SMELLIE

SMELLIE, WILLIAM, a learned and ingenious printer, was born at Edinburgh in the year 1740. His father, Alexander Smellie, who followed the occupation of a master-builder, is said to have been a classical scholar, and a writer of Latin verses. He belonged to the sect of reformed Presbyterians, more commonly described as Cameronians. He left two sons and three daughters. John, the elder son, followed his father's employment, and married a sister of the late James Ferrier, Esq. clerk of session. Two of his daughters were likewise married. Residing in the suburban street called the Pleasance, he sent his younger son to Duddingstone school, which is scarcely a mile distant. William Smellie was there initiated in the ordinary branches of education, including the Latin language; but he left school at the early age of twelve, and was destined to follow some mechanical employment. It was his father's original intention to bind him an apprentice to a staymaker, but some difference occurred as to the terms of the indenture; "and the young scholar was preserved from the mortifying drudgery of scraping whalebone, and stitching coats of armour to force the female form into every shape save that of natural elegance." On the first of October 1752, he was bound an apprentice, for six years and a half, to Hamilton, Balfour, and Neill, printers to the university.

To this occupation he applied himself with great assiduity, and he soon became conspicuous for the rapidity, as well as the correctness, with which he dispatched his work. With equal assiduity he devoted his evenings to the acquisition of knowledge. Two years before the expiration of his apprenticeship, his masters appointed him a corrector of the press, with a weekly allowance of ten shillings, which at that period was no despicable remuneration. His father was now dead, and two of his sisters were materially indebted to him for their support. During his apprenticeship, he was permitted to attend some of the academical lectures. The printing-office was within the precincts of the university buildings; "and he generally continued at work till he heard the bell ring for lecture, when he immediately laid down his composing-stick, shifted his coat, ran off with his note-book under his arm, and returned to his work immediately after lecture." The Edinburgh Philosophical Society having offered a silver medal for the most accurate edition of a Latin classic, Smellie set and corrected an edition of Terence, which obtained this prize for his employers. His edition, which bears the date of 1758, but was actually printed during the preceding year, has been described as immaculate; but of the literal accuracy of this description, we entertain some doubt. It is very elegantly printed, and is in all respects creditable to the Edinburgh press of that period. His apprenticeship was completed on the first of April 1759; and in the ensuing month of September, he agreed to transfer his services to the office of Murray and Cochrane. Here he was not only to perform the ordinary work of a corrector, but was likewise to collect articles for the Scots Magazine, and to make abstracts, extracts, or transcripts of such pieces as his employers should direct. He was moreover to lend his aid "in writing accounts, and, in cases of hurry in printing, in composing or case-work;"

and in return for these various services, he was to receive a weekly salary of sixteen shillings.

It was one advantage of his new situation, that his employers allowed him three hours a-day for the prosecution of his academical studies; and thus, under peculiar circumstances, he was enabled to obtain a regular education. He not only studied the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages, but likewise mathematics, logic, rhetoric, moral, and natural philosophy. He besides attended all the medical courses, including the lectures on chemistry and botany. The Hebrew class he attended in the year 1758, with the immediate view of preparing himself to superintend the printing of Dr. Robertson's Hebrew Grammar. His course of study had thus been so regular and complete, that he was in a state of mature preparation for more than one of the learned professions. Some of his friends recommended the study of divinity; Dr. Buchan urged him to betake himself to the practice of physic; but the hazard of relinquishing a certain though small income for a very uncertain experiment, must have served to manipulate him to his original avocation. An early marriage fixed him more completely in the printing-office. His wife, Jane Robertson, was the daughter of an army-agent in London, who had once been opulent, but who finally left his family in indigent circumstances. Her mother was the cousin of Mrs. Oswald of Dunikier, and there were other family connexions described as genteel, but they do not appear to have rendered any service to Smellie or his children. The marriage took place in 1763, when he had only attained the twenty-third year of his age.

In the mean time, his love of learning suffered no abatement. In the year 1760 he had become a member of the Newtonian Society, a literary association chiefly composed of young men educated in the university. They held their weekly meetings in one of the class-rooms. At each meeting an essay was read by one of the members; and a subject, previously assigned, was discussed in due form. The essays were restricted to subjects of natural science, but the debates extended to a wider range. The list of members included various names which were afterwards conspicuously known; and among others, we find that of Robert Blair, the late president of the court of session. To this association likewise belonged Thomas Blacklock, Robert Hamilton, Alexander Adam, Henry Hunter, Samuel Charters, and William Buchan. After the interruption of their regular meetings as a society, some of the members continued for several years to hold a weekly meeting in a tavern, where they partook of a sober repast, and spent their evenings in literary and social conversation. With two very estimable members of this club, Dr. Hamilton of Aberdeen, and Dr. Charters of Wilton, Smellie always retained a friendly connexion. A new association, of which he acted as secretary, was formed in the year 1778, under the denomination of the Newtonian Club. Most of the other members were connected with the medical profession, and five of them either then were or afterwards became medical professors in the university. In the list of these associates we find the names of Dugald Stewart and James Gregory. No person was eligible unless he was a member of the Philosophical Society; and the meetings of the club were appointed to take place immediately after the close of each meeting of the society. The number of members was not to exceed twenty; and a single black ball was to exclude any candidate. The last of their regulations stands thus: "As this club consists entirely of philosophers, it would therefore be ridiculous to make any laws for its internal police."

