meat: the taking more of it than nature requires. Dr. Cheyne well observes, it is not generally the quality, but the quantity of what we eat which hurts us. What hurts the nerves in particular is the eating too much animal food, especially at night: much more the eating at one meal, food of several different kinds. If we consider, how few observe this, we shall not wonder that so many have nervous disorders especially among those that have an opportunity of indulging themselves daily in variety, and who are hereby continually tempted to eat more than nature requires. 7. But there is another sort of intemperance, of which, I think, Dr. Cadogan does not take the least notice. And yet it is the source of more nervous disorders than even intemperance in food: I mean, intemperance in sleep: the sleeping longer than nature requires. This alone will account for the weak nerves of most of our nobility and gentry. Not that I would insist upon the old rule, Sex horas quivis poscit, septemque scholaris; I would allow between six and seven hours at an average, to a healthy man or an hour more, between seven and eight hours, to an unhealthy man. And I do not remember, that in threescore years, I have known either man or woman, who laid longer in bed than this (whether they slept or not) but in some years they complained of lowness of spirits. The plain reason of which seems to be, while we sleep, all the springs of nature are unbent. And if we sleep longer than is sufficient, they are relaxed more than is sufficient, and of course grow weaker and weaker. And if we lie longer in bed, though without sleep, the very posture relaxes the whole body: much more when. we are covered up with clothes, which throw back on the body whatever perspires from it. By this means it is stewed in the moist vapour it sucks in again, what nature had cast out, and the flesh is as it were parboiled therein, and becomes more and more soft and flabby. And the nerves suffer at least as much hereby as any other part of the habit. I cannot, therefore, but account this, the lying too long in bed, the grand cause of our nervous disorders. 8. And this alone sufficiently answers this question, "Why are we more nervous than our forefathers?" Because we lie longer in bed they, rich and poor, slept about eight, when they heard the Curfew-bell, and rose at four; the bell ringing at that hour, (as well as at eight) in every parish in England. We rise (if not obliged to work for our living) at ten, eleven, or twelve. Is it any wonder then, were there no other cause, that we complain of lowness of spirits? 9. Yet something may be allowed to irregular passions. For as long as the soul and body are united, these undoubtedly affect the body; the nerves in particular. Even violent joy, though it raises the spirits for a time, does afterwards sink them greatly. And every one knows, what an influence fear has upon our whole frame. Nay even hope deferred maketh the heart sick; puts the mind all out of tune. The same effect have all foolish and hurtful desires. They pierce us through with many sorrows. They occasion a deep depression of the spirits: so, above all, does inordinate affection: whereby so many refusing to be comforted, sorrow even unto death. 10. But is there no cure for this sore evil? Is there no remedy for lowness of spirits ? Undoubtedly there is, a most certain cure, if you are willing to pay the price of it. But this price, is not silver, or gold, nor any thing purchaseable thereby. If you would give all the substance of your house for it, it would be utterly despised. And all the medicines under the sun avail nothing in this distemper. The whole Materia Medica put together, will do you no lasting service they do not strike at the root of the disease: but you must remove the cause, if you wish to remove the effect. But this cannot be done by your own strength: it can only be done by the mighty power of God. If you are convinced of this, set about it, trusting in him, and you will surely conquer. First, Sacredly abstain from all spirituous liquors. Touch them not, on any pretence whatever. To others they may sometimes be of use; but to nervous persons they are deadly poison. Secondly, If you drink any, drink but little tea, and none at all without eating, or without sugar and cream. "But you like it without." No matter: prefer health before taste. Thirdly, Every day of your life, take at least an hour's exercise, ́ between breakfast and dinner. (If you will, take another hour, before supper, or before you sleep.) If you can, take it in the open air; otherwise, in the house. If you cannot rise, or walk abroad, use within, a dumb bell, or a wooden horse. If you have not strength to do this for an hour at a time, do it at twice or thrice.. Let nothing hinder you. Your life is at stake. Make every thing yield to this. Fourthly, Take no more food than nature requires. Dine upon one thing (except pudding or pye.) Eat no flesh at supper; but something light and easy of digestion. Fifthly, Sleep early and rise early; unless you are ill, never lie in bed much above seven hours. Then you will never lie awake. Your flesh will be firm, and your spirits lively.. Sixthly, Above all, "Give not to your passions way; God gave them to thee under lock and key." Beware of anger! Beware of worldly sorrow! Beware of the fear that hath torment! Beware of foolish and hurtful desires! Beware of inordinate affection! Remember the kind command, "My son, give me thy heart!" Then shall there be no more complaining of lowness of spirits! But the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep thy heart and mind in Christ Jesus! Melville-House, May 20, 1784.. THOUGHTS ON GENIUS. 1. I HAVE for many years desired to see something, long, or short, accurately written on the term Genius. It is a word almost in every one's mouth, and one that is used by abundance of writers. Yet I doubt, it is not well understood by one in a hundred of them that use it. I rejoiced therefore to hear, that so eminent a writer as Dr. Gerrard had published an Essay on the subject. But when I read it, I was disappointed of my hope: it did not in any degree answer my expectations. The ingenious and very learned author did not seem to understand the term at all: nor could I find one proper definition of it throughout the whole Treatise. 