those false miracles, as was asserted above, with which the modern Papists are perpetually injuring the sacredness of truth, and hurting the credit of real ones. Nov. 14, 1752. 1752, Dec. Yours, &c. PAUL GEMSEGE, XL. On the first Introduction of Pointing. MR. URBAN, Westminster, Jan. 8. IT is not, perhaps, an inquiry wholly useless, or unentertaining, when the usage of stops began amongst us, since upon them, all propriety of reading and pronunciation so much depends. We will first consider, when they were not, and it will appear that + Lipsius is on the side of truth, when he says, that all ancient records, which were within his experience, were without notes of distinction;' by which he must mean, regular, determinate, and fixed stops. Putean, in his observations upon Quintillian, is of the same opinion, What within our own knowledge at this day puts this beyond dispute, is, the Alexandrian manuscript, which I have particularly consulted on this occasion. This curious monument of antiquity, is at present in the king's library at the British Museum. Whoever examines this, will find, that the whole is written, continuo ductu, without distinction of words, or sentences. How the ancients read their works, written in this manner, is not easy to conceive. Their manner of reading was, very possibly, the same with that used in our courts of judicature; and what seems to favour this surmise, is, the ancient custom continued, in these tribunals, of writing without stops. It has been imagined by some, that this invention of pointing sprung up in the time of Hadrian, but this is a mistake, and arose from the misinterpretation of a passage in Suidas. Suidas, speaking of Nicanor the grammarian, says, that he composed a little treatise, περὶ σίγμης τῆς παρ Ομήρω, καὶ τῆς παρὰ Καλλιμάχω. But whoever will take the pains to examine Suidas's meaning here, will clearly see, that he See Hall again, p. 3 and 211. In his letter De Distinct. is not talking of stops and pointing, but of emphasis, accent, and pronunciation. Lipsius* indeed supposes, that these words intimate a proposal to introduce pointing, and that the proposal was rejected. His error lies, in not having given due attention to their import. Isidore,† indeed, seems to have made a new discovery, when he tells us, that, in his time, they made use of three points, or distinctions. According to him, they were called comma, colon, and period, The form of all three was the same, but their position different; the first being placed at the bottom, the second at the middle, and the third at the top of the letter. 'Positura,' says he, 'est figura ad distinguendos sensus per cola, commata, et periodos. Quæ dum ordine suo apponitur, sensum nobis lectionis ostendit, Ubi enim in initio pronunciationis, respirare oportet, fit comma, et ad imam literam ponitur. Ubi autem sententiæ sensum præstat, fit colon, mediamque literam puncto notamus. Ubi vero plenam sententia clausulam facimus, fit periodus, punctumque ad caput literæ ponimus,' It must be observed here, that Isidore wrote about the time when the old practice of joining words together ceased, and writings began to be more legible, by separating and distinguishing words from each other. About this time we find, from monumental inscriptions, that they made use of certain marks, placed at the end of every word; not to distinguish sentences, but words. And, though we call some of our stops, at this day, by the same name, it does not follow that we use them for the same purpose. From Isidore's words, here cited, one would at first imagine, that the points were only in those places he specifies; but it must be understood, that agreeable to the practice of that age, those notes of distinction were placed after every word, though perhaps not in the same manner. In all the editions of the Fasti Capitolini, these points occur. The same are to be seen on the Columna Rostrata.§ For want of these, we find such confusion in the Chronicon Marmoreum, and the covenant between the Smyrnæans and Magnesians, which are both now at Oxford. In Salmasius's edition of Dedicatio Statue Regille Herodis, the like confusion occurs, where we find ΔΕΥΡΙΤΕ for Δῖν, ἴτε. An instance to prove that marks of distinction were * In his letter about pointing, printed with Putean's Dissert. de Distinct. + De Orig. lib. j. c. 19. See Cellarius's Orthography. p. 70. Vide Livii Hist. edit. Oxon. tom. vi. p. 207. placed at the end of each word, by the ancients, will appear from the Walcote inscription found near Bath. It presents itself to the eye in the following manner: After every word here, except at the end of a line, we see this marky. There is an inscription in Montfaucon, which has a capital letter laid in an horizontal position, by way of interstitial mark, which makes one apt to think that this way of pointing was sometimes according to the fancy of the graver. P. FERRARIVS HERMES Here we observe after the words, a T laid horizontally, but not after each word, which proves this to be of a much later age than the former. Having now considered, that the present usage of stops was unknown to the ancients, I proceed to assign the time in which this commendable improvement of language