In this chapter, we shall be discussing chiefly Kames’s views on education. Two other topics will also be treated here — his views on the role and status of women and some anthropological miscellanies. While not without some bearing on one another, these topics are grouped here largely for reasons of convenience.


Preliminary Discourse Female Education Intimate Friend Genetic Continuity Educational Ideal 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 2.
    See for example, Graham, Social Life, Ch. XII; Rae, Life of Adam Smith, p. 57, and J. D. Mackie, The University of Glasgow (Glasgow, 1954 ), p. 163.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    See among others Pryde, Scotland, pp. 166–68; Alex. Morgan, Scottish University Studies (Oxford, 1933 ), passim; and John Kerr, Scottish Education: School and University (Cambridge, 1910 ).Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    John Millar, Historical View of the English Government (4-vol 1803 ), vol. III, p. 89. See also, Lehmann, John Millar, p. 78.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    The Art of Thinking (Edinburgh, 1761), Preface.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    This Dedication of the Elements is reproduced infra, Appendix II, 5.Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    See Sketches, II, 336f., and LHE, passim. See also letter to Grant. ed., London, of Seafield, 31Google Scholar
  7. 16.
    Sketches, I, 399 and II, 213; see also supra, pp. 170f.Google Scholar
  8. 18.
    I bid., Sections II, III and IV. “Reasoning” is discussed on pp. 85ff. and Section X, Art. II.Google Scholar
  9. 30.
    Tytler, II, 63–67. See also supra, p. 106 and n. 12.Google Scholar
  10. 31.
    See Tytler, II, 32–59, 90–98, and App. No. V; Randall. op. cit., App. B, Nos 2–13 (mostly selections from Kames-Montagu correspondence). Mrs. Montagu’s letters to Karnes have been preserved in S.R.O., GD 24/1/511, and a few in 553.Google Scholar
  11. 32.
    Letter of 17 Nov., 1766. See Randall, op. cit., p. 94. Letter of 29 Oct., 1782. See Tytler, II, 233.Google Scholar
  12. 39.
    In spite of a predilection for a developmental or even an evolutionistic approach to the study of social phenomena, most Scottish writers at this time, including Karnes himself, were unwilling, in published statements at least — apparently because of prevailing adherence to a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation — to extend this approach to the biological, and in particular to the human-origins field. Only Monboddo, so far as we recall, was willing to take the logical next step of accepting a genetic continuity between man and his nearest simian relatives. In this he stood near Erasmus Darwin in England. But even he offered no suggestions as to any possible mechanism of a transformation of species.Google Scholar
  13. 40.
    Sketches, “Preliminary Discourse,” passim, esp. pp. 50ff., 64f., 71 and 75ff. Smith’s criticism is contained in his, An Essay on the Causes of the Variety of Complexion and Figure in the Human Species (Philadelphia, 1787; reprinted, Belknap Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1965 ).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1971

Authors and Affiliations

  • William C. Lehmann

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations