That D’Alembert should have omitted passages in which you was so good as to mention me with approbation, agrees with his peevishness, not with his philosophy.  However, for God’s sake, do not state the passages.  I do not love compliments, and will never give my consent to receive any.  I have no doubt of your kind intentions to me, but beg they may rest there.  I am much more diverted with the philosopher D’Alembert’s underhand dealings, than I should have been pleased with panegyric even from you.

Allow me to make one more remark, and I have done with this trifling business for ever.  Your moral friend pronounces me ill-natured for laughing at an unhappy man who had never offended me.  Rousseau certainly never did offend me.  I believed, from many symptoms in his writings, and from what I heard of him, that his love of singularity made him choose to invite misfortunes, and that he hung out many more than he felt.  I, who affect no philosophy, nor pretend to more virtue than my neighbours, thought this ridiculous in a man who is really a superior genius, and joked upon it in a few lines never certainly intended to appear in print.  The sage D’Alembert reprehends this—­and where?  In a book published to expose Rousseau, and which confirms by serious proofs what I had hinted at in jest.  What! does a philosopher condemn me, and in the very same, breath, only with ten times more ill-nature, act exactly as I had done?  Oh! but you will say, Rousseau had offended D’Alembert by ascribing the King of Prussia’s letter to him.  Worse and worse:  if Rousseau is unhappy, a philosopher should have pardoned.  Revenge is so unbecoming the rex regum, the man who is precipue sanus—­nisi cum pituita molesta est.  If Rousseau’s misfortunes are affected, what becomes of my ill-nature?  In short, my dear Sir, to conclude as D’Alembert concludes his book, I do believe in the virtue of Mr. Hume, but not much in that of philosophers.  Adieu!  Yours ever.

P. S. It occurs to me, that you may be apprehensive of my being indiscreet enough to let D’Alembert learn your suspicions of him on Madame du Deffand’s account! but you may be perfectly easy on that head.  Though I like such an advantage over him, and should be glad he saw this letter, and knew how little formidable I think him, I shall certainly not make an ill use of a private letter, and had much rather wave my triumph, than give a friend a moment’s pain.  I love to laugh at an impertinent savant, but respect learning when Joined to such goodness as yours, and never confound ostentation and modesty.

I wrote to you last Thursday and, by Lady Hertford’s advice, directed my letter to Nine-Wells:  I hope you will receive it.  Yours ever.

(979) “I believe I said he was a man of superior parts, not a superior genius; words, if I mistake not, of a very different import.”  Hume.-E.

(981) John Craufurd, Esq. of Auchinames, in Scotland.-E.