1806.] Paffage in Dion. Halic—Inflammability of Diamonds. $91 
becaule dvayuaCouévovg in the original ma- 
nifeftly refers to geviey and grevcy only. 
Thus in literal Englifh we may tranflate 
it, * For ye will find all thofe who do 
this, (i. e., adopt children,) do fo either 
becaufe they have no lawfully-begotten 
children of their own, or compelled by 
poverty to adopt foreigners, that they 
may obtain fome benefit from thofe who 
through them are. made citizens of 
Athens.” 
I plainly fee Duidius is anxious for the 
accufative ** coaétos,’’ becaufe he fees the 
Greek accufative avayxalouévovg 3 but he 
well knows that it is fometimes as diff. 
cult as it is unneceflary to preferve the 
fame cafes, &c., in tranflating from this 
Janguage into the Latin. Nay, he has 
an inftance of it in the very paflage in 
queftion, as we fee S‘oux slay autos yn- 
ciwv wasowy’” in the genitive abfolute, but 
which in turning into Latin we mutt cir- 
cumlocute, in ufing ‘* quod”? and the no- 
minative: fo we may do in the other 
claufe, and fay, ‘vel quod ubi fint coaéti 
egeltate,”” &e. ; indeed ‘* coactos’” can- 
not ftand with ‘* ubi fint,’? for thefe two 
words will then be unconneéted, and with- 
outregimen. If we mu/t have §* coactos,”’ 
and governed by the preceding ‘ repe- 
rietis,”” (the fame as dyaynalouévous go- 
verned by éveyoele,) it might perhaps be 
brought inthis way: ‘* Invenientes enim 
omnes eos ita facientes, vel quod eis liberi 
non fint genuini, vel coaétos ab egeftate,”” 
&c., &c. Thus I think the fenfe is pre- 
ferved, and the tranflation more literal. 
But if in the common verfion we read 
** coaécti fint,”’ taking ‘* egeftate”’ as go- 
verned by it inthe ablative, we fhall then 
have the orator’s meaning equally perfpi- 
cuous ;—or if Duidius will remove « co- 
aétos”’ trom before < vel quod liberi,” and 
place it after ** per paupertatem,”” it will 
be exaétly the fame: though I confider 
the ablative cafe either with or without _ 
the prepofition @ as preferable Latin. 
Iam, Sir, &c., W..- 
Liverpool, Feb. 8, 1806. 
—ae ee 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
MUST requeft your indulgence to- 
wards a communication, which, for 
want of a little attention at the time, is 
not fo accurate as I could with, yet fuff- 
cient to awaken tie attention of the cu- 
rious, and to direct to an unfrequented 
{pot in {cience, which appears hitherto to 
have been pafitd by. 
It is well known that till very lately the 
diamond was confidered not only as the 
hardeft of all bodies, but of an earthy 
fubftance. Many fables exifted refpecting 
its indiflolubility. With a fagacity which 
has excited the admiration of the philofo- 
phical world, the great Newton conje&tur- 
ed, from a curious and minute obferva- 
tion that he had made on the effeéts of 
light on inflammable bodies, that the dia- 
mond was not an earthy fubftance, but 
ought to be clafied among minerals. He 
did more: by a modeft, and, as it were, 
carelefs query, he conjectured that it was 
inflammable. His reafonings, on fubfe- 
quent experiments, are confirmed; and 
one of the triumphs of modern chemiftry 
is the combuttion of the diamond. 
It would be curious to know whether 
the chemilts of the laft age had any no- 
tion of this combuftion. Le Grand, a 
Cartefian philofopher, publifhed, about 
1650 I believe, his ‘ Inftitutio Philofo- 
phiz fecundum Principia Ren. Defeartes.” 
This work was tranflated in a {plendid fo- 
lio, with engravings, by a mat who had 
given the public three or four fimilar 
works,—one Richard Bloome, author of 
the Gentleman’s Recreations, publifhed in 
1686. Bloome had engaged the French 
author toimprove the Englifh tranflacion 
of his Cartefan fyftem. This book E 
turned over a few days ago, and detected 
an obfervation refpecting the diamond, 
which I omitted to tranfcribe. it afferts 
that thediamond is malleable ; but, what 
is very curious, that it can be confumed 
by fire, and reduced toa calx. Modern 
chemifiry can indeed go further, and 
make the diamond totally difappear by 
combultion ; and this refult has been 
deemed extraordinary. Now, in the hi{- 
tory of this modern difcovery, I mui re- 
guelt the attention of the [cientific ia this 
Englith tranflation of Le Grand. It will 
remain for them to explain how this au- 
thor could pofitively affert that the dia- 
mond could be reduced to acalx, unlefs 
the experiments of the chemifts of his 
' day had not verified the affertion. 
I lament that I cannot tran{cribe ‘the 
paflage in queftion, and that I have writ- 
ten the whole from the moft curfory recol- 
leétion; but as I have no doubs that fome © 
one of your numerous corref{pondents pof- 
{cfles this work, he will enable you to 
give the chemical world an accurate tran- 
{cript of the original.: 
Your’s,° 
Lincolu’s Inn, May 2, 1806. 
S. L. 
For 
