hath

muck and the Ufbeck Tartars; (fo they have ftill, but do they employ it?)—that the Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, and French, who ravaged the coafts of Malabar and Coromandel, may have destroyed the sciences in that country, as the Turks did, afterwards, in Greece, as our Eaft-India Companies are far from being academies of fciences;-that there are ftill at Benares, where the Spaniards have not introduced the Inquifition, men eminent for real learning, whereas neither Afiatic nor European Scythia have ever fent us any thing but tygers to devour our lambs. Such are the doubts fuggefted by M. de Voltaire in his two firft letters, which he finishes by afking, if ever a Grecian philofopher took it into his head to go in queft of fcience into the countries of Gog and Magog? But in his third letter he feems to give up the matter, being totally conquered and overwhelmed by the luminous erudition of M. Bailli, which is poured forth in ten letters addreffed to M. de Voltaire. These letters are, indeed, full of interefting erudition, but they are alfo larded with the most fulfome adulation. M. BAILLI calls Voltaire his Mafter, and if he had any pretenfions to the character of a poet or a joker, the name would be properly applied; but it is a glaring abuse of language and civility to call the Bard of Ferney his master in learning and aftronomy. I do not here enter, fays M. Bailli, into a literary conteft: thefe letters are only to be confidered as a conference held in the Academy, where Plato prefides, and where the difciple of the fage propofes his doubts in order to receive inftruction.'We are willing to do juftice to the literary merit of M. de Voltaire; but we are utterly unable to discover any line of resemblance between him and the Athenian fage.—But now compliments over, let us proceed to business.

In his first letter M. BAILLI acknowledges the antiquity of the Indian Brahmins, and of their learning; but he denies that they were inventors, or that the fciences had their origin in that country, in China, or in Chaldea. With refpect to the astronomy of these nations, he proposes the following question: "If you faw a farmer's houfe, built of common flone mixed

with the fhattered fragments of a column of elegant archi→ "tecture, would you not couclude, that the materials of this "building were the ruins of a palace, erected by a more an"cient and able architect than the inhabitants of the houfe?" By this method of reafoning he means to fhew, that the Aftatics inherited the fciences, or at least aftronomy, from a people anterior to them; and this idea he confirms farther by obferving that feveral facts relative to aftronomy could only have been difcovered at a confiderable height in the scale of northern latitude in Afia; a circumftance of confequence in inveftigating (fays our Author) the fituation of the primitive people.

So

So far Mr. BAILLI thinks he has truth on his fide-and he begs that his Readers will diftinguish between what he afferts as truth and what he propofes only as probable conjeures. Of the latter kind is his notion, that the fciences from their original 'feat in the north difcended towards the equator, to enlighten the Indians and Chinele. This is what he calls his philofophical romance, which he builds upon this fuppofition, that the greatest part of the ancient fables, confidered phyfically, feem to have a particular relation to the Northern parts of our globe, and that their explications, taken together, appear to point out the fucceffive dwellings of the human race; and its progreffive motion from the pole to the line, in queft of a warm fun and a more comfortable proportion between the measure of day and night.

Mr. BAILLI draws from the customs, the manners, the natural character and fome particular circumstances remarkable among the Chinese, very striking proofs of their being deftitute of genius and invention. Their productions give, according to him, no indications of a fpirit of inveftigation, of a propenfity to inquire into the caufes of things; they retale imperfectly the light they have obtained from others. He thinks that Fobi, who was a foreigner, was the firft, who brought into China the principles of aftronomy and of the other fciences; and he maintains this opinion by an appeal to tradition, and to the writings of this celebrated legiflator.

