Importance of Natural History. 143 



of a whole kingiloni. The class of persons ahove alluded to, not unfVequent- 

 \y demand the value of botany in a general point of view, which they say is 

 a mere science of names, not leading to practical usefulness. I am far from 

 wishing to be understood, as not holding in due esteem every description of 

 attainments necessary or useful in the ordinary affairs of life; but I trust the 

 time has gone past, for knowledge being valued only in as far as it tends di- 

 rectly or indirectly to promote bodily comfort and enjoyment, or to ward off 

 physical ills. The true lover of knowledge, I conceive, is he who, not very 

 fastidious about the peculiar advantages to be derived from this or that ac- 

 quirement, follows knowledge for what may be called its own sake, that is, 

 for the pleasure of acquiring it, and the satisfaction derived from its pos- 

 session ; while the man who takes no interest in any branch, unless he first 

 clearly perceives a way of turning the pursuit to his own personal advan- 

 tage or the public good, will seldom possess any enviable quantity of attain- 

 ments. 



Where would have been the immortal name and labours of Linnseus, had 

 he shorn his writings of all the portions which are not of evident use, accord- 

 ing to a certain sense of that term ? It is, however, quite unnecessary for me 

 to offer an apology for botany ; but I may simply say, that, though it were of 

 no practical utility, though no plant on the face of the earth possessed a 

 single useful quality, this science, for the addition which it makes to the 

 sources of human happiness, for the rational curiosity that it excites and 

 gratifies, would be well worthy of being studied. I may, however ask. Whe- 

 ther there are no plants made use of in gardening, medicine, or agriculture ? 

 And if these are numerous, whether, without knowing the species, in other 

 words, without being botanists, we could in general avail ourselves of their 

 qualities ? As to botany being a mere science of names, this is usually an as- 

 sertion of those who are so little acquainted with the subject as not to know 

 the names of twenty plants ; and it is so completely devoid of foundation, in 

 fact, no more applicable to the science alluded to than to any other branch of 

 natural history, or to astronomy, geography, &c. that it scarcely merits more 

 than a simple denial. Botany would have been the same substantial study as 

 it is, though names had never been heard of. But though names are, from 

 their obvious utility, numerous in all branches of natural history, it is to the 

 novice alone that they put on a perplexing air ; for he who completely under- 

 stands things, will usually find, that, during his study of the more essential 

 parts of the subject, the names have become imprinted on his mind without 

 any effort. 



Before quitting this digression, I may notice another class of critics who 

 find no fault with botany, but only with the manner in which it is studied, 

 and who, were they botanists, would, as they say, devote themselves to the 

 virtues of plants and vegetable physiology, rather than to the aspect and re- 

 lation of species. Now, the mineralogist, though often occupying himself 

 with the physical characters of minerals, does not undervalue sound geological 

 speculation; nor is he ignorant of the extensive application of his interesting 

 branch of knowledge to the practical arts and sciences ; so the botanist, when 

 he puts forth a work relating only to the external appearance of plants, with 



