¹ Note, for example, the lengthy recommendation of Rousseau's position in Alexander Meikeljohn, Education between Two Worlds (New York, 1942).

² Examples are the protest of Sarah Fielding against the cruelties of fishermen in her David Simple (1744–52) and the religious explorations in James Hervey, Meditations among the Tombs (1745–417), which reached its 25th edition before the end of the century.

³ Examples are The Little Prettty Pocketbook (1744), Tommy Thumb's Pretty Song Book (1744), and the Lilliputian Magazine (1751–52). For citation of similar works, issued chiefly by John Newbery, see F. J. H. Darton, “Children's Books,” CHEL, xi, 416–418. The popularity of Richardson's novels is sufficient indication of the desire for “refinement.”

⁴ For examples, note Isaac Watts, Discourse on the Education of Children and Youth (1751); Thomas Sheridan, British Education (1756); and James Burgh, Thoughts on Education (1757).

⁵ For British notices on this event, see London Chronicle, xi (1762), 589, xiv (1763), 242–245; Monthly Review, xxvii (1762), 152.

⁶ London Chronicle, xii (1762), 68, xiii (1763), 533; Scots Magazine, xxv (1763), 350; London Magazine, xxxii (1763), 323–324.

⁷ ii, 50.

⁸ On February 20, 1762, Becket and DeHondt, booksellers, advertised that Émile would “speedily be published” in English translation (London Chronicle, xi, 180). Seven extracts appeared in the London Chronicle from June to September, 1762 (xii, 4, 27, 279, 291–292, 299, 307–308, 316). The first two volumes of the English translation were offered to the public on September 18, and the other two volumes on December 16 (London Chronicle, xii, 75, 279).

⁹ See J. H. Warner, “A Bibliography of Eighteenth-Century English Editions of J.-J. Rousseau, with Notes on the Early Diffusion of His Works,” PQ, xiii (1934), 225–247; and “Addenda to the Bibliography of Eighteenth-Century English Editions of J.-J. Rousseau,” PQ, xix (1940), 237–241.

¹⁰ For comment on the work of the translators, see Section ii below. No copy of the 1762 edition is listed in the “Union” or British Museum catalogues. The issues of both 1762 and 1767, however, used the translation by William Kenrick, “The Translator of Eloisa”; and hence, in all probability, they were identically worded (see advertisement in the London Chronicle, xii (1762), 279, and the citation of the 1767 edition in the catalogue of the British Museum). The 1784 edition was worded identically with that of 1767. The Edinburgh editions of 1763, 1768, and the Works of 1773 were also identical. They differed from the Kenrick translation in the opening pages but followed it verbatim thereafter (one method of avoiding royalties?). The London edition of 1763 and the Dublin issue of c. 1765 used the translation of Thomas Nugent (see citations in the catalogue of the British Museum).

¹¹ Among the writings of Rousseau in 218 private libraries of the period, Émile ranked second. Sixteen copies, eleven of which were French, were found in as many collections, while twenty-four libraries included copies of the Nouvelle Héloïse (1760). Thus, in addition to the twelve works by Voltaire, Pope, Thomson, Young, Fielding, and Macpherson which surpassed the Nouvelle Héloïse in frequency, we find three other volumes ahead of Émile: Shenstone's Works Helvetius' de l'Esprit (1758), and Voltaire's Philosophie de Newton (1738). See R. S. Crane, “Diffusion of Voltaire's Writings in England,” Mod. Phil., xx (1923), 266–267. Professor Crane also kindly placed at my disposal additional unpublished notes on these private libraries.

¹² Thomas Gray was enthusiastic over Émile (see note 75 below), but he condemned the Nouvelle Héloïse severely (see Gray's letter to Horace Walpole, December, 1760, Letters of Thomas Gray, ed. Tovey [London, 1912], ii, 187–188). Thomas Day, Reverend David Williams, Maria and R. L. Edgeworth, and Lord Kames published no comment on the Nouvelle Héloïse, while their remarks on Émile were frequent (see notes 14, 53, 62, 63, 64 below). Moreover, of the sixteen libraries previously referred to as containing copies of Émile (see note 11 above), only seven also included the Nouvelle Héloïse; and in six of the libraries which held copies of Émile, no other of Rousseau's works appeared.

¹³ Universal Magazine, lxviii (1781), 225–228. In examining the files of over one hundred eighteenth-century periodicals, I found over seventy extracts and quotations from Émile, and only twenty-seven from the Nouvelle Héloïse, which was the next work of Rousseau in point of frequency. Furthermore, I have noted ninety-five comments on Émile as compared with eighty-three on the Nouvelle Héloïse (see the remainder of this article and my “Eighteenth-Century English Reactions to the Nouvelle Héloïse,” PMLA, lii (1937), 803–819. Frequent and lengthy reviews of Émile appeared in current periodicals (see the Monthly Review, xxvii (1762), 152–153, 212–227, 258–267, 342–358, xxviii (1763), 1–14, 81–96; London Chronicle, xii (1762), 4, 27, 279, 291–292, 299, 307–308, 316; Critical Review, xiv (1762), 250–270, xv (1763), 21–34; Annual Register, v (1762), 225–237; Gentleman's Magazine, xxxii (1762), 523–525. Seven pamphlets were devoted exclusively to a critical evaluation of Émile (for citations, under dates of 1763, 1764, 1765, 1766, 1767, 1782, 1783, see notes 81, 82, and my “Bibliography,” as cited in note 9 above), while only one, a spurious Satire of M. Voltaire … against M. Rousseau's New Eloisa (see the Library, i (1761), 335), was evoked by the Nouvelle Héloïse.

¹⁴ Lectures on Education (1789), as quoted by Jacques Pons, L'éducation en Angleterre entre 1750 et 1800. Aperçu sur l'influence pédagogique de J. J. Rousseau (Paris, 1919), pp. 42, 71–73.

¹⁵ Although I have examined periodicals and literary productions of all types issued in fairly even proportion throughout the century, I noted a distinct preponderence of comment during the final decade. Naturally one finds much discussion when the book was first published. From 1762 to 1770, I noted thirty-one opinions; 1770–80; four; 1780–90, eighteen; and 1790–1800, forty-two.

¹⁶ A. F. Tytler states that Émile resulted in several essays on pedagogy (Memoirs of … Henry Home [Edinburgh, 1807], ii, 213). Note should be taken of the approval of some of Rousseau's pedagogical tenets by Mrs. Catherine Macaulay, R. L. and Maria Edgeworth, the Reverend David Williams, Dr. James Fordyce, Dr. John Gregory, Mrs. Hester Chapone, Lord Chesterfield, and William Godwin (see notes below, and Jacques Pons, op. cit.). The marked effect of Émile on the educational novel has been studied (see A. M. Stevens, Rousseau's Influence on the Educational Novel, M. A. thesis, University of Chicago, 1912). For a study of the influence on the “novels of a purpose,” see Adolf Frisch, Der Revolutionäre Roman in England, seine Beeinflussung durch Rousseau (Pforzheim, 1914). See also Pons, op. cit.

¹⁷ See the essay on Day by Anna Seward, Some Literary Eccentricities, ed. John Fyvie (London, 1906), pp. 44 ff., and the biography of Day in DNB.

¹⁸ Lady Kildare offered to provide a home in England for Rousseau if he would act as preceptor to her daughters (see letter of Mrs. Delany to Lady Andover, September 4, 1766, Autobiography and Correspondence of Mary Granville (London, 1862), i, 67.

¹⁹ Lord Kames writes of several northern families who tried to follow Rousseau's suggestions concerning increased liberties for children (Loose Bints on Education, Edinburgh, 1781, pp. 54 ff.).

²⁰ The Reverend David Williams attempted to conduct his school for boys according to Rousseau's principles (Lectures on Education, as cited in note 14 above).

²¹ xvi, 533–534.

²² See J.H.Warner, “A Bibliography,” op. cit., and note 11 above.

²³ Letter of December 30, 1762, as quoted by L. J. Courtois, “Les séjour de Jean-Jacques Rousseau en Angleterre,” Annales de la société Jean Jacques Rousseau, vi (1910), 253.

²⁴ For examples, note “The Superiority of Modem Education over the Ancient,” Lounger, ii (1786), 301–311; Microcosm (1787), pp. 373–383; Bee; or Literary Weekly Intelligencer, xv (1793), 41–47, 84–95, 162–168, 232–236.

²⁵ See note 16 above; C. E. Vaughan, “Sterne and the Novel of His Times,” CHEL, x, 65–66; and Wilbur L. Cross, The Development of the English Novel (New York, 1917), pp. 84–88.