For the different branches of natural history Smellie had evinced an early predilection. To the study of botany he devoted so much attention, that in 1765 his Dissertation on the Sexes of Plants gained the gold medal given by Dr. Hope. In this dissertation, which was inserted in the first edition of the Encyclopædia, he strenuously opposed the

doctrines of Linnaeus.¹ The substance of it was incorporated in his Philosophy of Natural History; and his opinions were then controverted by Dr. Rotheram, afterwards professor of natural philosophy at St. Andrews. Of his proficiency in these studies we find a more conspicuous proof. While he was attending the botanical class, the professor sprained his leg so severely that for a considerable interval he was unable to meet his students; and on this occasion he selected Smellie to continue the course of lectures. In a botanic garden, lectures cannot be servilely read from papers, either written by the lecturer himself, or supplied by others.

On the 25th of March 1765 he commenced business as a printer, in conjunction with two brothers named Robert and William Auld, the former of whom was a solicitor. His private resources were obviously scanty; and two of his friends, Dr. Robertson, professor of oriental languages, and Dr. Hope, professor of botany, advanced to him the sum of seventy pounds, which we reckon equivalent to two hundred in our present currency. This copartnership was dissolved within the space of less than two years, by the retirement of Robert Auld; but a new company, consisting of Balfour, W. Auld, and Smellie, commenced business on the 22d of December 1766. John Balfour, who was likewise a bookseller, had been a partner in the house of Hamilton, Balfour, and Neill. The new house published the Journal, a newspaper supposed to have been unprofitable. Their connexion only continued till the month of November 1771; and the modified firm of Balfour and Smellie continued the business from the twelfth of that month. Beside his share of the profits, the junior partner was to receive ninety pounds a-year, and he was bound to conduct the entire business of the office. His average income amounted to about £200. After an interval of more than two years, he easily obtained from Lord Kames the favour of his becoming surety to the Royal Bank for a cash-account to the extent of two or three hundred pounds. Their acquaintance had arisen from a series of anonymous strictures which he communicated to his lordship when the Elements of Criticism were passing through the press of Murray and Cochrane. The author requested the acquaintance of his nameless critic, and afterwards honoured him with various marks of his friendly attention. He incidentally mentions his supping with Lord Kames, in company with Hume and other guests. He was likewise a guest at the learned suppers of Lord Monboddo; and he reckoned Lord Hailes, as well as Lord Gardenstone, among the number of his friends and well-wishers.

Balfour and Smellie were appointed printers to the university. The chief advantage which attended this appointment was the profit of printing the dissertations written by candidates for medical degrees. Smellie likewise printed the theses written by candidates for admission to the Faculty of Advocates; and his knowledge of the Latin language was in both cases found very serviceable to the writers. He rendered material assistance to his friend Dr. Buchanan, in the composition of a work which attained to very extensive popularity. This work, entitled "Domestic Medicine, or, a Treatise on the Cure and Prevention of Diseases," was published at Edinburgh in the year 1770. In the course of forty years, it is said to have passed through twenty editions, each consisting of 6000 copies, besides many pirated editions in Ireland and America, and some even in Britain. Of this treatise, Smellie was sometimes represented as the sole author; but it appears with sufficient evidence that the manuscript was placed in his hands, and that in preparing it for the press, he made many essential alterations in its

form and style. It was so diffuse and redundant, that a single chapter, as originally written, would nearly have equalled the size of the entire book, as at first printed. These services were compensated with a bill for one hundred pounds.

Of Smellie's life, we have now arrived at an era which recommends him to the more particular regard of the writers and readers of the present work. The first edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica consisted of only three volumes, which began to be printed in the year 1771. The principal articles were written, compiled, or devised by him, and he prepared and superintended the entire publication. "As you have informed me," says a letter of Andrew Bell, the chief proprietor, "that there are fifteen capital sciences which you will undertake for, and write up the subdivisions and detached parts, conformably to your plan, and likewise to prepare the whole work for the press, &c. &c., we hereby agree to allow you £200 for your trouble." If his capital sciences had not exceeded the old number of seven, this remuneration could scarcely have been considered as extravagant. One of his original articles, contributed to this edition, was that on Aether, which attracted a considerable degree of attention, and gave no small offence to Dr. Cullen, whose theory was there exposed, though without any mention of his name. From internal evidence, he was convinced that the article must have been written by his colleague Dr. John Gregory. He at length ascertained the real author; and this discovery, says the late Dr. Gregory, "gave occasion to the complete alteration and softening of the article Aether in the second and all the subsequent editions of the Encyclopædia; so that nothing of it was allowed to remain that could give offence to Dr. Cullen."²

