JubJiJiing between the Arts. 75 
But we may advance a ftep further. The 
man of one book, is not likely to nnderjland 
that one book, fo well, as the man of more ex¬ 
tended ftudy. There is a general analogy and 
affinity, among all the fcienees. In all thofe 
which require cultivated imagination, or im¬ 
proved tafte, general knowledge is abfolutely 
neceffary. To form elegance of mind, there 
muft be, a comparifon of ideas, a combination 
of images, an extenfion of foul. Hence arife, 
the fenfeof fymmetry, elevation of fentiment, and 
a capacity to relifh the beautiful, and the fub- 
lime. 
The more abftrufe fcienees may feem to 
require lefs, of foreign and adventitious aid. 
The metaphyfician may, like a mole, work 
under ground, blindfold. Buried, ten thoufand 
fathoms deep, beneath the furface, he may need 
little the taper of the other fcienees. And yet, 
the fa< 5 t has often been, and experience confirms 
it, in many inftances, at this day, that thofe, who 
have excelled mod, even in the abftrujer parts 
of literature, have been men of a large acquaint¬ 
ance with knowledge. And, in general, thofe 
who have (hone with uncommon fplendor, in 
fome one profefiional, or favourite fcience, have 
been diftinguiffied by an attachment to know¬ 
ledge, in all its branches. Newton was not the 
mere aftronomer, or calculator. Boyle was not, 
merely, the natural philofopher; nor was Locke, 
the 
