THE HISTORY
OF
CIVILISATION IN SCOTLAND.
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ Transcriber’s Notes │
│ │
│ │
│ Punctuation has been standardized. │
│ │
│ Most of the abbreviations used to save space in printing have │
│ been expanded to the non-abbreviated form for easier reading. │
│ │
│ Characters in small caps have been replaced by all caps. │
│ │
│ Non-printable characteristics have been given the following │
│ Italic text: --> _text_ │
│ │
│ This book was written in a period when many words had │
│ not become standardized in their spelling. Words may have │
│ multiple spelling variations or inconsistent hyphenation in │
│ the text. These have been left unchanged unless indicated │
│ with a Transcriber’s Note. │
│ │
│ Index references have not been checked for accuracy. │
│ │
│ Footnotes are identified in the text with a superscript │
│ number and are shown immediately below the paragraph in which │
│ they appear. │
│ │
│ Transcriber’s Notes are used when making corrections to the │
│ text or to provide additional information for the modern │
│ reader. These notes are identified by ♦♠♥♣ symbols in the │
│ text and are shown immediately below the paragraph in which │
│ they appear. │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
THE HISTORY OF CIVILISATION IN SCOTLAND.
BY
JOHN MACKINTOSH, LL.D.
_Author of “The Story of Scotland,”
“The Revolution of 1688 and Viscount Dundee,”
“The Highland Land Question Historically Considered,”
“History of the Valley of the Dee,” Etc._
_A NEW EDITION._
PARTLY REWRITTEN, AND CAREFULLY REVISED THROUGHOUT.
Volume Fourth.
ALEXANDER GARDNER,
Publisher to her Majesty the Queen,
PAISLEY; AND 26 PATERNOSTER SQUARE, LONDON.
1896.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER XXXV.
_History of Scottish Philosophy――Carmichael――Hutcheson._
⭘ Scope of this account of Scottish Philosophy――Carmichael, his
Teaching and Writings
⭘ Francis Hutcheson, his success as a Professor――His Writings
and Moral Doctrines――Moral Sense, Happiness, the Object of
Approbation――His Political Views――Influence of his Teaching and
Writings
CHAPTER XXXVI.
_David Hume and Adam Smith._
SECTION I.
_Hume._
⭘ Characteristics of Hume and Smith――Hume’s Treatise of Human
Nature, its Method――His own Account of the Origin of his
Philosophy
⭘ His Explication of the Understanding, treatment of Impressions
and Ideas――Discussion of the Ideas of Space and Time, Idealism
――Treatment of Causation――Scepticism touching Reason and the
Senses, Personal Identity――Summary of his Conclusions concerning
the Understanding
⭘ His Handling of the Passions and the Will――His Theory of Morals,
Utility――Summary of his Views
⭘ Essay on Miracles, its Characteristics――Natural History of
Religion, and Dialogues on Religion――Estimate of his Philosophy
――Its Influence on Subsequent Speculation――Hume’s Personal
Character
SECTION II.
_Adam Smith._
⭘ His early Life――Method of Teaching――His Travels――His Method of
Working
⭘ His Theory of Moral Sentiments, its Method and Style――Sympathy
the Origin of Approbation, early manifestation of Sympathy
――Exposition of the operation of Sympathy――Happiness――Summary
of his Moral Views
⭘ The Wealth of Nations, his chief work, its Arrangement――His
Explanation of Labour, Land, and Rent
⭘ His Explication of the accumulation and employment of Stock
――Progress of Opulence, state of Agriculture in Europe, and the
Rise and Progress of Cities
⭘ Discussion of the Mercantile System, erroneous notions about
Money――Exposure of the Doctrine of the Balance of Trade――His
attack upon the Great Eastern Company
⭘ Revenue of the State――Educational and Religious Institutions
――Influence of the Work
CHAPTER XXXVII.
_Reid, Ferguson, Stewart, and Other Writers._
SECTION I.
_Reid._
⭘ His Life and Teaching――His Writings――Treatment of the External
Senses――His doctrine of Signs
⭘ His doctrine of Perception, imperfect Discrimination of the
Views of other Philosophers――Explanation of Theories of Mediate
Perception
⭘ His Division of Mental Phenomena, and Treatment of Mental Powers
――Common-sense, its Relation to First Principles――Classification
of First Principles
⭘ Active Powers of the Mind――Moral Obligation――Reid’s Merits
SECTION II.
_Adam Ferguson._
⭘ His early Life――Principles of Moral and Political Science, his
Method, Conceptions, and grasp of Thought
⭘ The Standard of Morality, the Supreme End, and the Principle of
Approbation
SECTION III.
_Dugald Stewart._
⭘ Stewart was a successful Professor――The Scope of his Philosophy
of the Human Mind――His Political Views
⭘ Discrimination of Ultimate Principles――Classification of the
Intellectual Faculties――Laws of Association of Ideas――Memory,
Imagination――Reasoning and Deductive Evidence――Varieties of
Intellectual ♦Caricature
♦ “Characture” replaced with “Caricature”
⭘ Summary of his Ethical System――His Method and Style
SECTION IV.
_Gerard, Beattie, Campbell, and Alison._
⭘ Gerard’s Essay on Taste, its Method and Characteristics
⭘ Beattie’s Essay on the Immutability of Truth――His Elements of
Moral Science――Characteristics of his Style
⭘ Campbell’s Essay on Miracles, its Method――His Rhetoric and Style
――Alison, the Scope of his Essay on Taste
CHAPTER XXXVIII.
_Dr. Brown――Mackintosh._
SECTION I.
_Dr. Brown._
⭘ His early Life――Inquiry into the Relation of Cause and Effect――A
successful Professor, his Lectures
⭘ Exposition of his Psychology――Analysis of Sensation, his
Doctrine of Perception, and Criticism of Dr. Reid――His
Classification of Mental Phenomena, Laws of Suggestion or
Association――Reduction of the Faculties of Judgment and Reason
⭘ Treatment of the Emotions, his Ethical Views, the Moral Faculty
――Practical Ethics――The existence of God and Immortality of the
Soul――Estimate of his Psychology
SECTION II.
_Mackintosh._
⭘ Vicissitudes of his Life――He entered keenly into the stormy
Movements of his Time――His Literary Projects
⭘ His Dissertation on the Progress of Ethical Philosophy――Its
Method and Scope――His Sketches of Ethical Systems and Writers
――Summary of his own Ethical Views
CHAPTER XXXIX.
_Hamilton――Ferrier――and Robertson._
⭘ Hamilton’s Education and early Life――Appointed Professor of
Logic and Metaphysics――Preparation of his Lectures, his Edition
of Reid’s Works――He sustained a severe Paralytic Stroke, which
disabled his right side――His Death――His Writings
⭘ Exposition of his Philosophy――The Fundamental Principles
――Doctrines enunciated in his Introductory Lectures――Man an End
unto Himself――His peculiar View of the End of Speculation――The
Communication of Knowledge――The Nature, Causes, and Method of
Philosophy
⭘ Division and Classification of Mental Phenomena――His Distribution
of Mental Philosophy
⭘ Explication of Consciousness, and its Relation to the Cognitive
Faculties――His Theory of Attention――Law of Limitation――Are
we always consciously active?――Latent Mental Modifications
――Somnambulism
⭘ Exposition of Cognition, Classification of the Special Faculties
of Knowledge――Discussion of Doctrines of Perception――Statement
of his own Doctrine of Natural Realism
⭘ Explanation of Memory, Reproduction, and Imagination
⭘ The Elaborative Faculty, Comparison――Evolution of the Processes
of Apprehension, Judgment, Classification, Abstraction, and
Generalisation, from the original act of Consciousness
⭘ Primary Notions, Common Sense, or Fundamental Principles of
Intelligence, recognised by Hamilton
⭘ Classification and Treatment of the Feelings――His Theory of
Pleasure and Pain
⭘ His Philosophy of the Conditioned, its Aim――Explication of its
Principles and Applications
⭘ His Treatment of Logic――Efforts to simplify the Syllogistic
System――Doctrine of the Quantification of the Predicate
⭘ Summary――His Method and Style――Influence of Teaching and
Writings――Reference to Mill’s Examination
⭘ Ferrier’s Theory of Knowing and Being――Primary Law of Knowledge
――His Method and Style――Hegel
⭘ Robertson――His Education――Appointed Professor of Mental
Philosophy and Logic in University College, London――Editor of
_Mind_――His Writings
CHAPTER XL.
_Literature of Scotland in the Eighteenth
and Nineteenth Centuries._
SECTION I.
_Historical Literature of the Eighteenth Century._
⭘ Abercromby――Anderson――Campbell, his Historical Writings――Goodal,
“Casket Letters”――Innes on the Ancient Inhabitants of Scotland
⭘ Literary Revival――Style became an Object of Study――Clubs and
Societies
⭘ Hume’s History of Great Britain, its defects and merits――His
Style
⭘ Robertson’s Historical Works――Characteristics and Style of his
Writings
⭘ Historical Writings of Guthrie, Smollett, Tytler, and Stuart
⭘ Henry’s History of Great Britain――Lord Hailes’ Annals of
Scotland――Ferguson’s Historical Works――Russell’s History of
Modern Europe――Watson’s Historical Writings――Gillies’s History
of Ancient Greece
⭘ Chalmers’s Caledonia――Laing’s History of Scotland
SECTION II.
_Historical Literature of the Nineteenth Century._
⭘ Historic Characteristics of the Period――M‘Crie’s Writings――His
Style――Mill’s History of British India――Dunlop’s History of
Fiction――Tytler’s History of Scotland; its historic value
――Alison’s History of Europe, his Method and Style
⭘ Thomas Carlyle――His early Life and Work――His Essays and
Pamphlets――The French Revolution――Oliver Cromwell’s Letters and
Speeches――History of Frederick the Great of Prussia――Peculiar
Characteristics of his Works――His Death
⭘ Burton, his early Writings――His History of Scotland――History of
Britain in the Reign of Queen Anne――Blakey’s Historical Writings
⭘ Skene’s contributions to History――His History of Celtic Scotland
⭘ Record Scholars and Editors of Historical materials, Thomson,
Innes, Stuart, Robertson, Laing, and Pitcairn
⭘ Chambers’ History of the Rising of 1745――Robertson’s Scotland
under her early Kings――Mure’s History of the Literature of
Ancient Greece――Grub’s Ecclesiastical History of Scotland
――Conclusion
CHAPTER XLI.
_Literature of the Eighteenth and
Nineteenth Centuries (continued)._
SECTION I.
_Poetry of the Eighteenth Century._
⭘ Aim of the Chapter――Allan Ramsay, Characteristics of his Songs
and Poems――His Gentle Shepherd――William Hamilton――Robert Crawford
⭘ Thomson, his Education and early Life――The Four Seasons
――Character of his Genius――The Castle of Indolence――Influence of
his Poetry
⭘ Mallet’s poetical efforts――Armstrong’s Art of Preserving
Health――Blair’s Poem entitled The Grave――Hamilton of Bangour,
Characteristics of his Poetry
⭘ Alexander Ross, his Poems and Songs――Skinner’s Poems and Songs
――Dr. Blacklock’s Poems――Smollett’s Tears of Scotland
⭘ Home’s Tragedy of Douglas, caused a sensation――Falconer’s
Poem, The Shipwreck――Macpherson’s Translation of Ossian’s Poems
――Macpherson’s abilities
⭘ Beattie’s Minstrel――Logan’s Poems and Writings――Fergusson’s
Poems, Characteristics of his Genius
⭘ Burns was an assiduous reader and student――His Ideal of the
Poet’s Functions――His Influence on the Imaginative Literature of
ScotLand――His Influence on the Mind of the Nation
⭘ Minor Poets
SECTION II.
_Poetry of the Nineteenth Century._
⭘ Tannahill, Characteristics of his Poems and Songs
⭘ Mayne, his Poem, the Siller Gun, and a Ballad, Logan Braes
――Leyden, his early Life――Style of his Poetry
⭘ Campbell’s Pleasures of Hope, its Characteristics――His short
Poems and Songs――Specimens of the Poets
⭘ Scott, his Collection of Ballads――His own Poems
⭘ Hogg, his early efforts――The Queen’s Wake――The cast of his
Genius――Flowing style of his Poetry
⭘ Boswell’s Songs――Cunningham’s Songs――His Prose Writings――Tennant
――Motherwell――Aytoun
⭘ Minor Poets
⭘ Smith――Mackay――Murdoch――Lewis Morrison-Grant――A great number of
Scottish Poets
CHAPTER XLII.
_Fiction of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries._
⭘ Smollett’s Novels――Mackenzie’s stories, The Man of Feeling, and
the Man of the World――Moore’s Novels
⭘ Elizabeth Hamilton, her childhood――Her Writings――Mrs. Brunton’s
Novels
⭘ Scott, an industrious Writer――Characteristics of his Novels and
Tales――Their Influence on the People
⭘ Galt, his chequered Life――He wrote many Novels, Tales and
Dramatic pieces――Mrs. Johnstone――Susan E. Ferrier, her Three
Novels――John Wilson’s Tales and Stories
⭘ Sir Thomas D. Lauder’s Novels――Andrew Picken’s Tales and
Sketches――James B. Fraser’s Eastern Tales――Lockhart’s Novels
――David M. Moir――James Grant
⭘ David Pae, his early Life――He wrote many Stories――William Minto
⭘ William Alexander, his Stories, Sketches, and other Writings
――Robert L. Stevenson, his Novels and Romances――His Poems
CHAPTER XLIII.
_Literature of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries
(continued)――Religious and Miscellaneous Literature._
SECTION I.
_Religious Literature of the Eighteenth
and Nineteenth Centuries._
⭘ Character of the Religious Literature of Scotland――Ebenezer
Erskine――Ralph Erskine――Dr. John Erskine――Dr. Webster――Dr. John
Witherspoon, his Writings――His work in the United States of
America
⭘ Dr. Blair’s Sermons――Dr. MacKnight’s Writings――John Brown of
Haddington――His Works――Dr. John Brown, his Writings
⭘ Dr. Hunter’s Works――Dr. William L. Brown――Dr. Hill――Dr. Andrew
Thomson
⭘ Dr. Chalmers, his Energy and Work in Glasgow――Appointed
Professor of Divinity――Characteristics of his Writings――His
influence among the People
⭘ Dr. Wardlaw――Dr. Candlish――Dr. Cumming――Dr. Guthrie
⭘ Norman Macleod――Dr. Eadie――Dr. Buchanan――Dr. Tulloch――Dr.
Milligan
⭘ William R. Smith――His efforts for freedom of Criticism
――Importance of his Research and Works――Conclusion
SECTION II.
_Miscellaneous Literature of the Eighteenth
and Nineteenth Centuries._
⭘ Arbuthnot’s Writings――History of John Bull
⭘ Lord Kames, his Public Spirit――His Writings――Elements of
Criticism and Sketches of the History of Man
⭘ Lord Monboddo, his Eccentricity――His Writings
⭘ Lord Erskine――Appointed Lord Chancellor――His forensic Oratory
⭘ James Boswell――Dr. Currie――Lord Jeffrey, Editor of the Edinburgh
Review――His Writings
⭘ Lord Brougham, his early Career――His Writing――Robert Mudie
――George Combe, Characteristics of his Works
⭘ Hugh Miller――His Literary Talents――Character and Style of his
Works
⭘ Patrick E. Dove’s Theory of Human Progression
⭘ George Gilfillan――His Mental Powers and Sympathies――A Preacher
and Lecturer――His Writings
⭘ Dr. John Brown――William Minto――His Education and early Life
――Appointed Professor of Logic in the University of Aberdeen
――His Writings
⭘ John Veitch, variety and character of his Philosophical and
Literary Efforts
⭘ John S. Blackie, his Education and early Life――A Professor of
Humanity in Marischal College, Aberdeen, subsequently Professor
of Greek in the University of Edinburgh――His Writings
⭘ Travellers――James Bruce――Mungo Park――Dr. Livingstone
⭘ Rise and Development of the Newspaper Press and Periodical
Literature――Works of Reference
CHAPTER XLIV.
_Progress of Science in the Eighteenth
and Nineteenth Centuries._
SECTION I.
_Physical Science._
⭘ Aim of the Chapter――Conceptions of the Universe; Newton’s Theory
Controversy touching the Invention of the Calculus――Importance of
Mathematical Science
⭘ Maclaurin, a Professor of Mathematics――Method and Scope of his
Course of Instruction――His Works――Theories of the Tides
⭘ James Stirling’s Mathematical Works――Stewart――Simson――Playfair
――Leslie
⭘ Dr. Black’s Experiments――His discovery of Latent Heat――His
Lectures on Chemistry――His connection with James Watt――Black was
a successful Instructor
⭘ Sir John Leslie and other scientific men investigated the
subject of Radiant Heat――Leslie’s Experiments――His Works
⭘ Progress of Discovery――Spectrum Analysis
⭘ Optics: Dr. Young――Sir David Brewster――His Intellectual Energy
and Industry――His Discoveries――His Works――His Invention of
Instruments and Apparatus
⭘ Geology: Hutton――Lyell’s Works――Murchison’s Explorations and
Writings――Siluria Strata――Maclaren――Hugh Miller
SECTION II.
_Progress of Mechanical Science._
⭘ Relation between Physical Science and Mechanical Arts
⭘ Dr. Robison; his education――He becomes acquainted with James
Watt――His work in foreign countries――Appointed Professor of
Natural Philosophy in the University of Edinburgh――His Works
⭘ James Watt; his early training――Went to London to improve
his mechanical skill――On returning he found employment in the
University of Glasgow
⭘ Watt’s Experiments touching Steam――The Steam Engine; his first
improvement of it; subsequent improvements
⭘ His other Inventions――His discovery of the composition of Water
――Honours conferred on him――Serenity of the evening of his life
――His death――The worth of his character and genius
⭘ Early attempts to apply Steam power to Navigation
⭘ Rise and Progress of the Science of Electricity――Practical
applications of the Electric Forces――Conclusion of the Chapter
CHAPTER XLV.
_Progress of Medical Science in Scotland
in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries._
⭘ The prime phenomenon of Medical Science――Sketch of the state
of Medical Science in Europe at the beginning of the Eighteenth
Century
⭘ Founding of the Edinburgh Medical School――The College of
Physicians and College of Surgeons――The first Professor of
Anatomy Recognition of other Chairs by the University――John
Monro; Alexander Monro
⭘ Alexander Monro, Professor of Anatomy――His method and course of
Instruction――His Work on the Human Bones――Erection of the Royal
Infirmary――By his Teaching and energy Monro contributed to
raise the standing of the Edinburgh School――A Chair of Midwifery
instituted
⭘ Dr. Cullen; his education and early career――His first Course of
Lectures in the University of Glasgow――His method of Instruction
and energy
⭘ Cullen appointed Professor of Chemistry in the University
of Edinburgh――Subsequently he was appointed to the Chair of
Institutes of Medicine――His Expository Powers――His Works and
Influence
⭘ Dr. John Gregory; his Works――Dr. James Gregory――Dr. Andrew
Duncan, Professor of the Institutes of Medicine――His Works――His
son, Dr. Andrew, was Professor of Medical Jurisprudence――His
Writings
⭘ Alexander Monro succeeded his father as Professor of Anatomy
――His Teaching and Works――And his son, Alexander, also ♦succeeded
to the Chair of Anatomy――His Works are numerous――John Goodsir
♦ “succeded” replaced with “succeeded”
⭘ Extra-mural Teaching――John Bell, Lecturer on Surgery and
Midwifery――His Works――Sir Charles Bell, Lecturer on Anatomy and
Surgery――He was appointed Professor of Surgery in the University
of Edinburgh――His Works――Dr. Barclay, Dr. Gordon and Dr. Knox,
were extra-mural Lecturers
⭘ Dr. John Thomson, his work as a Professor of Military Surgery,
a Lecturer, and Professor of Pathology
⭘ Dr. Henderson, Professor of Pathology――His Writings――Dr. Sanders
――Dr. ♦Ballingall, his Writings――Dr. Alison――James Syme――An
extra-mural Lecturer and Professor of Clinical Surgery――His Works
♦ “Balingall” replaced with “Ballingall”
⭘ Dr. Alexander Hamilton――Sir James Y. Simpson――Robert Christison
⭘ Institution of the Glasgow Medical School――New Chairs instituted
Extra-mural Lecturers――The University Buildings――The Infirmaries
of Glasgow
⭘ Aberdeen Medical School――Institution of New Chairs――Erection of
New Buildings――Present state of the Medical School――Dr. Pirrie
――Dr. Keith――Dr. Lizars――Dr. Ogston
⭘ Dr. James Douglas, his Works――Dr. William Hunter――William
Cruickshanks――John Hunter
CHAPTER XLVI.
_Progress of Education in the Eighteenth
and Nineteenth Centuries._
⭘ The old Parish School System ineffective in the Highlands――The
People took an interest in Education――Annual Grants from
Government――Government Inspectors of Schools
⭘ Effect of the Disruption upon Education――Free Church and
Established Church Schools――Sabbath Schools――Reformatory Schools
⭘ Grammar Schools in the last Century, a marked improvement in
these Schools――Technical and Art Schools
⭘ The Universities in the early part of this Century――Universities
Act and Executive Commission of 1858――Act and Executive
Commission of 1889――New Ordinances
⭘ Libraries in Scotland
CHAPTER XLVII.
_Progress of Agriculture in the Eighteenth
and Nineteenth Centuries._
⭘ State of Agriculture in the last Century――The Implements
primitive and rude――Introduction of Fanners and Thrashing-Machines
――Andrew Meikle――Washing away the Moss of Kincardine
⭘ A revolution has been effected in Agricultural Implements and
Machines――Enclosing of Pasture Lands――Reports on the state of
Agriculture――Institution of the Highland and Agricultural Society
of Scotland
⭘ Change in the method of Rotation of Crops――♦Improvements in
the system of Breeding, Rearing, and Feeding of Cattle――Rents
――Horticulture
♦ “Inprovements” replaced with “Improvements”
CHAPTER XLVIII.
_Progress of Mining, Manufactures, and Commerce
in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries._
SECTION I.
_Coal, Iron, and Lead Mining._
⭘ Coal Mining in the early part of last Century――Improved methods
of working the Mines, application of Steam-power――Gradual
increase in the consumption of Coal――State of the Coal Miners
in the last Century
⭘ The Collieries are now worked by Steam-power――Quantities of Coal
raised in Scotland――Number of persons employed――Wages of Coal
Miners at different periods
⭘ Iron, Lead, and Copper Miners
SECTION II.
_Iron Works, and Iron Manufactures._
⭘ Scottish Iron Ores――Furnaces erected in Scotland――Carron Iron
Works――Erection of other Iron Works in the last Century――Quantity
of Iron annually produced
⭘ More Blast-furnaces erected――Discovery of the Blackband
Ironstone――Increasing demand for Iron――Invention of the
Hot-blast――Annual production of Iron at different periods
⭘ Account of Iron Works――Malleable Iron Works――Steel Manufacture
⭘ Iron-founding and other branches of the Iron Trade――Sequence of
Industrial Development
SECTION III.
_Improvement of the Means of Communication._
⭘ State of the Roads in the last Century――New Roads and Bridges
in the Highlands――Making of Canals
⭘ Introduction and Development of Railways――Improved Postal and
Telegraphic Arrangements
SECTION IV.
_Shipbuilding._
⭘ Progress of Shipping from the end of the Seventeenth Century
Onwards
⭘ Shipbuilding in Leith――In Dundee――In Aberdeen, and other Ports
――Effect of Changes in the Construction of Vessels
⭘ Shipbuilding on the Clyde, Steam vessels――Iron Ships――War Ships
――Steel Vessels――Number and Tonnage of Vessels built and launched
SECTION V.
_Glass and Earthenware Manufactures._
⭘ Various kinds of Glass――Process of making it――Glass Engraving
――Glass Painting
⭘ Earthenware Works――Brick and Tile Works
SECTION VI.
_Textile Manufactures._
⭘ Mechanical Inventions, Appliances, and Machines for Spinning and
Weaving
⭘ I.――Development of the Woollen and Hosiery Manufactures
――Introduction of Machinery, Steam-power, and Power-looms――Keen
Competition in the Markets of the World――Carpet Manufacture
――Bonnet Manufacture――Number of Woollen Factories in Scotland,
and number of Persons employed
⭘ II.――Progress of the Linen Manufactures――Number of Lint Mills
in the Eighteenth Century――Quantity of Linen produced, and its
value――Table Linen Manufacture in Dunfermline――Introduction of
Jute Manufactures――Its rapid Development――Number of Linen and
Jute Factories, and total number of Persons employed
⭘ III.――Introduction and Development of Cotton Manufactures
――Number of Cotton Mills in the Eighteenth Century――Steam-power,
and Power-looms――Number of hands employed at different periods
――Thread Manufacture
⭘ IV.――Silk Manufacture――Mixed Fabrics――Floorcloth――Total number
of Persons employed in Textile Manufactures
⭘ Some of the Effects of the Industrial Revolution――Wages of
Operatives in Cotton Factories
SECTION VII.
_Paper Manufacture._
⭘ Invention of the Pulping engine, and Paper-making Machine
――Development of Paper Manufactures――Raw materials used, and
quantity of Paper produced――Number of Persons employed
⭘ Manufacture of Paper-hangings
SECTION VIII.
_Printing and Book-binding._
⭘ Printing in the last Century――Invention and Development of
Stereotyping――Introduction of Printing Machines, and Steam-power
――Number of Persons employed
⭘ Book-binding, Machines used――Minute division of Labour
SECTION IX.
_Leather, India-rubber, and Shoe Manufactures._
⭘ Manufacture of Leather――Number of hands employed――Revolution in
the Shoe-making Trade――Gutta-percha――India-rubber Manufactures
SECTION X.
_Sugar-refining, Brewing, and Distilling._
⭘ I.――Sugar-refining Trade――Heavy Machinery and Apparatus used
⭘ II.――Quantities of Malt consumed and Beer produced at different
periods――Export Trade――Aerated Water
⭘ III.――Legislation touching Whisky――Variation of the Duty on
Whisky――Quantities produced and consumed in Scotland
SECTION XI.
_Miscellaneous Manufactures._
⭘ Importance of Chemical Science in the useful Arts and
Manufactures――I. Alkali Works; II. Alum Works; III. Mineral Oil
Works; IV. Artificial Manures; V. Comb Works――Conclusion
CHAPTER XLIX.
_Architecture, and Monumental Art._
SECTION I.
_Architecture._
⭘ Variety of Stones――Scottish Architects――William Adam――Robert
Adam――James Craig――James Gibbs――Robert Mylne――Functions of the
Architect
⭘ Crowded State of Edinburgh in the last Century――The North Loch
Bridged――New Town――Opening up and rebuilding of the Old Town
――Characteristics of the Architecture
⭘ Glasgow――Extension and construction of new Streets――In the
middle of this Century the old localities of the City crowded
――New Water Works――An extensive scheme of Improvement carried
out――Architectural characteristics of Glasgow――Sanitary
Arrangements
SECTION II.
_Monumental Art, Granite Cutting and Polishing._
⭘ Reference to early stone Monuments――Quarrying in Aberdeenshire
――Quantity of Stone annually Quarried
⭘ Granite-cutting and polishing Trade――The branch of Monumental
Art――Lettering――Export Trade
CHAPTER L.
_Fine Art, Music, and Painting._
SECTION I.
_Music._
⭘ I.――Earliest Collection of Scottish Melodies――Dance Music
――Sword-Dance
⭘ II.――Scottish Musicians, Composers, Violinists, Vocalists, and
Pipers
⭘ III.――Psalmody――Hymn Books――Organs――A Chair of Music instituted
in the University of Edinburgh――A Lectureship on Music founded
in Anderson’s College
SECTION II.
_Painting._
⭘ Conditions favourable to the Culture of Art――Aikman――Ramsay――His
success in London――Runciman, his early efforts――Paintings from
scenes in Ossian’s Poems
⭘ David Allan――His work in Rome――His paintings of Scottish
Subjects――Other Painters of the Period
⭘ Raeburn, his Education――His first Efforts at Painting――His
success and marriage――His sojourn in Rome, and return to
Edinburgh――His method of working――Honours conferred on him――His
Merits
⭘ Andrew Robertson――Wilkie, his early Efforts――Variety and
Characteristics of his Paintings
⭘ John Burnet――James Burnet――Andrew Wilson, a Landscape Painter
――Andrew Donaldson
⭘ Sir William Allan, his early Efforts――His historic Pictures of
Scottish Subjects――His Dramatic Power――David Roberts――William
Bonnar
⭘ Thomas Duncan――William Simson――Sir John W. Gordon――William Dyce
――His Paintings
⭘ Sir George Harvey――His historic Pictures――Robert S. Lauder
――David Scott――Horatio M‘Culloch――Alexander Johnston――Alexander
Backley
⭘ Sir Daniel Macnee――His Portraits――John Phillip――His early
Efforts and ultimate Success――Characteristics of his Pictures
⭘ Robert T. Ross――Robert Thorburn――Joseph N. Paton――Erskine Nicol
――Robert Herdman, an eminent Painter――George Chalmers――William
B. Scott
⭘ Sculptors:――Thomas Campbell――Laurence Macdonald――Sir John Steel
――William Brodie――Alexander Brodie――Henry B. Smith
CHAPTER LI.
_Political and Social Movements._
⭘ State of Political Representation in Scotland prior to 1832
――Effect of the French Revolution on the Executive――Trial of
Thomas Muir――The Lord Justice Clerk’s Address to the Jury――Other
persons tried for political offences――Three Men Executed
⭘ Slow progress of Liberal Principles――Chartist Movement――New
Reform Bill before Parliament, opposed and defeated――Great
Agitation――The Second Reform Bill passed
⭘ Political Rights of the People recognised
CHAPTER LII.
_Ecclesiastical Movements._
⭘ Theocratic Conception of the Church and State――Historic Polity
of Presbyterianism――Election of ministers
⭘ Patronage restored――Struggles within the Church――Secession――Dr.
Robertson’s Leadership of the Assembly, effect of his policy
――Continuation of the internal Struggle
⭘ A Revolution preparing――Narrative of the Movement
⭘ The Popular Party assumed a firm attitude――Interference of the
Court of Session, historical view of its Proceedings
⭘ Excitement in the Country――The General Assembly adopted “the
Claim of Right,” but Parliament rejected it――Assembly of 1843
――The final Scene――Significance of the Disruption
CHAPTER LIII.
_Summary._
⭘ Summary of the Work――Conclusion
♦INDEX
⭘ Listing
♦ added to Contents listing
THE
HISTORY OF CIVILISATION IN SCOTLAND.
CHAPTER XXXV.
_History of Scottish Philosophy――Carmichael――Hutcheson._
IN the closing chapter of the third volume an outline of the history
of European philosophy in the seventeenth century and the early part of
the eighteenth was given, as a preliminary to the history of Scottish
philosophy. It was shown that although this speculative movement had
arisen and assumed importance in the seventeenth century, it was not
felt in Scotland in its philosophical form till during the century
following. This movement, with its scrutinising spirit, was partly a
result of the great religious revolution of the sixteenth century, with
which, in its religious and political consequences, Scotland was deeply
affected. On the continent the earlier efforts of the movement were
somewhat halting, wavering, and doubtful; but at last the human mind
launched into the regions of speculation and scientific investigation
with vigour and freedom, and on the scientific side attained a marked
degree of success. The sources whence Scottish philosophy drew the
materials which were not original to itself, may be indicated thus:――1.
The mental philosophy of Greece, especially the ethics and metaphysics
of Aristotle, chiefly by Hutcheson, and the later development of
Hamilton. 2. The mental philosophy of France, slightly marked in
Stewart, to a greater degree in Brown, and also partly in Hamilton.
3. English philosophy, mostly from Locke’s _Essay on the Understanding_
and Berkeley’s writings, notably in Hume, Reid, and Stewart; in a less
degree in Brown and Hamilton. 4. German philosophy, almost restricted
to Hamilton, at least till quite recent times. Such is a very general
indication of the various sources to which Scottish philosophy was
partly indebted for its materials; but, except in the cases of Hume
and Hamilton, they are not particularly marked.
This history of Scottish philosophy will present a brief account of
the origin of the school. The subsequent chapters will treat the views
and speculations of Hume, Adam Smith, Reid, Ferguson, Stewart, Brown,
Mackintosh, Hamilton, Ferrier, and others. It has not been deemed
advisable to discuss the writings of living philosophers. As the main
aim is historic exposition in relation to the progress of civilisation,
the relative importance of the many subjects which come within the
scope of the work, has determined the method and the limits of their
treatment.
In the early part of the eighteenth century mental philosophy was at
a low ebb in Scotland. As stated in the last volume, the old method of
teaching in the Universities was continued in some of them till past
the middle of the century; although the College of Edinburgh, in 1708,
adopted in the Arts Faculty the specialised method of instruction――a
distinct branch of study was assigned to each professor. It appears
that before 1741, Stevenson, the professor of logic and metaphysics in
the University of Edinburgh, used an abridgment of Locke’s _Essay on
the Human Understanding_ as one of his text-books.
In the University of Glasgow, the regents were restricted to the
teaching of special subjects in 1727; and in that year Gershom
Carmichael was appointed to the chair of moral philosophy. It is
reported that he was a successful teacher; but he died in 1729. He was
the author of a short treatise on Logic, which reached a second edition
in 1722; and in 1720 published an edition of Puffendorff’s treatise,
_De Officio Hominis et Civis_, for the use of students, to which he
wrote notes and supplements. Hutcheson said that Carmichael’s notes
were of more value than the text. Carmichael’s latest work, _Synopsis
Theologiæ Naturalis_, appeared in 1729, shortly before his death. In
his effort to prove the existence and perfections of God, he showed
considerable discrimination and reasoning power; he considered the
arguments of Descartes and Clarke as unsatisfactory, and insisted that
the existence of God should be proved on _a posteriori_ arguments.¹
¹ Sir William Hamilton in a note to Reid’s _Works_, says
――“Carmichael was Hutcheson’s immediate predecessor in the
chair of moral philosophy, and may be regarded, on good
grounds, as the real founder of Scottish philosophy.”
――Volume I., page 30.
Francis Hutcheson, who has usually been considered the founder of the
Scottish School of mental philosophy, was a native of the north of
Ireland, but originally of Scotch descent.¹ He was educated at the
University of Glasgow, where he studied for six years, and enjoyed
the instruction of Carmichael, who was then acting as a regent. On
his return to Ireland, he was ♦licensed to preach among a dissenting
body. But he soon left this profession, and opened a school in Dublin,
where he taught the higher branches of education with much success for
about eight years. Having become known by his writings, he was elected
professor of moral philosophy in the University of Glasgow in 1729――an
office which he held until his death, in the fifty-third year of his
age.
¹ Born in 1694, died in 1747. He was descended from an Ayrshire
family.
♦ “licenced” replaced with “licensed” for consistency
As a professor of moral philosophy, he was very successful. He entered
on his task with the ardour of a man of keen sensibilities and all the
glow of genius, and worked hard. Hence his class soon became large,
and he was enabled to exercise a wide influence; in short, he was
himself animated with a genuine love of knowledge, of liberty, and
of virtue; and thus he contributed much to diffuse a taste for the
higher literature in Scotland. He lectured on five days in the week――on
natural religion, morals, jurisprudence, and government; and, besides,
he lectured other three days of the week on some of the best Greek
and Latin writers, explaining their moral views, and also their style.
Further, on the Sunday evenings, he delivered a course of lectures
on the truth and evidence of Christianity; which is said to have been
attended by larger auditories than any of his other courses of lectures;
indeed, his Sunday lectures were attended by all the different classes
of students.¹
¹ Leechman’s “Account of Hutcheson’s Life and Writings,”
prefixed to Hutcheson’s _Moral Philosophy_, pages 26‒37;
see also Rev. Alexander Carlyle’s _Autobiography_. Carlyle
says――“I attended Hutcheson’s class this year (1743) with
great satisfaction and improvement. He was a good-looking
man, of an engaging countenance. He delivered his lectures
without notes, walking backwards and forwards in the area of
his room. As his elocution was good and his voice and manner
pleasing, he raised the attention of his hearers at all
times; and when the subject led him to explain and enforce
the moral virtues and duties, he displayed a fervent and
persuasive eloquence which was irresistible.”
――_Autobiography_, page 70.
Hutcheson’s writings are these:――1. _An Inquiry into the Origin of
our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue_, 1725; 2. _An Essay on the Passions
and Affections_, 1728; 3. _Metaphysical Synopsis_, 1742; 4. _Logical
Compendium_, a short but useful treatise; 5. his _System of Moral
Philosophy_, which was published by his son in 1755, from the original
manuscript. This last work presented a complete view of his system, and
consists of three Books――the first of which treats on the constitution
of human nature; the second presents a deduction of the more special
laws and duties of life, previous to civil government; and the third
treats on civil polity or government.
Although it is chiefly as a moralist that he attained distinction
in the history of philosophy, his psychology was in advance of his
time, and on some points it is still worth attention. He distinguished
sensation from perception; and stated that the common division of the
external senses into five classes is imperfect; he made many ingenious
and just remarks on the origin and character of our ideas of beauty;
and his view of the formation of acquired desires is natural and
reasonable.
As a moralist, Hutcheson insists much on disinterested affections and
a distinct moral faculty as essential constituents of human nature. He
explains the objects which the moral sense approves, as those having
“a tendency to the happiness of others, and the general perfection of
the mind possessing them.” His definition of the moral sense or faculty
itself is to this effect:――It is a power of which anyone by close
attention and reflection may convince himself, being “a natural and
immediate determination to approve certain affections and actions
consequent upon them, not referred to any other quality perceivable
by our senses or by reasoning.... It may be a constant, settled
determination in the soul itself, as much as our power of judging and
reasoning.” He maintained that reason is only a subordinate factor in
our ultimate determination both of will and perception. “The ultimate
end is settled by some sense and some determination of will; by some
sense we enjoy happiness, and self-love determines to it without
reasoning. Reason can only direct to the means, or compare two ends
previously constituted by some other immediate powers.... This moral
sense from its very nature appears to be designed for regulating and
controlling all our powers. This dignity and commanding nature we are
immediately conscious of, as we are conscious of the power itself.
Nor can such matters of immediate feeling be otherwise proved but
by appeals to our own hearts.... We immediately discern moral good
to be superior in kind and dignity to all others which are perceived
by the other perceptive powers.... By this sense the heart can not
only approve itself in sacrificing every other gratification to moral
goodness, but have the highest self-enjoyment and approbation of its
own disposition in doing so, which plainly shows this moral sense to
be naturally destined to command all the other powers.”¹
¹ _System of Moral Philosophy_, Book I., chapter 1, sections
1, 5, 6, and chapter 4 throughout.
Still, he explicitly argues that this moral sense, like all our other
faculties, needs to be cultivated and improved, and adduces very
obvious illustrations――that special culture improves our taste, as more
accurate knowledge and reflection aid us in forming sound judgments.
Hutcheson treated happiness at great length, and with much elegance and
fine feeling. He placed our supreme happiness in the exercise of the
highest virtue and the gratification of our widest affections. He sums
up the subject thus:――“It is plain our supreme and complete happiness,
according to the universal doctrine of the wisest men in all ages, must
consist in the complete exercise of those nobler virtues, especially
that entire resignation to God, and of all the inferior virtues
which do not conflict with the superior, and in the enjoyment of such
external prosperity as we can, consistently with virtue, obtain.
“A just estimation of the value of life, and of the several sorts of
evil we are exposed to, must be equally necessary. If moral evils and
some sympathetic sufferings are worse than any external ones, and can
make life shameful and miserable amidst all the affluence of other
things, as we have shown above; if at best life is but an uncertain
possession we must soon lose, we shall see something that is more to
be dreaded than death, and many just reasons why it may on certain
occasions be our interest to incur the danger of it.... Many are
discouraged from a virtuous culture of their minds for the reception
of all virtues by a rash prejudice. We are dazzled with the conspicuous
glories of some great successful actors in higher stations; we can
allow such virtues to be the noblest enjoyments, but they are placed
so high that few have access to them, Nay, persons in the highest
positions often despair when their power is not absolute.
“To arm the soul against prejudice, we should remember that the reality
and the perfection of virtue, and the inward satisfaction of it too,
to a calm mind, depends not on external success, but upon the inward
temper of the soul. Persisting under these doubts about the success of
glory in the public offices of virtue, or, if we are excluded from them,
in all the lower private offices――in a constant sweetness of deportment
in obscurity, and a constant resignation to the Supreme Mind――embracing
cheerfully the lot appointed for us, repressing every envious notion
and every repining thought against providence, resolving to go
steadfastly on in the path pointed out to us by God and nature, till
our mortal part fall down to that earth whence it sprung――must appear
rather more noble and heroic to an All-seeing Eye, and to the judgment
of every wise man, than the more glittering virtues of a prosperous
fortune.
“When we despair of glory, and even of executing all the good we intend,
it is a sublime exercise to the soul to persist in acting the rational
and social part as it can; discharging its duty well, and committing
the rest to God. Who can tell what greater good might be attainable
if all good men exerted their powers even under great uncertainties,
and great dangers of misrepresentation and obloquy? Or how much
worse should all matters proceed, if all good men desponded and grew
remiss under such apprehensions? If virtue appears more glorious by
surmounting external dangers and obstacles, is not its glory equally
increased by surmounting these inward discouragements, and persisting
without the aids of glory or applause, conquering even the ingratitude
of those it serves, satisfied with the silent testimony of our hearts
and the hope of divine approbation? Thus, the most heroic excellence,
and its consequent happiness and enjoyment, may be attained under the
worst circumstances of fortune; nor is any station of life excluded
from the enjoyment of the supreme.”¹
¹ _System of Moral Philosophy_, Book I., chapter 2.
In the above passages there is evidence, not only of Christian
sentiment and resignation to the Supreme Mind, but also of classic
culture; the very spirit of the noble and heroic sages of ancient
Greece and Rome breathes in them.
Hutcheson placed the object of moral approbation in general benevolence.
The calm kind of affections are more approved than the passions; and
the calm desire of private good, though not approved as virtue, is far
from being condemned as vice; and none of the truly natural appetites
and passions when restrained within proper limits are of themselves
condemned as evil, although they are not referred by the agent to
any public interest. But the disposition which is most excellent, and
naturally attains the highest moral approbation, “is the calm, stable,
universal goodwill to all, or the most extensive benevolence. This
seems the most distinct notion we can form of the moral excellence of
the Deity.” The love of moral excellence itself is a very high object
of approbation, when by reflection we find it in ourselves or observe
it in others.¹
¹ Book I., chapter 4, sections 7, 10.
Although Hutcheson coincided with Shaftesbury touching disinterested
affections, he is more distinct than his predecessor; and his theory of
the moral faculty is better developed. In short, his ethical ideas were
higher than Shaftesbury’s, while his grasp of mind and analytic powers
were also much greater.
Touching the relation of morality to religion, he stated that the
highest exercise of the moral faculty and the highest happiness are
found in the recognition and worship of God.
In the second book of his _System of Moral Philosophy_, Hutcheson
treats at length on the subjects of natural rights, society, the
foundation of private property, laws, and contracts; and the third book
treats of government, embracing domestic and civil rights. But in these
parts of his system, his conclusions are often founded on speculative
and imaginary grounds. As an example of his method, his view of
the establishment of government may be cited:――Civil power is most
naturally founded by these three different acts of the whole people
――(1) an agreement or contract of each one with all the rest, that
they will unite into one society or body, to be governed in all their
common interests by one council; (2) a decree or designation made by
the whole of the people, of the form or plan of power, and of the
persons to be entrusted with it; (3) a mutual agreement or contract
between the governors thus constituted and the people, the former
obliging themselves to a faithful administration of the powers vested
in them for the common interest, and the latter obliging themselves to
obedience.¹
¹ Book III., chapter 5, section 2.
This is merely a statement of the famous _Contract Theory of the Origin
of Government_, and substantially the same as enunciated by Hobbes,
Locke, and others. Although Hutcheson’s general views of government
are more sober and liberal than Hobbes’, yet both start from the same
unhistorical and imaginary basis. He maintained the doctrine that all
states have in themselves the causes of dissolution and death.¹
¹ “States themselves have within them the seeds of death
and destruction; what in the temerity, imprudence, or
superstition of the first contrivers; what in the selfish
ambition or other meaner passions of the governors and their
subjects, jarring with each other and among themselves;
what in the opposition of those seeming interests which
such persons pursue; what in the weakness and inconstancy
of human virtue; and in the proneness of men to luxury and
present pleasure, without attention to the consequences.
These seeds, along with external force and jarring national
interests, have always occasioned the dissolution and death
of every political body, and will occasion it as certainly
as the internal weakness of the animal body and external
causes will at last bring it to its final period. Good men
indeed study, by all the art they are masters of, to ward
off and delay these ♦catastrophes as long as they can, from
their friends or their country; such kind of offices are
the most honourable and delightful employment they can have
while they live. But he must little think of the order of
nature who sees not that all our efforts will be defeated at
last, whether for the preservation of individuals or of the
political body.”――Book III., chapter 11.
♦ “catastrophies” replaced with “catastrophes”
In conclusion, according to Hutcheson, the ethical standard is
identical with the moral faculty. His general views obtained in the
first instance a pretty wide circulation from his own teaching in
the University of Glasgow, and his ethical writings have exercised a
considerable influence since his death. His first course of lectures
in Glasgow was delivered in 1730, and we shall find that both Hume
and Adam Smith were somewhat indebted to Hutcheson. He agreed with his
contemporary Butler in holding that the moral faculty is an essential
part of human nature.
CHAPTER XXXVI.
_David Hume and Adam Smith._
SECTION I.
_Hume._
THE two names at the head of this chapter have attained high
distinction not only in Scottish philosophy, but also in the history
of European thought, and especially in the literature of political
economy. This is so fully recognised, that it would be superfluous to
enlarge on it; but it may be said that Hume, by his bold and sceptical
reasoning, aroused philosophers from their slumber, and greatly
stimulated thought to further inquiries in various directions; while
Smith advanced an attractive moral theory, and founded the science
of political economy, which has proved beneficial in suggesting
legislative reform and commercial enterprise.
Hume and Smith were mutual friends, and took a keen interest in each
other’s speculation and researches. In several branches their inquiries
were identical, but in others they were as wide as the poles asunder.
Hume¹ published in 1739 two volumes of a work entitled _A Treatise of
Human Nature_: “Being an Attempt to introduce the Experimental Method
of Reasoning into Moral Subjects.” In explaining his system, it is
requisite to direct special attention to this work, as it is the most
systematic, elaborate, and complete of all his productions.
¹ Born in 1711, and died in Edinburgh in 1776. Shortly before
his death he wrote a short but characteristic account of
himself, entitled _My Own Life_. Besides this there are
various biographical accounts of Hume, but I need only
mention that the late Dr. H. Burton produced one, entitled
_The Life and Correspondence of David Hume_, published
in 1848; and more recently Professor Huxley published an
account of Hume and his philosophy.
It consists of three books, which treat consecutively “Of the
Understanding; Of the Passions; and Of Morals.” The first book is
divided into four parts. The first part of it, which consists of
seven sections, treats of ideas and impressions――their origin,
composition, connection, abstraction, and other relations. The second
part, extending to six sections, discusses at length the ideas of space
and time. The third, contains sixteen sections, which deal with the
subjects of knowledge and probability. The fourth, extending to seven
sections, discusses the sceptical and other systems of philosophy,
and completes his exposition of the Understanding. The second book is
divided into three parts:――The first part consists of twelve sections,
and under the general heading “Of pride and humility,” a pretty large
division of the passions is treated; the second part, also consisting
of twelve sections, treats of love and hatred; and the third part,
containing ten sections, discusses the problem of the will, and the
direct passions. The third book is, in like manner, divided into three
parts:――The first part contains two sections, which treat of virtue and
vice in general; the second part, extending to twelve sections, treats
of justice and injustice, and various points connected with society and
government; and the third part contains six sections, which treat of
various virtues and vices.
Such is the plan of Hume’s great philosophical work. Although it is
characterised by a marked simplicity of arrangement, it presents some
of the most subtle thought and searching reasoning to be found in any
literature. Still it did not at once produce a great impression; for,
in his own words, “never literary attempt was more unfortunate than my
_Treatise of Human Nature_. It fell dead-born from the press without
reaching such distinction, as even to excite a murmur among the
Zealots.” This caused him to recast portions of it in a more popular
form, under the titles of “Essays: Moral and Political;” “Essays: Moral,
Political, and Literary;” “An Inquiry concerning Human Understanding;”
“An Inquiry concerning the Principles of Morals;” and “Political
Discourses.”¹ But the principles which he enunciated in the _Treatise
of Human Nature_ were not essentially changed in any of his subsequent
writings. In an advertisement to the authoritative edition of his
_Essays and Treatises_, published in 1777, the year after his death, he
says that henceforth he desired that his later writings alone should be
regarded as containing his philosophical sentiments and principles; and
it is only fair to concede that the original _Treatise of Human Nature_,
which he composed at an early period of his life, did not in all
points truly represent his later sentiments; yet it is mainly in the
improvement, the ease and polish of his style, and in the omission of
two parts of the original treatise, containing some of his most acute
speculations, that his later writings differ from his earliest――a
difference of form and finish rather than of thought and matter.
Moreover, it is in the original treatise that Hume can be historically
studied to the best advantage.
¹ Hume’s numerous short essays treat on a variety of subjects.
Some of the more notable are those on eloquence, the
standard of taste, and the highly polished ones on the
Epicurean, the Stoic, the Platonist, and the Sceptic. In
these and in others of his essays, he shows a fine critical
faculty.
Regarding some of his other writings, it may be mentioned
here that his _Natural History of Religion_ was first
published in 1757; his two essays, the one on _Suicide_, and
the other _Of the Immortality of the Soul_; his _Dialogues
concerning Natural Religion_, and some other short pieces,
were published after his death.
Several editions of his essays were published in his
lifetime; and new ones were frequently added, as well as
many alterations and corrections made on them. Since his
death various editions of his works have appeared. An
edition of his philosophical works, edited by Mr. T. H.
Green and Mr. T. H. Grose, with valuable introductions and
notes, was published in 1874‒5, in four large volumes.
Although Hume’s mind was original and vigorous, and his thinking and
critical powers unusually great, yet he found the principles upon which
he most effectively operated mainly in Locke and in Berkeley. There is
little trace of the influence of Descartes in the _Treatise of Human
Nature_; but his style bears internal evidence of the influence of
French literature. No English philosophical writer of a prior date
approached Hume in the qualities and the grace of his style.
On various points treated in the moral part of the treatise, the
influence of Hobbes and of Hutcheson are easily traced; and Hume held
the latter philosopher in very great esteem. Let us proceed to the
exposition of his system, beginning with his own account of the state
of his mind when he approached the subject:――
“At the time therefore that I am tired with amusement and company,
and have indulged a reverie in my chamber, or in a solitary walk
by a river side, I feel my mind all collected within itself, and am
naturally inclined to carry my view into all those subjects, about
which I have met with so many disputes in the course of my reading and
conversation. I cannot forbear having a curiosity to be acquainted with
the principles of moral good and evil, the nature and foundation of
government, and the cause of those several passions and inclinations
which actuate and govern me. I am uneasy to think I approve of one
object and disapprove of another; call one thing beautiful and another
deformed; decide concerning truth and falsehood, reason and folly,
without knowing upon what principles I proceed. I am concerned for
the condition of the learned world, which lies under such a deplorable
ignorance in all these particulars. I feel an ambition to arise in me
of contributing to the instruction of mankind, and of acquiring a name
by my inventions and discoveries. These sentiments spring up naturally
in my present disposition, and should I endeavour to banish them, by
attaching myself to any other business or diversion, I feel I should be
a loser in point of pleasure; and this is the origin of my philosophy.”¹
¹ Book I., Part IV., section 7.
He begins his exposition of the Understanding with a description
of impressions and ideas, and resolves the perceptions of the mind
into these two terms. The perceptions which enter the mind with most
force he calls impressions, and this term includes all our sensations,
passions, and emotions; by ideas he means the faint images of
impressions excited in thinking and in reasoning. Having distinguished
impressions and ideas into simple and complex classes, he then proceeds
to discuss their qualities and relations. Impressions and ideas differ
from each other only in the degrees of their vivacity――the one seems to
be the reflection of the others; in the case, however, of complex ideas,
he notices some exceptions to this doctrine; but seeing that all simple
perceptions and ideas are copies of impressions, and that the complex
ones are formed from them, therefore these two kinds of perceptions
exactly correspond. He next starts the main subject――the existence of
impressions and ideas――and proposes to inquire which of them are causes
and which effects.
He concludes that simple impressions are prior to their corresponding
ideas, and that impressions are of two kinds――those of sensation
and those of reflection. The first kind arise originally in the mind
from unknown causes; the second are derived mostly from our ideas.
Thus:――“An impression first strikes upon the senses, and makes us
perceive heat or cold, thirst or hunger, pleasure or pain, of some
kind or other. Of this impression there is a copy taken by the mind,
which remains after the impression ceases, and this we call an idea.¹
This idea of pleasure or pain, when it returns upon the soul, produces
the new impressions of desire and aversion, hope and fear, which may
properly be called impressions of reflection, because derived from
it. These are again copied by the memory and imagination, and become
ideas, which, perhaps, in their turn give rise to other impressions and
ideas.” At this stage he expresses his opinion that the examination of
the sensations belongs more to the anatomists and natural philosophers
than to mental science, and therefore he does not enter upon them.²
¹ This is nearly the same as Hobbes’ doctrine.
² Book I., sections 1, 2.
Memory and imagination he treats together, but neither of them at much
length. The first, he says, retains a strong and vivid impression, the
second only a much fainter one. The chief distinction between memory
and imagination consists in the fact that the memory retains the
impressions in the order and form in which it receives them, while the
imagination is not at all restricted in this way, as its function is
to transpose and change its ideas.¹ This power of the imagination he
connects with his exposition of the association of ideas.
¹ Further on he says――“Nothing is more dangerous to reason
than the flights of imagination.... Men of bright fancies
may in this respect be compared to those angels whom the
Scriptures represent as covering their eyes with their
wings.”――Book IV., section 7. Again, in his later work,
_An Inquiry concerning Human Understanding_, he remarks
――“Nothing is more free than the imagination of man;
and though it cannot exceed the original stock of ideas
furnished by the external and internal senses, it has
unlimited power of mixing, compounding, separating, and
dividing these ideas, in all the varieties of fiction and
vision.”――Section 5, Part II.
Ideas are associated in three ways――namely, by semblance, contiguity,
and cause and effect. These relations are briefly explained as
principles of association, with the remark that, of the three, the
associative relations of causation are the most widely ramified.
Among the effects of the association of ideas, the most remarkable are
those complex ideas which are the common subjects of our thoughts and
reasonings, and generally arise from some principle of union among our
simple ideas. These complex ideas he divides into relations, modes,
and substances; and proceeds to examine these.¹
¹ Book I., Part I., sections 3, 4. What he states above,
however, should be compared with his treatment of the
principles of association in his later work, _An Inquiry
concerning Human Understanding_, section 3.
He classifies relations under seven general heads――(1) resemblance,
the most essential requisite of philosophical relation; (2) identity;
(3) space and time; (4) quantity or number; (5) objects having the
same quantity, but in different degrees; (6) contrariety; and (7) cause
and effect. He affirms that we have no idea of substance, except as
a mere collection of particular qualities, and closes the first part
of his treatise with a discussion of abstract ideas. He alludes to
Berkeley’s view, and argues that abstract or general ideas are formed
from individual and particular ones, and brings in the convenient term
Custom, of which he makes so much use in his speculations――“If ideas be
particular in their nature, and at the same time finite in their number,
it is only by custom they can become general in their representation,
and contain an infinite number of other ideas under them.”¹
¹ Book I., Part I., sections 5, 6, 7.
The second part of the Understanding contains a long and exceedingly
penetrating discussion of the ideas of space and time. He opens with a
few sentences of polished banter about the dispositions of philosophers
and their disciples. The first serious point taken up is the doctrine
of infinite divisibility, which is handled with consummate skill.
Founding upon the limited power of the human mind, he proceeds
vigorously to demolish it; and in the fourth section he puts it in
this form:――“Our system concerning space and time consists of two parts,
which are intimately connected together. The capacity of the mind is
not infinite, consequently no idea of extension or duration consists of
an infinite number of parts or inferior ideas, but of a finite number,
and these simple and indivisible: it is, therefore, possible for space
and time to exist conformable to this idea; and if it be possible,
it is certain they actually do exist conformable to it, since their
infinite divisibility is utterly impossible and contradictory.
“The other part of our system is a consequence of this. The parts, into
which the ideas of space and time resolve themselves, become at last
indivisible; and these indivisible parts, being nothing in themselves,
are inconceivable when not filled with something real and existent. The
ideas of space and time are, therefore, no separate or distinct ideas,
but merely those of the manner or order in which objects exist; or,
in other words, it is impossible to conceive a vacuum and extension
without matter, or a time when there was no succession or change in any
real existence.”¹
¹ Book I., Part II., sections 1, 2, 3, 4.
The discussion is carried on through other three sections with great
animation and ingenuity, and culminates in the annunciation of absolute
Idealism, thus:――“Now since nothing is ever present to the mind
but perceptions, and since all ideas are derived from something
antecedently present to the mind, it follows that it is impossible
for us so much as to conceive or form an idea of anything specifically
different from ideas and impressions. Let us fix our attention out
of ourselves as much as possible; let us chase our imagination to
the heavens, or to the utmost limits of the universe――we never really
advance a step beyond ourselves, nor can we conceive any kind of
existence, but those perceptions which have appeared in that narrow
compass. This is the universe of the imagination, nor have we any idea
but what is there produced.”¹
¹ Book I., Part II., sections 4, 5, 6.
The third part of the Understanding, which treats of knowledge and
probability, is the longest in the book; many topics of great interest
are handled in it; but I shall chiefly direct attention to his views on
causation.
Knowledge and science mainly turn and rest on the various kinds of
philosophical relation. He re-states the relations which have been
already noticed in a preceding page, and expiscates them at length in
his own manner. In treating causation, he begins by proposing to search
for the origin of the idea; and finds it to be some relation among
objects. He then seeks to discover what the relation itself is; but all
that he discovers is that the two relations of contiguity and priority
in time are essential to causation. But seeing that any object may
be contiguous and prior to another without being considered as its
cause, there is a necessary connection to be taken into account, and
it is upon this, the most essential relation of causation, that he
made his grand attack. It would be tedious to follow him through his
long discussion, and in fact it is unnecessary; therefore, I will only
indicate the lines of his method of investigating the subject, and its
results.
He inquires why a cause is always necessary, and affirms that the real
state of the question is “whether every object which begins to exist,
must owe its existence to a cause; and this he continues, I assert
neither to be intuitively nor demonstratively certain.” After a very
long exposition of the manner in which we reason beyond our immediate
impressions, and conclude that particular causes must have particular
effects, he takes up the discussion of the idea of necessary connection,
and asks――“What is our idea of necessity, when we say that two objects
are necessarily connected together? Upon this head I repeat what I
have often had occasion to observe, that as we have no idea that is
not derived from an impression, we must find some impression that gives
rise to this idea of necessity, if we assert we have really such an
idea.... Finding that it is always ascribed to causes and effects,
I turn my eye to two objects supposed to be placed in that relation,
and examine them in all the situations of which they are susceptible.
I immediately perceive that they are contiguous in time and place,
and that the object we call cause precedes the other we call effect.
In no one instance can I go any further, nor is it possible for me to
discover any third relation between these objects. I therefore enlarge
my view to comprehend several instances.... Upon further inquiry I find
that the repetition is not in every particular the same, but produces a
new impression, and by that means the idea, which I at present examine.
For, after a frequent repetition, I find that upon the appearance
of one of the objects, the mind is determined by custom to consider
its usual attendant, and to consider it in a stronger light upon
its relation to the first object. It is this impression, then, or
determination which affords me the idea of necessity.”
After more discussion of a negative cast, he reaches the following
result:――“The necessary connection between causes and effects is the
foundation of our inference from one to the other. The foundation of
our inference is the transition arising from the accustomed union.
These are therefore the same.
“The idea of necessity arises from some impression. There is no
impression conveyed by our senses which can give rise to that idea. It
must, therefore, be derived from some internal impression or impression
of reflection. There is no internal impression, which has any relation
to the present business, but that propensity which custom produces,
to pass from an object to its usual attendant. This, therefore, is
the essence of necessity. Upon the whole, necessity is something that
exists in the mind, not in objects; nor is it possible for us ever to
form the most distant idea of it, considered as a quality of bodies.
Either we have no idea of necessity, or necessity is nothing but that
determination of the thought to pass from causes to effects, and from
effects to causes, according to their experienced union.”
He further draws the following conclusions:――1. All causes are of the
same kind, and there is no ground for the distinction, sometimes made,
between efficient, formal, material, and final causes; for every cause
is efficient, or, if it is not, there is no cause at all. 2. There is
but one kind of necessity, as there is but one kind of cause; and the
distinction between moral and physical necessity has no foundation in
nature. 3. The necessity of a cause to every beginning of existence
is not founded on intuitive or demonstrative evidence. 4. We can never
have reason to believe that any object exists, if we cannot form an
idea of it.¹
¹ Book I., Part III., sections 1‒6, _et seq._ On this subject
of Causation, Hume never changed his views, for in his later
work, the _Inquiry concerning Human Understanding_, we find
the following:――“When it is asked what is the nature of all
our reasonings concerning matter of fact, the proper answer
seems to be that they are founded on the relation of cause
and effect. When again it is asked what is the foundation of
all our reasonings and conclusions concerning that relation,
it may be replied in one word――Experience. But if we still
carry on our sifting humour, and ask what is the foundation
of all conclusions from experience, this implies a new
question, which may be of more difficult solution and
explication.... I shall content myself in this section with
an easy task, and shall pretend only to give a negative
answer to the question here proposed. I say then that,
even after we have experience of the operations of cause
and effect, our conclusions from that experience are not
founded on reasoning, or any process of the Understanding.”
――Section 4.
He repeats the statement that there is no connecting
principle between cause and effect, which we can discover,
and argues the point thus:――“These two propositions are far
from being the same. I have found that such an object has
always been attended with such an effect, and I foresee,
that other objects, which are, in appearance, similar, will
be attended with similar effects. I shall allow, if you
please, that the one proposition may be justly inferred
from the other: I know, in fact, that it always is inferred.
But if you insist that the inference is made by a chain
of reasoning, I desire you to produce that reasoning. The
connection between these propositions is not intuitive.
There is required a medium, which may enable the mind to
draw such an inference, if indeed it be drawn by reasoning
and argument. What that medium is, I must confess, passes my
comprehension; and it is incumbent on those to produce it,
who assert, that it really exists, and is the origin of all
our conclusions concerning matter of fact.”――Section 4.
Again, “it appears, then, that this idea of a necessary
connection among events arises from a number of similar
instances, which occur, of the constant conjunction of
these events; nor can that idea ever be suggested by any
one of these instances, surveyed in all possible lights and
positions. But there is nothing in a number of instances,
different from every single instance, which is supposed to
be exactly similar; except only that after a repetition of
similar instances, the mind is carried by habit, upon the
appearance of one event, to expect its usual attendant, and
to believe, that it will exist. This connection, therefore,
which we feel in the mind――this customary transition of
the imagination from one object to its usual attendant――is
the sentiment or impression, from which we form the idea
of power or necessary connection. Nothing further is in the
case. Contemplate the subject on all sides; you will never
find any other origin of that idea.... And what stronger
instance can be produced of the surprising ignorance and
weakness of the Understanding, than the present? For surely,
if there be any relation among objects, which it imports us
to know perfectly, it is that of cause and effect.”――Section
7. Hume’s doctrine of causation, it will thus be seen, is
the same in his latest works as in his earliest. I shall
only adduce one other example of its application:――
“We are ignorant, it is true, of the manner in which bodies
operate on each other: their force or energy is entirely
incomprehensible; but are we not equally ignorant of the
manner or force by which a Mind, even the Supreme Mind,
operates either on itself or on body? Whence, I beseech
you, do we acquire any idea of it? We have no sentiment or
consciousness of this power in ourselves. We have no idea
of the Supreme Being but what we learn from reflection or
our own faculties. Were our ignorance, therefore, a good
reason for rejecting anything, we should be led into that
principle of denying all energy in the Supreme Being as
much as the grossest matter. We surely comprehend as little
the operations of one as of the other. It is more difficult
to conceive, that motion may arise from impulse, than that
it may arise from volition? All we know is our profound
ignorance in both cases.”――Section 7.
In the fourth part of the book on the Understanding, Hume discusses
Scepticism with regard to reason and the senses, touches briefly
on ancient and modern philosophy, and treats at length of the
immateriality of the soul and of personal identity. His treatment
of the first of these subjects is of little real value, but his
discussion on the senses is of more importance; while his handling of
the immateriality of the soul and personal identity chiefly consists
of a repetition and application of the negative principles, which he
had before reached in the earlier parts of the book, and are therefore
of less consequence. From the way in which he refers to the views of
Spinoza, it is evident that he had never thoroughly studied the works
of that great thinker. In the history of thought, indeed, Hume was not
strong.
Touching reason, he says:――“When I reflect on the natural fallibility
of my judgment, I have less confidence in my opinions than when I only
consider the objects concerning which I reason; and when I proceed
still further, to turn the scrutiny against every successive estimation
I make of my faculties, all the rules of logic require a continual
diminution, and at last a total extinction of belief and evidence.
“Should it here be asked me, whether I sincerely assent to this
argument, which I seem to take such pains to inculcate, and whether
I be really one of those sceptics who hold that all is uncertain,
and that our judgment is not in anything possessed of any measure of
truth and falsehood; I should reply, that this question is entirely
superfluous, and that neither I, nor any other person was ever
sincerely or constantly of that opinion. Nature, by an absolute and
uncontrollable necessity, has determined us to judge as well as to
breathe and feel; nor can we any more forbear viewing certain objects
in a stronger and fuller light, upon account of their customary
connection with a present impression, than we can hinder ourselves from
thinking as long as we are awake, of seeing the surrounding bodies when
we turn our eyes towards them in broad sunshine.”¹
¹ Book I., Part IV., section 1.
Now, touching the senses from a sceptical standpoint, Hume had already
said, “that belief is nothing but a lively idea related to a present
impression;” and, taking it for granted that body exists, he proposes
to inquire into the causes which induce us to believe in its existence.
He argues at length that by the senses we cannot know anything of
continued or distinct existence. He then inquires how we attain the
belief in the continued existence of the objects of the senses, and
attributes it to the constancy and coherence of our impressions of
them. He points out that when the mind starts in a particular train, it
has a tendency to continue, even when objects fail it; and through this
tendency we transform interrupted existence into continued existence.
And, on his own theory of the mind, he accounts for our believing in
this imagined continuity.
In the section on personal identity, he denies in the abstract the
existence of self, and could find nothing to give us the impression of
an unchangeable self. He observes “that the true idea of the human mind
is, to consider it as a system of different perceptions or different
existences, which are linked together by the relation of cause and
effect, and mutually produce, destroy, influence, and modify each other.
Our impressions give rise to their correspondent ideas, and these in
their turn produce other impressions. One thought chases another and
draws after it a third, by which it is expelled in its turn.... As
memory alone acquaints us with the continuance and extent of this
succession of perceptions, it is to be considered, upon that account
chiefly, as the source of personal identity. Had we no memory, we
should never have any notion of causation, nor consequently of that
chain of causes and effects which constitutes our self or person.”¹
¹ Book I., Part IV., sections 2, 6.
Before passing from Hume’s exposition of the Understanding, which is
the most important part of his philosophy, let us recapitulate the
leading points. It has to be observed that he develops a system of the
human mind. 1. There are impressions, perceptions, and ideas, of which
we are conscious; and, although we may imagine that we know external
things as objects of perception, still, in reality we know nothing but
our own impressions and perceptions. 2. Therefore, we know nothing of
an actual external world save as a phenomenon, which may be, for ought
we can ever know, a creation of our own minds――the world of imagination.
3. Since our notion of Causation is nothing but a generated habit
of looking at our impressions, perceptions, and ideas as constantly
conjoined in the relations of contiguity and succession――a mere result
which custom has engrafted on human belief――beyond this we can have no
idea of any power, force, energy, or necessary connection in causation.
4. Thus, as already indicated, Hume’s system of the mind is a form of
absolute Idealism; in short, he embraced the idealistic principles of
Berkeley, excepting that portion of them relating to a separate soul or
spirit, which in the bishop’s own system played so important a part.
Even granting the truth of Hume’s starting-point, and his fundamental
principles, still a large part of his treatment of the Understanding
may be fairly described as reasoning in a circle; for he proposes to
examine, to clear up, and to solve difficulties, but he often returns
to his original point of departure without disclosing anything at all,
save the inevitable impressions and ideas in the universe of the
imagination.
Passing to the Second Book of the Treatise, which is devoted to
the treatment of the passions, under this general term he includes
impressions of reflection, emotions, desires, and appetites; and
divides them into two main classes,――the direct and indirect passions,
which are all founded on pleasure and pain. He enumerates the direct
as desire, aversion, grief, joy, hope, fear, despair, and security,
together with the will; the indirect class embraces pride, humility,
ambition, vanity, love, hatred, envy, pity, malice, generosity, and
others associated with these. He also distinguishes the reflective
emotions, as the calm and the violent:――“Of the first kind is the sense
of beauty and deformity in action, composition, and external objects.
Of the second are the passions of love and hatred, etc. This division
is far from exact. The raptures of poetry and music frequently rise
to the greatest height; while those other impressions, properly called
passions, may decay into so soft an emotion as to become, in a manner,
imperceptible.”¹ He gives a description and a kind of natural history
of the several groups of passions, in which much insight and acute
thinking are displayed.
¹ Book II., Part I., section 1.
His usual method of explanation is to fix upon one or two generic
passions, and then, by a vigorous process of argument and reasoning,
mainly of a deductive form, to show their nature, their relation to
other passions, and their modes of manifestation and influence. I can
only afford space for a short specimen of his manner of exposition in
this department, taken from the section on property and riches:――“For
the same reason that riches cause pleasure and pride, and poverty
excites uneasiness and humility, power must produce the former emotions,
and slavery the latter. Power, or an authority over others, makes us
capable of satisfying all our desires; as slavery, by subjecting us to
the will of others, exposes us to a thousand wants and mortifications.
“It is here worth observing that the vanity of power, or shame of
slavery, are much augmented by the consideration of the persons
over whom we exercise our authority, or who exercise it over us. For
supposing it possible to frame statutes of such an admirable mechanism
that they could move and act in obedience to the will, it is evident
the possession of them would give pleasure and pride, but not to
such a degree as the same authority, when exercised over sensible and
rational creatures, whose condition, being compared to our own, makes
it seem more agreeable and honourable. Comparison is in every case a
sure method of augmenting our esteem of anything. A rich man feels the
felicity of his condition better by opposing it to that of the beggar.
But there is a peculiar advantage in power, by the contrast which
is, in a manner, presented to us between ourselves and the person we
command. The comparison is obvious and natural. The imagination finds
in it the very subject. The passage of the thought to its conception is
smooth and easy. And that this circumstance has a considerable effect
in augmenting its influence, will appear afterwards in examining the
nature of malice and envy.”¹
¹ Book II., Part I., section 10.
He treats on the will at length, and maintains that it is controlled by
the strongest motive; and he emphatically asserts that reason alone can
never afford a motive to any action of the will, nor oppose passion in
the direction of the will. “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave
of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to
serve and obey them.” Reason operates without producing any sensible
emotion, and, except in the more sublime disquisitions of philosophy,
scarcely ever gives any pleasure or uneasiness.
But it is evident that there are certain calm desires and tendencies,
which, though they are real passions, produce little emotion in the
mind, and are more known by their effects than by the immediate feeling.
These desires are either (1) certain instincts originally implanted in
our nature, such as benevolence and resentment, the love of life, and
kindness to children; or (2) the general appetite to good and aversion
to evil.¹ Besides these calm passions there are other violent emotions
which have a great influence on the will, such as impending evils which
raise our fears and aversions, and produce a sensible emotion. The
common error of philosophers has been to ascribe the direction of the
will to one of these principles, and in supposing the other to have no
influence. Men often act knowingly contrary to their interest; for this
reason the view of the greatest possible good does not always influence
them. Men often counteract a strong passion in the pursuit of their
interests and designs. “It is not therefore the present uneasiness
alone which determines them. In general we may observe, that both these
principles operate on the will; and, where they are contrary, that
either of them prevails, according to the general character or present
disposition of the person. What we call strength of mind, implies the
prevalence of the calm passions above the violent; though we may easily
observe there is no man so constantly possessed of this virtue as never
on any occasion to yield to the solicitations of passion and desire.”²
¹ Touching this distinction of the calm passions and desires,
and the function assigned to them, Hume so far seems to
follow Hutcheson.
² Book II., Part III., section 3. Locke had stated that the
strongest immediate desire, or, as he sometimes phrased it,
“the present uneasiness,” determines the will to action;
in effect his theory was that the will is always determined
by the strongest motive, but the theory is better stated by
Hume.
Hume, however, did not thoroughly develop the relation
between belief and will. He merely says, what I have already
indicated in a preceding page, “that belief is nothing but
a lively idea related to a present impression. This vivacity
is a requisite circumstance to the exciting of all our
passions, the calm as well as the violent.” But he gives
no satisfactory exposition of belief in its relation to
the will, although he touches on it in his later work――_An
Inquiry concerning Human Understanding_, section 5.
In the Third Book, Hume explains his moral views as originally advanced
in the _Treatise of Human Nature_; and in an advertisement to it he
expresses a hope that it may be understood by ordinary readers, with
as little attention as is usually accorded to books of reasoning. As we
have already seen, he maintains that reason alone can never be a motive
of action, or impulse of the will; accordingly, he insists that moral
distinctions are not derived from reason, but from a moral sense. What
constitutes this moral sense, however, he failed to render explicit:
and there is a lack of precision on the moral faculty, in the original
development of his system. He recognises sympathy as the chief source
of moral distinctions, which, along with utility, seems to form
the foundation of his ethical views. The following is the clearest
expression of his moral doctrines which I have found in the _Treatise
of Human Nature_:――
“Most people will readily allow that the useful qualities of the
mind are virtuous, because of their utility. This way of thinking is
so natural, and occurs on so many occasions, that few will make any
scruple of admitting it. Now, this being once admitted, the force of
sympathy must necessarily be acknowledged. Virtue is considered as
means to an end. Means to an end are only valued so far as the end is
valued. But the happiness of strangers affects us by sympathy alone. To
that principle, therefore, we must ascribe the sentiment of approbation,
which arises from the survey of all those virtues that are useful
to society or to the person possessed of them. These form the most
considerable part of morality.”¹
¹ Book III., Part III., section 6. It may be observed that the
influence of the current moral theories are visible in the
views of Hume.
In his attempts to account for the origin of society, and of property,
he adopts the deductive method. He usually states certain propositions,
and then proceeds to adduce arguments in support of the conclusions
which he intends to establish; still his treatment of these subjects is
always interesting and often ingenious, although quite unhistorical and
imaginary. His conception of the problem of the origin of government
resembles that advanced by Hobbes, only it is not so violent; as Hume
had more polish than the sage of Malmesbury.
Having now completed my account of Hume’s system as it was originally
conceived and advanced; but seeing that he himself averred that his
matured ethical views were embodied in his later work, _An Inquiry
concerning the Principles of Morals_, I shall briefly summarise his
moral principles from this famed production.
It consists of nine sections, which treat the following topics:――“The
general principles of Morals; Benevolence; Justice; Political Society;
Why Utility pleases; Qualities useful to ourselves; Qualities
immediately agreeable to ourselves; Qualities immediately agreeable to
others; Conclusion.” In an appendix, the points of “moral sentiment,
self-love, justice, and verbal disputes” are treated. If we were
only to look at the conception, the execution, and the limits of this
treatise, it might be pronounced an admirable production. The main
difference between it and the corresponding part in the _Treatise of
Human Nature_, lies in the greater importance ascribed to utility in
the later work.
1. As in it utility or a reference to the happiness of mankind is the
standard of right and wrong, and also the ground and motive of moral
approbation. 2. While the moral faculty itself assumes the form of
a compound of reason and generous sentiment. 3. He insists warmly on
the existence and importance of the sentiment of benevolence, but
hardly recognises it as leading to any uncompensated self-sacrifice.
4. Touching the varied and great constituents of human happiness, he
is meagre and defective. 5. He accepts the prevailing moral code of
the society of his day. 6. According to his view, the inducements to
virtue are, on the one side, our humane sentiments, and on the other,
our self-love; the two classes of motives concurring to promote both
our own good and the good of mankind. 7. The connection of ethics with
politics is not developed; he does not distinguish the legal sanction
of morality from the popular sanction; he draws no line between duty
and merit. 8. He recognises no connection between ethics and religion.
Such then are the leading principles of this remarkable treatise, which
for long served as a text-book to utilitarian moralists.
Touching Hume’s other writings, I must be brief. His essay on
_Miracles_ is exceedingly well worked out. His argumentation is
entirely founded on the principle that experience is our only guide
in estimating and appreciating the force and the value of evidence;
but he also strengthens this position by a free use of every available
weapon, that is, every passion, sentiment, feeling, and weakness of the
human mind, were called into requisition as elements of the problem,
and all employed with great sagacity and ingenuity. A short quotation
will confirm this, and indicate his method.
“With what greediness are the miraculous accounts of travellers
received――their descriptions of sea and land monsters, their relations
of wonderful adventures, strange men, and uncouth manners? But if the
spirit of religion join itself to the love of wonder, there is an end
of common sense, and human testimony, in these circumstances, loses
all pretension to authority. A religionist may be an enthusiast, and
imagine he sees what has no reality. He may know his narrative to be
false, and yet persevere in it, with the best intentions in the world,
for the sake of promoting so holy a cause. Or even where this delusion
has not place, vanity, excited by so strong a temptation, operates on
him more powerfully than on the rest of mankind in any circumstances,
and self-interest with equal force. His auditors may not have, and
commonly have not, sufficient judgment to canvass his evidence. What
judgment they have, they renounce by principle, in these sublime
and mysterious subjects. Or if they were ever so willing to employ
it, passion and a heated imagination disturb the regularity of its
operations. Their credulity increases his impudence, and his impudence
overpowers their credulity.”
He observes that records of miracles are found to abound most among
ignorant and barbarous communities, and that when they are found among
civilised nations, they are merely transmitted from the former. He also
notices that the earliest annals of all nations are full of prodigies,
omens, oracles, and judgments, which almost hide the few natural facts
that are mixed with them; but, as we advance nearer to the enlightened
ages, these mysterious and irregular phenomena become less and less
prominent, though never entirely extirpated from human nature.
His ultimate conclusion was this:――“That no human testimony can have
such force as to prove a miracle and make it a just foundation for any
system of religion. I beg the limitations here made may be remarked,
when I say, that a miracle can never be proved, so as to be the
foundation of a system of religion. For I own that otherwise there may
possibly be miracles, or violations of the ordinary course of nature,
of such a kind as to admit of proof from human testimony; though,
perhaps, it will be impossible to find any such in all the records of
history.”¹
¹ _Inquiry concerning Human Understanding_, section 10. Hume’s
own opinion of his main argument was this:――“I flatter
myself, that I have discovered an argument which, if just,
will, with the wise and learned, be an everlasting check
to all kinds of superstitious delusion, and consequently
will be useful as long as the world endures. For so long,
I suppose, will the accounts of miracles and prodigies be
found in all history, sacred and profane.”
The chief value of this essay was that it presented a very able
examination of the various circumstances, influences, and conditions
which are apt to colour, exaggerate, and otherwise affect the evidence
of certain classes of facts and events. It is a kind of inquiry for
which Hume possessed unmatched qualifications.
As already mentioned, his _Natural History of Religion_ appeared
in 1757: it consists of a short introduction, and fifteen sections.
Following his usual method, he began with a general statement to the
effect that polytheism was the primary religion of mankind, and then
proceeds by arguments and reasoning to prove this general proposition.
Thus the work is argumentative rather than historical, although he uses
historical examples to confirm his propositions and arguments. It may
be observed that the origins and the causes of early religions have now
been far more satisfactorily explained than was possible in Hume’s day.
His _Dialogues concerning Natural Religion_, published after his death,
are highly polished in style, and handle in a speculative form various
interesting topics. But they are somewhat monotonous, and in fact
contain little which had not before appeared in his other publications.
Concerning the value of Hume’s philosophy as a whole, it must be
characterised as incomplete, which is partly a consequence of its
sceptical foundation. He raises many questions and difficulties which
he does not solve; while he often comes to unsatisfactory conclusions,
by taking up the principles of Locke and Berkeley, and driving them to
their logical issues.¹
¹ Hamilton’s _Reid_, Volume I., footnotes, pages 129, 444, 457,
489; _Discussions_, page 85, _et seq._; _Lectures_, Volume
I., pages 294, 373. Hamilton says:――“The sceptic ... cannot
himself lay down his premises, he can only accept them from
the dogmatist; if false the sooner they are exposed in their
real character the better. Accepting his principles from the
dominant philosophies of Locke and Leibnitz, and deducing
with irresistible evidence these principles to their
legitimate results, Hume showed by the extreme absurdity
of these results themselves, either that philosophy was a
delusion, or that the individual systems which afforded the
premises were erroneous or incomplete. He thus constrained
philosophers to the alternative, either of surrendering
philosophy as null, or of ascending to higher principles,
in order to re-establish it against the sceptical reduction.
The dilemma of Hume constitutes perhaps the most wonderful
crisis in the history of philosophy; for out of it the whole
subsequent philosophy of Europe has taken its rise.”
――_Lectures_, Volume I., pages 394‒395.
Mr. J. S. Mill thought that Hamilton was wrong in his
opinion of the scope and end of Hume’s philosophy, and
expresses his own conviction “that Hume sincerely accepted
both the premises and the conclusions of his own system.”
――Mill’s _Examination of Hamilton_, page 554.
Owing to a concurrence of various circumstances, Hume’s speculations
have had a direct and wide influence on subsequent philosophy,
psychology, ethics, theology, and criticism. In psychology he has
had eminent followers in Britain and in other countries; while the
sceptical side of his system has had much influence in many directions.
But his doctrine of causation appeared to some thinkers as the most
pressing problem which he had raised; and it was chiefly this doctrine
which suggested to Kant the necessity of a new and thorough examination
and criticism of the faculties of the human mind. While Kant’s own
chief works, thus suggested, have in turn been the main source whence
modern speculation has since radiated. Under varied modifications,
Hume’s influence on Scottish philosophy was direct and important in
its results.
Another notable consequence of the critically sceptical side of Hume’s
writings, sprang from his suggestions concerning the methods of testing
evidence, which touched both scientific and historical researches. He
showed that the current modes of estimating historical evidence were
extremely defective, and also boldly exposed the weakness of some of
the grounds of belief. To this we owe Campbell’s _Essay on Miracles_,
not to mention, at the same time other works of less note. In short,
Hume’s influence was widely felt in culture, science, and historic
criticism.
According to the best contemporary testimony, personally, Hume was
a most exemplary man. Adam Smith’s character of him is well known;
but I will quote the verdict of another of his contemporaries, a man
who was a good judge of character, and knew Hume well. “At this time
(1753), David Hume was living in Edinburgh and composing his _History
of Great Britain_. He was a man of great knowledge, and of a social
and benevolent temper, and truly the best-natured man in the world. He
was branded with the title of Atheist, on account of the many attacks
on revealed religion that are to be found in his philosophical works,
and in many places of his history――the last which are still more
objectionable than the first, which a friendly critic might call only
sceptical. _Apropos_ of this, when Mr. Robert Adam, the celebrated
architect, and his brother lived in Edinburgh with their mother, an
aunt of Dr. Robertson’s, and a very respectable woman, she said to her
son, ‘I shall be glad to see any of your companions to dinner, but I
hope you will never bring the Atheist here to disturb my peace.’ But
Robert soon fell on a method to reconcile her to him, for he introduced
him under another name, or concealed it carefully from her. When the
company parted she said to her son, ‘I must confess that you bring very
agreeable companions about you, but the large jolly man who sat next me
is the most agreeable of them all.’ ‘This was the very Atheist,’ said
he, ‘mother, that you were so much afraid of.’ ‘Well,’ says she, ‘you
may bring him here as much as you please, for he’s the most innocent,
agreeable, facetious man I ever met with.’ This was truly the case
with him; for though he had much learning and a fine taste, and was
professedly a sceptic, though by no means an Atheist, he had the
greatest simplicity of mind and manners, with the utmost facility and
benevolence of temper, of any man I ever knew. His conversation was
truly irresistible, for while it was enlightened it was very naïve.”¹
¹ _Autobiography of the Rev. Dr. Alexander Carlyle_, pages
272‒273, 1860. This production contains a good deal of small
gossiping, and some important and useful information.
SECTION II.
_Adam Smith._
Adam Smith was one of Hume’s most beloved and intimate friends. Smith
ultimately limited his researches to special departments of moral
and economical science. In these he was the more exhaustive thinker
of the two, even if his efforts were less striking than those of his
illustrious contemporary.
He was born at Kirkcaldy in 1723, and he lived till 1790. He was
educated at the University of Glasgow, and attended the lectures of
Hutcheson, then professor of moral philosophy. From Glasgow he went
to Oxford, where he seems to have greatly widened the range of his
culture, and thus laid the foundation of the vast stores of information,
which he ultimately turned to so good account. He returned to Scotland
in 1746, with the hope of obtaining a professorship in one of the
Universities. In 1748, under the patronage of Lord Kames, Smith
delivered a course of lectures on rhetoric in Edinburgh. He was
appointed professor of logic in the University of Glasgow, in 1751;
but in the following year he was transferred to the chair of moral
philosophy, a position more in accord with his taste and aspiration.
In this chair his teaching covered a wide field. He divided his course
of lectures into four parts:――(1) natural theology; (2) ethics; (3)
justice, or that part of morality which can be stated under precise
rules; (4) political science, in which he delivered some of the
thoughts, afterwards embodied in his _Wealth of Nations_. In 1763, he
was persuaded to resign his chair, and undertake the education of the
young Duke of Buccleuch.
