Often they return from their dwelling in the sky.-The ma riner fhuns with horror the rock of death, near the verge of ocean's wing +.' The translator informs us, that he has paffed over compofitions of greater merit than thofe inferted in this volume, that he might know the fentiments of the public refpecting his own capacity, before he fhould attempt the more arduous part of his defign. It is but juftice to acknowledge, that we confider the present fpecimen as fufficient evidence of his abilities and we fhould be glad that fuch compofitions were refcued from the local obfcurity in which they have lain fo long a time; especially as their ftrong refemblance to the poems of Offian would afford additional proof to fuch as entertain any doubt of the authenticity of those productions. Stridures on the prefent Practice of Phyfick. Small 8vo. Bew. 25. 6d. "HE author of thefe Strictures fets out with fome remarks, ΤΗ fo much to the advantage of certain popular noftrums, and to the prejudice of the regular practice of phyfic, that a fufpicion might arife of his having enlifted on the fide of empiricifm; but upon farther, acquaintance with his doctrines, we muft entirely acquit him of this charge. A great part of this little treatife is employed on the nature of the gout, concerning which the author produces feveral arguments to refute the opinion of its being a hereditary difeafe. In his obfervations on this fubject, he thus proceeds: I will not afk whether, if the gout be hereditary, it de fcended to us from our first parents? If not, when, where, and how it first began? Because these questions might as properly be afked in refpect to other diftempers that are undoubtedly in fome measure hereditary: but if the gout be, like thofe other diftem + It was observed, in honour to the Caledonians, by a gentleman well acquainted with their ancient poetry, that no private difcord ever fubfifted among the offspring of the fame family. The prefent poem furnishes an inftance to the contrary; as the deftruction of Fergus, and difappointment of her filter, was the defign of Orwi, whofe fubfequent hiftory the bard paffes over with that contemptuous neglect which her character deferves. In alleviation of this lady's crime, however, let it be remembered, that the is entitled to make the fame defence fo often made for others in her fituation; the was in love, and disappointed. Although this apology cannot take off the odium with which her character is clogged, it places it in a more favourable light, than if the had been actuated by mercenary views.' 7 pers pers, congenial with our nature, if it be of feminal growth, why is it not common (like other diforders not merely the effect of habit) to every clafs in every part of the globe? Why are whole nations abfolute ftrangers to it? Why among the English, the moft gouty of all people, is nearly one-third of the gentry, who live to forty or fifty, afflicted with this complaint, while not one in ten thousand of the labouring poor ever experience it? In this land of trade, liberty and luxury, where property is fo fluctuating, and families fo fuddenly raised and funk; where the blood of the patrician and plebeian is fo intimately mixed and incorporated, why are not our hofpitals and alms-houfes filled by this disorder? Why have many thoufand children of the moft gouty parents lived to a very advanced age, and died without ever feeling the leaft fymptoms of it? Why, on the contrary, do we daily fee fome grievously afflicted with it early in life, whofe parents, ftill living, have never had. it at all? But, as each parent taken fingly is but of the balf blood with the children, to fet the cafe in a stronger light, I would ask, why it frequently happens, even among thofe of the aubole blood, that one fon has the gout to a violent degree, while another (perhaps older by many years) is entirely free? and why, fo often, have all the fons the gout, while all the daughters efcape? The answer to fuch questions (when any anfwer is attempted) ufually is, the difference in conftitution, in diet and exercise, makes every other difference. Is not this giving up the conteft? Is it not granting all that is afked? Is it not deferting to the enemy, and calling upon intemperance to father this bantling of fpurious and obfcure generation? On the other hand, although every individual in a family, for ten fuc-. ceffions together, has died a martyr to the gout, this is no conclufive proof that it is hereditary, while the fame means by which the first generation procured it have laid open to all the fucceeding ones; nor does it afford even a reasonable or prefumptive proof, while there is fuch an over-balance of evidence and argument on the other fide. But the advocates for hereditary gouts produce an instance, a fingular and wonderful one, of a child actually born with chalk ftones, and every other fymptom of an inveterate gout. Admitting the fact, what does it prove? We are investigating the courfe of nature, and our arguments are to be drawn from monsters! Inftead of one example, there are hundreds where children have been born perfectly rotten with the venereal difeafe; is this diftemper, therefore, to be claffed among the hereditary? and are the fins of the father to be visited on the children to the hundredth generation ? Nothing is more common, nothing more dangerous to the caufe of truth, than thus drawing general rules from particular examples. I have heard two or three inftances where the fmall-pox has been twice experienced by the fame perfon, or thought to be fo, and that in the natural way; furely it it is more rational to fuppofe, that either in the first or fecond inftance the diforder was not really the fmallpox, frequent miftakes of that kind happening; but were it actually fo, fhall we thence draw a general conclufion, that the small-pox is a diftemper we may have over and over, and lofe that comfort, and even folid fecurity, which arifes from the contrary opinion? Having ventured to fay what the gout is not owing to, the reader will now expect to be told what it is owing to; and I know not how to do it more clearly and concifély, than by firft giving him a receipt, which if he will have refolution implicitly to follow, my life on it, he will have a true, genuine gout, although there have been no traces of it in his family for fifty generations. Let him take little or no exercife; drink plentifully, but not to drunkennefs, of punch, light fharp wines, cyders, in fhort, of any liquor where there is much spirit and much acid united, whether the fpirit be firft feparated by distillation, and then mixed with the acid, as in punch; or whether the fpirit and acid be produced