²⁶ See J. H. Warner, “The Reaction in Eighteenth-Century England to Rousseau's Two Discours,” PMLA, xlviii (1933), 486–487; and Warner, “A Bibliography,” op. cit., pp. 244–247.

²⁷ For Burke's comment on Rousseau's fame among the French revolutionists, see Burke's Letter to a Member of the National Assembly, in Works (Bohn Library), ii, 539–541. For evidence of interest in pedagogy, see notes 3 and 4 above.

²⁸ The title page did not carry the name of Kenrick; instead, the phrase, “The Translator of Eloisa,” was used.

²⁹ Nugent brought to his work more experience in translating from the French than Kenrick. Nugent had translated J. B. DuBos' Réflexions critiques sur la poésie (1719) in 1748, J. Burlamaqui's Principes de la loi naturelle (1747) in 1748, Montesquieu's L'esprit des lois (1748) in 1752, and Voltaire's Essai sur les mœurs (1756) in 1759. Although he had also written several essays on travel and the law, Nugent was not so widely known as Kenrick (see R. B. Sewall, “William Kenrick as Translator and Critic of Rousseau,” PQ, xx (1941), 58–68).

³⁰ See Kenrick's preface to Eloisa, ed. 2 (London, 1761), i, viii-xi.

³¹ See below.

³² For Nugent's version, see Emilius, or an Essay on Education (London, 1763), ii, 73; for Kenrick's, see Emilius and Sophia (London, 1767), iii, 116–120. This religious difference is further verified in the excerpts quoted below; Kenrick translated “l'Évangile” (1. 5) in 1. 13 as “scripture,” while Nugent employed “sacred volume” (1. 12).

³³ See Kenrick's review of Émile in Monthly Review, xxviii (1763), 135; and Kenrick's Observations on Mr. Rousseau's New System of Education, with some Remarks on the Different Translations of that Celebrated Work (London, 1763)—announced in London Chronicle, xiii (1763), 87, and discussed by R. B. Sewall, op. cit.). See further praise in European Magazine, x (1786), 20. Cf. also the praise of Kenrick's version of the Nouvelle Héloïse in Critical Review, xii (1761), 203–211; Gentleman's Magazine, xxxi (1761), 62; and London Chronicle, ix (1761), 531.

³⁴ London Chronicle, xiii (1763), 87.

³⁵ Émile ou de l'éducation, ed. 1 (Amsterdam, 1762), iii, 179–180.

³⁶ Emilius, or an Essay on Education (London, 1763), ii, 86–87.

³⁷ Emilius and Sophia (London, 1767), iii, 136–137.

³⁸ Émile, ou de l'éducation, ed. 1 (Amsterdam, 1762), ii, 28.

³⁹ Emilius or an Essay on Education (London, 1763), i, 17–18.

⁴⁰ Emilius and Sophia (London, 1767), i, 20.

⁴¹ The causes for this were the more prosaic nature of Émile and the fewer brief, abrupt, and parallel phrases. Nugent made twelve significant changes in the first impassioned passage and four in the second more prosaic selection, while Kenrick made thirteen in the first and six in the second. These differences are far out of proportion to the difference in the length of the passages. See Warner, op. cit., and Sewall, op. cit., on the English translation of the Nouvelle Héloïse.

⁴² Nugent used this phrase in the Preface of his translation (Emilius [London, 1763], p. viii), and Kenrick used similar words in his Preface (Eloisa, ed. 2 [London, 1761], i, pp. viii-xi).

⁴³ Ll. 5–6. Note also Kenrick's change of “empire” to “command over” (1. 32).

⁴⁴ For changes of all sorts, including changing exclamation points to periods, see ll. 8, 10, 12, 13, 22, 43, 44, 48 of Nugent, and ll. 2, 10, 12, 14, 30, 41, 44, 47, 48 of Kenrick.

⁴⁵ For this purpose, Kenrick added “scripture” (1. 13), “those animals” (1. 39), and “of diction” (1. 10); while Nugent added “sacred volume” (1. 12) and “those animals” (1. 41).

⁴⁶ Note the addition of “and” in 1. 4 and 1. 38 by Nugent, and of “as” in 1. 5 by Kenrick.

⁴⁷ Note Nugenlt's translation of “grâce touchante” as “force” and “persuasion” (ll. 22–23), and Kenrick's rendering of “instructions” as “delivery” (ll. 22–23, 25). The difficulties of translation are further exemplified by the translation of “mœurs” by Nugent as “morals” (1. 21) and by Kenrick as “manners” (1. 23).

