34: STUDY OF NATURAL HISTORY. 
and so disparaged by another, that we may fairly 
enquire how far these conflicting opinions are 
founded in truth. That he was not the inventor of 
system, or of arrangement, even in his own age, is 
abundantly evident from the facts already stated: 
for the works of Lister and of Willughby were 
unquestionably his guides. Nor can he be said to 
have originated those large and comprehensive views 
. in zoology, which had long ago been opened, like 
permanent lights in the firmament of science, by 
the immortal Aristotle. Great as were his talents 
and his genius, they were decidedly inferior to 
those of the Grecian philosopher. Neither had he 
at all times that accurate perception of affinities 
which can be traced both in the systems of Aristotle 
and of Willughby. His personal vanity, moreover, 
was excessive, — surpassing all bounds, and all 
instances upon record*; and this led him to do 
injustice towards some of those who were his con- 
temporaries, no less than to Lister and Willughby, 
who were the real founders of scientific classification, 
and upon whose systems he framed his own. But, 
when we have said thus much, we have said all that 
can justly be charged against this illustrious natu- 
ralist. That he possessed great genius cannot be 
questioned, or he never could have conceived the 
herculean task of arranging all Nature; and without 
sound judgment and unwearied zeal he never could 
have accomplished his task. In his zoological 
works there is every indication of a powerful, com- 
prehensive mind, while in his botanical writings 

—_—— 
* Maton’s Life of Linnzus, pp. 500. 561—563. 
ae 
