Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

tion of ninety-three thousand years that he has given to vital nature, and which he has deduced from the law or progress of refrigeration alone.

The feventh and laft epocha is the creation of man, whose origin our Author places among earthquakes, volcanos, inundations, amidst ftorms, tempefts, and the rage and conflict of the elements and then reprefents him as arifing to civilization by flow degrees, and at length becoming a focial, polished, and learned being-Where? In the northern regions of Afia. But all this fabric of fcience flipped through his fingers, the Lord knows how !-It was dafhed into pieces-the Lord knows where -and the Afiatics, getting feveral fcraps of it- thefe fcraps were bandied about, one way or another, till they got into our Europe, where the beft ufe and improvement has been made, of them. The original people who erected this fabric of science, perifhed with it :-but as we have no records that intimate the exiftence of fuch a people, it is not very furprising that we fhould not know how they came to be annihilated.- -M. DE BUFFON, however, talks of this people as if he had lived among them, and followed their progrefs from their origin to their extinction. If the reader has a mind to know the particulars of this people, as they exift in the heads of M. Buffon and M. Bailli, he must confult the work before us, and the Letters of M. Bailli, of which we gave an account not long after they appeared. As for us, we are weary of conjectures, and fhall therefore take leave of this volume and its epochas with pleafure, notwithstanding the beauty of the Author's ftyle, which is always enchanting, even where it betrays marks of negligence. In the volume before us there is one circumftance that must tire, if not difguft the most indulgent reader, and that is, the accumulated repetitions of the fame facts, reafonings, proofs, and explications, which meet us full in the face where we leaft expected them, and of which we never get quit till we arrive at the end of the book.

The additions and corrections, which conclude this volume, contain a confiderable number of facts and obfervations, geographical and phyfical, defigned to illuftrate feveral paffages in the epochas of nature, and in the preceding volumes. Some of them are inftructive, and others are curious and entertaining.

II. Nouveaux Elemens de la Science de l'Homme, i. e. A New Elementary Treatife concerning the Science or Knowledge of Man. By M. BARTHEZ, Chancellor of the University of Medicine at Montpellier. Vol. I. 1778. By a miftake this work came late to our hands: but both its fubject, and the merit of its author, claim our notice. Its fubject is the vital principle in the human frame, which is, no doubt, in an intimate union 'with both intelligence and organization, but whofe nature and REV. May, 1780. Dd

origin

origin form one of the moft intricate questions in the sphere of metaphyfics. Our Author paffes in review, the opinions of ancient and modern philofophers on this nice queftion. The first he mentions is the hypothefis of the Atomical philofophers, with Democritus and Epicurus at their head; who confidered the human foul, as compofed of two parts, the one rational, which refided in the breaft, the other irrational, which was diffufed through the whole corporeal frame; both of which parts they refolved into one. Next comes Gaffendi, who feemed to adopt the fyftem of the Atomifts, but modified it to his fancy, by fuppofing, that the irrational part comprehended the vegetative and fenfitive principles. The latter of thefe, being corporeal, he confidered as derived from our parents, and as the bond of union between the rational part and the body, while he looked upon the rational part as immaterial, created by the Deity, and by him united to the bodily frame. This hypothefis is revived by M. de Buffon, in his difcourfe on the nature of animals. Among the philofophers, who acknowledged the exiftence of immaterial fubftances, two fects only, according to our Author, adhered to the divifion of human nature into foul and body, without having recourfe to a third principle; fo that this third principle was admitted by a great number of philofophical and medical fects before Van Helmont, who is inaccurately fuppofed by many to be its author.

