a 
by some ingenious contrivanee, the ‘art 
of printing might, even at the present 
moment, have “been unknown to us. 
The present.age of experimental philo- 
sophy, is no doubt approxamating to 
many valuable inventions; and when 
some of them shall appear, we shall be 
astonished, from their extreme simplicity, 
that they had ndt been discovered before. 
In respect to the ‘art of printing, the 
following circunfstance confirms “the 
Statement of Common Sense; at the same 
time it shows, how it is possible to pos- 
sess the knowledge of an art without 
practising it.  “ Phat the Romans did 
not practice the art of printing, (says a 
modern writer) cannot but excite our 
astonishment, since they really possessed 
the art, and may be said to have enjoyed 
it, unconscious of their fich possession, - 
i have seen Roman ‘stereotypes, or 
printing immoveable types, with which 
they stamped their pottery. How, in 
daily practising the art, thougs confined 
to this object, it did not occur to so in- 
genious a people to print their hterary 
works, is not easily to be accounted for. 
That wise and grave people, perhaps 
‘dreaded those inconveniences which at- 
tend its indiscrimiate use, and dangerous 
abuse.”—Curwsilies of Literature, fifth 
‘edition, vol, i. ‘p. 118. 
The Roman stereotypes above-men: 
tioned, exist in very curious collections 
of antiquities. An eminent collector, 
with one of these, stamped in my pre- 
sence, on paper, a complete inscription 
in Roman capitals; the letters were dis- 
tinct and well cut.» [ have preserved the 
impression, but cannot readily find it. 
It may perhaps be worth giving a fac-" 
simile, as a specimen of what may be 
called Roman printing. 
> Lincoln’s-inn, 
Your's, &c. 
Jan. 10th. 1810. Criro. 
a 
To the Editor of the seatinice Magazine. 
. SIR, 
I WISH. to enquigg of some of your 
botanical readers, the reason why 
the great Swedish naturalist, who on the 
Continent is always calied Linwé, isy iN 
this country, almost universally called 
Linneus? | For my own part, I think it 
would be absurd in us to persistin wri- | 
ting and,callinga name different from the 
rest, of the ‘world, even if-strietly the 
majority were in the wrong 3 ‘but- inthe 
present instance, the: contrary “i8!s0. €vi- 
dently. true; |:that T cannot figire to mys 
self one plausible reason: fursour .vieious 
practice. “Who.is to be the judge ofthe 
Query concerning the Name of Linneus. 
only nanie 
of a large fortune. 
mode of spelling a man’s name, if he hime 
self is not? 
works, and you will find, that even in the 
Latin tongue he constantly terms him- 
self Curohis a Lanné, never Linneus. 
Indeed it would be strange if he should 
have done otherwise ; when we know 
that the termination éus, in Sweden, is 
deemed a mark of plebeian origin; and 
that though Linné’s father was. called 
Linneus, as well as: himself ap to the 
period of his being ennobled, immediately 
upon this event, he changed | nis name to 
Linné,which of course he ever afterwards 
used as his signature. It strikes me, 
that our pertipacious retention of the old 
vulyar name must be considered hy the 
Swedes asa designed insult upon their 
illustrious Countryman, just as we should 
deem it sn insult upon our immortal 
hero, Lord Wellington, if some ill-man- 
nered foreign nation should persist in 
calling him “by his plebcian title, Sir A, 
Wellesley; or as Sir C, Flower would 
think himself insulted, if his correspon- 
dents were to persist in directing their 
letters and notes to plain Charles Flower, 
esq. Our clownish behaviour in this 
point, in fact, says to the Swedes, “ You 
are proud of having had your great na- 
turalist’s blood ennobled, but resolved we 
are that he shall he no noble to us; Ca- 
rolus a Linné you may pompously call 
him; but, by plain Carolus Linuzus, the 
he ever merited, we are de- 
termined to designate him.” 
I can see no answer to this reasoning, 
but that it would be inconvenient to 
alter a name, to which we have been so 
long accustomed ; a plea which it is evi- 
his barony; Sir Charles of his well- 
earned dignity; and many a lucky legatee 
Surely if we can 
Meiamorphose a pame, “ familiar to us 
as household-stoff,” ke Sir Arthur’s into 
a title so unlike it as Wellington, we 
should experience no mighty ditheulty in 
transforming Linneus into Linné, fn 
truth, if one botanic professor, or Peeress, 
who studies botany, would set the fashi- 
on, there is not a naturalist but would 
blush’ before: the year’s end, if the vile 
@us were to escape him. 
f am aware of only one other objec- 
tion, viz. that, in fact, Linné’s name to be 
given correctly, should be called, Von 
Linné, or a Linné; and this I Bris to 
be valves but in Cia matters of this 
kind, the oninipstence of custom is ad- 
mitted; aid as by common consent, 
foreign ‘naturalists have dropped the awk- 
ward 
123- 
Yet look at any oF Tinie’ 3° 
' 
dent would go to deprive Sir Arthur of — 
| 
