REVIEWS OF NEW PUBLICATIONS. 
227 
so-called, and thereby lowering our own dignity. Such an argument may hold 
with those who consider their dignity to consist in upholding their favourite 
pursuits at all hazards; but we conceive that the man of true dignity will lose 
nothing by openly facing the truth, which, in fact, ought to be his main supporter 
on every occasion, whether or not such conduct may apparently militate against 
his interest, falsely so named. If a man’s interest consist solely in getting money, 
or in obtaining the applause of mankind, then indeed he need be no lover of 
truth; but he who has the true interests of his fellow-creatures at heart, will not 
fail, on any account whatever, fearlessly to publish his sincere opinions to the 
world, and by so doing he will be insuring what ought to he the interest of every 
one. Thus Natural History requires no garbled statements or adventitious assist¬ 
ance to prove either its uses or its importance. What we oppose is the assumption 
that there can be nothing loftier than that study. 
Whilst on this subject it may not be amiss, or altogether unprofitable, to make 
a few observations upon two editorial passages which occur at p. 221 of the 
Journal before us. In justly reprehending the omission of all notice of Phrenology 
in th e Benny Cyclopcedia , Mr. Watson remarks:—“ But who can doubt the 
existence of these defects, if aware, that while the sciences of Entomology, 
Ornithology, and others comparatively of little value, are largely entered upon, 
the most important of all sciences—that of the human mind—is scarcely spoken 
of?” Again :—“ We know not whether it is from contempt of the Society itself, 
or from contempt of the science to which it relates, that the Phrenological Society 
of London has been omitted by the compilers of the British Annual. Some other 
of the London scientific societies have been equally passed over; but the omission 
of the Phrenological Society becomes more remarkable by contrast with the 
admission of another whose objects are comparatively contemptible—the Entomo¬ 
logical Society ; which is introduced into the Annual for 1838, with lists of a 
President, four Vice-Presidents, and a host of other officers.” Now we have 
freely and fully acknowledged the superior importance of Phrenology to Natural 
History; but, for all that, we never could bring ourselves to designate either 
Ornithology or Entomology even comparatively u contemptible.” It is, certainly, 
an ungracious mode of expressing the relative importance of the studies. 
Zoology, for example, is unquestionably a higher department of Natural His¬ 
tory than Botany, since it treats of living beings , higher in the range of created 
things than the latter science; but so zealous a botanist as Mr. Watson would 
probably be surprised were we to stigmatize Botany as contemptible in comparison 
to Zoology. And justly so. For although the study of the vegetable creation 
may not assist us in money-getting or in obtaining food, it cannot, when properly 
investigated, but lead to the best results. Many persons consider the Fine Arts 
“ comparatively contemptible”—mere ornaments and baubles fit alone for the 
