Imagens da página

thor means by his motto-- Que alteri feculo prajint ---that his performance may prove uk ful (or in fashion) when theirs will be obfolete; or whether he referred by it to that operation of envy, which often renders Fame rather a posthumous, than a living attainment, we do not pretend to determine. We think, however, that unexperienced Practitioners may read it with emolument, as the method and order of it is well conducted and logical ; and as it may present in abstract, a good deal of what the former have given more in detail. But that our ingenious Althor's profeffed intention in this work, is very laudable, can adınit of no doubt; since he aiures us, he was prompted to it by his continual disposition to cultivate and improve the knowlege of physic; which, if candidly interpreted, may imply Philanthrophy, or, in Mr. Pope's phrase, make felf-love and social be the fame.'

EMILIUS and SOPHIA: or a new Sycon of Education. Translated from the French of J. J. Roufieau, Citizen of Ge

By the Translator of ELOISA. 2 Vols. 58. tewed. Becket, &ic.



HEN we mentioned the original of this work,

among our foreign articles, and hinted the general defign of the Author, we little imagined we should to foon have an opportunity of giving a more particular account of it, from the translation. We have had frequent occafion, indeed, to regret the precipitancy with which many valuable productions have been rendered out of other languages into English. An eager desire of gratifying the public curiosity, very often defeats its own purpose ; and, ambitious as writers may be, of having their works translated, it would be often more to their credit never to have that honour conferred on them at all, than to have their performances so haftily and Novenly metamorphosed as they generally are. reputation of a writer is, in this respect, frequently fatal to the translation of his pieces ; and recent instances might be given, wherein very celebrated productions have fallen a sacrifice to the popularity of their Authors, and the avarice of booksellers. These circumstances considered, it must be allowed, no writer could run a greater risk of suffering by a translation than Mr. Rousseau, as well on account of the peculiarity of his ftyle, as of the fingular turn of his sentiments:

The great


He has had an advantage, however, over many of his cotemporary writers; and has been fortunate enough, as well on this as on a former occasion, to fall into good hands. The English reader, therefore, need not much regret his ignorance of the French language, on account of this work nor be under apprehensions of being milled, or disgusted, by a wretched misrepresentation of a beautiful original. Not that he must expect to find a laboured copy, wherein the minutie of fimilitude are preserved, with all the studied correctness of mediocrity. Such a task must necessarily have taken up a much longer time, as well as have been too servile for any artist, who was so far master of the subject and of his pen, as to do justice to the original. It is not a minute resemblance in the manner of pencilling, but the bolder touches and animated strokes of the piece that constitute the merit of a copy : And in this, we have only to say, that the English version before us, has fully answered the favourable expectations we had conceived

In regard to the work itself, its merit, on the whole, is in some degree problematical. As a literary composition it certainly has little more than that arising from an animated style, agreeable characters, and entertaining though unconnected narratives; being deficient in point of regular plan or fable, as a work of the historical or epic kind, and wanting all the advantages of connection, order and method, requisite to a systematical treatise. The Author, indeed, seems very sensible of this defect and apologizes for it accordingly. first design, says he, was confined to a tract of a few pages; but my tubiect proving feductive, this intended tract fwelled infenfibly into a kind of large work, too large, doubtless, for what is contained in it, tho’ too little for the matter of which it treats. I have hesitated long about its publication ; and, indeed, in composing it received frequent intimations from my labour, of the difference, between having written a few pamphlets and being equal to the composition of a book. After many fruitless efforts to do better, however, I thought it my duty to give it the public as it is; conceiving it of consequence to excite their attention to an important object; concerning which, though my notions should be wrong, yet if they fhould happen to suggest right ones to others, my time will not be entirely thrown away.

“ We are not fufficiently acquainted with a state of infancy: the farther we proceed on our present mistaken ideas, the farther we wander from the point. Even the most saga


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

cious instructors apply themselves to those things which man is required to know, without considering what it is children are capacitated to learn. They are always expecting the man in the child, without reflecting what he is before he can be a man. It is to this branch of education I have applied myself; so that, should my practical scheme be found useless and chimerical, my observations will always turn to account. I may possibly have taken a very bad view of what ought to be done, but I conceive I have taken a good one of the subject to be wrought upon. Begin then, ye Preceptors, by studying first your Pupils; for moit assuredly you are at present unacquainted with them. If you read this book with that view, also, I flatter myself there are none of may

find its perufal of use.

you but

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

" With regard to what may be called the systematical part of this treatise, which is nothing more than the progressive system of Nature, this will probably most perplex the Reader; on this, therefore, I shall doubtless be attacked, and, perhaps, with reason. It may be objected to me, that my book contains rather a heap of reveries than a treatise. But what must be done? I do not compose a diflertation from the ideas of others; but write immediately from my own. I do not see things altogether in the same manner as other people; and have been frequently reproached on this account. But does it depend on me to give myself new eyes, or to be affected by other ideas? No. It is my fault, indeed, if I am too vain of my own manner of conception, if I believe myself alone to be wiser than all the rest of the world. It is not in my power to change my sentiments, but to distrust them: this is all I can do, and this I have done. If I sometimes assume an affirmative tone, therefore, it is not with a view to impose my notions on the Reader; but only to tell him what I really think. Why should I propose any thing to him in the form of a doubt, of which I harbour not the least doubt myself? I only say precisely what pasies in my own mind.

