LETTERS TO LEINWHA. expreffed a wish to fee her; and he was accordingly prefented in the fimplicity of her Quaker drefs, and graciously received. This and fubfequent interviews led to her grand undertaking, a reprefentation of the King in needlework, which the completed to their entire fatisfaction, though fhe had never feen any thing of the kind. We next find her accompanying her husband on a feientifick tour through Holland, Germany, and France, where they obtained introduction to the most diftinguished perfonages, fuch as the Prince and Princefs of Orange; at Versailles, to the Meffieurs and Meldames of the Royal Family; and at last fhe was admitted to the toilette of the late unfortunate Queen by her own defire. The appearance of Quakers was to that princess quite a phenomenon, concerning whofe tenets fhe was politely earnest for information, and acknowledged these hereticks to be philofophers at least. She has written on various fubjects philofophical, theological, and poetical, fome of which have been published with her 6 We fhall conclude this article with the dialogue between her and Dr. Johnson, by which it will appear, at least, that she is no contemptible advocate for the principles of the refpectable fociety of Friends." ......The dialogue then follows, which on comparifon has been correctly printed in the Anthology for September; with this difference however, that the perfon, one of the company," who made the remark that he never faw. this mighty lion fo chafed before," was no other than Mr. JAMES BOSWELL himself, the friend and biographer of Dr. Johnson. ****** For the Monthly Anthology. LETTERS TO LEINWHA, TEACHER OF MORALITY IN A WAN for fuch enjoyments. How hard it is to discover truth! how eafy to be deceived! I have actually changed my opinion more than an hundred times refpecting this nation, within the fhort fpace of thirteen days. Their ignorance has yielded to their wisdom, and their wisdom has been eclipsed by their cunning. What was at firft artifice, I afterwards thought ingenuoufnefs; but this was only affability made fubfervient to intereft; and I now find that in tereft governs all, and for this they labour and are exhaufted. They have a national maxim which the infant is taught to lifp in its nurfe's arms; it is very long, and I do not recollect it; but I know it is equivalent to' 'get money' and I believe this ufeful leffon is never taught in vain. The chief men have grown old in its practice; and ftill hobble out, with all their infirmities to the place of traffick, when they fhould be at home in their manfions waiting the call of death. With us, you know, there is content and thankfulness with a little : labour ceafes with the vigour of manhood, and age fits down to enjoy what it has acquired in the days of induftry and youth. The very women are not free from avarice. Some of them in the lower claffes prefer pleasure to employment, and profitute their bodies for money; whilft thofe of a higher degree article for it in their very marriage-contra&s! When this is the predominant passion of a nation, nothing can be expected but its concomitant evils. The gentler virtues are unknown, and charity is driven into exile. Science is confined to the rules of commerce, and commerce erects an idol, before which all are proftrate. focial principle is loft in its contemplation; love and friendship are diverted to its worship; and honefty is dazzled with its golden fpadour. In fuch a country, The genius is like the mifletoe on the rock; it feems to exift upon the barren and unyielding furface only by its own refources, and the nourishment it receives from the dews of heaven. The progrefs of literature has therefore been very flow it feems just emerging from the clouds of ignorance, and its luftre is yet too feeble to be seen by the eye alone. The Nearly oppofite to the houfe in which I dwell, refides one of their bards; with him I have lately become acquainted, andhe has even condefcended to honour me with his vifits and his friendfhip. He is of a fhort fat figure, extremely good-natured and free in his difcourfe. laft time I went to fee him he complained bitterly of the ungrateful publick,' though he acknowledged a greater fhare of favour than had been fhewn to his contemporaries. He told me, he had published feven poems in quarto, and five political pam phlets in duodecimo; and at that very moment was in debt to his bookfeller £.9. He informed me that his laft poem, confifting of five' cantos,' fix hundred lines each, making in all three thoufand beginning with P, was then in the prefs, and fpeedily to be. published. "I am in hafte to get it out," faid he, " before a friend of mine fhall publish his critico heroico in Z." He obligingly began to read me his poem, when he was interrupted by his bookfeller, who came to confult "whether it fhould be on wire wove, hot-prefs, or imperial foolscap." As there was much whif pering between them, I thought REPLY TO MEDICUS, Plac'd parallel, prefaging Punick peace. The advertisement I have extracted from one of their publick circulating prints. TAKE NOTICE. Now in the press and speedily to in be published, Prince Polion, a poem, five cantos, with explanatory notes, adorned with cuts, decorated with en SIR, The uncommon gravings, and embellished with a correct Bookfellers living at a distance may be fupplied with any number at the fhorteft notice; a difcount of 2 per cent. will be made on payments made in cafh exceeding four hundred dollars. re Subfcribers to this edition are quefted to call or fend for their books before the 31ft inftant. Those gentlemen who wish this work bound in morocco, filvered, and lettered, muft fend their names to the publifher before Christmas. This advertisement is written by the bookfeller.