Of the second edition of this work Smellie was offered a share, apparently a third, conjoined with the charge of editorship. This offer he unfortunately declined, and thus lost the only golden opportunity that fortune ever presented to him. "At the death of Mr. Macfarquhar, printer, in April 1793, the whole work became the property of Mr. Bell. It is well known that Mr. Macfarquhar left a handsome fortune to his family, all or mostly derived from the profits of the Encyclopædia; and that Mr. Bell died in great affluence, besides possessing the entire property of that vast work; every shilling of which may be fairly stated as having grown from the labours of Mr. Smellie in the original fabrication of the work, which is confessedly superior, and all of which he and his family might have shared in equally with Mr. Bell and the other proprietor, if he had not been too fastidious in his notions, and perhaps too timid in his views of the risk which might have been incurred in the mercantile part of the speculation."³ His chief objection is stated, not with much probability, to have arisen from a difference of opinion as to the general plan: "because the other persons concerned, it has been said upon the suggestion of a very distinguished nobleman of the highest rank and most princely fortune, insisted upon the introduction of a system of general biography; which Mr. Smellie objected to, as by no means consistent with the title." If this statement is accurate, we consider the nobleman as decidedly right, and Smellie as decidedly wrong; inasmuch as the historical and biographical part of the work has recommended it to many readers, who do not feel an equal degree of interest in the arts and sciences. The perfection of such a work is to render it agreeable as well as instructive to the greatest possible number of readers. The second edition, consisting of 1500 copies, began to be published in 1776. The third, extending to no fewer than 10,000 copies of eighteen vo-

Smellie lumes, commenced in 1786. By this edition, we are informed, the two proprietors "are said to have cleared a net profit of £42,000, besides being each paid for their respective work in the conduct of the publication as tradesmen; Mr. Bell as engraver of all the plates, and Mr. Macfarquhar as sole printer."

Smellie afterwards embarked in a speculation which did not prove so lucrative. This was "The Edinburgh Magazine and Review," of which the first number appeared in the month of October 1773. The editor was Dr. Stuart, whose temper and discretion were not equal to his talents and learning. Smellie was one of five partners, including the editor; and besides printing the work at the ordinary rates, he "was regularly to compile the last half-sheet of every number, to consist of foreign and domestic occurrences, or the news-department, and other articles; to keep the accounts of the concern; to answer all letters relative to the concern; and to review certain articles, as should be agreed upon between him and Dr. Stuart." The work only extended to five volumes, closing with the number for August 1776. It was conducted with so much ability, that it might have run a more prosperous career, if the personalities of the editor, displayed within so narrow a field, had not excited a degree of hostility with which it was hopeless to contend. But the history of this work will be resumed in our notice of Gilbert Stuart.

Of the Society of Antiquaries, instituted at Edinburgh in 1780, Smellie was an original member. In 1781 he was elected Superintendent of the Museum of Natural History, which they proposed adding to their antiquarian cabinet. He afterwards published an "Account of the Institution and Progress of the Society of the Antiquaries of Scotland." Edinb. 1782, 4to. To this account he added a second part in 1784. He was elected to the office of secretary in 1793. This new institution excited the jealousy of some other learned bodies. The senate of the university presented a memorial to the lord advocate, remonstrating against the grant of a royal charter to the Society of Antiquaries, on the allegation that Scotland was too limited a country for two literary Societies; and proposing, that instead of granting such a charter, the king should incorporate a society under the designation of the Royal Society of Scotland. They further suggested "that the Society of Antiquaries would intercept the communication of many specimens and objects of natural history, which would otherwise be deposited in the museum of the university, and of many documents tending to illustrate the history, antiquities, and laws of Scotland, from being deposited in the library of the Faculty of Advocates. They likewise noticed that the possession of a museum of natural history might enable and induce the Society of Antiquaries to institute a lectureship of natural history, in opposition to the professorship in the university." Nor did the curators of the Advocates Library remain inactive. They represented to the lord advocate that the grant of a charter to the Antiquaries "might prove injurious to that magnificent library, by intercepting ancient manuscripts and monuments illustrative of the history and antiquities of Scotland, which would be more useful when collected into one repository than in a state of division." To all these representations the Society returned an elaborate answer, in the form of a memorial addressed to the lord advocate; and the royal charter was finally ratified in the month of May 1783. It is scarcely necessary to add, that few or none of the multifarious evils which had thus been predicted, were found to result from the incorporation of this Society, which has proved almost as harmless as any institution in the kingdom. The Royal Society of Edinburgh soon afterwards obtained its charter; and as a member of the Philosophical Society, Smellie was incorporated on the 23d of June 1783.

At the request of the Society of Antiquaries, he had in 1781 digested the plan of a statistical account of all the parishes of Scotland. The circulation of this plan did not excite much industry; but, at no distant period, it was followed by an extensive and important work. As superintendent of the museum, he was authorized to deliver in their hall a course of lectures on natural history. "His object was to deliver lectures on the philosophy of natural history, which is a subject totally different from what a public professor is obliged to teach. A professor must instruct his students in the technical and elementary part of the science; but the private lecturer was to confine himself to general views of the economy of nature."¹ The professor of natural history, who certainly had reason to fear such a rival, was alarmed at what he considered as an encroachment on his province, and this plan of lectures was reluctantly abandoned. On the death of Dr. Ramsay in the year 1775, Smellie had offered himself as a candidate for the professorship; but his claims were disregarded, and it was bestowed upon Dr. Walker, at that time minister of Moffat, and afterwards of Colinton.

