responded to the place where the blow had been received. By degrees her arm became weakened and almost paralysed; her lower jaw trembled unceasingly; she was frequently attacked with convulsions. But, as an offset to these misfortunes, her intellectual faculties had acquired an uncommon degree of vigor, and though she was only in her eleventh year, the features of her face, and her singularly sedate behavior, would have made her pass for a grown-up woman.

severe

Gretry, in his memoirs of himself, tells us that he owed the development of his genius for music, to a violent contusion he received on the head, by the fall of a large log. Haller tells us of an idiot, who, having received a wound on the head, exhibited some understanding so long as the wound continued open; but relapsed into imbecility so soon as a cure was effected. The same phenomenon often happens in regard to the other organs. Haller again relates, that a person attacked with inflammation of the eye, acquired, in consequence, such energy in the organ of vision, during the course of his disease, that he could see even by night. It is thus with all the inert organs, and those whose development is defective; irritation developes or greatly augments their faculties. These examples prove, more and more, that the innateness of the properties of the soul and mind, and their dependence on organisation, must pass for demonstrated truths.

It is true, that in a state of health, man does not feel that he exercises his intellectual faculties by means of material organs; but he is equally unconscious that digestion, nutrition, and secretion are exercised in him by material apparatuses. Inattentive to the nature of his being, to the phenomena which relate to it, and to their causes, he hardly dreams that the difference which shows itself in him, according to the difference of age, in the exercise of his propensities and his faculties, is the result of the change which has taken place in his organisation. "We must, consequently," as Herder says, "pardon the error of the people, when, in the midst of the dream of life, they regard the reason with which they are endowed as independent of the senses and the organs, and raise it to the rank of a pri. mordial and pure faculty. The observer of nature, on the contrary, who knows, by experience, the origin and the whole course of human life, and who, by the study of the history of nature, can trace the chain of the gradual perfection of the animal kingdom, up to man, is unceasingly reminded of the influence of organisation. Every thing shows him, that man no more makes himself, as respects the use of his intellectual faculties, than he depends on himself for his birth." Malebranche has also said with reason, "that the difference in the tastes of nations and even of individuals, for the various kinds of music, arises in a great measure from differences in organisation; that, in general, our propensities and our faculties depend on the same cause; and that, consequently, we cannot better employ our time than in seeking the material causes of the changes which befal us, in order to learn to know ourselves. Let us hope that men will not long defer to acknowledge, generally, as Bonnet says, that it is only by the physical, that we can penetrate into the

moral nature of man, and that, consequently, the basis of all the philosophy of the human mind, is a knowledge of the functions of the brain.

SECTION IV.

OF FATALISM, MATERIALISM, AND MORAL LIBERTY.

In the preceding sections, I have proved, by indisputable facts, that the faculties of the soul and the mind are innate, and that their exercise depends on the organisation. I have also shown that the origin of the moral and intellectual faculties, and the different modes in which they are manifested, can be explained in no other way. But, there is a kind of objection, which new truths never escape, especially when they may lead to great results. Ignorance, prejudice, envy, and often bad faith, endeavor to combat these truths. If they cannot attack the principles of a doctrine, they try at least to render it suspected, by the dangerous consequences of which they accuse it. Thus, it is reproached to the physiology of the brain, that it overturns the first foundations of morality and religion; that it eminently favors materialism and fatalism; and that, consequently, it denies free will. History teaches that the same has always happened to every discovery.

The followers of the different schools of philosophy among the Greeks, mutually accused each other of impiety and of perjury. The people, in turn, detested the philosophers, and accused those who sought to discern the principles of things, of invading, in a presumptuous manner, the rights of the Divinity. The novelty of the opinions of Pythagoras, caused his expulsion from Athens; those of Anaxagoras threw him into prison. The Abderides treated Democritus as insane, because he wished to discover in dead bodies the cause of insanity; and Socrates, for having demonstrated the unity of God, was condemned to drink hemlock.

The same scandal has been renewed in all ages and among all nations. Many of those who distinguished themselves in the fourteenth century by their knowledge in the natural sciences, were punished with death, as magicians. Galileo, for having proved the motion of the earth, was imprisoned at the age of seventy years. Those who first maintained that climate influences the intellectual faculties of nations, made themselves suspected of materialism.

