LETTER II.

IN

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.

my last I gave you a general view of the science of Entomology, and endeavoured to prove to you that it possesses attractions and beauty sufficient to reward any student who may profess himself its votary. I am now to consider it in a less alluring light, as a pursuit attended by no small degree of obloquy, in consequence of certain objections thought to be urged with great force against it. To obviate these, and remove every scruple from your mind, shall be the business of the present letter.

Two principal objections are usually alleged with great confidence against the study and pursuit of insects. By some they are derided as trifling and unimportant, and deemed an egregious waste of time and talents; by others they are reprobated as unfeeling and cruel, and as tending to harden the heart.

I. I shall begin with the first of these objections -that the entomologist is a mere trifler. As for the silly outcry and abuse of the ignorant vulgar, who are always ready to laugh at what they do not understand, and because insects are minute objects conclude that the study of them must be a childish pursuit, I shall not waste words upon what I so cordially despise. But since even learned men and phi

losophers, from a partial and prejudiced view of the subject, having recourse to this common-place logic, are sometimes disposed to regard all inquiry into these minutiæ of nature as useless and idle, and the mark of a little mind; to remove such prejudice and misconceptions I shall now dilate somewhat upon the subject of Cui bono?

When we see many wise and learned men pay attention to any particular department of science, we may naturally conclude that it is on account of some profit and instruction which they foresee may be derived from it; and therefore in defending Entomology I shall first have recourse to the Argumentum ad verecundiam, and mention the great names that have cultivated or recommended it.

We may begin the list with the first man that ever lived upon the earth, for we are told that he gave a name to every living creature", amongst which insects must be included; and to give an appropriate name to an object necessarily requires some knowledge of its distinguishing properties. Indeed one of the principal pleasures and employments of the paradisiacal state was probably the study of the various works of creation". Before the fall the book of nature was the Bible of man, in which he could read the perfections and attributes of the invisible Godhead, and in it, as in a mirror, behold an image of the things of the spiritual world. Moses also appears to have been conversant with our little animals, and to have studied them with some attention. This he has shown, not only by being aware of the distinctions which separate the Gryllidæ

a Gen. ii, 19, b Linn. Fn. Succ. Præf. Rom. i. 19, 20.

(Gryllus L.) into different generaa, but also by noticing the different direction of the two anterior from the four posterior legs of insects; for, as he speaks of them as going upon four legs', it is evident that he considered the two anterior as arms. Solomon, the wisest of mankind, made Natural History a peculiar object of study, and left treatises behind him upon its various branches, in which creeping things or insects were not overlooked"; and a wiser than Solomon directs our attention to natural productions, when he bids us consider the lilies of the field, teaching us that they are more worthy of our notice than the most glorious works of man: he also not obscurely intimates that insects are symbolical beings, when he speaks of scorpions as synonymous with evil spirits; thus giving into our hands a clue for a more profitable mode of studying them, as furnishing moral and spiritual in

1

struction.

If to these scriptural authorities we add those of uninspired writers, ancient and modern, the names of many worthies, celebrated both for wisdom and virtue, may be produced. Aristotle among the Greeks, and Pliny the elder among the Romans, may be denominated the fathers of Natural History, as well as the greatest philosophers of their day; yet both these made insects a principal object of their attention: and in more recent times, if we look abroad, what names greater than those of Redi, Malpighi, Vallisnieri, Swammerdam, Leeuwenhoek, Reaumur, Linné, De

a Levit. xi. 21, 22. Lichtenstein in Linn. Trans. iy. 51, 52.

b Levit. xi. 20. conf. Bochart. Hierozoic. ii. 1. 4. c. 9. 497-8, < 1 Kings iv. 33. d Luke xii. 27. e Ibid. x. 19, 20.

Geer, Bonnet, and the Hubers? and at home, what philosophers have done more honour to their country and to human nature than Ray, Willughby, Lister, and Derham? Yet all these made the study of insects one of their most favourite pursuits; and, as if to prove that this study is not incompatible with the highest flights of genius, we can add to the list the name of one of the most sublime of our poets, Gray, who was very zealously devoted to Entomology. As far therefore as names have weight, the above enumeration seems sufficient to shelter the votaries of this pleasing science from the charge of folly.

But we do not wish to rest our defence upon authorities alone; let the voice of reason be heard, and our justification will be complete. The entomologist, or, to speak more generally, the naturalist (for on this question of Cui bono? every student in all departments of Natural History is concerned), if the following considerations be allowed their due weight, may claim a much higher station amongst the learned than has hitherto been conceded to him.

Skill in

There are two principal avenues to knowledgethe study of words and the study of things. the learned languages being often necessary to enable us to acquire knowledge in the former way, is usually considered as knowledge itself; so that no one asks Cui bono? when a person devotes himself to the study of verbal criticism, and employs his time in correcting the errors that have crept into the text of an ancient writer. Indeed it must be owned, though perhaps too much stress is sometimes laid upon it, that this is very useful to enable us to ascertain his true meaning. But

after all, words are but the arbitrary signs of ideas, and have no value independent of those ideas, further than what arises from congruity and harmony, the mind being dissatisfied when an idea is expressed by inadequate words, and the ear offended when their collocation is inharmonious. To account the mere knowledge of words, therefore, as wisdom, is to mistake the cask for the wine, and the casket for the gem. I say all this because knowledge in words is often extolled beyond its just merits, and put for all wisdom, while knowledge of things, especially of the productions of nature, is derided as if it were mere folly. We should recollect that God hath condescended to instruct us by both these ways, and therefore neither of them should be depreciated. He hath set before us his word and his world. The former is the great avenue to truth and knowledge by the study of words, and, as being the immediate and authoritative revelation of his will, is entitled to our principal attention; the latter leads us to the same conclusions, though less directly, by the study of things, which stands next in rank to that of God's word, and before that of any work of man. And whether we direct our eyes to the planets rolling in their orbits, and endeavour to trace the laws by which they are guided through the vast of space, whether we analyse those powers and agents by which all the operations of nature are performed, or whether we consider the various productions of this our globe, from the mighty cedar to the microscopic mucor-from the giant elephant to the invisible mite, still we are studying the works and wonders of our God. The book, to whatever page we turn, is written by the finger of him