been too indiscriminately recommended as of general application. Here two sources of fallacy readily present themselves. The peculiar properties of the new article have not been accurately ascertained. The specifick cases where it would have been really beneficial have not been sufficient ly particularised. This task, so little flattering to the impatience of genius or the pride of science, requires more opportunities, more time, and attentive observation, than are commonly found. Till lately, the common article of water, in its various temperatures and modes of application, has been classed among the curative means of doubtful character. It has excited but little of the physician's attention, because, when he has thought of it at all, he has considered it as of little consequence in the exercise of his profession. If the light however which has been recently thrown on this subject be received, it can no longer be deemed an uncertain remedy, nor one of small importance.

Since the early records of medicine we find that water, in some form or other, and in different countries, has been occasionally tried as a means of relief in fevers and some other complaints. But so little were the properties of this powerful agent understood, and so equivocal were the effects of its application, that, though sometimes extolled, it never came into general use, so far as I am informed, as a remedy for any of the diseases of the human body.

It is now nearly thirty years since this subject, the use of water in fevers and other kindred complaints, has occupied the at

tention and united the labours of a number of humane and enlightened physicians. During this period the subject has been very successfully investigated and is now well understood. Every shade of errour, of doubt, and uncertainty has given way to the light of truth and knowledge, fully established by the most adequate experience. The result of the numerous trials and experiments, relating to this branch of medical science, is the establishment of the following fact; a fact surely of the highest importance to suffering humanity. Namely, that Water, applied according to principles now clearly developed and amply detailed, is a more pleasant, speedy, and effectual remedy, than any other yet known, for the most numerous and fatal class of diseases to which the human body is obnoxious.

Among the cultivators of this field of valuable research, the name of Dr. James Currie, of Liverpool, England, stands preeminent. Since he entered this field of experiment, though preceded by several, his progress has been equalled by none. About the year 1797 appeared his " Medical Reports on the Effects of Water, cold and warm, as a remedy in Fever and Febrile Diseases, whether applied to the Surface of the Body, or used internally."

Last year, 1804, he published a third edition of the same work, much enlarged; 630 pages, with an appendix, bound in two volumes. This work is strongly recommended to the American publick, in full confidence that every liberal physician, every be nevolent spirit, will read it with

great satisfaction to himself, with gratitude to the author, and with much surprise and regret that Dr. Currie's successful mode of treating the worst kinds of fever has been so little attended to in the treatment of the late epidemicks of the United States. Dr. C. says, p. 610.

The first edition of the Medical Reports had no influence, that I know of, on the mode of practice in Philadelphia, or New York, in the fatal epidemick of 1798. The practice I had recommended met indeed the approbation of Dr. Eustis, of Boston; and the second edition of this work was abridged and recommended to publick notice by a gentleman in the district of Maine, formerly a member of the British House of Commons§. But in the middle States, where the mortality has chiefly prevailed, other modes of practice have engrossed the general attention. The Medical Reports were announced, but neither reviewed nor analyzed, in the Medical Repository of New York. From a recent number of this valuable publication, I however see with pleasure, that the practice I have recommended begins to receive some attention. The following is an extract from a letter from Dr. Selden, and Dr. Whitehead, of Norfolk, Virginia, to Dr. Miller, of New York, dated July 15, 1802, and published in the 6th volume of that Journal. After a general view of the causes and of the symptoms of the yellow fever at Norfolk in 1801, they proceed as follows. The plan of treatment proposed this year was, See his letter, dated Nov. 21, 1798, p. 18, of the 1st No. of the Mcd, and Phys. Journal. Mr. B. Vaughan,

in many respects, similar to that adopted in 1800, of which we have formerly given some account. The lancet, however, was more sparingly employed; calomel, in all cases, was liberally exhibited, both with a view to produce, in the commencement, a full and speedy evacuation, and afterwards also, in such forms as have been found most readily to bring on a salivation, which, in every instance with us, as has been often noticed by others, was followed by the recovery of our patient.But, under every form of treatment, numbers fell victims to the disease. In this juncture, being desirous of making every effort, we had recourse to a remedy we had last year tried in a few cases with some benefit, and now found attended, as far as it was carried, with unequivocal success. This was the liberal affusion of cold water, not on the plan prescribed by some of the writers of the West Indies, but in a mode similar to that recommended by Dr. Currie, of Liverpool. The first trials were made on young robust British seamen, & the good effects of this remedy equalled our most sanguine expectation. After the affusion of the cold water, the pulse was often thereby reduced thirty strokes in a minute, the burning heat of the skin was greatly lessened, and the thirst, headache, and other uneasy sensations, were greatly alleviated. The patient generally found himself so much relieved and refreshed after the cold bath, that he submitted, not only without reluctance, but with pleasure, to a repetition of it.It is with the fullest conviction of the supe

riority of this plan of treatment, to any we have yet tried, that we record its effects.' Then proceeds Dr. Currie, p. 615.

