that the motive for changing the nomenclature may be found in the fame corporation and national fpirit,-in a defire to obliterate the remembrance of every thing which did not owe its origin to the affociated academicians of France, in the fame combination of innovating phrenzy, and puerile vanity, which produced the new calendar and metrology. We confefs our difpofition to question this, at least in the extent to which it is here pufhed. No one can deny that the love of fyftem had risen to a very great height in France, at the time of the innovations now alluded to; and it would appear, that as much of the calendar and metrology as is analogous to the nomenclature, owed its origin to this fpirit of fyftematizing and claffifying all the objects of our contemplation. Instead of blaming the new chemical language for its refemblance to the other changes, we are inclined to laugh at the pedantry of its authors, who could overlook the effential diftinction between the two cafes, foolishly think of giving new names to the ideas of moft ordinary recurrence in common life, and attempt fuddenly to alter the language and the habits of the vulgar, for the pleasure of an useless uniformity. It cannot be doubted, that political views mingled with this love of fyftem in preparing the change of the calendar; perhaps thofe views were the chief inducement to its adoption. But it fhould be remembered, that mere innovation, however fudden, in matters purely fpeculative, is liable to no one of the manifold objections which are fo decifive against all fudden political changes, however fpecious. And in this most effential particular, the two cafes are exactly oppofed to each other :-thatthe new nomenclature was adopted, after a feries of the most beneficial and fundamental changes had been effected upon the whole fcience of chemistry; while nothing called for the new calendar, but the most deftructive revolution which the violence and folly of mankind ever brought about. The dogmatical spirit, indeed, with which the new nomenclature, and, in general, the new fyftem, was promulgated, had a tendency to obliterate much very valuable information, contained in the writings of the elder chemifts and we conceive, that the prefent publication, if it ferved no other end, would be highly important as a collection of things not to be met with in the works of the new school. . Mr Robifon, among the obfervations to which we are now alluding, introduces a fact, upon the authority of Profefior Lichtenberg of Gottingen. We give it to our readers as an amufing inftance of that univerfal charlatanerie (the word cannot be tranflated by a people fo deftitute of the thing) which renders the French national character the leaft respectable of any in the civilized world. When the Parifian chemitts, it feems, had finished their grand experiment on the compofition of water, they they held a fort of feftival, at which Madam Lavoifier, in the habit of a priestess, burnt Stahl's Fundamenta on an altar, while folemn mufic played a requiem to the departed fyftem. The German Profeffor remarks, that if Newton had been capable of such a childish triumph over the vortices of Des Cartes, he could never be fuppofed the man who wrote the Principia; and Mr Robifon moft justly adds, that if Newton or Black had fo exulted over Des Cartes and Meyer, their countrymen would have concluded they were out of their fenfes. The injuftice of Lavoifier's behaviour to Dr Black, has perhaps been fomewhat overrated by our author. He attempted, indeed, to conceal the very name of the discoverer of latent heat, in his papers upon that doctrine. This appears to have been his mode of proceeding on all fuch occafions. He feems to have thought, that the variation of an experiment, or the farther profecution of an idea, gave him a right of property in the whole fubject. But we can fcarcely confider his well-known letter to Dr Black as very irrefragable evidence of duplicity, when we reflect on the unmeaning complimentary ftyle which all Lavoifier's countrymen adopt upon every occafion. Dr Black was perhaps as little entitled to interpret the expreflions of that letter into a profound respect for his original genius, as he would be to infer affection from the ordinary beginning, or fubmiflion from the conclufion of the lefs verbofe epiftolary effufions of his own countrymen. We must refer our readers, however, to the Obfervations' themfelves for a full ftatement of the facts upon which Mr Robifon's remarks are founded. They certainly throw very confiderable difficulties in the way of thofe who may be inclined to defend the French philofophers *. The difcuflions which Mr Robifon's notes contain upon various points of modern chemistry, are of ineftimable importance to the student of that science. They draw his attention towards the weak parts of that beautiful theory into which the French philofophers have expanded the conclufions fanctioned by experiment; and fuggeft to him, at every step, the difference B 4 between The conduct of Fourcroy, and of one or two other chemical wri ters, not immediately engaged in the original inquiries which led to the new fyitem, has been much more fair towards Dr Black. Fourcroy, in particular, has uniformly mentioned his name with the greatest refpect, and has unequivocally admitted his claims to both of the grand discoveries which place him at the head of modern chemists. Fourcroy's careful enumeration of the important benefits conferred upon the fcience by the difcoverry of fixed air, Elem. of Chemiflry & Nat. Hil. vol. I.; alfo Syfteme des Connaifances Chimiques, vol. I. P. 13. Ibid. p. 28. 