⁴⁸ See note 41 above.

⁴⁹ While Kenrick made only comparatively few more changes than Nugent (see notes 41, 44 above), they were generally of a more radical nature. Note, for examples, the change from a question into a statement (ll. 46–49), and the addition for emphasis of “contemptible” (1.11), “merely” (1.17), and “nay” (1. 48).

⁵⁰ Note the translation of “voyez” as “peruse” by Kenrick, rather than “look into” by Nugent (ll. 6, 7, 8); and the translation of “m'étonne” as “strikes me with admiration” by Kenrick (ll. 3, 4) rather than as “astonishes me” by Nugent (ll. 3, 4). Note also Kenrick's closer approximation of Rousseau's parallelism (ll. 21–34).

⁵¹ Kenrick's preface to his version of the Nouvelle Héloïse, cited in note 42.

⁵² Since Kenrick translated the Miscellaneous Works (1767) of five volumes in addition to the Nouvelle Héloïse and Émile, his was a major role in the translation of Rousseau into English. His work was clearly above the average for translators of Voltaire; see Harold Bruce, “Voltaire on the English Stage,” University of California Publications in Modern Philology, viii (1918), 2–3, and John W. Draper, “The Theory of Translation in the Eighteenth-Century,” Neophilologus, vi (1921), 241–254.

⁵³ Letter to Thomas Wharton (1763), Works, ed. Gosse, iii, 151.

⁵⁴ Note especially the reviews cited in note 13.

⁵⁵ Vindication of the Rights of Woman, ed. 2 (London, 1792), pp. 23, 83.

⁵⁶ See the reviews cited in note 13 and Anna Seward, letter to Henry Cary (1789), Letters of Anna Seward (Edinburgh, 1811), ii, 282; Catherine Macaulay, Letters on Education (London, 1790), p. 205.

⁵⁷ Universal Magazine, xxxviii (1766), 166; Encyclopedia Britannica, ed. 3 (Edinburgh, 1797), xvi, 533–536. A writer for the Annual Register (1762) complained of the length (v, 225–237), while William Kenrick asserted that the novel was not well organized (Monthly Review, xxvii [1762], 212–217; for ascription of this review to Kenrick, see B. C. Nangle, The Monthly Review, First Series, 1749–89, Indices of Contributors and Articles (Oxford, 1934).

⁵⁸ Letter to H. S. Conway, September 28, 1762, Letters of Borace Walpole, ed. Toynbee (Oxford, 1903–05), v, 253.

⁵⁹ Letter to Madame Bouffiers (1762), in Burton, Life of … Hume (1846), ii, 114.

⁶⁰ An excerpt containing this exhortation appeared in English translation in the London Chronicle, xii (1762), 4, 27. The Ecnyclopedia Britannica (1797) included an anecdote to the effect that Rousseau acknowledged to Buffon that the latter had preceded him in insisting on mothers nursing their own children. Buffon replied that only Rousseau had enforced obedience (Edinburgh, 1797, xvi, 533–536). See also reviews cited in note 13.

⁶¹ Letters on Education (London, 1790), pp. 98,126–127.

⁶² Lectures on Education (1789), as quoted by Pons, op. cit., p. 42.

⁶³ Maria and Richard L. Edgeworth, Practical Education (London, 1798), i, 127.

⁶⁴ Loose Hints on Education (Edinburgh, 1781), pp. 48, 52, 54, 233. Thomas Gray and Samuel Romilly also approved, but in more general terms (see letter of Gray to Thomas Wharton, Letters, ed. Tovey, iii, 17; and a letter of Romilly to Roget (1783) in Memoirs of the Life of Sir Samuel Romilly, Written by Himself (London, 1840), i, 211–212.

⁶⁵ No. 27 for August 1, 1789. The Loiterer: A Periodical Work in Two Volumes (Oxford, 1789–90).

⁶⁶ The Lounger, Edinburgh, i (1785), 40. Note also the preface of Henrietta Colebrooke to her edition of Thoughts of Jean Jacques Rousseau (London, 1789). Mary WoIIstonecraft cited James Fordyce, John Gregory, Mrs. Piozzi, Mrs. Hester Chapone, and Lord Chesterfield as followers of Rousseau in this regard, and she devoted many pages to an attack on their position (Vindication [1792], pp. 206–258).

