different Kinds by one fingle equivocal Title, fuch as Κενταύριον μέγα καὶ μίκρον, χελιδόνιον μέγα * μίκρον, Ελλήβορος λεύκος και μέγας, &c.

The third Period contains the Latin Authors, either those who wrote ex profello on Botanics, .or those who only made a curfory mention of feveral Plants proper to cure fome Disorders. Such are Antonius Mufa, Aur. Cornelius, Celfus, Pliny, Scribonius Largus, Æmilius Macer, &c. They went not much beyond the Greeks, and Pliny, among others, does very little elfe, befides copying Diofcorides. This Period, and the foregoing, are brought down to the Year of the World 4700, and make up, in the whole, 12 hundred Years.

We may give the Name of Arabic to the fourth Period. It is filled with feveral learned Arabic Phyficians, fuch as Serapion, Razis, Averroës, Ibn-fina, Mefne, IbnBitar, &c. who for near five Centuries, reckoning from the 740th Year of our Lord, enriched their Works with several good Remarks on Botanics. But fince the Arabic Princes had ordered that the Works of the Greeks fhould be tranflated, they began to play the Plagiarifts, as the Latins had done before them and in their Writings inferted the Greek Names, and the imperfect Defcriptions of Diofcorides and Galienus. To these they added fome other

Descriptions

Descriptions of their own, which only served to occafion a greater Ambiguity.

As for those dark Ages, when Botanics had the fame Fate as all other Sciences, and were abfolutely neglected, they do not deferve Notice; therefore we may fix the fifth Period at the latter End of the XIVth Century, when polite Literature began to manifest fome Symptoms of Life. This Period may be called the Scholaftic, becaufe all the Enquiries of the learned in that Age turned about Words only. The Books of Botanics being raised out of the Duft they had been buried in, feveral Vertuofi wrote Commentaries upon them; viz. Theod. of Gaza, Hermolaus Barbarus. John Ruellus, Marcellus Virgilius, J. Cæf. Scaligerus, Nicol. Leonicenus, Valerius Cordus, Andr. Lacuna, Joh. Cornarius, Matthiolus, Marantha, Dalechampus, Rob. Conftantinus, &c. who took great Pains, and almoft to no Purpose. However in the XVth and XVIth Centuries, fome Botanists, laying afide the Books of the Antients, began to make Obfervations of their own on the Plants they found round about them or which were brought from the Eaft-Indies. Hence several Herbals published, fome with, and others without, Cuts, by Otto. Brunffelfus, Hieron. Tragus, Leonard. Fuchs, Adam. Lonicerus. Joh. and Gafp. Bauthinus,

N 2

Jehoach.

Jehoach. Camerarius, Profper. Alpinus, Pet. Bellonus, Matth. Lobelius, &c. None of all thefe Authors difcovered the invariable Characteristics of Plants; they all infifted on accidental Circumftances; for Inftance, Mathiolus in his Comments on Diofcorides difpofed the Plants according to the Figure of the Leaves; Dalechampus, according to the Soil; Simon Paulli, according to the four Seafons of the Year; and John Parkinfon, according to their Properties. Yet their Defcriptions are much more exact than those of their Predeceffors; efpecially those of Gafp. Baubinus in his Pinax Theatri Botanici. Andr. Cefalpinus, Conr. Gefnerus, and Fabius Colonna came ftill nearer the right Method, in deriving the generical Character of Plants from their Fruit.

Thefe happy Succeffes led the Way to the fixth Period, which must be fixed at the latter End of the XVIIth Century, and the Beginning of this. In this Period flourifhed John Rai an Englishman, Jof. Pitton de Tournefort, a Frenchman, and Řivinus a German. Each of them obferveth a different Method, and this Difference occafioned several Polemic-Writings; but this is the very thing that has enabled their Succeffors to bring the Science of Botanics to a very great Degree of Perfection. Our Author is not for Rai's Method, and paffes the following Judgment

on

on the others, that Tournefort excells in his Drawings, and Rivinus in his Definitions.

To these three Methods we may add the modern Attempt made by the celebrated Linnæus, who has erected a new Syftem of Plants, and grounds it on their Sexes. Mr. Siegesbeck takes Notice, that it is not entirely new, fince Grew, Juftien, and Bradley had already acknowledged that there are male, Female, and Hermaphrodite Plants; but Linnæus carries the Discovery a good Deal farther. Among many Difficulties our Author starts against this Syftem, he urges chiefly the following Objection,-that Plants barely laid on the Ground, or Branches grafted, or even Leaves planted, in a Soil fandy and somewhat dry, do provine and propagate; and confequently that in feveral Cafes there is a vaft Difference between the vegetable and animal Kingdoms, fince the latter conftantly requires the Conjunction of Male and Female for the Generation of a new Individual. Befides, what can be more uncertain than the Sexes of the Plants?

I fhall not attempt to defcribe our Author's Method, because he has adopted Rivinus's, and only endeavours to make it more exact. He ends his Performance by exclaiming a gainst the out-of-the-way Names Botanifts make Ufe of being a Mixture of Greek, Latin, German, Dutch, and English Words jumbled

;

N 3

jumbled together in a very odd Manner; and here and there you find Vegetables called by the Name, either of the Country where they grew, or of the Person who discovered them; as for Inftance; Bignonioides, Juftienoides, Tradescantroides, Boerhaviaftrum, Jungermanniaftrum, and feveral others, to which Mr. Siegesbeck thinks plainer and more intelligible Names ought to be fubftituted.

ARTICLE XIII.

i Hiftoire de PIERRE I. furnomme' le Grand, &c.

The Hiftory of PETER I. furnamed the Great, Emperor of all the Ruffes, King of Siberia, Cafan and Aftracan, Great Duke of Muscovy, &c.-With feveral Plans of Battles and Medals. 12mo. 3 vol. Amsterd. and Leipzig, 1742. Tom. I. pag. 464, befides the dedicatory Epiftle to Count Bruhl and the Preface. Tom. II. pag. 404. Tom. III. pag. 504, with a Table of Contents (a).

T

HIS Hiftory bears a great Character beyond Seas, not only on Account of

(a) Nouvelle Bibliotheque. O&ob. 1742.

the