as

In general, nature sports in a singular manner, and yet always uniformly, with new truths and those who discover them. With what indignation and what animosity have men repulsed the greatest benefits! For example, the potato, Peruvian bark, vaccination, &c. As soon Varolius made his anatomical discoveries, he was decried by Silvius as the most ignorant, the most senseless, the most infamous of men: Vesanum, literarum imperitissimum arrogantissimum, calumniatorem, maledicentissimum, rerum omnium ignarissimum, transfugam impium, ingratum, monstrum ignorantiæ, impietas exemplar, perniciosissimum quod pestilentiali halitu Europam venenat, etc. Varolius was reproached with dazzling his hearers by a captious eloquence, and with producing, artificially, the prolongation of

the optic nerve to the thalami of the same name. Harvey, maintaining the circulation of the blood, was treated as a visionary; and the envy of his enemies went so far as to seek to ruin him with the Kings James I. and Charles I., and when it was no longer possible to cut short the optic nerve, or to arrest the blood in its vessels, the honor of these two discoveries was suddenly transferred to Hippocrates. The physical truths announced by Linnæus, Buffon, and that pious philosopher, Bonnet, by George Leroy, were represented as impieties which threatened to commence the total ruin of religion and morality: even the virtuous and generous Lavater has been treated as a fatalist and a materialist. Everywhere, fatalism and materialism, placed before the sanctuary of truth, served to deter the world from entering it. Everywhere, those, whose judgment the confiding public awaits, not only attribute to the author of a discovery the absurdities of their own prejudice, but even renounce truths already established, as soon as they are opposed to their ends, and resuscitate exploded errors, provided they will serve to ruin the man who allows them their due weight.

Such is a faithful picture of what has happened to me. I have therefore some reason to be proud of having experienced the same fate, as the men to whom the world is indebted for so great a mass of knowledge. It would seem that nature had subjected all truths to persecution, in order to establish them in a more solid manner; for he who knows how to wrest one from her, presents always a front of brass to the darts hurled against him, and has always the strength to defend and to consolidate it. History shows us, that all the efforts and all the sophism directed against a truth once drawn from the abyss, fall like dust raised by the wind against a rock.

The examples of Aristotle and of Descartes ought in a special manner to be quoted, when we would make known the influence of prejudice on the good and bad fortune of new doctrines. The antagonists of Aristotle caused his books to be burned; afterwards they burned the works of Ramus, who had written against Aristotle, and declared the adversaries of the Stagyrite, heretics; and there were even legislative acts, forbidding to attack his philosophy under pain of the galleys. And yet no one now concerns himself with the philosophy of Aristotle! Descartes was persecuted because he maintained innate ideas, and the University of Paris caused his books to be burned. He had written the sublimest thoughts on the existence of God; Voet, his enemy, accused him of atheism. Still, later, this same university declared itself for innate ideas; and when Locke and Condilac attacked innate ideas, there was a cry on all sides of materialism and fatalism.

It is thus, that the same opinions have been regarded sometimes as dangerous, because they were new-sometimes as useful, because they were old. We must then conclude to take pity upon man; that the judgment of contemporaries on truth or error, or on the dangerous or innocent consequences of a doctrine, is singularly suspicious; and that the author of a discovery ought not to trouble himself about anything but to know whether he has actually discovered the truth.

Reason," says Anchillon, following Bonnet, "knows neither useful truths nor dangerous truths. What is, is; there is no compromising with this principle. It is the only answer we need make; and to those, who, subjecting every thing to utility, ask what is this good for? and to those, who, always yielding to their fears, inquire whither will this lead? Jesus, the son of Sirach, has already said, We must not say, what good will this do?' for the use of everything will be found in its season; but we cannot abuse the truth.'"

I do not pretend to say, that ignorance and ill faith will not abuse my doctrine; for what will not man abuse? Tell him that he must expiate his crimes, and you will see him, in his superstition, immolate his children. Have not Lucretius and his disciples employed all their wit, to show that the belief of the immortality of the soul keeps up the fear of death, and poisons all the enjoyments of life? Yet, who knows not, that this same belief is the basis of social happiness, of order, and of morality, the most effectual consolation in the crosses of life. To found hospitals for lying-in women and foundlings, to introduce inoculation or vaccination; to place lightningrods on houses, is, in the eyes of some, an inestimable benefit; of others, an outrage against Providence. In a word, man makes of everything a subject of offence; but, as St. Bernard says, we must judge differently of the offence of the ignorant, and of that of the Pharisees. The former are offended through ignorance, the latter through ill-will; the former, because they know not the truth; the latter, because they hate it.

Malebranche thus represents the enemies of new truths: "It is not the persons of true and solid piety, who ordinarily condemn what they do not understand, but rather the superstitious and the hypocrites. The superstitious, through servile fear, are startled as soon as they see an active and penetrating spirit. For instance, one need only give them some natural reasons for thunder, and its effects, to appear an atheist in their eyes. But the hypocrites make use of the appearance of sacred truths revered by all the world, in order to oppose new truths by particular interests. They attack truth with the image of truth; and in their hearts make a scoff of what all the world respects; they establish for themselves, in the minds of men, a reputation the more solid, and the more formidable, as what they thus abuse is more sacred. These persons are, then, the strongest, the most powerful, the most formidable enemies of truth."

I, too, have something to do with the superstitious, and still more with the hypocrites; but I shall not trouble myself with these last, except to answer their objections.

