Chapter XVII: Letter XIX: gives a definition of the ellipsis, which would be a (11)

_Experiments on_ THOUGHT. By a Correspondent.

There is a very common prejudice respecting the rapidity of thought, which is imagined by many to be almost unlimited: and the opinion is very worthily illustrated by a reference to the oriental tale of a man’s being bewitched into the belief that he had passed through a period of seven years duration, and full of the most striking vicissitudes; all in the time that he employed in dipping his head in a pail of water. Now there is no doubt that we often dream of a period of many years while we are only sleeping an hour; that is, we dream of an impression of a long continued existence, or perhaps of some detached fact scattered through such a period: but if any person will write down all that he can possibly recollect, of the separate imaginations that have passed through his mind in the dream, he will find that he will be able to read them over with ease in less than five minutes.

It is probable that there may be considerable diversity in the rapidity of thought in different persons, as there is in that of muscular motions: but there is no reason to think the diversity greater. A healthy young man can run a mile in five minutes: a good pedestrian in four; but no man ever ran a mile in three minutes; and perhaps no horse in two. There is reason to think the rapidity of thought does not differ more materially than this in different individuals.

The rapidity of thought seems, however, more intimately connected with that of muscular motion than by analogy only: for they appear in some cases to be absolutely identical.

I have often been able to count ten in a second, in audible English words; not distinctly, indeed, but so as to assure myself that I do hear the ten words in their proper order; and to repeat the sounds for several consecutive seconds. If I say the words _to myself_ only, that is, if I think them over, I cannot repeat them ten times in less than about nine seconds: I can never, for example, keep pace with my pulse, though it sometimes beats as slowly as seventy in a minute: nor can I, by any effort, think over the numbers from one to twenty in two seconds.

If I say to myself the first lines of Milton or Virgil, or [p309] Homer, or any other lines that may be still more familiar to me, I cannot get through them much, if at all, more rapidly than I can pronounce them, even when I fix my undivided attention on them.

The rapidity of sensation is also intimately connected with that of memory and of muscular action. To cast the eye over a sentence, attending to every letter, is an operation which is capable of equal rapidity with the saying it over mentally: but it cannot be made much more rapid. It required four seconds to look over a sentence which occupied six in rapid reading.

The operations, which succeed each other with this limited rapidity, are not incompatible with a partial attention to other subjects: just as in running or walking, we may have our feelings very strongly interested by the sight of surrounding objects without interrupting the train of voluntary motions, which seems thus to be so linked together in a continued chain, as to become almost involuntary. And we may certainly be saying a thing over as rapidly as possible to ourselves, and may at the same time be seeing, and hearing, and even reasoning, so as to keep up what amounts very nearly, though not completely, to a continuity of attention to several distinct trains of ideas: in the same manner as the nerves of involuntary action are notoriously employed in several distinct trains of concatenated muscular motions and vascular actions, and as the ear of a musician is able to follow and retain a dozen different melodies in harmony with each other at the same time.

Dr. Darwin mentions an experiment which has a similar tendency to show the close connexion between thought and sensation. He says, that if we think intensely of a deep colour, for instance red, with the eyes closed, we shall see a tinge when we open them of the opposite colour, or green; just as if we had actually looked at a red colour instead of thinking of it. But I confess that I have never been able to satisfy myself completely of the success of the experiment.

These very hasty observations appear to me to be in great measure original; and the results of such experiments are certainly more calculated to illustrate the nature and powers of the human mind, than the fanciful hypothesis of the fashionable [p310] craniologists, with all their measurements of the heads of murderers, are likely to become.

ZMINIS. _London_, 20 _Oct._ 1827.

POSTSCRIPT.—I find that some similar remarks have been made by the late Sir William Watson, in his Treatise on Time. He estimated, from some experiments made in company with his friend Herschel, the greatest possible velocity of sensation, such as to admit of about three hundred distinct impressions on the eye or the ear in a second. “It is true,” he observes, “that whoever attends to what passes in his imagination on particular occasions, will be struck at the apparent rapidity with which ideas appear to flow at times, and will be apt to suspect them far to exceed sensation in that respect. But it is probable that we are ourselves deceived in such cases.” P. 38. But there are no direct experiments to prove this opinion. On the other hand, a sound may be continuous, and yet consist of only about twenty vibrations, or still fewer, in a second.

HIEROGLYPHICAL _Fragments, illustrative of Inscriptions preserved in the_ BRITISH MUSEUM, _with some remarks on_ Mr. CHAMPOLLION’s _opinions_. In _a Letter to the Cavaliere_ SAN QUINTINO. By a Correspondent.

My dear Sir,

You will be glad to hear that I have made some little progress in study of the Enchorial inscriptions which I had lately the pleasure of showing you: my steps have, as usual, been guided by no _system_ whatever: they have been wholly _empirical_, and though very slow, I trust they are so much the more sure: and I hope they will at least serve as an excuse for my reminding you of the expectations you kindly allowed me to entertain, that you would send me copies of any thing of the kind that you might find among the objects entrusted to your care at Turin. What I have lately done has only been to ascertain the dates of many of the tablets sent by Mr. Salt [p311] from Sacchara, all of them about the time of the last Cleopatra: to identify the Enchorial name of Ptolemy DIONYSUS, and to make out a passage relating to a donation of MUCH GOLD AND SILVER AND GEMS TO THE SANCTUARY OF THE GREAT GOD AT MEMPHIS. The different forms of the characters employed by the writers, in the same words, constitute also a valuable addition to be means of deciphering any new inscriptions of a similar nature, and I have already incorporated many of them with my little Enchorial Dictionary.

