I. I shall begin with the first of these objections—that the entomologist is a mere trifler. As for the silly outcry and abuse of the ignorant vulgar, who are always ready to laugh at what they do not understand, and because insects are minute objects conclude that the study of them must be a childish pursuit, I shall not waste words upon what I so cordially despise. But since even learned men and philosophers, from a partial and prejudiced view of the subject, having recourse to this common-place logic, are sometimes disposed to regard all inquiry into these minutiæ of nature as useless and idle, and the mark of a little mind; to remove such prejudice and misconceptions I shall now dilate somewhat upon the subject of Cui bono?
When we see many wise and learned men pay attention to any particular department of science, we may naturally conclude that it is on account of some profit and instruction which they foresee may be derived from it; and therefore in defending Entomology I shall first have recourse to the Argumentum ad verecundiam, and mention the great names that have cultivated or recommended it.
We may begin the list with the first man that ever lived upon the earth, for we are told that he gave a name to every living creature[43], amongst which insects must be included; and to give an appropriate name to an object necessarily requires some knowledge of its distinguishing properties. Indeed one of the principal pleasures and employments of the paradisiacal state was probably the study of the various works of creation[44]. Before the fall the book of nature was the Bible of man, in which he could read the perfections and attributes of the invisible Godhead[45], and in it, as in a mirror, behold an image of the things of the spiritual world. Moses also appears to have been conversant with our little animals, and to have studied them with some attention. This he has shown, not only by being aware of the distinctions which separate the various tribes of grasshoppers, crickets &c. (Gryllus, L.) into different genera[46], but also by noticing the different direction of the two anterior from the four posterior legs of insects; for, as he speaks of them as going upon four legs[47], it is evident that he considered the two anterior as arms. Solomon, the wisest of mankind, made Natural History a peculiar object of study, and left treatises behind him upon its various branches, in which creeping things or insects were not overlooked[48]; and a wiser than Solomon directs our attention to natural productions, when he bids us consider the lilies of the field[49], teaching us that they are more worthy of our notice than the most glorious works of man: he also not obscurely intimates that insects are symbolical beings, when he speaks of scorpions as synonymous with evil spirits[50]; thus giving into our hands a clue for a more profitable mode of studying them, as furnishing moral and spiritual instruction.
If to these scriptural authorities we add those of uninspired writers, ancient and modern, the names of many worthies, celebrated both for wisdom and virtue, may be produced. Aristotle among the Greeks, and Pliny the elder among the Romans, may be denominated the fathers of Natural History, as well as the greatest philosophers of their day; yet both these made insects a principal object of their attention: and in more recent times, if we look abroad, what names greater than those of Redi, Malpighi, Vallisnieri, Swammerdam, Leeuwenhoek, Reaumur, Linné, De Geer, Bonnet, and the Hubers? and at home, what philosophers have done more honour to their country and to human nature than Ray, Willughby, Lister, and Derham? Yet all these made the study of insects one of their most favourite pursuits; and, as if to prove that this study is not incompatible with the highest flights of genius, we can add to the list the name of one of the most sublime of our poets, Gray, who was very zealously devoted to Entomology. As far therefore as names have weight, the above enumeration seems sufficient to shelter the votaries of this pleasing science from the charge of folly.
But we do not wish to rest our defence upon authorities alone; let the voice of reason be heard, and our justification will be complete. The entomologist, or, to speak more generally, the naturalist (for on this question of Cui bono? every student in all departments of Natural History is concerned), if the following considerations be allowed their due weight, may claim a much higher station amongst the learned than has hitherto been conceded to him.