Smellie however continued to prosecute his favourite study, and he published "Natural History, general and particular, by the Count de Buffon: translated into English. Illustrated with above 200 copper-plates, and occasional notes and observations by the Translator." Edinb. 1781, 8 vols. 8vo. "Much the greater portion of this extensive work," says Mr. Kerr, "was executed in a small correcting room or closet connected with his printing-office, where he was continually liable to interruption, from the introduction of proof-sheets for correction, and revises for comparison, and to the almost perpetual calls of customers, authors, and idle acquaintances: yet such was his accuracy of self-possession, that, as usual with almost every thing he wrote, he gave it out page by page, as fast as written, to his compositors, and hardly ever found it necessary to alter a single word after the types were set up from his first uncorrected manuscript. Although, to have enabled him to execute this translation in the excellent manner in which it is done, Mr. Smellie must necessarily have possessed a very thorough knowledge of the French language, it appears that he had acquired this entirely by means of his own private study, and without the assistance of any teacher; for we have been assured by those who knew him very intimately, that he was quite unacquainted with the pronunciation of French." A second edition of his translation, in nine volumes, followed in the year 1785. Other three editions, all of them extensive, were afterwards published; so that the work may be considered as having been eminently successful. The translator's notes were allowed to have added no inconsiderable value to the text; and the chief fault imputed to him was the use of provincial idioms. He was honoured with the correspondence of Buffon, and likewise of Pennant.

The firm of Balfour and Smellie having been dissolved, that of Creech and Smellie began business on the 14th of September 1782, and continued it till the close of the year 1789. Creech, well-known as a bookseller, was in all cases difficult to bring to a settlement of accounts, when he had any reason to believe the balance to be on the wrong side. The affairs of this copartnership, being somewhat intricate, were submitted to arbitration, and a balance was ultimately found due to Smellie; but the decision was so long deferred, that it was not pronounced till some time after his death. After the termination of these different partnerships, he continued the business on his own account. Lord Kames died in the year 1782; and he was now indebted to the kindness of Lord Gardenstone, who became his surety to the banking-house of Sir W. Forbes and Co.

His next publication was "An Address to the People of Scotland, on the Nature, Powers, and Privileges of Juries. By a Jurymen." Edinb. 1784, 8vo. This tract is entitled to particular notice, because it contains a clear and judicious exposition of legal principles, very important in themselves, and at that period very little understood. "It is," he remarks, "a common notion that jurymen are judges of the fact only, and not of the law. This absurd, and often fatal prejudice is much more prevalent than might be expected, in a city like this, where general knowledge ought to be pretty widely diffused. It has perhaps been too much fostered by the injunctions of judges and magistrates. It is exceedingly natural that plain simple jurymen should look up with veneration to the high rank, and superior abilities of those men who are appointed by their sovereign to dispense justice over the nation. For this reason it is, that the English judges are so extremely solicitous not to inculcate their own opinions on the minds of jurymen, but to leave their determinations solely to the dictates of their own consciences. But from whatever source this prejudice may have derived its origin, I shall endeavour to shew that it has neither law nor common sense for its support." A further specimen may very satisfactorily be produced. "I know it to be the opinion of many jurymen, that after the court admits a relevancy, they are bound by their oaths to find the libel either proved or not proved. But these gentlemen should consider, that their business is to give a verdict of a very different kind. They are to judge both of the criminality of the culprit, and of his exculpatory evidence. The words proved or not proved should be for ever banished from the verdicts of juries. A relevancy may be found, when the jurymen, who hear the indictment impugned, are of an opposite opinion from the court. A crime may be libelled, when the facts related in the indictment, though completely proved, do not constitute the essence of the crime charged. Hence, whenever the minds of jurymen are convinced that a relevancy has been improperly found, their verdict, however the proof may stand, should be Not guilty. Indeed, the expressions, Guilty or Not guilty ought alone to be employed in verdicts." This tract excited a considerable degree of attention; and it was quoted with much approbation by Lord Erskine, in his famous speech in defence of Dr. Shipley, dean of St. Asaph. He published several other pamphlets, which chiefly related to local politics.

But the most elaborate of his works is "The Philosophy of Natural History." Edinb. 1790, 4to. This is an ingenious book, written in a very pleasing style, and it accordingly experienced a favourable reception. It was reprinted at Dublin and Philadelphia. Lichtenstein published a German translation, to which some notes were added by C. A. W. Zimmermann. For the original volume, Charles Elliot agreed to pay one thousand guineas, at six, twelve, and eighteen months, as well as a certain sum for every edition after the first. This enterprising bookseller died before the work was ready for publication; but the agreement was honourably fulfilled by his trustees, though the benefit accrued, not to the author himself, but to his family. "This," says Mr. Kerr, "was probably the largest sum that had ever been given, at least in Edinburgh, for the literary property of a single quarto volume, and evinced both the liberality of the bookseller, and the high estimation in which he very justly held the fame and talents of the author."

