M. Necker's pulpit eloquence. The fermons feem to have coft him little trouble: indeed we were fometimes tempted to believe that he has only lent his name, or partial aid, to an inferior performer. But whether this be the cafe, or that M. Necker has written invitá Minervá, certain it is, that the difcourfes before us, while they evidently appear to proceed from the best intentions, and although they contain fome scattered fragments of argument. and of eloquence, betray a grievous decline of judgment, perfpicacity, and logical difcrimination, in their refponfible author. We do not hesitate to warn young perfons against a partiality for fuch flimfy compofitions. They are very much in the prefent fashionable and falfe continental ftyle. An imperfect view of the fyftem of religion is given; and, inftead of a fober elucidation of the evidence upon which it refts, or a persuasive enforcement of the moral duties which it recommends, we have exclamations and loud affertions, and ftrainings after fublimity and pathos, that excite the ridicule of the prophane, and the regret or difguft of the pious. This manner of preaching may, like the prefent terrific mode of novel writing, roufe the curiofity of the idle; but it can neither remove doubt, nor influence conduct: And thofe who place confi→ dence in the courfe of religious morality published by M. Necker, in the hope that it can enlighten their reafon, or fortify their faith, will foon join in the candid and mortifying confeffion A peine, du limon où le vice m'engage Que l'autre m'y reporte et s'embourbe à l'instant." a ART. IX. A New Anatomical Nomenclature, relating to the Terms which are expreffive of Pofition and Afpe& in the Animal Syflem. By John Barclay, M. D. Lecturer on Anatomy, and Honorary Member of the Royal Phyfical Society, Edinburgh. Longman & Rees, London. 8vo. pp. 182. 1803. A CHANGE in the language of any science, is rendered neceffary, either by the fudden acquifition of new information with respect to its fundamental truths, or by the gradual accumulation of various dialects, partly founded upon theories, partly derived from accidental peculiarities in the fituation of difcoverers, and the confequent introduction of ambiguity and error. these circumstances concurred to warrant the great and beneficial alteration which the nomenclature of chemistry has lately undergone; but it is in the latter, only, that the neceffity of a new anatomical vocabulary can be found. G 2 The The purposes to which a fyftematic plan of nomenclature is fubfervient, are threefold: It adds to the regularity and beauty of the science; it facilitates the bulinefs of inftruction; and it affifts us in the difcovery of new truths. Upon each of these diftinct objects, a few preliminary remarks may be permitted, as leading to an illuftration of the principles on which all fuch schemes as the one now before us ought to proceed. .- The pleasure derived from the contemplation of abstract relations, forms by far the greateft part of the inducement to fcientific research. There is unquestionably a delightful fenfation in the discovery of refemblances that are unexpected and not eafily perceived a fenfation entirely unconnected with any view to the ufeful confequences which may be deduced from the knowledge of the new truth. The perception of the relation between the hypothenufe and the fides of a right-angled triangle, is as agreeable to the mind, as the knowledge that, by this celebrated difcovery, we are enabled to guide the course of a fhip in the pathlefs ocean. Nay, the perception of unexpected practical utility itself, is pleafing to those who have neither any chance of receiving the benefit, nor any capacity to fympathife with others. A man who ftudies the laws of the celestial motions, feldom thinks of the ultimate advantages to which his inquiries may lead-the conftruction of tables ufeful to the navigator.. He is fatisfied, that he discovers the certainty of a fimple and eafily comprehended relation, which was not previously fuppofed to exift. One great merit of fuch difcoveries, then, is the neatnefs of the form in which they are capable of being prefented to the mind. This is, indeed, the greateft excellence of any scientific propofition, if we except the apparent diflimilarity of the objects compared. No pleafure would be derived from a demonftration, however clear, that the three angles of a triangle, if cach of them is two thirds of a right angle, are, together, equal to two right angles. The identity is here too obvious, and the difcovery of it could give no fatisfaction, unlefs to beings of facultas much more dull than the human. But it would be equally impoflible for us to derive any great pleasure from the enunciation of a propofition, however general, in which a relation is affirmed, after a variety of aflumptions, and new definitions, and previous demonftrations of lemmas. We might be reconciled to the labour of following fuch a chain of reafoning, by the idea, that it ultimately led to confequences of practical importance; but, for its own fake, we fhould certainly feel little intereft in the difcovery. This neatnefs, or concifenefs and fimplicity, with which we can enunciate and demonftrate a truth, furprising either by its generality, or the number of the steps required for reaching it, conftitutes what is calle called the elegance of any scientific difcovery; and the elegance of a fyftem is, in like manner, the regularity with which its departments are ordered, and the fimilarity of their connexions with the fundamental principles. The concife and fimple expression of this regularity, in the structure of the language appropriated to defcribe and enumerate thofe various parts, is productive of the fame fatisfaction, and completes the agreeable uniformity; while it enables us to enjoy the fame kind of pleasure in fcientific details, that we receive from beauty of ftyle in works of imagination. The pleafure derived from mathematical fpeculations, is furely in a great measure owing to the fimplicity and uniformity of the nomenclature which the fcience of neceflary truth employs. The higher geometry, for instance, would ceafe to prefent us with fo many interefting objects of contemplation, if the analogous parts of different curve lines were known by different names, and parts entirely diffimilar were, from certain infulated cafes of coincidence, permanently confounded under the fame appellations; if (e. g.) the afymptote were fometimes denominated the focus, or if the tangents of whole orders of lines were called fecants, becaufe thofe of fome curves cut the arcs which they do not touch. The pleasure derived from the study of modern chemistry, is, in the fame manner, augmented by the fyftematic nature of the new language. With all its faults, that language does not confound fimple and compound bodies, nor diftinguish fubftances entirely analogous. Many of its terms have indeed been objected to as changes