Differtation on the Hijlory of Sugar. li 



a kind of honey. But when I confider every thing that the 

 antients have faid of honey found on reeds, I can difcover 

 no certain arguments by which it can be proved tlial it was 

 the fame with our fugar. 



Among the fragments of Theophraftus, there is one pre- 

 ferved which treats of honey. That author, as he generally 

 doeSj has diftinguiflied with more care than other authors 

 all the kinds of fweet fubftanccs known in his time. He, 

 however, comprehends them all under the appellation of 

 honey. " The firft (fays he) is that which is made on 

 flowers ; the fc-ond is that which falls from the almofphere 

 upon plants of any kind ; and a third is formed upon reeds." 

 The firfi; kind which the author here fpeaks of^ is, without 

 doubt, that honey cxtra(5ied by bees from flowers j the fecond 

 is a melleous dew, which, no doubt, belongs to the manna 

 of the moderns ; and the third feems to be the faccharum of 

 Pliny and the Greeks, of which I have hitherto been fpeak- 

 ing. But nothing can be drawn from this paflage to eluci- 

 date the hillory of our fugar*. Megafthenes fays, according 

 to Strabo, lib. xv, that honey is produced in India on reeds 

 without the labour of bees. The words of Ifidore t con-, 

 vey as little information : " Honey formerly was a kind of 

 dew, and was found on the leaves of reeds ; and hence Virgil 

 fays, hlaSlenus derii mdlis celejl'ia dona. Even yet, indeed^ 

 it is found in a concrete form, like fait, adhering to branches 

 of (hrubs in India and Arabia." Seneca expreilcs himfelf 

 almoft in the fame manner: — " It is faid that honey is found 

 in India on the leaves of reeds, and that it is prodiiccd cither 

 by the dew of heaven or by the fweet juice of the reeds 

 themfelves. Our herbs alfo have a property of the like kind, 

 and the honey is fought for and collefted by infefts fulled by- 

 nature for that purpofe;};," &c. — ^Thefe words appear to me 

 to be at any rate worthy of notice, as they confirm what I 

 have already aflerted, that the origin ai faccharum was little 

 known to the Greeks or the Romans, fince Galen and Seneca 

 fay cxprefsly that they related merely on report a circum.r 

 Itance which was therefore uncertain and leis probable. 



As Diofcorides compares \S\q. faccharum found on reeds to 

 fait, and Patilus ^gineta § makes mention of i?/^/ij« /a//, 



which 



"^ Bofe, formerly pvofeffor, agrees uith me in this opinion. See hiSi 

 Ona H'itiembrr^tfiu Criticu-^ljfuu, Dijfatal. kub. 1739, p- *^- 



f Orijrines, lib. xx. 



\ Epid. 84. edit. Ufifiiy p. 549. 



§ I'.iuli yEghiftte Opus t/ivimmi, A'.bano Tmhio Vilfdwerfi h'.ien-prett, 

 ^af.lia; 1531, t'oL lib.ii. c- 54) p- 9S- Speaking of a louliieli of the tongncj 