As for those who doubt in good earnest, I shall seek to let them know the true spirit of my doctrine, on all points that can cause them disquiet. I shall prove to them which iny principles are in accordance, not only with the nature of things, but with the experience and the testimony of the greatest thinkers, and of respectable men, who have most loved the human race; and, as the object is to rectify opinions of the highest impor tance, they will not be surprised if I adduce the testimony of the fathers of the church, and of the

apostles. What is there more proper, to confound hypocrisy and to tranquillise the most timorous piety, than the encouraging accordance of my principles with the teaching of those who, without captious reasonings, without vain subtleties, have so well developed the nature of man; who have mainly occupied themselves in contributing to his happiness, who have revealed to us a morality the purest, and the most appropriate to our wants; who, in fine, have so frequently sealed with their blood, eternal truth?

"
MORE CURIOUS FACTS."

THE COMMON Mouse, and the WHITEBAIT.

THE GOOD FOLK OF SCOTLAND must forgive us for our unwearied zeal in "dabbling" among all things that throw a light upon the footsteps of Nature. We have "strolled" much of late, and seen things innumerable that will have to be treated of in turn. Meantime we make room, as usual, for two interesting notes, contained in the "Naturalist," No. 28. The one by R. F. LOGAN, Esq., of Duddington, treats of the Common Mouse. The other, by G. PULMAN, Esq., of Crewkerne, clears up the mystery of the Whitebait, once said to live in the Thames only. Space forbids our adding any notes of our own upon this far-famed luxury; but an opportunity for so doing will offer hereafter."

NOTES ON THE COMMON MOUSE. FOR some time past I have had a live specimen of the Common Mouse (Mus Musculus) in captivity, for the purpose of observing its habits; and as Common Mice are, I should think, not very often kept as pets, unless it be the albino variety, it may perhaps interest some of your readers to know something of the manners of this agile, timid little cosmopolite.

For a short time after its introduction to its domicile, it was restless and watchful, constantly biting the wires with its teeth; and in so doing, making such a noise, that had its teeth not been very hard and strong, they must have been broken to pieces by such violent exercise on so hard a substance. Now it sleeps away most of its time during the day, rolled up in a corner like a ball, but is roused by the slightest noise; and when food is placed within its reach, awakes to full activity, steals out of its corner, seizes it in its mouth, and runs with it generally into the opposite corner; where it munches it, holding it between its fore feet, and crouching on the hinder ones; but not sitting erect, as we see Mice frequently drawn. This posture it very seldom assumes; but does so occasionally when cleaning its fur, though never, I believe, while feeding. It is a most cleanly little animal, and always dresses its fur after a meal; licking its paws quite clean, and then raising them both together over its head, and stroking down its face and ears; finishing the operation by licking its fur as far as it can reach, very much after the manner of its enemy the Domestic Cat.

When about to lie down, it generally turns round once or twice in the corner, like a Cat or Dog; and laps up milk, when given to it, exactly in a similar manner. One day when I thought it thirsty, I offered it a drop of water on the end of my pen, which it licked off with avidity, and followed the pen when withdrawn for a fresh supply. In sleeping, it frequently tucks its head right under its body, so as literally to rest on the crown of it; a most uncomfortable position one might suppose; but one which it seems very fond of. I have never heard it squeak, or utter the smallest sound since it came into my possession; which is rather remarkable. As another proof of its disposition for cleanliness; I had one morning given it some soft food, in eating a portion of which, it rolled it in the dirt at the bottom of the cage; on discovering which, it immediately rejected it, tremity of the cage, returned to its favorite and pushing it with its snout to the furthest excorner; which it swept perfectly clean in the same fashion, shoving everything aside with its snout, and then went for a fresh supply.

It is nearly, though not quite, omnivorous in its appetite, as there are some things it will not touch. It dislikes animal food, and shows a marked preference for farinaceous substances; bread being an especial favorite. A bit of ripe pear, or cooked cabbage, it will not touch, though a dried fig is eaten with evident relish.-R. F. L.

The above commentary on an animal which is so universally detested, and held in check by sometimes three cats in one dwelling, will be read with lively curiosity. Often have we silently watched these ele gantly-formed little creatures, as they played prettily on the floor of our summer-house. Seated at a window opposite, we have been really unwilling to disturb them. One thing is fatal to their being made "pets" of; and that is, the offensive odor inseparable from their local habitations. It is positively injurious to health.

We now subjoin the second extract, referring to—

THE WHITEBAIT IN DEVONSHIRE. The Whitebait (Clupea alba), is far more widely known, at least by name, than many other fishes of larger growth and of much more important pretensions. The conspicuous part which it yearly plays in the ministerial dinner at Greenwich, has given to it a kind of political association, and thus has sufficiently familiarised it to every newspaper reader, whether naturalist or not. But, however widely it may be known by name, there are perhaps few of our British fishes in reality less popularly known, and certainly none to which so circumscribed a locale has till recently been assigned; indeed, it is not long since this little fish was "promoted" to the rank of species, it having previously been regarded simply as either the Herring or the Shad in an early stage of its growth. The honor of discovering its true nature is due to Mr. Yarrell.

A belief, in the non-naturalist world, that Clupea alba is peculiar to the Thames, very generally prevails, although naturalists have for