from Florian. If we change the name, the fable will fuit Mr. Wallbeck and his work. In the dedication to the count of Lemos, our author feems not to know the meaning of the Great Bernard; but we must tranfcribe the note, to make the deficiency more generally known.

What fort of a work the "Garden Calendar" was, its title explains: but, I confefs, I am at a lofs to guess what Saavedra means by "The Great Bernard ;" and the more fo because Mr. De Florian has not thought proper to canonize it. I fufpect, however, that it refers to that well-known mountain, called "The Great Saint Bernard," on the confines of Switzerland and Piedmont; which is upwards of fix thousand feet, perpendicular height, above the Leman-lake, and is covered with eternal fnow. If Saavedra ever visited this mountain, or beheld only from a distance its towering fummit, well might he deem it worthy celebration.

If I am wrong in this conjectural elucidation, which I propofe with great diffidence, I fhall think myfelf particularly obliged to any body who will be at the pains of fetting me right, through the channel of the Reviews, Gentleman's Magazine, or any other refpectable periodical work. Poffibly the Spanish edition of Cervantes's Life, which I have no opportunity of confulting, may of itfelf be fufficiently clear.'

We have looked into the Life of Cervantes, in the fplendid edition which is here mentioned, and perceive that, among the unfinished works, was one which they call Il Bernardo; but we do not find the flightest information of its purport: and, at this time, we know not where to apply for more fatisfactory information. Whatever the work was, it is probably lost.

The English reader is acquainted with Červantes, as a fatirist and a novel writer; but knows little of him as a dramatic author; fo that we shall extract from this production the short account of his plays.

Whether the number of plays Cervantes wrote was twenty or thirty, is immaterial; for to judge of those which are lost by those which remain, we have no cause of regret. I have read through the eight he published with great attention; and not one of them is fo much as tolerable. The ground plots are neither interesting in themfelves, nor well wrought. We meet frequently with flashes of wit, but never with verfimilitude. Such are their general characteristics.

In the one which is entitled "The Fortunate Lecher," the hero, in the first act, is the greatest rafcal in all Seville; in the fecond he is a Jacobine monk, at Mexico; and is a pattern of piety. He has frequent contefts with the devil, upon the stage; and always comes off victorious. Called in to pray by a woman at the point of death; one who had led a.very profligate life; father Crux (for fo he is called) exhorts her to contefs; which the, defpairing of pardon, refuses to do. The zealous confeffor, to fave her from confequent impenitency,

pro.

propofes to make an exchange with her,—his merits againft her has. The bargain is truck; and a contract figned in due form. The woman confeffes, and expires: angels appear to take away her foul; and the devil comes to lay in his claim to the monk: who, to his atonishment, finds himself grown all over leprous. In the third act, he dies, and performs miracles. • Such is the plot of a play written by the author of “Don Quixote:" and perhaps the beft play he ever wrote.'

As a fpecimen of the notes of the tranflator we shall extract that which this account has fuggefted.

• Weat an eccentric genius Saavedra's was! Who would think it poffiole that the compofer of fo fine a dramatic story, as "Don Quixote," could fo deviate from all manner of beauty and order; and pen fo exccrable a farce! If it had not been published by himself, there is but one circumftance by which we could have gucffed it to have been his: that is the boldness with which he has lifted his fatiric hand against the all-fufficient clergy. Not, probably, that it was done in fo direct, and unqualified a manner, as thefe outlines of the comedy might lead us to fuppofe; but by covert, fatire; by irony, if not finely imagined, at leaft fo happily expreffed, that it would bear the conftruction of obfequiousness, or even adulation. The fpies, elfe, of that infernal tribunal, called the Holy Inquifition, would certainly have reported Saavedra. And yet, how grofs must have been the ignorance, how rank the ftupidity of thofe times, not to have detected the burlesque of such a reprefentation!