The 48th and 49th plates of the Hieroglyphics, already published, contain two tablets, apparently funerary, but without any dates of the reigns: the ages of the persons seem to be expressed in the hieroglyphical lines. In the 49th we find the name Berenice twice in the Enchorial letters, and once in hieroglyphics; followed here by Arsinoe, possibly as her mother.

This tablet, coarse as it is, abundantly shows that Horapollo and Champollion are both correct, independently, as it seems, of each other, in considering the rings, or cartouches, as chiefly confined to the names of royal personages; and that I inferred the contrary somewhat too hastily, from observing that the _imitations_ of those rings were attached in the Enchorial inscription of Rosetta, to several names not royal, and from having found such rings in other hieroglyphical inscriptions, without the usual epithets of kings. I had, indeed, remarked, that a “mysterious” name was _sometimes_ observable in the manuscripts without a ring, and I had pointed out the same group as _a_ name in Lord Mountnorris’s manuscript, which Mr. Champollion considers as the true name: but I am perfectly ready to admit that Mr. Champollion has materially _improved_ on this hint, as he has on many others.

The same line of hieroglyphics, however, contributes to add to my reluctance in admitting Mr. Champollion’s reading of P.T.H; a group which I considered as very probably representing these letters long before the date of his publications; though I had only fully identified the two first characters; it seems to me to agree better with PETEH than with PHTAH; and I am inclined to think it was the beginning of the names Petosiris, Peteharpocrates, and other similiar words, [p312] as it is here annexed to the names of two or three other deities. But I am by no means confident on the subject; and beg only to be allowed a few years more to collect further evidence, without being accused of _resisting_ conviction.

I must also claim a similar indulgence for my opinion respecting the bird and the disc; which is so constantly found between two names, that I could not avoid supposing it to mean simply _son_; I confess that the arguments which Mr. Champollion has drawn from the application of this character to some of the Roman names, as well as those which Mr. Salt has deduced from the inscriptions which he has published, are at least sufficient to silence me; I had, indeed, long before observed that the first name of one pair of rings scarcely ever found as the second of another, though I fancied the Minervean obelisk might afford an exception. On the other hand, I cannot explain, upon Mr. Champollion’s theory, the order of the names in the tablet of Abydus, which might be supposed to have been purposely intended to perpetuate this discussion.

It is admitted that this tablet contains the names of a chronological series of kings, each characterized by one ring, containing what I have always considered as the true names of the persons in question. It is easy to grant to him that they are the praenomens only; as is common in all modern chronology. But how comes it that there is one exception to this, and that the reigning monarch is characterized by his second name only, where he first occurs, and where we should expect to find his father? This is precisely what would have been required if the document had been forged to support my opinion; though I should certainly have been very ungrateful for an argument, which is more calculated to increase the difficulty than to remove it.

An objection of a similar nature may be deduced from the tablet found between the legs of the sphinx, and copied by Mr. Salt, H. 80. The “Mesphres son of Thuthmosis” of the Article Egypt is represented naturally enough as doing homage to his deified father, under the form of an Androsphinx; had he been doing homage to himself, the names would scarcely have been so divided. They also occur repeatedly afterwards in the inscription, but never together. [p313]

The tablet represented in Plate 51, is remarkable for the confirmation which its date affords of the accuracy of our chronology of the Ptolemies. It has no _pure_ hieroglyphics. It begins immediately with “_The year 19, otherwise 4, of Cleopatra [Neotera], and Ptolemy surnamed Caesar_: that is, the year 34 B. C.; and the same date is repeated in a form somewhat more distinct, four times, in the 10th, 11th, 12th, and 15th lines. In the last it is followed by _the Queen gave to the Priests and High Priests_ . . then _Ptolemy [Auletes?] . . Queen Cleopatra and King Ptolemy surnamed Caesar_.

It has before been observed, that the word _surnamed_, as it occurs in these tablets, and in Mr. Grey’s manuscripts, comprehends the characters which answer to the NEO of Mr. Champollion’s NEOCAESARIS. The beginning of the group occurs elsewhere in the sense of _called_, and can scarcely be read “ETO,” whether we consider the sacred or the enchorial characters; nor do we find any thing nearer to this in Coptic than ETE, meaning “_that is_,” while the characters are more like TENE. Such are the uncertainties which continually beset us in the application of the best established alphabetical characters even to words of which we know the sounds: to investigate the unknown by them is at present almost hopeless.

There are two tablets, from the caverns at Sacchara, about to appear in Plates 70 to 74 of the Hieroglyphics, which Mr. Salt sent over with particular interest, as being likely to contain some useful materials for the comparison of the different kinds of characters with each other. In this point of view, however, his well-directed zeal has failed of its object: for the sacred characters relate almost entirely to the gods and priests of the temple, while the enchorial inscriptions below them contain dates and records of the successive donations made to those temples. And this seems to be equally true of the generality of double inscriptions, which are scarcely ever identical in this sense, although they may greatly tend to illustrate each other.