He travelled with his pupil abroad for about three years, chiefly in
France, where he became personally acquainted with some of the leading
men of letters and philosophers of that nation. On his return to
Scotland, he retired to Kirkcaldy; and there, in the society of his
mother, intently applied himself for ten years to inquiry and study,
the results of which appeared in 1776, in his famous work, _The Wealth
of Nations_. During the last twenty years of his life he held the post
of Commissioner of Customs in Scotland. A few days before his death,
he caused all his unpublished manuscripts to be burned, except a few
comparatively short essays.¹
¹ These were published in a volume after his death, and
consist of six, on the following subjects:――“A History of
Astronomy;” “A History of Ancient Physics;” “A History of
Ancient Logic and Metaphysics;” “An Essay on the Imitative
Arts;” “On certain English and Italian Verses;” “On the
External Senses.” His earliest efforts were a review of
Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary and _Observations on the State of
Learning in Europe_, which appeared in 1755, in a periodical
called the _Edinburgh Review_.
Personally, Adam Smith was a grave-looking man, of a stout middle
height, with prominent features and grey eyes. He was simple,
warm-hearted, and kindly in disposition. His intellectual operations
were calm, regular, and patient. He mastered a subject slowly but
thoroughly, and carried his principles with a steady tenacity and
invincible persistence through immense masses of facts and details
on to wonderfully successful results. He was gifted with a remarkably
strong memory, and had acquired a wide knowledge of English, French,
and Italian literature; indeed the learning which he brought to bear
on the subject of his chief work was amazingly various and great. But
I will first direct attention to his charming work on Morals.
His _Theory of Moral Sentiments_ was first published in 1757; and soon
became popular, as one of the most interesting and attractive books in
the circle of ethical literature. Its distinctive feature is that the
operation of human sympathy is the prime factor of moral sentiments:
that mankind are so constituted as to sympathise with each other’s
feelings, and to feel pleasure in the consonance of these feelings,
are the simple facts on which Smith’s moral theory is founded.
His treatise is divided into seven parts, in the following order:――(1)
of the propriety of action; (2) of merit and demerit, or the objects
of reward and punishment; (3) of the foundation of our judgments
concerning our own sentiments and conduct; (4) of the effect of utility
upon the sentiment of approbation; (5) of the influence of custom and
fashion upon the sentiments of moral approbation and disapprobation;
(6) of the character of virtue; (7) of systems of moral philosophy.
Such is the arrangement of the main heads of his theory, as given in
the sixth edition; I will show its general scope, without entering into
details.
The influence of Hutcheson and of Hume can be traced in several
parts of Smith’s work, although his conception and application of
the fundamental idea of his system differs from theirs. He is really
original in his applications and illustrations. Analytically, his
treatise is not remarkable; its merits rather lie in the practical and
hortatory discourse, in the eloquent criticisms of character, and the
fine illustrations of virtuous conduct with which it abounds, and are
presented in a naturally copious, easy, flowing, and fascinating style.
The chief blemish of his style is an excess of language――a running into
redundance.
In Smith’s time the chief questions agitated, touched the foundation of
morality――the standard of right and wrong, and the nature of the moral
faculty.
He begins by stating that sympathy is the origin and source of moral
approbation. “How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are
evidently some principles in his nature which interest him in the
fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though
he desires nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it.” Thus,
sympathy being one of the original passions of human nature, we may see
it in the immediate passing of an emotion from one person to another,
even when one does not know the cause of another’s grief or joy.
Sympathy originates in the imagination, which alone enables us to enter
into the sentiments and feelings of others; as we can easily imagine
ourselves in the position of another, by simply changing places with
him in fancy, by reflecting on what our own sentiments would be in a
similar difficulty. Thus we can feel in some degree what the suffering
or joy of another really is; so the feeling of a spectator corresponds
to what, by bringing the case of another home to himself, he imagines
should be that other’s sentiments; since sympathy is based on an
original tendency to reflect the emotional states of those around us.
We therefore form our moral ideas from observation and reflection on
the sentiments and emotions of our neighbours.¹
¹ The following remarks on the operations of sympathy are
from Mr. Sully’s able, careful, and valuable work, _Outlines
of Psychology_, published in 1884:――“Sympathy in its
simplest form shows itself in an unconscious reproduction
or imitation of another’s feeling. The mind of the person
affected does not consciously represent or dwell on the
feeling which affects him, but simply vibrates in unison
with it.
“This tendency manifests itself very early. There is
possibly some instinctive knowledge of the signs of
feeling, and connected with this, a native disposition to
answer smile with smile.... But some amount of individual
experience is needed for fixing the connection between the
several feelings and their external expression. When this is
acquired the child tends automatically to take on the moods
of hilarity, anxiety, depression, of those about him. This
appears to be due to the working of an imitative impulse
which leads to the more or less complete adoption of
the external attitude, gesture, tone,” etc. In a note he
says――“That the child has a vague intuitive knowledge of
other’s feelings seems to be shown by the fact that he
responds to the smile of his mother long before his own
experience could have taught him to associate pleasurable
feeling with this particular facial movement.”――Pages
508‒511.
I have for a long period specially observed the early
development of conscious feeling, and intelligence in
infants; and my observation as to the primitive nature
of sympathy agrees with Mr. Sully’s view.
But concerning the record of the signs of intelligence
which Mr. Darwin has given of several of his own infants, my
observation of infants does not tally with his. Taking the
ages by months, I have found more signs of intelligence in
infants than he did. For instance, I have found unmistakable
signs of memory in relation to external and inanimate
objects, in infants of three and four months old. Again,
with regard to vision, I have observed an infant of four
months old, fixing its eyes, and looking steadily at the
flag on the top of the mast of a ship, at a considerable
distance off.
Accord of feeling produces pleasure, and consciousness of its absence
pain. As the sympathy of others is more necessary for us in grief than
in joy, we are more desirous to communicate to others our disagreeable
feelings than our agreeable ones. “The agreeable passions of love and
joy can satisfy and support the heart without any auxiliary pleasure.
The bitter and painful emotions of grief and resentment more strongly
require the healing consolation of sympathy.” But we are pleased
ourselves if we can sympathise with another’s success or misfortune,
and pained if we cannot.
The amount of pleasure or pain felt by one person in the conduct or
feelings of another is the measure of his approbation or the contrary.
Thus the sentiments of anyone are just and proper, or the reverse,
according as they coincide or not with the sentiments of someone else,
who observe them; while his approbation varies according to the degree
in which he can sympathise with them. A full accord of sentiments means
perfect approbation. Just as a man’s sympathetic indignation fails
to correspond to mine, according as his compassion falls short of my
grief, does he feel a stronger or weaker disapproval of my feelings.
Moral and intellectual approbation admits of a similar explanation:
for to approve or disapprove of the opinions of others is only to
observe their agreement or disagreement with our own; so to approve
or disapprove of their feelings and emotions is merely to mark a
similar agreement or disagreement between our own and theirs. Thus
it appears that the sentiments of each individual are the standard
of the correctness of another’s, for we can hardly judge of matters
of sentiment by any other canon than the correspondent affections
in ourselves; and the only measure by which any man can judge of
the faculty of another is by his own faculty of a similar kind. On
our efforts to sympathise with the feeling and passion of others are
founded the gentle virtues of condescension, toleration, and humanity;
while the sterner virtues of self-denial and self-command are founded
on our effort to attune our passions and feelings to such a pitch as
others can approve. The harmonious operation of these two sides of
virtue, feeling much for others, and little for ourselves, restraining
our selfish, and cultivating our benevolent affections, constitutes the
highest perfection of human nature.¹
¹ Smith’s work must be read itself to attain a full conception
of the richness of its illustrations and its attractive
character.
He does not directly face the problem of the supreme end of life, nor
propose the question whether virtue and morality are only means to the
attainment of happiness; but it is pretty evident that he admits the
utilitarian view of happiness. He makes no great effort to analyse
human happiness, but says that it consists in tranquility and enjoyment;
for without tranquility there can be no enjoyment, and with it there
is scarcely anything that may not prove a source of pleasure. “In ease
of body and peace of mind all the different ranks of life are nearly
on a level, and the beggar who suns himself by the side of the highway
possesses that security which kings are fighting for.... What can be
added to the happiness of the man who is in health, who is not in debt,
and has a clear conscience? If you would live freely, fearlessly, and
independently, never come within the circle of ambition.... Power and
riches are enormous and operose machines, consisting of springs the
most nice and delicate, and which, in spite of all our care, are ready
every moment to burst into pieces, and to crush in their ruins their
unfortunate possessors.”
One of the most interesting parts of his book is the account which he
gives of the many fortuitous circumstances which affect the sentiments
and moral judgments of men. The most important of these irregular
influences spring from the different positions of prosperity and
adversity, custom or fashion. As those in high social positions are
not exactly judged with the same strictness as the poor and humble, in
equal degrees of merit there is hardly anyone who does not show more
respect for the rich and great than for the poor and humble; while
an equal, or even a far greater, amount of vice and folly is regarded
with less aversion and contempt in the former, than in the latter.
He explains that this arises in our sympathetic emotions: as these
enter more vividly into the joys than into the sorrows of others, we
consequently feel far more pleasure in the condition of the rich than
in that of the poor; for we are apt to imagine the one class happy, but
the other wretchedly unhappy. So, it is agreeable to sympathise with
joy, but painful to enter into grief; and where there is no envy in
the case, our inclination to sympathise with joy is much stronger than
our propensity to sympathise with sorrow; and hence our disposition to
admire the rich and powerful, and to despise the poor and lowly.
The longest and concluding division of his treatise is devoted to
a review of other systems of moral philosophy; and from his own
standpoint he gives an able and interesting account of them.
To sum up according to Smith, conscience is a derived faculty:――1.
We do not begin with a moral consciousness by which we learn to judge
of others, but from our judgments about others we acquire a moral
consciousness of ourselves. Thus conscience is formed from the central
principle of sympathy. 2. The general rules of morality are ultimately
founded on experience of what, in particular instances, our moral
sentiments approve or condemn; they are not intuitions supplied by
nature. Moral rules are formed from experience, by an inductive process,
not deduced from a general principle. The sense of duty and the feeling
of obligation are both acquired from experience. 3. He recognises
the existence of a benevolent and all-wise Being, who will ultimately
redress all injustice; but what the Supreme Being approves must be
inferred from the principles of benevolence. Our regard for Him should
be shown, not in frivolous observances and ceremonies, but by a course
of just and beneficent action.
Although his theory of morals cannot be accepted as satisfactory, still
it holds an important place in the history of ethical systems. Its
defects have often been pointed out, and it is unnecessary to enter
into any further criticism of it. Smith did great service in developing
the varied operations and manifestations of the sympathetic principle.
Let us now turn to his other famous work, _The Wealth of Nations_.
It consists of five Books, each of which are divided into a number of
chapters, but many of the chapters are again divided into parts and
articles; and although there is a principle of method in it, still
it is defective in the arrangement of materials, and abounds with
digressions. Some of the subjects embraced in it are not economical,
except in the most general sense; and though this wide range of topics
enhances the value of the work, the task of presenting a just account
of it is rendered more difficult.
The first book deals with the causes of improvement in the productive
powers of labour, and of the order in which its produce is naturally
distributed among the people. The treatment of this subject extends
to eleven chapters, with a long digression concerning the variations
in the value of silver throughout the four preceding centuries; the
variations in the proportion between the respective values of gold and
silver; and the different effects of the progress of improvement upon
three different kinds of rude produce. This digression occupies about a
third of the book; but it contains a vast and varied mass of facts and
economical information.
Smith begins his great exposition with the simple proposition that
labour is the real source of wealth; that the amount of labour expended
upon any article is the true measure of its value, and that when
this is ascertained as between different commodities, their exchange
value will, in the long run, be regulated by it; that all exchangeable
commodities are wealth, and not gold and silver only. “What is bought
with money or with goods is purchased by labour as much as what we
acquire by the toil of our own body.... Labour is the first price, the
original purchase money that was paid for all things. It was not by
gold or by silver, but by labour, that all the wealth of the world was
originally purchased; and its value, to those who possess it and who
want to exchange it for some new productions, is precisely equal to the
quantity of labour which it can enable them to purchase or command....
But, though labour be the real measure of the exchangeable value of all
commodities, it is not that by which their value is commonly estimated.
It is often difficult to ascertain the proportions between the two
different quantities of labour. The time spent in two different kinds
of work will not always alone determine this proportion. The different
degrees of hardship endured, and the ingenuity exercised, must likewise
be taken into account,” and many other circumstances.¹
¹ Introduction, Book I., chapter 5, pages 31, 32. I uniformly
refer to Rogers’ edition of _The Wealth of Nations_, in two
volumes, published in 1869. Touching labour, Smith further
says:――“Labour, therefore, it appears evidently, is the only
universal, as well as the only accurate measure of value,
or the only standard by which we can compare the values of
different commodities at all times and places.”――_Ibid._,
page 38.
He explains the division of labour; the origin and use of money; the
component parts of the price of commodities; the natural and market
price of commodities; wages; the profits of stock; wages and profits
in the different employments of labour and stock; inequalities arising
from the nature of the employments themselves, and inequalities
occasioned by the policy of Europe. Then comes a long chapter on
the rent of land, concerning which he is explicit and exceedingly
interesting. Among other things he says:――
“As soon as the land of any country has all become private property,
the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they have never
sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce. The wood of the
forest, the grass of the field, and all the natural fruits of the earth,
which, when land was in common, cost the labourer only the trouble of
gathering them, come, even to him, to have an additional price fixed
upon them. He must then pay for the licence to gather them, and must
give up to the landlord a portion of what his labour either collects or
produces. This portion, or, what comes to the same thing, the price of
this portion, constitutes the rent of land.”
He states that the landlord exacts from the tenant for the use of a
portion of land the highest rent which the latter can afford to pay
in the circumstances, and that he even sometimes demands rent for what
is utterly incapable of human improvement. He adduces telling evidence
of this, in connection with the kelp trade and the fishing trade, in
Scotland, thus:――“Kelp is a species of sea-weed, which, when burnt,
yields an alkaline salt, useful for making glass, soap, and several
other purposes. It grows in several parts of Britain, particularly in
Scotland, upon such rocks only as lie within the high-water mark, which
are twice every day covered with the sea, and of which the produce,
therefore, was never augmented by human industry. The landlord, however,
whose estate is bounded by a kelp-shore of this kind, demands a rent
for it as much as for his corn-fields.
“The sea in the neighbourhood of the Islands of Shetland is more than
commonly abundant in fish, which make a great part of the subsistence
of their inhabitants. But in order to profit by the produce of the
water, they must have a habitation upon the neighbouring land. The rent
of the landlord is in proportion, not to what the farmer can make by
the land, but to what he can make both by the land and by the water. It
is partly paid in sea-fish; and one of the very few instances in which
rent makes a part of the price of that commodity is to be found in that
country.
“The rent of land, therefore, considered as the price paid for
the use of the land, is naturally a monopoly price. It is not at
all proportioned to what the landlord may have laid out upon the
improvement of the land, or to what he can afford to take; but to what
the farmer can afford to give.”¹
¹ Book I., chaps. 6, 7, Volume I., pages 52, 153, 171, 175,
_et seq._ Smith treats the subject of land rent at great
length, and with marked ability; although his exposition
in some points is defective, still he comes much nearer the
truth than Ricardo, who accounts for the origin of rent on
merely abstract and imaginary grounds.
In the second book, he treats of the nature, the accumulation, and the
employment of stock; and through five chapters expounds this division
of political economy. He explicates the nature of stocks, the effects
of its accumulation into capitals of different kinds; the effect of
the different employments of these kinds of capital; the nature and
operation of money, considered as a particular branch of the general
stock of society; and the different effects which the different
employments of capital immediately produce upon the quantity both of
national industry and of the annual produce of land and labour.
His exposition of these matters is minute and exhaustive. Commencing
with the man of the most limited means, or the individual who has
no income but what he derives from his labour, he then proceeds to
show how the man who possesses stock and capital, after reserving a
sufficient quantity for his own immediate consumption, may employ his
capital in manufacturing wares, producing goods, and selling them again
for a profit. Or it may be employed in the improvement of land, and in
many other ways.
Extending his view, he states that the general stock of any civilised
country is the same with that of all its inhabitants, and naturally
divides itself into three portions, each of which has a different
function. The first portion is reserved for immediate consumption,
and its characteristic is, that it affords no profit, as it consists
of the stock of food, clothes, household furniture, and so on. The
second portion of the general stock is the fixed capital, and its
characteristic is that it affords a revenue without circulating or
changing masters. It consists chiefly of the following things:――(1)
All useful machines and instruments which facilitate or abridge labour;
(2) all those profitable buildings which are the means of procuring a
revenue, not only to their proprietor, who lets them for a rent, but
to the person who occupies them, and pays that rent for them――such
as shops, warehouses, workshops, halls, farmhouses, and so on; (3)
improvements of land, by clearing, draining, enclosing, manuring, and
reducing it to the fittest condition for tillage; (4) the acquired and
useful abilities of all the members of the community, which represent
a considerable amount of fixed capital, yielding income. The third
and last portion of the general stock is the circulating capital, and
its characteristic is that it affords profit only by circulating or
changing masters. He explains the functions of money at great length,
and shows that it is merely a circulating medium of convenience and
exchange. “The great wheel of circulation, the great instrument of
commerce, like all other instruments of trade, though it makes a part
of the capital, makes no part of the revenue of the society to which
it belongs; and though the metal pieces of which it is composed, in
the course of their annual circulation, distribute to every man the
revenue which properly belongs to him, make themselves no part of that
revenue.”¹
¹ Book II., chapters 2, 5; Volume I., pages 287, 289, 290, 379.
Mr. Rogers gives some very interesting notes on capital, of
which the following is a part:――“Most writers on political
economy, misled by the fact that the advances of the
capitalist are the means by which labour is for a certain
present period supported, have given excessive prominence
to the doctrine of a ‘labour fund,’ and have exaggerated the
importance of this fund to those who live by wages. The fact
is, the capitalist employer is nothing but a representative
of the division of labour, or of employments.... The
capitalist is only a convenience to labourer and consumer.
This distinction is very important. There is no fund, except
temporarily, between the capitalist and the labourer. Both
are paid wages, one for producing, the other distributing;
and the consumer pays the wages of both.”――Note by Rogers,
Volume I., page 362.
His third book is the most interesting in the work. It is mainly
historical, and deals with the progress of opulence in different
nations. He first explains the natural progress of opulence; then the
state of agriculture in Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire; the
rise and progress of cities after the fall of the Empire; and, finally,
how the commerce of the towns contributed to the improvement of the
country. On all these subjects, though his evidence was necessarily
incomplete, Smith manifested a wonderful sagacity and accuracy in his
general conclusions.
Within the compass of little more than forty pages, he presents a
luminous exposition of the important topics indicated in the preceding
paragraph; and in no part of his work was his peculiar powers and
insight exhibited to better advantage. In subjects on which I have made
special inquiries, I find his statements, in general, very accurate.
But it is in the clear explanation of the causes of change and progress,
that this book specially excels.
The fourth book treats on systems of political economy――that is, the
mercantile system――and those systems which represent land as either the
sole or the principal source of the revenue and wealth of every country.
In this book also he dealt with the subject of colonies; the advantages
which Europe has derived from the discovery of America, and from the
discovery of a passage to the East Indies by the Cape of Good Hope, and
treaties of commerce.
He discusses the mercantile system then in vogue with great force,
and exposed its errors and inconsistencies most effectively. The
prevailing notion was that wealth consisted in money, in pieces of
metal, and therefore the great affair always was to get money; to grow
rich was to get money, and wealth and money were, in common language,
considered exactly synonymous. “In consequence of these popular notions,
all the different nations of Europe have studied, though to little
purpose, every possible means of accumulating gold and silver in their
respective countries.” Accordingly, they have either prohibited their
exportation, or subjected it to a considerable duty. He shows the
fatuity of these notions, and exposes the common theory of commerce
or protection at great length, and with a weight of argument and a
fullness of illustration as yet unmatched. He discusses the subjects
of drawbacks, of bounties, the corn trade, and the corn laws; and
throughout argues in favour of free trade.¹
¹ Book IV., chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; Volume II., pages 2‒3,
62‒63, 108‒109, _et seq._
It was in this book also that Smith made his memorable attack upon
the East India Company. For once he thoroughly exposed the pretentions
of this Company, the mischievous character of its government, and the
wrongs which it was committing, in the most fearless and effective
style. He showed that something more and higher was required of the
rulers of a great country with a dense population, than the mere
mercantile spirit of buying and selling――making profits and paying
large dividends. He demonstrated that the selfish interests of the
Directors of the Company as merchants and traders utterly disqualified
them for being wise and just rulers of the vast population under their
sway; moreover, all the servants of the Company, from the highest to
the lowest, were actuated by the same self-seeking, money-making, and
trading spirit. These servants all traded more or less on their own
account, as Smith puts it:――
“All the members of the administration, besides, trade more or less
upon their own account, and it is vain to prohibit them from so doing.
Nothing can be more foolish than to expect that the clerks of a great
counting-house at ten thousand miles’ distance, and consequently almost
quite out of sight, should, upon a simple order from their masters,
give up at once doing any sort of business upon their own account,
abandon for ever all hopes of making a fortune, of which they have the
means in their hands, and content themselves with the moderate salaries
which those masters allow them, and which, moderate as they are, can
seldom be augmented, being commonly as high as the real profits of
the company’s trade can afford. In such circumstances, to prohibit
the servants of the Company from trading upon their own account can
have scarce any other effect than to enable the superior servants,
under the pretence of executing their master’s orders, to oppress such
of the inferior ones as have had the misfortune to fall under their
displeasure. The servants naturally endeavour to establish the same
monopoly in favour of their own private trade as of the public trade of
the Company. If they are suffered to act as they could wish, they will
establish the monopoly openly and directly, by fairly prohibiting all
other people from trading in the articles in which they choose to deal;
and this is, perhaps, the best and least oppressive way of establishing
it. But if, by an order from Europe, they were prohibited from doing
this, they will, notwithstanding, endeavour to establish a monopoly of
the same kind, secretly and directly, in a way that is more destructive
to the country. They will employ the whole authority of the Government,
and pervert the administration of justice, in order to harass and ruin
those who interfere with them in any branch of commerce, which, by
means of agents, either concealed, or at least not publicly avowed,
they chose to carry on.”
He states that the interests of the masters of the Company are the same
as that of the country which they govern, but that the greed of the
mercantile spirit prevents them from seeing this. The real interests
of the servants of the Company, however, were very different from
the interests of the country: the sole aim of these servants was to
make fortunes to themselves by whatever means they could. “It is a
very singular government in which every member of the administration
wishes to get out of the country, and consequently to have done with
the government, as soon as he can, and to whose interest, the day
after he has left it, and carried his whole fortune with him, it is
perfectly indifferent though the whole country was swallowed up by an
earthquake.”¹
¹ Book IV., chapter 7, Volume II., pages 221‒225.
The fifth and last book of this great work treats of the revenue
of the Commonwealth, and in connection with this Smith handles many
important subjects, such as the defence of the State, which leads him
into a discussion of military organisation and standing armies, the
administration of justice, and the expense of public works. In relation
to the latter subject, he treats at length on education; and following
his usual historical method on this subject, he is exceedingly
interesting. He gives a clear and instructive account of educational
institutions, the systems of thought taught in the Universities and
schools, including the Church and religious instruction. Space will
not permit me to follow him into details, but a quotation or two will
indicate some of his views.
The common course of philosophical education in the greater number
of the Universities of Europe was this:――“Logic was first taught;
ontology in the second place; pneumatology, comprehending the doctrine
concerning the nature of the human soul, and the Deity, in the third;
and in the fourth followed a debased system of moral philosophy,
which was considered as immediately connected with the doctrine of
pneumatology, with the immortality of the human soul, and with the
rewards and punishments which, from the justice of the Deity, were
to be expected in a life to come: a short and superficial system of
physics usually concluded the course.
“The alterations which the Universities of Europe thus introduced into
the ancient course of philosophy, were all meant for the education of
ecclesiastics, and to render it a more proper introduction to the study
of theology. But the additional quantity of subtlety and sophistry, the
casuistry and the ascetic morality which these alterations introduced
into it, certainly did not render it more proper for the education
of gentlemen or men of the world, or more likely to improve the
understanding or to mend the heart.”¹
¹ “This course of philosophy is what still continues to be
taught in the greater part of the Universities of Europe,
with more or less diligence, according as the constitution
of each particular University happens to render diligence
more or less necessary to the teachers. In some of the
richest and best endowed Universities, the tutors content
themselves with teaching a few unconnected shreds and
parcels of this corrupted course; and even these they
commonly teach very negligently and superficially.
“The improvements which, in modern times, have been made in
the several different branches of philosophy, have not, the
greater part of them, been made in Universities; though some
no doubt have. The greatest part of Universities have not
even been very forward to adopt those improvements after
they were made; and several of these learned societies have
chosen to remain for a long time the sanctuaries in which
exploded systems and obsolete prejudices found shelter and
protection, after they had been hunted out of every corner
of the world. In general, the richest and best endowed
Universities have been the slowest in adopting these
improvements, and the most averse to permit any considerable
change in the established plan of education. These
improvements were more easily introduced into some of the
poorer Universities, in which the teachers, depending upon
their reputation for the greater part of their subsistence,
were obliged to pay more attention to the current opinions
of the world.”――Book V., chapter 1, Volume II., pages
356‒357.
He touches on the question whether the State ought to give any
attention to the education of the people, and if so, in what manner
should it be attempted. In connection with this, he notices a very
serious result of the minute division of labour――namely, that it
reduces the greater part of workers physically and mentally to a
comparatively helpless state; in fact, to be incapable of doing
anything, save the one or two simple operations to which they have
been accustomed. “But the understanding of the greater part of men is
necessarily formed by their ordinary employments. The man whose whole
life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the
effects too are, perhaps, always the same, or very nearly the same, has
no occasion to exert his understanding or to exercise his invention in
finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He
naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally
becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature
to become.... The uniformity of his stationary life naturally corrupts
the courage of his mind ... and even the activity of his body,
and renders him incapable of exerting his strength with vigour and
perseverance in any other employment than that to which he has been
bred. His dexterity at his own particular trade seems, in this manner,
to be acquired at the expense of his intellectual, social, and martial
virtues. But in every improved and civilised society this is the state
into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people,
must necessarily fall, unless the government takes some pains to
prevent it.”¹
¹ Book V., chapter 1; Volume II., pages 364‒366. The
manufacturing population of our large towns are not quite so
bad as they seem to have been in Smith’s time; still there
is no doubt of the truth of the tendency of the minute
division of labour which he points out.
He argues that the public should encourage and assist the education of
the whole people, but he does not say that it should be made compulsory.
He insists upon its utility from various points of view, especially
from the political side.
He treats at length on the institutions for the religious instruction
of the people in all ages, and his long article on this is especially
well worth reading and study. Smith himself was singularly free from
prejudice, sectarian or narrow views, and in this respect he is greatly
superior to Hume.
The concluding chapters deal with the revenue of the State, taxes, and
national debts. His treatment of the general subject of taxation is
comprehensive and enlightened, and, like the other parts of his work,
full of information, suggestion, and instruction. He has good articles
on taxes upon land.
Finally, we may aver that few works have had more influence in
stimulating industry, controlling legislation, and promoting reform
than the _Wealth of Nations_. But whether this influence will be
permanent in its results――whether capital will still continue to
dominate labour as it has done in the past――is a social problem, which
is constantly coming more and more to the front, and it must ere long
be resolutely met.
CHAPTER XXXVII.
_Reid, Ferguson, Stewart, and other Writers._
SECTION I.
_Reid._
DR. THOMAS REID attained distinction as an opponent of scepticism
on the principles of common sense. He was born on the 26th of April,
1710, in the parish of Strachan, Kincardineshire, where his father was
minister for the long period of fifty years. Dr. Reid was educated at
Marischal College, Aberdeen, and having studied for the Church, was
appointed pastor of the parish of New Machar in 1737. In this position
he quietly performed his parochial duties for fifteen years, and gained
the esteem of the inhabitants of the parish. In 1752, he was elected
Professor of Philosophy in King’s College, Aberdeen, an office which
he held for eleven years. He was chosen in 1763 to succeed Adam Smith
in the Chair of Moral Philosophy in Glasgow, and in this famed seat of
learning continued to instruct a large class of students for a period
of eighteen years.¹ Thus, Reid performed the functions of a professor
for a period of nearly thirty years.
¹ Stewart’s _Account of the Life and Writings of Dr. Reid_.
He was gifted by nature with a strong constitution. Although rather
under the middle height, his frame was vigorous, and his muscular force
unusually great. To these advantages he joined habits of exercise and
temperance and an unclouded serenity of temper. “His countenance was
strongly expressive of deep and collected thought; but when brightened
up by the face of a friend, what chiefly caught the attention was a
look of goodwill and kindness.”¹
¹ Stewart’s _Account of the Life and Writings of Dr. Reid_.
Stewart says:――“The merits of Dr. Reid as a public teacher
were derived chiefly from that rich fund of original and
instructive philosophy which is to be found in his writings,
and from his unwearied assiduity in inculcating principles
which he conceived to be of essential importance to human
happiness. In his elocution and mode of instruction, there
was nothing peculiarly attractive. He seldom, if ever,
indulged himself in the warmth of extempore discourse;
nor was his manner of reading calculated to increase the
effect of what he had committed to writing. Such, however,
was the simplicity and perspicuity of his style, such
the gravity and authority of his character, and such the
general interest of his young hearers in the doctrines which
he taught, that, by the numerous audiences to which his
instructions were addressed, he was heard uniformly with the
most silent and respectful attention. On this subject, I can
speak from personal knowledge; having had the good fortune,
during a considerable part of the winter of 1772, to be one
of his pupils.”――_Ibid._, section 1.
Dr. Reid’s writings consist of――(1) _An Inquiry into the Human Mind
on the Principles of Common Sense_, published in 1764; (2) _Essays on
the Intellectual Powers of the Mind_, 1785, and _Essays on the Active
Powers of the Mind_, 1788; (3) _An Account of Aristotle’s Logic_; (4)
_An Account of the University of Glasgow_; (5) _An Essay on Quantity_.
The most polished of his works is the _Inquiry into the Human Mind_.
It consists of seven chapters, each of which is divided into a number
of sections. Excepting the first and the concluding chapters, the work
is mainly occupied with the treatment of the five external senses:
an analysis of sensation, in the following order:――Smelling, tasting,
hearing, touching, and seeing. The work throughout has a somewhat
polemical tone, with occasional touches of sarcasm; still it has rare
merits. His treatment of the senses is often accurate, though not
always. In the history of philosophical opinions he is frequently
inaccurate, and sometimes quite wrong; imperfect knowledge of previous
systems of thought was his weakest point.
Reid avows that it was Hume’s _Treatise of Human Nature_ which prompted
him to undertake his own _Inquiry into the Mind_, and to reclaim
against the principles which had issued in such sceptical conclusions.
He desired to place the fundamental principles of knowledge upon firmer
grounds, though, in the execution of his task, he often declaims rather
than reasons on some of the questions at issue.
His treatment of the external senses, especially of sight and touch,
is valuable. He makes true and ingenious remarks on natural language
and signs. Such signs he conceived to be of two kinds――(1) those which
have their meaning assigned by tacit agreement; and (2) those which,
prior to all agreement, have a distinct meaning which man understands
by the principles of his nature. Thus “language, so far as it consists
of artificial signs, may be called artificial; so far as it consists of
natural signs, I call it natural.” He argues that, if mankind had not a
natural language, they could never have invented an artificial one. He
thinks that the signs which are naturally expressive of man’s thoughts
may be reduced to three kinds――modulations of the voice, gestures,
and features. His explanation of this subject is interesting and
instructive.¹
¹ Hamilton’s _Reid_, Volume I., pages 95‒96, 117‒118, _et seq._
Reid’s doctrine of signs is connected with his view of perception. He
distinguished perception from sensation, and stated that the simplest
operations of the mind do not admit of logical definition. He often
states that the sensations are merely signs, and that the objects
themselves are the things signified; but he does not maintain that
the sign resembles the original. He observes that the same mode of
expression is used to denote sensation and perception, but sensation
has more of the element of feeling in it than perception: mere
sensation consists in its being felt and in nothing else; when it is
not felt, it is not. Thus a sensation of pain signifies no more than
the feeling of pain: the agreeable odour of a rose considered by itself
is a pure sensation, which affects the mind in a certain way; and this
affection of the mind may be conceived, without any thought of the
rose. This doctrine, according to Reid, is applicable to every other
mere sensation.¹
¹ _Ibid._, Volume I., page 182, _et seq._; and in _Essays on
the Intellectual Powers_, page 310.
On the other hand, perception, as understood by Reid, has always an
external object, or an object distinct from the act by which it is
perceived――an object which may exist whether it be perceived or not.
He maintained that we have an immediate perception, a direct intuition
of the primary qualities of bodies. Our senses give us a direct and
distinct notion of these qualities, as to what they are in themselves;
but of the secondary qualities of bodies, our senses give us only a
relative and obscure notion.
An act of perception of an external object he thus describes:――(1) “We
have some conception or notion of the object perceived; (2) a strong
and irresistible conviction and belief of its present existence; (3)
that this conviction and belief are immediate, and not the effect of
reasoning.” He also distinguishes perceptions into two classes――those
which are original, and those which are acquired by experience.¹
¹ _Ibid._, Volume I., pages 313‒314, 258.
Thus Reid’s doctrine of perception seems to be explicit. It has to
be observed, however, that in his accounts of the views of other
philosophers, and in his criticisms on them, he did not search out the
various theories of representative or mediate perception. This lack of
exhaustive discrimination unintentionally led him into some mistakes
which partially vitiated his criticisms of the doctrines of other
philosophers, and rendered even the cardinal point of his own doctrine
doubtful; for some hold that he is an idealist, and others that he is
a realist. A brief explanation of this seems to be requisite.
1. First, then, some philosophers admit an immediate knowledge of a
not-ego, but not of an external not-ego; while they do not limit the
immediate knowledge of the mind to its own states, yet conceiving it
impossible that the external reality can be brought within the sphere
of consciousness, they suppose that it is represented by an image,
numerically different from the mind, but placed somewhere, either in
the brain or mind, within the sphere of consciousness. 2. Others deny
to the mind any consciousness of a not-ego at all, and hold that what
the mind immediately perceives, and mistakes for an external object, is
merely the ego itself peculiarly modified. Each of these chief theories
of a representative perception, admits of several subordinate varieties.
Thus, taking the first of the above hypotheses, it is subdivided
according as the immediate object of perception is viewed――(1) as
material, (2) as immaterial, (3) or as neither, (4) or as both,
as something physical, as propagated from the external object, as
generated in the medium or as fabricated in the mind itself; and the
latter either in the intelligent mind or in the animal life, as infused
by God or by angels, or as identical with the divine substance――as in
the system of Spinoza, and in other pantheistic theories. In the second,
the representative modification has been sometimes viewed as a mere
product of the mind itself; or as innate, and so independent of any
mental energy.¹
¹ Hamilton’s _Reid_, Volume II., pages 816‒819; _Lectures on
Metaphysics and Logic_, Volume II., pages 29‒30.
Now Reid never adequately distinguished these views of representative
perception, either in their historical relation or as possible in
theory, but directed his attacks against what he usually calls the
“common theory of ideas,” which was merely one of the cruder forms
of the representative theory of perception; and thus it happens
that his onslaughts on Berkeley and Hume are often misdirected and
ineffective, as he did not establish the fact of the two cognitions,
the presentative and the representative, single out their contents
or evolve their conditions; and, in particular, did not show which
of these was the kind of cognition competent in our perception of the
external world. He failed to observe that representation is possible
under two forms――the egoistical and the non-egoistical; and each of
which, if perception be reduced to a representative faculty, affords
premises equally available to the absolute idealist and the sceptic.
Hence he was led into various inconsistences of a historical character,
especially in the exposition of his own doctrine of perception.¹
¹ Hamilton’s _Reid_, Volume I., pages 106, 128, 130, 131, 210,
226, 256, 257, 269, 274, 277, 293, 299, 318, 427.
Yet, notwithstanding these defects of development and exposition, Reid
performed good service to psychology by banishing the imaginary images
interposed between perception and its objects.
Having indicated Reid’s view of perception, I proceed to give a brief
account of his treatment of the other phenomena of the mind. He divides
the mental phenomena into the intellectual powers and the active
powers; and he classified the intellectual powers thus:――(1) The
External Senses; (2) Memory; (3) Conception or Simple Apprehension;
(4) Abstraction; (5) Judgment――First Truths; (6) Reasoning; (7) Taste.
He distributed the active powers into three parts:――I. Mechanical
principles of actions――(1) Instinct, (2) Habit; II. Animal principles
――(1) Appetites, (2) Desires, (3) Affections; III. Rational principles
――(1) Self-love, (2) Duty.¹
¹ This classification is not founded upon any essential
principle of division of mental phenomena.
Following the order just indicated, the first essay is devoted to an
explication of terms and principles taken for granted. The second essay
treats of the external senses, which we have already considered; in it
also he reviews at great length the opinions of various philosophers
touching the perception of the external world. He then passes to memory,
which he treats at length, and affirms that it is an original faculty.
He states that by memory we have an immediate knowledge of things in
the past,¹ and that it is always accompanied with the belief of that
which we remember. Under the head of memory he discusses duration
and personal identity. Of the latter he says:――“The conviction which
every man has of his identity, as far back as his memory reaches, needs
no aid of philosophy to strengthen it; and no philosophy can weaken
it, without first producing some degree of insanity.... A person is
something indivisible, and is what Leibnitz calls a monad.... The
identity of a person is a perfect identity; wherever it is real, it
admits of no degrees, and it is impossible that a person should be in
part the same, and in part different; because a person is a monad, and
is not divisible into parts.”²
¹ This is a mistake: we can only have a mediate knowledge
of past things or events――that is, only a representative
knowledge.
² Hamilton’s _Reid_, Volume I. pages 339‒345.
He describes conception, and says that conceiving, imagining,
apprehending, and understanding are words used to express that
operation of the mind called simple apprehension; the having an idea
of a thing is, in common language, used in the same sense. He refers
to the train of thought in the mind, but he adduces nothing specially
original on the association of thoughts and ideas, and in fact he was
behind some of his predecessors in this important branch of mental
science.
In his essay on abstraction, he explains general words, general
conceptions, and the process of classification. Then, under the general
heading of judgment, he discusses common sense and first principles.
Common sense he regards as a special faculty, and the following
quotation will indicate what Reid meant by this phrase:――
“In common language, sense always implies judgment. A man of sense
is a man of judgment. Nonsense is what is evidently contrary to right
judgment. Common sense is that degree of judgment which is common to
men with whom we can converse and transact business.... Men rarely ask
what common sense is; because every man believes himself possessed of
it, and would take it for an imputation upon his understanding to be
thought unacquainted with it.
“It is absurd to conceive that there can be any opposition between
reason and common sense. It is indeed the first-born of reason, and
as they are commonly joined together in speech and in writing, they
are inseparable in their nature. We ascribe to reason two offices, or
two degrees. The first is to judge of things self-evident; the second
to draw conclusions that are not self-evident from those that are.
The first of these is the province, and the sole province, of common
sense.”¹
¹ _Ibid._, Volume I., pages 421‒425.
Thus Reid considered it the province of common sense to judge of first
principles; and he further avers that, to judge of first principles
require no more than a sound mind free from prejudice and a clear
conception of the question. The learned and the unlearned, the
philosopher and the day-labourer, are upon a level, and will pass the
same judgment, when they are not misled by some bias. He then proceeds
to deliver his views of first principles.
Although first principles are self-evident, and cannot be proved by
arguments, yet a certain kind of reasoning may be applied in their
support:――1. To show that the principle rejected stands upon the
same footing with others that are admitted. 2. As in mathematics, a
reduction to absurdity may be employed. 3. The consent of ages and
nations, of the learned and unlearned, ought to have great authority
with regard to first principles, where every man is a competent judge.
4. Opinions that appear so early in the mind, that they cannot be the
effect of education, or of false reasoning, have a good claim to be
considered as first principles.
He asks whether the conclusions of common sense can be enumerated and
digested in such a form as all reasonable men will assent to it. He
recognises the difficulties besetting this, and admits that his own
enumeration is not perfectly satisfactory. His classification proceeds
on the distinction between necessary and contingent truths, and may be
summarised thus:――
(A.) Principles of Contingent Truths:――1. Everything that I am
conscious of exists.¹ The irresistible conviction of the reality
of what we are conscious of is not the effect of reasoning; it is
immediate and intuitive, and therefore a first principle. 2. The
thoughts that I am conscious of are the thoughts of a being that I
call myself, my mind, my person. 3. Those things did really happen
that I distinctly remember. 4. Our own personal identity and continued
existence, as far back as we remember anything distinctly. 5. Those
things do really exist that we distinctly perceive by our senses,
and are what we perceive them to be. 6. We have some degree of power
over our actions and the determinations of our will. The origin of
our idea of power is not easily assigned. Power is not an object of
sense or consciousness. We see events as successive, but not the power
whereby they are produced. We are conscious of the operations of our
minds; but power is not an operation of the mind. It is evidently,
however, implied in every act of volition, and in all deliberation and
resolution. Likewise, when we approve or disapprove, we believe that
men have power to do or not to do. 7. The natural faculties, whereby
we distinguish truth from error, are not fallacious. 8. Our fellow-men
with whom we converse are possessed of life and intelligence. 9.
Certain features of the countenance, sounds of the voice, and gestures
of the body, indicate certain thoughts and dispositions of mind. The
signification of those things we do not learn by experience, but by a
kind of natural perception. Children, almost as soon as they are born,
may be frightened by an angry or threatening tone of voice. 10. There
is a certain regard due to human testimony in matters of fact, and even
to human authority in matters of opinion. 11. There are many events
depending on the will of man, possessing a self-evident probability,
greater or less, according to circumstances; as in men of sound mind
we expect a certain degree of regularity in their conduct. 12. In the
phenomena of nature, what is to be will probably be like what has been
in similar circumstances. Hume has shown that this principle is not
grounded on reason, and has not the intuitive evidence of mathematical
axioms.
¹ Reid treats consciousness as a special faculty which cannot
be defined.
(B.) Principles of Necessary Truths. Regarding those Reid deemed it
enough to divide them into classes, and to mention some of each class.
I. Grammatical Principles:――1. Every adjective in a sentence must
belong to some substantive expressed or understood. 2. Every complete
sentence must have a verb.
II. Logical Principles:――1. Any contexture of words that does not make
a proposition is neither true nor false. 2. Every proposition is either
true or false. 3. No proposition can be both true and false at the same
time. 4. Reasoning in a circle proves nothing. 5. Whatever may be truly
affirmed of a genus may be truly affirmed of all its species, and of
all the individualps belonging to that species.
III. The Mathematical Axioms.
IV. The Principles of Taste:――1. The fundamental rules of poetry, music,
eloquence, and dramatic action; and 2. those of painting have always
been the same, and will be so to the end of the world.
V. First Principles in Morals:――1. An unjust action has more demerit
than an ungenerous one. 2. A generous action has more merit than a
merely just one. 3. No man ought to be blamed for what it was not in
his power to hinder.
VI. Metaphysical Principles:――1. The qualities that we perceive by our
senses must have a subject, which we call body, and the thoughts we are
conscious of must have a subject, which we call mind. The distinction
between sensible qualities and the substance to which they belong is
not the invention of philosophers, but is found in the structure of all
languages. 2. Whatever begins to exist must have a cause. 3. Design and
intelligence in the cause may be inferred with certainty, from marks or
signs of them in the effect.
Reid has sometimes been severely handled for his multiplication of
first principles; and it must be admitted that his scheme is crude,
lacking in discrimination, in logical consistency, and in precision of
statement; that it includes various truths as first principles which
have no real claim to such a character; still it embodies, in a plain
form, a considerable quantity of important truths.
He concludes his exposition of the intellectual powers with an essay
on Taste. He notices the force of custom, of fancy, and of casual
associations, in modifying taste; and observes that men differ more in
their standard of taste than their judgments in matters of truth and
error.
His treatment of the active powers of the mind occupies five essays. In
the first, he treats of active powers in general; in the second, of the
will; in the third, of the principles of action, which he distinguishes
as already stated; in the fourth, he discusses the liberty of moral
agents; and the fifth and last essay deals with morals.
Touching the sense of duty, he recognises and insists that we have
an original moral faculty, which we call conscience. We have the
conceptions of right and wrong in human conduct, of merit and demerit,
of duty and moral obligation; and by this faculty we perceive some
things to be right in human conduct and others to be wrong; that the
first principles of morals are the dictates of the same faculty, and
that we have the same reason to rely upon those dictates as upon the
determinations of our senses, or our other natural faculties.
Reid contends earnestly for the freedom of the will, and discusses
the counter doctrine of necessity at length, and with much vigour.¹
In the concluding essay, he attacks the utilitarian theory of morals
as propounded by Hume, and his objections to several points of it
were well and effectively directed. He showed that this theory did not
recognise or take account of moral rules as established and enforced
among men by the dictation of authority, which does not leave to
individuals the power of reference to ultimate ends, and that it failed
to distinguish between obligatory and non-obligatory useful acts.
¹ In 1793, _An Essay on Philosophical Necessity_ appeared,
by Alexander Crombie, A.M., and in which the views of Dr.
Reid on the freedom of the will are adversely discussed and
criticised, with much acuteness and ingenuity.
To sum up, though Reid’s writings are in many points imperfect, yet
they have much psychological merit and interest. His intellect was
active and vigorous, but not of the highest and widest order; his
analytic and critical powers were limited; but he was painstaking
and patient in investigation. In truth, the natural bent of his mind
drew him more to the concrete and practical side of philosophy than
to speculation in the higher region of thought; subjectively, he was
not strong. Still his thinking power in certain directions, his native
sagacity and force of character, his candour and fairness, and the
favourable circumstances in which he was placed, enabled him to found
a school, in which some of his disciples have outvied their master in
analytic power and speculative thought.
SECTION II.
_Adam Ferguson._
Adam Ferguson is the author of a work on moral and political philosophy,
and also of some historical books, which will be noticed elsewhere.¹
He was appointed to the chair of moral philosophy in the University
of Edinburgh in 1764, an office which he held, with some intervals of
absence, till the year 1785. In 1766, he published an outline of his
lectures for the use of his class, and from these heads and notes he
explained his system orally to the students, always keeping his mind
open for the reception of whatever new light might dawn upon it. After
his retirement from the professorship, he rearranged his lectures
into a systematic form, and published them in 1792, under the title
of _Principles of Moral and Political Science_. In his preface he
says:――“Many, no doubt, may be conscious, that in a continued pursuit
of the same subject for so long a time, they themselves could have done
better; but in this, it is to be regretted, that they have not done so:
For in this field there is room for many labourers; and the subject,
though never new, is always interesting. It is so in the specimen of
every particular life; in the history of every particular age or nation,
and even in the lucubrations of every faithful transcriber of what
nature suggests.
¹ He was a son of the minister of Logierait, and was born in
1723. Having passed through the arts classes at St. Andrews,
he came to Edinburgh to study for the Church in 1742.
Thus he became one of the literary coterie consisting of
Robertson, Blair, Home, Carlyle, Hume, and others, who were
then students in the University, or living in Edinburgh. In
1745, he was offered a chaplaincy to the 42nd Regiment――“The
Black Watch,” and though only twenty-two years of age, and
having only completed two sessions of the divinity course,
he obtained ordination from the General Assembly on account
of his high testimonials. He accompanied this regiment to
the battle of Fontenoy, and was with difficulty prevented
from rushing into action with a broadsword. He remained
with his regiment till 1754, and obtained much influence
over the Highland soldiers; he took a keen interest in
military matters, and gained a knowledge of them which was
afterwards of use to him as a historian. He gave up the
idea of becoming a minister, as he felt that he had not the
requisite qualities for a popular preacher.
Having returned to Edinburgh, he was appointed to succeed
Hume as Librarian of the Advocates’ Library in 1757; but
after a few years, he resigned this post, and became tutor
to the sons of Lord Bute. In July, 1759, he was appointed
to the chair of natural philosophy in the University of
Edinburgh, and by the month of October he was ready to meet
his class, which drew from Hume the remark, that “Ferguson
had more genius than any of them, as he had made himself
so much master of a difficult science――viz., natural
philosophy――which he had never studied but when at college,
in three months as to be able to teach it.” He occupied
this chair for five years, and it is recorded that he gave
universal satisfaction, by rendering his subject attractive
and popular. He published a short summary of his course
for the use of his class.――Sir A. Grant’s _Story of the
University of Edinburgh_, Volume II., pages 349, 350.
A contemporary and friend of Ferguson’s says of him:――“He
was the son of a Highland clergyman, and had the pride and
spirit of his countrymen.... He had the manners of a man
of the world, and the demeanour of a high-bred gentleman,
insomuch that his company was much sought after; for though
he conversed with ease, it was with a dignified reserve....
He had another talent, unknown to any but his intimates,
which was a boundless vein of humour, which he indulged when
there was none others present, and which flowed from his pen
in every familiar letter he wrote.”――_Autobiography of the
Rev. Dr. Alexander Carlyle_, pages 281‒283. 1860.
“Although, therefore, an author may have been preceded by men of
distinguished ability in former or in present times, it implies no
degree of arrogance to follow even such reapers, in gleaning materials
from this inexhaustible field of reflection, on which mankind have
been employed from the beginning, and on which they will continue to
be employed to the end of time.”
This work consists of two parts. The first treats of the most general
phenomena in the nature and state of man, and extends to three chapters,
which consecutively explain Man’s place in the scale of Being; Mind, or
the characteristics of Intelligence; and Man’s Progressive Nature. Each
of these chapters is divided into a number of sections, in which many
important questions and interesting subjects are examined and discussed
with rare candour and ability. The third chapter is especially
attractive, as it explains the gradual progress and organisation of
human society, the influence of habit, the progress of political and
commercial arts, the pursuits and attainments of science, the fine arts,
and the progress of moral apprehension.
The second part contains six chapters, which, under the following
headings of a moral and political character, expound the Specific Good
incident to Human Nature; the Fundamental Law of Morality, and its
immediate Application and Sanctions; Jurisprudence, or Compulsory Law;
Touching the Defences of Men; Moral Action, and the characteristics of
a virtuous and happy Life; and, finally, Politics. Of these chapters,
the first, the second, and the fourth are the most interesting, and
present a body of well-digested information and reflection.
Ferguson was a well-informed man, and fairly equipped with a knowledge
of the science of his time, as his method and conceptions clearly
manifest. His moral ideas were distinct and comprehensive; his
conception of human progress was accurate; and he approached nearer to
the modern idea of a gradual development of human society and political
institutions than any of his predecessors. Although, in some points,
he was a follower of Hutcheson and Reid, in others he rose above them,
especially in his admission of the idea of perfection in morality, and
generally in his grasp of reality and of principles.
For instance, he says:――“Mind, we have reason to believe, predominates
in nature; so that, in a comprehensive survey of all that exists,
whatever is not mind, would be as nothing.... The essence of Almighty
God we must conceive as most simple, being that which necessarily
exists from eternity. Of His supreme intelligence, we have full
evidence in the system of nature, and of His distinguishing the
opposite conditions of moral good and evil, there is equally
irresistible proof.”¹
¹ Volume I., pages 31, 129.
The following sentences will give an idea of his method:――“Most
subjects in nature may be considered under two aspects――under that of
their actual state, and under that of a specific excellence, or aspect,
of which they are susceptible. Under the first, they are subjects of
mere description, or statement of fact; under the second, they are
objects of estimation or contempt, of praise or censure. In respect to
what men have actually done or exhibited, human nature is a subject of
history and physical science. Considered in respect to the different
measures of good and evil, of which men are susceptible, the same
nature is a subject of discipline and moral science. In treating of man,
as a subject of history, we collect facts and endeavour to conceive his
nature as it actually is, or has actually been, apart from any notion
of ideal perfection or defect.
“In treating of him as a subject of moral science, we endeavour
to understand what he ought to be; without being limited, in our
conception, to the measure of attainment or failure, exhibited in
the case of any particular person or society of men.
“To have an object or purpose, and to employ means for the attainment
of it, is the distinctive condition of mind or intelligent being; the
first implies will and choice; the second implies energy and power.
For man, therefore, to know his province, and to be qualified for
his station, requires equally that he should be acquainted with the
foundation of both.”¹
¹ Volume I., Introduction, pages 1, 2.
Thus the method of investigation in the study of human nature,
according to Ferguson, is in the first place to ascertain, on the most
comprehensive and exhaustive scale, what man actually has been in the
past and what he is now; and then, upon this knowledge, to frame a
more reasonable conception of the improvable capacity of man, a juster
idea of what he ought to be, and to devise more available and effective
moral means for advancing the progress, the happiness, and the
perfection of mankind. He insists much on this view, and often returns
to it throughout his work.
In accordance with his progressive conception of man, Ferguson at once
discarded Hobbes’ theory that the state of nature was a continual war.
He argues that “a child may be considered apart from his parent, and
the parent apart from his child; but the latter could not have existed
without the former. And if we trace human society back to its simplest
state, even there the society was real――resting upon the fundamental
feelings of human nature; and if we trace human thought back to its
simplest exertions, even there it was an exercise of understanding
and some effort of invention or skill.” He also rejected the contract
theory of the origin of government, and argued consistently for the
historical view of the gradual growth and development of society.¹
¹ Volume I., pages 190‒197, _et seq._
Ferguson discussed the standard of morality at length, and also the
supreme end. He admitted only a qualified and limited value to utility
as a moral principle, and the same with regard to sympathy. Utility
appeared to him to resolve the distinction of right and wrong into a
mere difference of tendency or external effect in the actions of men.
He avers that sympathy is also inadequate as the principle of moral
approbation, and argues on some points conclusively against Smith’s
theory; but he fully recognised that sympathy is an important factor
in the social nature of man.¹
¹ Volume II., pages 57‒115, 117‒126.
His own view of the principle of moral approbation is announced thus:
――“It is the idea of perfection or excellence which the intelligent
and associated being forms to himself, and to which he refers in
every sentiment of esteem or contempt, and in every expression of
commendation or censure.”
If it be said that mankind are not agreed on this point, his reply
is:――“The idea of perfection no doubt may be associated with subjects
divested of merit; but notwithstanding the effect of such association
in warping the judgment, virtue is approved as the specific perfection
or excellence of man’s nature; and as no one ever inquired why
perfection should be esteemed, it is difficult to conceive why we
should look for any other account of moral approbation than this.”¹
¹ Volume II., page 134.
In many parts of his work the ideal conception of a progress towards
perfection is touched upon and illustrated. “Perfection is nowhere to
be found short of the infinite mind; but progression is the gift of God
to all His intelligent creatures, and is within the competence of the
lowest of mankind.... Men of humble capacity may learn to think justly
on these subjects; and as far as wisdom depends on a just conception
of familiar objects, it is the nature of created mind in the course
of experience and observation to improve its sagacity and to make
a continual approach to the highest measure of intellectual ability
of which it is susceptible.... But the virtue of goodness, whether
operating in mere innocence or in beneficence, is surely improvable
if not actually acquired by habit.”¹
¹ Volume II., page 403.
In reference to the fundamental laws of morality, Ferguson taught “that
the first law of morality, relating to the mind and its affections,
requires the love of mankind as the greatest good to which human
nature is competent.” If it should appear, however, that mankind are
not agreed as to the kinds of external actions that flow from this
principle, nor in the choice of what to expect from the beneficent, it
may be asked by what rule is the friend of mankind to conduct himself?
His general reply to this question is to the effect that mankind in
reality do not often mistake the pernicious for the useful, nor the
destructive for that which tends to their own preservation; and so the
beneficent man has little difficulty in determining what is in him, a
natural effect of benevolence or of goodwill to his fellow-creatures.¹
¹ Ferguson died in 1816, having lived to the great age of
ninety-three years.
SECTION III.
_Dugald Stewart._
Ferguson was succeeded in the chair of moral philosophy by Dugald
Stewart,¹ who discharged the duties of the chair for a period of
twenty-five years with unmatched success. He was a son of Dr. Matthew
Stewart, professor of mathematics in the University of Edinburgh,
and was born in his father’s house in the old college buildings. When
eight years of age, he was sent to the High School of Edinburgh, and at
thirteen he entered the University and attended the arts classes. But
with the object of completing his philosophical education, at the age
of eighteen he went to Glasgow and studied a session under Dr. Reid,
and greatly appreciated the spirit of the doctrines of his master.²
¹ Born in 1753; died in 1828.
² When speaking of Dr. Reid, Stewart says:――“Among the members
of this University (Edinburgh), Mr. Ferguson was the first
to applaud Reid’s success, warmly recommending to his pupils
a steady prosecution of the same plan, as the only effective
method of ascertaining the general principles of the human
frame, and illustrated happily, by his own profound and
eloquent disquisitions, the application of such studies to
the conduct of the understanding and the great concerns of
life. I recollect, too, when attending, about the year 1771,
the lectures of the late Mr. Russell, to have heard high
encomiums on the philosophy of Dr. Reid, in the course
of those comprehensive discussions concerning the objects
and the rules of experimental science, with which he so
agreeably diversified the particular doctrines of physics.
Nor must I omit this opportunity of paying a tribute to
the memory of my old friend, Mr. Stevenson, then professor
of logic, whose candid mind at the age of seventy gave a
welcome reception to a system subversive of the theories
which he had taught for forty years, and whose zeal for
the advancement of knowledge prompted him, when his career
was almost finished, to undertake the laborious task of new
modelling that useful compilation of elementary instruction
to which diffidence of his own powers limited his literary
exertions.
“It is with no common feelings of respect and gratitude
that I now recall the names of those to whom I owe my first
attachment to those studies, and the happiness of a liberal
occupation superior to the more aspiring aims of a servile
ambition.”――Stewart’s _Account of the Life and Writings of
Reid_.
In 1771, when only nineteen years of age, Stewart was entrusted by
his father, whose health was failing, to teach the mathematical class
in the University of Edinburgh; and, notwithstanding his youth, he
maintained order and taught well. He was formally appointed to the
chair of mathematics in 1775, and held it till 1785, when, as already
mentioned, he obtained the chair of moral philosophy, a position more
congenial to his taste and aspiration.
According to the best testimony, Stewart was a successful and eloquent
professor, and was justly regarded as an ornament of this illustrious
University. The lectures which he delivered to his class were declared
by those who heard them to be surprisingly touching and elegant. He
was a Liberal in politics, a follower and expounder of the economical
doctrines of Adam Smith; and several scions of the Whig nobility were
placed in Edinburgh under his care and instruction. His teaching,
by means of his lectures and his writings, attained a wide influence
and contributed to diffuse a taste for elegant literature and liberal
opinions in politics throughout Scotland. Many of his pupils rose to
eminence in law, politics, and literature.
Stewart’s teaching was influenced by the current of events and the
circumstances of his time; and practical considerations greatly
controlled all his opinions and speculations. He was deeply interested
in the French Revolution, and intensely moved by the deplorable
excesses which sprung out of it. A short quotation from the concluding
sentences of his course of lectures on political economy will
illustrate this and other features of his teaching:――
“It is not, however, to those who look forward to the pursuits of
science that I have addressed myself in these lectures. The greater
part of you are probably destined for the active walks of business; and
under this impression, I have uniformly endeavoured, so far as I was
able, to direct your attention to studies susceptible of a practical
application to the great concerns of humanity, whether providence may
allot to you the obscure but important duties of a private station, or
may be pleased to call you to the great and arduous scenes of public
affairs. In either event, I shall follow you with my affectionate
wishes through the various fortunes which may await you. And, believe
me, nothing will ever give me greater satisfaction than to hear that
you have carried into the different departments of life for which you
may be destined, these steady principles of religion, of integrity, and
of beneficence which can alone render you happy in yourselves and bring
blessings to mankind.”
This was delivered in 1804, and four years later he concluded the same
course with these memorable words:――
“Now, gentlemen, when the connection is to be dissolved which has
for some months past subsisted between us, may I not be permitted to
express the hope which I am encouraged to entertain by the attention
with which you have honoured me:――that long after the period of
your academical education, you will recollect with satisfaction
those studies of your youth; and that by fixing in some measure your
principles concerning the nature, the duties, and the prospects of man,
they may contribute, under the various vicissitudes of fortune that
may yet await you, to fortify your virtuous resolutions, to elevate
your views above the pursuits of a vulgar ambition, and cherish
in your minds those habitual sentiments of religion, of humanity,
of justice, and of fortitude, which can alone render these talents
and accomplishments a source of permanent happiness and honour to
yourselves, a blessing to your friends, and a pledge to your country
for the perpetuity of that political fabric reared by the hand and
cemented by the blood of your ancestors; now alas! standing alone amid
the wreck of surrounding establishments, the last asylum and the only
remaining bulwark of the liberties of Europe.”¹
¹ _Collected Works_, Volume IX., pages 452‒453, 464. The above
passages are admirably calculated for effect; and to have
heard them from the lips of Stewart, uttered with all the
grace, the gravity, and the dignity which he possessed, must
have produced a strong impression.
Some people, however, thought Stewart’s political opinions
too liberal, and that he had shown rather much favour
towards some of his French contemporaries; and he seems
to have had such parties in his mind when he composed the
following note:――“I think it proper for me now to add, that
at the period when this memoir was read before the Royal
Society of Edinburgh, it was not unusual, even among men
of some talents and information, to confound studiously,
the speculative doctrines of political economy, with the
discussions concerning the first principles of government,
which happened unfortunately at that time to agitate
the public mind. The doctrine of free trade was itself
represented as of a revolutionary tendency; and some, which
had formerly prided themselves on their intimacy with Smith,
and on their zeal for the propagation of his liberal system,
began to question the expediency of subjecting to the
disputations of philosophers the arena of state policy,
and the unfathomable wisdom of the feudal ages.”――Stewart’s
_Life of Adam Smith, in Collected Works_, Volume X., page 87.
Stewart’s works consist of――(1) _Elements of the Philosophy of
the Human Mind_, extending to three volumes, which were published
separately in the years 1792, 1814, and 1827; but in the interval
between the publication of the first and third of these volumes,
(2) his _Outlines of Moral Philosophy_ appeared in 1793; (3) his
_Philosophical Essays_ in 1810; (4) his _Dissertation on the Progress
of Metaphysical and Ethical Philosophy_ in 1814 and 1820; (5) his
_Biographical Account of Adam Smith_ in 1793, _of Dr. Robertson_
in 1796, and _of Dr. Reid_ in 1802; (6) his work on the _Active and
Moral Powers of Man_ appeared in 1828, the year of his death; (7) his
_Lectures on Political Economy_ which were not prepared for publication
by Stewart himself, but drawn up from imperfect manuscripts, and
included in Hamilton’s collected editions of his works. This edition
extends to ten volumes, and to it my references are uniformly made.
When Stewart entered on the duties of the chair of moral philosophy,
his mind was well trained to scientific studies, which enabled him to
take a comprehensive view of the subject. In the first volume of his
_Elements of the Philosophy of the Mind_, he explained at length what
he conceived to be the nature, the object, and the utility of mental
study; but he did not in any of his writings develop his view of the
precise relation of psychology to the philosophical sciences, nor
specify the modes of their dependence on each other; although he stated,
in general terms, the common relation which the different branches of
knowledge bear to the human mind. He indicates his view thus:――“To the
philosophy of the mind are to be referred all our inquiries concerning
the divisions and the classification of the objects of human knowledge,
and also all the various rules, both for the communication and the
investigation of truth. These general rules of science, and these
general rules of method, ought to form the subject of a rational and
useful logic.... As a philosophical system of logic would assist us
in our particular scientific investigations, by keeping steadily in
our view the attainable objects of human curiosity; so, by exhibiting
to us the relation in which they all stand to each other, and the
relation which they all bear to what ought to be their common end――the
advancement of human happiness, it would have a tendency to confine
industry and genius to inquiries that are of real practical utility....
From such a system of logic, too, important assistance might be
expected for reforming the established plan of academical education.
It is melancholy to reflect on the manner in which this is carried on
in most, perhaps I should say in all the countries of Europe; and that
in an age of comparative light and liberty, the intellectual and moral
characters of youth should continue to be formed on a plan devised
by men, who were not only strangers to the business of the world,
but who felt themselves interested in opposing the progress of useful
knowledge.”¹
¹ _Works_, Volume II., pages 55‒59, 77‒80; also Volume I.
(Dissertation, pages 477, 478.) Stewart’s remarks on
education are still worth reading.
Although he explicitly recognised the contrast of mind and matter,
and the branches of science to which the investigation of the opposite
phenomena gives rise, still he purposely refrained from attempting
their scientific organisation. The leading aim of his efforts was to
contribute what he could to general psychology, to diffuse a taste for
reflective studies, and to induce a noble and hopeful life in man; thus
raising a liberal culture upon the firm basis of self-knowledge.¹ After
he had discussed and pointed out the shortcomings in the existing state
of things, he enounced his own purpose in the following words:――“I have
thus endeavoured to point out and illustrate a few of the important
purposes to which the philosophy of the human mind is subservient. It
will not, however, I flatter myself, be supposed by any of my readers
that I mean to attempt a systematic work on all or any of the subjects
I have now mentioned, the most limited of which would furnish matter
for many volumes. What I have aimed at has been to give, in the
first place, as distinct and complete an analysis as I could of the
principles, both intellectual and active, of our nature; and, in the
second place, to illustrate, as I proceed, the application of these
general laws of the human constitution to the different classes of
phenomena that result from them.... It will not, therefore, I hope,
be objected to me, that I have been guilty of a blameable violation
of unity in the plan of my work, till it be considered how far such
a violation was useful for accomplishing the purposes for which I
write.”²
¹ “It is almost unnecessary for me to remark, how much
individuals would be assisted in the proper and liberal
culture of the mind, if they were previously led to take a
comprehensive survey of human nature in all its parts, of
its various faculties, and powers, and sources of enjoyment,
and of the effects which are produced on these by particular
situations. It is such knowledge alone of the capacities
of the mind, that can enable a person to judge of his
own acquisitions; and to employ the most effective means
of supplying his defects, and removing his inconvenient
habits.... But education can never be systematically
directed to its proper objects, till we have obtained, not
only an accurate analysis of the general principles of our
nature, and an account of the most important laws which
regulate their operation; but also an explanation of the
various modifications and combinations of these principles,
which produce that diversity of talents, genius, and
character, we observe among men.”――Volume II., pages 61, 62.
² Volume II., pages 89, 90.
In the discrimination of ultimate principles, Stewart manifested
admirable sagacity. He called truths “The Fundamental Laws of Belief,
or the Primary Elements of Human Reason,” meaning by this generally
what Reid termed First Principles, or the Dictates of Common Sense.
The chief point in the treatment of these principles, in which Stewart
differs from Reid, is in relation to mathematical demonstration. He
makes no pretension to an exhaustive enumeration of these primary
truths, but so far as he goes, his mode of discriminating them is
reasonable and satisfactory.¹
¹ Volume III., page 41, _et seq._
His classification of cognition――the faculties of knowledge――is as
follows:――1. Consciousness; 2. External Perception; 3. Attention;
4. Conception; 5. Abstraction; 6. Association of Ideas; 7. Memory;
8. Imagination; 9. Reasoning, including Logic.
This distribution of the intellectual faculties is redundant; and
though consciousness is recognised as a separate attribute of the mind,
it receives no satisfactory treatment. Attention, though an important
function, is not a separate faculty, as it is acquired by a long series
of efforts, and both its exercise and power depends upon the will.
In regard to perception Stewart followed the doctrines of Reid.
Conception is explained as a power of the mind which enables us to form
a notion of an absent object of perception, or of a sensation formally
felt; its function being to give us an exact transcript of what we
have felt or perceived. He distinguishes his meaning of the term from
imagination, and observes that he followed Reid in this application of
the term.
A chapter is devoted to abstraction, which is treated at great length
through eight sections, and in which there are many interesting
observations. The last section dealt with the use and abuse of general
principles in politics, and he endeavours to clear up some of the
prevailing misconceptions of the economical system――an ideal theory
of society. Stewart himself was always inclined to take a favourable
view of the future progress of mankind and the improvement of political
institutions; and in this section he directs his efforts to show that
such a result was probable.¹
¹ Volume II., page 249.
Two chapters are given to the discussion of the association of ideas,
which he considered from two points of view――(1) the influence of
association in regulating the succession of our thoughts, and (2) its
influence on the intellectual powers and on the moral character, by
the more close and indissolvable combinations which it leads us to form
in infancy and in early youth. His exposition of association extends
to about a hundred pages, and it is interesting and well illustrated
by appropriate instances and quotations. He enumerates, as obvious
modes of associative connection, Resemblance, Contrariety, Vicinity in
time and place; and as less obvious modes, Cause and Effect, Means and
Ends, Premises, and Conclusions. In his concluding remarks he avers
that “there is good reason for believing that many of the facts which
consciousness would lead us to consider, upon a superficial view,
as ultimate facts, are resolvable into other principles still more
general.”¹
¹ Volume II., page 344.
In his treatment of memory, he endeavoured to show that it cannot
be resolved into the principle of association, because association
presupposes a conservative faculty in the mind itself; but, on
the other hand, without the associative principle, our faculty of
retention would be of little use. He discusses the varieties of memory
manifested in different individuals, the improvement of memory, the
connection between memory and philosophical genius; and on all these
varied relations of memory Stewart says much that is interesting and
instructive. There are three requisites to a good memory――“(1) to be
susceptible, (2) to be retentive, (3) to be ready.”¹
¹ Volume II. page 365.
To imagination he assigns the function of making a selection of
qualities and circumstances from a variety of different objects, and,
by combining and arranging these, to form a new creation of its own. He
gives it, however, the characteristics rather of a reproductive faculty
than of a representative one. He treated imagination in its relation
to some of the fine arts, and its relation to taste and genius. He
also examined at length the influence of imagination on character and
happiness.¹
¹ Volume II., pages 431‒435, 450, _et seq._
In the second volume of his _Elements of the Mind_, he treats of
reasoning and deductive evidence; of the Aristotelian Logic; and of
the method of inquiry according to the experimental or inductive logic.
These mixed logical discussions contain much that is interesting,
if not always profound. The third volume of his _Elements_ treats of
language; of the principle or law of sympathetic imitation; of the
varieties of intellectual character; comparisons between the faculties
of man and those of the lower animals; and several other interesting
subjects. His long chapter on the varieties of intellectual character
is exceedingly interesting.
Stewart’s volume of philosophical essays contain some of his best
compositions, and are partly historical, critical, and literary. More
than one half of the volume is occupied with the discussion of topics
relating to Taste――the beautiful, the sublime, and allied subjects.
Explanations and criticisms of Locke, Berkeley, and the theories of
♦Hartley, Priestly, and Darwin, occupy the other parts of the volume.
♦ “Hartly” replaced with “Hartley”
He classified the active powers of the mind, the emotions, feelings,
and desires thus:――
I. Instinctive { 1. Appetites.
Principles { 2. Desires = Knowledge, Esteem, Power, etc.
of Action. { 3. Affections = Benevolent and Malevolent.
{ 1. Prudence.
II. Rational and { 2. Moral Faculty.
Governing { 3. Decency, or regard to character.
Principles { 4. Sympathy.
of Action. { 5. The Ridiculous.
{ 6. Taste.
His treatment of these varied phenomena of the mind is always
interesting, cautious, humane, and marked by sound judgment and
sagacity; occasionally original, and, on the whole, the most valuable
part of his writings.
He stated the aim of moral inquiry thus:――“The object of moral
philosophy is to ascertain the general rules of a wise and virtuous
conduct in life, in so far as these rules may be discovered by the
unassisted light of nature, that is, by an examination of the human
constitution, and of the circumstances in which man is placed.” With
this end, our inquiries may be arranged under three heads, according as
they refer to the intellectual powers of man; to his active and moral
powers, or to consideration of man as a member of a political body.¹
¹ _Outlines of Moral Philosophy._
In short, to sum up his chief moral doctrines, he maintained――1. That
the Moral Faculty is an original principle of the mind; he argued
this point earnestly and at length. 2. He argued against the ethical
systems founded on Utility. 3. But he objected strongly to the doctrine
which makes morality depend on the will of God. 4. On the question
of Freewill, he contends for liberty. 5. Concerning the relation of
Morality to Religion, he assumes the benevolence of the Deity, and
avers that “when we are convinced that God is infinitely good, and
that He is the friend and protector of virtue, this belief affords the
most powerful inducements to the practice of every branch of our duty.”
6. He elaborately discussed the subject of Happiness, and presented
a classification of the most important pleasures under the following
heads:――(1) The pleasures of activity and repose; (2) the pleasures of
sense; (3) the pleasures of the imagination; (4) the pleasures of the
understanding; (5) the pleasures of taste, or fine art.
In forming an opinion upon his merits as a writer, the aims which
he had in view, and the circumstances in which his works originated,
should be remembered. Stewart cannot be called a great original thinker;
but he was an able teacher and a good expositor. Most of his writings
could have been much improved by a process of pruning and condensation.
His style is graceful, ornate, and flowing, and enriched by a liberal
culture. He had the power of rendering a difficult subject attractive
and easily comprehended; yet he was not, in the higher sense, a master
of method. Hence his _Dissertation on the History of Mental Philosophy_
is very defective in arrangement and in consecutive exposition. In
short, the main defects of his style is diffuseness and repetition, and
a lack of force and strength, with a singular and lamentable want of
brief and orderly recapitulation, at the proper places. He hardly seems
to have been aware of the value of a concise and luminous statement
at the close or the beginning of a great subject as an aid to the
understanding. But after all reasonable deductions, Stewart’s works
remain a noble monument of his talents, industry, humane culture, and
his kindly nature and goodness of heart.
SECTION IV.
_Gerard, Beattie, Campbell, Alison._
Dr. Alexander Gerard was appointed professor of divinity in Marischal
College, Aberdeen, in 1759, an office which he held for about twelve
years. He is the author of an ingenious _Essay on Taste_ which appeared
in 1758, and a second edition in 1764. The essay is divided into three
parts, and he handled the subject in the following order:――In the first
part, Taste is resolved into its simple principles, which consist of
the sense or taste of novelty; of the sense of sublimity; of beauty;
of imitation; of harmony; of oddity and ridicule; and of virtue. In
the second part, the formation of taste by the union and improvement of
its simple principles is explained. In the third part, the province and
importance of taste is discussed.¹
¹ To the second edition of this essay were annexed three other
essays on the same subject, by Voltaire, d’Alembert, and
Montesquieu.
He began by remarking that “a fine taste is neither wholly the gift
of nature, nor wholly the effect of art. It derives its origin from
certain powers natural to the mind; but these powers cannot attain
their full perfection, unless they be assisted by proper culture.
Taste consists chiefly in the improvement of those principles which are
commonly called the powers of imagination, and are considered by modern
philosophers as internal or reflex senses,¹ supplying us with finer
and more delicate perceptions than any which can be properly referred
to our external organs.” And he reduces these reflex senses in the way
indicated in the preceding paragraph.
¹ The reference to modern philosophers was to Hutcheson’s
_Inquiry concerning Beauty and Virtue_ and his _Essay on the
Passions_; and Dr. Gerard’s _Treatise on Taste_ is only one
of the many proofs of the influence of Hutcheson’s writings
in Scotland.
The subject is well worked out, and his style is exceedingly clear,
simple, and easy. He observes that the internal senses are assisted by
a delicacy of feeling or passion; and, applying this to the pathetic,
he says――“Since, therefore, the pathetic is a quality of so great
moment in works of taste, a man who is destitute of sensibility of
heart must be a very imperfect judge of them. He is a stranger to those
feelings which are of the greatest importance to direct his judgment.
If a person possessed all the internal senses in perfection, without
delicacy of passion, he could estimate the principal works of genius,
only by their inferior qualities.... Delicacy of passion may interest a
person so much, that he cannot for some time examine a performance with
critical exactness; but it gives him exquisite delight in the meantime,
and enables him to pass a just sentence at last.”¹
¹ Page 83.
Dr. James Beattie¹ was elected professor of moral philosophy in
Marischal College, Aberdeen, in 1760. In 1770, his _Essay on the
Immutability of Truth_ appeared, which was intended to be a refutation
of Hume’s scepticism. It is rather a vehement than reasonable
production, and strong in passionate assertion, but weak in argument;
yet it was popular for a time, and passed through several editions.
¹ Born in 1735; died in 1803.
He is the author of a work entitled _Elements of Moral Science_, which
was published in 1790‒93, in two volumes; which are mainly a summary
of the lectures on moral philosophy delivered to his class in Marischal
College. The work consists of two main divisions:――1. Psychology,
under which is included cognition; the active powers――will, feelings,
sentiments and passions; natural theology――the existence and attributes
of God; and the nature and immortality of the soul. 2. Ethics or moral
philosophy, which is followed by economics――the family and domestic
relations; then politics; and finally rhetoric and logic. Such is an
indication of Beattie’s scheme of philosophy, and the method of his
system of instruction.
But his treatment of logic is limited to remarks on evidence; rhetoric,
however, is treated at length through one hundred and ninety-three
pages, and perhaps this is one of the most interesting parts of his
work. Beattie’s style is orderly, his sentences are generally simple,
and his line of thought easily followed; but it has not much animation
or ornament, and lacks the qualities of strength and incisiveness.
Dr. George Campbell,¹ a minister of the Church of Scotland, became
Principal of Marischal College, Aberdeen, in 1759. His first work, _A
Dissertation on Miracles_, was published in 1762. It consists of two
parts, and presented an examination of the principles advanced by Hume
in his _Essay on Miracles_. In the first part, Campbell argues that
miracles can be proved by testimony, “and religious miracles are not
less capable of this evidence than others;” in the second part, he
maintains that “the miracles on which the belief of Christianity is
founded are sufficiently attested.” These chief points are well and
ably worked out. His mode of controversy is candid and generous; and
his examination of Hume’s principle, for there was but one principle
at the root of it――namely, experience――is carried on throughout with
admirable fairness and sagacity.
¹ Born in 1719; died in 1796.
Campbell insists that Hume’s chief argument from experience is founded
on a false hypothesis; as it supposes testimony to derive its evidence
solely from experience, which is not the case. “Testimony, it is
acknowledged, is a weaker evidence than sense. But it has been already
evinced that its evidence for particular facts is infinitely stronger
than that which the general conclusions from experience can afford us.
Testimony holds directly of memory and sense. Whatever is duly attested
must be remembered by the witness; whatever is duly remembered must
once have been perceived. But nothing similar takes place with regard
to experience, nor can testimony, with any appearance of meaning, be
said to hold of it.
“Thus I have shown, as I proposed, that the author’s reasoning proceeds
on a false hypothesis.――It supposes testimony to derive its evidence
solely from experience, which is false.――It supposes, by consequence,
that contrary observations have a weight in opposing testimony, which
the first and most acknowledged principles of ♦human reason, or, if
you like the term better, common sense, evidently shows that they have
not.――It assigns a rule for discovering the superiority of contrary
evidence, which, in the latitude there given it, tends to mislead the
judgment, and which it is impossible, by any explication, to render of
real use.”¹
¹ Part I., section 1, pages 63, 64 (1797).
♦ “hnman” replaced with “human”
Thus far, it seems Campbell did sway the balance somewhat against
Hume’s chief principle of estimating evidence. But his dissertation
itself must be read, for a full appreciation of the accurate, masterly,
and analytic power which it displays. Shortly after it appeared, it was
translated into the French, Dutch, and German languages.
Campbell’s _Philosophy of Rhetoric_, which appeared in 1776, is a
valuable and ingenious work. It was universally recognised as the
greatest work on the subject which had appeared since the time of
Aristotle. His style is clear and terse, and always manifests a
comprehensive grasp of the subject.
The Rev. Archibald Alison¹ was a son of an Edinburgh magistrate, and
educated at Glasgow and Oxford, and finally settled down in Edinburgh
as an Episcopal minister. He was the father of the well-known historian,
Sir Archibald Alison, and also of William P. Alison, an eminent
physician and professor in the University of Edinburgh. He himself is
the author of _An Essay on the Nature and Principles of Taste_, which
appeared in 1790, and has passed through six or seven editions.
¹ Born in 1757; died 1839.
It is a pretty elaborate production, and its leading characteristic
is an attempt to explain the æsthetic emotions and feelings on the
principles of association. It is a work of real merit and value, and
has had a considerable influence on subsequent theories of taste and
beauty.
CHAPTER XXXVIII.
_Dr. Brown――Mackintosh._
SECTION I.
_Dr. Brown._
DR. THOMAS BROWN¹ was a native of the parish of Kirkmabreck, in the
south of Scotland, where his father was minister; but he died shortly
after the birth of the future philosopher, and the family then removed
to Edinburgh. There he received the rudiments of his education from
his mother, and at the age of seven he was sent by his relatives to
school in England. At the age of fourteen he returned, entered the
University of Edinburgh, attended the logic class and Stewart’s courses
of lectures. But in 1798 he was studying law, which, however, he soon
relinquished for medicine. He attended the medical classes from 1798
to 1803, when he graduated M.A., having been over ten years a student
in the University. Thus Brown had the advantage of the instruction of
several eminent professors who then illumined this school.
¹ Born in 1778; died in 1820.
In 1805, he ventured into what has been called the Leslie controversy,
touching the heterodoxy of John Leslie, whom the clergy wished to
exclude from the chair of mathematics, on the ground that he had
enounced views on causation similar to David Hume’s; and in reference
to this, Brown published his _Inquiry into the Relation of Cause and
Effect_, defending Hume’s theory that this relation is merely one of
constant antecedence and sequence. He was for some time assistant to
Dr. James Gregory; but a wider field for the exercise of his genius
awaited him.
It was in the summer of 1810, with the full approval of Stewart himself,
that Brown was appointed his colleague and successor in the chair of
moral philosophy. He was an interesting, cultured man, with a glowing
poetical fancy, combined with other qualities of mind of a rarer form,
and he soon became popular. Those who had the good fortune to listen to
his lectures were delighted with them; and his career as a professor,
though comparatively short, was a brilliant success. His lectures were
published shortly after his death in 1820, and attained a remarkable
popularity; for before 1852 eighteen editions had been issued in great
Britain, and more in America.¹
¹ His lectures extend to one hundred, and, with his unfinished
text-book, contain all that he wrote on the philosophy of
the mind.
They contain a systematic exposition of the philosophy of the human
mind. In his introductory lectures he explains the scope and limits of
the subject, the relation of the philosophy of the mind to the sciences
in general, and to the mental sciences, arts, and moral culture in
particular; and he did this in an interesting and attractive manner,
well suited to arrest the attention of a youthful audience. He told his
class:――“Though I shall endeavour to give as full a view as my limits
will permit of all the objects of inquiry which are to come before
us, it will be my chief wish to awake in you, or to cherish, a love of
those sublime inquiries themselves. There is a philosophic spirit which
is far more valuable than any limited acquirements of philosophy; and
the cultivation of which, therefore, is the most precious advantage
that can be derived from the lessons and studies of many academic
years――a spirit which is quick to pursue whatever is within the reach
of human intellect, but which is not less quick to discern the bounds
that limit every human inquiry, and which, therefore, in seeking much,
seeks only what man may learn――which knows how to distinguish what is
just in itself from what is merely accredited by illustrious names;
adopting a truth which no one has sanctioned, and rejecting an error
of which all approve, with the same calmness as if no judgment were
opposed to its own.”¹
¹ Volume I., pages 14‒15, 18‒20.
He devotes several lectures to an explanation of the methods of
inquiry in physical science in general, of power, cause and effect,
hypothesis and theory; and in these he manifested considerable powers
of exposition. He insisted strongly that the method of inquiry in
physical science, should also be followed in mental science.
The chief features of Brown’s psychology may be briefly indicated
thus:――Fundamentally, it is a simple form of idealism, which recognises
primary beliefs, while its conception of method is two-fold――(1) The
mental phenomena may be viewed as successive, and so susceptible of
arrangement in the order of their succession, as causes and effects;
(2) viewed as complex, and consequently susceptible of analysis; and
it was chiefly in the latter relation that he conceived the philosophy
of the mind to be a science of progressive discovery. In this relation
it still presented an inexhaustible field of inquiry, since the mind
is continually forming new combinations, which modify its subsequent
thoughts and emotions, the results of which it is the end of mental
analysis to reduce to their original elements. In accordance with
this conception, he divided the whole phenomena of the mind into
two classes――the internal and external affections; the second class
is simple and requires few sub-divisions, but the first, as it
comprehends the far greater part of the mental phenomena, admits of
many sub-divisions, as aids to arrangement and exposition. The first
great sub-division of the intellectual class, is into the intellectual
states of mind and emotions. But our external affections have their
causes in external objects, while the internal affections arise from
the previous feelings or emotions of the mind itself; both classes
co-exist, and cannot always be considered as arising separately.
Hence the different views which have been taken of perception and the
existence of the external world.
Brown treated sensation at length, minutely analysing the different
tribes of our sensations, as he called them, through all the external
senses. After some explanation of the physical side of the process, he
follows the same order as Reid in discussing the first four external
senses, and he avers that none of our sensations arising through
smelling, taste, or hearing afford us any original knowledge of
the existence of external things, though we seem to act on such an
assumption. He dwells long and interestingly on the early sensations
of touch, and rightly assigns to them a priority over all our other
sensations. Those qualities of bodies supposed to be made known
to us by touch he reduced to two――resistance and extension; and he
endeavoured to show that our muscular frame is the organ through which
these external qualities are originally felt. He illustrated this view
in various ways.¹
¹ Volume I., pages 481, 483, 484.
