Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-llmch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-12T04:49:47.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Eighteenth-Century English Reactions to the Nouvelle Héloïse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2020

James H. Warner
James H. Warner*
Affiliation:
Hope College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Jean Jacques Rousseau's famous sentimental novel, the Nouvelle Héloïse (1760), had a wide and immediate diffusion in England. Although the date usually ascribed to the first edition is 1761, it was in circulation in England during the later part of 1760. Translation was accomplished as speedily as possible; after three months of preliminary announcements by Becket and DeHondt, booksellers, the first two volumes were placed on sale April 7, 1761.

Type
Research Article
Information
PMLA , Volume 52 , Issue 3 , September 1937 , pp. 803 - 819
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1937

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See the letter of Gray to Walpole in November (?), 1760, and the letter of Mason to Gray, January 8, 1761, in Letters of Thomas Gray, ed. Tovey (London, 1912), ii, 187–188. See also Lettres de Marc-Michel Rey [1785-87), p. 117, as cited by L. J. Courtois, “La Chronologie critique de la vie et des œuvres de Jean Jacques Rousseau,” Annales de la société Jean Jacques Rousseau, xv (1923), 115. For further comment on early references to Rousseau in England, see J. H. Warner, “The Reaction in Eighteenth-Century England to Rousseau's Two Discours,” PMLA, xlviii (1933), 471–487; and Warner, “A Bibliography of Eighteenth-Century English Editions of J.-J. Rousseau, with Notes on the Early Diffusion of his Writings,” PQ, xiii (1934), 225–247. These articles, together with this one, are based on my doctoral dissertation, The Reputation of Jean Jacques Rousseau in England, 1750–98, Duke University, 1933.

2 See early notices and advertisements in the London Chronicle, ix (1761), 204, 331–333, 336, 379, 387, 397, 451, 531, 543, 547, 605. These advertisements began as early as December 8, 1760, when the Universal Evening Post promised an early translation (see citation by L. J. Courtois, op. cit., pp. 114–115.—In order to save space, I list herewith all of the references in this article to eighteenth-century English newspapers and periodicals. These are arranged alphabetically according to titles, and to each periodical is assigned a letter. This facilitates the numerous references to this list: (a) Analytical Review, ix (1789), 360–362, xi (1791), 515–520, xv (1793), 378; (b) Annual Register, ii (1759), 479–484, xxxiv (1792), 416, 466, 496, xxxvii (1795), 131–134, xxxviii (1796), 513; (c) Anti-Jacobin Review, i (1798), 360; (d) Anti-Jacobin: or Weekly Examiner for July 9, 1798, p. 284; (e) Bee; or Literary Weekly Intelligencer, xiv (1793), 158; (f) British Magazine and Review, iii (1783), 301; (g) Critical Review, xi (1761), 66, xii (1761), 203–211, xiv (1762), 250, lv (1782), 109, lxviii (1789), 129–132, lxx (1790), 218–219, 685–687; (h) Edinburgh Review for 1755, 2nd ed. (London, 1818), pp. 13–34; (i) European Magazine, vii (1783), 107–112, x (1786), 20; (j) Gentleman's Magazine, xxxi (1761), 34, 62–68, 192–214, liii (1783), 55, lvi (1786), 1036–38, lxiii (1793), 255–256, lxvi (1796), 934–935; (k) Library, i (1761), 49, 335; (1) London Chronicle, ix (1761), 204, 331–333, 336, 379, 387, 397, 451, 531, 543, 547, 605, x (1761), 51–52, 56, 58, 107, 156, 164, 172, 204, 236, 300, 316, 339, xiii (1763), 87, xix (1766), 50, 127, 326, xxi (1767), 477, lviii (1785), 453; (m) London Magazine, xxx (1761), 135–139, xlii (1773), 611; (n) Lounger, i (1785), 124; (o) Monthly Mirror, viii (1799), 71–72; (p) Monthly Review, xxiii (1760), 492, xxiv (1761), 227–235, xxv (1761), 192–214, 259, 260, 261, xxvi (1762), 331–342, xxii (1762), 258, xxxvi (1767), 459–463, xxxvii (1767), 155–156, xxxix (1768), 213–218, 238, 544, i n.s. (1774), 232, lx (1779), 136–143, lxvii (1782), 314, lxix (1783), 164, 305–308, lxxiv (1786), 148–150, lxxv (1786), 150; (q) Royal Magazine, xv (1766), 146–149; (r) Scots Magazine, lvi (1794), 109–110; (s) Universal Magazine, lxviii (1781), 225–228, xcii (1793), 89,

425-426, cii (1798), 330; (t) Weekly Magazine, xxviii (1766), 199–200, xxxiii (1775), 132, 198.

