self-love, which promotes the ease, the comfort, the prosperity, and the happiness of others, in order to make itself more blest, is one branch of the stream: that selflove, which causes us to pursue the same object,—that is, our own happiness,-with little or no reference to other men's feelings or interests, is the other branch. The one is virtue; the other vice. Nor is the former less of a virtue because it tends to render us happy and contented with ourselves, than if it did not; any more than we ought to be esteemed less virtuous, because, in choosing a road through a difficult country, we prefer that which is the most shady, the most embellished with fine buildings, and the most abounding in beautiful and magnificent plants.

Self-love is calm and considerate; selfishness is violent and offensive; so much so, indeed, that even those who act upon its omnipotence abhor it in others, and ground upon it, in consequence, their chief argument in favour of their own vices and crimes. They love their interests, in fact, better than they understand them.

Montesquieu seems to have supposed, that indifference to the wants and fortunes of others is one of the most decided characteristics of all republics. Not, perhaps, more so than it is in monarchies and despotisms; for all seem to forget that communities of interest ought to resemble gravitation, which, being universal, every minute particle is affected by the gravitating influence of all the rest.

Nature seems to shower her greatest worldly gifts on certain men, as if she were resolved to indicate her contempt of birth, riches, and distinction. Rochefoucault's

system, however, places all men upon a level. It admits not only of no exceptions, but of no gradations. Hence, in no instance does he allude to the influence, which the relative intellects of men have upon their manners, passions, or even pursuits; and yet he was accounted one of the shrewdest men of his time; and it cannot be denied, notwithstanding their defects, that his maxims constitute a body of intelligence, by which every one may profit according to the depth of his understanding.

Cardinal de Retz said of him, that he had no attention for small concerns, nor any knowledge of great. ones; that he could not extend his views far enough; neither could he perceive at once what was in his reach ; that he was irresolute; and that, though not ill qualified for counsel, he had little or no capacity for action. 'It would have been better,' says he, 'for his fame ' and interest, had he been content to be only what he 'was in reality, viz., the finest gentleman of his age.'

What La Rochefoucault was in practice, it may not be so easy to determine; for though Madame de Sevigné speaks highly of him, and Segrais assures us, that he was not only insinuating and agreeable in address and conversation, but of great sweetness of temper, Madame de Maintenon, who had still greater opportunities of knowing, declares that he was subtle and intriguing; and others have not scrupled even to assert, that if he was flexible and gifted with knowledge, he was nevertheless false.

With all his qualities one thing must be conceded, I think, by competent researchers; and that is, that he took nature only on one side; in profile, as it were;

VOL. I.

M

and this must often be the result of our drawing when we sketch from natural discernment only. It is necessary to read as well as to observe; and Segrais says Rochefoucault never read. Hence the criticism is but too just, that he is a philosopher chiefly to the idle, the envious, the half-informed, and the most worthless portion of mankind.

Let us now see what Schiller, the celebrated German poet, thought on this subject. Perfection in nature is 6 no property of matter, but of mind. All minds are 'happy through their perfection. I desire the happi

ness of all minds, because I love myself. The hap'piness, which I represent to myself, becomes my happiness; therefore I desire to awaken, to multiply, to 'exalt such representations; therefore I desire to spread happiness around me. Whatever beauty, whatever 'perfection, whatever enjoyment I produce without me, I also produce within me. Whatever I neglect or 'destroy, to myself also I neglect and destroy. I de'sire the happiness of others, because I desire my own.'

Can any one be so ignorant of Nature, of man, and of manners, as to confound this self-love with that which, like the wolf and the hyena, would draw all others into its den, in order to feast in solitude to repletion? Some men look at principles so intensely, that a film comes over their judgments; reminding us of the circumstance, that small stars frequently disappear from the sight when the eye is turned directly upon them. Rochefoucault mistakes the origin of self-love for its end. He tells us the secret springs of many actions, but he is silent as to those more ennobling motives,

which mingle with the others, regulate their intensity, and purify our nature for the enjoyment of a more extended, a more magnificent, and a more enduring sphere. In fact, had he not studied men in a court and witnessed motives and actions during a period of civil war, he had, doubtless, written differently. It is natural for every one to write in consonance with his experience. To live for ourselves (through ourselves) is the very essence of social and moral vulgarity. Give us, therefore, those authors who lessen our contempt for our species; and who animate us with the desire of deriving the principal portion of our happiness from the reflected happiness of those with whom we live, and with whom we have concerns.

XCIII.

WHO AFFECT TO DEPRECIATE WHAT THEY LOVE.

THIS is no unusual practice, whatever may be the age of the parties, or the country in which they live. I shall give, therefore, only one example. The Duke of Norfolk desired to marry the unfortunate Mary Queen of Scots. He, therefore, affected to speak of her to Queen Elizabeth in a very extraordinarily disrespectful manner. But it did not answer. For this very peculiarity excited the queen's jealousy and curiosity so much, that she had him, almost immediately after, committed to the Tower.

Young ladies and young gentlemen are very much given to this practice, when they are compelled to speak of those they secretly admire too much. I must confess, that, when young, I every now and then did so myself.

XCIV.

WHO BELIEVE THE LAST THEY HEAR.

THE last person they hear, and the last book they read. Thus M. du Carla rejected the existence of phlogiston when he studied Lavoisier; and when he studied Sennebis, admitted it. When I read the Gospel,' said La Rowes, I believe in Christ; when I read the Koran, 'I'm almost tempted to believe in Mahomet.' 'Then,' said Philolethes,' when you read Mendelsohn, you believe in neither.' 'That is the case,' answered he; ‘I shall, one day, I hope, be able to think for myself.'

Many monarchs, after the same manner, are guided in opinion by the last adviser they consult. This weakness, perhaps, was more fatal to Louis XVI., than all the courtiers by whom he was betrayed.

XCV.

WHO HAVE NO POWERS OF APPRECIATION.

THE Duke of Argyle, who commanded in Spain in the time of Queen Anne, was so careless of party considerations, that his letters to the ministry were frequently such as largely to exercise their patience. He has, all 'this summer,' said Lord Bolingbroke to the Earl of Orrery, 'sent such letters hither as his friends do neither ' deserve nor fear; and such as no minister living could 'bear from any man, but one, whose heart is good, and 'who only errs from too much heat of constitution. One 'fatal error has misled him; which is, that he has rea'soned, abstractedly, on what he saw in his own sphere,