ety. Society might make him
either cynical or frivolous. History would bring him the same
information, without subjecting him to the same perils. In society you
only hear the words of men; to know man you must observe his actions,
and actions are only unveiled in history.[313] This view is hardly
worth discussing. The subject of history is not the heart of man, but
the movements of societies. Moreover, the oracles of history are
entirely dumb to one who seeks from them maxims for the shaping of
daily conduct, or living instruction as to the motives, aims,
caprices, capacities of self-restraint, self-sacrifice, of those with
whom the occasions of life bring us into contact.

It is true that at the close of the other part of his education,
Emilius was to travel and there find the comment upon the completed
circle of his studies.[314] But excellent as travel is for some of the
best of those who have the opportunity, still for many it is
valueless for lack of the faculty of curiosity. For the great
majority it is impossible for lack of opportunity. To trust so much as
Rousseau did to the effect of travelling, is to leave a large chasm in
education unbridged.

It is interesting, however, to notice some of Rousseau's notions about
history as an instrument for conveying moral instruction, a few of
them are so good, others are so characteristically narrow. "The worst
historians for a young man," he says, "are those who judge. The facts,
the facts; then let him judge for himself. If the author's judgment is
for ever guiding him, he is only seeing with the eye of another, and
as soon as this eye fails him, he sees nothing." Modern history is not
fit for instruction, not only because it has no physiognomy, all our
men being exactly like one another, but because our historians, intent
on brilliance above all other things, think of nothing so much as
painting highly coloured portraits, which for the most part represent
nothing at all.[315] Of course such a judgment as this implies an
ignorance alike of the ends and meaning of history, which, considering
that he was living in the midst of a singular revival of historical
study, is not easy to pardon. If we are to look only to perfection of
form and arrangement, it may have been right for one living in the
middle of the last century to place the ancients in the first rank
without competitors. But the author of the Discourse upon literature
and the arts might have been expected to lo