2. I hoped, however, to find full satisfaction on the head in Mr. Daff's "Essay on Original Genius :" although I was surprised to observe, it had been published above twenty years before the other. But I was disappointed again. Indeed it undoubtedly contains many judicious 'remarks. But even here, what should have been done in the very beginning, is not done at all. I want to know first of all, What do you mean by Genius? Give me a definition of it. Pray tell me this, before you say any thing more about it: this is common sense. Without this, you may ramble as long as you please; and leave me just as wise as I was. 3. The word Genius was used by the ancient Romans, for a superior Being, good or bad, who they supposed, attended every one from his birth to his death But in this sense of the word it has nothing to do with the present question: wherein it means, either a quality of the human mind, or a man endued with that quality. Thus we say indifferently," He is a genius, or has a genius." I would here take it in the latter sense, for the quality which denominates a man a genius. 4. It is evident, that genius, taken in this sense, is not invention: although that may possibly bear some relation to it. It is not imagination: although this may be allowed to be one ingredient of it. Much less is it an association of ideas: all these are essentially dif ferent from it. So is sensation, on the one hand; and so are memory and judgment on the other unless by judgment we mean, (as many do,) strength of understanding. It seems to be an extraordinary capacity of mind; sometimes termed extraordinary talents. This may be more or less extensive there may be a kind of general genius, or an extraordinary capacity for many things. Or a particular genius, an extraordinary capacity for one particular thing: it may be, for one particular science, or one particular art. Thus Homer and Milton had a genius, an extraordinary capacity, for Poetry. Thus Euclid and Archimedes had a genius, an extraordinary capacity, for Geometry. So Cicero had a genius for Oratory, and Sir Isaac Newton for Natural Philosophy. Thus Raphael and Michael Angelo had a genius, an extraordinary capacity, for Painting. And so Purcell and Handel (to mention no more,) had a genius, an extraordinary capacity, for Music. Whereas, Aristotle, Lord Bacon, and a very few besides, seem to have had an universal genius, an extraordinary capacity to excel in whatever they took in hand. 5. It may be allowed that the word is frequently taken in a lower sense. But it has then a word prefixed to it, to restrain its signification. So we say, a man has a middling genius; or a little genius. But it is generally taken for an extraordinary capacity of whatever kind. Yet it 6. Genius in philosophy, poetry, and oratory, seems to imply a strong and clear understanding, connected with an unusually extensive and lively imagination. In which respect it may truly be said, not only of a poet, but also of an orator and philosopher, nascitur non fit: he has this endowment by nature, not by art. may be granted, that art may exceedingly improve, what originally sprung from nature. It may receive assistance likewise from the memory, (nearly related to the imagination :) and also from the passions, which on various occasions enliven and strengthen the imagination. 7. It may be observed, I purpose to abstain from using the word reason or judgment: because the word understanding is less equivocal: and I would always use one and the same word, to express one and the same idea. 8. Both the writers above mentioned, suppose taste also to be essential to genius. And indeed it does seem to be, if not an essential part, yet an essential property of it: taste is here a figurative word, borrowed from the sense of tasting, whereby we are enabled, first to judge of, and then to relish our food: so the intellectual taste has a twofold office: it judges and it relishes. In the former respect it belongs to the understanding; in the latter to the imagination. 9. To sum up all. Perhaps genius may be defined, an extraordinary capacity for philosophy, oratory, poetry, or any other art or science: the constituent parts whereof are a strong understanding, and a lively imagination; and the essential property, a just taste. Lambeth, Nov. 8, 1787. THOUGHTS ON MEMORY. THERE is a near relation between memory, reminiscence, and recollection. But what is the difference between them? Wherein do they differ from each other? Is not memory a natural faculty of the mind, which is exerted various ways? And does it not exert itself, sometimes in simply remembering, sometimes in reminiscence, or recollection? In simply remembering things, the mind of man appears to be rather passive than active. Whether we will or not, we remember many things which we have heard or seen, said or done: especially if they were attended with any remarkable pleasure or pain. But in reminiscence, or recalling what is past, the mind appears to be active. Most times, at least, we may or may not recall them as we please. Recollection seems to imply something more than simple reminiscence; even the studious collecting and gathering up together all the parts of a conversation or transaction, which had occurred before, but had in some measure escaped from the memory. But there is one sort of memory, which it seems more difficult to understand than any other. You pronounce or hear a discourse, or copy of verses, which fixes upon your memory. Afterwards you can repeat, in your mind, the words you spoke or heard, without ever There is a once opening your lips, or uttering any articulate sound. kind of inward voice (so we may term it for want of a better expression) which, like an echo, not only repeats the same words without the least variation, but with exactly the same accent, and the same tone of voice. The same echo repeats any tune you have learned, without the least alteration. Now how is this done? By what faculty of the mind, or the body, or both conjointly? I am as sure of the But who is able to account for it? O! fact, as I am that I am alive. how shall we comprehend the ever-blessed God, when we cannot comprehend ourselves? Yarmouth, Oct. 21, 1789.7 A LETTER TO THE REV. MR. HERVEY. DEAR SIR, Oct. 15, 1756. A CONSIDERABLE time since, I sent you a few hasty thoughts which occurred to me on reading the Dialogues between Theron and AsYet upon anpasio. I have not been favoured with any answer. other and a more careful perusal of them, I could not but set down some obvious reflections, which I would rather have communicated, before those dialogues were published. In the first dialogue there are several just and strong observations, which may be of use to every serious reader. In the second, is not |