144,300 years after Polyhiftor's era. The two laft writers also make him pofterior to the ten antediluvian kings. But Mr. Bryant, following Polyhiftor, afferts he was before them. The Grecians, he obferves, not knowing, or not attenda ing to the eastern mode of writing, have introduced these ten kings in the firft book, which Berofus exprefsly refers to the fecond. They often inverted the names of perfons, as well as of places and have ruined whole dynasties through ignorance of arrangement. What the Orientals wrote from right to left, they were apt to confound by a wrong difpofition, and to defcribe in an inverted feries. Hence thefe fuppofed kings, who, according to Berofus, were fubfequent to the deluge, and to the patriarch, are made prior to both and he, who stood first, is made later by ten generations, through a reverfion of the true order.' Anal. Vol. iii. p. III. From this paffage Mr. Richardfon takes occafion to ask how the Greeks could tranflate the Babylonifh writings without being able to read them? or how they could read them without knowing the beginning of the line from the end. The laft fection of this ingenious Differtation contains further obfervations on the Cuthite fyftem, especially on etymological grounds. Mr. Bryant fuppofes, in his Apology, that because Mr. Richardfon has pointed to only one half of his radicals as erroneous, the other half muft, of confequence, be right. But this is a conceffion which Mr. Richardfon fays it is impoffible for him to make confiftently with truth. Among the new examples which he has given in this section, is the word arca, the ark, from which Mr. Bryant has derived Argo, and the Argonauts, Arcas, Arcadia, Arecca, Erec, and Hercules, which laft fignified the great arkite, that is Noah. To fupport fuch a variety of derivations, upon which fome of the moft valuable topics in the Analyfis entirely depend, we should naturally have expected evidence that the ark had been pronounced, in a manner fomewhat refembling those names, in fome one at least of the ancient languages. Yet this is not the cafe; and until the Latin, comparatively a modern tongue, was introduced, no fuch word appears to have been known. In the Hebrew, the word expreffing the ark of Noah is written tibeb; in the Chaldaic, tibuta; in the Hebrew Samaritan, tibeh ; in the Chaldaic Samaritan, tibuteh; in the Syriac, kebouta; in. the Arabic, tabout; in the Septuagint, kibotos.-Had the ancient names of perfons and places above mentioned been derived from the name of the ark, they muft, doubtless, have had a resemblance to fome of the words in the ancient languages; they could never be denominated from a language, which began to exift many ages after thefe names were invented, vented, and had become familiar. We might mention many other particular examples, which are equally convincing; but fhall conclude this article with a general obfervation upon the whole fyftem, in the author's own words: Mr. Bryant will fill perhaps talk of his Amonian, and call it the original language of man: and infift, that, in it, these words might have had fuch and fach meanings; though they are now no where to be found in the exifting tongues. Yet this, it must be allowed, would afford, at beft, but a fad foundation for a ftupendous fyftem: and the improbability of the whole might be very fafely refted upon it. But I fhall go further, and confider, how far there is even a poffibility, that the original language of man, (were a miracle to reveal it to our knowledge) could be of the least use in fuch enquiries. It will not, I hope, be difputed, that the confufion of tongues was the immediate fore-runner of the Babel difperfion: after which the language of the world became diverfified into many dialects; with what degree of difference or analogy to the original, we are left entirely to opinion. If the divifion of the earth did not take place till the difperfion, it is evident, there could not be one city or place, by land or by water, which had then received its name. For Babel itself was fo called, fubfequent to the confufion; as we learn from Gen. xi. 9. But, fuppofing even, with the learned author, that the migration was previous to the difperfion, ftill the names of places must have been few : they must apparently have been involved in the general confufion; and must have been forgotten, as well as the other parts of the original tongue. Idolatry, we may alfo obferve, to the investigation of which he chiefly wishes to apply this original tongue, did not, even in his own opinion, make its appearance in the world, till the days of Serug; many ages after the confufion of tongues. Falfe