which, though unpublished, merit preservation. Of this, it indeed appears that Mr. Stewart was fully sensible. For he, has not only printed in the second edition some insertions drawn from all the three sources, (insertions which, as stated, do not in the present publication show any sign of discrimination;) but on the third document—the original manuscript, it is prominently noted in his daughter's handwriting, that "this particularly is to be preserved with care," as containing "some valuable passages not printed." Accordingly, these omissions have, in a great measure, been recovered, and as already noticed, those from the two last sources are indifferently marked out by the word restored.
In the historical development of a series of opinions so complex, conflictive, and recondite, it could not but happen, be their general agreement what it might, that the conclusions of the author should to the editor appear occasionally to require, beside defence,[1] perhaps supplement, qualification, or even correction. But as I am persuaded of its propriety, so I have
- ↑ I may take this opportunity of supplying an example,—Mr. Fearn, in his ingenious work, First Lines of the Human Mind, (1820,) has, throughout a long preface, made a vehement attack on Mr. Stewart, for statements contained in the First Part of his Dissertation, in regard to colours, (infra, pp. 131–134;) asserting, that the fact, which is supposed to be there, first alleged, had been taken, without acknowledgement, from his (Mr. Fearn's) writings. Mr. Fearn says, (p. xix.)—"To justify most conclusively my assertions, made at different times, that the original notice of even the generic fact proceed to observe, that, although I have had occasion to peruse, and make very frequent references to, the works of Berkeley, of Hume, of Dr. Reid, and of Professor Stewart, between whom it is undeniable the great controversy concerning Perception has been carried on during near a centry; I will venture to believe, there is not the most distant hint, in any of their volumes, that a variety of colours is necessary for the act of perceiving visible figure or outline: nor do they at all hint at any such assertion as being made by any writer, ancient or modern." The italics and captials are Mr. Fearn's.—The letter to Dr. Reid, "of forty years before," and now first printed, (p. 133, seq.,) completely vindicates,—what he himself could not condescend to do,—Mr. Stewart's statements. He therein, interalia, expressly maintains:—"To this opinion [Reid's] I cannot subscribe; because it appears to me to be evident, that our perceptions of colour and figure are not only received by the same organ of sense, but that the varieties in our perceptions of colour are the means of our perception of visible figure." Compare also his doctrine on p. 552. It may here be added, that the whole speculation concerning the realizing, not only to imagination but to sight, of breadthless lines, (a speculation, in fact,hardly contemplated to Mr. Stewart,) can be traced to Aristotle, but more explicitly to Proclus and his scholar, Ammonius Hermiœ; while in modern times, I find the phænomenon signalized, among others, by Clavius, by D'Alembert, and by Dr. Thomas Young. Nor should it now remain a paradox; nor even an unemployed truth.