⁶⁷ See J. H. Warner, “The Basis of J.-J. Rousseau's Contemporaneous Reputation in England,” MLN (April, 1940), pp. 272–273.

⁶⁸ Looker-on, No. 50, for April 27, 1793.

⁶⁹ lxxxii, 263. See also Henry Fuseli, Remarks on the Writings and Conduct of J. J. Rousseau (1767) as quoted by Pons, op. cit., p. 28; Samuel Romilly, op. cit., i, 23; Thomas Day, Preface to The Dying Negro (London, 1793); and Isaac Disraeli, Domestic Anecdotes on the French (London, 1794), p. 40.

⁷⁰ Essay on Truth (1770), in Essays (Edinburgh, 1776), pp. 291–293. For references to “nobly wild,” “elevated and subline” passages, “an intimate acquaintance with the human heart,” and “pathetic” descriptions, see letter of Reverend Daniel Malthus to Rousseau (1766) in L. J. Courtois, op. cit., vi (1910), 204, 215, 216; Thomas Nugent, preface to Emilius (London, 1763), pp. viii ff.; Critical Review, xv (1763), 21–34; Gentleman's Magazine, lvi (1786), 501; Mary Wollstonecraft, op. cit., pp. 200–203.

The term “pathetic” was especially frequent in comment on the sequel, Émile et Sophie, ou les solitaires (1778). In view of the events narrated, as the death of Émile's son and the life of the hero as a slave to the Moors, this is not surprising. Current comment was predominantly favorable; see Monthly Review, lxviii (1783), 396–398; London Chronicle, liii (1783), 569; Hibernian Magazine for 1783, p. 400; Annual Register, xxvi (1783), 171–178; William Kenrick, Preface to the sequel, Emilius and Sophia (London, 1783), iv, 171–174; and Capell Lofft, Remarks on the Letter of Mr. Burke (1791), as quoted in the Analytical Review, xi (1791), 515–520.

⁷¹ iii, 77 ff. The author also indirectly applauds Rousseau's description of the great emotional effects attendant on the sight of sublime objects (v, 54). Approval was also expressed of the benevolence of the author of Émile, of his contempt for riches (iii, 77 ff.).

⁷² William Kenrick, Observations on Mr. Rousseau's New System of Education (1763); Monthly Review, xxxiii (1765), 37–46; quotations by Isaac Disraeli, op. cit., pp. 271, 340; and the Annual Register, xxxviii (1796), 486–488. For further discussion of this point, see Pons, op. cit., p. 26.

⁷³ Universal Magazine, cxvin (1781), 225–228; Encyclopedia Britannica (ed. 3), xvi, 533–536. These two passages exhibit much identical phraseology.

⁷⁴ Enquiry concerning Political Justice (1793), (New York, 1926), ii, 33–34. See also reviews cited in note 13; the editor of J. J. Rousseau, Thoughts on Different Subjects (London, 1768), p. iii; Thomas Day, who was especially emphatic, letter to R. L. Edgeworth (1769), Memoirs oj R. L. Edgeworth (London, 1821), i, 221; and Letters, quoted by Pons, op. cit., pp. 27–28.

⁷⁵ Letter to Thomas Wharton, August 5, 1763, Works, ed. Gosse (New York, 1890), iii, 151–152.

⁷⁶ See notes 77–79. Oliver Goldsmith and James Fordyce were the only writers noted who deplored this “newness”; see Goldsmith's History of the Earth and Animated Nature (1774), (London, 1822), i, 399; and Fordyce, Dialogues concerning Education (1765), as cited by Pons, op. cit., p. 80.

Rousseau's indebtedness to predecessors, however, was also noted. Rev. David Williams maintained that the differences between Locke and Rousseau were more apparent than real; see Lectures on Education (1789), as quoted by Pons, op. cit., p. 84. And Isaac Disraeli observed that Plutarch, Montaigne, and Locke provided the groundwork for Émile; see letters to the Reverend Mr. Roget, dated 1781 and 1783, in Curiosities of Literature (1791), (London, 1866), iii, 27, 340.

⁷⁷ xiv. 250–270.

⁷⁸ The Enquirer (London, 1797), pp. 106–107. See also Anna Seward, letter to Henry Cary, May 29, 1789, in Letters (Edinburgh, 1811), ii, 282.