The Ariftotelians and Cartefians are the two fects mentioned by our Author, as confining their divifion of human nature to two fubftances, foul and body. The hypothefis of the former, relating to the foul and the living being, being full of obfcurity, therefore, our Author endeavours to unfold and illuftrate it; in which attempt, we fhall not follow him, becaufe, after all his explications, we come to this conclufion, that the doctrine of the ftagyrite may be profound, but certainly is far from being Juminous. We do not think, indeed, that any author, known to us, has given a better expofition of the doctrine of Ariftotle, on this dark fubject, than Mr. BARTHEZ: but, after all, when we read that the foul is "the first entelechie of the natural and organifed body,-that it has life virtually, or in posse,--that it is in the body (actually living) what form is in any body whatever, that it is not a being feparate from the living body,-that it has fenfitive, nutritive, generative faculties, and a paffive intelligence, that it conftitutes animal life, and renders the body capable of receiving that active intelligence, by the union of which, with the entelechie, the man becomes fufceptible of reafoning and paffions;-when we read all this, notwithstanding our real and high regard for Ariftotle, we have enough of the bufinefs. Hermolaus Barbarus, as we have read fomewhere, was fo puzzled with the entelechie, that he confulted the Devil about

4

about the explication of it; but we know not the answer that was given by the infernal Oracle.

Among the Cartefians, who admitted but two fubftances in nature (viz. matter and fpirit), the Animifts identified the principle of life with the thinking fubftance, to which latter they attributed all animal motion voluntary and involuntary; while the mechanical Cartefians derived ail the animal functions, excepting those which were evidently voluntary, from a series of neceffary motions, which fucceed each other in the organs of the body from the firft dawn of life. This refembles the preeftablished harmony of Leibnitz.

Our Author feems inclined towards the opinion of thofe, who look upon the vital principle, as diftinct, both from the mechanifm of the body, and the qualities and nature of the mind. He does not, however, follow all the reveries of Van Helmont, but walks much more foberly in this metaphyfical wild. He thinks, the vital principle cannot be confidered as a faculty of the mind, becaufe, while the former produces all thofe motions that are neceffary to animal life, the mind has not that consciousnefs of thefe motions, that is infeparable from its own operations. If it be objected, that this confcioufnefs may be fufpended by habit; he acknowledges the fact; but obferves, that it may be restored whenever we please by a reflex act of the will.-Á mufician, who, through habit, plays a tune upon the harpfichord, without any confcious perception of the motions that produce each note, can, when he pleafes, repeat thefe motions, and render them prefent to the mind by an act of reflexion; whereas the mind cannot obtain a reflex perception of the vital motions by repeating them, nor by any effort of reflexion or will. He thinks it, therefore, moft probable, that the vital principle produces, alone, by its immediate action, all the motions of the corporeal organs, whether it be with the concurrence of the mind, as in the voluntary, or without its concurrence, as in the movements of the heart and arteries, and other involuntary motions, as alfo in thofe which we perform mechanically through the effect of habit.

But has this vital principle, thus diftinguished from foul and body, a feparate exiftence in itfelf? or does it only exift by its union with the human body? Our Author inclines to the former, without affirming the latter to be impoffible. It is poffible, fays he, that by a general law, eftablifhed by the Author of Nature, a principle endowed with fenfitive and moving powers, may take place neceffarily in that combination of matter, of which each animal body is formed, and be the immediate caufe of that series of motions, that is neceffary to the life of the animal through the whole of its duration :-But it is alfo poffible, adds he, that the vital principle may Have, in itself, an -existence feparate from that combination of matter in the

Dd 2

animal

animal body, to which it is joined by the power of the Deity.Our Author alleges the following circumftances in favour of this latter opinion:

ift, The principle of life may be deftroyed in animals without any perceivable alteration in their organs; as appears in the effects of certain poifons, which kill almoft inftantaneously, without leaving any veftige of violence, or damage in any part of the body:-on the other hand, the vital principle often furvives confiderable damages, received by the moft effential organs of the body, fuch as the heart and the brain.-This obfervation proves very little, in favour of the feparate existence of the vital principle: it only proves, that it is independent on certain parts of the body, and the damages they may receive. We know no cafe that proves fo well the opinion, which our Author feems to prefer, as that of the warrior in the Art of Sinking, who was cut in two perpendicularly, and the one half of whose body lay panting on the ground, while the other ran away.

2dly, In a violent ftate of danger or irritation, the vital principle excites in the body mechanical motions, which can only be accounted for by a particular inftinct, as they are contrary to the motions which take place in the natural ftate of the body.

3dly, A fort of harmony pre-eftablished between the vital principle and the body which it animates, makes this principle (in various kinds of animals) aim at, and attempt motions, relative to organs, which do not exift, or are imperfectly formed, when these motions are attempted. The efforts of the bird to fly, and of the calf to butt, before the former is furnished with wings, or the latter with horns, are among the examples of this alleged by our Author. These, and the other instinctive propenfities, which lead each animal to feek and to chufe the objects that are peculiarly adapted to its fubfiftence and nourifhment, cannot, as our Author thinks, be the mere effects of organisation; ftill lefs are they the effects of reasoning and reflection; and therefore he is inclined to confider them as the action or impulfion of a vital principle, which is diftinct both from foul and body.

Senfible, however, of the uncertainty that accompanies the conclufions drawn from thefe obfervations, in favour of his opinion, that the vital principle is a diftinct fubftance, M. BARTHEZ modeftly acknowledges, that poffibly it may be no more than an innate principle, which governs all the complicated motions of which the animal body is fufceptible. The truth is, that the subject here difcuffed, is beyond the reach of our analytical powers: it is with the vital principle, as it is with the principle of intelligence; they both exift, but their manner of existence is unknown to us, and will continue a mystery, until we know not when.

M.

MONTHLY

MONTHLY CATALOGUE,

For MAY, 1780.

POLITICAL.

Art. 17. A Speech delivered at the Westminster Forum, on the 8th of November, 1779. By Maynard Chamb. Walker, of the Inner Temple, Efq. 8vo. 1 5. Bowen.

T

[ocr errors]

HIS Gentleman contends very potently (to ufe one of his favourite words) that an union of Great Britain with Ireland, fimilar to that with Scotland, would be injurious to the dignity, and fatal to the freedom of our fifter ifland. He points out the difference of circumstances by which Scotland has been a gainer, and which would probably make Ireland a lofer, by such a measure. This he does with great skill of difcrimination; and if ever an union between Great Britain and the latter country fhall be feriously agitated, this little performance comprizes the chief arguments on which the attention of the legislature must be turned. We cannot however accede to Mr. W.'s ideas on the fubject of reprefentation, as we apprehend them to be fundamentally erroneous. He thinks that Ireland, to be free, muft not only be duly but potently reprefented: that is, reprefented in fuch a manner as to be able to reject what the reprefentatives of that kingdom, in their wisdom, fhall think proper. Now, to fill up this modeft Gentleman's idea of an adequate, or as he calls it a potent reprefentation, Ireland muft fend an equal number of reprefentatives with Scotland and England. Nay, on the prefumption that the British members will think wrong, and the Irish members think right, on every question concerning Ireland, the latter country, to fecure her liberties, muft even have a cafting voice in the fenate. If this be our Hibernian orator's idea of an Union, where diftin& interests and diftin& denominations are to be kept up, we wish him joy of this political difcovery. England will be as averfe to fuch an Union, as Ireland will, probably, be to every other. But does not this Gentleman know, that Scotland is bound by an Act of our parliament in matters relating to Scotland. though every Scotch commoner and every Scotch peer should vote against it? that the Church herself is legally bound by an Act which every Spiritual Lord may have protested against? Yet was this ever made a fubject of doubt or complaint? To fuppofe the contrary, is to fuppofe an Union which would be the most egregious folecifm in politics.

One of Mr. Walker's arguments to prove that Ireland cannot be duly reprefented in cafe of an Union, is derived from the remoteness of the feat of government. The merchant, he thinks, will not leave his compting houfe, nor the lawyer his practice, to attend a diftant parliament; and confequently that in a parliament where thefe claffes of men are not prefent, Ireland will not be duly reprefented: that her trading interefts will be mifunderstood, and her municipal rights mifconftrued and perverted.

This argument is rather plaufible than juft. It is not often found that the most beneficial mercantile regulations originate from merchants, or the most wholfome and conftitutional laws from lawyers,

Dd 3

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »