extraordinary genius, in other respects do not raise themselves above their companions; and why men, who excel in one point are so indifferent in every thing else? The celebrated Betty, who at the age of thirteen, was already regarded a first-rate actor, used to play in the street with his companions, up to the moment of his appearance on the stage. William Crotch, celebrated at the age of six years, for his musical talents, was, in other respects, a child of only moderate abilities.

I have made the same observation on a boy of five years, who gave evidence of complete puberty and the most decided propensity for women; he had nothing to distinguish him from children of his age, in all his other inclinations. The same contrast is remarkable in adults. The most extraordinary faculties prove nothing in favor of qualities of a different order. Nothing could have made a Horace of Cæsar, or a Homer of Alexander. Helvetius, himself, is forced to confess that education would never have changed Newton into a poet, or Milton into an astronomer. Michael Angelo would never have been able to compose the tables of Albanus, nor Albanus those of Julius Romanus. We can only explain these various phenomena by saying, that certain organs perfect themselves sooner, and others later; that, in certain individuals, some organs remain always in arrear, while others acquire the greatest energy. But this explanation shows again, that all the moral qualities and intellectual faculties are innate.

Philosophers have recourse to small subterfuges to prove, that our propensities and our talents are the result of chance. It is, they say, by insignificant impressions on the infant at the breast, by peculiar examples and events, that sometimes one faculty is determined and sometimes another. If Demosthenes became eloquent, it is because he was attracted by the eloquence of Callisthenes. If Vaucanson became celebrated in mechanics, it was because he had seen, while a child, a clock in the ante-chamber of his mother's confessor ; he examined its wheels, made a similar machine with a 13

VOL. I.

bad knife, and, his taste developing itself, he soon constructed an automaton flute-player, and the most astonishing machines. Milton would not have written his poem, had he not lost his place of secretary to Cromwell. Shakspeare made tragadies in consequence of being an actor; in place of being an actor, he would have remained a wool-dealer, like his father, had not some youthful follies compelled him to quit the place of his birth. Corneille falls in love, and writes verses to the object of his affection; it is to this circumstance that we owe this great dramatic poet. Newton sees an apple fall; what more was wanting to enable him to divine the laws of gravitation.

I admit these facts. All that can be concluded from them is, that our propensities and our talents do not always put themselves in activity; that it is often necessary, that the impulse be given them by an external impression, or that the material object, on which they are to exercise themselves, be offered them. The cock will not fight, unless he finds a rival to thwart him in his love; the beaver does not build, if he has no branches of trees; no animal can generate without a female; without obstacle, there can be no firmness; without an enemy, no generous pardon. In all ages, great events have given rise to great men ; not that the circumstances produce their intellectual faculties, but because they furnish an ample field for the free exercise of their faculties. Many men, without doubt, acquire, only by this means, a knowledge of their own genius; but if, sometimes, certain qualities remain at first inactive, for want of circumstances, the force and solidity which these faculties afterward display, fully satisfy us that their existence had preceded their action. Is it not evident, that, in the very examples opposed to me, the objects offered by chance, would not, without the peculiar disposition in question, have been seized as they were, nor with the same energy? How many are the children on whom works of art make little impression, or whom the view ofthese works does not render artists?

Vaucanson directs a fixed attention to the arrangement of the clock; he examines it with much care; the first trials he makes to imitate it, with bad tools, prove successful; now, this attention and this rapid success, prove that there existed a relation between his faculties and the mechanic arts. Thucydides shed tears of envy at the reading which Herodotus gave of his history, to the Greeks. It certainly was not this perusal, which created in him a concise, close, lively style, strong and rich in thoughts. Neither was it the reading of the poem of the Death of Henry IV. which inspired Fontaine with his peculiar talent for poetry. How many secretaries lose their places without becoming Miltons! How many are in love, and write verses like Corneille and Racine; yet these poets have found no equals among their

successors.

If the most frivolous accessary circumstances produce striking differences in propensities and talents, why does not education, which can produce circumstances at will, seize this new means of forming great men? And why have we, and shall we always have, reason to complain that, notwithstanding so many establishments for education, great men are so rare a phenomenon?

I certainly do not deny, that good models are of great utility, and that the study of these models ought to constitute an essential part of education; but, if it be necessary, or sufficient, to have excellent subjects of imitation, whence have Homer, Petrarch, Dante, drawn their divine art? Why do not the talents of Tacitus, Cicero, and Livy, find their inheritors, though so many scholars know these authors by heart? The Raphaels, Mozarts, Haydns, why do they produce so few disciples? And why do we always need to await a lapse of several ages, before we can see any great men shine in the annals of history?

Again; an objection is drawn from the uniformity which is found among men, on a hasty survey of all the individuals of a nation; and from this, it is concluded,

that the faculties of mankind are only a result of social institutions.

But this uniformity proves precisely the reverse; for, we find it in essential things, not only in a single nation, but in all people, in all ages, however different may be the external influences of climate, of nourishment, laws, customs, religion, and education. It even preserves itself in all the individuals of the same species of animals, under whatever climate, and whatever external influence. This uniformity is, consequently, the strongest proof that nothing can derange the plan, which nature has prescribed by means of organization. For the rest, these panegyrists of the creative power of education, are in direct contradiction with themselves. At one time, the uniformity observed among men, serves to prove that education does every thing; at another, in order to explain the difference in characters, they allege the impossibility of the greater part of individuals receiving a uniform education.

In fine, let us consult persons who devote their whole life to the education of men; such as Campè, Niemeyer, Pestalozzi, Salzmann, Gediké, May, Eschké, Pfingsten, the abbè Sicard, &c. Every day furnishes them occasion to remark, that in each individual, dispositions differ from birth; and that education can have no effect, except in proportion to the innate qualities: if it were otherwise, how could these benevolent men be pardoned, and how pardon themselves, for not rooting out, in their pupils, all the faults, vices, all their fatal passions, and their base inclinations? How should satirical authors, moralists, and preachers have had so little success against absurdities and crimes? Why have not the great and the rich, purchased the art of giving a great capacity to their children? Believe, then, that such an act is not entirely in the power of men. It is nature herself, that, by means of the immutable laws of organization, has reserved to herself not the only, but the first right, over every exercise of the faculties of man and animals.

Continuation of the exposition and of the refutation of different Opinions, on the origin of our Moral Qualities and Intellectual Faculties.

Influence of Climate and Food on the Moral and Intellectual Forces of Man.

Some naturalists would derive certain qualities from the influence of climate, from food, drink, and even from the milk furnished to the infant.

This is to confess, that our qualities and faculties are inherent in our organization; for, the milk of the nurse, food, drink, climate act only on man's physical system. It is incontestable, that all these circumstances act with marked influence on our physical and moral nature; but again, do we not confound the power of modifying with the power of producing? The varieties of food and drink excite or weaken the action of the organs, but can neither produce them, nor cause their disappearance. The nurse's milk, like any other aliment, may be the cause of a physical constitution more or less healthy, and thus influence the character and the mind; but it can neither give nor take away determinate inclinations or qualities. If parents have a right to impute to nurses the malpractices of their children, why do not we, who feed on beef, pork, mutton, &c., render these animals responsible for our good and bad qualities?

It is equally notorious, that climate does not influence the whole constitution and the form of certain parts of the body only; but likewise the different development of different parts of the brain, and, consequently, the dif ferent configuration of the head, and, lastly, the modifications of the moral and intellectual character of different nations. But, however different, and however powerful local circumstances may be, they never have changed, and never will change the essence of an animal or of any variety of the human species,