[466] Charles François Dominique de Villers (1767-1815) was a French officer, who emigrated in 1792, and took refuge at Lübeck. He became profoundly interested in German life and literature, and endeavoured to introduce a knowledge of German speculation to his countrymen. His chief books were this exposition of Kant and an essay upon the _Reformation of Luther_ (1803), which went through several editions, and was translated by James Mill in 1805. An interesting account of Villers is in the _Biographie Universelle_. [467] See Cockburn's _Memorials_ for a good notice of this. [468] Stewart's _Works_, iv. 345. [469] Lady Holland's _Life of Smith_, ii. 388. [470] _Inquiry into the Relations of Cause and Effect_ (third edition), pp. 178, 180, and part iv. sec. 6. [471] _Examination of Hamilton_ (fourth edition), p. 379. [472] _Cause and Effect_, pp. 184-87. [473] _Cause and Effect_, p. 197. [474] _Ibid._ p. 239 _seq._ [475] _Ibid._ p. 244. [476] _Ibid._ p. 150. [477] _Ibid._ p. 357. [478] _Cause and Effect_, p. 313. [479] _Cause and Effect_, p. 482. Brown thinks that we can logically disprove the existence of motion by the hare and tortoise argument, and should therefore disregard logic. [480] Brown's _Lectures_, (1851), p. 167, Lect. xxvi. [481] Lecture xxv. This question as to whether Brown had or had not grossly misrepresented Reid and other philosophers, led to an entangled argument, in which Mill defended Brown against Hamilton. I will not ask whether Reid was a 'natural realist' or a 'cosmothetic idealist,' or what Descartes or Arnauld thought about the question. [482] Reid's _Works_, p. 128. [483] _Lectures_, pp. 150, 158-59. [484] _Dissertations_, p. 98. Compare Brown's Twenty-fourth Lecture with Tracy's _Idéologie_, ch. vii., and the account of the way in which the infant learns from resistance to infer a cause, and make of the cause _un être qui n'est pas moi_. The resemblance is certainly close. Brown was familiar with French literature, and shows it by many quotations, though he does not, I think, refer to Tracy. Brown, it must be noticed, did not himself publish his lectures, and a professor is not bound to give all his sources in popular lectures. An explanation would have been due in a treatise. Picavet quotes Rhétoré's _Philosophie de Thomas Brown_ (a book which I have not seen) for the statement that Brown's lectures often read like a translation of Laromiguière, with whom Brown was 'perhaps' acquainted. As, however, the _Leçons_, to which reference is apparently made, did not appear till 1815 and 1818, when Brown's lectures were already written, this seems to be impossible. The coincidence, which to me seems to be exaggerated by the statement, is explicable by a common relation to previous writers. [485] _Lectures_, p. 166 (Lect. xxvi.). [486] _Lectures_, p. 158 (Lect. xxv.). [487] _Ibid._ p. 151 (Lect. xxiv.).