MfSCONCEPTIONS OF THEORY. 225 



ural and physical science, where the word " nature " 

 is of such frequent occurrence, and where it pos- 

 sesses such diverse meanings, having often different 

 significations in a single paragraph, there is a special 

 danger of misconception. Here, unless particular 

 attention be given to the changed meanings of the 

 term, it becomes a cloak for the most specious fal- 

 lacies, and a prolific source of the most extravagant 

 paralogisms. 



Any one of the diverse meanings of the word" na- 

 ture," as just given, is liable to be misconstrued by 

 the unwary. But the chief source of mischief with 

 incautious readers arises from the habit scientific 

 writers have, of indiscriminately personifying nature 

 on all occasions ; of speaking of it as if it were a single 

 and distinct entity, producing all the various phe- 

 nomena of the visible universe, and of referring to 

 it as one of the causes that " fabricate this corporeal 

 and sensible world ; " as a kind of an independent 

 deity " which, being full of reasons and powers, 

 orders and presides over all mundane affairs." 



When poets personify nature there is no danger 

 of misconception. In their case the figurative use 

 of the term is allowed and expected. Thus, when 

 Bryant tells us that nature speaks "a various lan- 

 guage," or when he bids us 



" Go forth under the open sky, and list 

 To nature's teachings ; " 

 or when Longfellow declares that 



"No tears 



Dim the sweet look that nature wears," 

 we understand at once that " nature " is but a 



E.-is 