“ In speaking my sentiments with freedom, I am so far fram giving them as an authority, that I always subjoin my reasons; to the end that the Reader may weigh them, and judge for himself. Though I am not obstinate in the defence of my own notions, however, I think myself not the less obliged to propose them : as the maxims, concerning which I ain of a very different opinion from other people, are far from þeing unimportant. They are fuch whose truth or falfhood

it is of consequence for us to know; and on which depends the happiness or misery of mankind.”

The principal objections which have been made to this treatise, however, respect rather the matter than the manner of it: the grand demerits which it has been charged with, and for which it hath undergone the severest of public censures, relate to the many new and uncommon sentiments which the Writer entertains concerning the most popular and interesting topics in politics, religion *, and morals. It might ill become us to undertake magifterially to decide in all the contested points between our Author and his opponents. To enable our Readers, however, to judge for themselves, and give them a satisfactory idea, of this extraordinary performance, we purpose to make a concise abstract of the whole; in the course of which we shall occasionally take into consideration such points as are most remarkable for their novelty or singularity.

It would break in too much on the plan of our Review, however, to execute this task, in one article ; we must, therefore, defer the prosecution of it for the present, and resume it in the succeeding numbers of our work. In the mean time we leave the following just and spirited apology, which the Translator makes for his Author, to speak sufficiently in his favour.

The vague and general objection to this work is, that it contains a variety of fantastical notions, on a trite and beaten subject. How far our Author's advice is good, or his fchemes

In justice to Mr. Rousseau, however, we must observe, that many of those reflections, which mistaken Bigots have, on this occasion, thrown out against him, as an enemy to Christianity, are false and injurious. Our Author is, indeed, the most zealous Advocate for Toleration; and if he sometimes bears hard on the mere forms of religion, he tells us plainly, it is because they are destructive to the {pirit of it. His notions of the doctrines of Christianity, and the sacred character of its Founder, may be gathered from the Parallel he draws, in the third volume of this work, between Jesus Christ and Socrates; wherein he holds the latter infinitely cheap in the comparison. Is it posible for us to conclude the Author of the following passage to be a disbe'iever of, or an enemy to, Christianity.

Oui, fi la vie et la mort de Socrate font d'un sage, la vie et la mort de Jesus sont d'un Dieu. Dirons nous que l' histoire de l'Evangile eit inventée à plaisir ? Mon ami, ce n'est pas ainsi qu' on invente, et les faits de Socrate, dont personne ne doute, font moins attestés que ceux de Jesus Christ.


practicable, experience will best shew; but that his fubject was ever treated before, can be said only by such as have neyer read his book. Numerous differtations have, indeed, appeared on the general head of Education ; our Author makes it evident, however, by what he himself hath done, that, how much foever may have been written on Education, the immediate oljeéts of it were never studied or understood before.

“ That the Reader will be frequently fruck with the novelty of the remarks, and the singularity of the obiervations, to be met with in this work, is, hence, very certain ; nor can it possibly be otherwise. We have fo long plodded on in the track of our progenitors, and implicitiy adopted the most abfurd cuftoms, that our surprize is very natural, at feeing habits so deeply rooted, exposed as idle and ridiculous. It is equally a matter of course that a Writer who attempts, on every occasion, to distinguish between nature and habit, should frequently be forced to maintain notorious paradoxes. Those who are capable, or desirous, of thinking for them. selves, however, on fo interesting a subject, will enquire whence thce apparent contradictions arife, and will soon find them artificial, and not real : in the mean time, no one should be either surprized or offended, that a man, who professedly differs from the opinions of the generality of mankind, should be fingular in his own.

" There are, it is true, many well-meaning people, who hold received opinions as too sacred to be attacked or ridiculed. A Writer should, doubtless, on all occasions, pay a proper deference to the nature of his subject : but, if the matter in question be merely matter of opinion, it may be false, absurd, or destructive.' Ought the subject, therefore, to which it belongs, and on which account, perhaps, it should be the sooner exposed, to protect such falschood or destructive absurdity from being detected? What would have been the consequence, if this principle, of paving an implicit regard to opinion, had universally prevailed for a thoutand years paft? Where would have been all the improvements in matters of science, politics, and religion, that have been made fince thofc days of ignorance and barbarilm? Is the human fpecies arrived to its utmost degree of perfection ? Hath fociety reached the submit of political happiness? Are there no farther improvements to be made in the science of government? No rank weeds to be still rooted up from the once overgrown and luxuriant foil of artificial religion ?

" All

« AnteriorContinuar »