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: IVLIUS VITALIS FABRI After every word here, except at the end of a line, we see this mark. 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 Votaries, 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. 1759, January. MR. URBAN, Yours, &c. EDGAR BOCHART. 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 Brown, in his spirited treatise, entitled Hy driotaphia, incidently introduces the ancient usage of burning 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 expositor 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 δέμας. 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 fruitful soil, where he would soon have discovered a clearer prospect. Two considerations then will arise here. The first relates to the antiquity, and the second to the intention, of this custom. Its antiquity rises as high as the Theban war; where we are told of the great solemnity that accompanied this ceremony at the pyre of Meneceus and Archemorus, who were cotemporary with Jair, the eighth judge of Israel. Homer abounds with funeral obsequies of this nature. Penthesilea,* queen of the Amazons, we find, underwent this fiery dissolution. In the inward regions of Asia, the practice was of very ancient date, and the continuance long: for we are told, that in the reign of Julian, the king of Chionia† burnt his son's body, and deposited the ashes in a silver urn. Coeval almost with the first instances of this kind in the east, was the practice in the western parts of the world. The Herculeans, the Getes, and Thracians, had all along observed it; and its antiquity was as great, with the Celta, Sarmatians, and other neighbouring nations. Under the second consideration then, cannot we turn up, and examine the earth a little about the roots of this custom, and see if they do not spread farther then general observation has hitherto gone? Can we not deduce this pyral construction, the supremos honores of this kind, from our own feelings? Yes-the custom has its foundation laid deep in nature. An anxious fondness to preserve the memory of the great and good, the dear friend, and the near relation, was the sole motive that prevailed in the institution of this solemnity. Wherefore Heraclitus, when he spoke of fire, as the master principle in all things (the custom of burning bodies existing long before his time) could not be supposed to lay down this doctrine, as a reason for the custom, but as a persuasion to ease the minds of those, who thought there was too much barbarity and inhumanity in the practice of it. Let us see, if the ancients do not furnish us with symptoms of this tenderness. In Homer we see this confirmed. καὶ παννυχον ὠκὺς ̓Αχιλλεὺς Χρυσές ἐκ κρητῆςΘ. ἔχων δέπας αμφικύπελλον, Οἴνον ἀφυσσάμενος χάμαδις χέε, δεῦε δὲ γαῖαν, 2. Calaber. lib. i. Iliad Y. + Ammianus Marcellinus. ‡ Arnoldis Montanis L. L. Gyraldus. At Hector's funeral, the preservation of the ashes was the principal concern of the friends and relations that at tended. Πρῶτον μὲν κατὰ πυρκαϊὴν σβέσαν αἴθοπι οἴνω Iliad n. 791. The ashes, when collected and deposited in an urn, were preserved as a memorial of the goodness or greatness of the party deceased; as an example to excite the same ar dour in the minds of those who survived. These were kept in some convenient place, in the house of the next relation or friend. Achilles, we find, had the remains of his dear Patroclus in his tent. Ἐν κλισίησι δὲ θέντες ἐανῷ λιτὶ κάλυψανο Iliad .fine. Tibullus introduces the same custom, where he speaks of the mother's absence, whose duty it had been to have preserved her son's remains. Non hic mihi Mater, Quæ legat in mæstos ossa perusta sinus. Thus it appears, that the reduction of the body to ashes, the urnal inclosure of those ashes, the frequent contemplation of them in the urn, were thought good expedients to keep alive the memory of those, who were in their lives most conspicuous in the walk of fame. These were the springs, from whence this custom issued. In the celebrated instance of Artemisia, the fondness extended almost to a deification. A case this, not unlike what we experience in our own times: when a lock of hair, a ring, a seal, which was the property of a deceased friend, and which we have in our possession, is looked upon with reverence, and a pe culiar pleasure in the contemplation. Yours, &c. E. BOCHART. P.S. In your last magazine, Mr. Greenstead says, he finds the admiration stop in king Edward's Catechism. I have borrowed the book, and can see no such stop in the |