increase or diminish the absolute pleasure or pain. Pleased with a rose in itself, we may call it beautiful; but the pleasure and the beauty may still be heightened by recollections of the person who planted or presented it. Impressions, little agreeable in themselves, may gain by association. A national air may rank very low as a musical composition, and even offend a scientific ear, and yet delight him, the scenes of whose boyhood, and of whose home, the remembrances of whose relations and friends, it recalls.

IX. Categories.

Even those who recognise certain laws, or categories, according to which the mind operates, confine too much their considerations to general views. If Kant, in his treatise on Experimental Knowledge, admits a category of quality, his conception is still general. We know, it is true, the qualities of natural objects, but there are various kinds of these, and none of them are either specified in Kant's philosophy, or considered as fundamental faculties of the mind.

Idealogists have therefore recognised certain effects and modes of action of the mental powers, and certain laws according to which the mind acts, but few of the fundamental faculties. Among the categories of Aristotle and Kant those of space and time, and that of causality by Kant, are fundamental faculties of Phrenology, but the others are mere modes of action and general conceptions. The various conceptions of philosophers exist in nature, but they are defective, and need rectification, that is, the faculties and their modes of acting must be specified and their existence demonstrated by observation; in this way alone will philosophy become applicable to man in his social relations.

Moralists.

Man must soon have felt that every kind of mental operation could not be called intellectual. Philosophers have accordingly

acknowledged a second, and a different sort, which they name Will.

Living in society, man is in relation with his parents, his friends, his enemies, with those who are inferior or superior, and by an innate power he examines his actions in a moral point of view. In conceiving supernatural beings, and admitting their influence on his situation, he also contrived means to render himself agreeable to them.

Those philosophers, then, who examine the moral conduct of man, and its rules, viz. moralists, are particularly interested in the knowledge, not only of the intellectual faculties and their modes of action, but also of the inclinations and sentiments, of the affections and passions, of the motives of our actions, of the aim of our faculties, and of the means of arriving at it. The study of moralists, however, is not more exact than that of idealogists. Like them, ignorant of the fundamental powers of the mind, they confound modes of action with the faculties themselves, disagree about the origin of morality, its nature, and the means of advancing it; the philosophic doctrines of the will, affections and passions. I therefore begin with their elucidations.

X. Desire and Will.

Many philosophers understand by the expression Will, all sorts and all degrees of inclinations, desires, and sentiments. Moralists commonly say that the will alone is the cause of our actions and omissions, and even that mankind is degraded by any other explanation than this. The will is considered as an entity and styled weak or strong, good or bad. These terms, however, are vague, and require consideration.

In the common acceptation of the word, will is no more a fundamental power than the instinct of animals, it is only the effect of every primitive faculty of the mind, and synonymous with desire; each faculty being active produces an inclination, a desire, or a kind of will; and in this signification there are as many species of

will as fundamental faculties; the strength of each, too, is in proportion to the activity of the individual faculties, and exists involuntarily. Such a sweeping and general acceptation of the term Will, then, is evidently defective.

That desire which overwhelms the others is also called Will. Now, in this sense, every faculty in its turn may become Will. A dog, for instance, is hungry, but having been punished for eating the meat he found upon the table, he, without ceasing to feel appetite, for fear of a repetition of the blows, does not indulge; he desires to eat, but he will not. Will, therefore, in this acceptation, cannot be any fundamental power, it is only an effect of the most active powers.

Let us here ask, whether man in his healthy state of mind is compelled by nature to consider certain desires as superior and others as inferior? The answer is affirmative. I shall detail this point later, in speaking of the moral nature of man; meanwhile I adopt it as quite positive, and only add that the preference given is founded on intelligence which knows the different desires, and determines the election which is made. Now by calling will the mental operation which appreciates the value of the desires, and chooses among them, it is evident that it depends on, and is proportionate to, intellect; hence, that it is not a fundamental faculty.

It is of the utmost importance to be aware that there is no moral will without intelligence, though this does not constitute will, and that will is no fundamental power, but the effect of the reflective faculties applied to the affective and perceptive powers of the

mind.

Legislation, in general, recognises intelligence as an indispensable condition of will. Idiots, and the insane, therefore, are not answerable for their actions. All the affective faculties, indeed, are blind, and dispose us to act according to pleasure, not according to will, which may frequently be opposed to pleasure. In conformity, the moral code of Christianity distinguishes between desires and will.

Let us for a moment suppose that will is a fundamental power,

and of a higher order than intellect; but, on this hypothesis, how can will act at one time in this and at another in the opposite direction? How happens it, that in one the will looks only for selfish gratifications, and in another for general happiness? Can will take a determinate direction without any cause? Is it different in itself, or is it influenced by other causes—may it, for instance, be excited by the feelings? In this case, however, it would become dependent and exposed to aberrations.

The Christian law commands the will to resist inferior temptations, and to follow the inspirations of the Spirit. Pious persons, also, in their addresses to the Great Guiding Power, pray that their will may be directed towards certain actions, and turned away from others. This proves that they consider will as susceptible of being influenced, and by no means as independent, and acting without any cause. Such an independent will would, indeed, be a principle, and could have only one, never opposite tendencies.

Thus, in the world, will has been separated from mere desires, or from the affective faculties; and intelligence been considered a condition necessary to its manifestations. Yet intelligence does not constitute will; for a person with an excellent intellect may take very little interest in the welfare of other beings. He may acknowledge the better, and still incline and even yield to his inclination to pursue the worse. Two conditions then, the feelings and intellect, are necessary to will; in other terms, will consists in the application of reason to the affective and perceptive faculties.

The greater number of persons take their individual inclinations and pleasures for will, forgetting that these give motives blindly and involuntarily. We may, indeed, say, that the exhibition of true will is very rare; it is too generally in opposition to our inclinations. This state has been noticed by several moralists. The spirit,' it is said, 'is willing, but the flesh is weak.'* "For that which I do,' says the Apostle Paul, I allow not for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.'t

Here it is sufficient to know that will can neither be confounded with the individual inclinations nor with intellect; and that it is no special faculty, but the application of reason, or the reflective powers, to our desires and notions. I shall afterwards show that in its true signification it is the basis of liberty.

XI. Affections.

There is a great confusion of ideas in the works which treat of the affections. The name affection is sometimes given to fundamental powers, as to physical love, to self-love, to the love of approbation, and to hope. Affections are also confounded with passions. Moreover, affections are occasionally put for the pathognomical signs, which indicate different states of satisfaction or discontent of the fundamental powers; for instance, smiling, laughing, sighing, yawning, shedding tears, &c.

I employ the word in none of the preceding significations, but solely according to its etymology, to indicate the different states of being affected of the fundamental powers. The sense of feeling, for instance, may convey tickling, itching, burning, or lancinating pain; its various modes of sensation are affections. In the same way the internal faculties may be differently affected.

The affections of the fundamental faculties may be divided into qualitive and quantitive. The former may again be subdivided into five sorts: 1st, general, which exist in each fundamental power; 2d, common, which inhere in several faculties; 3d, special, which belong to individual powers; 4th, simple or compound; finally, 5th, which are common to man and animals, and which are proper and peculiar to man.

The quantitive affections may be subdivided into two sorts: 1st, the fundamental powers and their qualitive affections may be active in very different degrees, from indolence to passion; and 2d, they may act with more or less quickness and duration.

Among the qualitive and quantitive, and among the simple and compound affections, we may also distinguish those which appear