Having considered the kind and value of the groups into which Annulose animals, and more especially insects, may be divided, I shall next call your attention to their composition. There are five numbers and their multiples which seem more particularly to prevail in nature: namely, Two—Three—Four—Five and Seven. But though these numbers are prevalent, no one of them can be deemed universal. The binary number, which affords the most simple, and for that reason perhaps not the least valuable, mode of arrangement, we see exemplified when two branches, so to speak, diverge from a common stem,—as in the Vegetable and Animal kingdoms; the terrestrial and aquatic Predaceous beetles; in the thalerophagous and saprophagous Lamellicorn ones; in the Anoplura and Thysanura; the Chilopoda and Chilognatha amongst Apterous insects; in the Scorpionidea and Aranidea amongst the Arachnida; and in the Macrura and Brachyura amongst the Decapod Crustacea. Again, in other cases three seems to be the most prominent number: this takes place sometimes with regard to the primary groups of an Order, or what I denominate the Suborders. Thus we have the Diurnal, Crepuscular, and Nocturnal Lepidoptera[1271]; the Linnean genera Blatta, Mantis, and Gryllus constitute the Orthoptera; and other instances of this number might be produced in some minor groups. But that which appears to prevail most widely in nature is what may be called the quaterno-quinary; according to which, groups consist of four minor ones; one of which is excessively capacious in comparison of the other three, and is always divisible into two; which gives five of the same degree, but of which, two have a greater affinity to each other than they have to the other three[1272]. Mr. W. S. MacLeay, in the progress of his inquiries to ascertain the station of Scarabæus sacer, discovered that the thalerophagous and saprophagous Petalocerous beetles resolved themselves each into a circle containing five such groups. And having got this principle, and finding that this number and its multiples prevailed much in nature, he next applied it to the Animal Kingdom in general: and from the result of this investigation, it appeared to him that it was nearly, if not altogether, universal[1273]. Nearly at the same time a discovery almost parallel was made and recorded by three eminent Botanists, MM. Decandolle, Agardh, and Fries, with regard to some groups of the Vegetable Kingdom[1274]; and more recently Mr. Vigors thinks he has discovered the same quinary arrangement in various groups of birds[1275]. This is a most remarkable coincidence, and seems a strong argument in favour of Mr. MacLeay's system. I should observe, however, that according to that system, as stated in his Horæ Entomologicæ, if the osculant or transition groups are included, the total number is seven[1276]:—these are groups small in number both of genera and species, that intervene between and connect the larger ones. Each of these osculant groups may be regarded as divided into two parts, the one belonging to the upper circle and the other to the lower; so that each circle or larger group is resolvable into five interior and two exterior ones, thus making up the number seven. Though Mr. MacLeay regards this quinary arrangement of natural objects as very general, it does not appear that he looks upon it as absolutely universal,—since he states organized matter to begin in a dichotomy[1277]: and he does not resolve its ultimate groups into five species; nor am I certain that he regards the penultimate groups as invariably consisting of five ultimate ones. In Copris I seem in my own cabinet to possess ten or twelve distinct types[1278]; and in Phanæus, the fifth type, which Mr. MacLeay regards as containing insects resembling all the other types[1279], appears to me rather divided into two; one formed by P. carnifex, Vindex, igneus, &c., and the other by P. splendidulus, floriger, Kirbii, &c.
The great point which demands our attention in considering a numerical arrangement of the Kingdoms of Nature is the value of the component members of each group. It is by no means difficult to divide a Kingdom, a Class, or an Order into two, or three, or five, or seven or more groups, according to any system we may be inclined to favour; but it is not so easy to do this so that the groups shall be of equal rank. Yet it seems requisite that in grouping our objects, as we descend towards the lowest term we should resolve each only into its primary elements, and of them form the next group; and so on till we come to species. When I say of equal rank, I do not mean an exact parity between the members into which a group is primarily resolvable,—because there will always be a degradation in descensu from the perfection of the type; but merely that parity (to use a metaphor) that there is between children of the same mother, differing in their relative ages and approach to the perfection of their nature. Perhaps it may be observed with respect to the quinary system, that this condition is not complied with, since two of the groups taken per se appear really to form one group; or to be much nearer to each other than to the remaining groups. But when it is taken into consideration that this great group, always resolvable into two, is the typical group, and that the two are really equal, or rather superior in value to the three others, the objection seems to vanish.
