Page images
PDF
EPUB

In Brunswick county, Mrs. Harrison,

æt. 110.

At Richmond, Mrs. West, jun. of the Virginia theatre.

At Norfolk, Col. Littleton Savage. At Fincastle, Mr. William Dunkin, et. 124. He poffeffed his mental faculties to the last hour.

Abroad.

In England, Rev. Richard Graves, rector of Claverion, author of the Spiritual Quixote, and various other works.

Rev. Mr. Ayscough, æt.55, a librarian of the British Museum, and an eminent compiler. He was faid to have exam

ined more books than any man in England.

Mr. George Morland, æt. 40; a celebrated painter of rural scenes.

Alderman Boydell, æt. 87; one of the moft eminent encouragers of the arts in the age in which he lived.

In Scotland, Lieut. Col. Blakenly. He was feverely wounded in the battle of Bunker's hill, North America.

In France, Mechain, a refpectable aftronomer.

In Pruffia, M. De Struenfee, minister of ftate, æt. 70; celebrated for his great talents and fervices under three kings.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

TO CORRESPONDENTS.

Medicus, Literary Wanderer No. 2, Admirer, &c. and an elegant parcel from a poetick friend were received at too late a day for the present number.

As we can have no interest in maintaining errours, we will thank our correfpondents to note them, as they may occur in the work, and transmit them for rectification.

It may be worth while to make the following corrections, in addition to those which we have formerly marked. Month. Anthol. vol. i. p. 511, for diarefis read diærefis; ibid. for fyranefis read fynærefis; ibid. p. 645. for fractes read bractes. Vol. ii. p. 20, for urbis read

urbes.

MONTHLY

ANTHOLOGY,

FOR

MARCH, 1805.

SIR,

TO "PHILO-LAVOISIER."

Is there, or is there not, fuch a thing as caloric? Have philofophers told us idle tales, or is there a fubftance, which pervades all bodies, distances their component parts, and furrounds their minuteft corpufcles? Do not all bodies expand and contract, in proportion as the caloric atmof pheres of the integral corpufcles increase or diminish? Does not Lavoifier himself, and it feems by your fignature that you are a friend to him, acknowledge this a phyfical axiom? If there be fuch a fubftance, is it not caloric? Where is the space, it does not fill? What body fo folid, which it does not pervade? What fyftem, planet, or atom moves without it? What phenomenon does not witness its influence? Does it not warm the cold, illumine the dark, foften the hard, liquify the congealed, animate the inanimate? In light, in found, in tafte, in smell, in touch, do we not feel its vibrations? What

Vibrations. This word is perhaps exceptionable. Caforic does not act, unless the compound corpufcles vibrate. But bodies in vibration, vibrate upon their atmospheres. Whether it be correct to fay, their atmospheres vibrate Vol. II. No. 3. Q

nation,' or motion takes place without it? Is it not the folent, in which matter moves, difplays all its forms, its beauty, its magnificence, and its force?

folution, decompofition, combi

Now, let me afk, can the animated fibre contract, unless its integral corpufcles approximate? Can its integral corpufcles approximate, unlefs they lofe caloric? Will they not lofe caloric by the contact of air, above or below animal temperature? The mercury, in a thermometer, whofe furface is moistened with water, contracts in air above animal temperature. Why then fhould not the animated fibre ? If moift furfaces, animate or inanimate, lofe caloric in an atmofphere, whofe preffure is diminished, or temperature increafed, how can you explain this phonomenon upon any other principle, than that of evaporation? In air of a certain temperature or preffure, moisture mult evaporate from all furfaces, that are moitt, and it is proved by the thermom

upon each other, I am not certain. I have thought fit however to ufe the word, vibration; and those who do not like it may fubftitute the word, influence, or fome other they like better.

eter, that the moisture cannot evaporate without absorbing caloric from the furface, that was moift; and if calorick be evaporated, absorbed, or, in any way, abftracted from a thermometer or or an animal, will not contraclion be produced? All however I contend for, is, that animated matter lofes caloric, when it first touches the air; that hence the intercostals contract, the cheft is raifed, a cavity is formed, and, confequently, air is admitted. Air does not always produce this effect. A denfer fluid, as water, is fometimes neceifary. But of what confequence is it, whether the caloric be abftracted by air, water, ice, fnow, æther, irritation of the fchneiderean membrane, by whipping, or by the contact of any fubftance, folid, or fluid, which either abftra&is caloric from the animated fibre, or checks its vibration? For it is a law, apIpicable to animal, vegetable, mineral, and all other fubftances, that the corpufcles of all bodies approximate, as they lofe caloric, and that they lofe caloric, as they lofe their vibration. When air does not abstract fufficient caloric to produce this contraction of the intercostals, water will; but it must not be warmed. Warm water will not abforb caloric fo falt as cold water. The difference of the fenfations is a proof of it. Would you sprinkle a perfon's face with "warm" water to excite respiration? Do you open or fhut the windows in cafe of fyncope? Is there a phyfician, who would ufe "warm" water to recover a child from a ftate of afphyxia? Does it agree with principle or practice? Is

there one reafon or example to fupport it? Dath cold water in the face, and the animal infpires. Every old midwife knows this.