The first in order of these tablets (H 70, 71, 74 A) was marked number 50 by Mr. Salt; it has seven stars at the edge of the wings overshadowing the figures. It is first dated very distinctly _In the year 6 of Cleopatra_; which ought to have [p314] been 6 _otherwise_ 2; but the second date was perhaps omitted after an interval of more than 20 years, which must have elapsed at the time of putting up the tablet, as the subsequent dates demonstrate. The queen seems to be styled _Isis_, but the name of the “younger goddess,” which is found on her medals, does not appear in these inscriptions. In the 4th line the word _Memphis_ occurs, though less distinctly than elsewhere. It seems to be formed of characters meaning _Temple_, and _Good_, and might naturally be read PHE-NUF; which agrees sufficiently well with the NOPH of Jeremiah, translated Memphis by the Septuagint, as well as with the Coptic PANUF, said to have been _Momemphis_. It is possible that Phthah may have been meant by the Good god, NUF; but there is here no character at all resembling the Enchorial name of Phthah, which approaches to that of a figure of 4.

We next find a notice of the change of dynasty (Line 5) . . year 7: the _Gods Phre and “Horus” and Phthah? gave the victory to_ AUTOCRATOR CAESARIS _the Munificent_. The number 7 is indistinct; if correct it must belong to the later of the double dates of Cleopatra’s reign, which terminated the 22nd or 7th, the year of the Battle of Actium, in which the _victory_ was obtained by the _Emperor_ Augustus _Caesar_. Then follows a date of the _year_ 6, probably of Caesar: and the seven stars of the wings may possibly relate to the erection of the tablet in the subsequent year. We have also a donation of _gold and silver gems_.

The second tablet (H 72, 73, 74 B) has first the date of the _year 19 of King Ptolemy_ [Auletes] the _Defender of the sacred rites_ (L. 3) . . _The year 4 of Cleopatra ‘Neotera?_ (4) . . _many years_ . . (5) The year 7? _the gods ‘Phre and Horus and Phthah? gave the victory to the Emperor Caesar_, ‘and Phthah and Horus who loved him gave the dominion all men to? _Caesar_. (6) . . _gold and gems and silver in abundance, gave them to the sanctuary of the great god in the temple of Memphis_ . . The year 7 of Caesar: ‘Mechir 18? gave to the sanctuary of the great god in . . (8) . . _gold and gems and silver_ . . (9) _Memphis_.

We have here no subsequent year 19 to which the stars of the margin can refer: and it seems therefore most natural to [p315] suppose that they belong to the earliest date, with which the tablet commences: and perhaps the seven stars of the former may have been marked by mistake for six. The interpretation of the marginal stars will be easily brought to the test of future observations.

Plates 75 and 76 contain portions of a large tablet from Sacchara, very fairly written on chalk, of which the upper part is broken off, leaving only a few traces of a hieroglyphic inscription, which seems to have contained a date at the end, perhaps the 12th of Mechir.

(1) [In the . . year of Queen Cleopatra] and _Ptolemy surnamed Caesaris_; the divine king . . living for ever. (7) . . _The year_ 9, Athyr or Mechir 9, _of the great King Ptolemy_ the god ‘Brother of Apis? DIONYSUS ‘the awful? living for ever . . (19) . . _the great King_ Ptolemy the god ‘Brother of Horus? DIONYSUS . . . mighty as the sun? . . . (20) . . . living for ever . . (21) In the year 7 Mechir the 14 . . _The Queen Soter and King Ptolemy surnamed Caesaris_ living for ever . . gave . . (25) . . children, for ever. (28) . . ‘Written and engraved by? . . .

In the 79th plate there are four enchorial lines very distinctly written, and beginning with a date, which must be either 24 or 28, and most probably the latter, as there are 28 stars in the margin: perhaps the 11th of the month, in the reign of _Ptolemy the son of Ptolemy, may he live for ever_. The rest is not intelligible.

* * * * *

In this manner, my dear Sir, I have been creeping, while others have been flying, though perhaps a little too near the sun. Possibly my friend Champollion, and _your friend_ Seyffarth, would be able to decipher much more of these inscriptions; and it is probable that their versions might differ in almost every particular. In this case it is unnecessary for me to say which of the two explanations I should be inclined to prefer: for it is impossible to deny to Champollion the merit of great industry, and deep, as well as extensive research. I object only to his precipitation, and his love of system, which, I think, cause him to be led away by his own ingenuity, through a series of conclusions unsupported by sufficient evidence. [p316]

As an instance of a hasty and undemonstrated assertion, I shall mention his explanation of the group of characters which he considers (Système, p. 82) as “forming the third person plural of the future in all the verbs of the last nine lines of the hieroglyphical text of Rosetta, expressing the different dispositions of the decree, and answering to Greek verbs, which are always in the infinitive,” and which he naturally enough reads SNE.

There is nothing absolutely incorrect in this statement, but the reader naturally infers from it that the group in question occurs either exclusively or principally in these nine lines. The fact is, however, that in the first five lines, or rather half lines, the group is found ten times, and in the remaining nine, only eighteen, that is, about half as frequently, in proportion to the actual length of the lines: nor can I find any where a context that favours Mr. Champollion’s interpretation; though I have lately observed that an Enchorial group, resembling ´O, is found almost uniformly to answer to the Greek infinitive: being read perhaps MNR or MARE: but I cannot make these characters agree either with the hieroglyphics in question, or with the sounds SNE, which Mr. Champollion attributes to them.