3 See note 2(1) above.

4 A copy of this edition is in the British Museum.

5 He changed the continental title, Julie, ou la nouvelle Héloise. Lettres de deux amans, habitans d'une petite ville au pied des Alpes to Eloisa, or a Series of Original Letters; and the latter title was used in all but two of the British editions. Kenrick informs us that the public had already adopted the name of Eloisa and that “it was a matter of no consequence to the reader.” Kenrick also objected to the name of the English character, Lord Bomston, which Kenrick changed to “Lord B.” See Warner, “A Bibliography,” op. cit.; and the translator's Preface, 2nd ed. (London, 1761), I, viii-xiv.

6 See bibliography cited in note 5 above.

7 See Kenrick's preface cited in note 5 above.

8 The most noticeable change occurs in the opening pages of the edition of Edinburgh, 1773. Throughout the rest of this edition there was only an occasional variation, usually a clarifying of the diction or an improvement in punctuation. In none of the English editions was there a change from the original Kenrick translation which indicates a different theory of translation; see note 6 above.

9 Eloisa, or a Series of Original Letters, 2nd ed. (London, 1761), I, 1–2.

10 Lettres de deux amans (Amsterdam, 1761), i, 1–2.—This is the earliest edition cited in any bibliography. The text of this and the following selections varies only in spelling in later authentic editions; see Julie, ou la nouvelle Héloïse (Lausanne, 1762), I, 1–2, 121–122, 235; and La nouvelle Héloïse (Paris, 1764), I, 63–64,198,325.

11 Eloisa, op. cit., i, 95.

12 Lettres de deux amans, op. cit., i, 108.

13 Julia or the New Eloisa (Edinburgh, 1773), i, 185.

14 Lettres, op. cit., i, 209; see note 10 above.

15 Eloisa (London, 1776), iii, 192–193.

16 La nouvelle Héloïse, ed. Mornet (Paris, 1925), iii, 285 (Letter xvii, Pt. iv). With minor changes in spelling, Mornet has followed the first edition of 1761.

17 Note the addition of “situated as I am” (11. 5–6), and “proper” (1. 17), “of the consequence” (11. 24–25), “my dear Clara” (1. 26), “he has mentioned” (1. 45), “in some occasions” (1. 55), “validity of this argument” (11.64-65), and “issued” (1. 88).

18 Note the addition of “by that time my fate will be determined” (11. 35–36), “at the very thought” (11. 49–50), and “considerable” (11. 75–76). Note also the change from “cent” to “thousand” (11. 43, 44).

19 Such figures were found to be frequent in the prose of Rousseau by Gustave Lanson; see his L'art de la prose (Paris, 1909), p. 201.

20 Note the change of “d'orner de quelques fleurs un si beau naturel” to “adding a few embellishments to one of nature's most beautiful compositions” (11. 19–20). The change of “quelques talens agréables” to “some little knowledge” (11. 14–15) seems to reflect the comparatively practical English attitude.

21 Note changes in 11. 2–6, 28–31, 38–40, 46, and the omission of “que seroit-ce” (1. 45).

22 Changes include the addition of commas (11. 4, 9, 23, for examples), the omission of commas, the omission of series of dots used to indicate emotion, the substitution of periods for semi-colons, of commas for exclamation points, and of question marks for periods (11. 2, 31, 37, 38, 40, 41, 44, 54, 55).

23 These include the substitution of semi-colons for periods, of commas for exclamation points, and the omission of series of dots (see text above and note 22 above).

24 Note the omission of “que” (1. 11), the change of “scachant” to “believing” (1. 13), the omission of “à mon tour” (11. 18–19), the change of “l'insensé” to “horrid proposals” (11. 37, 39), and the omission of “il en deviendroit furieux” (11. 46–47).

25 See changes in notes 20, 21, 22. Note in particular the change from “quelques talens agréables” to “some little knowledge” (11. 13, 14); the change of tense from “m'as quitée” to “are to be absent” (11. 33, 34); and the translation of “seine” as “bay” (1. 91).

