593 NATURAL 
not contain much that is worthy of our obfervation more 
than what is to be found in the writings of Ariftotle. 
The natural hiftoryof the elder Pliny is a valuable re¬ 
port tory of ancient knowledge j which, notwithftanding all 
its errors and extravagances, we may venture to call, after 
the panegyric of his nephew, a comprehenfive and learned 
work, little lefs various than nature herfelf. The author, 
in the dedication of his work to Vefpafian, fenlible of the 
defeCts with which it abounds, apologizes for them, front 
the conrtderation that the path which he took had been in 
a great meafure untrodden, and held forth to the traveller 
few enticements; while fome parts of his Subject had been 
lb often handled, that readers were become cloyed with 
them: that it was an arduous talk to give what is old an 
appearance of novelty; to add weight and authority to 
what is new; to call a luftre upon Subjects that have been 
obfcured by time; to render acceptable what is become 
trite and difgufting; to obtain credit to doubtful rela¬ 
tions; and, in a word, to reprefent every thing according 
to nature, and with all its natural properties. His defign 
mult be acknowledged to be grand and noble ; and, when 
we confider that the work was comported in the midft of 
important engagements, and chiefly at broken periods 
ftolen from fleep, we lhall not wonder that it was imper¬ 
fectly executed. 
The ancients had no idea of methodical or fyftematic 
diftinftions. As they were acquainted wdth but few bo¬ 
dies in comparifon with the moderns, and attended only 
to thofe which were ufeful to man; they diltinguilhed 
them only by their ufual properties, their native country, 
their habitations, and the ufeful purpoles to which they 
might be applied. From the few productions which they 
deicribed, they were not led to perceive the neceflity of 
fearching among them for diltinCtive marks or relations 
which might prevent their being confounded with each 
other. They doubtlefs believed that their defcriptions 
were Sufficient, and that the names which they imported 
would defcend with their cultoms to pofterity, without 
being affeCted by the diforders and alterations that have 
changed the face of countries and the feat of empires. But 
the revolutions that have delolated the faireft regions of 
the globe, by infulating or difplacing their inhabitants, 
or by confounding them with one another, and altering 
their language, have frequently almoft extinguished the 
lamp of Science. After many ages of ignorance and bar¬ 
barity, we find in the few works of the ancient naturalifts, 
which have efcaped the ravages of war and the devafta- 
tions of civil difcord, little more than uncertainty and 
oblcurity, with refpeCt to thofe Species which they have 
defcribed. Notwithftanding the labours of numerous 
commentators, we do not certainly know what fpecies 
of plant is the cicuta employed by the Greeks for the 
execution of criminals, and which terminated the life of 
Socrates. We cannot be fure that the animals, which 
we find belt characterized in the ancient writings, bore 
the names which we attribute to them ; nor are we more 
certain with refpeCt to the ancient nomenclature of 
minerals. 
As iong as ftudious men cultivated the Sciences only 
through the medium of the writings of the ancients, and 
attempted nothing beyond the interpretation of thefe, 
natural hi (lory , like every other branch of phyfics, re¬ 
mained obl’cure and confufed, and fiction or imagination 
took the place of faCts ; but, when they perceived the 
advantage of ftudying nature herfelf, and interrogating 
her by obfervation, methods were ereCled, and diftindive 
characters for the fpecies introduced. This fortunate 
revolution took place in the 16th century. Ctefalpinus 
firft attempted to reduce vegetables to clafles, and diftin- 
guilh them into tribes according to their form. Gefner, 
befides the fine hints that he firft gave of the conftant re¬ 
lation between the ftruCture of the feed and that of the 
other parts of plants, was the firft who attempted any 
fyftematic and methodical arrangement of animals. In 
the 17th century, Morifon, Ray, and Rivinus, improved 
4 
HISTORY. 
