names, connect the idea of innocence and happiness with the life of the savage and the unimproved rustic. To fix the character of the savage was therefore necessary, ere we examine the assertion, that it had been happy for both the old and the new worlds if the East and West Indies had never been discovered. The bloodshed and the attendant miseries which the unparral-
- ↑ And our author in reality goes as far, "Temoin cet Ecossois,——Witness that Scotchman, says he, "who being left alone on the isle of Fernandez, was only unhappy while his memory remained; but when his natural wants so engrossed him that he forgot his country, his language, his name, and even the articulation of words, this European, at the end of four years, found himself eased of the burden of social life, in having the happiness to lose the use of reflection, of these thoughts which led him back to the past, or taught him to dread the future." But this is as erroneous in fact, as such happiness is false in philosophy. Alexander Selkirk fell into no such state of happy ideotism; and on his return to England, the remembrance of his sufferings on the isle of Fernandez, afforded the hint of Robinson Crusoe.
one of the first instincts of man, he who can join to the possession of this primitive right, the moral security of a subsistence, (which we were just told the savage could do) is incomparably more happy than the rich man surrounded with laws, superiors, prejudices and fashions, which endanger his liberty."————
Such are the sentiments of a writer, whose historical intelligence has acquired him a reputation on the continent; and as he is not singular in his estimate of savage happiness, his absurdities merit some observation. And nothing can be more evident, than that if habit destroy the relish of the elegancies of life, habit also will destroy the pleasure of hunting and fishing, when these are the sole business of the savage. You may as well say, a postillion jaded with fatigue and shivering with wet and cold, is extremely happy, because gentlemen ride on horseback for their pleasure. That we cannot want what we do not desire, nor desire what we do not know, are just positions; but does it follow, that such state is happier than that which brings the wishes and cares of civil life? By no means: For, according to this argument, insensibility and happiness proceed in the same gradation, and of consequence an oyster[1] is the happiest of all animals. The advantages ascribed to the savage over the civilized in the time of war and famine, in the equality of rank, and security of liberty, outrage common sense, and are striking instances that no absurdities are too gross for the reveries of modern philosophy. This author quite forgets what dangers the savages are every where exposed to, how their lands, if of any value, are sure to lie seized by their more powerful neighbours, and millions of their persons enslaved by the more polished states. He quite forgets the infinite distance between the resources of the social and savage life; between the comforts administered by society to infirmity and old age, and the miserable state of the savage when he can no longer pursue his hunting and fishing. He also forgets the infinite difference between the discourse of the savage hut, and the cœna deorum, the friendship and conversation of refined and elevated understandings. But to philosophise is the contagion which infects the esprits forts of the continent; and under the mania of this disease, there is no wonder that common sense is so often crucified. It is only the reputation of those who support some opinions that will vindicate the use of refuting them. We may therefore, it is hoped, be forgiven, if, en bagatelle, we smile at the triumph of our author, who thus sums up his arguments: "Après tout, un mot peut terminer ce grand procès—After all, one word will decide this grand dispute, si fortement débattue entre les philosophes, so strongly canvassed among philosophers: Demand of the man of civil life, if he is happy? Demand of the savage, if he is miserable? If both answer, No, the dispute is determined." By no means; for the beast that is contented to wallow in the mire, is by this argument in a happier state than the man who has one wish to satisfy, however reasonably he may hope to do it by his industry and virtue.