He minutely explained the points touching perception wherein he
differed from Reid. In the preceding account of Reid’s doctrines,
it was shown that he held to an intuitive knowledge of the primary
qualities of bodies; Brown maintained that we have no such intuitive
knowledge of bodies. Speaking of perception in reference to the primary
and secondary qualities of bodies, he says:――“In both, it is the effect
of the pressure of an external cause, and in both it must be relative
only, to that particular cause which produced it; the knowledge of
which cause, in the case of extension, as much as in the case of
fragrance, is nothing more than the knowledge that there is within
us something which is not our mind itself, but which exists, as we
cannot but believe, permanently and independent of our mind.... What
it is, as it exists in absolute independence of our perceptions, we who
become acquainted with it, only by those very perceptions, know not in
either case.... We must still believe our perceptions themselves to be
altogether different and distinct from the external causes, whatever
they may be, which have produced them; to be, in short, phenomena
purely mental, and to be this equally, whether they relate to the
primary or the secondary qualities of matter; our notion of extension,
in whatever way the Deity may have connected it with the presence of
external things, being as much a state of the mind as our notion of
sweetness or sound.”¹
¹ Volume I., page 582, _et seq._
He occupies two lectures with a criticism of Dr. Reid’s claims
in regard to the ideal system of perception. He argues that Reid
misunderstood the real opinions of philosophers; that many of them held
a view of perception similar to his own; that the supposed difference
arose from Reid’s having imagined as real “what was merely intended
as metaphorical, and overthrown opinions which the authors, to whom he
ascribes them, would themselves have been equally eager to overthrow.”
His attack upon Reid’s claims is remarkably virulent.¹ But it should be
observed that neither Reid nor Brown himself was strong in the history
of philosophical opinions; in the case of both their knowledge of
systems and theories of recorded thought was limited and inaccurate.
The natural result was that both of them have sometimes fallen into
mistakes concerning the views of preceding philosophers and schools. In
short, Brown had a stronger passion for quoting poetry than for making
wise and accurate references to the doctrines of prior philosophers.
¹ Volume II., page 51; _Lectures_, 26, 27, 28.
In so far as Brown’s psychology is not the issue of his own analytic
powers, it is indebted to Reid, to those British thinkers who had
given prominence to the principles of associations in explaining mental
phenomena, to Condillac, and a few other French philosophers of the
latter part of last century. He was naturally attracted towards those
thinkers who had carried analysis to the farthest limits.
He classified the intellectual states of the mind (or cognition) into
what he called two generic capacities――(1) simple suggestion and (2)
relative suggestion. Simple suggestion meant what is usually termed the
laws of association. But he intended to give these a wider application,
and therefore adopted a classification which he conceived to be most
in accordance with the associative principle. As the influence of this
principle itself extends not merely to ideas but to every affection of
the mind, all our emotions may be revived in a certain degree by its
influence, or may become blended with the ideas or other feelings which
awaken them, in the same way as our conceptions of external objects.¹
¹ Volume II., pages 189, 197‒199, _et seq._
His primary laws of simple suggestion are――(1) Resemblance, (2)
Contrast, (3) Contiguity; and he reduced what he called the supposed
mental faculties of memory, conception, and imagination to simple
suggestion. In his exposition of these principles of association,
he exhibited great analytic powers and an amazing fertility of
illustration. He was also masterly in summarising; and the following
quotation, touching his reduction of conception and memory to the
principle of suggestion, though abridged, will afford an indication
of his powers in this particular:――
“Gentlemen, the inquiries which have occupied us with respect to the
phenomena of the principle of suggestion have, I hope, shown you what
that principle is, as distinguished from other principles of our mental
constitution. It becomes necessary, however, in justification of that
simple arrangement which I ventured to propose to you, to consider
this principle, not merely in relation to the phenomena which I have
included under it, but also in relation to other arrangements, and
to show that this one general tendency of the mind is sufficient
to account for a variety of phenomena which have been referred to
peculiar powers of the understanding. This I endeavoured to prove in
my last lecture, with respect to two of these supposed intellectual
powers――conception and memory.
“In the first place, I showed that conception, far from being
distinguished from suggestion, is only a particular operation of that
very principle; what are called the laws of association in relation
to our mere ideas, being nothing more than the general circumstances
according to which conceptions follow conceptions in our trains of
thought.... The power of suggestion is the capacity of the mind by
which we are sensible of the varieties of light; and we might as well
speak of a power of seeing a particular colour, distinct from vision,
as of a power of conceiving the same particular colour, distinct from
the general power of the mind that is termed by us suggestion. When
I hear the sound of my friend’s name, and the conception of my friend
immediately arises, there is not in the production of this one mental
state the operation both of a power of association and a power of
conception, but there is a development of the single capacity of the
mind, in consequence of which certain other conceptions arise after
certain other conceptions or perceptions....
“After showing our conceptions to be only particular modifications
of the general power of suggestion, I proceeded to consider our
remembrances, analysing these into two distinct parts――a particular
conception of some object or feeling remembered, and the accompanying
feeling of a certain relation of priority to our consciousness. The
simple conception which forms one of the elements of the remembrance,
and differs in no respect from the conceptions that are unaccompanied
with the notion of a relation, is of course reducible to the power of
simple suggestion, to which all our conceptions are to be referred;
the feeling of the relation of priority, which forms its other element,
is, like our feeling of every other relation, an effort of that
general susceptibility of relation suggested, which we are to consider
afterwards. The remembrance, therefore, being a complex feeling,
is a proof of these two susceptibilities of the mind, to which we
owe the constituent elementary feelings; but it is not a proof of
any third power.... What we term memory, then, in distinction from
mere conception, is not a new power, but merely a complex result of
different mental capacities.”¹
¹ Volume II., pages 384‒388.
He also classified and explained the secondary laws of suggestion. He
enumerated nine of these which he regarded as indispensable to account
for the variety in the effects of the primary laws. Thus, suggestions
are as various as the original feelings have been――(1) of longer
or shorter continuance; (2) more or less lively; (3) more or less
frequently present; (4) more or less recent; (5) more or less free from
mixture; (6) that they vary according to the difference of original
constitution; (7) according to differences of temporary emotion; (8)
according to changes produced in the state of the body; (9) according
to general tendencies produced by prior habits. The first four touch
rather the momentary feelings themselves than any particular state of
the mind of an individual, and have, as it were, a double operation.
But each one of these secondary laws alone may be sufficient to change
the suggestion, which would otherwise have arisen from the operation
of the primary laws; and it is not wonderful, therefore, that when many
of them, as they usually do, concur in one joint effect, the result in
different individuals should be so various.¹
¹ Volume II., pages 282‒285, _et seq._
Under his second sub-division of mental phenomena he included all
feelings of relation. He employed the term relative suggestion as
nearly equivalent to comparison; and whether the relation was of two
or many external objects, or of two or many affections of the mind, the
feeling of this, arising in consequence of certain preceding states of
mind, is what he called relative suggestion. He classified relations
under two heads――(1) those of co-existence, and (2) those of succession.
To the first belong the relations of position, resemblance, proportion,
degree, and comprehension; to the second, as the word imports, all
those which stand to each other as prior in the order of time. History
is merely a succession of facts and events, together with their causes
and effects, in the order of time. Thus relations ♦of succession are
either of a casual or of invariable antecedence and consequence.¹
♦ duplicate word “of” removed
¹ Volume II., pages 458, 459, 470‒472.
Concerning the general terms and the early stage of generalisation,
Brown sees no reason to doubt that man can reason without language;
though it is equally true that, without general terms, reasoning
must be very limited and imperfect. He explains the early process of
generalisation thus:――“The perception of objects,――the feeling of their
resemblance in certain respects,――the invention of a name for these
circumstances of felt resemblance,――what can be more truly and readily
conceivable than this process?” He repeats this many times in varied
words.¹
¹ Volume II., pages 478, 495, 504.
He also endeavoured to reduce the supposed faculties of judgment,
reason, and abstraction to relative suggestion, and his reasoning
assumed this form:――Relative suggestions are the relations of
co-existence and those of succession; and we can easily separate the
feeling of relation from the perceptions or conceptions themselves. We
perceive or conceive objects, and feel them to be variously related;
now, with this capacity of relative suggestion, the faculty of judgment
may be considered as almost synonymous. Accordingly, he treated it
in that light. But reasoning itself is nothing more than a series of
judgments――that is, feelings of relations, which are all referable to
the capacity of relative suggestion. Abstraction, in like manner, is
only a feeling of resemblance, of partial similarity among objects.
His classification of the mind may be tabulated thus:――
{ I. External { 1. Sensation.
{ Affections. { 2. Organic States.
{
{ II. Internal { 1. Simple Suggestion = Laws of Association.
Mind. { Affections. { 2. Relative Suggestion.
{
{ { Emotions. { = Taste.
{ { { = Moral Philosophy.
{
{ III. Results. { Existence of God.
{ { Immortality of the Soul.
Brown treats the emotions in detail, under three divisions――1.
Immediate, excited by present objects; 2. Retrospective; 3. Prospective.
In the first division he includes cheerfulness and melancholy, wonder,
languor, beauty, sublimity, the ludicrous, moral feeling, love and hate,
sympathy, pride, and humility; in the second, anger, gratitude, simple
regret and gladness, remorse and its opposite; in the third, desires
of continued existence, pleasure, action, society, knowledge, power,
affection, glory, the happiness of others, evil to others, fear, hope,
expectation, and anticipation.
His treatment and analysis of the emotions is pretty satisfactory. In
this division of mental phenomena, as in his treatment of the cognitive
side of the mind, the influence of Hume may occasionally be traced; but
his own emotional powers were of a warmer and keener cast than Hume’s.
In the ethical department of his system Brown partly follows Stewart
and Hutcheson, but applies the principle of association more than his
predecessors. He contended for a moral faculty――an innate sentiment,
and the following will afford an idea of his views:――
“When we think within ourselves,――Is this what we ought to do? we
do not make two inquiries,――first, Whether the action be right? and
then, Whether we should have merit in doing wrong; or demerit in doing
what is right for us to do? We only consider whether doing it shall
excite in others approbation or disapprobation, and in ourselves a
corresponding emotion of complacency or remorse. According to the
answer which we give in our hearts, in this respect――an answer which
relates to a single feeling of moral approbation,――we shall conceive
that we are doing what we ought to do, or what we ought not to do,――and
knowing this, we can have no farther moral inquiry to make as to the
merit or demerit of doing what is previously felt by us to be right or
wrong.
“To have merit, to be virtuous, to have done our duty, to have acted in
conformity with obligation,――all have reference to one feeling of the
merit,――that feeling of approbation, which attends the contemplation
of virtuous actions.... To this simple proposition, therefore, we
must always come in our moral estimate, whatever division, or varied
reference, we may afterwards make. Persons acting in a certain manner,
excite in us a feeling of approval; persons acting in a manner opposite
to this, cannot be considered by us, without an emotion equally
vivid of a different kind.... Why does it seem to us virtue to act in
this way? Why have we a feeling of obligation or duty, when we think
of acting in this way? The only answer which we can give to these
questions is the same in all,――that it is impossible for us to consider
the action, without feeling that by acting in this way, we should look
upon ourselves, and others would look upon us, with approving regard;
and that if we were to act in a different way, we should look upon
ourselves, and others would look upon us, with abhorrence, or at least
with disapprobation.... Why do we consider certain actions as morally
right,――certain actions as morally wrong? Why do we consider ourselves
as morally bound to perform certain actions,――to abstain from certain
other actions? Why do we feel moral approbation of those who perform
certain actions,――moral disapprobation of those who perform certain
other actions? For an answer to all these, I would refer to the simple
emotion, as that on which alone the moral distinction is formed.”¹
¹ Volume III., pages 568‒573, 581, _et seq._
This is the most definite statement on the moral faculty in his
lectures. He seldom uses the term conscience, but leaves his meaning
to be gathered from such sentences as these:――“There is then, in the
mind of each individual, a principle which leads him to divide actions
into two classes, virtuous and vicious.” “There is in our breast a
susceptibility of moral emotion; and the principle which thus approves
or condemns in us, is the noblest of the ties that connect us with the
universal community of mankind.” “All our moral sentiments then, of
obligation, virtue, merit, are, in themselves, as we have seen, nothing
more than one single feeling, variously referred to actions, as future,
present, and past. With the loss of the susceptibility of this one
peculiar species of emotion, all practical morality would instantly
cease.”¹
¹ Volume IV., pages 152, 158.
He gives an exposition of practical morals under the most common
heads――(1) Duties to our fellow men; (2) Duties to ourselves; (3)
Duties which we owe to the Supreme Being. He treats the family and
parental duties with much insight and judgment, and with elevated
feeling.
His lectures on the existence of God exhibit fine moral feeling and
good intention; but they lack metaphysical grasp and range of intellect.
He dwells chiefly upon the design argument, on which he worked
wonderfully well. But it is, at best, only a creeping mode of proving
the existence of a Supreme Being; and if a belief in God is to continue
among men, it must be placed upon higher grounds and arguments than the
evidence of mere mechanical design.
Brown also treated at length on the immortality of the human soul;
and on this subject his arguments are well worked out, and worthy of
attention. On this his psychological theory of the mind was available,
and he made a good use of it. His closing lectures are devoted to an
exposition of duty of cultivating our moral sentiments, our religious
and intellectual nature, in order to render ourselves happy and
glorious; and he expatiated eloquently on these themes.
In forming an estimate of Brown’s philosophy, we should recall
attention to his position, and the aims which he immediately had in
view. He was only thirty-two years of age when appointed to teach the
moral philosophy class, and ten years after he died in the midst of his
work. His lectures were hastily prepared for oral delivery, and many
things might be quite appropriately introduced, as merely spoken to
the students, with the object of interesting them in the subjects of
the course, but which would be out of character in a work deliberately
composed and revised for publication. His lectures, as we have them,
appear with all the imperfections of being prepared for oral delivery
to a class of students; and it may fairly be assumed that if he had
himself prepared them for publication, he would have weeded out most
of the poetical quotations, the repetitions, and other blemishes.
His reduction of all the special faculties of cognition to simple and
relative suggestion are unfortunate attempts. Conception, memory, and
imagination are reduced to simple suggestion; and judgment, reason, and
abstraction, to relative suggestion.
He possessed several of the qualities of a good expositor. His
conception of method was clear, his analytic power conspicuous; and
he had the command of a great store of illustrations. His style is
florid, and brilliant to excess; though some fine touches of pathos
and eloquent passages occur in his lectures. His choice of words and
phrases is sometimes ridiculously inappropriate; such as these――“tribes
of our sensations,” “nameless tribes of sensations.” In truth, he had
not a great command of subjective language; in this respect he fell
far behind Adam Smith. His lectures, however, have furnished many hints
to the association school of psychologists; and in this direction his
influence has been considerable.
SECTION II.
_Mackintosh._
Sir James Mackintosh was a native of Inverness-shire,¹ and was educated
at King’s College, Aberdeen; thence, in 1784, he proceeded to Edinburgh,
and entered on the study of medicine. After taking his medical degree
in 1788, he went to London to push his fortune; but not having obtained
a satisfactory practice in the medical profession, he abandoned it. He
seems to have entered warmly into the politics and stormy movements of
the time, listened with intense interest to the speeches of the leading
orators, and soon became a political writer himself. In the spring of
1791, his _Vindiciæ Gallicæ_ appeared, which is a glowing defence of
the French Revolution against the vehement _Reflections_ of Burke. The
style of this pamphlet is animated, but rather diffuse; yet it soon
attained a wide circulation.
¹ He was born at Aldourie, on the banks of the Ness, seven
miles from Inverness, in 1765, and died in 1832.
Shortly after, he betook himself to the study of the law, and
was called to the bar in 1795. In 1799, he delivered a course of
thirty-nine _Lectures on the Law of Nature and Nations_, which were
subsequently published. He greatly distinguished himself in 1803 by his
defence of M. Peltier against a prosecution for libel on Bonaparte. His
speech on this occasion was a great effort of forensic eloquence, and
seems to have brought him into public notice. Like many other talented
and warm-hearted young men, he cherished ambitious literary projects
which were never realised.
In 1804, he was appointed Recorder of Bombay. He resided eight years in
India; and returned to England in 1812, with an impaired constitution.
He was elected a member of Parliament for the county of Nairn, and in
the House of Commons he advocated liberal measures. He was appointed
professor of law in the East Indian College at Haileybury in 1818.
But his literary projects, though not entirely abandoned, made little
progress, owing to a variety of circumstances: his good nature,
pleasant humour, wide knowledge, and great conversational power made
him a favourite in every society; and thus he was diverted from his
real work. He wrote articles for the _Edinburgh Review_; an abridgment
of English History down to the Reformation; a _Dissertation on the
Progress of Ethical Philosophy_, for the _Encyclopædia Britannica_;
and a fragment which he left on the Causes of the Revolution of 1688;
which was intended to be his masterpiece, and he had collected a
large quantity of materials for it. It is, however, only his Ethical
Dissertation which comes properly within the range of this section.
Mackintosh’s “Dissertation on the Progress of Ethical Philosophy” is
chiefly limited to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, although
it presented a brief review of earlier systems, and included Stewart
and Brown. After a luminous introduction, he devotes a section to
preliminary observations on the nature of ethical science, and the
methods of examining it. He put the main ethical questions into
a definite form; and after remarking on the universality of the
distinction between right and wrong, he observes that in the inquiry
as to the foundation of morals, the two distinct questions――touching
(1) the Moral Faculty, and (2) the Standard of Morality, have seldom
been fully discriminated.¹ The first of these problems embraces ethical
theory, and also involves certain questions of pure psychology; the
second problem relates to the standard or test of morality――of right
and wrong in action――the ultimate end. Other important questions arise
in the province of morality; but he insists strongly on the necessity
of keeping these two chief distinctions steadily in view. His own
criticisms of moral systems proceed throughout upon these lines,
which gives to them a clearness and simplicity rarely found in ethical
disquisition.
¹ _Dissertation_, page 62. 1837.
He gives a brief sketch of ancient ethics, and of scholastic ethics;
and began his account of modern ethics with Grotius and Hobbes.
Grotius’ work, which was published in 1625, presented the most
authentic statement of the general principles of morals which
prevailed in Europe, before the writings of Hobbes had occasioned
those ethical controversies which more especially belong to modern
times. He appreciates Hobbes very fairly; though, of course, he exposes
the fundamental errors of his ethical system. Hobbes was the real
instigator of most of the ethical inquiries instituted in Britain,
till through the early part of the eighteenth century; and the answers
to the _Leviathan_ alone would form a library.¹
¹ _Dissertation_, pages 112‒133.
He then gives an exposition of the views concerning the moral faculties
and the social affections, and examines the systems of Cumberland,
Cudworth, Clarke, Shaftesbury, Leibnitz, Malebranche, Edwards, and
others. The main cause of the imperfect views of morality exhibited
in the writings of most of those philosophers was the want of a clear
and discriminative insight into the position and significance of the
sentiments and feelings in relation to ethical philosophy. Some of them
insisted that reason alone was the supreme principle of morality, an
assumption long since shown to be utterly untenable.
Those philosophers who are regarded as laying the foundations of a more
just theory of ethics, embracing Butler, Hutcheson, Berkeley, Hume,
Price, Hartley, Tucker, Paley, Bentham, Stewart, and Brown, were next
treated. He gives comparatively short but candid and valuable sketches
of the systems of these philosophers; while he introduced his own
criticisms under separate headings. Mackintosh was an able, amiable,
and mild-tempered man; and I have seen it stated that his critical
authority was weakened, “by an amiable propensity to eulogistic
declamation.” But this, like many other sayings, is only half true;
as bearing on the point, as well as for its historic interest, I will
quote his opening remarks on Bentham and his school:――
“The disciples of Mr. Bentham are more like the hearers of an Athenian
philosopher than the pupils of a modern professor, or the cool
proselytes of a modern writer. They are in general men of competent age,
of superior understanding, who voluntarily embrace the laborious study
of useful and noble sciences; who derive their opinions not so much
from the cold perusal of his writings, as from familiar converse with
a master from whose lips these opinions are recommended by simplicity,
disinterestedness, originality, and vivacity; aided rather than impeded
by foibles not unamiable, enforced of late by the growing authority
of years and fame, and at all times strengthened by that unbounded
reliance on his own judgment which mightily increases the ascendant
of such men over those who approach him. As he and they deserve the
credit of having abandoned vulgar prejudices, so they must be content
to incur the imputation of falling into the neighbouring vices of
seeking distinction by singularity; of clinging to opinions because
they are obnoxious; of wantonly wounding the most respectable feelings
of mankind; of regarding an immense display of method and nomenclature
as a sure token of a corresponding increase of knowledge, and of
considering themselves as a chosen few, whom an initiation into the
most secret mysteries of philosophy entitles to look down with pity,
if not with contempt, on the profane multitude.... Mr. Bentham has
at length been betrayed into the unphilosophical hypothesis, that all
the ruling bodies who guide the community have conspired to stifle
and defeat his discoveries. He is too little acquainted with doubts
to believe the honest doubts of others, and he is too angry to make
allowance for their prejudices and habits. He has embraced the most
extreme party in practical politics; manifesting more dislike and
contempt towards those who are more moderate supporters of popular
principles than towards their most inflexible opponents.”¹
¹ _Dissertation_, pages 285, 286.
This is among the warmest statements in his _Dissertation_. Indeed, the
spirit in which he criticises the systems of philosophers is unusually
calm, just, and candid. I will briefly indicate his own views on some
of the chief points of morality.
1. He considered conscience to be a derived faculty――gradually formed,
the result of a series of associations. He notes the primary feelings
that enters into it, the principal of which are gratitude, sympathy,
resentment, remorse, and shame; the secondary causes of its development
are education, imitation, general opinion, laws and government. He
traces and explains its developments, and finally, conscience attains
its distinctive character, and appears in close relation with the will.
2. Touching the standard, he is in favour of utility, with some
limitations. Utility is the final justification of right actions, but
not the immediate motive in the mind of the agent. He says: “The laws
prescribed by a benevolent Being to His creatures must necessarily
be founded on the principle of promoting their happiness. It would
be singular, indeed, if the proofs of the goodness of God, legible
in every part of nature, should not, above all others, be most
discoverable and conspicuous in the beneficial tendency of His moral
laws.”
He remarks that to calculate the general tendency of every kind of
human action is a possible and common operation. The general good
effects of temperance, justice, fortitude, prudence, benevolence,
gratitude, and many others, are the subjects of calculations which,
when taken as generalities, are unerring.¹
¹ _Dissertation_, pages 229‒230, 350‒365.
3. The supreme good, or theory of happiness, is embodied in his
doctrine of the delightfulness of virtuous conduct, by which he
proposes to effect the reconciliation of our own good with that of
others. “Virtue is an inward fountain of pure delight, and the pleasure
of benevolence, if it could become lasting and intense, would convert
the heart into a heaven. They alone are truly happy or truly virtuous,
that have no need of a motive in regard to outward consequences.”
CHAPTER XXXIX.
_Hamilton――Ferrier――and Robertson._
SIR WILLIAM HAMILTON,¹ the most learned of all the Scottish
philosophers, was the son of Dr. William Hamilton, professor of
anatomy in the University of Glasgow, a position formerly held by
his grandfather, Dr. Thomas Hamilton. Sir William was the lineal
representative to the title of Sir Robert Hamilton, the leader of the
Covenanting army at Drumclog, and he manifested at least one feature
of the spirit of his ancestors――the energy and will to combat when
occasion occurred. His father died when he was an infant, but he
received an excellent education. He passed through the arts classes
at the University of Glasgow, and studied medicine one session at
Edinburgh, having intended at first to follow the hereditary profession
of the family. But in 1807, having obtained a Snell exhibition, he went
to Oxford. There he entered deeply into the study of ancient philosophy,
and finally graduated in the highest class. He returned to Scotland in
1811, studied law, and was called to the bar in 1816.
¹ Born in 1788; died in 1856.
In 1820, Hamilton became a candidate for the chair of moral philosophy,
vacant by the death of Dr. Brown. The contest for the chair was very
keen, and finally lay between Hamilton and John Wilson. But Hamilton
was a Whig, Wilson a Tory; and as the appointment turned upon political
grounds, the majority of the town council of Edinburgh,――the patrons
of the chair, voted for Wilson, who accordingly obtained it. It should
be observed, however, that neither of the two gentlemen had up to
that time published anything which could be referred to as evidence of
their special qualifications for the chair of moral philosophy in the
University of Edinburgh.¹
¹ In reality, Wilson was quite out of his element in the chair
of moral philosophy. But “the chair of moral philosophy in a
Scottish university seems to be elastic in its adaptability.
Brown made it a chair of psychology; Ferrier, at St. Andrews,
a chair of metaphysics; Wilson made it a chair of rhetoric
and Belles Letters. It is true that he treated of the
passions, virtues, duties, and so on, but he dealt with them
in the concrete, with illustrations from literature.”――Sir
A. Grant’s _Story of the University of Edinburgh_, Volume
II., pages 345‒346.
The following year Sir William obtained the chair of civil history in
the University of Edinburgh, and he entered on his duties with ardour
and energy; yet his success was comparatively limited. The salary
attached to the chair was only one hundred pounds a year. His wide
range of historical knowledge enabled him to handle the subject in a
comprehensive and attractive manner, and for some years he had a class
of about thirty students. He petitioned the Senatus in 1824 to include
his subject in the arts curriculum, but the arts faculty gave him no
encouragement. Hamilton then, in 1828, enunciated his views to the
Royal Commission, but the commissioners, instead of protecting the
chair of history, recommended its abolition. In 1833, when the city
became bankrupt, the small salary of the chair ceased to be paid, and
Hamilton ceased lecturing.¹
¹ This chair of civil history continued in an anomalous
position, though sometimes held by able men, such as
Professor Ferrier and Cosmo Innes, until 1862, when the
Executive Commission changed the title of the chair to that
of history, and then made the lectures of the professor on
constitutional law and history necessary for a degree in law.
In 1836, Dr. Ritchie resigned the chair of logic and metaphysics, which
he had held for a period of twenty-eight years, and four candidates
entered the field for the vacant office――namely, Sir William Hamilton,
Isaac Taylor, Patrick C. Macdougall, and George Combe, the popular
phrenologist. It was seen that the real contest would be between the
first two candidates; and after a hard struggle, of which the issue
seemed doubtful, when the final decision was taken, out of thirty-two
votes Hamilton had eighteen――a majority of four. Although then in his
forty-eighth year, he entered on his new task with all the emotion and
ardour of youth, and threw his heart and intellect into the work.
With his exact method and lofty ideal of philosophical style, he felt
much difficulty in deciding on the character of the course of lectures
on philosophy which would meet the wants of the young students, and
at the same time do justice to the subject; and, after three months of
intense thought and reflection, at the opening of the session he had
only a few of his lectures written. Thus it happened that his lectures
on metaphysics were composed during the first session which he taught.
He often sat up nearly all the preceding night preparing his lecture
for the next day, with his loving wife by his side acting as his
amanuensis. These lectures being composed in such circumstances,
and solely designed for the instruction of his own class, it is not
surprising that they may not at all points present a consistent and
complete exposition of his philosophical views; still, so far as they
go, they may be fairly assumed to contain a reliable statement of his
chief doctrines. His lectures on logic were composed during the next
session, and under the same pressure as the former course.
Hamilton greatly felt the want of text-books suitable for his purposes,
so he resolved to edit an edition of Reid’s works, and projected a new
work on logic. It has been affirmed by some that the dedication of his
powers to the service of Reid was a great mistake, that he should have
built entirely upon his own foundation. Be this as it may, the form
of exposition which he selected was in some respects unfortunate. His
numerous footnotes to Reid’s works were written as the text was passing
through the press in 1837 and 1838, and the supplementary dissertations
to the end of D were written and stereotyped in 1841 and 1842.
But, in 1838, a quarrel arose between Hamilton and the town council of
Edinburgh about his lectures, which had the effect of preventing him
from delivering a separate and more advanced course of lectures on
metaphysics.¹ Then his brother died, to whom he was warmly attached.
Next came the threatened disruption of the Church of Scotland, which
he struggled hard to avert; and in 1844, in the midst of his arduous
labour and duties, a severe paralytic stroke almost deprived him of
the use of his right side for the rest of his life. Though he partly
recovered, and his mental faculties seemed unimpaired, he never
regained his former energy and health.²
¹ “It was a loss to the University that Sir W. Hamilton’s
separate class in metaphysics was put a stop to; but this
was due to his own uncompromising temper, as well as to the
somewhat ignorant interference of the town council.”――Sir A.
Grant’s _Story of the University of Edinburgh_, Volume II.,
pages 62‒65. I may add that it was a loss to the nation and
to philosophy.
² Veitch’s _Memoir of Sir W. Hamilton_, pages 266, 270, 278,
_et seq._
So when his edition of Reid’s works was issued in 1846, it still
remained incomplete; one of his supplementary dissertations breaking
off in the middle of a sentence; and although afterwards added to,
it was never completed. The fragmentary materials which his editors
collected and published, after his death, form but a small portion of
what Hamilton originally intended to present; while only an outline
of his projected work on logic ever appeared. All hope of revising
his lectures seems to have been relinquished, save by occasional oral
interpolations. But he continued to lecture and instruct his classes,
though sometimes an assistant read his lectures, when the effort of
delivery had become too painful for himself. He expired shortly after
the close of the session of 1856, tended in his last moments by his
faithful wife, and surrounded by his children.
Hamilton was much beloved by his pupils; and all who called on him
for information were kindly treated. Although his temper was warm and
sometimes easily roused; on the whole, however, his life was a noble
struggle; and, if he occasionally manifested an impatience of ignorant
opposition, it was only natural and human. Yet, in one or two of his
controversies with opponents of his special doctrines, his vehemence
passed the limits of fair discussion.
His writings consist of:――1. Sixteen articles contributed to the
_Edinburgh Review_, chiefly on philosophy, education, University reform
and methods of teaching, and on literature; the first of these appeared
in 1829, and he republished the whole of them in 1852, with large
additions. 2. His notes and supplementary dissertations to Reid’s
works. 3. His lectures on metaphysics. 4. His lectures on logic. All
his writings bristle with quotations and references to the views of
previous thinkers; his erudition was vast and varied.
In order to give his views the justice to which they are well entitled,
and to mark the gratitude for his memory which I warmly feel,¹ I will
indicate the lines on which his philosophy may be justly appreciated
and fairly expounded. The first requisite is to understand the purpose
of a writer’s works, and in the case of Hamilton, to take special
account of the immediate aims which he had in view; guided by these
considerations, I will begin the exposition of his system with his
lectures on metaphysics――his psychology, then the philosophy of the
conditioned, and close with his logic. The fundamental principles
are these:――(1) His peculiar view of the end of speculation; (2) his
theory of external perception――natural realism; (3) his doctrine of _a
priori_ laws or native notions of the mind; (4) his philosophy of the
conditioned; (5) his conception of logic, and the peculiarities of his
logical system.
¹ I never had the gratification of even seeing Sir W. Hamilton;
yet I may be permitted to state, that the first philosophical
writings which I ever read with interest was his volume of
discussions, which I perused shortly after the date of his
death. His edition of Reid soon after came into my hands;
and his four volumes of lectures, almost immediately after
their publication. And I now gratefully record, that his
writings first roused me to think for myself.
In his introductory lectures he explained to the students the utility
of philosophy on its subjective and objective sides; its absolute
utility viewed simply in itself, and its value viewed in relation to
other sciences. He endeavoured to impress their minds with just ideas
of the importance of philosophy, and to clear away all superficial
misconceptions of the end and objects of education. He discussed
philosophy as means and ends in relation to the culture and happiness
of man. While man himself, being in so far a mean for the glory of God,
“must be an end unto himself, for it is only in the accomplishment of
his own perfection that, as a creature, he can manifest the glory of
his Creator.... I say it is manifest that man is by nature necessarily
an end to himself――that his perfection and happiness constitute the
goal of his activity, to which he tends, and ought to tend, when not
diverted from this, his general and native destination, by peculiar and
accidental circumstances.” In the realities of social life, however,
“each man, instead of being solely an end to himself――instead of being
able to subordinate everything to that full and harmonious development
of his own faculties, in which his real perfection and his true
happiness consists――is, in general, compelled to turn himself into the
mean towards the accomplishment of some end, external to himself, and
for the benefit of others. So the perfection of man as an end, and the
perfection of man as a mean or instrument are not only not the same,
but in reality they are generally opposed ... even admitting, therefore,
that the study of the mind is of no immediate advantage in preparing
the student for many of the subordinate parts in the mechanism of
society, its utility cannot on that account be called in question,
unless it be asserted that man ‘liveth by bread alone,’ and has no
higher destination than that of the calling by which he earns his
subsistence.”¹
¹ Volume I., pages 2, 7.
He drew a distinction between the mere possession of truth and
intellectual development; by the latter he meant the power acquired
through the exercise of the higher faculties of a more varied and
vigorous mental activity. This led him to his peculiar view of the
end of speculation, and he asks:――“Is truth or is the mental exercise
in the pursuit of truth, the superior end? this is perhaps the most
curious theoretical, and certainly the most important practical,
problem in the whole compass of philosophy. For, according to the
solution at which we arrive, must we accord the higher or lower rank
to certain great departments of study: and, what is of more importance,
the character of its solution, as it determines the aim, regulates from
first to last the method which an enlightened science of education must
adopt.”
In practical knowledge it is clear that truth is not the ultimate end;
as the knowledge of a moral truth, a political, or a religious one,
is of value only as it affords the condition of its exercise. But Sir
William further held, “that speculative truth is only pursued, and is
only held of value, for the sake of intellectual activity.... A truth,
once known, falls into comparative insignificance. It is now prized,
less on its own account than as opening up new ways to new activity,
new suspense, new hopes, new discoveries, new self-gratulation....
Accordingly, the sciences always studied with the keenest interest are
those in a state of progress and uncertainty; absolute certainty and
absolute completion would be the paralysis of any study....
“But if speculative truth itself be only valuable as a mean of
intellectual activity, these studies which determine the faculties to a
more vigorous exertion will, in every liberal sense, be better entitled,
absolutely, to the name of useful, than those which, with a greater
complement of more certain facts, awaken them to a less intense, and
consequently a less improving, exercise. It is on this ground that I
would rest one of the permanent utilities of mental philosophy.” This
doctrine is stated in other parts of his writings;¹ and he had sounded
the range of its consequences pretty definitely.
¹ Volume I., pages 8‒13. In the _Discussions_ he says:――“We
exist only as we energise; pleasure is the reflex of
unimpeded energy; energy is the mean by which our faculties
are developed; and a higher energy the end of which their
development proposes.... Speculative truth is subordinate
to speculation itself; and its value is directly measured
by the quantity of energy it occasions immediately in its
discovery, mediately through its consequences” (page 39).
In his opening lecture he told his class that the communication of
knowledge was a high, but not the highest, aim of instruction; and that
he would not merely deliver lectures――“By all the means in my power
I shall endeavour to rouse you, gentlemen, to the free and vigorous
exercise of your faculties; and shall deem my task accomplished,
not by teaching logic and philosophy, but by teaching to reason and
philosophise.”¹
¹ Volume I., page 18.
In these introductory lectures he also explained the nature and
comprehension of philosophy, its causes, and the disposition with which
it ought to be studied. Touching the method of philosophy, Hamilton
affirms that there is only one possible method――a combination of
analysis and synthesis, and the purity and equilibrium of these two
elements constitute its perfection.
Concerning the divisions of the philosophy of the mind, he adopted,
from Kant, the threefold division of mental phenomena; and the whole
subject is enounced in these three questions:――1. What are the facts
or phenomena to be observed? 2. What are the laws which regulate these
facts, or under which these phenomena appear? 3. What are the real
results, not immediately manifested, which these phenomena warrant us
in drawing?
First, we should investigate the facts; second, discover their laws;
and third, ascertain by legitimate inference their ultimate results.
Thus we obtain three branches of mental science, which he designates
as phenomenal psychology, nomological psychology, and ontology. Each
of these chief classes of the phenomena of mind has a science, which
is conversant about its laws. But there is no general science of the
cognitive faculties; and the only one of these faculties, whose laws
form the object matter of a separate science, is the understanding,
the faculty of relations, of thought proper――logic, the science of the
laws of thought, in relation to the end which our cognitive faculties
propose, that is the true. To this head might be referred universal
grammar――philosophical grammar, or the science conversant with the laws
of language as the instrument of thought.
The science of the laws of our capacities of enjoyment, in relation to
the end which they propose, that is, the pleasurable, has no precise
name in English. It has sometimes been called the philosophy of taste,
the theory of the fine arts, the science of the beautiful and sublime;
and on the Continent it has been termed Æsthetic; but none of these are
quite appropriate.
The nomology of our exertive powers and tendencies constitute practical
philosophy; for it is simply the science of the laws which regulate
our will and desire, in relation to the end which our conative powers
propose, that is, the good. This, as it treats these laws in relation
to man as an individual, or in relation to man as a member of society,
will fall to be divided into two branches――Ethics and Politics; and
these again admit of various sub-divisions――such as jurisprudence and
legislation.
Empirical psychology is limited to the facts afforded in consciousness,
considered exclusively in themselves. But these may be such as not only
to be objects of knowledge in themselves, but may also afford us the
grounds of inference to something out of themselves. As effects of a
peculiar character, they may enable us to infer the analogous character
of their unknown causes; as phenomena of particular qualities, they
may warrant us in drawing many conclusions regarding the character
of that unknown principle, of that unknown substance, of which they
are the manifestations. It is true, that the existence of God and the
immortality of the soul are not presented to us as phenomena, or as
objects of immediate knowledge; still, if the phenomena actually given
do inevitably render it requisite, for their rational explanation, then
the hypotheses of immortality and of God, we are certainly entitled,
from the existence of the former, to infer the reality of the latter.
Now, the science which treats of all such inferences of unknown being
from its known manifestations, is called ontology, or metaphysics
proper.
The following is his tabular view of the distribution of mental
philosophy:――
{ Facts,―― { Cognitions.
{ Phenomenology. { Feelings.
{ Empirical { Conative Powers
{ Psychology. { (Will and Desire).
{
{
Mind or { Laws,――Nomology. { Cognitions,――Logic.
Consciousness { Rational { Feelings,――Æsthetic.
affords. { Psychology. { Conative { Moral Philosophy.
{ { powers. { Political Philosophy.
{
{ Results,―― {
{ Ontology. { Being of God.
{ Inferential { Immortality of the Soul, etc.
{ Psychology. {
Hamilton considered this distribution of philosophy as the simplest
and most exhaustive; and he specially marked out the branches which
belonged to his course of instruction.¹ In his lectures he treats only
one of the three main groups――empiric al psychology――and even this he
has not treated exhaustively; only cognitions――the cognitive faculties
are fully discussed; but one division of the second group is treated in
his lectures on logic. Will and desire receive only incidental notice.
¹ Volume I., pages 120‒128. As already mentioned, he originally
intended to deliver a more advanced course, and the following
sentences, bearing on the point, appear in the manuscript
of his seventh lecture:――“The plan which I propose to adopt
in the distribution of the course, or rather courses, is the
following: I shall commence with mental philosophy, strictly
so-called, with the science which is conversant with the
manifestations of mind――phenomenology or psychology. I shall
then proceed to logic, the science which considers the laws
of thought; and finally to ontology, or metaphysics proper,
the philosophy of results. Æsthetic, or the theory of the
pleasurable, I should consider subsequent to logic, and
previously to ontology” (page 128).
A large part of the first volume is occupied with the discussion of
Consciousness, which in his system is the primary and fundamental
characteristic of mind, and the universal condition of intelligence.
He discusses the special conditions of consciousness; its relation to
the cognitive faculties; consciousness and attention; the evidence and
authority of consciousness; and violations of its authority. Many other
interesting questions are discussed, such as the general phenomena of
consciousness; whether the mind is always consciously active, or if it
is ever unconsciously modified; and an exceedingly interesting lecture
on the difficulties and facilities of studying mental science.
While consciousness cannot be logically defined, it may be
philosophically analysed. This is effected by observing and holding
fast the facts of consciousness, comparing these, and then evolving
the universal conditions under which alone an act of consciousness is
possible. It is by following this method that we can attain to accurate
knowledge of the contents of consciousness.
The nature of the act of consciousness may be shown thus: “When I know,
I must know that I know; when I feel, I must know that I feel; when
I desire, I must know that I desire. The knowledge, the feeling, the
desire, are possible only under the condition of being known by me. For
if I did not know that I knew, I would not know; if I did not know that
I felt, I would not feel; if I did not know that I desired, I would not
desire.... The expressions I know that I know, I know that I feel, I
know that I desire, are thus translated by: I am conscious that I know,
I am conscious that I feel, I am conscious that I desire. Consciousness
is thus, on the one hand, the recognition by the mind of its own acts
and affections; in other words, the self-affirmation that certain
modifications are known by me, and that these modifications are mine.
But, on the other hand, consciousness is not to be viewed as anything
different from these modifications themselves, but is, in fact, the
general condition of their existence within the sphere of intelligence.
Though the simplest act of the mind, consciousness thus expresses a
relation subsisting between two terms. These terms are, on the one hand,
an I or self, as the subject of a certain modification; and, on the
other hand, some modification, state, quality, effection or operation
belonging to the subject. Consciousness thus in its simplicity
necessarily involves three things: (1) a recognising or knowing subject;
(2) a recognised or known modification; and (3) a recognition or
knowledge by the subject of the modification.”¹
¹ Volume I., pages 189, 190‒193.
He explains and illustrates this fundamental characteristic of mind at
great length, and with an analytic power and clearness of statement as
yet unmatched in the annals of philosophy: “Every mental phenomena may
be called a fact of consciousness. But as we distinguish consciousness
from the special faculties, though these are all only modifications of
consciousness, only branches of which consciousness is the trunk, so
we distinguish the special and derivative phenomena of mind from those
that are primary and universal, and to give the latter the name of
facts of consciousness, as more eminently worthy of that appellation....
A fact of consciousness in this sense is a simple, and, as we regard it,
either an ultimate or a primary datum of intelligence. It obtains also
various denominations; sometimes it is called a principle, sometimes
a fundamental law of mind, sometimes a transcendental condition of
thought, etc.” He insists on its characteristics of ultimate priority
and necessity; that, as an ultimate fact, it is also given to us with
a belief of its reality. It reveals what it is, but not why or how
it is. “To ask how any fact of consciousness is possible, is to ask
how consciousness itself is possible; and to ask how consciousness is
possible, is to ask how an intelligent being like man is possible....
But as we did not create ourselves, and are not even in the secret of
our creation, we must take our existence and our knowledge upon trust.”
The result of this inquiry concerning consciousness is――(1) The facts
which are given in the act of consciousness itself; and (2) the facts
which consciousness does not at once give, but to the reality of which
it only bears evidence. As to the first class of facts, no doubt can be
or ever has been entertained; it is only the authority of these facts
as evidence of something beyond themselves, only thus the second class
of facts, which become matter of discussion; it is not the reality of
consciousness, but its veracity, that may be questioned.¹
¹ Volume I., pages 269‒276, _et seq._, and _Discussions_,
page 62.
As psychology is only a developed consciousness, a scientific evolution
of the facts of which consciousness is the guarantee and revelation;
thus the Positive philosopher has a primary presumption in favour
of the elements out of which his system is constructed, whilst the
sceptical philosopher must be content to argue back to the falsehood
of these elements, from the impossibility which the dogmatist may
experience in combining them into the harmony of truth. For truth is
one, and the end of philosophy is the intuition of unity. He repeated
that:――“Philosophy is a systematic evolution of the contents of
consciousness by the instrumentality of consciousness; it therefore
necessarily supposes in both respects the veracity of consciousness.”¹
¹ _Discussions_, page 85; _Lectures_, Volume I., page 267.
His theory of attention is stated thus:――“The greater the number of
objects to which our consciousness is simultaneously extended, the
smaller is the interest with which it is able to consider each, and
consequently the less vivid and distinct will be the information it
obtains of the several objects. Such being the law, it follows, when
our interest in any particular object is excited, and when we wish
to obtain all the information concerning it in our power, it behoves
us to limit our consideration to that object, to the exclusion of
others. This is done by an act of volition or desire, which is called
attention. But to view attention as a special act of intelligence, and
to distinguish it from consciousness is utterly inapt. Consciousness
may be compared to a telescope, attention to the pulling out or in of
the tubes in accommodating the focus to the object; and we might with
equal justice distinguish in the eye the adjustment of the pupil from
the general organ of vision, as in the mind distinguish attention from
consciousness as a separate faculty. Not, however, that they are to be
accounted the same. Attention is consciousness, and something more. It
is consciousness voluntarily applied, under its law of limitations, to
some determinate object; it is consciousness concentrated.”
Thus, though attention is not a special and separate faculty of mind,
it is an interesting and important subject, and he proceeds to consider
it in its various relations, as a general phenomena of consciousness.
As to the number of objects which the mind can attend to at once,
Stewart supposed that we could only attend to one thing at one
and the same instant; but Hamilton supposes that consciousness can
simultaneously apprehend six objects. Taking this number of objects
as the highest which it can embrace at once, the limitation of
consciousness to five, four, three, two, or one, will all be acts of
attention, differing only in degree.¹
¹ Volume I., pages 231‒239, _et seq._
Hamilton rightly holds, that even an act of comparison or
discrimination supposes that we are able to comprehend, in the unity
of consciousness, the different objects to be discriminated. Instead,
therefore, of consciousness not being competent to cognise two things
at once, it is only possible under this condition.
He distinguishes three kinds of attention: (1) a mere vital and
irresistible act, such as when we open our eyes, we cannot by an act of
will avert our mind from all perception of sight; (2) an act determined
by desire, which, though involuntary, may be resisted by the will; (3)
and an act determined by a deliberate volition. It is the third kind of
attention which is really of importance in thinking.
He again refers to the law of limitation in relation to attention, and
then says:――“But whatever be its relation to the special faculties,
attention doubles all their efficiency, and affords them a power of
which they would otherwise be destitute. It is, in fact, as we are at
present constituted, the primary condition of their activity.”¹
¹ Volume I., pages 246‒248, _et seq._ Hamilton gives a
clear and interesting explanation of the difficulties of
commencing real intellectual efforts, the obstacles that
must be overcome before the power of concentrated attention,
of continuous thinking, is acquired.
It may not be quite out of character to state briefly my
own experience on the subject of attention, or the acquired
power of concentration. I admit that Hamilton’s statement
of the difficulties of commencing real intellectual efforts
is quite true, so far as it goes; yet it appears that in
many circumstances, the numerous difficulties which have to
be overcome at the initial stages are greater than what he
represents them to be. In my own case the initial stage was
extremely difficult; the circumstances were unpropitious
to the acquisition of the power of concentrating attention,
as I was almost constantly in the midst of bustle, and
seldom alone. By a prolonged course of persistent efforts,
I gradually acquired a complete power of concentrating my
mind, by an act of will, upon whatever subject I wished
to investigate. This will be understood, when I state that
the whole of this history was written, and the proof sheets
revised, upon the counter of my own small shop, in the midst
of the clattering of a stirring street, and at the same
time attending to customers coming in and out. Thus, though
often interrupted, I mentally work on, unconscious of noise.
The power of attention, of concentration, and of continuous
thinking, essentially depends on the strength of the
acquired command of the will.
Hamilton’s whole account of attention is exceedingly interesting and
valuable, and especially what he says of it in its higher degree,
as a direct act of the will, consummated in the habit of deliberate
concentration of thought. His view of this, the highest exercise of
mind, is as true as it is lucidly expressed.
Among the general phenomena of consciousness, he discusses the question
whether we are always consciously active? and begins by averring that
there is no pure activity or passivity in creation: that all things
in the universe of nature are in a state of continual action and
counteraction, being always active and passive at once. “God alone
must be thought of as a Being active without any mixture of passivity,
as His activity is subject to no limitation. But precisely because it
is unlimited, it is for us wholly incomprehensible.”
We are never directly conscious of passivity; so far as we are
conscious, we are active; but whether there may be a mental activity
of which we are unconscious, is another question. He touches upon the
phenomena of dreaming, talking during sleep, and somnambulism, with
the view of ascertaining whether the mind be at any moment wholly
unconscious. He refers, as usual, to the opinions of other philosophers,
but also gives his own personal experience, that the mind remains
conscious during sleep.¹
¹ Volume I., pages 310‒312, 323‒337.
He also discussed the subject of latent mental modifications. He
observes, that the possessions of our mind are not to be measured by
its present monetary activities, but by the amount of its acquired
habits. Thus one knows a science or a language, not merely when he is
making a temporary use of it, but inasmuch as he can apply it when and
how he pleases, at the command of his will: and so the greater part of
our mental treasures lies always behind the sphere of consciousness,
hid in the recesses of the mind; this is the first degree of latency.
The second degree of latency exists when the mind contains certain
systems of knowledge, or habits of action, which it is wholly
unconscious of possessing in its ordinary state, but which are revealed
to consciousness in certain extraordinary exaltations of its powers.
Such as the abnormal states of madness, febrile delirium, somnambulism,
catalepsy, etc., when they may flash out into consciousness, and throw
into the shade of unconsciousness those other systems by which they
had for long been eclipsed and even extinguished. He insists that the
theory of latent modifications enables us to account for some of the
most perplexing phenomena of mind.¹
¹ Volume I., pages 339‒352, 366, _et seq._
Sir William’s second volume of lectures commenced with his exposition
of the phenomena of cognition; and he classified the special faculties
of knowledge thus:――
{ I. Presentative, { External = Perception.
{ { Internal = Self-consciousness.
{
{ II. Conservative, = Memory.
{
{ III. Reproductive, { Without Will = Suggestion.
Cognitive { { With Will = Reminiscence.
Faculties. {
{ IV. Representative, = Imagination.
{
{ V. Elaborative, = Comparison = Faculty of
{ Relations.
{
{ VI. Regulative, = Reason = Common Sense.
Such is Hamilton’s distribution of the intellectual powers, which he
terms the cognitive faculties. He explains distinctly what he meant by
a mental faculty,――it is merely a mode of designating a certain class
or group of mental energies. In short, all mental powers are only
names determined by various orders of mental phenomena; but as these
differ from and resemble each other in various ways, various modes of
classification may be adopted, and consequently various faculties, in
different views, may be the result. “System is only valuable when it is
not arbitrarily devised, but arises naturally out of an observation of
the facts, and of the whole facts, themselves. On the other hand, to
despise system is to despise philosophy; for the end of philosophy is
the detection of unity.”¹
¹ Volume II., pages 3‒5; also footnotes to Reid, pages 221,
242, 511.
1. The presentative faculty on its two sides――perception of external
objects, and self-consciousness or reflection, forms the faculty of
experience; and it affords us all our contingent knowledge. It enables
us to cognise an object, when presented within the sphere of external
or internal consciousness; but if our knowledge terminated with this,
it would be small indeed. 2. So we have not only a faculty of acquiring
knowledge, but also a faculty of retaining it――which is properly called
Memory. 3. The reproductive faculty enables us to recall our knowledge
out of memory into consciousness; it is the power which regulates
the succession of our thoughts, or the laws of mental association.
4. But the general capacity of knowledge renders it requisite that,
besides the power of evoking out of unconsciousness one portion of our
retained information in preference to another, we have the faculty of
representing in consciousness what is thus evoked; and this is effected
by the representative faculty, Imagination. 5. The four preceding
faculties, or varied acts of acquisition, conservation, reproduction,
and representation, form, as it were, a subsidiary class of faculties,
furnishing the materials to a higher faculty, which elaborates
these; this is the Elaborative faculty, Comparison, or the faculty of
relations; and its chief functions are conception, judgment, reasoning,
abstraction, and generalisation. 6. The last of the faculties of
cognition he called the Regulative faculty――reason or common sense,
under which is included all notions, principles, and laws, not derived
from experience, but native to the mind, being at once the laws
which govern the mind and afford the conditions of its capacity of
knowledge.¹
¹ Volume II., pages 10‒26.
His treatment of perception is somewhat marred by his rather vehement
polemic with Dr. Brown; yet his own doctrine may be disentangled from
the discussions with which it is mixed up. He is distinguished both as
a historian and critic of the theories of perception; but, leaving the
historical points as much as possible out of account, his own theory of
perception, and his doctrine of Natural Realism, is as follows:――
“The question to be determined is this, Is our perception, or our
consciousness of external objects, mediate or immediate?” He gives
a general historical account of the views of philosophers touching
this subject, discusses and criticises them, with much acuteness and
great ability; the objections to natural realism are canvassed; and
finally, he takes up the consideration of the general questions of the
relation of the senses to the external world, with special reference
to the views of Dr. Reid, Stewart, and Dr. Brown. The discussion
occupies nearly nine lectures, and the same subject is treated in his
Discussions, and in the Supplementary Dissertations to Reid’s works.¹
¹ I originally intended to present a more detailed account of
Hamilton’s views concerning the theories of perception, and
other points, but want of space has forced me to relinquish
this.
He explains his own doctrine thus: “The only object ever perceived is
the object in immediate contact――in immediate relation with the organ.
What Reid and philosophers in general call the distant object, is
wholly unknown to perception; by reasoning we may connect the object
of perception with certain antecedents――certain causes, but these, as
the result of inference, cannot be the object of perception. The only
objects of perception are in all senses equally immediate. Thus the
object of my vision at present is not the paper or letters at a foot
from my eye, but the rays of light reflected from these upon the retina.
The object of your hearing is not the vibrations of my language, nor
the vibrations of the intervening air; but the vibrations determined
thereby in the cavity of the internal ear, and in immediate contact
with the auditory nerves. In both senses, then, the external object
perceived is the last effect of a series of unperceived causes. But
to call these unperceived causes the object of perception, and to call
the perceived effect, the real object, only the medium of perception,
is either a gross error or an unwarranted abuse of language. My
conclusion is, therefore, that in all the senses, the external object
is in contact with the organ, and thus, in a certain signification, all
the senses are only modifications of touch. This is the simple fact,
and any other statement of it is either the effect or the cause of
misconception.
“In the second place――in relation to the number and consecution of
the elementary phenomena――it is, and must be, admitted, on all hands,
that perception must be preceded by an impression of the external
object on the sense.... On this point there can be no dispute. But
the case is different in regard to the two following. It is asserted
by philosophers in general: (1) That the impression made on the organ
must be propagated to the brain, before a cognition of the object takes
place in the mind,――in other words, that an organic action must precede
and determine the intellectual action; and (2) That sensation proper
precedes perception proper. In regard to the former assertion, if
by this were only meant, that the mind does not perceive external
objects out of relation to its bodily organs, and that the relation
of the object to the organism, as the condition of perception, must,
therefore, in the order of nature, be viewed as prior to the cognition
of that relation, no objection could be made to the statement. But if
it be intended, as it seems to be, that the organic affection precedes
in the order of time the intellectual cognition, of this we have no
proof whatever. The fact as stated would be inconsistent with the
doctrine of an intuitive perception: for, if the organic affection were
chronologically prior to the act of knowledge, the immediate perception
of an object different from our bodily senses would be impossible,
and the external would thus be represented only in the subjective
affections of our own organism. It is, therefore, more correct to hold,
that the corporeal movement and the mental perception are simultaneous
after the bodily has terminated,――in place of holding that the mind is
connected with the body only at the central extremity of the nervous
system, it is more simple and philosophical to suppose that it is
united with the nervous system in its whole extent.”
Touching the latter assertion, that a perception proper is always
preceded by a sensation, though maintained by Reid and Stewart, is
more erroneous than the former assertion concerning the precedence of
an organic to a mental action. In fact, sensation and perception both
exist only as they co-exist. “They do not, indeed, co-exist in the same
degree of intensity, but they are really equally original; and it is
only by an act, not of the easiest abstraction, that we are able to
discriminate them scientifically from each other.”¹
¹ Volume II., pages 185‒189.
The following is a concise statement of his doctrine of Natural
Realism:――1. In an act of external perception, “I am conscious of
myself as the perceiving subject, and of an external reality as the
object perceived, and I am conscious of both existences in the same
indivisible moment of intuition. 2. The knowledge of the subject does
not precede nor follow the knowledge of the object; neither determines,
neither is determined by, the other. 3. The two terms of correlation
stand in mutual counterpoise and equal independence; they are given
as connected in the synthesis of knowledge, but as contrasted in the
antithesis of existence. 4. Consciousness declares our ♦knowledge of
material qualities to be intuitive. Nor is the fact, as given, denied
even by those who disallow its truth. So clear is the deliverance,
that even the philosophers who reject an intuitive perception find it
impossible not to admit that their doctrine stands decidedly opposed
to the voice of consciousness, and the natural conviction of mankind.”
5. This doctrine of Natural Realism is partly supported upon the
distinction of the qualities of matter.¹
♦ “knowlege” replaced with “knowledge”
¹ _Discussions_, pages 53‒54; also his _Dissertations to
Reid’s Works_. In short, his _Dissertations to Reid_
contain a body of valuable philosophical and critical matter
relating to the science of the mind. He has endeavoured to
present an exhaustive classification of all the possible
theories of perception, and his distinctions, explanations,
and critical remarks are admirable specimens of logical
power and historic genius. This is especially applicable to
his important dissertations on the “Qualities of Matter,” of
which I had prepared an abstract, and regret that I cannot
afford space for it.
Sir William himself says, “that Natural Realism and Absolute
Idealism are the only systems worthy of a philosopher;
for, as they alone have any foundation in consciousness,
so they alone have any consistency in themselves.... The
scheme of Natural Realism may be ultimately difficult, for,
like all other truths, it ends in the inconceivable; but
Hypothetical Realism, in its origin, in its development, in
its result, although the favourite scheme of philosophers,
is philosophically absurd.”――_Dissertations to Reid_, Note
C, page 817.
Having explicated two of the fundamental peculiarities of Hamilton’s
system――his view of the end of speculation, and natural realism――I
resume the exposition of his views of the cognitive faculties.
Through the powers of internal and external perception, we are enabled
to acquire information, experience; but this acquisition is not of
itself independent and complete. It supposes that we are also able to
retain the knowledge acquired, as we cannot be said to obtain what we
are unable to keep. Thus the faculty of acquisition is only realised
through the faculty of memory. We have here two distinct elementary
phenomena, each depending on the other for its realisation; for without
a power of acquisition a power of retention could not be exerted, and
without the latter the former would be fruitless, for we should lose
as fast as we acquired. Further, the faculty of acquisition would be
ineffective without the faculties of reproduction and imagination, for
though the mind retained beyond the sphere of consciousness a treasury
of knowledge, this would be of no avail, if it did not possess the
power of reproducing and representing such knowledge in consciousness.
Although the faculty of memory would be fruitless without the faculties
of reproduction and imagination, we are not to confound these faculties,
or to view the act of mind which is their joint result, as a simple
and elementary power; while they mutually depend on each other, the
faculties of memory, reproduction, and imagination are governed by
different laws, and in different individuals are found to vary greatly
in their comparative vigour.¹
¹ Volume II., pages 205‒207. Further on he says: “By memory,
you will see, is only meant the condition of reproduction;
and it is, therefore, evident that it is only by an
extension of the term, that it can be called a faculty, that
is, an active power ... it ought perhaps to receive rather
the appellation of a capacity” (page 209).
Touching memory, Hamilton held that all mental energies must persist
and endure; we never wholly lose them, but they become obscure. It is
only the more vivid changes which sufficiently affect our consciousness
to become objects of its apprehension. Thus we are only conscious
of the more prominent series of changes in our mental states; the
others remain mostly latent. The law of retention extends over all
the phenomena of mind. Hence a good memory is one main condition of
reproduction.
There is probably no mental power in which such extreme differences
appear in individuals as in memory. In a good memory two chief
qualities are requisite――the capacity of retention and the power of
reproduction.¹ To the latter I now proceed.
¹ Volume II., pages 211‒218. I may state that at one period I
could repeat a sermon or a lecture the morning after hearing
it. Although I state the fact of my own experience, I do not
at all approve of such stretches of verbal memory, and many
years ago I ceased from making any such efforts, and instead
cultivated the reproductive and representative faculties.
By the faculty of reproduction, Hamilton meant the process of awakening
that which is lying dormant in the memory, as contra-distinguished
from the representation of it in consciousness as awakened. He was not
satisfied with the term reproductive, because it did not precisely of
itself mark what he wished to express. And he was right; for no single
term could be chosen which would exactly mark the process and at the
same time distinguish it from another closely related process as he
wished. “I am not satisfied, I say, with the term reproduction for the
process by which the dormant thought or affection is aroused, for it
does not clearly denote what it is intended to express....
“The phenomena of reproduction is one of the most wonderful in the
whole compass of psychology, and it is one in the explanation of which
philosophers have been more successful than in almost any other....
The faculty of reproduction is governed by the laws which regulate
the association of the mental train, or, to speak more correctly,
reproduction is nothing but the result of these laws. Everyone
is conscious of the ceaseless succession of thoughts, one thought
suggesting another, which again is the cause of exciting a third,
and so on. In what manner, it may be asked, does the presence of any
thought determine the introduction of another? Is the train subject to
laws, and, if so, by what laws is it regulated?”
He gives, as usual, an indication of the views of other philosophers
touching the laws of mental association, and he himself endeavoured to
carry up all the laws of association into the “law of redintegration,”
which he announced thus:――“Those thoughts suggest each other which had
previously constituted parts of the same entire act of cognition. Now,
to the same entire or total act belong, as integral or constituent
parts, in the first place, those thoughts which arose at the same time,
or in immediate consecution; and in the second, those thoughts which
are bound up into one by their mutual affinity. Thus, therefore, the
two laws of simultaneity and affinity are carried up into unity in the
higher law of redintegration of totality; and by this one law the whole
phenomena of association may be easily explained.”¹
¹ Volume II., pages 227‒229, 231‒238. In one of his
_Dissertations to Reid_, Hamilton gives a “Contribution
towards a history of mental suggestion or association;”
this, however, deals chiefly with the views of Aristotle and
Themistitus. But he also presents an outline of a “theory
of mental reproduction, suggestion, or association,” setting
forth his own views. The outline is more developed in
thought than what is given in his lectures, but it was left
incomplete.
I. In it he distinguishes the general laws of mental
succession from those of reproduction proper; and of this
class he specifies five laws――1. The law of succession. 2.
The law of variation. 3. The law of dependence or determined
consecution. 4. The law of relativity or integration. 5. The
law of intrinsic or objective relativity; under this head he
would also include the law of the conditioned.
II. General laws of mental succession, as of reproduction
proper――1. The law of repetition. 2. The law of
redintegration. 3. The law of preference.
III. Special laws of mental suggestion――1. The law of
similars. 2. The law of contrast. 3. The law of coadjacency.
Herbert Spencer, following some of the lines indicated by Hamilton,
insists that the cohering of impressions with previously experienced
impressions of the same class is the sole law of association. This is
not the only principle which the evolution philosophy has adopted from
Sir William’s writings; the cast of Hamilton’s intellect itself was
essentially evolutionary.
Hamilton shows that the processes of representation and reproduction
are closely related; though they are discriminated by differences
quite decisive. Reproduction operates, in part, at least, out of
consciousness; while representation is only realised as far as it is
realised in consciousness, the vivacity of the representation being
always in proportion to the vivacity of our consciousness of its
reality. The energies of representation and reproduction are not always
exerted by the same individual in equal intensity, any more than the
energies of reproduction and retention.¹
¹ “Some minds are distinguished by a higher power of
manifesting one of these phenomena; others for manifesting
another; and as it is not always the person who forgets
nothing who can most promptly recall what he retains, so
neither is it always the person who recalls most easily
and correctly who can exhibit what he remembers in the
most vivid colours. It is to be recollected, however, that
retention, reproduction, and representation, though not in
different persons of the same relative vigour, are, however,
in the same individuals, all strong or weak in reference
to the same class of subjects. For example, if a man’s
memory be more peculiarly retentive of words, his verbal
reminiscence and imagination will, in like manner, be more
particularly energetic.” (Volume II., page 260.)
According to Hamilton’s view of the fundamental processes of the mind,
the function of representation is simply the energy of the mind in
holding up to its contemplation what it is determined to represent.
But he distinguishes as essentially different, the representation, and
the determination to represent; for the reproductive faculty is the
immediate source whence the representative receives both the material
and the determination to represent; and the laws which control the
reproductive faculty also control the representative. So if there were
no other laws in the combination and construction of thought than those
of association, the representative faculty would be solely determined
in its manifestation by the reproductive faculty; but comparison――the
faculty of relations also comes into operation. Comparison plays
an important part in determining in what combinations objects are
represented. By its aid, the complex groups of phenomena called up
by the representative faculty undergo various operations; they are
separated into parts, analysed into elements; and these parts and
elements are again compounded and combined in innumerable ways. While
in all this, the representative faculty――imagination co-operates; as it
first exhibits the facts as called up by the laws of association; it
then exhibits them as variously arranged by the analysis and synthesis
of the comparative faculty, thus acting as a subsidiary both to the
reproductive and elaborative faculties. Still, in these operations the
imaginative power is often the most active element in the process; it
is a condition of the analytic operations, as it holds up the objects
in a vivid light to the analytic grasp, that it may observe the various
circumstances of relation, and the new reconstruction――the result of
its own elaboration.
A vigorous power of imagination――of representing objects, is
indispensable in every department of thought; but there are many kinds
and degrees of imagination. There is the imagination of abstraction,
representing to us certain phases of an object to the exclusion of
others; the imagination of reason, which represents a principle in
connection with its consequences, the effect in dependence on its
cause; the imagination of feeling, which represents the accessory
images allied to some particular sentiment, which thus confer on it
greater compass and intensity; the imagination of the passions, and
so on.¹
¹ Volume II., pages 263‒266. Hamilton holds, that the organs
which imagination employs in the representation of sensible
objects, are the organs of sense themselves, on which the
original impressions were made, and through which they were
originally perceived. This is the same as Hobbes’ view.
He discusses the elaborative faculty――comparison, or faculty of
relations, at length, and in an exceedingly interesting style, under
the heads of classification, abstraction, generalisation, judgment,
and reasoning. A class of subjects which form the transition from
psychology to logic, from the analysis and laws of the mental phenomena,
“to the science of thought as thought.” In connection with these, he
discusses, in his usual historic form, the interesting subjects of
nominalism and conceptionalism, and also the curious question as to
“the primum cognitum,” the first cognition, as it was called in the
schools. The latter question assumes this character, Does language
originate with general names or proper names? Did mankind in the
evolution of language, and do children in their first applications
of it, begin with general terms or with particular words; or, in
other words, does knowledge begin with general notions, or particular
notions? There are many illustrious philosophers on each side of the
question. Hamilton himself held that our knowledge neither begins
with the general nor the particular, but with the vague and confused,
and thence proceeds by degrees to evolve both the general and the
particular.¹
¹ Volume II., page 279.
The reduction of complicated processes to greater simplicity, or to a
single principle, was a marked feature of Hamilton’s intellect; and the
following statement touching comparison is an instance in point. “In
opposition to the views hitherto promulgated in regard to comparison,
I will show that this faculty is at work in every, the simplest, act of
mind; and that from the primary affirmation of existence in an original
act of consciousness to the judgment contained in the conclusion of
an act of reasoning, every operation is only an evolution of the same
elementary process,――that there is a difference in the complexity,
none in the nature of the act; in short, that the various products
of analysis and synthesis, of abstraction and generalisation, are all
merely the results of comparison, and that the operations of conception
or simple apprehension, of judgment, and reasoning, are all only acts
of comparison, in various applications and degrees.”¹
¹ Volume II., pages 319, 335.
He proceeds to develop and to prove this view of comparison. The
process of classification is simply an act of comparison, determined
by the necessities of the mind――the nature and limits of its powers.
In classifying, the mind greatly depends on language for its success,
on general names, general and abstract terms, which are used to
denote complex and abstract notions. Abstraction, or rather exclusive
attention to a particular object or quality of an object, is evidently
the work of comparison; it is a process quite familiar to the most
uncultured minds. Generalisation is dependent on abstraction, and
supposes it; but abstraction does not involve generalisation. It is
the process through which we obtain general notions and ideas; thus
the points in which a number of objects or things agree, having been
discovered, we arrange them by these common points of agreement or
similarity, into classes; and from the lowest class ascending step by
step till we reach at the highest class.¹
¹ Volume II., pages 279‒283, 293‒295.
Under the last of the special faculties of cognition――the regulative
faculty, which is not, properly speaking, an active faculty――he
included those primary notions of intelligence or common sense,
variously designated as the fundamental principles of intelligence,
laws of thought, necessary cognitions, primary data of consciousness.
“There are cognitions in the mind which are not contingent,――which
are necessary, which we cannot but think, which thought supposes as
its fundamental condition. These cognitions, therefore, are not mere
generalisations from experience. But if not derived from experience,
they must be native to the mind.... These native――these necessary
cognitions, are the laws by which the mind is governed in its
operations, and which afford the conditions of its capacity of
knowledge. These necessary laws, or primary conditions of intelligence,
are phenomena of a similar character; and we must, therefore,
generalise them or collect them into a class; and on the power
possessed by the mind of manifesting these phenomena, we may bestow
the name of the Regulative Faculty.”
It should be observed that the primary and necessary notions of
the mind here announced as the laws which afford the conditions
of knowledge, are embodied by Hamilton in his philosophy of the
conditioned. He recognised a considerable number of primary or ultimate
notions and principles; but did not pretend to give an exhaustive and
complete enumeration of such notions. What he really did, was to argue
that there was such a class of notions and principles, and actually
employed a certain number of them in the construction of his psychology,
his philosophy of the conditioned, and his logic.
With regard to the essential characteristics for discriminating the
principles of common sense――the original data of consciousness, he
says: “These characters, I think, may be reduced to four: (1) Their
incomprehensibility, (2) their simplicity, (3) their necessity and
absolute universality, (4) their comparative evidence and certainty.”¹
¹ Hamilton’s _Reid_, page 754.
What has just been stated, taken in connection with what was said
before, of the immediate facts of consciousness, and the intuitive
character of perception, will be sufficient to indicate Hamilton’s
view of the primary and ultimate notions of the mind. Thus far I have
signalised three of the fundamental and distinctive principles of his
philosophy. But to complete the exposition of his psychology, it is
requisite to notice briefly his treatment of the feelings.
These, the second great class of mental phenomena, in his
classification, is not exhaustively treated; but so far it is
satisfactory, and exceedingly interesting. He devoted six lectures to
the feelings, one of which is occupied with an historical account of
the theories of pleasure and pain. His classification and division of
the feelings may be indicated thus:
I. First, sensations――the five senses and organic sensations. II. The
sentiments and internal feelings: first, the contemplative, subdivided
into (1) those of the subsidiary faculties, including those of
self-consciousness, and (2) those of imagination, order, symmetry,
unity in variety; (3) those of the elaborative faculty, wit, the
pleasures of truth and science, and the gratification of adapting means
to ends; (4) beauty and sublimity springing from the conjoint energy
of the imagination and the understanding. III. The practical feelings
relate to (1) self-preservation――hunger and thirst, loathing, sorrow,
bodily pain, anxiety, etc.; (2) the enjoyment of our existence; (3) the
preservation of the species; (4) the tendency towards development and
perfection; and (5) moral law.
He delivered a theory of pleasure and pain, and applied it to explain
this general mental phenomena; in other words, he considered the
feelings as causes――causes of pleasure and pain; and he then considered
them as effects, or products of the action of our different powers. The
scope of his standpoint is thus stated by himself:――
“What are the general conditions which determine the existence of pain;
for pleasure and pain are the phenomena which constitute the essential
attribute of true feeling, under all its manifestations?... I shall,
first of all, state the abstract theory of pleasure and pain, in
other words, enounce the fundamental law by which these phenomena are
governed, in all their manifestations.” Under the ninth and last head
of his theory, the following is enounced:――“Pleasure is thus the result
of certain harmonious relations――of certain agreements; pain, on the
contrary, the effect of certain unharmonious relations――of certain
disagreements. The pleasurable is, therefore, not inappropriately
called the agreeable; the painful, the disagreeable; and in conformity
to this doctrine, pleasure and pain, may be thus defined:――Pleasure is
a reflex of the spontaneous and unimpeded exertion of a power, of whose
energy we are conscious. Pain a reflex of the overstrained or repressed
exertion of such a power.” As already stated, he illustrates the
application of his theory in the explanation of pleasure and pain at
some length,¹ with keen insight and rare breadth of view. In the two
last lectures, he treats the feelings as effects――as products of the
action of our different powers; and thus considered, his exposition is
often very happy.
¹ Volume II., pages 434‒440, _et seq._
Hamilton’s Philosophy of the Conditioned is simply an attempt to
systematise the conditions of the thinkable, in the form of an Alphabet
of human thought. In its fundamental conception it is restrictive and
conservative. Probably he was as well informed and aware of the many
aberrations of human thought and speculation as any man that ever lived;
and he was fully cognisant of the systems and speculations of those
philosophers who had pretended to walk through the dark mountains of
eternity and infinity without stumbling, and to return with positive
knowledge. Knowing this, he was, therefore, well entitled to make an
effort to lay down the conditions and limits of human thought; and thus
he has done great service to real philosophy, to science, and mankind.
He grounded his own theory of the Conditioned upon the recognised
laws of identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle, and the law of
relativity. Thus when he speaks of the Conditioned it is in special
reference to relativity; and by existence conditioned is meant
existence thought under relation. Relation may be understood to
contain all the categories and forms of positive thought. We should
not, however, think it as a law of things, but simply as a law of
thought; for we find that there are contradictory opposites, one of
which, by the rule of Excluded Middle, must be true, but neither of
which can be positively thought, as possible. Thinking, under this
condition, is synthetic. The condition of Relativity is brought to bear
under three principal relations: the first springs from the subject
of knowledge――the mind thinking, the relation of knowledge; the second
and third from the object of knowledge――the thing thought about, the
relations of Existence.
1. The relations of knowledge are those arising from the reciprocal
dependence of the subject and of the object of thought, self and
not-self――subjective and objective. Everything that comes into
consciousness is thought by us, either as belonging to the mental
self exclusively, or as belonging to the not-self exclusively, or as
belonging partly to both.
2. The relations of Existence arising from the object of knowledge
are twofold; as the relation is either Intrinsic or Extrinsic. As the
relation of Existence is Intrinsic, it is that of Substance and Quality.
It may be called qualitative. But, as the relation of Existence is
Extrinsic, it is threefold; and as formed by three kinds of quantity,
it may be called quantitative. It is realised in or by: (1) Protensive
quantity, or time; (2) Extensive quantity, Extension or Space; (3)
Intensive quantity, or degree.
3. Time, or protensive quantity, called also Duration, is a necessary
condition of thought; and it may be considered both in itself and in
the things which it contains.
Considered in itself, Time is positively inconceivable, if we attempt
to construe it in thought; on the one side, as absolutely commencing or
absolutely terminating, or on the other, as infinite or eternal. It is
positively conceivable, if conceived as an indefinite past, present,
or future; and as an indeterminate mean between the two unthinkable
extremes of an absolute least and an infinite divisibility: for thus
it is relative.
Things in Time are either coinclusive or coexclusive. Things
coinclusive, if of the same time, are identical, apparently and in
thought; if of different times, as causes and effect, they appear
as different, but are thought as identical. Things coexclusive are
mutually either prior and posterior, or contemporaneous.
The impossibility we experience of thinking as non-existent,
non-existent, consequently, in time, aught which we have conceived as
existent,――this impossibility affords the principle of Causality, which
will be subsequently explained.
Time applies to both Substance and Quantity; and includes the other
quantities, Space and Degree.
4. Space, extension or extensive quantity, is likewise a necessary
condition of thought; and may also be considered, both in itself and
in the things which it contains.
Considered in itself, Space is positively inconceivable: as a whole,
either infinitely unbounded, or absolutely bounded; as a part, either
infinitely divisible, or absolutely indivisible. Space is positively
conceivable, as a mean between these extremes; that is, we can think
it either as an indefinite whole, or as an indefinite part. For thus it
is relative.¹ So much touching the foundation of the philosophy of the
Conditioned.
¹ _Discussions_, pages 577‒582.
He enounced the Law of the Conditioned thus:――“All positive thought
lies between two extremes, neither of which we can conceive as
possible, and yet, as mutually contradictory, the one or the other
must necessarily be true.”¹ We have already seen that we cannot think
past time as beginning to be; on the other hand, we cannot conceive it
going backwards without limit――eternity baffles our imagination. But
time either had a beginning or it had not. So of space, we are unable
to conceive space as finite or bounded; we are equally powerless to
realise in thought an idea of infinite space. “You may launch out
in thought beyond the solar walk, you may traverse in fancy over the
universe of matter, and rise from sphere to sphere in the regions
of empty space, until imagination sinks exhausted;――with all this
what have you done? You have never got beyond the finite, you have
attained at best only to the indefinite, and the indefinite, however
expanded, is still always the finite.... The infinite is infinitely
incomprehensible.” Thus the conceivable or the thinkable “lies always
between two inconceivable extremes, as illustrated by every other
relation of thought.”²
¹ _Discussions_, page 591; also Reid’s _Works_, page 911.
Hamilton states the Law of the Conditioned repeatedly in his
different writings; and some of its positions are stated at
greatest length in the second volume of his _Lectures_.
² _Discussions_, page 591; _Lectures_, Volume II., pages
366‒372.
The chief applications of the Law of the Conditioned are to the
principles of substance and causality: and taking substance first,
which he has not treated with much detail. We cannot think a quality
existing entirely in or of itself. We are constrained to think it as
inhering in some substance; but this substance is only conceived by
us the unapparent――the inconceivable correlative of certain appearing
qualities. If we attempt to think it positively, we only think it by
transforming it into a quality or bundle of qualities, which again
we refer to an unknown substance, now supposed for their incognisable
basis. Thus, everything may be conceived as the quality, or as the
substance of something else; but absolute substance and absolute
quality are both inconceivable.¹
¹ _Discussions_, page 580.
The phenomenon of causality is the Law of the Conditioned applied to a
thing thought as existing in time. We cannot know, nor think a thing,
except under the attribute of existence, and existing in time; and we
cannot know or think a thing to exist in time, and think it absolutely
to commence. This imposes on us the judgment of causality. An object is
given to us by our perceptive faculties, as given, we cannot but think
it existent, and existent in time; but to say this, is to say, that we
are unable to think it non-existent,――to annihilate it in thought, and
this we cannot do; for once thinking it to exist, we cannot think it
not to exist. This will be admitted of the present, but probably denied
of the past and future, under the belief that we can think creation or
annihilation. Matter or objects may change their forms in innumerable
ways; but we cannot conceive that there can be an atom absolutely added
to, or taken away from, existence as a whole. Let us try it:――
“We are able to conceive the creation of a world; this indeed as easily
as the creation of an atom. But what is our thought of creation? It is
not a thought of the mere springing of nothing into something. On the
contrary creation is conceived, and is by us conceivable, only as the
evolution of existence from possibility into actuality, by the fiat of
the Deity. Let us place ourselves in imagination at its very crisis.
Now, can we construe it to thought, that the moment after the universe
flashed into material reality, into manifest being, that there was a
larger complement of existence in the universe and its author together,
than the moment before there subsisted in the Deity alone? This we are
unable to imagine. And what is true of our concept of creation, holds
of our concept of annihilation. We can think no real annihilation,
no absolute sinking of something into nothing. But, as creation
is cogitable by us, only as a putting forth of divine power, so is
annihilation by us only conceivable as a withdrawal of that same
power.... In short, it is impossible for the human mind to think what
it thinks existent, lapsing into non-existence, either in time past or
in time future.”¹
¹ _Discussions_, pages 591‒593; _Lectures_, Volume II. pages
400‒406.
He thinks that his theory of causality is preferable to others, because
to explain the phenomenon of the causal judgment, it postulates no
new or express principle, not even a positive power; while it shows
that the phenomenon is only one of a class, it assigns as their common
cause, only a negative impotence. He also thinks that it affords a
philosophical defence of the freedom of the will. He points out the
inconsistencies and contradictions of his predecessors; but he admits
that speculatively we are unable to understand how moral liberty is
possible in man. But practically, our consciousness of the moral law
gives a decisive preponderance to the doctrine of freedom over the
doctrine of fate. We are free in act, if we are accountable for our
actions. That the philosophy of the Conditioned has a real foundation
in the human mind, appears to be evident, when considered in its
relation to the universe. The necessities of its capacities and
faculties of knowledge, their limits and imperfection, as well as the
actual position in which man finds himself in the universe of nature,
all plainly indicate that his powers of knowledge are anything rather
than absolute and infinite. This much may be averred; still, it is open
to anyone to question, if Hamilton’s applications of his own theory
were in all points the most legitimate. I will now proceed to his logic.
He viewed Logic as a formal science, and divided it into pure and
modified. In his lectures on this subject, he proceeds on a definite
and interesting style of exposition; he first states the leading
doctrines in separate paragraphs, and then in a running commentary
explains and illustrates them. The first paragraph is this:――“A system
of logical instruction consists of two parts――(1) Of an introduction
to the science; (2) of a body of doctrine constituting the science
itself.” These he discussed in their order: the introduction to logic
should afford answers to the five following questions: What is logic?
what is its value? what are its divisions? what is its history? what
are the best books on the subject? These questions are treated in a
concise and animated style; and the answer to the first one is given
in his definition of logic, which is this:――“Logic is the Science
of Thought as thought.” But he says that this definition cannot be
understood without a clear exposition of its several parts, which he
proceeds to present.
What he meant by “the laws of thought as thought,” is thus explained:
the term thought is used in two significations, in a wider, and in a
narrower and stricter sense, and it is with thought in the latter
sense――thought proper, that logic is concerned. “All thought is a
comparison, a recognition of similarity or difference; a conjunction or
disjunction, in other words, a synthesis or analysis of its objects....
But thought simply is still too undetermined; the proper object of
logic is something still more definite; it is not thought in general,
but thought considered merely as thought, of which this science
takes cognisance.... What is meant by thought as thought? It is the
recognition of a thing as coming under a concept; in other words, the
marking an object by an attribute or attributes previously known as
common to sundry objects, and to which we have accordingly given a
general name. Logic is properly conversant with the form of thought
to the exclusion of the matter.
“But the limitation of the object――matter of logic to the form of
thought, is not yet enough to determine its province from that of
other mental sciences; for psychology is, in like manner, among other
mental phenomena, conversant about the phenomena of formal thought. A
still further limitation is, therefore, requisite; and this is given
in saying, that logic is the science not merely of thought as thought,
but the laws of thought as thought, ... or the science of the formal
laws of thought, or the science of the laws of the form of thought;
these being three various expressions of the same thing.”¹
¹ _Lectures_, Volume III., pages 3‒26.
He gives further explanations, of which this is one:――“Abstract logic
considers the laws of thought as potentially applicable to the objects
of all arts and sciences, but as not actually applicable to those of
any; concrete logic considers these laws in their actual and immediate
application to the object-matter of this or that particular art or
science. The former of these is one, and alone belongs to philosophy,
whereas the latter is as multiform as the arts and sciences to which
it is relative.”¹
¹ Volume III., page 53.
Abstract logic is divided into pure and modified; and the former he
divides into two parts: (1) The Doctrine of Elements, which are either
laws or products; and (2) Methodology, or the doctrine of Method――the
means of thinking well. Modified logic falls into three parts: (1) The
first treats of the nature of Truth and Error, and of the higher laws
for their discrimination; (2) the second of the Impediments to thinking,
with the means of their removal; (3) the third of the Aids of thinking.
In passing, I may remark that Hamilton’s treatment of modified logic,
although not exhaustive, is exceedingly clear and valuable so far as it
goes. This part of his lectures should be attentively read by those who
wish to cultivate their minds, or to study the laws of criticism and
historical evidence.
The following is his tabular view of the divisions of logic:
{ { i. Doctrine { 1. Noetic: Nomology.
{ { of Elements. {
{ { { 2. Dianoetic: { a. Conception.
{ { { Dynamic. { b. Judgment.
{ I. Pure. { { { c. Reasoning.
{ {
{ { ii. { Clear thinking: 1. Definition.
General { { Method- { Distinct thinking: 2. Division.
or { { ology. { Connected thinking: 3. Probation.
Abstract {
Logic. { { i. Truth and Error: Certainty and Illusion.
{ {
{ { ii. Impediments { 1. The Mind.
{ { to thinking, { 2. The Body.
{ II. Mod- { with { 3. External circumstances.
{ ified. {
{ { iii. Aids or { 1. The Acquisition
{ { Subsidiaries { of Knowledge.
{ { to thinking, { 2. The Communication
{ { through { of Knowledge.
After stating the fundamental laws of thought, he proceeds to the
doctrine of Elements――to the exposition of concepts, judgment, and
reasoning. Five lectures are given to an explication of concepts
or notions: (1) Their general character is described; (2) then
their special objective relation, in regard to quantity; (3) their
subjective relation, in regard to quality; (4) their imperfection;
(5) their reciprocal relation, in regard to the quality of extension
――subordination and co-ordination; (6) their reciprocal relations in
regard to the quantity of comprehension, which are all explained with
remarkable clearness.¹
¹ Volume III., page 137, _et seq._
He expounds his doctrine of judgments in two lectures, and it is in
connection with the quantification of the predicate of propositions
or judgments that Sir William claims to have made improvements on
formal logic.¹ I am aware that his claim, even on this point, has been
disputed since his death, but my limits will not permit me to enter
into a discussion of the subject; yet I think that the varied materials
printed in the second volume of his _Lectures on Logic_ afford the
means of placing it in its true light. Hamilton there notices many
partial anticipations of this doctrine.
¹ In a footnote to his article on Logic, he says:――“It will be
seen from the tenor of the text, that, by the year 1833, I
had become aware of the error in the doctrine of Aristotle
and the logicians, which maintains that the predicate in
affirmative propositions could only be formally quantified
as particular, nay, that Aristotle, in his practice in the
inductive syllogism, virtually contradicts the speculative
precept which he, over and over, expressly enounces for
syllogism in general.... The doctrine of a thorough-going
quantification of the predicate, with its results, I have,
however, publicly taught since the year 1840, at the latest.”
――_Discussions_, page 162.
As already stated, his projected work on logic was never finished. He
introduced, however, several modifications in syllogistic theory, and
signalised various distinctions, tending toward more simplicity, and
constructed an ingenious scheme of logical notation.¹ There can be
no doubt that he spent a considerable part of his life in prosecuting
inquiries connected with logic.
¹ See _Discussions_, pages 614‒620, and the appendices to the
second volume of his _Lectures on Logic_. His final scheme
of logical notation is inserted at the end of this volume.
I can only notice a few points:――
1. “That we can only rationally deal with what we already
understand, determines the simple logical postulate――to
state explicitly what is thought implicitly.
2. “All mediate inference is one――that incorrectly called
Categorical; for the Conjunctive and Disjunctive forms of
hypothetical reasoning are reducible to immediate inferences.