With regard to all numerical systems we may observe, that since variation is certainly one of the most universal laws of nature, we may conclude that different numbers prevail in different departments, and that all the numbers above stated as prevalent are often resolvable or reducible into each other. So that where Physiologists appear to differ, or think they differ, they frequently really agree.
II. The Almighty Creator, when he clothed the world that he had made with plants, and peopled it with animals, besides the manifestation of his own glory, appears to have had two most important purposes in view;—the one to provide a supply for the mutual wants of the various living objects he had created, for the continuance of the species, and for the maintenance of a due proportion, as to numbers, of each kind, so that all might subserve to the good of the whole; and the other, that by them he might instruct his creature man in such civil, physical, moral and spiritual truths, as were calculated to fit him for his station in the visible world, and gradually prepare him to become an inhabitant of that invisible one for which he was destined. The first of these purposes was best promoted by creating things "according to their kind," with sexes monœcious or diœcious; that groups of beings related to each other, and agreeing in their general structure, might discharge a common function. This we see to be the case generally in nature; for where there is an affinity in the structure, there is usually an affinity in the function. The last,—or the instruction of man in his primeval state of integrity and purity,—was best secured by placing before him for his scrutiny a book of emblems or symbols, in which one thing either by its form or qualities, or both, might represent another. If he was informed by his Creator that the works of creation constituted such a book, by the right interpretation of which he might arrive at spiritual verities as well as natural knowledge, curiosity and the desire of information concerning these high and important subjects would stimulate him to the study of the mystic volume placed before him; in the progress of which he would doubtless be assisted by that Divine guidance, which even now is with those who honestly seek the truth. Both divines and philosophers have embraced this opinion, which is built upon the word of God itself[1280].
This last purpose of the Creator was the root of the analogies, connecting different objects with each other that have no real affinity, observable in the works of creation: so that from the bottom to the top of the scale of being, there is many a series of analogous forms, as well as of concatenated ones; and the intire system of nature is representative, as well as operative: it is a kind of Janus bifrons, which requires to be studied in two aspects looking different ways. To what degree of knowledge the primeval races of men attained after the fall, by the contemplation and study of this book of nature, we are no where informed; but we learn from the highest authority that the revelation that God thus made of himself was in time corrupted, by those that professing themselves to be wise became fools, to the grossest idolatry, which sunk men in the lowest depths of sensuality, vice, and wickedness[1281].
In no country was this effect more lamentably striking than in Egypt, whose gods were all selected from the animal and vegetable kingdoms.
"Who knows not to what monstrous gods, my friend,
The mad inhabitants of Egypt bend?
The snake-devouring ibis these inshrine,
Those think the crocodile alone divine;
Others where Thebes' vast ruins strew the ground,
And shatter'd Memnon yields a magic sound,
Set up a glittering brute of uncouth shape,
And bow before the image of an ape!
Thousands regard the hound with holy fear,
Not one Diana:—and 'tis dangerous here
To violate an onion, or to stain
The sanctity of leeks with tooth profane.
O holy nations, in whose gardens grow
Such deities!"
Juv.
This species of idolatry doubtless originally resulted from their having been taught that things in nature were symbols of things above nature, and of the attributes and glory of the Godhead. In process of time, while the corruption remained, the knowledge which had been thus abused was lost or dimly seen. The Egyptian priesthood perhaps retained some remains of it; but by them it was made an esoteric doctrine, not to be communicated to the profane vulgar, who were suffered to regard the various objects of their superstitious veneration, not as symbols, but as possessed of an inherent divinity: and probably the mysteries of Isis in Egypt, and of Ceres at Eleusis, were instituted, that this esoteric doctrine, which was to be kept secret and sacred from the common people, might not be lost.
But this kind of analogy is of a higher order than that of which I am here principally to speak,—that, namely, which the various objects of nature bear to each other. This, however, though of a lower rank, is essentially connected with the other, and leads to it; for it establishes the principle, that created things are representative or symbolical: and we find, when we view them in this light, that as we ascend from the lowest beings in the scale of creation, we are led from one to another till we reach the summit or centre of the whole, and are thus conducted to the boundaries of this visible and material system; from whence we may conclude that we ought not here to stop, but go on to something invisible and extra-mundane, as the ultimate object intended to be reflected from this great speculum of creation—the Creator himself, and all those spirits, virtues, and powers that have emanated from him.