It is with fome reluctance that we have yielded to the neceffity of pointing out these objectionable articles in this work, which, upon the whole, abounds in accurate research and ufeful information, and discovers many proofs of judgment, tafte, and impartiality. It is abfolutely neceffary, however, that the fources of public information fhould be kept pure. It only remains now that we fhould advert to a circumftance of fome importance in a work of this defcription, but which we propose merely as a difference of opinion. In the Preface, from which a large quotation was made in our Review for December, 1799, is the following profeffion, which we must here repeat:

"Prolixity we have in all cafes ftudioufly avoided; which leads us to speak of the remaining confideration; viz. that of the compafs we have allowed ourselves. Biography will certainly bear to be written much at large; and in judicious hands it is often the more entertaining and inftructive the more it is minute. But with fo vast a fubject before us as the lives of eminent men of all ages and nations, it is obviously impracticable to employ a very extenfive fcale; and the aim muft rather be, to give a fet of characteristic sketches in miniature, than a feries of finished and full-fized portraits. The fcope we have taken admits, in our opinion, of fuch an execution with regard to all characters of real eminence; and we hope we have difmiffed few of that clafs, without fully answering the leading biographical queftions,. What was he? What did he? His moral and intellectual qualities, the principal events of his life, his relative merit in the department he occupied, and especially, the manner in which he was firft formed to his art or profeffion, with the gradations by which he rose to excellence, have engaged our attentive inquiries, and we have endeavoured to develope them with all the accuracy that concifenefs would allow. But having been thus diffufe with respect to the higher claimants, we have been neceffarily reduced to very brief notices. of those of inferior rank."

This promife, although principally alluding to the volume then published, must be confidered as extending to all. But whether from certain reasons occurring to juftify a departure from this plan, or whether from that delicacy which fometimes may induce an editor to forgive the prolixity of his affociates, or perhaps from fome materials being more plentiful and nearer at hand than others, there is certainly in the volumes before us a want of proportion which is very ftriking, and which feems to deftroy the judicious rules of compa/s which the editor prescribed in the above quotation. We cannot confirm our remark more clearly than by exhibiting the following lift of perfons, who appear to be the "higher claimants", with the number of columns devoted to the life of each.

As a fcale of merit, this appears to us wholly unaccountable. But juxta-pofition fometimes does wonders, and when the authors of this compilation have perused the above list, and obferved fuch a man as Emlyn in a rank with Burke and Dryden, and Grove out-topping Erafmus, they may perhaps be induced hereafter to pay more attention to the beauty of relative proportion.

The omiffions which we have difcovered by a comparison of this with works of a fimilar kind, are very confiderable; but in this respect the editor has an undoubted right to exercise his judgment, to think for himfelf, and even for his readers. Still it is a matter of fome curiosity, to remark the wonderful difference in point of judgment between him and Dr. Kippis, the editor of the new edition of the Biographia Britannica. Dr. Kippis was not a man who crowded his pages with very infignificant perfonages; yet Dr. Aikin has thought proper to reject above AN HUNDRED lives which appear in that work. If it were worth while to tranfcribe this lift of omiffions, our readers who are converfant in biography, would perhaps agree with us, that the greater part of them are not justified by a comparifon with an equal or fuperior number who have been admitted; for example, fome obfcure Quakers recorded here from private information, and with men of fuch comparative infignificance as John Fell, Caleb Fleming, Dr. Furneaux, &c. We fubmit alfo, whether a confiderable part of the literary world would not have been gratified with fome account of Dean Bargrave; of Barretier, whofe life is fo well-written by Dr. Johnfon; of Barrett, the landscape painter; of Dr. Batteley, the antiquary; of Beaupre Bell; of Dr. Edward Bentham; of James Bofwell; Dr. Brett; Owen Salisbury Brereton; perhaps Dr. Brocklefby; Broome, the poet, one of Dr. Johnfon's fubjects; Broughton, the biographer; Burn, the law-writer;

Calafio,

Calafio, author of the Concordance; Capell, the editor; Sir W. Chambers; S. Charnock; Dr. Adair Crawford; Cunningham, the poet; Demoivre, the mathematician; Ferguffon, the Scotch poet; Dr. Zachary Grey; Grofe, the antiquary; and, not to multiply requests, Mrs. Godwin; but, perhaps, this lady may be reserved for her rank, under the name of Wolftoncraft. It is certainly difficult to know what the public may expect to find in a work of this nature; but, we prefume, the general voice would have been in favour of fome of these claimants.

The attention paid to correctness of dates in these volumes, cannot be too much commended; and references to the best authorities are preferved with equal care; for the articles of Martin Folkes, however, and of Samuel Foote, we are referred to the Biographia Britannica, where no fuch names are to be found; but these may be flips of the pen. Foote's life is obviously taken from the General Biographical Dictionary.

ART. XI. Lectures on the Elements of Chemistry, delivered in the University of Edinburgh. By the late Jofeph Black, M. D. Now published from his Manufcripts, by John Robifon, LL. D. Two Volumes. 4to. 1398 pp. 31..3s. Por trait and Plates. Creech, Edinburgh; Longman and Rees, London. 1803.

