the health, when taken daily in large quantities; for they infallibly produce intoxication; and a very eminent Physician* has observed, that a tipsy man is in every respect, in the same state as one attacked by the apoplexy or palsy, and when intoxication has arrived at its utmost height, there is no longer any difference betwixt this and the true apoplexy. A drunken man staggers, his tongue loses its powers of speech, he stammers, sees things double, and moving in a circle: his mind is affected, and imbecility takes place; his blood is rarefied, the vessels are surcharged, and press violently on the brain; he falls without sensation; and should one of the small blood-vessels burst, which are unnaturally squeezing the brain, he dies in a fit of apoplexy, which he has wantonly brought on himself.

This consequence of excess clearly points out to us with what caution we should make use of the best wine. It may be salutiferous to the infirm and aged, and greatly beneficial in cases of mental depression, sedentary habits, and stagnations of the fluids, as Dr. Willich says, "not unlike Passion serving to rouse the mind, and Tempests to purify the atmosphere," yet it is not less true, that its effects are only momentaneous, acting as a stimulant, without possessing any real principles of constitutional strength; the majority of great wine-drinkers dying at a premature age, owing to relaxation and debility.

G. W. F.

FOR THE PORT FOLIO.

MR. OLDSCHOOL,

MY POCKET BOOK-No. I.

A RIGHT pleasant wight in London, yclept George Canning, has highly amused and entertained the public, by a small volume, which he has styled " My Pocket Book," containing various memoranda to furnish materials for a ponderous quarto, calculated, among its other various uses, to promote the interests of three potent bodies of men, the paper-makers, the printers, and the booksellers. Inspired by such a laudable example, but without daring to lift mine eyes to so venerable a vehicle of amusement and information as a mighty quarto, I respectfully offer you, Sir, the contents of my pocket book, collected for

• Willich.

years from various sources, for the entertainment of such of your readers as may condescend to favour my lucubrations with a perusal.

When Belcour is accosted by Mrs. Fulmer, with the hacknied phrase," a fine Summer's day, Sir," he replies, "yes, ma'am, and so cool, that if the calender did not call it July, I should swear it was January." In like manner, if the almanac did not inform me it would be an arrant misnomer, I should style my effusions" light Summer reading;" as I intend them to be light enough to suit the meridian of the sultriest climate under the line. You have abundance of grave and serious essayists, who toil over the midnight lamp for the public edification: and whose labours will reflect credit on your work, and be of service to the public. But as there must be a great diversity among your readers, it may not be improper to allow a small space to writers of a different description, who, like me, merely mean to skim the surface of things.

NAMES.

I have been often struck with the absurdity displayed by many parents in christening their children. However extravagant the idea may seem, it really appears as if they were unacquainted with, or did not consider what is the object of names, and that they are intended to distinguish one human being from another. This object is greatly neglected when Christian names of any particular kind are generally bestowed on persons of the same surname. When the surname is a very common one, as Taylor, Smith, Thompson, Johnson, &c. a very common Christian name, John, James, or Thomas, ought to be carefully avoided, as productive of inconvenience.

I have now before me the Philadelphia Directories, for 1796, 1798, and 1809, and the London Directory, for 1799; in the first, there are no less than seventeen John Smiths, nine Thomas Smiths, and ten John Thompsons. In the second, there are likewise seventeen John Smiths, seven Thomas Smiths, and eight John Thompsons. In the Directory for this year, there are twenty six John Smiths, eight Samuel Smiths, eighteen William Smiths, eight Thomas Smiths, and ten John Thompsons. In the London Directory, for 1799, there are fifty William Smiths, fifty-six Thomas Smiths, and no less than seventy John Smiths, exclusive of twenty-five J. Smiths, whom I pass over, as uncertain whether the abbreviated name is John, James, or Joseph. It is easy to conceive what numerous errors and disadvantages must arise from the confusion of these names; how many letters must go to persons for whom they were not intended; how many family secrets must in consequence be revealed; how many mistakes must take place respecting notes and debts; and how extremely difficult it must be to guard against these mistakes.

I have known two instances of persons of respectable characters in this city, who had the misfortune to be namesakes to two men notorious for characters of a contrary description. The iniquities of the latter were frequently visited very vexatiously on the heads of the former.

In some parts of New-England, where the paternal Christian name is perpetuated in the oldest son, and in the grandson, there is a mode of distinction, which I have never observed elsewhere. Instead of annexing senior and junior, as we do, they add 2d, to the son's name; and, when the grandson is grown up, they add to his name 3d. I have seen in a Connecticut paper, Jethro Allen, Jethro Allen 2d, and Jethro Allen 3d. This is a troublesome appendage, and arises from the absurd prejudice that so generally prevails with fathers to dignify their oldest sons with their own Christian names.

In certain parts of Maryland, there is a mode of distinction, peculiar, I believe, to that State. Where there are two persons of the same name, of different parents, they annex the paternal Christian name to the name of the son. Thus, William Hanson, of William, and William Hanson, of Frederic, mean, on supplying the ellipsis, William Hanson, son of William Hanson; and William Hanson, son of Frederic Hanson.

