Page images

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

• What sort of a work the “ Garden Calendar” was, its title explains : but, I confess, I am at a loss to guess what Saavedra means by “ The Great Bernard;" and the more so because Mr. De Florian has not thought proper to canonize it. I suspect, 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 snow. If Saavedra ever visited this mountain, or beheld only from a distance its towering summit, well might he deem it worthy celebration.

• If I am wrong in this conjectural elucidation, which I pro. pose with great diffidence, I shall think myself particularly obliged to any body who will be at the pains of setting me right, through the channel of the Reviews, Gentleman's Magazine, or any other respectable periodical work. Pollibly the Spanish edition of Cervantes's Life, which I have no opportunity of consulting, may of itself be sufficiently clear.'

We have looked into the Life of Cervantes, in the splendid 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 nightest information of its purport: and, at this time, we know not where to apply for more satisfactory information. Whatever the work was, it is probably loit.

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

• Whether the number of plays Cervantes wrote was twenty or thirty, is immaterial; for to judge of those which are lo 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 so much as tolerable. The ground plots are neither interesting in themselves, nor well wrought. We meet free quently with flashes of wit, but never with versimilitude. Such are their general characteristics.

• In the one which is entitled “ The Fortunate Lecher,” the hero, in the firit act, is the greatest rascal in all Seville ; in the second he is a Jacobine monk, at Mexico; and is a pattern of piety. He has frequent contests 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 so he is called) exhorts her to contess; which the, despairing of pardon, refuses to do. The zealous confeffor, to save her from consequent impenitency, proposes to make an exchange with her,--his merits against her hins. The bargain is ftruck; and a contract signed in due form. The woman confeffes, and expires : angels appear to take away her soul; and the devil comes to lay in his claim to the monk : who, to his attoni{hment, 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 best play he ever wrote.'

As a specimen of the notes of the translator we shall extract that which this account has suggested.

? What an eccentric genius Saavedra's was! Who would think it poflible that the composer of fo fine a dramatic itory, as “ Don Quixote," could fo deviare from all manner of beauty and order; and pen so execrable a farce! If it had not been published by hindelf, there is but one circumstance by which we could have gueired it to have been his: that is the boldness with which he has lifted his satiric hand againit the all-suffi. cient clergy. Not, probably, that it was done in so direct, and unqualified a manner, as these outlines of the comedy might lead us to suppose; but by covert, satire ; by irony, if not finely inzagined, at least fo happily expressed, that it would bear the construction of obsequiousness, or even adulation. The fpies, else, of that infernal tribunal, called the Holy Inquilition, would certainly have reported Saavedra. And yet, how gross must have been the ignorance, how rank the stupidity of those times, not to have detected the burlesque of such a reprefentation !

Taking the comedy in one sense, or rather one word of it, in (I fear) its only fense, literal or figurative, I wish that Cervantes had not been jesting; but had written it in good and sober earneit. The word which I advert to is “ Crux;" which he has casually taken, for the confessor's name. I do not affect to be over-sighteous, (Godmalas!-knows, how very, very far I ain from that,) but I cannot, and who, that has the lealt sense of religion can, bear to see “ the cross,”-that precious memorial of our redemption, applied as a fit name for a ludicrous character.

· I marvel much how that word Nipped from Saavedra's pen; unless through careless naite. From his head, or heart, assured. Jy 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 cliapter 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 blasphemy, I would not have fixed the reader's atiention upon it, but by way of hint to writers in general, to be exceedingly cautious in the use of words, the injudicious application of which may, 'centuries after their death, bring their religious character in queition.'


An Esay on the Theory of the Produ&tion of Animal Head, and on its

Application in the Treatment of Cutaneous Eruptions, Inflammations, and some other Diseases. By Edward Rigby. 8vo.

As. Jewed. Johnson. WE always attend on Mr. Righy with pleasure ; for we,

seldom separate from him without instruction. Even his mistakes are falutary leffons, and teach us to repress too great confidence in our own efforts. The work before us confits of two partsy which are more distinct 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 emiMent philosophers; and, though each sees the oblivion into , which his predecessors have fallen, the temptation is too ítrong to be refifted the detulion too pleasing to be conquered. Like the fancied heroine of the Arabian Nights' Entertainments, though the daily brides had, each fucceffive morning, been led to the scaffold, the honour of the contest, and the glim: mering hopes of success, concurred to make her cager for the , fupremejdignity. Our readers will suppose, that our review

of so many literary fpectres hastening to condemnation, would give us no very favourable disposition towards Mr. Rigby's work, notwithstanding our avowed partiality for the author. Yet, as usual, we endeavoured to examine with caution, and

determine with cảndour': as so many had wandered, 'one - might now be right; and former errors might have contributed to direct a fuccefforii

