memory do not always indicate a corresponding measure of intellectual capacity in general. At the same time, I can by no means subscribe to the prevailing opinion, that extraordinary powers of memory are incompatible either with judgment or with genius. On the contrary, I can scarcely recollect (as I have elsewhere observed) any one person very eminently distinguished by the latter qualities, who has not also possessed a more than common share of the former. And, indeed, if we only consider for a moment how intimately this faculty is connected with every species of mental improvement, it must appear perfectly manifest, that, however numerous the instances may be in which great powers of memory are united with a deficiency in other intellectual endowments, it is nevertheless an unquestionable truth, that a vigorous and retentive memory may be fairly ranked among the most important of the qualities which enter into the composition either of an inventive genius, or of a comprehensive understanding. In the case, too, of some individuals of the most powerful and splendid talents, the same preternatural strength of memory has been exemplified, which in most instances is considered, and perhaps not altogether without reason, as symptomatical of a weak and superficial judgment. Of this I have already produced some remarkable proofs in the course of the foregoing observations; and as I consider the subject as peculiarly interesting from its connexion with the study of intellectual character, I shall take this opportunity to add (although somewhat out of place) one or two other examples in farther confirmation of the same conclusion. The first I have to mention is taken from Isaac Casaubon's preface to the Opuscula of Joseph Scaliger.

"Nihil est quod discere quisquam vellet quod ille (Scaliger) docere non posset: Nihil legerat (quid autem ille non legerat ?). quod non statim meminisset; nihil tam obscurum aut abolitum in ullo vetere scriptore Græco, Latino, vel Hebræo, de quo interrogatus non statim responderet. Historias omnium popu

accompanied by a sermon on occasion of Mr. Threlkeld's death, with an appendix, containing an account of his life

and character, and particularly of his powers of memory, by Thomas Barnes, D.D. Manchester, 1806.]

lorum, omnium ætatum, successiones imperiorum, res ecclesiæ veteris, in numerato habebat: animalium, plantarum, metallorum, omniumque rerum naturalium, proprietates, differentias, et appellationes quà veteres, quà recentes tenebat accurate. Locorum situs, provinciarum fines et varias pro temporibus illarum divisiones ad unguem callebat; nullam disciplinarum, scientiarumve graviorum reliquerat intactam; linguas tam multas tam exacte sciebat, ut vel si hoc unum per totum vitæ spatium egisset digna res miraculo potuerit videri." As this preface of Casaubon's forms a dedicatory epistle to the illustrious President de Thou, (who knew Scaliger well,) it is to be presumed that every fact and expression would be scrupulously weighed by the writer.

The following passage from an author of unquestionable genius, Ben Jonson, is valuable, both as it attests the surprising extent of his memory in the earlier part of his life, and contains some judicious remarks on the effects produced upon it by habits of indolence.

"I myself could, in my youth, have repeated all that ever I had made, and so continued till I was past forty. Since it is much decayed in me. Yet I can repeat whole books that I have read, and poems of some selected friends which I have liked to charge my memory with. It was wont to be faithful to me, but, shaken with age now and sloth (which weakens the strongest abilities) it may perform somewhat, but cannot promise much. By exercise it is to be made better and serviceable. Whatsoever I pawned with it, while I was young and a boy, it offers me readily and without stops; but what I trust to it now, or have done of late years, it lays up more negligently and oftentimes loses, so that I receive mine own (though frequently called for) as if it were new or borrowed. Nor do I always find presently from it what I do seek, but while I am doing another thing that I laboured for will come, and what I sought with trouble will offer itself when I am quiet. Now, in some men I have found it happy as nature, who, whatsoever they read or pen, they can say without book presently, as if they did then write in their mind. And it is more a wonder in such

as have a swift style, for their memories are commonly slowest: such as torture their writings, and go into counsel for every word, must needs fix somewhat, and make it their own at last, though but through their own vexation."

It is justly observed by Miss Edgeworth, that such prodigies of memory are not now to be looked for, as we have reason to believe were not uncommon in Europe a very few centuries ago. "The art of printing, by multiplying copies of books, so as to put them within the reach of all classes of the people, has lowered the value of those extraordinary powers which some of the learned were then accustomed to display with so much ostentation. At the revival of literature in Europe, a man who had read a few manuscripts and could repeat them, was not merely a wonder, but a treasure; he could travel from place to place and live by his learning, and had far more encouragement to engrave the words of others on his memory, than to exercise his own powers of judgment and invention."1 In later times, the case is greatly altered. A reference in a commonplace book to a particular page, relieves the memory entirely of its burden; a good index supersedes the labour of years; or, (as Pope has very happily expressed the same idea,)

'Though index-learning turns no student pale,

It holds the eel of science by the tail."