So little is Mr. Champollion in the habit of distinguishing _proofs_ from _assertions_ in his own case, that it is the less surprising that he should sometimes confound them with respect to others. He says, for example, with respect to the nature of the Hieratic characters, which he explained to the Academy of Belles Lettres in 1821, “_je me suis convaincu depuis que M. le Dr. Young avait publié avant moi ce même résultat, et de plus, que nous avions été_ PREVENUS _de quelques années, l’un et l’autre, quant au_ principe de cette découverte et sa définition, par M. Tychsen de Goettingue.” (p. 20.) Professor Tychsen had _asserted_ this agreement as a probable opinion: it was amply _demonstrated_ in 1816; _five years_ afterwards Mr. Champollion thinks he has a right to consider himself as a new inventor of the doctrine, because he chose to neglect what was done in a neighbouring country, and to undervalue the actual _proof_, in which he had been anticipated, by classing it with a bare _assertion_ to be found in a German publication. [p317] Precisely in the same spirit he remarks, in the next page, that Barthélemy and Zoëga had _pointed_ out the rings as containing proper names: they had, indeed, _said_ that they might be proper names, _or_ moral sentences, _or_ something else; but the only question was, if it was worth questioning at all, to whom belonged the priority of the _demonstration_ that they actually were proper names: which, before the publication of the Archaeologia for 1814, was no where to be found. This publication was the first great step after the discovery of the pillar of Rosetta: the second was the identification of the different kinds of characters, in 1816, by means of the Déscription de l’Egypte: the third, the application of that identification to the names of Ptolemy and Berenice: the fourth, perhaps, was Mr. Bankes’s discovery in Egypt, of the name of Cleopatra, which he sent to Paris: and on these grounds is certainly _founded_ ALL that is at present known of Egyptian literature, for a very considerable proportion of which we are unquestionably indebted to Mr. Champollion.

* * * * *

The French translator of Mr. Browne’s ingenious articles which appeared in the Edinburgh Review, has certainly gone a good deal out of his way to find matter of accusation against Mr. Champollion. He quotes the text of a memoir published in 1821, and afterwards _suppressed_, in order to show that Mr. Champollion then continued to believe that the hieroglyphics were signs of things and not of sounds; and that he disagreed with those learned persons who had considered the hieratic writing as alphabetical. The date of this suppressed paper is indeed of some consequence, as determining the period at which Mr. Champollion made his rediscovery of what Dr. Young had published in 1816; that is, the fact of the essential identity of the two systems of writing. But the translator might have found in the beginning of the letter to Mr. Dacier, dated in 1822, the same opinion respecting these systems of writing; that is, the _hieratic_ and _demotic_, which, he says, are not alphabetic, but “_ideographic_, like the hieroglyphics themselves,” expressing ideas and not sounds: and he adds, that _he_ (!) has deduced from the demotic inscription of Rosetta a series of characters which have a “_syllabico-alphabetic_ [p318] value,” by which foreign proper names were expressed. (p. 2.)

Nothing can possibly agree better than this with the opinions which Dr. Young had long before published; and which he has since confirmed in his octavo volume; and if Mr. Champollion’s ideas upon this subject have sometimes appeared to fluctuate, it has probably been more from a love of system, and a wish to establish originality, than from any new discoveries that he can have made respecting these two modes of writing in particular.

What precise forms of characters may be supposed to answer to the sense in which Mr. Champollion employs the word demotic, cannot very easily be ascertained. It is remarkable that his “SNE” is a group very commonly found in the manuscripts of the Déscription de l’Egypte, which Mr. Champollion might possibly call demotic; while it cannot be identified in the Enchorial Inscription of Rosetta. This is an instance of the difficulty of finding appropriate terms where we have not exact definitions. The difficulty is not avoided by the use of the word Enchorial, except that it may with perfect safety be applied to such inscriptions as are capable of having any of their words identified with the inscription so called on the pillar itself.

The verification of the chronology of Manetho must naturally be a work of time, even after the complete identification of the names of the kings, which cannot _yet_ be admitted to be satisfactory. There is one discordance that it may be right slightly to point out, as it is presented by Plate 43 of the Hieroglyphics: we there find the 29th year of the Sesenchosis of Manetho; and Manetho allots but 21 years to this king, who was the first of his dynasty, and could not, therefore, like Philadelphus, have continued any era from an earlier period.

It is easy to observe, in comparing Mr. Cailliaud’s copy of the Tablet of Abydus, as published by Mr. Champollion, with those of our countrymen, Mr. Bankes and Mr. Wilkinson, contained in the 47th plate of the Hieroglyphics, or with the manuscript copy of Mr. Burton, how much more hastily the French traveller had executed his task than _any one_ of the three Englishmen. [p319]

Another of Mr. Wilkinson’s very valuable inscriptions, from a temple at Kous, must be allowed to give evidence much more favourable to Mr. Champollion, as far as it regards the signification of the _plough_, which seems to enter into the composition of _Philometor_, as applied to Cleopatra and “Ptolemy Alexander,” who are called Philometores Soteres, both here and in Anastasy’s Greek Manuscript. The name of Alexander had never occurred to the author of the article EGYPT, but he had evidently a foresight in what way it would make its appearance when he observed, N. 55, “it will appear hereafter, that a knowledge of the enchorial forms may possibly contribute very materially, at some future time, to assist us in determining it:” and he immediately proceeds to the subject of PHONETIC HIEROGLYPHICS.

