But as thofe are very few who know Pliny in his own works, and only fee the miferable extracts that are made from them by puffing crafty people, they are led from thence to conclude, that Pliny was the author of all the ridiculous fictions that are imputed to him, by which means, this great writer has incurred the vulgar ignominious note, of being a man of little veracity, and one who could not be depended on.

The worst is, (and although I could wish to conceal it, the facred reverence due to truth obliges me to declare it) that not only fecret-mongers, and mountebank puffers, have brought Pliny into this difefteem, but even authors of a very different character, have greatly contributed to difcredit him. In how many philofophical writings, in how many printed fermons, and in how many moral and mystical effays, have we feen Pliny quoted as the legitimate author, of this or that fabulous tale? I am willing to believe, that the greatest part of them quote him, without the leaft defign of injuring his fame, and relate what they fay, from the quotations of others. But God defends from a little preacher of bagateles, having it in his power to bring Pliny into contempt, becaufe fome things which improperly go under his name, apply aptly as fimilies, or allufions to his chimeras; I fay God defend us in fuch cafes, that he, by quoting Pliny, fhould be enabled to fhelter himself under his authority, as if the things he mentions came immediately from .him!

Another caufe of the difcredit of Pliny, is the multitude of natural prodigies, which are for the most part falfe, that we find related in his hiftory, especially thofe of monsters of a strange appearance, fuch as pigmies, men without heads, and with their eyes in their fhoulders; others with canine or dogs heads; others again, who had only one eye, that was placed in the middle of their foreheads; others, with their feet turned backwards; others with two pupils to each eye; others, with feet fo large, that they were capable of fhading their whole bodies; others, who fee better by night than by day, and of whole nations of hermaphrodites; of a people, who fupport themselves wholly by Smelling to perfumes; and of another people, where all the individuals are witches and wizards, &c. But as the Europeans of late years, have penetrated into, and explored nearly all the provinces of the world, but- have found none of thefe fpecies of monsters, fome have fufpected that they were all the children of Pliny's brain, and others have been led to think, that Pliny had been indifcreet enough to believe them, upon the relations of lying travellers.

It is poffible to refute, both the one and the other of thefe calumnies, and to fupport the refutation by good evidence. In the first place, Pliny fubjoins to every one of thefe ftories, the author from whom he took it. Secondly, prior to his giving the account of the multitude of prodigies he relates, he pro tefts that he does not pledge himself as a voucher for the truth

of them; and immediately refers the reader to the works of the authors from whence they were taken, that by examining them, he may have an opportunity of informing himfelf more fully, refpecting any doubts he may entertain of them; Nec tamen ego in plerifque eorum obftringam fidem meam, potiufque ad auctores relegabo, qui dubiis reddentur omnibus.

By way of fumming up the defence of Pliny, we fhall here recite the opinion, which fome very learned men, and critics of the first note, have entertained, both of him and his Natural History. Celius Rhodiginius, calls Pliny "a moft learned man," and adds, "that none but unlearned ones, difrelish his writings." Gerard John Voffius calls his History a great work, and one that can never be fufficiently applauded." Jofeph Scaliger, pronounces that the Natural Hiftory of Pliny, "on account of its being fo great and excellent, is not relifhed by vulgar underftandings;" Lanfius, gives it the title of the Library of Nature; and Angelo Politianus, illuftrates it with the epithet of a colJestion of all memorable things, and calls the author, "the fureme judge of ingenuity, and a moft acute, difcreet, and adirable cenfor." The Jefuit Drexelius, proclaims him "the moft noble panegyrist of nature, and a man of prodigious erudition ;" and fays in another place, that he is a most perspicuous fcrutinizer, and delineator of nature." Juftus Lipfius fays,

that there was nothing which Pliny had not read, and which He did not understand, and that his writings comprehended all the learning of the Greeks and Romans put together." The two eulogiums which remain for us to mention, apply more directly and immediately to the fubject of this apology than any of the others. The first is that of Gulielmus Budeus, who gives him the attribute, of a man of the "ftricteft veracity," for this is the true meaning of the expreffion Budeus makes ufe of, which is, veritatis antiftes. Thomas Dempster bestows on him the epithets," of a moft diligent and eloquent writer, and a man of incomparable veracity; and finally pronounces, that his writings were of more value, than thofe of all the other ancient authors put together. Unus omnium inftar. More cannot be faid.'