gods, temples, rites, and every circumftance of fuperftition, muft, of confequence, have been wholly unknown whilft the original language was in ufe. And when mankind became scattered over the earth, every new object they saw: all the works of their hands: every invention in fciences and arts : every inftitation of government or religion: must have all received their names in the various dialects, which the different tribes carried with them at the difperfion; or afterwards improved. With what propriety then can he bewilder our fenfes. by pretending to refort to a language, which was annihilated, long before the names, which are attempted to be traced to it, had a being? When we call in the aid of language in our enquiries into primitive times, (which, judiciously done, may undoubtedly affift difcovery) we fhould naturally have recourfe chiefly to fuch dialects, as, before the existence of record, were fpoken in the countries where the fcene of our investigation lies. And here inconteftibly, in refpect to the principal subjects of the Analyfis, inftead of applying to an ignis fatuus, as our learned VOL. XLVII. Feb. 1779. H au author has done; the preference should have been given to the Hebrew, the Arabic, the Chaldaic, the Syriac, the oldest known languages in the world: if indeed, from the fame peculiar ra dical formation, and the infinite number of words which are common to all, they may not, with more propriety, be called dialects of the fame tongue, than different languages.' The ingenuity, the curious learning, and the many new but not groundless opinions, contained in Mr. Richardfon's Differtation, and which he has fupported by authorities little known even to the learned of Europe, have rendered it necessary to lay before our readers not only the general plan of his work, but a particular detail of the principal topics which it illuftrates. By examining a variety of curious and important fubjects, naturally arifing out of his inquiries into oriental literature, Mr. Richardfon relieved the tedious uniformity of inceffant application, to a difficult and ufeful tafk; and this he has performed in fuch a manner as gives the highest fatisfaction to the gentlemen employed in India affairs, who were particularly interested in the refult of his labours.-Engaged in a literary purfuit, which, from the importance of its object, entitled him to the respect and the gratitude both of the bufy and the learned, he was led by his studies and his views to examine the Analyfis of ancient Mythology. He treated Mr. Bryant, however, with that refpect his intentions deferved, in attempting to discover arguments in favour of the Chriftian religion, from the licentious mythology of the Greeks and other pagan nations. Even where he differs from that gentleman in opinion, he pays a due attention to his learned and well intended labours. From this conduct Mr. Richardfon had reason to expe& fome degree of regard. But in reply to arguments drawn from the Persian and Arabic, Mr. Bryant defires him to anfwer ingenuously whether he ever read five lines of Greek; compares his extracts from Perfian writers to Mother Goofe's Tales; accufes him of ignorance of the first principles of reasoning; and, except where he is betrayed into a compliment, treats him, in his Apology throughout, with a fupercilious, and feemingly a ftudied, contempt.-This may, perhaps, in fome measure excufe, though it cannot entirely justify Mr. Richardfon for affuming a new tone, which too nearly resembles that of his opponent. We think that, not withstanding the provocation he has met with, it would have been better to maintain that decent guarded language with which he began; and to contrast the petulant farcasms of the mere scholar, with the modeft, manly behaviour of a liberal enquirer. Mufic made Eafy to every Capacity, in a Series of Dialogues; being Practical Leffons for the Harpsichord, laid down in a new Method, fo as to render that Inflrument fo little difficult, that any Perfon, with common Application, may play well; become a thorough Proficient in the Principles of Harmony; and will compofe Mufic, if they have a Genius, for it, in less than a Twelvemonth. Written in French by Monfieur Bemetzrieder, Mufic Mafer to the Queen of France. And published at Paris, (with a Preface) by the celebrated Monfieur Diderot, the whole Tranflated, and adapted to the Ufe of the English Student, by Giffard Bernard, M. A. Perufed and approved of by Dr. Boyce and Dr. Howard. 410. 35. 