--Farewel. TO MEDICUS. IN a late number of the Month ly Anthology you have thought proper to attempt the vindication of a difcourfe delivered before the Humane Society, against the ftrictares contained in a review of that performance. Your production has excited me to examine thofe ftrictures carefully, as well as the fubject of them; and I confefs they appear to me fo juft and fo accordant with the prefent ftate of fcience, that I cannot refrain from offering fuch anfwers to your objections, as this inveftigation has prefented. Vol. II. No. 1. D For the Monthly Anthology. In the first place you deny that the author of the difcourfe has confidered animal heat, as “diftinct from the refpiratory process an incomand dependent on prehenfible principle." Let us take the words of Dr. H., quoted by the reviewers on this fubje&t, and fee how far their affertion can be fupported. He fays, that animal heat is an effect of a certain property of animated bodies. What is this property referred to by him? It is the property of maintaining that action which the first impulfe of motion commen ces, and of longer refifting the perpetual nifus for an equilibrium ;" and it is derived "from the nice and peculiar arrangement of the particles" " of animated bodies." But the first impulfe of motion is given to animated bodies in their embryo ftate, and long before they are capable of performing the refpiratory procefs. According to Dr. H. animated bodies poffefs the property of maintaining the action thus commenced, and "animal heat is an effect of this property, and is the criterion of the exiftence of this diftinguishing characteristick." Surely animal heat fhould be coeval with the property of which it is the effect, and with the existence of which it is the criterion; and furely then it is not dependent on a fubfequent procefs, viz. the refpiratory action, as you fay he confiders it. But look again at this paragraph, cited by the reviewers. You will find, that animal heat is ultimately dependent on that caufe, which gives the first impulfe of motion. Now I prefume that Dr. H. here refers to the "fame principle, the fame univerfal caufe, which first gave motion to matter." Thefe words, taken by themselves, would feem to imply a reference to the great firft caufe of all things; but this is not his meaning, for he evidently fuppofes, it is a caufe, which might be looked for in the animal machine, and that it does actually exift there during life. This appears by the following words, which he adds. "Vain and prefumptuous is the attempt to difcover this principle by anatomical investigation or chemical analy fis; for its evanefcent exiftence waits not their refults, and the moment of research is but the signal for its efcape." Pray, fir, is not this caufe fubtle, incomprehenfible, and unintelligible"? 64 It is true that you understand the author's opinion to be, that animal heat is dependent on animal action, and animal action on refpiration. I have looked thro' his difcourfe with attention, and cannot find any part, in which he fays that animal heat is dependent on animal action. Even if he did fay this, he furely could not fay that animal action is dependent on refpiration. I would not believe him guilty of fuch abfurdity, without better evidence than your affertion. For how could he fuppofe that animal action, which certainly commences long before birth, is dependent on refpiration, which commences after birth? or how could he fay that animal action is dependent on a procefs, which in fome fpecies of animals is never performed at all? In the next paragraph you obferve, that as for the diaphragm you do not "believe it contracts at all." Is not the diaphragm a mufcle? if so, it must be a folitary exception to the general laws of mufcular function, if it is incapable of contraction. Examine the ftructure of this part. Its pofteriour and inferiour divifion is formed into two large bundles of mufcular fibres, attached to feveral of the lumbar vertebræ ; its anteriour and fuperiour to the cartilages of feveral ribs and that of the fternum, being tendonous in the middle. Who that ever faw a diffection of the dia phragm could doubt of its con- the reviewers, that evaporation tractile power? This abfurdity is nothing compared to what follows. You affert that "if it do contract, it is, as Dr. Howard fays, its elevation;" but why? Becaufe "if the diaphragm contract while the ribs diftend, they muft counteract each other." By the fame reafoning, you might deny that the mufcles of the abdomen contract for the expulfion of the abdominal contents, whilft the thorax is dilated in refpiration by the contraction of the intercoftals and other infpiratory mufcles; for thefe and the abdominal muscles muft equally counteract each other in this function. But farther, with respect to this fame diaphragm you remark, " Elevation of the ribs muft deprefs it to a plane, and contraction of the abdominal muscles prefs it to a cone." Now admitting the afsertion ascribed to Dr. Howard, and which you say is true if the diaphragm contract at all, namely, that "if it do contra" "it is its elevation," then it must follow that when it does contract it must contract from a plane to a cone, that is, it must contract to an elongation! Into what follies do wild theories plunge their adherents. You are confiftent in fpeaking contemptuously of facts, as you do in the next paragraph. "Sir," fay you, " as you are fo fond of facts, let me fprinkle your face, first with cold and then with warm water, and you will feel the difference." This must certainly be allowed to be a juft remark; but its application is not quite fo obvious. It seems to be intended to invalidate the affertion of does not produce the nrft elevation of the ribs in the new born infant; because if it be covered. at the inftant of its exclusion it will not be prevented refpiring; but that on the contrary refpiration, when it does not commence of itfelf, is promoted by plunging the infant under warm water where evaporation cannot take place from its furface. The expreffion of "emerging into the air" (inftead of its birth), is undoubtedly exceptionable, yet could not be misunderstood by a candid reader. You however have catched at it with avidity, as a fit fubject for your witticisms. and arguments, extended through a long paragraph; and all must allow it to be a fubject worthy, the talents of " Medicus." The obfervations however ap-. pear to be intirely irrelevant to the queflion in difpute. You have confounded the idea of cold with that. of evaporation. Lofing fight of the latter, you have built the whole ftrength of your reafoning upon the influence of cold water, ice, &c. upon the human body; as if cold and evaporation were convertible terms. If this be not a" dereliction from all principle," it is at least dereliction from all argument; for you set out to prove that this commencement of refpiration must be produced by cold from evaporation. Now let me, in my turn, afk a question. When you throw yourself fuddenly into cold water, fay to the chin, is there not inftantly produced the fame forcible infpiration, you have dwelt fo long upon? and can there be any evaporation from the furface of the |