In the choice of Christian names there is a great diversity of tastes. Many persons, particularly in New-England, prefer the Old Testament names, which are now less fashionable than they were formerly. These have Asas, Abrahams, Jonathans, Jonadabs, Jehoshaphats, Solomons, Elijahs, Deborahs, Sarahs, and Ruths. Novel-reading ladies deal largely in a totally different class of names, of a romantic cast. They flourish away with Clelias, Cecilias, Henriettas, Wilhelminas, &c. Goldsmith had such ladies in view, when he so formally introduced to notice among his dramatis persone, the all-accomplished and incomparable Lady Carolina Wilhelmina Amelia Skeggs. Persons of plain common sense, choose among a large class of names, which fall not within the two above described, and are perhaps preferable to either. This class embraces the Georges, the Frederics, the Edwards, the Henrys, the Peters, the Charleses, the Williams, the Roberts, the Marias, the Elizas, the Ellens, &c. &c.

Sometime since, there were two persons in New-York, of the name of John Glover. Their letters were frequently and vexatiously delivered at cross purposes. They had an interview, to agree upon some distinction, to put an end to the inconvenience. They judged it eligible to insert letter between the christian and surname. But, strange to tell, they chose the two letters least adapted for their purpose, of any in the alphabet. One wrote his name John G. Glover, and the

other John J. Glover. The distinction on paper, it is true, is strongly enough marked.

In Philadelphia, we had a case some time since not very dissimilar. There were two persons of the name of John Jones, who were as much harassed by mistakes of letters, &c. as the Messrs. Glover. They adopted the distinction of John Jones M. and John M. Jones.

INTOXICATION.

To what an awful extent must the rage for ardent spirits have prevailed at one period in England, when the parliament was obliged to prohibit for twelve months the distillation of Gin! Smollet informs us, that there were at that time signs or show-boards, to the tippling houses, with this tariff of prices, " drunk for a penny-dead drunk for two pence-straw for nothing."

TITLES OF BOOKS.

Many a valuable work has been injured in its circulation, through the folly or affectation of the writer, in giving it a quaint name, not at all indicative of its contents. "The Diversions of Purley." Who could ever have supposed that this was a most elaborate philological work, probably the most valuable ever offered to the world? Surely no human being. One of the most interesting books I have ever read on Indian affairs, remained for a long time unnoticed and neglected, from the quaintness of its title. It is called “ Indian Recreations." Numbers probably, as well as I, supposed it to be an account of the diversions of the Hindoos. Whereas, it is an account of their manners, customs, government, policy, and population; and possesses an uncommon degree of merit.

HUDIBRAS.

It is a pretty generally received opinion, that the four lines,

"The man who fights, and runs away,

"May live to fight another day:

"But he, that is in battle slain,

"Will never live to fight again:"

are a portion of the saving morality of the hero, Hudibras. I have known several wagers won and lost upon this subject. But I venture to assert, after a thorough examination of the volume, they are not to be found therein. It must be acknowledged, however, that they are among the most completely Hudibrastic lines that have ever been published.

VICAR OF WAKEFIELD.

It may seem like literary heresy, to call in question the excellence of such a popular and interesting work, as the Vicar of Wakefield. Yet it has always appeared to me liable to very strong objections, which militate against the judgment of the writer. That it has many uncommonly brilliant passages, elegant descriptions, and just and appropriate sentiments, is beyond a doubt. And what is of infinitely more importance, it is equally true, that the moral is excellent. But can the warmest admirer of Goldsmith deny that the character of Burchell is injudiciously drawn? that his conduct is radically wrong in one most important point, and in utter discordance with the beneficence ascribed to him? He sees a family, with whom he contemplates an alliance, beset by villainy of the most flagrant kind; and tamely looks on, when, by raising his little finger in their defence, he could have saved them from destruction, and crushed their oppressor to the earth. The letter which he writes to put them on their guard, is so studiedly ambiguous, that it did not require the arrant delusion under which the ill-fated family laboured, to interpret its contents entirely to the prejudice of the writer. Indeed this is by far the most obvious construction that any indifferent person would put upon it. And, when taxed with baseness, and perfidy of the vilest kind, he does not condescend to exculpate himself, but allows them to consider his guilt as tacitly admitted. He then departs, loaded with their detestation; and leaves the helpless and interesting victims to fall into the toils so artfully spread out to ensnare them. This is a radical error, and proves Goldsmith to have been extremely injudicious in the management of the plot of his tale. Other defects I may notice hereafter..

THEATRE.

It excites surprise to see the great diversity of manners and customs, that prevails among people who have unceasing intercourse together, and who live not far distant from each other. Many of these diversities are observable between the citizens of New-York, and those of Philadelphia. Among the rest, some of the prescriptive customs of the theatre are widely different. In New-York, no female of any description whatever is ever seen in the pit. Here there are frequently to be found in the pit as many females as males. And I think, of one hundred of the former found in the pit, and the same number in the boxes, at least twenty might, without impropriety, change places; that is, there are to be found about a fifth in each of these two parts of the theatre, that are on a perfect equality. The regulation of Philadelphia is, I think, the more eligible; as the tendency of the New