⁷⁹ In addition to the references cited in notes 13, 17, 56, 63, 69, 76, see the description of the hero in Sentimental Magazine, iv (1776), 166–168; the comment on friendship in General Magazine, i (1776), 503; the story of the old man who takes his son to a hospital for venereal diseases to show the evils of excessive sexual indulgence (London Chronicle, xii [1762], 316); Illustrations of Maxims … in the Second Book of Rousseau's Émile (London, 1783) and Critical Review, lvi (1783), 261–272). Quotations on gratitude and jealousy, taken from the Thoughts of Jean Jacques Rouseau (1789), appeared in the Scots Magazine, li (1789), 163–164; and Samuel Rogers quoted the statement: “Le savoir de notre siècle tend beaucoup plus à détruire qu'à édifier,” preface to Epistle to a Friend (1798), Complete Poetical Works (Boston, 1854), p. 100.

⁸⁰ See the prefaces to their translations, as cited in notes 39, 40.

⁸¹ Although I did not find the “universal outcry” against Émile which the Monthly Review reported (xxviii [1763], 568), unfavorable opinion prevailed. Of the seventy-five expressions of opinion noted, twenty-one were wholly favorable and twenty-one were entirely unfavorable. However, the great preponderance of emphasis in the remaining thirty-three expressions was unfavorable. Furthermore, only two of the seven critical pamphlets devoted specifically to Émile (see note 13 above) were predominantly favorable. They were William Kenrick's Observations on Mr. Rousseau's New System of Education (1763) and Illustrations of the Maxims and Principles of Education in the Second Book of Rousseau's Émile (1783).

⁸² Twenty-two of the 122 opinions on Émile which I gathered referred specifically to its religious instruction. Four of the seven critical pamphlets specifically devoted to Émile attacked the religious position of the “Profession” (see notes 13,81): A Letter to the Reverend Vicar of Savoy, Translated from the German of J. Moser by J. A. F. Warnecke (1765); The Truth of the Christian Religion Vindicated from the Objections of Unbelievers; particularly of John James Rousseau; By the Editors of the Christian's Magazine (1766); Considerations upon the Miracles of the Gospel in Answer to the Difficulties Raised by Mr. John James Rousseau. Translated from the French by D. Claparède by … the Christian's Magazine (1767); Remarks on Mr. Rousseau's “Emilius”; in which the Celebrated Profession of Faith of a Savoyard Curate is Particularly Considered (1782). One can well agree with the conclusion of William Kenrick that the “Profession de foi” was the chief object of attack on Émile (Monthly Review, xxviii [1763], 135). Kenrick's article was reprinted in the Scots Magazine (xxviii [1766], 13–14) and in the London Chronicle (xi [1766], 127).

⁸³ Compare the expressions cited in note 13 with those in notes 84–91.

⁸⁴ John Wesley, Journal (London, 1903), iii, 367; iv, 16; and a sermon, “The Unity of the Divine Being,” Works, ed. Emory, ii, 432; an excerpt from St. James Chronicle in Collins, Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Rousseau in London (London, 1908), p. 240; Bishop Hurd, Sermon xvii (1772), Works (London, 1811), vi, 257; Clara Reeve, Progress of Romance (London, 1785), ii, 19 ff.; Gentleman's Magazine, lxiii (1793), 750; lxviii (1798), 473, 679.

⁸⁵ “To the Deists,” preface to Jerusalem (1804), Poetical Works, ed. Sampson (Oxford, 1913), p. 396; Hannah More, Strictures on the Modern System of Female Education (1799), in Works (London, 1835), iii, 173.

⁸⁶ Letters to Miss Dewes and Lady Andover (1766), Autobiography and Correspondence of Mary Granville, Mrs. Delany (London, 1862), i, 67, 80.

⁸⁷ This is in spite of the fact that John Cartwright was a political liberal sympathetic with the American Revolution; see his letter to Miss D- (1733), Lije of… Major Cartwright (London, 1826), i, 49.

⁸⁸ Loose Hints on Education (London, 1781), pp. 211–217.

⁸⁹ Letter to David Hume (1766), in Burton, Life of … Hume (1846), ii, 312.

⁹⁰ Tour in Switzerland (1798), as quoted in the Universal Magazine, cii (1798), 330.

