Mis. No. 48. 30 



The first is for reading. This, paradoxical as the assertion may sound, 

 is the least important of liieir uses. By reading I mean cursory'perusal, 

 such as the writer ahove quoted describes. Reading as a jiaslime — reail- 

 in2 for the acquiring of general information — reading as a means of refining 

 and cultivating the tastes — is, indeed, indispensable to every well edu- 

 cated man. And. the means of such reading in this country are largely 

 supplied by our circulating libraries, athenaoums, book auctions, and cheap 

 publications. But the scholar has need of books for other and higher pur- 

 poses, 



A second important use of books is for study. By study, I mean that 

 vigorous mental application, which is necessary in order to fully conipn;- 

 hend, weigh, analyse, and appropriate the thoughts, facts, and arguments 

 of an author. It is study which disciplines the mind; which trains the 

 intellect for the rapid accumulation and appropriate use of knowledge. It 

 is study which gives education, which developes the faculties. IjuI it is 

 evident that for study one needs even fewer books, if they be rightly chosen, 

 than for reading. 



^riie third use to be made of books is for reference. 



Every man has occasion to refer to a dictionary or an encyclopssdia. Yet 

 whoever undertakes to read one through? Every one accustomed to com- 

 position sometimes has occasion to trace the history and meaning of a 

 word. '' There are cases," says Coleridge, <' in which more knowledge 

 of more value may be conveyed by the history of a word than by the his- 

 tory of a ceunpaigii." But to learn the history or usage of a single word 

 we may be compelled to look into five, twenty, or fifty dictionaries in dif- 

 ferent languages. 



Now the use of books by scholars is in general analogous to the use of 

 a dictionary bv any intelligent man. There are some sciences which seem 

 to require less'the aid'of libraries than others. It may even be true that 

 some important discoveries have been the result of mere accident. But 

 such is not the general rule. The progress of science is not fortuitous. 

 Nature does not often disclose her treasures upon a blundering invUation. 

 She must be diligently sought. He who would make valuable discoveries, 

 must, as a general thing, prepare himself by a thorough acquaintance with 

 the present condhion and tendencies of the science which he cultivates. 



He must do more, much nnire. " Of every branch of the two great 

 subdivisions of human learning," (viz: science and literature,) says an 

 able writer, ''its history is a constituent part, absolutely necessary to all 

 who would be competent to form just opinions on its present state. He must 

 know the past in order to appreciate the present, and in order to help shape 

 the future. He must not only be able to place himself on the ine of dc- 

 marcation between the unknown and the known, but li he would penetrate 

 the darkness of the former, he must have gained his direction by a carelul 

 tracing out of the analogies of the latter. Consequently he must give him- 

 self to long-continued, patient, laborious study of the history of science 



Moreover, it is not only necessary to study thatscience which one xusl cs 

 to enlarge by his discoveries: he must be fUmihar with the subjects ^ Inc 

 are allied to it. But where can we find the limits of any science ? A 

 knowledge is bound together by an nuhssoluble, though ometmes^^^^^^ 



invisible^ond. He who is versed in ^"\ ^"^^ ^ iTlrl' Iv ac' 

 and is entirely ignorant of others, cannot be said to ^« '^?''^ f ' f J?" 

 .iuainted with any. In the words of the writer already quoted, If books 