The last theory, which had the smalleit 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 should delay their accounts of ex. perimental enquiries till they have ascertained the truth of the experiments. We applauded the author's industry, and waited for the result of other examinations. The principal work, in thiş line, was one by Mr. Morgan*, who, with great acuteness and precision, examined every part of the author's rea. . foning, and his feparate facts. There was much" reason to

fuppofe, that Mr. Crawford had observed and reasoned with e too great haste: perhaps the author may have thought the. same; for we have

yet heard ng reply, nor has tlie theory been e-published. We have given this little sisetch, chiefly to ob.


See Crit. Rev. vol. li, p: 212. VOL. LX. Aug. 1785.



serve, that the principle on which Mr. Crawford began is pro bably well founded : his errors were undoubtedly nunrerous, and ought to have been again examined. If the diftinction between absolute or latent, and sensible heat, be established, it will then be only necessary 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 lessen the quantity of absolute heat, which there is great reason to believe, the foundation is clear. The superstructure 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 supposes that heat is a body, and therefore capable of entering, as an ingredient, into the composition of other bodies. The substances which are conveyed into the ftomach abound with this ingredient; and he justly observes, that when its feparation is the consequence of almost every decomposition with which we are acquainted, it is absurd to fuppose, that heat should not escape during the decompofition of the substances containing it, in the stomach. Mr. Rigby eniploys his first section 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 satiety and hunger, leanness and obefity, are connected with abundance er scar. city, with the more or lefs rapid escape of the heat which enters into the human system.

The great defect of every syftem on the subject of animal heat has been the want of observations, or rather of experiments, on the bodies of animals. The first circumstance, which seems to weaken the opinion of Mr. Rigby, is his supposing that there is one particular source of heat. If this were true, the stomach 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 fiftulous ulcer in the thigh ; and, in a rabbit, the thermometer, placed between the muscles of the leg, was at the same point with one inserted into the abdo. men. These facts certainly support that opinion, which attributes the heat to a power acting at the same time in every part of the fyftem ; and there are now two opinions of this kind, which deserve our attention ; the one, that it proceeds from the

energy of the nervous power; the other, which attributes it to the chemical change constantly going on in our Auids. If Mr. Rigby's opinion were true, it Thould be the beft me.



thod of lessening 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 small quantities, which increases the power of the digestive organs. The heac is indeed increased after a full meal; but it is not felt in the ftomach : those, whose heat is particularly increased by digeftion, feel it rather in the palms of the hands, and soles of the feet.

Indeed every circumitance seems to show, that the heat is rather the consequence of a general change in the system, and attended with all the symptoms which accompany it, when excited hy a more external cause. Again : the heat of the body is almost constantly the same in all ages and fexes, though the diet is materially different; and the diet, if it be alimentary on the one hand, and excess be avoided on the other, is found to make little variation. These extremes would altor the subject by inducing disease, and we are now speaking of health. We need not, at this period, enlarge on the great difference in the chemical properties of substances really alimentary: the matter of heat has been so lately the subject of our experiments, that we cannot decide on its relation to our different foods; but, from its connection with phlogiston, we may suppose that its quantity must be very various, though its effects in producing hcat are uniforin. The subject of diseases would lead us too far; but we should find in favers of different kinds, some very striking objections to the opinions of our author,

We have freely given the chief arguments which have in. duced us to reject Mr. Rigby's opinion ; but we are induced, by his particular desire, to consider the first as one of the lealt important of his various fe&tions : yet we ought to add, that it contains some new and some 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 phlogiston ; for he ought to have observed only, that the most nutritious substances are phlogistic. In fact, phlogiston is so far from being the nutritious principle, that it more commolny and abundantly appears among the excrements. The bile is an highly animalised and phlogistic fluid; but its great use is rather to prepare the crude aliment for absorption, than to nourish: it is again rejected, perhaps still more highly phlogisticated. Mr. Rigby, however, soon proceeds to the application of his doctrine.

• Whether the philosophical reader will admit the preceding theory of the production of animal heat to be probable or not, the foregoing facts are certainly sufficient to prove, that a con fiderable quantity of heat is constantly generated in the animal body, and that some of it has a contant tandency to pafs off

« PreviousContinue »