lished form only a part of the intended work, the remainder being postponed for the present, until the author may have had an opportunity of completing it more to his satisfaction than he now can. We are also informed that the chief portion of his time is occupied with a great undertaking, which is now nearly concluded, viz. A complete Treatise of Surgery, Therapeutics, and Surgical Operations.' The first part of this immense work' is mentioned as being ready for publication a year ago, but we have not heard that it has yet arrived in this country. Osteology is here, as usual, divided into the description of the bones in the dry and in the recent state. Two objects may be stated as especially requiring the attention of the writer in such accounts; he should endeavour to give a correct idea of the shape and properties of the bone itself, and afterward of its relative position in the skeleton and of its connection with the neighbouring parts. It is not, perhaps, to be expected that much improvement should be made in the existing descriptions of the individual bones: but we have always thought that the details of their situation are not so perfect as they might be made. This deficiency cannot arise from any ignorance on the part of the anatomist, but from the imperfection of the language which is generally adopted. On this point, the manner of the present author seems to possess considerable merit; not so much by furnishing any thing that is absolutely new, as by putting his ideas into a perspicuous form. He supposes the body to be bounded or divided by seven planes; one above the head, another below the feet, one extended at the front, another at the back, one on each side, and the last parallel to the lateral planes, and passing longitudinally through the centre. These planes obviously afford fixed and permanent points, to which every part of the skeleton may be referred. In describing the regions of the bones, as M. LÉVEILLÉ calls them, we think that he is intitled to the merit of clearness and brevity; and, on the whole, we feel disposed to admit the propriety of the nomenclature which he adopts in his description of them. His general principle is to name them, not from their position in the body, but from the parts which are contiguous to them. To employ his own illustration, he describes the parietal bones as having, not an inner and an outer, but a cerebral and a cutaneous surface. He speaks of the sphe roid as having a cerebral and a temporo-guttural surface, and of the sternum as having a cutaneous and a thoracic surface. He justly observes that the terms which he employs present a dis tinct conception to the mind, and give a specific idea of the thing thing signified; while the old names, being applied to all parts, and frequently in an indefinite manner, were easily forgotten. The description of the individual bones is followed by an account of their physical properties, their chemical analysis, and, lastly, of their vital properties. On the abstruse subject of vitality, the author adopts the opinions of M. Chaussier, who supposes it to consist in the union of the three qualities, contractility, sensibility, and the power of supporting temperature. As M. LÉVEILLE thinks that bones are possessed of life, it becomes necessary for him to prove that they have the power of contraction: but here, as we might conclude, he entirely fails, confounding with proper contraction other powers of a totally different nature, such as elasticity, and the change of shape which the bones experience during the union of fractured parts. Contractility is certainly confined to the muscular fibre alone; and, in course, this definition of Chaussier is incorrect, because it would exclude from the denomination of vital all parts which do not contain muscular fibres. The second division supplies an account of the fresh bones, of their appendages and connections, of the nature of the joints, and of the effect of their motions on each other. In the description of the muscles, which forms the next part, we meet with greater innovations in language than in the account of the bones; more, indeed, than we are disposed to admit. The author observes that muscles have been generally named from their situation or shape, or something peculiar in their structure, or from the uses to which they are applicable: but he regards most of the appellations as ill selected, and difficult to be learned and retained in the memory. He therefore proposes to make an entire revolution in anatomical nomenclature, and to form one which proceeds on the general principle of naming all muscles from their attachments. That this plan has some advantages we readily allow; like the modern nomenclature in chemistry, instead of presenting to the mind and memory a number of crabbed unmeaning terms, it of itself aids us in acquiring some knowlege of the substance named: but it does not follow that it is on this account more easily remembered, and indeed we are disposed to argue the contrary; since there can be little doubt that the singularity or even the absurdity of some of the names is a reason for their being less likely to be forgotten. We will take the example of the muscles of the arm; (an example which we select merely because it is the first that presents itself;) they were formerly called deltoides, supra-spinatus, infra-spinatus, teres-majer, teres-minor,subscapularis,and coraco-brachialis: but the names given by : by M. LÉVEILLÉ are acromio-huméral, sus-acromio-huméral, sous-acromio-buméral, scapulo-huméral, sous-scapulo-huméral, scapulo-bicipital, and coraco-huméral. Here we should feel no hesitation in asserting that the old names, in consequence of their differing more among themselves, and possessing, as it were, a kind of irregularity, would be better remembered than the new but we regard the mere question of memory as of comparatively little importance, because, if the thing be intrinsically good, the student ought to learn it. Our objection against all these fresh systems of names, unless when new names are rendered necessary by new discoveries, is that the student must either learn two sets of names, and be equally familiar with them both, or he must renounce all the advantage which he might otherwise derive from the publications of all preceding and contemporary writers. The anatomical language of M. LÉVEILLE (and we may extend the remark to our countryman Dr. Barclay) is unintelligible to all but their respective pupils; and however excellent it may be in itself, the adoption of it in any work would be an injury to the progress of knowlege. Any advantage which might be gained by the appearance of scientific arrangement, or methodical classification, would be dearly purchased by the