too violent, upon words meant to denote ideas of very frequent recurrence. Thus, we are told that common falt is a better name than muriate of foda; and furely, in the fame manner, round would, in ordinary life, be a more convenient, because a more familiar expreffion than circular, and oval than elliptical. But if the other compound falts are diftinguifhed by the union of terms denoting their component parts; an agreeable uniformity, in a fcientific point of view, refults from the extenfion of the fame principle of nomenclature to that falt which is moft commonly ufed, although it may retain its old name on ordinary occafions; juft as it is more agreeable to denominate the ellipfis from the property analogous to thofe of the other conic fections, although, in common life, we give it a name derived from the elliptical body moft frequently met with; and to talk of the ordinates and affymptote of a conchoid, although mafons speak only of the diameter and fhaft of a column. In fhort, all science confifts of claffification; and the plans now under confideration, are founded upon verbal arrangement, while they keep the claffification of ideas conftantly in view. G 3 But, But, great as the ufe of a fyftematic nomenclature is, in promoting the most important end of all fpeculative pursuits-the abstract pleasure of contemplation, its advantages are ftill more apparent in facilitating the acquifition of knowledge. The learner has in fact only to fix in his memory the few leading principles of the language, and he can from thence easily deduce the particulars of the vocabulary. He has thus at least one general medium of connexion, one fpecies of affiftance to the recollection of the fubordinate relations, which he may afterwards learn, between the things fignified, over and above thofe other helps which are common to all kinds of nomenclature. It may, however, be remarked, that where the objects of difcuffion are of conftant occurrence, and are neceffarily known by their vulgar names long before the student has occafion to view them in a fcientific light, the fyftematic nomenclature throws fome little difficulty in his way. If the great body of inftruction, too, is only to be found. in authors who have ufed an irregular language, the acquifition of the fcience, by means of the new-modelled nomenclature, may render that inftruction inacceffible, or at leaft create the neceffity of a double labour in the acquifition of terms. The fcience of anatomy is in this predicament; and Dr Barclay has therefore proceeded much more cautiously in propofing alterations, than the French chemifts found it neceffary to do in changing the nomenclature of a science which had itself undergone fo fudden a revolution. The new fyftem of measures feems fated to experience unfurmountable oppofition, for this very reafon, It may be poffible, after learning chemistry or anatomy in a new language, to acquire the fynonymes of the old: But, as no human memory can retain the combinations of numerals, the whole fyftems of preceding calculators muft either be utterly useless, or they must be wrought over again upon the new principles. It is by no means neceflary, for the affiftance of the learner, that the name of an object fhould be defcriptive. On the contrary, if we confider how often defcriptions proceed upon theory, and how feldom they apply distinctly, we fhall be inclined rather to pronounce, that the framers of a fcientific language should take the other extreme; and instead of always attempting to denominate an object by its peculiarities, should distinguish it by its known relations to other objects, making the roots of the whole infignificant words, or words in vulgar ufe. The French chemifts have been fingularly unfortunate in their choice of roots, however excellent their principles of combination. Although we know only of one species of air which can either fupport animal life or flame, they have named it by another property, which it does not appear to poffefs exclufively. And they have distinguish ed ed another fpecies by the quality of destroying animal life, although this is by far the moft ordinary property of the gafes. In the fame manner, they have rejected the term inflammable air, and fubftituted one which defcribes a quality not peculiar to a fingle gas. A variety of other objections to the defcriptive method adopted in the chemical nomenclature, will immediately occur to our readers. But, in fact, whatever terms may be used as the foundation of any nomenclature, the derivation foon ceafes to be thought of. No chemift when he ufes the word azote, ever ftops to confider how fatal that fubftance is to the lungs. The material point is to have the combinations uniform, and, where it is poffible, to choose fuch radical words as are in common acceptation; or, if new ones must be coined, to adopt fuch as are easily remembered; and to proceed in the choice upon no hypothetical principles. The fcheme propofed by Dr Barclay meets with our approbation, in proportion as he appears to have been guided by a regard to fuch confiderations. The following remarks upon the nomenclature of the mufcles, fuggeft inftances in the old language of Anatomy exactly parallel to thofe which we have taken from the new French fyftem. Some names are a kind of defcriptions, pretending to explain ufes and functions, which those who imposed them did not understand. In all cafes thefe defcriptions are extremely imperfect; often are falfe: and fhould we credulously receive them as complete, and proceed to reafon upon them as data, they muft always lead to erroneous conclu fions. On this principle, fome mufcles are named pronators and fupinators of the radius; fome flexors and extenfors of the carpus ; as if thefe were the only mufcles concerned in performing fuch movements. Now, every anatomift certainly knows, that all the digital flexors and extenfors that arife from the humerus or fore-arm, muft likewife be flexors and extenfors of the carpus ; that the fublimis, the radial flexor, and palmaris longus, affift in pronation; that the ferpinator radii longus brings the arm to the middle pofition, between pronation and fupination, and then acts as a flexor of the fore-arm; that the biceps, attached to the scapula and radius, is an extenfor of the humerus, a flexor of the radius, and one of the most powerful of its fupinators; while other mufcles, as the extenfor tertii internodii pollicis, although indirectly, occafionally affifts it, in that office. From the variety, therefore, of functions, in which muscles attached to the bones are ufually concerned, every name impofed with a view to denote these functions, muft either be uncommonly long, or extremely imperfect, with regard to defcription. p. 11. 12. The laft great ufe of a systematic nomenclature-the promotion of new inquiry, is too obvious to require any illuftration. Whatever contrivance fimplifies our vocabulary, muft of courfe leave G 4 the |