ing that, in their present fituation, these beautiful women were torments to the eyes, αλγηδονας οφθαλμων. Upon this expreffion Longinus obferves, as fome excufe for Herodotus, that he has put it in the mouth of a drunken barbarian; and adds, with the ftern haughtiness of criticism, "but he ought not, in the language of fuch a perfonage to have given to all pofterity an indelible mark of his littleness of foul. Is it the foul of Heredotus that is little, or is it the foul of Longinus that is overgrown, fwollen, and gigantic?

We shall mention, with peculiar pleasure, another example of the severity of our critic, because it gives us an opportunity to juftify the character of an ancient writer, which, though exceedingly 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 (fect. 38.) afferts," that Ifocrates, in his panegyric, fpeaks like a child." The fubject of that difcourfe is to prove, that Greece has received more good offices from the Athenians than from the Lacedemonians. But on entering upon this topic, he fays, "that eloquence can reprefent the fame objects under many different terms, and at pleasure leffen or enlarge them." Is it thus, therefore, Ifocrates, might the audience exclaim, that you are to deceive us concerning the refpective pretenfions of the Athenians and Lacedemonians? For the encomium which you bestow on eloquence may be confidered as an admonition not to give credit to your difcourfe." The impropriety of this farcaftic, obfervation, which has been adopted by the Archbishop of Cambray, and other French critics (See Lettres à l'Academie Fransoife) will evidently appear, by confidering the whole paffage in Ifocrates; which, as it is fhort, we fhall tranfcribe from the English translation: "Many pretended fophifts, I know, have already exhorted you to lay afide your private differences, and to declare war against the barbarians. I purpose once more to address you on the fame important topic, hoping to treat it in a manner, fo different from that in which it has been hitherto handled, that the fubject will yet appear new and unoccupied; and those surely are the nobleft fields of eloquence, which, by their vaftness and extent, afford an opportunity to display the utmost abilities of the speaker, and which, if properly cultivated, may promote the highest, intereft of his hearers. The subject, which I have chofen, unites these advantages, and is, befides, particularly feasonable at the present juncture; for our affairs. ftill continue in the fame unhappy condition, because those who undertook to retrieve them, have proved unequal to so arduous a task: Why should I, then, decline any labour or exertion by. which Greece may be healed of her prefent wounds, delivered

from

e

W

from her inteftine divifions, and faved from thofe final calamities which threaten to overwhelm her? Though I make use of the fame materials which my prececeffors have already employed, my observations fhall have nothing in common with theirs; for eloquence can reprefent the fame objects under many different forms, and, at pleasure, lessen and enlarge them." Those parts which appeared most bright, the orator can throw into the fhade; to those which were faint or obfcure, 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 Ifocrates here fpeaks of himself in a manner that must offend the refined artificial modefty of modern times; but he is juftified by the general practice of ancient writers, who had not yet learned the art of difguifing, with studied politeness, the fenfe of their own importance. The question, however, is to decide, not concerning the vanity of Ifocrates, 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, feem introduced, as Longinus afferts, on purpose to admonish his hearers not to believe his discourse, or whether these encomiums are not evidently defigned to awaken the reluctant attention of his audience to a fubject on which they had been often addreffed, but always unfuccessfully. The criticism of Longinus appears, at first fight, fevere and unjuft; but to thofe who examine the paffage of Ifocrates with attention, the observation made upon it by our critic will appear to be abfurd. It is abfolutely impoffible the audience. fhould exclaim, "Is it thus, Ifocrates, that you are to deceive us concerning the respective pretenfions of the Athenians and Lacedemonians? "For Ifocrates has not as yet faid a fingle word. about these pretenfions; nor does he propofe them, as Longinus afferts, for the fubject of his discourse."

Longinus (fect. 13.) praifes thofe 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 fought to be confidered; 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 fublime gait, of the great heroes of old, with all the confidence of certain victory. What can be loft, he cries, when monarchs are the combatants? Noble as this man appears to the blindness of prefumption, it must feem far otherwise to the spectators of the conteft. How completely ridiculous is it for the dwarfs of modern times to ape the ftalk of ancient giants and many of thofe who would fuftain no unequal and dishonourable conteft with

CC 4

**

with Dares, Epeus, and Euryalus, would be juftly expofed to contempt, fhould they prefume to throw the gauntlet with Cadmus and Hercules, Eryx, and Entellus. But to drop the comparison our opinion of Longinus is, that when he attempts to improve upon the ancients, he draws himself into a very unfavourable point of view, and finks in the approbation of his readers. We muft obferve, too, that the commentary of this rhetorician cannot, with any propriety of language, be ftiled a work of criticism in the fame fenfe in which we apply that word to the writings of Ariftotle, Horace, Dryden, Boileau, and Pope. It may be called a florid declamation on the beauties and faults of the ancients, abounding with all the pride of felf-applauding panegyric, and the laboured vehemence of rhetorical indignation. Thefe, we apprehend, are the faults of Longinus. His excellencies are many and great. He is adorned with extenfive learning, and variety of knowledge. His genius is warm and vigorous, rich and lofty; and he fometimes attains the true fublime. The comparison of the declining faculties of Homer to the fetting fun, is well imagined, and finely expreffed, and that of the beautiful extravagancies of the Odyffey to the "dreams of Jove," is perhaps one of the moft happy and grand conceptions of antiquity. In fhort, though we confider Longinus as a great man, yet we cannot efteem him as the prince and flower of critics; and we are unwilling to rank him with fuch illuftrious names as Ariftotle and Dionyfius of Halicarnaffus, or even with the learned and judicious critics who adorn the present age. Take his character in his own words, which he defigned for the portrait of Timæus:

