in the alburnum but not in the bark. In order to detect them, you must take a young branch of a vine, and clear away the bark, and then break it by drawing the two extremities in oppofite directions, when the air veffels may be feen in the form of fmall corkferews. See engraved reprefentations of them in Grew's Anat omy of Plants, and Darwin's Phy. tologia.

Thefe trachea or air veffels carry other fluids befides air: Darwin fays they are the abforbent veffels of the adult vegetable, and the umbilical ones of the embryon

bud.

As to the abforbent, the excreta ry, and the fecretory vellels, we fhall speak of them when we defcribé the leaves.

To the foregoing defcription of the parts of a plant fhould be added that, which contemplates it, as a whole. Linneus, in fome meafure, helps us to that view of it when he fays, that the cortex terminates in the CALYX; the liber in the PETALS or painted leaves; the lignum in the STAM INA the vafeular feries in the NECTARIA and the pith in the

other in Italy. Much praife due to the Italian, but more to the Englishman. So finished are his defcriptions, that he has left but little to his fucceffors but admiration.

Mr. Editor,

FOR THE ANTHOLOGY.

AS aftrennons fupporter of the doctrine of toleration, I shall not combat the notions of a champion of Sir Richard Blackmore, who appeared in the Antholagy; but as the "ample evidence" adduced from criticks toi fupport his hero's claim to prac tical fuperiority, appears to jar with the generally received idea of their opinions, as a friend to truth I am induced to give it a fhort difcuffion.

The witnefs, fummoned before the bar, is as particularly enjoin ed to declare the whole truth, as forbidden to affert any thing con trary to it, and if "A lover of found and ferious poetry" had been influenced by the fame equi table fyftem, we fhould have found a fomewhat different state. ment of Sir Richard's cause.

The encomium on the poem Creation" by Dr. Johnson, had it even been expreffed alone, can not be confidered to extend to his very many other writings; but on the contrary it is preceded by many fevere, and generally ef teemed juft remarks, which de clare both his own opinion, and the prevailing tafte of the day; from which, I fhall quote the few following.

Of his verfion of Palms.The name of Blackmore mult

ers, who, by the fame attempt, ⚫ have obtained only the praife of ' meaning well.'

Of his Alfred.

The opinion of the nation was now fettled, and a hero, introduced by Black" more, was not likely to find ei 'ther refpect or kindness; benev'olence was afhamed to favour, and malice was weary of in

⚫ fulting.'

Of four epick poems. The first had fuch reputation and 'popularity, as enraged the crit icks, the fecond was at leaft 'known enough to be ridiculed, and the last had neither friends, nor enemies.'

A fingle commendation on one work cannot be confidered to exprefs the general opinion of its author. When Virgil quoted a few lines from the poetry of Ennius, he did not acknowledge his complete poetical merit, but confidered them as a few pearls gathered from a dunghill.'

In the quotation from Addi fon, he is happily more correct, but in the laws of criticifm, we find no rule why the depofition of one critick fhould preclude the poffibility of accuracy in another; I therefore refer him to the pages of almost every writer of that age, and confine myself to the following farcaftick paffage from Pope, where he mentions the confpicuous figure made by "the everlafting Blackmore" among the band of dunces.

If we have never said it before, we now inform our friends, and every lover of elegant literature who may chance to fall upon our pages, that original letters will ever be among the most acceptable offerings we can receive. The author of the following letter, already endeared to us by many good offices, adds a twofold kindrefs in this communication; as it furnishes a fpecimen of the eafe fo defirable in epiftolary writing, and alfo fome happy sketches of one of the moft wayward fects of religionists, that ever excited the ridicule of the gay, or the pity of the wife.

LETTER FROM A GENTLEMAN TO HIS FRIEND, GIVING AN ACCOUNT OF THE PEOPLE CALLED SHAKERS.

New Lebanon, Sept. 26, 1800.