Taking the comedy in one fenfe, or rather one word of it, in (I fear) its only fenfe, literal or figurative, I wish that Cervantes had not been jefting; but had written it in good and fober earnest. The word which I advert to is "Crux;" which he has cafually taken, for the confeffor's name. I do not affect to be over-righteous, (God-alas!-knows, how very, very far I am from that,) but I cannot, and who, that has the leaft fenfe of religion can, bear to fee" the cross,”—that precious memorial of our redemption, applied as a fit name for a ludicrous character.

I marvel much how that word flipped from Saavedra's pen; unless through careless hafte. From his head, or heart, affuredly it never came: for, if ever writer of a work of humour took pains to inculcate religion, it was the author of " Don Quixote." There is not a chapter in the book that does not abound in religious and moral precepts. And the hero of the romance, whatever other extravagancies he is guilty of, never forgets his God. Acquitting Saavedra, which I certainly do, of any intention of blafphemy, I would not have fixed the reader's attention upon it, but by way of hint to writers in general, to be exceedingly cautious in the ufe of words, the injudicious ap plication of which may, centuries after their death, bring their religious character in question.'

An

An Elay on the Theory of the Producion of Animal Heat, and on its Application in the Treatment of Cutaneous Eruptions, Inflam mations, and fome other Difeafes. By Edward Righy. 8vo. 45. Jewed. Johnfon.

WE

E always attend on Mr. Rigby with pleafure; for we, feldom feparate from him without inftruction. Even his mistakes are falutary leffons, and teach us to reprefs too great confidence in our own efforts, The work before us confits of two parts, which are more diftinct than the author probably intended them to be; and if he fails in the one, yet as the other is not founded on, but rather loosely connected with it, the suin will not be either general or fatal. The theory of animal heat has engaged the attention of many emiHent philofophers; and, though each fees the oblivion into which his predeceffors have fallen, the temptation is too strong to be refifted; the delufion too pleafing to be conquered. Like the fancied heroine of the Arabian Nights' Entertainments, though the daily brides had, each fucceffive morning, been led to the fcaffold, the honour of the conteft, and the glim mering hopes of fuccefs, concurred to make her eager for the supreme dignity. Our readers will fuppofe, that our review of fo many literary fpectres haftening to condemnation, would give us no very favourable difpofition, towards Mr. Rigby's work, notwithstanding our avowed partiality for the author. Yet, as ufual, we endeavoured to examine with caution, and determine with candour: as fo many had wandered, 'one might now be right; and former errors might have contributed to direct a fucceffor.

The last theory which had the fmalleft claim to the attention of the learned, was that of Mr. Crawford, which we reviewed in our forty-eighth Volume, page 181. The merit of the opinion rested on the evidence of the facts, and it cannot be expected that, Reviewers fhould delay their accounts of experimental enquiries till they have afcertained the truth of the experiments. We applauded the author's industry, and waited for the refult of other examinations. The principal work, in this line, was one by Mr. Morgan, who, with great acutenefs and precision, examined every part of the author's rea .foning, and his feparate facts. There was much reafon to fuppofe, that Mr. Crawford had obferved and reasoned with too great hafte perhaps the author may have thought the, fame; for we have yet heard no reply, nor has the theory been e-published. We have given this little fetch chiefly to obSee Crit. Rev. vol. li, p, 212.

VOL. LX. Aug. 1785.

H

ferve,

ferve, that the principle on which Mr. Crawford began is pro bably well founded his errors were undoubtedly numerous, and ought to have been again examined. If the distinction between abfolute or latent, and fenfible heat, be established, it will then be only neceffary to enquire, whether the change which the blood undergoes in the course of circulation, can make any alteration in its capacity to retain heat. If this be true, and the change is fuch as to leffen the quantity of absolute heat, which there is great reafon to believe, the foundation is clear. The fuperftructure may be just or erroneous; it may be rejected or retained; for enough will be established. But it is time to proceed to the work before us.