⁹¹ On the Nature and Immutability of Truth (1770), in Essays (Edinburgh, 1776), pp. 292–293. This excerpt also appeared in the Universal Magazine (lxviii [1781], 227–228). Cf. Thomas Nugent, preface, op. cit., pp. viii ff. The author of the article on Rousseau in the Encyclopedia Britannica (1797) approved Rousseau's encomium on the New Testament but deplored his alleged emphasis on “natural” religion and human reason (xvi, 533–536). Contrast these reactions with the violent and unmitigated objections of Reverend Thomas Rennell (sermon as quoted by the Gentleman's Magazine, lxiii [1793], 255), of the Reverend John Brown (Sermons on Various Subjects (1764) as reviewed by the Monthly Review, xxx [1764], 301–309), and of the author of Christianity Older than the Religion of Nature (see his letter to the editor, Royal Magazine, x [1764], 95–100).

⁹² William Kenrick was almost unique in asserting that Rousseau had not advocated doctrines abhorrent to “a faithful believer in the rational tenets of true religion” (Observations, op, cit., as quoted in the Monthly Review, xxviii [1763], 144–147). The anonymous author of Anecdotes of Polite Literature (1764) excused Rousseau because of his youthful contacts with both deism and Catholicism. The critic also applauded Rousseau's praise of the moral influence of Christianity (iii, 86 ff.). Boswell pitied the religious uncertainty of Rousseau (Life of Johnson, ed. Hill, ii, 14). James Mackintosh maintained that Rousseau had attacked the Church, not Christianity (Vindiciae Gallicae; or a Defence of the French Revolution [Philadelphia, 1791], p. 139); and James E. Smith, noted liberal and traveler, believed Rousseau favorable to religion (Sketch of a Tour on the Continent [1792], as quoted in Memoirs, ed. Lady Smith [London, 1832], i, 293–297). As a result of this opinion, Smith became unwelcome at the Court and unpopular with the clergy (see notes 84, 91, and the biography of Smith in DNB). Clearly Rousseau again erred as to English reactions when he asserted that the English clergy regarded him as a staunch defender of the faith (Rousseau's letter to du Peyrou, March 14, 1766, in Œuvres, Hachette edition [Paris, 1909–1912], xi, 316).

⁹³ According to the Earl of Charlemont, these were the words of Hume during a conversation in 1766 (Francis Hardy, Memoirs of the Earl of Charlemont (1812) as quoted in Letters of David Hume to W. Strahan [Oxford, 1888], p. 18).

⁹⁴ Gibbon, letter of 1766 (?), as quoted by Read, Historic Studies in Vaud, Berne, and Savoy (London, 1897), ii, 360.

⁹⁵ Vindication of the Rights of Woman (London, 1792), pp. 20, 22.

⁹⁶ An anonymous writer for the Anthologia Hibernica, i (1793), 435–436.

⁹⁷ William Eden (1744–1814), the first Lord Auckland, was a well known statesman and diplomatist during the ascendancy of Pitt the Elder; see his Remarks on the Circumstances of the War, as quoted in the Hibernian Magazine (1796), Pt. i, p. 10.

⁹⁸ Gentleman's Magazine, lxviii (1799), 718.

⁹⁹ Reeve, Progress of Romance (London, 1785), ii, 19 ff.; More, Strictures on the Modern System of Female Education (1799), in Works (London, 1835–1836), iii, 28–33; More, A Thought on the Manner of Educating Children (1783), in Works (New York, 1855), pp. 211, 458. Seward, letter to Henry Cary, May 29, 1789, Letters (Edinburgh, 1811), ii, 282; Annual Register, v (1762); 225–237; Mary Wollstonecraft, op. cit., pp. 99–100, 200.

¹⁰⁰ Essay on the Genius and Writings of Pope (1756–82), 5th ed (London, 1806), i, 305, n. Warton's reference is probably to Rousseau's emphasis on the physical basis of love and on the impermanence of love between the sexes. Mrs. Hester Piozzi, however, noted that Rousseau and Samuel Johnson were in accord on the latter point (Anecdotes of the Late Samuel Johnson [1786] in Johsonian Miscellanies, ed. Hill, i, 220).

¹⁰¹ S. H. Scott, The Exemplary Mr. Day, 1748–89 (London, 1935), pp. 77–79.

