talent leads him away too much at times from the deeper passions of poetry. Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged, that it is while he indulges his genius in this exertion of its power, that he makes us feel he is gifted as no ordinary poet, and constrains us to hope most highly of his vocation.

His descriptive poetry often seems to glow with a deeper spirit than belongs to the common reputation of that name; and it is then much more than in that language which he expressly allots to the utterance of feeling, that he has the art of communicating emotion to our spirits, thereby persuading us that some more impassioned powers brood in his own, than he has yet made fully apparent to us. We trust that we yet know him but very imperfectly. The three poems, which he has lately given us under the name of the drama, are all of them, by their subjects, fitted to have been works of art of the highest order. Two of them, at least, by the powers

of poetry infused into them, are fitted to make a strong and durable impression of the writer's endowments. Yet not one of them, we may take the liberty to assert, is wrought to the height of its argument, or does not leave the reader, who is at all hardened in criticism, we had almost said, at all experienced in poetry, with the impression, that more might and ought to have been made of it. Flattering as the reception of these productions has been, and splendid as his rising and just reputation, grounded on them, must be confessed to be, we trust that the author has felt, in respect to them, the same impression; and although in these poems he has attempted and dismissed from his hands subjects, by their momentous nature, fitted rather to mature and consummated, than to growing power, we will dare to hope that he himself regards them, and will hereafter justify us in having spoken of them, not as the triumphs, but as the exercises, of his genius.

"WILL your goodness," said Captain Clutterbuck to the Eidolon, or Representative Vision of the Author of Waverley, "will your goodness permit me to mention an anecdote of my excellent grandmother?"

"I see little she can have to do with the subject, Captain Clutterbuck," said the Author.

"It may come into our dialogue on Bayes's plan," rejoined the Captain."The sagacious old lady-rest her soul -was a good friend to the church, and could never hear a minister maligned by evil tongues, without taking his part warmly. There was one fixed point, however, at which she always abandoned the cause of her reverend protegé-it was so soon as she learned he had preached a regular sermon against slanderers and backbiters."

"And what is that to the purpose?" Isaid the Author.

"Only," replied the Captain, "that I have heard engineers say, that one may betray the weak point to the enemy,

by too much ostentation of fortifying it."

Now, we by no means intend to insinuate, that every author who defends himself from attacks that have been made on his literary character, is therefore chargeable with the very imputations against which he puts himself in the attitude of defence. If an author is unfairly attacked-if his meaning is perverted-or a sense is attributed to him which he never meant to conveyor still more, if he has reason to believe that a conspiracy has been formed to cry him down, and to ruin his reputation with the public,—in that, and in some other cases, we see no reason why an author should be pronounced guilty, merely because he has produced a philippic against calumny and backbiting. But, on the other hand, if the public has already pronounced on the general merits of a writer-or if he is conscious that his work contains materials which entitle it to the approbation of the world, we believe his most politic, as

And if it is an animating sight to see a philosopher like Davy breaking down the former boundaries of human knowledge, and opening new tracks of speculation and of enterprize-there is also a calmer, but perhaps not less gratifying delight in beholding the majestic fabric of science rising fresh and beautiful from the hand of a master like Thomson, disposed in all its parts with exquisite symmetry, and decorated with such ornaments only as are chaste and appropriate.

It seems, however, that the reviewer of Dr Thomson's work found it expedient to exhibit it in a different light. "For," says the Doctor, "the review which I am going to examine is a most furious attack upon me from beginning to end, and denies me all credit whatever as an author, an experimenter, or a chemist. It is made up of different kinds of accusations, which are mixed together with some ingenuity and address; but which I still make bold, notwithstanding the many witty sneers against my fondness for scholastic divisions, to consider and refute under three separate heads: 1st, I am accused of being utterly incapable of writing English, and of being ignorant of the first principles of arrangement. 2d, I have made many false statements of facts, partly to injure the reputation of Sir H. Davy, and partly to promote my own absurd and erroneous chemical opinions. 3d, My book is stuffed with innumerable errors, into which I have fallen from being unacquainted with the elements of the science of chemistry.

"These are heavy charges indeed. But what opinion will my readers form of the candour and gentlemanly feelings of Mr Brande, if I shew that the reviewer, in order to give a colour to his accusations, has had recourse to direct falsehood, to pitiful prevarication, and to the stale trick of raising into proofs of ignorance what he must have been perfectly aware were errors of the press."