sacrifice. After the description of the muscles, we proceed to consider their properties; and first their vital powers, or those which distinguish them from dead matter. The first of these powers, that which may be regarded as the specific property of the muscular fibre, is what the author calls its contractility, -the irritability of Haller, a property which the muscle possesses for some time after its separation from the body; and which, therefore, according to the language of the French school, is dependent on its organic life. Besides their contractility, M. LÉVEILLÉ supposes that muscles possess an organic sensibility, that is, a sensibility residing in each particular part or fibre, unconnected with the nervous system. He does not, indeed, express himself on this subject with so much clearness as we might wish: but it appears to us that he employs the term sensibility in two different senses, the one to signify the effect produced on the sensorium, through the intervention of the nervous system; the other, to denote the effect produced on the muscular fibre previously to its contraction; and this last is the organic sensibility. It is said not to be a property peculiar to muscles, but to be more active in the muscles than in other parts of the body. Both these properties, the contractility and the sensibility, exist for a certain length of time after a muscle is separated from the body, and in this case they are styled organic but where the muscular powers exist as forming a part of the system, they are called animal contractility and animal sensibility. The division of the vital powers into organic and animal is probably not without foundation, and is at least an useful form of expression: but we are not disposed to admit of sensibility independent of the nervous system. We do not indeed think that the author's physiology is nearly so correct as his anatomy; he is too fond of the metaphysics of physiology; and, like most of those who venture into these obscure regions, he becomes frequently bewildered. His disquisitions on the nature of the vital principle are as confused as all former inquiries on the same subject. One point, respecting the action of muscles, M. LÉVEILLÉ labours to prove with much assiduity, and we are partly disposed to coincide with him. He supposes that a muscle is never in a state of perfect relaxation, or, as he calls it, inaction, except when it is palsied; that, as long as the nerves retain their functions, muscles can never be passive, but must be in a state either of contraction or of extension; and that neither of these states can subsist for any length of time with an uneasiness being experienced. It would carry us, however, beyond our limits to attempt any minute investigation of this question. Our general opinion of the work is favourable, more especially with respect to the descriptive part; which shews the author to be a good anatomist, and to possess the talent of expressing himself with perspicuity. FOREIGN CATALOGUE. In the large importation of books which has lately been received in this country, a considerable number of French and German Novels has been included. We do not often trouble our readers with works of this class from the foreign presses: but several of them having now reached us, we are induced to take some notice of them; and as that notice will be very brief, we have arranged them and one or two other short articles under the above head-title, in analogy with the permanent department of this kind in our monthly numbers. NOVELS. Art. 13. Rose et Albert, &c. i. e. Rose and Albert, or the Tomb of Emma. By Mad. KERALIO-Robert. 12mo. 3 Vols. Paris. 1810 Imported by Dulau. Price 158. Many years ago, Mad. KERALIO-ROBERT, then Madile KERALIO, engaged in an extensive work, intended to form a collection of the best French writings that had been produced by female pens; which was announced in our 77th Vol. p. 547. but of which we could never since obtain a complete copy. Indeed it is probable that the French Revolution, which soon afterward began its ravages, put a stop to that undertaking. In the same and in the subsequent volume, we entered at at some length into an examination of another and an original publication of this ingenious Lady, intitled, The History of Elizabeth, Queen of England; in the commencement of which article we hazarded a prediction of the approaching convulsions in France, that was but too speedily verified. During the early years of the Revolution, Mad. K. R. instituted a Literary Journal, which we believe did not long succeed; and now she appears before us in the humbler office of a Novel-writer, having composed a romance of the 16th century; in which she brings us back to those times with considerable adroitness. Her style is unaffected; and, although some of the explanations are too prolix, the story is pleasing, and its morality is unexceptionable. Art. 14. Les Voyages de Kang-Hi, &c. i. e. The Travels of KangHi, or new Chinese Letters. By M. DE LEVIS. 12mo. 2 Vols. Paris. 1810. Imported by De Boffe. Price 10s. An amusing satire on the manners of the French nation is couched under this title, and is not only written with pleasantry and acuteness, but contains some very ingenious disquisitions. Among these we find a letter on the literary abilities of the fair sex; in which we confess that the author loses sight of his national gallantry, though our politeness will not always enable us to refute his observations. He imitates Mercier by anticipating the period of which he treats, and his letters are dated in the year 1900: by which contrivance he introduces a description of many improvements in arts and sciences that at present appear chimerical. The difference of character between the French and the Chinese also occasions some humorous incidents; and the Parisian belles are represented as being so struck with the attire of a Chinese lady, and so desirous of imitating it, that they persuade her to lie in bed while they carry all her gowns as models to their mantua-makers. Kang-Hi also gives his friend an excellent specimen of a modern conversation, in which every one tries to communicate information respecting China, instead of accepting it from him; and all seem to talk for the sole purpose of confirming themselves in their own opinions. We trust that the mock memoir on the independence of India, which concludes this work, will not prove prophetic; since M. DE LEVIS suggests some of the measures that are likely to prevent such a catastrophe, while detailing those by which he supposes it to be accelerated. On the whole, we consider the letters of Kang-Hi as the jeu d'esprit of a man of talents, and we think that they will afford entertainment to their readers. Art. 15. to |