261. CHARACTER OF KING CHARLES THE FIRST. The character of this prince, as that of most men, if not of all men, was mixed; but his virtues predominated extremely above his vices, or, more properly speaking, his imperfections: for scarce any of his faults rose to that pitch as to merit the appellation of vices. He deserves the epithet of a good, rather than of a great man; and was more fitted to rule in a regular established government, than either to give way to the encroachments of a popular assembly, or finally to subdue their pretensions. He wanted suppleness and dexterity sufficient for the first measure: he was not endowed with the vigour requisite for the second. Had he been born an absolute prince, his humanity and good sense had rendered his reign happy and his memory precious: had the limitations on prerogative been, in his time, quite fixed and certain, his integrity had made him regard, as sacred, the boundaries of the constitution. Unhappily, his fate threw him into a period, when the precedents of many former reigns savoured strongly of arbitrary power, and the genius of the people ran violently towards liberty. And if his political prudence was not sufficient to extricate him from so perilous a situation, he may be excused; since, even after the event, when it is commonly easy to correct all errors, one is at a loss to determine what conduct, in his circumstances, could have maintained the authority of the crown, and preserved the peace of the nation. Exposed, without revenue, without arms, to the assault of furious, implacable, and bigotted factions, it was never permitted him, but with the most fatal consequences, to commit the smallest mistake; a condition too rigorous to be imposed on the greatest human capacity. This prince was of a comely presence; of a sweet, but melancholy aspect. His face was regular, handsome, and well complexioned; his body strong, healthy, and justly proportioned; and being of a middle stature, he was capable of enduring the greatest fatigues. He excelled in horsemanship and other exercises; and he possessed all the exterior, as well as many of the essential qualities, which form an accomplished prince.

D. HUME

262. SUPERIORITY OF THE RIGHT HAND OVER THE LEFT. For the conveniences of life, and to make us prompt and dexterous, it is pretty evident that there ought to be no hesitation which hand is to be used, or which foot is to be

put forward; nor is there, in fact, any such indecision. Is this taught, or have we this readiness given to us by nature? It must be observed at the same time that there is a distinction in the whole right side of the body, and that the left side is not only the weaker, in regard to muscular strength, but also in its vital or constitutional properties. The development of the organs of action and motion is greatest on the right side, as may at any time be ascertained by measurement, or the testimony of the tailor or shoemaker: certainly, this superiority may be said to result from the more frequent exertion of the right hand; but the peculiarity extends to the constitution also; and disease attacks the left extremities more frequently than the right. In opera dancers we may see that the most difficult feats are performed by the right foot. But their preparatory exercises better evince the natural weakness of the left limb, since these performers are made to give double practice to this limb, in order to avoid awkwardness in the public exhibition; for if these exercises be neglected, an ungraceful preference will be given to the right side. In walking behind a person, it is very seldom that we see an equalized motion of the body; and, if we look to the left foot, we shall find that the tread is not so firm upon it, that the toe is not so much turned out, as in the right, and that a greater push is made with it. We think we may conclude that every thing being adapted, in the conveniences of life, to the right hand, is not arbitrary, but is related to a natural endowment of the body. On the whole, the preference of the right hand is not the effect of habit, but is a natural provision, and is bestowed for a very obvious purpose: and the property does not depend on the peculiar distribution of the arteries of the arm-but the preference is given to the right foot, as well as to the right hand.

SIR C. BELL

263. CHARACTER OF QUEEN ELIZABETH. There are few great personages in history who have been more exposed to the calumny of enemies and the adulation of friends than queen Elizabeth; and yet there is scarcely any whose reputation has been more certainly determined by the unanimous consent of posterity. The unusual length of her administration and the strong features of her character were able to overcome all prejudices; and obliging her detractors to abate much of their invectives, and her admirers somewhat of their

panegyrics, have at last, in spite of political factions, and, what is more, of religious animosities, produced a uniform judgment with regard to her conduct. Her vigour, her constancy, her magnanimity, her penetration, vigilance, address, are allowed to merit the highest praises, and appear not to have been surpassed by any person that ever filled a throne: a conduct less rigorous, less imperious, more sincere, more indulgent to her people, would have been requisite to form a perfect character. By the force of her mind, she controlled all her more active and stronger qualities, and prevented them from running into excess: her heroism was exempt from temerity, her frugality from avarice, her friendship from partiality, her active temper from turbulency and a vain ambition: she guarded not herself with equal care or equal success from lesser infirmities; the rivalship of beauty, the desire of admiration, the jealousy of love, and the sallies of anger.

