177Ó. lanuaryi. and ftands .in no need of> any affiftance with, refpedt to its •copulation, and never has any occafion either for the catheter to be applied, or to be cut for the itone. The very cat itfelf, an animal which every old woman has it in her power to mea- fure and examine in her chimney corner, has likewife been obliged to undergo the moli minute and .tedious admeasurements in the Hijlbire NatureUe, though at the fame time, on account of the beautiful engravings, which, more than any thing elfe, threw ¡a light on this : work, the learned world, according to;M;:DE Bueton’s own confeffion, 1. c. page 9, might have been very well fpared thefe trifles. M. Hasselquist’s Latin, which M. dè Buffon fays is no Latin at all, is .neverthelefs perfectly good, and exactly fuch as is required-for the purpofes of.fcience, concife, ex- preffive, and eafily . comprehended by any one who has ftudied the language, and may even he underftood by any fchool-boy that has made the.leaft.progrefsin this department of learning. It is not Hasselquist’s fault, that his defcription as it is quoted by M. de Buffon, 1. c. page 7 and 8, from negligence, ignorance, or malice, has been fo hadly copied from the original edition, fo that e; g. from.it may be concluded, that the animal’s teeth and tongue are round, and are placed on its head together with its horns,. 8cc. How was it poffible for this circumftance to efcape the critical eyes o f the great Buffon, fuppofing indeed that he underftands Latin, and, as he expreffes it at page 1 5, 1. c. is capable o f feizing the genuine knowledge of nature by means of la vue immediate de I'efprit & coup d’odi du genie P In In ffiort, I am forry that Dr. Hasselquist’s defcription ffiould appear dry to M. de Buffon ; but I cannot help thinking, that i f it had been fluffed and feafoned with un- juft and ill-natured criticifms, with conjectures and miftakes, even though it had been compofed in the French language, and in the moil tumid and high-flown ftyle, moft lovers of truth and natural knowledge would have found it in the higheft degree difguftful, The reader needs only compare Major Gordon’s defcription with that of Meiifs. de Buf- eon and Daubenton, in order to be convinced of thein- fignificancy and futility of all their tedious deductions and calculations. Had M. de Buffon taken the pains to underftand, and made ufe o f Hasselquist’s Latin defcription, initead o f quoting it, merely for the purpofe of criticifing it right or wrong, he would have known, that the head belonging to the fkin defcribed by M. Hassblquist, was four fpans, or at leaft two feet long ; and confequently, that the defcriptions of O p p ja n , H e l io d o r u s , and S t r a b o , are by no means adapted, as M. de B,u.feon affirms they are, to give a tolerably juft idea o f the- Camelopardalis, or giraffe', for, according, to thefe, a giraffe, of the fize o f a camel, has a head not above twice as large as that of an oftrich: a creature which would certainly make a figure in Prince P * * * ’s collection of monfters. (Vide Brydone’s Tour, Vol. I. page 93.) We are, however, too well acquainted with, and have too great an efteem for, the ex- tenfive genius and learning of the Count de Buffon., in the leaft to fufpedt him to be of the fame tafte •, although, befides the circumftance above alluded to concerning the head,
27f 72-2
To see the actual publication please follow the link above