CHARLES WATERTON AS A NATURALIST. 



only one district are much more 

 likely to advance natural know- 

 ledge than those that grasp at more 

 than they can possibly be acquaint- 

 ed with " (Edition 1833, page 128). 

 What his biographer and editor, Mr. 

 Moore, says of him is very far from 

 the truth, however it might be in re- 

 gard to birds. " He rarely ven- 

 tured upon a statement which he had 

 not abundantly verified, and his ad- 

 versaries were careless observers or 

 book-worms " (p. 129). "In all his 

 pryings into animal ways his accu- 

 racy was extreme. To this hour he 

 has not been convicted of a single 

 error" (p. 134). Waterton says: 

 " Our own snakes here in England 

 are scarcely worth notice so far as 

 their venom is concerned. One 

 species, which I designate under the 

 name of adder, is a harmless lictle fel- 

 low. . . . Our other snake is the 

 well-known viper, armed with two 

 small poison-fangs" (p. 432). To 

 show that these designations are not 

 a slip of the pen, he adds, at page 

 435 : " We have no vipers in this 

 neighbourhood, but adders are 

 plentiful within the park- wall, where 

 I encourage and protect them." 

 This seems odd, when all admit 

 that adders and vipers are the same 

 serpents. He had more reason than 

 he imagined for writing as follows : 

 " In taking a retrospective view 

 of what I have written on the na- 

 ture and habits of snakes, as it dif- 

 fers widely from the accounts which 

 we have already received, I really 

 hesitate to lay these notes before 

 the public " (p. 437). And he might 

 have " hesitated " before publish- 

 ing the following : " If they can 

 show that I have deviated from the 

 line of truth in one single solitary 

 instance, I will consent to be called 

 an impostor ; and then may the 

 Wanderings be trodden under foot, 

 and be forgotten forever " (p. 58). 

 J would not think of taking him at 

 his word, either in regard to his 

 Wanderings or Essays, for a person 

 may prove very erroneous in his 



estimate of what he believes to be 

 truth, and very hasty and presumpt- 

 uous in putting forth for truth that 

 which has no foundation in fact. 

 He informs us that the " common 

 and accepted notion that snakes 

 can fascinate animals to their de- 

 struction, by a dead-set of the eye at 

 them, is erroneous, and ought to be 

 exploded. Snakes in fact have no 

 such power" (p. 431). He repeats 

 the idea on another occasion : 

 " The supposed horridly fascinating 

 power said to be possessed by the 

 serpent, through the medium of the 

 eye, has no foundation in truth " (p. 

 465). He admits that this is a 

 " common and accepted notion." 

 Now, if anything is generally be- 

 lieved of snakes in the United 

 States, it is that of charming, fasci- 

 nating, magnetising or paralysing 

 animals, and particularly birds, by 

 whatever means it is done. I gave, 

 in Land and Water, on the 3d of 

 May last, the testimony of two 

 highly intelligent and credible peo- 

 ple on the subject. I find the fol- 

 lowing in a work, published in 

 Philadelphia and London, in 1823, 

 titled Manners and Customs of Seve- 

 ral Indian Tribes, by John Dunn 

 Hunter. This man was carried oft 

 by the Indians when very young, 

 and left them when a young man, in 

 consequence of having betrayed 

 their intended treachery to the 

 Whites. Being naturally of excel- 

 lent parts, he was easily educated, 

 and, being greatly befriended by 

 his own race, published his me- 

 moirs, which show truth on the face 

 of every page of them. Of the 

 rattlesnake he says : " Whenever 

 it fixes its piercing eyes on a bird, 

 squirrel, etc., it commences and 

 keeps up an incessant rattling noise 

 until the animal, convulsed by fear, 

 approaches within the reach of its 

 formidable enemy, and sometimes 

 into its very jaws. This, however, 

 is not always the result, for I have 

 repeatedly seen animals thus agi- 

 tated, and in imminent danger, 



