Natural History, its Rise and Progress in Britain, as developed by the Life and Labours of Leading Naturalists

Abstract

THIS little octavo volume of about 300 pages is a readable book, and accurate in its information as far as it goes. But, besides being sketchy—which is no doubt a fault incidental to the form of the series—it is strangely ill-balanced. In the first place, the author has travelled beyond the limits of his title by giving biographical sketches of Aristotle, Linnæus, Lamarck, and Cuvier—together constituting more than a third of the whole number of “British Science-Biographies” with which they are intermingled. In the next place, as regards the “British Science-Biographies” which are given, there is no proportion observable between the relative magnitudes of these British biologists and the amount of notice which is respectively bestowed. Running the eye over the table of contents, we find that separate chapters are devoted to eleven “leading naturalists” of this country. These, of course, must be understood by his general readers, for whom the book is designed, as representing what, in the author's opinion, are the eleven greatest names in the records of British biology. Yet six of these names are Sir Hans Sloane, Gilbert White, Alexander Wilson, William Swainson, Edward Forbes, and Robert Chambers! To take only the first and last of these names, surely when a whole chapter, with a portrait, is devoted to Sir Hans Sloane, it is remarkable that no mention at all should be made of Sir Joseph Banks; or that, when another whole chapter is assigned to Robert Chambers, we should nowhere encounter the name of Robert Brown. It appears to us that when a Professor of Natural History undertakes to popularise his science, his aim should be to place before what this writer calls “unprofessional readers” a true conception of the merit that attaches to solid work in science, as distinguished from the celebrity that belongs to a graceful writer or to an interesting-personal character. He should endeavour to raise the popular mind to a just appreciation of naturalists; he should not pander to the already accomplished popularity of authors. Now, if this has been the aim of Prof. Nicholson—and in his preface he says as much—in our opinion he has shot wide of his mark. But, as before observed, if his object has been to produce a readable assemblage of short biographies, calculated to suit the popular taste, we should say he has every reason to be satisfied with the result.