strokes of ridicule in the whole apologue, so much abounding with them; and insinuates to the Shechemites the vanity and pitiful original of their idolatrous gods, who were thought to be, or really had been, refreshed with wine. Hesiod tells us, in a similar expression, that the vengeance of the fates pursued the crimes of gods and men :

ΑἵΤ' ΑΝΔΡΩΝ τε ΘΕΩΝ τε παραιβασίας ἐφέπουσαι,
Οὐδέποτε λήγουσι θεαὶ δεινοῖο χόλαιο,

Πρίν γ' ἀπὸ τῷ δώωσι κακὴν ὅπιν ὅστις ἁμάρτῃ.ΘΕ Ο Γ. ver. 220.

P. 188. DD. Judges ix. 7. COLLINS, the author of the Scheme of literal Prophecy considered, speaking of Dean Sherlock's interpretation of Gen. iii. 15, says "What the Dean just now said is nothing but an argument from the pretended absurdity of the literal sense, that supposes the most plain matter of fact to be fable, or parable, or allegory; though it be suited to the notions of the Ancients, who thought that beasts had, in the first ages of the world, the use of speech, agreeable to what is related in the Bible of Balaam's ass, and told after a simple historical manner, like all the relations in the Old Testament, wherein there is nothing savours of allegory, and every thing is plainly and simply exposed." p. 234. By this it appears that Mr. Collins thought that fable, parable, and allegory, were the same mode of speech, whereas they are very different modes. A fable was a story familiarly told, without any pretended foundation of fact, with design to persuade the hearers of some truth in question; a parable was the same kind of story, more obscurely delivered; and an allegory was the relation of a real fact, delivered in symbolic terms: Of this kind was the story of the FALL: a real fact, told allegorically. According to Mr. Collins, it is a fable to be understood literally, because it was suited to the notions of the ancients, who thought that beasts had, in the first ages of the world, the use of speech. By the Ancients he must mean, if he means any thing to the purpose, those of the Mosaic age: and this will be news. His authority is, in truth, an authentic one! It is Balaam's ass.-Agree able, says he, to what is related in the Bible of Balaam's ass, and told after a simple historical manner. Now the Bible, to which he so confidently appeals, expressly tells us, that Balaam had the gift of prophecy; that an angel intervened; and that God Almighty opened the ass's mouth. But however he is pleased to conceal the matter, he had a much better proof that the Ancients thought beasts had the use of speech in the first ages of the world than Balaam's ass; and that was ESOP's FABLES. And this might have led him rather to the story of Jotham, so plainly and simply exposed, that, had not only the serpent, but the tree of knowledge likewise spoken, he could have given a good account of the matter, by Jotham's fable; told after a simple historical manner, like all the relations in the Old Testament. A great improvement, believe me, this, to his discovery,—that the ancients thought not only that beasts, but that trees spoke in the first ages of the world. The Ancients! an' please you. It is true, they delighted in fabulous traditions. But what then? they had always the sense to give a sufficient cause to every effect. They never represented things out of nature, but when placed there by some God, who had nature in his power. Even Homer, the father of fables, when he makes the horses of Achilles speak, or feel human passions, thinks it not enough to represent them as stimulated by a God, without informing us, that they themselves were of a cœlestial and immortal race.

P. 190. EE. This account shews how ridiculously the critics were employed in seeking out the inventor of the Apologue; they might as well have sought for the inventor of the Metaphor, and carried their

researches still further, and with Sancho Pancha inquired after the inventor of eating and drinking.

