Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

Guignes, in his effay prefixt to the extracts from the French king's manufcripts, but who is mistaken in fuppofing that thefe fine characters were executed in the Levant, for they are the work of Stephen Paulini of Rome, as M. Langlés fhews.

The celebrated Firmin Didot, known by his excellence in the engraving of types, made the first Mantchou puncheons which had ever been executed. Without injuring the forms prefcribed by Mr. L. this ingenious artist gave them a grace and delicacy, unknown to the best editions printed in the palace of the Chinefe emperor. They were first employed by Mr. L. in his Alphabet Tartaric-Mantchou 1787, 4to

Thefe different toils did not prevent M. Langlés from proceeding with his prefent great work, of which the two first volumes appeared in the year 1789. Half of another volume, as completing the dictionary, was published in 1790. The grammars being referved for the fourth volume, the remainder of the third confifts of the following pieces.

1. A general table of all the Mantchou words in the dictionary, with a reference to the pages where they are found, and a fhort Latin explanation, forming a Mantchou and Latin vocabulary for the use of such literati as may not understand French. This table alfo comprifes an Appendix of new words, and fignifications, omitted by M. Amyot.

2. A fmali geographical dictionary of Tartary, the countries of the Monguls, and Calmuks, Tibet, Corea, &c. in which the names of places are given in Mantchou characters.

3. A table of all the Chinese words which have been adopted into the Tartaric.

The fourth volume contains four Mantchou grammars, along with dialogues by different authors.

The grammar of M. Amyot defervedly obtains the first place: and is preceded by the enormous fyllabary whence M. Langles derived his Mantchou alphabet. The Elementa Linguæ Tartarice of Gerbilion follow; and in this, as in the preceding work of Amyot, the original characters omitted in the printed copies, now very rare, are given. This laft work will be ufeful to thofe literati for whom is deftined the Mantchou-Latin dictionary.

Next occurs the Effay of Domenge, with excellent dialogues and grammatical notes, by the fame learned man. Thefe dialogues are printed in double columns, of which the one contains the Mantchou text, compofed as it is pronounced; the other the fame pronunciation and a French tranflation. As to the grammatical notes, which are pretty confiderable, they are placed at the bottom of each page, and are cafily diftinguishable from thofe which M. Langles has added to the dif

ferent

ferent grammars, in order to establish a kind of concordance between thein and the dictionary..

The fourth grammar has been lately fent to Mr. L. from China, by M. Raux, a miffionary, and is intituled a Method to learn the Characters and Language of the Mantchou Tartars, extracted from the Chinese grammar of that language.

It is not improper to obferve that M. Amyot, though he highly approves the labours of M. Langles, yet feems to with that he had retained the Mantchou manner of writing perpendicularly, from the top to the bottom, inftead of horizontally, as his new characters run. But for learners the plan of Mr. L. appears the beft in many refpects; and it will be afterwards. eafy for the ftudent to perufe the original manufcripts in their native manner.

M. Langles has published many other pieces of oriental literature; among which his Tales and Fables from the Perfian and Arabic, with a difcourfe on eaftern learning, and the analyfts of the Poems of Ferdoufi, 1788, 12m0; and his Indian Fables and Tales, with a preliminary difcourfe, and notes on the religion, literature, and manners of the Hindoos, 1790, 8vo. deferve particular mention.

FOREIGN LITERARY INTELLIGENCE.

ON refuming our account of the labours of philofophers on the continent, it was with regret we obferved that the improvements were few, and the fubjects by no means numer ous. In this fituation, fcarcely attracted by the fuperior importance of any one additional attempt, the last preliminary difcourfe of M. de la Metherie engaged our attention. This author, the editor of the Journal de Phyfique, introduces cach year's labours by an abftract of the improvements made in the former year; and, in his laft difcourfe, unable to fill up, perhaps, the deftined fpace, by new difcoveries, he has indulged fome fpeculations more purely his own, which we think it right to notice and to condemn. Philofophy has been confidered as the fchool of atheism; but it is that philofophy only, which, proceeding but a little way, traces the connection of a fev links of the general chain. The whole, confidered in its fullest extent, difplays a degree of wifdom and contrivance, which cannot be the effect of chance, and which human intellect could scarcely conceive, much less have dictated. It leads to one great cause of all, which must be infinitely wife and powerful, and which we must look up to, in much astonishment and filent admiration. In fhort, whatever may be material in this world, and even in ourselves, there must be a cause, which

H 2

which is purely intellectual, all-wife, unchangeable, omnipos tent, and fupreme.

It has been the bufinefs of philofophers in every age to form fyftems of the creation, either in fubfervience to the Mofaic account, or, difdaining affiftance, in oppofition to the narrative of the Jewish legiflator. It is enough for us to observe, that no principle of religion induces us to believe implicitly his marrative in its minuteft circumstances: we must believe. that this world is the work of an almighty hand, and not older, as an habitable globe, than the Mofaic æra: that it existed in a ruder, or in a chaotic ftate, for many ages previous to that time, is not denied by Mofes, or contradicted by phænomena. There was a time probably, when the water, earth, and air were intimately blended, becaufe we perceive effects of the former union, and marks of their feparation : but it is our bufinefs to follow M. Metherie more closely, and our own opinions will be fufficiently clear from our obfervations on his

accounts.

