1813.] upon Werner's Mmeralogical Method, 25f 



tliere is a peculiar earth which stamps its character on all the 

 individuals of a genus. He has no stUceous genus at all, for 

 example. He has a Jli?it genus, all the individuals of which are 

 distinguished by a flinty hardness, arfd by a certain approach to 

 the properties of JimL The same remark applies to all the other 

 genera. They are named from the most characteristic mineral of 

 the genuSj to which all the rest are in some measure referred. 



9. Mr. Chenevix has written a panegyric upon the nomencla- 

 ture of Haiiy, and I shall not inquire into the legitimacy of his 

 praises. The conduct of Haiiy, in this respect, has aUvays 

 appeared to me very culpable. He has discarded almost all the 

 mineralogical terms which w^re in common use before his time, 

 and has introduced some hundred new words, all of his own 

 invention i Thus he has added a multiplicity of synonyms to a 

 science already superabounding with them, and in danger of 

 total confusion. What superiority amphibole has over hornblende^ 

 or pyroxene over augite, I confess, for my part, I never could 

 discover. 



in. 1 ought now to take notice of the attack which Mr. 

 Chenevix has made upon German literature; and his comparison, 

 of the state of philosophy, in Britain, France, and Germany. 

 But I have already extended this article to such a length that I 

 have left myself room to touch only slightly on the subject. I 

 am far from attempting to defend the German literary men ia 

 every particular. That many absurd books make their appearance 

 in Germany, as well as in other countries, is unquestionable ; 

 and that many of their literary men have attempted to distinguish 

 themselves by whimsical or absurd opinions, is too true. I 

 approve neither of their metaphysics, their plays, nor their 

 novels 3 and I dislike the clumsy and tedious details into which 

 their men of science occasionally enter. But to pretend that 

 they are all destitute of genius, or that they have not contributed 

 essentially to the progress of science, are positions that will not 

 bear examination. Who has contributed more essentially to the 

 improvement of mathematics than Leibnitz, the BernouUis, and 

 Euler?-^ and at present do not they possess Gauss, one of the 

 most eminent mathematicians of modern times ? Who contri- 

 buted more effectually to the progress of astronomy than Kepler, 

 whose three laws enabled Newton to develope the theory of 

 gravitation? Who stands higher as a physiologist than Haller? 

 Or w^ho did more to improve chemistry than Stahl, MargraafF, 

 Scheele, and Klaproth ? In zoology and botany they have done 

 much, in mineralogy every thing. It is not true that no German 

 has added any thing to the philosophy of chemistry during these 



* I include under Germany that part of Svvisserland where ths German 

 language is spokea. 



Vol. I. IV. R 