His plan however was not yet completed, and he immediately applied himself to the preparation of a second volume. He lived to bring it to a conclusion, though not to make any arrangement for its publication. During the last years of his life, his health appears to have been infirm and precarious. In June 1793, he stated to his friend Dr. Hutton, that he had for several months been distressed with a debility in his limbs, accompanied with a want of appetite; and to another medical friend, Dr. Gardiner, we find him stat-

ing very unfavourable symptoms in the course of the following year. After a long illness, he died on the 24th of June 1795, at the age of sixty-five. He left a widow, with four sons and four daughters; two sons and three daughters having died before their father. His eldest daughter was married to Mr. George Watson, an eminent portrait-painter in Edinburgh. Smellie had never been in affluent circumstances, but he left to his family the means of prosperity; and the printing business has been more successfully conducted by his son Mr. Alexander Smellie.

Of his Philosophy of Natural History, the second volume was published by this son in the year 1799. Another posthumous work speedily followed: "Literary and characteristical Lives of John Gregory, M.D., Henry Home, Lord Kames, David Hume, Esq., and Adam Smith, LL.D. To which are added a Dissertation on Public Spirit, and three Essays." Edinb. 1800, 8vo. His original plan comprehended the lives of other twenty-five men of literary eminence, with whom he was personally acquainted. One of these was his friend Dr. Stuart, with whose private history he was sufficiently familiar, and of which he could have supplied very curious, though perhaps not very edifying details. It is not however a subject of much regret that his plan was never completed. In the specimen with which we have thus been presented, there is too little biography, and too much discussion. This remark is more particularly applicable to the life of Dr. Gregory, which extends to 118 pages, but is almost entirely occupied with an account, not of the writer, but of his writings. The other lives are of less extent. In his account of Hume, he relates, without any symptom of disapprobation, the indecent levity with which he sported on the verge of another world; and in the same manner he likewise repeats the declaration of Dr. Smith as to the character of that philosopher, "I have always considered him, both in his lifetime and since his death, as approaching as nearly to the idea of a perfectly wise and virtuous man, as perhaps the nature of human frailty will permit." This ingenious printer may himself have been somewhat too anxious to be classed among philosophers.

Smellie appears to have been a man of excellent talents, and of extensive knowledge. His disposition was social, his habits were convivial, and he was distinguished by a sarcastic vein of wit and humour. According to the description of his biographer, he "was about the middle size, and had been in his youth well-looking and active; but when rather past the middle of life, he had acquired from almost constantly stooping at his desk to write or correct, a rather lounging gait and appearance; and from a long-continued series of difficulties in his affairs, and much disappointment in matters of affectionate moment, he had become careless and rather slovenly in his dress and appearance; wearing his hair long and bushy, his ordinary black and wide-made clothes ill brushed, and well sprinkled with snuff, and his usual old-fashioned cocked hat for the most part rusty." Burns describes him as "a man positively of the first abilities and greatest strength of mind, as well as one of the best hearts and keenest wits, that he had ever met with." And in the following lines, which allude to a club called the Crochallan Fencibles, he has exhibited a graphic delineation of Smellie:

To Crochallan came
The old cock'd hat, the brown sartout the same;
His bristling beard just rising in its might,
'Twas four long days and nights to shaving-night;
His uncomb'd grizzly locks, wild staring, thatch'd;
A beard for thought profound and clear unmatch'd;
And though his caustic wit was biting, rude,
His heart was warm, benevolent, and good. (x.)

SMELLING is the act by which we perceive smells, or become sensible of the presence of odorous bodies. The

Smelling. sensations of smell are excited by certain effluvia, which, in the open air, are always issuing from the surfaces of most bodies, and striking on the extremities of the olfactory nerves, give them a peculiar sort of impression, which is communicated to the brain. The particles which issue thus from bodies are extremely volatile, and produce sensation by a degree of contact, which, though insensible, is still more efficient than if it were more gross and palpable. It is by a similar species of insensible contact that the eyes and ears are affected by external objects; while, in the excitation of the sensations of touch and of taste, an actual and sensible contact of the object with the organ is necessary. The organs of smelling are the nostrils and olfactory nerves; the minute ramifications of the latter being distributed throughout the whole concavity of the former.

The effluvia from odorous bodies are constantly floating about in the atmosphere, and must of course be drawn into the nostrils along with the air in inspiration; "so that there is," as Dr. Smith observes, "a manifest appearance of design in placing the organ of smell in the inside of that canal through which the air is continually passing in inspiration and expiration." It has been affirmed by Boerhaave, that the matter in animals, vegetables, fossils, and the like, which chiefly affects the sense of smelling, is that attenuated substance, inherent in their oily parts, called spirits; because, when this is taken away from the most fragrant bodies, what remains has scarcely any smell at all; but this, he says, if poured on the most inodorous bodies, gives them a fragrant.¹ We cannot however enter at present upon this inquiry.