It is our author's firft pofition, that all the different parts of the earth are cryftallifed; and this implies, he adds, that the different bodies have been diffolved in water. He confequently calculates the great height of the water neceffary to cover the fummits of the Alps and Andes, while he adds to his difficulties, by not knowing how to dispose of this vaft quantity of fluid. It is, however, not true that all the ftrata are cryftallifed: there is no evidence that the cryftals which occur were ever in a state of solution; that the mountains, in their prefent ftate, were ever covered. The vaft horizontal calcareous ftrata, for inftance, are mere depofitions: the granites are raised on their edges, and, though not in ftrata, end generally in one fide abruptly; and the cryftals of granite are rather confufed depofitions, than formed from a regular crystallization. It was remarked, with great propriety, by M. Morveau, that we know not the effects of combined menftrua. Though much water is requited to diffolve quartz and felt fpar, yet wa ter, loaded with other ingredients, might, and probably would diffolve them eafily. We know too, that the fluor acid air, combining with water, depofits or forms flint. When the carth, air, and water were combined, the folution probably was eafy, and the air feparating to form new compounds, or to be a constituent part of the atmofphere, would leave the different ingredients of granite in the confused ftate in which we fee them. This is the idea that the examination of granites fuggefts: they are familiar to our eyes; we see them every hour, and there is not a fingle fact, which an authentic enquiry can afford, that is inconfiftent with this view. In this

gradual

gradual depofition, a cruft was probably first formed on the furface, and the feparation of the air going on more flowly in the bowels of the earth, would burft this cruft in different places, and give the abrupt appearance to the granite rocks that we fee. The water would, in part, form air, and in part combine with other minerals; our author knows that this element is a copious ingredient in every cryftal, except thofe of granite, and of the marmor metallicum. M. de la Metherie's fyftem of the formation of mountains is in itself ridiculous and inconfiftent with facts: he fuppofes, that as cryftals are above the fluid in which they form, fo the mountains rife above the water which contained their ingredients. But why do cryftals rife above the fluid? Becaufe the water rifes in the interstices between the crystals, and from that fluid fresh crystals are formed. The cryftals too, according to his own account rife above the fluid, and yet a vast quantity of water is fuppofed to exift, fufficient to rife above the hills in their prefent ftate-In fhort, these fuppofitions are introduced to justify the conclufions, which, in the beginning of this account, we have fo feverely condemned,

It follows, fays our author, from the different facts adduced, that the furface of this globe was formerly covered with water, as the Egyptians perceived. The matters which compofe the great chain of mountains were diffolved in the water, and cryftalised in it, fome in maffes, as in the granites, and fome in ftrata, as the calcareous earths. The waters then decreafed: the tops of the mountains were discovered; marshes and Jakes were formed, whofe waters corrupted, and then, for the first time, appeared organifed beings, by a fpontaneous generation.In tue philofophy we fee nothing, fays the editor, but matter and motion. Whence come then thefe beings, but by matter put in motion, and we fee every day biffus and conferves produced by the putrefaction of water. Such is the abftract of our author's reafoning, of which we can only fay, that it fhows views fo limited, and knowledge fo imperfect, as to have difgraced a much meaner name. Life may be faid, in one view, to be matter in motion; but, if this were the only circumftance, motion muft foon end. The motion is continued independent of foreign aid: it is communicated to other matter, and continued in a series of beings of fimilar organs, poffeffing the fame powers and functions. Befides, what does the argument imply? that water is itself a living being, or contains the effence of life, and requires only to be put in motion. If either of thefe qualities did not exift, corruption could not convey them. Why does not the life appear when attenuated to air? Why cannot it be revived, after the fluid has been imprifoned

H 3

prifoned for ages in cryftals; it is ftill fufceptible of motion,, and it is still matter: let us add that life is a state of, or an adjunct to, matter peculiarly organised; the fame probably in the mite as in the elephant; in the biffus as in the oak; nor can we, on this fyftem, deny that man is formed daily from the earth, or the whale from the waters of the ocean.

Let us felect another inftance of this pernicious philofophy; we fhall ftill be progreffive in our account of the labours of foreign philofophers. We have formerly obferved, that M. Necker (the botanift and not the ex-minifter), in his Treatise on Micitology, fuppofed that mushrooms were not plants; that they were produced without feeds, and were not diftinguished by fexes. This opinion was defended, as in our fucceffive accounts we have more fully explained, by M. M. Medicus and Reynier, who fuppofed that mushrooms were produced by a true cryftallization of organic particles, without any previous preparation by a parent plant, like other vegetables, chiefly because they feem to proceed from other organised bodies in a decompounded ftate. Thefe arguments were fatisfactorily anfwered by M. Beauvois, whofe memoir we have alfo noticed, and the fubject is now brought forward again by the editor, though beyond the period of the year, which is the fnbject of his remarks to introduce his favourite doctrine.

M. de la Metherie allows, that analogy is in favour of their vegetable nature; that, though the fexual organs and the feeds have not been difcovered, analogy makes us prefume that they have both. In this there is a degree of difingenuity that is worfe than inconclufive reafoning. He knows that peculiar organs have been difcovered by Hedwig, which are moft probably fexual, and grains that are moit probably feeds. He knows too, that the fpecific difference of mushrooms are as diftinct and constant as of other plants, that deviations are still lefs frequent, that in the mushroom-beds, when one species is fown, the refult, with a very few exceptions, which arise evidently from the dung employed, is a crop of the fame fpecies only. Yet this author fpeaks only of analogy! On the other hand, he adds, analogies are often deceitful, and must vield to facts and obfervations. The philofopher must always be ready to receive truth when the offers, and the question must be difcuffed by the learned. Science will gain by the conteft of opinions, when it is fuftained by obfervations, by facts and experiments. This is perfectly just; but we must give a different character to what follows. It is certain, that fpontaneous generation, rejected for fome time with fo much difdain by a certain clafs of philofophers, must be admitted by every enlightened enquirer, if it were only to explain the first origin of organized beings. It is, in my opinion, certain, that

ge

« AnteriorContinua »