49. He fixes the date of the difcovery of fixed See zir, between the unfupported and the unquestionable pofitions of the fyftem. In point of fairness and ingenuity, thefe difcuffions are indeed fuperior to any with which we are acquainted, The new theory has never yet been treated with fo much candour and impartiality. Mr Robifon is, in fact, only an adverfary to the doctrines which are not warranted by induction, or are inconfiftent with known facts; and we fhall now offer a few obfervations upon thofe doctrines, not as a fpecimen of what our author has given, but as a caution to our readers against that implicit confidence in the univerfal truth of the antiphlogistic theory, which is derived from an unphilofophical careleffness about the facts, and a predetermination to learn the fyftem fynthetically. ** Lavoifier and his followers maintain, that the light and heat extricated during the combuftion of inflammable bodies, come entirely from the oxygenous gas. Now, to pafs over the very weighty objections arising from the deflagration of nitrous falts, objections which have only been got rid of by the moft gratuitous explanations, how does it happen that the union of many inflammable bodies, as fulphur and iron, fulphur and lead, &c. produces an ignition (i. e. an emiffion of light and heat) as violent as the union of the fame inflammable bodies with oxygen? Is it confiftent with the most obvious principles of induction, to attribute the light produced in cafes of combuftion entirely to the oxygenous gas, when the fame bodies are found, in cafes of union without that gas, to give out fuch quantities of light? Light, indeed, attracts oxygen from bodies, and contributes to give it the gafeous form. But the union of light with inflammable bodies is a fact fully as unqueftionable, and entitles us as pofitively to conclude, that part, at least, of the light emitted in combuftion comes from them." Befides, various inftances may be given of bodies, confeffedly incapable of forming any union with oxygen, giving out light, when heated to a certain point. Salts, and earths, and combinations of the two, as glafs, are eafily made red, and even white air, by Dr Black, in 1755 or 1757; and the repetition of his experi ments, by Lavoifier, in 1771 & 1772; vol. I. p. 36. From the unfortunate circumftance of Dr Black never having publifhed any account of his other great difcovery, we cannot expect that his claim to it fhould be adjusted with equal precifion. But the fame author (vol. I. p. 40%) gives a very clear teftimony in favour of our countryman upon this point alfo. In enumerating the fubjects of Lavoifier's chemical memoirs, he mentions one as having been written by that author, in 1777, on the combination of the matter of heat with evaporable fluids, and the formation of elaftic fluids; and adds, Thefe ideas, a long while before diffeminated by Black, were ftill little known in France, and facilitated to Lavoiller the introduction of all his other data. ". white hot, without any oxydation, or any change whatever of their properties, except the expulfion of moisture, and other volatile ingredients in their compofition. Other bodies, capable of uniting with oxygen at a high temperature, appear capable of being ignited by a lower degree of heat. Thus, linen cloth, when expofed to a heat somewhat higher than that of boiling water, feems, in the dark, to be covered with a blue lambent flame, and yet, when examined, fhews no fymptom whatever of oxygenation; for it is not in the flightest degree decompofed; and there is no inftance of fuch heterogeneous bodies being oxydated entire. How does it happen, that a body, admitted to be acid, fhould contain no oxygen? The Pruflic acid is this body. And how comes it, that water, which is fo highly oxygenated, has no properties of an acid? To fay, as the followers of Lavoifier have done, that hydrogen is not an acidifiable bafe, is exactly to ftate the difficulty in another form of words. How is the deflagration of water, in the following experiment, accounted for, upon any principle in the new theory? If fulphuric acid and oxymuriate, either of potash or foda, rendered as dry as poffible, are mixed together, a red and fuming liquor is formed, having fomewhat of a nitrous fmell, but containing no nitrous acid or nitrous gas. Let a drop of water be projected upon this liquor while the red colour remains, it inftantly deflagrates, with a flight explofion. This explains the experiment of tritu rating fulphur with oxymuriates, and of the explosions fometimes found to attend the mixture of fulphuric acid with those falts, when in a moist ftate. But how is the water first decompofed, and then recompounded? We can find no explanation of this, even in the doctrine of predifpofing affinities, invented for the purpofe of overcoming all difficulties. When a certain degree of heat, without light, is applied to many inflammable bodies, they are vaporized, without oxygena tion, decompofition, or flame. Apply a lower temperature, with light, and the vapour burns. Yet, what effect should the prefence of light produce, according to the theory of Lavoifier? A multitude of other facts might be mentioned, all tending to fhow how unfounded that confidence is which the followers of the new chemistry have repofed in the univerfality of its powers of explanation. Mr Robifon, who states a variety of fuch facts, acquits Lavoifier of the charge of an unphilofophical readiness to generalize, which has been brought against his followers. But it must be acknowledged, that Lavoifier himself was too fond of a beautiful theory-a fyftem which explained every thingto obferve with fufficient ftrictness the rules of analytical investigation, and his fyftem of chemistry feems liable, even in the laft laft form which he gave it, to all thofe judicious and philofophical criticifms which the firft fketch of it called forth from Dr Black. We cannot conclude thefe very general and defultory reflections, without again expreffing our obligations to Mr Robifon for the high intellectual treat which this publication has afforded us. If any thing could render the prefent more acceptable, it would be the addition of an index, or a full table of contents. ART. II. Le Malheur et La Pitié: Poëme, en quatre Chants. Par M. l'Abbé de Lille, un des Quarante de l'Academie Françoise. Publié par M. de Mervé. Dulau, Londres, 4to, 1803. La Pitié: Poëme, en quatre Chants. Par Jacques de Lille. THE It probably will not appear very flattering to a French writer, or to his French admirers, to fay, that he has extended his reputation, chiefly by abandoning his national peculiarities, and added materially to the beauty of his compofitions, by accommodating them to the taste of his neighbours. Yet fuch, it appears to us, is undoubtedly the cafe with M. de Lille. He has recommended his works to general perufal, by departing, in a good meafure, from the common poctical ftyle of his countrymen; by adopting, freely, the beauties of the furrounding countries, and forming himfelf upon the model of all that appeared to him to be excellent in the poetry of modern Europe. French poetry, we are inclined to fufpect, never had any very fincere admirers out of France. The general diffufion of the language of that people, the |