26 Note, for example, the English sentence resulting from the failure to translate “de nous” and “dont” (11. 86–95).

27 I refer to an increased number of syllables. See particularly II. 7–9, 10–12, 18–21, 32–42 of the translation. The only instance of a greater number of syllables in the original French occurs in 11. 52–53.

28 See Lanson, op. cit., pp. 201–204.

29 For the figures, see notes 25, 26 above; for the loss of assonance, note particularly the alternation of “m'en” with “le,” and of “il” with “je” in 11. 38–40, 46–50 above.

30 See particularly 11. 8–9, 18–21, 26–31, 46–50. The fact that relatively few changes were made by the translator in the prosaic passage in 11. 51–54 is also significant.

31 xxv (1762), 260; see also note 2 above.

32 The European Magazine (1786) asserted that Kenrick received the ll.d. degree from Marischal College, Aberdeen, for his translation of the Nouvelle Héloïse, and that his translation was “inimitable” and exhibited exquisite skill in “all the minutiae and refinements of the French language” (x, 20, n.). See also later praise of Kenrick as “The Translator of Eloisa” cited in note 2 (g, k, 1) above.

33 These editions are dated 1761, 1761, 1761, 1764, 1773–74, 1773, 1776, 1784, 1794(?), and 1795. The edition of 1773 and possibly the edition of 1794(?) appeared in Edinburgh. The collected edition of 1773–74 also was issued in Edinburgh. One “edition” of 1761 was marked Dublin. See note 6 above.

34 For further information concerning these libraries and the works of Rousseau found in them, see R. S. Crane, “Diffusion of Voltaire's Writings in England,” MP, xx (1923), 264; and Warner as cited in note 1 above.

35 See notice in Critical Review, lxx (1790), 218–219. Note also a translation entitled A Satire of M. Voltaire . . . against M. Rousseau's New Eloisa (1761), a poetic version of the novel in a pamphlet entitled Julia, a Poetical Romance. By the Editor of the Essay on the Character, Manners, and Genius of Women (1773), and two imitations entitled The Palinode; or the Triumph of Virtue over Love; a Sentimental Novel (1790) and Letters of an Italian Nun and an English Gentleman (1781). The last was falsely alleged to be written by Rousseau. See note 6 above. Furthermore, Frederick Reynolds wrote a play entitled Eloisa in 1786 in honor of Rousseau's novel; and as late as 1790 a sequel was published under the title of Laura: or Original Letters, a Sequel to the Eloisa of J. J. Rousseau; see n. 6 above.

36 Letter of Anna Seward to William Bayley, December 23, 1784, in Letters of Anna Seward (Edinburgh, 1811), I, 15–16; Moore, View of Society and Manners in France (London, 1789), I, 263–267; Young, Travels during the Years 1787, 1788, 1789 (1792) as quoted in Annual Register, xxxiv (1792), 466; Watkins, Travels through Switzerland (1791) as quoted in Analytical Review, xv (1793), 378; Smith, Sketch of a Tour on the Continent (1793) as quoted in Scots Magazine, lvi (1794), 109–110; and letter of Maria Edgeworth to Mrs. M. Sneyd, January 10, 1803, in Life and Letters of Maria Edgeworth, ed. A. J. C. Hare (London, 1894), I, 116–117.

37 Clara Reeve, Progress of Romance (London, 1785), ii, 13–18; and Fellowes, “Character of Rousseau,” Monthly Mirror, vii (1799), 71–72.

38 See n. 2 above.

39 See Hurd, “Commonplace Book,” in Memoirs, ed. Kilvert (London, 1860), pp. 306–307; letter of Hurd to Warburton, March 18, 1761, in Letters from a Late Eminent Prelate to One of his Friends (London, 1809), p. 324; Anna Seward, “Letter to a Friend,” Poetical Works (Edinburgh, 1810), I, xlviii, Ixiii; the anonymous Anecdotes of Polite Literature

