Ciivier^s Historical Eloge of Werner. 7 
he bestowed the least attention, was the most fundamental of 
the whole, I mean the Crystalline Form. 
It is true, that the labours of Werner l)egan ten years before 
the first attempts of Haiiy, and, consequently, almost thirty 
years before the admirable developement which the doctrine of 
this great mineralogist has received ; and Werner, on his part, 
has done so much for the progress of the science, that he may 
eaaly be excused for not having kept pace with all that his ri- 
vals have done ; but the inexcusable thing is, that some of his dis- 
ciples, from a mistaken zeal, and contrary to his uniform avow- 
al, have shewn a desire to depress an order of truths, with 
Avhich he had made them too little acquainted. 
The reverse ought to have happened ; the results of the two 
methods ought to be united and combined : far from being op- 
posed to each other, they are the same in spirit, and are, in 
reality, but two branches of the same stem. Both of them, 
without pretending to deny that species do, in some respects, 
depend on composition ; yet establish them without sufficiently 
consulting chemistry. They suppose for them, tacitly at least, 
a principle of individuality, which does not belong to the mat- 
ter that composes them. Chemistry reproaches both of them 
with sometimes establishing Species gratuitously, and yet she is 
obliged to confess that both of them have frequently anticipated 
her, by indicating distinctions of substances, of which she has 
only been able to give an account by her analysis, after the fact 
had been ascertained. 
The only difference is, that each of these two great minera- 
logists gives too exclusive a preponderance to those characters 
which he has most attentively studied. 
Haiiy, considering crystallisation as alone worthy to be set 
in competition with analysis, has resorted to methods which are 
more rigorous and more scientific, but from which a great many 
substances escape. 
Werner, admitting subordinate properties to the same privi- 
lege, embraces more easily all kinds of minerals, but he has 
overlooked what is most profound and mysterious in tlieir na^ 
ture ; and when, in the conflict of these two methods, he has en- 
deavoured to set his subordinate properties in opposition not 
merely to analysis, but to crystallisation itself, he has almost al- 