by fermentation, as in wine, &c. for neither the Spirit alone, nor the acid alone will generate the gout: the more harp and volatile the liquor, provided it have a fufficient proportion of Spirit, the more efficacious will it be. Let him continue this courfe faithfully and regularly for nine or ten months, then may he fet up for the Adam of a gouty pofterity. If he ftick to one particular liquor, and drink no water, tea, fmall-beer, or other diluters, the effect will be the speedier; and if he be rather in the decline of life, the fooner yet will he fucceed." The ingenious inquirer afterwards examines the propriety of the general doctrine, that bleeding is pernicious in the gout; and he endeavours to fhew, upon pathological principles, that the effect of this remedy muft always depend on the particular circumftances of the case. A variety of other obfervations, that discover both ingenuity and judgement, incidentally occurs; but on fome of thofe fubjects, the author indulges himself in theoretical fpeculation, to a degree beyond what can be admitted as decifive of the merits of practice. Gulielmi Hudfoni, Reg. Soc, S. & Pharmac. Lond. Flora Anglica, exhibens Plantas per Regnum Britanniæ ponte crefcentes, &c. Editio altera, emendata & au&ta. 2 vols. 8vo. 10s. 6d. Nourfe. THE HE firft edition of this work, published in 1762, being entirely fold off, and the copies rifing from the original price of 7s. 6d. to the extraordinary one of three guineas, it was was in fome measure the author's duty towards the public, to reduce this heavy tax upon fcience, and to enable a great number of inquifitive readers to profit at a more moderate expence, of the knowledge contained in his ufeful and valuable work. Another confideration of equal, if not greater weight, made a fecond edition very acceptable at this time. In the space of fixteen years, which were elapfed fince the first publication of this work, Mr. Hudfon had, on his frequent botanical travels throughout all parts of England, and by the communication of several affiduous friends, received fuch additions to his former catalogue, and collected fo many corrections founded on new obfervations, that a fecond edition would in many respects appear in the light of a new work, prefenting the indigenous botanifts with a variety of interefting articles before unknown, or at least imperfectly described.. On perusal of the volumes before us, these laudable motives feem to have influenced the author to re-publish his Flora Anglica. After a moft copious terminology, or explication of the Latin terms employed in modern botany, together with a complete. lift of authors cited in the courfe of the work, Mr. Hudfon proceeds to the enumeration of the British plants, difpofed as in his first edition, according to the fexual fyftem of the great Linnæus, lately deceased. To each new genus is affixed the short generic character, and to each fpecies the differentia Specifica. After the fynonyms from other authors, follow the English names, the place of growth, and foil, the duration, time of flowering, and fometimes particular defcriptions, and the pharmaceutic ufes. The duration is expreffed by the figns first adopted by Linnæus, and the months by Roman numbers from I to XII. To give a catalogue of names, and add to every one a string of fynonyms copied from the Linnæan Species Plantarum, and then to call fuch a compilation, a Flora of any particular country, is perhaps one of the easiest and most frequent manipulations in the whole art of book-making at this day, when private profit and the outward appearance, not the reality of fcientific knowledge are too often the main objects of writers. Very different is the task of a botanical author, who carefully compares every plant with the defcription of his predeceffors, and admits of no parallel quotations, without being well affured of the identity of the fpecies before him, with those defcribed in other books. The refult of his ftudy will be of important ufe, where the vamped productions of others do a&tual differvice; for as the latter encrease the difficulty of diftinguishing the fpecies of plants by quoting erroneous fyVOL. XLVI. July, 1778. E nonyms; nonyms; fo on the contrary the more careful and critical works of the true practical botanist, give us clear ideas of every individual, and effectually introduce good order, where confufion and contradiction formerly deterred the young beginner. The author who undertakes this laborious task, muft not hope to earn, at firft, those loud eulogiums which are lavifhed on the empiric. His book quite deftitute of the empty Shew of novelty, and concealing the fruits of his affiduous reYearches under a plain garb, to which the eye has long been accustomed, can have no charms to captivate the fuperficial. reader. The very few, who pursue the fcience with equal ardour as himself, and are (if we may fo express it) initiated in its myfteries, are the only competent judges of his merit, and will trace in every line that great knowledge and application, which the profane cannot difcover. From the real utility of his work he may however expect in the end to meet with univerfal approbation, when every mere unmeaning catalogue is forgotten. After the most attentive perufal of Mr. Hudfon's Flora Anglica, we have every reason to believe, that it will be generally esteemed not only the most complete account of the vegetable kingdom within our native ifland, but likewife a valuable guide to botanifts in general, on account of those critical corrections which appear to have been made with judgement after a nice examination, and with an indefatigable application. It would take up too much room to mention all the improvements which this new edition has received; we fhall however take the liberty to infert a few fpecimens in proof of its general utility to botanifts. Among the genera Mr. Hudfon has added fix new ones, viz. Narthecium, Tofieldia, Ficaria, Galeobdolon, Hedypnois, and Nasmythia. The first and fecond of these are the anthericum offifragum and calyculatum of Linnæus; the third his ranunculus ficaria; and the fourth his galeopfis galeobdolon. The hedypnois appears to be a moft neceffary addition to the fyftem, as it includes a number of, anomalous fpecies of different Linnæan genera, which have hitherto puzzled the botanical student. Mr. Hudfon enumerates five fpecies, viz. 1. Hedypnois hifpida, which includes the leontodon hifpidum, & birtum of Linnæus. 2. H. autumnalis, which includes the leontodon autumnale, Linn. and as a second variety, the hieracium taraxaci, Linn. 3. H. tectorum, which is Linn. crepis tectorum. 4. H. bieracioides, the picris hieracioides Linn. The |