The sense of smell has a close alliance with that of taste; and it seems probable from the proximity in the situation of their organs in all animals, that both are principally intended to guide them in the choice of their food; so that from this close connection, they are better enabled to choose what is good for them, and to reject what would be injurious. This is the opinion of Dr. Reid, as it was, in a very early period of the history of philosophy, that of Socrates and of Cicero.² Dr. Reid also remarks, that the sense of smell probably serves the same purpose in the natural state of man; but it is not always a sure guide for this purpose. The organs of smell differ, like those of the other senses, according to the destination of the animals to which they belong; and we know, that this sense is in man much less acute, than in many other animals. We see, that in the choice of their food, they are guided by the senses of smell and of taste, except when man has brought them into a sort of unnatural state by domestication. And this circumstance renders it probable, that both these senses were intended to serve the same purpose in the natural state of our species, although less calculated for this end than they were in the brutes, on account of the great superiority of their smelling organs. Besides, since it is probable that man, in the natural state, acts more by instinct than when civilized in society, so also it is reasonable to think, that he may possess some of the senses, this of smell for instance, in greater acuteness than we do. This indeed we are assured to be a fact; for we are told in the Histoire des Antilles, that

there are negroes who, by the smell alone, can distinguish the footsteps of a Frenchman from those of a negro.

The sense of smell is much more obtuse in man than in some of the lower animals. Dogs we know possess a power of smelling, of which we can scarcely form a conception, and which it is happy for us we do not possess;³ and birds of prey are said to possess this sense in still greater acuteness. But although this be more perfect, still the sense of smelling in man, who has other means of judging of his food, is such as to fit him for deriving enjoyment from a diversity of scents, particularly those of flowers and perfumes, to which dogs and other animals seem perfectly insensible. It has been said, we are aware, that some animals, the elephant for instance, are capable of this enjoyment;⁴ but of this fact we cannot help being very doubtful.

There is a very great sympathy between the organs of smell and of taste; for any defect or disease of one is generally attended with some corresponding defect or disease of the other. There is also a greater similarity between the sensations of both these, than between those of any other two senses; and hence it is, that we can sometimes tell the taste of an object from its smell, and vice versa. Hence also the reason why we apply the same epithets to the names of both these classes of sensations; as a sweet smell or taste.

It deserves also to be remarked, that both these senses seem subservient to the preservation of the animal existence, rather than to any other purpose. They accordingly constitute an object of the natural history of man, rather than of intellectual or of moral philosophy. The other three senses, on the contrary, seem rather intended for, as they certainly are essential to, our intellectual improvement, and become, of course, a proper object of investigation in the sciences of moral philosophy, or metaphysics.

The advantages derived by man and the other animals from the sense of smelling are not confined to the assistance which it affords them in the choice of their food. Most bodies in nature, when exposed to the open air, are constantly sending forth emanations or effluvia of such extreme minuteness as to be perfectly invisible. These diffuse themselves through the air, and however noxious or salutary, would not be perceived without the sense of smelling, which, if not vitiated by unnatural habits, is not only a faithful monitor when danger is at hand, but conveys to us likewise the most exquisite pleasures. The fragrance of a rose, and of many other flowers, is not only pleasant, but gives a refreshing and delightful stimulus to the whole system, while the odours proceeding from hemlock, or any noxious vegetable, or other substance, are highly offensive to our nostrils. Hence we are naturally led to seek the one class of sensations, and to avoid the other.

In some species of animals the sense of smell seems to be connected with certain mental sympathies, as those of hearing and sight are in all that possess them in any high degree; for not only their sexual desires appear to be excited by means of it, but other instinctive passions, which, according to the usual system of nature, should be still more remote from its influence. Dogs, although wholly unac-

quainted with lions, will shudder at their roar; and an elephant that has never seen a tiger, will in the same manner show the strongest symptoms of horror and affright at the smell of it. "The late Lord Clive," says an ingenious writer, "exhibited a combat between two of these animals at Calcutta; but the scent of the tiger had such an effect upon the elephant, that nothing could either force or allure him to go along the road, where the cage in which the tiger was inclosed, had passed, until a gallon of arrack was given him. Upon this, his horror suddenly turning into fury, he broke down the paling to get at his enemy, and killed him without difficulty."

If riding along a road, near which a dead horse, or part of its carcass, happens to be lying, we know, that our horse although he sees it not, cannot be made to pass the place but with difficulty. Where blood has been shed, particularly that of their own species, oxen will assemble, and upon smelling it, roar and bellow, and show the most manifest signs of horror and distress; and yet these symptoms could not arise from any associated notions of danger or death, since they appear in such as never had any opportunities of acquiring them. They must therefore be instinctive like other instinctive antipathies and propensities. But although in their mutual intercourse, animals make much use of the sense of smell, still it does not seem to be further concerned in exciting their sexual desires, than in indicating their object.