The plough seems to be exchanged on the Minervean obelisk for the dentated quadrant and chain, which may hence have been synonymous with the dentated parallelogram or comb: both perhaps having represented instruments which bore the same name, and served the same purposes, though of different forms: they may, for instance, have been rakes or harrows, and may hence have borne some analogy to the plough or hoe. Whether they had names beginning with M, may still be questionable.

Mr. Champollion has endeavoured to explain the absence of the names of our queens from the tablet of Abydus, by saying that it must be considered as a tablet “purely _genealogical_.” First Letter to the D. de B. p. 89. A reader is naturally disposed to acquiesce in this explanation, since Mr. Champollion, who has carefully examined it, asserts it on his own credit; especially as the assertion appears to be supported by a long and minute discussion. Unhappily, however, it is only necessary to compare his brother’s chronology in P. 107, with his own Plates II. and III. fig. 5, from which it appears that Amenses, who _reigned_ more than 20 years, was the mother of Thuthmosis the second, whose name is in the tablet, while his mother’s is _omitted_. It is true that, with his usual ingenuity, Mr. Champollion seems afterwards to change his ground in the same page: for he says, that one only of two brothers or sisters was inserted, in order to keep the number of the [p320] _generations_ unaltered: and he might have added that Amenses was the sister of Amenophis, whom she succeeded. If he had stated this clearly, the reader might have judged for himself, whether such a coincidence was or was not sufficient to support the chronology of Manetho; which was, however, by no means in want of _such_ support: in the article EGYPT, for example, Manetho’s chronology of this dynasty is fully adopted: and the same ‘cartouche’ is read _Thuthmosis_, which Mr. Champollion, after all his parade, still admits to be Thuthmosis: nor is there a difference of half a century in the dates assigned to his reign by various chronologists. It was established in the article Egypt, that the name contained that of Thoth, the Egyptian Hermes, and for this reason it was considered as better established than any other of the names of the Pharaohs. Mr. Champollion had never discovered this for many years afterwards: and yet we have been told by an ENGLISHMAN in the last Quarterly Journal, that to Mr. Champollion the _greater part_ of the _discoveries_ made by the interpretation of hieroglyphics are owing!

Believe me, dear Sir, very sincerely, yours, * * * * _London_, 24 _Nov._ 1827.

_On the Naturalization of Fish. By_ J. Mac Culloch, M.D., F.R.S., &c.

Dear Sir,

As I promised you that I would communicate to you, from time to time, any new remarks or facts which might occur on the subject of naturalizing sea-fish in fresh water, I am pleased to have an opportunity of noticing a few circumstances which may serve to keep alive in the public mind a subject, from which I cannot yet help foreboding useful results, in spite of the neglect and opposition which it has experienced from every person, I believe I may safely say, to whom it has been proposed, except Mr. Arnold. I am perfectly safe in saying, that, with this sole exception, every individual to whom the facts have been described, and the experiment proposed, have replied by doubts, or cavils, or objections of some kind; many, by [p321] positive disbelief of the very facts; while the far greater number have been persons, whose entire ignorance of every requisite point of physiology, natural history, and chemistry, must, of course, have rendered their objections sufficiently unworthy of notice, though not sufficient to restrain the confidence with which they have been urged. The satirical writers of the day view this as the character of the age: the more obvious aspect which this disposition presents, is the feeling, as if he who attempted, by suggesting an improvement, to render a service, was meditating an injury, and was an enemy to be opposed at all hazards. I must permit you to settle metaphysical and moral questions so profound as to exceed my own ingenuity.

But I cannot avoid regretting that Mr. Arnold is not the rich and idle proprietor of some of the tens of thousands of acres of fresh water, whether Scotch or English, in which a ‘sea-fish cannot possibly live,’ or ‘would certainly not be eatable’: and, in addition, that, instead of a not very opulent and very busied ‘notary public,’ he was not in possession of some five thousand of these acres, with as much money, and as much leisure. And I feel bound to add to this apology for what he _has not_ yet done, that the expense of such a course of experiments is considerable; at least in this comparison. A superintendent would be necessary; and for the purpose of taking and transporting the fish, still more of drawing nets periodically and frequently, to ascertain the progress of the transplanted fish, there must be expensive assistance, for which, as yet, there can be no returns; while that, in addition to irregularities and rocks in the pond itself, impeding the accurate drawing and examination, must also be the apology for the imperfection of the present additional report as to the success for certain fishes. It is plain that, though ten or a hundred turbots were present in a pond of four or five acres, the fact is not one that can easily be ascertained. Let those who have money, leisure, and water, and nothing else towards the investigation of this object, restrain, at least, _their_ incredulity and opposition; as may also they, very safely, who never saw a fish, except on the stall of a London fishmonger.

With respect now to some facts: it had been said that the water was salt, because this pond was situated at a sea [p322] embankment. I stated before, that it admitted the sea, by leakage, in summer, when there was little comparative supply of fresh water, and was therefore brackish, or saline. I have since ascertained the exact proportion of salt in the water, at those times when the fresh water is least. In the driest and hottest part of one summer, the proportion of salt in it, as compared to the sea without, was as 40 to 150. In another, peculiarly dry, 1827, it was one half; and the water, having then been at the lowest, it cannot ever be computed to exceed this. Moreover, this period of saltness cannot easily, even in such a summer, occupy more than the months of June, July, August, and September; or, more strictly speaking, it is probable, scarcely one half of that time in general, in so rainy a climate; a climate equalling Penzance in the quantity of rain.

