tue, and wish for applaufe at the expence of truth and moral rectitude. We regret to think that fuch characters are not merely imaginary; and all who confider the influence of literature on the most worthy and ufeful clafs of fociety, muft acknowledge a neceffity for the exercife of the higheft candour and juftice in works of criticifm. Poffeffing, as we do, the most unlimited liberty of difcuffion, in a national view, it is the part of wisdom to enjoy it without abuse. Its abuse in any fhape, indeed, is an evil more to be dreaded at prefent than any other with which we are, or likely to be, threatened. Eftimating then the volume before us, with that impartial justice dus, as well to the author as the public, it is with reluctance that we are compelled to object to its expenfive magnitude, and to its contents, which are too often trifling, and even difhonorable to fcience. Of the juftness of this opinion, our readers will be convinced in the progrefs of our analyfis. As to the object of the work, we readily admit its general utility. A knowledge of fyftems, though extremely apt to engender vanity and habits of too fuperficial thinking, is nevertheless favourable to the difcovery of anal gies in nature, to quickness of perception, methodical arrangement, perfpicuity, and facility, that tend to correct the eccentricities, and ftrengthen the powers, of the youthful mind. There is nothing, however, that requires fuch a rigid exercife of the judgment, as the application of fyftems to our obfervations of natural objects; and the utmost care fhould be taken not to contract the habit of viewing things through a fyftem, instead of previously contemplating features, and afterwards contrafting analogies whence a fyftem fhould naturally arife. It is, indeed, justly obferved by Locke, that fyftem-makers always bring fomething to our knowledge; but it ought to be remembered, that there is a great difference between the original genius that forms, and that which implicitly adopts, fyftems, and that the latter oftener impede than accelerate the progrefs of real knowledge. The general tendency of the prefent work will appear in the fequel.

Dr. Maton commences with a preface, in which he endeavours to account for the origin and progrefs of the extraordinary document that he calls the "Diary of Linnæus," until it came into his pofletfion. It appears, indeed, in a very questionable fhape;" but the editor difcovers fo little addrefs in the management of facts and dates, that we feel little difpofed to afcribe it to him. On the contrary, in the very attempt to elucidate, he has ftrangely perplexed the most fimple and common occurrences in life; and the fchoolboy that would be confused with so plain a cafe, would be more likely to fuffer from the whip of his mafter, than from the envy of his companions. We fhallftate the prefumed facts, from which Dr. M. has had the ingenuity to infer contradictory fuppofitions, merely by neglecting or forgetting the common artifice or mode of apologifing for the introduction of fuch grofs felf-approbation as would otherwife neceffarily convict its author of extravagant vanity. Perhaps, indeed, Dr. M.'s devotion to

1

his

his great master prevented him from thinking, that any apology for fuch writing was neceffary on the part of Linnæus, or ever once fulpecting the existence of this naturalit's inflated vanity: if so, we pity him moft fincerely.

66

appears, that Linnæus, in 1762, wrote to his friend Archbishop Menander, that he had drawn up his own panegyric," his " curriculum vita," and, with a due fenfe of fhame, obferves, that "propria laus fordet, he should not have mentioned it to any other perfon." In 1769, he again reverts to his curriculum vitæ, in one of his letters, and apologizes, on account of his age, for his glaring felf-love. In January 1770, menaced by disease, and alarmed by the death of many of his old friends, Linnæus finally refolved to fend it to the Archbishop, that he fhould tranflate it into Latin, and fend it to the French Academy. The curriculum vitæ, abfurdly and erroneously tranflated Diary," is continued to the end of 1769; yet Dr. M. is grievously embarraffed to account for its being mentioned by Linnæus in 1762, with the fomewhat modeft, apologetical expreffion, propria laus fordet, and ftrangely fuppofes, that it was forwarded at that period, but not received by the Archbishop till 1770! In oppofition to dates, our author makes this fuppofition, that implies a confcioufnefs of much of the Diary, at least the latter part, being merely a fabrication, although he gives a translation of one of Linnæus's letters, in which he exprefsly mentions the day (in January 1770), and person, by whom he had fent his memoirs to Dr. Menander. Of this difgraceful medley we fhall fpeak hereafter; but we cannot help regarding it, if not entirely, at least by far the greater part, as fpurious; the effufions of a dotard, and a grofs infult to the memory of this moft industrious and fyftematic author. It is, indeed, acknowledged to have been written by different perfons, and therefore ought not to have been foifted on the public as the genuine production of Linnæus.

