166 On the Proper Use of the Eyes. [ Ave. 
sufficiently rare; all that I pretend is, that if vision really had been in 
the contemplation of nature when she formed that: part of the animal 
economy, mankind in general must have seen to some: better» purpose; 
and not, in this blessed nineteenth century, still continue: gropimg theit 
way; as in the Cimmerian darkness of the ninth. Moreover, had seeing 
been the special destination of the eye, vision surely would have been 
essential to the economy of society; whereas, if there be any weightsm 
about one million and a half of the best Birmingham bayonets, nothing 
can be more treasonable, seditious, and dangereus to the best interests:of 
social order, than to make any such nse of the improperly so: called 
« visual orbs.” What indeed is a Carbonari, or a Radical, that “ monster 
hated of God and men,” but a sort of political Paul Pry, who, without’so: 
much as a “hope that he does not intrude,” insists upen seeing whatever 
is going forward in state affairs, and obstinately resists the belief in) the 
most vital propositions, when discredited by the testimony of his 
own eyes? This is a terrible habit, anda manifest violation of the 
natural law. Why, 7 rerum natura, should not a professor be as blind as: 
an aulic counsellor? or why should a newspaper editor pretend to) see 
more than a peer of the realm? « Here I think be proofs ;” but if they 
do not suffice, let the reader look to the natural instincts of the species, 
which lead them to distrust their own eyes, and in every thing that 
respects their dearest interests, to place themselves under the guidance’ 
of the first mountebank who will undertake to be their leader; always; 
however, preferring the guide who goes widest of common sense, and 
who lies with a hardihood proportionate to the absurdity he broaches. 
What, in the name of heaven, is the whole of society, but a game 
compounded of follow-my-leader, and of blindman’s-buff,* no matter how 
often we bruise our skins and break our noses in the chase; no sooner 
are we down, than up again and away. Oh! man, man, whimsical and 
inconsistent that thou art, why is it that, while thou thus refusest to trust’ 
thine own eyes, thou shouldst so pertinaciously insist on thy neighbours 
seeing with none others! 
But, leaving these high matters, another convincing proof of the’ 
important verity under consideration may be drawn from the prevalence 
of opera tubes, spectacles, and spy-glasses, which are all so many mute 
evidences that seeing is at least no function of a man of fashion, or, im 
other words, of a man par excellence. Do we not daily observe that’ 
when humble merit, or friendship out of favour, is to be passed by unseen, 
the cutter applies his eye to his quizzing glass, and levels it full at the 
person to be cut, for the very purpose of proving to him that the eye 
conveys no image to the sensorium. Further, if seeing were indeed the 
habit of our nature, would it be possible for statesmen to so frequently 
overlook the real merits of a question, and to lose so much time on 
personalities and outworks. Would it be possible for the cunningest! 
members of society to mistake so egregiously their true interests, *¢ et | 
propter vitam vivendi perdere causas?” The imperfection of the organs, 
A Ode 
nan sch 
* “A voir les sociétés d’aujourd*hui ne diroit-on pas que les hommes ne,s’assemblenty, 
que pour jouer a Colin Malliard? Chacun s’empresse de mettre le bandeaw) sur Jes 
yeux de son voisin. On s’exerce, on s’applique a donner Je change pour n’étre pas 
connu. On donne en effet dans le potau noir; on se casse le nez dix fois ayant meme 
que d’avoir saisi le premier objet qui nous tombe sous Ja main,” —Za connoissance de 
T'homme moral par celle de Vhomme physique, bs vichve 
4 
Fs 