(London, 1764), v, 152; Joseph Priestley, Lectures on Oratory and Criticism (London, 1777), p. 81; J. E. Smith, op. cit., as quoted in Memoirs and Correspondence of Sir James E. Smith (London, 1832), i, 293–297, 356; James Beattie, letter to Dr. Arbuthnot, in Forbes, Account of the Life and Writings of James Beattie (London, 1874), i, 46; Clara Reeve, Progress of Romance (London, 1785), ii, 13–16; the anonymous Letters of an Italian Nun (London 1781), pp. v-xiv; Hugh Blair, Lectures on Rhetoric (1783) in the edition of London, 1823, p. 509; Capell Lofft, Remarks on the Letter of Mr. Burke to a Member of the National Assembly (1790), as quoted in the Analytical Review, xi (1791), 515–520; John Owen, Travels into Different Parts of Europe (1791), as quoted in the Gentleman's Magazine, lxvi (1796), 934–935; Arthur Young, Travels, as quoted in the Annual Register, xxxiv (1792), 496; James Mackintosh, Vindiciae Gallicae (1791), in Miscellaneous Works (London, 1851), p. 589; T. J. Mathias, Pursuits of Literature (1794-97), Philadelphia, 1800, pp. 56–57; R. B. Fellowes, op. cit., pp. 71–72; and notes 2, 36 above.

40 See pp. 812–813 of this article.

41 M. Palissot, in his Memoires de Rousseau (c. 1779), asserted that Rousseau's favorable reputation in Great Britain was due chiefly to the high regard in which he was held by women (see a review of the Memoires in Monthly Review, lx [1779], 136–143). Although a writer for this periodical disagreed with this conclusion (loc. cit.), many of Rousseau's most ardent admirers in England were women, including Mrs. Alicia Cockburn, Mary Dewes, Kitty Hunter, the Duchess of Portland, Lady Aylesworth, Lady Kildare, Anna Seward, and Maria Holroyd. Furthermore, Eliza Roberts and Henrietta Colebrooke edited two of the three “selected” editions of Rousseau during the century (see citations of their editions of 1788 in Warner, “A Bibliography,” op. cit.). Even Mary Wollstonecraft, the arch-opponent of Rousseau's attitude toward women, confessed that she had always been “half in love with him” (letter to William Godwin, September 22, 1798, in Posthumous Works of the Author of “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman” [London, 1798], iii, 59). Although Clara Reeve, Hannah More, Mrs. Montague, and Mrs. Delany commented unfavorably on several aspects of Rousseau's works, it is clear that the reputation of Rousseau among Englishwomen was prevailingly favorable—a condition which was not true of the country as a whole (for citations of sources of these remarks, and for further discussion of this point, see my dissertation, op. cit., pp. 79, 153, 154, 180, 233 ff).

42 Op. cit. (note 39), pp. lxiv–lxv.

43 See note 39 above.

44 See Critical Review, xi (1761), 66, xii (1761), 203–211. Outside of the reviews of 1761 and later comparisons in the periodicals cited in note 2 (a, b, g, q, s, t), I found one comparison by Richard Hurd (n. 39 above) and one by the anonymous author of Anecdotes of Polite Literature (London, 1764), iii, 77 ff.

45 In addition to citations in notes 2, 39, 44 above, which refer to quotations from Isaac

Disraeli, Helen Maria Williams, Richard Hurd, Anna Seward, Capell Lofft, J. E. Smith, Pennoyre Watkins, and R. B. Fellowes, see William Kenrick's preface to Eloisa, 2nd ed. (London, 1761), i, viii-xiv; James Beattie, On the Nature and Immutability of Truth (1770), in Essays (Edinburgh, 1776), pp. 291–293; the Reverend William Mason, letter to Walpole (1778) in Correspondence of Walpole and Mason, ed. Mitford (London, 1851), ii, 9–10; the anonymous Sonnets to Eliza by her Friend (London, 1790), pp. 22–23; Edmund Burke, Letter to a Member of the National Assembly (1791), in Works (London, 1891), ii, 537–541; and the Encyclopedia Britannica, 3rd ed. (Edinburgh, 1797), xvi, 533–536.

46 Thomas Holcroft felt the necessity of defending Shakespeare against current assertions of the superiority of Voltaire and Rousseau (see Memoirs of the late Thomas Holcroft, Written by Himself[London, 1816], ii, 41). See also note 2 (b, e) above, Anecdotes, op. cit., iii, 77; John Hall, letter to Rousseau (1766) in Courtois, “Le séjour,” Annales de . . . Rousseau, vi (1910), 265–266; the editor of L. A. O. Corançez, Anecdoıes of the Last Twelve Years of the Life of J. J. Rousseau. Translated from the French (London, 1798), pp. i-xiii.

47 Smith, “Letter to the Authors of the Edinburgh Review,” Edinburgh Review for 1755, 2nd ed. (London, 1818), pp. 130–134; Johnson, as quoted by Boswell, Life of Johnson, ed. Hill, ii, 85; Walpole, letters under dates of 1766 and 1788 in Letters, ed. Toynbee, vii, 64, xiv, 101; Gibbon, The Autobiographies of Edward Gibbon (London, 1897), pp. 201, 298; Burke, Letter, op. cit., ii, 540.

48 Histoire de la littérature française (Paris, 1916), p. 799; see also n. 28 above.

49 See n. 47 above.

50 See Rousseau's “Preface” to the novel in Œuvres, Hachette ed. (Paris, 1909–12), iv, 1 ff.

51 From February to October, 1761, the London Chronicle published nineteen extracts (see note 2 [1] above).

52 See note 51 above. These “warm ideas” and “warm descriptions” were commented upon by the Monthly Review, xxiii (1760), 492; and by the Library, i (1761), 49.

53 Hurd, undated “Commonplace Book,” and letter to Dr. Balguy (1761) in Memoirs of. . . Hurd, ed. Kilvert (London, I860), pp. 306–307; Blair, Lectures on Rhetoric (1788) (London, 1823), p. 509; Reeve, Progress of Romance (London, 1785), ii, 13–18.

54 Monthly Review, xxv (1761), 259–260.

55 Anecdotes of Polite Literature, iii, 77–80; Watkins, Travels through Switzerland (1791) as quoted in Universal Magazine, xcii (1793), 89.

56 See comment by Mrs. Alicia Cockburn, letter to Hume, in Letters of Eminent Persons . . .to David Hume (Edinburgh, 1849), pp. 123–125, 129; by Boswell, letter to Rousseau (1766) in Letters of. . . Boswell, ed. Tinker, i, 87; by John Gisborne, Vales of Weever (London, 1797), pp. 14–15n.

57 Op. cit. (note 1), ii, 218.

58 See note 39 above.

59 Evelina (1778), in ed. London, 1892, pp. lxi, lxiii.

60 Seward, letter to Lady Butler (1797), Letters (Edinburgh, 1811), iv, 303; Hume, letter dated 1766 in Burton, Life of. . . Hume (Edinburgh, 1846), ii, 313; Scott, in Seward, Poetical Works, ed. Scott (Edinburgh, 1810), ii, 220.

61 “Had the name of Marmontel or Richardson been on the title page, 'tis odds that I should have wept.” C. E. Vaughan states that Mackenzie acknowledged indebtedness to Richardson, Marmontel, and Rousseau, but no evidence is given (“Sterne and the Novel of his Time,” CHEL, x, 63).

62 A Satire of M. Voltaire . . . against M. Rousseau's New Eloisa (1761), as quoted by Clara Reeve, op. cit., ii, 13–18. (This pamphlet does not appear in the bibliographies of Voltaire by Lanson or Bengescu, nor in the edition of Voltaire published by Garnier frères.) Boswell tried to placate Johnson by asserting that, although the novel might do harm, the intentions of Rousseau were good. Johnson, however, would have been willing to impose upon Rousseau a sentence of servitude in America (see Boswell, Life of Johnson, ed. Hill, ii, 13).

63 The Reverend John Aikin asserted in 1813 that the Nouvelle Hêloïse was dangerous and that it was the parent of many other tales which were still more harmful (see his article on Rousseau in General Biography; or Lives, Critical and Historical (London, 1799—1815). The Reverend Mr. Aikin probably had in mind the numerous current tales of scandal, usually anonymous, which depicted the moral downfall of young girls. Mornet lists forty-six such tales of intrigue published in England between 1761 and 1780 (Preface to Rousseau, Nouvelle Hêloïse [Paris, 1925], I, 237–302). For further reference to this phase of the novel, see Mrs. Montagu, letter to Mrs. Robinson (1762), in Mrs. Montagu, “Queen of the Blues,” ed. Blunt (Boston, n.d.), I, 15; the assertion of John Nichols concerning the marginal notes of Samuel Richardson in Richardson's copy of the Nouvelle Hêloïse (Literary Anecdotes [London, 1813], iv, 598); Beattie, “On Fable and Romance,” Dissertations, Moral and Critical (Dublin, 1783), ii, 315; The Reverend William Wilber-force, Practical View of Christianity (1797), as quoted by Blanchard, Fielding the Novelist (New Haven, 1926), p. 266; Hurd, Beattie, Mathias, and Seward as cited in n. 39 above; and citations in note 2 (j, t) above.

