Cherfonefus to be Pegu, the country of the Sinæ to be Siam, and that Malacca and Sumatra belonged to the Terra Incognita Auftralis of Ptolemy.

Concerning the Religion of Zoroafter. By M. TYCHSEN.

In this very learned but not lefs tedious difquifition, the author inquires, firft, in what age Zoroafter lived, and in what country he was born; and then what doctrines he taught. The former of thefe queftions is involved in much uncertainty; and, after having perufed a collection of many various opinions and arguments, all the conclufion is, that this philofopher was probably a Mede, and that the Guftafpes, mentioned in the Zends, was a king of the Medes, poffibly Cyaxares I. Of the facred books of the Magi, M. TYCHSEN thinks that none can be confidered as the work of Zoroafter, except the Zends, and that of thefe only one chapter is authentic; this he believes on the teftimony of Mafudius, a writer of the tenth century, mentioned by De Guignes. From its contents, this chapter is entitled Efbad, i. e. Concerning Evil, as it treats of Ahrimanius, and of the means of avoiding and expiating fin. Concerning the doctrines of Zoroafter, the chief point here difcuffed relates to the word Zervan, which fome have fuppofed to mean the fupreme Being, by whom Oromazes and Ahrimanius were produced. Our author acknowleges that, in fome of the books of the Magi, are expreffions that favour this notion; which however he confiders as of much later date. He translates the word Infinite Time, and fuppofes it to be a figurative expreffion, which fignifies no more than that Oromazes was eternal: but he allows that fome fects of the Magi fuppofed that it alluded to the Deity, and he gives a particular account of the opinions of the Zerdufhti, who appear to have been monotheifts.

Account of fome Samaritan Coins. By the fame.

Inquiry whether the Ruffians, the Poles, and other Sclavenian Nations, derive their Origin from the Geta and Daci. By M.. GATTERER.

We do not imagine that our readers would thank us for detaining them on this dry question; which is here discussed in 2 very prolix and confused manner: it is anfwered in the affirmative.

Concerning the Introduction of Greek Literature among the Arabs. By M. BUHLE.

The defign of this memoir is to fhew that the Greek language was not understood by the Arabs, whofe knowlege of Greek literature was owing folely to the Jews and Chriftians who lived in Syria. Many of these were phyficians, whose skill in medicine, which was much fuperior to that of the Arabs, recommended

recommended them to the favour of the caliphs. By them several medical and philosophical books, and, among thefe, the works of Hippocrates, Plato, and Ariftotle, were tranflated from the Greek into the Syriac language; from which, fome years afterward, under the reign of Al Manfor, Arabic verfions were made. Nay, the Caliph Al Mamun, by whofe order a great number of Greek books were purchased, and were tranflated firft into Syriac, and thence into Arabic, is faid to have ordered the originals to be burned, as of no farther use. About this time, feveral of the former verfions were corrected; and new tranflations were made by Honain, who was physician to the caliph, and by his fons. All thefe tranflations appear to have been made through the medium of the Syriac; and this feems to have been the case with the celebrated Arabic verfion of Arif- · totle's works, by Averrhoes of Cordova,

Tranflations of this kind, made from the Syriac, by perfons who knew little or nothing of either the language or the literature of the Greeks, muft neceffarily be very imperfect, and abound with errors; many inftances of this nature, in the verfion of Ariftotle, are here adduced by M. BUHLE, who fhews that the Arabs greatly misapprehended and corrupted the Greek philofophy; however, as they have generally adhered to the words of their author, though they have often mistaken the fenfe, he thinks that an examination of their tranflations may be of service in detecting the errors of the later Greek copies.

Concerning the Attempts of the Greek Philofophers, who lived before Ariftotle, to cultivate the Knowlege of Logic. By the fame.

M. BUHLE afcribes the invention of logic to the Eleatic philofophers, and among these to Parmenides, who first pointed out the diftinction between fcience and opinion; he then mentions what various writers have attributed to Zeno on this subject; ftates the abuse of logic by the rhetoricians and fophifts; and obferves that even this abufe, though pernicious in its immediate effects, was beneficial in its confequences; as, by proving the ambiguity of the language then fpoken, and the want of diftinctnefs and clearness in the philofophical notions commonly received, it occafioned the improvement of the one as well as of the other. Though no work of Plato on logic remains, it is evident, from many paffages in his writings, that he well understood the true nature and proper use of this art, and delivered fome excellent precepts concerning it; this M. BUHLE has amply fhewn, and, having taken a view of the logical precepts of the Stoies, and of the canons of Epicurus, he concludes that the art of reafoning was well cultivated and understood by the Greeks, before Ariftotle wrote concerning it;

Nn3

though

though he thinks that great praise is due to the Stagirite for illuftrating the obfervations of others, and reducing them to certain principles.

On the Advantages and Difadvantages resulting from the Gymnafia of the Greeks. By M. MEINERS.

The author of this memoir ftates the difficulty of reconciling what fome Greek writers have faid in praife of the gymnaftic exercifes, with the i confequences which Galen and others have mentioned as refulting from them. He fuppofes that, in the earlier periods, when these exercises formed only a part of military education, they might be of service in forming ative and vigorous foldiers: but that, in later times, when each exercise became a particular profeffion, cultivated merely from a love of gain, and, for this reafon, pursued beyond the limits of moderation, it was productive of all the mischiefs which Galen has defcribed. This is eafily conceived by those who confider the abfurd and unnatural difcipline which the profefied Athleta were obliged to undergo.