“Mentally one, the Categorical Syllogism, according to its
order of enouncement, is either Analytic (A) or Synthetic
(B). Analytic, if what is inappropriately styled the
conclusion be expressed first, and what are inappropriately
styled the premisses be then stated as its reasons.
Synthetic, if the premisses precede, and, as it were,
effectuate the conclusion. These general forms of syllogism
can with ease be distinguished by a competent notation;
and every special variety in the one has its corresponding
variety in the other.
“Taking the syllogism under the latter form (B), which,
though perhaps less natural, has been alone cultivated by
logicians, and to which therefore, exclusively all logical
nomenclature is relative,――the syllogism is again divided
into the non-figured (a) and figured (b).”――_Discussions_,
pages 614‒616.
3. “Quantity and quality combined constitute the only real
discrimination of syllogistic mood. Syllogistic figure
vanishes, with its perplexing apparatus of special rules;
and even the general laws of syllogism proper are reduced
to a single compendious canon....
“We have shown that a judgment or proposition is only
a comparison resulting in a congruence, an equation, or
non-equation of two notions in the quantity of extension;
and that these compared notions stand to each other, as the
one subject and the other predicate, as both the subject,
or as both the predicate of the judgment. If this be true,
the transposition of the terms of a proposition sinks into
a very easy and a very simple process; whilst the whole
doctrine of logical conversion is superseded as operose and
imperfect, as useless and erroneous.”――_Lectures_, Volume
IV., Appendix, pages 275‒276.
He also wrote very effectively on Education, chiefly on the higher
branches, and in reference to University reform. His views were
comprehensive, enlightened, and liberal, far in advance of his
time. But occasionally he was extremely outspoken and severe on the
prevailing abuses and shortcomings of the Universities. He did not
limit himself to Scotland, but wrote powerfully on the state of the
English Universities, with especial reference to Oxford. He argued
that dissenters ought to be admitted into the public Universities.
Altogether, his articles on education contain a body of varied,
curious, interesting, and valuable information.
To sum up, I have presented a brief account of Hamilton’s psychology
and philosophy; its fundamental principles have been explained. He
taught the doctrine that man, in so far as he is a mean for the glory
of God, must be an end to himself, inasmuch as his perfection and
happiness constitute the goal of his activity. He seemed to value the
pursuit of truth more than its possession, or rather that its pursuit
afforded man more pleasure than its possession, which is quite true.
He embraced the doctrine of intuitive perception――natural realism;
and drew up a scheme of all the possible theories of perception. He
maintained that the human mind possesses native notions, necessary
cognitions, which afford the requisite conditions of knowledge. His
own vast and varied knowledge of recorded thought and philosophical
systems afforded him innumerable instances of the aberrations of
thought, contradictions, and vain presumptions; and so he constructed
his Philosophy of the Conditioned, which indicates the limits of human
thought. He took a strictly formal and limited view of the province of
logic; and upon this conception his exposition of the science is clear
and masterly. He also endeavoured to simplify the common syllogistic
system, and introduced several useful improvements.
His conception of method, his skill and care in arrangement, and
in brief and clear summaries, are admirable; while his powers of
exposition were of the highest order. The style of his lectures is
lighted with a fire and glow of thought and a genuine human feeling
rarely found in philosophical literature.
Hamilton attained a European reputation in his own lifetime, chiefly
through his articles in the _Edinburgh Review_, and his teaching in
the University of Edinburgh. Since his death his writings have had a
considerable influence. He had of course a certain number of direct
followers, very few of whom are now alive. But several other schools of
thought are indebted to Hamilton; and perhaps Herbert Spencer is more
indebted to him for the fundamental conceptions and principles of his
system of philosophy than to any other philosopher. This of course,
mainly refers to Spencer’s _First Principles_, but partly also to
his _Psychology_. On the other hand, Hamilton’s philosophy has been
subjected to severe criticism from various quarters.¹ I can, however,
only mention the fact, and must refrain from entering into any
discussion.
¹ J. S. Mill’s _Examination of Hamilton’s Philosophy_ is
well known, and it is an able and acute work; but I affirm
that Mill did not, in all respects, present a fair and
just estimate of Hamilton. He did not take any account
of the circumstances in which Hamilton was placed; and so
when reckoning up the little that Hamilton had produced
in philosophy in comparison to what he might have done,
and began to seek for reasons to explain this, it never
occurred to him to assign any weight to these circumstances.
Unfortunately Hamilton’s father died when he was an infant;
Mill’s father not only lived to bring him up, but also to
educate him personally, and to cram him with all kinds of
knowledge and science, so that long ere he reached the years
of manhood, he was a prodigy; then, when he came of age,
his father got him into a position in the Indian Office,
where he had only to work a few hours a day. Thus his father
did everything for him that could be done. Mill never knew
the difficulties of finding a post for himself, or the
humiliation of going about seeking employment. Hamilton had
to face a very different career, as he had to struggle hard
for existence, and fight many a battle ere he attained a
position.
But Mill himself avows that he wrote his _Examination of
Hamilton’s Philosophy_ for the express purpose of reducing
his too great reputation, and explicitly declares in his own
_Autobiography_ that it had fully effected its original aim!
Dr. J. F. Ferrier was an intimate friend of Sir William Hamilton,
and at one time he was professor of civil history in the University
of Edinburgh; but in 1846 he was appointed to the chair of moral
philosophy in the University of St. Andrews, which he held until
his death in 1864. When the chair of logic and metaphysics in the
University of Edinburgh became vacant on the death of Hamilton, Ferrier
entered the field as a candidate for it, but he was not successful.
However, in connection with this he published a pamphlet in 1856,
entitled _Scottish Philosophy, the Old and the New_, the new being
his own. In this pamphlet he complained against the town council of
Edinburgh for allowing themselves to be influenced by certain outside
parties in favour of candidates who professed to teach the old Scottish
philosophy in preference to the new. It seems that he was greatly
disappointed when he failed to obtain the Edinburgh chair.¹
¹ In this pamphlet he replied to criticisms on his own
metaphysics, and says:――“It has been asserted that my
philosophy is of German origin and complexion. A broader
fabrication than that never dropped from human lips or
dribbled from the point of pen. My philosophy is Scottish
to the very core; it is national in every fibre and
articulation of its frame. It is a natural growth of old
Scotland’s soil, and has drunk in no nourishment from any
other land.” (page 12).
Ferrier’s _Institutes of Metaphysics, the Theory of Knowing and Being_,
appeared in 1854. It consists of an introduction, partly historical
and partly critical, and three sections, the first of which treats of
the theory of knowledge, the second of the theory of ignorance, and
the third of the theory of being. He adopted the demonstrative method
of exposition, states his propositions and counter propositions in
a series, and reasons them out in a precise and rigorous form. His
thinking is acute, definite, vigorous, and easily followed. In short,
his style is unusually clear, simple, and concise.
Ferrier’s first proposition is headed, “The primary law or condition
of knowledge,” and it is worded thus:――“Along with whatever any
intelligence knows it must, as the ground or condition of its knowledge,
have some cognisance of itself.” This is a very primitive truth,
and he tells us over and over that it is the keystone of his system.
“Looked at in itself, or as an isolated truth, our first proposition
is of no importance; but viewed as the foundation of the whole system,
and as the single staple on which all the truths subsequently to be
advanced depend, it cannot be too strongly insisted on or too fully
elucidated. Everything hinges on the stability which can be given to
this proposition, on the acceptance it may meet with. If it falls, the
system entirely fails; if it stands, the system entirely succeeds. It
is to be hoped that the reader will not be stopped or discouraged by
the apparent truism which it involves. He may think that if the main
truth which this philosophy has to tell him is that all his cognitions
and perceptions are known by him to be his own, he will have very
little to thank it for. Let him go on and see what follows.”
He remarks that if this first proposition is not very clearly confirmed
by experience, it is not refuted by experience; for by no effort can
anyone ever apprehend a thing to the entire exclusion of himself. A
man cannot leave himself altogether out of his account and proceed to
the consideration of the surrounding objects. But experience can only
establish it as a limited matter of fact, and this is insufficient
for the purposes of his subsequent demonstrations. “It is reason alone
that can give to this proposition the certainty and extension which are
required to render it a sure foundation for all that is to follow....
It must be established as a necessary truth of reason――as a law binding
on intelligence universally――as a conception the opposite of which is a
contradiction and an absurdity.
“Strictly speaking, the proposition cannot be demonstrated, because,
being itself the absolute starting point, it cannot be deduced from any
antecedent data; but it may be explained in such a way as to leave no
doubt as to its axiomatic character. It claims all the stringency of a
geometrical axiom, and its claims, it is conceived, are irresistible....
A man has knowledge, and is cognisant of perceptions only when he
brings them home to himself. If he were not aware that they were his,
he could not be aware of them at all. Can I know without knowing that
it is I who know? No, truly. But if a man in knowing anything, must
always know that he knows it, he must always be self-conscious.”
But this had been fully recognised before by the Scottish School. For
there is nothing more explicit in Hamilton, than that consciousness is
the primary, the necessary, and the universal condition of knowing, and
of knowledge. It would be unfair, however, to adduce this as detracting
in any way from the candour and the merit of Ferrier’s work; and I
shall quote a part of what he says regarding anticipations of his own
first proposition:――
“But passing over all intermediate approximations, we find
anticipations of this first principle in the writings of the
philosophers of Germany. It has no claim to novelty, however novel may
be the uses to which these institutes apply it. Kant had glimpses of
the truth; but his remarks are confused in the extreme, in regard to
what he calls the analytic and synthetic of consciousness. This is one
of the few places in his works from which no meaning can be extracted.
In his hands the principle answered no purpose at all. It died in
the act of being born, and was buried under a mass of subordinate
considerations before it can be said to have even breathed. Fichte got
hold of it, and lost it; got hold of it, and lost it again, through a
series of eight or ten different publications, in which the truth slips
through his fingers when it seems just on the point of being turned to
some account. Schelling promised magnificent operations in the heyday
of his youth, on a basis very similar to that laid down in this first
proposition. But the world has been waiting for the fulfilment of these
promises――for the fruits of that exuberant blossom――during a period
of more than fifty years.... Hegel――but who has ever yet uttered one
intelligible word about Hegel? Not any of his countrymen, not any
foreigner――seldom even himself. With peaks, here and there, more
lucent than the sun, his intervals are filled with a sea of darkness,
unnavigable by the aid of any compass, and an atmosphere or rather
vacuum, in which no human intellect can breathe. Hegel had better not
be meddled with just at present. It is impossible to say to what extent
this proposition coincides, or does not coincide, with his opinions;
for whatever truth there may be in Hegel, it is certain that his
meaning cannot be wrung from him by any amount of mere reading, any
more than the whisky which is in bread――so at least we have been
informed――can be extracted by squeezing the loaf into a tumbler. He
requires to be distilled, as all philosophers do, more or less, but
Hegel to an extent which is unparalleled.”¹
¹ Pages 82‒84, 90‒92. Since the above passage was written,
a considerable change has occurred in Scotland with regard
to Hegel. Dr. Stirling’s efforts to explain Hegel are well
known; and Dr. Seth, now Professor of Logic and Metaphysics
in the University of Edinburgh, after criticising the
principle of the Relativity of Knowledge, and generally
commenting unfavourably on Hamilton’s principles, speaks
of Hegel thus:――
“So far as I can see, Hegel alone of all metaphysicians
lifts us completely clear of Relativism. He alone has gone
systematically to work to lay bare the abstractions on
which it depends; and in so doing he has to a great extent
transformed the character of metaphysics, and so rendered
unjust many of the epithets which popular phraseology still
associates with the science.
“We have Hegel’s own word for it that the method is nothing,
unless we bring the whole nature of thought with us....
The Method sums up a thought which may almost be said
to constitute Hegel’s philosophy, and one which, in my
opinion, gives him a signal advantage over all his modern
predecessors.
“The thought in question is primarily a logical principle;
a fact which may partly explain why Hegel made his logic
the centre of his system. It is the principle to which we
have already referred so often, the systematic recognition
of the fact that thought is founded upon difference;
whereas identity had hitherto been the god of the logician’s
idolatry.... I do believe that here we have a principle, not
of arbitrary invention, but drawn from the heart of things,
from the nature of the self-conscious spirit itself....
The essential point in a systematic philosophy is simply
the possession of some outline or scheme, by reference to
which each conception may be judged and receive its place
and meaning. In self-consciousness, Hegel seems to hold
a position, from which, in the nature of the case, it is
impossible to dislodge him.”――Seth’s _Lectures on Scottish
Philosophy_, pages 167, 171, 174, ♦183, 195‒197.
♦ “83” replaced with “183”
His theory of Ignorance seems the most effective section of his
_Institutes_. Its principle is that ignorance is a defect, privation,
or shortcoming; and that there can be an ignorance only of that
which can be known. But Ferrier’s _Institutes_, and also several
dissertations published after his death, are almost entirely occupied
in clearing the ground of prevailing contradictions and inconsistencies
of thought. His own positive views consist of a few remarks and brief
indications.
George Croom Robertson was born in Aberdeen on the 10th of March, 1842.
He was educated at the Grammar School there, and at the University
of Aberdeen, where, after a very distinguished career, he graduated
in 1861 with highest honours in classics and mental philosophy. The
same year he gained the Ferguson Scholarship, in these two subjects,
one of the great prizes open to all Scottish graduates. Subsequent
to this Mr. Robertson pursued his philosophic studies for upwards of
two years at Heidelberg, Berlin, Göttingen, and Paris, where he made
the acquaintance of Trendeleburg, Du Bois, Reymond, Bona Meyer, Lotze,
and other distinguished teachers and thinkers, and profited greatly
by their instruction and intercourse. He returned to Aberdeen in 1863,
and continued to devote his attention to philosophical study.
Having elaborated a number of valuable and interesting notes from his
German studies, he assisted Dr. Bain in the revision and amplification
of his work, entitled, _The Senses and the Intellect, the Emotions
and the Will_, for a second edition. He also aided Dr. Bain in the
ethical part of the excellent manual――_Mental and Moral Science_, and
contributed to it the articles on the Neo-Platonists, the Scholastic
Ethics, Hobbes, Cumberland, Cudworth, Kant, Cousin, and Jouffroy. In
these there is ample evidence of Robertson’s philosophic, critical, and
literary powers, scholarship, and research.
In 1864 he was appointed assistant to Professor Geddes in the
University of Aberdeen, and held the post for two sessions; he also
assisted in teaching the Greek classes. In December, 1866, he was
appointed to the Chair of Mental Philosophy and Logic in University
College, London, and opened his class in January, 1867. He carefully
prepared courses of lectures for his classes on Systematic Psychology,
Ethical Theory, and Logic――inductive and deductive. He mainly directed
his teaching to the elaboration and explication of psychological
doctrines, and the history of philosophy. His knowledge of recorded
thought, and of the great philosophical systems, ancient and modern,
was wide and accurate, while his clear style of stating psychological
doctrines and expository powers were remarkable.
For ten years he was Examiner in Philosophy in the University of London.
He also acted as Examiner in the University of Aberdeen for two terms.
Occasionally he delivered popular lectures at Manchester, Newcastle,
and the Royal Institution, London. For several years he gave the
philosophical course of lectures to the College of Preceptors. He took
an active interest in the business and management of University College,
as a member of the Senate, and subsequently as one of the Senate’s
Representatives on the Council.
In 1874 Dr. Bain originated a proposal for establishing a Quarterly
Journal of Philosophy, and consulted Robertson on the subject. Dr.
Bain desired that Professor Robertson should be editor, and after
consideration he accepted the editorship. Time, however, was required
to obtain the approbation and promise of support from, at least, some
of the eminent living writers on philosophy. Accordingly both made
efforts by personal interviews and correspondence, and they received
sufficient encouragement to make arrangements for the publication.
Under the title of _Mind: a Quarterly Journal of Psychology and
Philosophy_, the first number appeared in January, 1876. Robertson
was editor of _Mind_ for sixteen years, and expended a great amount of
thought and labour upon it. Besides his own original articles, and many
reviews of works on psychology, ethics, and philosophy, he carefully
revised most of the articles contributed by others before they appeared
in the pages of _Mind_. This quarterly publication――the first entirely
devoted in the English language to the discussions of mental philosophy,
has, during the last twenty years, had a considerable influence upon
philosophic thought.
Professor Robertson’s health began to fail twelve years before his
death. During the sessions from 1883 to 1888 he had several times to
employ substitutes for his teaching work in the College. In the later
years of his life he suffered much severe pain, which he bore with
great patience. He resigned his Chair in the College on the 7th of May,
1892. His wife died on the 29th of May, the same year; and he himself
died on the 20th of September following.¹
¹ _Philosophical Remains of George Croom Robertson, with a
Memoir_, 1894. This volume was edited by Dr. Bain and Mr.
T. Whittaker, who had long acted as Robertson’s assistant
in preparing notices for _Mind_.
Owing to weak health in the later part of his life, and his death at
the comparatively early age of fifty, his writings are not voluminous.
Yet they touch on a considerable variety of subjects of much interest,
embracing biography, psychology, and philosophy treated historically
and associated with the characteristics of an elevated and candid
criticism.
He contributed to the _Dictionary of National Biography_ biographies of
George Grote, the historian, and his wife, and two of the historian’s
brothers――John and Arthur. His contributions to the ninth edition of
the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ extended to eight articles, two of which
were historical. One of these dealt with Abelard, the famous lecturer
and teacher of the twelfth century, a very able and interesting article.
Another article was on the remarkable philosopher, Hobbes, a subject to
which he had given much attention, and subsequently treated in a book.
The remaining articles were philosophical, and treated on Analogy,
Analysis, Analytic Judgments, Autonomy, Association, and Axion. All
these are admirable specimens of method, clear thought, polished style,
and lucid exposition of difficult mental processes.
At an early stage of his life he intended to write a large work on
Hobbes, and to treat the subject on comprehensive historic lines.
He rightly formed the conception that Hobbes was an important
historic character, as he lived and wrote in one of the stirring and
revolutionary periods of the history of the Island. He had made some
progress in research and had prepared much material for such a work,
but untoward circumstances of health prevented him from realising his
original conception. He, however, as mentioned before, contributed an
article on Hobbes to the _Encyclopædia_; and in 1886 a volume on Hobbes
appeared as one of the series, entitled _Philosophical Classics for
English Readers_. It is not written on a large scale, yet it is a
compact and excellent treatise. He shows a fine historic insight
into the social and political conflicts of the period, with reference
to their influence upon Hobbes’s views and opinions. Robertson’s
remarkable historic faculty is clearly manifested in this volume.
His appreciation and criticism of Hobbes’ works, and his influence on
subsequent writers, is marked by thoroughness, candour, and accuracy.
The treatise is a model of its kind, and is recognised as the best
existing monograph on the subject.
To conclude, the preceding account of Scottish Philosophy covers
nearly two centuries. The Scottish Philosophers mainly concentrated
their efforts on mental philosophy――the explication of the human mind,
psychology, moral and political science. Their works present a body of
doctrines and reflective thought which are well worth careful study.
For the mind alone constitutes the distinctive glory and dignity of
man. Insomuch, that it is only by the culture of the mind and the moral
sentiments that mankind can hope to attain a more elevated and higher
stage of civilisation.
CHAPTER XL.
_Literature of Scotland in the Eighteenth
and Nineteenth Centuries._
SECTION I.
_Historical Literature of the Eighteenth Century._
AFTER the union various external influences began to touch Scottish
literature. Ere indicating these, and dealing with the eminent
historians of the period, a few of the historical writers who preceded
them may be briefly noticed.
Dr. Patrick Abercromby was descended from the Abercrombies of
Tullibody in Fife, and was born at Forfar in 1656. He was educated at
the University of St. Andrews, and obtained the degree of doctor of
medicine in 1685. His family were supporters of the Stuart line, and he
was appointed one of the physicians of James VII. After the Revolution
of 1688 he lived abroad, but returned to Scotland in the reign of Queen
Anne, and directed his attention to the study of national antiquities.
The first volume of his work, entitled _The Martial Achievements of the
Scots Nation_, was published in 1711, and the second in 1715. This work
is interesting, but it has little historical value.
James Anderson, a son of the Rev. Patrick Anderson, was born in 1662.
He was educated at the University of Edinburgh, and graduated in 1680;
and having subsequently studied Law, in 1691 he became a member of the
Society of Writers to the Signet.
When the question of the Union was stirring the feeling of the Scottish
people, Mr. Attwood, a lawyer, in 1704 issued a pamphlet, in which all
the old claims of Edward I. over Scotland were reasserted. In 1705 Mr.
Anderson published an answer to Attwood’s pamphlet, entitled _An Essay,
showing that the Crown of Scotland is Imperial and Independent_. This
effort was well received in Scotland, while Parliament passed a vote
of thanks and a reward to Mr. Anderson, which was presented to him by
the Chancellor in presence of the Royal Commissioner. Then Attwood’s
pamphlet and others of a similar character were ordered to be burned at
the Cross of Edinburgh by the common hangman. The value of Anderson’s
essay mainly consisted in the important charters attached to it.
In research connected with his essay, he had collected a number
of valuable national documents. He obtained the patronage of the
Scottish Parliament to a plan for engraving and publishing a series
of facsimiles of royal charters prior to the reign of James I., and of
coins and seals from the earliest times to the end of the seventeenth
century. In November, 1706, the Scottish Parliament granted him three
hundred pounds to promote the work, and he proceeded with it. By
the beginning of March, 1707, he had expended this sum and about six
hundred pounds of his own on the work. This was reported to Parliament,
and a majority of the House recommended that the Queen should grant
to him an additional sum of one thousand and fifty pounds. It said,
however, that the money voted to Anderson by the expiring Parliament
was never paid to him, yet he proceeded with the work. In 1728 he died,
leaving his great undertaking unfinished. The year after his death
the plates of the work were sold for £530. At last his work, under
the title of _Selectus Diplomatum et Numismatum Scotiæ Thesaurus_,
appeared, carefully edited by the well-known scholar, Thomas Ruddiman,
who contributed an elaborate preface. At that time the work had much
historical value as a book of reference. Anderson was also the author
of _Collections relating to the History of Mary, Queen of Scotland_,
published at Edinburgh in 1727‒8 in four volumes, which contains a
great number of original documents touching the Marian controversy.
Dr. John Campbell,¹ a son of Campbell of Glenlyon, attained some
distinction as an historical writer. His _Military History of the Duke
of Marlborough and Prince Eugene_ was published in 1736 in two volumes,
and was well received. In 1742‒44 his _Lives of the Admirals_ appeared
in four volumes, which, owing to the interest of the subject, was long
popular. His work, _The Present State of Europe_, was issued in 1750,
and passed through many editions. He wrote a portion of the _Biographia
Britannica_, and contributed a number of articles to the _Modern
Universal History_. His last work was a _Political Survey of Britain_,
published in 1774 in two volumes, which was much admired. He was a
candid and well informed man, and an industrious writer.
¹ Born at Edinburgh in 1707; died in 1775.
Walter Goodal¹ was a native of Banffshire, and was educated at King’s
College, Aberdeen. In 1730 he obtained employment in the Advocates’
Library at Edinburgh, and assisted Ruddiman in the compilation of the
first Catalogue of the Library, which was printed in 1742. When Hume
succeeded Ruddiman, Goodal continued to act as sub-librarian. He was an
ardent Jacobite, and an enthusiastic defender of Mary, Queen of Scots.
He contemplated writing a life of Mary, but ultimately limited his
effort to _An Examination of the Letters said to be written by Queen
Mary to James, Earl of Bothwell_, which appeared in 1754. It is an
important work. His conclusion is that the famous “Casket Letters” were
not written by Queen Mary. The subsequent defenders of the unfortunate
Queen, including Skelton, usually refer with confidence to Goodal’s
conclusion on the Letters as decisive.
¹ Born in 1706; died on the 28th July, 1766.
He published an edition of _Scott of Scotestarvet’s Staggering State of
Scots Statesmen, with Notes_; an edition of _Fordun’s Scotichronicon,
with a Latin Introduction_; and also contributed to _Keith’s Catalogue
of Scottish Bishops_.
Thomas Innes was a native of the Valley of the Dee, Aberdeenshire. He
left Scotland when young, completed his education abroad, and became
a Roman Catholic priest. He is the author of _A Critical Essay on
the Ancient Inhabitants of Scotland_, published in 1729. The preface
extends to fifty pages, and the Essay itself is elaborate, and shows
evidence of much research. His effort has the merit of being the first
that questioned the legendary history of Ireland and Scotland. The
value of his work, however, was not recognised till after his death.
Early in the eighteenth century indications of a literary revival
appeared in Scotland. The awakening influences were mainly native,
though external circumstances partly aided it. The energy and genius
of the Scots under favourable conditions, soon manifested itself in
literature as in other fields of enterprise. The external influence
which aided the literary revival came from English literature, at a
somewhat later stage and in a slighter degree from French literature.
The culture of style became a special object of study, and attempts
were made to acquire the idiomatic expression of classic English
writers.¹
¹ One stimulus of the literary revival was the Clubs
and Societies which were specially formed for literary
conversation and improvement in composition. To promote
these objects, in 1716 the Rakenian Club was instituted in
Edinburgh, and it continued to meet till 1760. In the roll
of its members the names of a number of Scottish literary
men appeared, including ♦Maclaurin, the mathematician; Rev.
Dr. Robert Wallace; Dr. Young, a distinguished physician;
Rev. George Turnbull, author of a work on moral philosophy,
and a treatise on Ancient Painting; Alexander Boswell, a
Lord of Session, and father of Johnson’s biographer. This
Club was pretty successful in disseminating freedom of
thought, taste, and attention to composition. At a somewhat
later time societies with similar or wider aims were formed
in other cities in Scotland. In 1750 the Select Society
projected by Allan Ramsay, the painter, was instituted
in Edinburgh, for the purposes of literary discussion,
philosophical inquiry, and improvement in public speaking.
It continued active for seven years, and amongst its members
were――Hume, Dr. Robertson, Adam Smith, Adam Ferguson,
Lord Kames, Lord Hales, Lord Monboddo, John Home, and
other celebrated men. Dugald Stewart says the Society
produced――“Debates such as have not often been heard
in modern assemblies――debates where the dignity of the
speakers was not lowered by the intrigues of policy, or the
intemperance of faction, and where the most splendid talents
that have ever adorned this country were roused to their
best exertions by the liberal and ennobling discussions
of literature and philosophy.”――_Life and Writings of Dr.
Robertson_, page 15.
♦ “Maclurin” replaced with “Maclaurin”
In the department of history an important change appeared in the
eighteenth century. The critical examination of historical evidence
began to be recognised and applied, and a clearer conception of the
requisites of historical inquiry was shown. Yet it cannot be affirmed
that adequate historic conceptions of the human race were attained by
the historians of the period.
David Hume avowed that he was actuated by a passionate love of literary
fame, which led him to turn aside from philosophical studies and try
his skill in historical composition. In 1747 he formed a resolution
to write some historical work. As he had also a desire to counteract
the prejudice against the Stuart Kings, he resolved to commence his
_History of Great Britain_ with the reign of James VI. With the view
of facilitating his historic studies, in 1752 he assumed gratuitously
the office of Librarian to the Faculty of Advocates in Edinburgh; and
in the Advocates’ Library, amid a rich store of books and historical
materials, he began to write his history. The first volume, embracing
the reigns of James VI. and Charles I., appeared in 1754, the second
in 1757, the third and fourth in 1759, and the fifth and sixth in
1762. The first volume was bitterly assailed by the Whigs, and Hume was
greatly disappointed by the attacks upon his work, and also on account
of its slow sale. In a short time, however, his history became popular,
new editions were issued in rapid succession; and at last Hume was
placed in the front rank of English historians.
Recognising his great abilities, easy circumstances, and the varied
store of historical matter at his command, yet it has to be regretted
that his work is not of high historical authority. He did not reach a
high standard either in research or the accurate statement of facts;
though he was well qualified to estimate every description of evidence,
still he fell into many mistakes. On some important religious and
political subjects, such as the Covenanting struggle, and the period
of persecution in Scotland, Hume was constitutionally disqualified
for forming just views of his suffering countrymen. Having made
these adverse comments on his history, I will indicate some of its
special merits. Looking at the general character of his work, in many
points it is much superior to the annals and compilations of previous
British historians. His sagacity enabled him to sink much of the offal
and draff which encumber the pages of less gifted writers. While he
exhibited a lamentable deficiency in appreciating some of the movements
of the seventeenth century, yet on other occasions the views of
conflicting parties are grasped and estimated with rare fairness, and
presented with much effect. He recognises the importance of literature
and culture, which is specially treated in certain portions of his
history. His narrative is admirable. His style is clear, easy, and
polished.
The following on the character of Queen Elizabeth is a fair specimen
of his style:――“There are few personages in history who have been more
exposed to the calumny of enemies and the adulation of friends than
Queen Elizabeth; and yet there is scarcely any whose reputation has
been more certainly determined by the unanimous consent of posterity.
The unusual length of her administration, and the strong features of
her character, were able to overcome all prejudices; and obliging her
detractors to abate much of their invectives, and her admirers somewhat
of their panegyrics, have at last, in spite of political factions, and
what is more, of religious animosities, produced a uniform judgment
with regard to her conduct. Her vigour, her constancy, her magnanimity,
her penetration, vigilance, and address, are allowed to merit the
highest praise, and appear not to have been surpassed by any person
that ever filled a throne: a conduct less vigorous, less imperious,
more sincere, more indulgent to her people, would have been requisite
to form a perfect character. By the force of her mind she controlled
all her more active and stronger qualities, and prevented her from
running into excess: her heroism was exempt from temerity, her
frugality from avarice, her friendship from partiality, her active
temper from turbulency and vain ambition: she guarded not herself with
equal care or success from lesser infirmities; the rivalship of beauty,
the desire of admiration, the jealousy of love, and the sallies of
anger.”
Dr. William Robertson¹ was a native of the parish of Borthwick, in the
county of Edinburgh, where his father was minister. He was educated
for the Church, and in 1743, was appointed minister of Gladsmuir in
Haddingtonshire; but in 1758, he removed to one of the churches of
Edinburgh. He delivered his first speech in the General Assembly in
1751, which at once produced a marked impression, and was subsequently
the leader of the moderate party in the Church of Scotland.
¹ Born in 1721; died 1793. An interesting account of his life
and writings was written by Dugald Stewart.
His works consist of: (1) _The History of Scotland during the Reigns
of Queen Mary and James the VI._, which appeared in 1759; (2) _History
of the Reign of Charles V._, in three volumes, published in 1769;
(3) _History of America_, (1777); and (4) _A Historical Disquisition
on Ancient India_, a slight sketch, (1791). For the copyright of his
_History of Scotland_, he received £600, and £4500 for his _History of
Charles V._
Shortly after the publication of his _History of Scotland_, he was
appointed principal of the University of Edinburgh, and historiographer
royal for Scotland.
Dr. Robertson was a man of great intellectual power and grasp of
mind, combined with a singularly clear and sober judgment. Guided and
enlightened as his faculties were by a pretty broad and varied culture,
the works which he produced were all stamped with enduring qualities,
and still remain monuments of his industry and genius. Although his
works are not remarkable for exhaustiveness of research, he possessed
in a high degree the rarer qualification of seizing the essential
features of a subject, and presenting them in a lucid and attractive
way. His introductory chapter on Scottish history prior to the birth
of Queen Mary, though only a slight retrospective sketch, is remarkable
for its grasp and luminous view of the subject. It is true that this
period of history is now better understood than it was in his day; yet
with the materials within his reach, he drew a wonderfully accurate
picture of the subject.
His _History of Scotland_ is intensely interesting; the period itself
was a stirring one, full of important, varied, and tragic events;
his narrative is masterly, and his style flowing and clear. The first
volume of his _History of Charles V._, which describes the state of
society in Europe prior to the sixteenth century, is one of the most
valuable parts of his works, and exhibits his highest qualifications
as a historian to the best advantage. Soon after its appearance the
work was translated into French. _His History of America_ is full of
deep interest, presenting a clear narrative teeming with picturesque
features and touching incidents, accompanied with striking and
philosophical reflections, which charmed the literary world. A short
extract from his account of the discovery of America may be given. The
land had been descried about midnight, and great joy was manifested by
the crews of the ships:――
“As soon as the sun arose, all their boats were manned and armed. They
rowed towards the island with their colours displayed, with warlike
music, and other martial pomp. As they approached the coast, they
saw it covered with a multitude of people, whom the novelty of the
spectacle had drawn together, whose attitudes and gestures expressed
wonder and astonishment at the strange objects which presented
themselves to their view. Columbus was the first European who set foot
on the new world which he had discovered. He landed in a rich dress,
and with a naked sword in his hand. His men followed, and kneeling down,
they all kissed the ground which they had so long desired to see. They
next erected a crucifix, and prostrating themselves before it, returned
thanks to God for conducting their voyage to such a happy issue. They
then took solemn possession of the country for the crown of Castile and
Leon, with all the formalities which the Portuguese were accustomed to
observe in acts of this kind in their new discoveries.
“The Spaniards, while thus employed, were surrounded by many of the
natives, who gazed in silent admiration upon actions which they could
not comprehend, and of which they did not foresee the consequences.
The dress of the Spaniards, the whiteness of their skins, their beards,
their arms, appeared strange and surprising. The vast machines in which
they had traversed the ocean, that seemed to move upon the waters with
wings, and uttered a dreadful sound resembling thunder, accompanied
with lightning and smoke, struck them with such terror that they
began to respect their new guests as a superior order of beings, and
concluded that they were children of the sun, who had descended to
visit the earth.
“The Europeans were hardly less amazed at the scene now before
them. Every herb and shrub and tree was different from those which
flourished in Europe. The soil seemed to be rich, but bore few marks
of cultivation. The climate, even to the Spaniards, felt warm, though
extremely delightful. The inhabitants appeared in the simple innocence
of nature, entirely naked. Their black hair, long and uncurled, floated
upon their shoulders, or was bound in tresses on their heads. They
had no beards, and every part of their bodies was perfectly smooth.
Their complexion was of a dusky copper colour, their features singular
rather than disagreeable, their aspect gentle and timid. Though not
tall, they were well-shaped and active. Their faces and several parts
of their bodies were fantastically painted with glaring colours....
Towards evening Columbus returned to his ships, accompanied by many
of the islanders in their boats, which they called canoes; and though
rudely formed out of the trunk of a single tree, they rowed them
with surprising dexterity. Thus, in the first interview between
the inhabitants of the old and new worlds, everything was conducted
amicably and to their mutual satisfaction. The former, enlightened and
ambitious, formed already vast ideas with respect to the advantages
which they might derive from the regions that began to open to their
view. The latter, simple and undiscerning, had no foresight of the
calamities and desolation which were approaching their country.”
William Guthrie, a son of an episcopal minister, was born at Brechin
in 1708. He was educated at King’s College, Aberdeen, and afterwards
proceeded to London to push his fortune. He was for some time engaged
writing as a supporter of the Government, and received from the Pelham
Ministry a pension of £200 per annum. He became a voluminous writer,
and was connected with many literary undertakings. He wrote a History
of England in three volumes, which begins with the Conquest and closes
with the Commonwealth. In 1767 he published a History of Scotland in
ten volumes. His _Historical and Geographical Grammar_ was his most
successful work. It had reached its twenty-first edition in 1810, and
was translated into French. He died on the 9th of March, 1770.
Dr. ♦Smollett, the novelist, wrote a _History of England_, published
in 1758, in four large volumes; but it is not of much historical value.
It was hastily composed without sufficient preparation and study, and
it is full of mistakes and inconsistencies. The portion of this history
from 1688 to the death of George II. has often been printed as a
continuation to Hume’s history.
♦ “Smollet” replaced with “Smollett”
Mr. William Tytler of Woodhouselee, published in 1759 _An Inquiry into
the Evidence against Mary Queen of Scots_, in which he combated the
views advanced by Robertson and Hume, touching Queen Mary. Tytler’s
work is acute and candid, but not at all conclusive. He also rendered
good service to the national literature by his publication of the
Poetical Remains of James I., with a dissertation on the life and
writings of the royal poet.
Dr. Gilbert Stuart was born at Edinburgh in 1742. He is the author
of a _History of Scotland_, a _History of the Reformation_, and a
_Dissertation on the British Constitution_. He also wrote many articles
for periodicals in which he bitterly attacked the works of some of his
contemporaries. His style is florid and flowing, but much affected. He
died in 1786.
In 1771, the first volume of Dr. Robert Henry’s¹ _History of Great
Britain_ appeared, and four others followed at intervals from this date
to 1785. In this work special attention was directed to the state of
the people and domestic manners; but it only came down to the reign of
Henry VIII. The author received for his work £3300; and was rewarded
with a pension from the Crown of £100 a year.
¹ Born in 1718; died in 1790.
Lord Hailes, a son of Sir James Dalrymple, was born in Edinburgh in
1726. He distinguished himself at the Scottish bar, and was raised
to the bench in 1766. He was a man of considerable erudition, an able
lawyer and conscientious judge. He was, moreover, a man of wit, and
had a strong feeling of the comic and ridiculous in human conduct and
character, “which gave a keen edge of irony both to his conversation
and writings.... How much he excelled in painting the lighter
weaknesses and absurdities of mankind, may be seen from the papers of
his composition in the _World and the Mirror_.... In a word, he was
an honour to the station which he filled, and to the age in which he
lived. He died in his 67th year, on the 29th of November 1792.”¹
¹ _Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Lord Kames_, by A. F.
Tytler, Volume I., pages 182‒183; 1807.
The first part of Lord Hailes’ _Annals of Scotland_ was published in
1776, and the second part, which brought the work down to the death
of David II., appeared in 1779. It is a work of very high merit and
historical value, and it has been long well known and esteemed by
historical students. He was gifted with the critical faculty in a
high degree, and the power of discriminating and estimating historical
evidence. Lord Hailes was also the author of a number of legal and
antiquarian treatises; of the _Remains of Christian Antiquity_,
containing translations from the Fathers, etc., and of _An Inquiry
into the secondary causes assigned by Gibbon for the rapid spread of
Christianity_.
Dr. Adam Ferguson’s _Essay on the History of Civil Society_ appeared
in 1766, and his _History of the Progress and Termination of the Roman
Republic_ in 1783. In the first named work, he introduced the method
of studying mankind in groups, and of tracing the gradual progress of
entire societies, or what is now called the science of sociology. As
already stated, Ferguson’s views of the progress of mankind and the
gradual growth of social institutions, approached nearer to the modern
conception of the historical development of the human race than those
of any of his predecessors. In his _History of the Roman Republic_
he showed much careful research, skilful arrangement, and just
philosophical reflections. But his style, though exceedingly clear and
vigorous, is rather compressed and sententious.
Dr. William Russell¹ was a native of Selkirkshire, and raised himself
to literary distinction in the midst of many difficulties. He was the
author of a useful _History of Modern Europe_, of which the first two
volumes appeared in 1779, and three others in 1784, bringing it down to
1763. This history was long popular, and continuations have been made
to it by Dr. Coote and others.
¹ Born in 1741; died 1793.
Dr. Robert Watson,¹ professor of rhetoric in the University of St.
Andrews, is the author of a History of Philip II. of Spain, which was
published in 1776, and was intended as a continuation of Robertson’s
History of Charles V. He also left unfinished a History of Philip III.,
which was completed by Dr. Thomson, and published in 1783.
¹ Born in 1730; died 1780.
Dr. John Gillies,¹ historiographer for Scotland to His Majesty George
III., wrote The _History of Ancient Greece, its Colonies and Conquests_,
which appeared in 1784. It is a work which exhibits historic ability
and research. The sixth edition of it was issued in four volumes in
1820. He was the author also of a _View of the Reign of Frederic II.
of Prussia_; a _History of the World from the Reign of Alexander
to Augustus_, which was published in 1807‒10; and produced English
Translations of Aristotle’s Ethics, Politics, and Rhetoric.
¹ Born in 1747; died 1836.
To his translation of the Rhetoric he prefixed a long introduction in
which, after showing its importance as a work of taste and criticism,
and its connection with Aristotle’s other writings, he opened an
attack on modern philosophy in general, and on the Scottish School in
particular. He animadverts adversely on the views of Adam Smith, Reid,
Lord Kames, and especially on the writings of Dugald Stewart. Their
views he maintained were all wrong, while those of the mighty Stagirite
were alone right.
George Chalmers,¹ a native of Fochabers, in Morayshire, is the author
of a number of works on various subjects. His _History of the United
Colonies, from the Settlement to the Peace of 1763_, appeared in
1780; among his other writings may be mentioned, a _Life of Sir David
Lindsay_, with an edition of his works, and a _Life of Mary Queen
of Scots drawn from the State Papers_. But his greatest work is
_Caledonia_, the first volume of which was published in 1807; other two
large volumes were issued in his lifetime, but it was left unfinished.
This work contains a mass of minute antiquarian details of the early
periods of Scottish history, together with topographical and historical
accounts of the different counties; it embodies a vast collection of
facts and incidents of much value, but there is little method in it,
and his style is not attractive. A new edition of it has recently been
published by Mr. Gardner, which includes a large quantity of manuscript
prepared by Chalmers, but left unprinted when he died, thus completing
the work as far as possible.
¹ Born 1742; died 1825.
Malcolm Laing¹ is the author of a History of Scotland. He was educated
for the Scottish bar, and passed advocate in 1785. In 1800 his _History
of Scotland, from the Union of the Crowns in 1603 to the Union of
the Kingdoms in 1707_, was published. It is an able work, and of very
high historical value. He possessed analytic and critical powers which
enabled him to estimate evidence at its value; and notwithstanding his
strong Whig opinions, and his love of liberty, his historical integrity
is unimpeachable. But he attacked Macpherson, the translator of Ossian,
with unmerciful severity. Though a clear and vigorous thinker, he was
not a great master of historic style.
¹ Born in 1762; died 1818. There are other historical writers
of more or less note, a few of whom I can only briefly
mention. Ruddiman, the eminent Latin grammarian, edited an
edition of Buchanan’s _History of Scotland_, and published
several historical memoirs. Dr. Alexander Adam, rector
of the High School of Edinburgh, is the author of _Roman
Antiquities_ and _A Summary of Geography and History_, etc.
John Pinkerton was a native of Edinburgh, born in 1758,
and died at Paris in 1825. He distinguished himself by the
vehement controversial tone of his historical writings, and
by the obstinacy of his unreasoned notions; still, he was
an industrious collector of forgotten fragments of ancient
history.
His first historical effort was a _Dissertation on the
Origin of the Goths_, in which he enounced the strange
theory which he maintained to the end of his days, namely,
that the Celts of Ireland, Wales, and Scotland are savages,
and have been savages since the world began. He next
produced an _Inquiry into the History of Scotland preceding
the Reign of Malcolm III._, in which he argued at great
length on the history of the Goths, and the conquests which
he asserts they achieved over the Celts in their progress
through Europe. In 1796, he issued a _History of Scotland
during the Reign of the Stuarts_, the most valuable of all
his works. He also edited, but very indifferently, a series
of Ancient Lives of Scottish Saints under the title _Vitæ
Antiquæ Sanctorum Scotiæ_, a revised and enlarged edition of
which has recently been issued.
SECTION II.
_Historical Literature of the Nineteenth Century._
The nineteenth century has been remarkable for an increasing interest
in all departments of historical literature; for more thorough research,
critical examination of evidence, more exhaustive treatment, and withal
a perceptible broadening and deepening of historic conceptions. The
methods of investigating historical subjects, and social phenomena,
have undergone a marked change within the present century; and, as a
consequence, the opinions and the convictions of the people have also
been greatly modified.
Dr. Thomas M‘Crie¹ is best known as the author of the _Life of John
Knox_, and the _Life of Andrew Melville_. The first appeared in 1813,
and has passed through many editions; the second has not been so
popular, though it is an able work. He also wrote _Memoirs of Veitch
and Brysson_, two Scottish ministers and supporters of the Covenant.
He composed able and valuable Histories of the Reformation in Italy and
in Spain, and various other sketches and papers. Dr. M‘Crie was gifted
with a vigorous intellect, and all his writings display much varied and
careful research, and a masterly literary ability. His style is clear,
animated, and easy; and his works are highly esteemed by all students
of history.
¹ Born 1772; died 1835.
Mr. James Mill attained distinction as a historian as well as a
philosopher and a political writer; he was a man of great intellectual
power.¹ His _History of British India_, which was begun in 1806, was
published in 1817‒18, in five volumes, and is probably the ablest work
on our Indian Empire which has yet appeared. His analytic powers and
grasp of principles enabled him to master social phenomena, which less
gifted minds fail to see or to seize.
¹ An excellent account of his life and writings, by Dr. Bain,
has been published.
John Dunlop, Esquire, a Scottish advocate and sheriff of Renfrewshire,
wrote a _History of Fiction_, which appeared in 1814, in three volumes.
It is a work of much merit and value. He also wrote a _History of Roman
Literature_, from the earliest period to the close of the Augustan
age, in three volumes. His latest work was _Memoirs of Spain during the
Reigns of Philip IV. and Charles II._, which was published in 1834, in
two volumes. He died in 1842.
Patrick F. Tytler¹ was the author of a _History of Scotland_, and other
works――chiefly of a biographical character. His _History of Scotland_
embraces the period from the accession of Alexander III. to the union
of the Crowns of England and Scotland in 1603. The first volume was
published in 1828, and the others followed at intervals till the work
was completed in nine volumes. It is a work of high historical value.
His pages evince the results of much original research and great
industry. Many documents and State papers were printed for the first
time in the appendices to the volumes. His style is plain and animated,
but somewhat diffuse and redundant.
¹ Tytler belonged to the family of Woodhouselee, whom I have
already mentioned in a preceding section. In the latter
years of his life be enjoyed a pension of £200 per annum.
He died in December, 1849; and an interesting account of his
life has been published by the Rev. John Burgon, M.A., in
1859.
Sir Archibald Alison was a son of the Rev. Archibald Alison, as already
incidentally mentioned, and was born in 1792. He was educated in
Edinburgh, studied law, and was called to the Scottish bar in 1814. He
was appointed sheriff of Lanarkshire in 1832, and was created a baronet
in 1852. The idea of his _History of Europe_ was conceived when on a
visit to Paris in the eventful year of 1814; and henceforth he devoted
much research and study to its preparation.
The work covers the period from the commencement of the French
Revolution in 1789 to the restoration of the Bourbons in 1815. Its
first instalment appeared in 1833, and the concluding volumes in 1844.
It has since gone through nine or ten editions. It contains a vast
store of facts and details relating to a very important and memorable
period of modern history. In the later years of his active life, he
produced a continuation of his _History_ to the accession of Louis
Napoleon in 1852, in eight volumes, which appeared at intervals from
1852 to 1859. But the continuation is not equal in accuracy and merit
to the earlier history, and some of his peculiar opinions are pushed to
greater extremes. In politics he was a firm Conservative, and a strong
opponent of Free Trade. Sir Archibald died in May, 1867.
Alison’s _History of Europe_, as might be expected in so wide and
great a subject, has merits and defects. His exertions in personal
observation of many of the localities of the events and scenes which
he described, his industry in collecting available materials, and his
patient and careful researches, are great merits, which imparted a
freshness to his narrative and an animation to his descriptions rarely
met with in any history. His mastery of method and arrangement was also
creditable; but on the other hand, his style has often been severely
animadverted on――he has been charged with verbosity and excessive pomp,
with being careless, turgid, and obscure. On the whole, the work has
been exceedingly popular, it has been translated into all European
languages; this, however, may be partly accounted for by the intensely
absorbing interest of the period and the events of which it treats.
Although Alison cannot be called a great historian, still he has
produced an interesting work.
Thomas Carlyle was a noted man of genius and a voluminous writer. He
was a son of a farmer, and born on the 4th of December, 1795, at the
village of Ecclefechan, in Annandale, a beautiful pastoral district,
rich in Border traditions, old castles, and historic associations.
He was educated at the Grammar School of Annan, and the University
of Edinburgh. At the University he was distinguished in mathematics,
and subsequently he acted as teacher of mathematics in Annan, and
afterwards in Kirkcaldy. In 1818 he went to Edinburgh, where he had
the use of the University Library, and he then wrote a number of short
biographies and other articles for the _Edinburgh Encyclopædia_. He
wrote a _Life of Schiller_, and also commenced to translate German
works. In 1824 he translated Goethe’s _Wilhelm Meister_, which was
favourably received. He married Miss Jane Welsh in 1825. She was a
descendent of John Knox, a daughter of Dr. Welsh, Haddington; and
through her Carlyle acquired the small property of Craigenputtoch, in
Dumfriesshire, at which he resided for eight years. In this retired
residence he wrote articles for the _Foreign Review_, and his _Sartor
Resartus_, which first appeared in _Fraser’s Magazine_ in 1833‒34.
Carlyle left Craigenputtoch in 1834 and went to London, and finally
settled in the famous House, Number 5 Cheyne Row, Chelsea. In 1837 he
delivered a series of lectures on German Literature in London, and in
the following year another course on the Successive Periods of European
Culture. Again in 1839 he delivered a course of lectures on the
Revolutions of Modern Europe, and another on Heroes and Hero Worship in
1840. These lectures greatly extended his popularity. The lectures on
Heroes and Hero Worship were published in book form, and widely read.
Carlyle wrote on many branches of literature, embracing critical essays,
political and satirical pamphlets in various forms, and biography and
history. His critical and miscellaneous essays extend to seven volumes,
and treat on many subjects. Some of them are exceedingly good, such as
those on Burns, Edward Irving, Voltaire, Goethe, and others; and the
whole of his essays are characteristic and interesting. His political
views were presented in a pamphlet entitled “Chartism,” published
in 1839, and in another, “Past and Present,” which appeared in 1843.
In these he enunciated some important truths, and made scathing
observations against all shams, cant, formulas, and so on; yet he
has very little to offer in the form of constructive remedies for
the existing evils of society, either political or social. He issued
another series of political tracts in 1850, entitled “Latter-day
Pamphlets,” and in these he appeared as the vehement and irate Censor,
with all the exaggerating peculiarities of his style in greater
profusion. He assumed the characteristics of a mere worshipper of force,
and an ardent advocate of all coercive measures. Improved prisons and
schools for the reform of criminals, poor laws, the churches, the
aristocracy, Parliament, and other institutions, as then constituted,
were all attacked and ridiculed in a scathing style. On some political
points and administrative abuses, however, his bold and stinging satire
was quite justifiable.
It was chiefly in biography and history that Carlyle attained
distinction and fame as a writer. In 1837 his famous work, _The French
Revolution, a History_, was published. It is the best of all Carlyle’s
works, and is a very remarkable book. It presents a masterly and
vivid panoramic view of the Revolution. He exerted his great powers of
description in this work with striking effect.¹ As a specimen of his
style, I will quote the passage on the death of Marie Antoinette:――
¹ A very fair analysis and criticism of Carlyle’s style is
given in the late Professor Minto’s _Manual of English Prose
Literature_.
“Is there a man’s heart that thinks without pity of those long months
and years of slow-wasting ignominy; of thy birth, self-cradled in
imperial Schonbrunn, the winds of heaven not to visit thy face too
roughly, thy feet to light on softness, thy eye on splendour; and
then of thy death, or hundred deaths, to which the guillotine and
♦Fouquier-Tinville’s Judgment-bar was but the merciful end? Look there,
O man born of woman! The bloom of that fair face is wasted, the hair is
gray with care; the brightness of those eyes are quenched, their lids
hang drooping, the face is stony pale, as of one living in death. Mean
weeds, which her own hand has mended, attire the Queen of the World.
The death-hurdle where thou sittest pale, motionless, which only curses
environ, has to stop; a people, drunk with vengeance, will drink it
again in full draught, looking at thee there. Far as the eye reaches
a multitudinous sea of maniac heads, the air deaf with their triumph
yell! The living-dead must shudder with yet one other pang; her
startled blood yet again suffuses with the hue of agony that pale face
which she hides with her hands! There is there no heart to say, God
pity thee! O think not of these; think of Him whom thou worshippest,
the crucified――who also treaded the wine-press alone, fronted sorrow
still deeper; and triumphed over it and made it holy, and built of it
a sanctuary of sorrow for thee and all the wretched! Thy path of thorns
is nigh ended, one long last look at the Tuilleries, where thy step was
once so light, where thy children shall not dwell. The head is on the
block, the axe rushes――dumb lies the world; the wild yelling world and
all its madness is behind thee.”
♦ “Forquier” replaced with “Fouquier”
Carlyle’s collection of Oliver Cromwell’s _Letters and Speeches, with
Elucidations_, appeared in 1845, in two volumes. It is an excellent
work, and a valuable contribution to the historical materials of
the seventeenth century. His own additional Elucidations, historic
and descriptive, are important, and often very characteristic and
interesting.
His _Life of John Stirling_ was published in 1851. It is a warm tribute
by Carlyle to the memory of a personal friend. Stirling was an amiable
and accomplished man, and his friends were much attached to him. He had
written some attractive volumes in prose and verse; and he died in 1844,
in his thirty-eighth year.
Carlyle had been long working on his _History of Friedrich the Great of
Prussia_, and in 1858 the first and second volumes of it appeared, the
third and fourth in 1862, and the fifth and sixth completing the work
in 1865. It is a work evincing great research, admirable descriptions
of battle-fields and historic scenes, vivid and sage remarks on men
and things, and touches of pathos and humour. Yet, viewed according
to a recognised standard, it fails to reach the higher and genuine
characteristics of history; and in truth, it is rather a personal
biography and a glorification of the hero, Friedrich II., enlivened and
widely varied by the writer’s rare genius. If Carlyle was not a pure
worshipper of mere force and might, he had, at least, an excessive
veneration of individual great men――heroism; so he made them the
central conception and wove events and movements around them for their
special glorification, treating other men with scorn, and ignoring
many important historic influences. He scouted the idea of tracing the
relation of causes and effects in history, or the gradual development
of political institutions. For the sake of the central hero, he sums
up an estimate of the eighteenth century thus:――“What little it did,
we must call Friedrich; what little it thought, Voltaire.”
In spite of his veneration of might, and some unreasoned impulses,
he was a great historical biographer. His fine power of description,
insight of character, and the power of seizing reality, the faculty of
discerning and selecting appropriate facts and incidents, and weaving
these into a stirring narrative, enabled him to attain a marked
distinction in this branch of literature. He had many readers and
admirers, and his influence has been widely felt.
He was elected Lord Rector of the University of Edinburgh, and on
the 2nd of April 1866, delivered his installation address. Before
he returned home, his wife died at London, on the 21st of April. His
subsequent writings mostly consisted of short addresses and articles
on the topics of the day; and a _History of the Early Kings of Norway_,
published in 1875. He died on the 4th of February, 1881.¹
¹ His _Reminiscences_, edited by Mr. Froude, were published in
1881, in two volumes.
Dr. John Hill Burton, a native of Aberdeen, was born in 1809; and
having studied law, was called to the bar in 1833. He was a hard
working student, and at an early period of his life, produced a work on
the _Scottish Bankruptcy Law_, and a _Manual of the Law of Scotland_.
He was also the author of a small volume, now much sought after, _On
Political and Social Economy_, published in 1849. He was an exceedingly
industrious writer, chiefly in the field of Scottish history and
biography.
In 1846, his _Life and Correspondence of David Hume_ was published
in two volumes; and the following year, his _Lives of Lord Lovat_
and _Duncan Forbes of Culloden_ appeared. Both works are valuable
contributions to the historic literature of Scotland. In 1864, his work
entitled _The Scot Abroad_ appeared in two volumes; it consists of an
account of the relations of Scotland and Scotsmen to foreign countries,
and contains many interesting sketches and anecdotes.
His longest work is _The History of Scotland, from Agricola’s Invasion
to the Revolution of 1688_, which appeared in 1867‒70; he had before
written a _History of Scotland from the Revolution to the extinction
of the last Jacobite Insurrection_, which was published in 1853. Thus,
presumably following the example of Hume, he wrote and published the
latest part of his history first.¹ This History is much marred by the
author’s prejudice against the Celtic people of Scotland. A revised
edition of the whole work has been published.
¹ One of Hume’s opponents, who had a waggish turn, once said
that he had written his history backwards.
Besides the important works mentioned above, Dr. Burton occasionally
contributed papers to the _Westminster Review_, _Blackwood’s Magazine_,
and other literary journals, and sometimes articles to the _Scotsman_.
Moreover, he edited several of the volumes of the _Records of the
Scottish Privy Council of the Sixteenth Century_, and wrote a preface
to the first volume. He also contributed many articles to biographical
dictionaries. His last work was a _History of Britain in the Reign of
Queen Anne_, in three volumes, published in 1880. He died in 1881.
The late Robert Blakey was the author of a number of works:――_History
of the Philosophy of the Human Mind_, in four volumes, in which a
pretty complete account of works on philosophy, especially British
works in this department, is given down to about the middle of the
present century. His _History of Political Literature_, published in
1855, in two volumes, is a very useful and interesting work, written
in a clear, animated, and vigorous style.
Dr. William F. Skene was born on the 7th of June 1809. Having studied
for the profession of law, he became a member of the Society of Writers
to the Signet in 1831. After the death of Dr. John H. Burton, Dr. Skene
was appointed Historiographer Royal for Scotland.
He edited a publication entitled _The Four Ancient Books of Wales_,
which appeared in 1868. The work contains an English translation,
rendered by two eminent Welsh scholars, of the Cymric poems, tales, and
romances connected with the early history of Wales. The translation is
from the oldest known Welsh manuscripts, and the work has considerable
historical value. Dr. Skene edited another volume under the title of
_The Chronicles of the Picts and Scots_, which consists of a number of
short pieces, fragments, and some extracts from early Irish chronicles,
to which he wrote a long and interesting preface. He also edited and
wrote introductions to several of the series of volumes known by the
title of _The Historians of Scotland_.
His chief work is the _History of Celtic Scotland_, published in
1876‒81, in three volumes, of which a second edition has been issued.
He announced that this work was designed to ascertain all that could
be extracted from the early authorities; and it may be granted that
when he had written matter to work upon, his conclusions were fairly
satisfactory. He was very industrious and painstaking; but his mind was
narrow and glimmering. He had no philosophic grasp, and very little of
the critical faculty. He shows lamentable defects in the discrimination
and estimation of historical evidence, and seemed to be unconscious
of the value of circumstantial evidence, and its use for limiting,
correcting, or confirming, incomplete and erroneous statements of
facts and events. Thus he often placed too much reliance on fragments
of writings, old chronicles, and traditions. He introduced into his
History a fanciful body, viz., “The Seven Earls of Scotland,” who
enjoyed the privilege of controlling the Kings in early times. In truth,
his _Celtic Scotland_ has been rather much praised. He died in August,
1892.
In a chapter on Scottish historical literature, it seems requisite to
give some account of the Record scholars, and those who have worked
in order to place important historical materials within the reach of
historical students. The first who claims to be remembered is Mr.
Thomas Thomson, the able and careful editor of the _Scots Acts of
Parliament_, and other national records. For many years he worked hard
in the General Register-house in Edinburgh, and under him others were
trained and encouraged by his example in this branch of research. Space
would fail to signalise all those who have followed in the footsteps of
Mr. Thomson, and have rendered valuable service to their country in the
wide field of national records and historical materials.
Mr. Cosmo Innes, a native of the parish of Durris, Kincardineshire,
was an eminent Record scholar and an industrious historical student. He
edited the first volume of the _Scots Acts of Parliament_, containing
all the earliest laws and fragments of legislation of Scotland, several
of the _Old Spalding Club_ publications, and a number of the volumes
printed by the Clubs in the south, all containing valuable historical
materials. He also edited the earlier volumes of the _Facsimiles of the
National Manuscripts of Scotland_, a magnificent work, issued under the
direction of the Record Commission, as well as the first volume issued
by the Burgh Record Society; and spent years of labour in preparing
an exhaustive index to the _Scots Acts_. Mr. Innes was also the author
of three notable works: _Scotland in the Middle Ages_, 1860; _Sketches
of Early Scottish History_, 1861; and _Legal Antiquities_; all these
formed valuable contributions to the history of Scotland.
Another notable man of this class was Dr. John Stuart, a native of the
parish of Forgue, in Aberdeenshire. He was an advocate in Aberdeen,
and for many years acted as the secretary of the Old Spalding Club, of
which he was one of the originators; but for a number of years before
his death, which happened in the summer of 1877, he was employed in the
General Register-house at Edinburgh.
He edited and wrote the prefaces to the well-known work, _The
Sculptured Stones of Scotland_. His prefaces and notes to this work are
admirable specimens of antiquarian research, clear and well reasoned
exposition. To the _Book of Deer_, which he edited, he wrote a long
and very valuable preface. He also edited and wrote prefaces to other
volumes of the Old Spalding Club, including the _Burgh Records of
Aberdeen_.
Joseph Robertson, a native of Aberdeen, born in 1810, also one of the
original members of the Old Spalding Club, was a distinguished Record
scholar; and edited a number of volumes for the Club. But it is in the
work entitled _Statuta Ecclesiæ Scoticanæ_, a collection of the Canons
of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland prior to the Reformation,
that his Record scholarship is fully manifested. The painstaking labour
which he devoted to this work is almost incredible, his research is
both accurate and exhaustive to the minutest detail. His preface to
the work is a monument of scholarship, sound judgment, and historic
elucidation, while the body of notes and illustrations are of deep
interest and great historic value. He is also the author of a history
of the city of Aberdeen, entitled the _Book of Bon-accord_, which
unfortunately he left unfinished. He died in 1866.
The late Dr. David Laing, a gifted and esteemed gentleman, who for long
held the office of librarian to the Writers to the Signet, was a large
contributor to the historic materials of Scottish history. Laing’s¹
efforts were specially directed to the culture and the elucidation
of the literary history of Scotland in the early periods, and to the
history of art. He published some collections of early poetry, and
edited the poems of Hendryson, Dunbar, and Sir David Lindsay; and in
many other ways endeavoured to advance the culture of history and art.²
¹ I have already noticed his service to the nation by his
edition of Knox’s works.――_History of Civilisation in
Scotland_, Volume II., page 346.
² It may be mentioned that Laing, after the death of Dr. David
Irving, edited his _History of Scottish Poetry_, which in
its first form was published in 1804; but Irving seems to
have worked and revised at it almost to the end of his life.
Laing published the work in its final form in 1861, with a
memoir of the author. Irving was also the author of a series
of biographical sketches of eminent Scotsmen.
_The Criminal Trials in Scotland from the end of the Fifteenth Century
to 1624_, carefully edited and ably illustrated by Robert Pitcairn,
W.S., form a valuable contribution to the history of domestic life and
manners. He died in 1855. In this connection, _The Domestic Annals of
Scotland_, by Dr. Robert Chambers, are well worthy of notice. Dr. R.
Chambers was also the author of an excellent _History of the Rising of
1745_, which has passed through eight editions. It is an interesting
and very valuable contribution to our historical literature.
Mr. E. W. Robertson was the author of a work entitled _Scotland under
her early Kings_, published in 1862, in two volumes, which presents
a history of the kingdom down to the close of the thirteenth century.
It shows much research and industry, and commendable exactness of
statement in matters of fact. Mr. Robertson also published a volume of
historical essays in 1872.
Mr. William Mure, of Caldwell,¹ was the author of _A Critical History
of the Language and Literature of Ancient Greece_, published in 1850‒53,
in four volumes. A fifth volume appeared in 1857, but the work was
left incomplete when he died. He devoted a considerable portion of his
history to an examination of the Iliad and Odyssey, and the conclusion
which he arrived at is, that each of these poems was originally
composed substantially as we now possess them. This is a subject
which has engaged the attention of many able classical scholars. Mure
presented an interesting account of the origin and the early history of
Greek prose literature, and a long critical examination of Herodotus.
¹ Born in 1799; died 1860.
George Grub, LL.D., was born in Old Aberdeen in 1812. He was educated
at King’s College, Aberdeen, and graduated in 1829. Having studied
law, he was admitted a member of the Society of Advocates in 1836,
and in 1843 he was appointed Lecturer on Scots Law and Conveyancing in
Marischal College. At the union of the Colleges in 1860, Dr. Patrick
Davidson became Professor of Law, and Dr. Grub was appointed his
substitute. On the death of Dr. Davidson in 1881, Dr. Grub succeeded
him in the Chair. He retired from the professorship in 1891; and died
on the 23rd of September in 1892. He was a very considerate and kindly
gentleman.¹
¹ Robbie’s _History of Aberdeen_, page 490. 1893.
He was one of the original members of the Old Spalding Club, and
edited several of the works issued by it. He is the author of _The
Ecclesiastical History of Scotland_, published in 1861, in four volumes.
It is a work of much merit and research, and remarkable for its candour
and impartiality. His style is plain and clear.
In conclusion, though perhaps all the historical writers have not been
enumerated that might be named, still enough has been given to show
that a considerable amount of effort and talent has been devoted to
history during the last and present century, and that the taste for
this branch of literature has been steadily spreading amongst the
people.
CHAPTER XLI.
_Literature of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries
(continued)_
SECTION I.
_Poetry of the Eighteenth Century._
IN the preceding volumes of this work some account of the ballad
literature and the poetry of Scotland was presented. In the period now
under review, the number of poetical writers had largely increased, and
it should be understood that the poets noticed in the following pages
may not in every case be the ones most worthy of attention. Among them
will be found poets who wrote in English, and others who composed in
their native tongue.
The fierce struggles of the seventeenth century were unfavourable to
efforts of culture of any kind, but during the eighteenth century the
internal condition of the country improved. When Allan Ramsay¹ appeared
as an author, the nation was not altogether unprepared to receive his
humorous and lively sketches of Scottish life. Although he had a keen
literary taste, he applied himself attentively to business, and did
not commence writing till he was about twenty-five years of age. His
writings are pretty various, and consist of comic, satirical, pastoral
pieces, songs, and tales; he sometimes wrote in English, but usually
in Scotch, in which his best efforts appeared. Ramsay’s tales are
very humorous, but occasionally rather indelicate. Some of his songs
were long favourites, such as “The Last Time I came o’er the Moor,”
“Lochaber no More,” and “The Yellow Haired Laddie.”
¹ He was born in the village of Leadhills, in Lanarkshire,
in 1686, his father having died when he was an infant.
Allan remained at Leadhills till his fifteenth year,
and was educated at the village school, where he learned
a smattering of Latin. At the age of fifteen he was
apprenticed to a wig-maker in Edinburgh, at which occupation
he worked for thirteen or fourteen years. He then set up as
a bookseller, and soon embarked in earnest on his literary
career. The Easy Club was founded in 1712, and Ramsay
addressed it in a rhymed effusion. He was a social man, and
to this Club read a number of his early efforts in verse,
which gave him confidence. He died in 1758.
In 1721 he published a collection of his poems, which had before
appeared in leaflets. In 1724 the first volume of his well-known
collection, _The Tea Table Miscellany_, appeared, and was followed at
intervals by other three volumes, which contained some of his own songs.
Soon after he published _The Evergreen_, a collection of Scottish poems
written before 1600, in which he presented as ancient poems two pieces
of his own. In one of these, “The Vision,” he has obviously drawn
inspiration from an Ossianic source, as may be seen in the following
lines:――
“Great daring darted frae his e’e,
A braid sword shogled at his thie,
On his left arm a targe;
A shining spear filled his right hand,
Of stalwart make in bane and brawnd,
Of just proportion large;
A various rainbow-coloured plaid
Owre his left spaul he threw,
Down his braid back, frae his white head,
The silver wimplers grew.”
In 1725, his celebrated pastoral drama, _The Gentle Shepherd_, appeared,
and was received with almost universal approbation; and his fame soon
extended beyond the limits of Scotland. An edition of his poetical
works was published in London, in 1731, and another in Dublin, in 1733.
This drama is Ramsay’s greatest work; its conception and construction
are exceedingly natural. He drew his shepherds from real life, placed
them in scenes which he had seen, and makes them utter the idiomatic
speech of their own native vales and hills. His art is chiefly shown in
the selection of materials, in the grouping of natural and well-defined
characters, in the clear conception of an interesting, natural, and
romantic plot; and in the forming of every character, speech, and
incident into a harmonious and pleasing unity, which finally results in
a charming work.
Ramsay possessed several of the qualities of a real poet, imagination,
the elaborative faculty, passion, wit, humour, and pathos. The pathos
in some of his poems and songs, is very remarkable; his “Lochaber no
More” breathes a strain of genuine feeling with touches of pure pathos.
Though not a very original genius or a great poet, yet he has the merit
of having led the Scottish poetical revival of the eighteenth century.¹
¹ Allan Ramsay was the first that established a circulating
library in Scotland. In his shop many of the wits of
Edinburgh used to meet for amusement, and to hear the news
of the day. He continued to sell and lend out books till
towards the close of his life.
William Hamilton, of Gilbertfield, wrote several pieces of verse which
were printed in Watson’s Collection. He also entered into a poetical
correspondence with Ramsay, and through this, his verses were printed
along with Ramsay’s works. Hamilton’s verses are not of high poetical
merit, though some of them present keen humorous characteristics.
In 1722 his modernised edition of Blind Harry’s _Wallace_ appeared,
which was long popular among the country people. He died in 1751 at an
advanced age.
Robert Crawford was a contributor to Ramsay’s _Tea-table Miscellany_,
and was the author of two fine lyrics――“The Bush aboon Traquair,”
“Tweedside,” and other songs. He was drowned when coming from France
in 1733, in his thirty-eighth year.
James Thomson was born at Ednam in Roxburghshire, in 1700, where his
father was minister. He was educated at the University of Edinburgh;
but the death of his father, in 1720, seems to have cut short his
University career. He manifested a taste for poetry at an early age,
and wrote in English. The earliest printed specimen of his poetry
appeared in 1720, in the _Edinburgh Miscellany_ issued by the Athenian
Society. In 1725 Thomson proceeded to London to push his fortune, where
he had a pretty hard struggle. His description of Winter was published
in 1726, for which he received three guineas; and a second and a third
edition appeared the same year. In 1728 his work, entitled _The Four
Seasons_, was published by subscription. His tragedy of _Sophonisba_
appeared in 1730, and had a brief success on the stage. _The Castle of
Indolence_, on which he had worked long, was published in May, 1748. In
the end of the following August he died.
Although a highly-gifted poet, he advanced slowly, by often repeated
efforts, toward the realisation of his ideal of poetic style and finish
of composition. This is seen in the different editions of his _Seasons_,
on each succeeding one he made many improvements in thought and diction;
while the superiority in style and taste of _The Castle of Indolence_,
compared with his earlier efforts, is very manifest. In short, he was
staidly working to his strength, when cut off in the prime of life.
His genius was luxuriant, glowing, and enthusiastic, but required
disciplining. His feelings were warm and wide, his sympathies universal,
embracing all mankind. His love of nature was intense; and his heart
and soul throbbed with humanity. The following few stanzas from The
_Castle of Indolence_ may be taken as a brief specimen of his powers
and style:――
“Behold! ye pilgrims of this earth, behold!
See all but man with unearned pleasure gay:
See her bright robes the butterfly unfold,
Broke from her wintry tomb in prime of May;
What youthful bride can equal her array?
Who can with her for easy pleasure vie?
From mead to mead with gentle wing to stray,
From flower to flower on balmy gales to fly,
Is all she has to do beneath the radiant sky.
Behold the merry minstrels of the morn,
The swarming songsters of the careless grove,
Ten thousand throats! that from the flowering thorn,
Hymn their good God, and carol sweet of love,
Such grateful kindly raptures then emove;
They neither plough, nor sow; ne, fit for flail,
E’er to the barn the nodding sheaves they drove;
Yet theirs each harvest dancing in the gale,
Whatever crowns the hill, or smiles along the vale.
Outcast of nature, man! the wretched thrall
Of bitter dropping sweat, of sweltry pain,
Of cares that eat away the heart with gall,
And of the vices, an inhuman train,
That all proceed from savage thirst of gain:
For when hard-hearted Interest first began
To poison earth, Astræa left the plain;
Guile, violence, and murder, seized on man,
And, for soft milky streams, with blood the rivers ran!
Come, ye who still the cumbrous load of life,
Push hard up hill; but at the furthest steep
You trust to gain, and put an end to strife,
Down thunders back the stone with mighty sweep,
And hurls your labours to the valleys deep,
For ever vain; come, and, withouten fee,
I in oblivion will your sorrows steep,
Your cares, your toils, will steep you in a sea
Of full delight: O come, ye weary wights, to me.”
Thomson wrote a number of short poems and songs, some of which were
popular; but his fame mainly rests on the two poems――_The Seasons_ and
_The Castle of Indolence_. The appearance of these two poems marked
an era in the history of English poetry. The chief characteristics
of these poems consist in the genuine and charming realisation of
the beauty of external nature; and it was in this that his genius and
originality appeared. Although he was not the founder of a school, yet
he wielded a marked influence over the poets of his time, and also on
some eminent English poets of a later period.
David Mallet, whose original name was Malloch, was a native of
Perthshire, and born about the end of the seventeenth century. He
studied for some time under Professor Ker at King’s College, Aberdeen;
and subsequently, having obtained a situation as tutor in the family of
the Duke of Montrose, in 1723 he went to London with the Duke’s family.
In 1724 his ballad, entitled _William and Mary_, appeared, which was
long popular, and continued to be printed in school books till past the
middle of the present century. Afterwards he engaged in a variety of
literary ventures, none of which had much real merit. In 1728 his poem,
_The Excursion_, was published, in which the imitation of Thomson’s
_Seasons_ is simply shameless. He wrote several tragedies, and a _Life
of Bacon_. He seems to have been a venal writer, and not a very honest
man. He died at London in 1765.
John Armstrong, the son of a minister, was born in 1709 at Castleton in
Roxburghshire. He studied medicine in Edinburgh, and graduated in 1732.
Shortly after he went to London, and became a friend of Thomson and a
writer of verses. In 1744 his didactic poem in blank verse, entitled
_The Art of Preserving Health_, was published, which is his chief work.
It is divided into four books, and the tone of the verse rises or sinks
according to the character of the subject. The first book treats on
air; the second on diet; the third on exercise; and the fourth on the
passions. There are a few touching passages in the poem, but on the
whole it is rather stiff. He wrote a considerable number of pieces of
verse on various subjects. He died in 1779, and left £3000.
Robert Blair¹ was a native of Edinburgh, the son of a Scottish minister,
and, having studied for the Church, in 1731 he was appointed minister
of the parish of Athelstaneford, in East Lothian. He was a cultured man,
a botanist and florist, and of pleasing manners. He had a large family,
and one of his sons, an eminent lawyer, rose to be Lord President of
the Court of Session. He was the author of a poem entitled _The Grave_,
which is written in blank verse, and appeared in 1743. Although of
limited scope, it is a powerful poem. The following lines are from his
description of the death of the strong man:――
¹ Born in 1699; died in 1746.
“Strength, too, thou surly and less gentle boast
Of those that laugh loud at the village ring!
A fit of common sickness pulls thee down
With greater ease than e’er thou didst the stripling
That rashly dared thee to the unequal fight.
What groan was that I heard? deep groan, indeed,
With anguish heavy laden let me trace it:
From yonder bed it comes, where the strong man,
By stronger arm belaboured, gasps for breath
Like a hard-hunted beast. How his great heart
Beats thick, his roomy chest by far too scant
To give the lungs full play! What now avail
The strong-built sinewy limbs and well-spread shoulders?
See, how he tugs for life, and lays about him,
Mad with his pain! Eager he catches hold
Of what comes next to hand, and grasps it hard,
Just like a drowning creature. Hideous sight!”
William Hamilton, of Bangour,¹ was descended from an old Ayrshire
family, and attained some distinction as a poet. He was a contributor
to Ramsay’s _Tea Table Miscellany_, and usually lived in Edinburgh. In
1745 he joined the standard of Prince Charles, but in 1749 he received
a pardon; and in 1750, on the death of his brother, he succeeded to
the estate of Bangour. A collection of his poems was published at
Glasgow in 1760. His language and style is English, and rather ornate.
He composed a serious poem on “Contemplation,” and a national one
on the “Thistle,” in blank verse. He had a lively fancy, but lacked
intellectual power, and his verse wants strength. The best of his
efforts is his ballad called “The Braes of Yarrow.”
¹ Born in 1704; died in 1754.
Alexander Ross was born in 1699 at Kincardine O’Neil in Aberdeenshire,
and was educated at Marischal College. After graduating in 1718 he
acted as schoolmaster in the parish schools of Moyne and Lawrencekirk,
and in 1732 he was appointed schoolmaster of Lochlee in Forfarshire. At
Lochlee he spent the rest of his life. He was the author of _Helenore_,
or, _The Fortunate Shepherdess_, published in 1768, and composed in
Scotch. Dr. Beattie took a warm interest in Ross, and addressed a
letter and a poetical epistle in praise of the poem to the _Aberdeen
Journal_, and the work soon became popular. _Helenore_ is a pastoral
narrative poem, extending to upwards of 4000 lines, and it has much
merit; it is as bold and true to nature as Ramsay’s _Gentle Shepherd_,
though his poetic gift was inferior in some points to that of
his predecessor. His poem is vigorous, interesting, and the chief
characters well drawn. He was also the author of a number of songs, of
which the most popular are “The Rock and the Wee Pickle Tow,” “Woo’d
an’ Married an’ a’,” and “To the Begging we will Go.” These have
energy and much humour. Ross left a number of ♦unpublished writings
in verse and prose. He died at Lochlee in 1784, at the advanced age
of eighty-five.
♦ “unpubblished” replaced with “unpublished”
John Skinner was born in 1721 at Birse, Aberdeenshire, where his
father was parish schoolmaster. He became an Episcopal minister, and
officiated at Linshart, Longside, in Aberdeenshire. He was a humble,
very amiable, and cultured gentleman. After the suppression of the
Rising of 1745, for his Church’s political and his own poetical
offences, he was arrested and imprisoned in 1753 for six months in
Aberdeen. His son, John Skinner, was elected bishop of Aberdeen in
1782. After a long, a conscientious and industrious life, he died in
his son’s house at Aberdeen in 1807, at the age of eighty-six years.
Skinner was gifted with a vigorous mind. He had imaginative power,
keen feelings, and a fine sense of the humorous; while a number of his
poetical pieces and songs show characteristic merits. The most noted
of his songs are “Tullochgorum,” “John O’ Badenyon,” and “The Ewie wi’
the Crooked Horn.” He was also the author of _Ecclesiastical History
of Scotland_, published in 1788, in two volumes, and a number of other
religious and theological works.
Dr. Thomas Blacklock, the son of a bricklayer, was born at Annan,
Dumfriesshire, in 1721. When an infant of six months he was entirely
deprived of sight by small-pox. But his father amused the solitary boy
by reading to him, and he became familiar with the writings of some of
the English poets, and particularly with the works of Thomson and Allan
Ramsay. When he was nineteen years of age his father was accidentally
killed. Shortly after Dr. Stevenson took him to Edinburgh, where he
was enrolled as a student of divinity. A volume of his poems appeared
in 1746, which was re-issued in 1754 and 1756. He was licensed to
preach in 1759, and was appointed minister of Kirkcudbright. But the
parishioners were opposed to church patronage, and to the exercise of
it in favour of a blind man, and he relinquished the appointment on
receiving a small annuity. He afterwards resided in Edinburgh, and took
boarders into his house. Notwithstanding the want of his eyesight, he
had acquired a considerable degree of learning, and was an exceedingly
amiable man. He was a warm friend of Burns, who often refers to him. In
August, 1789, he addressed a poetical epistle to Burns, of which a few
lines may be quoted:――
“Dear Burns, thou brother of my heart
Both for thy virtues and thy art.
* * * * *
Most anxiously I wish to know,
With thee of late how matters go;
How keeps thy much-loved Jean her health?
What promises thy farm of wealth?
Whether the Muse persists to smile,
And all thy anxious cares beguile?
Whether bright fancy keeps alive?
And how thy darling infants thrive?”
Although the poems of Blacklock are not remarkable for strong sentiment
or imaginative power, yet he was a fluent versifier. He also wrote
several treatises on religious subjects, and an article on blindness
for the _Encyclopædia Britannica_. He died in 1791.
Dr. T. G. Smollett, already mentioned in a preceding section,
occasionally tried his hand at poetry as well as history and fiction.
He was born in Dalquharn House, Dumbartonshire, in 1721, and educated
at the Grammar School of Dumbarton, and the University of Glasgow. He
served his apprenticeship with a medical practitioner in Glasgow, and,
before he was twenty, proceeded to London to seek his fortune. But it
is beyond my scope to narrate his chequered career. He produced no long
poems, but he was the author of a number of short pieces of some merit,
such as his “Ode to Independence,” “Ode to Leven Water,” and the “Tears
of Scotland.” The latter was written soon after the battle of Culloden,
and refers to the cruelties committed by the English forces in the
Highlands. It is a touching and powerful piece, and extends to seven
stanzas. There is both fire and real pathos in it, as these lines
show:――
“Mourn, hapless Caledonia, mourn
Thy banished peace, thy laurels torn!
Thy sons, for valour long renowned,
Lie slaughtered on their native ground;
Thy hospitable roofs no more
Invite the stranger to the door;
In smoky ruins sunk they lie,
The monuments of cruelty.
The wretched owner sees afar
His all become the prey of war;
Bethinks him of his babes and wife,
Then smites his breast, and curses life.
Thy swans are famished on the rocks,
Where once they fed their wanton flocks;
Thy ravished virgins shriek in vain;
Thy infants perish on the plain.
* * * * *
Oh! baneful cause, oh! fatal morn,
Accursed to ages yet unborn;
The sons against their fathers stood,
The parent shed his children’s blood.
Yet, when the rage of battle ceased,
The victor’s soul was not appeased:
The naked and the forlorn must feel
Devouring flames and murdering steel.
The pious mother, doomed to death,
Forsaken wanders o’er the heath,
The bleak wind whistles round her head,
Her helpless orphans cry for bread;
Bereft of shelter, food, and friend,
She views the shades of night descend:
And stretched beneath the inclement skies,
Weeps o’er her tender babes, and dies.
While the warm blood bedews my veins,
And unimpaired remembrance reigns,
Resentment of my country’s fate
Within my filial breast shall beat;
And, spite of her insulting foe,
My sympathising verse shall flow:
‘Mourn, hapless Caledonia, mourn
Thy banished peace, thy laurels torn.’”¹
¹ “I was in the coffee-house with Smollett when the news of
the battle of Culloden arrived, and when London all over was
in a perfect uproar of joy.... About 9 o’clock I wished to
go home to Lyon’s, in New Bond Street.... I asked Smollett
if he was ready to go, as he lived at Mayfair; he said he
was, and would conduct me. The mob were so riotous, and the
squibs so numerous and incessant, that we were glad to go
into a narrow entry to put our wigs in our pockets, and to
take our broadswords from our belts and walk with them in
our hands, as everybody then wore swords; and after warning
me not to speak a word, lest the mob should discover my
country and become insolent, ‘For, John Bull,’ says he,
‘is as haughty and valiant to-night as he was abject and
cowardly on the black Wednesday when the Highlanders were
at Derby.’... When I saw Smollett again, he showed me the
manuscript of his ‘Tears of Scotland,’ which was published
not long after, and had such a run of approbation. Smollett,
though a Tory, was not a Jacobite, but he had the feelings
of a Scotch gentleman on the reported cruelties that
were said to be exercised after the battle of Culloden.”
――_Autobiography of the Rev. Alexander Carlyle_, page 190.
Dr. Robert Anderson, the biographer of the British poets,
wrote a life of Smollett.
John Home, the author of _The Tragedy of Douglas_, was born in Leith in
1722. He was educated for the Church, and succeeded Blair as minister
of Athelstaneford. In the end of the year 1756 _Douglas_ was first
acted in Edinburgh, and proved a complete success, as it held the stage
for many nights, and was attended by all the literary notabilities
and some of the judges. The citizens were greatly elated that a
Scotsman had written a first-rate tragedy, and that its merit was
first submitted to their judgment; though there were a few opposers,
who pretended to superior taste in literature, and endeavoured to cry
down the performance in pamphlets and ballads, while one section of
the clergy were unanimous against it. But _The Tragedy of Douglas_
maintained its hold on the stage for more than fifty years, and still
ranks amongst the better class of the productions of the modern English
drama.
A party of the clergy, and especially Home’s own presbytery, raised a
clamour, and were preparing a prosecution against him, when he resigned
his charge, and withdrew from the Church.¹ Lord Bute, however, rewarded
Home with the sinecure office of conservator of Scots privileges
at Campvere; and when George III. ascended the throne he received a
pension of £300 per annum. He wrote several other tragedies which were
soon forgotten; yet, with an income of about £600 a year, he lived
in easy and happy circumstances. In the later years of his life, he
wrote a _History of the Rising of 1745_, published in 1802; it is
not, however, of much historical value. He survived all the literary
associates and companions of his youth, and having attained the great
age of eighty-six, died in 1808.
¹ _Autobiography of the Rev. Alexander Carlyle_, pages 310‒325.
Richard Gall, while working as a painter in Edinburgh, wrote
several songs which became popular. One entitled, “My only
Jo and Dearie O,” and another, “Farewell to Ayrshire,” has
often been printed as a composition of Burns. Gall was born
in 1776, and died in 1800.
William Falconer, the son of a barber, was born at Edinburgh in 1732.
He went early to sea, and before he was eighteen years of age, had
attained the rank of second mate in the _Britannia_, which, when
trading between Venice and Alexandria, was wrecked off Cape Colonna.
Falconer and other two men alone escaped. It was his experiences on
this occasion which formed the subject of his poem, “The Shipwreck.”
This poem appeared in 1762, and was very successful. In 1764 a second
edition was issued, enlarged by nine hundred new lines; and a third was
published in 1769, with two hundred lines added to the poem, and many
alterations of the text. But his literary activity was closed by an
untimely death. In 1769 he sailed on board a vessel bound for India,
which reached the Cape of Good Hope in December, but was never after
heard of. Since Falconer’s death, several editions of his poem has been
published.
Although “The Shipwreck” is very unequal, it has the merit of being
exceedingly animated and interesting. As he wrote of what he actually
saw and felt, the poem has the characteristic attraction of truth and
reality.