To the "Memoirs of Dr. Pulteney," we turned with all that eagerness which the remembrance of the latter days of a friend excites, for a more complete knowledge of him in his youthful moments. Notwithstanding the in fefinitenefs of the term Memoirs, it ftill raises our expectation of meeting with fome new information of the origin, progrefs, particular characteristic, and final departure of a character fomewhat diftinguished above the mafs of fociety. We expected, at leaft, fome account of his method of ftudy, peculiar bias of his mind, and mode of thinking; his paffions, virtues, and vices; his acts of munificence and philanthropy (if any); and, above all, the means by which he acquired his knowledge, and fo extenfive a fortune in an obfcure country-town (Blandford, Dorfet), that it might be useful to fucceeding generations. These are points which Dr. M. has either totally neglected, or very flightly touched; and he must be very little curious who would be fatisfied with the fcanty, and not always accurate, information that is contained in our author's thirty quarto pages. Had the editor confulted Dr. Arnold of Leicester, or the Philofophical

Magazine

Magazine for 1802, he would have found fome more authentic and ufeful information refpecting the fubject of his Memoirs.

It is ftated, that Dr. R. Pulteney was born in 730, at Loughborough, in Leicestershire; that, of thirteen children, he was the only one who attained maturity that, being educated in the Calviniftic faith, he was early apprenticed to a (diffenting) apothecary, with only the rudiments of a grammar- fchool education; and that from his 'uncle, Mr. G. Tomlinfon of Hathern, he imbibed a tafte for botany and natural history. From Dr. Arnold, a pupil of Dr. P. we learn, that, by the example and inftruction of Mr. Tomlinfon, he began to form catalogues of plants, and a Hortus Siccus, at the early age of eight or nine years; and that at twelve, in 1742, he difcovered the campanula patula in Buddon Wood, the feeds of which he afterwards fent to the botanic gardens of Chelsea, and the British Museum. About this period of his juvenile labours in botany, he was principally affifted by the immortal writings of Ray, and the wooden cuts of flowers, with the vulgar defcriptions then in ufe. Thefe extraordinary indications of early talents and particular tafte are, perhaps, rarely fucceeded, as in the prefent fubject, by an adequate production of genius and induftry, and ought not to have been totally omitted by Dr. M. In 1750 he began to write, and difpatched his anonymous communications to the Gentleman's Magazine, a dry catalogue of which are here given, to the extent of twenty different fubjects of botanical knowledge, befides fome botanical and medical papers, com. municated to the Royal Society. Dr. P. continued in the very limited sphere of a village apothecary, purfuing his botanical ftudies, until 1764, when, by great good fortune, he had become acquainted with that veteran friend of talents and virtue, Dr. Garthfhore, who not only urged him to accompany him to Edinburgh, to be examined for a phyfician, but, by his connection and influence in that University, procured him the degree of Doctor of Phyfic, without his having ever ftudied in any college or regular fchool of medicine, and contrary to the established laws of that Univerfity. This folitary and unprece dented approbation of genuine merit ftill remains without imitation, and is equally honourable to the judgment of the patron, the perfon patronized, and to the approving college, as no two profeffors were ever farther removed from thofe arts of quackery that difgrace many regular, but weak-minded, phyficians of the prefent age. Our editor negligently omits or mifreprefents part of this circumftance, which forms an epoch in the hiftory of Dr. P. that gave a new character and destination to the remainder of his life; and in gratitude for which he not only continued to entertain the livelieft efteem for his early friend, Dr. Garthfhore, but left him at his death a handfome legacy, and another on the demife of Mrs. Pulteney.

On the few characteristic sketches of Dr. P. with which our author (we regret that we cannot fay, biographer) entertains us, we must be permitted fome obfervations. We would not detract from merit, nor

withhold

withhold its due reward, ftill lefs cenfure the partiality of gratitude and friendship, with some modern pseudo-moralifts; but we must ever deprecate all attempts to exalt the merits of one character by a difingenuous depreciation of others. When the editor tells us, that Dr. P. " ftudiously kept himself aloof from the petty diffenfions and cabals which fo frequently fubfift in a country town," he gives an example of prudence: when he adds, "being fully aware that too great a familiarity of intercourfe with the general mass of the people, is deftructive of that respect which it ought to be the first object of a phyfician to fecure, he preferred remaining at his poft, in converfe with his books," he expreffes a melancholy truth, of monaftic, origin, that fhews the neceffity of policy rather than virtue to acquire diftinction. The isolated fituation of Dr. P. prefcribed to him the power of evincing the truth or falsehoood of the following affertion. "He was no lefs