D. HUME

264. ATHEISTS—THEIR FOOLISH CREDULITY CONCERNING ATOMS. But if they will still be meddling with atoms, be hammering and squeezing understanding out of them, I would advise them to make use of their own understanding for the instance. Nothing in my opinion could run us down more effectually than that; for we readily allow that if any understanding can possibly be produced by such clashing of senseless atoms, 'tis that of an Atheist that hath the fairest pretensions and the best title to it. We know it is 'the fool that hath said in his heart, There is no God.' And 'tis no less a truth than a paradox that there are no greater fools than atheistical wits, and none so credulous as infidels. No article of religion, though as demonstrable as the nature of the thing can admit, hath credibility enough for them. And yet these same cautious and quick-sighted gentlemen can wink and swallow down this sottish opinion about percipient atoms, which exceeds in incredibility all the fictions of Æsop's Fables. For is it not every whit as likely or more that cocks and bulls might discourse, and hinds and panthers hold conferences about religion, as that atoms can do so? that atoms can invent arts and sciences, can institute society and government, can make leagues and confederacies, can devise methods of peace and stratagems of war? Can any credulity be comparable with this? If a man should affirm that an ape casually meeting with pen, ink and paper, and

falling to scribble, did happen to write exactly the Leviathan of Thomas Hobbes, would an Atheist believe such a story? And yet he can easily digest as incredible as that; that the innumerable members of a human body, which may admit of almost infinite variations and transpositions above the twentyfour letters of the alphabet, were at first fortuitously scribbled and by mere accident compacted into this beautiful and noble and most wonderfully useful frame, which we now see it carry.

R. BENTLEY

265. LETTER FROM MIRABEAU TO ROMILLY ON FONTENELLE. This is the point of view, my dear Romilly, in which this Fontenelle, whom I have so long despised, only perhaps because of all men of genius he is the one to whom nature has made me the most unlike, appears to me to be so remarkable. Truth seems in his eyes to be like that ancient statue of Isis, which was covered with many veils. He thinks that every age should remove one veil, and only raise the next for the age which is to follow. He knows men, and he fears them, not only because they are capable of doing much harm, but because it is very difficult to do them any good and he has found the means of doing them good by the practice of an art which would doubtless never have been the expedient of a more energetic and impetuous character, but which in him has made even timidity and discretion subservient to the progress of the spirit of philosophy. At one time he bows down for a moment before an error of his age, and then raising himself from this constrained attitude of respect, in its very presence he crushes an exactly similar error which has deluded all antiquity. At another time, he places by the side of error a truth which he appears to sacrifice and subject to her, but which is sure to be triumphant, provided only she be allowed to remain there, in spite of all risks. Often he parades prejudices in all their pretensions, and even grants them that which, from the fear of appearing too absurd, they do not claim. At those times, when homage is expected from him, he is silent; and this silence always occurs at a place where it will best be understood, and give least offence. Sometimes, on the other hand, he goes out of his way to appear unnecessarily submissive and obsequious, and by so doing shews that there are unjust and suspicious tyrants whom one must distrust. In general, instead of attacking errors one by one, he devotes himself to

the task of disclosing and drying up in the human mind the sources whence they spring. He aims at giving new light and strength to that human reason which is destined to be the destroyer of them all, and by this raises up against them an everlasting enemy. Thus he attacks them by treating them with respect, he destroys them by doing them reverence, he pierces them on every side with shafts of which they have no right to complain; and although they have always their eye upon him, as upon their most dangerous enemy, he lives, he dies, in peace in the midst of them.

266. ENGLISH TASTE FOR THE ITALIAN OPERA. If the Italians have a genius for music above the English, the English have a genius for other performances of a much higher nature, and capable of giving the mind a much nobler entertainment. Would one think it was possible (at a time when an author lived that was able to write the Phædra and Hippolytus) for a people to be so stupidly fond of the Italian opera, as scarce to give a third day's hearing to that admirable tragedy? Music is certainly a very agreeable entertainment: but if it would take the entire possession of our ears, if it would make us incapable of hearing sense, if it would exclude arts that have a much greater tendency to the refinement of human nature; I must confess I would allow it no better quarter than Plato has done, who banishes it out of his commonwealth. At present our notions of music are so very uncertain, that we do not know what it is we like; only, in general, we are transported with any thing that is not English: so it be of a foreign growth, let it be Italian, French, or High Dutch, it is the same thing. In short, our English music is quite rooted out, and nothing yet planted in its stead. J. ADDISON

267. TWOFOLD TYPE OF CHARACTER COMMON AMONG MEN. The truth is, there are two opposite descriptions of character, under which mankind may generally be classed. The one possesses vigour, firmness, resolution; is daring and active, quick in its sensibilities, jealous of its fame, eager in its attachments, inflexible in its purpose, violent in its resentments. The other meek, yielding, complying, forgiving; not prompt to act, but willing to suffer; silent and gentle under rudeness and insult, suing for reconciliation, where others