experienced, and towards whom she always felt the utmost gratitude. Gradually sinking under her malady, she passed away on the 27th of August 1825, before she had completed her seventeenth year. Her person was singularly beautiful; she had a high, open forehead, a soft black eye, perfect symmetry of features, a fair complexion, and luxuriant dark hair. The prevailing expression of her face was melancholy. Although, because of her beauty as well as of her mental endowments, she was the object of much admiration and attention, yet she shunned observation, and often sought relief from the pain it seemed to inflict upon her, by retiring from the company.'

That she should have written so voluminously as has been ascertained,' says the editor of these remains, is almost incredible. Her poetical writings which have been collected, amount in all to two hundred and seventy-eight pieces of various length; when it is considered that among these are at least five regular poems of several cantos each, some estimate may be formed of her poetical labours. Besides there were twenty-four school exercises, three unfinished romances, a complete tragedy, written at thirteen years of age, and about forty letters, in a few months, to her mother alone. To this statement should also be appended the fact, that a great portion of her writings she destroyed. Her mother observes, "I think I am justified in saying that she destroyed at least one-third of all she wrote."

Of the literary character of her writings,' says the editor, 'it does not, perhaps, become me largely to speak; yet I must hazard the remark, that her defects will be perceived to be those of youth and inexperience, while in invention, and in that mysterious power of exciting deep interest, of enchaining the attention and keeping it alive to the end of the story; in that adaptation of the measure to the sentiment, and in the sudden change of measure to suit a sudden change of sentiment; a wild and romantic description; and in the congruity of the accompaniment to her characters, all conceived with great purity and delicacy,-she will be allowed to have discovered uncommon maturity of mind, and her friends to have been warranted in forming very high expectations of her future distinction.'

This may seem high praise: yet in these immature buds, and blossoms shaken from the tree, and green fruit,' there was as fair a promise of future excellence as ever genius put forth. But it is not from the intrinsic value of these poor remains that the interest arises with which this little volume cannot but be perused. We have entered into no account of the longer poems which it contains, nor selected from the smaller pieces any except a few of those which are transcripts of the authoress's individual feelings; for youthful poetry must always be imitative, and that which is least faulty is far from being the most hopeful. Indeed, wherever imitative talent exists in the highest degree creative genius has

rarely,

rarely, if ever, been found to co-exist. In these poems there is enough of originality, enough of aspiration, enough of conscious energy, enough of growing power, to warrant any expectations, however sanguine, which the patron, and the friends, and parents of the deceased could have formed; nor can any person rise from the perusal of such a volume without feeling the vanity of human hopes. But those hopes are not vain which look beyond this world for their fulfilment. Knowing, as we know, that not a particle of matter can be destroyed, how surely, then, may we conclude that this which is demonstrated in material existencies is true of spiritual things; that love, and generous feelings, and noble thoughts, and holy desires, are not put off when we put off mortality; but that, inhering in our immortal nature, they partake its immortality, and constitute in their fruition a part of that happiness which our Almighty and Allmerciful Father has appointed for all his creatures who do not wilfully renounce their birthright! This is a consolation which reason suggests, which philosophy approves, which scripture warrants, and on which the understanding and the heart may rest.

To those parents who may have the fearful charge of a child like Lucretia Davidson, these memoirs will have a deep and painful interest. They clearly indicate the danger, but afford no clue to the means of averting it. It is as perilous to repress the ardour of such a mind as to encourage it. The Quaker discipline, which, for the majority of women, is the best of which experience has ever been made, produces deplorable effects upon those whose constitution of mind is too sensitive. The difficulty is to indulge such a mind without pampering it; to regulate it, without forcing it from its natural and proper bent. The first step toward this is, that we should ourselves estimate mental endowments not too highly, but at their just worth; and then teach others, in whom the dawn of genius appears, that the gift is not so rare as it has been deemed to be: that it is becoming less so in every generation, because wherever it exists it is now called forth by the wide extension of education (such as it is), and by the general diffusion of books; and that as it becomes common the conventional value which it has hitherto borne will, like that of precious stones, be necessarily abated. This may be a humiliating lesson, but it is a wholesome one; and many there are for whom it will be well if they receive it, and lay it to heart in time.

Авт.

ART. II.-On Systems and Methods in Natural History. By J. E. Bicheno, Esq. 1829. (Linn. Trans., xv., part 2.)

Α

T no time could the philosophy of Natural History, in reference to classification, occupy the attention of the cultivators of the science with so much advantage as the present. Many individuals, distinguished not less for their high attainments than for their zeal, are occupied in extending our acquaintance with inorganic and organized beings; while, among the educated classes of the community, an anxiety to become acquainted with the history of nature is very generally exhibited. These circumstances seem calculated to encourage us to entertain the highest expectations concerning the future progress of the science in this country, and to hope that the period will soon be forgotten, when, in ordinary conversation, the terms 'naturalist' and 'natural' were employed as synonymous.

