1797-4 
we have been taught to believe, that 
the part of Pompeia, which remains to 
be explored, wiil be preduétive of lite- 
rary treafures. This opinion ! carried 
with me to Portici, and exprefled it ‘to 
the keeper. He made me no aniwer, 
but according to the mode of expreffing 
diffent, among the gefticulating Italians, 
waved the fore-finger of his right hand 
to and fro. Then flepping into an ad- 
joining room, he foon returned with a 
box full of white afhes: Here, fir, faid 
he, are the manufcripts of Pompeia.—-* 
This information, accompanied with 
fuch damning proof, is much to be de- 
plored. 
[ To be continued. | 
ee 
Jo the Editor of ibe Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
1 PRESUME, from your hafty termina- 
tion of the’ difpute refpeéting the Ta- 
lents of Women, that you are not fond 
ef long controverfies.. 1 fhall, therefore, 
not occupy much more of your time, or 
of your room, in obferyations on Helve- 
tius’s Treatife on Man, and his ideas 
relative to the intellectual faculties of 
human beings. But I would make two 
- er three additional remarks. 
Your correfpondent, M. H. in-his 
ftatements, relative to what I] have ad- 
vanced in my former letters, appears to 
me to. be fomewhat inconfiftent. He 
fays, “after admitting the reafonings 
which have been urged for the effects of 
education, or moral caufes, on the powers 
of the human mind, your corre{pondent 
fill contends, that they amount to no 
proof, and are inconcluliive.” He after- 
wards fays, “the influence of education 
and circumftances upon the virtue, as 
well asthe underftandmg, of man, is alfo 
difputed by J.T.” The fact is, that 1 
have always admitted, that education has 
a very powerful effcét in the formation 
of the human character, and that it 
operates ftrongly with refpeét both to 
morals, and to literary acquifitions ; and 
that particular fituations and circum- 
flances haye often a great effceét in the 
formation of human charaéters. But I 
contended, and do ftill contend, that 
when all this is admitted, it amounts to 
no proof of the truth of the fyftem of 
Flelvetius. 
_M.H. fays, “ an appeal to experience, 
and an enumeration a facts, 1s the only 
proof which this, or any other fubject 
will admit.” But he has produced no 
evidence from experience, nor a fingle 
/ 
Reply to VM. He on Helvetius. 
aG5 
faét, which form any proof of the truth 
of Helvetius’s fyftem. All is imagina- 
tion, fuppottion, and conjeflure. ‘in 
different animals, of the fame fpecies, 
a confiderable diverfity 1s often obferv- 
able ; which is not to be accounted for 
bythe fituaticns in which they are placed, 
orthe treatment which they have re- 
ceived. The faine difference ‘is much 
more ftrikimgly exhibited in human crea. ' 
tures; nor is this difference rationally 
accounted for, by any of the arguments 
urged by Helvetius, or by the advocates 
for his fyftem. Noman can rationally, 
or probably, account for the ftriking ex- 
cellence of Shakfpeare’s writings, by any 
thing in his education, or in the circum- 
ftances and fituation in which he was 
placed. The fame may be faid of Vol- 
taire, of Rouffeau, of Samuel Johnfon, 
and of many others. If the Helvetian 
fyftem be true, the intelle€tual abilities 
of Thomas Sterntrold, Anthony Wood, 
or Eikanah Settle, were originally equal 
to thofe of William Shakfpeare, Fran- 
cis Bacon, or Ifaac Newton; and if the 
dulleft alderman, or member of a cit 
or country corporation, had been edu- 
eated in the fame manner, and placed in 
the fame fituation and circumftances with’ 
Edmund Burke, they would have ex- 
hibited the fame fertility of imagination, 
Thofe, who can believe all this, muft 
have a great deal of faith; and, as I 
think, of faith without reafon. Upon 
the whole, it appears to me, thar the 
fyfiem of Helvetius, refpeéting the in- 
telleétual faculties of man, is contrary te 
the analogy of nature, contrary to the 
general and prevailing opinions of men 
in all agesand nations, and net fupport- 
ed by one fingle conclufive argument. 
ie 

To the Editor of tbe Monthly Mazazine. 
SIR, 
peer me to offer a few obferva- 
tions, in reply to your correfpondent, 
A.S. pag, 136, refpecting the education 
of the Univerfity of Cambridge. He 
avows, that the mathematical lectures do 
not interfere with the claifical ones; and 
that thofe who do not purfue mathema- 
tics, cover their idlenefs, by declaring 
themtelves too much attached to clatiica! 
literature, to’ pay any ferious attention 
tothe other. Now, fir, in anfwer te 
the farft pofttion, I beg leave to fay, that 
a young man, who really wifhes to keep 
pace with the mathematical lectures, ia 
view to future honours, connot devote a 
4ufici ene 
+B Wdahke de shew 




