[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

ing that, in their present situation, these beautiful women were
torments to the eyes, angndovas opbordpwr. Upon this expression
Longinus observes, as some excuse for Herodotus, that he has
put it in the mouth of a drunken barbarian; and adds, with the
stern haughtiness of criticism, “ but he ought not, in the lan-
guage of such a personage to have given to all posterity an in-
delible mark of his littleness of foul. Is it the foul of He-
redotus that is little, or is it the soul of Longinus that is over-
grown, swollen, and gigantic ?

We shall mention, with peculiar pleasure, another example
of the severity of our critic, because it gives us an opportunity
to justify the character of an ancient writer, which, though ex-
ceedingly admired at Athens, in the age of Socrates, and
equally admired at Rome in that of Cicero, has not, till very
lately, met with due regard in modern times. Longinus (sect.
38.) afferts," that Isocrates, in his panegyric, speaks like a
child.” The subject of that discourse is to prove, that Greece
has received more good offices from the Athenians than from
the Lacedemonians. But on entering upon this topic, he says,
" that eloquence can represent the fame objects under many
different terms, and at pleasure lefsen or enlarge them.” Is it
thus, therefore, Isocrates, might the audience exclaim, that

you are to deceive us concerning the respective pretensions of the Athenians and Lacedemonians ? For the encomium which you bestow.on eloquence may be considered as an admonition not to give credit to your discourse." The impropriety of this farcastic observation, which has been adopted by the Archbishop of Cam. bray, and other French critics (See Lettres à l'Academie Fran. foile) will evidently appear, by considering the whole passage in locrates; which, as it is thort, we shall transcribe from the English translation : “ Many pretended fophists, I know, have already exhorted you to lay aside your private differences, and to declare war against the barbarians. I purpose once more to address you on the same important topic, hoping to treat it in a manner, so different from that in which it has been hitherto handled, that the subject will yet appear new and unoccupied ; and those fyrely are the noblest fields of eloquence, which, by their valtness, and extent, afford an opportunity to display the utmost abilities of the speaker, and which, if properly cultivated, may promote the highest interest of his hearers. The subject, which I have chosen, unites these advantages, and is, besides, particularly reasonable at the present juncture; for our affairs Itill continue in the fame unhappy condition, because those who undertook to retrieve them, have proved unequal to so arduous. a talk: Why should I, then, decline any labour or exertion by. which Greece may be healed of her present wounds, delivered


[ocr errors]

from her inteftine divisions, and saved from those final calami. ties which threaten to overwhelm her ? Though I make use of the fame materials which my prececessors have already employed, my observations shall have nothing in common with theirs ; for eloquence can represent the same objects under many different forms, and, at pleasure, lessen and enlarge them.” Those parts which appeared most bright, the orator can throw into the shade; to those which were faint or obscure, he can give brilliancy and colour: he can exhibit what is new in a venerable ancient garb; and adorn what is ancient with all the graces of novelty.”

We acknowledge that Isocrates here speaks of himself in a manner that must offend the refined artificial modesty of modern times ; but he is justified by the general practice of ancient writers, who had not yet learned the art of disguising, with studied politeness, the sense of their own importance. The question, however, is to decide, not concerning the vanity of Isocrates, but concerning his eloquence; and we appeal to the candour of our Readers, whether the encomiums, which he here bestows on the art of compofition, seem introduced, as Longinus afferts, on purpose to admonish his hearers not to believe his discourse, or whether these encomiums are not evidently designed to awaken the reluctant attention of his audience to a subject on which they had been often addressed, but always unsuccessfully. The criticism of Longinus appears, at first sight, severe and unjust; but to those who examine the passage of Isocrates with attention, the observation made upon it by our critis will appear to be abfurd. It is absolutely impossible the audience should exclaim, "Is it thus, Isocrates, that you are to deceive us concerning the respective pretensions of the Athenians and Lacedemonians? “For Isocrates has not as yet said a single word about these pretensions ; nor does he propose them, as Longinus asserts, for the subject of his discourse."