Ρ. 191. FF. Καὶ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ μὲν τοῖς ἱερεῦσι συνῆν, καὶ τὴν σοφίαν ἐξέμαθε, καὶ τῶν Αἰγυπτίων φωνὴν. Γραμμάτων δὲ τρισσὰς διαφοράς, ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΟΓΡΑΦΙΚΩΝ TE, καὶ ΙΕΡΟΓΛΥΦΙΚΩΝ, καὶ ΣΥΜΒΟΛΙΚΩΝ· τῶν μὲν κοινολογουμένων κατὰ μίμησιν, τῶν δὲ ἀλληγορουμένων κατά τινας αἰνιγμούς. De Vita Pythagoræ, cap. xi. et xii. p. 15. Ed. Kusteri. Holstenius translates τῶν μὲν κοινολογουμένων κατὰ μίμησιν, τῶν δὲ ἀλληγορουμένων κατά Tivas aivypous, in this manner :-"Quorum illud propriam et communem loquendi consuetudinem imitatur; reliqua per allegorias sub quibusdam ænigmatum involucris sensum exprimunt." By which, it seems, he understood, τῶν μὲν κοινολογουμένων κατὰ μίμησιν to be an explanation of the nature of epistolary writing ; and τῶν δὲ ἀλληγορουμένων κατά τινας αἰνιγ· povs, of the nature both of hieroglyphic and symbolic; whereas the first words are an explanation of hieroglyphic writing, and the second only of symbolic. For Porphyry having named three kinds of writing, the first common to all people; the two other peculiar, at that time, to the Egyptians; when he comes to speak of their natures, he judiciously omits explaining the epistolary, which all the world knew, and confines his discourse to the hieroglyphic and symbolic. But was it, as Holstenius thought, that he explained the nature of the epistolary in the words TŵV μèv KOLVOλoyovμévwv, &c. then has he entirely omitted the proper hieroglyphic (for the rv de dλnуopovμévwv, &c. relates only to the symbolic); which had been an unpardonable fault. But that this is Holstenius's mistake is further seen by the next passage from Clemens Alexandrinus for what Porphyry calls hieroglyphical and symbolical, Clemens calls hieroglyphical; using hieroglyphical as a generic term, which Porphyry used as a specific. Clemens, I say, giving an account of the nature of hieroglyphic writing, tells us it was of two sorts; the one, ΚΥΡΙΟΛΟΓΕΙΤΑΙ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΙΜΗΣΙΝ, directly and simply imitates the thing intended to be represented; by this he meant the proper hieroglyphic (which Porphyry, in his enumeration of the kinds, distinguishes from the symbolic); and what is more, Porphyry seems to have borrowed his expression of τῶν μὲν κοινολογουμένων κατὰ μίμησιν, from Clemens's κυριολογεῖται κατὰ μίμησιν, by which this latter evidently means to express the nature of the proper hieroglyphic. Besides, Clemens, who gives the nature of epistolary writing, with the same judgement that Porphyry omitted giving it, describes it in a very different manner, and with great propriety, thus, ἧς ἡ μέν ἐστι διὰ τῶν πρώτων ΣΤΟΙΧΕΙΩΝ ΚΥΡΙΟΛΟΓΙΚΗ. Yet a learned writer, supported by the authority of Holstenius, which served his purpose in an argument for the low antiquity of Egypt, would persuade us that Porphyry did not mean by the expression kowoλoyoúμeva karà piμŋow, that the characters he spoke of imitated the forms or figures of the things intended by them; FOR that was not the pípnois which the ancient writers ascribed to LETTERS. [Sacr. and Prof. Hist. of the World connect. vol. ii. p. 296.] This argument is a Petitio Principii; which supposes Porphyry to be here describing epistolary writing. On this supposition the writer says, that the imitation of the forms or figures of things is not the pípnois the ancient writers ascribed to letters. Certainly it is not. But Porphyry is not speaking of the letters, but of hieroglyphic figures: therefore, μíμnois does here, and may any where, mean (because it is the literal sense of the word) imitation of the figure of things. However, let us consider his criticism on this word, though it makes so little to his purpose :-Socrates in Plato says, it seems, ὁ διὰ τῶν συλλαβῶν τε καὶ γραμμάτων τὴν οὐσίαν τῶν

ters;