A great stir was raised in literary circles in Scotland, especially in
Edinburgh, by the publication of Macpherson’s translation of Ossian’s
poems. James Macpherson was born at Kingussie, in Inverness-shire,
in 1738. He was intended for the Church, and was educated at the
University of Aberdeen. In 1760 he published a small volume entitled
_Fragments of Ancient Poetry Translated from the Gaelic_, which
attracted much attention. His friends encouraged him to make a tour in
the Highlands to collect other pieces. As the result of his journey, he
published, in 1762, _Fingal_, an ancient epic poem, in six books; and
in 1763, _Temora_, another epic poem in eight books. The sale of these
poems was great, and it is reported that Macpherson realised a sum
of £1200 from them. His patrons, Mr. Home, Dr. Blair, Dr. Alexander
Carlyle, and others, were much pleased and rejoiced. But many doubted,
and some disbelieved that the poems were genuine; and then a vehement
controversy arose on the subject of their authenticity, which raged
long. Meanwhile, Macpherson fixed his residence in London, and became
a popular pamphleteer in support of the Government of the day; and
finally he entered parliament as the representative of the Borough of
Camelford. Having realised a large fortune, in 1789 he purchased the
estate of Raitts, in his native parish, built upon it a fine residence,
in the style of an Italian villa, in which he died on the 17th of
February, 1796. In accordance with his own explicit directions his
remains were interred in Westminster Abbey, while a monument was
erected to his memory on his own estate, which may be seen by the
roadside near Kingussie.
That Macpherson was gifted with remarkable abilities, his career amply
demonstrates; but considering his extreme vanity, his veracity is
a totally different question. There is no doubt that he collected a
certain quantity of the traditional pieces of verse and fragments of
ancient Gaelic poetry, which was then current among the Celtic people
of the Highlands. The only question is, how much Macpherson himself
added to complete the poems which he published. When the circumstances
connected with the subject are fairly weighed, the question is not a
very difficult one; and the obvious conclusion is, that he drew from
his own imaginative and elaborative faculties all that was needed to
give the poems the completed and finished form in which they appeared
in his published translations. The original material of these poems
was probably not very bulky, and perhaps more than the half of the two
published epic poems, should be assigned to the genius of Macpherson.
Dr. James Beattie, already mentioned, was a poet as well as a writer
and teacher of moral philosophy. In 1760, he published a collection of
his poems, with some translations, which was reprinted in 1766, without
the translations. The first part of his _Minstrel_ appeared in 1771,
the second in 1774. The volume met with a flattering reception, while
honours flowed in on the author. He visited London, and was admitted
to its brilliant circles; he also had an interview with the king and
queen, and received a pension of £200 per annum; while the University
of Oxford conferred upon him the degree of LL.D.
Beattie’s fame now chiefly rests on _The Minstrel_, which is a didactic
poem, in the Spenserian stanza, intended to “trace the progress of a
poetical genius, born in a rude age, from the first dawning of fancy
and reason till that period at which he may be supposed capable of
appearing in the world as a minstrel.” The poem, though left unfinished,
is well worked out so far as it goes, and there are many fine passages
in it. He had good descriptive powers, and the command of appropriate
and expressive language, but he was deficient in grasp and range of
thought. The following lines describing a morning landscape is a fair
specimen of his poetry:
“Even now his eyes with smiles of rapture glow,
As on he wanders through the scenes of morn,
Where the fresh flowers in living lustre blow,
Where thousand pearls the dewy lawns adorn,
A thousand notes of joy in every breeze are borne.
But who the melodies of morn can tell?
The wild brook babbling down the mountain side;
The lowing herd; the sheepfold’s simple bell;
The pipe of early shepherd dim descried
In the lone valley; echoing far and wide
The clamorous horn along the cliffs above;
The hollow murmur of the ocean tide;
The hum of bees, the linnet’s lay of love,
And the full choir that wakes the universal grove.
The cottage curs at early pilgrim bark;
Crowned with her pail the tripping milkmaid sings:
The whistling ploughman stalks a field; and hark!
Down the rough slope the ponderous waggon rings;
Through rustling corn the hare astonished springs;
Slow tolls the village clock the drowsy hour;
The partridge bursts away on whirring wings;
Deep mourns the turtle in sequestered bower,
And shrill lark carols clear from her aerial tower.”
John Logan¹ was a native of the parish of Fala, in Midlothian, the son
of a small farmer. He was educated for the Church, and in 1773 he was
appointed one of the ministers of South Leith. He delivered a course
of lectures on the philosophy of history in Edinburgh, the substance of
which was published in 1781. In 1782 he published his poems, and the
following year he issued a tragedy entitled “Runnymede,” founded on the
signing of Magna Charta. But his congregation were displeased at this
application of his powers, and unfortunately Logan himself had fallen
into dissipated habits; the result was that he resigned his charge and
went to London, where he resided till his death.
¹ Born in 1748 and died in 1788. In 1770 Logan edited the poems
of Michael Bruce, an ingenious and persevering youth, who
died in his twenty-second year, Bruce’s poems were reprinted
in 1784, and afterwards included in Anderson’s edition of
the poets. Among the best of Bruce’s pieces is “Lochleven,”
a descriptive poem in blank verse. If his life had been
spared, it is probable he would have taken a high rank among
the national poets.
When in London, Logan contributed papers to _The English Review_,
and wrote a pamphlet on the charges against Warren Hastings――an able
defence of the accused, and attack on his accusers, which led to the
trial of Stockdale the printer, and to one of the most memorable of
Erskine’s speeches. Among Logan’s MSS. were found some unfinished
tragedies, thirty lectures on Roman History, and a collection of
sermons, from which two volumes were selected and published by his
executors. The best of Logan’s poetical efforts are his “Visit to the
Country in Autumn,” and his ballad stanzas on the “Braes of Yarrow.”
In his lines on the death of a young lady, the following occurs:――
“What tragic tears bedew the eye!
What deaths we suffer ere we die!
Our broken friendships we deplore,
And loves of youth that are no more!
No after-friendship e’er can raise
The endearments of our early days,
And ne’er the heart such fondness prove,
As when it first began to love.” Amen.
The genial Robert Fergusson was a native of Edinburgh,¹ a poet whose
life was short. He has sometimes been called the poet of Scottish
city-life. He was educated at the University of St. Andrews, where he
spent four years; but it seems that he had failed to form a definite
end in life, and unhappily he became a victim of dissipation. His
chief characteristics as a poet are――a keen sense of the ludicrous,
a strong vein of original comic humour, a talent for describing the
peculiarities of local manners, and a copious command of expressive
language. He wrote poems both in English and Scotch; his Scotch
pieces, however, are most esteemed. He was a genius, but his career
was short, having died in his twenty-third year. In 1773 he collected
and published his poems in a volume, which was well received. Some of
the most notable of his pieces are “The King’s Birthday,” “The Sitting
of the Session,” “Guid Braid Claith,” and “Auld Reekie,” that is,
Edinburgh.
¹ Born in 1751, and died in 1774.
Burns avowedly had an excessive admiration for the writings of
Fergusson, and even preferred them to those of Ramsay. Perhaps a few
lines from Fergusson’s effusion entitled “Cauler Water” will indicate
why it was that Burns admired him so much:――
“When father Adie first pat spade in
The bonny yard o’ ancient Eden,
His aumrie had nae liquor laid in
To fire his mou,
Nor did he thole his wife’s upbraidin’
For bein’ fou.
A cauler burn o’ siller sheen
Ran cannily out-ower the green,
And when our gutcher’s drouth had been
To bide right sair,
He loutit down and drank bedeen
A dainty skair.
His bairns had a’ before the flood
A langer tack o’ flesh and blood,
And on mair pithy shanks they stood
Than Noah’s line,
Wha still hae been a feckless brood
Wi’ drinkin’ wine.
The fuddlin’ bardies now-a-days,
Rin maukin-mad in Bacchus’ praise,
And limp and stoiter through their lays
Anacreontic,
While each his sea of wine displays
As big’s the Pontic.
* * * * *
But we’ll hae nae sic clitter-clatter;
And, briefly to expound the matter,
It shall be ca’d guid cauler water;
Than whilk, I trow,
Few drugs in doctors’ shops are better
For me or you.
* * * * *
What makes Auld Reekie’s dames sae fair?
It canna be the halesome air;
But cauler burn, beyond compare
The best o’ ony,
That gars them a’ sic graces skair,
And blink sae bonny.
On May-day, in a fairy ring,
We’ve seen them round St. Anthon’s spring,¹
Frae grass the cauler dew-draps wring
To weet their een,
And water, clear as crystal spring,
To synd them clean.”
¹ A well on Arthur’s Seat, near Edinburgh, to which it is still
the practice of young Edinburgh maidens to resort on May-day.
A student of Burns will hardly fail to observe in the above, and in
many other of Fergusson’s verses, certain turns of thought, modes of
feeling and strains, common to both poets, although the latter had not
the volume of passion nor the intellectual power of the former.
So much has been written about Burns, and his poems and songs are so
well known among all classes throughout Scotland, that any lengthened
account of them is unnecessary; but something may be said, however, on
the influence which his writings have had on the imaginative literature
of the nation, and of his general influence upon the people.
Burns was a great reader, and an assiduous student. He was familiar
with the history of his native country and the heroic national
struggles. He was well acquainted with the early ballads, songs, and
poetry of Scotland, and also the poetical writings of his immediate
predecessors and contemporaries. He says himself:――“I have paid more
attention to every description of Scots songs than perhaps any body
living has done.” His “Remarks on Scottish Songs and Ballads” afford
evidence that this statement was well founded. His knowledge, however,
was not limited to songs and poetry; he knew a good deal about general
literature, and even philosophy. In some fragments of his Common Place
Book he says: “I entirely agree with that judicious philosopher, Mr.
Smith, in his excellent _Theory of Moral Sentiments_, that remorse
is the most painful sentiment that can embitter the human bosom. Any
ordinary pitch of fortitude may bear up tolerably well under these
calamities, in the procurement of which we ourselves have had no hand,
but when our follies or crimes have made us miserable and wretched,
to bear up with manly firmness, and at the same time have a proper
penitential sense of our misconduct, is a glorious effort of
self-command.
“I have often observed in the course of my experience of human life
that every man, even the worst, has something good about him, though
very often nothing else than a happy temperament of constitution
inclined him to this or that virtue. For this reason, no man can say
in what degree any other person besides himself can be, with strict
justice, called wicked. Let any of the strictest for regularity among
us examine impartially how many vices he has never been guilty of,
not from any care or vigilance, but for want of opportunity or some
accidental circumstance intervening; how many of the weaknesses
of mankind he has escaped, because he was out of the line of such
temptations; and what often, if not always, weighs more than all the
rest, how much he is indebted to the world’s good opinion, because the
world does not know all. I say, any man who can thus think, will scan
the failings, nay, the faults and crimes, of mankind around him with a
brother’s eye.” This is pretty good philosophy.
“I have every possible reverence for the much talked of world beyond
the grave, and I wish that what piety believes, and virtue deserves,
may be all matter of fact.
“Strong pride of reasoning, with a little affectation of singularity,
may mislead the best of hearts. I likewise, in the pride of despising
old women’s stories, ventured in ‘the daring path Spinoza trod,’ but
experience of the weakness, not the strength, of human powers, made me
glad to grasp at revealed religion.”
He had a high ideal of the poet’s functions, and says――“I glory in
being a poet, and I want to be thought a wise man.... Poets, of all
mankind, feel most forcibly the powers of beauty. If they are really
poets of nature’s making, their feelings must be finer, and their taste
more delicate, than those of most of the world. In the cheerful bloom
of spring, or the pensive mildness of autumn, the grandeur of summer,
or the hoary majesty of winter, the poet feels a charm unknown to the
rest of his species. Even the sight of a fine flower, or the company of
a fine woman (by far the fairest of God’s works below), have sensations
for the poetic heart that the herd of mankind are strangers to.”
The first edition of Burns’s poems appeared in the summer of 1786,
and consisted of 600 copies, and several other authorised editions
were published in his lifetime――one in 1787, another in 1793, with the
addition of “Tam o’ Shanter” and other pieces. Since his death, one
hundred years ago, the number of editions of his works published amount
to upwards of three hundred and forty.¹
¹ When on a visit to Glasgow recently, the intelligent and
amiable librarian of the Mitchell Library, Mr. Barrett,
kindly showed me through every department of the
establishment under his charge; and I was delighted to find
that this Library possessed a special corner containing a
most extensive and valuable collection of editions of the
works of Burns, embracing upwards of a 1000 volumes, and
comprises 343 separate editions of his works, in from one
to eight volumes each. The citizens of Glasgow may well be
proud of this special and memorable collection.
The influence of Burns on the imaginative literature of Scotland has
been deep and abiding. Many Scotsmen have been so touched, moved, and
stirred by his writings, as to arouse an irrepressible feeling within
then to compose verse themselves; and to-day there are many in the
humble walks of life who can write passable and even animated verse
and song, and appreciate the highest works of the imaginative and
elaborate faculties of the race. Burns has exercised much influence
over the mind of the Scottish people by removing prejudice and
superstition, fostering liberty and independence of spirit, and
greater freedom of thought. In regard to prejudice and superstition,
the satirical and comic features of many of Burns’ pieces have had
a very beneficial effect upon the mind of the people. In conjunction
with other influences, these have contributed greatly to enlighten the
understanding, and thus enabled the people to banish from their minds
a host of delusive and absurd fears.¹
¹ For instance, in such pieces as his “Address to the Deil,”
though he adopted the common superstitions of the people
concerning the attributes of Satan, the elements of the
ludicrous, the sly humour, and the veins of satire and irony
which he introduced, have produced surprising changes in
the notions of the people. He even expressed a wish for the
salvation of the Deil himself:――
“But fare-you-well, auld Nickie-ben!
Oh! wad you tak’ a thocht and men’!
Ye aiblins micht――I dinna ken――
Still hae a stake:
I’m wae to think upo’ yon den,
Even for your sake.”
Touching liberty and independence, the writings of Burns are clear
and emphatic. His own manly spirit of independence often shows itself
in many forms in his poems and songs; and in this connection their
influence upon the people have been considerable. Even politically
his writings have had a beneficial influence in Scotland. “The Tree of
Liberty,” and that “a man is a man whatever his lot may be,” with all
the rights of humanity, were not written in vain. Thus the writings of
Burns have contributed to the enlightenment of the national mind, by
relieving it from a burden of obnoxious notions, slavish fears, and
silly prejudices.¹
¹ There are a number of what are usually called minor poets,
but I can only notice a few of them.
Alexander Wilson was born in Paisley on the 6th of July,
1766. He is the author of a number of songs and poems,
including a humorous ballad――“Watty and Meg.” A small
volume of his songs and poems was printed at Paisley in
1790. In 1794 he emigrated to America, where he assiduously
prosecuted the study of ornithology, and gained distinction
as an ornithologist. He is the author of an important work
on this branch of science. He died in 1813 in America.
Some years ago Wilson’s verse and miscellaneous prose were
published by Mr. Gardner in two volumes.
Hector Macneil was born in 1746, and died in 1818. He is
the author of several productions in verse. In 1789, he
published a legendary poem, “The Harp,” and in 1795, his
moral tale, “Scotland’s Skaith:” the object of this tale
was to describe in a vivid manner the evil effects of
intemperance, and the idea is pretty well worked out.
Carolina Oliphant, Baroness ♦Nairne, born in 1766, and died
in 1845; she belonged to the Oliphants of Gask, and was much
celebrated for her beauty, talents, and worth. She is the
authoress of the two fine Scottish songs, “The Land o’ the
Leal,” and “The Laird o’ Cockpen.”
John Lowe, born in 1750, and died in 1798, is the author of
the touching lyric, “Mary’s Dream,” beginning――
The moon had climbed the highest hill
Which rises o’er the source o’ Dee,
And from the eastern summit shed
Her silver light on tower and tree.”
♦ “Nairn” replaced with “Nairne”
SECTION II.
_Poetry of the Nineteenth Century._
Robert Tannahill,¹ a lyrical poet of high distinction, was a native of
Paisley. His education was limited: at an early age he was sent to the
loom, and he continued to follow this occupation. He was a dutiful and
kind son to his mother, full of the warmest filial piety.
¹ Born in 1774; died in 1810. James Montgomery, though born at
Irvine, in Ayrshire, in 1771, can hardly be called a Scottish
poet, for he was educated in England, and afterwards lived
there till his death in 1854. He is chiefly distinguished
as a religious poet; but he was a man of marked ability and
culture, and is the author of a large quantity of poetry. A
collected edition of his works, in four volumes, was issued
in 1841.
The first edition of his poems and songs appeared in 1807; and the
volume, consisting of 900 copies, was sold out in a few weeks. He
afterwards contributed some songs to Mr. Thomson’s _Select Melodies_,
and interested himself in collecting Irish airs, of which he was
exceedingly fond. Many of his own songs are very fine, rich, and
original in sentiment and description. His diction is copious,
appropriate, and expressive, and often touching and pathetic. His
“Gloomy Winter’s noo Awa’” may be taken as a fair specimen of his
songs:――
“Gloomy winter’s noo awa’,
Saft the wastlin breezes blaw:
‘Mang the birks o’ Stanley-shaw
The mavis sings fu’ cheerie O.
Sweet the craw-flower’s early bell
Decks Gleniffer’s dewy dell,
Blooming like thy bonny sel’,
My young, my artless dearie O.
Come, my lassie, let us stray
O’er Glenkilloch’s sunny brae,
Blithely spend the gowden day
‘Midst joys that never wearie O.
Towering o’er the Newton woods,
Lavrocks fan the snaw-white clouds;
Siller saughs, wi’ downie buds,
Adorn the banks sae brierie O.
Round the sylvan fairy nooks
Feathery breckans fringe the rocks,
‘Neath the brae the burnie jouks,
And ilka thing is cheerie O.
Trees may bud, and birds may sing,
Flowers may bloom, and verdure spring,
Joy to me they canna bring,
Unless wi’ thee, my dearie O.”
John Mayne was a native of Dumfries,¹ and was trained to the printing
business. When an apprentice, in 1777, he published the germ of
his “Siller Gun,” in twelve stanzas. The subject of the poem is
an old custom in Dumfries, called “Shooting for the Siller Gun;”
the gun itself is a small silver tube presented by James VI. to the
incorporated trades as a prize to the best marksman. He continued to
enlarge and improve the poem till the year of his death, when it was
reprinted for the fourth time, and extended to five cantos. He is the
author of some other pieces, including his ballad of “Logan Braes,”
which begins thus:――
¹ Born in 1761; died in 1836.
“By Logan’s streams, that rin sae deep,
Fu’ aft wi’ glee I’ve herded sheep:
Herded sheep and gathered slaes,
Wi’ my dear lad on Logan braes.
But wae’s my heart, thae days are gane,
And I wi’ grief may herd alane,
While my dear lad maun face his faes,
Far, far frae me and Logan braes.”
John Leyden was born at Denholm, (1775), in Roxburghshire, and the
centenary of his birth was celebrated at Edinburgh, ♦1875. He was an
oriental scholar of some note, as well as a poet. He was a persevering
youth, and early manifested a taste for literature. He contributed to
Lewis’ _Tales of Wonder_, and to Scott’s _Minstrelsy of the Scottish
Border_. In 1802, he published his poem entitled, “The Scenes of
Infancy,” and left Scotland for India. His career there was successful
and honourable, but it was cut short by his death from fever in 1811.
His poetical remains were published in 1819, with a memoir of his life
by the Rev. James Morton; while Sir Walter Scott and Sir James Malcolm
both honoured his memory with notices of his life and genius. His
longest poem is the one already mentioned, which is devoted to a
description of his own native vale of Teviot. His poetry is smooth
and flowing, but rather lacking in strength. The following is from
the opening of his ballad called “The Mermaid”:――
♦ “1785” replaced with “1875”
“On Jura’s heath how sweetly ♦swell
The murmurs of the mountain bee!
How softly mourns the writhed shell
Of Jura’s shore, its parent sea!
But softer floating o’er the deep,
The mermaid’s sweet sea-soothing lay,
That charmed the dancing waves to sleep,
Before the bark of Colonsay.”
♦ “swells” replaced with “swell”
Thomas Campbell¹ was a native of Glasgow, the son of a merchant in the
city. He was educated at the University of Glasgow, and began early
to manifest a taste for poetry. His _Pleasures of Hope_ appeared in
1799, the copyright of which was sold for £60; but it is said that
the publishers for some years gave him £50 on every new edition of
two thousand copies. The poem was immediately successful. After the
publication of the first edition, he added 154 lines to the poem.
It attracted all classes of readers by its varied and fine melody,
polished style, and the strain of generous sentiment pervading it.
He touched on many points and incidents of deep human interest; and
in depicting the dismal horrors of war, and the infamous partition of
Poland, he rose to a high pitch of inspiration, as in these lines:――
¹ Born in 1777; died in 1844.
“Oh, bloodiest picture in the book of time!
Sarmatia fell, unwept, without a crime;
Found not a ♦generous friend, a pitying foe,
Strength in her arms, nor mercy in her woe!
Dropped from her nerveless grasp the shattered spear,
Closed her bright eye and curbed her high career:
Hope for a season bade the world farewell,
And freedom shrieked as Kosciusko fell!
The sun went down, nor ceased the carnage there;
Tumultuous murder shook the midnight air――
On Prague’s proud arch the fires of ruin glow,
His blood-dyed waters murmuring far below.
The storm prevails, the rampart yields a way,
Bursts the wild cry of horror and dismay!
Hark! as the smouldering piles with thunder fall,
A thousand shrieks for hopeless mercy call!
Earth shook, red meteors flashed along the sky,
And conscious nature shuddered at the cry!”
♦ “generons” replaced with “generous”
This poem was a wonderful effort for a youth of twenty-one years. But
the chief source of its inspiration was not British, as the lines just
quoted show traces of ancient Grecian heat, and especially Homeric fire.
Campbell’s minor poems and songs are universally admired. Such as his
“Exile of Erin,” “Lochiel’s Warning,” “The Battle of Hohenlinden,” and
the songs, “Ye Mariners of England,” and the “Battle of the Baltic,”
are popular favourites.
In 1809, his poem, _Gertrude of Wyoming, a Pennsylvanian Tale_,
appeared; but his subsequent literary efforts added little to his fame
as a poet.¹ The finest of his later pieces is one entitled “The Last
Man,” which may be ranked among his best compositions; the following
lines are from this poem:――
¹ Campbell contributed several papers to the _Edinburgh
Encyclopædia_, and also wrote the _Annals of Great Britain
from the Accession of George III. to the Peace of Amiens_,
in three volumes. In 1806, through the influence of Fox,
he received a pension. He delivered a course of lectures
on poetry at the Surrey Institution, in 1820; and in 1827,
he was elected Lord Rector of the University of Glasgow. In
1849, a selection from his correspondence and an account of
his life was published by Dr. Beattie.
“All worldly shapes shall melt in gloom――
The sun himself must die,
Before this mortal shall assume
Its immortality!
I saw a vision in my sleep,
That gave my spirit strength to sweep
Adown the gulf of time!
I saw the last of human mould
That shall creation’s death behold
As Adam saw her prime!
The sun’s eye had a sickly glare,
The earth with age was worn;
The skeletons of nations were
Around that lonely man;
Some had expired in fight――the brands
Still rusted in their bony hands――
In plague and famine some:
Earth’s cities had no sound nor tread;
And ships were drifting with the dead
To shores where all were dumb!”
The whole of the poem shows high conceptive power and elevated
sentiment. I shall quote a few lines from his piece――“A Thought
suggested by the New Year”:――
“The more we live, more brief appears
Our life’s succeeding stages:
A day to childhood seems a year,
And years to passing ages.
The gladsome current of our youth,
Ere passion yet disorders,
Steals, lingering like a river smooth
Along its grassy borders.
But as the careworn cheek grows wan,
And sorrow’s shafts fly thicker,
Ye stars that measure life to man,
Why seem your courses quicker?
When joys have lost their bloom and breath,
And life itself is vapid,
Why, as we reach the falls of death,
See we the tide more rapid?”
His _Specimens of the British Poets, with biographical and critical
notices_, which appeared in 1818, is a work of much value. The truth,
justness, and beauty of his criticisms have been universally recognised,
and some of them present elegant models of this branch of literature.
Sir Walter Scott¹ was not only a distinguished poet, but also a
novelist of the first rank, and wrote on various other subjects. He
studied law, and was called to the bar in 1792. He was a diligent
reader, and acquired some knowledge of the German, French, Italian, and
Spanish languages; but from his early years the bent of his mind was
manifested in his fondness for ballads and romantic stories. In 1799 he
was appointed sheriff of Selkirkshire. He had already begun to collect
the materials for the ballad literature of the Border; and the result
appeared in his _Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border_, two volumes of
which were published in 1802, containing more than forty pieces never
before published, along with a large quantity of prose illustration, in
the form of introduction and notes. The following year, a third volume
appeared, which contained some imitations of the old ballads by Scott
himself and his friends. After performing other editorial work in the
field of early rhyme, he made an independent effort, which appeared in
1805, under the title of _The Lay of the Last Minstrel_.
¹ Born in 1771; died 1832.
This poem at once placed him in the front rank of living poets. His
chief gifts and powers were admirably displayed in it. Its success was
great and unexampled in Scotland; and, for a time, Scott was worshipped
as the poet of the day. But, unfortunately, his natural ambition to
found a family to vie with the ancient Border names seems to have
developed into an over-ruling passion, which obscured his sagacity and
good sense, and thus he was led into doubtful projects, and financial
responsibilities which proved ruinous.
In 1808, his remarkable poem of _Marmion_ was published; and the same
year he published his edition of Dryden. Scott was now fairly launched
as a poet, and volumes from his pen flowed rapidly. In 1810, _The Lady
of the Lake_ appeared, which was exceedingly popular. The following
year, _The Vision of Don Roderick_ was published; in 1713, _Rokeby_ and
_The Bride of Triermain_; in 1814, _The Lord of the Isles_; in 1815,
_The Field of Waterloo_; and in 1817, _Harold the Dauntless_. By this
time, it had become manifest that his later poems were inferior to his
earlier ones, while the star of Byron was rising, and the readers of
poetry were turning to the new worship. No one with any title to give
an opinion on the point would venture to place Scott upon a par with
Byron. Scott had merits of his own, within a limited circle of poetic
conception and execution he is a real poet. For emotional power,
passion, and poetic fire, as well as intellectual qualities, Byron
stands above Scott. In short, Byron is, perhaps, the greatest poet
that has appeared in Britain during the past two centuries. He has the
true glow of poetic fire, which in intensity of emotion, passion, and
intellectual qualities, warms his poetry to a high pitch.
Scott himself was no doubt well aware of this, and turned his attention
to fiction, in which his genius attained its highest development. _The
Lady of the Lake_ was the most popular of his poems; in a few months
twenty thousand copies of it were sold. His poems, though still read,
are not so popular as his novels. It is unnecessary to dwell on his
poetry, and I shall only quote a few lines from _Marmion_, which is
mainly a tale of Flodden field. The following refers to the close of
the battle:――
“Tweed’s echoes heard the ceaseless plash,
While many a broken band,
Disordered through her current dash,
To gain the Scottish land;
To town and tower, to down and dale,
To tell red Flodden’s dismal tale,
And raise the universal wail.
Tradition, legend, tune, and song,
Shall many an age that wail prolong;
Still from the sire the son shall hear
Of the stern strife and carnage drear
Of Flodden’s fatal field,
Where shivered was fair Scotland’s spear,
And broken was her shield.”
The next poet was a contemporary and friend of Scott’s. James Hogg,¹
a native of the vale of Ettrick, in Selkirkshire, was descended from
a family of shepherds, and is best known by his poetic name of “The
Ettrick Shepherd.” He was sent to service when a child, and received
but little education: however, his mother was in the habit of reciting
old legends and ballads, and many of the evenings in his early
years were occupied in listening eagerly to her. He also became an
earnest reader of poetry and romances, and devoured the contents of
a circulating library in Peebles. He assisted Sir Walter Scott in the
collection of old ballads for the _Minstrelsy of the Border_.
¹ Born in 1771, and died in 1836.
At first he tried his hand in song writing, and in 1801, he published
a small volume of pieces. He soon acquired a felicity of imitating the
style of the old ballads; and under the title of _The Mountain Bard_,
he published another volume of songs and poems, in 1807. In 1810, he
published a collection of songs called _The Forest Minstrel_; and in
1813, his legendary poem, entitled _The Queen’s Wake_, appeared. This
work consists of a number of tales and ballads supposed to be sung
to Queen Mary of Scots by the native bards of Scotland assembled at
a royal wake at Holyrood, so that the fair Queen might prove
“The wondrous powers of Scottish song.”
The work was well conceived, and its elaboration so complete that Hogg
was soon placed in the front rank of Scottish poets. At the end of this
poem, he alluded to his friend Scott, and adverts to an advice which
Sir Walter had once given him, to abstain from his worship of poetry:――
“The land was charmed to list his lays;
It knew the harp of ancient days.
The border chiefs that long had been
In sepulchres unhearsed and green,
Passed from their mouldy vaults away
In armour red and stern array.
And by their moonlit halls were seen
In visor, helm, and habergeon.
Even fairies sought our land again
So powerful was the magic strain.
Blest be his generous heart for aye!
He told me where the relic lay;
Pointed my way with ready will
Afar on Ettrick’s wildest hill;
Watched my first notes with curious eye,
And wondered at my minstrelsy;
He little weened a parent’s tongue
Such strains had o’er my cradle sung.
But when to native feelings true,
I struck upon a chord was new;
When by myself I ‘gan to play,
He tried to wile my harp away.
Just when her notes began with skill,
To sound beneath the southern hill,
And twine around my bosom’s core,
How could we part for evermore?
’Twas kindness all――I cannot blame――
For bootless is the minstrel flame:
But sure a bard might well have known
Another’s feelings by his own!”
Subsequently, Hogg wrote many other works――_Mador of the Moor_, a poem
in the Spenserian stanza; _The Pilgrims of the Sun_, in blank verse;
_The Poetic Mirror_; _Queen Hynde_; _Dramatic Tales_, etc. He also
produced several novels――_Winter Evening Tales_; _The Three Perils
of Man_; _The Three Perils of Woman_, etc., and _Jacobite Relics_,
referred to in a preceding volume.
He was a strong and versatile man, a veritable genius. His imaginative
and reproductive faculties were of a high order, his sympathies
were wide and catholic, and his power of realisation has rarely been
excelled. What he wanted was culture, and more art. There are passages
in his writings which, for lofty imaginative representation, few poets
or painters have ever surpassed. It is true, that both his poetry and
prose is unequal in composition; yet few can read them without being
impressed with the poet’s inspiration. The following is from his verses
to the Comet of 1811:――
“How lovely is this wildered scene,
As twilight from her vaults so blue,
Steals soft o’er Yarrow’s mountains green,
To sleep embalmed in midnight dew!
All hail, ye hills, whose towering height,
Like shadows, scoops the yielding sky!
And thou, mysterious guest of night,
Dread traveller of immensity!
Stranger of heaven! I bid thee hail!
Shred from the pall of glory riven,
That flashest in celestial gale,
Broad pennon of the King of heaven!
Art thou the flag of woe and death,
From angel’s ensign staff unfurled?
Art thou the standard of His wrath.
Waved o’er a sordid, sinful world?
* * * * *
Whate’er portends thy front of fire,
Thy streaming locks so lovely pale――
Or peace to man, or judgment dire,
Stranger of heaven, I bid thee hail!
* * * * *
O! on thy rapid prow to glide!
To sail the boundless skies with thee,
And plough the twinkling stars aside,
Like foam-bells on a tranquil sea!
To brush the embers from the sun,
The icicles from off the pole;
Then far to other systems run,
Where other moons and planets roll!”
His lyric, “The Skylark,” has often been quoted as one of the best
of his short pieces; and his song, “When the Kye comes Hame,” is also
fine. His life was recently published by his daughter, Mrs. Garden.
Sir Alexander Boswell,¹ the eldest son of Johnson’s biographer, was
the author of some amusing songs which were very popular, such as
“Jenny’s Bawbee,” “Jenny Dang the Weaver,” etc. This gentleman was a
warm admirer of early Scottish literature, and reprinted several works
at his own private printing-press at Auchinleck. One of his songs,
entitled “Good-night, and joy be wi’ ye a’,” is supposed to proceed
from the mouth of an aged chieftain, thus:――
¹ He was born in 1775. “When politics ran high, he
unfortunately wrote some personal satires, for one of which
he received a challenge from Mr. Stuart of Dunearn. The
parties met at Auchtertool in Fifeshire. Conscious of his
error, Sir Alexander resolved not to fire at his opponent,
but Mr. Stuart’s shot took effect, and the unfortunate
baronet fell. He died from the wound on the following
day, the 26th of March, 1822. He had been elevated to the
baronetcy only the previous year. His brother, James, was
an accomplished scholar and student of early literature, and
edited Malone’s edition of Shakespeare, 21 volumes, in 1821;
but he died in 1822, and Sir Alexander had just returned
from the funeral of his brother when he engaged in the fatal
duel.”
“Good-night, and joy be wi’ ye a’;
Your harmless mirth has charmed my heart;
May life’s fell blasts out owre ye blaw,
In sorrow may ye never part.
My spirit lives, but strength is gone;
The mountain fires now blaze in vain;
Remember, sons, the deeds I’ve done,
And in your deeds I’ll live again!
* * * * *
The auld will speak, the young maun hear;
Be cantie, but be good and leal;
Your ain ills aye hae heart to bear,
Anither’s aye hae heart to feel.
So, ere I set, I’ll see you shine,
I’ll see you triumph ere I fa’;
My parting breath shall boast you mine――
Good-night, and joy be wi’ you a’.”
Allan Cunningham,¹ a native of Blackwood, in Dumfriesshire, was a
man of varied accomplishments and marked abilities, combined with
persistent application. In his early days he had few advantages,
and was sent to learn the trade of a mason, but in 1810 he removed
to London and engaged in newspaper work. In 1814 he entered the
establishment of Sir Francis Chantrey, the eminent sculptor, as
superintendent of the works, and remained in this situation until his
death.
¹ Born in 1784, died in 1842. William Tennant, a native of
Anstruther, originally a clerk in a mercantile establishment,
studied ancient and modern literature, and taught himself
Hebrew, is the author of the mock-heroic poem, “Anster
Fair,” which appeared in 1812, and soon became popular.
The subject of the poem was the marriage of Maggie Lauder.
After the appearance of this remarkable production, Tennant
obtained an appointment as a schoolmaster, and finally he
was appointed Professor of Oriental Languages in St. Mary’s
College, St. Andrews. He was the author of several other
poems on local subjects. He died in 1848.
He was an exceedingly industrious writer. He began at an early age
to contribute poetical effusions and songs to the periodical press,
and attained a facility of imitating the strains of the old Scottish
ballads. In 1822 he published a dramatic poem entitled _Sir Marmaduke
Maxwell_, founded on Border tradition and superstition, and afterwards
two volumes of traditional tales, and three novels drawn from similar
sources. In 1832 his rustic epic, _The Maid of Elvar_, in twelve parts,
appeared. He edited a well-known collection of _Scottish Songs_ in four
volumes; and an edition of Burns in eight volumes, to which he prefixed
a valuable life of the poet. Cunningham contributed to Murray’s “Family
Library” a series of _Lives of Eminent British Painters, Sculptors,
and Architects_, which extended to six volumes. It is an interesting
and very useful work. His last work was a _Life of Sir David Wilkie_
in three volumes, which he completed a few days before his death.
All Cunningham’s literary work was executed in his spare hours, in the
intervals from his regular occupation. His taste and attainments in the
fine arts were considerable, and his art criticisms are candid and able.
His prose style is remarkable for its freshness, energy, and ease, and
in some of his songs there is warm emotion and real pathos. The two
following stanzas are from his piece called “The Poet’s Bridal-day
Song”:――
“Oh! my love’s like the steadfast sun,
Or streams that deepen as they run;
Nor hoary hairs, nor forty years,
Nor moments between sighs and tears――
Nor nights of thought, nor days of pain,
Nor dreams of glory dreamt in vain――
Nor mirth, nor sweetest song which flows
To sober joy and soften woes,
Can make my heart or fancy flee
One moment, my sweet wife, from thee.
* * * * *
At times there come, as come there ought,
Grave moment of sedater thought――
When fortune frowns, nor lends on night
One gleam of her inconstant light;
And Hope, that decks the peasant’s bower,
Shines like the rainbow through the shower.
O, then I see, while seated nigh,
A mother’s heart shine in thine eye;
And proud resolve and purpose meek,
Speak of thee more than words can speak:
I think thee, wedded wife of mine,
The best of all that’s not divine.”
William Motherwell¹ was a native of Glasgow, and early manifested a
taste for poetry and song. He attained a thorough knowledge of the
early history of Scottish literature. Reference was made in a preceding
volume to the admirable historical introduction to his _Minstrelsy,
Ancient and Modern_. In 1832 he collected and published his own poems
in one volume. Some of his pieces are very touching, and the following
short one may be taken as a specimen:――
¹ Born in 1797 and died in 1835.
“Mournfully! oh, mournfully
This midnight wind doth sigh,
Like some sweet plaintive melody
Of ages long gone by.
It speaks a tale of other years――
Of hopes that bloomed to die――
Of sunny smiles that set in tears,
And loves that mouldering lie!
Mournfully! oh, mournfully
This midnight wind doth moan;
It stirs some chord of memory
In each dull heavy tone.
The voices of the much-loved dead
Seem floating thereupon――
All, all my fond heart cherished
Ere death had made it lone.
Mournfully! oh, mournfully
This midnight wind doth swell,
With its quaint pensive minstrelsy,
Hope’s passionate farewell,
To the dreamy joys of early years,
Ere yet grief’s canker fell
On the heart’s bloom――ay, well may tears
Start at that parting knell!”
William E. Aytoun¹ was born in Edinburgh, educated in the University
there and in Germany, and having studied law, he was called to the
bar in 1840. In 1845 he was elected to the chair of rhetoric in the
University of Edinburgh, and in 1852 he was appointed Sheriff of Orkney.
¹ 1813, and died in 1865.
Mr. Aytoun is the author of _Lays of the Scottish Cavaliers_, which
appeared in 1849. These range from the battle of Flodden to the
extinction of the Jacobite cause at Culloden, and are pervaded by a
warm spirit, interspersed with scenes of pathos and mournful regret. In
1858 he published a collated edition of the _Old Scottish Ballads_ in
two volumes, which was noticed in a preceding volume.¹ He also attained
distinction by his satirical and humorous compositions; his tales and
sketches, which appeared in _Blackwood’s Magazine_, are vigorous and
amusing.
¹ Mackintosh’s _History of Civilisation Scotland_, Volume I.,
page 446.
1. Robert Nicoll was born at Auchtergaven, Perthshire,
in 1814, and cultivated literature in the face of many
difficulties and discouragements, but his severe struggles
probably shortened his life; he died in the twenty-fourth
year of his age. His poems consist of short pieces and songs,
which display a command of happy imagery and fancy.
2. Robert Gilfillan was born at Dunfermline in 1798, and
died in 1850. His poems and songs have passed through
several editions, and some of his songs have been set to
music. His pieces are marked by warm and kindly feelings,
and one called “The Exile’s Song” is very fine and touching.
3. William Thom, commonly called “The Inverurie Poet,” was
born in Aberdeen in 1789, and died in 1848. He was a weaver,
and followed this trade for many years. In 1844 he published
a volume of _Rhymes and Recollections_. He subsequently
visited London, and was warmly patronised by Scotsmen there
and others. Thom, within his own range of ideas, was a real
poet, and some of his pieces are very fine, sweet, pathetic,
smooth, and flowing in versification.
4. David Gray was born at Merkland, near Kirkintilloch,
in 1838, a son of humble parents, who intended him for
the Church. He studied for four sessions in the University
of Glasgow, and supported himself by teaching. He was
passionately fond of poetry, and wrote many verses, some
of which had appeared in the _Glasgow Citizen_. In his
twenty-second year, this warm-hearted youth went to London
to push his fortune; but he was soon attacked by consumption,
and naturally longed to return to his father’s house, and
he came back to Merkland. There he worked hopefully at his
poems, but his strength was fast ebbing away. He ardently
desired to see his poems in print, and they were sent to the
press. One page was immediately set up, and the dying poet
had the ineffable gratification of seeing and reading it on
the day before his death. The dying poet then exclaimed that
“he could now depart tranquilly into his eternal rest.” In
1865, a monument was erected to his memory in Kirkintilloch.
His chief poem is called “The Luggie,” but he composed a
number of sonnets, which have many touching features both in
feeling and expression. His genius was rich though immature.
Alexander Smith was born at Kilmarnock in 1830, but he passed his early
life as a designer in a Paisley factory. His first volume of verse
appeared in 1853, and the chief poem in it was “A Life Drama,” a series
of thirteen dramatic scenes. Afterwards he was appointed to the office
of secretary to the University of Edinburgh, and continued his literary
efforts. He contributed prose articles to periodicals, and, in 1857,
he published another volume called _City Poems_. In 1861, his _Edwin
Deira_ appeared. But his health began to fail, and he died in 1867.
Smith had a vein of fervid poetic feeling, and his imaginative faculty
was pretty keen, but in chaste poetic elaboration he was not strong.
The greater part of his poetry is immature, overloaded with imagery
and ornament――defects which, if his life had been spared, he might have
overcome. On the other hand, his prose writings are better than his
poetry. His short papers and essays, “Dreamthorp,” “A Summer in Skye,”
and some literary remains published after his death, are written in an
easy, pleasing, and admirable style.
Dr. Charles Mackay was born in Perth in 1814. He united political
sympathies and aspirations with lyrical poetry, and some of his songs
have long been familiar to the people of this country and America.
His first poems were published in 1834, in a small volume. Soon after
he became connected with the London press――_The Morning Chronicle_,
a daily journal. In 1840, his poem called _The Hope of the World_
appeared; and in 1842, _The Salamandrine_, one of the most finished of
his works. In 1845, his _Legends of the Isles_ was published; _Voices
from the Crowd_, 1845; _Voices from the Mountains_, 1847; _Town Lyrics_,
1848; _The Spirit of Nature_, 1850; _The Lump of Gold_, 1856; _Songs
for Music_, 1857; _Under Green Leaves_, 1858. He is also the author
of a number of prose works, among which may be mentioned, _The History
of London from its Foundation by the Romans to the Accession of
Queen Victoria_, published in 1838; _Memoirs of Extraordinary Public
Delusions_, in three volumes, 1841; _A History of the Mormons_, 1851;
_Life and Liberty in America_, 1859, in two volumes; _The Gaelic
and Celtic Etymology of Western Europe_, 1877; and other works. The
following lines are from the opening of his song, “Tubal Cain”:――
“Old Tubal Cain was a man of might
In the days when earth was young;
By the fierce red light of his furnace bright
The strokes of his hammer rung;
And he lifted high his brawny hand
On the iron glowing clear,
Till the sparks rushed out in scarlet showers,
As he ♦fashioned the sword and spear.
And he sang: Hurra for my handiwork!
Hurra for the spear and sword!
Hurra for the hand that shall wield them well,
For he shall be king and lord!”
♦ “fashoned” replaced with “fashioned”
Alexander G. Murdoch was born in Glasgow in April, 1843. He is the
author of many poems and songs of much merit. He had a wide command
of expressive language, and some of his poems roll in very powerful
strains. His _Humorous Readings_ were published in 1888‒89; he also
wrote several interesting tales. He died at Glasgow on the 13th of
February, 1891.
Lewis Morrison-Grant was born on the 9th of December, 1872, at a
cottage in the vicinity of Loch Park, in the parish of Botriphnie,
Banffshire. He received the rudiments of education at the parish
school and at the Public School of Keith, and entered the University
of Aberdeen in 1890. After attending two sessions his health failed,
and he was unable to attend his third session. His short life was
remarkable. When a mere boy he commenced to write verse, and his
passion for this kind of writing became very strong. In the spring of
1892 his _Protomantis and Other Poems_ was published in a volume of
three hundred and nine pages, containing four pretty long poems, and
one hundred and thirty-two shorter ones, which touch on a wide variety
of subjects. His poems are of unequal merit, and in general they
lack concentrated thought and strength; yet, taking into account
that they were all written before he was twenty years of age, and
the circumstances in which he was placed, his volume of poems is an
extraordinary effort. If his life had been longer spared, no doubt
he would have produced more highly finished work. After a protracted
illness he died at Goldenwells, near Keith, on the 29th of June, 1893.¹
The following lines are from his fine poem entitled “More Light”:――
¹ A very interesting account of him, under the title of _His
Life, Letters, and Last Poems_, edited by Jessie A. Anderson,
was published by Gardner in 1894.
“I wait for light, I wait for God
To fall in living lines on thee,
O Soul!――in thoughts on which bestowed
Gleams some unveiling mystery.
And light is that I seek alone,
A light wherein all things shall seem
Even as to God they all are known:
Our human light is faint and dim.”
Before passing from this branch, I may remark that though a number
of poets have been noticed in the preceding pages, they only form a
fraction of the Scottish Poets, for “The Poet’s Corner” of the Mitchell
Library in Glasgow contains upwards of 5336 volumes of Scottish poetry,
embracing the writings of 2000 different authors. Even this collection,
which I understand is the most complete in existence, may not contain
specimens of all the Scottish rhymers and poets.¹
¹ In connection with this, a volume appeared in 1887 entitled
_The Bards of Bon-Accord_, by William Walker, Aberdeen,
which is an important work of its class. It covers the
period from 1375 to 1860, and embraces notices of many
poets and writers of rhyme――natives of Aberdeen and the
neighbouring counties. In itself the work is exceedingly
interesting. The notices of the various writers are very
well executed――with taste, judgment, and sometimes keen
and warm sympathy. The numerous quotations also show care
and discrimination in their selection, while the author’s
comments exhibit much consideration, fairness, and good
sense.
In an Appendix a Bibliography of the subject of the work is
given which greatly enhances its value, especially to all
those who take a lively interest in matters of this kind――a
class gradually increasing in numbers with the advance
of exhaustive historical inquiries and liberal culture.
The work has also a very complete index, which the author
has very skilfully arranged, “to serve a threefold purpose
――biographical items being printed in small capitals――poems
quoted, in italics――other matters, in ordinary type.”
Those who have had occasion to make literary inquiries will
appreciate the value of an index of this character.
CHAPTER XLII.
_Fiction of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries._
I HAVE already mentioned Smollett as a writer of history and verse,
and the first fruit of his labour in the field of fiction was _Roderick
Random_, which appeared in 1748. His other novels were published in
the following years――_Peregrine Pickle_ in 1751; _Ferdinand Count of
Fathom_, 1754; _Sir Launcelot Greaves_, 1762; and _The Expedition of
Humphry Clinker_, 1771.
_Roderick Random_ is an exceedingly interesting work of fiction, and
it was long popular. Its interest and attraction does not depend on
the development of a well-conceived and elaborated plot, but on the
inventive power, the native humour, and knowledge of the author. The
turns in the fortune of the hero of the novel are many and varied,
and scene follows scene with amazing rapidity, so the attention of
the reader never flags; but the morality of the novel is low, and some
coarse passages occur in it.
The hero in _Peregrine Pickle_ is an unprincipled character. The
humorous and comic features of his characters are well worked out, and
presented in an attractive and amusing form, and the interest of the
novel is admirably maintained. _Ferdinand Count Fathom_ is a sort of
romance, in which the chief character is an unscrupulous rascal who
sticks at nothing. _Humphry Clinker_ is the best of his novels. It is
pervaded by a manly tone of feeling, natural, caustic, and humorous
observation, and fine discrimination of character. The descriptions of
rural scenery, society, and manners are clear and fascinating. Smollett
was gifted with a keen sense of the comic and ludicrous, which he
deftly used, while touches of pathos also occur in his writings.
Henry Mackenzie was born in Edinburgh,¹ and educated at the High School
and the University of his native city. He followed the profession of
law, and mixed freely in the literary circles of the capital, which
then rejoiced in the names of Hume, Robertson, Adam Smith, Fergusson,
and others.
¹ In 1745; died in 1831.
It seems that Mackenzie had read and studied the writings of Sterne,
but he is superior to him in taste and in delicacy of feeling. In 1771,
Mackenzie published _The Man of Feeling_, which was followed by _The
Man of the World_, and _Julia de Roubigne_. He is also the author of
various sketches which appeared in the _Mirror_ and _Lounger_, and of
some dramatic pieces which were acted at Edinburgh.
There is no distinctly conceived plot developed to an issue in
Mackenzie’s novels, still there is much interesting reading in his
productions. His humour is natural and pure; his style is elegant and
expressive, natural and easy, but lacking in strength. He was amongst
the first to denounce the system of slave-labour in the West Indies,
in these words:――
“I have often been tempted to doubt whether there is not an error in
the whole plan of negro-servitude; and whether whites or creoles born
in the West Indies, or perhaps cattle, after the manner of European
husbandry, would not do the business better and cheaper than the slaves
do. The money which the latter cost at first, the sickness――often owing
to despondency of mind――to which they are liable after their arrival,
and the proportion that die in consequence of it, make the machine,
if it may be so called, of a plantation extremely expensive in its
operations. In the list of slaves belonging to a wealthy planter, it
would astonish you to see the number unfit for service, pining under
disease, a burden on their master. I am only talking as a merchant;
but as a man――good heavens! when I think of the many thousands of my
fellow-creatures groaning under servitude and misery! Great God! hast
Thou peopled those regions of Thy world for the purpose of casting
out their inhabitants to chains and torture? No, Thou gavest them
a land teeming with good things, lightest up Thy sun to bring forth
spontaneous plenty; but the refinements of man, ever at war with Thy
works, have changed this scene of profusion and luxuriance into a
theatre of rapine, of slavery, and of murder.
“Forgive the warmth of this apostrophe! Here it would not be understood;
even my uncle, whose heart is far from a hard one, would smile at my
romance, and tell me that these things must be so. Habit, the tyrant of
nature and of reason, is deaf to the voice of either; and she stifles
humanity and debases the species――for the master of slaves has seldom
the soul of a man.” These are worthy sentiments, well expressed.
Dr. John Moore¹ was a native of Stirling, the son of a minister in
that town. He was educated at the University of Glasgow, and studied
medicine and surgery under Mr. Gordon, who had a large practice.
He afterwards entered into partnership with Gordon, and practised
in Glasgow for a number of years. At different times during his life
he lived on the Continent for eight or nine years, mostly in France,
Switzerland, Germany, and Italy, which gave him many opportunities of
observing varied forms of society on a large scale. Sir John Moore, the
noble General who led the memorable retreat in Spain, and fell at the
battle of Corunna, was the eldest son of Dr. Moore.²
¹ Born in 1729; died in 1802.
² My father was then under Sir John Moore, and was wounded
in the left arm at the battle of Corunna; and of all the
generals whom he fought under for a period of fourteen years,
Sir John was his greatest favourite.
Dr. Moore’s novels are――(1) _Zeluco_: Various Views of Human Nature,
taken from Life and Manners, Foreign and Domestic, which appeared in
1786; (2) _Edward_: Various Views of Human Nature, taken from Life and
Manners, chiefly in England, 1796; and (3) _Mordaunt_: Sketches of Life,
Character, and Manners, in various Countries, including the Memoirs
of a French Lady of Quality, 1800. All his novels indicate an elevated
moral aim, and are more remarkable for wide observation than the
invention of plot interest.
He is the author of several other works:――_Medical Sketches_, published
in 1785; _A Journal during a Residence in France, from the beginning
of August to the middle of December, 1792_, in two volumes, which
appeared in 1793‒94; _A View of the Causes and Progress of the French
Revolution_, in two volumes, published in 1795. Moore was an accurate
observer of men and things. His knowledge of mankind was vast; his
powers of observation are well displayed in his novels; and his account
of the striking scenes of the French Revolution are still well worth
reading. A complete edition of his works has been published in seven
volumes, with a memoir of his life, by Dr. Robert Anderson.
Elizabeth Hamilton was born at Belfast in 1758. Her father was a
merchant, descended from a Scottish family, and died early, leaving
a widow and three children. The children were brought up and educated
by their relatives. Elizabeth, the youngest, was sent to Mr. Marshall,
a farmer in Stirlingshire, married to her father’s sister; and the
child found a warm home with Mr. and Mrs. Marshall. They adopted and
educated her with a care and kindliness that has rarely been matched.
She says herself:――“No child ever spent so happy a life, nor have I
ever met with anything at all resembling our way of living, except
the description given by Rousseau of Wolmar’s farm and vintage.” At an
early age she manifested a keen taste for literature, and wrote many
copies of verses. For many years, in the latter part of her life, she
lived in Edinburgh, where she was much respected.
Her chief works are:――(1) _The Letters of a Hindoo Rajah_, which
appeared in 1796; (2) _The Modern Philosophers_, published in 1800, in
three volumes; (3) _Letters on Education_; (4) _Memoirs of Agrippina_;
(5) _The Cottagers of Glenburnie_, in 1808; (6) _Popular Essays on
the Human Mind_; (7) _Hints to the Directors of Public Schools_. _The
Cottagers of Glenburnie_ was the most popular of her efforts. It is a
tale of cottage life, of which the scene is laid in a small, scattered
Scottish village; and it presents well realised pictures of Scottish
rural life in the later part of the last century. She died in 1816.
Mrs. Mary Brunton was born on the 1st of November, 1778, in Burray, a
small island of the Orkney group. In this remote region, her father,
Colonel Balfour of Elwick, and her mother, an accomplished woman, held
a leading position in society. Mary was carefully educated, and her
mother taught her French and German; and she was also sent to Edinburgh
for some time to complete her education. In 1798 she married the Rev.
Mr. Brunton, minister of Bolton, Haddingtonshire; and in 1803 he was
appointed to one of the churches in Edinburgh, where Mrs. Brunton had
greater facilities for cultivating her mind.
Her novel _Self-Control_ was published anonymously in 1811, and proved
a success. The first edition was sold in a month, and a second and a
third were soon issued. Her next novel, entitled _Discipline_, appeared
in 1814, and was well received. She was engaged on another story, which
she did not live to finish, having died on the 7th of December, 1818.
The unfinished tale and a memoir of the lamented authoress were issued
by her husband in one volume. The chief merit of her two completed
novels appears in the elevated moral sentiment and purity of tone which
pervade them; and in her keen observation and art in the development of
traits of character, which give a semblance of reality to her charming
stories.
Sir Walter Scott was a wonderful genius, and a man of exceptional
industry. The quantity and variety of his writings are amazing. In
the field of the historic novel――pictures of the life, manners, and
superstitions of the Scottish people, he is unrivalled. The greater
number of his long series of novels have their scenes laid in Scotland,
and are characteristically Scottish; although a few of them have their
scenes laid in England, the Continent, and the East, even in some
of these Scottish characters appear. Scott usually worked in periods
pretty near his own time, for considerably more than one half of his
novels belong to the eighteenth and seventeenth centuries, and only
one of those relating to Scotland go farther back than the fifteenth
century. He was not a great thinker, his analytic faculty was not at
all remarkable; but he was a keen observer, and had a retentive memory.
He had also a pretty wide knowledge of history. But his strength
mainly lay in his unrivalled powers of description, a fine sense of the
picturesque in scenery, in his vivid and rapid narrative, and varied
characterisation of external action; whatever was visible and palpable,
lay within his compass.
In many of his novels he shows a fine appreciation of the humorous
and comic features of human life. He has an instinctive perception of
fitness of touch in the delineation of character, and many of his
characters are admirably presented. He often introduces supernatural
features, visions, prophecies, and superstitions, and there are
incidents in his novels which seem to indicate that he himself had
some belief in superstition. Most of his novels contain some hints of
agencies beyond the general laws of nature; and in his handling of the
supernatural he usually left popular prediction and second sight in a
haze. Scott was not an idealist, so the agency which worked marvels was
not an invisible spirit, but rather something tangible――a sorcerer or a
soothsayer, of which the national records and traditional superstition
presented an ample store. From these and many other sources he wove
wonderful creations, stirring narratives, striking and charming scenes.
Scott’s novels have had a wide influence, stretching far beyond the
limits of Britain. The sale and circulation of them has been enormous,
not only in this country, but also on the Continent of Europe and
the United States of America. After the abolition of the paper duty,
they were published in very cheap forms; and millions of the sixpenny
edition have been sold. In general the moral tone of his novels is
manly and wholesome; and they have been a source of amusement and
enjoyment to several generations and many millions of people.
Personally, Scott was a humane and very amiable man, and much beloved
by all who knew him. In the evening of his days, when adversity
overtook him, then the real greatness of his spirit appeared. He
manfully faced the difficulties before him, and struggled to discharge
his debts with a hope and fortitude worthy of the greatest hero.¹
¹ A valuable and interesting _Life of Scott_ was written by
his son-in-law, Mr. John G. Lockhart, which was published
in 1837; and in 1843 he published his _Life of Scott_ in an
abridged form. Scott’s own interesting Journal was recently
published.
John Galt, a contemporary of Scott, was born at Irvine in 1779. When
a boy of eleven years, his parents removed to Greenock; and there he
manifested a bent for poetry and music. After finishing his school days,
he was employed in the custom-house at Greenock till 1804, when he went
to London to push his fortune. There, and in many other quarters of
the globe he entered into various schemes with little success; and in
the end he chiefly devoted his energies to literature. He was a man of
great energy and genius; but unfortunate in most of his undertakings.
His life was one of hard struggles, in which, however, his heart and
spirit never faltered.
He is the author of a long list of novels, tales, dramatic pieces,
and other writings. His original powers were excellent. In his best
efforts, within the circle of his cognition, in the perception of
motive and character, he was supreme. But his taste was defective,
while the untoward circumstances with which he had to struggle, greatly
crippled his genius. His fertility, versatility, and industry were
very remarkable; but the merits of his novels are unequal. The scenes
of most of his novels were laid in Scotland, and dealt with Scottish
life and character. The most popular of his novels were the _Ayrshire
Legatees_, which appeared in 1820; and the _Annals of the Parish_,
written in 1810, but not published till 1821. The _Annals of the
Parish_ is an excellent tale; and it presents many amusing, striking,
and pathetic incidents, and touches of quaint humour.
Galt returned to Scotland in 1835, greatly enfeebled by repeated
attacks of paralysis. Yet he wrote several articles for periodicals,
and edited the works of others. After severe and long suffering, borne
with great fortitude, he died at Greenock, on the 11th of April, 1839.
Mrs. Johnstone¹ is the author of a tale called _Clan Albyn_, which
appeared in 1815. It throws a romantic glow over Highland scenery and
character; her descriptions are vivid and picturesque. In 1827 her
novel, _Elizabeth de Bruce_, was published. She also wrote several
attractive tales for children, and was a large contributor to the
periodical literature of the time. She was for several years editor of
_Tait’s Magazine_. Her style is smooth and elegant, and her writings
characterised by a varied culture and sound judgment.
¹ Born 1781, died 1857.
Susan E. Ferrier¹ was a daughter of James Ferrier, one of the clerks
of the Court of Session. She is the authoress of three novels, all of
them in three volumes. The first one, entitled _Marriage_, appeared
in 1818. She evinces considerable talents and wit, writes in a rather
caustic style, and exerts her fine comic humour on the foibles and
oddities of mankind. Many artful sarcastic touches occur in the novel,
and keen insight of human nature is manifested. Her next novel, _The
Inheritance_, was published in 1824. It is more elaborate and better
developed than the preceding one; some of her characters are well
delineated. Her third novel, _Destiny: or, The Chiefs Daughter_,
appeared in 1831. Its scene is in the Highlands, and the authoress
deals with Highland scenery and Highland manners, but it is not a
romantic tale, though in some passages strong passion and feeling
appears.
¹ Born in 1782, died in 1854.
John Wilson was born on the 18th of May, 1785, in Paisley, where his
father was a successful manufacturer. He was educated at the University
of Glasgow and at Oxford. After leaving Oxford, he purchased the small
estate of Elleray, on the banks of the Lake Windermere, in England,
where he built a house. He married, kept a yacht, and enjoyed himself
amid the fine scenery of the lakes, and wrote poetry. But some reverses
overtook him, and, as stated in a preceding chapter, he obtained the
chair of Moral Philosophy in the University of Edinburgh in 1820, which
he held until his death in 1854. He was not a philosopher, but he was
a cultured, amiable, and kind-hearted man. His poetical efforts consist
of the _Isle of Palms_, published in 1812; the _City of the Plague_,
in 1816, and some other short pieces. His poetry is sweet and soft, but
lacking in strength and passion, and it has been eclipsed by his own
prose writings.
Wilson was one of the leading contributors to _Blackwood’s Magazine_ in
its palmy days, and in it some of his tales first appeared. In 1822 his
volume entitled _Lights and Shadows of Scottish Life_ was issued. It
consists of twenty-four short tales, which relate to Scottish rural and
pastoral life. The tales are simple, homely, and pathetic. In 1823 his
work entitled _The Trials of Margaret Lyndsay_ was published. This tale
has many touching scenes, pictures, and incidents. In 1824 his story,
_The Foresters_, was issued.
The most important of his contributions to _Blackwood’s Magazine_
were collected and published, under the title of _The Recreations
of Christopher North_, in 1842, in three volumes. They consist of a
miscellany of papers and criticisms on a wide variety of subjects.
His criticisms on poetry are often discriminative and elegant, and
his series of articles on Spenser and Homer have been much admired.
A complete collected edition of his writings was published by his
son-in-law, Professor Ferrier, in 1855‒58, in twelve volumes, and a
memoir of his life by his daughter, Mrs. Gordon, was issued in 1862.
Sir Thomas D. Lauder¹ is the author of two interesting novels of the
historic class relating to Scottish life――_Lochanduh_, published in
1825, and the _Wolf of Badenoch_ in 1827. The Wolf of Badenoch was
Alexander Stuart, a son of Robert II., and Earl of Buchan and Lord of
Badenoch. He was one of the most turbulent men of the period. In 1830
Sir Thomas published a very interesting account of the great floods
in Morayshire, which happened in 1829. He has described the effects of
this inundation with great picturesqueness, and presented many pathetic
episodes of the suffering of the people. He is the author of a series
of _Highland Rambles_, in which there are many striking descriptions
of natural scenery. He was commissioned to write a _Memorial of Her
Majesty Queen Victoria’s Visit to Scotland_ in 1842. He was engaged on
a work, _A Descriptive Account of Scottish Rivers_, the Tweed and other
streams, which he left unfinished, but an edition of it, with a preface
by Dr. John Brown, was published in 1874.
¹ Born in 1784, died in 1848.
Andrew Picken, a son of a manufacturer, was born in Paisley in 1788.
He was for some time engaged in business in the West Indies, and
afterwards in Ireland and Glasgow. Subsequently he settled as a
bookseller in Liverpool, but was not successful, and proceeded
to London and engaged in literature. His first effort, _Tales and
Sketches of the West of Scotland_, was much esteemed for its local
descriptions. His novel entitled _The Sectarian: or, The Church and
the Meeting-house_, appeared in 1829, in three volumes, but it was not
very successful. The characters which the author drew of the Dissenters
irritated many readers. In 1830 he issued _The Dominie’s Legacy_, a
novel in three volumes, which was well received, and a second edition
was soon published. In 1831 he published _The Club Book_, a collection
of original tales by different authors, which included two of his
own――The Deerstalkers, and The Three Kearneys. He issued the first part
of a work entitled _Traditionary Stories of Old Families_, which was
designed to comprise the legendary history of England, Scotland, and
Ireland. His last work was a novel called the _Black Watch_, which he
had just finished when he was struck down by apoplexy, and he died on
the 23rd of November, 1833.
James B. Fraser¹ is the author of interesting and amusing Eastern
tales. In 1828 he issued _The Kuzzilbash: a Tale of Khorassan_, in
three volumes, and afterwards he added a continuation under the title
of the _Persian Adventurer_. He described the life and manners of the
Persians by stirring narratives, which are partly fictitious and partly
real. Many of the scenes are well described, while the narratives are
animated and interesting. He also wrote a Scottish story, _The Highland
Smugglers_, which, however, is not equal to his Eastern tales.
¹ Born in 1783, died in 1856.
John G. Lockhart,¹ the biographer of Sir Walter Scott, and editor
of the _Quarterly Review_ from 1826 till 1852, was the author of
four novels. His first effort, _Valerius, a Roman Story_, appeared
in 1821 in three volumes. It is a tale of the times of Trajan, the
Roman Emperor, who persecuted the Christians in Rome. He evinces much
historic knowledge and remarkable powers of realisation throughout
the story. Many striking pictures and sketches of Roman life and its
associations are vividly pourtrayed. His story entitled _Some Passages
in the Life of Mr. Adam Blair, Minister of the Gospel at Cross-Meikle_,
published in 1822, is an account of the fall of a Scottish minister,
and his restoration, after a period of repentance, to the functions
of his profession in the place where he had formerly ministered. The
narrative is forcibly written, and presents a clear idea of Scottish
character. The nature and circumstances of the story, however, renders
it somewhat unpleasant reading. In 1823 his long novel, _Reginald
Dalton_, was issued in three volumes. The scene of it is laid in
England. A detailed account of college life in Oxford was presented,
where Reginald, the hero of the tale, was educated; and, among his
acquisitions, he learned to imbibe port-wine. In the course of the
story some touching scenes of life are described. His tale of _Matthew
Wald_ was published in 1824 in one volume. Matthew Wald, the hero of
the tale, passes through many changes of fortune, in which there are
characteristic scenes.
¹ Born in 1794, died in 1854.
Lockhart was a highly gifted and accomplished man. Besides his _Life
of Scott_, he wrote a _Life of Burns_, published in 1828. It is written
in an admirable style, and in a candid and appreciative spirit, and at
the time it was a valuable contribution to the biography of the poet.
He contributed many articles to _Blackwood’s Magazine_, and greatly
assisted in giving it a distinctive character. While editor of the
_Quarterly Review_, he wrote for it a considerable number of critical
articles, which are excellent specimens of his clear and incisive style.
David M. Moir¹ was a native of Musselburgh. He is the author of an
exceedingly interesting and humorous Scottish tale, _The Autobiography
of Mansie Wauch_, published in 1828. Also the _Legend of Genevieve_,
with other tales and poems, issued in 1824. Under the name of Delta
(a Greek letter) he contributed many poetical pieces to _Blackwood’s
Magazine_; and also wrote _Sketches of the Poetical Literature of the
Past Half-century_, which appeared in 1851. His poetical writings were
edited by Mr. Thomas Aird, with a memoir, and published in 1852 in two
volumes.
¹ Born in 1798, died in 1851.
James Grant¹ was a native of Edinburgh, and served for some time in
the 62nd Regiment. He wrote a large number of military and historical
novels, and memoirs of eminent commanders, some of which were once very
popular. He was pretty familiar with military affairs, and with some
periods of Scottish history, and several of his tales present vivid
pictures of bypast times.
¹ Born in 1822, died in 1887.
David Pae was born on the 6th of May, 1828, at Buchanty, on the banks
of the Almond, Perthshire, where his father was a miller, and was
drowned while attempting to ford the Almond, on horseback, near his own
house. David, when an infant, was taken by his mother to Coldingham,
on the Scottish Borders, where she remained with her family. He was
educated at the parish school. When a mere youth he went to Edinburgh,
and was employed by Mr. Thomas Grant, printer and publisher. He had a
keen fancy for the drama, and his first literary effort assumed the
form of a dramatic criticism. He was gifted with fine sensibilities,
and earnestly studied the Bible. When the Crimean War was impending he
published a pamphlet under the title of _The Coming Struggle_, the aim
of which was to warn the people of this country against our alliance
with the Papal powers of the Continent. He brought prophecy to bear on
transpiring events with a vigour which raised some stir in the country.
Shortly after he issued a volume entitled _The Second Advent_, in which
he presented his views in a more elaborate form. Afterward he published
a treatise on _Mesmerism and Animal Magnetism_, which was followed by
a history of America. He had not yet, however, touched the region best
suited for his talents. At last he entered into his destined field with
a serial story――Jessie, the Bookfolder――which appeared simultaneously
in the _North Briton_, published in Edinburgh, and the _Penny Post_,
published in Glasgow. This story attained a remarkable success, and
was afterward republished in book form. For about nine years he was a
contributor to the _North Briton_ and the _Penny Post_. He also edited
the _Dunfermline Press_ for two years, 1859‒60, in which several of
his stories first appeared. In 1863 he was engaged by Mr. Leng (now
Sir John Leng) of the _Dundee Advertiser_, as the story writer for the
_People’s Journal_, in which many of his stories first appeared, and
contributed greatly to render the paper popular and to increase its
circulation. When the _People’s Friend_ was commenced in 1869 he was
appointed editor. He continued to edit this instructive miscellany,
and to write stories for the _People’s Journal_, until his death, which
occurred on the morning of the 9th of May, 1884. He died of disease of
the heart after an hour’s illness.
He was an exceedingly fertile writer. Besides his early efforts
mentioned above, he wrote fifty serial stories, many essays and short
tales, and also an interesting volume on Rosslyn and Hawthornden, and
a drama entitled Drumclog. He was a keen observer of the beauties of
external nature, and evinced considerable powers of description. The
moral tone of his stories was elevated and manly. Personally he was an
amiable man, of a quiet and unassuming character.
The late gifted Professor Minto was the author of three novels――_The
Crack of Doom_, published in 1886; _The Meditation of Ralph Hardelot_,
issued in 1888; and _Was She Good or Bad_, in 1889.
William Alexander was born on the 10th of June 1826, at Rescivet in the
parish of Chapel of Garioch, Aberdeenshire, where his father carried
on the trade of a blacksmith. He was educated at the parish school
of Daviot, and before his school days ended, his father gave up the
blacksmith business and removed to the farm of Damhead. On this farm
from an early age, William engaged in agricultural work, and acquired
an accurate knowledge of the rural life of Aberdeenshire, which he
afterwards turned to excellent account. He greatly enjoyed agricultural
work, and rural life. But in early manhood a serious accident
necessitated the amputation of a limb, which entirely changed his mode
of life. During the time of his confinement and convalescence he began
a course of reading, and practised composition in the form of essays
and stories, which widened the scope of his knowledge and improved his
naturally well-balanced mind. His first literary effort which appeared
in print, was an essay on farm-servants, written in competition for a
prize offered by the proprietors of the _North of Scotland Gazette_.
His essay won the prize; and shortly after Mr. M‘Combie, the editor,
offered him employment on the paper which he gladly accepted. In May
1853, the _Gazette_ was reconstituted as the _Free Press_, and Mr.
Alexander continued to occupy an important position on the staff of
this paper and its allied issues――the _Weekly Free Press_ and the
_Evening Gazette_.
He wrote a story entitled _The Authentic History of Peter Grundy_,
which appeared in the _Free Press_, but has not been republished. His
story――_Johnny Gibb of Gushetneuk_, in the parish of Pyketillim, with
Glimpses of the parish politics about 1843, was commenced in the _Free
Press_ in September 1869. It is an excellent story, and was republished
in book form in 1871. It is intensely interesting, remarkable for its
natural and true characterisation, and its quaint humour and pathos;
while it is especially valuable philologically, as embodying a pretty
full and pure specimen of the Aberdeenshire dialect, of which the
author was a thorough master. It became popular, and has passed through
ten editions. In 1875 his volume under the title of _Sketches of Life
Among My Ain Folk_ was published, and consists of four short stories,
which present graphic pictures of social life in Aberdeenshire,
with many touches of humour and pathos. His volume entitled _Notes
and Sketches of Northern Rural Life in the Eighteenth Century_, was
published in 1877. This is a comparatively small but interesting essay,
and gives an instructive account of the social condition and industrial
life of the region and period with which it dealt. He also wrote papers
on _Aberdeenshire Agriculture_, and the _Making of Aberdeenshire_,
which were published. He contributed a number of articles and sketches
to various periodicals, which mainly treated on the life and social
conditions of North-eastern Scotland. His minor stories and fugitive
pieces were very numerous. In recognition of his literary activity and
the merit of his writings, in 1886 the University of Aberdeen conferred
on him the honorary degree of Doctor of Laws.
As a journalist, he attained notable distinction. His sound judgment,
tact, and considerate character, were conspicuous. He was always ready
to advocate any cause or movement to the utmost of his power, which
he believed to be necessary for the public good, or calculated to
alleviate suffering, and promote the happiness of the community. When
occasion demanded it, he showed great determination and independence.
Outside the functions of journalism, he took an active part in the
affairs of various public institutions in the city. He was a director
of the Royal Infirmary, a member of the Public Library Committee, and
a member of the Association for the Improvement of the Condition of the
Poor.
Personally, he was a very amiable and kind-hearted man. His benignant
and thoughtful countenance, genial and inspiriting conversation left an
abiding impression. As every one, who came within the influence of his
voice felt that there was a firm conviction and earnest thought behind
it. After a short illness, he died at his residence in Aberdeen on the
19th of February, 1894.
Robert Lewis Stevenson was a son of Thomas Stevenson, an eminent civil
engineer, and was born in Edinburgh on the 13th of November 1850. He
was a delicate boy, and very studious in his own way. He was educated
at the University of Edinburgh; but according to his own account he did
not regularly attend any of the classes. He once remarked――“I am sorry,
indeed, that I have no Greek, but I should be sorrier still if I were
dead; nor do I know the name of that branch of knowledge which is worth
acquiring at the price of a brain fever.” He became a member of the
Scottish Bar, but never practised law. He devoted his attention to
literature, and attained distinction as a novelist, essay writer, and
poet. In the later years of his life, he resided in the island of Samoa,
where he died on the 8th of December 1894.
He is the author of over twenty novels and romances, several volumes
of poetry and ballads, and a number of excellent essays. Some of
his novels have been very popular, and reached a large sale. His
_Underwoods_, a volume of poetry, has reached a sixth edition. This
volume contains thirty-eight pieces in English and sixteen in Scotch,
and in both the personal characteristic prevails, yet they are
interesting. The first among the Scotch pieces is entitled “The Maker
to Posterity,” and begins thus:――
“Far ‘yont amang the years to be,
When a’ we think, an’ a’ we see,
An’ a’ we luve’s been dung ajee
By time’s rouch shouther,
An’ what was richt and wrang for me
Lies mangled throw’ther;
It’s possible――it’s hardly mair――
That some ane, ripin’ after lear――
Some auld professor or young heir,
If still there’s either――
May find an’ read me, an’ be sair
Perplexed, puir brither!
‘What tongue does your auld bookie speak?’
He’ll spier; an’ I, his mou to steik:
‘No bein’ fit to write in Greek,
I wrote in Lallan,
Dear to my heart as the peat reek,
Auld as Tantallon.
Few speak it than, an’ noo there’s nane;
My puir auld sangs lie a’ their lane,
Their sense, that ance was braw an’ plain,
Tint a’ thegether.
Like runes upon a standin’ stane
Amang the heather.’”
As a novelist, he had the art of rendering his writings interesting.
His faculty of description was fairly good. He had the power of
grasping incidents and circumstances, realising and combining them,
and presenting attractive stories.
* * * * *
In conclusion, it may be indicated that in earlier times the ballad
literature, traditional tales, and chap-books, partly held the place
among the people, which is now mainly filled by modern fiction. In the
present century there has been a great development of this branch of
literature, and during the last thirty years enormous quantities of
fiction have appeared in the periodical and newspaper press. There are
varied forms, classes, and qualities of fiction. Much of it is merely
written for amusement, much also for special purposes, such as various
religious aims, and moral aims. It seems extremely doubtful, if the
intense struggle in this branch of literature to produce sensational
and exciting stories is more likely to elevate than to debase the moral
sentiments of the people.
CHAPTER XLIII.
_Literature of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries
(continued)――Religious and Miscellaneous Literature._
SECTION I.
_Religious Literature of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries._
THE religious literature of Scotland in the form of sermons and
hortative discourses is pretty large, but in the department of theology
there are comparatively few works of high authority, which may be
accounted for upon the ground that until recently there was little
necessity for such works, as the religious differences of belief among
the Scots were not concerning the existence and attributes of God nor
the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, but chiefly as to forms
of Church government, and the powers of the Established Church in
relation to the State. These were the grounds on which differences in
convictions and opinions prevailed among the people of Scotland, and
hence the characteristics of the religious literature of the country.
The Rev. Ebenezer Erskine and his brother, the Rev. Ralph Erskine,¹
were both celebrated in the history of the national Church, but they
were more remarkable for their personal influence and preaching than
as writers. Ebenezer Erskine was the founder of the Secession Church,
a man of great energy and strength of will. A collection of his sermons
in five volumes has been published.
¹ Ebenezer was born in 1680, and died in 1755; Ralph was born
in 1682, and died in 1751.
The sermons of Ralph Erskine are numerous, and he also composed
_Gospel Sonnets_, which appeared in 1760 in two volumes, but they are
devotional, not poetical. He was minister of the Church of Dunfermline,
but joined the Secession with his brother and withdrew from the
Establishment.
The Rev. Dr. John Erskine¹ was the eldest son of Erskine of Cardross,
author of the _Principles of the Law of Scotland_. Mr. Erskine studied
for the Church at the University of Edinburgh, and after completing his
course he was ordained minister of the parish of Kirkintilloch in 1744.
In 1753 he was presented to the church of Cardross; in 1758 he was
transferred to the charge of the new Greyfriars Church in Edinburgh;
and in 1765 he was appointed one of the ministers of old Greyfriars
Church, where he had for his colleague Dr. Robertson. He was a learned
divine, and the author of a long list of discourses and theological
dissertations. He also has the honour of being among the first who
advocated the cause of Foreign Missions in the Church of Scotland.
¹ Born in 1721, died in 1803.
Dr. Alexander Webster¹ was minister of the Tolbooth Church in Edinburgh.
It was reported that at the time of the Rising of 1745 he wrote several
patriotic songs to arouse the loyalty of his countrymen. After the
battle of Culloden he was appointed to preach the thanksgiving sermon,
which, with a few other of his sermons, was published. He has the merit
of originating the Ministers’ Widows’ Fund, and also of carrying out
the first attempt at a census in Scotland. According to the returns
obtained by him in 1755, the population of Scotland was 1,265,380. He
was an able and characteristic man in his day.
¹ Born in 1707 and died in 1784.
Dr. John Witherspoon was born on the 5th of February, 1722, in the
parish of Yester, where his father was minister. He was educated at the
University of Edinburgh, and at the age of twenty-one he was licensed
to preach. In 1744 he was appointed minister of the parish of Beith.
His pamphlet, entitled _Ecclesiastical Characteristics_, which appeared
in 1753, was mainly directed against flaws in the principles and
practice of some of the ministers of the Church. As it showed a strain
of satire, it soon attracted attention, became popular, and reached a
fifth edition in 1762. In 1756 his treatise on the _Connection between
the Doctrine of Justification by the imputed Righteousness of Christ
and Holiness of Life_ was published. The following year his _Inquiry
into the Nature and Effects of the Stage_ appeared. On this subject
there was much difference of opinion, yet it was generally recognised
that he had treated the subject with ability and candour. In 1757
he received a call from the Low Church of Paisley, which he accepted.
While carefully discharging his pastoral functions in Paisley, he
published several sermons, and in 1764 his _Essays on Important
Subjects_ were issued in three volumes. Shortly after he received a
call from a congregation in Dublin, another from the Scottish church at
Rotterdam, and one from a congregation in Dundee, but he declined these
invitations and remained in Paisley. Some years later, however, he was
invited by the Trustees of the College of Princeton, New Jersey, in
America, to become the President of that Institution, and he accepted
the invitation and resolved to cross the Atlantic. On the 16th of April,
1768, he preached a farewell sermon to his congregation in Paisley, and
in July he sailed for America.
Immediately after his arrival at New Jersey he entered on his new
duties. He soon made changes in the system of instruction which
had previously prevailed in the College; he extended the study of
mathematical science, and improved the method of teaching natural
philosophy. But his peaceful career was interrupted, and for a
time terminated, by the American War of Independence. He joined the
Colonists in this great struggle, and on the 17th of May, 1776, he
expressed his view of the subject in a lecture delivered at Princeton,
which was published. In 1776 he was elected to represent the people of
New Jersey in the Congress of the United States, and acted as a member
for seven years. He had considerable influence in Congress, and wrote
a number of important State papers. After the settlement of 1783 he
resumed his duties at Princeton. In 1785 he visited his native country
with the aim of raising a fund for the College, which had been much
injured by the war, but party-feeling was then rampant in Britain, and
his mission was not a success. He stayed a short time at Paisley, and
preached in two of the churches; and taking a final farewell of his
friends, returned to America. He continued to perform his duties at the
College until his death on the 15th of November, 1794. His writings
evinced much knowledge of human nature, while his style was animated,
simple, and attractive.
One of the most popular ministers of the eighteenth century was Dr.
Blair,¹ a native of Edinburgh. He was first appointed minister of
a parish church in Fifeshire, but being noted as a preacher, he was
called to one of the city churches of Edinburgh. In 1759 he commenced
a course of lectures on rhetoric and _belles-lettres_, which were
subsequently published. In 1763 he issued a _Dissertation on the Poems
of Ossian_. The first volume of his sermons was published in 1777,
which was followed by other three, and a fifth volume which he had
prepared, was published after his death. These volumes of sermons were
once exceedingly popular, though it is difficult to discover the reason
why they were so; they are perhaps grammatically correct in composition,
but they are monotonous in style, and as for grasp of thought or
reasoning, elevated emotion, or impassioned eloquence, they have none.
¹ Born in 1718, died in 1800.
Dr. James MacKnight was a son of the Rev. William MacKnight, minister
at Irvine, and was born on the 17th of September, 1721. He received
the rudiments of education at the school of Irvine, and at the age of
fourteen he entered the University of Glasgow, and passed through the
usual course of study. Afterwards he proceeded to Leyden and studied
theology, where he had an opportunity of reading many valuable works
by foreign divines. On returning to Scotland he was licensed to preach.
In 1753 he was appointed minister of Maybole; in 1769 he was translated
to the church of Jedburgh; and in 1772 he was elected minister of Lady
Yester’s church in Edinburgh.
His writings were chiefly on the New Testament, and for several
generations they were greatly esteemed. The first edition of his
_Harmony of the Gospels_ appeared in 1756, and a second, revised and
enlarged, was issued in 1763. The same year he published the _Truth
of the Gospel History_, which was intended to confirm by argument and
reference to ancient authors what used to be called the Internal, the
Collateral, and the Direct Evidences of the Gospel History. In 1795 his
elaborate work, _The New Translation of the Apostolical Epistles_, with
a commentary and notes, was published in four volumes. This work was
long highly estimated. His style had little elegance or ornament, but
it is clear, and pertinent to the subject. After a life of assiduous
study and useful toil, he died on the 13th of January, 1800.
John Brown¹ of Haddington was a distinguished divine, and the author
of various religious works. He belonged to Perthshire, being descended
from parents in humble circumstances, both of whom died before he was
eleven years of age. He says himself: “I was left a poor orphan, and
had nothing to depend on but the providence of God.” He was first
employed as a shepherd, and afterwards as a pedlar. But before he was
twenty years of age, he had taught himself Latin, Greek, and Hebrew.
For some time he discharged the functions of a schoolmaster in Kinross,
and in 1748 he entered on the study of divinity in connection with
the Associate Synod――a dissenting body afterwards merged in the United
Presbyterian Church. In 1750 he was appointed minister of the Secession
Church at Haddington, and in 1768 he was elected professor of divinity
under the Associate Synod, discharging the duties of this office for a
period of twenty years.
¹ Born in 1722, died in 1787.
His chief works are a _Dictionary of the Bible_, published in 1769, and
his _Self-Interpreting Bible_ which appeared in 1778; _General History
of the Christian Church_, in 1771; _A Compendious View of Natural and
Revealed Religion_; _Harmony of Scripture Prophecies_, and many other
short religious and devotional treatises. The two first-named works
were long popular, and are so still among some sections of Christians.
A grandson of the preceding divine, Dr. John Brown,¹ attained
distinction as a minister and a professor of the Secession Church and
as a biblical expositor. In 1806 he was appointed minister of a church
at Biggar, but in 1822 he was called to Edinburgh, where he became
professor of pastoral and exegetical theology in connection with the
Associated Synod. As a preacher and lecturer he was masterly, at once
vigorous, manly, warm, and exceedingly pathetic, and always rivetted
the attention of his hearers.
¹ Born in 1784, died in 1858. The religious writings of Dr.
James Fordyce, Dr. John Drysdale, and Dr. Robert Walker,
were of some note, and widely read in their day.
He is the author of various theological works, amongst which may be
mentioned his _Expository Discourses on the Epistles of St. Peter_, the
_Epistle to the Galatians_, and the _Epistle to the Romans_. In 1860
Dr. Cairns published a _Life of Dr. Brown_, to which Dr. Brown’s own
son, John Brown, M.D., added some very interesting particulars, which
appeared in _Horæ Subsecivæ_ in 1861.
Dr. Henry Hunter was born at Culross, Fifeshire, in 1741. He was
educated at the University of Edinburgh, licensed to preach in 1764,
and in 1766 appointed one of the ministers of Leith. In 1769 he visited
London, preached in several of the Scottish meeting-houses, where his
sermons attracted much attention. Soon after he received an invitation
to become minister of the congregation in Swallow Street, London, which
he declined. In 1771, however, he accepted a call from the London Wall
congregation, and removed to his new field of labour. This congregation
became warmly attached to him. He was also appointed chaplain to the
Scottish Corporation in London; and in 1790 he became secretary to the
Corresponding Board of the Society for Propagating Christian Knowledge
in the Highlands, and to both institutions he rendered important
service.
In 1783 the first volume of his _History of the Patriarchs and of
Jesus Christ_ appeared, which was extended to seven volumes. This work
had reached a seventh edition in 1814. He published two volumes of his
sermons, and _Lectures on the Evidence of Christianity_ in one volume.
He also attained some distinction as a translator of French and German
works. He commenced the publication of a popular _History of London
and its Environs_, which he did not live to complete. Dr. Hunter
was a genial and benevolent man, and his social characteristics and
conversation were much esteemed. He died in 1802.
Dr. William L. Brown, a son of the Rev. William Brown, was born at
Utrecht on the 7th of January, 1755, where his father was then minister
of the Scottish Church; but in 1757 his father was appointed Professor
of Ecclesiastical History in the University of St. Andrews, and he
returned to Scotland and assumed the duties of the chair. Although
young Brown was sent to the Grammar School, he mainly received his
early education from his father at home. At the age of twelve he
entered the University of St. Andrews, where he studied seven years.
In 1778 he was elected minister of the Scottish church at Utrecht.
He discharged his pastoral functions with zeal and credit; but trying
times were approaching. In 1787 he was appointed Professor of Moral
Philosophy and Ecclesiastical History in the University of Utrecht. His
“Essay on the Natural Equality of Men, the Rights that result from it,
and the Duties which it imposes,” was published at Edinburgh in 1793,
and the following year reprinted at London. It attracted considerable
attention, and may be characterised as a discriminative discussion of
the subject. Brown resided at Utrecht, and continued to discharge his
professorial duties till the invading French army approached, when,
in January, 1795, he embarked with his family in an open boat and
landed in England. On returning to Scotland in the summer of 1795 he
was appointed Professor of Divinity in Marischal College, Aberdeen,
and a few months later he was made Principal of the College. He entered
on his functions at the opening of the ensuing session, and delivered
an elaborate course of theological lectures. He held the offices of
Professor and Principal until his death, which occurred on the 11th of
May, 1830, in the seventy-sixth year of his age.
Besides the Essay mentioned above, he wrote pamphlets on the
Revolutionary War with France, which were published in 1795‒98. A
volume of his sermons appeared in 1803. His important _Essay on the
Existence of a Supreme Creator_ was published in 1816 in two volumes,
and gained the first Burnett prize of £1250; the second prize was
awarded to Dr. Summers, Bishop of Chester. His other large work――_A
Comparative View of Christianity and of Other Forms of Religion which
have existed in the World_――was published in 1826 in two volumes. This
work evinced great research, and it is composed in a clear and calm
style.
Dr. George Hill, principal of St. Mary’s College, St. Andrews, one
of the leaders of the moderate party of the Church, is the author of
_Lectures on Divinity_, which were published after his death, by his
son, Dr. Alexander Hill. They are chiefly remarkable for clearness in
the statement of doctrines, and candour in representing the views of
opponents.
Dr. Andrew Thomson¹ was a vigorous and able minister of the Scottish
Church. He was first appointed minister of Sprouston, in the
presbytery of Kelso; afterward of the East Church in Perth; and
finally of St. George’s Church in Edinburgh. In 1810 _The Scottish
Christian Instructor_ appeared under his editorship, and it exercised
a considerable influence on Scotch ecclesiastical questions. In the
General Assembly he was a strong, an able, and a vehement debater,
and an unsparing opponent in controversy. He was the author of various
sermons and lectures.
¹ Born in 1779; died in 1831.
Dr. Thomas Chalmers¹ was the most distinguished of the Scottish divines
of the first half of the present century. He was a native of Anstruther,
in Fife; his father was a merchant there, and Thomas was sent at the
age of twelve to the University of St. Andrews. Thus he received little
preparatory grounding in his education, which may account for his lack
of critical power as a scholar. Having finished his studies for the
Church in 1803, he was appointed minister of Kilmany, a country parish
in his native county. In this place his energy soon manifested itself;
he lectured on chemistry in the towns of his district; he joined a
volunteer corps; he wrote a book on the resources of the country,
and pamphlets on some of the topics of the day. When the _Edinburgh
Encyclopædia_ was projected, he was asked to be a contributor, and
engaged to write the article “Christianity.”
¹ Full and interesting details of Dr. Chalmers are given in
Dr. Hanna’s Memoirs of him.
In 1815 Dr. Chalmers removed from Kilmany to the Tron Church in Glasgow,
and, in 1819, to St. John’s. In this city he worked incessantly, and
his fame rose rapidly. Yet it was said by competent eye-witnesses that
his appearance and manner in the pulpit were ♦not prepossessing; he
read his sermons and adhered closely to paper. But his power lay in the
intensity and earnestness, the vehement and concentrated glow of his
mind, throwing out his native eloquence like the blasts of a furnace.¹
Chalmers worked hard for the benefit of his congregation, and struggled
to the utmost to excavate the practical heathenism of the city.
♦ extraneous word “his” removed
¹ A writer in the _London Magazine_ gives an interesting
account of Dr. Chalmers’ appearance in London:――When he
visited London, the hold that he took on the minds of men
was unprecedented. It was a time of strong political feeling;
but even that was unheeded, and all parties thronged to
hear the Scottish preacher. The very best judges were not
prepared for the display that they heard. Channing and
Wilberforce went together, and got into a pew near the door.
The elder in attendance stood close by the pew. Chalmers
began in his usual unpromising way, by stating a few nearly
self-evident propositions neither in the choicest language
nor in the most impressive voice. “If this be all,” said
Channing to his companion, “it will never do.” Chalmers went
on――the shuffling of the congregation gradually subsided.
He got into the mass of his subject; his weakness became
strength, his hesitation was turned into energy, and,
bringing the whole volume of his mind to bear upon it, he
poured forth a torrent of the most close and conclusive
argument, brilliant with all the exuberance of an
imagination which ranged over all nature for illustrations,
and yet managed and applied each of them with the same
unerring dexterity, as if that single one had been the study
of a whole life. “The tartan beats us,” said Mr. Channing,
“we have no preaching like that in England.”
His style became the rage among the young preachers in
Scotland, but few of them could do more than copy his
defects. His glowing energy, enthusiasm, and powerful mind
were wanting.
In 1823 Dr. Chalmers was appointed professor of moral philosophy in
the United College of St. Andrews; and in 1828 he was elected to the
chair of divinity in the University of Edinburgh. A description of his
inaugural address in the divinity chair in Edinburgh has been preserved,
of which the following is a part:――“As to his discourse, all felt
far more deeply than they could worthily declare, that it was a most
glorious prelude, and that at once and for ever his right to reign as
king in the broad realms of theological science, and to rule over their
own individual minds as a teacher, was as unequivocal as his mastery
over a popular assembly.”¹ He relinquished this chair in 1843, when he
seceded from the Established Church.
¹ One of his pupils, Professor Masson, has stated that
Chalmers’ course in theology was “really a course of
Chalmers himself, and of Chalmers in all his characters.
The students were carried through the whole circle of
Chalmers’ favourite ideas.”――_Macmillan’s Magazine_,
Volume XI., page 127.
Dr. Chalmers’ collected works, published in his lifetime, extended to
twenty-five volumes, and treat on a wide range of subjects――natural
theology, evidences of Christianity, moral philosophy, commercial and
astronomical discourses, sermons, church and college endowments, church
extension, political economy, etc. After his death nine more volumes,
edited by Dr. Hanna, were added to his works, thus bringing his
collected writings up to thirty-four volumes.
The chief characteristics of Chalmers’ writings are energy and
earnestness, and a great variety of illustration. His knowledge was
comprehensive, embracing science as well as a wide circle of literature.
He also had an unusually accurate appreciation of the mind, habits,
feelings, and the daily life of the Scottish people, which was one,
if not the chief, source of his power and influence. In method and
in style his writings are defective. His favourite mode of exposition
is to present his main theme, idea, or subject in an almost endless
variety of forms and different points of view, with the aim of
impressing it on the mind of his hearers. He was a man of great
sagacity, a real genius; and the work which he accomplished is a
monument of his noble faculties, admirably directed for the good of
his fellowmen.
Dr. Ralph Wardlaw,¹ a minister of the Independent Church in Glasgow,
was the author of _Discourses on the Socinian Controversy_, which
appeared in 1814, and have often been reprinted. He also published a
number of sermons and theological essays. He was an able divine and
an impressive preacher, and worked hard for the moral and spiritual
welfare of Glasgow.²
¹ Born in 1779, died 1853.
² Macgeorge’s _History of Glasgow_, page 454, 1881. A life of
Dr. Wardlaw was published by Dr. W. L. Alexander in 1856.
Dr. R. T. Candlish¹ was one of the ministers of Edinburgh who seceded
from the Established Church in 1843. He was a vigorous and influential
member of the Free Church, and a ready and able debater in Church
courts. He is the author of the following theological works――1.
_Exposition of the Book of Genesis_, 1852; 2. _Discourses on the
Resurrection_, 1858; 3. _Examination of Mr. Maurice’s Theological
Essays_, and other treatises. His intellect was keen and acute, and
he showed considerable research and industry.
¹ Born in 1803, died in 1873.
Dr. John Cumming,¹ a native of Aberdeenshire, early distinguished
himself by his vehement speeches against Popery, and by his peculiar
interpretation of the Scriptures touching the duration of the world,
and the winding up of the present dispensation. He is the author of a
large number of religious books which, to a certain class of readers,
are very attractive. Dr. Cumming for many years preached and ministered
to a large congregation in London.
¹ Born in 1809.
Dr. Thomas Guthrie¹ was the son of a banker in Brechin. He was educated
for the Church, and after a pretty long period of probation, waiting
for a presentation to a vacant church, he was appointed minister of
the parish of Arbirlot, in the Presbytery of Arbroath. In 1837 he was
appointed one of the ministers of Old Greyfriars parish in Edinburgh,
and by his energy and philanthropy attained a high position in the
public estimation. He left the Establishment in 1843, and became one
of the active founders of the Free Church.
¹ Born in 1803, died in 1873.
His untiring efforts to reclaim the wretched population of the worst
parts of Edinburgh, and his great exertions in the promotion of ragged
schools, are well known, and were highly appreciated by the public.
He was a kind and warm-hearted man, and inspired with a real catholic
spirit. As a pulpit orator he was great; his sermons glowed with poetic
imagery and illustration, striking, pathetic, and highly impressive,
and to which his tall and commanding person, powerful, clear, and
musical voice, aided in producing a marked effect upon his hearers.
His chief works are――1. _The Gospel in Ezekiel_, published in 1855;
2. _Christ and the Inheritance of the Saints_, 1858; 3. _The Way to
Life_, 1862; 4. _The City, its Sins and Sorrows_; 5. _Pleas for Ragged
Schools_; 6. _Saving Knowledge, addressed to Young Men_, and several
other short religious treatises, and tracts on intemperance. These
writings are all marked by the distinguishing characteristics of the
man himself――Scripture truth, wide and warm sympathies, elevated and
generous sentiments, but showing little indication of the logical or
critical faculty.
Dr. Norman Macleod¹ was descended from a family of Highland clergymen;
his grandfather was minister of Morven, and his own father was minister
of Campsie, in Stirlingshire. Norman was educated at the Universities
of Glasgow and Edinburgh, in which he attained no marked distinction.
For a short time he acted as tutor to the son of a Yorkshire gentleman,
with whom he visited Weimar, and in that little capital Macleod enjoyed
himself amazingly.
¹ Born in 1812, died in 1872.
His first charge was Loudon, in Ayrshire, a district at that time
inhabited by a small portion of Covenanting farmers and a large
number of political weavers. With both these parties he soon had
his difficulties. The Covenanting theologians examined him on the
“fundamentals,” and the weavers scoffed at religion, and keenly
disputed his political opinions. “When visiting one well-known Chartist,
he was requested to sit down on a bench at the front door, and discuss
the ‘seven points.’ The weaver, with his shirt sleeves turned up,
his apron rolled about his waist, and his snuff mull in his hand,
vigorously propounded his favourite political doctrines.
“When he had concluded, he turned to the minister and demanded an
answer, and Norman replied thus:――‘In my opinion your principles would
drive the country into revolution, and create in the long-run national
bankruptcy.’ ‘Nay-tion-al bankruptcy,’ said the old man meditatively,
and diving for a pinch, ‘Div-ye-think-sae;’ then briskly, after a long
snuff, ‘Dod, I’d risk it.’”
But the warm heart and kind manner of the young minister softened down
all opposition. In 1843 he was presented to the parish of Dalkeith;
and in 1851 he was appointed to the Barony parish of Glasgow, in which
he continued to labour till his death. He took an active interest in
the affairs of this great city, in church extension, and educational
matters. A monument in the form of a statue was erected to his memory
in the vicinity of the church in which he ministered, by the citizens
of Glasgow.¹
¹ Macgeorge’s _History of Glasgow_, pages 478‒479.
His first literary effort was a volume entitled _The Earnest Student_,
an account of his brother-in-law, John Mackintosh. He was editor
of _Good Words_, a monthly periodical projected by Mr. Strahan the
publisher, from 1860 till his death, and to its pages he contributed
his stories, “The Old Lieutenant,” “The Highland Parish,” “The
Starling,” etc. These and his _Travels in the East_ are interesting
and pleasant reading. He was more a man of action than a thinker.
His efforts were directed to promote the good of mankind, and he was
equally popular with the Court, the aristocracy, and the inmates of the
darkest abodes of Glasgow.
The Rev. Dr. John Eadie¹ was a native of Alva, in Stirlingshire, and
by his earnest efforts and industry, rose to distinction as a biblical
scholar. He was an assiduous and successful student, and in his
twenty-first year he was inducted pastor of the Cambridge Street U.P.
Church in Glasgow. After preaching there for a quarter of a century,
he removed with his congregation to a more spacious church on the
Great Western Road, at Kelvin Bridge, which was erected at a cost of
£12,000.²
¹ Born 1813, died in 1876.
² Macgeorge’s _History of Glasgow_, pages 479‒480.
He was the author of many works, amongst which are:――1. _An Analytical
Concordance of the Holy Scriptures_; 2. _Biblical Encyclopædia_; 3.
_Commentaries on the Greek Texts of the Epistles of St. Paul to the
Colossians, Ephesians, and Philippians_; 4. _Early Oriental History_;
5. _History of the English Bible_; 6. _Ecclesiastical Cyclopædia of
Antiquities_, etc.
The Rev. Robert Buchanan¹ was an eminent Free Church minister. He
was educated at the University of Glasgow, and is the author of the
well-known work, _The Ten Years’ Conflict, an Exposition of the Causes
of the Disruption_. He was a man of remarkable business abilities, and
one of the chief organisers of the Free Church.
¹ Born in 1802, and died in 1875.
Dr. John Tulloch, Principal of St. Mary’s College, St. Andrews,
was born in 1822 and died in 1885. He is the author of a number of
interesting works. His first important effort was his treatise on
Theism, for which he received one of the Burnett prizes in 1855.
His other works are:――1. _Leaders of the Reformation, or Sketches of
Luther, Calvin, Latimer, and Knox_, which appeared in 1859: 2. _English
Puritanism and its Leaders, Cromwell, Milton, Baxter, and Bunyan_,
1861; 3. _Beginning Life, Chapters for Young Men_, 1862; 4. _The Christ
of the Gospels and the Christ of Modern Criticism_, 1864; 5. _Studies
in the Religious Thought of England_, 1867; 6. _Rational Theology
and Christian Philosophy of England in the Seventeenth Century_, two
volumes, 1872; 7. _The Christian Doctrine of Sin_, 1876; 8. _Some Facts
of Religion and of Life_, 1877; 9. _Modern Theories in Philosophy and
Religion_.¹
¹ Dr. Tulloch contemplated writing the history of modern
Scotland, but I fear that he has not left it in a complete
form. In 1877 he himself informed me of his purpose to write
such a work, and said that he had then made some progress in
preparing materials for it, but complained with some feeling
of the difficulty of finding the requisite materials.
He was for several years editor of _Fraser’s Magazine_, and enriched
its pages with various critical and literary articles. His style is
clear, easy, polished, and flowing. In describing individual men,
their writings, opinions, and views, his expression is often very
fine and happy. He was a highly-cultured and accomplished man, with
a well-balanced mind, though his analytic powers were not remarkable.
Dr. Tulloch was liberal minded, and took an active part in the
proceedings of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. He had
the reputation of being a good public speaker, and his last speech
in the General Assembly was one of his greatest oratorical efforts.
He frequently delivered public lectures to literary societies and
institutions.
William Milligan, the son of a Scottish minister, was born in Edinburgh
on the 15th of March, 1821. He was educated at the High School of
Edinburgh and the parish school of Kilconquhar, in Fifeshire, and
entered the University of St. Andrews in 1835. He graduated in Arts in
1839; and subsequently studied divinity at St. Andrews and Edinburgh.
In 1844 he was appointed minister of the parish of Cameron, in
Fifeshire, in which he earnestly discharged his pastoral functions and
duties for sixteen years. He was appointed to the Chair of Divinity and
Biblical Criticism in the University of Aberdeen in 1860. He entered
with much energy upon the work assigned to his chair, and proved an
able and successful professor. For many years he took an active part in
the work of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. In 1875 he
was appointed ♦Deputy Clerk of Assembly, and on the death of Principal
Tulloch in 1886 he was appointed Chief Clerk of Assembly. As a citizen
of Aberdeen, he took a warm interest in everything calculated to
improve the social state and promote the happiness of the community.
For six years he was a member of the Aberdeen School Board, and three
years its Chairman. In short, he was ever ready to advocate any humane
and beneficent movement. In July, 1893, he resigned his Chair in the
University, intending to reside in Edinburgh during the evening of his
days. Before leaving Aberdeen he had a serious illness. In the middle
of October he removed to Edinburgh with his family, but his strength
was failing. He died, with his beloved wife and his children around him,
on the 11th of December, 1893.
♦ “Depute” replaced with “Deputy”
His contributions to religious literature were considerable and
important. In 1855‒58 he contributed a number of articles on New
Testament subjects to Kitto’s _Journal of Sacred Literature_. In
1864‒66 he contributed articles to the _Imperial Bible Dictionary_,
and subsequently many religious articles to the _Contemporary Review_
and to other reviews and magazines. He was appointed Croall Lecturer
for 1879‒80, and delivered his lectures in Edinburgh on the subject of
“The Resurrection of our Lord.” In 1881 the lectures were published in
a volume, with notes. He has treated this important and very difficult
subject with rare insight, much ability, and earnestness. It is an
interesting book, and has had a wide circulation. His first course of
Baird Lectures on the _Revelation of St. John_ were published in 1886,
and has reached a third edition. His second course of Baird Lectures on
_The Ascension and Heavenly Priesthood of our Lord_ were issued in 1892,
and attracted notice. Dr. Milligan’s writings have had a considerable
influence in religious circles.
William Robertson Smith was born on the 8th of November, 1846, at
the Free Church manse of Keig, Aberdeenshire, where his father was
minister. He was mainly educated by his father at home, and entering
the University of Aberdeen in 1861, had a very distinguished university
career. He gained the Fullerton Scholarship for mathematics and natural
philosophy. He studied theology at the Free Church College, Edinburgh,
and subsequently studied for some time at the Universities of Bonn and
Göttingen. In 1870 he was appointed Professor of Oriental Languages
in the Free Church College at Aberdeen, proving himself an excellent
teacher. His admirable historic criticism and expositions of the Old
Testament were deemed too advanced for the time, and brought him into
conflict with the courts of the Free Church. His struggle for freedom
in Biblical criticism was protracted, and at times very vehement.
Though young in years, he defended his views and conclusions with rare
and astonishing ability. His grasp of thought, readiness in debate,
candour and earnestness, were conspicuous throughout the conflict.
Indeed, he achieved a great victory for freedom of thought, though he
had to vacate his chair in the College in 1880.
Shortly after his removal from this position, he was appointed
joint-editor with Professor Spencer Baynes of the _Encyclopædia
Britannica_, and after Baynes’ death he became sole editor. In 1883 he
was appointed Lord Almoner’s Reader in Arabic at Cambridge University.
In 1886 he was elected Librarian of the University; and in 1889 was
appointed to the Sir Thomas Adam’s Professorship of Arabic at Cambridge.
He received the degrees of LL.D. from the University of Aberdeen in
1882; and was appointed Burnett Lecturer in the University in 1888.
Between 1888 and 1891 he delivered three courses of lectures on “The
Primitive Religion of the Shemitic Peoples viewed in their relation
to other ancient Religions and to the spiritual religion of the Old
Testament and Christianity.” For several years he had been suffering
from ill-health, yet was always courageous and hopeful, and continued
to work assiduously. He died at Cambridge on the 31st of March, 1894.
His principal writings consist of a series of important articles
contributed to the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ on Biblical subjects,
embracing “Angel,” “Bible,” “Canticles,” “Chronicles,” “Haggai,”
“Hebrew Language and Literature,” and other articles. These created
much alarm, and led to proceedings in the Free Church courts, mentioned
before, but they are all excellent specimens of historical criticism
and interpretation. In 1881 his work entitled _The Old Testament in the
Jewish Church, Twelve Lectures on Biblical Criticism_, appeared; the
lectures were delivered to large audiences in Edinburgh and Glasgow.
In his preface to the work he says――“It is of the first importance that
the reader should realise that Biblical criticism is not the invention
of modern scholars but the legitimate interpretation of historical
facts.... The great value of historical criticism is that it makes
the Bible more real to us.... In all true religion the new rests upon
the old. No one, then, to whom Christianity is a reality, can safely
acquiesce in an unreal conception of the Old Testament history; and,
in an age when all are interested in historical research, no apologetic
can prevent thoughtful minds from drifting from faith if the historical
study of the Old Testament is condemned by the Church and left in the
hands of unbelievers.” This work shows evidence of wide and careful
research, accurate knowledge, and rare discrimination. His work on
_Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_ was published in 1885, and
it is marked by his characteristic faculty of handling historical
subjects. The first series of his Burnett Lectures on the _Religion
of the Semites_ was published in 1889, and is a very remarkable work.
His historical method was thorough, embracing a search for everything
relating to the subject. His keen insight, and faculty of digesting
and explicating the customs and characteristics of early religions,
were marvellous. His mind was vigorous and intently active, and his
acquired knowledge vast and varied. The result of his supreme efforts
for freedom of Biblical criticism has been remarkable.
There are a considerable number of periodical publications devoted to
religious literature which are pretty widely circulated in Scotland.
Fiction of a religious turn and character has also been freely produced
and circulated during the present generation. In short, religious
literature, both in its higher and lower departments, has undergone a
marked change and improvement within the present century. In the higher
department of religious thought, and the historical criticism and
exposition of the Scriptures, there has been a revolution in Scotland;
the freedom of inquiry and the latitude of statement of doctrine and
opinion which now prevails would not have been permitted or tolerated
half a century ago.
SECTION II.
_Miscellaneous Literature of the Eighteenth
and Nineteenth Centuries._
Dr. John Arbuthnot¹ was a native of a place of the same name in
Kincardineshire. He was educated at the University of Aberdeen; and
having studied medicine, he went to London, where he attained some
reputation as an author and a wit. He became an associate of Pope,
Swift, Gay, and Prior, and was connected with some of the humorous
and comic efforts of the time; they were all Jacobites, and deeply
interested in the success of that party. He wrote an _Examination of
Dr. Woodward’s Account of the Deluge_, and an _Essay on the Usefulness
of Mathematical Learning_. The satirical _Memoirs of the Extraordinary
Life, Works, and Discoveries of Martinus Scriblerus_, which was
published in Pope’s works, it is believed, was chiefly written by
Arbuthnot. The design of this work was to ridicule all the false
tastes in learning, and is a book of rare merit.
¹ Born in 1667; died in 1735.
In 1709, Arbuthnot was appointed physician-in-ordinary to the Queen.
In 1712, his _History of John Bull_ appeared――a monument of wit
and humour. Its main design was to throw ridicule upon the Duke of
Marlborough, and render the nation discontented with the French war.
The allegory in this performance is admirably sustained, and the
satirical allusions stinging and happy. The following is from _John
Bull_――that is, the English; Nic Frog is the Dutch, and Hocus the Duke
of Marlborough:――
“For the better understanding the following history, the reader ought
to know that Bull, in the main, was an honest, plain-dealing fellow,
choleric, bold, and of a very inconstant temper; he dreaded not old
Lewis either at backsword, single falchion, or cudgel-play; but then
he was very apt to quarrel with his best friends, especially if they
pretended to govern him; if you flattered him, you might lead him like
a child. John’s temper depended very much upon the air; his spirits
rose and fell with the weather-glass. John was quick, and understood
his business very well; but no man was more careless in looking into
his accounts, or more cheated by partners, apprentices, and servants.
This was occasioned by his being a boon companion, loving his bottle
and his diversion; for to say truth, no man kept a better house than
John, nor spent his money more generously. By plain and fair dealing,
John had acquired some plums, and might have kept them, had it not been
for his unhappy law-suit.
“Nic Frog was a cunning, sly rogue, quite the reverse of John in many
particulars: covetous, frugal; minded domestic affairs; would pinch his
belly to save his pockets; never lost a farthing by careless servants
or bad debtors. He did not care much for any sort of diversions, except
tricks of high German artists, and legerdemain; no man exceeded Nic in
these; yet it must be owned that Nic was a fair dealer, and in that way
acquired immense riches.
“Hocus was an old cunning attorney; and though this was the first
considerable suit that ever he was engaged in, he showed himself
superior in address to most of his profession; he kept always good
clerks: he loved money, was smooth tongued, gave good words, and seldom
lost his temper; he was not worse than an infidel, for he provided
plentifully for his family; but he loved himself better than them all;
the neighbours reported that he was henpecked, which was impossible by
such a mild-spirited woman as his wife was.
“Law is a bottomless pit; it is a cormorant, a harpy that devours
everything. John Bull was flattered by the lawyers that his suit would
not last above a year or two at most; that before that time he would be
in quiet possession of his business; yet ten long years did Hocus steer
his course through all the meanders of the law, and all the courts. No
skill, no address was wanting; and, to say truth, John did not starve
his cause; there wanted not yellow-boys to fee counsel, hire witnesses,
and bribe juries. Lord Strutt was generally cast, never had one verdict
in his favour; and John was promised that the next, and next, would be
the final determination. But, alas! that final determination and happy
conclusion was like an enchanted island――the nearer John came to it,
the further it went from him.”
He issued several other satirical pieces, one called the _Art of
Political Lying_, and his _Treatise concerning the Altercation or
Scolding of the Ancients_. His serious works consist of dissertations
on ancient coins, weights, and measures, and some books on medical
subjects. He was a cultured and accomplished man, and a real genius
and wit in his way.
Henry Home, Lord Kames,¹ was a native of the county of Berwick; he
was descended from an ancient family. Educated at home under a private
tutor, and having chosen the profession of law, he was called to the
Scottish bar in 1734. For a number of years he directed his attention
to his profession, and to the composition of treatises connected with
it. In 1752 he was raised to the bench, and assumed the title of Lord
Kames. He became one of the distinguished members of the literary
circles of Edinburgh, and a warm and generous patron of literature,
and of every public movement calculated to promote the prosperity and
civilisation of the nation. He was a man of great energy and ability,
and perhaps no man ever more earnestly desired and endeavoured to
advance the prosperity and happiness of his countrymen than this
Scottish judge of the eighteenth century.²
¹ Born in 1696, and died in 1782. A very full and appreciative
_Account of the Life and Writings of Lord Kames_ was written
by Alexander F. Tytler of Woodhouselee, and published in
1807 in two large volumes.
² Dr. Reid, who knew Kames well, says:――“It is difficult
to say whether that worthy man was more eminent in active
life or in speculation. Very rare, surely, have been the
instances where the talents for both were united in so
eminent a degree.... His private virtues and public spirit,
his assiduity through a long and laborious life in many
honourable public offices with which he was entrusted, and
his zeal to encourage and promote everything that tended
to the improvement of his country, in laws, literature,
commerce, manufactures, and agriculture, are best known to
his friends and contemporaries.”
His writings are:――1. _Essays upon several Subjects in Law_, published
in 1733; 2. _The Decisions of the Court of Session from its institution
to the present time, abridged and digested in the form of a Dictionary_,
in two volumes, 1741; 3. _Essays on British Antiquities_ (on legal
and constitutional subjects), 1747; 4. _Essays on the Principles of
Morality and Natural Religion_, 1751; 5. _The Statute Law of Scotland
abridged, with Historical Notes_, 1757; 6. _Historical Law Tracts_,
1759; 7. _Principles of Equity_, 1760; 8. _Introduction to the Art of
Thinking_, 1761; 9. _Elements of Criticism_, in three volumes, 1762;
10. _Sketches of the History of Man_, in two volumes, 1774; 11. _The
Gentleman Farmer, being an attempt to improve agriculture by subjecting
it to the test of rational principles_. The mere enunciation of Lord
Kames’ works evinces his energy and industry.
The most distinctive and important of his works are the _Elements of
Criticism_, and the _Sketches of the History of Man_. Considered as
an attempt to investigate the principles of the fine arts, as results
of the operations of the human mind, his _Elements of Criticism_
has merits, although it has also many defects. The subject is one of
considerable difficulty, and he was among the first to attempt its
exposition in modern times. His _Sketches of Man_ contains some curious
facts, important hints, and acute reflections on society. Although
style was the object of his attention, yet he never attained this; his
sentences are usually cast in the same mould, with little variety in
their arrangement and form; are generally too short, and when long,
are often involved and faulty in construction.
James Burnet, Lord Monboddo,¹ was born at Monboddo in Kincardineshire.
He was educated at King’s College, Aberdeen, and studied the civil law
at Groningen. He became an advocate, and attained a good practice in
the Court of Session. He was raised to the bench in 1767. Lord Monboddo
was a man of honour and moral rectitude, but of much eccentricity
of character and singularity of opinions, which appeared both in his
habits and in the views enounced in his writings.
¹ Born in 1714, died in 1799.
He was an ardent admirer of Greek literature, and a warm worshipper of
Homer. As carriages were not used among the ancients, he never deigned
to enter one himself, but performed all his journeys to London and
other places on horseback, for he deemed it a degradation of the real
dignity of man to be dragged at the tail of a horse instead of mounted
upon his back.
His chief works are:――_Essay on the Origin and Progress of Language_,
published in 1771‒76, in six volumes; and _Ancient Metaphysics_,
which appeared in 1779, in six volumes. In the first-named work, this
sage gravely maintained that men were originally monkeys, and that
in this condition they continued for ages, without speech, reason, or
social affections. He contended that they were gradually improved by
successive revolutions, and asserts that in the Bay of Bengal there
existed a nation of human beings with tails like monkeys, which had
been discovered a hundred and fifty years before by a Swedish skipper.
He maintained that all the moral sentiments and domestic affections
were the result of contrivance, art, and experience, just like
shipbuilding, writing, or any other mechanical invention; thus he was
led to place man, in his natural state, below beavers and seacats,
which he terms social and political animals. Still, on occasion, he
could write good sense, such as this:――
“Had we no other desires than those belonging to the animal life, our
imaginations, like those of other animals, would be wholly employed
about the objects of those desires. But we have other desires belonging
to the rational nature, which make our imaginations much more rich
and various than those of the brute creation. And, first, we have the
love of Beauty of every kind, whether in objects visible or audible,
in manners, sentiments, or actions. This love of beauty is congenial
with the rational nature, and whoever is entirely devoid of it hardly
deserves the name of man. But in this, as in other respects, man
differs much from man; for some have the love and taste for beauty in a
very small degree; others, whom Nature has formed of her best clay, and
heaven bestowed on them more than an ordinary portion of the celestial
fire, have it in a very high degree.... If it be the beauty of the
visible kinds which captivates those minds, and if their imaginations
are carried into works, then we have painters, sculptors, and poets,
of an inferior kind, I mean descriptive poets. If it be the beauty
of sounds, then we have musicians. But if the turn of mind be towards
beauties of a higher kind, such as those of sentiments, manners, and
actions, then are produced heroic and tragic poets, painters, sculptors,
and musicians of the highest order, who express in their compositions
what is most sublime and exalted in sentiment and character. The
capacity of performing in these several arts is what we call Genius.”¹
¹ _Ancient Metaphysics_, Volume II., page 265.
Thomas, Lord Erskine,¹ was the youngest son of the Earl of Buchan.
He had served both in the army and navy, but resigned his commission
and turned to the study of law, being called to the English bar in
his twenty-eighth year. He soon took a foremost place, and some of his
speeches are fine specimens of English forensic oratory. In 1783, he
entered parliament as member for Portsmouth, but his success in the
House of Commons was not remarkable. In 1806, he was appointed Lord
Chancellor, and received the title of Baron Erskine; he only held the
Great Seal for a short time, as he had to retire on the dissolution
of the Whig government in the spring of 1807. In 1817, he published a
political fragment entitled _Armata_, which contains some good remarks
on constitutional law and history.
¹ Born in 1750; died in 1823.
John Stockdale had published a defence of Warren Hastings, written
by the Rev. John Logan, as before mentioned, which it was alleged
contained a libel upon the House of Commons, and Erskine undertook
the defence of Stockdale. The trial took place on the 9th of December,
1789, and the following is a part of Erskine’s speech on the occasion,
and refers to the government of India:――
“The unhappy people of India, feeble and effeminate as they are from
the softness of their climate, and subdued and broken as they have
been by the knavery and strength of civilisation, still occasionally
start up in all the vigour and intelligence of insulted nature. To
be governed at all they must be governed by a rod of iron, and our
empire in the East would long since have been lost to Great Britain if
skill and military prowess had not united their efforts to support an
authority which heaven never gave, by means which it can never sanction.
“Gentlemen, I think I can observe that you are touched with this way
of considering the subject, and I can account for it. I have not been
considering it through the cold medium of books, but have been speaking
of man and his nature, and of human dominion, from what I have seen
of them myself amongst reluctant nations submitting to our authority.
I know what they feel, and how such feelings can alone be suppressed.
I have heard them in my youth from a naked savage in the indignant
character of a prince surrounded by his subjects, addressing the
governor of a British colony, holding a bundle of sticks in his
hand, as the notes of his unlettered eloquence. ‘Who is it,’ said the
jealous ruler over the desert, encroached upon by the restless foot of
English adventure, ‘who is it that causes the river to rise in the high
mountains and empty itself into the ocean? Who is it that causes to
blow the loud winds of winter, and that calms them again in summer? Who
is it that rears up the shade of these lofty forests, and blasts them
with the quick lightning at His pleasure? The same Being who gave to
you a country on the other side of the waters, and gave ours to us;
and by this title we will defend it,’ said the warrior, throwing down
his tomahawk upon the ground, and raising the war-sound of his nation.
These are the feelings of subjugated men all round the globe; and
depend upon it, nothing but fear will control where it is vain to look
for affection.”
James Boswell¹ was the son of a Scottish judge, and his _Life of Dr.
Johnson_ is too well known to require any particular notice in these
pages. Boswell studied for the bar, but he attached himself to Johnson,
soothing and flattering him, and taking copious notes of his sayings
and conversation. In 1773 he accompanied Johnson on his tour to the
Highlands; and, after the death of the great lexicographer, in 1785
he published his journal of the tour, giving a record of each day’s
occurrences. In 1791 his _Life of Johnson_ appeared in two volumes;
a second edition was published in 1794, and Boswell was engaged in
preparing a third when he died. Many editions of the work have since
been issued.
¹ Born in 1740, died in 1795.
Dr. James Currie¹ issued his edition of the _Works of Burns_ in 1800
for the benefit of the poet’s family. The edition was accompanied by a
memoir of the poet, from which subsequent biographers have drawn freely.
Dr. Currie’s edition realised to the family of Burns the sum of £1400.
¹ Born in 1756, died in 1805.
Lord Jeffrey¹ was a native of Edinburgh, the son of a gentleman
who held the office of depute-clerk in the Court of Session. He was
educated at the High School of Edinburgh, the University of Glasgow,
and Queen’s College, Oxford. After studying law, he was called to the
bar in 1794. For many years his income was small, but being sober and
industrious, he kept himself out of debt. He was a Whig in politics
throughout his career. He was also one of the originators of the
_Edinburgh Review_, the first number of which appeared in October, 1802.
From 1803 to 1829, Jeffrey was editor and sole manager of the _Review_.
In its pages he found ample scope for his political opinions and his
literary and critical faculties. Thus Jeffrey and his accomplished
associates in the _Review_ wielded much political influence throughout
that stirring period; and they also produced memorable effects on
the periodical literature and criticism of the present century. From
the date of the appearance of the _Edinburgh Review_, the standard of
criticism in this country has been gradually rising, and we owe a debt
of gratitude to its originators.
¹ Born in 1773, died in 1850.
In 1820, Jeffrey was elected Lord Rector of the University of Glasgow.
On the occasion of his installation he delivered an elegant and
interesting address to the students, in which he reminded them that
within the walls of this College “he had received by far the most
valuable part of his own education.” In 1829, Jeffrey was unanimously
elected Dean of the Faculty of Advocates; and he then resigned
the editorship of the _Review_. On the formation of Earl Grey’s
administration in 1830, he was appointed Lord Advocate for Scotland,
and sat for a short time in parliament. But, in 1834, he was raised to
the bench, and as Lord Jeffrey, he discharged the functions of a Scotch
judge with marked attention, uprightness, and ability, till the period
of his death.
The most important of his contributions to the _Edinburgh Review_ were
collected by himself in 1844, and published in four volumes, and since
reprinted in one large volume. His articles and criticisms cover a
wide range of subjects――poetry, elegant literature, moral science, and
the philosophy of life. As a critic he discharged his difficult task
well, with sound judgment and taste, although occasionally, in the
early years of the _Review_, he was rather harsh and severe. In poetic
criticism he sometimes failed to appreciate the genuine merits of his
author. His ethical ideas and sentiments were pure, elevated, and noble.
I have only space for one short specimen of his style on the
prevailing notion that genius is a source of peculiar unhappiness to
its possessors:――“Men of truly great powers of mind have generally
been cheerful, social, and indulgent; while a tendency to sentimental
whining or fierce intolerance may be ranked among the surest symptoms
of little souls and inferior intellects. In the whole list of our
English poets we can only remember Shenstone and Savage――two, certainly,
of the lowest――who were querulous and discontented. Cowley, indeed,
used to call himself melancholy; but he was not in earnest, and, at any
rate, was full of conceits and affectations, and has nothing to make
us proud of him. Shakespeare, the greatest of them all, was evidently
of a free and joyous temperament, and so was Chaucer, their common
master. The same disposition appears to have predominated in Fletcher,
Jonson, and their great contemporaries. The genius of Milton partook
something of the austerity of the party to which he belonged, and
of the controversies in which he was involved; but even when fallen
on evil days and evil tongues, his spirit seems to have retained its
serenity, as well as its dignity; and in his private life, as well as
in his poetry, the majesty of a high character is tempered with great
sweetness, genial indulgence, and practical wisdom. In the succeeding
age our poets were but too gay; and though we forbear to speak of
living authors, we know enough of them to say with confidence, that to
be miserable or to be hated is not now, any more than heretofore, the
common lot of those who excel.”
Henry Brougham¹ was a native of Edinburgh, and subsequently known as
Lord Brougham. He was educated at the High School and the University
of Edinburgh; and, after studying for the legal profession, he was
admitted to the Scottish bar, at which he practised for several years.
He was also one of the original writers of the _Edinburgh Review_, to
which he contributed a long series of articles, chiefly to the earlier
numbers. Scotland became too small for him, and he joined the English
bar, entered parliament in 1810, allied himself with the Whig party,
and pushed his career with great energy. He proved a steady friend to
political reform. In 1830, he attained the height of his ambition by
his elevation to the Woolsack, with the title of Lord Brougham and Vaux.
He held the office of Lord Chancellor for four years, and retired with
his party in the autumn of 1834. This ended his official career; but he
afterwards worked hard as a law reformer.
¹ Born in 1778, and died in 1868.
His works are numerous, but none of them can be ranked high, either in
literature, philosophy, or science, in all of which he tried his hand.
His style is loose, heavy, and verbose. His writings are lacking in
clear thinking, and definite conclusions; he always seems to be coming
to close quarters with the subject, but he never comes to it. I think
the best of his works is the one entitled _The British Constitution_,
published in 1861. He occupied the later years of his long life in
writing notices of his _Life and Times_, which were published in 1871,
in three volumes.
The following quotation is from one of his speeches delivered in the
House of Commons on law reform:――“The course is clear before us; the
race is glorious to run. You have the power of sending your name down
through all times, illustrated by deeds of higher fame, and more useful
import, than ever were done within these walls. You saw the greatest
warrior of the age――conqueror of Italy, humbler of Germany, terror of
the North――saw him account all his matchless victories poor, compared
with the triumph you are now in a condition to win――saw him condemn
the fickleness of fortune, while, in despite of her, he could pronounce
his memorable boast:――‘I shall go down to posterity with my code in my
hand.’ You have vanquished him in the field; strive now to rival him
in the sacred arts of peace! The lustre of the regency will be eclipsed
by the more solid and enduring splendour of the reign. The praise which
false courtiers feigned for our Edwards and Harrys, the Justinians of
that day, will be the just tribute of the wise and good to that monarch
under whose sway so mighty an undertaking shall be accomplished. Of a
truth, the holders of sceptres are most chiefly to be envied for that
they bestow the power of thus conquering and ruling. It was the boast
of Augustus――it formed part of the glare in which the prejudices of
his earlier years were lost――that he found Rome of brick, and left
it of marble; a praise not unworthy of a great prince, and to which
the present also has its claims. But how much nobler will be the
sovereign’s boast, when he shall have it to say that he found law dear
and left it cheap; found it a sealed book, left it a living letter;
found it the patrimony of the rich, left it the inheritance of the
poor; found it the two-edged sword of craft and oppression, left it
the staff of honesty and the shield of innocence.”
It is recorded that Brougham wrote the peroration of his concluding
speech for the defence of Queen Caroline no fewer than fifteen times
over; yet it is not very impressive.
Robert Mudie,¹ a native of Forfarshire, was a self-educated man and
a very industrious writer. He was for some time connected with the
London press, and was the author of about ninety volumes on a variety
of subjects. Among these may be named his _Picture of Men and Things in
London_; _Modern Athens, a Sketch of Edinburgh Society_; _The British
Naturalist_; _The Feathered Tribes of Great Britain_, and a series of
volumes on the heavens, the earth, the sea, and the air; _Man, physical,
moral, social, and intellectual_. Although somewhat deficient in taste,
Mudie was an able and vigorous writer. His imaginative and elaborative
faculties were of a high order, and he could throw animation and light
into the driest subjects.
¹ Born in 1777, died in 1842.
Mr. George Combe¹ was by profession a Writer to the Signet in Edinburgh,
but he devoted much of his time and energy to philosophical and
literary pursuits. He was a man highly respected by all who knew him,
and by his writings has attained a wide reputation. He became a popular
expounder of the doctrines of phrenology, which he enforced in a clear
and vigorous style.
¹ Born in 1788, died in 1858.
His chief works are:――1. _Essays on Phrenology_, published in 1819;
2. _The Constitution of Man_, 1828; 3. _System of Phrenology_, 1836;
4. _Phrenology applied to Painting and Sculpture_; 5. _Notes on the
United States of America_, in three volumes, 1841; 6. Pamphlets on
_The Relation between Science and Religion_, on _Capital Punishments_,
on _National Education, The Currency Question, etc._
He was a man of great intellectual powers and exceptional abilities.
All his writings are well worth reading, even apart from his special
doctrines of phrenology. His _Constitution of Man_ has been exceedingly
popular, and has passed through many editions――hundreds of thousands of
it having been sold. I have known several of his followers who almost
worshipped him, and placed the most implicit faith in the doctrines of
the _Constitution of Man_. There is no doubt that his writings have had
a considerable influence among certain classes of the people.
The interesting life of Hugh Miller, the self-taught man of science
and genius, was admirably narrated by himself in his _Schools and
Schoolmasters_. He was a native of Cromarty, born in 1802, and died
in 1856. For the last sixteen years of his life he was editor of
_The Witness_, a twice-a-week paper. He was a geologist, and a man of
great literary talents; very few excel him as a popular expositor of
geology. He had a wide command of expressive and appropriate language,
and his imaginative and elaborative powers were of a high order. His
descriptions of geological strata and fossil remains are illumined by a
vividness of realisation as yet unmatched in this branch of literature.
His works are:――1. _Scenes and Legends in the North of Scotland, or
the Traditional History of Cromarty_; 2. _The Old Red Sandstone_,
which appeared in 1841; 3. _First Impressions of England and its
People_, 1847; 4. _Footprints of the Creator_, 1850; 5. _My Schools
and Schoolmasters, an Autobiography_, 1854; 6. _The Testimony of the
Rocks_: 7. _The Cruise of the Betsey_, 1858; 8. _Sketch-Book of Popular
Geology, being a series of Lectures delivered before the Philosophical
Institution of Edinburgh_; and 9, two volumes of essays, being a
selection of his articles from the file of _The Witness_.
His writings were popular, and many editions have been issued.
The following quotation is taken from an article reprinted from
_The Witness_ on “A Five-pound Qualification” (franchise), and it
exemplifies a feature of his style which he often employs effectively,
touching on some striking phase of a different subject to give point
to the one that he intended to discuss. The article has also a special
interest at the present time.
“When, owing to some deep-seated cause, the general level of a country
is heightened by sudden upheaval, not only is its area extended by an
apparent recession of the sea, but the outline of its coasts is also
very much changed. In places where the land is flat and low, and the
water shallow, it receives accessions of great tracts of new country;
whereas in other places, where high table-lands sink suddenly into the
sea and the water is deep, it is restricted to near its old limits. In
Scotland, for instance, that last upheaval which laid dry the old coast
line added many a rich acre to the links of the Forth and the Carse of
Gowrie, and gave to the country the sites of most of its sea-port towns,
such as Leith and Greenock, Musselburgh, Stonehaven, and Inverness;
whereas along the rocky shores of Aberdeen and Banff, and especially
in Caithness and Orkney, it did little more, save here and there in
a narrow inlet, than reduce by some two or three fathoms the depth of
the sea at the foot of the cliffs. It left the old boundaries just what
they had been. The extension of area which took place in consequence
of the upheaval was partial and local, though in the aggregate it added
not a little to the general value of the country; and this particular
character was altogether a result of the previous form of the surface.
We have witnessed something similar in the effects of those great
upheavals which occasionally take place in the political world. The
Reform Bill effected a wonderful upheaval of this kind. It raised
over the sea-level, in certain districts, vast tracts that had been
previously submerged, while in other districts it left the old limits
unchanged. The high lands of Toryism received no new accession, while
those of Liberalism it greatly enlarged. By elevating the long-buried
heads of the people above water in the character of ten-pound franchise
holders, it strengthened the trading interests or, to carry out our
parallel, gave new standing-room to the trading towns; while the
agricultural interests, located, if we may so speak, on the high
table-lands of the country, remained no broader or stronger than they
had been before. And so, in the great struggle which ensued between
the two interests, the agricultural one went down, and free trade won
the day. Party, in general, was not a little affected by this great
upheaval. The new accessions were chiefly accessions made to the cause
of Liberalism in general; but it did quite as little for hereditary
Whigism as for hereditary Toryism; and either party feel, when in
office, that it has had but the effect of making their position more
precarious and less desirable than of old.... It has thrown them up
nearer than of old to the chill line of perpetual ice and snow, and
exposed them to the dangers of treacherous landslips, and sudden
avalanches.
“What, let us ask, would be the effect of a still further upheaval
of the political area, that would place the ten-pound franchise in
the position of a second old coast line, by raising a widely-spread
five-pound franchise out of it? To what regions of parties would such
an upheaval add new breadth? In what regions would it leave the present
limits unchanged? What would be its effect, for instance, on the
various parties in Edinburgh?” This was written in the winter of 1856.
In 1850, a work entitled _The Theory of Human Progression, and Natural
Probability of a Reign of Justice_, was published anonymously, and
dedicated to Victor Cousin, the well-known Eclectic philosopher:
and in the dedication it was enounced that “the truth I endeavour to
inculcate is, that credence rules the world, that credence determines
the condition and fixes the destiny of nations, that true credence must
ever entail with it a correct and beneficial system of society, while
false credence must ever be accompanied by despotism, anarchy, and
wrong――that before a nation can change its condition it must change
its credence; that change of credence will of necessity be accompanied
sooner or later by change of condition; and, consequently, that true
credence, or, in other words, knowledge, is the only means by which man
can work out his well-being and ameliorate his condition on the globe.”
The author, who thus described the object of his work, was Mr. Patrick
E. Dove, a warm-hearted and patriotic Scotsman, who died in Australia
in 1879.
The work is one of the class now ranked under the term of sociology.
It is an able and well-reasoned effort, and though not often referred
to directly, still it has had a marked influence in forming several
political theories and views of political phenomena since current
in this country. Mr. Dove was gifted with a vigorous mind, of a
philosophic and scientific cast, and keen and generous sympathies.
The principles and ideas of his work are clearly conceived and fairly
elaborated.
It consists of four chapters, the first of which treats on the
elements of human progression――the matters involved in political
science, liberty, and property; the mode in which men have made laws;
the combination of knowledge and reason, and the use and operation
of this combination. In the second chapter he expounds his theory
of man’s intellectual progression, and treats of the order of the
sciences――their growth, their processes, their dependence, evolution,
and present position; the character and position of political science;
the province and object of political economy; the foundation of
political society; socialism and communism; and many other points. In
the third chapter he advances his theory of man’s practical progression,
and presents an outline of the argument, that there is a natural
probability in favour of the reign of justice; and in support of this
view he reasons from the order of knowledge and science――natural truth,
which becomes divine truth, and from the influence of Christianity;
and illustrates at some length from the practical applications
of science. The fourth chapter presents an historical sketch――an
attempt to apprehend the sentiments of the human mind which have ruled
society, and to appreciate the psychological development of man through
historic manifestations. This was of itself a great and very difficult
undertaking, and notwithstanding his grasp of principles, and his fine
analytic and critical faculties, it is the crudest and the weakest part
of his work.
In an appendix he presents a classification of the sciences; and though
his work has defects, it is a remarkable effort. I am not aware if Mr.
Dove was one of Sir W. Hamilton’s students, but I find ♦unmistakable
traces of the influence of his psychology in _The Theory of Human
Progression_.
♦ “unmistakeable” replaced with “unmistakable”
As a specimen of his style, and the interest of the subject, I shall
give a quotation touching land:――“The question, then, is, upon what
terms, or according to what system, must the earth be possessed by the
successive generations that succeed each other on the surface of the
globe? The conditions given are――First, that the earth is the common
property of the race; second, that whatever an individual produces by
his own labour is the private property of that individual, and he may
dispose of it as he pleases, provided he does not interfere with his
fellows; third, the earth is the perpetual common property of the race,
and each succeeding generation has a full title to a free earth. One
generation cannot encumber a succeeding generation.
“And the condition required is, such a system as shall secure to the
successive individuals of the race their share of the common property,
and the opportunity, without interference, of making as much private
property as their skill and enterprise would enable them to make.
“The actual division of the soil need never be anticipated, nor would
such a division be just, if the divided portions were made the property
legally of individuals, for they could never be so morally.
“If, then, successive generations of men cannot have their fractional
share of the actual soil, how can the division of the advantages of the
natural earth be effected?
“By the division of its annual value or rent; that is, by making the
rent of the soil the common property of the nations. That is, as the
taxation is the common property of the State, by taking the whole
of the taxes out of the rents of the soil, and thereby abolishing
all other kinds of taxation whatever. And thus all industry would be
absolutely emancipated from every burden, and every man would reap
such natural reward as his skill, industry, or enterprise rendered
legitimately his, according to the natural law of free competition.
This we maintain to be the only theory that will satisfy the
requirements of the problem of natural property.”¹
¹ Pages 384, 387. In a note he says:――“We have no hesitation
whatever in predicting that all civilised communities must
ultimately abolish all revenue restrictions on industry,
♦and draw the whole taxation from the rents of the soil. And
this because the rents of the soil are the common produce of
the whole labour of a community.”
♦ “und” replaced with “and”
Again: “Taxation can only be on land or labour. These are the two
radical elements that can be subjected to taxation, capital being
originally derived from one or the other. Capital is only hoarded
labour or hoarded rent; and as all capital must be derived from the
one source or the other, all taxation of capital is only taxation of
land or labour. Consequently, all taxation of whatever kind is: 1st,
taxation of labour, that is, a deduction from the natural remuneration
which God intended the labourer to derive from his exertions; or, 2nd,
taxation of land, that is, the appropriation of the current value of
the natural earth to the expenses of the State.
“Now, labour is essentially private property, and land is not
essentially private property, but, on the contrary, is the common
inheritance of every generation of mankind. Where the land is taxed,
no man is taxed, nor does the taxation of land interfere in any way
whatever with the progress of human industry. On the contrary, the
taxation of land, rightly directed, might be made to advance the
condition of the country to a high degree of prosperity.”¹
¹ Pages 389‒390.
He was excessively fond of generalising, and frequently attempted
it with matters which were not properly prepared for the process; as
suggested in the following paragraph: “But beneath the outward variety
of man’s historic representations, can we not plunge below the surface
and seize some stable element, some scheme, some law, some generalised
fact, some plan or principle on which the drama has been constructed,
some permanent truth that evolves amid all the apparent diversity of
images? Can we not transform the real elements as they appear into some
abstract form that enables us to state them in a rational equation?
Can we not apprehend the essential character of the changes, as well
as their empirical character, and derive instruction for the reason,
as well as materials for the memory and the understanding?”
His intellect was essentially deductive and logical. He loved to handle
a principle, an idea, or a formula; but his mastery of method and
expository powers were excellent. He is the author of several other
important works, which I can only name: _Elements of Political Science_,
1854; and _Logic of the Christian Faith_, 1856.
George Gilfillan was born at Comrie, Perthshire, on the 30th January,
1813, where his father was minister of the Scottish Secession Church.
He entered the University of Glasgow at the age of fourteen. After
finishing his course of study in the University, he passed through the
course of training in the Divinity Hall of the Secession Church. He was
licensed to preach the Gospel in April 1835. For some time he passed
from church to church preaching for ministers, or as a candidate in
vacancies. In March 1836, he was ordained minister of the School Wynd
church in Dundee, which was one of the early Secession congregations.
The same year, on the 23rd of November, he married Margaret Valentine,
who proved throughout his life an admirable help-meet.
He was a stalwart man. His erect figure, and massive head, the bold
lustre of his eyes, and the sharp intellectual expression of his
countenance, at once gave a striking impression of strength. He
was a man of great energy, and marked ability. His intellectual
faculties were naturally strong; yet his analytic power was not very
remarkable. Perhaps, his position and the circumstances of his life
were unfavourable to the development of the analytic side of the mind,
while his feelings, sentiments, and emotions were exceedingly strong,
and his sympathies wide and varied. His mind was impulsive and fervid.
In the pulpit he delivered his sermons with great energy and vehemence,
and soon became a popular preacher. He was also much esteemed as a
popular lecturer, and his service was often solicited in different
quarters of Scotland and beyond it. Between the years 1839‒48 he
delivered some twenty lectures at the Watt Institution in Dundee,
on such varied subjects as “The Relation of Religion to Painting,”
“The Genius of Byron,” “Modern British Literature,” and various other
themes. His popularity increased and extended, and for many years he
was one of the most prominent men of Dundee.
He had an aspiration for distinction and literary fame. His literary
activity was wonderful, and embraced a wide variety of subjects. Many
of his early efforts first appeared in magazines and newspapers:――In
_Edinburgh University Magazine_, _The Dumfries Herald_, _Hogg’s
Instructor_, _Tait’s Magazine_, _British Quarterly Review_, _Eclectic
Review_, _The Critic_, _The Scottish Review_, and other periodicals;
and at a later stage of his life, he was a large contributor to the
columns of the _Dundee Advertiser_ and the _People’s Friend_. His
papers in the above, were chiefly biographical and critical sketches,
and reviews of books.
The first portion of his _Gallery of Literary Portraits_ was published
in 1845, the second in 1849, and the third in 1854; and in 1857 the
whole appeared in two volumes. The work consists of biographical and
critical sketches, which in the last edition were arranged under ♦six
divisions thus:――Poets, French Revolutionists, Novelists, Critics,
Miscellaneous Writers, and Sacred Authors. These sketches are vivid
and graphic. His _Bards of the Bible_ appeared in 1850, and was pretty
successful. _The Martyrs, Heroes, and Bards of the Scottish Covenant_
was published in 1852, and became the most popular of his works.
His _History of a Man_ appeared in 1856. This is a rather singular
book――mainly autobiographical, but also presenting fictitious elements
and sharp criticism. In 1857 his _Christianity and our Era_ was
published. It is a work of considerable power, and presents his views
touching the signs of the “Second Advent of Christ.” His Poem entitled
_Night_, on which he had spent much labour, appeared in 1867. From time
to time he published a considerable number of his lectures and sermons.
He edited a series of the _British Poets_; wrote a _Life of Sir Walter
Scott_, published in 1870; a _Life of the Rev. Dr. William Anderson_
in 1873; and a _Life of Burns_ for the National Edition of the Poet’s
works, published in 1878. His command of language was copious, and his
descriptive power excellent. His style, however, is very unequal, loose,
and discursive; yet many vivid, striking, and pathetic passages occur
in his writings. His criticism though often telling, and sometimes
stinging, is not of the highest character, for the natural bent of his
mind hardly permitted him to calmly examine evidence, or estimate all
the essential points.
♦ “five” replaced with “six”
Personally, he was a kind-hearted man. He was ever ready to assist
those in whom he saw the buds of genius or talent. His death, which
occurred suddenly on the 13th of August 1878, was mourned as a public
loss to Scotland.
Dr. John Brown, a son of Professor Brown of the U. P. Church, was
a medical practitioner in Edinburgh. In 1858 he published a volume
entitled _Horæ Subsecivæ_, consisting of essays on Locke and Sydenham;
_Rab and his Friends_, and other papers; and in 1861 he issued a
second series of sketches of a similar character. These volumes are
exceedingly interesting.
William Minto was born at Nether Auchentoul, in the parish of Alford,
Aberdeenshire, on the 10th of October, 1845. He was educated at the
parish schools of Alford and Tough, and subsequently at the Cordon
Schools in Huntly, under the Rev. John Macdonald, who trained him in
classics. He entered the University of Aberdeen in 1861, where he had
a very distinguished career. In 1865 he graduated with highest honours
in classics, second in mental philosophy, and second in mathematics;
he also gained the Ferguson Scholarship for classics. In the summer of
1866 he went to Merton College, Oxford, and obtained an exhibition of
£80, but he left Oxford in the end of the year and returned to Scotland.
For a short time he acted as assistant to Mr. Thomson, Professor of
Natural Philosophy in the University of Aberdeen, and afterward as
Professor Bain’s assistant in teaching the English class. In 1872 his
volume, entitled _A Manual of English Prose Literature_ appeared, and
the same year he was appointed Examiner in Mental Philosophy in the
University of Aberdeen.
In 1873 he went to London, obtained an appointment on the staff of the
_Examiner_, and engaged in literary work. The following year he became
editor of this paper, but it ceased to be issued in 1880. Minto then
entered warmly into political writing upon the controversy of the time
for the columns of the _Daily News_ and the _Pall Mall Gazette_. He
worked assiduously. Besides writing for newspapers, his interesting
volume, _Characteristics of English Poets_, was published in 1874,
and his volume on _Defoe_ in the ♦“English Men of Letters” Series
in 1879. He contributed twenty-six articles to the ninth edition of
the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, which are mainly of a biographical
and critical character. He also contributed a considerable number
of articles on various subjects to the _Fortnightly Review_, _The
Nineteenth Century_, _Blackwood’s Magazine_, and other periodicals.
♦ ‘“English Men of Letters Series in 1879.”’ replaced with
‘“English Men of Letters” Series in 1879.’
Upon the retirement of Dr. Bain from the Chair of Logic and English
Literature in the University of Aberdeen in 1880, Minto was appointed
his successor. He earnestly devoted attention to the subjects assigned
to his chair, and proved in every respect an excellent teacher. His
manner and tact won the affection of the students, and his faculty
of interesting and instructing them was characteristic and thoroughly
successful. He held the Chair for thirteen years, and took his share in
the business of the Senatus and the University. He took a keen interest
in educational matters, and frequently delivered lectures outside the
University. Under the auspices of the Local Examination Committee of
the Senatus Academicus, he delivered a course of lectures in the Music
Hall of Aberdeen, on “The Literature of the Georgian Era,” in which
he treated the writings of the poets and novelists of the eighteenth
century, and the early part of the nineteenth.¹
¹ These “Lectures” were edited by Professor Knight, with a
biographical introduction, and published in 1894.
He was always a hard worker. As stated in a preceding chapter, he
wrote three novels. In 1887 he edited a complete edition of Sir Walter
Scott’s _Poems_. He edited the _Autobiographical Notes of the Life of
William B. Scott_ (a painter and writer) which was published in 1892;
and is a work of much interest and value. He had just corrected the
last proofs of his volume on Logic――Inductive and Deductive, before his
death. He had been in weak health for some months and confined to his
house, but his mind continued active and hopeful to the last. He died
on the 1st of March 1893, in the forty-eighth year of his age.
John Veitch was born in Peebles on the 29th of October, 1829. He
was educated at the University of Edinburgh, where he came under the
influence of Sir William Hamilton, and was a distinguished student.
In 1855 he was appointed assistant to Hamilton; and he held this
post under Professor Campbell Fraser until 1860, when he was elected
Professor of Logic, Rhetoric, and Metaphysics in the University of St.
Andrews. In 1864 he was appointed to the Chair of Logic and Rhetoric
in the University of Glasgow, which he filled with much credit for a
period of thirty years. He died in September 1894.
His writings cover a varied range of topics. In conjunction with Mr.
H. L. Mansel, he edited Sir William Hamilton’s _Lectures on Metaphysics
and Logic_――an undertaking which entailed much work. He wrote a lengthy
_Memoir of Sir William_, which is the standard work on the subject. His
translation of the _Method, Meditations and Principles of Descartes_,
with an introduction and notes, is a very useful book for students.
His _Essay on Lucretius and the Atomic Theory_ appeared in 1875, and
is a very interesting effort. His _Institutes of Logic_ evince a wide
and accurate historical knowledge of logical doctrine. In his _Knowing
and Being_ published in 1889, he touched on metaphysical problems, and
criticised some of Hegel’s conceptions. His labours, however, in other
branches of literature are perhaps more notable. In 1878 his _History
and Poetry of the Scottish Borders_ appeared, and is a valuable and
interesting contribution to this branch of literature. A second edition
has been issued. His work entitled _The Feeling for Nature in Scottish
Poetry_ published in 1887, is pervaded by fine feeling and an elevated
tone of expression. He had a poetic aspiration and feeling, and wrote
several poems――_The Tweed_, _Merlin_, and others. His mind presented a
characteristic combination of philosophic insight and poetic fervour.
John Stuart Blackie was born in Glasgow on the 28th of July, 1809.
In 1812 his father, who was a banker, removed to Aberdeen to manage
the branch of the Commercial Bank of Scotland. At the age of twelve
he entered Marischal College, where he attended classes for three
years, and subsequently he studied at Edinburgh University. In 1829 he
proceeded to Germany, and pursued his studies at Göttingen and Berlin,
and finally in Italy. On returning to Scotland, he studied law, and
was called to the Scottish Bar in 1834; but it appears that he never
practiced, his talents were ill-suited for the profession. For some
years he was engaged in writing articles for periodicals. In 1841 he
was appointed to the Chair of Humanity in Marischal College, Aberdeen,
and he ardently devoted his attention to the work. In 1852 he was
appointed Professor of Greek in the University of Edinburgh. He held
this Chair for thirty years, resigning it in 1882.
Blackie was a man of remarkable talents, and considerable culture
associated with keen feelings and wide sympathies. These were combined
in his peculiar personality with many comic eccentricities, which
sharply distinguished him from all his contemporaries. He was very
energetic outside the University, and delivered popular lectures in
different quarters of the country, which were instructive and always
highly amusing, calling forth applause and roars of laughter. He took a
deep interest in the Highlands, and was a warm friend of the crofters,
advocating their cause with much enthusiasm. It was mainly by his
exertions that a Celtic Chair was established in Edinburgh University.
He died at Edinburgh on the 2nd of March, 1895.
His energy was great. A noted traveller, he embraced every opportunity
of observing men and things. A most versatile writer, he delivered
his views on many subjects: comprising morals, religion, and political
philosophy, songs, ballads, poetry, Gaelic literature, and translations.
The following include his more important works――A metrical translation
of Goethe’s _Faust_ published in 1834, of which a second edition
with emendations was issued; A translation of the _Lyrical Dramas of
Æschylus in English verse_ published in 1850, in two volumes; _Songs
and Legends of Ancient Greece_ appeared in 1857; _Homer and the Iliad_,
in four volumes, containing a translation of the Iliad in ballad
measure, dissertations and notes, published in 1866. _Four Phases
of Morals_, as represented by Socrates, Aristotle, Christianity, and
Utilitarianism――a series of lectures; _Natural History of Atheism_,
issued in 1877, and intended to be a defence of theism against the
modern tendencies of speculation; _Self-Culture, Intellectual, Physical,
and Moral_. This work was one of his most successful efforts, many
editions of it having been issued both in Britain and America. He
was a great admirer and lover of Scottish songs and ballads, and
was himself a writer of songs and verse. In 1872 his _Lays of the
Highlands_ appeared, in which there is vivid and effective writing,
and considerable artistic combination. His _Songs of Religion and Life_
was issued in 1876, and shows clearly that he was not a creed-limited
devotee, but rather a worshipper in the great and glorious universe.
_Altavona――Fact and Fiction from my Life in the Highlands_ was
published in 1882, and is an interesting volume. His _Scottish Song:
its wealth, wisdom and social significance_, issued in 1889, is an
excellent book. He wrote a _Life of Burns_, and a number of other works.
The chief characteristics of Professor Blackie’s style are freshness,
cheerfulness, touches of pathos, comic turns, and wit. His main
philosophical idea was founded upon Aristotle’s doctrine that “all
extremes are wrong.” This was a special feature in his political
opinions.
In the department of travels and exploration, Scotland has contributed
her share, as the names of Bruce, Mungo Park, Livingstone, and others
testify.
James Bruce was born at Kinnaird House, in Stirlingshire, in 1730. He
was intended for the legal profession; but he was averse to the irksome
study of law, and commenced business as a wine-merchant in London.
Having visited Spain and Portugal, his attention was attracted to the
architectural ruins and tales of the Moorish dominion; he earnestly
devoted himself to the study of Eastern antiquities and languages. When
he returned to England, it was proposed that he should make a journey
to Barbary, and he was appointed to the consulship of Algiers. He
left England and arrived at Algiers in 1762. Bruce spent six years at
Algiers and in various travels, and having surveyed and sketched the
ruins of Palmyra and Baalbec, he reached Alexandria in 1768. He then
proceeded to Cairo, embarked on the Nile, and arrived at Gondar, the
capital of Abyssinia. After a short stay there, he started for the
sources of Bahr-el-Azrek, under the impression that this was the main
branch of the Nile. At length the spot was pointed out to him by his
guide, a hillock of green sod in the middle of a watery plain. The king
of Abyssinia conferred high personal distinctions on Bruce. Returning
through the great deserts of Nubia to Egypt, he encountered extreme
hardships and dangers from the sand-storms and simoom of the desert.
After his return home, some parts of the narrative of his travels
reached the public, and were much ridiculed and discredited. Even
the sage Johnson doubted whether Bruce had ever been in Abyssinia! A
complete account of his travels was published in 1790, in five volumes.
But his statements were still deemed a fitting theme for the sneers
and lampoons of the critics and wits of the time; and though Bruce felt
these attacks keenly, he was an honourable and proud-spirited man, and
scorned to reply to such impeachments of his veracity. He died in 1804.
A second and third edition of his travels were published within eight
years after his death. The general accuracy of his work, and the
correctness of his drawings and maps, have long ago been confirmed from
many different quarters. His style is prolix, but sometimes animated.
Mungo Park was born at Fowlshiels, in the vicinity of Stirling, in
1771. He studied for the medical profession; and, under the auspices
of the African Association, formed in 1778 for the purpose of promoting
discovery in the interior of Africa, he embarked in May, 1795. On
the 21st of June he arrived at Jillifree, on the banks of the Gambia.
Thence he proceeded towards the kingdom of Bambarra, and there he
saw the chief object of his mission, the river Niger, flowing towards
the east. Park’s narrative of his journey――the various incidents, the
sufferings which he encountered, his captivity among the Moors, and
the manners, customs, and trade of the inhabitants, are all intensely
interesting. He returned to England in the end of the year 1797; and,
in 1799, his travels were published. His style is marked by simplicity,
clearness, and fine moral feeling.
But his active mind and spirit was not satisfied, and he longed to
renew his travels. He again sailed from England, arriving at Goree
in the end of March, 1805. The expedition, which at first consisted
of forty-five men, but now reduced to seven, was unfortunate. At
Sansanding, he built a boat to continue his voyage down the river,
and entered it on the 17th of November, 1805, resolved to discover the
termination of the Niger or to perish in the attempt. After the party
had sailed several days, on passing a rocky part of the river named
Boussa, the natives attacked them, and Park himself and one of his
companions were drowned while attempting to escape by swimming. His
letters and journals had been sent to Gambia before embarking on the
fatal voyage, and an account of the journey, compiled from these, was
published in 1815.
The exploration of the interior of Africa long continued to be
an object of adventurous and worthy ambition, and a number of men
have spent the better part of their lives in such undertakings. Our
countryman, David Livingstone, as a missionary and an explorer of
Africa, takes a high rank. He was a man inured to hard labour from
his youth, and his great work in Africa, his noble and well-considered
efforts to enlighten and civilise the natives of the countries which he
visited, are unrivalled in the records of travellers, and will still be
fresh in the minds of many of the present generation.
Livingstone’s labours in Africa fall naturally into three periods.
The first, extending from 1841 to 1857, in which he worked in Southern
Africa as a missionary, and made various expeditions into the interior
of the country. Having returned home, his _Researches in South
Africa_ were published in 1857, and is a deeply interesting volume.
It describes his long and often perilous journeys, and contains much
original information touching the natives, the geography, botany, and
natural products of Africa.
The second period extends from 1858 to 1864: early in the former year
he set out on his second important mission. In May he had reached the
mouth of the Zambesi. In January the following year he explored the
river and valley of the Shire, where a white man had never before been
seen. He proceeded up the Shire some two hundred miles, till stopped by
the Murchison Falls. He found the Shire valley fertile and cultivated.
By an overland march of twenty days from Shire, in September, 1860,
he discovered the great lake of Nyassa. He afterwards revisited it,
and concluded that the lake was about two hundred miles long and forty
broad. The country was studded with villages, and the natives of the
Shire and Nyassa valleys had good iron, and were manufacturers as
well as agriculturists. Livingstone returned to England in 1864, and
recorded his explorations in a _Narrative of an Expedition to the
Zambesi and its tributaries, and of the discovery of the lakes Sherwa
and Nyassa_.
In 1866, Livingstone started on his third and last expedition. In March
he left Zanzibar and struck up the country towards lake Nyassa. For
seven years he bravely prosecuted his travels and labours in Africa,
suffering many hardships and dangers. At last, worn out, he died on the
1st of May, 1873. He had before expressed a wish to die in the still
forest, “and no hand ever disturb my bones.” But so beloved was he when
alive, that his body was rudely embalmed by his faithful followers, and
carried by them hundreds of miles to Zanzibar, whence it was conveyed
to England and interred in Westminster Abbey, on the 18th of April,
1874. Thus lived and died Dr. Livingstone, a man equally remarkable
for his great intelligence and sagacity, his warm-hearted and wide
sympathies, which were admirably exerted for the elevation and good
of the natives of Africa; his bravery, fortitude, and endurance
were wonderful, and his strength of will and perseverance unmatched.
He was the first who called public attention to the suffering and
horrors of the East African slave trade, which he continued to expose
throughout his life; and his whole career was a noble struggle for the
enlightenment, improvement, and civilisation of the natives of Africa.
Before closing this chapter, it seems requisite to give a brief account
of the rise of newspapers and periodical literature. During Cromwell’s
rule in Scotland there were some reprints of English news published
in Edinburgh; after the Restoration two attempts were made to issue
newspapers, but neither of them continued long. The first regular
Scottish newspaper was the _Edinburgh Gazette_, established in 1699.
The first Glasgow newspaper, called the _Glasgow Courant_, containing
the occurrences both at home and abroad, appeared on the 14th of
November, 1715; it was published thrice a week, but only lived about
seven months. The second newspaper published in Glasgow appeared on
the 20th of July, 1741, under the name of the _Glasgow Journal_, and
it continued to be issued for upwards of half a century. On the 14th
of October, 1745, the first number of the second _Glasgow Courant_
was issued; and in 1783 the _Glasgow Advertiser_ first appeared.¹
The _Aberdeen Journal_ appeared in 1748. Newspapers continued slowly
to increase in number till the end of the century; but it is chiefly
within the last fifty years, and especially since the abolition of the
stamp duty in 1855, and the duty on paper in 1861, that the newspaper
press has attained its great development.
¹ Macgregor’s _History of Glasgow_, pages 295, 335, 336, 386.
The class of what may be called literary periodical papers, as
distinguished from newspapers, began to appear in Scotland early in the
eighteenth century. In 1711, a paper of this description was published
in Edinburgh, and continued through thirty weekly numbers, under the
name of _The Tatler_. Soon after this a number of periodical papers
appeared, and disappeared again, but few of them had much merit. _The
Echo_ ran its weekly numbers from 1729 to 1733; _The Review_ appeared
in 1737; and _The Letters of the Critical Club_ in 1738; _The Mirror
and Lounger_, a periodical published in Edinburgh, attained a higher
reputation. In January, 1739, the first number of _The Scots Magazine_
appeared, and was continued till 1826. It contains a store of events,
facts, interesting pictures of manners, characters, and incidents,
extending over a period of well-nigh a century.
I have already referred to the establishment of the _Edinburgh Review_,
and the influence which it wielded. _Blackwood’s Magazine_ first
appeared in 1817, and _Tait’s Magazine_ in 1833; and about the latter
date the Messrs. Chambers began to issue their instructive and cheap
periodical publications, many of which attained a wide circulation.
There are now magazines devoted to almost every department of knowledge,
and to nearly every variety of opinion and doctrine; even every party
and interest deem it necessary to be represented in the periodical
press.
The first edition of the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ was published in
1771, in four volumes, under the editorship of Mr. William Smellie. The
second edition of this work was begun in 1776, and it extended to ten
volumes, embracing biography and history. The third edition, enlarged
to eighteen volumes, was completed in 1797; and which contained many
original treatises on physical science, and able and valuable articles
by Professor Robison, Dr. Doig, and the ingenious editor of the later
volumes――the Rev. Dr. George Gleig. Two supplementary volumes were
afterwards added to the work. The fourth edition, under the editorship
of Dr. James Miller, was finished in 1810, enriched by several
scientific treatises and many valuable articles by William Wallace,
professor of mathematics in the University of Edinburgh. The next two
editions were nearly nominal reprints; but the supplement projected by
Mr. Constable contained contributions from many of the most ♦eminent
writers of the time――Sir Walter Scott, Jeffrey, James Mill, Dr. Thomas
Young, Playfair, Leslie, Mackintosh, Dugald Stewart,¹ M. Arago, M. Biot,
and others. The seventh edition under the editorship of Mr. Napier,
ably assisted by Dr. James Browne, was completed in 1842, in twenty-one
volumes; and contained many new and valuable articles, along with the
supplements mentioned above. The eighth edition of this great national
work was completed in 1861; and the ninth edition, under the editorship
of accomplished and learned gentlemen, was completed in 1888.
♦ “emiment” replaced with “eminent”
¹ Large sums were paid to some of these writers for their
Dissertations and Articles. Dugald Stewart was to receive
£1000 for his _Dissertation on Metaphysical Philosophy_,
and Playfair for one on the _Progress of Natural Philosophy_
£500; Stewart actually received £1600, and Playfair would
have received an additional £500 had he lived to complete
his Dissertation. Such large sums had never before been
given for literary work in Scotland.
The _Edinburgh Encyclopædia_, under the editorship of Sir David
Brewster, was commenced in 1808, and completed in 1830, in eighteen
quarto volumes. The scientific portions of this work are valuable, and
were long highly appreciated.
The first edition of _Chambers’ Cyclopædia of English Literature_
was published in 1843; and several revised and enlarged editions have
since been issued, in two large volumes. It is a useful and generally
accurate work. The later editions had the benefit of the extensive
information and the fine literary taste of the late Mr. Robert
Carruthers, of Inverness, who thoroughly revised the whole work. The
Messrs. Chambers have also published an _Encyclopædia_, which is very
highly esteemed as a work of reference. A new and revised edition of
this excellent work has just been completed.
So much for the modern literature of Scotland.
CHAPTER XLIV.
_Progress of Science in the Eighteenth
and Nineteenth Centuries._
SECTION I.
_Physical Science._
IT should be understood that the aim of this chapter is not to present
a history of science, but chiefly to indicate what Scotland has
contributed to the science of the period, and to show the importance of
science as a factor in advancing civilisation. It will, therefore, in
the first place, touch on the significance and progress of mathematical
science; in the second, on physical science, or natural philosophy;
and in the third, on mechanical science, or science in relation to its
practical application.
From an early period various conceptions of the universe have been
entertained; even Newton’s conception of it and his system founded
on the theory of gravitation are not quite satisfactory. Hence his
followers for a long time mainly occupied themselves in defending and
explaining his system; they were loth to recognise that either his
method or system was susceptible of improvement or extension――they
adhered to his conclusions with extreme tenacity and superstitious
veneration. While, in other parts of Europe, Descartes’ theory of the
universe held the field, the earliest recorded recognition of Newton’s
principles in France was in a memoir by Lonville, which appeared
in a volume of the _Academy of Sciences_ for the year 1720; and the
first French astronomer who ventured on a defence of the theory of
gravitation was Maupertius, in his work on the figures of the celestial
bodies, published in 1732. He compared the theories of Descartes
and Newton, and came to a conclusion in favour of the latter. It was
Voltaire, however, that really diffused a knowledge of Newton’s system
in France, by the publication, in 1738, of his clear exposition of
Newton’s discoveries in optics and astronomy. Henceforth in France the
Newtonian system prevailed over the theory of Descartes.
The controversy touching the priority of the invention of the calculus
between Newton and Leibnitz was an unfortunate affair, as it arose from
trivial incidents. In short, from the first Leibnitz admitted Newton’s
priority in forming the conception of the calculus; but he maintained,
what was doubtless true, his own originality in the invention of the
differential calculus. This branch of mathematical analysis was not
much advanced by Newton and the English geometers of his time; as
Newton himself was fond of geometrical forms and the synthetical method
of statement. His treatise on _Fluxions_ was not published till after
his death in 1736. When, however, it became known that the differential
calculus was rapidly circulating on the Continent――and so little was
Newton’s method known, that Leibnitz was regarded throughout Europe
as its original inventor――the followers of Newton began to feel that
this impression was unjust towards their great teacher, and hence
the bitterness of the controversy which ensued. The result was a
wide alienation between the English and foreign mathematicians, which
had a pernicious effect on science. “Each party became the exclusive
supporters of the two great luminaries of their respective countries.
The British mathematicians, in particular, adhered with the most rigid
pertinacity to the very letter of Newton’s methods; and were, with few
exceptions, completely ignorant both of the original investigations
of the other party, and of the improvements upon them which were being
rapidly introduced.
“The difference in name and notation between the two methods, though
in itself a trivial circumstance, was yet far from unimportant in some
of the consequences which may be fairly traced to it. It tended in some
measure to foster and increase the dissension between the two schools,
and their ignorance of each other’s researches; while the diversity
itself between the two methods, though in reality little more than
nominal, became also a topic of no small dispute and controversy. But
much as these differences were on all grounds to be lamented, the loss
in point of scientific advantages, it must with shame be confessed,
were almost entirely on the side of Britain.”¹
¹ Powell’s _History of the Physical and Mathematical Sciences_,
page 363. 1834.
If we reflect upon the past three centuries and ask what were the most
requisite means of aiding men in their investigation of nature and
the explanation of the phenomena of the universe, the answer must be
mathematical science. In astronomy and in other branches of physical
science, mathematics are indispensable; for as the universe exists in
space and time――the two concepts which encircle all things――so it is
a universal truth, that mathematics are not only the prime requisites
in physical science, but also essential elements in navigation,
engineering, shipbuilding, architecture, and in many other arts.
In the early part of the eighteenth century Scotland produced one
eminent mathematician――Colin Maclaurin¹――and several others of lesser
note. He was a native of Kilmodan, in Argyleshire, a son of a clergyman,
was educated at the University of Glasgow, and early manifested an
aptness for mathematics. In 1717, before he had attained his twentieth
year, he was elected, after a ten days’ competition, Professor of
Mathematics in Marischal College, Aberdeen; but in 1725, he was
appointed assistant and successor to Dr. Gregory in the Chair of
Mathematics in the University of Edinburgh. It is recorded that he was
an able and successful instructor, and that in his public teaching he
clearly explained the application of his science to purposes of utility
and the perfecting of the mechanical arts.²
¹ Born in 1698; died in 1746.
² He soon became the leading spirit in the University of
Edinburgh, and the celebrity which the Chair of Mathematics
had attained under the Gregories was admirably sustained
and even extended by him. In the _Scots Magazine_, in
1741, a full programme of Maclaurin’s courses of academical
instruction is given as follows:――“He gave every year three
courses, and sometimes a fourth, upon such of the ♦abstruse
parts of the science as were not explained in the former
three. The first course contained――Demonstrations of the
ground of Vulgar and Decimal Arithmetic; six books of Euclid;
Plane Trigonometry and use of the tables of Logarithms,
Sines, etc.; Surveying, Fortification, and other practical
parts; the Elements of Algebra; and a lecture on Geography
once a fortnight.
“The second course consisted of――Algebra; the Theory and
Mensuration of Solids; Spherical Trigonometry, the doctrine
of the Sphere, Dialling, and other practical parts; Conic
Sections, with the theory of Gunnery; the Elements of
Astronomy and Optics. He began the third course with
Perspective; then treated more fully of Astronomy and Optics.
After this he prelected on Sir Isaac Newton’s Principia, and
explained the direct and inverse method of Fluxions. At a
separate hour he gave a course of Experimental Philosophy,
beginning about the middle of December, which continued
thrice every week till the beginning of April; and at proper
hours of the night he described the constellations, and
showed the planets by telescopes of various kinds.” This was
a comprehensive course of teaching. He also exerted himself
to the utmost to provide an Observatory for the instruction
of students in the University of Edinburgh, and would
have been successful but for his early death. Although the
foundation of an Observatory was laid in Edinburgh by the
Town Council and Senatus, on the 25th June, 1776, it was not
until 1834 that the Observatory was rendered available for
the practical instruction of students of the University.
It has been said that in “Maclaurin’s time the teaching of
mathematics reached a point which it cannot be said to have
yet surpassed.”――Sir A. Grant’s _Story of the University of
Edinburgh_, Volume II., page 299.
♦ “abtruse” replaced with “abstruse”
His works are these:――(1) _Geometrica Organica_; (2) _A Complete
System of Fluxions_; (3) _Treatise on Algebra_; (4) _Account of Sir
Isaac Newton’s Philosophy_; (5) Various elegant and ingenious papers
published in the _Transactions of the Royal Society_; and (6) _A Memoir
on the Tides_.
In connection with his _Memoir on the Tides_, written in 1740, he
gained equal honour with Euler and Daniel ♦Bernoulli, a famous Italian
mathematician, as the prize of the French Academy of Sciences was
equally divided among them. All the three adopted the principle
of gravitation as the basis on which they attempted to explain the
phenomena of the tides; and the results which they arrived at, presumed
the earth to be at rest and the waters of the ocean also, and at every
moment in a state of equilibrium between the force of gravity tending
to the earth’s centre, and the lesser forces tending towards the sun
and moon. This view is known as the equilibrium theory; and though it
is far from perfect, it correctly indicates a part of the phenomena of
the tides, notwithstanding that the problem of the tides is a dynamical
and not a statical one. Subsequently the important subject of the tides
was treated at great length by Laplace, but unfortunately his tidal
theory was so profound that very few men have ever attempted to master
its difficulties. The late Mr. Airy, the Astronomer Royal, however,
gave to the public a connected and clear view of it.¹
♦ “Bernouilli” replaced with “Bernoulli”
¹ Mr. Airy summed up the merits of Laplace’s theory thus:――“If,
putting from our thoughts the details of the investigation,
we consider the general plan and objects, we must allow
it to be one of the most splendid works of the greatest
mathematician of the past age. To appreciate this, the
reader must consider――first, the boldness of the writer
who, having a clear understanding of the gross imperfection
of the methods of his predecessors, had also the courage
deliberately to take up the problem on grounds fundamentally
correct, however it might be limited by suppositions
afterwards introduced; secondly, the general difficulty
of treating the motions of fluids; thirdly, the peculiar
difficulty of treating the motions when the fluids cover
an area which is not plane but convex; and fourthly, the
sagacity of perceiving that it was necessary to consider
the earth as a revolving body, and the skill of directly
introducing this consideration. The last point alone, in
our opinion, gives a greater claim for reputation than the
boasted explanation of the long inequality of Jupiter and
Saturn.”――_Encyclopædia Metroa_, “Tides and Waves,” Article
117; compare Grant’s _History of Astronomy_, page 71,
_et seq._
After Laplace, the theory of the tides has been treated by
Dr. Thomas Young; and Dr. Whewell and Sir John Lubbock were
engaged for many years in determinating the laws of the
tides by observation, and in tracing their connection with
the positions of the sun and moon. The chief results of
their researches were published from time to time in a
series of papers, in the volumes of the _Royal Society_.
Maclaurin also entered the arena in defence of the Fluxional system,
which was boldly attacked by Berkeley, the famous Idealist, in _The
Analyst_, published in 1734. Berkeley argued that the fundamental
idea of supposing a finite ratio to exist between terms absolutely
evanescent is completely absurd and unintelligible, and with biting
sarcasm called these ratios “the ghosts of departed quantities.” Dr.
Irwin produced a reply, and several others appeared on both sides;
but Maclaurin and Robins made the most satisfactory defence of the
principle of limiting ratios. Still the point was not thoroughly
cleared up, till D’Alembert showed the real application of the
principle of limits in the simplest form; and at last Lagrange, in
his theory of Functions, discarded all idea of infinitesimals and
limits, and reduced the whole to a simple algebraical investigation,
by the development of functions in series.
Maclaurin’s method and style in the solution of problems were greatly
admired. He showed in his applications of mathematics to physical
problems a rare power of seizing the really important points amidst a
mass of irrelevant details. In private life he was one of the best and
worthiest of men.