The fecond letter relates to the Perfians, the Chaldeans, and Indians. With refpect to the firft Mr. Bailli obferves, that we find aftronomy in a high ftate of progrefs and improvement at the very time that Diemfchid built the city of Perfepolis (i. e. as he has attempted to demonftrate, 2209 before Chrift), and laid there the foundation of the Perfian empire, the very day that the fun enters into the conftellation of Aries. That day was chofen for the commencement of the year, and it became the epocha of a period, which fuppofes the knowledge of the folar year of 365 days and one quarter. Now, in M. Bailli's opinion, it is not to be fuppofed that a people, in their infancy, would mark the foundation of their firft city by the obfervation of the celestial bodies; and therefore he concludes (with how much folidity we leave the Reader to judge), that there was among these Perfians, at the period now before us, a colony, which had emigrated from a more populous country, and moved on toward a more temperate and fertile region, bringing with them the arts and many branches of knowledge, and that Diemfchid, in a word, and his colony, were as much foreigners in Perfia as Fohi was in China. As to the Chaldeans, M. Bailli finds among them alfo a confiderable degree of aftrono mical knowledge, which, however, he confiders as anterior to APP. Rev. Vol. lvi.

LI

the

the earliest period of their hiftory, and then he passes on to the confideration of the Indians, whofe early and extenfive progrefs in the fciences Mr. de Voltaire had celebrated with his ufual tone of wit and exaggeration.

Our Author grants that the Indians are better known than many other of the Afiatic nations, and deferve to be fo. The Brahmins were the mafters of Pythagoras, the inftructors of Greece, and confequently of Europe, to which, fays he, they tranfmitted the doctrines of the unity of God, the immortality of the foul, its tranfmigration, &c. But, neverthelefs, the grofs contradictions that are to be found in the doctrines of thefe fages, the inconfiftency that reigns in their notions, the ftrange mixture of fublime truths with childish and infipid fancies, that composes their motley fyftem; all this makes our Author conclude, that there was a more perfect fyftem of philofophy and fcience anterior to theirs, of which their more rational tenets are fome of the difperfed fragments, which have been degraded and disfigured by their own imaginations.-A more orthodox philofopher than M. BAILLI, would derive the fublime tenets of the unity of God and the immortality of the foul from the patriarchal religion, that must have fpred through the Eaft, in traditions more or lefs imperfect; but as to aftronomical knowledge, the cafe is different, and if among the Indians it was really in an advanced ftate, this must render the hypothesis of our Author more or less probable, and incline us to conjecture with him, that the Brahmins are not Indians. This hypothefis is ftill farther fupported by the actual existence of an ancient and learned language in which the four facred books of that nation are written, and which is entirely unknown and unintelligible to the Indians. This language, fays our Author, is totally different from that which is in ordinary ufe; the Brahmins alone ftudy it; and even among them there are very few that are capable of understanding it. Now, fays M. BAILLI, how can a primitive and univerfal language be loft among a people? It is true, languages change, by paffing through different degrees of perfection; but fooner or later they come to a fixed state. The total abdication of a language by the people that have spoken it, is a thing out of nature. We imagine that the cafe of Ireland will fomewhat invalidate this affertion. The ancient language of that country is abfolutely unknown to the direct defcendants of thofe that fpoke it, nor can this be merely owing to the transplantation of foreigners into that island.

M. le Gentil found, among the Indians, learned methods and accurate calculations, relative to aftronomical fcience. Our Author himself has feen Indian manufcripts, that were fent home by the miffionaries, and which contain aftronomical

tables

tables different from thofe of M. le Gentil. This variety of methods (obferves M. BAILLI), indicates a confiderable degree of knowledge, and is a mark of philofophical opulence; but a people, continues he, who fuppofe the earth flat, who imagine that there is a mountain in the middle of it, which hides the fun during the night, and entertain various notions. equally abfurd, cannot have arrived by investigation or genius at the learned aftronomical methods, which they actually poffefs; they are carriers of the treasure, but they have received it from others, and confequently the Brahmins are not the original inhabitants of India, but in fome period of time as yet unknown, brought thither a foreign language and exotic fcience.