In winter, that is, during five or six months, or less, if any objector pleases, it is fresh. That cattle drink it freely, is not an exact chemical proof; but I must admit, that I have not analyzed the water at that period, holding the objection in great contempt. It may be sufficient to say, that it then occupies a space of about sixteen acres, or increases to this magnitude from four and a half acres; so that it cannot, at least, be very salt, while the fish, and the mullet in particular, are found in the remotest ditches, among the meadows. But, in defect of an analysis, which I have not had the means of making, there is a valid reason why the water should be fresh when the size of the pond is much extended. The presence of sea-water in it, is, in all cases, the consequence of a depression of the water within the sea-wall, which allows of leakage or infiltration at the upper part, so as, in high tides, to equalize, as far can be done in the short period of high water, the levels within and without. This, it is plain, must cease whenever the water within is higher than the sea without; and hence it is that there can be no access for the salt water in the winter or rainy months.

Enough of the mere fact: the objections derived from which ought not to demand an answer among physiologists; while to those who argue physiological points in utter ignorance of all that belongs to physiology, it is probable that all answer is fruitless. It was stated before—the question is simply twofold; [p323] respiration and food. If fish can breathe indifferently salt water or fresh, for one week or one month, and if, in their new element, translated from salt to fresh, they thrive or grow, fatten and breed, the trial of three weeks or three months is a sufficient proof that they will neither sicken nor die of fresh water. If they can find food, it is indifferent whether the medium is fresh or salt. It is the misfortune of the age to understand every thing without knowing its principles; just as every man is now a physician. A few, more profound, who chance to know that salmon divide their time between fresh and salt water, possess other reasons, and find other objections; which they must be permitted to explain for themselves. I ought not, while on this particular subject, to omit one fact, which has come to my knowledge since the former papers were written, on the voluntary emigration of a fish, supposed to be peculiarly delicate and peculiarly attached to the sea, into fresh water. This is, that, in Virginia, the herring ascends the rivers, even up into the most minute communicating branches, and as far as it can reach; while a somewhat recent traveller describes them as being so abundant, that it is impossible to cross the fords on horseback during the season of their migration, without destroying them by the horse’s feet. To proceed to the _historical_ condition of this pond.

I have already stated the difficulties arising from want of leisure and wealth in the proprietor, added to non-residence I should say, whence chiefly has arisen the difficulty of tracing the results. Let those try for themselves, who consider that all this might have been ascertained in a twelvemonth, and with the same means. Since the communications I formerly made, the Pilchard has been introduced. It swam away briskly, therefore it would not die of the fresh water; but it has not been retaken. The retaking of individual fish, to ascertain their presence, is a fundamental difficulty, as I before pointed out.

The Brill has also been introduced since my former list. It has been retaken; and, within one year, had grown to double the original size.

The Turbot. Fifty or sixty were introduced, averaging about eight inches in length. Some were retaken in a year, for the purpose of examination merely, like the former and most others; [p324] they also had grown to double the size. There is no prospect of dying in these cases, it is abundantly plain; that they will breed is probable, but there has been no time, nor would the young have been taken. What is to prevent healthy fishes from breeding? The young, indeed, may be eaten; if so, it is for want of room, or want of a proper balance in this mixed population. No one knows any thing, either of the ordinary growth, propagation, or destruction of fishes; and how then can any one decide on what is regular or extraordinary?

The Wrasse has been retaken after a considerable period; therefore it is not dead.

The Basse has propagated; and so has the Brill.

The Red Mullet has been introduced, and is living.

The Whiting was introduced, and taken in good health many weeks after, but not since.

The Grey Loach is thought to have bred considerably.

The Atherine continues to breed.

I formerly mentioned that the flavour of the several fishes was improved: this is now more positively asserted, in addition, of the Basse, the Plaice, and the Red Loach. Others were mentioned in former communications.

Loss of property, or flavour, has been made a speculative objection by the unvarying objectors. General experience has shown, that in all fishes, as far as known, the access to fresh water, or fresh water food, improved the flavour; in many, in oysters, muscles, cockles, shrimps, it is vulgarly notorious; as in mere sea water they are worthless.

There is a popular objection, on this head, made by the country gentlemen, which I must answer; to those who _think_ about what they know, it would have been superfluous. The salmon is good when it comes from the sea, and bad when it is returning. Doubtless, it is; while the reason ought to be plain, even to an angler. It is in full health in the first case: in the latter, it has spawned; and, at that period, every fish is proportionally as bad as the salmon; many are a great deal worse. The fault is not in the water, nor probably in the food; it is in the spawning, and with any food the same effect takes place, in all fishes, everywhere.

I suggested in former communications, that an essential point [p325] to ascertain, in any view of economy, or management, would be the proper balance of species; to discover what kinds would so live together that all the species might find food; might breed, each to its useful limits, so as to be serviceable to ourselves, the keepers or the flocks, and without hazard of the extermination of any kind. I may illustrate what is here meant, by a simple fact, in the ordinary economy of fresh water fishes in confinement. Pike and perch can live together, because the natural defences of the perch prevent the pike from exterminating the race, voracious as the enemy is. If trout and pike were confined in a narrow water, the trout would be destroyed.