¹⁰² Op. cit., pp. 38, 45, 77–79, 87, 134, 171, 178, 182, 185, 203, 403. The Edgeworths also objected to Rousseau's insistence on religious conformity, as well as to his remarks on dolls (op. cit., i, 167, 191, 276, 381; ii, 696–697). Mrs. Sawbridge Graham (Catherine Macaulay) concurred in the general tenor of Miss Wollstonecraf t's criticism (Letters on Education [London, 1790], pp. 212–219.

¹⁰³ The insistence on a purely negative education until the age of twelve was particularly censured (see Lord Karnes, William Roberts, Mary Wollstonecraft, op. cit., and Vicesimus Knox, Liberal Education [London, 1781], p. 16). Strong objection was also made to the suggestion to leave all punishment of the child to nature and to abandon teaching by precept; see Oliver Goldsmith, History of the Earth (1774), (London, 1822), i, 399; a review of the Rev. Mr. Brown's Sermons on Various Subjects (1764), in Monthly Review, xxx (1764), 300–309; Critical Review, lvi (1783), 267–272; the Edgeworths, op. cit., i, 177–179. Reviewers frequently disapproved the lack of insistence on obedience, the opposition to reasoning with children, the arguments against early habit formation and against the use of fables; see reviews noted in note 13, also Edward Gibbon, Autobiographies (London, 1897), p. 44, and William Cowper, “Pairing Time Anticipated,” Poetical Works (Edinburgh, 1865), ii, 76.

¹⁰⁴ History of the Earth (1774), (London, 1822), i, 399.

¹⁰⁵ R. L. and Maria Edgeworth, op. cit., i, 191; Godwin, The Enquirer (London, 1797), p. 106. Miscellaneous criticism includes James Fordyce's regret over the disregard of the classics (Dialogues concerning Education (1765) as cited by Pons, op. cit., p. 80); John Wesley's objection to the statement that children never love old people (Journal [London, 1903], iii, 367, under date of February 3, 1770), Jeremy Bentham's accusation that Rousseau advocated education of children by the state (Theory of Legislation (1788), [Oxford, 1914], i, 284); and William Roberts' assertion that the eighteenth-century desire for systematization had finally led to an assault on education by Mandeville and Rousseau (Looker-On, iii [1792], 206).

¹⁰⁶ As translated by Kenrick, the maxims are: “(1) It is not in the human heart to sympathize with those who are happier than ourselves, but with those only who are more miserable. (2) We pity in others those evils only from which we think ourselves exempt. (3) Our pity for the misfortunes of others is not measured by the quantity of evil, but by the supposed sensibility of the sufferers,” Monthly Review, xxviii (1763), 1–4.

¹⁰⁷ Monthly Review, lxvii (1782), 448–450.

¹⁰⁸ Enquiry concerning Political Justice (New York, 1926), ii, 33–34.

¹⁰⁹ For further comment on the relationship between Rousseau's “optimism” and current philosophy, see Warner, “The Reaction … to Rousseau's Two Discours,” PMLA, xlviii (1933), 471–487.

¹¹⁰ Op. cit., pp. 19–22, 205.

¹¹¹ See reviews cited in note 13; Horace Walpole, letter to H. S. Conway, Sept. 28, 1762, letters, ed. Toynbee, v, 253; James Keir, op. cit., pp. 29,110; R. B. Fellowes, “Character of Rousseau,” Monthly Mirror, viii (1799), 71–72; the general conclusion of Edmund Burke, Letter to a Member of the National Assembly (1791), in Works (Bohn Library), ii, 540–541.

¹¹² Walpole, letter to Hannah More, March 23, 1793, Letters, ed. Toynbee, xv, 180; James Keir, op. cit., pp. 25 ff.; Burke, op. cit., ii, 536–537.

¹¹³ P. 36. Note also, however, Fuseli's assertion that “‘twas the heart, ‘twas strength of mind, ‘twas the enthusiasm of benevolence that scattered flowers over Émile,” op. cit., p. 50.

¹¹⁴ Enquiry concerning Political Justice (New York, 1926), ii, 33–34; Beattie, “A Character of Rousseau, ”Edinburgh Magazine and Review, iii (1774–75), 14–15. For similar expressions that Rousseau's works are full of both “beauties and blemishes,” see Political Register, i (1767), 39–40; and Clara Reeve, op. cit., ii, 19 ff.

¹¹⁵ Op. cit., p. 179; see also notes 76, 77, 78.

¹¹⁶ James Keir, op. cit., pp. 25 ff.

¹¹⁷ Op. cit., pp. 27, 30, 78.