1st, With respect to arrangement and style:-Now, it seems to us quite evident that no chemical work whatever can, in the present state of that science, or for centuries to come, be distinguished by a perfect arrangement. Many of the substances of nature are yet but imperfectly knownmuch doubt exists with respect to many of those which have been ana

lyzed-the aspect of the science itself is changing almost every hour, and a single new discovery sometimes gives a new appearance to all the bodies which were before known. In such a state of things it is vain to look for a perfect and satisfactory arrangement in any work-some substances must appear to one writer better suited to be placed under one head, and to others under another; and all that can be said even of the most complete arrangement is, that it affords a more distinct view of the infinity of objects which the science embraces, or permits them to be classed so as to please more perfectly the eye of the ob

server.

We have no doubt that in some respects the strictures of the reviewer on Dr Thomson's arrangement are well founded-that is to say, we believe that the Doctor was not able, in the edition which is criticised, to do justice even to his own ideas of method, because his object was not to write an entirely new treatise, but to insert in the work, which was already before the public, such discoveries as had lately been made. In such an attempt it was to be expected that many things would appear to be somewhat out of place-some subject would be treated, where the author, if he had been forming his plan, would not have thought of placing them; and perhaps some things of minor importance might be omitted altogether from want of a convenient place in which to put them, or because, amidst the confusion of accommodating himself to an arrangement previously formed, the author had altogether overlooked their existence.

But while we make this concession we must also say, that when Dr Thomson is attacked on the ground of want of powers of arrangement, his adversary has most completely mistaken the weak side of his opponent. If there be any power which the Doctor possesses in an eminent degree, it is that of masterly and luminous disposition; and we believe we speak the sense of all the chemists of Europe when we say, that it is this excellence, more than any other, which has given to his work its very extensive popularity.

We are also of opinion that any severe censures of our author's style are at least equally unfounded. That he writes rapidly and with facility is evi

dent, and we may well believe that rapidity and facility lead occasionally to their usual concomitants of incorrectness and carelessness. But these occasional faults are very different from the general character of an author's style, and we believe it is universally allowed that the style of Doctor Thomson, considered as appropriated to philosophical narration, has very high merit. It is chaste, powerful, and luminous. It is not an occasional brilliancy which lights up flashes of radiance-like the torch which dazzles the eye with the adamantine lustre of a sparry cave, to be afterwards bedimmed by clammy exhalations, or by clouds of smoke. It is a calm and steady light, which throws an equal lustre on every object on which it falls, and which enables the eye of the spectator to rest with a still and unbroken delight on the whole extent of the field of vision.

All this is true, but the delightful thing is to hear the Doctor himself say

80.

"The want of discernment evinced in these attacks upon my style occasioned some surprise at first. I may be very often accused of great carelessness of style; but never, unless I deceive myself egregiously, either of want of energy or diffuseness. Indeed the characteristic properties of my style are just the opposite of diffuseness. I am remarkably concise, though, I hope, always clear, and generally energetic. Nothing indeed can constitute a greater contrast than my mode of writing and that of Mr Brande. If he be a good writer on scientific subjects, it follows as a necessary consequence that I am a bad one. I refer the reader to his History of Chemistry in the Supplement to the Encyclopædia Brittanica, to his article Chemistry in the same book, and to some of his prefaces in the Royal Institution Journal. In point of diffuseness, want of energy, and bad taste, these dissertations constitute a perfect confrast to every thing whichever flowed from my pen. Indeed, were I disposed to criticise style, nothing would be easier than to retaliate upon Mr Brande."

2d. The second accusation brought against the Doctor by his reviewer is that of having misstated facts, in order to gratify certain malignant passions of his own, and to injure certain individuals of whose reputation he is meanly jealous.

In this accusation the reviewer has plainly an eye chiefly to Sir H. Davy, towards whom he supposes Dr Thomson to entertain some feelings of jea VOL. XII.

lousy and rivalry. Now, we cannot think so meanly of the Doctor. Doubtless there are monarchs who can bear no brother near the throne; and we have heard of a great philosopher, whom the Doctor also knows, who was remarkable all his days for disliking those who eclipsed him, and who was known to have confessed, that even when a boy, he never could endure the sight of any other boy, who had, upon any occasion, got the better of him at a game at hand-ball, or any other boyish pastime. We are confident Dr Thomson has no such feelings, for most assuredly they are neither manly nor beautiful, and when the person hated has fairly attained his distinction, all such feelings towards him are diabolical. But we cannot think that any chemist can feel towards Sir H. Davy anything but sentiments of admiration and respect; and we have a very handsome testimony in this very pamphlet of Dr Thomson, to the same purpose. "It is false," says he, "that I have ever made any attack either on the character or reputation of Sir H. Davy. On the contrary, I have always been in the habit of reckoning him among the number of my friends. I have always spoken of his talents and of his labours with that respect which I felt for them, and have always been proud to think that his discoveries have reflected a lustre upon the country in which they originated."

