ANNOYANCES. 



395 



assert that neither their conception, direction, nor execu 

 tion required a man called James Watt. 



If I were to forget my duties as the mouthpiece of the 

 Academy, and endeavour more to make you smile than 

 try to relate useful truths, I should find matter here for 

 a striking contrast. I might cite this or that author 

 who, at our weekly meetings, labours loudly to commu 

 nicate some little remarks, some trifling reminiscence, 

 some little note, conceived and got up the previous even 

 ing ; I might represent him cursing his destiny, because 

 some clause in the rules, or the order of insertion of 

 some author, an earlier riser than himself, occasions his 

 lecture to be deferred for a week, allowing him the 

 guarantee, during the whole of that cruel week, of his 

 sealed paquet being deposited in our archives. On the 

 other hand, we should see the inventor of a machine 

 destined to form an epoch in the annals of the world, 

 undergo without a murmur the stupid contempt of 

 capitalists, and during eight years bend his superior 

 genius down to surveys, plans, and minute levellings ; to 

 troublesome items of clearing or filling in, and to toises 

 of masonry. Let us confine ourselves to supposing that 

 Watt s philosophy led to serenity of character, modera 

 tion in desires, to true modesty. But so much indiffer 

 ence, however noble the cause may have been, should 

 have its just limit. It is not without ample motive that 

 society severely reprobates those of its members who 

 withdraw from circulation the heaps of gold contained in 

 their iron chests. Are we less culpable if we deprive 

 our country, our fellow-citizens, our century, of the 

 treasures, a thousand times more precious, resulting 

 from the exercise of mind ; if we keep to ourselves 

 immortal inventions, sources of the most noble, of the 