began. As it appears not to have taken place, while manuscripts and monumental inscriptions were the only known methods to convey knowledge, we must conclude, that it was introduced with the art of printing. The fifteenth century, to which we are indebted for this mystery, did not, however, bestow those appendages, we call stops; whoever will be at the pains to examine the first printed books, will discover no stops of any kind; but arbitrary marks here and there, according to the humour of the printer. In the sixteenth century, we observe their first appearance. We find, from the books of this age, they were not all produced at the same time: those we meet with there in use, being only the comma, the parenthesis, the interrogation, and full point. To prove this, we need but look into Bale's Acts of English Foturies, black letter, printed 1550: a book not commonly to be had, but which I have in my collection. Indeed, in the dedication of this book, which is to Edward VI. we discover a colon: but, as this is the only one of the kind throughout the work, it is plain this stop was not established at this time, and so warily put in by the printer; or if it was that it was not in common use. Thirty years after this time, in that sensible and judicious performance of sir Thomas Elyot, entitled, The Governour, imprinted 1580; we see the colon as frequently introduced as any other stop: but the semicolon and the admiration were still wanting; neither of these being visible in this book. In Hackluyt's Voyages, printed 1599, we see the first instance of a semicolon: and, as if the editors did not fully apprehend the propriety of its general admission, it is but sparingly introduced. The admiration was the last stop that was invented,. and seems to have been added to the rest, in a period not far distant from our own times. Thus we see, that these notes of distinction came into use, as learning was gradually advanced and improved: one invention indeed, but enlarged by several additions. Nothing is more probable, as we can trace them no higher than the fifteenth century, than that the thought was monastic. The monks, however ridiculous in some things, have obliged posterity with others, truly valuable. Learning, such as it was, did not want advocates in this age. If Walsingham, a benedictine monk of St. Alban's in this century, wrote the Historia Brevis, a work much esteemed at that time, and was distinguished for his literary accomplishments, it is something more than conjecture to attribute this invention to him. Yours, &c. 1759, January. EDGAR BOCHART. MR. URBAN, Wateringbury. Mr. Edgar Bochart, in his essay on the introduction of pointing, says, 'In Hackluyt's Voyages, printed 1599, we see the first instance of a semicolon; and, as if the editors did not fully apprehend the propriety of its general admission, it is but sparingly introduced. The admiration was the last stop that was invented, and seems to have been added to the rest, in a period not far distant from our own times.' That your correspondent is mistaken, in supposing the semicolon to have been prior to the admiration, is evident from the catechism set forth by king Edward the sixth, and printed by John Day, in the year 1553. In a question in this catechism, p. 19, there is a note of adiniration, as follows; 'Master, oh the unthankfulnesse of men! but what hope had our first parents, and from thencefourth the rest, whereby they were relieved.' There is no other stop of the like kind, in so much of the book as I have by me (which is imperfect) and not one semicolon. 1759, April. Yours, &c. E. GREENSTEAD. XLI. On the ancient Custom of Burning the Dead. MR. URBAN, SIR Thomas Browri, in his spirited treatise, entitled Hy▴ driotaphia, incidently introduces the ancient usage of burn ing the dead. It were to be wished, that he, and all those, who preceded him in the disquisition of so abstruse a theme, had considered the subject with a little more attention. One general error seems to have been adopted; that by such a precipitate dissolution, the ethereal flame, or soul of man, was purified by its disunion from the gross and servile bandages of matter. Heraclitus, it seems, was the first ex positor of this doctrine; by whose means the practice became general in every region of Greece. According to him, fire was the predominant principle in the human fa bric; and that therefore by the reduction of the body to its first principles, the purity and incorruptibility of its magisterial parts were, by such means, better preserved. To this purpose is Euripides, in speaking of Clytemnestra, -πυρὶ καθήγνισαι δίμας. There was indeed another opinion, which had its foundation in policy which was, that by burning the body, all rage and malice, the general issues of hatred and enmity, which often survived their object, were checked and prevented. But as this reason grew out of the custom, established a long time before; so the custom in its original, grew out of reasons previous to those beforementioned. It is matter of surprize, that so ingenious a writer as sir Thomas Brown should have imbibed the general opinion; and not rather have corrected it, by expatiating a little farther into that |