1

veffels of the skin, or of fome miliary glands; which produces currants, ftrawberries, mulberries, or marks of wine; but al ways according to the difpofition the external veffels were in. This difpofition alone, as I had the honour of acquainting you before, madam, can determine the particular effects of this general effort; this alone determines the place and figure of the mark; all that imagination did, was to excite or fufpend the general motion of the blood.

A fact of confequence often cited in favour of the force of imagination, proves clearly what I advance. We are told of a child that fell violently ill, because it's mother, during her pregnancy, faw a perfon afflicted with the fame diforder. The fact is poffible; but it furnishes us with a fresh proof against the force of imagination; in fact, madam, were we to fuppofe that the imagination of the mother can mark the body of the child with the figure of the objects which have ftruck the mother, we ought always, as has been said before, to restrain that power to objects the could be acquainted with. To tell a country girl of the goodness of a pine-apple, without defcribing it's form, would never make her have a defire to eat it? In vain her imagination would fuggeft to her an idea of tastes fhe has no knowledge of: it would never represent to her the form of a pine-apple; confequently it could never mark the body of the child in her womb, with the resemblance of that fruit.

Let us reafon upon this principle, and confider two things in the disorder in queftion; the cause of the disorder, and it's external effect; which of these two objects ftruck the mother? She faw a perfon in convulfions: but without knowing either the defect of the nervous fibres, or that of the veffels, which causes the diforder: this would efcape the fight of the most penetrating anatomists. The fole object that ftruck the imagination of the mother, and the only thing fhe is acquainted with, is the figure of a man in convulfions: confequently that external figure only, was what she could mark the child's body with; which nevertheless did not happen. The child is born with that difpofition in the brain which caufes convulfions. The imagination of the mother which has not impreffed upon the body of the child, the figure of the object that he was acquainted with, and which alone ftruck her, has conveyed into the brain of the infant an impreffion fhe has no knowledge of, of which she can have no idea, and which never ftruck her; you perceive madam, that it is impoffible.'

To give our own opinion, as to the merits of the question difcuffed in thefe letters, we agree perfectly with the Author as to the main point; but we conceive that, if he had attempted to prove lefs, he would have proved much more, and would have had a better chance of having his book read and understood,

which we apprehend will feldom be the cafe, especially among the fair fex, for whose inftruction and emolument it is pretended to be written. K-n-k.

Reflections on Education, relative both to Theory and Practice: in which fome of the Principles attempted to be established by Mr. Rouffeau in his Emilius, are occafionally examined and refuted. Written in French by Father Gerdil, Barnabite: Preceptor to his Royal Highness the Prince of Piedmont. 2 Vols. fmall 8vo. 3s. 6d. few'd. Davis and Reymers.

M

ANY have been the attacks which the celebrated author of Emilius hath drawn upon himself, in confequence of his departing fo much from received opinions with regard to the education of children. It undoubtedly an important fubject, and all innovations fhould be introduced with great caution. In matters merely fpeculative, Mr. Rouffeau might have indulged his paffion for fingularity and paradox with more fafety. Yet, in justice to that very ingenious and fpirited writer, it may be faid that his treatise is fo far fpeculative, that he himself confeffes the impoffibility, in the prefent ftate of things, of bring-' ing his rules into practice. It is the theory of education only. which he profeffes to teach *; leaving his readers, in all cafes, to apply it in practice as their judgment may direct. It is a fyftem confeffedly calculated, mutatis mutandis, for the ufe of all nations and people; fo that even fuppofing there should be a country where it may not be adviseable to adopt one of his rules, his treatise may nevertheless afford pleafing matter of fpeculation to the curious; who are fond of ingenious reveries. It is extremely difingenuous, therefore, in the Author of thefe Refections, to endeavour to poffefs the minds of his readers with the evil defign and dreadful confequences of Mr. Rouffeau's principles, before he begins to fhew their effect or fallacy. He ought to have done this firft, and have left the public to judge for themselves of the defign and tendency of fuch writings. He tells us, indeed, that, if Mr. Roufleau reads his book, he will fee his fentiments attacked without animofity or bitterness." Our Barnabite, it is true, affects in fome places a great deal of candour and moderation, but this is merely ceremonious and artificial; how candid and moderate he really is, may be gathered from the very first paragraph of his introduction. • The de

• The examples he gives in the imaginary pe: fon of Emilius, being intended only to illuftrate his precepts; and not to serve as an actual example to be frictly followed in practice.

1

D 3

fign,

fign, fays he, of his [Rouffeau's] focial compact, or principles of politic law, is to overfet all civil order, and, by his Emilius, he intends to prepare men's minds for it, by a total alteration in heir meted of thinking.' Now where is the candour of this Writer, and by what means will he fupport fuch a charge against Mr. Rouffeau? This fon of St. Barnabas may pretend there is no animofity or bitterness, in thus abufing his antago nist, and stigmatizing him in the very first page of his book, as an enemy to civil fociety; but we are perfuaded the truly candid and impartial reader will think otherwife. It is not our business here to justify either the tract on the focial compact or that on education; but we may obferve the fame of the one as the other. In the former, the Author hath laid down the theory of civil government on the most unexceptionable principles; and if in the prefent ftate of things thofe principles cannot be adopted, where lies the fault? Is it a crime to point out the right way, merely because we have ftrayed fo far that we are not able to recover it? Is it criminal to point out the means for ensuring the health and profperity of a state, where the constitutions have been fo tampered with by ftate-quacks, that, under the prefent complication of diforders, the remedy is worfe than the difeafe? It is really whimsical that a writer, who, like Mr. Rousseau, endeavours to investigate the moft durable fyftem of government, fhould be accused of ftriving to fubvert the order of civil fociety: but it is well known that individuals in prefent office or power, are too much interested in the prevention of revolutions and changes, to countenance any kind of reformation. Every attempt to correct the diforders of government, is, in their opinion, an attempt to fubvert the order of fociety. And thus it will ever be, while the few are fo liberally gratified for enflaving the many. How many millions do not fome nations pay yearly for being governed; while the infolent governors riot on the fpoils of honeft industry, wrung from the hard hands of peafants or artificers, who abfurdly accept the mere name of liberty, in exchange for that gold with which they reward the forgers of their chains! There is not a nation in chriftendom where liberty (we had almost faid a claim to justice) is not entailed upon wealth ;-the poor, in countries the most free, exerting that freedom almost always at their cost, and ever at their peril. But this is a digreffion. To return, therefore, to our Barnalite.