James Stirling,¹ another distinguished Scottish mathematician, was a
native of Stirlingshire. He was educated at the University of Glasgow,
and afterwards on Snell’s foundation at Oxford. While studying at
Oxford, he printed, in 1717, a small tract on “lines of the third
order, with new solutions of some difficult problems by the fluxionary
calculus.” Subsequently he accepted an invitation to settle at Venice,
where he remained for several years and taught mathematics.
¹ Born about the end of the seventeenth century, and died in
1772.
Having returned home, he opened a mathematical school on Tower Hill,
and maintained a correspondence with philosophers at home and abroad.
In 1730, he published his well-known work on _The Differential Method
and Series_. After toiling in his school for several years, he was
induced to leave London, and undertake the direction of the mines
at Leadhills in Scotland. In that elevated region, near Sanquhar, he
resided during the rest of his life; and by his skill, intelligence,
and energy, greatly improved the operations of extracting the lead
ore. He now held a good position; but his high mathematical fame would
have secured to him the honour of succeeding Maclaurin in the chair of
mathematics in Edinburgh, in 1746, if he had not at that unhappy time
been tainted with Jacobite opinions.¹ In his later years he seems to
have confined himself to practical concerns.
¹ Leslie’s _Dissertation for the Encyclopædia Britannica_.
Matthew Stewart was elected to the vacant chair of mathematics in
Edinburgh. He was a mathematician of note in the department of geometry;
and is the author of _Tracts, Physical and Mathematical_. Robert Simson,
who long held the chair of mathematics in the University of Glasgow,
was a distinguished geometer. The names of Playfair and Leslie may also
be mentioned as distinguished professors and learned mathematicians.
Passing to physical science, it is necessary to observe that in the
eighteenth century the several branches of this department were not
then so clearly distinguished from each other as they are now. The
subject of heat was treated as a branch of chemistry; while chemistry
itself was usually conceived as a mere appendage to medicine. Dr.
Cullen was the first in Britain who assigned to chemistry its proper
place as a science.
Dr. Black, the eminent professor of chemistry, and the discoverer of
latent heat, was born in France, in 1728, where his father was then
engaged in the wine trade. He received the rudiments of his education
at Belfast; and in 1746, he entered the University of Glasgow,
and under Dr. Cullen, was instructed in the science of chemistry,
in which he showed much aptitude. As he intended to follow the
medical profession, he went to Edinburgh to complete his studies,
and graduated in 1754. Before this, he had prosecuted a series of
chemical experiments touching the causticity of many earthy bodies,
which resulted in his first discovery of the existence of fixed air
or carbonic acid gas as an essential constituent of marble and other
solids, along with a train of important consequences.
In 1755, Dr. Cullen removed to Edinburgh, and in 1756, Dr. Black
succeeded him as professor of medicine and chemistry in the University
of Glasgow. At this time he directed special attention to the subject
of heat. He had discovered the phenomenon of “Latent Heat” at least as
early as 1758, and taught the doctrine in his lectures at Glasgow.¹ He
was the first who formed distinct ideas on the subject.
¹ Dr. Black himself, writing in 1780, said:――“I began to give
the doctrine of latent heat in my lectures at Glasgow, in
the winter 1757‒58, which I believe was the first winter of
my lecturing there, or, if I did not give it that winter,
I certainly gave it in 1758‒59, and I have delivered it
every year since that time in my winter lectures, which I
continued to give at Glasgow until winter 1766‒67, when I
began to lecture in Edinburgh.”――Letter of Dr. Black to Mr.
Watt, 1708, quoted by Muirhead in his _Life of James Watt_,
pages 309‒310.
He deduced the discovery of latent heat from experiments showing that
ice in being melted absorbs 140° of heat, which becomes latent in the
water produced, thus:――“The melting ice receives heat very fast, but
the only effect of this heat is to change it into water, which is not
in the least sensibly warmer than the ice was before. A thermometer,
applied to the drops or small streams of water, immediately as it
comes from the melting ice, will point to the same degree as when it is
applied to the ice itself.... A great quantity, therefore, of the heat,
or of the matter of heat, which enters into the melting ice, produces
no other effect but to give it fluidity, without augmenting its
sensible heat; it appears to be absorbed and concealed within the water,
so as not to be discoverable by the application of a thermometer.”¹ By
comparing the time required to change the ice from 28° to 32°, with the
subsequent time required for its complete liquefaction, he found that
it absorbed about 140 times as much heat as would raise its temperature
one degree; and he also found that one pound of ice, when mixed with
one pound of water, was just melted, but not raised in its temperature
above 32°. So he concluded that water differed from ice of the same
temperature by containing a great quantity of heat or the cause of heat,
which would not quit it for another colder body, nor go into the liquor
of the thermometer and expand it. This phenomenon, considered as the
possible cause of heat, was latent, and Black accordingly called it
“latent heat.”²
¹ Black’s _Lectures on the Elements of Chemistry_, Volume I.,
page 119. 1803.
² Black’s _Lectures on the Elements of Chemistry_, Volume I.,
pages 120‒132.
This discovery was connected with his experiments and researches
on boiling and evaporation, which ultimately resulted in laying the
foundation of the practical application of steam. He concluded that a
great quantity of heat becomes latent during the conversion of water
into vapour or steam; and he endeavoured to determine this quantity
by experiment. He found that the latent heat in steam, which balanced
the pressure of the atmosphere, was upwards of 800°. He also directed
Dr. Irvine of Glasgow, one of his own pupils, to make an experiment
for measuring the heat actually extricated from steam during its
condensation in the refrigeratory of a still, which was found to be
774°. A few weeks after, Mr. James Watt made similar experiments on
steam with a similar still; and the medium result of these trials gave
825°.¹ It may be observed that, in these early experiments, the latent
heat of steam was considerably underrated.
¹ _Ibid._, pages 144‒174. I deem it of interest to give a few
brief quotations from Dr. Black’s lectures on the latent
heat of steam, to indicate his views. “I immediately set
about boiling off small quantities of water, and I found
that it was accomplished in times very nearly proportional
to the quantities, even although the fire was sensibly
irregular.
“My conjecture, when put into form, was to this purpose:
――I imagined that during the boiling, heat is absorbed by
the water, and enters into the composition of the vapour
produced from it, in the same manner as it is absorbed
by ice in melting, and enters into the composition of the
produced water. And, as the ostensible effect of the heat,
in this last case, consists not in warming the surrounding
bodies, but in rendering the ice fluid, so in the case
of boiling, the heat absorbed does not warm surrounding
bodies, but converts the water into vapour. In both cases,
considered as the cause of warmth, we do not perceive its
presence: it is concealed, or latent, and I give it the name
of Latent Heat....
“I put into a very strong phial about as much water as half
filled it, and I corked it close. The phial was placed in a
sand-pot, which was gradually heated, until the sand and the
phial were several degrees above the common vaporific point
of water. I was curious to know what would be the effect
of suddenly removing the pressure of the air, which is well
known to prevent water from boiling. The water boiled a very
short while, but the ebullition gradually decreased, till
it was almost insensible. Here the formation of more vapour
was opposed by a very strong pressure proceeding from the
quantity of vapour already accumulated and confined in the
upper part of the phial, and from the increased elasticity
of this vapour, by the increase of its heat. When matters
were in this state, I drew the cork. Now, according to the
common opinion of the formation of vapour by heat, it was
to be expected that the whole of the water would suddenly
assume the vaporous form, because it was all heated above
the vaporific point. But I was beginning by this time to
expect a different event, because I could not see whence
the heat was to be supplied, which the water must contain
when in the form of vapour. Accordingly, it happened as I
expected: a portion only of the water was converted into
vapour, which rushed out of the phial with a considerable
explosion, carrying along with it some drops of water. But,
what was most interesting to me in this experiment, was,
that the heat of what remained was reduced in an instant to
the ordinary boiling point. Here, therefore, it was evident
that all that excess of heat which the water had contained
above the boiling point, was spent in converting only a
portion of it into vapour. This is plainly inconsistent
with the common opinion, that nothing more is necessary
for water’s existing in a vaporous form under the pressure
of the atmosphere, than its being raised to a certain
temperature....
“This experiment was afterwards made by my friend Mr.
Watt, in a very satisfactory manner. His studies for the
improvement of the steam-engine gave him a great interest
in everything relating to the production of steam.”――Pages
159‒160.
In 1781, Dr. Black said to the students of his class:――“I
think it sufficient to inform you that Mr. Watt, in the
course of his studies on the steam-engine, has made all the
necessary experiments with the most scrupulous care, knowing
that the improvement of that noble engine must depend
entirely on an exact knowledge of the procedure of nature in
the formation and condensation of steam. Mr. Watt informs me
that he has observed as exact coincidence between the heat
rendered latent in the vapour, and that which emerges from
it, as can be desired; and that the heat obtainable from
steam, capable of sustaining the ordinary pressure of the
atmosphere, is not less than 900° of Fahrenheit’s scale, and
that it does not exceed 950°.”――_Ibid._, page 174.
Dr. Black also contributed to advance the knowledge of Specific Heat;
but he chiefly left the development of this branch in the hands of his
pupil Dr. Irvine, who was professor of chemistry in the University of
Glasgow from 1769 to 1786, and to Mr. Watt, for both of whom he had the
greatest respect.
In 1766, Dr. Black was appointed professor of chemistry in the
University of ♦Edinburgh, in succession to Dr. Cullen; and he filled
this chair with much credit to himself and advantage to the University,
until his death in 1799. He was a very successful instructor; his
lectures in the class-room were described by those who heard them
as inimitable, and so interesting that they never failed to rivet
attention.¹ Thus his influence on the progress and the diffusion of
science by his teaching for the long period of forty-three years, and
his intercourse with society, was great and highly beneficial to his
country and to the world.
♦ “Ediuburgh” replaced with “Edinburgh”
¹ Professor Robson, one of his pupils, and the editor of his
lectures, says that Dr. Black endeavoured every year to make
his course of lectures more plain, and illustrated them by
more examples in the way of experiment. So the students in
his class “were not only instructed, but delighted; and he
became a favourite lecturer, and many were induced, by the
report of his students, to attend his courses.”
Another branch of the science of heat was taken up by Sir John Leslie;¹
he directed his attention to “Radiant Heat”――heat propagated from hot
bodies to sensible distances. Sir John was educated at the University
of St. Andrews, and early manifested a bent for mathematical studies.
His work on the _Nature and Propagation of Heat_, which appeared in
1804, first brought him into notice; and the following year he was
appointed to the chair of mathematics in the University of Edinburgh.
¹ Born in 1766, and died in 1832.
The fact that heat is radiant, passing through space like light, was
known at an early period; and various experiments had been made, and
some of the phenomena which characterise it indicated; but heat in its
radiant form was not systematically investigated till towards the end
of the eighteenth century. The band of scientific men then engaged on
this subject were Pictet, Prevost, Rumford, and Herschel; the first two
were professors in Geneva, and were earlier in the field than Leslie.
In 1791, Pictet’s work entitled _Essai sur le Feu_ appeared, which
contains observations on latent and specific heat, and on the power
of different surfaces to reflect and absorb it. He showed that radiant
heat moves with great velocity. His treatise also embraced observations
on hygrometry, on various points of meteorology, and on friction heat.
He has the merit of establishing the meteorological observations at the
convent of the Great St. Bernard, and thus commenced a series which has
proved exceedingly interesting to scientific men.
Prevost is the author of the theory termed the “Movable Equilibrium of
Heat.” His fundamental idea is that heat is a substance related with
bodies of a highly elastic nature, continually given off from them in
proportion to their temperature, which may represent the tension of
the imaginary elastic fluid. Thus, when the temperature of a body is
stationary, it is because it receives by radiation from surrounding
bodies exactly as much heat as it parts with in the same way.¹ His
views were first published in 1791.
¹ Dr. Forbes’s _Dissertation for the Encyclopædia Britannica_,
page 944. 1856.
Leslie was an ingenious and able experimenter. But unfortunately he
started his researches with some rather dogmatic preconceptions; he
had a notion that the pressure of air is essential to the propagation
of heat; nevertheless, many of his experiments are interesting and
valuable. He used a thermoscopic instrument constructed by himself,
which he called the differential thermometer; it is an ingenious
modification of the common air thermometer. He showed that the
radiating or emissive effect of different surfaces varied from 100°
to 12°. He also showed by experiment that the radiation of heat from
a plane surface proceeds with unequal force in different directions.
When the specific heating power of the colorific rays is measured in a
direction perpendicular to the surface whence it emanates, it is found
to be at a maximum; and at any other angle with the surface, it varies
as the sine of the angle. Afterwards this was also found to prevail in
the case of light. His experiments to prove that the law of radiation
of heat varies inversely as the square of the distance were not quite
conclusive.
He considered the influence of colour on the heating of bodies by
original experiment; and it was found to be effectual only when the
radiations were luminous. He engaged in long and ingenious researches
touching the law of cooling bodies, embracing the effects of mass,
surface, contact of air, currents of air, the cooling effects of
different gases, and of air of different degrees of rarefaction.
Besides his work on heat, his _Dissertation on the Progress of
Physical and Mathematical Science_, and the articles on “Cold” and
“Meteorology,” in the seventh edition of the _Encyclopædia Britannica_,
he is the author of _Elements of Natural Philosophy_ (left unfinished),
a _Treatise on Geometry_, and _Philosophy of Arithmetic_.
He held the mathematical chair from 1805 to 1819, and in the latter
year he was appointed to the chair of natural philosophy. He had a
large and fine collection of apparatus, as indicated above, and devised
many ingenious experiments. He was elected a corresponding member of
the Institute of France in 1820; and, on the recommendation of Lord
Brougham, he received the honour of knighthood in 1832.
Since Leslie’s time the science of heat has been greatly advanced; the
dynamical theory of heat has been developed in the present century,
and Scotsmen have contributed their share to the definite advancement
of this branch of science. But it has been advanced to its present
stage by a long list of scientific men. In 1812, Davy enounced that
the direct cause of the phenomenon of heat is motion, and that the
laws of its communication are precisely the same as the laws of
the communication of motion. The researches into the radiation and
absorption of heat mainly form the physical basis of Spectrum Analysis,
which has greatly extended the power of ascertaining the constituent
elements of the celestial bodies, the sun and the fixed stars.
In the researches which ultimately led to these results, several
Scotsmen have taken an honourable part. Professor Forbes discovered
and demonstrated the polarisation of heat, and thus showed that radiant
heat and light are the same. Among others who have contributed to
advance Spectrum Analysis, I may mention Professor Stokes, Professor
Balfour Stewart, and Sir William Thomson, of the University of Glasgow.
Sir William Thomson (now Lord Kelvin) has taught the doctrine that
there is sodium vapour in the sun’s atmosphere, in his public lectures
in the University of Glasgow, since the year 1852.
Interesting conclusions touching the composition of the sun and of
some of the stars have been reached:――“When we compare the spectra
of different stars with that of the sun, we come to some very curious
conclusions. We find four classes of spectra, as a rule, among the
different fixed stars which have seemed of importance enough to be
separately examined. The first class of spectra are those of white
stars. You see an admirable example in Vega, and another in Sirius or
the dog-star. All these white stars have the characteristic that they
have an almost continuous spectrum with few dark lines crossing it,
and these for the most part lines of hydrogen. These stars are in all
probability at a considerably higher temperature than the sun. Then you
come to the class of yellow stars, of which our sun is an example. In
their spectra you have many more dark lines than in those of the white
stars, but you have nothing of the nature of nebulous bands crossing
the spectrum, such as you find in the third class; still less have
you certain curious joins of shaded lines which you have in the fourth
class of stars. This classification seems to point out the period of
life, or phase of life, of each particular star or sun. When it is
first formed, by the impact of enormous quantities of matter coming
together by gravitation, you have very nearly continuous spectrum of
a glowing white-hot liquid or solid body, or it may be dense gas, the
sole, or nearly sole, absorbent being gaseous hydrogen in comparatively
small quantity, and the spectrum having therefore few absorption
lines. As it gradually cools, more and more of these gases surrounding
its glowing surface become absorbent, and so you have a greater
number and variety of lines. Then, as it still further cools, you have
those nebulous bands which seem to indicate the presence of compound
substances; which could not exist in the first two classes, because
their temperature is so high as to produce dissociation. Still further
complexity of compounds will be found in the atmosphere of the fourth
class.”¹
¹ _Recent Advances in Physical Science_, by P. G. Tait, pages
230‒231.
After the publication of Newton’s _Optics_ in 1704, the history of this
branch of science was almost a blank in Britain, till 1803, when the
researches of Dr. Young on the undulatory theory of light appeared; and
since the subject has been treated with increasing interest and success.
Sir David Brewster,¹ who attained distinction in this branch of science,
and in other fields of intellectual effort, was a native of Jedburgh.
He was educated at the University of Edinburgh, and had the advantage
of the instruction of Professor Robison, and other eminent teachers
who then spread the rays of light with consummate ability. He devoted
himself to science; and in 1805, he edited Ferguson’s _Lectures on
Astronomy_; and, as already mentioned, he commenced the _Edinburgh
Encyclopædia_ in 1810. His first separate work, _On New Philosophical
Instruments_, appeared in 1813, which also contained observations on
refractive and dispersive powers. From this date onwards he became a
regular contributor to the London Philosophical _Transactions_, and
also those of Edinburgh; he commenced the _Edinburgh Philosophical
Journal_ and the _Edinburgh Journal of Science_. His contributions to
scientific societies and journals would fill many volumes. One list
of his scientific papers extends to the number of three hundred and
fifteen, and the following is only the briefest indication of some of
the more important subjects treated in them:――
¹ Born in 1781; died in 1868.
(1) “The Laws of Polarisation by Reflection and Refraction, and
other Quantitative Laws of Phenomena;” (2) “The Discovery of the
Polarising Structure induced by Heat and Pressure;” (3) “The Discovery
of Crystals with Two Axes of Double Refraction, and many of the Laws
of their Phenomena, comprising the Connection of Optical Structure
and Crystalline Forms;” (4) “The Laws of Metallic Reflection;”
(5) “Experiments on the Absorption of Light.”
The more important of his other works are――(1) _A Treatise on the
Kaleidoscope_, published in 1819; (2) _A Treatise on Optics_, 1831;
(3) _A Treatise on the Microscope_; (4) _A Treatise on the Stereoscope_;
(5) an Article on “Magnetism,” reprinted from the _Encyclopædia
Britannica_; (6) _The Martyrs of Science――Galileo, Tycho Brahe, and
Kepler_; (7) _Life of Sir Isaac Newton_; (8) _Letters on Natural Magic_;
(9) _More Worlds than One_. He also wrote a _Life of Euler_ and edited
his Lectures; edited Robison’s _System of Mechanical Philosophy_, with
a preface and notes, which appeared in 1822, in four large volumes; he
also contributed seventy-four articles to the _North British Review_.
This enumeration of his writings, though far from complete, is
sufficient to show his great mental energy, and his scientific and
literary talents. He was a man of remarkable intellectual resource, his
imaginative and elaborative faculties were of a high order, and, for
industry and observation he has rarely been surpassed. His style is
clear and flowing, he has a copious command of expressive language.
Besides his discoveries of the law of polarisation, of biaxal crystals,
of optical mineralogy, and of double refraction by compression, he
invented a dioptric apparatus for the illumination of lighthouses,
which he described in 1812. In 1820, he endeavoured to get the dioptric
system adopted, but failed; at length, however, on the motion of Mr.
Hume, a Committee of the House of Commons was appointed to consider the
subject; and, in 1836, this system was applied to a Scotch lighthouse,
and has since been universally extended. In 1816, he invented the
kaleidoscope, which soon became popular over Europe; afterwards,
he made an important improvement on the principle of constructing
stereoscopes. In the words of Professor Forbes――“Few persons have
made with their own eyes so vast a number of independent observations;
few have ever observed better, or recorded their observations more
faithfully.” He was an honour to his country and a benefactor to
mankind.
In the interesting science of the earth――geology――Dr. Hutton, in
1788, enounced his theory that the changes in the earth’s crust have
been mainly caused by the agency of fire; but though his views were
ingenious and well argued, they have long ago been superseded by
conclusions more in accordance with the observed phenomena. This branch
of knowledge has been much investigated in the present century, and
several Scotsmen have attained distinction in advancing it.
Sir Charles Lyell¹ was a native of Forfarshire, and studied at
Oxford. His _Principles of Geology_, being an attempt to explain the
former changes of the earth’s surface by a reference to causes now in
operation, appeared in 1830‒32, in two volumes. He made additions to
it, and alterations from time to time, and the eighth edition of the
work, thoroughly revised, was published in 1850. Though he recognised
new facts, he continued to hold his theory that we may dispense
with sudden and general catastrophes, and consider the past and
present fluctuations of the organic and inorganic world as forming
one continuous and regular series of phenomena.
¹ Born in 1797; died in 1875.
In 1838, he published his _Elements of Geology_, which was afterwards
enlarged to two volumes. He is also the author of _Travels in North
America, with Geological Observations on the United States, Canada,
and Nova Scotia_, published in 1845. He was twice elected president
of the Geological Society, and he received the honour of knighthood in
1848. His style is attractive, easy, and fluent, and his writings were
popular. The following is a short specimen of his manner:――
“The analogy, however, of the monuments consulted in geology, and
those available in history, extends no further than to one class
of historical monuments――those which may be said to be undesignedly
commemorative of former events. The canoes, for example, and stone
hatchets found in the peat bogs afford an insight into the rude arts
and manners of the earliest inhabitants of our island; the buried
coin fixes the date of the reign of some Roman emperor; the ancient
encampment indicates the districts once occupied by invading armies,
and the former method of constructing military defences; the Egyptian
mummies throw light on the art of embalming, the rites of sepulture,
or the average stature of the human race in ancient Egypt. This class
of memorials yields to no other in authenticity, but it constitutes
a small part only of the resources on which the historian relies;
whereas in geology it forms the only kind of evidence which is at
our command. For this reason we must not expect to obtain a full and
connected account of any series of events beyond the reach of history.
But the testimony of geological monuments, if frequently imperfect,
possess at least the advantage of being free from all suspicion of
misrepresentation. We may be deceived in the inferences which we draw,
in the same manner as we often mistake the nature and import of the
phenomena observed in the daily course of nature; but our liability
to err is confined to the interpretation, and, if this be correct, our
information is certain.”
Sir Roderick Murchison,¹ a distinguished geologist, was a native of
Ross-shire, and served in the army from 1807 to 1816. He directed his
attention chiefly to a series of strata in the district bordering on
England and Wales, inhabited in early times by the British tribe of
the Silures; and after working four years in classifying the rocks and
deposits, he separated them into four formations, and showed that each
is characterised by peculiar organic remains: and, in 1835, he divided
them into a lower and upper group, both of which he anticipated would
be found applicable to wide regions of the earth, and named them the
Silurian System, the details of which he published under this title
in 1839. In 1854, his later researches were published under the title
of _Siluria: the History of the Oldest Known Rocks containing Organic
Remains_.
¹ Born in 1792; died 1871.
He spent many years in Russia and in other countries in geologic
explorations; and, in 1846, he published _The Geology of Russia and the
Ural Mountains_, in which he was assisted by Count A. von Keyserling
and E. de Verneuil. He is also the author of upwards of one hundred
separate memoirs presented to scientific societies. In 1844, after
examining some specimens of Australian rocks brought to this country,
and comparing them with those of the auriferous Ural Mountains, he came
to the conclusion that gold existed in Australia. Two years later, he
urged the Cornish tin miners to emigrate to the colony of New South
Wales, where they could obtain gold from the alluvial soil in the same
way as they extracted tin from the gravel of their own country.
The following is a summary of the Siluria strata as they occur in the
district mentioned above, upon which Sir Roderick mainly founded his
system; they represent a thickness of about nine thousand feet:――
{ Finely laminated reddish sandstone and shales.
{ Micaceous grey sandstones of varying thickness.
Upper { Argillaceous limestone.
strata. { Calcareous shale, with concretions of limestone.
{ Concretionary limestone and argillaceous shale.
{ Shelly limestone and sandstone.
{ Gritty sandstones and shales.
{ Grits and sandy shales.
Lower { Thick-bedded white freestone.
strata. { Dark-coloured flagstones and slates.
{ Dark-coloured calcareous flags, bands of limestone,
{ and gritty flagstones.
Excepting a few indistinct fragments of land plants in the uppermost
beds, the whole remains are characteristically marine, and evince
conditions favourable to a variety of invertebrate life. Among the
prevailing and distinctive fossils are fucoids or seaweed plants,
corals, radiate animals, sea-worms, and shell-fish in great variety.
And strata characterised by these fossils are largely developed in many
countries, especially along the flanks of the older mountain-chains.
“They occur in Wales, in Cumberland, in Westmoreland; along the
south of Scotland; south-east of Ireland; the south of France, Spain,
Scandinavia, Russia, and Bohemia; in Asia Minor; along the Himalaya
and Altai ranges; in Australia and New Zealand; along the Andes, Rocky
Mountains, and Appalachians in America.”
I have already mentioned Hugh Miller as a geologist, and no one was
more ready than Sir Roderick Murchison to recognise his merits and
to applaud his genius. Murchison received the honour of knighthood in
1846. The first editor of the _Scotsman_, Mr. Maclaren, was a student
of geology, and published an _Account of the Geology of Fife and the
Lothians_ in 1839. It was, however, Hugh Miller that made geology
popular in Scotland, and gave a great impulse to its study.
SECTION II.
_Progress of Mechanical Science._
The relation between physical science and the mechanical arts are
obvious in many ways. The exact boundaries between science and art are
as undefinable as those which separate the kingdoms of nature from one
another. If there are arts that cannot be called scientific, there are
others which have contributed more to the store of knowledge than they
ever drew from it, as the progress of science must be gathered from the
records of experience, and in order to understand its importance, we
must consult many of the varied pages of this record. In the progress
of physical and mechanical science, as in that of social science and
civilisation, the retarding obstacles everywhere mainly consist in
the want or the imperfection of the requisite means――for observation,
experiment, and verification in the former, for organisation and just
and mutual union in the latter; in both spheres the chief retarding
causes are the lack of appropriate and available means at the time
and place when they were most needed. Many of the instruments and the
apparatus required for observation and experiments in physical science
are complicated and expensive, such as telescopes in astronomy, organs
in acoustics, and so on, and skill and art are required to construct
them; hence it has often happened that imperfect instruments and the
want of the necessary apparatus have greatly retarded the progress
of physical science. It is, therefore, plain that mechanical art is
an indispensable element in the advancement of physical science, and
that physical and mechanical science are important factors in the
development of civilisation. For the necessities and the requirements
of a progressive nation or empire are constantly increasing, and in
order to hold its own, it must not only continue to improve and develop
its moral and social organisations, but it must also exert itself to
the utmost to advance its knowledge, science, and all the practical
arts which minister to the life and to the enjoyment of mankind. This
is the solemn decree of nature, and nothing else in the universe is
available for the human race.
I will indicate briefly what Scotland has done to advance mechanical
science and steam power. The order of exposition is determined by the
intersective efforts of the chief actors in the early stage of this
subject, and these were Mr. Watt, Dr. Black, Dr. Robison, and some
other professors in the University of Glasgow. Of the discoveries and
experiments of Dr. Black I have already spoken, and of his friendship
and scientific relations with Mr. Watt; and it seems necessary now to
introduce Dr. Robison,――a Scotsman, who contributed much to spread the
knowledge of mechanical science in his native country and throughout
the civilised world.
John Robison¹ was educated in the University of Glasgow from the
twelfth year of his age to the nineteenth, and thus had the advantage
of the instruction of those able professors who raised the fame of this
ancient University――Adam Smith, Dr. Black, and Dr. Robert Simson.² From
an early period of his life he manifested a strong bent for physical
and mechanical science; and it was in his student days that he formed a
friendship with Mr. Watt which continued throughout their lives. Their
acquaintance began in 1757, and the occasion of it is told by Robison
himself thus:――“I was then a student in the University of Glasgow, and
studying the science which I now profess to teach. The University was
then building an astronomical observatory. Mr. Watt was employed to
repair and set up a very noble collection of instruments bequeathed to
the University by Mr. Macfarlane of Jamaica, a gentleman well known to
the scientific world. Mr. Watt had apartments and a workshop within the
College. I had from my earliest youth a great relish for the natural
sciences, and particularly for mathematical and mechanical philosophy.
I was eager to be acquainted with the practice of astronomical
observation, and my wishes were much encouraged by the celebrated
Dr. Simson, professor of geometry; Dr. Dick, professor of natural
philosophy; and Dr. Moore, professor of Greek――gentlemen eminent for
their mathematical abilities. These gentlemen brought me with them into
Mr. Watt’s shop; and when he saw me thus patronised, or introduced, his
natural complaisance made him readily indulge my curiosity.
¹ Born in 1739; died in 1805.
² Dr. Simson held the chair of mathematics from 1711 to
1761, and at his death he bequeathed to the University his
collection of mathematical books, supposed to be the most
complete then in the kingdom.――Macgregor’s _History of
Glasgow_, page 343.
“After first feasting my eyes with the view of fine instruments, and
prying into everything, I conversed with Mr. Watt. I saw a workman,
and expected no more; but was surprised to find a philosopher, as young
as myself, and always ready to instruct me. I had the vanity to think
myself a pretty good proficient in my favourite study, and was rather
mortified at finding Mr. Watt so much my superior. But his own high
relish for those things made him pleased with the chat of any person
who had the same tastes with himself, or his innate complaisance made
him indulge my curiosity, and even encourage my endeavours to form a
more intimate acquaintance with him. I lounged much about him, and, I
doubt not, was frequently teasing him. Thus our acquaintance began.”¹
¹ _Narrative of Mr. Watt’s Inventions of the Improved Engine_,
by Professor Robison.
In 1759, Robison left Glasgow, and went to sea as tutor to a son
of Admiral Knowles, with the rank of a midshipman. In this stage of
his life he saw some service in Canada; and the information which he
acquired by his extended means of observation was afterwards turned to
good account. He returned to Glasgow in 1764, and then concentrated his
attention on the study of chemistry under Dr. Black; and in 1766, on
the removal of Dr. Black to Edinburgh, Robison was appointed professor
of chemistry in the University of Glasgow. But in 1770, he again joined
Admiral Knowles as his private secretary and accompanied him to Russia;
and this led to his appointment as professor of mathematics in the
naval school at Cronstadt in 1772. In nine months he learned to speak
and write the Russian language with ease, and performed his duties
in a manner satisfactory to all concerned. In 1774, he was elected to
the chair of natural philosophy in the University of Edinburgh, and
was warmly invited to return to Scotland. He accepted the appointment,
and spent the remainder of his life in incessant toil and scientific
occupation.
His first course of lectures was delivered in Edinburgh, in 1774‒75,
and embraced the sciences of mechanics, hydrodynamics, astronomy,
optics, electricity, and magnetism, all of which he treated with
remarkable clearness and precision. As a lecturer and expositor in his
own department, he was among the most eminent of his time in Britain.
He was succeeded in the chair by John Playfair, who had previously been
for twenty years professor of mathematics in this University; and he
is the author of the fine historical Dissertation on the progress of
mathematical and physical science, published in one of the supplements
of the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, and some other writings connected
with science.
Professor Robison’s works consist of――(1) _Elements of Mechanical
Philosophy_, of which only the first volume was completed and published
in 1804, containing “Dynamics” and “Astronomy;” and (2) upwards of
forty separate treatises and articles contributed to the _Encyclopædia
Britannica_, which treated on several of the more experimental branches
of physical science, and on the following practical branches: (1) the
art of music, with which he was himself practically conversant, (2)
strength of materials, (3) carpentry, (4) roof, (5) the construction
of arches and centres for bridges, (6) watch-work, (7) rivers, (8)
waterworks, (9) pumps, (10) variations of the compass, (11) seamanship,
(12) machinery, (13) steam, and (14) the steam-engine. As already
mentioned, Sir David Brewster edited the above works, along with some
selections from the author’s manuscript; and to the articles “Steam”
and the “Steam-engine” Mr. Watt, at the request of Brewster,
contributed notes and additions.
James Watt was born at Greenock in 1736, and received his education
there,¹ in the commercial school and grammar school, in which he
learned the elements of Latin and Greek, and attained a fair knowledge
of mathematical science. To this was added the homely but important
tuition which he received from his father, who carried on a business in
articles used in navigation, ship fittings, and tackle. “He had a small
forge set up for his own use; and was fond of repairing and making all
sorts of instruments; he was also at a very early age informed about
the use and principles of construction of the telescope, quadrants,
and other optical instruments of which his father kept a stock for the
supply of ships.” From the aptitude which he showed for this kind of
handiwork and in accordance with his own choice, it was decided that
he should qualify himself for the trade of a mathematical instrument
maker.²
¹ His kinsman, James P. Muirhead, published his _Life of Watt_
in 1858, and he had before, in 1854, published _The Origin
and Progress of the Mechanical Inventions of James Watt_, in
three volumes.
² Muirhead’s _Life of Watt_, pages 25‒30.
In 1755, Watt proceeded to London with the aim of attaining more skill
in the art of instrument making. An agreement was made with Mr. John
Morgan, a mathematical instrument maker in Finch Lane, Cornhill, that
young Watt should receive one year’s instruction, for which he was
to pay in return twenty guineas, and give his labour during that time
in the business. As was expected, he made rapid progress. When his
year’s working was completed, he announced “that he could now make a
brass sector with a French joint, which is reckoned as nice a piece of
framing work as is in the trade.”¹
¹ _Ibid._, pages 36, 37.
He returned to Scotland in the month of August, 1756, and shortly after
proceeded to Glasgow with the object of finding employment; and in
the month of October, the authorities of the University engaged him
to clean and set up the Macfarlane collection of instruments in the
College, as already mentioned. Thus it was that Watt was introduced
and became so intimate with the professors and the leading men of
this University; but he never attended any of Dr. Black’s courses
of lectures, nor any other course of lectures in the University. He
finished this piece of work before the month of December. He then tried
to establish himself in the city of Glasgow; but he met with unforeseen
obstacles. As he had not served a regular apprenticeship, and was not
the son of a burgess, the rules of the craftsmen came into effect, and
he was forbidden to set up a workshop.
But to the credit of the eminent men who then illumined the University
of Glasgow, they nobly came to the rescue of the great mechanical
genius. And in the summer of 1757, they gave him permission to occupy
apartments and open a shop within the College buildings, and to use
the title of “Mathematical Instrument Maker to the University.” He
continued to occupy his rooms and workshop in the College till 1763,
when he quitted them for a small house in the city; but the intimate
and friendly relations which he had formed with the professors and
others connected with the University were continued throughout his life.
Turning attention to his inventions, touching steam itself, he says:――
“It was known very long before my time, that steam was condensed by
coming into contact with cold bodies, and that it communicated heat to
them.
“It was known by some experiments of Dr. Cullen, and others, that water
and other liquids boiled in vacuo at very low heats; water below 100°.
“It was known to some philosophers, that the capacity or equilibrium of
heat, as we then called it, was much smaller in mercury and in tin than
in water.
“It was also known, that evaporation caused the cooling of the
evaporating liquid, and bodies in contact with it.
“I had myself made experiments to determine the following facts:――
1st, The capacities for heat of iron, copper, and some sorts of wood,
comparatively with water. Similar experiments had also subsequently
been made by Dr. Irvine, on these and other metals.
“2nd, The bulk of steam was compared with that of water.
“3rd, The quantity of water which could be evaporated in a certain
boiler by a pound of coals.
“4th, The elasticities of steam at various temperatures greater
than that of boiling water, and an approximation to the law which it
followed at other temperatures.
“5th, How much water, in the form of steam, was required every stroke
by a small Newcomen’s engine, with a wooden cylinder six inches
diameter, and twelve inches long in the stroke.
“6th, I had measured the quantity of cold water required in every
stroke to condense the steam in that cylinder, so as to give it a
working power of about 7 pound on the inch.” He found that “water
converted into steam can heat about six times its own weight of well
water.... Being struck with this remarkable fact, and not understanding
the reason of it, mentioned it to my friend Dr. Black, who then
explained to me his doctrine of latent heat.”¹ This was in 1764.
¹ Letter and notes by Mr. Watt to Robison’s _Mechanical
Philosophy_, Volume II., pages 7, 8, 113‒116.
Touching the steam-engine, Watt says:――“My attention was first
directed in the year 1759 to the subject of steam-engines, by the late
Dr. Robison himself, then a student in the University of Glasgow, and
nearly of my own age. He at that time threw out an idea of applying the
power of the steam-engine to the moving of wheel carriages, and other
purposes, but the scheme was not matured, and soon after abandoned on
his going abroad.”¹
¹ _Ibid._, Volume II., page 113.
Watt’s first improvement on the steam-engine was made in 1765; and
it consisted of the idea of introducing a separate condenser for the
steam――a contrivance to prevent the cooling of the cylinder, and make
the vacuum more perfect by condensing the steam in a vessel distinct
from the cylinder. This was patented in the beginning of the year
1769, and in his specification he undertakes to lessen the consumption
of steam and fuel in steam engines. This patent was renewed for a
period of twenty-five years by an Act of Parliament in 1775. He took
out another patent, in 1781, “for certain new methods of applying a
continuous circular motion round an axis, and thereby give motion to
the wheels of mills or other machines.” The specification contains a
description of five different modes of rotative motions. In 1782, he
took out another patent, and the specification in this one contains
six contrivances for equalising steam-power on the expansive principle;
and among these, the double-acting engine, in which the steam is
alternately applied to press on each side of the piston, while a vacuum
is formed on the other side.
One of the most important of his improvements of the steam-engine was
inserted in his patent of ♦1784. This is the “parallel motion,” which
he described thus:――“Methods of causing the piston-rods, pump-rods,
and other parts of the engine, to move in perpendicular or other
straight lines, and to enable the engine to act upon the working beams
both in pushing and in pulling; and three varieties are described.”
This specification also described improved modes of applying the
steam-engine to drive mills which have many wheels requiring to
move round in concert; a simple method of applying the power of the
steam-engine to the working of heavy hammers or stampers; a portable
steam-engine and machinery for moving wheeled carriages.¹
♦ “1874” replaced with “1784”
¹ Watt’s Notes to Robison’s _Mechanical Philosophy_, Volume
II., pages 118‒121, 149‒151; also Muirhead’s _Life of Watt_,
pages 180, 247, 278‒284, 285, 293‒296.
It was only after great perseverance, patience, hard toil, and thought,
and many disappointments and untold anxieties that Mr. Watt at last
attained success. It was fortunate for him, and for mankind, that
from his first appearance in Glasgow he won not a few warm and able
friends――men who knew and appreciated his great genius and the worth
of his character, encouraged him, and stood by his side in one of the
greatest trials of his life, to give their testimony to his rare genius
and unimpeachable integrity.¹
¹ With regard to two of the gentlemen alluded to above, I
will quote Mr. Watt’s own words:――“Although Dr. Black’s
theory of latent heat did not suggest my improvements on the
steam-engine, yet the knowledge upon various subjects which
he was pleased to communicate to me, and the correct modes
of reasoning and of making experiments of which he set me
the example, certainly conduced very much to facilitate the
progress of my inventions; and I still remember with respect
and gratitude the notice he was pleased to take of me when
I very little merited it, and which continued throughout his
life.
“To Dr. Robison I am also bound to acknowledge my
obligations for very much information and occasional
assistance in my pursuits, and above all for his friendship,
which ended only with his life; a friendship which induced
him, when I was beset with a host of foes, to come to London
in the depth of winter, and appear as a witness for me in
a court of justice, whilst labouring under an excessively
painful disorder, which ultimately deprived him of life.
To the remembrance of that friendship is principally owing
my taking upon myself the office of his commentator at my
advanced age.”――Letter of Mr. Watt, in Robison’s _Mechanical
Philosophy_, Volume II., page 9.
Watt entered into partnership with Mr. Boulton, of Birmingham, and,
after 1775, for many years he resided in that city; and continued his
exertions, with little intermission, to the further improvement of the
steam engines. The business proved successful, and Watt retired at the
end of the last century, leaving two of his sons in the establishment,
which continued to prosper. The ingenious improver of the steam-engine,
after many efforts and struggles, was enabled to spend the evening of
his days in comparative wealth and leisure.
Mr. Watt invented many things beside his improvements of the
steam-engine, amongst which may be mentioned a micrometer for measuring
distances, which he used in his surveys of the Crinan and Gilp, and
the Tarbert intended canals, and in other surveys of canals which he
was employed to make; also, a copying-machine, which was patented in
1780, described as a “new method of copying letters and other writings
expeditiously.” At an early period of his career he built some organs.
He planned and superintended the construction of the Monkland canal.
He wrote comparatively little, but he was an exceedingly well-informed
man. He was fond of chemistry as well as mechanics, and was well versed
in the theory and practice of both. He discovered the composition
of water, and his friends have maintained his priority to Cavendish
in this discovery. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of
Edinburgh in ♦1784; of the Royal Society of London in 1785, and a
correspondent member of the Institute of France in 1808. In 1806, the
University of Glasgow conferred on him the honorary degree of LL.D.;
and in 1814, the Academy of Sciences of the Institute of France elected
him one of its eight foreign Associates. After the toils and heat of
the day, his evening closed in calm serenity; full of honour and of
years, beloved by his friends, and surrounded by his family, he passed
away on the 25th of August, 1819, at Heathfield, near Birmingham,
in the eighty-third year of his age. Statesmen, philosophers, men of
science, and men of the world united in extolling the worth of his
character and the greatness of his genius. From the notices of his
death, I shall quote a part of the one which Lord Jeffrey wrote:――
♦ “1748” replaced with “1784”
“We have said that Mr. Watt was the great improver of the steam-engine;
but, in truth, as to all that is admirable in its structure, or vast in
its utility, he should rather be described as its inventor. It was by
his inventions that its action was so regulated as to make it capable
of being applied to the finest and most delicate manufactures, and its
power so increased as to set weight and solidity at defiance. By his
admirable contrivance, it has become a thing stupendous alike for its
force and its flexibility――for the prodigious power which it can exert,
and the ease, and precision, and ductility, with which it can be varied,
distributed, and applied.... It can engrave a seal, and crush masses
of obdurate metal before it――draw out without breaking a thread as fine
as gossamer, and lift a ship of war like a bauble in the air. It can
embroider muslin and forge anchors, cut steel into ribbons, and impel
loaded vessels against the fury of the winds and waves.
“It would be difficult to estimate the value of the benefits which
these inventions have conferred upon this country. There is no branch
of industry that has not been indebted to them; and, in all the most
material, they have not only widened most magnificently the field
of its exertions, but multiplied a thousand-fold the amount of its
productions.... It has increased indefinitely the mass of human
comforts and enjoyments, and rendered cheap and accessible, all over
the world, the materials of wealth and prosperity. It has armed the
feeble arm of man, in short, with a power to which no limits can be
assigned; completed the dominion of mind over the most refractory
qualities of matter; and laid a sure foundation for those future
miracles of mechanic power which are to aid and reward the labours of
after generations. It is to the genius of one man, too, that all this
is mainly owing, and certainly no man ever bestowed such a gift on
his kind. The blessing is not only universal, but unbounded; and the
fabled inventors of the plough and the loom, who were deified by the
erring gratitude of their rude contemporaries, conferred less important
benefits on mankind than the inventor of our present steam-engine.
“This will be the fame of Watt with future generations; and it is
sufficient for his race and his country. But to those to whom he
more immediately belonged, who lived in his society and enjoyed his
conversation, it is not, perhaps, the character in which he will be
most frequently recalled, most deeply lamented, or even most highly
admired. Independently of his great attainments in mechanics, Mr. Watt
was an extraordinary, and in many respects a wonderful man. Perhaps
no individual in his age possessed so much and such varied and exact
information――had read so much, or remembered what he had read so
accurately and well. He had infinite quickness of apprehension, a
prodigious memory, and a certain rectifying and methodising power of
understanding, which extracted something precious out of all that was
present to it. His stores of miscellaneous knowledge was immense――and
yet less astonishing than the command he had at all times over them.
It seemed as if every subject that was casually started in conversation
with him, had been that which he had been last occupied in studying and
exhausting; such was the copiousness, the precision, and the admirable
clearness of the information which he poured out upon it without
effort or hesitation. Nor was this promptitude and compass of knowledge
confined in any degree to the studies connected with his ordinary
pursuits. That he should have been minutely and extensively skilled
in chemistry and the arts, and in most of the branches of physical
science, might perhaps have been conjectured; but it could not have
been inferred from his usual occupations, and probably is not generally
known that he was curiously learned in many branches of antiquity,
metaphysics, medicine, and etymology, and perfectly at home in all
the details of architecture, music, and law. He was well acquainted,
too, with most of the modern languages, and familiar with their most
recent literature. Nor was it at all extraordinary to hear the great
mechanician and engineer detailing and expounding, for hours together
the metaphysical theories of the German logicians, or criticising the
measures or the matter of the German poetry.
“It is needless to say, that, with those vast resources, his
conversation was at all times rich and instructive in no ordinary
degree: but it was, if possible, still more pleasing than wise, and had
all the charms of familiarity, with all the substantial treasures of
knowledge. No man could be more social in his spirit, less assuming or
fastidious in his manners, or more kind and indulgent towards all who
approached him.... He had a certain quiet and grave humour, which ran
through most of his conversation, and in a vein of temperate jocularity,
which gave infinite jest and effect to the condensed and inexhaustible
information which formed its main staple and characteristic.
“In his temper and disposition he was not only kind and affectionate,
but generous, and considerate of the feelings of all around him; and
gave the most liberal assistance and encouragement to all young persons
who showed any indications of talent, or applied to him for patronage
or advice.... All men of learning and science were his cordial friends;
and such was the influence of his mild character and perfect fairness
and liberality, even upon the pretenders to these accomplishments,
that he lived to disarm even envy itself, and died, we verily believe,
without a single enemy.”
The application of steam power to navigation in the end of the last
century, and to railway trains in the present, has produced the most
striking results; and although Watt was not directly connected himself
with the early attempts of steam navigation, still its introduction
was greatly dependent on his improvements of the steam-engine. The
development of steam-power in manufactories and other forms will be
afterwards noticed; but before quitting the subject, I will describe
the earliest attempts to propel ships by steam. Many projects were
spoken of which were never realised. But Mr. Miller of Dalswinton,
assisted by Mr. James Taylor, tutor in his family, formed a plan for
vessels with paddle wheels to be driven by a steam-engine; and with
the assistance of Mr. Symington of Wanlockhead, a practical engineer,
a small engine and a boat were constructed and fitted up: and in
October, 1788, this boat was launched on the Loch of Dalswinton, in
Dumfriesshire, and she attained a speed of five miles an hour. They
then built a larger boat, the engine of which Mr. Symington constructed
at Carron ironworks; and, in 1789, this vessel was launched on the
Forth and Clyde Canal and propelled by steam, and she attained a speed
of about seven miles an hour. These are among the earliest attempts
of steam navigation of which we have authentic record. For some time
after, this new enterprise lingered; but in the very beginning of
the present century Mr. Symington’s experiment was repeated on the
Thames with complete success. While in America on the river Hudson, Mr.
Robert Fulton, the son of a Scotsman who emigrated from Dumfriesshire,
started a steamboat with an engine of Boulton and Watt, in 1807. It is
a curious fact that, in the year 1814, Scotland had five steam vessels,
while England had not a single one. In the following year, however,
England had three, and in 1820, she had seventeen; while Scotland
had fourteen. Subsequently, owing to causes easily understood, steam
ships increased in number far more rapidly in England than in Scotland,
though not faster in proportion to the population and wealth of the
latter country.
The most striking and important of the improvements in steam vessels
which have been made in the present century is the substitution of the
screw-propeller for the paddle-wheels; while in the construction of
ships themselves wood has been superseded by iron and steel.
With regard to the importance, the variety, the subtilty, and the power
of its practical applications, and the latent or as yet undeveloped
power inherent in it, the science of electricity takes a high rank; and
with a brief and consequently a very imperfect notice of it in these
various relations, this chapter will conclude.
The science of electricity is of modern growth; very little was known
of its nature or powers prior to the last century, though some of
its phenomena attracted the attention of a few scientific men in
the seventeenth century. Between the years 1720 and 1736, Stephen
Grey, assisted by Wheeler, discovered that the human body conducts
electricity, that it acts at a distance――motion in light bodies being
produced by frictional electricity at a distance of 666 feet; he also
stated the fact of electric induction and other phenomena. About 1733,
Dufay originated his dual theory of two electric fluids; and stated
that two bodies similarly electrified repel each other, and attract
bodies oppositely electrified. What was termed the Leyden Jar was
discovered by several persons in 1745; and the following year Winckler
constructed the Leyden Battery. About the same time, important
researches were made by Watson, Canton, and others. In 1747, Franklin
enounced his theory of a single fluid; he termed the vitreous
electricity positive, and the resinous negative; and, in 1752, he
demonstrated the identity of the electric spark and lightning, drawing
electricity from a cloud by the use of a kite. Still this subtle
and powerful element was then but little understood; and, in 1752,
Professor Richmann was killed at St. Petersburg while repeating
Franklin’s experiments. Since this period the subject has been treated
continuously by many able and famous men of science.
The term electricity, as now applied, includes various phenomena of
very different characters; such as magnetism, frictional electricity,
and voltaic electricity. Two general properties may be noted――(1)
polarity and (2) current action. In the first there is a uniformity
through all its modes, and it is the pervading attribute which gives
a distinctive character to all the phenomena: the second peculiarity
of the electric forces is that they can be carried to any distance
through solid conductors, so as to discharge themselves at any point.
Frictional electricity is generated by mechanical force in electrical
machines.
The practical applications of the electric forces are now numerous, and
all of comparatively recent introduction. Although the idea of applying
electricity to communicate signals was conceived by Watson about the
middle of the last century, the earliest proposal of this appeared
in the _Scots Magazine_ for February, 1753, when a correspondent from
Renfrew, who signed himself C. M., proposed several kinds of telegraphs,
acting by the attractive force of electricity, conveyed by a series
of parallel wires equal in numbers to the letters of the alphabet, and
insulated by supports of glass or jeweller’s cement at every twenty
yards. Words were to be spelt by the electricity attracting letters, or
by striking bells corresponding to letters. Towards the latter part of
the last century and the early part of this various plans of telegraphs
were proposed by different men; but 1837 is the date of the practical
realisation of the electric telegraph. A few years later it began
to be employed in connection with the working of railways; and it is
obvious that the railway system could not have been developed without
the aid of the electric telegraph, or some similar method of rapid and
instantaneous signalling. The modes of electric telegraph have been
much perfected, and the systems of communication immensely developed,
within recent years.
Among those who have advanced the knowledge of electricity and the
development of its practical application during the past half century,
the veteran Professor of Natural Philosophy in the University of
Glasgow, Lord Kelvin, holds a distinguished place. He has made many
experiments, practical applications, and written much on the subject.
Submarine electric telegraphs were successfully introduced in 1851,
when the first line between Dover and Calais was opened; and it has
since been greatly developed, and direct telegraphic communication
established between Europe and America many years ago. Electric clocks
were introduced in 1854, and are now common.
An apparatus for regulating the electric light was first devised
and exhibited by Staite and Petrie in 1848. Jules Duboscq’s electric
lamp was shown at the Paris exhibition in 1855; and, in 1856, it was
employed by Professor Tyndall for illustrating his lectures on light
and colour, which he delivered that year at the Royal Institution in
London. Since, the electric light has been greatly developed, and used
for lighting public buildings, places of business, and the streets of
cities; and if the cost of its production was reduced it would be more
universally used for lighting purposes.
In 1854, M. Bonelli, of Turin, invented a plan of employing magnets
and electro-magnets in weaving, by which he proposed to supersede the
tedious and costly Jacquard system of cards. His loom was set up in
London in 1859; and, in the summer of 1860, Professor Faraday lectured
upon it at the Royal Institution. There are other applications of
electricity which it is unnecessary to enumerate.
An exceedingly useful and beautiful application has recently been made
in the science of acoustics, by the invention of the telephone, which
transmits the sounds of spoken language along wires to a considerable
distance.
In concluding this chapter, the importance of mathematical science
was indicated, and the Scotch mathematicians noticed; Dr. Black’s
researches and discovery of latent heat, and Leslie’s treatment of
radiant heat and experiments were explained; I then indicated the
results of more recent researches and referred to spectrum analysis.
The writings, experiments, observations, and the discoveries of Sir
David Brewster were noticed; and the contributions of several Scotsmen
to geology were noted. The department of mechanical or applied science
was then treated, and the writings of Dr. Robison and his teaching
in this relation were noticed, and the bearing of the discovery of
latent heat on the application of steam-power. A short account of
Watt’s career was given; his experiments on steam, improvements on
the steam-engine, his struggles, and ultimate success, his genius,
accomplishments, and character, were noticed. The early attempts of
steam navigation were explained; and finally some account was presented
of the discovery and the varied applications of electricity.
CHAPTER XLV.
_Progress of Medical Science in Scotland in the Eighteenth
and Nineteenth Centuries._
THE aim of this chapter is like the last one, not an attempt to
present a history of the great and important science of medicine in
all its branches, but to indicate what Scotland has contributed to the
progress of this science, and also to give some account of the rise,
the progress, and the organisation of the several institutions in which
this science was taught in our country――in other words, the medical
schools of Scotland. It will therefore, in the first place, indicate
the bases of medical science; in the second, touch briefly on the
prevailing theory in the early part of the eighteenth century; and
in the third, proceed to narrate the advance of medical science in
Scotland, and the establishment of our several medical schools.
The prime phenomenon presented to medical science is life. The first
requisite of this science, therefore, is to enounce what life consists
of, and more particularly what constitutes human life.――(1) As to
the constituent elements of the human organism; (2) with reference to
its structure; and (3) its functions. In other words, the science of
medicine must be founded on biology; and it rests immediately on that
part of biology termed human anatomy, physiology, and pathology――based
on physiological analysis; and its subsidiary sciences are chemistry,
botany, and some parts of physical science. The development of biology
is gradually leading to a more scientific basis in the science of
medicine, and the necessary conditions of health are becoming better
understood.
Without entering into many details I shall endeavour to present
the chief features of the prevailing theory in medicine immediately
preceding the time when the Scottish schools began to arise; such a
sketch is interesting in itself, and it will enable us to understand
what Scotland has done in this great department of science.
Galen, born A.D. 131, was the oracle in medical science for upwards of
1400 years; but, in 1492, Paracelsus was born. The son of a physician,
he determined to follow the profession of his father. He travelled
about in quest of remedies amongst the chemical practitioners of those
times, and from them he learned the use of mercury and antimony, and
of opium. By the application of these remedies he cured many diseases
which had baffled the remedies of the Galenists; and, being a bold man,
he made the most of this, and attained such a reputation that he was
appointed a professor in the University of Basle. In this position
he was forced to employ some method, and seizing on such theories as
then existed among chemists, he formed a system of physic, supported by
much new and meaningless jargon of his own. His lectures were chiefly
employed in recommending his own chemical remedies, and in bold attacks
upon the established schools of physic. He ordered the books of Galen
and Avicenna to be brought into his school and publicly burned as
useless lumber. Thus he formed a sect, and by the middle of the
seventeenth century physicians were divided into the two sects of
Chemists and Galenists.¹
¹ Dr. William Cullen’s Works, Volume I., pages 392‒393. 1827.
Galenism now fell rapidly in Germany, France, and England. The
philosophy of Descartes had adopted many of the doctrines of the
Chemists, readily united with their system, and established its credit;
and the publication of Harvey’s doctrine of the circulation of the
blood completed the ruin of the Galenic fabric. Bellini applied the
principles of mathematics to the physiology and pathology of medicine;
and his system was so specious and promising, and so consonant with
the reigning philosophy, that it immediately prevailed in Italy. It was
brought to this side of the Alps by Dr. Pitcairn,¹ and soon became the
prevailing system in Holland, England, France, and Germany; and it is
recorded that the followers of this system were always the friends of
observation and experiment, and that they detected and exploded many
false hypothesis.
¹ Mackintosh’s _History of Civilisation in Scotland_, Volume
III., page 329.
At the beginning of the eighteenth century the medical school of Leyden
had a high reputation, which was extended by the celebrated physician
Herman Boerhaave,¹ who was appointed to the Chair of Medicine in this
University in 1701. He digested and taught a medical theory which
held an almost undisputed sway for upwards of half a century. When he
entered the school of Leyden, he found it divided between the chemical
system of Sylvius de le Boe, and the mechanical system of Bellini
and Pitcairn; and he had the discernment to select the most useful
parts from both systems. From ♦Bellini he adopted the doctrines of
obstruction, and of lentor; from the Chemists he took the doctrine
of acid and alkali, but corrected and limited; he also admitted the
doctrine of plethora, the only remains of the Galenic theory which the
discovery of the circulation of the blood seemed to support. Thus he
combined the doctrines of the mechanical or mathematical school and the
Chemists; and, as he possessed good analytic and elaborative faculties,
he produced a system superior to any that had before appeared. He
endeavoured to simplify the study of medicine, and rejected many
useless hypotheses. He lectured on the theory of medicine, botany, and
chemistry, with surprising clearness, and till then unmatched precision;
and students flocked to him from all quarters.²
¹ Born in 1668; died 1738.
♦ “Belini” replaced with “Bellini”
² Hamilton’s _History of Medicine_, Volume II., pages 199‒203:
Dr. Cullen’s Works, Volume I., page 411.
Boerhaave’s _Aphorism or Practice of Physic_ appeared in 1709, and his
_Institutions or Theory of Physic_ shortly after. These two treatises
contain his system; they passed through many editions, and were
translated into almost every European language, and into Arabic; while
they are remarkable for elegance, clearness, and brevity of style. But
the influence of Descartes’ philosophy appears in his physiology, and
in other parts of his system; and it is a curious fact which has not
been noticed before, that through the teaching of Boerhaave’s system
in Scotland, parts of the philosophy of Descartes reappear in more
than one form in the medical literature of our own country. He adopted
Descartes’ idea of mind and body, and other notions of this philosopher.
Boerhaave in his physiology considered man as composed of two distinct
substances――mind and body; the essential nature of mind is to be
conscious, to think, and to will; but the essential nature of the body
is to be extended and impenetrable. He says “the idea or definition of
body has nothing in common with that of mind; nor has the idea of mind,
on the other hand, anything in common with that of body.” He considered
the study of mind to be an important part of physiology; and so he
gives an exposition of the mental faculties under the heads of the
internal and external senses. He states that “our bodies receive
nothing else from sensible objects, to produce sensation, than a change
in the surface of the nerves excited by the contact of the object.
I do not say that this is to feel, but I say that we feel when this
takes place. Sensation, therefore, is nothing either in the object or
in the nerve affected, but a certain idea which God has assigned to
this particular corporeal change. This is acknowledged by Newton in
the last edition of his _Optics_.” Following Descartes, he assumed
that the change produced upon the extremity of a sentient nerve
must be propagated along the nerve to the brain before sensation
can be produced; until his time, two mechanical explanations of this
phenomenon had been given, one of which considered the nerves as solid
vibratory cords, the other as hollow undulatory canals. Boerhaave
adopted the latter view, and assumed that the change in the sensorium
was nothing more than a repulsion of the nervous fluid against their
origin in the brain. He conceived that the cerebrum controls the
voluntary motions, and the cerebellum, the involuntary; but, as in
other parts of the body, both these classes of motions are performed
together, he assumed that the nerves of these parts must be composed of
fibres, derived partly from the cerebrum and partly from the cerebellum,
and retaining throughout their course a peculiar function according to
the part whence they issue. He was also inclined to believe that each
of the external senses had its own distinct seat in the brain.
He conceived the human body to be a combination of all sorts of
mechanical contrivances or machines arranged by God into one system,
so as to enable it to maintain its existence for a series of years,
repairing the waste it undergoes from its own motions, and producing
systems similar to itself. Thus, he attempted to explain the phenomena
of the human body by the principles of mechanical philosophy, but
accompanied with some limitations. He says: “I am persuaded that,
even in simple bodies, general laws are insufficient to explain all
the individual phenomena, much less do I suppose them capable of
accounting for those in the human body, the most complex of all. But
if some portions of the human body correspond in their structure with
mechanical instruments, they must be governed by the same laws. For
all the power of these parts is in the motion which they produce; and
motion, by whatever body it is performed, takes place according to
the universal laws of mechanics. There are some who think that those
actions should not be explained by mechanical laws, the mechanical
causes of which are unknown to us. But this is said without an accurate
examination of the matter, for we do not speak of the causes but of
the effects as being governed by mechanical laws. There are many and
considerable motions performed in nature, of the causes of which we
are ignorant; but the motions themselves are governed by supreme and
universally diffused laws. The magnet, the cause of whose action is
wholly unknown to us, performs its motions agreeable to a certain
and ascertained law, which, when once known, can be applied, without
danger of mistake, to future experiments. The human body in like manner
exhibits motions, the causes of which are unknown to us; but their
effects are the elevation of weights by cords affixed to them, the
propulsion of fluids through determinate vessels, and other effects
like those produced by mechanical causes, and they are not governed
by any other laws. So it appears that both parties have erred, the
mechanicians, in attempting to define all things from their art,
without being sufficiently acquainted with the structure of the parts,
the powers of which they expressed by numbers; and those who hated
the very name of mechanics have declared that our body is independent
of those very laws by which all bodies whatsoever are governed. The
misfortune is that such physiological subjects are usually handled
either by mathematicians unskilled in anatomy, or by anatomists who
are not versed in mathematics.”¹
¹ _Institutions._
He attempted to explain the contraction of the muscular fibre upon
mathematical principles, and displayed ingenuity and skill, but he
failed to explain this interesting phenomenon. He had, however, a
pretty distinct idea of the use and the abuse of chemistry in medical
science. The following contains in his own words a kind of summary of
his physiological system:――“We are obliged to confess that there are
many truths, and those too of the greatest importance, in the whole of
medical physiology, a knowledge of which can be acquired only by the
assistance of chemistry. But the greatest glory of this valuable art
is, that it alone is able to expose and correct those errors, which
some whimsical dabblers in chemistry had introduced into medicine, as
Boyle, Bohn, Hoffmann, Homberg, and others, have shown by beautiful
examples. Those vain trifling chemists were certainly in the wrong,
who have pretended by their art alone to explain physiology in all its
parts; nor, however, are those less mistaken who imagine they can do
this without chemistry. Let anatomy faithfully describe the parts and
structure of the body; let the mechanician apply his particular science
to the solids; let hydrostatics explain the laws of fluids in general,
and hydraulics their actions, as they move through given canals; and,
lastly, let the chemist add to all these, whatever his art, when fairly
and carefully applied, has been able to discover; and then, if I am not
mistaken, we shall have a complete account of medical physiology.” This
is not a very perfect conception of the human organism.
But his pathology was more defective than his physiology, and took
less account of the essential functions of the human body; there was
no clear conception of the real normal human organism formed, far less
explained, either upon mathematical or any other principles.
Such, then, was the state of medical science in the first half of the
eighteenth century; and such was the system which was introduced into
Scotland, and taught in the early stages of the history of our medical
schools, as the following statement from the highest authority shows:――
“When I first applied myself to the study of medicine, I learned only
the system of Boerhaave; and even when I came to take a professor’s
chair in this University, I found that system here in its entire and
full force; and as I believe it still subsists in credit elsewhere, and
that no other system of reputation has been yet offered to the world,
I think it necessary for me to point out particularly the imperfections
and the deficiencies of the Boerhaavian system, in order to show the
propriety and necessity of attempting a new one. To execute this,
however, so full as I might, would lead me into a detail that can
hardly be admitted of here, and I hope is not necessary, as I think
that every intelligent person, who has acquired any tolerable knowledge
of the present state of our science, must in many instances perceive
its imperfections. I shall therefore touch only upon the great lines of
this system; and from the remarks I am to offer, I trust that both the
mistakes and the deficiencies which run through the whole of his works
will appear.”¹ I will now proceed to the chief subject of the chapter.
¹ Dr. William Cullen’s _Introductory Lectures on the Practice
of Physics_, Volume I., page 412.
As stated in a preceding volume, the first charter to the surgeons
was granted by the Town Council of Edinburgh in 1506; the science of
medicine, however, had made little progress in Scotland two centuries
later. But towards the end of the seventeenth century a movement began
and various efforts were made to found a medical school in Edinburgh,
which ultimately succeeded. The influences and the efforts which led
up to the founding of the Edinburgh school originated from the outside,
not from within the University itself, in the early stage of its
history. As stated in the last volume, the College of Physicians in
Edinburgh was incorporated in 1681;¹ and the old College of Surgeons
got a royal charter in 1694, and at the same time a grant from the Town
Council of unclaimed dead bodies. The anatomical theatre was opened
in 1697. Thus the incorporated physicians and surgeons began to form
a medical school outside the University; and afterwards some of the
members of these bodies were taken into the University as professors.
In this way the great medical school of Edinburgh arose, and it has
continued to be surrounded by extra-mural teachers, some of whom were
highly distinguished members of the profession.
¹ Mackintosh’s _History of Civilisation in Scotland_, Volume
III., page 369.
In 1705, Robert Elliot, a member of the College of Surgeons, was
elected by his fellow-members as the special teacher of anatomy;
and the Town Council recognised his appointment under the title of
Professor of Anatomy in the University, and for his encouragement
granted him a salary of £15: thus Elliot became the first Professor of
Anatomy in the University of Edinburgh. The teaching of chemistry was
recognised by the University in 1713, when James Craufurd, a pupil of
Boerhaave, was appointed Professor of Medicine and Chemistry. He was
succeeded in 1726, by Andrew Plummer, a graduate of Leyden and a pupil
of Boerhaave. He lectured ably upon chemical pharmacy for twenty-nine
years. He was the author of the preparation known under the name
of Plummer’s Pill; and it was recorded that he was a man of varied
knowledge and accomplishments. The study of botany was recognised
by the University authorities in 1676; and Dr. Charles Preston, the
second professor of this useful branch of knowledge, was appointed in
1706. The following year he issued an advertisement in the _Edinburgh
Courant_ to this effect: “Dr. Preston teaches his lessons of botany
in the Physic Garden at Edinburgh, the months of May, June, July, and
August, 1707. Therefore, all gentlemen and others, who are desirous
to learn the said science of botany, may repair to the said garden,
where attendance will be given.” Botany as a subject for lectures in
a class-room scarcely then existed.
John Munro, a military surgeon, who had served in King William’s
army, retired and settled in Edinburgh early in the century, and was
president of the College of Surgeons in 1712. He had an only son,
Alexander Munro, who was carefully educated by his father. In 1717,
young Munro, at the age of twenty, was sent to study anatomy under
Cheselden, in London; subsequently he proceeded to Paris, where he
studied anatomy under M. Bouquet, and attended classes in the hospitals;
whence to Leyden, and placed himself under Boerhaave, who gave a
favourable report of his pupil’s progress. He returned to Scotland in
1719, and was admitted a member of the College of Surgeons.
In January, 1720, Alexander Munro was appointed professor of anatomy in
the University of Edinburgh, and soon after commenced lecturing in the
surgeons’ theatre. In 1726, Doctors Andrew Sinclair and John Rutherford
were appointed professors of the theory and practice of medicine; and
thus the faculty then consisted of a chair of anatomy, three professors
of medicine, a professor of chemistry, and a professor of botany. These
professors were appointed for life, and this was the first regular
establishment of the medical faculty in the University of Edinburgh.
Munro started his course of lectures with a class of fifty-seven
students, and the class gradually increased in numbers. For the first
ten years the average number was sixty-seven, for the second one
hundred and nine, and for the third one hundred and forty-seven:
students joined his class from all parts of Scotland, England and
Ireland. His course of instruction was a comprehensive one, and
embraced surgery as well as anatomy; and he illustrated his teaching
by dissections of the human body, and of animals, birds, and fishes,
for comparison. After explaining the anatomy of each part, he treated
of its diseases, especially the organs which required operations, and
concluded his course with a few lectures on physiology. He delivered
this course continuously for thirty-eight years, and spoke without
notes except for the names and dates.
In 1726, he published his work on _The Human Bones_, which passed
through eight editions in his lifetime, and was translated into most of
the European languages; and it contributed much to raise the reputation
of the Edinburgh medical school. The whole of his writings have been
collected and published in one large volume. It was also mainly by the
exertions of ♦Monro and Provost Drummond that the Royal Infirmary of
Edinburgh was erected, endowed, and incorporated, the foundation stone
of which was laid in 1738. When it was opened Monro attended it and
delivered lectures on surgery;¹ the clinical lectures were begun in
1746.
♦ Author switched spelling from “Munro” to “Monro”.
Transcriber left as printed.
¹ Monro was the originator of the Medical Society, formed in
1732, for the publication of papers on medical subjects,
and he was appointed its secretary, and the editor of
the six volumes of medical essays and observations which
it published. In 1739, on the suggestion of Maclaurin,
the mathematician, its scope was extended to subjects of
philosophy and literature; but its meetings were interrupted
for some years by the Rebellion. In 1752, they were
renewed, and, under the name of The Philosophical Society
of Edinburgh, the first volume of its _Transactions_ was
published in 1754, the second in 1756, and the third in 1771;
but in 1782, a scheme was proposed for the establishment of
a society on a wider plan for the culture of every branch of
science and taste; and the Royal Society of Edinburgh, which
included all the members of the Philosophical Society, and
many other eminent men, was formed and incorporated by royal
charter in 1783.
In 1758, Dr. Monro resigned the chair of anatomy to his son, and
devoted himself for the remaining nine years of his life to practice,
and to lecturing in the Infirmary as one of the clinical professors. He
died in 1767, in the seventieth year of his age. His merits have been
summed up, by a well qualified Professor thus:――
“He had family and friends influential and plenty, but the work he had
to do was of a kind at which friends could only stand and look on. He
had to do a new thing in Edinburgh: to teach anatomy, and to provide
for the study of it, in a town of then only thirty thousand inhabitants,
and in a half-civilised and politically disturbed country; he had
to gather in students, to persuade others to join him in teaching,
and to get an infirmary built. All this he did, and at the same time
established his fame not only as a teacher but as a man of science,
and gave a name to the Edinburgh school which benefited still more
the generation which followed him. This really great and good man,
therefore, well earned the title often given him, of father of the
Edinburgh medical school.”¹
¹ Professor Struthers, _Historical Sketch of the Edinburgh
Anatomical School_, page 25 (1867); compare Hamilton’s
_History of Medicine_, Volume II., pages 296‒299.
A chair of midwifery was regularly established in the University in
1739――Mr. Robert Smith being appointed by the town council “professor
of midwifery in this city’s College, with the same privileges and
immunities which the other professors in the said College do enjoy, or
that are known to appertain to a professor of midwifery in any other
well-regulated city or place.” It is well known that the institution
of this chair, like most of the other chairs connected with medicine
in Edinburgh, originated with the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons.
The Town Council had before, in 1726, on the recommendations of the
Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, appointed Mr. Joseph Gibson
“professor of midwifery in this city, with power to him to profess and
teach the said art, in as large extent as it is taught in any city or
place where this profession is already instituted.” But Gibson had no
chair in the University, he was merely appointed to teach in the city.¹
A separate chair of materia medica was instituted in 1768; and a chair
of natural history was established by the Crown in 1767.
¹ _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_; Professor A. R. Simpson’s
_Introductory Lecture on the History of the Chair of
Midwifery, etc._, pages 9‒10.
Dr. Cullen and Dr. Black contributed greatly to raise and to maintain
the reputation of the Edinburgh medical school, of the teaching and
discoveries of the latter, I have already spoken in the last chapter.
Dr. Cullen was born at Hamilton on the 15th of April, 1710; his father
was a writer, and acted as factor to the Duke of Hamilton. He received
the rudiments of education at the Grammar School of Hamilton, and
afterward studied at the University of Glasgow. He was apprenticed
with Mr. John Paisley, a practising doctor in Glasgow: to serve an
apprenticeship was then almost the only way in which a knowledge of
medicine could be obtained in Scotland. His master, though engaged
in a large practice, had collected an extensive and valuable medical
library; and Cullen fully availed himself of the advantages which
it presented. When his medical studies were completed at Glasgow, in
the end of 1729, he went to London, with the object of obtaining some
situation in which he might have opportunities of acquiring a practical
knowledge of his profession. He obtained an appointment as surgeon to
a merchant ship engaged in trading to the West Indies; and during her
voyage she remained for six months at Porto Bello, and this and other
circumstances connected with the voyage gave him an opportunity of
seeing many new scenes and peculiarities of life and manners. After
returning from the West Indies, he remained for some time in London,
and attended the shop of an apothecary in Henrietta Street. At this
time he seems to have specially directed his attention to materia
medica.
He returned to Scotland about the end of the year 1731, and was invited
by Captain Cleland to live in his family and attend to the health of
his son, in the parish of Shotts, near Hamilton. This was a very good
locality for Dr. Cullen to commence the practice of his profession.
After practising here for about two years, he resolved to devote his
attention entirely to medical studies for some time, preparatively
to starting as a practitioner in Hamilton. With this view he went
to the village of Rothbury, in Northumberland, where he lived with
a dissenting clergyman, and chiefly occupied himself in the study of
philosophy and general literature, which would partly account for the
wide and accurate knowledge of the history of philosophic thought which
appears in his writings.
In 1734, he entered the University of Edinburgh and attended the
medical classes for two years. On finishing his courses at Edinburgh,
in the spring of 1736, he commenced business as a surgeon in Hamilton;
and in a short time he obtained a good practice. Soon after his
settlement in Hamilton, Dr. Cullen became the friend and the medical
preceptor of the well-known Dr. William Hunter, whose genius and love
of study were so congenial with his own; and their friendship continued
till the death of Dr. Hunter in 1783. Dr. Hunter retained to the end
of his life a warm feeling of gratitude for Cullen, and never omitted
an opportunity of acknowledging how much he owed to him. Dr. Cullen
removed from Hamilton to Glasgow in 1744, where he had a wider sphere
for the exercise of his genius and his great talents. He thought that
a medical school could be established in Glasgow, and his foresight was
well founded.
He applied to the authorities of the University for leave to deliver
lectures on the theory and practice of medicine, chemistry, and botany,
so bold and comprehensive was the grasp of principles which he had
attained. The authorities acceded to his request, and his first courses
of lectures were delivered in the University of Glasgow in 1746; and
they mark an era in the history of medicine in Scotland. In the first
place, he laid aside the use of Latin in the composition and delivery
of his lectures, which appeared to many a rash and unpardonable
innovation; in the second, he had the courage and discrimination to
reject the use of the ♦_Institutions_ and _Aphorisms_ of Boerhaave
as text-books, which were then generally used in the medical schools
of Europe; in the third, he struck out new lines himself; and in the
fourth, he was the first in Britain who assigned to chemistry its
proper position as a science of great importance, and susceptible
of wide application. In his introductory lectures on this memorable
occasion he referred to the advantages which a teacher has when he
explains his own ideas and writings, instead of commenting upon those
of others, and then adds:――“I ought to give a text-book myself, but
shall not attempt it, till after a little more experience in teaching.
In the meantime, I shall endeavour to supply its place by an easy,
clear order and method, so that the want of it may be less felt;”
and in allusion to his attempting to lecture from notes, he remarked:
――“Written lectures might be more correct in the diction and fluent in
the style; but they would take up too much time, that may be rendered
otherwise useful. I shall be as correct as possible, but perhaps a
familiar style will prove more agreeable than a formal one, and the
delivery more fitted to command attention.”¹
♦ “Iustitutions” replaced with “Institutions”
¹ Dr. John Thomson’s _Life of Cullen_, Volume I., pages 4‒28.
In 1747, in accordance with the plan which he had formed of
establishing a regular medical school in the University of Glasgow,
Cullen was appointed Professor of Chemistry. At the commencement of
his second course of chemistry, he printed and distributed among his
students, “The Plan of a Course of Chemical Lectures and Experiments,
directed chiefly to the improvement of arts and manufactures, to be
given in the Laboratory of the College, during the session 1748.”
At this time he specially directed his attention to investigate the
application of chemistry to the useful arts. He suggested various
improvements in the art of bleaching, and proposed an improved method
for the manufacture or purification of common salt. Some of the
difficulties which he had to encounter in his efforts to present
a comprehensive account of chemical phenomena were thus stated by
himself:――
“Chemistry is an art that has furnished the world with a great number
of useful facts, and has thereby contributed to the improvement of
many arts; but these facts lie scattered in many different books,
involved in obscure terms, mixed with many falsehoods, and joined to
a great deal of false philosophy; so that it is no great wonder that
chemistry has not been so much studied as might have been expected with
regard to so useful a branch of knowledge, and that many professors
are themselves but very superficially acquainted with it. But it
was particularly to be expected, that, since it has been taught in
Universities, the difficulties in this study should have been in some
measure removed, that the art should have been put into form, and a
system of it attempted――the scattered facts collected and arranged in
a proper order. But this has not yet been done; chemistry has not yet
been taught but upon a very narrow plan. The teachers of it have still
confined themselves to the purposes of pharmacy and medicine, and that
comprehends a small branch of chemistry; and even that, by being a
single branch, could not by itself be tolerably explained. I do not
choose the invidious task of derogating from established reputations;
but were it necessary, I could easily show that the most celebrated
attempts towards a system or course of chemistry are extremely
incomplete, as examining but a few of the objects of chemistry; that of
those examined a very scanty and imperfect account of their relations
to other bodies is given, and that, even what is given, is in a method
inconvenient and faulty. Now this is the case with the generality
of the books on chemistry; but I must take notice, however, that Dr.
Stahl is one who has endeavoured to avoid these faults; he has taught
chemistry with a more general view, and attempted to collect the
chemical facts, and to arrange them in better order.... From what I
have said, you will judge of the state of chemical learning, and what
a difficult task I undertook when I engaged to teach chemistry, and
it is very necessary to tell you, that I did not engage in it from
any confidence of my abilities, but because it was thought proper to
be undertaken, and nobody else was found to do it; and if I can be so
lucky as to engage you to apply to the study, I dare say that the more
you become acquainted with it, the less will my performance need an
apology with you.”
In the end of the year 1753, he sent to the Philosophical Society of
Edinburgh a paper entitled, “Some Reflections on the Study of Chemistry,
and an essay towards ascertaining the different species of Salts.” This
paper contains more wide and precise information touching the general
properties and relations of the different species of salts than is
to be found in any chemical work of the period; and especially the
distinctive characters and compounds of soda, a substance then not
generally admitted in this country to differ specifically from potash.¹
¹ Thomson’s _Life of Dr.Cullen_, Volume I., pages 57, 58.
Cullen’s reputation was rising rapidly, and in 1751 he was formally
appointed to the Chair of the Practice of Medicine in the University of
Glasgow, but also continued to lecture on chemistry as well as medicine
for the next five years. It was a bright period in the history of this
University. Adam Smith was then delivering within its walls a part of
the rich store of information which afterwards appeared in the _Wealth
of Nations_, while Cullen was laying a better foundation for medicine
and the progress of medical science.
But he was appointed Professor of Chemistry in the University of
Edinburgh, and entered upon the duties of the chair in the beginning of
the year 1756. He then extended and carefully improved his lectures on
chemistry, and prepared as an introduction to his course seven lectures
giving a history of chemical science, which are fine specimens of that
branch of scientific exposition. He occupied the chair of chemistry
in Edinburgh ten years, but his class was not a very large one. During
his first course of lectures the number of students was only seventeen;
in the second it rose to fifty-nine; and it gradually increased, the
highest number reached in one session being one hundred and forty-five.
He also commenced to deliver clinical lectures in the Royal Infirmary
in 1757, instead of Professor Rutherford, whose health was failing.
In 1766 he was appointed to the chair of institutes of medicine;
his predecessor in the chair was an able man.¹ But Cullen taught
the institutes of medicine with marked success. He divided the main
subject into three divisions――physiology, pathology, and therapeutics
――embracing the consideration of health, disease, and remedy. After
delivering his historical introduction, he commenced thus:――
¹ Robert Whytt was one of the luminaries of the rising medical
school; and was professor of the institutes of medicine from
1747, till his death in 1766, in the fifty-second year of
his age. He is the author of a treatise _On the Vital and
other Involuntary motions in Animals_, which attracted the
attention of many physiologists; and of a work _On Nervous,
Hysteric Diseases, and on the Sympathy of the Nerves_, a
treatise in advance of the age, which contributed to the
progress of medical science in the latter part of the
eighteenth century.
“Medicine is the art of preventing and curing diseases. The common
language is that ‘Medicine is the art of preserving health and of
curing diseases;’ but I have said, the art of preventing diseases; for
although I do not deny that the preserving of health is the object of
the physician’s care, yet I maintain that there is truly no other means
of preserving health but what consists in preventing diseases. Every
other idea is false, and has led to superfluous, very often dangerous,
practice. I say, that health being properly understood, we cannot add
to it, nor increase its powers. There is never room for our art, but
when there is some defect in the constitution――some bias and tendency
towards disease; and it is only by preventing this tendency, by
correcting these defects, that is, by preventing disease, that we can
preserve health.
“What we call the practice is the art applied to particular diseases
and persons. But before considering the application of this art to
particular diseases, certain general doctrines are necessary to be
premised, which are called the Institutes of Medicine.” He describes
physiology thus:――
“The doctrine which explains the conditions of the body and of the mind
necessary to life and health, is called Physiology, or the Doctrine
of the Animal Economy――I mean that physiology considers the matter
of which the body is formed in its mixed, in its aggregation, and,
especially, in its organisation or mechanism. With regard to the
conditions of the body, physiology considers everything that natural
philosophy, chemistry, or anatomy teaches with regard to it. But you
are to observe that philosophy, chemistry, and anatomy consider the
state of the body, and its several parts, abstracted from its several
effects. The business of physiology is only to explain the conditions
which these several sciences point out as applicable to the exercise
of the functions of the body.
“I have added here a particular to my physiology that is not
common――and ‘of the mind.’ ... However the condition of the mind may
ultimately arise, we often do see conditions of mind arise, that we
cannot trace to a corporeal cause; while at the same time they may
produce very considerable effects upon the bodily state; so that it
was necessary to say physiology referred to the conditions of the mind,
as well as to those of the body. So far from being able to neglect the
mind, the most considerable functions are connected with particular
operations ... and, indeed, I find that the conditions of the human
mind must engage our intention more than they have done hitherto.”¹
Accordingly he treats at considerable length on sensation and the
functions of the brain.
¹ Cullen’s Works, Volume I., pages 3‒6; 1827.
On the death of John Gregory in 1773, Cullen became professor of the
practice of physic, and held this chair for seventeen years with great
advantage to the medical school, the University, the nation, and the
world. He resigned his chair in the end of the year 1789, and he died
on 5th February, 1790. He had been a professor in the medical faculty
of the University of Edinburgh for a period of thirty-four years, and a
lecturer and professor in the University of Glasgow for nine years, so
that he had been a hard-working professor for a period of forty-three
years. As a teacher he was remarkably successful, he had all the
qualifications of a great expositor――vast and accurate knowledge,
analytic powers of the first order, a mastery of method and systematic
development, and a copious command of appropriate language; an
intellect of a philosophic and original cast which threw new light on
many points; in short, a genius who never failed to make every subject
which he handled clear and interesting. He was highly respected and
beloved by all earnest students of medicine, and many of his pupils
rose to eminence.¹ He took a keen interest in everything connected
with or bearing on medical science, and his sagacity, judgment, and
practical experience were invaluable to the Universities of Glasgow and
Edinburgh, and to the nation.
¹ I shall give an indication of his method from his _Nosology_:
――“The several diseases to be treated of are determined by
the nosology. What I call a genus is everywhere to afford
to me a particular subject of discourse; and under each of
these heads I shall treat the following subject.
“First, I am to give what may be called the History of the
disease――of the genus, that is, and an account of all the
special phenomena which constantly attends the appearance
of such a disease, as they are severally combined together,
or occur in succession. Secondly, the investigation of
the proximate cause, on the knowledge of which the cure of
the disease is chiefly and almost unavoidably founded....
Thirdly, from the phenomena of the disease, and with a view
to the conclusion respecting the proximate cause. I am next
to enter into a critical disquisition with regard to the
proper character and limits of every genus, and its division
into species and varieties.... Fourthly, we shall proceed
to the consideration of the remote causes, upon which the
prevention of diseases chiefly depends.... Fifthly, we shall
proceed to the prognostic.... The sixth and last article is
that for which all the others are intended, viz., the method
of cure.... You have thus, gentlemen, my plan for treating
the several heads――the several genera of diseases which are
to enter into my course.... I wish to make you critics in
nosology; but this I shall perhaps find a difficult task.
Perfect division and definition is the summit of human
knowledge in every part of science, and requires not only
the clearest but the most comprehensive views, such as, with
respect to diseases, we can arrive at only by often-repeated
exercises and much study.”――_Works_, Volume I., pages
440‒445.
His chief works are:――(1) _Institutions of Medicine_, 1777; (2) _First
Lines of the practice of Physic_; (3) _Synopsis Nosologiæ Methodicæ_,
1785; (4) _Treatise of the Materia Medica_; (5) Various lectures and
papers. Both his teaching and his writings have had great influence in
advancing medical science, in almost every branch, and especially the
nervous system of the human organism. This was owing not simply to the
number of new facts which he discovered or the generalisations which
he formed, but chiefly to the original characteristics, and the method
of his teaching, which was admirably calculated to interest and arrest
the attention and stimulate the powers of those who came under its
influence. His own mind was comprehensive, the extent of his acquired
information even outside of his special profession was vast and varied,
and his knowledge of recorded philosophic thought was remarkable.
Dr. John Gregory succeeded his father as professor of medicine in
King’s College, Aberdeen, in 1755; and, in 1766, he was appointed
professor of the practice of physic in the University of Edinburgh. In
his introductory lectures he treated on “The Duties and Qualifications
of a Physician,” and these were afterwards published. In 1770, he
published his _Elements of the Practice of Physic_, for the use of
his class. He died in 1773, in the forty-ninth year of his age; and
was succeeded in the chair by Dr. Cullen. He was the author of the
well-known work, _A Comparative View of the Faculties of Man with those
of the Animal World_. His son, James Gregory, also became a professor.