Or otherwise, it must be our object to ascertain, in an economical view, how to feed, by means of species that we do not desire to eat, those which we do cultivate for our own uses. This is a difficult question, which can only be overcome by time and experience; by knowledge; by knowledge, when we are in a state of entire ignorance; ignorance of every thing that relates to fishes, as great as if they were the inhabitants of another planet. This was one great source of difficulties with us in this case; and I, myself, must plead guilty, I fear, to a general recommendation of introducing every fish as a mere matter of trial; the result of which has been mischievous. The basse appears to have been the great enemy; to have eaten up the greater number of many species, and given no return. It has proved the pike of this pond. This could not have been foreseen; it is a caution for future speculators. Others will be discovered in the course of trial. It appears also that the common crab has proved destructive, probably by eating the spawn of larger fishes. From some enemy or other, the eels, which at first abounded to an incredible degree, have most materially diminished, and so have the shrimps. The latter, at least, appear to have been destroyed by the basse. Time and trial will teach us what to do in this case; in the infancy of ignorance, man might have supposed that he could keep wolves and sheep in one field, and have constructed a pen for foxes and fowls, rabbits and weasels. We must not accuse nature of our own ignorance.

The question is here a difficult one; but a little more study [p326] of the general habits of fishes, merely as we know them already, and even of their anatomy, will go far to lay the foundation of useful rules on this head, even without a hazardous trial, which may ultimately not become in our power to remedy, as I much fear may prove the case with respect to these unlucky basse. Not to enter on this further than as it may serve for a general illustration of what is here meant, the anatomy of the mullet proves that it lives on worms; on the lumbricus marinus, and others; and so do its habits. So also may the very food of others, as found in the stomach, serve to indicate their natural or ordinary food. Reversely, the anatomy of a cod’s jaws, and its stomach also, prove it to be omnivorous, omnivoracious. Or, further, the anatomical character of the diodon proves that it eats shell-fish; as we are equally able to limit the range of food in the flat-fish which have no air-bladders, and cannot quit the ground.

But in this brief communication, I must not enter further into this subject than is necessary for mere illustration. I may take some further opportunity to point out the probabilities, as to mutual food and protection, in any artificial cultivation of this nature, as they might be derived from studying the little that we do know about the structure and habits of fishes. All that I need add here, is, that I have suggested the introduction of limpets, periwinkles, and cockles; as affording food without furnishing enemies: a matter which had been overlooked. To exterminate the enemies which have been unwarily introduced, will not prove so easy a task; unless, at least, we could find their natural enemies; find the great secret by which alone, in all cases, man can make war on those whom neither his artillery, his physic, nor his politics can reach.

The transportation of fishes has been objected to as difficult. I had occasion to make some remarks on this formerly, and on the vitality of some kinds. The difficulty is not so great as has been imagined. The fact generally is, that fishermen, even down to the very sentimentalists who worship the gentle Izaak, and who are sometimes scarcely possessed of the wit of a fish, treat them as they would a stone; as if they had not lives, and wills, and opinions, and were not part of the same [p327] creation as ourselves; as if that creation, which outnumbers ourselves by millions of millions almost beyond algebra to express, was not, like ourselves, under His care. They are easily killed by violence; they kill themselves by over-exertion, from anatomical peculiarities; as every trout-fisher knows; that is to say, the fact, not the cause. Let them be treated with gentleness when taken, as if they could feel; and they will not die in being removed into a cask of water. The flat fish are all peculiarly tenacious of life, so are all those of firm muscles generally: the vitality of the carp and of the minnow also is notorious; and so it is as to many other kinds. All these can be removed, and carried far, even in straw; but in truth, he who chooses to make his experiments like a philosopher, and who desires to succeed, will not fail.

Yet let me point out what I have suggested to Mr. Arnold, among other things: to him, whose merit as an ardent experimenter, always ready to adopt a reasonable suggestion, and never seeking for an objection, ought to stamp his character as a genuine follower of the true philosophy; the exception, in this particular case, to every one else. This is, to adopt the Chinese method of transporting the spawn of fishes; as affording a far greater facility to the introduction of species. I presume that the general fact must be known to your readers; though I believe that I ought to doubt: because I quoted the same practice from Columella formerly, as in use among the most ancient Romans, among the common farmers.

This substance is perpetually brought up by the trawl net, very injuriously, as it relates to fisheries; and in many cases, the fishermen contrive to guess tolerably well to what fish it belongs. That it may be transported to any distance, the familiar practice of China proves: since it is there a common article of sale in the markets; while there also, I may incidentally remark, the cultivation of fish for sale, their transportation to market, and their replacement in the ponds, if unsold, is as much matter of ordinary farming as the management of a poultry-yard; while the pond is often the most profitable part of the farm. They also, who do not already chance to know it, may be informed, that this species of poultry-yard, or fish-pond, is as easily and regularly [p328] stocked in this manner, and managed, as any other portion of the farm: since it is even destroyed, or suffered to become dry occasionally, and again renewed in the wet season, by the means of purchased spawn, or stock; just as a sheep farmer buys lambs to stock his mountains. If England is too wise to learn of Rome or China, or of France and Germany, or even of the experiments on which I have dwelt so much and so often, it must be a pleasing reflection that it is already so amply informed as to have passed the bounds of all possible improvement and all possible wishes. But that I may terminate this particular suggestion, I will only further point out, that lobsters, and the crab tribe generally, might very easily be transported in this manner, and that, in them, it is easily known when the _ovum_ has been impregnated, by means of a black spot with which it is then marked.

