Viewing page 243 of 285

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

176  ANNUAL REGISTER

[[2 Columns]]

without a sanction! I would call such suppositions by a name, if I knew whether to stile them blasphemy, or nonsense.
 Galilaeo was thrown into the inquisition, as an infidel, for reviving that heresy in astronomy, of the sun's station, because it seemed to contradict a passage in the Scripture, where its standing still, once, is recorded as a miracle. And philosophy, or rather presumption and self-sufficience, have, in their turn, erected an inquisition, also, against every article of faith, which does not square with our very incompetent experience in physics, and total ignorance of metaphysics.
 For, if we admit spirit, either distinct from, or connected with, matter, we must, at the same time, honestly confess, that we know not what its essence consists in. And to deny supernatural faculties or powers, to a supernatural being, is such a stupid folly, as almost renders it one to argue against it. For nothing, surely, can be more unphilosophical, than to limit the author of all nature, by the media or data, of his own philosophy.

—————————————————————————————————————

The Defects of Modern Education.

WE owe not to Universities the few philosophers, who have enlightened us since the revival of letters. Montaigne, Bacon, Descartes, Newton, Locke, Leibnitz, Shaftesbury, Maupertuis, were formed in the midst of the world, of business, of camps. If those great men had subjected themselves to scholastic instructions, their genius would have been stinted by the contagious mediocrity of their preceptors.
 The schools, that were formed in France in the beginning of this century, and in the end of the last, for teaching the philosophy of Epicurus, are a striking proof of this truth. The followers of that philosophy did not come from the obscurity of a college: they were all that was great, ingenious, polite, virtuous in the nation; men, who united elegance of taste with heroic virtue, sublime qualities with the social accomplishments, and who knew how to join literary talents to those that fitted them for the field or the cabinet! Of this number were the eloquent Polignac and the wife Catinat. 
 Let us compare our limited education with the extent and sublimity of that of the ancients. A young man put himself early under the care of a philosopher, who was often a statesman, or a general. Instead of depressing both his mind and soul by idle speculations and a timorous morality, the whole conversation with him turned upon the great and useful parts of the sciences. At the same time that his mind was cultivated and enlightened, his heart was also formed by maxims enforced by examples. Strict care was taken of the purity of his morals, the strength of his body, and the state of his health. Nothing that was lazy or insolent entered into this education: the whole of it tended to an active life; to produce great men and good citizens.
 Philosophers of the highest birth, the greatest reputations, and adorned with honours and employments, did not think it beneath them to assist in the education of youth. What does the frivolous age think on seeing Agesilaus educated by Xenophon,

[["7" is listed at the bottom of the first column]]

For the YEAR 1772.    177

[[2 Columns]]

Xenophon, Dion by Plato, Alcibiades by Socrates, Phocion by Xenocrates, Philopaemon by Megalophanes, several illustrious Romans by Cicero, Nero by Seneca, Trajan by Plutarch, Zenobia by Longinus! What would they say if a Bacon, a Catinat, a Temple, a Shaftesbury, had imitated those great men? Place those names over-against those of our governors, our preceptors, our professors, and then judge of the effects of that difference. Every one does not enjoy the happiness of a Shaftesbury; we are not all educated by a Locke.
 To this depraved taste in our education and universities there is added a mistake, in regard to the most valuable kind of philosophy. Natural philosophy takes up too much of our time, and the practical is neglected. All the academies of sciences ring of nothing but physical experiments, observations upon natural history: all our philosophers are but naturalists, and, unfortunately, of the lower kind, taking up with trifles, mere curiosities, and nothing more.
 We ought with gratitude to acknowledge all the advantages which we owe to physical researches and natural history. They have given us new lights in arts and physic: We enjoy infinite conveniences, which are the result of application to these sciences. But, as men abuse every thing, physical inquiries carried too far, do hurt to philosophy.
 There are branches of knowledge, which require rather time and labour than genius; such are natural history and particular parts of natural history and particular parts of natural philosophy. One man cannot see every thing; aided by the observations of others who have gone before him, he may be able to add or improve. We are necessarily more learned in natural philosophy than the ancients.
 This facility, real or imaginary, of surpassing the ancients, this hope of being able to strike out something new, induced our learned to apply to the natural sciences. A number of academicians, destined to cultivate them, kept up that ardour. But they have missed the right way. 
 In examining the works of Aristotle and Pliny one is astonished at the extent of their knowledge and views: one is surpized to find a genius prevail in them, which seems foreign to natural history. Theophrastus's treatise of stones shews us a sagacity greatly superior to the limited talents of our makers of experiments. Instead of imitating those models, the moderns attend only to a fruitless detail. We see nothing but methods, which have the fate of metaphysical systems: one destroys and swallows up the other, like the serpents of the magiciaus. Our natural history is but a vocabulary. 
 It degenerates even into trifles. An extensive commerce enables us to pick up curiosities in the four quarters of the world. Cabinets are formed. But with what wretched stuff are they not often filled? With what face dare we to laugh at a pedantic antiquarian, who hoards up an insignificant treasure of mouldy antiques, whilst we ourselves make it the business of our lives to hunt after and arrange butterflies, shells, and figured stones? Nicole, by way of reproaching Pascal with having a trifling mind, called

[["VOL. XV." is listed at the bottom of the first column; "N" is listed at the bottom of the second column]]