imprinted on them also. I myself have seen in the antient Naumachia at Taormina, (Tauromenium) bricks impressed with the word

TAVROMENITAN

and with a line on each side, stamped along with the letters.

There are Roman bricks which contain also the names of the consuls; such bricks have been of considerable use for correcting the Consular Fasti; and by their means cardinal Noris settled various disputed points in chronology.

With the help of these remarks, says M. de la Bastie, most of the inscriptions on Roman bricks may be deciphered.

I know that other nations, such as the Etruscans, engraved on their bricks sepulchral inscriptions, and the Babylonians, according to the testimony quoted of Pliny, astronomical observations; and it is certainly a curious circumstance to find now-a-days so many bricks, among the ruins of Babylon, with different characters and inscriptions.

But this is certainly not the case with the Babylonian bricks, of which I here treat; for we find the greatest similarity between them and the common bricks of the Romans. They have not indeed an erbicular impression like the Roman ones; but a square one, entirely similar in other respects; impressed at random, as is usual with things done in haste, and not at all parallel to the edges of the bricks. We not only find the same inscription on almost all the bricks brought from Helle; but we may see also, that the greater part of the surface of the brick is left vacant, which would scarcely be the case if they contained astronomical observations, or other remarkable events. For if the Babylonians were accustomed to inscribe every day of the year a different brick, as Bailly imagined, or if these bricks constituted a part of a pillar, pyramid, or other monument of bricks, the inscriptions would either be different, or the bricks would be entirely filled with characters,' P. 56,

In opposition, however, to this opinion, we recollect a paper lately read at the Antiquarian Society, in which, from an expla nation of the Phoenician inscription, together with the devices on one of these bricks, it appeared evident that, according to the testimony of Pliny, the Babylonians inscribed upon them astronomical observations; and that, arranged in chronological order, as Bailly imagined, they constituted part of a pillar, pyramid, or other monument, such as Callisthenes referred to in his communication to Aristotle. The same paper suggested, likewise, from the alphabetic inscription on the brick it exa mined, which the Phoenician characters exhibit, that those on the back, styled nail-headed, were probably astronomical notations; which was inferred also, from the frequency and order of their recurrence, as incompatible with the nature of narra

Dr. Hager concludes his discussion with the following deductions:

If our bricks however do not contain any remarkable events or valuable information, they serve to establish a number of important facts, which renders their discovery highly interesting, as,

Ist, That the nail-headed characters, found in Persia, are real characters, and not ornaments or flowers, as Dr. Hyde and professor Wittie have supposed, nor magic and talismanic, as others have mentioned.

2d, That they were used not in Persia only, as Tychsen and others believed, but also at Babylon and in Chaldea.

3d, That they were not derived from Egypt, as La Croze suspected; or of Bactrian origin as Hefren imagined, but derived from Babylon, which in point of culture was anterior to Persia; and, consequently these characters ought in future to be called rather Babylonian, than Persepolitan.

4th, That these characters, very likely, are the sacred letters of Babylon, on which Democritus wrote.

5th, That the same also were the Chaldaic characters with which, according to Athenæus, the epitaphium of Sardanapalus, at Nineveh, was engraved; the Assyriac characters mentioned by Herodotus, Diodorus, Polyænus, and other antient authors, rather than the square Chaldaic now in use among the Jews; or the Samaritan, the Estranghelo, and other alphabetic letters. Their being found on common bricks is of little moment, for the sacred characters of the Egyptians are found on monuments of every kind.

6th, That several alphabets of other nations, particularly the Indian and Tibetan in the east, and the Greek and Roman in the west, seem to have been originally derived from Babylon, as is proved by their pointed shape and nail-headed tops.

7th, That there existed a perpendicular, monogrammatic writing two thousand years ago at Babylon, as is still the case in China; and that this was probably the most antient way of expressing words, without symbols or images, by arbitrary groups and figures.

8th, That the Persepolitan inscriptions ought not to be read perpendicularly, as Chardin believed, and that their perpendicular situation round the windows or doors of the palace of Istakhar, is to be considered like the legend of a medal.

9th, That the nail-headed characters of which they are composed, are of another combination, different from the Babylonic; to be read horizontally only, and from the left to the right. P. 60.

We cannot terminate this article without remarking that, notwithstanding what has been advanced discordant to the testimony of Pliny, our author in his last sentence reverts to it as the most probable principle of solution.

Besides the above consequences, these bricks in a great measure confirm the testimony of Pliny, and other antient historians, respecting the practice prevalent among the Babylonians of stamping astronomical observations and inscriptions on bricks; and, by possessing

a greater number of such characters we are better enabled by means of combination to attempt deciphering other monuments with real inscriptions.' P. 62.

We have already pointed out, in the splendid work of DENON, a monument found at Suez with a Persian head and Persepolitan characters: the same work exhibits another, with one of the devices given by Dr. Hager in his second plate.One essential question, we think, remains to be solved; which is, Are any of the inscriptions found at Helle properly BABYLONIAN or, Are they not all posterior to the overthrow of the Babylonian empire by Cyrus, and consequently PERSIAN?

ART. IV.-Gulielmi Heberden Commentarii de Morborum Historia et Curatione. 8vo. 7s. 6d.

ART. V.-Commentaries on the History and Cure of Diseases. 8vo. 8s. Boards. Payne. 1802.

