CHAPTER OF CRITICISM. 
263 
subject, and in the pages of a Journal like your own, to answer your corres¬ 
pondent, who seems to me to have raised a dust in order to show his extraordinary 
power in laying it. If he had turned to his “Johnson” before writing, it would 
probably have spared him the pains he appears to have taken. In using the 
passage alluded to, unconnected as it was with the subject of my remarks, I 
certainly did not anticipate the quibbles of a caviller, or it might have assumed a 
less ambiguous form. However, could I think the pages of The Naturalist the 
proper medium for such a discussion, and had your correspondent not been 
anonymous, I might have been inclined to reply to some of his arguments. As 
it is, I must leave your readers to decide the question. 
I remain, 
Yours truly, 
Campsall , Jan. 3, 1839. Edwin Lankester. 
[Yhe subject discussed by “ A. H.” at p. 199, et seq ., either is or is not con¬ 
nected with the legitimate and declared objects of The Naturalist. Laying aside 
the question of abstract propriety, Mr. Lankester has very clearly intimated his 
own opinion of the matter. Thus in our Dec. number (Yol. IY., p. 138) he 
states his views concerning the mental manifestations of Man, as distinguished 
from those of the lower animals ; “ A. H.” did likewise at p. 199—a proceeding 
condemned by Mr. L. The following must, therefore, be our present corres¬ 
pondent’s argument, viz., that as long as Mr. Lankester is the writer, the subject 
is perfectly legitimate; but that no sooner does “ A. H.,’’ or any one else, assume 
the pen, than The Naturalist becomes an unfit medium for such discussions. Or, 
perhaps, while Mr. Lankester testifies a most laudable desire to publish his own 
opinions on the point, he is at the same time scandalized at the alarming idea 
of the impiety which should induce any man living to express views at variance 
with those of Mr. L.—In the next place, we do not believe that a reference^ John¬ 
son would affect the arguments of “ A. H.”—Further, the fact of the letter at p. 
199 being anonymous cannot in the smallest degree invalidate its contents, seeing 
that they are of a purely argumentative nature.—Lastly, Mr. Lankester admits 
that his passage was ambiguously worded; but in so doing detracts from the candour 
of his avowal, by charging “ A. H.” with quibbling. This grave accusation ought 
not to have been left without proof. Taking all the circumstances into consider¬ 
ation, we arrive at the natural conclusion that the arguments of “ A. H.” are 
irresistible to Mr. Lankester. Here, therefore, we close the discussion.— Ed.] 
