To this letter we think it necessary to add, that the writer of it, whose sentiments do her so much honour, is the lady to whom Dr. Franklin has addressed several of his "Letters on Philosophical Subjects," and likewise his " Scheme for a new Alphabet and reformed Mode of Spelling," published in the "Collection of his Political, Miscellaneous, and Philosophical Pieces." Mr. Hewson's connection with Dr. Hunter continued till 1770, when some disputes happened, which terminated in a separation. Mr. Hewson was succeeded in the partnership by Mr. Cruikshank, whose anatomical and surgical abilities are deservedly respected.' The lives of the celebrated Hunters, which occupy an unusual space, are almost entirely compiled from prior publi cations. While several names of inferior consideration are admitted into this collection, we look in vain for that of Dr. John Jebb; we cannot account for this omission of a man who did honour to the profession which he adopted; for he is mentioned as having existed, in the article of his uncle, Dr. Samuel Jebb. The language of this work is negligent in many instances; and we observe, in different passages, a wart of the general knowlege which is necessary to a biographer. Lorenzo de' Medici, for example, is styled a Duke (p. 70, vol. ii.) In the account of Olaus Wormius, we are told that, as much cocupied as the life of this physician scems to have been, he found time to marry three wives, and to have sixteen children; and what is still more, to write and publish above twenty works.' This is strangely expressed, unless it be intended for wit t; which we can hardly suspect. In the life of Dr. Berkenhout, there is so gross a blunder, that we suppose it must have happened in the press: his Botanical Lexicon is said to be particularly expletive' (evidently for explanatory) of the Linnean system. A regard to justice obliges us to take notice of an assertion in Dr. Tissot's account of Zimmermann; in which he claims for his friend the merit of a discovery due to the physicians of this country. In mentioning his Treatise on the Dysentery, Dr. Tissot says, " of which Dr. Cullen has thus spoken: Zimmermann is the first person, who has ever given the true manner of treating the dysentery." When or in what manner Dr. Cullen made this assertion, Dr. Tissot does not inform us; we are not acquainted with any passage of this kind in his works, and we do not remember to have heard it, during attendance on repeated courses of his lectures. He was accustomed to mention Dr. Zimmermann's treatise with respect, but he always attributed the merit of the improved practice to its true author, Sir John Pringle, whose observations on dysentery were published in 1752, at least fifteen years before the appearance of those of Dr. Zimmermann.-This train of re collection collection leads us to mention a still more remarkable circumstance, concerning this tract. In a pamphlet now before us, Dr. Zimmermann is charged with having taken the substance of his publication, which came out in 1766, from an essay on dysentery written by Dr. Andrew Wilson, then physician at Newcastle-on-Tyne, which was honourably noticed in our Review at the time of its appearance in 1760 *. The author (Dr. Wilson) even supposes that some of the cases, which he had related at considerable length, had been translated into German, and published by Zimmermann as cases which occurred to himself in Switzerland. The probability of this last charge, which many readers may think is carried too far, is attempted to be established by several ludicrous mistakes, which Dr. W. thought he had detected in the misapprehension of some English words in the original statement. We mention these circumstances, from no wish to depreciate the character of Dr. Zimmermann, but from a desire to preserve the claims of our countrymen from incroachment, on a subject of great importance to the health of nations. ART. IX. Histoire des Campagnes du Compte Alexandre Suworow ART. X. History of the Campaigns of Count Alexander Suworow OUR 2 Vols. Boards. UR readers will perceive that we have before us three copies of this book. The first professes to have been printed in London, but does not say by whom it was printed: the second is also said to have been printed in London, and is evidently the same book, with a new title, and the addition of the bookseller's name: the third is an English translation from the German of Frederic Anthing. The French edition carefully avoids intimating its relation to a German original, though in the AvantPropos it is called a translation; and it also manifests some pains in the editor to make it appear what, we are confident * Vol. xxiii. p. 123. Fer.... from from the type and paper, it is not, a book printed in England. Thus, when speaking (in the Preface) of Admiral Lord Nelson, he calls him our (notre) Nelson. The work was probably printed in France, where the editor dared not avow the publication. The English copy, as we have already observed, professes to be a translation from the German of Frederic Anthing; and in this language, and by this author, we suppose, the original work was written: from which the French volumes also are a translation. To each of these editions we find a preface, containing some biographical notices of Suworow. That which is prefixed to the English translation is considerably the shortest, but briefly takes notice of the writer's first acquaintance with the Russian General, which circumstance is omitted in the preface to the French. The English also contains, exclusively, a bombastic complimentary letter from Suworow to Charette, General of the Royalist Army in Vendée. In other respects, the French preface is much more full and circumstantial, in fixing those eras at which Saworow appeared most conspicuous, and in marking those instances in which his success and good conduct were most apparent *. Hence we are led to believe that the French preface is the most faithful translation; and indeed, from comparing some passages of the body of the work in both versions, we are inclined to think that the French is throughout superior to the English. With respect to the work itself,-of the main points, its authenticity and fidelity, we cannot judge. It gives a detail of military transactions, marches, sieges, battles, and assaults. It represents Suworow as having entered into military life as a private soldier in the guards of Seimonow, in 1742; and, passing through the successive stations of corporal, serjeant, and lieutenant, (which he attained in 1754,) he at length, by gra dual promotion, rose in 1795 to his present rank of FieldMarshal. It marks the growth of his honours, and