CHARLES WATERTON, NATURALIST.

“That Mr. Simson had a duty—to himself as well as to the public—to

perform in justifying his previous remarks about Charles Waterton, by

writing this monograph, is unquestionable. Although it is a somewhat

difficult task unsparingly to point out the mistakes and shortcomings of

a man, when he can no longer defend himself, without seeming to be guilty

of an offence against the old rule—_Nil nisi bonum de mortuis_—Mr. Simson

may fairly claim credit for having adhered to the Shakespearian advice in

regard to fault-finding; for, if he has extenuated nothing, he has set

down naught in malice. The example of Charles Waterton, country

gentleman and naturalist, may serve as a useful warning to students of

natural history, by teaching them that only the most patient

investigation and careful reflection can produce results that will be of

real and permanent value to science. They have here the example of a man

who had most excellent opportunities for such investigations, as well as

the strongest taste for their pursuit, and who, by an exact and

systematic method of study, might have made most important additions to

our knowledge of natural history. But by inaccurate observation, by a

certain looseness of statement, and by taking things for granted instead

of personally verifying them, he has greatly diminished the value of his

labours. Mr. Simson, though his task is to set right the unduly high

estimate in which the squire of Walton Hall has been held as a man of

science, shows an appreciation of the strong points of his character that

completely takes away any appearance of censoriousness; and his work

incidentally affords an interesting study of the man himself, who, in his

personal life and his enthusiastic devotion to natural history, showed a

strong individuality that is quite refreshing in this age of

conventionalities.”—_Aberdeen Journal_, _August_ 30, 1880.

* * * * *

Was John Bunyan a Gipsy? · 第 16 / 21 题