πραγμάτων ΑΠΟΜΙΜΟΥΜΕΝΟΣ and the ancients, the learned writer tells
us, were exceeding philosophical in their accounts of both words and letters:
when a word or sound was thought fully to express, according to their notions,
the thing which it was designed to be the name of, then they called it the
Eikov, or picture of that thing. The ancients were, without doubt, wonder-
fully profound; if we will believe Kircher and his school: but if a plain
man may be heard, all the mystery of pipnois and cikov was simply this:
Alphabetic letters, as we have observed, sprung from hieroglyphic charac-
and even received their form from thence. Now the ancients, as
was very natural, when they spoke of the power of letters, and of words
composed of letters, frequently transferred the terms piunois and eikov,
to these, which properly belonged to hieroglyphic characters: a plain
proof of this is the very word doμμéoμai, quoted by the learned writer
from Plato; which literally signifies, to imitate from an exemplar, but
figuratively, to express, at large: So wλáoua originally signified any
thing formed and fashioned by art; traductively, a similitude in speech,
nay, the musical modulation of the voice. There is a remarkable passage
in Plutarch's discourse of the Pythian prophetess no longer rendering her
prophecies in verse; where the word wλáopa is generally thought to be
used in the first of these traductive senses, but I think it must be under-
stood in the second: speaking of the ancient manner of delivering the
oracles, he says,—οὐκ ἀνήδυντον, οὐδὲ λιτὴν, ἀλλ ̓ ἐν μέτρῳ καὶ ὄγκῳ καὶ
ΠΛΑΣΜΑΤΙ καὶ μεταφοραῖς ὀνομάτων, καὶ μετ ̓ αὐλοῦ. Mr. Le Clerc, [De
Prophetia, p. 18, tom. iv. Comm. in V. T.] translates the latter part thus,
"pedibus vincta, tumida, quæsitis et tralatitiis verbis constantia, et cum
tibia pronunciata." But λáopart signifies here, not quæsitis verbis, but
that modulation of the voice which we may call placida conformatio, and
is opposed to oуko, a contrary modulation of the voice, which may be
called gravis conformatio. These two were used in the theatre (to which
the matter is compared) in a kind of recitative on the flute: so that what
Plutarch would say, is this, that the ancient oracles were not only deli-
vered in verse, and in a pompous figurative style, but were sung likewise
to the flute. Το ὄγκῳ and πλάσματι he opposed ἀνήδυντον, in the sense of
untunable; and to μεταφοραῖς ὀνομάτων he opposed λιτὴν, plain, simple.
Plutarch uses wλáoμa again in the sense of conformatio, where speaking of
the elocution of Pericles, he calls it ΠΛΑΣΜΑ φωνῆς ἀθόρυβον, a composed
modulation of voice. But Quintilian employs it in the very sense in ques-
tion, to express a soft and delicate modulation of voice.
"Sit autem impri-
mis lectio virilis et cum suavitate quadam gravis, et
similis, quia carmen est, et se poetæ canere testantur. Non tamen in can-
ticum dissoluta, nec PLASMATE (ut nunc a plerisque fit) effœminata.” l. i.
c. 14. Hence again, in another traduction, plasma was used to signify a
certain medicine, that speakers in public took to render their voice soft and
harmonious:

"Sede leges celsa, liquido cum plasmate guttur
Mobile conlueris "-Pers. Sat. i. 17.

non quidem prose

Turnebus, not attending to this progressive change in the sense of words, and taking his signification of plasma from the passage of Quintilian, supposed that plasma, in this place of the poet, signifies not a medicament, but a soft and delicate modulation of the voice.-" Est cùm molli et tenera fictaque vocula poema eliquaverit udo gutture. Est enim plasma, ut alio loco docui, cum vox est tenera et mollis." On the other hand, Lubin, who had taken his signification of plasma from this place, will needs have the same word in the passage quoted above from Quintilian to signify not a

soft and delicate modulation of the voice, but a medicament. "Turnebi hujus loci explicatio, 1. xxviii. c. 26. Adversar. mihi non placet, et hoc Quintiliani loco refutatur.” Comment. in Pers.

Ρ. 192. GG. Κατ' οἰκειότητα μετάγοντες καὶ μετατιθέντες. That is, as I understand it, representing one thing by another, which other hath qualities bearing relation or analogy to the thing represented.