The third and fourth letters, which are replete with ingenious researches and curious facts, difplay a rich fund of erudition. They are defigned to afcertain the conformity that there is between the Chinefe, Chaldeans, Indians, and other ancient nations in their traditions, cuftoms, religion, and alfo in the fciences and the various inftitutions that are relative to them. All the facts contained in thefe letters are dextrously employed to fhew us the veftiges of the ancient people, for whofe existence, learning, and extinction our Author fo warmly and ingeniously contends.

That the conformity mentioned above, was not the effect of an intercourfe or communication between these ancient nations, our Author fhews in his fifth letter; and in the fixth he proves, that it does not arife from the effential conftitution of nature, but muit have proceeded from a fameness of origin in all ancient nations, and been the remains of the inftitutions of a still more ancient people. When I fee (fays M. BAILLI) that the elephant does not propagate his kind in the menagerie of Verfailles, I conclude from thence that he is a foreign animal, born in a warmer climate. In the fame manner when I find among a people a branch of fcience, which has been preceded by no root or germ and followed by no fruits, I conclude that that branch or fhoot of knowledge has been transplanted, and that it properly belongs to a people more improved and advanced towards maturity.' This reflexion feems demonftrative to our Author in favour of his hypothefis, that the Afiatics had, and have, only fragments of science derived from the discoveries of a primitive and learned people.

M. BAILLI illuftrates farther this favourite hypothefis by the following ingenious comparison: Suppofe, fays he, that a revolution fhould one day deftroy the ftate of civilization and improved fcience that now exifts in Europe; and that, after a long courfe of ages, a learned jurift fhould apply himfelf to the ftudy of the laws of that part of the globe in the fcattered fragments Li 2

and

and remains of them, that he met with by chance or laborious researches; what would happen? Why, he would perceive, with furprife, a certain number of laws among the Italians, Germans, French, &c. that refemble each other. And what would he conclude from thence? He would not conclude that this fimilarity arose from the nature of man: (Why not! fince amidst all its varieties, the uniformity of human nature is remarkable?) and if you told him that the laws and inftitutions of one country were communicated to and followed by another, he would afk by what magical enchantment national jealoufy was fo amazingly fufpended in different states, as to engage them to receive the laws of a foreign people? (We would answer, by the principle of imitation, one of the most natural propenfities of the human mind, of which Rome borrowing laws from Athens gives us a ftriking example.) He would therefore conclude from the lines of refemblance in the laws of different nations, that the Europeans were, in ancient times, all reduced under the empire of one people, which formed the body of thefe laws; and that having by repeated and fimilar efforts overturned the coloffus that beftrode them; they erected on its ruins a variety of independent fovereignties, which retained no other marks of their ancient yoke, than the laws and jurifprudence to which they had been accustomed.-Hiftorical fact justifies the conclufion of our philofophical jurift; but the question is, whether in cafe this fact had not existed or had not been known, the fimilarity that takes place in the laws of different countries might not be accounted for on other principles?

But what was that primitive people that scattered the fragments of its diffolving literary fabric through io many nations, and tranfmitted to them, among other treafures, the relics of its aftronomy? After fhewing in the feventh letter, by a learned history of the ftate of the fciences in different nations, that the people in question, must have improved philosophy to a very high degree of perfection; he anfwers in the eighth, that this people muft probably (for all here is conjecture) have been fituated under the parallel of 49 or 50 degrees, and this is the main point of controverfy between him and M. de Voltaire. M. BAILLI thinks that this climate may have been the feat of the primitive people; but that they were placed in the North, he thinks must have been the cafe.-And What is there ftrange (adds he) in this hypothefis? There are yet in Europe Southern regions, where the fciences are but little cultivated ;if the sciences arrive there one day, they muft come from the North and that which is poffible and natural in Europe, cannot be looked upon as abfurd and ridiculous in Afia.'-True, Sir, it cannot: But we know, that if fcience arrives by tranfportation in the Grecian ifles, and the Turkish empire, it

mut