In his vindication of Apuleius, against the ridiculous imputation of forcery, our author gives us this very just account of the Aureus Afinus.

We find in the works of Apuleius, an ingenious fable, entitled, The Golden Afs; in which, Apuleius recites of himself, that when he was upon his travels, he was entertained in the houfe of a woman of Theffaly, who was a famous witch, and who kept many ointments, which had the virtue of transforming those who rubbed themselves with them, into various shapes, and that he faw her one night, from a place where he had fecreted himself, anoint with one of them, which transformed her into a fcreech owl, and that after this was done, the flew immediately put of the window in quest of her gallant, who lived a great way

off.

off. Apuleius, excited by a violent curiofity, was tempted to try the effect of the ointment on himself; fo he advanced to the cupboard where the ointments were kept, and laying hold of one of the gallipots, began to anoint himself, which he did very plentifully; but as ill-luck would have it, inftead of taking hold of the gallipot which would transform him into a screech-owl, he laid his hand upon one, whofe contents converted him to a quite different fpecies of bird; upon this he feized on another, the ointment of which inftantly turned him into an ass. The reft of the fable, confiits in the recital of many pleasant adventures that happened to him under the form of an afs; and of his being fold and refold to many different mafters, fome of whom were better, and others worfe; and of his undergoing a great variety of hardships; but at last, he was fo happy as to meet with fome rofes, which were the only things capable of restoring him to his natural state, and upon eating a mouthful of them, he inftantly recovered it. This is the fubftance of the fable of The Golden Afs; under which figure, Apuleius reprefents himself to have acted in propria perfona, and gives an account of many humourous and odd things that befell him, while he was thus metamorphofed.

This fable then, either from having been read without proper attention, or from people's not having had any account of it but by hearfay, but chiefly and principally for want of knowing from whence it originated, has been fuppofed by many to have been a true history; and from a belief, that Apuleius had really practifed magic arts, they went on to credit that he had been a magician by profeffion. But there was no mistake, which could have been more easily cleared up. The firft fentence of the writing, undeceives us, for the author fays, I am going to relate a Grecian fable: Fabulam Græcanicam incipimus; and in his pro face to the book wherein it is contained, he fays; Sermone ifto milefio varias fabulas conferam; and in reality, the whole complex of accidents and incidents in the tale, clearly fhew, that it was a fabrication of ingenious and pleasant fictions. But the Arongeft argument to acquit Apuleius of magic, in this cafe, is that he was the author of the fable; for the fame tale, to which is prefixed the fame title, is to be found in the works of Lucian, who long before had written it in Greek; and Apuleius only added to it, fome new fictions and particular relations; and in a long digreffion, he introduced into it, the loves of Pfyche and Cupid. Some learned men have thought that Lucian was not the original author of the fable of The Goiden Afs; but that he abridged it from the works of another Greek writer, called Lucius of Patras, which I have never feen, nor do I know whether the book of Metamorphofes of the perfon whose production they fay this fable was, is now exifting.

All we have recited being fo clear and plain, is it not amazing, that St. Auguftin fhould believe, Apuleius wrote The Hif

Gg 4

Lory,

tory of the Golden Afs, and that he gave the relation, as of an event, that had really happened to himself? (vid. lib. xviii. de Civit. cap. 18.) Louis Vives excufes him, by faying, the faint being little verfed in Greek authors, did not know that the fame fabic had been written before by Lucian. But this obfervation cannot fupprefs our aftonilhment, becaufe from the words of Apuleius himself, without, to elucidate the matter, having recourfe to any other author, it is plain and evident, that he related the story as a fiction, because he exprefsly fays in the beginning of it, what I am about to write, is not a history, but a fable.'

