1825.] 
-Pnystotocy of the Passions. 
{An elaborate and valuable work upon 
this very interesting subject has lately-been 
published, in two volumes, at Paris, by Dr. 
'. J.L. Avmert, under the title of “‘ Physio- 
Logie des Passions, &c., or anew Theory of 
Moral Sensations.”’ We have been fa- 
voured with an interesting analysis of 
the contents by a learned foreigner, to 
., Which we have endeavoured to do jus- 
tice in our translation; and the ar- 
ticle being, at once, too long for our 
Reyiew of Foreign Literature, and too 
yaluable to be suppressed, we give it 
place here among the articles of Original 
Correspondence. The work itself is 
among the importations of Messrs. 
Treuttel and Wiirtz. We are not con- 
scious that it has had, as yet, any English 
translator. It is adorned with illustra- 
tive engravings. ] 
T has been a prevailing opinion with 
many learned men, that no branth 
of general science has so much in- 
fluence on the progress of philosophy 
‘as medicine. Bacon and Descartes 
‘proclaimed aloud this maxim; their 
followers, in a great measure, have 
‘adopted it; and it was curious to see 
it adopted also, even in the mystical 
“meditations of Bossuet, and through- 
eut the incomprehensible idealism of 
Berkeley. In fact, it seems that medi- 
cine, confined to the study of nature in 
her actual productions and laws, would 
‘be less exposed to be misled by the 
transports of intemperate imagination. 
No one is ignorant, that when the Gre-’ 
‘cian philosophers contentiously strove 
‘to discover the origin of the universe, 
and the generating principles of exist- 
venice, Hippocrates was the first who, 
‘dissipating the impostures of illusion, 
Jed back their minds into the neglected 
path of experience. His appearance, 
In this respect, was like that of the sun 
dispersing with his rays the darkness 
of along night. Nor is any one igno- 
rant what light has been shed on such 
“subjects, in modern times, by the phy- 
siological researches of Roussel, Pinel, 
Cabanis, and by the daring re- 
searches of Majendie and Flourens in 
our own day. 
A work on moral law, written by 
a celebrated professor -of medicine, 
comes, therefore, before the public, un- 
der favourable auspices. But in giving 
an account of it to our readers, we do 
not purpose to lose sight of the in- 
terests of truth, or renounce that open 
independence of opinion, which was, 
and shall ever be, our only motto. 
The author proposes to develope the 
Physiology of the Passions: 
317 
physiology of the passions, which he 
is pleased to call a New Theory of 
Moral Sénsations. But, unfortunately, 
he happens to have begun his work 
with long preliminary considerations, 
which not only have no immediate or 
particular connexion with the subject, 
but by their style excite unpleasing con- 
siderations. Who, for example, would 
ever expect that a physician, accustomed 
to look upon naturé experimentally, 
would think of dividing the aggregate of 
our thoughts into acquired and inspired 
ideas? Ancient and modern Platonism 
have long talked of innate ideas; the 
German school, wishing to escape the 
ridicule which Locke had shed’ upon 
this term, changed its language, though 
sustaining the doctrine, and talked of 
the universal form of the ideas’ But 
who would have thought that a phy- 
sician, who ‘must be considered as 
estranged from all doctrinal hyberbole, 
would seriously inform us, that every 
man possesses an innumerable class of 
inspired ideas? 
Besides, the author asserts the exist- 
ence of a moral sense, calculated to 
‘guide man in judging of his own con- 
duct and that of others : but he asserts 
it without either discussion or proof. 
Hutcheson, in whom this. doctrine 
originated, and the Edinburgh school, 
by which it was for a long time pro- 
mulgated, at least attempted to sup- 
port it by plausible reasoning. But 
our author is really, or affects to be, ig- 
norant of this historical fact. It would 
be supposed that he was the first who 
had made use of this term. Above all, 
he seems to forget that Adam Smith 
has successfully opposed the doctrine, 
more brilliant than solid, of a moral 
sense: and we think that, when a work 
assumes the perilous title of a New 
Theory of Moral Sensation, it should 
be remembered that there already 
exists an Old, but not despicable, 
theory of the same principles, which, 
at least, deserves the dubious honour 
of being investigated. 
In the same manner the author ‘as- 
serts the existence of what in men and 
brutes has been called instinct. Nor 
do we mean to dispute it. But when 
Condillac ‘has employed all his elo- 
quence to combat the vulgar prejudices 
on the influence of instinct ; when Dar- 
win has dedicated’ one of the most 
learned chapters of his Zoonomia’ to 
demonstrate, by physiological facts, 
how the most cbscure phenomena of 
animal life may be explained, without 
reference 
