Likes and Dislikes

We are told that Lord Chatham once excused himself for not paying due attention to the speech of a political rival by saying, that he felt that man was responsible to the Creator that his time should not be wasted by hearing discourses which neither conveyed profit or amusement to the hearer, nor honour and dignity to the speaker. We were reminded forcibly of this anecdote by reading in our esteemed contemporary the ‘Parthenon,’ a few weeks ago, a paper entitled “Likes and Similitudes,”—a title very like that of an Adelphi farce.It has been observed by metaphysical writers, that every object in the world must be either like or unlike some other object, and consequently, there can be no difficulty in instituting either a comparison or a contrast between any two things. For those readers then, who, like the zoologists ridiculed by Forbes, have a vivid perception of analogy, but not of affinity, as well as for that far more numerous class who can but perceive differences, without being able to decide whether they are dependent upon analogy or affinity, the perusal of “Likes and Similitudes” will afford insipid and innutritive mental repast, akin in nature to that which regales poetic minds entranced over the pages of the ‘Sentiment of Flowers’ or ‘The Language of Plants.’