10

σε Θαλερα δε, ών είπομεν (λέγω δε τε ψυχρε) πληρης--ανηρ μεν αλλα και - και προλόγων ενιοτε μεγεθώ, εκ αφορά, που λυκςωρ, επινοητικώς πλην αλλοτριων μεν ελεγηλικωτατε αμαρτημάτων, ανεπαίσθη δε ιδίων· υπο δε ερώGς το ξεναγνοήσεις αει κινείν πολλακις εκπιπλων εἰς το παιδαριώδες άλον. Altero vero eorum, de quibus mentionem fecimus (dico autem frigido) plenus eft—vir in aliis fatis peritus virtutibus fcribendi, & nonnunquam in Sublimitate fcriptorum, non fterilis, eruditus, fenfibus abundans, fed maximus alienorum vitiorum infectator ad fua vero non attendens quique præ ftudio femper concipiendi novos & peregrinos fenfus fæpe incidit in id quod maxime puerile eft."

f

ART.

ART. XII. A Philofophical Inquiry into the Caufe of Animal Heat: With incidental Obfervations on feveral phyfiological and chemi. cal Questions, connected with the Subject. By P. D. Leflie, M. D.. 8vo. Crowder, &c. London. Gordon, &c. Edinburgh.

1778.

SCAR

CARCELY any thing in the animal économy has more excited the attention and inquiry of philofophers than the cause of vital heat; and from the variety of opinions ftill prevailing concerning it, we may conclude that their researches on this head have not yet proved in general fatisfactory. There can be no doubt, therefore, of the favourable reception of any new attempt to illuftrate this fubject, on principles deduced from that experimental mode of reafoning, which, to the credit of modern philofophy, is the only kind of investigation at prefent thought worthy of regard. Whatever be the degree of conviction produced by the inquiry before us, we do not in the' leaft queftion that it will be univerfally allowed the merit of great ingenuity, and that many of the obfervations it contains will be thought no lefs valuable than original.

The Author informs us in his Introduction, that the fubftance of this work was published in an inaugural thefis at Edinburgh in 1775; and that the perfuafions of fome ingenious phyfiologifts have induced him to give it more at large, in its present

form.

He begins with fome general obfervations on animal heat; and then proceeds to a particular account of the phenomena attending it. Thefe he treats of in four fections: in the firft of which he fhews that the latitude in the temperature of animals is confiderable; in the fecond, that the uniformity in the temperature of animals is remarkable; in the third, he confiders the connexion between the fate of refpiration, the colour of the blood, and the degree of heat in animals; and in the fourth, the connexion be tween the fate of circulation and the degree of heat in animals.

The Author's third chapter prefents us with a view of the prevailing opinions on the caufe of animal heat. Moft of thefe, 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 effervefcence 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 fpecies which can with probability be fupposed 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 fo faft into putridity. The mechanical generation

of

of beat, by means of friction, which has with the greateft plaufibility been infifted on by feveral modern phyfiologifts, is fhewn not to be applicable to the animal body, from the unaptness of its folids and fluids to produce fuch a degree of attrition as is found neceffary in other cafes to occafion heat. A short section is next bestowed on Dr. Cullen's folution of this question; if, indeed, that can be called a folution, which is only a reference to fome occult principle of the animal oeconomy, not analo gous to any thing known. The vital principle, according to this celebrated Profeffor, may have fuch a peculiar power, that where it is different, different degrees of heat may be generated,. though the velocity of the blood be the fame. But, as Dr. Leflie remarks, to fay that the principle of life can generate heat or cold, independent of chemical or mechanical means, is contrary to experience, and feems in itself abfurd.' The laft theory examined by our Author is that of Dr. Black; who fuppofes, that animal heat is all generated in the lungs, by the action of the air on the principle of inflammability, and is thence diffused over the reft of the body by means of the circulation. Several arguments are adduced against the truth of this ingenious hypothefis, which is fhewn to be repugnant to, the known laws of the animal machine.

"

Dr. Leflie next proceeds to lay down his own idea on the fubject. This is, This is, that the fubtle principle, by chemifts termed phlogiston, which enters into the composition of natural bodies, is, in confequence of the action of the vascular fyftem, gradually evolved throughout every part of the animal machine, and that, during this evolution, heat is generated.' This opinion, he fays, was first explicitly delivered by Dr. Duncan of Edinburgh; but that fomewhat very near it is to be found in Dr. Franklin's works, and in a paper of Dr. Mortimer's in the Philofophical Tranfactions. He endeavours to establish it by the following well-connected chain of argumentation, 1ft, That the blood contains phlogifton: 2d, That the action of the blood-veffels evolves phlogifton: 3d, That the evolution of phlogifton is at tended with heat: 4th, That the heat thus generated is fufficient to account for the heat of living animals: 5th, That the moft ftriking phænomena of animal heat evince the truth of thefe propofitions.

That the blood contains phlogifton, is readily proved by the confent of all modern chemifts, who make this principle a component part of every animal matter; and particularly by a deci five experiment of Dr. Prieftley's, who found that pieces of the craffamentum of fheep's blood, put into dephlogifticated air, imparted fo much phlogifton to it as to render it unfit for refpiration.

That