The facts which have been already mentioned sufficiently account for the common opinion, that the original differences among men in their capacities of memory are incomparably greater than in the case of any other faculty. Nay, I must confess they seem to show that this opinion is not altogether without foundation. At the same time, I am fully satisfied that these differences are greatly overrated. Even in those cases where memory seems to be the weakest and most incapable of culture, there is commonly sufficient capacity to enable the individual to acquire a competent knowledge of his mothertongue, and to learn to recognise, at the first glance, an immense multitude of particular objects belonging to all the ' [Edgeworth's Practical Education.]

VOL. II.

2 B

different departments of nature; beside that general acquaintance with the laws of the material world, and the properties of material substances, which is necessary for the preservation of our animal existence; and that no less indispensable acquaintance with many maxims of common sense relative to life and conduct, without a knowledge of which a man approaches to the condition of an idiot or changeling. If we were to analyze carefully this stock of information, it would be found to comprehend a far greater number of particulars than we might be disposed at first to suspect.

I shall avail myself of the title which I have prefixed to this section, to introduce here a few detached passages from different authors, which appear to me worthy of the attention of those who take an interest in the study of the mind. Some of them are from books not likely to excite the curiosity of the generality of readers; and all of them may be more or less useful in illustrating the foregoing conclusions. With these extracts I shall intersperse slight comments of my own.

I begin with a passage from Leibnitz, one of the few philosophers who have favoured the world with any reflections on the peculiarities of his own intellectual character. “Duplex est inventio seu ingeniositas, quamadmodum et memoria. Alia prompta et ab ingenio dependens, alia solida et a judicio orta. Illam habent eloquentes, hanc tardi, sed ad negotia tamen non inepti. Quidam singulari sunt varietate, ut certo tempore, certo loco sint mirè prompti, alio extremè tardi: in quibus ego me numero; qui et hoc sentio, paucos esse mei characteris, et omnia facilia mihi difficilia, omnia contra difficilia mihi facilia esse."1

Upon this very remarkable expression with respect to himself it were to be wished that Leibnitz had enlarged a little more fully. The only interpretation I can put upon it is, that he felt a certain degree of difficulty necessary to rouse his intellectual faculties to action; and that, in consequence of this 1 [Leibnitii Opera, Tom. VI. Pars i. p. 302.]

circumstance, (combined probably with a consciousness of his own powers,) he was inferior to the common run of mankind in some of those easy acquisitions which are within the reach. of all. The case, I apprehend, is not a singular one, as we often meet with men of the most splendid talents who are deficient, to a ludicrous degree, in some of the most simple and mechanical branches of school education. I shall only mention, as examples, the art of penmanship, and the still more important one, of arithmetical computation; in both of which (though from different causes) the progress of the student is retarded rather than aided by an extraordinary degree of quickness and of intellectual capacity; and in which, accordingly, men of genius may be expected to fall below the general standard, unless in those cases where they have had the good fortune to be carefully trained to the practice of them in their childhood, or very early youth. All such acquisitions (it may be here observed by the way) should on this account be rendered by habit a second nature, before the powers of reason and reflection have attained to such a degree of strength as to render the task of the learner irksome to himself, by presenting more interesting objects to his curiosity. The art of reading, in particular, may be taught to infants by any person of common sense, by a process almost as insensible as the use of speech.

The foregoing quotation from Leibnitz brings to my recollection a fragment of Montesquieu, which affords a memorable proof of the difficulty which men of superior minds frequently experience in acquiring a ready and practical knowledge of those trifling and uninteresting details which are treasured up without any effort by those to whose understandings they are more congenial. "With respect to my employment as President, I have an upright heart-I comprehend with ease the nature of the business; but of the forms of the court I understand nothing, though I took pains to acquire that knowledge; and what dispirits me most at it is, that I observe in some blockheads the very talent I seem unable to attain."

I should perhaps have taken an earlier opportunity of remarking, that in contrasting, as I have occasionally done in this