When Col

When Col. Higginson asked, not long ago, in one of his charming
essays, that almost persuade the reader, 'Ought women to learn the
alphabet?' and added, 'Give woman, if you dare, the alphabet, then
summon her to the career,' his physiology was not equal to his wit.
Women will learn the alphabet at any rate; and man will be powerless
to prevent them, should he undertake so ungracious a task. The real
question is not, _Shall_ women learn the alphabet? but _How_ shall
they learn it? In this case, how is more important than ought or
shall. The principle and duty are not denied. The method is not so
plain.

In the meantime a chemical explanation of the phenomena

observed by Galvani had been proposed in 1792 by Fabroni, a
physicist of Florence
In the meantime a chemical explanation of the phenomena
observed by Galvani had been proposed in 1792 by Fabroni, a
physicist of Florence. After discussing the Sulzer phenomenon
already mentioned in this paper, Fabroni argues that the
peculiar taste caused by bringing the two metals into contact
while on the tongue is due to a chemical, rather than to an
electrical, action. He then discusses the different chemical
behavior of metals when taken singly and when placed in contact
with other metals. He says:[2]

Previously, when reasoning on the means of human happiness, he declared

it to be an established conclusion, that virtue leads to happiness,
even in this life; now he bases his own theory on the uncertainty of
that conclusion
Previously, when reasoning on the means of human happiness, he declared
it to be an established conclusion, that virtue leads to happiness,
even in this life; now he bases his own theory on the uncertainty of
that conclusion. His words are, "They who would establish a system of
morality, independent of a future state, must look out for some other
idea of moral obligation, _unless they can show_ that virtue conducts
the possessor to certain happiness in this life, or to a much greater
share of it than he could attain by a different behaviour." He does not
make the obvious remark that _human_ authority, as far as it goes, is
also a source of obligation; it works by the very same class of means
as the divine authority.