Ρ. 192. ΗΗ. ̓Αναγράφουσι διὰ τῶν ἀναγλύφων. The Latin translator keeps close to his original, anaglyphicis describunt; and Stanley, [Lives of Phil. p. 350, ed. 3d.] they write by anaglyphics: as if this was a new species of writing, now first mentioned by Clemens, and to be added to the other three: whereas, I suppose, it was Clemens's intention only to tell us that tropical symbols were chiefly to be met with on their stone monuments, engraven in relief: which was true.

Ρ. 192. ΙΙ. Αὐτίκα οἱ παρ ̓ Αἰγυπτίοις παιδευόμενοι πρῶτον μὲν πάντων τῶν Αἰγυπτίων γραμμάτων μέθοδον ἐκμανθάνουσι, τὴν ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΟΓΡΑΦΙΚΗΝ καλουμένην δευτέραν δὲ, τὴν ΙΕΡΑΤΙΚΗΝ, ᾗ χρῶνται οἱ ἱερογραμματεῖς ἱστάτην δὲ καὶ τελευταίαν, τὴν ΙΕΡΟΓΛΥΦΙΚΗΝ, ἧς ἡ μέν ἐστι διὰ τῶν πρώτων στοιχείων κυριολογική· ἡ δὲ συμβολική τῆς δὲ συμβολικῆς ἡ μὲν κυριολογεῖται κατὰ μίμησιν· ἡ δ ̓ ὥσπερ τροπικῶς γράφεται ἡ δὲ ἄντικρυς ἀλληγορείται κατά τινας αἰνιγμούς. Ἥλιον γοῦν γράψαι βουλόμενοι, κύκλον ποιοῦσι· Σελήνην δὲ, σχῆμα μηνοειδές, κατὰ τὸ κυριολογούμενον εἶδος τροπικῶς δὲ, κατ' οἰκειότητα μετάγοντες καὶ μετατιθέντες, τὰ δ ̓ ἐξαλλάττοντες· τὰ δὲ, πολλαχῶς μετασχηματίζοντες, χαράττουσιν· τοὺς γοῦν τῶν βασιλέων ἐπαίνους θεολογου. μένοις· μύθοις παραδιδόντες, ἀναγράφουσι διὰ τῶν ἀναγλύφων· τοῦ δὲ κατὰ τοὺς αἰνίγμους, τρίτου εἴδους, δεῖγμα ἔστω τόδε τὰ μὲν γὰρ τῶν ἄλλων ἄστρων, διὰ τὴν πορείαν τὴν λοξὴν, ὄφεων σώμασιν ἀπείκαζον· τὸν δὲ Ἥλιον, τῷ τοῦ κανθάρου· ἐπειδὴ κυκλοτερὲς ἐκ τῆς βοείης ὄνθου σχῆμα πλασάμενος, ἀντιπρόσω ωπος κυλίνδει. Strom. lib. v. p. 555, 556, Ed. Morell.—ἧς ἡ μέν ἐστι διὰ τῶν πρώτων στοιχείων κυριολογική. ἡ δὲ, συμβολική, the Latin translator turns thus, Cujus una quidem est per prima elementa κυριολογικὴ, id est, proprie loquens; altera vero symbolica, id est, per signa significans. This is so faithfully translated, that it preserves the very ambiguity of the original, and leaves us still to guess at the author's division. Marsham takes it just wrong; and so does his nephew Stanley: the first of these learned men quotes and translates the passage thus: Triplex erat apud Egyptios characterum ratio, Επιστολογραφικὴ, ad scribendas epistolas apta, sive vulgaris ; Ιερατικὴ, qua utuntur Ιερογραμματεῖς, qui de rebus sacris scribunt ; et Ιερογλυφική, sacra sculptura; HUJUS duæ sunt species, Κυριολογική, proprie loquens per prima elementa, et Συμβολική, per signa [Can. Chron. p. 38, Franeq. Ed.] The second thus,-the last and most perfect, hieroglyphical: WHEREOF one is curiologic, the other symbolic. [Lives of Phil. p. 329, 3d. ed.] By this interpretation, the learned Father is, 1. made to enumerate three kinds of writing, but to explain only the last, namely hieroglyphics; 2. which is worse, he is made to say one kind of hieroglyphics was by letters of an alphabet; for that is the meaning of διὰ τῶν πρώτων στοιχείων: 3. which is still worse, he is made to divide hieroglyphics into two sorts, curiologic and symbolic ; and symbolic into three sorts, curiologic, tropical, and allegorical; which makes the prior division into curiologic and symbolic, inaccurate and absurd; and spreads a general confusion over the whole passage. Their mistake seems to have arisen from supposing μεθόδου ἱερογλυφικῆς (the immediate antecedent) was understood at ἧς ἡ μέν ἐστι ; whereas it was the more remote antecedent, μεθόδου Αἰγυπτίων γραμμάτων : and what made them suppose this, was, I presume, the author's expressing the common plain way of writing by letters of an alphabet, and

the common plain way of imitating by figures (two very different things) by the same words, κυριολογική and κυριολογεῖται; not considering that διὰ τῶν πρώτων στοιχείων, joined to the adjective, signified writing by letters; and, karà μíμnow, joined to the verb, signified writing by figures. In a word then, the plain and easy meaning of Clemens is this," The Egyptian method of writing was epistolic, sacerdotal, and hieroglyphical ; of this method, the epistolic and sacerdotal were by letters of an alphabet ; the hieroglyphical, by symbols: symbols were of three kinds, curiologie, tropical, and allegorical."

P. 192. KK. This was indeed a very logical conclusion from the opinion that hieroglyphics were invented to hide mysteries; but the high improbability of the fact should have led them, one would think, to the falshood of the premisses. That the Egyptians had letters before they had hieroglyphics, seems to me as extravagant as that they danced before they could walk; and, I believe, will seem so to all who consider the first part of this dissertation. However, a modern writer has taken up that opinion: and tells us in plain terms, that the hieroglyphical way of writing was not the most ancient way of writing in Egypt; [Connect. of the Sacr. and Prof. Hist. vol. i. p. 230, and again to the same purpose, vol. ii. 293, 294.] partly, I presume, as it favoured the hypothesis of the low antiquity of Egypt; and partly, perhaps, in compliment to that consequential notion, that not only all arts and sciences came from the Hebrews, but all the vehicles of knowledge likewise; whence, particularly, the author of the Court of the Gentiles derives hieroglyphics. The greatest pieces of the Jewish wisdom, says Mr. Gale, were couched under the cover of symbols and types; whence the Egyptians and other nations borrowed their hieroglyphic and symbolic wisdom. [Part i. p. 77.] But on what ground does the author of the Connection build, in support of his opinion? On this, that letters are very ancient; in which, without doubt, he is right: but surely not so ancient as he would have them. However, the Argument he uses is certainly a very perverse one: There is one consideration more, says he, which makes it very probable that the use of LETTERS came from Noah, and out of the first world, and that is the account which the Chinese give of their LETTERS. They assert their first emperor, whom they name Fohy, to be the inventor of them; before Fohy they have no records, and their Fohy and Noah were the same person. [Vol. i. p. 236.] Now it unluckily happens that the Chinese are without LETTERS, even to this day. Nor are we, for all this, to think our author ignorant of the nature of the Chinese characters, for he tells us soon after, that the Chinese have no notion of alphabetical letters, but make use of characters to express their meaning. Their characters are not designed to express words, for they are used by several neighbouring nations who differ in language. [p. 244.] Thus the learned writer, before he was aware, in endeavouring to prove letters of higher antiquity than hieroglyphics, hath proved just the contrary; even that hieroglyphical characters, not letters, were the writing so early as his Noah: For the Chinese characters are properly hieroglyphics, that is, marks for things, not words; and hieroglyphics they are called by all the missionaries from whom we have the most authentic accounts of China. But had their characters been indeed letters, as our author, in this place, by mistake supposed them, yet still his argument would have had no weight; and I will beg leave to tell him why The Chinese characters in use at present are very modern in comparison of the monarchy. The missionaries tell us (as may be seen by the quotations given above) that the Chinese character hath undergone several changes; that their first way of writing was, like the Mexican, by