James Gregory was born at Aberdeen in 1753, and went to Edinburgh with
his father; he was the great grandson of James Gregory the celebrated
Professor of Mathematics, and himself the sixteenth Professor that had
sprung from the loins of David Gregory of Kinairdy.¹ He was appointed
Professor of Institutes of Medicine in 1776; and in 1788, he published
a text-book for the use of his class, entitled _Conspectus Medicinæ
Theoreticæ_, which was much admired for its elegant Latinity; it was
adopted as a text-book in several of the German Universities. On the
retirement of Dr. Cullen, Gregory was transferred to the Chair of the
Practice of Physic, which he held till his death in 1821. Thus he had
taught in the University for the long period of forty-five years. He
took an active part in questions touching Infirmary management, and
engaged in hot disputes with his brethren on these matters.
¹ It appears to me that an account of the careers of the
distinguished members of this family of Gregories would form
a very interesting subject for a volume or two among the
tomes to be printed by the New Spalding Club.
Dr. Andrew Duncan, a son of a merchant, was born at St. Andrews on
the 17th October, 1744. He entered the University of St. Andrews, and
graduated Master of Arts in 1762. He then proceeded to the University
of Edinburgh and pursued his medical studies, and completed his course
in 1769. In the absence of Dr. Drummond, during the sessions of 1774‒5
and 1775‒6, Duncan delivered lectures on the theory of medicine in
the University of Edinburgh, while he undertook the editorship of a
periodical work entitled _Medical and Philosophical Commentaries_. This
publication contained an account of the best new books on medicine,
and the cognate branches of science; medical cases and observations;
and the most recent medical intelligence. It was published quarterly,
forming one volume annually, and continued till 1795 under his
editorship, when it had extended to twenty volumes. Subsequently he
continued it under the title of _Annals of Medicine_ to 1804, when
he ceased to act as editor. In 1805 its title was changed to the
_Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal_, and under the editorship
of Dr. Duncan’s son, it became one of the leading medical Journals in
Europe.
On the transference of Dr. Gregory to the chair vacated by Dr. Cullen,
Dr. Duncan was appointed to the chair of the Institutes of Medicine in
1790. He was an able and successful professor, and much esteemed. The
style of his lectures was clear and direct, and excellent specimens
of instructive exposition. He showed great interest in his pupils,
often inviting them to his house, and cultivating a kindly intercourse
with them. His sympathies were wide and warm. Having often seen the
sad condition and suffering of insane persons, he originated a plan
for the erection and endowment of a Lunatic Asylum, which he brought
before the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh in 1792. After
many difficulties had been surmounted, a petition was presented to
the King, who granted a royal charter in April 1807, under which a
Lunatic Asylum was built and opened at Morningside. In September 1808
the Town Council of Edinburgh presented Dr. Duncan with the freedom of
the City, as a public recognition of his services to the community by
the establishment of the Lunatic Asylum, and also a public Dispensary.
After a long and useful life, he expired on the 5th of July, 1828, in
the eighty-fourth year of his age. He was the author of a considerable
number of works, including _Elements of Therapeutics_, _Medical
Commentaries_, _Medical Cases and Observations_, _Heads of lectures
on the Theory and Practice of Physic_, _Essay on Consumption_, and
other treatises. He bequeathed to the Royal College of Physicians of
Edinburgh, one hundred volumes of practical observations in his own
hand-writing, which he had used as notes for his clinical lectures.
His son, Andrew Duncan, was born at Edinburgh on the 10th of August,
1773. While a boy, he had pored over medical books; and at the age of
fourteen he entered on an apprenticeship of five years with Messrs. A.
& G. Wood, Surgeons. Afterwards he went through the courses of Arts and
Medicine, at the University of Edinburgh, and graduated M.A. in 1793,
and M.D. in 1794. Subsequently he studied a winter in London; and made
two sojourns to the Continent, staying in each of the notable medical
schools of Germany and Italy long enough to study under the professors,
visit the hospitals, and acquire some knowledge of the languages and
literatures of these countries. On returning to Edinburgh, he joined
the College of Physicians; and issued his great work on materia medica,
entitled the _Edinburgh Dispensatory_, which for many years was a
standard authority in the medical schools of Europe. He was appointed
professor of Medical Jurisprudence in 1807; as stated in a preceding
page, he was editor of the _Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal_.
His lectures in the chair, and the papers which he produced in his
_Journal_ on this subject excited much interest both among his students
and the medical profession. He taught in this chair for thirteen years;
and in 1819 he was appointed professor of the institutes of medicine,
which he held for two years. In 1821 he was transferred to the chair
of materia medica, of which he was an able and careful teacher till
1832. As a professor in three chairs, he was remarkably successful and
industrious; and made continual additions to his courses of lectures.
He was also a very active and efficient member of the Senatus; and
rendered invaluable service as a member of “the College Commission” for
rebuilding the University. Besides the important work mentioned above,
he contributed many articles on medical subjects to his own _Journal_,
to the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, and the _Edinburgh Review_. His
experiments on Peruvian bark, and on other substances contributed to
advance pharmaceutical science. After a career of incessant and useful
work, he died in 1832, at the age of fifty-nine.
As stated in a preceding page, Dr. Monro, the first Professor of
Anatomy, was succeeded by his son, Alexander Monro. He was born in 1733,
and educated in Edinburgh. After taking his degree in the University,
he proceeded to London, Leyden, Paris, and Berlin, and in these cities
he spent two years and a half in extending and completing his medical
studies.
He returned to Edinburgh in 1758, and shortly after entered on his
duties as Professor of Anatomy. He began his course of instruction in
the University with vigour and boldness, and it was at once seen that
he was master of his subject and of the art of expounding knowledge.
His style was easy, clear, argumentative, and impressive; and from the
first his career through half a century was a marked success.
The number of students attending his courses of lectures continued
to increase; yet he found time to carry on a large practice, being
one of the leading physicians of his day, and he was often consulted
in important surgical cases. He also found time to produce works of
original research in anatomical science; and thus raised his fame
at home and abroad, and contributed to extend the reputation of the
Edinburgh medical school.
Omitting several of his papers and minor publications, Monro’s chief
works are:――(1) _Observations on the Structure and Functions of
the Nervous System_, which appeared in 1783; (2) _The Structure and
Physiology of Fishes explained and compared with those of Man and other
Animals_, 1785; (3) _Experiments on the Nervous System, relative to the
Nature and Effects of Animal Electricity_, 1793; (4) _Observations on
the Muscles, and particularly on the Effects of their Oblique fibres_,
1794; (5) _The Brain, the Eye, and the Ear_, 1794.¹ These works gave
him a reputation as an able anatomist. But it may be remarked that
he had no difficulties to overcome, that he had only to step into a
ready-made position and every advantage to start with, and that in
such circumstances success was comparatively easy; nevertheless, he
held his place with distinction and merit, alongside a body of able
and brilliant colleagues and contemporaries, which is the greatest
praise that can be given him. He died in 1817, at the advanced age of
eighty-four years.
¹ Professor Struthers in his _Historical Sketch of the
Edinburgh Anatomical School_, states that manuscript volumes
of notes of Monro’s lectures on anatomy, physiology, and
surgery are preserved in many private and public libraries.
――Page 32.
His son Alexander was appointed Joint-Professor and successor to his
father in the Chair of Anatomy, and from 1808 to 1846 he discharged the
duties of the Chair. Thus the three Monros in succession held the Chair
of Anatomy in the University of Edinburgh for a period of one hundred
and twenty-six years: the first Monro occupied it from 1720 till 1758,
the second from 1758 to 1808, and the third from 1808 till 1846, when
he retired.
The third Monro was an accomplished man, fond of paintings, and spoke
Latin fluently. But it was recorded that his talents as a teacher of
anatomy were not equal to that of his father or his grandfather. The
circumstances, however, were changed: there was then a greater number
of men well qualified to teach anatomy and surgery, and the spirit of
the time had become more critical and exacting than it was a hundred
years before. Remembering this, there seems to be some ground, not for
reversing the accepted verdict, but of somewhat modifying the opinion
of the merits of the third Monro.
His writings are numerous and manifest great industry, if not original
powers. The following are his most important works:――(1) _Dissertation
on the varied direction of the Fibres of the Muscles_, 1812; (2)
_Elements of the Anatomy of the Human Body_, in two volumes, 1825; (3)
_The Anatomy of the Brain, with some Observations on its Functions_,
1831; (4) _Observations on the Different Kinds of Small Pox_, 1818. He
died in 1859, at the great age of eighty-five years.
On the retirement of Monro, in 1846, Mr. John Goodsir was appointed
professor of anatomy. He had gained some experience as an extra-mural
lecturer, and was a remarkably successful teacher; he rendered his
special subject more interesting by extending the scope of illustration
to allied branches of science. He died in 1867, and was succeeded by
William Turner.
During the greater part of the period under review, there was much
extra-mural teaching in Edinburgh, and sometimes very able men engaged
in it; I can only, however, notice a few of them. The elder Dr. Duncan,
noticed in a preceding page, was among the first extra-mural lecturers
on medicine in Edinburgh. He commenced lecturing extra-murally
on medicine in 1775, and continued it for fifteen years, and
attracted a considerable number of students to his class. John Bell,
a distinguished anatomist and surgeon, was born in May, 1763. After
finishing his medical education in Edinburgh, he travelled for some
time in Russia and the north of Europe, but returned to Edinburgh in
1786, and was entered as a fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons. In
1787, he commenced lecturing on surgery and midwifery, and his lectures
were numerously attended. But it seems that some jealousy existed among
a few of the professors of the University towards the lecturers of the
Surgeons’ Hall; accordingly Bell was vehemently assailed by pamphlets
and squibs spread over the city. The assailants, as often happens, had
greatly under-estimated the powers of their enemy; for in his replies
to their attacks he wielded his weapons with such force and effect
that his blows staggered some of them and surprised them all, insomuch
that on the main issue he won the day. Bell continued to teach anatomy
and surgery till the last year of the eighteenth century, when he was
deprived of his connection with the Surgical Hospital; he then retired
and devoted himself to practice, and to the composition of his works.
As a practitioner he attained the position of the leading operating
and consulting surgeon of his time in Edinburgh; and his reputation
drew patients from all parts of Britain and the Continent. He was also
a cultured man, well versed in ancient and modern literature, a good
musician, and skilful artist, while as a teacher, he was a ready and
polished speaker, and master of a bold and vivid style. He died at Rome
in 1820, in the fifty-seventh year of his age.¹
¹ Professor Struthers’ _Historical Sketch of the Edinburgh
Anatomical School_, pages 39‒42. “He was the reformer of
Surgery in Edinburgh. He was not only a bold and dexterous
operator, but combined all the qualities, natural and
acquired, of a great surgeon to an extraordinary degree;
he was original and fearless, and a thorough anatomist; he
had intellect, nerve, and also language――was master alike of
head, hand, and tongue or pen; and he was laborious as well
as brilliant.”――_Ibid._, page 43.
His chief works are:――1. _The Anatomy of the Human Body_, published
in 1793‒97, in three volumes, which contained the most complete
view of the progress and discoveries in anatomy up to the date of
its publication. 2. _Engravings of the Bones, Muscles, and Joints_,
illustrating the first volume of his _Anatomy of the Human Body_; they
were drawn and engraved by himself, and appeared in 1794. 3. _On the
Nature and Cure of Wounds_, 4. _Principles of Surgery_, 1801‒8, in
three volumes.
He taught his younger brother Charles Bell¹ anatomy and surgery; and
when John retired he continued to instruct his class for several years.
But Charles Bell went to London in 1804, to seek his fortune in a wider
sphere, and for years he had to struggle with many difficulties. He
began to teach in London with three of a class, and it was long ere it
reached the number of forty. In 1811, he became one of the lecturers
in the Hunterian School of Anatomy in Windmill Street, and in 1814 he
was appointed surgeon to the Middlesex Hospital. At length he attained
a high reputation in London both as a teacher and man of science. In
1836, the Chair of Surgery in the University was offered to him, and
he accepted it and returned home.
¹ Born in 1774; died in 1842.
A Chair of Clinical Surgery was instituted in the University of
Edinburgh, 1803; at the same time the College of Surgeons established
a Chair of Surgery. But the Chair of Surgery in the University was
reconstituted in 1831, and the same year a Chair of Pathology was
established. Thus Sir Charles Bell was the second Professor of Surgery
in the University, after a separate Chair was assigned to it, although
a Chair for Military Surgery was established in 1803, it was abolished
in 1823. During the reign of the Munros they claimed the exclusive
right of being Professors of Surgery as well as Anatomy within the
walls of the University, and this delayed the establishment of a Chair
of Surgery.
Sir Charles Bell discharged the functions of the Chair of Surgery
with marked ability and success for five years; and also worked at his
writings and researches. He died on the 27th of April, 1842. He was
among the greatest men that have ever taught in this University, and
the only regret is, that it was so long of securing his service. His
researches and discoveries touching the nerves and the nervous system
are well known, and were recognised throughout Europe long since. He
was not only great in the science of the human organism in all its
branches, but also a cultured and accomplished gentleman, skilled in
the highest and most delicate operations of mind and hand.
Sir Charles’ works are:――(1) _System of Dissections_, in three volumes,
1798‒1803; (2) _Engravings of the Arteries_, 1801; (3) _Engraving of
the Nerves_, 1801; (4) _Engravings of the Brain_, 1802; (5) _The
Anatomy of Expression in Painting_, 1806; (6) _System of Operative
Surgery_, in two volumes, 1807‒9; (7) _On Diseases of the Urethra_,
1810; (8) _Engravings of Specimens of Morbid Parts_, 1813; (9) _Gunshot
Wounds_, 1814; (10) _Surgical Operations_, in two volumes, 1816‒18;
(11) _On the Forces which circulate in the Blood_, 1819; (12) _On the
Nervous System_, 1821; (13) _Illustrations of the Great Operations in
Surgery_, 1821; (14) _Treatise on the Diseases of some of the Internal
Organs_, 1822; (15) _Observations on Injuries of the Spine, and of the
Thigh Bone_, 1824; (16) New edition of John and Charles Bell’s _Anatomy
and Physiology_, 1829; (17) Bridgewater Treatise, _On the Hand_,
1833; (18) _Institutes of Surgery_, arranged in the order of lectures
delivered in the University of Edinburgh, in two volumes, 1838; (19)
_Practical Essays_, in two volumes, 1841; (20) Letters to the Members
of Parliament for the city of Edinburgh, on two Bills before Parliament,
for improving the medical profession.
Regarding other extra mural lecturers, Dr. John Barclay lectured on
anatomy in Edinburgh from 1797 to 1825, and by his attention and marked
ability attracted a considerable number of medical students. From 1804
onward he had a class of about three hundred. He also published several
treatises on anatomical and physiological subjects. Barclay was a wit
as well as a man of science, of which the following is a characteristic
specimen:――“Gentlemen, while carrying on your work in the dissecting
room, beware of making anatomical discoveries, and above all beware
of rushing with them into print. Our precursors have left us little to
discover. You may perhaps meet with a trifling supernumerary muscle or
tendon, a slight deviation or extra branchlet of an artery, or perhaps
a minute stray twig of a nerve, that will be all. But beware; publish
the fact, and ten chances to one you will have it shown that you
have been forestalled long ago. Anatomy may be likened to a harvest
field. First come the reapers, who, entering upon untrodden ground, cut
down great stores of corn from all sides of them. These are the early
anatomists of modern Europe, such as Vesalius, Fallopius, Malpighi, and
Harvey. Then come the gleaners, who gather up ears enough from the bare
ridges to make a few loaves of bread. Such were the anatomists of last
century, Valsalva, Contunnius, Haller, Winslow, Vieg d’Azyr, Camper,
Hunter, and the two Monros. Last of all come the geese, who still
continue to pick up a few grains scattered here and there among stubble,
and waddle home in the evening, poor things, cackling with joy because
of their success. Gentlemen, we are the geese.”¹
¹ Sir R. Christian’s _Recollections_.
Dr. Gordon lectured on anatomy in Edinburgh from 1809 to 1819, and
he was the author of several treatises. In the second quarter of the
present century, Dr. Knox, the morphological anatomist, attained great
celebrity as a lecturer on anatomy. To his dissecting room the victims
of Burke and Hare were brought as subjects, but without any connivance
of foul play on his part. For some time his class reached five hundred
students. So much touching extra mural lectures.
Dr. John Thomson, a son of a silk weaver of Paisley, was born in
1765. His father wished him to enter into business with himself, but
his mental faculties and aspirations rose above such employment. He
privately acquired some knowledge of Latin, and his father allowed
him to become an apprentice to a local medical practitioner. In 1787
he attended the medical classes at Glasgow, and afterwards he studied
under Munro and Blackwood at the University of Edinburgh. He was
appointed assistant-apothecary to the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh
in 1790. In 1798 his edition of Fourcroy’s _Elements of Chemistry and
Natural History_ appeared. Lord Lauderdale came to Edinburgh in 1799 to
study chemistry, and Thomson assisted him, and a warm friendship arose
between them. He continued to practise surgery attentively, and was
admitted a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons. In 1800 he issued
a pamphlet entitled “Outlines of a Plan for the Regulation of the
Surgical Department of the Royal Infirmary.” He was then appointed one
of the Surgeons of the Infirmary, and commenced to deliver clinical
lectures, and also courses of systematic surgery in a private theatre.
In 1804 he was appointed Professor of Surgery to the Royal College of
Surgeons; while in 1806 he was encouraged by Lord Lauderdale to apply
for a Commission to be Professor of Military Surgery in the University
of Edinburgh. The Great European war had created an unusual interest in
this subject. Lord Spencer, the Home Secretary, after an interview with
Thomson, created the Chair, and appointed him as the first Professor.
As mentioned in a preceding page, the Monros claimed a monopoly of
teaching surgery in the University, and consequently it was treated
as a mere appendage to anatomy, and not systematically taught. Thus
Thomson introduced a very important innovation in the Edinburgh
School. He admitted students without fee to his lectures, and in one
session about two hundred persons embraced this privilege. In 1813 his
Lectures on Inflammation appeared, which exhibited the pathological and
practical doctrines of medical surgery. This work was widely circulated,
and translated into German, Italian, and French. At the close of the
war in 1814, he made a tour among the hospitals and medical schools
of the Continent; while the following year, immediately after the
battle of Waterloo, he was commissioned to inspect the condition
of the wounded soldiers in Belgium. He performed this duty with the
utmost care, and rendered much assistance to the Army-Surgeons at
Brussels. During the following winter his lectures in Edinburgh were
well attended, as the class numbered two hundred and eighty, of whom
eighteen medical officers of the army and sixty-two of the navy were
admitted gratis. It was recorded that his lectures were animated and
eloquent, and excited much discussion touching the different modes
of surgical treatment. His lectures were not limited to surgery,
but also embraced medical pathology. Before 1820 he began to collect
coloured pathological delineations, and engaged Mr. Carswell, who
visited a number of hospitals and museums at home and abroad, to make
water-colour drawings of morbid structures. This resulted in a valuable
collection of pathological diagrams, which is still in the possession
of the University, and was the first of its kind ever made.
On the death of Dr. James Gregory in 1821, Dr. Thomson became
a candidate for the Chair of the Practice of Physic; but he was
unsuccessful, the Chair was given to Dr. James Hope. After this he
resigned the Professorship of Military Surgery and commenced to deliver
extra-mural courses of lectures on the practice of physic and pathology.
He was invited to give evidence before the Universities Commission of
1826, and embraced the opportunity of strongly urging the necessity for
a separate Chair of Surgery and one of Pathology in the University. He
addressed a memorial to Lord Melbourne in 1831, pointing out the great
advantages of the establishment of a Chair of General Pathology. Such
a Chair was founded by the Government, and Thomson was appointed by
the Crown as the first Professor of General Pathology. At the same
time a Chair of Surgery was established in the University. Although
Dr. Thomson was advanced in years, yet he commenced the work of his
new Chair with remarkable vigour, and his teaching for several years
was very efficient. But in 1835 his strength began to fail, and his
lectures were delivered by an assistant till 1841, when he resigned the
Chair. In his time, he had executed much useful and important work. He
issued his edition of Cullen’s works in 1827; the first volume of his
_Life of Cullen_ appeared in 1832, and the second completed by his son
in 1859. Dr. Thomson died in 1846, at the advanced age of eighty-one.¹
¹ Memoir of Dr. Thomson, prefixed to second edition of _Life
of Cullen_.
On the resignation of Professor Thomson, Dr. William Henderson
was appointed to the chair of general pathology. In 1835‒37 he had
published a series of papers on the “Diseases of the Heart and the
Larger Blood-Vessels.” He was an expert stethoscopist, and used the
microscope in pathological histology. Henderson, however, became
heterodox, and embraced the homœopathic conception of medicine; and in
1845 published his _Enquiry into the Homœopathic Practice of Medicine_.
He then commenced business as a homœopathic practitioner, and proposed
to follow this theory in his clinical ward in the Infirmary. This
caused a great stir among the Medical Faculty in the University and
the College of Physicians. Henderson resigned his post as a clinical
teacher of medicine; but continued his lectures in the chair of
pathology. He obtained a large private practice, though several of his
colleagues treated him bitterly. Owing to failing health, he resigned
his chair in 1869; and died in 1872.
Dr. William R. Sanders was appointed to the chair of pathology in
1869. He had a high reputation as a physician, and a large consulting
practice. He contributed a number of important papers to the _Edinburgh
Medical Journal_; and had delivered lectures on the institutes of
medicine in the extra-mural school. As professor of pathology, he
introduced practical teaching, and trained the students to observe for
themselves. The practical classes were instructed by Sanders’ assistant,
Dr. Hamilton, and the teaching of pathology in Edinburgh was raised
to a higher stage. Professor Sanders died in 1881, at the age of
fifty-three.
Shortly after Dr. Thomson resigned the chair of military surgery, Dr.
George Ballingall was appointed professor of the subject. He was born
in 1780, a son of the minister of the parish of Forglen in Banffshire.
At an early age he went through the arts course at the University of
St. Andrews; and subsequently studied medicine at Edinburgh, graduating
as M.D. in 1803. In 1806 he entered the army as an assistant-surgeon,
and saw service in India and other countries. He was at the capture of
Java in 1811; and in 1815 he was with the army of occupation at Paris.
He retired on half-pay in 1818, and commenced practice in Edinburgh.
In 1823 he was appointed to the vacant chair of military surgery. After
the accession of William IV., he received the honour of knighthood, and
became Sir George Ballingall; he was surgeon to the Queen in Scotland,
and had other honorary titles. He was an able professor, well informed,
an excellent expositor, and a favourite with the students. He was
the author of the following works:――_A Treatise on Fever, Dysentery,
and Liver Complaints_; _Introductory Lectures to a Course of Medical
Surgery_; and _A Treatise on Military Surgery_. He died in 1856. The
chair of military surgery was then removed from Edinburgh.
Dr. William P. Alison was a son of the Rev. A. Alison, the author of
the _Essay on Taste_, mentioned in a preceding chapter. He was educated
in the University of Edinburgh, and was a great admirer of the writings
of Dugald Stewart. He was appointed professor of the institutes of
medicine in 1821; and he discharged the functions of this chair till
1842. In 1831, he published his _Outlines of Physiology_, and in 1833,
_Outlines of Physiology and Pathology_. He was a successful teacher.
In 1842, he was appointed to the chair of the practice of physics,
and shortly after he published his _Outlines of Pathology and Practice
of Medicine_. He took a keen interest in the condition of the poor in
Scotland; and in 1840, he published his _Observations on the Management
of the Poor_. He advocated the introduction of a systematic poor-law
act for the relief of the destitute. He was a kind, generous, and
sympathetic gentleman, and devoted much of his means to charitable
objects. His health failed and he resigned his chair in 1855, and died
in 1859.
James Syme¹ was educated in the High School and the University of
Edinburgh, and became assistant and demonstrator to Barclay, the
extra-mural lecturer on anatomy. Afterwards he specially directed
his attention to surgery, and studied for a year in Paris, practising
surgical operations under Lisfranc. He returned to Edinburgh,
and opened an extra-mural class in surgery, and his abilities and
♦perseverance soon commanded success. In 1833, he became professor
of clinical surgery in the University, and introduced a better method
of instructing the students in the principles of treatment. He was a
successful teacher, and attained a reputation as an operator. His chief
work is his _Principles of Surgery_, which appeared in 1833; while he
wrote upwards of two hundred papers on various points connected with
his subject. He died in 1870, having held the chair for thirty-six
years. His successor, Joseph Lister, introduced the antiseptic system.
¹ Born in 1799; died in 1870.
♦ “perseverence” replaced with “perseverance”
Dr. Alexander Hamilton was professor of midwifery from 1780 to 1800. He
was the author of several treatises on _Midwifery and the Management of
Female Complaints_, which were translated into German. He was succeeded
in the chair by his son, Dr. James Hamilton, who was a man of great
energy, and an excellent professor. He had great experience and a
vast store of information, thus his means for teaching were ample,
and his class was well attended by students. In 1839 his work entitled
_Practical Observations_ appeared, which was recognised as an important
book. He died in November 1839.
James Y. Simpson, the distinguished introducer of chloroform, was born
at Bathgate, the youngest son of a small tradesman. It was resolved to
give him a better education than the rest of the family. He entered the
University of Edinburgh at the age of fourteen, and obtained a small
bursary, attended the greater part of the arts course and the medical
classes, passed the examination of the College of Surgeons in his
nineteenth year, in 1830, and received his degree in medicine in 1832.
Dr. Thomson, the professor of pathology, then appointed Simpson as
his assistant; and on Thomson’s advice he afterwards directed special
attention to midwifery. In 1838, he became a lecturer on midwifery in
the extra-mural school; and in 1840, was elected professor of midwifery
in the University of Edinburgh.
Simpson was in every respect a successful and enthusiastic professor,
and many of those who attended his class have risen to distinction.
He first tried the effect of chloroform by inhalation in 1847. Shortly
afterwards operations were performed under chloroform in the Infirmary
of Edinburgh; and it soon came into general use. But Dr. Duncan, in a
short treatise entitled _On the Mortality of Childbed_, 1870, argues
against its use in childbed, except in extreme or particular cases;
and he struggles hard to make out a case against Simpson’s view of
its application in this connection, but notwithstanding a parade of
statistics his arguments are not conclusive.
He obtained a large private practice, and throughout his career he
was incessantly occupied. Still he sometimes worked to good purpose
outside of his profession. Archæology was a favourite subject of his,
and his essays and papers in this department of research are admirable
specimens of workmanship and style. He was knighted in 1866, and
received honorary titles from Academies and Societies from the four
quarters of the globe. After a short illness, he died in 1870, having
occupied the chair of midwifery for a period of thirty years. He shed
new lustre on the University of Edinburgh, and conferred a blessing
upon the human race.
Robert Christison was appointed Professor of Medical Jurisprudence
in 1821, and he has himself recorded that he was so ashamed of his
first course of lectures that he destroyed them. He held this Chair
twelve years, and, in 1832, was elected to the Chair of Materia Medica.
Christison became an able and successful teacher, and altogether he was
a Professor in the University for fifty-five years. He died in 1882. In
1829, his valuable _Treatise on Poisons_ appeared; his _Dispensatory_
was published in 1842, and he prepared the last edition of the
_Edinburgh Pharmacopœia_. He is also the author of many papers on
medical subjects.
There were other professors of the medical school of Edinburgh, whom I
should have been happy to notice, but space is limited, and I can only
add that the great reputation which this school has so long enjoyed is
likely not only to continue to be maintained, but also to rise still
higher as time rolls on. The number of students in the faculty has been
rising from year to year, and in the session of 1885‒86 the number of
matriculated students in the faculty of medicine was 1635.
In the preceding volumes some account was given of the University of
Glasgow. It has passed through many vicissitudes. At the Reformation it
was nearly extinguished, and after the Restoration it suffered so much
for want of funds that three out of its eight Chairs had to be given
up, and no relief came till after the Revolution of 1688.
At the opening of the second quarter of the eighteenth century
the medical faculty of this University consisted of the following
Chairs:――(1) Anatomy, founded in 1718, with which Botany was at
first associated; (2) Practice of Medicine, revived in 1712. But even
with its two Chairs several of the most distinguished physicians and
surgeons of the eighteenth century received the elements of their
medical instruction in this University, and they have left memorable
evidence of their gratitude for the early instruction which they
had there received. After maturing his medical knowledge and gaining
experience, Cullen returned to Glasgow in 1744, and by the exercise of
his great talents and the force of genius led to the establishment of
the Chair of Chemistry, and to the creation of lectureships in several
other branches of medical science; while by his noble efforts, well
seconded by his colleagues, in a comparatively short time he raised
the standard and established the reputation of the medical school
of Glasgow. Dr. William Hunter, after a distinguished and honourable
career in London, bequeathed his museum, books, and manuscripts to his
Alma Mater. In a word, from the middle of the eighteenth century the
medical school of Glasgow has continued to advance.
In the present century, the following chairs in this faculty have been
instituted:――(1) Natural History, in 1807; (2) Surgery, in 1815; (3)
Midwifery, in 1815; (4) Botany, in 1818; (5) Materia Medica, in 1831;
(6) Physiology, in 1839; (7) Forensic Medicine, in 1839; (8) Clinical
Surgery, in 1874; (9) Clinical Medicine, in 1874. Thus the faculty of
medicine in the University of Glasgow now consists of twelve Chairs and
a Lectureship on Diseases of the Eye.
But in this great city, medical science is also successfully taught by
a body of extra-mural lecturers. Those in Glasgow whose lectures have
been recognised by the University Court of the University of Glasgow,
for the purpose of graduating in medicine, are twenty-six in number;
and these twenty-six gentlemen lecture on all branches of medical
science, and many of them are highly distinguished teachers.
Before the middle of the present century measures were taken for the
removal of the University to more extended buildings, and for this
purpose the lands of Gilmorehill were secured――a fine elevated space of
ground in the western part of the city. The new buildings were designed
by the late Sir G. Gilbert Scott; and on the 8th of October, 1868,
the foundation stone of these buildings on the Gilmorehill was laid by
the Prince of Wales amidst manifestations of joy and rejoicing. They
were opened for the classes in 1870.¹ These buildings have an imposing
appearance to the eye; but the interior accommodation, and also the
workmanship, are far superior to what one would imagine by simply
looking at the outside of the buildings. The principal and a number
of the professors have residences within the buildings; while each
faculty has a special or main division of the buildings for itself,
with splendid class-rooms and every other requisite of accommodation
for effective teaching. The large room for holding examinations, the
Senatus meeting-room, and the chapel are all that could be desired.
The space of the buildings in which the large and valuable library
is located has been calculated to be sufficient to hold the annually
increasing number of volumes for many generations to come. The large,
interesting, and valuable Hunterian Museum occupies the north side
of the eastern quadrangle, and consists of two halls, the upper one
being galleried; and it has been intimated that “visitors desirous of
consulting in the Museum should, if possible, arrange to come between
2 and 4 P.M. Numismatists desirous of consulting the cabinet of medals
should communicate with the keeper a few days before the date of their
proposed visit.”
¹ The tower, however, for want of funds was not finished at
first; but it was completed in 1888 by the Marquess of Bute,
K.T., and is one of the highest towers in the kingdom.
The foundation-stone of the Glasgow Royal Infirmary was laid on the
18th of May, 1792,¹ and it was opened for the reception of patients in
1794. Clinical lectures are given in it by the surgeons and physicians.
Shortly after the opening of the New University buildings, the Western
Infirmary was erected, a large building measuring 500 feet by 240.
It is situated in a fine, airy and open locality, and it has been
authoritatively declared to be one of the best establishments of the
kind in Britain. It contains 400 beds for medical and surgical patients,
including wards for skin diseases, and one for diseases peculiar to
females; it has also a full staff of physicians and surgeons. Several
courses of clinical instruction are given. There are also in Glasgow
an Eye Infirmary; Dispensaries for Diseases of the Skin and Ear; and
in the Royal Lunatic Asylum, at Gartnavel, clinical instruction on
insanity is given.
¹ On occasion of laying the foundation, a religious service
was held in St. Andrews Church, at the close of which a hymn
written for the occasion was sung, and concluded thus:――
“Then let us join with heart and hand,
To raise this glory of our land,
Which shall to latest times declare,
To ease the wretched was our care.”
In short, Glasgow possesses all the requisites of a great medical
school in an ample degree. In the session of 1884‒85, the number of
matriculated students in the faculty of medicine was 679; and with its
many and invaluable advantages, this school should have a great and
beneficent career before it.
The medical school of Aberdeen is a recent development. At the opening
of the present century there was one professor of medicine in King’s
College, and in Marischal College there was one professor of medicine
and a professor of chemistry. A chair of anatomy was instituted in
1839, and a chair of surgery the same year; and a chair of medical
jurisprudence was established in 1857. In short, the late Dr. Pirrie,
the first professor of surgery, the late Dr. Macrobin, Dr. Dyce, and
Dr. Francis Ogston, were the founders of the Aberdeen medical school,
as they first gave it a reputation in the second quarter of this
century.
But it may be said that it was not till after the union of King’s
College and Marischal College, which was completed in 1860, that there
was a well constituted and organised medical school in Aberdeen. After
the union of the Colleges, the buildings of Marischal College were
assigned to the classes of the medical faculty and the faculty of law;
and though the accommodation for the medical classes was then more than
sufficient, owing to the greatly increased number of students attending
these classes in recent years, it has now become quite inadequate, and
several of the professors experience difficulty in conducting their
classes within the existing apartments.
Since this was written, a movement for the extension of Marischal
College buildings has assumed a practical form. A plan of new buildings
has been sanctioned, consisting of new class-rooms――embraced in the
north and south wings of the extension scheme, a grand new graduation
hall, heightening of the central tower, and other extensions. A large
part of these has been erected.
The hall and the tower are characteristic parts of the new buildings.
The most attractive feature of the hall is the fine memorial window in
its east end, which is 32 feet in height and 28 feet in breadth. It is
designed to illustrate the history of the College by a series of finely
coloured heraldic and portrait representations. There are four tiers
of panels in it, which are beautifully embellished with the armorial
bearings of George Keith, fifth Earl of Marischal, the founder of the
College; the armorial bearings of eleven Chancellors of the College;
those of thirty benefactors of the College; and the portraits of a
number of the distinguished alumni of the College and University.
There are other ten windows in the hall――five on each side, which are
decorated with various coloured emblems in a fine symmetrical style.
The hall is a magnificent structure.
The tower is 248 feet in height. It is in clustered style, well formed,
proportionate, and attractive to the eye. The tower and the hall
were gifts to the University from the late Dr. Charles Mitchell,
Newcastle-on-Tyne, who in all gave £32,000 to the University extension
scheme.
At the date of the union of the Colleges four new chairs were
established, namely, the chair of institutes of medicine or physiology,
the chair of materia medica, the chair of midwifery, and the chair of
botany; while the chair of natural history was also renewed. A chair of
pathology was founded by Sir Erasmus Wilson in 1882. Altogether there
are eleven chairs in the medical faculty of Aberdeen.
Courses of lectures and practical instruction are regularly given
by the medical staff of the Royal Infirmary, and other institutions,
on the following branches: clinical medicine, clinical surgery,
pathological demonstrations, diseases of the skin, diseases of the
ear and larynx, dental surgery, the eye and practical ophthalmology,
sanitary science, and, finally, insanity.
The body of professors in the medical faculty of the University are
able instructors; while the staff of the Royal Infirmary are well
qualified and careful teachers of the special branches which they
profess. The result is, that within the last thirty-five years the
standard and reputation of the Aberdeen medical school has risen
rapidly; and it has sent out a large number of admirably qualified
graduates, many of whom have taken a front rank among the eminent
physicians and surgeons of the time.
Dr. Pirrie was a native of the parish of Gartly, in Aberdeenshire, and
was appointed professor of surgery in 1839. He was a successful teacher,
a clear and careful expositor of the principles of surgery, and for
many years one of the surgeons of the Royal Infirmary. He had the
reputation of being an able operator. He is the author of an elaborate
work entitled _The Principles and Practice of Surgery_, the third
edition of which appeared in 1873, thoroughly revised and enlarged.
The work extends to forty-six chapters, and the whole subject is ably
treated in a plain, simple, and clear style. As a very short specimen,
the following is from his chapter headed “Injuries of the Brain”――the
special point being concussion of the brain:――
“_Causes._――The injury which is termed by British authors concussion
of the brain, by French commotion, and in common parlance stunning, is
produced by one or other of the three following causes: a blow, or a
fall on the cranium itself, or a fall from a considerable height on
some other part of the body, as the buttocks, or the feet, by which
a sudden shock is communicated to the brain, through the medium of
the vertebral column. I lately had under my care a mason, in whose
case there were strongly marked symptoms of concussion, caused by his
falling from the second floor of a house on his buttocks; and I am
at present attending to a female, who, in consequence of the horse
becoming restive, jumped from the top of a cart loaded with hay, and
alighted on her feet, sustained fracture of one leg and concussion of
the brain. The spine in these circumstances is suddenly brought into
a state of rest, and the head being still in projectile motion is
forcibly struck against the summit of the vertebral column, the sudden
jerk thus communicated to the brain occasions concussion.”
The late Dr. Keith was one of the most eminent practical surgeons
and lithotomists of his time. He acted for many years as one of the
surgeons of the Royal Infirmary. Dr. Kerr and Dr. Fiddes were also able
surgeons.
Dr. Alexander J. Lizars was professor of anatomy from 1841 till his
death in 1863. He is the author of a text-book entitled _Elements
of Anatomy_, which evinces considerable powers of classification and
exposition. The late Dr. Francis Ogston, the first professor of medical
jurisprudence in this University, who delivered lectures for a quarter
of a century, and retired from the chair in 1883, was a gentleman of
vast experience and considerable culture. He published his lectures
on medical jurisprudence in 1878, in two volumes; and they contain an
able and remarkably clear exposition of the subject. The work has been
recognised at home and abroad as a high authority.
In the preceding part of this chapter attention has been directed to
those specially engaged in teaching medicine in Scotland, and although
my space is almost exhausted, still some notice should be given of a
few other Scotsmen who have attained distinction in this profession. Dr.
James Douglas¹ was one of the earliest and most distinguished teachers
of anatomy in Britain. After completing his studies, he settled in
London as a teacher, and attained great success. In 1707, he published
his _Specimen of Comparative Anatomy_, and it gave the most correct
account of the muscles which had up to that time appeared. In 1715, his
_Specimen of Anatomical Bibliography_ was published, in which he gives
an account of the various works on anatomy, with sketches of their
authors; and in 1726, he published a treatise on lithotomy, under the
title of _A History of the Lateral Operation for the Stone_. A second
edition appeared in 1733, with an appendix presenting a comparative
view of the methods of operating by different lithotomists, and
especially that recommended by Cheselden.² Douglas also contributed a
number of papers to the Royal Society, on the anatomy of some of the
generative organs, and reports of various cases in surgery.
¹ Born in 1674; died in 1742.
² His brother, John Douglas, was surgeon to the Westminster
Infirmary, and the author of several works. In 1736, he
published _A Short Account of the state of Midwifery in
London_, in which he severely criticised the works of
Chamberlen and Chapman; and in another publication he
derided the obstetric forceps invented by Smellie.
Dr. William Hunter was born on the 23rd of May, 1718, at Kilbride, in
Lanarkshire. He was educated at the University of Glasgow, which he
entered at the age of fourteen, and passed five years studying there.
Afterwards he received assistance in the prosecution of his medical
studies from Dr. Cullen at Hamilton, and in 1740, he attended the
medical lectures in the University of Edinburgh. In the summer of
1741, he proceeded to London, and almost immediately began his great
career as an assistant to Dr. Douglas; but Douglas died in 1742. Hunter
continued his course, and attained distinction as a lecturer and a
practising physician, gained wealth and honour, and collected his
remarkable museum, which he finally bequeathed to the University of
Glasgow.
Dr. William Hunter’s writings consist of a series of papers on several
of the internal organs of the human body; a few of his introductory
lectures on anatomy which he left fully written out; but his principal
work is _The Anatomy of the Human Gravid Uterus_, which appeared in
1775, and a more complete edition was issued by Dr. Baillie in 1794.
As a teacher of anatomy he was deservedly celebrated. “He was a good
orator, and having a clear and accurate conception of what he taught,
he knew how to place in distinct and intelligible points of view the
most abstruse subjects of anatomy and physiology.... He had the talent
of infusing much of his ardour into his pupils, and if anatomical
knowledge is more diffused in this country than formerly, we are
indebted for this, in a great measure, to his exertions.”¹ He died on
the 30th March, 1783, in London.
¹ _Account of the Life and Writings of William Hunter, M.D.,
F.A.S., and S.A._, 1783.
William Cruickshanks, the son of an officer in the excise, was born at
Edinburgh in 1745. He received the rudiments of his education at the
schools of Edinburgh: and went through a complete course of medical
study at the University of Glasgow. After devoting his attention for
eight years to medical science, he proceeded to London and obtained
the office of librarian to Dr. William Hunter. Shortly after Dr.
Hunter appointed him as his assistant; and ultimately admitted him as a
partner in superintending his establishment in Windmill Street. On the
death of Dr. Hunter, the students of the school presented an address
to Cruickshanks and Dr. Baillie, requesting that they might assume the
superintendence of the school, which they did. ♦Cruickshanks’s work
on _The Anatomy of the absorbent vessels of the Human Body_ appeared
in 1786, and it has been translated into several languages. He was
also the author of a few other papers on points connected with his
profession. He was an able anatomist, a skilful surgeon, and an
exceedingly generous and benevolent man. He died in 1800.
♦ “Cruickshank’s” replaced with “Cruickshanks’s”
John Hunter, a younger brother of the above, was born at Long
Calderwood, in the parish of Kilbride, Lanarkshire, on the 13th of
February, 1728. In 1748, he joined his brother in London, and commenced
to work in the dissecting-room, under the instruction of his brother’s
assistant. In the summer of 1749, Dr. William Hunter obtained
permission for his brother to attend at the Chelsea Hospital, under
Cheselden, who was thus John Hunter’s first teacher in surgery. In 1751,
he entered as a surgeon’s pupil at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, under
Pott; in 1754, he entered St. George’s Hospital as a surgeon’s pupil;
and two years later he served in the office of house-surgeon to this
hospital. At this time he entered as a partner with his brother in the
anatomical school, and a portion of the lectures was allotted to him;
he had also to take his brother’s place when he was absent. From the
year 1759 to 1763 he served as a staff-surgeon in the army.
He then settled down in London, prosecuted his researches in anatomy
and physiology, and delivered lectures on anatomy and surgery. In 1776,
Hunter was appointed surgeon-extraordinary to the King. After a life
of incessant research, toil in lecturing, in private practice, and in
collecting his museum, he died suddenly on the 16th of October, 1793.
His life has been written by Ottley, from whom I shall give a few brief
quotations:――“Boldness and independence in the pursuit of truth, one
of the striking characteristics of Hunter’s mind, was well exhibited
in his lectures. He attached no value to opinions, except they could
be shown to be firmly based on fact. Fallacious reasoning he quickly
saw through, and instantly demolished; while he was not more indulgent
towards his own theories when he discovered them to be erroneous....
“In forming an estimate of Hunter’s professional character, and the
influence which his labours have had on the improvement of surgery,
we are not, as with ordinary minds, simply to enumerate the various
practical amendments of which he was the immediate author. His claims
are of a far higher nature; and inasmuch as he was the first who taught
us to bring the lights of physiology to bear upon the practice of our
art, and by his writings, his teaching, and his example stimulated the
minds of numerous able followers to pursue the tract he had pointed
out, he justly merits to be considered as the author of a new era in
the history of our profession.
“In the character of a naturalist it is impossible for us to form a
full estimate of Hunter’s labours, either from his published works or
from his incomparable museum as it at present stands. In the course
of the numberless dissections which he prosecuted during thirty
years of unwearied diligence he necessarily made a great variety of
isolated observations, which, though not immediately applicable to
the objects he had in view, would doubtless have constituted important
contributions to the general stock of knowledge in comparative anatomy.
Such observations he always recorded carefully in appropriate volumes;
but by Sir Everard Home’s extraordinary destruction of his manuscripts,
science has been deprived of these fruits of his industry, of which
scarcely the smallest portion now remains in existence. But even in
such cases where the records of his researches have been preserved,
either in the form of preparations or by means of drawings forming
part of his museum, the want of descriptive catalogues has often caused
them to be overlooked, whilst more modern naturalists have been reaping
the honour of discoveries which were due in the first place to Hunter.
“Nevertheless, though we cannot estimate the full extent of his labours,
enough remains to entitle him to a place in the highest rank as a
natural philosopher.”¹
¹ Hunter’s _Works_, Volume I., pages 48, 135‒136.
A good edition of Hunter’s works, in four volumes, edited with
notes by Mr. James F. Palmer, and illustrated by a volume of plates,
in quarto, was published in 1835‒37. John Hunter was probably the
greatest physiologist that Britain has produced, taking into account
the extensive series of preparations contained in his museum and his
writings. In reference to comparative anatomy Richard Owen said in 1837:
“It appears to me that he marks a new epoch in its history, and that
the historian of the natural sciences has just and sufficient grounds
for regarding Hunter as the first of the moderns who treated of the
organs of the animal body under their most general relations, and who
pointed out the anatomical conditions which were characteristic of
great groups or classes of animals; as one, in short, throughout whose
works we meet with general propositions in comparative anatomy, the
like of which exists not in the writing of any of his contemporaries
or predecessors, save in those of Aristotle.”¹
¹ Preface to Hunter’s _Treatise on the Animal Economy_,
Hunter’s Works, Volume IV., page 11.
In conclusion, the rise and progress of medical science in Scotland has
been narrated in sufficient detail to indicate what she has contributed
to this branch of knowledge; while the gradual development of the
three centres or schools of medicine has been shown. The great work for
medical science in the future will be sanitary progress and hospital
organisation; in short, the exercise of medical knowledge and skill to
prevent disease of every description.
CHAPTER XLVI.
_Progress of Education in the Eighteenth
and Nineteenth Centuries._
AN account of the rise and progress of primary education in Scotland,
and of the act of the Scottish parliament of 1696, which enforced the
parish school system, was given in the preceding volumes; and that
system continued with little variation through the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries till the introduction of the new Education Act in
1873, which placed the management and organisation of primary schools
upon a different footing. There is little of national importance
concerning the parish schools to record in the eighteenth century.
But it should be specially observed, that even in the seventeenth
century the general intelligence of the Scotch people was in advance
of the surrounding conditions of their material civilisation; in other
words, their moral and intellectual faculties were further developed
and organised than their practical knowledge of the mechanical and
industrial arts of life. This interesting social phenomenon became
distinctly manifest before the end of the seventeenth century, as was
shown in the last volume; and, by the middle of the eighteenth century,
when the internal peace and order of the country became more assured,
then the results of the previous moral and intellectual training of the
nation appeared in every direction. Thus it was that Scotland started
on a career of progress which has not only changed the face of the
country, but also contributed to advance the industry of the civilised
world, as has been indicated in this volume.
In the Highlands of Scotland, the old parish school system was
ineffective, owing to various circumstances: (1). Some of the parishes
were so large and the inhabitants so thinly spread over them that
regular attendance at the school was impracticable; (2). No means
were provided for teaching the Celtic boys and girls through their own
language. Thus, when they entered the school, though they did not know
a word of the English language, yet teachers of the schools usually
spoke nothing but English, and taught from books entirely in English;
so Highland boys had to learn a foreign language without the least
assistance from their mother tongue. Efficient teaching by this method
was out of the question.
In the burghs and towns much interest continued to be taken in the
education of the young. In the latter half of the eighteenth century,
in Glasgow, the children were usually sent to the English school
at five or six years of age; at seven or eight they were sent to
learn Latin in the Grammar School; and at eleven or twelve they were
enrolled at the College.¹ In the schools of other towns the age at
which children entered was about the same as above.
¹ Macgregor’s _History of Glasgow_, page 361.
The Government began to give annual grants in aid of education in
1834; the first grant amounted to £20,000, which continued till 1839,
when the committee of the Privy Council on Education was instituted.
Afterwards the annual grants were gradually increased; and from 1839
to the close of the year 1865, the total sum given to the primary
schools of Scotland was £1,055,765, which was divided among the schools
connected with the Established Church, with the Free Church, the
Episcopal Church, and the Roman Catholic Church. These grants were
made conditional on a certain amount of local subscriptions being
raised, and the operation of this was extremely unsatisfactory; for
the localities most in need of assistance seldom got it――the crowded
districts in large towns, and the thinly-peopled rural districts unable
to raise the required quota of local funds, got none of the grant. The
result was that those least in want of Government money got most of it,
while those most in need of it rarely got any.
Shortly after Government grants began, Government Inspectors of Schools
were introduced into Scotland. At first there were only a few, but
they multiplied rapidly. In 1864 there were ten Government Inspectors
of Schools; six for the schools connected with the Established Church,
three for the Free Church schools, and one for the schools of the
Episcopal Church. In 1867 they had increased to thirteen; but, since
the introduction of the new Education Act in 1873, the institution
of Government Inspectors has rapidly developed. In 1879, there were
upwards of forty Inspectors of Schools in Scotland, while at present
there are over one hundred on this side of the Tweed.
The Free Church, for many years after the Disruption, gave a marked
impetus to the development of education in Scotland. From 1843 onwards
for a quarter of a century, a large number of Free Church schools
were erected throughout the country. In 1862, she had three hundred
and seventy-seven certificated male teachers, one hundred and eleven
certificated female teachers, five hundred and ninety-four male pupil
teachers, and two hundred female; while at this date the number of
teachers in the schools connected with the Established Church was six
hundred and thirty-two certificated male teachers, two hundred and
fifty certificated female teachers, eight hundred and ninety male pupil
teachers, and three hundred and eighty-five female. In 1865, the number
of male certificated teachers actually employed in teaching in the
Free Church schools was four hundred and forty-two, and twenty-three
assistant teachers, one hundred and forty-five certificated female
teachers, three hundred and eighty-one male pupil teachers, and one
hundred and seventy-two female. At the same time in the Church of
Scotland schools there were eight hundred and forty male certificated
teachers actually employed in teaching, three hundred and fifty-one
certificated female teachers, seven hundred and twenty-seven male pupil
teachers, and three hundred and fifty female. Moreover, the Free Church
has erected normal schools and colleges of her own; and thus she has
contributed to advance education in Scotland.
Since the introduction of the Education Act in 1873, many excellent
new schools have been built throughout the country. The enforcement
of the compulsory clause of the Act has been rendered more practicable
since the abolition of fees in the primary schools. In recent years,
also, there has been some improvement in the method of teaching. In the
year 1893‒94, the money expended on education in Scotland amounted to
one million and a half pounds, of which about one half came from the
Imperial Exchequer, and the other from local rates.
Sabbath schools began to be formed in Scotland about the beginning of
the present century, and within recent years they have been greatly
developed. Each body of Christians has their own system or organisation
of these schools, while there are a number of Sabbath schools in which
all denominations are welcomed, and freely taught without distinction.
Reformatory schools began to be certified by Government in Scotland
about the middle of the present century; and industrial and ragged
schools began to be certified about the same period. Both classes
of these have been established in the large towns of Scotland for a
considerable number of years; as to whether they have answered the
ends originally contemplated, is a much disputed point, on which I must
refrain from entering.
In the last volume I explained the course of education taught in
the grammar or burgh schools; and it continued with little variation
through the greater part of the eighteenth century. The teaching of
geography was introduced into those schools in the beginning of the
eighteenth century, and the elements of mathematical science began
to be generally taught about the middle of that century. In 1761,
astronomy and several other branches of physical science were taught
in the Grammar School of Ayr, and in Perth Academy.¹ There was also a
drawing-master in Perth Academy in 1777, and French was likewise taught
in Perth in 1769, Haddington in 1721, Stirling in 1755, Ayr in 1761,
and in other towns. But English was not thoroughly taught as a special
branch in the grammar schools till well through the present century.
¹ Burgh Records.
A very marked improvement has been effected in the teaching in
grammar and secondary schools within a recent period. The course of
instruction in these schools usually embraces the following branches:
――(1) Classics――Latin and Greek; (2) Arithmetic and Mathematics; (3)
Science; (4) English, French, and German; (5) Vocal and Instrumental
Music; (6) Writing and Drawing; (7) Elocution; while in some schools
Phonography, Freehand and Technical Drawing, and Handicrafts are also
taught. Many of the gentlemen at the head of these schools in Scotland
are able and highly qualified instructors and organisers, and are well
seconded by staffs of competent teachers.
There are also a number of schools and institutions specially employed
in technical and art teaching. Knowledge and skill in these branches is
becoming more necessary as civilisation advances; in order to hold our
own we must make the utmost effort.
After the notices and references to the teaching and writings of many
of the professors given in the preceding pages, it would be superfluous
to enter into long details of the Universities themselves; and I shall
only touch briefly on a few points.
A Royal Commission was issued for a visitation of the Universities
and Colleges of Scotland in August, 1826, to which I referred in
a preceding volume;¹ this commission continued its sittings and
investigations till the 28th of October, 1830, when their report
was finally revised and copies ordered to be printed. In the course
of their inquiries they collected a vast mass of evidence which
fills three very large volumes; and anyone who desires to have ample
information about the Scotch Universities, from their foundation to
1830, should consult these volumes. In 1837, a bill was brought into
parliament which proposed to appoint a board of visitors for each of
the Universities of Scotland. These boards were to act as executive
commissions to carry out, with modifications, the recommendations of
the royal commission; they were to frame statutes and regulations,
which, after receiving the sanction of the Privy Council, would then
become law. But the proposal was vehemently opposed in Scotland, and
the Government abandoned it.
¹ Mackintosh’s _History of Civilisation in Scotland_, Volume
II., page 409.
In 1843, the Disruption of the Church came, and this event had
a remarkable influence on the Scotch Universities. The Church of
Scotland could no longer present a united front in her control of the
Universities, and from that hour her hold upon them began to slacken.
A movement for University reform was inaugurated; and, in 1853, a bill
was passed in parliament which enabled Free Churchmen legally to hold
chairs in the Scotch Universities. On the 22nd April, 1858, the Lord
Advocate of Scotland brought before parliament a bill entitled, “An
Act to make provision for the better government and discipline of the
Universities, and improving and regulating the course of study therein,
etc.”; this Act was passed on the 2nd of August. Its main provisions
were the following:――
(1) The erection of a select body called the University Court, as one
of the ruling bodies, for each University; (2) a parliamentary grant of
£10,000 per annum, to increase the professors’ salaries and establish
some new chairs; (3) to provide for assistant professors; (4) clauses
providing for the amalgamation of the two Colleges of Aberdeen;
(5) the creation of University councils. The first thirteen sections
of the Act laid down the future constitution of the Universities of
Scotland; and the fourteenth named and appointed an Executive Committee
to carry the intention of the Act into effect, and to form ordinances
for the regulation of the revenues, studies, degree systems, election
of officers, and all other important points in the organisation of
the four Universities. Their decisions were subject to the review of
parliament and appeal to the Privy Council.
The commissioners held their first meeting on the 27th of August,
1858, and elected the Lord Justice Clerk of Scotland, Inglis, chairman
of the commission. The commission continued in office for four years
and some months; they held one hundred and twenty-six meetings, and
framed ninety-two ordinances, very few of which were disallowed. It was
under this Act and ordinances that the Scotch Universities were ruled;
or, in other words, the Universities are mainly controlled by the
University Court, the Senatus and General Council, under the ordinances
then framed. The following is a part of the general report of the
commission in reference to future alterations of ordinances:――“While
providing means for altering the commissioners’ ordinances, where such
alterations may be desirable, the Universities Act has been careful
to interpose securities against rash change, by requiring the consent
of the Chancellor and the Queen in Council. In this latter requirement
the commissioners understand it to have been the intention of the
legislature that the steps for effecting the alteration of an ordinance
hereafter should be precisely similar to those which were necessary
to its original sanction. It is obviously, they think, of importance
that when any such alteration is proposed, the same publicity should
be given, and equal opportunities for making objections to the proposed
change afforded, as were required in passing the ordinance. In addition,
however, to publishing any proposed change in the _Edinburgh Gazette_,
and laying it before both Houses of Parliament, which would thus be
necessary, the commissioners recommend that, before the decision of the
Queen in Council is given, intimation should in every case be made to
each of the Universities, so as to afford to any University which may
consider itself interested in the change, an opportunity of expressing
its opinion thereon. It is by no means impossible, they think, that a
proposed change, although nominally affecting one of the Universities
only, may in reality be one in which all have an interest. Thus it
has been an important object of the Universities Act, to which the
commissioners were specially directed to have regard, that as far as
possible the conditions under which degrees should be conferred should
be uniform in all the Universities of Scotland. To the attainment of
that object the commissioners used their best endeavours, and they
think it would be unfortunate if, now that a power of initiating
alterations of the ordinances is vested in each University court, that
power should be so exercised as to introduce a divergence from the
uniformity which, in a great measure, the commissioners have succeeded
in establishing.”
Since this date a Royal Commission on the Scotch Universities took
evidence, and framed a report, which contained various recommendations.
In 1889, Parliament passed “An Act for the better Administration and
Endowment of the Universities of Scotland.” This act increased the
number of the members of each of the courts of the Universities, and
constituted them on a more popular basis. The powers of the court were
also greatly extended, as the chief governing body in each University.
The court was empowered to manage the whole property and administer
the revenue of the University, to appoint professors to all the chairs
in the patronage of the University, also lecturers and examiners;
to review decisions of the Senatus Academicus; and to deal with all
representations and reports from the Senatus and General Council.
This Act like the one of 1858, appointed an Executive Commission to
carry out the intention of the Legislature. The commissioners have held
many meetings, framed a considerable number of new ordinances, and are
still proceeding with their work. An improvement in the administration
of the Universities, better organisation, and the admission of
important modern subjects in the courses of study, will widen the
scope and tend to raise the standard and value of University education.
In connection with research, science, philosophy, art, and culture,
libraries are ♦indispensable. Edinburgh has at least five valuable
libraries――The Advocates’ Library, the University Library, the Writers
to the Signet Library, the Library of the Royal Society, and a large
free library. The Advocates’ Library is the largest in Scotland, and
is one of the five libraries which receives a gratis copy of every book
published in the United Kingdom. The Signet Library is also a large and
valuable one, especially in the historical and record department. The
University Library contains about 155,000 volumes and 1000 manuscripts,
many of which are valuable and curious.
♦ “indispensible” replaced with “indispensable”
The Library of the University of Glasgow contains upwards of 172,000
volumes, and a number of manuscripts. About ten years ago the
University acquired the library of the late Sir William Hamilton,
which amounted to 8,000 volumes, including many treatises on logic
and metaphysics. This library is especially rich in works on mining,
engineering, music, and medicine.
The Stirling’s Library in Glasgow, established in 1790, contains
upwards of 40,000 volumes; it has also a lending department and a
reference department. It contains many valuable works, and a large
number of patents. Another reference library in the same building,
called the Library of Baillie’s Institution, was established in 1887
“in a hall reconstructed and fitted up for the purpose.” Through the
kindness of Mr. Mason, the late librarian, I had the pleasure of seeing
and inspecting this reference library, and I saw at once, in looking
round the shelves, that the works had been selected with remarkable
discrimination and judgment.
The Mitchell Library in Glasgow was opened in 1877. It is a reference,
consulting, and reading library, not a lending one. It contains
upwards of 72,000 volumes, representing all branches of literature and
science. In the historical department it is very complete and valuable,
especially in British history; science and art is also well represented.
Its rare collection of Scottish poetry and editions of Burns, were
already mentioned.
The Library of the University of Aberdeen contains about 94,000
volumes and a considerable number of manuscripts. There are besides,
six special or class libraries for the use of students. The Society
of Advocates in Aberdeen have a pretty large library, containing many
valuable works.
Many towns in Scotland have adopted the Free Libraries Act, among which
may be mentioned Dundee, 1869; Paisley, 1871; Galashiels, 1874; Hawick,
1878; Thurso, 1875; Forfar, 1870; Inverness, 1877; ♦Dumbarton, 1881;
Dunfermline, 1882; and Aberdeen, 1884. The organisation and management
of those libraries have already attained a remarkable degree of
completeness, and much intelligence and skill have been brought to bear
in forming the reference departments. There can be no doubt that they
will prove a source of enjoyment and benefit to the people, by placing
within the reach of every citizen the means of becoming acquainted with
the thoughts and sentiments of the great minds of the past and present.
♦ “Dunbarton” replaced with “Dumbarton”
CHAPTER XLVII.
_Progress of Agriculture in the Eighteenth
and Nineteenth Centuries._
IN the early part of the eighteenth century agriculture was in a
wretchedly backward state. The whole area under cultivation was
comparatively small; even in the Lothians and the southern counties
of the kingdom, only patches of what was called “infield” were under
tillage. Oats and barley were the chief crops; wheat as yet was little
raised; clover and rye-grass, potatoes and turnips, were hardly then
introduced. The use of manure was little understood; loads were mostly
all carried on horseback, and there was no cattle-feeding as now
understood. The whole of the agricultural and farming implements were
of the most primitive and rude description. The ploughs were made of
wood, and long after this period timber-ploughs were used in some parts
of Scotland; in fact, I have seen them working. The plough-wright made
the body of the implement; it was then sent to the smith, who fitted
it with two or three pieces of iron. The farm-steadings were in general
little better than a collection of huts.
James Meikle, a country wright of Wester Keith, having learned the art
of winnowing corn with a machine, and of making barley with the use of
a mill, in Holland, brought to Scotland a pair of fanners, and the iron
work of a barley-mill. About the year 1720, the barley-mill and the
winnowing machine were set up at Saltoun. But the people were slow in
adopting these machines in farming work. Andrew Meikle, a son of James
Meikle, was an ingenious mechanic; and he settled at Houston Mill, in
East Lothian, where he carried on the several occupations of a small
farmer, a miller, and a mill-wright. He directed his attention to the
improvement of agricultural machinery, especially to that connected
with the thrashing, winnowing, dressing, and grinding of grain. He
often travelled through the counties of Edinburgh and Berwick to repair
and fit up mills. But his most important achievement was the invention
of the thrashing-machine. Many attempts had been made before his time
to invent a machine for thrashing corn, but without effect. After many
years of thinking and planning, Meikle at last succeeded in perfecting
his thrashing-machine, to which he joined solid fluted feeding-rollers,
and afterwards a machine for shaking the straw, fanners for winnowing
the corn, and other improvements.
He erected his first thrashing machine on the new principle in 1787,
for Mr. Stein of Kilbeggie, in the county of Clackmannan; but the
novelty of the experiment, and the doubts of the efficacy of the
machine, induced Mr. Stein to impose the condition that if it did not
answer the intended purpose, Meikle was not to receive any payment
for it. This thrashing-machine, which was driven by waterpower, proved
highly satisfactory, and long continued in good working order. The
second machine, which he erected the same year, was for Mr. Rennie, at
Phantassie; and he had so perfected it that it could be driven by water,
wind, or horses, and this one was worked by the latter power. In 1788,
Meikle took out a patent for his invention; but it is sad to record
that he did not reap those pecuniary advantages from his invention
which a more bold and self-assertive man would have done. “Pirates
fell upon him from all sides and deprived him of the fruits of his
ingenuity, even denying him any originality whatever. Mr. Smeaton
(the famous engineer) knew Meikle intimately, and frequently met him
in consultation respecting the arrangements of the Dalry Mills, near
Edinburgh, and other works; and he was accustomed to say of him, that
if he had possessed but one-half the address of other people, he would
have rivalled all his contemporaries, and stood forth as one of the
first mechanical engineers in the kingdom.”¹
¹ Smiles’ _Lives of the Engineers_, Volume II., pages 105‒114.
The thrashing-machine was one of the greatest benefits ever conferred
upon the husbandman: it effected a vast saving of corn and of labour.
“It is calculated to have effected a saving, as compared with the
flail, of one hundredth part of the whole corn thrashed, or equal to a
value of not less than two millions sterling, in Great Britain alone.”
Within twenty years after the date of Meikle’s patent, upwards of
three hundred thrashing-mills were erected in East Lothian alone, at
an estimated cost of about forty thousand pounds; and soon after, it
was generally adopted in England and throughout the civilised world.
Meikle also introduced improvements in working the sails of windmills,
and important improvements in water-wheels, which on one occasion
proved effectual in carrying out a remarkable undertaking in Perthshire.
This was the washing away into the river Forth of about two thousand
acres of peat moss, and thus laying bare an equal surface of arable
land. The moss of Kincardine was a level swamp of about four miles
long and two broad; the moss was seven feet in depth upon a bottom of
clay, and lay between the rivers Forth and Teith. In 1766, Lord Kames
came into possession of the Blair-Drummond estate, to which this moss
belonged, and he resolved if possible to improve it. His plan was to
wash away the entire moss into the Forth, and to effect this the water
of the Teith was used; accordingly, the stream was turned in upon the
moss and men employed to cut the stuff for the current to carry away.
But the process was rather slow, and when his lordship died in 1783,
a thousand acres still remained, which his son, Mr. Home Drummond,
determined to remove by a more rapid process. He consulted several
engineers, and Mr. Whitworth recommended a plan; but George Meikle, a
millwright at Alloa, the son of Andrew, proposed another, the invention
of his father; and Whitworth at once acknowledged its superiority to
his own, and urged Mr. Drummond to adopt it. “The invention consisted
of a newly-contrived wheel, twenty-eight feet in diameter and ten feet
broad, for raising water in a simple, economical, and powerful manner,
at the rate of from forty to sixty hogsheads a minute; and it was
necessary so to raise it about seventeen feet, in order to reach the
higher parts of the land. The machinery on being erected was set to
work, and with such good results that in the course of a very few years
the four miles of barren moss were completely washed away, and the
district was shortly after covered with thriving farmsteads, as it
remains to this day.”¹
¹ Tytler’s _Life of Lord Kames_, Volume II., pages 27‒30;
Smiles’ _Lives of the Engineers_, Volume II., pages 115‒116.
Andrew Meikle was the first master who trained John Rennie,
the well-known Scotch engineer.
Other requisite agricultural implements were gradually improved and
adopted. In the department of ploughs and other implements used in land
tillage, the Sellars of Huntly, in Aberdeenshire, were among the first
in Scotland who made and introduced an effective and superior class of
such implements, which have contributed much to the improvement of the
tillage of the soil in the present century. The ploughs of this firm
(the drill-plough) effected a saving of labour, and their single-furrow
ploughs when worked by capable men produced a quality of work as yet
unsurpassed in any quarter of the globe.
In the present century all kinds of agricultural implements have
been brought to great perfection; and within my own recollection
a revolution has been effected in agricultural machines. The water
and horse-power thrashing-mills were a great improvement, and in
the early part of this century a vast number of them were erected
throughout the north and west of Scotland. Now there are not only
stationary thrashing-mills driven by steam, but also locomotive steam
thrashing-machines which can travel from end to end of the country,
and operate wherever they are required. While, instead of sowing
grain and other seeds with the hand, there are now various kinds of
sowing-machines; and instead of cutting with the hand-hook or scythe
as of old, there are cutting-machines and reaping-machines in endless
variety. Instead of the wooden plough, with its point of iron, which
only scratched the soil, although it was drawn by twelve oxen, there
are many kinds of iron ploughs drawn by horses, and also steam ploughs.
Such contrasts show the advance which has been attained.
The enclosing of waste lands for pasture was begun in the district of
Galloway about 1720, by the cattle-dealers, who bought and pastured
live stock which they drove to the English markets. In course of time
their example was followed by some of the landholders in different
parts of the country. The Earl of Haddington, Cockburn of Ormiston in
East Lothian, the Earls of Stair and Eglinton in Ayrshire, and others
became improvers of husbandry upon their estates. In 1733, they formed
the plan of a Society for the Encouragement of Agriculture, and in a
short time three hundred of the principal landowners in Scotland joined
it. This society continued in vigour for twenty years, and contributed
to diffuse a spirit of improvement over a considerable part of the
country.¹ It is reported that Cockburn was among the first landlords
in Scotland who granted nineteen years’ leases to their tenants.
¹ “Infinite good was done by this society to their country,
particularly by receiving memorials, and answering queries,
concerning husbandry and manufactures; by their proposals
relative to the public funds, drawn up by a committee of
their number; by their application to the royal burghs for
their concurrence; by their joint application to parliament;
by the acts in consequence of that application, and by the
king’s patent following thereon, naming trustees for the
fisheries and manufactures, almost all chosen out of this
society. Before this society commenced, we seemed to have
been several centuries behind our neighbours in England;
now, I hope we are within less than one of what they are,
either with regard to husbandry or manufactures.” Maxwell’s
_Practical Husbandry_; Edinburgh, 1757. The appointment
of the Board of Trustees for the Encouragement of the
Fisheries, Arts and Manufactures, spoken of in the quotation,
arose from the Treaty of Union. In the 15th article it
was stipulated that a sum of money, termed the equivalent,
should be paid by England, and applied to public purposes
in Scotland; thus the duties of the Board were to administer
this fund.
At this time, however, a large part of the land in the best parts
of the country was occupied by a number of small holders who shared
the ground among them by alternate ridges; this custom of run-ridge
possession was inconsistent with good farming, and retarded improvement.
As clearer and wiser ideas of agriculture were gradually formed, this
system decayed and died out, excepting in some remote parts of the
Highlands, where it was practised till recently.
After the battle of Culloden, the forfeited estates were placed under
the management of a Board of Commissioners, of whom Lord Kames was
one; and his duty as a member of this Board gave him an opportunity
of considering plans for the improvement of those large domains, of
which they had the charge for the public benefit. The first step was
to obtain a correct report of the actual position of those estates, the
soils of the different farms, the modes of culture in use, the crops
usually raised, the manures used, the prices of labour and provisions,
and, in general, every kind of information which might tend to suggest
the best modes of improving the lands. Mr. Andrew Wight of Ormiston, an
active and intelligent man, was proposed by Lord Kames, and appointed
by the Board to proceed under a set of instructions and make a survey.
His reports were issued in 1773 and 1774, and they were deemed so
satisfactory that the Commissioners adopted from them a number of
wise regulations for the management of those estates, and carried
out the most effective improvements of the lands.¹ With the view of
extending those advantages to the whole country, they engaged Wight
to continue his surveys and to draw up similar reports of the actual
state of agriculture in every quarter of Scotland. The result was,
the collection of a vast body of useful information, which was printed
in six volumes, from 1778 to 1784, and contributed much to raise
the spirit of improvement, which from this date has been continually
progressive――insomuch that before the end of the century the state of
agriculture in the Lowlands was completely changed, and the face of the
country had assumed a new aspect.
¹ This Board was of course superseded when the forfeited
estates were restored in 1784.
But in the Highlands and Islands the changes which were effected with
regard to the relation of the people to the land, in the latter part of
the last century and the early part of this one, were of a questionable
and less beneficial character; but I have elsewhere discussed this part
of the subject, and deem it unnecessary to enlarge on it here.¹
¹ _Celtic Magazine_ for January, 1887.
The Society for the Encouragement of Agriculture in Scotland, formed
in 1733, referred to in a preceding page, was the first Society of
the kind in Britain. The Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland
was instituted in 1784, and established by Royal Charter in 1887. It
has thus had a continuous life of one hundred and twelve years; and
has directed attention to the important matters of breeding cattle and
horses, and stimulated the improvement of agriculture in many ways.¹
In the present century, agricultural societies and associations have
been formed in every county and district in Scotland, and have attained
a high stage of development. Their chief object is the improvement
of live stock of every description, and also the improvement of all
kinds of cereals which may be advantageously cultivated on farms,
and all kinds of vegetables useful and profitable for animal and
human food. That these societies have done incalculable good, and
contributed greatly to the progress of civilisation in Scotland,
cannot be questioned; because they have been instrumental in improving
the quality and increasing the quantity of the prime necessaries of
existence.
¹ The history of this society has been admirably written by
Dr. Ramsay, the editor of the _Banffshire Journal_, in a
work which was published in 1879.
In the present century one of the most remarkable changes in
agriculture has been the extension of the cultivation of turnips. Prior
to this century they were but little cultivated in Scotland: but when
the modern method of feeding cattle for sale in the great centres of
population began to be developed, it became necessary to put a larger
portion of the cultivated land of the country annually under this crop.
In the north-eastern counties of Scotland the most common modes of
rotation of crops on farms are these:――(1) The farm is divided into
five shifts or divisions, one of which is under turnips, excepting a
small proportion of it usually under potatoes; (2) two out of the five
divisions are under grain crops; and (3) the remaining two are under
grass. Under this mode of farming there is always nearly one-fifth of
the entire extent of the farm under turnips. Again: (1) The farm is
divided into seven shifts, one of which is under turnips, excepting
the small fraction under potatoes; (2) three out of the seven equal
divisions of the farm are under grain crops; and (3) the remaining
three are under grass. Under this mode of rotation a seventh part of
the farm is always under turnips. I have seen farms worked under six
shifts, but this mode is not common in Scotland. The common grain crops
are oats, barley and wheat.
Breeding, rearing, and feeding cattle have attained a high degree of
development within the present century in Scotland. As a consequence
of this the rent of cultivated land has also risen greatly; and I
may repeat what I stated elsewhere not ten years ago:――“The sharpest
period of competition in farm-letting was during the second and third
quarters of the present century. From about 1830 to 1876 the rent of
agricultural land in Scotland rose at least from 30 to 40 per cent.,
and there were several causes which enabled farmers for a time to pay
this rise of rents:――(1) There was a marked change and improvement in
the modes of culture; (2) there was a notable change in the system of
feeding cattle, and an immense increase in the number of cattle thus
fed; (3) greater attention and care were paid to the important matter
of breeding; (4) there was an almost continuous rise in the price of
fat cattle during this period. Thus it was, and especially owing to the
latter cause, that farmers were able to pay such high rents.
“This period was also one of great commercial activity and prosperity,
unapproached before in the annals of Scotland. But this brought
outsiders into the number of those competing for farms; as many men
who had made fortunes in trade and commerce desired to have farms, and
offered high rents――often more than they were worth. This for a time
tended to raise rents still higher. But eighteen years ago it became
manifest that the rents of land in Scotland were too high, for the
price of fat cattle had fallen about 15 shillings per hundredweight,
which represents a sum of from £6 to £7 per head on ordinary fat
cattle. This fall in the price of fat cattle is mainly owing to two
causes:――(1) To the long-continued depression of trade throughout the
civilised world; (2) to the importation of preserved meat and live
stock, chiefly from America. Thus it has happened that at the present
time many of the farmers in Scotland cannot continue to pay the rents
which they may have contracted to do before the fall in the price of
fat cattle.”
Thus far I have indicated the improvement and progress of agriculture
in Scotland, and pointed out its prime and fundamental importance in
relation to the advancement of civilisation. I have also indicated the
real state of the question of land rents as it at present stands in
Scotland.
In conclusion, it may be remarked that in the early part of the
eighteenth century the common wage of day labourers was fivepence a day
in winter and sixpence in summer. And within my own recollection, the
most capable farm-servant acting as foreman only received six pounds of
wages for the half year, and second and third class men five and four
pounds, youths from two to three pounds, and boys from one pound to
two pounds according to their strength and appearance. In regard to the
quality of food there was not much difference between the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries, so far as farm-servants were concerned.
In the present century horticulture began to receive more attention,
and within the last sixty years it has attained a considerable
development. Horticultural societies began to be formed in the first
quarter of the century, and such societies now exist all over the
country, and form a source of enjoyment to a large number of people.
CHAPTER XLVIII.
_Progress of Mining, Manufactures, and Commerce,
in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries._
SECTION I.
_Coal, Iron, and Lead Mining._
IN the Introduction, it was stated that the country was rich in the
raw materials of industry;¹ and in the preceding volumes an account
was given of the various attempts at mining, and the introduction of
manufactures, to the end of the seventeenth century. In this chapter
an effort has been made to present a clear and concise account of
the development of mining operations, the manufacture of iron, the
development of the means of communication and commerce, and, finally,
of all the chief branches of manufactures.
¹ Mackintosh’s _History of Civilisation in Scotland_, Volume I,
page 29.
The carboniferous system of Scotland has been fully treated by
geologists, and its peculiarities and extent have been often described.
Although broken strata of coal have been found in the Western Islands
and Sutherlandshire, the great coal-bearing strata of Scotland extends
from Fife Ness across the country in the line of the valleys of the
Forth and Clyde. The superficial area of the coal-fields of this region
is calculated to be about 1600 square miles.
The carboniferous or coal-bearing system occurs immediately above the
old red sandstone, and it consists of a series of formations, which are
usually classed in four groups thus:――(1) The upper strata, commonly
called “the true coal-measures”――a thick series of sandstones, shales,
fireclays, some impure limestones, ironstones, and numerous coal seams;
(2) Millstone grit――generally a local formation of moderate thickness,
consisting of gritty sandstones, with inter-stratified shales and
thin seams of coal; (3) Mountain or carboniferous limestone――a series
of thick-bedded marine limestones, with some shales, sandstones, and
thin seams of coal; (4) Lower coal measures――a great thickness of
fine sandstone and grits, with shales, fireclays, ironstone, shell
and fresh-water limestones, and thinnish seams of coal. Thus coal and
ironstone occur in the same group of strata.
The coal seams and beds occur in all degrees of breadth and thickness.
At Johnstone, in Renfrewshire, there was a seam of 100 feet in
thickness, but it is exceptional; while the thickest seam in the
Lothians is only 13 feet.¹ The centre of the coal-fields is Clydesdale,
where about one-half of the Scotch collieries are placed; they extend
through or touch upon thirteen counties, and of these Lanarkshire
has the greatest number, and Ayrshire, Fifeshire, Stirlingshire,
Edinburghshire, and Linlithgowshire follow in order. In most of
these counties, more or less valuable beds of ironstone, shale, and
♦limestone are intermixed with the coal.
¹ Coal is found in layers or seams varying from one inch up to
thirty or forty feet in thickness, but seven or eight feet
is the maximum thickness of single seams; miners consider
one which measures five feet as a thick bed, and seams of
one foot or under are not deemed worth working.
♦ “limeston eare” replaced with “limestone are”
In the early part of the eighteenth century the coal-mining operations
in Scotland were on a very small scale; but considerable progress
was made before the end of the century. When the shallower parts
of the coal-fields were exhausted, it became necessary to form the
sinking shafts. The early mode of mining was simply to drive into
the coal-seams tunnels; but only a small extent of the seams could
be worked in that way, when the tunnels became dangerous by the
accumulation of foul air. Where the seams dipped downwards, water
accumulated, and much labour was required to keep the workings clear.
After the method of working the coal by shafts descending to the seams
was adopted, contrivances for raising the coal and keeping the pits
clear of water were introduced. In some pits the coal and water both
were drawn up by a winch worked by men; in others, chain and bucket
engines were employed for hoisting the water out of the pit. In 1762
a steam-engine was used for the first time at a coal pit in Scotland.
Few of the pits of those days exceeded a depth of twenty or thirty
fathoms, and with such appliances as were then available the difficulty
of working them was great.¹
¹ _Industries of Scotland_, by D. Bremner, page 4; 1869.
From this date to the end of the century the coal trade increased
slowly but steadily; and, as steam-power began to be more and more
applied to manufactures, the consumption of coal increased. When
steam-ships and railways were introduced a much greater demand for coal
arose. But there were some unpleasant and unsatisfactory conditions
connected with the working of the coal mines which cannot be passed
over unnoticed.
In a preceding volume the state of the workmen in mines and at
salt-works was explained;¹ in short, they were in a state of
semi-slavery until 1775, when they were emancipated by an act of
parliament. So it could not be expected that men kept in this condition
for centuries would at once assume the spirit and characteristics
of those who had been long accustomed to the exercise of liberty and
freedom. In the year 1842, it was found that children and women were
employed in the coal mines of Scotland, as well as in those of England.
An act of parliament was then passed prohibiting the employment of
children and women in coal pits; but neither this act nor subsequent
ones were altogether effective for a long time. There were, however,
a number of Scotch pits in which women and children had never been
employed; and at present the mines are placed under a regular system
of inspection.
All the collieries in Scotland are now worked by steam-power; and
various attempts have been made to apply this power to machinery for
excavating the coal. Seams of coal are now worked at a much greater
depth than they could have been before steam-power was introduced.
The Nitshill Pit in Renfrewshire is 175 fathoms in depth――one of the
deepest in Scotland.
¹ Mackintosh’s _History of Civilisation in Scotland_, Volume
III., page 291.
In 1866, the quantity of coal raised in Scotland was 12,034,638
tons; and the same year, the declared value of the coal exported
from Scotland was £515,805: the quantity of coal, cinders, and culm
represented by this would amount to about 1,500,000 tons. Since this
date the annual produce has greatly increased. In 1875 the minerals
raised in the Scotch coal-fields amounted to a total of 21,778, 480
tons, consisting of coal, ironstone, limestone, and oil-shale.
In 1871, there were 47,620 persons employed in coal mining in Scotland;
and of this number, 14,497 were under twenty years of age; and out of
the total there were 355 females engaged in this work, of whom 184 were
under twenty years of age. The hands were distributed in the centres of
the mining industry thus:――In Lanarkshire, 23,658; in Ayrshire, 8208;
in Fifeshire, 4646; in Stirlingshire, 3822; in Edinburghshire, 3399;
in Linlithgowshire, 1721; and the remaining number were distributed
among the counties of Haddington, Clackmannan, Dumbarton, Renfrew,
and Dumfries. In 1891 the coal miners were distributed thus:――In
Lanarkshire, 38,000; in Ayrshire, 10,910; in Fifeshire, 8,352;
Stirlingshire, 5,230; Edinburghshire, 4, 113; Linlithgowshire, 3,213;
and the remainder in the other counties above indicated.
In 1875, in these districts there were upwards of 76,000 persons
employed in raising coal, ironstone, and lime. In 1891 the number of
coal, ironstone, and shale miners was 82,701. The pits through which
the minerals are raised vary from 30 to 180 fathoms in depth, and as
a rule are not heavily watered.
Touching the wages and the social condition of the coal miners much
might be said, but space is limited, and brevity must be observed.
In no occupation has there been a greater fluctuation of wages in the
present century than in that of the coal miner. In Lanarkshire, in
1836, the daily wage was 5 shillings; the next year a reduction was
made to 4 shillings; and a strike ensued which lasted four months, and
then the men returned to work at the terms offered. Wages gradually
declined, and in 1842 they were as low as 2 shillings 6 pence and
1 shilling 8 pence a day. Their union was then renewed, and they went
out on strike; and this time the masters yielded and granted an advance
of 1 shilling; but it was soon after reduced again. In 1847, there was
a great strike, when the men stood out for 5 shillings a day; they,
however, recommenced work at 3 shillings a day, which in a few weeks
after was reduced to 2 shillings a day. In 1851, the average wage of
miners was 2 shillings 6 pence a day; but in 1852, the Scottish Miners’
Association was formed, “for the protection of miners’ rights and
privileges.” In 1854, the daily wage was 5 shillings; but a gradual
fall followed, and in 1858 the average wage was 3 shillings¹ From this
date onwards for about fifteen years the coal miners’ wages in Scotland
continued to rise till they reached the figures of 8 shillings, 10
shillings, and even 12 shillings a day; then they fell greatly. In 1887
their wages was only 2 shillings 6 pence a day: a rate which was too
low for their class of labour, or for any body of regularly working men.
Since then their wages have fluctuated. There has been several strikes,
and an extremely disastrous one in 1894.
¹ _Notices of some of the Principal Manufactures of the West
of Scotland_, page 14; 1878.
The sons of miners generally follow the occupation of their fathers,
and begin to work at twelve years of age, when he enters the pit and
“is attached to his father or some other man, and becomes known as
a ‘quarter-man.’ The miner with whom he works is entitled to put out
one-fourth more coal than if he worked without assistance, and from
the price received for the extra quantity he pays the boy, whose
duty it is to fill the coal into the ‘tubs’ and convey it to the
pit bottom. At fourteen, the boy becomes a ‘half-man;’ at sixteen, a
‘three-quarter-man;’ and at eighteen, he assumes the title of ‘miner,’
performs a man’s work, and draws a man’s pay.”¹
¹ _Industries of Scotland_, by D. Bremner, page 22.
As a class, the coal-miners of Scotland have had upon the whole a hard
lot, and their present condition is not a comfortable or happy one.
Although in recent years their houses have been rebuilt, which in early
days were wretched huts, still many of their dwellings are far from
comfortable. They are small: their dimension is usually twelve feet by
fifteen; but of course there are exceptions at some of the collieries.
At the Dalkeith Colliery, which belongs to the Duke of Buccleuch, the
miners’ houses are well constructed and commodious, with spaces of
ground attached to them for drying clothes or as playground for the
children.
It has to be understood that those engaged as iron-miners all work
within the district of the coal fields; in fact, the ironstone miners’
work differs but little from that of the coal-miner. Although it
was known that ironstone existed in the Scotch coal measures before
the eighteenth century, little was done in the way of mining or
manufacturing iron in Scotland before that century, and it was only
towards the end of it that the manufacture assumed much importance.
At first there were only a few persons employed in mining for iron,
and in the last century the number of iron-miners were not numerous.
But the great development of the iron trade in the present century
increased the number of miners of every description. In 1871, the
number of persons employed in mining for metals was 14,201, and of this
number 3830 were under twenty years of age, and among them there were
20 female miners. The number directly engaged in mining for iron was
9087.
In the preceding volumes it was noticed that lead ore exists in
Scotland, and has been worked in many parts of the country, but only in
a few cases has it proved remunerative. At present, four or five mines
are worked, and the total produce is about 1500 tons of pure lead per
annum. The chief mines are at Leadhills in Lanarkshire, about fifty
miles from Glasgow, and Wanlockhead in Dumfriesshire. The veins of ore
in these mines have been worked to a depth of from 70 to 140 fathoms.
In 1861, there were 538 lead-miners in Scotland; and in 1871, there
were 600 employed, and of this number six were females. In 1891 the
number had fallen to 432.
Traces of copper ore have been found in many places in Scotland, and
from early times attempts have been made to work the veins, but only
in a very few cases with success. In 1861, there were forty-one copper
miners in Scotland; in 1871, there were thirty-six, one of whom was
a female. In 1891, there were only thirteen. In 1871, the number of
persons employed in connection with mining for minerals and metals――as
mineral borers, sinkers, and mine service, was 4000.