[ ss ] 



leafl invalidated by the note of C. Coquebert, who aflerts that 

 the new are more exad,' fonorous and fignificative ; for any 

 term is exad and fignificative when it denotes without obfcurity 

 or ambiguity the thing fignified ; and as to found it may deferve 

 attention in poetry, but furely, if not exceeding uncouth, it de- 

 fcrves none in fcience. He acknowledges that thefe alterations 

 may caufe fome embarraffment to the prefent race of men, but 

 thinks that fucceeding generations will blefs thofe that introduced 

 them ; I think on the contrary that they will curfe them for 

 obliging them to learn both the new and the old denominations 

 under the penalty of not underflanding Stahl, Henckel, Margraf, 

 Lemery, Geoflroy,' Duhamel, Macquer, Bergman, Scheele and 

 many others of the higheft merit ; can any one be fo arrogant 

 as to pretend that thefe immortal authors can become unintelli- 

 gible without prejudice to the fcience? is it poflible that muficians 

 Ihou Id judge more flirewdly than thofe who profefs to be philo- 

 fophers ? yet thefe have rejeded all the modern alterations of 

 notation that have been propofed to them, though attended with 

 fome advantages, from the fingle confideration that if new modes 

 were adopted the inimitable compofitions of the lafl and prefent 

 age would either foon become unintelligible, or the arduous tafk 

 of learning both methods of notation would be impofed on all 

 fucceeding generations. I am not however for the total exclufion 

 of the term ful^hurtt ; let it be employed to denote the compo- 



fition 



