g44 
<¢ are without vices, prejudices, and dif- 
fenfions,”’ muft certainly be underftood as 
Speaking to Europeans, and of courfe to 
mean fuch as are prevalent in Europe, and 
which were not aboriginal in Otaheite. As 
knowledge lays the foundation of rational 
refponfibility in man, and as vice is the 
genius of crimes, if he commit a criminal 
action, knowing it to be one, it is pro- 
perly called vice ; and as unavoidable ig- 
norance tn certain ituations makes his apo- 
logy, if he commit a criminal action, 
not knowing it to be one, it is properly 
called frailty. —T he Otahetians, being ig- 
norant of any revealed law, which ccuid 
fhew them the diftinétions between vice 
and virtue, may commit actions which, 
relatively fpeaking, are highly criminal ; 
but which, philofophically arguing, are 
either imitations from European examples, 
or the fpontaneous ebullitions of frail na- 
ture.—lIn this point of view then, and cer- 
tainly the oniy one by which a judicious 
eftimate of the Otaheitan charaéter may 
be formed, the idea of Commerfon is not 
<¢ wholly unphilofopbical,’* as Sdbrius 
remarks, but the contrary, as applied to 
a people fo fituated. 
Sobrius, however, acquits the Otaheitans 
of having vices in the courfe of his re- 
mark, by faying, that their virtues are the 
effect of an ealy fupply of their moft pref- 
fing wants, and a happy temperament be- 
ftowed on them by a benignant climate 
and fertile foil. This is acknowledging 
that they have not their origin in an innate 
difpofition of the mind, but in extraneous 
circumftances. The fame method of rea- 
foning will hold Commerfon out in the af 
fertion, that they of themfelves are with- 
out vices, &c. for both virtue and vice 
have their origin in nature,moderation con- 
fiituting the former, and excefs the latter; 
therefore their vices, &c. are the effect of 
too fertile a foil, too benignant a climate, 
and too eafy a fupply of their mof preffing 
wants. But the words virtue and vice are 
unknown to thofe children of nature; and 
it would be as ridiculous to call one tree 
Virtuous and another wicked, as to apply 
them to the people of Otaheite. 
T now ccme to fome of the vices of which 
Sobrius makes mention. —That ‘* fhame- 
lefs proftitution for gain,’’ which he ad- 
duces, clearly could not fubfift indepen. 
dent of the vifits of firangers ; and though 
T will not deny a capability of vice in the 
temperament of the Otaheitans, yet it was 
European intercourfe that firft fowed the 
feeds, and raifed the dreadful crop of pei- 
tilential difeafe. Their difpotition to fteal- 
ing, in like manner, sprung undoubtedly 
Defence of Commerfan on the Gtaheitans. 
fee ie 
from the example firft fet them by ftrangers, 
who made free with their property ; which 
then gave rife to a fpirit of retaliation, tne 
offspring of accurfed war in civillized Eu- 
rope; and this fpirit became in time the 
father of theft, which is now prattifed as 
a cuftom on friend and foe. 
Tt is not clear, that the ifland of Ota- 
hette has been thoroughly explored, and 
coniequently may induce an opinion that 
thofe afiemblies which Sobrius notices, are 
not general; but that they are confined to 
diftricts near the fea coaft,and that marmers 
are the principal fubferibers to them.—Be 
that the cafe or not, coci judgment requires 
great cau:jon and much refearch, betove it 
condemns a people for cuftoms which may 
not be aboriginal; but which were, per- 
haps fir& introduced by ftrangers ; and 
certainly more likcly, than that a people 
fo friendly, poffeffed of fo happy a tempe- 
rament, and living in fo benignant a cli- 
mate, fhould have firft inftituted them. 
The infinuation of Sobrius, refpecting 
what might be the cauie of the Otabeitans 
having ingratiated themieives in Commer- 
foa’s favour, viz. *¢ that fhamelefs prefti- 
tution for gain,” Eefides not proving a 
feather in his argument, has no foundation 
In any thing he faid, and is calumnicus in 
the extreme.—If Sobrius be a real friend 
to truth and virtue, it is not by hicting 
at libidinous ideas and praétices in a 
French Philofopher, whofe narrative by 
no means warrants the implication, that 
he advances their caufe. 
I will conclude with obferving, that 
fome leading data feemto me as neceflary 
in afcertaining the authenticity of books 
of travels, as in other matters of greater 
importance. 
‘Tn the firft place, I look upon the tra- 
veiler in his own country as the beft qua- 
lifted to give an accurate account of the .. 
cultoms, manners, laws, &c. of that coun. 
try, from his knowledge of the language, 
and from his habits being interwoven wiih 
or in a great meafure taken from thefe 
cuitoms, manners, and laws. 
Though this account may not ke alto- 
gether free fromgprejudice, yet the miftakes 
arifing fiom hsrcuee and prejuiice in a 
foreigner are more to be deprecated, than 
the too high colouring of an enlightened 
lover of his native country. —In the fecond 
place, there is a materia! differe: ce between 
travels undertaken in cosntries where the 
people are almoft in a flate of nature, and 
thofe undertaken in Europe, arifing chiefly 
from a total ignorance of the language, 
from the fufpicions of the natives,and from 
quarrels which prevent teayellers from going 
} much 
