Man is consequently born without character.

factitious passions*, generated in the midst of towns and cities, suppose conventions and laws already established among men, and consequently their union in society. Such passions would be therefore unknown to him that was borne by a tempest at the moment of his birth to a desert coast, and like Romulus nourished by a wolf; and to him whom some fairy stole in the night from his cradle, and placed in one of those solitary enchanted castles where formerly dwelt so many knights and princesses. Now if we are born without passions, we are also born without character. The love of glory produced in us, is an acquisition, and consequently the effect of instruction. But does not nature endow us, in the earliest infancy, with the sort of organization proper to form in us such or such a character? On what is this conjecture founded? Has it been remarked that a certain disposition in the nerves, the fluids, or muscles, constantly produces the same manner of thinking; that nature retrenches certain fibres of the brain

* In Europe to the number of factitious passions we may add jealousy. Men are there jealous because they are vain. Vanity makes a part of almost all the principal ¡European amours; it is not so in Asia; jealousy is there the mere effect of corporeal pleasures. It is known by experience, that the more the desires of the sultanas are restrained, the more ardent they become, and the more pleasure they give and receive. Jealousy, the offspring of the luxury of sultans and visirs, makes them build seraglios, and confine their women.

from

Self-love the only sentiment not acquired by education.

from one, to give them to another; and consequently always inspires the latter with a lively desire of glory? On the supposition that characters are the effect of organisation, what can education do? Can the moral change the corporeal disposition? Can the most just maxim give hearing to the dumb? Can the most sagacious lessons of a preceptor level the back of him that is crooked, or straighten the leg of the cripple, or encrease the stature of a pigmy? What nature has done, she alone can undo. The only sentiment that is engraved in our hearts in infancy is the love of ourselves this love, founded on corporeal sensibility, is common to all men ; therefore however different their education may be, this sentiment is always the same in them; so that in all countries, and at all times, men have loved, do love, and will love themselves in preference to all others. If a man be variable in all other sentiments, it is because all others are the effect of moral causes. Now if these causes be variable, their effects must be so likewise. To establish this truth by experience at large, I shall first consult the history of nations.

Changes in the characters of nations and their causes.

CHAP. II.

OF THE ALTERATIONS THAT HAVE HAPPENED IN THE CHARACTERS OF NATIONS AND OF THE CAUSES BY WHICH THEY WERE PRODUCED.

EACH nation has its particular manner of seeing and feeling, which forms its character: and in every nation its character either changes on a sudden, or alters by degrees, according to the sudden or insensible alterations in the form of its government, and consequently of its public education*.

That of the French, which has been for a long time regarded as gay, was not always so. The emperor Julian says of the Parisians, "I love them, because "their character, like mine, is austere and serious (1)."

The characters of nations therefore change: but at what period is the alteration most perceptible? At the moment of revolution, when a people pass on a sudden from liberty to slavery. Then from bold and haughty they become weak and pusillanimous: they dare not look at the man in office: they are inthralled, and it is of little consequence by whom they are inthralled. This dejected people say, like the ass in the fable,

* The form of government under which we live always makes a part of our education.

whoever

Pernicious effects of slavery on the mind.

whoever be my master, I cannot carry a heavier load. As zealous as a free citizen is for the glory of his nation, so indifferent is a slave to the public welfare. His heart, deprived of activity and energy, is without virtue, without spirit, and without talents; the faculties of his soul are stupified; he becomes indifferent to the arts, commerce, agriculture, &c. It is not for servile hands, say the English, to till and fertilise the land. Simonides entered the empire of a despotic sovereign, and found there no traces of men. A free people are courageous, open, humane, and loyal (2). A nation of slaves are base, perfidious, malicious, and barbarous they push their credulity to the greatest excess. If the severe officer has all to fear from the resentment of the injured soldier on the day of battle, that of sedition is in like manner for the slave oppressed, the long expected day of vengeance; and he is the more enraged in proportion as fear has held his fury the longer restrained*.

What a striking picture of a sudden change in the character of a nation does the Roman history present us! What people, before the elevation of the Cæsars, displayed more force, more virtue, more love of liberty, and horror of slavery? And what people, when the throne of the Cæsars was established, shewed more

* The desposition of Nabob-Jaffier-Ali-Kan, related in the Leyden Gazette of the 23d of June, 1761, is a proof of this.

weakness

Changes in the national character of the Romans and English.

weakness and depravity? (3). Their baseness disgusted Tiberius himself.

Indifferent to liberty, when Trajan offered they refused it: they disdained that liberty which their ancestors had purchased with so much blood. All things were then changed in Rome; and that determined and grave character which distinguished its first inhabitants, was succeeded by that light and frivolous disposition with which Juvenal reproaches them in his tenth satire.

Let us exemplify this matter by a more recent change. Compare the English of the present day with those under Henry VII. Edward VI. Mary and Elizabeth: this people now so humane, indulgent, learned, free, and industrious, such lovers of the arts and of philosophy, were then nothing more than a nation of slaves, inhuman and superstitious; without arts and without industry.

When a prince usurps over his people a boundless authority, he is sure to change their character, to enervate their souls; to render them timid and base (4). From that moment, indifferent to glory, his subjects lose that character of boldness and constancy proper to support all labours and brave all dangers: the weight of arbitrary power destroys the spring of their emula

tion.

Does a prince, impatient of contradiction (3), give the name of factious to the man of veracity? He substitutes in his nation the character of falsehood for that

of