DR. Heberden commences the English preface, by observing that the life of a vestal, as described by Plutarch, is no bad model for that of a physician. In the first period he should learn his profession; in the second practise it; and in the third teach it. Having passed the two first of these, our author now assumes the office of preceptor. Following, in some degree, the same idea, we are willing to divide the life of the practical physician into three periods. The first is that of confidence; the second the age of hesitation; and the third that of doubt, or, with many, of skepticism. Dr. Heberden had reached the third period; and we fear, after an experience of more than thirty years, we are approaching it ourselves. We have however introduced this subject to suggest a query, Whether the age of skepticism be properly that in which physic should be taught? The ardor of youth should be regulated, but not chilled; the confidence of earlier years be moderated, not destroyed. If we be told that, in given circumstances, recovery, by means of medicine, is not to be expected; or that, when our first efforts are disappointed, it will be unnecessary to look further; the mind sinks into torpid apathy, and the patient yields without any exertion. If we admit for a moment that medicine is useless, we well know that nature will often exert powers of which we cannot be aware, because we are unacquainted with her resources; and that by preventing any impediment to these exertions, we may render them more successful, or in some cases may contribute to them. We know, for instance, that phthisis, when a tubercle has ulcerated, is usually incurable; but there are instances where the matter has been com

pletely evacuated, and the abscess has healed. Ought we not then, by every method, to support the strength, lessen the fever, emulge the bronchial glands, and, so far as we are able, prevent the stagnation of the matter? If we do no more, we lessen the sufferings of the patient.

We have engaged in this slight discussion, to counteract in some measure the gloomy complexion of many of these remarks, and to excuse our venerable author for the few resources with which he sometimes appears to oppose violent diseases: at the same time that we are apologising for ourselves. The age of skepticism, as we have already observed, is advancing; our ardor is cooling; and, whatever be our care, appearances will occasionally be found of this change in our journal.-To return however to the work before us.

It is published in Latin and in English; each apparently the language of the original author. The life of Dr. Heberden, however, and the dedication, we do not find in the English copy; and the preface is not in the Latin. We shall first notice the former.

The dedication to the king is respectful and modest, and reflects no little credit on its author, the present Dr. W. Heberden. The life is a short one. Dr. Heberden was born in London in 1710, entered at St. John's college at the end of the year 1724, was elected fellow in 1730, from which time he studied medicine, partly at Cambridge and partly in London. Having taken his degree, he practised in Cambridge ten years, giving annual lectures to the young men on the materia medica. In the year 1746 he was elected fellow of the Royal College of Physicians; and two years afterwards, when he settled in London, a fellow of the Royal Society. He practised in this metropolis more than thirty years; but increasing age, about the year 1780, induced him to withdraw from incessant labour, and he spent his summers at Windsor, returning to London in the winter. In 1766 he recommended to the college the publication of their transactions, of which three volumes have appeared, containing many valuable articles from himself. In 1778 he was elected a fellow of the medical society at Paris.

The account of this work, in the life, is nearly the same with that in the English preface. We shall transcribe it, therefore, from the latter.

The notes, from which the following observations were collected, were taken in the chambers of the sick from themselves, or from their attendants, where several things might occasion the omission of some material circumstances. These notes were read over every month, and such facts, as tended to throw any light upon the history of a distemper, or the effects of a remedy, were entered under the title of the distemper in another book, from which were extracted all the particulars here given relating to the nature and cure

of diseases. It appeared more advisable to give such facts only, as were justified by the original papers, however imperfect, than either to supply their defects from memory, except in a very few instances, or than to borrow any thing from other writers.

The collections from the notes, as well as the notes themselves, were written in Latin, the distempers being ranged alphabetically; and this is the reason that the titles are here in that language. In making the extracts it was not only more easy to follow the order in which the observations had been ranged, but there was likewise less danger of any confusion or omission; and little or no inconvenience can arise from preserving the Latin names of the distempers.' P. iii.

From what we have observed and transcribed, our opinion of this work may be easily ascertained. The observations are valuable and judicious; the practice languid and timid. We look in vain for marks of acute discernment, often of accurate discrimination; and sometimes are almost tempted to think, that, if medicine can do no more, the world might resign its aid with little apprehension of danger. Yet, though such are our opinions, those of others are greatly different; and it is necessary that the reader should judge for himself. We shall again turn over the pages, and select some of our author's opinions, adding with freedom our own remarks. Our quotations will be chiefly from the English copy; though we shall occasionally transcribe from the Latin, as exhibiting a specimen of latinity peculiarly clear and elegant. We ought however to add, that there are sometimes considerable variations between the copies. The ideas are the same, but sentences are òccasionally added or omitted.

The first article, contains some remarks on diet. We see nothing to induce an observation, except the recommendation of common water in fevers. It has been the idea, and we rather suspect it to be well founded, that pure water passes off unchanged; that, as it originally diluted the blood, so it only dilutes the urine; and that some substance, capable of being assimilated, must be heretofore added, to enable it to become a steady, component part of the animal fluids. Under the article of ratio medendi, Dr. Heberden is of opinion that there are very few specifics. His remark, however, on the use of Peruvian bark in inflammatory diseases does not accord with our experience; yet we think it deserves particular attention. May we be allowed to suggest that, practising chiefly among the higher ranks, he may not have seen the more acutely inflammatory complaints.

The Peruvian bark has been more objected to than any other of these medicines in cases of considerable inflammation, or where a free expectoration is of importance; for it is supposed to have, be yond any other stomach medicine, such a strong bracing quality, as to tighten the fibres still more which were already too much upon the stretch in an inflammation, and its astringency has been judged