314 
tions Brown acknowledges, by terming them 
states or affections of the mind ; but if any 
body likes to speak of them as faculties, we 
do not immediately see the mischief that 
‘will result from it. While Stewart talks of 
faculties, he means nothing but mind; and 
while Brown admits of nothing but states 
and affections, he all the while means dif- 
ferent things—distinguishable feelings. 
Though admiring Brown’s mode of ex- 
hibiting his sentiments, more than we can 
readily express, we still think he chose to 
fix upon Stewart, and men of his school, a 
meaning which they could not recognize ; 
and that Stewart, in return, jealous, 
piqued, and sulky, affected a contempt which 
could not be sincere, and secretly felt his 
pupil had beaten him on his own ground. 
There was some littleness in Stewart with 
respect to Brown, but there was also some 
provocation. 
Every thing with Brown rests upon ex- 
perience—every thing is phenomena—we 
know nothing of the nature of the mind— 
we can only observe its operations ; but how 
does all this differ from Stewart? Nota 
jot. The fault with Stewart, if fault there 
be, is, that with all his horror of materialism, 
he is perpetually running a parallel between 
the properties of matter and those of mind, 
which, of course, has a tendency to defeat 
his ultimate object, the distingnishing of 
one from the other—while he proves we can 
know nothing of the nature of either. 
What, again, know we of power—the rela- 
tion of cause and effect? Nothing, but 
that one thing precedes another. But this 
was shewn distinctly long before, by Hume ; 
and Stewart, though not using precisely the 
same language, is essentially of the same 
opinion. Brown will have nothing to do 
with associations, of which Stewart is eter- 
nally talking ; but then his “ suggestions” 
do not at all differ from them, as to their 
application to facts. Though specificating, 
in some measure, we wish to speak generally 
—for there are still many small points on 
which the parties really clash, and there 
we, for the most part, incline to Brown— 
the differences between these potent rivals, 
to our conception, are equally more in man- 
ner than matter. 
_» But as to power of clear statement—of 
easy and flowing expression—as to simpli- 
city, directness, and natural coupling of 
thought—as to the detection of misleading 
terms, and the selection of more appropriate 
ones—as to subtility of discrimination—as 
to native force and penetration—as to real 
genius—as to generous and liberal senti- 
ments—freedom from prejudice, and con- 
tempt of mere authority—Brown is immea- 
surably his master’s superior. 
We have not forgotten the “ Conver- 
sations”’ all this while. We find them 
expressly representing Brown’s sentiments, 
and adopting his language and arrange- 
ments ; and they do so with great distinct- 
ness and ability. They will attract some, 
Monthly Review of Literature, 
[Maren, 
where the name of Brown might deter. 
The writer carefully and even painfully 
guards against all deductions, conflicting 
apparently with morals and doctrines sanc- 
tioned by general and public adoption. 
Chemical Catechism, by Dr. Thomas 
John Graham ; 1829.—Is this intended to 
supersede Mr. Parkes’ well-known book— 
and why? Yes; because, first, the science 
is every day enlarging its domains—its ar- 
rangements, by the accumulation of new facts, 
require frequent shifting, and Mr. Parkes is 
gone, where he can nolonger for usrevise and 
correct; because, secondly, Mr. Parkes’ book, 
independently of recent discoveries, which 
change the aspect, or at least exact a change 
in the nomenclature of many previous mat- 
ters, contains numerous recognised errors ; 
because, thirdly, Mr. Parkes’ arrangement 
originally was radically bad, and the work 
itself ‘not sufficiently elementary, for he 
treats of compound substances before he 
gives the details of the simple ones, and in- 
stead of laying down affinity, or attraction, 
as the foundation, which it truly is, of che- 
mistry, and of course making it the first 
object of his consideration, happens to haye 
made it the last, apparently from not 
thoroughly grasping its important and all- 
pervasive influence; because, fourthly, he 
has almost wholly overlooked two pre-emi- 
nently important matters, vegetable and ani- 
mal chemistry ; because, fifthly, in the same 
manner, he has barely alluded to the atomic 
theory, by which alone is an adequate ex- 
planation obtained relative to the uniformity 
of the proportions of chemical compounds, 
and the cause which renders combination, 
in other combinations, impossible: and 
finally, because Mr. Parkes’ book has 
neither plates nor cuts. 
These defects it is the object of the 
author to supply, and we believe he has 
accomplished that object very completely. 
The more important facts are exhibited in 
the text briefly, but with remarkable clear- 
ness, while the Jess important matter, to- 
gether with all requisite details, are thrown 
into the form of notes at the foot of each 
page. Every thing is written up to the 
latest date, and the work cannot fail, we 
think, of being found eminently useful. 
In turning over the pages, to ascertain 
how particular facts were stated, we dropped . 
upon the article Sugar. This, every body 
knows, is extractable not merely from the 
cane, but in considerable quantities from 
maple, beet-root, skirret, parsnips, dried 
grapes, &c.; but it is not every body who 
knows that old rags are even convertible, 
every thread of them, into sugar. Yet this 
is represented as an indubitable matter :— 
Ttis a remarkable fact (says Dr. Graham) that 
a pound of rags may be converted into more than 
a pound of sugar, merely by the action of sul- 
phurie acid. When shreds of linen are triturated 
in a glass mortar, with sulphuric acid, they yield 
3 
a gummy matter on evaporation, andif this mat- 
: 
