ascertain the date of each author’s death, which is of no more consequence to the world than the day of his birth.  Many a country squire quarrels with his neighbour about game and manors; yet they never print their wrangles, though as much abuse passes between them as if they could quote all the philippics of the learned.  You have acted, as i should have expected if you would print, with sense, temper, and decency, and, what is still more uncommon, with your usual modesty.  I cannot say so much for your editors.  But editors and commentators are seldom modest.  Even to this day that race ape the dictatorial tone Of the commentators at the restoration of learning, when the mob thought that Greek and Latin could give men the sense which they wanted in their native languages.  But Europe is now grown a little wiser, and holds these magnificent pretensions in proper contempt.

What I have said is to explain why I am sorry my letter makes a part of this controversy.  When I sent it to you, it was for your justification; and, had it been necessary, I could have added as much more, having been witness to your anxious and boundless friendship for Rousseau.  I told you, you might make what use of it you pleased.  Indeed, at that time I did not-could not think of its being printed, you seeming so averse to any publication on that head.  However, I by no means take it ill, nor regret my part, if it tends to vindicate your honour.

I must confess that I am more concerned that you have suffered my letter to be curtailed; nor should I have consented to that if you had asked me.  I guessed that your friends consulted your interest less than their own inclination to expose Rousseau; and I think their omission of what I said on that subject proves I was not mistaken in my guess.  My letters hinted, too, my contempt of learned men and their miserable conduct.  Since I was to appear in print, I should not have been sorry that that opinion should have appeared at the same \time.  In truth, there is nothing I hold so cheap as the generality of learned men; and I have often thought that young men ought to be made scholars, lest they should grow to reverence learned blockheads, and think there is any merit in having read more foolish books than other folks; which, as there are a thousand nonsensical books for one good one, must be the case of any man who has read much more than other people.

Your friend D’Alembert, who, I suppose, has read a vast deal, is, it seems, offended with my letter to Rousseau.(978) He is certainly as much at liberty to blame it, as I was to write it.  Unfortunately he does not convince me; nor can I think but that if Rousseau may attack all governments and all religions, I might attack him:  especially on his affectation and affected misfortunes; which you and your editors have proved are affected.  D’Alembert might be offended at Rousseau’s ascribing my letter to him; and he is in the right.  I am a very