"ficient for comprehending all that Archimedes and Hipparchus knew; and, at present, two years employed under an able teacher, carry the ftudent "beyond thofe conclufions, which limited the in"quiries of Leibnitz and of Newton. Let any 66 perfon reflect on these facts: let him follow the "immenfe chain which connects the inquiries of "Euler with those of a Priest of Memphis; let him "obferve, at each epoch, how genius outftrips the prefent age, and how it is overtaken by medio"crity in the next; he will perceive, that nature has "furnished us with the means of abridging and

66

66

facilitating our intellectual labour, and that "there is no reafon for apprehending that fuch fimplifications can ever have an end. He will per"ceive, that at the moment when a multitude of particular folutions, and of infulated facts, begin "to diftract the attention, and to overcharge the 66 memory, the former gradually lofe themselves in one general method, and the latter unite in one "general law; and that these generalizations continually fucceeding one to another, like the "fucceffive multiplications of a number by itself, "have no other limit, than that infinity which the "human faculties are unable to comprehend *.

* See Note [M].

SECTION VII.

Continuation of the fame Subject.-Differences in the Intelle&ual Characters of Individuals, arifing from their different Habits of Abftraction and Generalisation.

IN mentioning as one of the principal effects of

civilifation, its tendency to familiarife the mind. to general terms and to general propofitions, I did not mean to fay, that this influence extends equally to all the claffes of men in fociety. On the contrary, it is evidently confined, in a great measure, to thofe who receive a liberal education; while the minds of the lower orders, like thofe of favages, are fo habitually occupied about particular objects and particular events, that, although they are fometimes led, from imitation, to employ general expreffions, the ufe which they make of them is much more the refult of memory than judgment; and it is but feldom that they are able to comprehend fully, any procefs of reafoning in which they are involved.

It is hardly neceffary for me to remark, that this obfervation, with refpect to the incapacity of the vulgar for general fpeculations, (like all obfervations of a fimilar nature,) must be received with fome reftrictions. In fuch a flate of society as that in which we live, there is hardly any individual to be found, to whom fome general terms, and fome general truths, are not perfectly familiar; and, therefore, the fore

going conclufions are to be confidered as defcriptive of thofe habits of thought alone, which are most prevalent in their mind. To abridge the labour of reasoning, and of memory, by directing the attention to general principles, inftead of particular truths, is the profeffed aim of all philofophy; and according as individuals have more or lefs of the philofophic spirit, their habitual speculations (whatever the nature of their pursuits may be) will relate to the former, or to the latter, of thefe objects.

There are, therefore, among the men who are accustomed to the exercife of their intellectual powers, two claffes, whofe habits of thought are remarkably distinguished from each other; the one clafs comprehending what we commonly call men of business, or, more properly, men of detail; the other, men of abftraction; or, in other words, philofophers.

The advantages which, in certain refpects, the latter of these poffefs over the former, have been already pointed out; but it muft not be fuppofed, that these advantages are always purchased without fome inconvenience. As the folidity of our general principles depends on the accuracy of the particular obfervations into which they are ultimately refolvable, fo their utility is to be estimated by the practical applications of which they admit: and it unfortunately happens, that the fame turn of mind which is favourable to philosophical pursuits, unless it be kept under proper regulation, is extremely apt to disqualify us for applying our knowledge to use, in the exercise of the arts, and in the conduct of affairs.

In order to perceive the truth of these remarks, it is almoft fufficient to recollect, that as claffification, and, of confequence, general reasoning, prefuppofe the exercife of abstraction; a natural difpofition to indulge in them, cannot fail to lead the mind to overlook the specific differences of things, in attending to their common qualities. To fucceed, however, in practice, a familiar and circumftantial acquaintance with the particular objects which fall under our obfervation, is indifpenfably neceffary.

But, farther: As all general principles are founded on claffifications which imply the exercife of abftraction; it is neceffary to regard them, in their practical applications, merely as approximations to the truth; the defects of which, must be supplied by habits acquired by perfonal experience. In confidering, for example, the theory of the mechanical powers; it is ufual to fimplify the objects of our conception, by abftracting from friction, and from the weight of the different parts of which they are compofed. Levers are confidered as mathematical lines, perfectly inflexible; and ropes, as mathematical lines, perfectly flexible;-and by means of thefe, and fimilar abstractions, a fubject, which is in itself extremely complicated, is brought within the reach of elementary geometry. In the theory of politics, we find it neceffary to abstract from many of the peculiarities which diftinguifh different forms of government from each other, and to reduce them to certain general claffes, according to their prevailing tendency. Although all the governments we have ever feen, have had more or lefs of mixture in their compo

compofition, we reafon concerning pure monarchies, pure aristocracies, and pure democracies, as if there really existed political establishments correfponding to our definitions. Without fuch a claffification, it would be impoffible for us to fix our attention, amidst the multiplicity of particulars which the fubject presents to us, or to arrive at any general principles, which might ferve to guide our enquiries in comparing different institutions together.

It is for a fimilar reason, that the fpeculative farmer reduces the infinite variety of foils to a few general descriptions; the phyfician, the infinite variety of bodily constitutions to a few temperaments; and the moralift, the infinite variety of human cha racters to a few of the ruling principles of action.

Notwithstanding, however, the obvious advantages we derive from these claffifications, and the general conclufions to which they lead; it is evidently im poffible, that principles, which derived their origin from efforts of abftraction, fhould apply literally to practice; or, indeed, that they should afford us any confiderable affistance in conduct, without a certain degree of practical and experimental skill. Hence it is, that the mere theorist fo frequently expofes himself, in real life, to the ridicule of men whom he despises; and in the general estimation of the world, falls below the level of the common drudges in bufinefs and the arts. The walk, indeed, of these unenlightened practitioners, must neceffarily be limited by their accidental opportunities of experience; but, fo far as they go, they operate with facility and fuccefs; while the merely fpeculative philofopher, although