336 Reply to Art. I. No. XVIlLofthis Magazhie. 



when did science, our science at least, stand on a higher eleva-' 

 tion than at present? — but the clogs that have so long retarded 

 its progress. Where the exertions of the naturalist are founded 

 on the love, not of science itself, but of the good things that 

 accompany it, little is to be expected of energy in the investi- 

 gation of truth ; little of patient research, for it tends not to 

 the profit of the moment ; little of generous cooperation, for 

 it interferes with the monopoly of the " money-changer." In 

 the eyes of these dealers in nature, the attempt to impart a 

 higher tone and a purer spirit into natural pursuits is a crime 

 not to be pardoned. The reformer becomes a marked man. 

 Hence the secret enmity, that works its injuries wherever it 

 can work in darkness and impunity ; hence the open rancour, 

 that, when it becomes too effervescent to be restrained, and 

 must find utterance, vents itself, as in the present attack, in 

 froth, and slaver, and impotent malignity. 



But it is time that I should conclude : already I have gone 

 far beyond the limits which 1 have any claim, from the nature 

 of my subject, to be accorded to me in your journal. I have. 

 Indeed, to apologise to your readers for intruding so tedious 

 and uninteresting a series of details into a work which should 

 be devoted to science alone ; and, when 1 look back upon the 

 style and language in which they have been clothed, I have 

 equal apologies to offer on that score. But I must let my 

 words pass as they are. I have neither time to revise, nor 

 inclination to recur to so disgustful a subject. Something, it 

 is true, should be accorded me ; and the provocation I have 

 received should be accounted in my favour. It should be 

 remembered that the aggressor has voluntarily and delibe^ 

 rately commenced this attack, and voluntarily and delibe- 



son's assumption of the present decline of zoology is most amusing to 

 those who have marked its late progress. Can he tell when zoology was 

 at its height, or point out the period when it commenced to go down ? The 

 causes he assigns for this degradation of zoology are distinguished by the 

 same logical acuteness which seems to be characteristic of the bent of his 

 mind. They are worth repeating. The first cause is, " the denial of the 

 greatest and most acknowledged truths by bold and specious reasoners." 

 When or by whiom were they denied ? The second is, the " zealous adop- 

 tion by some, and the unqualified rejection by others, of theories or systems 

 which neither party understood^ What influence these misunderstanding 

 parties could have had upon the general interests of zoology, I am at a loss 

 to conjecture. The third, " the substitution of flowery and sententious 

 oratory for the results of deep and patient research." Where does this 

 Substitution appear ? or how could it in any respect produce the slightest 

 effect upon the real interests of the science ? In what academy could this 

 logician have studied his modes of reasoning ? 