The last article in this volume is a letter on the fubject of the` Wandering Jew, mentioned by Matthew Paris, and other wri ters. This ftory, father Feyjoo fays, I am inclined to disbe. lieve; and he gives his reafons for confidering it as a fable. But this is too gentle a reprobation. The men, who at different periods, affumed the character of the Wandering Jew, were, beyond all di'pute, impudent impoftors.,

The fourth volume contains phyfical, moral, and political paradoxes, effays on fceptical philofophy, the affectation of learning, the authority of experience, and the inequality of mankind in different regions, with refpect to their intellectual faculties. On thefe topics the author has given us many curious and judicious obfervations.

In this work the names of many perfons and places are fo curiously metamorphofed, that we hardly know them in this prefent difguife. For instance, Lefeches, an ancient poet of Lefbos, for Lelches; Lycrophron, for Lycophron; Gregory of Turene, for Tours; Wolfangius Lacy, for Wolfgangus Lazius. Alexander of Alexandria, tor Alexander ab Alexandro, a Neapolitan lawyer; Belerophonte, for Bellerophon; Protheus, for Proteus; Salmoneus, king of Elide, for Elis; mount Idas, for Ida; Brutus obtained the furname of Gallego, for Gallæcus, Gallæci nomen meruit.' Paterc. ii. 5. The battle of the Horatios with the Curios, for the Horatii and Curiatii. The Ifraelites, who rebelled at Core; here Coré is fuppofed to be the name of a place, instead of the name of a man. The tranflator might have easily realified this mistake, if he had confulted his Bible,

There are many other errors of this kind in thefe volumes. They are, we confefs, only verbal inaccuracies; but they are fuch as every man of learning fhould endeavour to avoid.

The English reader is neverthelefs obliged to Mr. Brett for introducing the works of this excellent writer to the know, lege of his countrymen,

2

Mifcellaneous Obfervations on fome Points of the Controverfy between the Materialifts and their Opponents.` 8vo. Is. 6d. T. Payne

and Son.

HE author of this tract pretends only to offer mifcellaneous, and, for the most part, unconnected observations on fome points in debate, and leaves the reader to draw his own conclufions. Should thefe conclufions, fairly deduced, be found to concur with the writings of Dr. Hartley and Dr. Priestley, in establishing the abfolute mechanifm of the human frame, and of all its faculties and affections, this, he says, will give the unprejudiced enquirer no offence. Such an enquirer will recollect, that the moral qualities of man are estimated, not from their fuppofed origin, but from their known effects; which effects are the fame, whether we attribute the qualities producing them to corporeal organization, to the use and abufe of freewill, or to any other caule.'

The materialifts, Locke, Hartley, &c. affert, that man owes all his ideas to impreffions made by external objects on the organs of fenfe. Their opponents allege, that, befides this fource of knowlege, man is provided with a store-house or receptacle of abstract and general ideas, viz. the intellect, &c.

The author of this tract, in favour of materialism, endeavours to prove, that there are, ftrictly speaking, no abstract ideas.

In difputes with materialifts, it is ufual to fay a great deal about the effential propertics of matter, among which is ufually reckoned a vis inertiæ. But this writer queftions the exiftence of any fuch property; and maintains that refiftence wholly and folely originates from gravitation, friction, cohefion, and the like. He obferves, that the wonderful phenomena of electricity, magnetifin, chemistry, &c. imply the existence of active powers in matter. He asks, At what ftep in the fcale of nature, matter is firft united with fpirit? Is this important tep to be recognized at man, or with apes, or elephants, or oyfters? Or is it the privilege of animals in general to enjoy a Spiritual nature? But then what is it that difcriminates the animal from the vegetable kingdom? Certainly not the loco-motive faculty; for many beings that are indifputably of an animal nature want this faculty altogether, as corals, madrepores, fpunges, and a numerous tribe of fimilar bodies.'-Here it must be confiffed the natural hiftorian finds nothing but difficulty and embaraffinent.

The author concludes with fome obfervations on muscular motion, which, he thinks, favours the doctrine of the materialifts,