describes with circumstantial accuracy the nature and extent of those services by which they were earned. His atchievments in the seven years' war with the Prussians (the first in which he served as a commissioned officer, and in which he attained the rank It may be said, indeed, that these particulars come within the range of the History itself, and therefore occur in the body of the work. Perhaps the English translator was of this opinion, for he adds at the close of his Biographical Preface: Such is (are) the private life and character of Suworow; his public actions are displayed in the succeeding volumes.' of of colonel)-his active services in the war against the Polish confederates in 1769, which ended in the first dismemberment of that unhappy kingdom-his successes against the Turks in the war of 1773, in which he three times defeated them—his subsequent services against the Tartars of Nogay, and against the Turks in the war of 1787, in which he obtained the memorable victory over 100,000 of them at Rymnik, with only a force of about 25,000 men-the assault of Ockzakow and of Ismael, where above thirty-three thousand men were put to the sword, and where the victorious army were for three full days permitted to plunder, to ravage, and to destroy-and finally the last campaign in Poland in 1794, when that kingdom was divided among its enemies, and in which, at the dreadful assault of Prague, thirteen thousand men (the flower of the Polish youth) fell untimely victims to the desire of defending their native city, and in which also 2000 were driven into the Vistula, where they perished:-all these atchievments,: the reader will find described in these volumes. He will find them described, too, by the pen and in the spirit of a panegyrist both of the hero and of his employers; of the policy and maxims of the Russian court; and of the allies who expunged Poland "from the map of Europe." The three most memorable of these events are the battle of Rymnik, the assault of Ismael, and that of Prague in the war against Poland in 1794. We shall give some extracts from the account of this last, as being that in which, we believe, there were few Englishmen who did not find themselves interested. After having described the preparatory movements of the assaulting army, the writer thus proceeds: The Russian troops who were ready to put themselves in motion in the order here described, were waiting for the signal in the profoundest silence. General Suworow gave the word of Belabenka, and the musket, which was the signal of attack, was fired at five in the morning. Immediately they were all in motion, although it was then very dark. Suworow went in person and posted himself on a height, whence he might observe every thing that passed, about a werst from the outermost of the enemy's works. The two first columns, as well as the bodies of reserve in the interval between them, were exposed during their approach to the cross fire of several batteries, namely, of that which they were attacking, of those of the small islands which were fortified on the Vistula, of those of Marimont and even of Warsaw, and on their flanks to a fire of case shot, and of musketry. But nothing could discourage them, and they rapidly leaped the ditch and the parapet, and fell upon the cavalry and infantry that were behind them. Brigadier Polewanow caused these two first columns to be supported by some squadrons of horse chasseurs, who leaped over the ditch, attacked the remainder of the 1 the enemy's cavalry, and defeated them with the bayonet. The int fantry drove the enemy to the banks of the Vistula, penetrated into the suburb itself, pursued them from street to strect, as far as the bridge, cut off their retreat over it, killed two thousand men upon the spot, and made two thousand prisoners, among whom were several officers and two generals. About one thousand men, who at tempted to save themselves by swimming, perished in the Vistula.* He then describes the movements of two other columns, by which several batteries were taken, and 2500 men cut to pieces: 6 The seventh column met with many obstacles. They had been obliged to set forward on the march much sooner than the other columns, to file round a marsh. They passed through two villages, formed themselves into a column, arrived at the intrenchment raised between the pond and the small arm of the Vistula, carried the three batteries, and marched on. The enemy's cavalry which had endea voured to stop their progress, were cut off by a part of this column, and the rest were destroyed by the bayonet or thrown into the Vistula, where nearly a thousand men perished, and five hundred were taken prisoners. Till this period the columns had combated and repulsed the enemy in the great interval which separated the external intrenchments from the fortifications of the suburb, as in a field of battle. They now penetrated into the farthest of the fortifications of Prague itself, and began to make a dreadful carnage in the streets and public squares, which were deluged with blood. The most dreadful of these scenes was the massacre of some thousand men, arrested in their flight on the banks of the Vistula. The Russians took three thousand four hundred prisoners, and the remainder were killed with the sword and bayonet, or drowned in the river before the eyes of the inhabitants of Warsaw, who, from the opposite bank, vainly stretched forth their hands to assist them. So great a number of prisoners, however, taken at a single point during the heat of the action, leaves no doubt of the moderation of the conquerors, and this fact, which, like all the rest of this action, was fully authenticated, at length destroyed the exaggerated accounts and pamphleteering declamations, which, by doubling the numbers of the killed, endeavoured to tarnish the glory of the Russian General. Besides, were equity at all compatible with party spirit, the writers who have deplored the fate of Poland would have observed, that it is rarely in the power of the leaders to suspend or curb the impetuosity of the soldiers in the heat of the action, still less in the fury of an assault, and, least of all, in such an assault as that of Prague, where the majority of the Russians were animated with the remembrance of their losses during the insurrection of Warsaw in 1793. But another equally lamentable spectacle presented itself to the inhabitants of that capital in the burning of several houses of Prague, the destruction of which seemed to menace them with a speedy fate. At once they heard balls hissing on every side, bombs bursting, and the cries of the dying. The mournful sound of the tocsin increased the |