was suspended in Greece, Rome, and Asia, (in which last region the same custom still prevails) over theatres and pleasure-gardens, to screen them from the heat of the sun, and which was drawn or undrawn at option. For a fuller account of which, the reader may turn to the Note on Book IV. ver. 80. of the present Poem: and especially to my translation of the Song of Songs, Idyl IX. Note 12. "The beginning of ver. 24, obviously refers to the graven images in ver. 19, 20; and, in bold metaphorical language, delineates their utter impotence and vanity: No-they shall not be planted; no-they shall not be sown; "The particle 8, which means either yea, or no, according to its position, verily, surely, omnino, is here rendered, with much more force, negatively, than affirmatively, as in our common versions: and it is in this sense, also, that it is understood by the Septuagint."Vol. II. p. 587. It is with considerable effort that I restrain myself from quoting many instructive passages, exfoliating the principles of taste in the fine arts, and the history of practical science, as well as of metaphysical speculation, which I had marked for insertion. But no one who wishes to acquire general knowledge, need hesitate to consult these volumes from an apprehension that he may consult them in vain. ANNIVERSARY ORATION. In March, 1808, Dr. Good delivered before the Medical Society of London, of which he was then the senior secretary, the "Anniversary Oration, on the general structure and physiology of plants, compared with those of animals, and on the mutual convertibility of their elements." He was unexpectedly called to the task, and had but a short time for its preparation; but the attempt was cordially received, and the Oration was published at the unanimous request of the Society. Though only constituting a pamphlet of 56 pages, it was regarded as truly valuable. The author commences in examining the general structure of the vegetable system, by first noticing the seed of the plant, which he denominates its egg; he examines the structure and component parts of this vegetable egg, in what manner the root issues from one part of its central organ (its corticle or heartlet,) and the trunk from another part: then he traces the respective structure of these derived organs, and the means by which, in several plants, the one may be made interchangeably to assume the functions of the other: he next unfolds, so to speak, the substances of which the trunk consists; elucidates the process of its annual growth and lignification; treats of the number and nature of the different systems of vegetable vessels, and investigates the questions of vegetable circulation, irritability, and contractibility. The author proceeds, in the second place, to point out a few of the resemblances of vegetables to the economy or habits of animals; such as that of their production-that the blood of plants, like that of animals, is compound-that as in animal, so in vegetable life, the very same tribe, or even individual, which, in some of its organs, secretes a wholesome aliment, in other organs secretes a deadly poisonthat vegetables as well as animals are subject to the classification of locomotive or migratory, and fixed or permanent-that plants, like animals, have a wonderful power of maintaining their common temperature, whatever be the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere-that both are capable of existing in very great degrees of heat and cold-and that both admit of the division into terrestrial, aquatic, amphibious, and aërial. Lastly, the author discusses the question of convertibility, and shews that vegetable matter can only be assimilated to animal by parting with its excess of carbon, and receiving a supply of its deficiency of azote. Then, to complete the circle, it is shewn that by means of putrefaction, the radical elements of animal matter return to their original affinities. Every part of this physiological disquisition, gives indications of various reading, extensive research, cautious experiment, and impressive deduction. But, as several of its facts and reasonings have been brought forward, in a more mature shape, in some of the author's later publications, this brief outline of its general nature and principal features may suffice. MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY. Pursuing the chronological order, I have next to speak of Dr. Good's essay, " On Medical Technology," which appeared in 1808, in the Transactions of the Medical Society of London; that scientific body awarding to the author "the Fothergillian medal” in testimony of their approbation of his labour. And here it will not be expected that I should characterize the essay with a decision akin to that which might be assumed by a medical critic; but that I should simply present such a view as may be taken by one who has not been indifferent to the subject of nomenclature or technology in general. With regard to most of the liberal arts and sciences, great improvements in technology, it is well known, have been introduced during the last fifty years. The nomenclature of chemistry, especially, has undergone a complete transformation; and if any one wish to convince himself thoroughly of the vast influence of names upon things, and the facilities given by accurate philosophical language to invention and discovery, he need only to study carefully the history of that department of science. Medical technology, however, has not derived such advantages from this circumstance as might have been expected; nor even has pharmacy been so purified from its jargon, as every one who uses medicine, as well as every one who prescribes medicine, might naturally wish. The ordinary vocabulary of medicine still remains an ill-assorted mass of terms from numerous languages, and numerous systems, alike destitute of precision and simplicity. "We have (says Dr. Good) Hebrew and Arabic terms; Greek and Latin; French, Italian, Spanish, German, English, and even Indian, African, and Mexican; often barbarously and illegitimately compounded, fanciful in their origin, and cacophonous in pronunciation." The sources of the inadequacy and perplexity of medical language, he traces, 1st. To the intermixture of different tongues that have no family or dialectic union. 2dly. To the want of a common principle in the origin or appropriation of terms. 3dly. To the introduction of a variety of useless synonyms. 4thly. To imprecision in the use of the same terms. 5thly. To a needless coinage of new terms. His examples in illustration are often really curious, at least to an unprofessional reader. Sometimes, similarity of colour has suggested the name, sometimes the order of time, at others natural history, at others the names of persons and places. Among the specimens furnished under the third class, are fames canina, rabies canina (doghunger, dog-madness :) cynanche (dog-choak ;) boulimia (ox-maw ;) pica (magpie-longing;) hippus and hippopyon (horse-twinkle, and horse-blotch;) elephantiasis (elephant-skin;) scrophula (swine-evil ;) vitiligo (calfskin ;) ichthyosis (fish-skin ;) &c. As a remedy for the numerous evils occasioned by a vague, unsettled, and irregular nomenclature, Dr. Good proposes, simply, to discard all equivocal terms as much as possible, to create as few new words as possible, and to limit the vocabulary as much as possible to one language alone. He gives some cautions, however, as to the employment of such Greek terms as have reached us through the Latin; and specifies, as a most important rule in conferring due simplicity and precision upon the nomenclature, that a scrupulous attention be paid to the sense in which the affixed and suffixed particles are employed, in compound terms, to express the peculiar quality of |