And I am truly afraid, that his very generosity is more owing to his
pride and his vanity, that that philanthropy (shall I call it?) which
distinguishes a beneficent mind.

Money he values not, but as a mean to support his pride and his
independence. And it is easy, as I have often thought, for a person to
part with a secondary appetite, when, by so doing, he can promote or
gratify a first.

I am afraid, my dear, that there must have been some fault in his
education. His natural bias was not, perhaps (as his power was likely to
be large) to do good and beneficent actions; but not, I doubt, from
proper motives.

If he had, his generosity would not have stopt at pride, but would have
struck into humanity; and then would he not have contented himself with
doing praiseworthy things by fits and starts, or, as if relying on the
doctrine of merits, he hoped by a good action to atone for a bad one;*
but he would have been uniformly noble, and done the good for its own
sake.


* That the Lady judges rightly of him in this place, see Vol. I. Letter
XXXIV. where, giving the motive for his generosity to his Rosebud, he
says--'As I make it my rule, whenever I have committed a very capital
enormity, to do some good by way of atonement; and as I believe I am a
pretty deal indebted on that score; I intend to join an hundred pounds to
Johnny's aunt's hundred pounds, to make one innocent couple happy.'--
Besides which motive, he had a further view in answer in that instance of
his generosity; as may be seen in Vol. II. Letters XXVI. XXVII. XXVIII.