If I ought to apologize already for the length of this communication, I shall conclude it by saying, that whatever may be judged of the general philosophy of this subject, there is not and never has been any thing to prevent the cultivation of fish, in ponds of salt-water at least, or the preservation of them in any water in which they will live for a sufficient length of time, so as to render that a depôt for the purposes of a fish store, calculated for the steady supply of a market, in the manner which I formerly described and proposed. If, after so many years as this proposal has been made, London has not seen either the facility, or the utility, it will discover them at some future day; just as it discovered, ten years after there had been twenty-six steam-boats on the Clyde, that a steam-boat might possibly be of use on the Thames; just as it opposed gas-lights, and just as it has adopted gas-lights. [p329]

_Nugæ Chirurgicæ; or, a Biographical Miscellany, illustrative of a Collection of Professional Portraits_. By W. Wadd, Esq., F.L.S. &c. 8vo. pp. 276. London, 1824 Longman and Co., and Callow and Wilson.

_Nugæ Canoræ; or Epitaphian Mementos (in Stone-cutter’s Verse) of the Medici Family of Modern Times_. By Unus Quorum. London, 1827. Callow and Wilson.

_Mems., Maxims, and Memoirs_. By W. Wadd, Esq., F.L.S., Surgeon-Extraordinary to the King, &c. 8vo. pp. 303. London, 1827. Callow and Wilson.

We have placed these three Works together, because they are so closely allied as to form a whole, and also because _Nugæ Canoræ_ and _Nugæ Chirurgicæ_ bear internal evidence of being written by the same pen; and when we say further, that they are characterized by good feeling and good humour, we are sure we are not far off in our _guess_ about who is ‘UNUS QUORUM.’ These volumes come within the scope of our Journal, as comprising an outline of the history of medical science, sketched in a vein of pleasantry that makes it no less agreeable to the general than to the professional reader, and we have derived both amusement and information from its perusal. Like the ‘Gold Headed Cane,’ it helps us to much curious modern biographical anecdote, with the addition of varied entertainment for the medical antiquary. While, however, we recommend these ‘Mems.,’ and commend the literary loungings of contemporary practitioners, we cannot but regret the neglected volumes of Aikin and Walker, and lament that the lack of feeling for the annals and literature of their profession, should be less active in the medical public of this country, than with our professional brethren on the Continent.

‘_Nugæ Chirurgicæ_’ is a _Catalogue Raisonnée_ of a scarce collection of Medical Portraits. We believe only 250 copies were printed; from which circumstance, and its recording the congregation of the greatest assemblage of medical men ever met together, it is probable that it may some day become a medical rarity. The author’s original intention appears merely to have been to describe the portrait, with some characteristic trait; but an after-thought seems to have occurred, and in the “Memorabilia,” the “_Medici Family_” are, as it were, retouched and varnished, so as to become [p330] very agreeable pictures. We shall now present our readers with a few specimens of this gallery, taken at random.

EURICUS CORDUS.

“Cordus, who was accustomed to receive his fees only at the termination of patient’s disease, describes, in a facetious epigram, the practitioner at three different times, in three different characters.

Three faces wears the doctor; when first sought An angel’s—and a god’s the cure half wrought: But when, that cure complete, he seeks his fee, The devil looks then less terrible than he.

“The epigram of Cordus is illustrated by the following conversation, which passed between Bovart and a French marquis, whom he had attended during a long and severe indisposition. As he entered the chamber on a certain occasion, he was thus addressed by his patient: ‘Good day to you, Mr. Bouvart; I feel quite in spirits, and think my fever has left me.’ ‘I am sure of it,’ replied the doctor; ‘the very first expression you used convinces me of it.’ ‘Pray explain yourself.’ ‘Nothing more easy: in the first days of your illness, when your life was in danger, I was your _dearest friend_; as you began to get better, I was your _good Bouvart_; and now I am Mr. Bouvart: depend upon it you are quite recovered.’ Bouvart’s observation was grounded on a knowledge of human nature: every day’s experience shows, that ‘_accipe dum dolet_’ should be the medical man’s motto.

JOHN CASE.

“In one of the profound pieces of astrological bombast written by this singular genius, he gives an account of the creation of Adam: ‘_Thus_ Adam was created in that pleasant place _Paradise_, about the year before Christ 4002, viz. on April 24, at twelve o’clock, or midnight.’ His name was latinized to _Caseus_, which was occasionally interpreted Dr. _Cheese_. Granger says the following anecdote of Case was communicated to him by the Rev. Mr. Gosling, in these terms: ‘Dr. Maundy, formerly of Canterbury, told me, that in his travels abroad, some eminent physician, who had been in England, gave him a token to spend at his return with Dr. Radcliffe and Dr. Case. They fixed on an evening, and were very merry, when Radcliffe thus began a health: ‘Here, brother Case, to all the fools your patients.’ ‘I thank you, good brother,’ replied Case; ‘let me have all the fools, and you are heartily welcome to the rest of the practice.’’

THOMAS DAWSON.