Some of those splenetic philosophers, who are ready upon all occasions to quarrel with the constitution of nature, have taken the liberty of condemning their Maker, because it has pleased his unfathomable wisdom to bestow in some instances upon the brutes senses and instincts more perfect than he has given to man, without reflecting that he has given to man an ample equivalent; for it may be asked with the poet,

Is not his reason all these powers in one?
Is Heaven unkind to man and man alone?
Shall he alone, whom rational we call,
Be pleased with nothing if not blessed with all?

With respect to that unknown peculiarity of bodies, which is the cause of our sensations of smell, the opinions of philosophers have been very various. Until of late, the doctrine of Des Cartes and Locke on this subject was pretty generally received; but, since the publication of Dr. Reid's works, his opinion, which we deem the most correct and satisfactory, has become very popular. We will endeavour to abridge his account of this matter. For this purpose, let us suppose a person, who has grown up without the sense of smell, to be immediately endowed with the use of this organ, and placed near some flowers of an exquisite savour. When he examines what he feels in such a situation, he can find no resemblance between this new sensation, and any thing with which he is already acquainted. He finds himself unable to explain its nature, and cannot ascribe to it figure, extension, or any known property of matter. It is a simple affection, or feeling of mind, and, considered abstractedly, can have no necessary connection with the nerves, the nostrils, or effluvia, or with any thing material whatever. By the nature of his constitution he is however led to refer this peculiar sensation to the nostrils, as its organ; and when, from experience, and by means of touch, he learns that external objects have the power of exciting this sensation, he concludes, that there must exist in bodies some unknown cause by which it is excited. In the first part of this process he considers the feeling, or sensation, abstractedly. As such, it exists in the mind only; and cannot exist there but when the mind is conscious of it. His consciousness soon enables him to distinguish different sorts of smells, all of them very distinct from one another, but, conformably to the nature of all sensation, extremely simple. He concludes, that each of these must have a distinct cause; and finding, by experience, that this cause is an unknown something in bodies, he concludes, that it must be

a property of matter, and, for want of another, gives it the name of smell. When he removes an odorous body from the organ, the sensation vanishes; when the body is again applied, the sensation is excited; and hence it is, that he is led naturally to connect the sensation with this unknown peculiarity of bodies by which it is produced. But since we see, that the sensation is, in a great degree, related to other objects besides its unknown cause, to the mind in which it exists, for instance, and to the organ which is its instrument, it may be asked why it becomes associated in the mind with its cause only? The reason seems pretty obvious. No single sensation, or class of sensations, is more connected with the mind, than any other of which it is susceptible. Nor is the connection subsisting between the organ and any of the sensations peculiar to it, greater than that which subsists between it and every other sensation of which it is the inlet. Hence the connection between the smell of an orange and the mind, or between it and the nostrils, is very general, and cannot, in the former instance, distinguish it from any other sensation of whatever kind, nor, in the latter, from any other particular smell. But the connection between this sensation and the orange is peculiar and permanent; and we accordingly find them always associated in the mind, just as we associate the notion of fire with the sensation of burning. The relation which a sensation of smell, or any sensation, bears to the mind, to an organ, or to the memory and conception of itself, is common to all sensations. The relation which any sensation bears to its own cause, suppose of the sensation of smell to a particular virtue or quality of bodies, is common to it with every other sensation, when considered with respect to its peculiar cause. And finally, a sensation of any kind bears the same sort of relation to the memory and conception of itself, that any other feeling or operation of mind bears to the conception and memory of that particular feeling or operation.

Whatever then be the nature of the minute particles of bodies by which our sensations of smell are excited, we cannot help considering their unknown cause as a virtue or quality of matter. Like all other modifications of material substance, it must be confessed, that this can have no resemblance to the sensations of mind. But we are not therefore to conclude with the followers of Des Cartes and Locke, that this secondary quality is a mere sensation; especially as we can readily conceive it existing where it is not smelled, or even after supposing the annihilation of every sentient being throughout the universe. The existence of the sensation we know to be momentary and fugitive; but in the existence of its cause we can, without difficulty or inconsistency, conceive a permanency independent of mind and of its sensations.

The doctrine which we have been illustrating has of late been called in question by a sceptical writer, who, it appears to us, has upon this occasion been entirely deficient in his accustomed acuteness. Dr. Reid's speculations seem so full, so clear and convincing, that we are at a loss to conceive how his meaning can be misunderstood; and yet the argument and objections of the writer to whom we allude, derive all their plausibility from a misinterpretation of Dr. Reid's meaning, and from a deviation from the established use of language. "An eminent metaphysician," says this author, "has declared that he has not the least difficulty in conceiving the air perfumed with aromatic odours in the deserts of Arabia; and he has decided, that the man who maintains smells to exist only in the mind must be mad, or must abuse language and disgrace philosophy. There are some authors, nevertheless, who differ widely on this subject from the learned metaphysician. Is it possible for a sensation to exist where there is no sentient? The authors to whom I allude think it impossible." And so, we may tell this learned author, does Dr. Reid, if he will take his word for it. Of the sensation of smell he remarks, "It