anxious to preferve independence and dignity of character among his medical brethren, neither entering into any of those humiliating leagues, nor courting any of those interested intimacies, which are fo frequent between different orders of practitioners." We fhall leave this infi nuation to the confideration of certain honorary quacks, who have accumulated fortunes rather by their fpeculations on humanity, than by the number of cures that they have effected; to affociated profeffors, and to the contempt of the more open, difinterested, upright, and philofophical part of this most useful profeffion. We doubt not but the editor is correct, in afferting Dr. P.'s" confcientious discharge. of his profeffional duties," as that was the most probable means of augmenting his fortune; and that he enjoyed a confiderable portion of domeftic happiness, although the fubfequent splendour and luxury of his widow are no proofs of it, nor of her fatisfaction with her former enjoyments. Dr. P.'s natural delicacy of conftitution, his never being bleffed with a family, and his unceafing devotion to his botanical ftudies, contributed no little to limit his focial pleafures, and confequently his domeftic entertainments. The latter, we prefume, confifted principally in receiving letters from his philofophical friends, among whom, it is faid with much truth, that Mr. Lambert was particularly diftinguished. In the enumeration of Dr. P.'s literary communications, however refpectable and important they may be in the hiftories of Leicestershire and Dorfetfhire, they will gain little honour, we fear, from their collocation in that fuperficial fkeleton, Aikin's England Delineated," long fince irrecoverably funk in oblivion. The concluding character of the author is drawn in Dr. M.'s best manner.

"The powers of his (Pulteney's) mind fhewed no figns of approaching imbecillity: neither had that torpor crept upon his feelings which is so apt, in advanced life, to diminish the activity of benevolence, and to make the greateft profeffional experience furvive its own utility. His whole conduct was guided by the stricteft integrity, and the moft fcrupulous fenfe of honour. No man ever maintained more uniformly a spirit of independence, and that conscious dignity of mind which never fuffered him to defcend to

the

0

the meannefs or hypocrify of a courtier. The same self-respect withheld him from deviating into the fmalleft fpecies of intemperance: fo exemplarily pure were his habits, that no expreffion ever fell from his lips that indicated the flighteft indelicacy of thought, or even the fainteft tincture of profanenefs. His manners were remarkable for their fimp'icity, and, among those whom he loved, exhibited all the amiable playfulness † and unrefervedness of unfophifticated youth. In his intercour'e with the world, he was generally fomewhat referved; yet, to the young and inquifitive, he was remarkably communicative. Poffeffing a mind candid, liberal, and enlightened, he abhorred every fpecies of conceit and dogmatiẩm; and, with an uniform, unequivocal respect for religion, he united none of the prejudices of the fectary, nor did his notions of it ever clash with the fpeculations of rational philofophy."

Believing it more conducive to public good to record virtues than vices, we, of course, fubfcribe to this character; and we could have pardoned even a more animated tribute of gratitude to the memory of a friend, for the valuable donation of many interefting MSS. But we have our doubts, that the Doctor's "refpect for religion" was rather the effect of early education than of real piety and rational belief; that the undiminished "activity of his benevolence," in attending patients until his death, might not be a little influenced by the confoling certainty of its reward; that, menaced as he was with disease, and devoted to his favourite ftudy, temperance was in him rather a necessary habit than a virtue; and that, from the tenor of his life, we can with much more certainty pronounce him rather without vice than a man of active virtue. The charitable sphere of a country physician is ftill more limited than that of his practice; and it is not with him as with a London. practitioner, that in proportion as his popularity increases, fo does the number of claimants on his humanity. The joint influence of distance and disease present an infurmountable obftacle to any great increase of poor patients beyond thofe of the particular village, whilft

*We trust the author will blush on re-reading this fentence, fo unjustly and bafely aimed at one of the worthieft men of the prefent age. It may indeed be one of the many examples of philofophers ufing vulgar phrafes, for which they have really no ideas, and, if fo, it is still reprehenfible.—

REV.

Surely Dr. M. has transcribed this fentence from fome popular work, and ́inferted it here by mistake. Dr. P. whofe high Calvinistic education had, at an early period, extinguished the genuine fentiment of piety, was one of those men, of auftere, puritanical manners, who delight more in external forms than in liberal or rational principles, and who alike repres every fentiment of inHe was always reserved in the extreme; clofe and secret for his own intereft."-Rev.

nocent mirth and of benevolence.

Was this respect evinced by abandoning the Diffenters, only to fhow a more decided indifference to every fentiment of piety; by abfenting himself from all religious communication, only to prove the fuperiority of his judgment; and by a fovereign contempt for all religious or devotional writings?

the