THE implicit fubmiffion which the generality of chemists, at

prefent, pay to the opinions and hypothefes of Lavoifier, continually prompts them to publish their fyftematical introductions to the science, in a fynthetical form. This mode of procedure, however, appears to us ill adapted to chemistry; a fcience of fuch a complicated nature, that the most learned and experienced of its profeffors cannot be said to have done more than to have sketched out, as it were, a mere rough draft of it, and to have fhown fome faint ideas of the manner in which these outlines might be filled up by their fucceffors in fome future, but probably very diftant age. It gives us peculiar pleasure, therefore, to view the publication of thefe Lectures; and ftill more to find them edited by a person who enjoyed the perfonal friendship of Dr. Black, and whose genius is under the controul of the fame degree of philofophical caution as that of the author. We here behold a veteran profeffor of diftinguished talents, who may be justly styled the father of modern chemistry, uninfluenced by the fupercilious dogmatifin

X x

dogmatifm of the French fchool; we fee him adding the dif coveries of the moderns to the original ftructure of the older chemifts; and carefully avoiding thofe alterations which were only the offspring of vanity, or of the fyftematic confusion that was introduced by the empirical politicians of the time. Dr. Black, although he adopts moft of the doctrines of Lavoifier, is not led away by the torrent, but fteadily pursues the path traced out by the illuftrious Newton in his Optics, and delivers the elements of chemistry in a truly analytical method.

Chemifts are far from having agreed upon the true definition of their science; and, as that which is given by Dr. Black is very different from thofe ufually employed, we shall confider it particularly. He eftablishes the difference between the man of fcience and the artift; and explains his diftinction by the example of Sir Ifaac Newton, in the invention and fubféquent formation of a reflecting telescope: he then proceeds thus:

"In like manner, we find numerous operators, who, either with their own hands, or by the hands of others whom they employ, exercife the various branches of the valuable art of pottery. Thefe perfons, by an apprenticeship, or otherwife, have learned how to choose and to mix the proper materials; how to form the veffels; to apply the glazing, and other decorations; and, lastly, how to give the proper degree of fire to confolidate and finish the ware. These are all artists, while they only exert in practice the skill they have acquired, whether by communication from others, or by efforts of their own ingenuity. But if there be a Wedgwood among them, who takes pleasure in attaining more extenfive knowledge of the fubject; who, by comparing the practice of other potters with his own, and by making new trials, and varying the compofition, the glazing, the firing, and other parts of the procefs, endeavours to make improvements upon the art, or to understand it better than before; fuch a perfon, in my opinion, is a philofopher, or a man of thought, ftudy, and invention.

"It may be objected, perhaps, that I use fome freedom with common language in this manner of applying the term philofopher, when I do not confine it, as is commonly done, to men of great learning and retirement, but apply it to any man who endeavours to acquire know⚫ledge, or thinks and reafons upon any useful subject. In this fenfe, the term, it may be faid, will apply to a plain farmer, if he only ftudies the conftruction of his plough, and how far it is adapted to produce, in the best manner, the effect for which it is intended, and perhaps endeavours to improve it. And in fo far as he does this, I have no fcruple to reckon him a philofopher; a ruftic one he may poffibly be thought, but a more ufeful one than many who think the title indifputably their's. Men of great learning and retirement often contribute little or nothing to the progrefs of improvement. They spend their time in learning and admiring the inventions of others, without ever propofing a new thought of their own, or ever discovering one ufeful power in nature." Vol. i. Vol. i. p. 6.

Upon

Upon fimilar grounds, Dr. Black is of opinion that chemiftry is a fcience, although it had, even by authors of the highest reputation, been defcribed as an art. Be that as it may, we fhall only obferve, that the ufual definitions of it may be reduced to two claffes: by fome, chemiftry is faid to treat of the feparation of natural bodies into their conftituent parts, and of the properties and recompofition of thofe parts; by others, it is faid to treat of the particular qualities of bodies. Dr.Black fhows, that neither of thefe definitions will at all accord with what is underflood by the word chemistry. In effect, how numerous are the cafes in which neither analyfis nor fynthesis occurs in the experiments of the chemifts. The second definition is ftill lefs admiffible: as many peculiar qualities, inherent in certain bodies, are by no means in the province of the chemift to ftudy; for inftance, magnetifm, the tranfmiffion of light, &c. Having rejected the definitions of others, Dr. Black gives his own, in the following words.

"Chemistry is the fcience or ftudy of thofe effects and qualities of matter which are difcovered by mixing bodies variously together, or by applying them to one another with a view to mixture; and by expofing them to different degrees of heat, alone, or in mixture with one another, in order to enlarge our knowledge of nature, and to promote the useful arts. Or, in fewer words (we may fay), that the chemift ftudies the effects produced by heat and by mixture, in all bodies, or mixtures of bodies, natural or artificial, and studies them with a view to the improvement of arts and the knowledge of nature." P. 12.

The cool judgment and philofophical difcrimination which formed the principal features in the character of Dr. Black, are evident in this definition. We perfectly agree in opinion with the author, when he proceeds to fay, that it takes in all that is proper to chemistry and infeparable from it; and, at the fame time, leaves out every thing that does not belong to the science. We have bestowed the more attention on this fubject, being fully perfuaded, that there is no fpecies of knowledge whofe boundaries have been fo ill defined, and indeed continue to be fo, in the works of the most celebrated of its profeffors, as chemistry. The revolutions of this word afford much matter for lexicographers; the cause of which is thus judiciously stated by Dr. Black.

"Some of those who tried to give a proper definition of chemistry thought it was neceffary to comprehend in their definition, all thofe fubjects concerning which the chemifts had attempted to reafon; and that all the qualities and phænomena which they had endeavoured to explain were proper and neceffary objects of chemistry. But this was furely a very great error; for, although chemical experiments have

X X 2 !

throwa