regard not only to pictures, but infcriptions, even in the thirteenth century; the other, which is properly the Art of Printing, confifts in the ufe of moveable characters; and though it is generally admitted, that these also were introduced by Guttemberg, yet as they were ftill of wood, Mr. Fournier infifts, that he only changed the object, by applying that to the printing of books, which had been already applied to the cafting off prints with infcriptions: and this was therefore, as he would have it understood, rather an improvement than an invention. According to this Writer, the Art of Printing, as it is now practifed, is to be afcribed to Peter Schoeffer, who, in conjunction with John Fauft, made ufe not only of moveable, but of metallic types, in 1457. After all, may be very well doubted, whether this account of the matter, though very fpecious, and interfperfed with many curious particulars, ought to affect the claim of Guttemburgh; fince, however different their method might be, thefe men only perfected what Guttemberg confeffedly began; and from our Author's own pofition, cannot from thence pretend to the title of Inventors, because the arguments he employs against him, militate, in every refpect, and to the full as ftrongly, against them.

it