5d. Randall. THIS HIS work was offered fome years fince to the public, under the title of Leçons de Claveçin, et Principes d'Harmonie, and was extremely well received, as indeed it justly merited; it cannot therefore fail to offend thofe who have been enlightened or entertained by its perufal, to obferve the imperfections of the English copy which now lies before us. It is indeed true, that translations are not intended for the use of those who are able to judge of the originals; but, unfortunately, the work now under confideration is not only devoid of the spirit and elegance of an original, but of almost every thing that can ren der a copy either ufeful or entertaining and it excites not only our forrow but indignation to reflect how much the author of this ingenious and agreeable work muft inevitably suffer in the opinions of those who judge of its merit, without being able to examine it in its primitive drefs; nor can we avoid accufing the tranflator of an unpardonable degree of arrogance in thus publishing a caricatura rather than a genuine copy of this elegant work, without a word of apology, or teftifying the flightest degree of consciousness of its defects. It is hardly poffible to read the title-page without being difgufted at promises of which it is repugnant to common sense to expect the performance. M. Bemetzrieder has himself, in feveral paffages of his book, expreffed, perhaps, too lively expectations of the fuccefs of his leffons; yet he does not in the title-page of his work inform his readers, that he has difcovered a fecret to render mufic eafy to every capacity, nor that his new method renders the harpfichord fo little difficult that any perfon, with common application, may play well; be come a thorough proficient in the principles of harmony; and will compofe mufic, if they have a genius for it, in less than a twelvemonth. Mr. Bernard, indeed, tells us that he does not set up to make every man, woman, and child their own music master, but that he formally difavows any fuch vain and quask-like pretenfion ; and yet not only his amplification of the title-page, but his language throughout every dialogue, raife violent fufpicions of charlatanerie on his part. The style of these Dialogues, as written by M. Bemetzrieder, and revised by M. Diderot, is at once elegant, animated, and dramatic; calculated to fascinate and charm readers the most ignorant of mufic, and even the most indifferent to its effects. But that which is clear in the original, becomes confufed in the translation; vulgarity is the substitute of pleasantry; and the few paffages which to fome may feem obfcure, are here rendered abfolutely unintelligible. It has been as often as juftly remarked, that a tranilator fhould be equally well acquainted with his own language, and: that from which he tranflates; which may, indeed, with great truth be faid of this gentleman, as he feems equally ignorant of both. Inftances to fupport this affertion occur in almost every page of his book; the expreffions, which he fo familiarly ufes of by confequence, in effect, now I go to tell you, going in advance upon what is to come, and many more are obviously gallicisms, and never used in English: nor do we speak of a modulation being commode, or a cord grofs. Tonique, or key-note, he tranf lates tonick; la note fenfible, by which the French mean the Tharp 7th of a key, he calls fenfible, which, to an English reader, expreffes nothing mufical: a heptachord he writes epticord; a tritonus, triton; the harmonics he calls harmonies, &c. Nothing but the groffeft ignorance can account for fuch mistakes as thefe; and the vulgarifms with which the dialogue is crowded, and all its beauties mangled and defaced, it would be an endlefs task to enumerate: in one place the scholar defires leave to tickle an air; and in another, terrified at the difficulties he meets with in the study of mufic, fays that he has not a wit to come up to it; whilft the mafter reproves him for being prompt in bis likes and diflikes, and exclaims, a fiddle of airs! Such are the expreffions, fuch is the language which Mr. Bernard prefents to the English reader, with the modeft expectation of giving him an adequate idea of a work he has fo cruelly injured; for, indeed, he has contrived to annihilate all the ufeful as well as ornamental parts of the text, and has left intelligible to the mufical ftudent, little more than a few gammuts, and scales in different keys, which, in juftice to Mr. Bemetz rieder, must be allowed to be of ufe to beginners *. With refpect to the eminent masters whofe names Mr. Bernard has used in his title-page, we can imagine only one of two things; either that they have not read the work, or that • As yet only 4 of 12 Dialogues are published by the tranflator. they |