Mr. Rigby fuppofes that heat is a body, and therefore capable of entering, as an ingredient, into the composition of other bodies. The fubftances which are conveyed into the ftomach abound with this ingredient; and he justly observes, that when its feparation is the confequence of almost every decompofition with which we are acquainted, it is abfurd to fuppose, that heat should not escape during the decompofition of the fubftances containing it, in the ftomach. Mr. Rigby employs his firft fection not only in proving his general conclufions, but in fhewing how nature has attended to them in a variety of instances, and in what degree fatiety and hunger, leannefs and obesity, are connected with abundance or scarcity, with the more or lefs rapid escape of the heat which enters into the human system.

The great defect of every fyftem on the fubject of animal heat has been the want of observations, or rather of experiments, on the bodies of animals. The firft circumftance, which seems to weaken the opinion of Mr. Rigby, is his fuppofing that there is one particular source of heat. If this were true, the ftomach should be the warmest part, and the heat should gradually decrease till we arrive at the extremities. But, in the few experiments made on this subject, we find that this is not decidedly true. The, mouth, the axilla, and the groin, raise the thermometer to the fame height. The urine has no greater effect on it than a fistulous ulcer in the thigh; and, in a rabbit, the thermometer, placed between the mufcles of the leg, was at the fame point with one inferted into the abdomen. These facts certainly fupport that opinion, which attri butes the heat to a power acting at the fame time in every part of the fyftem; and there are now two opinions of this kind, which deferve our attention; the one, that it proceeds from the energy of the nervous power; the other, which attributes it to the chemical change conftantly going on in our fluids.. If Mr. Rigby's opinion were true, it should be the best method

2.

thod of leffening the heat, to evacuate the contents of the ftomach and bowels; but this effect of laxatives and emetics is very inferior to that of bleeding, even in fmall quantities, which increases the power of the digeftive organs. The hear is indeed increafed after a full meal; but it is not felt in the ftomach: thofe, whofe heat is particularly increafed by digeftion, feel it rather in the palms of the hands, and foles of the feet. Indeed every circumftance feems to fhow, that the heat is rather the confequence of a general change in the fyftem, and attended with all the fymptoms which accompany it, when excited by a more external caufe. Again: the heat of the body is almoft conftantly the fame in all ages and fexes, though the diet is materially different; and the diet, if it be alimentary on the one hand, and excefs be avoided on the other, is found to make little variation. Thefe extremes would alter the fubject by inducing difeafe, and we are now fpeaking of health. We need not, at this period, enlarge on the great difference in the chemical properties of fubftances really alimentary: the matter of heat has been fo lately the fubject of our experiments, that we cannot decide on its relation to our different foods; but, from its connection with phlogiston, we may fuppofe that its quantity must be very various, though its effects in producing heat are uniform. The fubject of diseases would lead us too far; but we fhould find in fevers of different kinds, fome very striking objections to the opinions of our author.

We have freely given the chief arguments which have induced us to reject Mr. Rigby's opinion; but we are induced, by his particular defire, to confider the first as one of the leaft important of his various fections: yet we ought to add, that it contains fome new and fome ingenious remarks. The uti lity of them is in a great degree diminished, by the author's adopting an error of Dr. Priestley, that the nutritious principle is phlogifton; for he ought to have obferved only, that the moft nutritious fubftances are phlogiftic. In fact, phlogiston is fo far from being the nutritious principle, that it more commolny and abundantly appears among the excrements. The bile is an highly animalifed and phlogiftic fluid; but its great ufe is rather to prepare the crude aliment for abforption, thạn to nourish: it is again rejected, perhaps ftill more highly phlogifticated. Mr. Rigby, however, foon proceeds to the appliIcation of his doctrine.

• Whether the philofophical reader will admit the preceding theory of the production of animal heat to be probable or not, the foregoing facts are certainly fufficient to prove, that a confiderable quantity of heat is conftantly generated in the animal body, and that fome of it has a conftant tendency to pafs off