You object to the theory of evaporation. Do you object to the theory of abfiretion of caloric? How, I would afk, is the first infpiration produced in an atmofphere, that condenfes, instead of evaporating? Explain this, and, perhaps, we fhall agree about evaporation. Heat promotes evaporation. But this is no reason, that, the hotter the air, the better it is for refpiration. Cold, likewife, promotes contraction of the intercoftals. But would it not be too vague to fay, that, the colder the air, the better it is for refpiration? Evaporation would be promoted in a hot oven, or in a vacuum, and the intercoflals would contract in an atmosphere, where mercury would congeal; but in fuch circumstances, the new-born animal could not live; though, if its furface were moist enough, the intercoftals would contract, and the animal would infpire. It would have one gasp at least.

I have, indeed, afferted, that animal heat is dependent on animal action, and animal action upon refpiration. You maintain, that animal action is not dependent upon respiration, and "that

66

you would not believe Dr. H. "guilty of fuch abfurdity, without "better evidence, than" my "af"fertion." "For how," lay you, "could be fuppofe, that animal "action, which commences long "before birth, is dependent upon "refpiration, which commences "after birth? or how could he "fay, that animal action is de"pendent upon a process, which,

"in fome fpecies of animals, is 'never performed at all?" You will please to obferve. The Review for Auguft, and thofe philofophers, whofe theories Dr. H. prefumed to doubt, maintain, that, at least, animal heat is dependent upon refpiration. Your objection then is the fame against animal heat, as against animal action. For the animal certainly has heat before it is born. You offer an objection against your own theory, I grant there is animal action before birth; but is it not impoffi ble to continue animal action, without refpiration, after birth? The embryo, in its chryfalis, or the chick in ovo,cannot,in the common acceptation of the term, be faid to breathe. But, after birth, all aetion ceases, unless refpiration com mences. Unless animals breathe, they die. The animal in utero is a part of its mother, as the apple is of the tree. One or the other must breathe, or the fœtus dies. But you fay, there are "fome "animals, in whom refpiration is never performed at all." I do not know any animals, who do not breathe, and, if there are fuch, fhould be glad to be acquainted with them. When I fay this, I do not mean to confine breathing to air*, or any particular organization. If I were asked, how the vital action, in any fpecies of animals, was fupported; I fhould anfwer, by the alternate abftraction of caloric from the external and internal furfaces. This abftraction of caloric will, and nothing elfe can produce the contraction and confequent expansion of the veffels, upon which circulation depends.

• Does a fish breathe air or water?

If the contact of air, or water, upon one furface, in any fpecies of animals, will produce this effect, this is what I call breathing. Viewing the fubject in this light, why is it fo abfurd to fay, that animal action depends upon refpiration? If it be abfurd, is it not equally fo, to fay animal heat depends upon refpiration?

You affirm, that, if the contraction of the diaphragm be its elevation, "it would contract to an elongation." To this it might be answered, that, if the diaphragm contract, while it is dif tended, it then elongates in contracting. I know very well, that all phyfiological writers maintain with you, that the contraction of the diaphragm is its depreffion. I ventured to doubt; but am not unwilling to agree with them and you too upon this fubject.

The experiment of sprinkling the face with cold water, you think, is "not fo obvious, and invalidates," you say," the theory of evaporation." Pour cold water upon a hot iron, or your own bofom, and is it not obvious, what produces the contraction? Is it not becaufe caloric is abforbed by the water from the hot iron or warm bofom? Can you account for contraction upon any other principle? Of what confequence then is it, whether caloric be abftracted by air, or water? Is not the effect the fame ? Is the principle lefs true? If animals never breathed, until cold water was thrown in their faces, we fhould not think it correct to fay, that evaporation was the cause of inspir ation, or firft contraction of the intercoftals. But, if the intercoftals contract merely by contact of

air, we conclude, that air, as well as water abftra&ts their caloric, and caufes infpiration. The principle, upon which the fibre contracts, is the fame in both cafes. Hence the theory is not invalidated. The mercury contracts when the thermometer is fprinkled with water, or touched by colder air. Why fhould not the animated fibre?

You afk me, whether, "when "I throw myself into cold water, "fay to the chin, there is not in"ftantly produced a forcible in"fpiration and can there," you afk, "be any evaporation from "the furface of the body under "the water?" I tell you again, I do not fay, evaporation takes place under water. A thermometer or a man plunged under wa ter do not lofe their caloric by evaporation. But, if their moift furfaces be exposed to air above animal temperature, how do they lofe their caloric then? Is it not

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

PAPERS ON DUELLING.

THE DECREE OF THE STAR-CHAMBER, AGAINST DUELS.

(Continued from Vol. II. p. 62.) THIS honourable Court, and all the honourable Court this day fitting, upon grave and mature deliberation, pondering the quality of thefe offences, they generally approved the fpeech and obfervations of his majefties faid attorney general, and highly commended his great care and good fervice in bringing a caufe of this nature to publick punishment and example, and in profefling a conftant purpofe to go on in the like course with others; letting him know, that he might expect from the Court all concurrence and affiftance in fo good a work. And thereupon the Court did by their several opinions and feutences declare how much it imported the peace and profperous

No. 5.

eftate of his majesty and his kingdom to nip this practice and offence of duels in the head, which now did over-spread and grow univerfal, even among mean perfons, and was not onely entertained in practice and cuftome, but was framed into a kind of art and precepts; fo that according to the faying of the fcripture, Mifchief is imagined like a law. And the Court with one confent did declare their opinions. That by the ancient law of the land, all inceptions, preparations, and combinations to execute unlawful acts, though they never be performed as they be not to be punished capitally except it be in cafe of treafon, and fome other particular cafes of ftatute law: fo yet they are punishable as mifdemeanors and contempts and that this Court was proper for offences of fuch nature, efpecially in this cafe, where the bravery

:

« PreviousContinue »