Here, however, his strength is his weakness.He attempts far too much by logical differentiation and formalization.No man purposes now to proceed in physical investigation by logical dissection, as was done by Aristotle and the schoolmen.I have at times looked into the old compends of physical science which were used in the colleges down even to an age after the time of Newton.
Ingenious they were beyond measure, and perfect in form far beyond what Herschel or Faraday have attempted.I am convinced that logical operations can do nearly as little in the mental as they have done in the material sciences.Iadmit that Sir William Hamilton had deeply observed the operations of the mind, and that his lectures contribute more largely to psychology than any work published in his day.But his induction is too much subordinated to logical arrangement and critical rules.His system will be found, when fully unfolded, to have a completeness such as Reid and Stewart did not pretend to, but it is effected by a logical analysis and synthesis, and much that he has built up will require to be taken down.{418}
We may compare him with the Scotch metaphysician who had the greatest reputation when Hamilton determined to claim a place for himself.Brown and Hamilton are alike in the fame which they attained, in the influence which they exercised over young and ardent spirits, in the interest which they excited in the study of the human mind, and in their success in upholding the reputation of the Scottish colleges for metaphysical pursuits: each had an ambition to be independent, to appear original and establish a system of his own; both were possessed of large powers of ingenuity and acuteness, and delighted to reduce the compound into elements; and each, we may add, had a considerable acquaintance with the physiology of the senses: but in nearly all other respects they widely diverge, and their points of contrast are.more marked than their points of correspondence.They differed even in their natural disposition.The one was amiable, gentle, somewhat effeminate, and sensitive, and not much addicted to criticism; the other, as became the descendant of a covenanting hero, was manly, intrepid, resolute, -- at times passionate, -- and abounding in critical strictures, even on those whom he most admires.As to their manner of expounding their views, there could not be a stronger contrast.Both have their attractions; but the one pleases by the changing hues of his fancy and the glow of his sentiment, whereas the other stimulates our intellectual activity by the sharpness of his discussions, and the variety and aptness of his erudition.The one abounds in illustrations, and excites himself into eloquence and his readers into enthusiasm: the other is brief and curt; seldom giving us a concrete example; restraining all emotion, except it be passion at times never deigning to warm the students by a flash of rhetoric and presenting only the naked truth, that it may allure by its own charms.If we lose the meaning of the one, it is in a blaze of light, in a cloud of words, or in repeated repetitions: the quickest thinkers are not always sure that they understand the other, because of the brevity of his style, and the compression of his matter; and his admirers are found poring over his notes, as the ancients did over the responses of their oracles.The one helps us up the hill, by many a winding in his path, and allows us many a retrospect, when we might become weary, and where the view is most expanded; whereas {419} the other conducts us straight up the steep ascent, and, though be knows all the paths by which others have mounted, he ever holds directly on; and if there be not a path made for him, he will clear one for himself.Both were eminently successful lecturers:
but the one called forth an admiration of himself in the minds of his whole class; whereas the other succeeded in rousing the energies of select minds, in setting them forth on curious research, and in sharpening them for logical dissection.One feels, in reading Brown, as if he were filled and satisfied but sometimes as he finds in the digestion, the food has been far from substantial: whereas we are forced to complain, in regard to Hamilton, that he gives us the condensed essence, which the stomach feels great difficulty in mastering.The one never coins a new technical word, when the phrases in current use among the British and French philosophers of the previous century will serve his purpose; the other delights to stamp his thoughts with a nomenclature of his own, derived from the scholastics or the Germans, or fashioned out of the Greek tongue: and so the one feels soft as a bird of delicate plumage, whereas the other is bristling all over with sharp points like a porcupine.The works of the one remind us of Versailles, with its paintings, its woods, its fountains,-- all somewhat artificial, but beautiful withal; those of the other are ruled and squared like the pyramids, and look as if they were as lofty, and must be as enduring.
Both were extensive readers: but the reading of the one was in the Latin classics, and the works of the well-known authors of England and France in the last century; whereas the other ranged over all ancient literature, and over the philosophic systems of all ages and countries; delighted supremely in writings which had never been read since the age in which they were penned; troubled many a librarian to shake the dust from volumes which no other man had ever asked for; and must, we should think, have gratified the dead, grieving in their graves over neglect, by showing them that they were yet remembered.The one delights to show how superior he is to Reid, to Stewart, to the Schoolmen, to the Stagyrite; the other rejoices to prove his superior learning by claiming for old, forgotten philosophers the doctrines attributed to modern authors, and by demonstrating how much we owe to the scholastic ages and to Aristotle.{420}