We must say also that, as the editor of a Magazine, Dr Thomson has always appeared to us to be remarkable for the impartiality and candour of his conduct. And we can bear our testimony to the accuracy of the following statement, which may serve which the Doctor has refuted the difalso as a specimen of the manner in ferent charges brought against him in the review which has called forth his pamphlet.

2. But the full force of my hostility to Davy was exerted,' it seems, 'in depreciating the miners' safety lamp."—(Review, p. 122.)

"Now I deny that I ever depreciated it. I did indeed, when I heard Davy's account of his first lamp read to the Royal Society, express my opinion in my Journal that it could not be used with safety. Whether this opinion was well or ill founded, I do not know. Perhaps it may have been ill founded. But as I honestly believed at the time that the lamp was hazardous, I think that I was bound to state my reasons for this opinion

F

to the public. The lives of a great number of individuals were at stake. It was, therefore, important to point out every conceivable objection. It was Davy's business to examine these objections; to refute them if they were futile, and to benefit by them if well founded.

"So far from supposing that I was injuring Davy, or endeavouring to detract from his merits, I conceived that I was doing him a service; and most persons in his situation would have been of the same opinion. How far my objections were well founded, it is not for me to say; but almost immediately afterwards, Davy himself rejected his first lamp, and invented another, much superior to it in every respect.

"Against this new lamp, I never in the Annals of Philosophy stated a single objection of my own, nor, as far as I recollect, of any other person. It is true, indeed, that a furious controversy respecting the person who had the merit of first inventing the miners' safety lamp immediately arose, and various papers, written by the parties, were admitted into my journal. I acted with the utmost impartiality; as a proof of this, I may state, that I received abundance of anonymous letters accusing me of partiality to Davy, to Stevenson, and to Clanny. I saw very early that the whole had become a party question, and that motives quite different from a regard to truth animated the disputants. The papers were inserted without any comment on my part; and as soon as I saw that they contained nothing but mutual recriminations, I stopped them altogether. One of the last, if not the very last, was inserted by Mr Children. I happened to be in Cornwall when this paper was sent to my publisher. I had left materials for two successive numbers. The consequence was, that Mr Children's paper could not be inserted till after my

return to London. When I reached home I found a letter from that gentleman complaining that his paper had been withheld from the public, and written in a style very different from what is usually to be found in a letter from one gentleman to another. Of this letter I took no notice. It gave me information for the first time, that Davy and his friends thought that I was hostile to his lamp.

"My conduct, then, with regard to this controversy, was fair and honourable. I was actuated by no hostility to Davy; but thought myself obliged to deal exactly the same justice to all claimants. That I discharged my duty as an editor with the most rigid impartiality, appears from this, that all the controversialists accused me of partiality to their adversaries."

3d. The last charge brought against the Doctor is that of errors from ig

norance.

No man can suppose Dr Thomson to be unacquainted, as he himself terms it, with the very elements of chemical science. On the contrary, his knowledge is admitted to be not only very extensive, but of a very practical kind. At the same time, it is possible that slips may occur in the course of so very extensive a work as the Doctor's, which his sharpsighted antagonist may display to the disadvantage of the author; and we have no doubt that in the rapidly improving state of chemistry, and of all the subjects connected with it, some such errors may be found in the edition of the work on which we are at present discoursing.

Indeed the Doctor has confessed some such errors with very little ceremony; for it is one of his characteristics, that he tells with equal plainness when he does not understand any subject, as when he does; and although he probably makes both confessions from the same motive, there is something unique and amusing in the specimen which on such occasions he gives of what he terms the sincerity, honesty, and independence of his character. For instance, he concludes his refutation of one of the charges brought against him respecting Sir H. Davy in these words: "When I stated that Davy's explanation of the atomic theory was not so perspicuous as that ofDalton,Imeant merely that I did not understand it so

well."

As an illustration of the same manner, we may take his answer to the following passage of the Review:

66

'Mineralogy, which now begins to assume the systematic aspect of the other parts of natural history, by the labours of Werner, Hauy, Mohs, and Jameson, is here exhibited in a truly chaotic state. He has no allusion whatever to the natural history method of Mohs, which promises to do for the study of minerals what the sexual system did for plants; enabling a person on taking up a specimen to refer it to its peculiar class, order, genus, and species, till he discovers its name and various relations. His first chapter, 'On the Description of Minerals,' is copied from Professor Jameson's Treatise on the External Characters. We find the same chapter, in the same words, in the former edition, but with a reference to Mr Jameson, which is now suppressed. The only observable alteration, indeed, in his present article on Mineralogy, is the erasure of Professor Jameson's name wherever it formerly occurred."