Such are the contents of these volumes, the perufal of which has not afforded us any great fatisfaction. Even in the hiftorical and philofophical memoirs, from which we had expected fome interefting information, we are difappointed: moft of them are on subjects that are involved in obfcurity, and coneerning which nothing can be determined with certainty; they have often been difcuffed by the learned, and we find here little more than a repetition of the conjectures and conclufions of others, thrown into a new form, and illuftrated with a greater number of quotations. In addition to thefe difcouraging circumftances, the majority of the differtations are written in no very elegant Latin, and in a diffufe ftyle which renders them unpleasant to read. They difplay much learning, but little true tafte, either in the choice of the subjects, or in the manner of treating them.

ART. IV. Jacob en zyn Heer; i. e. James and his Mafter. Fublished from the Manufcriots left by DIDEROT. Tranflated from the German. 8vo. pp. 358. Hague. 1793.

THE

HE name of DIDEROT naturally excited our curiofity, and we perufed this volume with the hope that we should at leaft find fomething entertaining in it. As to its authenticity, and how it came into the world, we are entirely ignorant; for we have no other information than what the title page affords. To give our readers any account of its defign and contents, is

fcarcely

fcarcely lefs difficult. It feems intended to inculcate fatalism, or rather to affert it; for we find nothing like an argument in the whole work; which is written in the rambling incoherent manner of Sterne, but without his wit and humour. James is continually telling his master that we are mere machines, and that all our actions, and every event that concerns us, are written in the great book above, which none can comprehend, till he has arrived at the laft word of the last page.-The volume before us is ftill more unintelligible; for, after having read from the first to the last word of its contents, we find ourfelves no wifer than when we began.

ART. V.

Verhandeling over het verband tuffchen de Zede-en Staatkunde, &c. i. e. A Differtation concerning the Connection between "How Morals and Politics; or Confiderations on the Question, far it is poffible to obferve the Moral Duties of focial Life in the Adminiftration of Civil Government." By CHRISTIAN GARVE. Tranflated from the German by C. T. ELOUT, LL. D. Svo. pp. 156. Haarlem. 1794.

TH HE fubject here difcuffed is certainly interefting, especially

at the prefent juncture; not that we are fo fanguine as to expect that the councils of princes, and the plans of politicians, will be influenced by particular precepts of morality, however clear and well demonftrated; for we well know the contempt with which statesmen affect to treat moralifts who happen to disapprove of their conduct; but difquifitions of this nature tend to enlighten the understanding and to correct the judgment of mankind in general, to whofe opinions thefe great perfonages fill pretend to pay fome regard.

The author introduces his fubject with the juft remark that, as all focial obligations arife from the circumstances of relation, a difference in these circumftances may alter the limits of this obligation; and therefore, in order to investigate the queftion accurately, it is neceffary to examine the difference between the circumftances of a fovereign of a political state, and thofe of a private citizen. This difference is reduced to two One is, that the fovereigns of independent principal heads. political communities are, with relation to each other, in a ftate of nature, in which each must be the defender of his own rights, and, when any difpute arifes, judge his own cause ; whereas private citizens are so connected as to be guarded from injury by a fuperior power, and have the advantage of a common judge to decide their diffentions. The other is, that a fovereign muft provide for the preservation and welfare of a whole community; that he is invefted with a delegated power, and commiffioned

Nn4

commiffioned to promote the interefts of a confiderable body of men; whereas the private citizen has only to provide for himfelf, and perhaps for a family.

In difcuffing the former of these circumstances, M. GARVE enters into an inquiry concerning a state of nature, which we deem foreign to the fubject, and which he is far from refolving to our fatisfaction. We acknowlege that our idea of a state of nature must be hypothetical; because we have no records to inform us of the particular circumstances of any community previously to its being formed into a civil fociety: but, in framing this hypothefis for the purpose of the prefent inquiry, it is only requifite to abftract, from the notion of fociety, all that obligation which is derived from the pofitive prescriptions and fanctions of civil authority. That, among a people totally ignorant of the obligations refulting from political union, the notions of property might be obfcure, and the rights attending it not accurately defined, may be very true: but this has no relation to the queftion now agitated; because it cannot be pretended that fovereigns are in this ftate of ignorance. The only obfervation, under this head, of importance to the queftion, is on the propriety of allowing prefcriptive right with refpect to national property, in order to prevent those endless difputes which might otherwife arife from the revival of obfolete claims.

In treating of the other circumftance, by which a fovereign is diftinguished from a private citizen, viz. that he acts in the name of a whole community; the author treads on flippery ground, and we are not always fatisfied with his reasoning. He obferves that nations must univerfally confider themselves as bound by all treaties made in their name by their fovereigns, even in cafes in which the latter have engaged in the contract from no other motives than thofe of perfonal interest. We have too deep a fenfe of the importance of fidelity to political as well as to civil engagements, to controvert this as a general rule; though we conceive that it might be limited by fome confiderations, and that it admits of fome very obvious exceptions: but why fhould a prince be put on a different footing? M. GARVE not only fays that an engagement, into which one monarch enters with another, in order to promote his own intereft, or that of his family, may, when it is to be carried into execution, be found fo dangerous to the ftate that he may lie under an obligation to break it, but also affirms that, though national, and not a perfonal, intereft influenced the engagement, a mere change of circumftances may vindicate a prince in violating his word. This is here illuftrated by the conduct of henry IV. in the peace of Vervin, by Queen Anne's feparate

peate