There are two principal avenues to knowledge—the study of words and the study of things. Skill in the learned languages being often necessary to enable us to acquire knowledge in the former way, is usually considered as knowledge itself; so that no one asks Cui bono? when a person devotes himself to the study of verbal criticism, and employs his time in correcting the errors that have crept into the text of an ancient writer. Indeed it must be owned, though perhaps too much stress is sometimes laid upon it, that this is very useful to enable us to ascertain his true meaning. But after all, words are but the arbitrary signs of ideas, and have no value independent of those ideas, further than what arises from congruity and harmony, the mind being dissatisfied when an idea is expressed by inadequate words, and the ear offended when their collocation is inharmonious. To account the mere knowledge of words, therefore, as wisdom, is to mistake the cask for the wine, and the casket for the gem. I say all this because knowledge of words is often extolled beyond its just merits, and put for all wisdom; while knowledge of things, especially of the productions of nature, is derided as if it were mere folly. We should recollect that God hath condescended to instruct us by both these ways, and therefore neither of them should be depreciated. He hath set before us his word and his world. The former is the great avenue to truth and knowledge by the study of words, and, as being the immediate and authoritative revelation of his will, is entitled to our principal attention; the latter leads us to the same conclusions, though less directly, by the study of things, which stands next in rank to that of God's word, and before that of any work of man. And whether we direct our eyes to the planets rolling in their orbits, and endeavour to trace the laws by which they are guided through the vast of space, whether we analyse those powers and agents by which all the operations of nature are performed, or whether we consider the various productions of this our globe, from the mighty cedar to the microscopic mucor—from the giant elephant to the invisible mite, still we are studying the works and wonders of our God. The book, to whatever page we turn, is written by the finger of him who created us; and in it, provided our minds be rightly disposed, we may read his eternal verities. And the more accurate and enlarged our knowledge of his works, the better shall we be able to understand his word; and the more practised we are in his word, the more readily shall we discern his truth in his works; for, proceeding from the same great Author, they must, when rightly interpreted, mutually explain and illustrate each other.
Who then shall dare maintain, unless he has the hardihood to deny that God created them, that the study of insects and their ways is trifling or unprofitable? Were they not arrayed in all their beauty, and surrounded with all their wonders, and made so instrumental (as I shall hereafter prove them to be) to our welfare, that we might glorify and praise him for them? Why were insects made attractive, if not, as Ray well expresses it, that they might ornament the universe and be delightful objects of contemplation to man[51]? And is it not clear, as Dr. Paley has observed, that the production of beauty was as much in the Creator's mind in painting a butterfly or in studding a beetle, as in giving symmetry to the human frame, or graceful curves to its muscular covering[52]? And shall we think it beneath us to study what he hath not thought it beneath him to adorn and place on this great theatre of creation? Nay, shall we extol those to the skies who bring together at a vast expense the most valuable specimens of the arts, the paintings and statues of Italy and Greece, all of which, however beautiful, as works of man, fall short of perfection; and deride and upbraid those who collect, for the purpose of admiring their beauty, the finished and perfect chef-d'œuvres of a Divine artist? May we gaze with rapture unblamed upon an Apollo of Belvedere, or Venus de Medicis, or upon the exquisite paintings of a Raphael or a Titian, and yet when we behold with ecstasy sculptures that are produced by the chisel of the Almighty, and the inimitable tints laid on by his pencil, because an insect is the subject, be exposed to jeers and ridicule?
But there is another reason, which in the present age renders the study of Natural History an object of importance to every well-wisher to the cause of Religion, who is desirous of exerting his faculties in its defence. For as enthusiasm and false religion have endeavoured to maintain their ground by a perversion of the text of scripture, so also the patrons of infidelity and atheism have laboured hard to establish their impiety by a perversion of the text of nature. To refute the first of these adversaries of truth and sound religion, it is necessary to be well acquainted with the word of God; to refute the second, requires an intimate knowledge of his works; and no department can furnish him with more powerful arguments of every kind than the world of insects—every one of which cries out in an audible voice, There is a God—he is Almighty, all-wise, all-good—his watchful providence is ever, and every where, at work for the preservation of all things.
But since mankind in general are too apt to look chiefly at this world, and to regard things as important or otherwise in proportion as they are connected with sublunary interests, and promote our present welfare, I shall proceed further to prove that the study of insects may be productive of considerable utility, even in this view, and may be regarded in some sort as a necessary or at least a very useful concomitant of many arts and sciences.