MY DEAR CARLOS,

I CLOSED my laft letter with fome account of the religious government of the Shakers. I will now refume the fubject. They do not intermeddle with civil government, or the politicks of the country; but profefs themfelves friends to the exifting gov

few moments, but in a voice fo low, that I could not understand him. It feemed to confift of a few fentences difconnected. They then formed into two deep fquare bodies, ranged with military exactnefs, and began to labour, as they call it. It is fomething between dancing and walking, accompanied with vocal mufick, which I know not how to defcribe. They then refumed their feats. After fitting one quarter of an hour, they ranged themfelves as at firft, fang another hymn, some parts of which were very high, producing an unpleafant effect. This concluded the ceremony.

About one hundred and thirty were prefent. Of the females three or four were handfome, the reft resembled despair rather than humility.

I have now given you an imperfect account of this curious mode of worship, which feems almost too unmeaning to be ferious. But the human mind delights in vagaries, and to this fource you must attribute the origin of this fect. It tends to confirm the old remark, that enthusiasm cannot form a religion ever fo abfurd, which will not find votaries. But because the world is full of false religion, it does not follow, that none is true. Truth is modeft, unaffuming, but not from fear, and gains more by the charms of her mind, and by long acquaintance, than by the rofe of her complexion, or the fplendour of her drefs.

Some write long letters from vanity, and fome from impertinence; but I hope you will attribute

IN reply to Minutius in your laft number I beg leave to obferve, that from S**** B*****, a diftinguished friend at Nantucket, I learned, that the young woman, Jenny H., in Mrs. Knowles' dialogue with Dr. Johnfon, was fent from the W. Indies to England for education, and placed under the care of Mrs. Knowles. This is all that I can now recollect of the information of friend B*****; ur can I remember for what reafon Dr. J. claimed any control or direction in her education. A piece in Poulfon's Daily Advertifer, of Oct. 8, 1803, which I fend you for publication, feems to give fome further hints of the character of Mrs. Knowles. Her husband was a phyfician.

"In the American Daily Advertiser of the 10th of August laft, we inferted an extract from the Charleston Courier respecting the Vision and Death of LORD LYTTLETON. Having fince feen feveral manufcript accounts of the fame events, differing materially from that publication, but which appeared to be very incorrectly copied, we have fought for, and obtained, the original writing from which they had been tranicribed, and now prefent a faithful copy of it to our readers.-The original (at present in our poffeffion) is in the hand writing

TO THE EDITORS OF THE BOSTON REVIEW. Gentlemen,

IN No. 10 of your work is a paper, containing remarks upon a difcourfe of Dr. Howard, before the Humane Society. We know not who the author is; but think him worthy attention. He appears to be a man of medical experience, and well informed in the theories of refpiration and animal heat. But we think he has mistaken the theory of Dr. Howard, or does not understand it. The pleasure which I received from the performance myfelf will, I hope, ferve as apology for fome obfervations.

In the first remark there is appearance of a little want of candour. The words of the author are: The origin of animal heat is by him (Dr. Howard) believed to be quite diftin&t from the refpiratory procefs, and dependant upon a fubtle, incomprehenfible, and unintelligible princi

ple.' Dr. Howard does not ap pear to believe or to fay any fuch thing. He does not fay, animal heat is independent of, if that be what you mean by diftin&t from, the refpiratory process. If I underftand him rightly, he says, that animal heat is not produced by evolution of caloric from oxygen to the blood in the lungs; but that animal heat is produced and preferved by animal action, animal action by respiration, and refpiration by evaporation of the gaffes from the fkin and lungs. We do not fay this theory is true; but we think it fimple, ingenious, and philofophick. Dr. Howard does not fay, that animal heat is ⚫ dependant upon a fubtle, incomprehenfible, and unintelligible 'principle.' His meaning ap pears to be, that, when the integral corpufcles of an animal fibre are made to vibrate, they, like other matter, grow hot, and communicate calorick to bodies in contact; and is not this heat animal heat?

It is next afferted, that there is no reason, why the diaphragm and abdominal mufcles fhould 'not be contracted by the propagation of the external ftimulus, (air) as well as by the internal; and as the former exifts first, it muft operate first.' There is great difference between faying there is no reason,' and there is no visible reafon, Why the contact of air fhould contract the intercoftal mufcles, and not the abdominal at the fame time, may be difficult to explain. But it is a fact, that no part of the human furface can be touched with cold air, or cold water, without producing immediate inspiration.