fity. He allows the utility and importance of the languages, both antient and modern, but he justly obferves that they are only the means of acquiring that knowlege, whether general or profeffional, which is moft ufeful to fociety; and he laments that they fhould be made to engrofs fo many of the most valuable years of life, to the exclufion of every other fudy; in confequence of which, many youths go from the grammarfchool to the univerfity, without any knowlege except that of words, and of the few detached events and fentiments that have occurred in the themes which they were obliged to make, or in the fmall portion of the several poets and profe authors whom they have read. Thus they are totally unprepared for their future ftudies; and, during the four or five years of their refidence at college, they are overwhelmed with a diverfity of fcientific purfuits, which they have not time to ftudy with the attention requifite to make a proficiency in any. Hence M. MEERMAN withes that, at the grammar fchools in Holland, as in those in Germany, provifion were made for teaching youth not merely the learned languages, but alfo the first principles of hiftory, geo graphy, logic, mathematics, natural philofophy, and morals; and if thefe fciences were taught in Latin, the main object of the school would not be obftructed. We mention these observations, because we think them well-founded, and because they are not wholly inapplicable to the great public fchools in our own country. M. DEIMAN'S diflertation is worthy of praife, as it fhews that he has attentively ftudied the progrefs of the intellectual faculties in youth, and has derived advantage from the obferva. tions of the beft writers on the fubject. He first inquires into the causes of that diflike of the mathematics, which many young people betray. This he afcribes to the natural attachment of youth to objects that strike their fenfes, which are the vehicles that convey the firft ideas to their minds; this circumstance naturally gives them a difrelifh to the purfuit of a fcience, the firft elements of which treat of abftract ideas, and require a close and undivided attention to a train of reafoning totally oppofite to the habits of childhood, and of which it is impoffible that the learner fhould immediately perceive the utility. Another caufe of this difguft may be found in the prejudices entertained against mathematics by those who are ignorant of them; and who are apt to imagine that, except for perfons in whofe profeffion this fcience is immediately neceffary, it is rather an ornamental accomplishment than an ufeful acquifition:-but M. DEIMAN very ably pleads the general utility of mathematical ftudies, as the best mode of preparing the mind for the acquifition even of those branches of fcience which at first fight feem least connected with them. They teach us to form clear and diftin&t ideas, ideas, and to arrange them in a proper order; they accustom us to recollect and compare the ideas which we have obtained, and thence to deduce new truths; and they habituate us to brevity and precifion in our reafoning. That the ftudy of mathematics is difficult and dry is another objection which, though partly true, is greatly exaggerated by prejudice: but from this difficulty the author deduces the univerfal utility of thefe ftudies, as they tend to correct that indolence of mind and diflike to close and continued application, which are the greatest enemies to our progress in knowlege of any kind; which, if not early vanquished, become more powerful as we advance in years; and which lead men to abandon their studies as foon as they are no longer compelled to pursue them, and to rest satisfied with fuperficial and inaccurate notions. The chief remedy here propofed for the removal of these obftacles is to make young perfons begin to learn mathematics as early as poffible, or as foon as their intellectual faculties have acquired fufficient ftrength. His caution to avoid burdening the learner with long leffons, and his directions relative to the mode of teaching, are very judicious; and he concludes his differtation by enumerating the many advantages that refult from making the ftudy of mathematics precede that of every other fcience. M. KESMANN's differtation is alfo judicious and fenfible; though not fo completely finished as the former. He agrees in moft things with his competitor: but he allows that there are fome youths who have no mathematical perception, who are incapable of making any progrefs in this fcience, and on whom the labour of the best teacher is vain. In a word, he thinks that a certain tafte is neceffary to the attainment of this knowlege; whereas M. DEIMAN appears to be of opinion that none, who do not labour under a natural weakness of intellect, are incapable of perceiving and apprehending mathematical truths; fuch perfons, he feems to think, have no other incapacity than what arifes from indolence. We believe this gentleman is perfectly right as to the caufe, though experience obliges us to accede to M. KESMANN's opinion as to the fact, and to agree that, on fuch as betray obftinate averfion, all inftruction is thrown away: but we have more than once feen diflike conquered by varying the mode of teaching, and by deferring the Audy of geometry till after the learner had made fome proficiency in algebra. We do not wish to abandon the fynthetical mode: but we think that, in teaching the first elements of fcience, the difpofition and tafte of the pupil ought to be as much as poffible confulted; and though analytic demonftration affords lefs fatisfactory evidence than the fynthetical, to those who have alrealy acquired what we may call geometri Q93 cal cal perception, yet, in fome cafes, it has advantages which ought not to be overlooked: it often fucceeds better in infpiring a tafte for the properties and relations of abftract quantities, because it requires a greater activity of mind, and the truths difcovered are a more immediate confequence of the learner's own labour. When this end is obtained, he ought to be familiarized with the geometrical method, the utility of which he will then be more able to difcern. wifhes that a little book, containing some of the first elements of M. KESMANN geometry, were drawn up in a manner fuitable to the tafle and capacity of children, and hints an intention of doing this: but he has not fo particularly described his plan as to give us a clear idea of the advantages refulting from it; and we confess that we do not fee the utility of this early exercise of any faculty of children, except memory; their judgment is one of the laft intellectual powers that comes to any degree of maturity, and this is best promoted by employing it on objects that naturally fall within the fphere of their obfervation. The cultivator, who is too anxious to produce early fruit, is apt to exhaust the vigour of the foil, and to prevent its ever yielding what is properly matured. We have known a few inftances, in which the attempt to teach a child geometry at a very early age has been attended with fuccefs: but thefe are fingular cafes, in which a very uncommon tafte for the ftudy has difcovered itself: in general, the endeavour is fruitless, and often attended with ill confequences to the health and vivacity of the learner. ART. XIX. Verfuch über die Gränzen der Aufklärung, &c. i. e. Aŋ Inquiry into the State of Morals and Science among the Antient Romans. By the Rev. J. J. W. MUNNICH. 