When we direct our attention to the manner in which natural history has been studied in this country, and to the character of those works which have been offered to the public for their edification, we may readily discover the causes which have brought the science into discredit, and thus become prepared for securing a greater permanency to our present successes. When the arrival of the valuable cabinet of Linnæus enabled the naturalists of this country to ascertain the species which the illustrious Swede had described in his Systema Naturæ,' that important work became their guide in identifying objects previously known, and the model for delineating the characters of those which industry was daily adding to the stock. In following the example of Linnæus, so far, our naturalists acted wisely; but, unfortunately, they stopped short at that very point where the most valuable part of their labours should have commenced; and where, had they been intelligent followers of their master, they would have put forth all their strength.

In order to comprehend the true value of the Systema Naturæ of Linnæus, we must view it as a well-arranged table of contents of the book of Nature, where the student will find that every entry refers to a species, and gives a brief exposition of the contents of the page where its history is intended to be recorded. Every species in this work has a trivial name bestowed on it, followed by a description of its appearance, limited to twelve words, a reference to authors who have elucidated its history, and a few brief notices respecting its place of residence and the form and structure of some of its remarkable parts. This was considered by Linnæus as the entry in the table of contents; but where, it may be asked, was the volume, with its

page?

page?

This naturalist, too much occupied with precedency to find time for the extensive study of private character, did not attempt the execution of such a volume; but he contributed several valuable pages, and anxiously sought to increase their number, as may be seen in his works on Sweden and Lapland, and more especially in his delightful Amoenitates Academicæ. His followers have too servilely imitated his brief exposition of the character of species, and have fancied that here their labours should close. The entry has been published, but not the page, leading the genuine naturalist to lament the deficiency, and the general reader to perceive, in our boasted systems, little else than a catalogue of names, and to turn with disgust from a study apparently so irksome and fruitless.

The change in public opinion, in reference to natural history, which has recently taken place, and to which we have already alluded, has been produced, in a great measure, by continental influence. The naturalists of this country, since the peace of Europe permitted a free intercourse, have discovered in the labours of foreign observers a scientific purpose, extended views, together with interesting and useful results, which the efforts of the contracted minds of the disciples of the Linnæan school did not exhibit. Philosophy gained a triumph, and the intelligence of the public speedily testified a sense of its value. We must not, however, be understood as expressing an opinion, that the continental observers discovered the true value of natural history, and were the first to exhibit it in its most attractive and becoming garb. Had this been the case, our gratitude would have been unmixed with shame. The naturalists who flourished in Britain at the close of the seventeenth and the beginning of the eighteenth centuries studied nature with a philosophical eye, and recorded, as their observations, all that could gratify a refined and intellectual taste. In their tables of contents, it is true, the student did not meet with that assistance which the improvements of Linnæus subsequently furnished; for they wanted those brief, specific descriptions which characterize the productions of the present day. But if the entries here were brief, the pages were richly stored, since the more obvious characters of the species were described with great truth, and the intimate structure delineated with such accuracy, as to furnish sufficient proof of the sagacity which had regulated the investigation. We name Ray, Willoughby, and Lister, as the individuals to whom we refer the fathers, not only of British, but of European natural history. The continentals imitated the example of these illustrious sages, and now enjoy the fruits of their discernment. The naturalists of Britain, on the other hand, forsook the guidance of the priests

who

who could unfold for them the recesses of the temple of Nature, and yielded to the influence of those who led them only to its portals. They have suffered for their folly, in preferring the naturalist of Sweden to countrymen of their own who were vastly his superiors in philosophical attainment, enlarged views, and, we must add, good taste. Linnæus was not, it is true, without much merit, in rendering trivial names popular, and riveting the attention more closely to the specific character. But he has been greatly overrated; and his name, in England, occupies a place whereon a symbol of respect for John Ray should have been erected long before he drew breath, and remained undisturbed to this hour.

We

In borrowing from the continental naturalists a method of study which, a century ago, might have been considered as peculiarly our own, we have acquired, moreover, a relish for the productions of a school, the distinguishing marks of which differ widely from the principles either of Ray or Linnæus. refer to the writings of Buffon and his followers. His descriptions have enough of truth to give them some degree of historical importance, while the imagination supplies the minor details. As works of fancy, the productions of this school may be found well calculated to amuse; but when viewed as the offspring of science, they seem but too well fitted to vitiate the taste, by pampering a love of excitement; and to mislead the judgment, by mingling truth with error.

If mistakes, to such an amount, have been committed in the method of studying natural history, it is time that we should be made acquainted with the sources in which these have originated, and that some fixed principles should be established, to secure cooperation among the votaries of the science. It appears to have been the object of the learned Secretary of the Linnæan Society, in his observations on Systems and Methods in Natural History,' to unfold the sources of error to which we are now referring, and remove the mistakes and prejudices which prevail. For this purpose he has endeavoured to draw a line of distinction between the artificial and the natural systems, by stating that we use the artificial for becoming acquainted with individuals, and the natural as the means of combining them.' He condemns all attempts to combine the natural with the artificial systems, or to aim at analysis and synthesis at the same time. His remarks are in general excellent, but we consider them too limited to secure the object which is aimed at. Those peculiar properties of created beings, on the knowledge of which our systems must ultimately rest, and the principles of classification which have their origin in them, are in a great measure overlooked.

We