Longinus (sect. 13.) praises those who have imitated the ancients, and compares them to young combatants who enter the lifts against famous veterans, in which contest 'tis glorious even to be conquered. In this light Longinus sought to be confi- . dered ; though none of the commentators, as far as we know, have taken notice of it. He takes the field (to carry on his own comparison) against all antiquity, affects the large stride, and sublime gait, of the great heroes of old, with all the confidence of certain victory. What can be lost, he cries, when monarchs are the combatants ? Noble as this man appears to the blindness of presumption, it must seem far otherwise to the spectators of the contest. How completely ridiculous is it for the dwarfs of modern times to ape the stalk of ancient giants : and many of those who would sustain no unequal and dishonourable contest


[ocr errors]


18V froi


with Dare's, Epeus, and Euryalus, would be justly exposed to
contempt, should they presume to throw the gauntlet with Cad-
mus and Hercules, Eryx, and Entellus. But to drop the
comparison : our opinion of Longinus. is, that when
tempts to improve upon the ancients, he draws himself into a
very unfavourable point of view, and finks in the approbation
of his readers. We must observe, too, that the commentary of
this rhetorician cannot, with any propriety of larguage, be
stiled a work of criticism in the same fenfe in which we apply
that word to the writings of Aristotle, Horace, Dryden, Boileau,
and Pope. It may be called a florid declamation on the beau-
ties and faults of the ancients, abounding with all the pride of
self-applauding panegyric, and the laboured vehemence of rhe-
torical indignation. These, we apprehend, are the faults of
Longinus. His excellencies are many and great. He is adorned
with extensive learning, and variety of knowledge. His genius
is warın and vigorous, rich and lofty; and he sometimes attains
the true fublime. The comparison of the declining faculties of
Homer to the setting fun, is well imagined, and finely expressed,
and that of the beautiful extravagancies of the Odyssey to the

dreams of Jove,” is perhaps one of the most happy and
grand conceptions of antiquity. In short, though we consider
Longinus as a great man, yet we cannot esteem him as the
prince and fiower of critics; and we are unwilling to rank him
with such illustrious names as Aristotle and Dionyfius of Hali-
carnassus, or even with the learned and judicious critics who
adorn the present age. Take his character in his own words,
which he designed for the portrait of Timæus:

«« Θαερα δε, ων είπομεν (λεγω δε τε ψυχρα) πληρης-ανηρ Τα μεν αλλα έκανε και πρG- λογων ενιοτε μεγεθG", εκ αφορο, πο2015wp2 επινοήλικ© πλην αλλοτριων μεν ελεγκτικώTG- αμαρίημαίων, ανεπαισθηG δε ιδιων υπο δε ερωτG- τα ξεναγνοησεις αει κινεια πολλακις εκπιπλων εις το παιδαριωδεςαλον. Αltero vero eorum, de quibus mentionem fecimus (dico autem frigido) plenus eft-vir in aliis fatis peritus virtutibus scribendi, & nonnunquam in fublimitate fcriptorum, non fterilis, eruditus, fenfibus abundans, sed maximus alienorum vitiorum insectator ad sua vero non attendens quique præ studio semper concipiendi novos & peregrinos sensus fæpe incidit in id quod maxime puerile eft.”

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]



6 s.

[ocr errors]

Art. XII. A Philosophical Inquiry into the Cause of Animal Heat

With incidental Observations on several physiological and chemi. cal Questions, connected with the Subject. By P. D. Leslie, M.D.' 8vo. Crowder, &c. London. Gordon, &c. Edinburgh. 1778. CARCELY any thing in the animal économy has more

excited the attention and inquiry of philosophers than the cause of vital heat; and from the variety of opinions still prevailing concerning it, we may conclude that their researches on this head have not yet proved in general satisfactory. There can be no doubt, therefore, of the favourable reception of any new attempt to illustrate this subject, on principles deduced from that experimental mode of reasoning, which, to the credit of modern philosophy, is the only kind of investigation at present thought worthy of regard. Whatever be the degree of conviction produced by the inquiry before us, we do not in the least question that it will be universally allowed the merit of great ingenuity, and that many of the observations it contains will be thought no less valuable than original.