After the body of evidence, which has been brought forward, and particularly after this narrative, I may perhaps, though a stranger, be excused for proposing a more general trial of the practice recommended in this volume to the candid and unprejudiced physicians of America. Proposals for improving the method of cure of the destructive fever of that country cannot be considered as superfluous. "Four times as many persons," says Dr. Rush, "were affected by the yellow fever of 1793, as in 1798, but the mortality of the two years was nearly equal;" a melancholy truth, which affords room for much serious reflection. Nor has the subsequent experience of the American physicians discovered a mode of treatment on which confidence rests. The great cities of America are still deserted on the appearance of the yellow fever, which every where excites alarm and dismay. That this

practice, in favour of which SO much evidence is here collected, will succeed in the United States is a fair presumption, which nothing but the result of careful and continued experience should be allowed to overthrow; since the evil is one for which no other remedy has been found, and, since it is of a magnitude to obstruct the high destinies of a people, otherwise most happy and prosperous. I venture these observations with hesitation, and offer them with deference and regard. An observer,at this distance, must be particularly liable to errour; and those who have performed their duty with courage and fortitude, amidst scenes of unprecedented toil and danger, are entitled to the respect, as well as the sympathy, of their more fortunate contemporaries.'

Let no one presume from what is here said, that the application of this remedy will be beneficial, or even safe, in his hands, till he has read Currie, and learnt the principles by which the practice should be conducted.

Boston, June, 1805.

G.

nose.

The Louvre I visited the day after I arrived. Oh Raphael, oh Paolo, oh Titian !-What would you give to hear something about them? I can say very little as yet; but I feel disappointed to find, that the mechanical has outstripped the intellectual part of our arts. I have seen the Transfiguration of Raphael. It may be that I want taste; but after seeing the Raising of Lazarus, I must confess that it appeared cold and powerless. Had I never beheld the picture of Michae! Angelo, I had probably admired this more. But I looked in vain for the divinity that inspired his Christ, in vain for the grandeur that characterized his Lazarus, Raphael has certainly discovered less poetry in his treatment of this subject, than, I am apt to think, either Michael Angelo or Leonardo would have done. Take the figures separately, they are fine; they are well drawn, they are expressive, and, together, they tell the story; but they are not beings, under the influence of a preternatural power; they are not witnesses of the divinity of the Saviour. Abstracted from the subject, the composition is great; the figures stand together as in the presence of a master ; they are drest for the society of the antique; but they speak in language of mortals. Michael Angelo perhaps would have made them gods. "How absurd!" say the criticks, "there would be no distinction between the principal and the subordinates." that case he would only have followed the example of Raphael.

In

them all gods, than that he had made them all men.

You may think I say too little of Raphael. If I have said little of Raphael, it is only in comparison with Michael Angelo. Should I meet him in any other company, I will shew him the homage that is due to the lover of the Graces, to the enchanter of hearts.

But I bow to Michael Angelo, as to the Poet of nature. I would not have you imagine neither that I condemn his Transfiguration. I only say, it is not equal to the Raising of Lazarus. Taken by itself, it is grand; it has a dignity about it, that was natural to Raphael; it is expressive, it is harmonious: No figure is introduced to fill up the canvas; they each take a part and act it with dignity. The female figure which is kneeling is particularly beautiful, and the little maniack has an expression that borders on sublimity. In short, it is a picture that displays the whole power of art, and wants nothing but the destruction of Lazarus to be the finest in the world.

If I have dared to criticise this picture, I have not been without example; but presume upon the privilege, that all the world assume, of criticising every thing, without troubling themselves with considering whether they are able to improve them or not.

If it would cause you any pleasure, I could tell you with what astonishment the gallery filled me; but you can better conceive than I describe, when you are told, that, besides a salloon as large as the exhibition room of