on the hints of Caefalpinus refpe&ing the clafTifibation of 
vegetables 5 and Aldrovandus, Rhedi, and Swammerdam, 
upon thofe of Gefner refpeCting animals ; and in a lhort 
time this firft impulfe given to the art of arranging and 
diftinguifhing natural bodies by conftant characters, was 
communicated to all thole who were employed in the 
ftudy of nature. Tournefort, profiting by all the attempts 
towards method and fyftem in the clalfification of vege¬ 
tables that had been made before him, advanced a consi¬ 
derable ftep in botany, by his beautiful method of diftin¬ 
guilhing plants according to the form of their flowers and 
fruits, which he published towards the end of the 17th 
century. Seethe article Botany, vol. iii. p.289—294.. 
for hitherto we have not been able to find a clalfification 
worth noticing in any other department of natural 
hiftory. 
But, at length, the fame year of the eighteenth cen¬ 
tury (1707) gave birth to two men who have advanced 
the general Science of natural hiftory far beyond any of 
their predeceflors. We need Scarcely mention the names 
of Linnaeus and BufFon. TheSwedilh naturalift extended 
his enlarged views through every branch of natural 
hiftory; lie arranged in his Systema Naturae and Sys- 
tema Vegetabilium all the productions of nature, and 
diftinguilhed them by characters that were precife and 
Simple; he created a new language for expreffing with 
brevity all thefe characters, and thus prefented to the 
view, as in a compendious picture, all the properties of 
bodies. BufFon, proceeding m a different road, treated 
more copioufly the molt important parts of natural hiF 
tory, and of the animals that are molt nearly allied to 
man, in a work which the fire of his genius and the 
brilliancy of his ftyle have rendered a univerfal favourite. 
The rival of Ariftotle and Pliny, whofe genius he Seems to 
have combined in the greatnefs of his views and extent of 
his plan, and altogether one of the firft writers of his age, 
he infpired a palfion for the ftudy of nature in numbers, 
who without his works would never have engaged in Such 
a ftudy, and communicated to his countrymen that tafte 
which has ever Since Survived him. 
After what has been given in the particular treatifes 
on natural hiftory in this Encyclopaedia, both as to the 
progrefs of the Science, and the principal works on each 
department of it, Since the time of Linnaeus and BufFon ; 
it is unnecefl’ary for us to trace its progrefs beyond that 
period. The advances made within thele few years are 
immenfe, our flock of information is prodigioufly in¬ 
creased, and the modes of ftudy greatly improved and 
facilitated. The labours ‘of Cuvier, Geoffroy, Cepede, 
Lamarck, Sonnini, Bloch, Spallanzani, Julfieu, Wilde- 
now, Werner, St. Fond, Brochant, Brongniart, Klaproth, 
Fourcroy, Vauquelin, Shaw, Latham, Catefby, Ellis, 
Smith, Withering, Woodville, Kirwan, Playfair, Thorn- 
Son, Jamefon, &c. with the alfiltance to be derived from 
the Annales du Mufeum National, the Naturalifl’s Mif- 
cellany, theLinnasan TranfaC'tions,and the Splendid plates 
of Merian, Schreber, Curtis, Sowerby, Sotheby, &c. afford 
ample proofs of theinduftry and Succefs with which this 
delightful field has been cultivated, and of the rich harveft 
that has been derived from the united efforts of So many 
men of genius and talents. 
The firft fyftematic arrangements of animals were found¬ 
ed upon their external figure and moll obvious habits of 
life ; consequently they were always imperfeft, and often 
erroneous ; thus, the divifion of animals into terreftrial, 
aerial, and aquatic, although apparently natural, included, 
under the fame title, individuals no way allied to each 
other, except in the form of their bodies, and the element 
they inhabited. In proportion to the cultivation and 
advancement of the ftudy of zoology, it became necellary 
to inliitute daffies and orders founded upon lefs obviou,* 
characters than the general appearance or economy of the 
animals ; for which purpofe, the number and arrangement 
of the toes, teeth, claws, beaks, Scales, and other obfcure 
or minute parts, were employed; and by thefe means the 
primary 