The Author informs us in his Introduction, that the substance of this work was published in an inaugural thesis at Edinburgh in 1775; and that the persuasions of some ingenious physiologists have induced him to give it more at large, in its present form.

He begins with some general observations on animal heat; and then proceeds to a particular account of the phenomena attending it. These he treats of in four fections: in the firft of which he shews that the latitude in the temperature of animals is considerable ; in the second, that the uniformity in the temperature of animals is remarkable ; in the third, he considers the connexion between the state of respiration, the colour of the blood, and the degree of heat in animals; and in the fourth, the connexion between the state of circulation and the degree of heat in animals.

The Author's third chapter presents us with a view of the prevailing opinions on the cause of animal heat. Most of these, he obferves, may be referred to one or other of the three general causes of heat, mixture, fermentation, and mechanical means. The notion of an effervescence occafioned by chemical mixture producing heat in the animal body, which was that of Van Helmont, Sylvius, and others, is justly reckoned by our Author too chimerical to need much refutation. That fermentation is not the agent in this operation is proved, by remarking that the putrefactive fermentation (the only species which can with probability be supposed to take place in the body) has been found, by accurate experiments, to produce no heat at all; as, indeed, is very apparent in a dead body, which continues cold, though running ever so fast into putridity, The mechanical generation


[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

of heat, by means of friction, which has with the greatest plau. lîbility been infifted on by several modern physiologists

, is lewn not to be applicable to the animal body, from the unaptness of its folids and fluids to produce such a degree of attrition as is found neceffary in other cases to occafion heat. A fort section is next bestowed on Dr. Cullen's solution of this question; if

, indeed, that can be called a solution, which is only a reference to fome occult principle of the animal ceconomy, not analogous to any thing known. The vital principle, according to this celebrated Profeffor, may have such a peculiar power, that where it is different, different degrees of heat may be generated

, though the velocity of the blood be the same. But, as Dr. Leslie remarks, to say that the principle of life can generate heat or cold, independent of chemical or mechanical means, is contrary to experience, and seems in itself absurd.' The salt theory examined by our Author is that of Dr. Black; who fup. poses, that animal heat is all generated in the lungs, by the zation of the air on the principle of inflammability, and is thence diffused over the rest of the body by means of the circulation. - Several arguments are adduced against the truth of this ingenious hypothesis, which is thewn to be repugnant ta, the known laws of the animal machine.

Dr. Leslie next proceeds to lay down his own idea on the subject. This is, that the subtle principle, by chemists termed phlogiston, which enters into the composition of natural bodies

, is, in consequence of the action of the vascular system, 'gradually evolved throughout every part of the animal machine, and that

, during this evolution, heat is generated.' This opinion, be says, was first explicitly delivered by Dr. Duncan of Edinburgh; but that somewhat very near it is to be found in Dr. Franklin's works, and in a paper of Dr. Mortimer's in the Philosophical Transactions. He endeavours to establish it by the following well-connected chain of argumentation, ift, That the blood contains phlogiston : 2d, That the action of the blood-vessels evolves phlogiston: 3d, That the evolution of phlogiston is at: tended with heat: 4th, That the heat thus generated is fufficient to account for the heat of living animals: 5th, That the most striking phænomena of animal heat evince the truth of these-propositions.

That the blood contains phlogiston, is readily proved by the consent of all modern chemists, who make this principle a component part of every animal matter; and particularly by a decifive experiment of Dr. Priestley's, who found that pieces of the craffamentum of sheep's blood, put into dephlogisticated air, imparted so much phlogiston to it as to render it unfit for respiration,


[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]
« VorigeDoorgaan »