8vo. pp. 431. Leipzig. THIS HIS work is one inftance, among many others, that the implicit veneration, which was formerly paid to the character of the antient Romans, has yielded to a more moderate and rational eftimation of their merits: but in fo great a change of opinion, the opposite extreme must be carefully avoided, and fome may perhaps think that M. MUNNICH is not entirely free from an error of this kind. He confiders the reign of Auguftus as the period of the higheft degree of refinement among the Romans, and to this he devotes his principal attention. of the emperor he examines at large; and he thinks that we The character can account for the inconfiftency, which his conduct betrays, only by fuppofing him to have been a moft artful hypocrite, and that he alludes to this himself in his question to his friends, juft before his death, Ecquid iis videretur mimum vitæ commode tranfegiffe? This part he acted at the inftigation of Mæcenas, Agrippa, Agrippa, and Meffala; and by them, as well as by Livia, he was fupported in it. The paffage quoted from Suetonius, however, will bear a lefs invidious interpretation. Auguftus, fays our author, was not the creator of what is called the Auguftan age of literature; for the learning and genius that shed a luftre over his reign were the fruits of preceding cul ture, which may be traced to the times of Cicero and the Triumvirate. Of the arts and sciences many were entirely neglected, and few were cultivated to perfection. Philofopby was far from being a general study among the Romans, but was pursued only by a lew of fuperior abilities, with Cicero at their head. Mathematics, aftronomy, and geography were little known. Eloquence had indeed been cultivated with great fuccefs; their excellence in this art was the confequence of their republican constitution, and rapidly declined under the government of the emperors. On law, and on hiftory, especially that of their own country, they bestowed great attention. In poetry they attained a very high degree of excellence, though they did not equal the Greek poets, who were their models. Freedom of fpeaking and writing did not prevail in Rome; for it is plain, from the writ ings of Cicero, that philofophy was scarcely tolerated, and that thofe who profeffed it were obliged to be exceedingly cautious, when they ventured to advance any thing that did not coincide with the popular fuperftition. With respect to the imitative arts, they were rather amateurs than artists, and, if we except pantomime, never brought them to perfection. Their religion our author reprefents in the most odious light; and, in defcribing its fuperftitious tenets and rites, he fails into the declamatory manner of the antient fathers of the church :-the depravity of their morals, the vices of their education, the grofs fenfuality and intemperance which prevailed in their convivial entertainments, and the ferocious cruelty that difgraced their public fpectacles, are topics on which M. MUNNICH infifts with that warmth of indignation which, in a humane heart, they cannot fail to infpire. In short, the character of the Romans, as a nation, is here exhibited in the moft difadvantageous light: but we cannot deny that, in moft refpects, the reprefentation is juft; though there were doublefs fome exceptions to this general depravity of manners. We must form our ideas of the character of a nation from the general tenor of the fentiments, conduct, and purfuits of the people; and not from those of a few illuftrious perfons whofe writings command our admiration, or whofe fame is celebrated by history. They are either to be confidered as exceptions to the general rule, and therefore deferve the greater praise; or they are holden forth in extraordinary circumstances, in which their actions are not neceffarily connected with their manners in private life. It is certain, from the teftimony of their own writers, that no nation could be more depraved and vicious than the Romans at the period on which our author writes; when, to the ferocity of difpofition which marked their character even in the best ages of the republic, they added all the licentioufnefs and profligacy which civil wars had introduced, which luxury encouraged, and which wealth, acquired by rapine, furnished the means of indulging. ART. XX. NICOLAI PARADYS ORATIO DE Erfaraoia Naturali, &c. i.e. An Oration on Easy Death, and how far it may be promoted by Medicine. By NICHOLAS PARADYS, Profeffor of Medicine in the Univerfity of Leyden, delivered on refigning the Office of Rector Magnificus. 4to. pp. 26.. Leyden. 1794THIS is a fubject well fuited to philofophical and medical difcuffion; and we could have wifhed that the learned author had confidered it more at large than the limits of this difcourfe permitted him to do. Here we meet with only general obfervations, which, though in themfelves juft, are by no means new. The Profeffor complains that hitherto we have not a fufficient number of cafes, accurately related, to form a hiftory of natural deaths. With a view to obtain thefe, as well as from motives of humanity, he earneftly exhorts ftudents in medicine not to abandon their patients when they conclude that there can be no farther hope of recovery; reminding them that, if they cannot reftore health, they may at leaft alleviate pain and fuffering, and, though they may not be able to prolong life, they may perhaps fmooth the bed of death, and mitigate the agonies of diffolution. The difcourfe is well written, and, except a few expreffions of which we doubt the purity, the Latin fhews the Profeffor ta be an elegant fcholar. Vol. III. ART. XXI. Tranjactions of the American Philofophical Society, held at Philadelphia for promoting ufeful Knowledge. Philadelphia, 1793. 4to. pp.400. 11. 1s. Boards. Imported by Dilly, London. As an introduction to this volume, an effay on those inquiries into natural philofophy, which at prefent are most beneficial to the United States of North America,' is very properly placed. The author, Dr. NICHOLAS COLLIN, Rector of the Swedifh churches in Pennfylvania, ranges thefe inquiries under five articles; viz. MEDICAL, RURAL ECONOMY, PHYSICO-MATHEMATICAL, NATURAL HISTORY, and ME TEOROLOGICAL |