Smelling is indeed impossible, that it can be in any body; it is a sensation, and a sensation can be in a sentient thing only.¹ Again, "I can think of the smell of a rose when I do not smell it; and it is possible that when I think of it, there is no rose any where existing; but, when I smell it, I am necessarily determined to believe that the sensation really exists. This is common to all sensations, that, as they cannot exist but in being perceived, so they cannot be perceived but they must exist."² But, continues this acute metaphysician, "a smell is nothing else than a sensation. It is a feeling, which may be agreeable or disagreeable; which may, as some think, be excited by various combinations of elements; but which, since it is a feeling, cannot be those elements which are said to cause it, and cannot exist where there is no creature to perceive it. What is to be understood, in philosophical strictness, by the perfumes of the desert? We can excuse the poet when he makes the ocean smile,³ the winds dance,⁴ and the flowers respire;⁵ or even were he to perfume the desert. But the philosopher is no such magician, and had better not wander through the regions of fancy in search of sensations where there is no sentient." And is it then true that the word smell means only a sensation? A sensation is no more than an effect; it is a transient modification of the mind, which the mind itself can never produce. It must then have some cause which is external to the mind. Now, it is to this cause, and not to the sensation, that the name smell is most frequently applied in all languages; and it is this cause which Dr. Reid supposes capable of existing in the deserts of Arabia, where there is no sentient being to perceive it. But let us hear himself. "We have considered smell as signifying a sensation, feeling, or impression upon the mind; and in this sense it can only be in a mind or sentient being; but it is evident that mankind give the name of smell much more frequently to something which they conceive to be external, and to be a quality of body; they understand by it something which does not at all infer a mind, and have not the least difficulty in conceiving the air perfumed with aromatic odours in the deserts of Arabia, or some uninhabited island where the human foot never trod."⁶ "The faculty of smelling is something very different from the actual sensation of smelling; for the faculty may remain when we have no sensation. And the mind is no less different from the faculty, for it continues the same individual being when the faculty is lost. What is smell in the rose? It is a quality or virtue of the rose, or of something proceeding from it, which we perceive by the sense of smelling; and this is all we know of the matter. But what is smelling? It is an act of the mind, but is never imagined to be a quality of the mind. Again, the sensation of smelling is conceived to infer necessarily a mind or sentient being; but smell in the rose infers no such thing. We say, this body smells sweet, and that stinks; but we do not say, this mind smells sweet, and that stinks; therefore smell in the rose, and the sensation which it causes, are not conceived, even by the vulgar, to be things of the same kind, although they have the same name."⁷

There are some other remarks on Dr. Reid's opinion, in the work upon which we have been commenting, which we shall pass by; we may however notice the author's concluding argument. After mentioning some examples, he observes, "Now, in these instances, we see men and animals, that must have perception of smell, if I may be permitted to say so, altogether different from each other. Is not smell sensation when the spaniel finds sport in the field for his master; when the shark pursues through the ocean its expected victim; and when the camel conducts the thirsty wanderer to a fountain of fresh water, across the burning sands of the Arabian desert? If no animal had the

sensation of smell, there would be no odour; for aroma and oils may be thought to be material compositions, but are neither agreeable nor disagreeable feelings." If men and animals differ in their perceptions of smell, and, no doubt, difference of organization will cause them to do so, the conclusion should not be, we think, that smell is merely sensation, but that there is actually something external which is the cause of their sensations, and about which they differ. A rose put to the nostrils of a man, and then to those of a dog, may excite very different sensations; but we cannot think that the peculiarity of the rose, which excites those different sensations, varies by thus changing the position of the rose. If at table one person mistakes mutton for beef, and another thinks that it is venison, the conclusion may be, that it is neither venison nor beef; but no man, in his senses, can conclude that there is no meat at the table. But, "is not smell sensation when the spaniel finds sport in the field?" There is sensation no doubt; but we may be permitted to ask, what would become of the spaniel's sensation of smell and of his master's sport, were there no game in the field? What of the shark's sensation of smell and pursuit, were there no victim in the ocean? and what of the camel and the thirsty wanderer, were there no fountain of fresh water in the Arabian desert? "The smell of a rose signifies two things," says Dr. Reid; "first, a sensation which can have no existence but when it is perceived, and can only be in a sentient being or mind; secondly, it signifies some power, quality, or virtue in the rose, or in effluvia proceeding from it, which hath a permanent existence independent of the mind, and which, by the constitution of nature, produces the sensation in us. By the original constitution of our nature, we are both led to believe that there is a permanent cause of the sensation, and prompted to seek after it; and experience determines us to place it in the rose. The names of all smells, tastes, sounds, as well as heat and cold, have a like ambiguity in all languages; but it deserves our attention, that these names are but rarely, in common language, used to signify the sensations; for the most part, they signify the external qualities which are indicated by the sensations."⁸ We have been induced thus to discuss this topic at some length, because we regretted to see Dr. Reid's opinion and reasoning misrepresented; and we shall now conclude, not as this modern Berkeleyan does, "that if no animal had the sensation of smell, there would be no odour," but, that if there were no odour or external cause of smell, no animal would have this sensation.