64 Lounger, i (1785), 124. That this article, signed “Z,” is by Mackenzie is indicated on p. vi of the same volume. See also European Magazine, vii (1783), 107–112.

65 See note 45 above. This attack was applauded by Horace Walpole (letter to Mary Berry [1791] in Letters, ed. Toynbee, xiv, 439) and echoed in spirit by both the Reverend T. G. Rennell (see sermon as quoted in Gentleman's Magazine, lxiii [1793], 255) and George Canning in his poem, “The New Morality” (see note 2 [d]).

66 xxv, 259–260. See also the reviews cited in note 2 above.

67 See note 1 above.

68 Letter to the Reverend William Mason, January 22, 1761, in Letters of. . . Gray, op. cit., ii, 195.

69 See Life and Times of Frederick Reynolds, Written by Himself (London, 1828), I, 316, and note 45 above.

70 Hackman, letter to Miss Reay (1778) in Love and Madness, ed. Croft (London, 1780), p. 90; and Hurd, Warburton, and Blair as cited in n. 39 above.

71 See notes 5 and 69 above, and Walpole, letter to Lady Hervey, September 3, 1765, op. cit., vi, 287.

72 Op. cit., XVI, 533–536.

73 See note 70 above.

74 See notes 2 (s), 72 above.

75 See notes 2(g) and 2(p) above. A writer for the Monthly Review (1761) merely noted that the “very christianly spirit and deistical principles of Mr. Wolmar will by most readers be deemed incompatible” (note 2[p]).

76 For citations of these expressions by Hurd, Beattie, J. E. Smith, and an anonymous writer for the Universal Magazine, see notes 2(s), 39, 45.

77 See note 39 above.

78 See note 72 above.

79 Letter to Rousseau, December 31, 1764, in Letters . . . of Boswell, op. cit., I, 68.

80 Op. cit., i, 318.

81 xxv, 259–260.

82 The usual charge was that this use of paradox sprang from a love of publicity (see Johnson as quoted by Boswell for the year 1763 in Boswell, Life of. . . Johnson, op. cit., i, 510). For a further discussion of general comment on Rousseau's style, see my dissertation, op. cit., pp. 17, 20, 127–129.

83 See n. 39 above.

84 See n. 45 above.

85 See n. 82 above. Edmund Gosse is misleading, however, in his statement that Burke was the first critic “of weight” in England to suggest that the literary art of Rousseau had its limitations (“Rousseau in England in the Nineteenth Century,” Fortnightly Review, xcviii [1912], 26). See earlier opinions by Gibbon, Warburton, and others cited in notes 73, 82, 83 above. See also Burke's own statement cited in n. 87 below.

86 See, for example, notes 39–47 above.

87 See note 45 above. Gibbon agreed, in the main, with Burke's opinion of Rousseau's style (see note 47 above).

88 See note 5 above, and Kenrick, op. cit., iv, 2n.

89 Op. cit., vi, 287.

90 See n. 64 above.

91 See p. 816 of this article.

92 Those works whose reputation in eighteenth-century England was predominantly unfavorable include Emile (1762), the Discours sur l'inégalité (1755), Contrat Social (1762), and the Confessions (1782); see my dissertation, op. cit., pp. 234, 238–242.

93 David Hume and Frances Burney praised the work only as the best produced by its author (see note 6[i] above, and Hume, letter dated 1766 in Burton, Life of. . . Hume, op. cit., ii, 313), while disapproval was expressed by Gray, Walpole, Burke, and, according to report, Richardson. The applause came almost entirely from less known, and sentimentally inclined writers, including Anna Seward, John Moore, Arthur Young, James Smith, and the Reverend William Mason.

94 For the opinions of Beattie on the various works of Rousseau, see my dissertation, op. cit., pp. 7, 13, 19, 61 n. 4, 62, 69, 78, 84–87, 118, 125, 148, 154–155. The opinion here quoted is cited in n. 39 above.