Having endeavoured thus to prejudice the minds of his readers against Mr. Rouffeau's writings in general,; he proceeds to give the following sketch of that ingenious author's Emilius. In his first volume, fays he, the author feems to attend particularly to the unfolding of thofe principles, which ferve as a bafis to his fyftem of politics, and his theory of education. He there reprefents

6

reprefents focial inftitutions in the most odious colours; he cftablishes, as maximś, that a man living in a ftate of nature is happy within himself, that we were born to be men, but that. laws and fociety have again reduced us to an infantive state: that dependence, which is the confequence of them, is repugnant to nature, and is the fource of all our vices: that no man can be educated for himself and for others: that fathers have no right to command their children in matters which are not conducive to their [the children's] intereft. From thefe maxims, which are as a bafis to the fyftem of his focial compact, he deduces, in the fame volume, the practical rules for the conduct of the firft ftage of life, on which the whole courfe of education fo much depends. We may venture fafely to appeal to every one who hath perufed Mr. Rouffcau's work with attention, whether or not this be a fair and candid representation of its contents. For our part, we think, notwithstanding this Writer's affurance, that it bears very fufpicious marks of animofity and bitterness. Not that we mean to defend Mr Rouficau's prin-: ciples and writings in general; we have, on the contrary, frequently endeavoured to expofe his want of proper information with regard to facts, as well as the inconfiftencies of his reafoning. We have fhewn that his fuppofed ftate of nature was merely imaginary †, and that a ftate of fociety is really the natural fate of man. We have endeavoured allo, on more occafions than one, to expofe the errour he is so apt to fall into, of reasoning from the abuse of things, against the ufe of them. But it is very unjust to fay that he reprefents civil inftitutions in the moft odious colours, and imputes our imbecillity, to laws and to fociety in general, because he ridicules or inveighs against parti-, cular inftitutions, laws, and cuftoms. What, if a man fhould endeavour to fhew the impropriety of fome of our acts of parlia ment; to point out the inconveniencies attending our form of government; to laugh at the many abfurdities of our manners; are we therefore to accufe him of being an enemy to all laws, inftitutions and focieties? Yet in this manner doth our candid Barnabite deal with Mr. Rouffeau. The latter, however, had

In another part of the work, he fums up, what he calls, the fruits of Mr. Rouffeau's new plan of education, thus: A contempt for all revealed religion, and for Chriftianity in particular, I will venture even to add a neglect of the divinity, a hatred to all etablifhed governments, an objection to all legitimate authority, a mind fraught with independence and licentioufnels; obedience truck out from the dictionary of chil dren; a falfe indulgence in not refraining the fallies of their natural li berty, a falfe constraint in not reafoning with them, and in not cultivating their minds by ftudies fuited to their age; fuch 1 fay are the fruits of the rew plan of education.'

† See Review, Vol. XXVII. p. 331-342.

D4

laid

laid himself fufficiently open, to afford his antagonist room for difplaying his preceptorial abilities in defending the common forms of education. It must be allowed, indeed, that both taste and good fenfe are contained in many of his reflections; which, being for the most part perfectly agreeable to received notions, will probably have more than their due weight against the new and very fingular opinions of his antagonist.

Education (fays Father Gerdil) may, if you pleafe, be termed an art; but it is one of those arts which are fimply directory, forming nothing. The gardener, to whom a young plant is committed in charge, carefully tranfplants it into the moft convenient fpot, waters it, defends it from every thing. which may injure it, from the heat of the dog days, and the winter's froft. If it bends in its growth, he ftraightens it, though he is obliged to make ufe of violence, and fcruples not to use the knife for cutting off fuch ufelefs branches as would only serve to divert the course of that precious fap, intended for its nourishment, and to make it bear fruit.

The gardener forms nothing: all he does is, to keep at a distance every thing that would interrupt nature in its operations it is nature caufes the young plant to grow, and its action is, at the fame time, extended to all the parts which compose it.

This comparison, though trivial, is juft, and may easily be applied to the care which every inftructor should take, when the faculties of the human mind begin to unfold themselves in infancy.

No man can be educated for himself, unless his reason is cultivated; for it is through reason that man is man.

Reafon is a focial faculty of nature; make a man reafonable, and you make him fociable*. Therefore reafon cannot be cultivated but by leffons which have relation to focial life. Therefore no man can be educated for himself, without being educated for others alfo. A man detached from all fociety, who fhould enrich his underftanding by deep ftudy, might, indeed, become a prodigy of learning; but I doubt much whether he would be a very rational man. We have seen men who have appeared very fenfible by their writings, but who proved themfelves very weak in their lives.'

Our Author expreffes himself here very inaccurately, he falls into a confiderable errour for want of diftinguishing between the theoretical and practical ufe of reafon. A man may be a prodigy of learning, and have rather impoverished than enriched his understanding by his erudition. But he might alfo

Not always. We know many reafonable men very unsociable companions.