which is strong in Vauvenargues, and reaches tragic heights in Pascal.[30] Addison may have the delicacy of Vauvenargues, but it is a delicacy that wants the stir and warmth of feeling.  It seems as if with English writers poetic sentiment naturally sought expression in poetic forms, while the Frenchmen of nearly corresponding temperament were restrained within the limits of prose by reason of the vigorously prescribed stateliness and stiffness of their verse at that time.  A man in this country with the quality of Vauvenargues, with his delicacy, tenderness, elevation, would have composed lyrics.  We have undoubtedly lost much by the laxity and irregularity of our verse, but as undoubtedly we owe to its freedom some of the most perfect and delightful of the minor figures that adorn the noble gallery of English poets.

It would be an error to explain the superiority of the great French moralists by supposing in them a fancy and imagination too defective for poetic art.  It was the circumstances of the national literature during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries which made Vauvenargues for instance a composer of aphorisms, rather than a moral poet like Pope.  Let us remember some of his own most discriminating words.  ’Who has more imagination,’ he asks, ’than Bossuet, Montaigne, Descartes, Pascal, all of them great philosophers?  Who more judgment and wisdom than Racine, Boileau, La Fontaine, Moliere, all of them poets full of genius? It is not true, then, that the ruling qualities exclude the others; on the contrary, they suppose them. I should be much surprised if a great poet were without vivid lights on philosophy, at any rate moral philosophy, and it will very seldom happen for a true philosopher to be totally devoid of imagination.’[31] With imagination in the highest sense Vauvenargues was not largely endowed, but he had as much as is essential to reveal to one that the hard and sober-judging faculty is not the single, nor even the main element, in a wise and full intelligence.  ’All my philosophy,’ he wrote to Mirabeau, when only four or five and twenty years old, an age when the intellect is usually most exigent of supremacy, ’all my philosophy has its source in my heart.’[32]

In the same spirit he had well said that there is more cleverness in the world than greatness of soul, more people with talent than with lofty character.[33] Hence some of the most peculiarly characteristic and impressive of his aphorisms; that famous one, for instance, ’Great thoughts come from the heart,’ and the rest which hang upon the same idea.  ‘Virtuous instinct has no need of reason, but supplies it.’  ‘Reason misleads us more often than nature.’  ’Reason does not know the interests of the heart.’  ’Perhaps we owe to the passions the greatest advantages of the intellect.’  Such sayings are only true on condition that instinct and nature and passion have been already moulded under the influence of reason; just as this other saying, which won the