8 a kind at least, had already found expression in English poetry before Rousseau's day. If it is, therefore, no longer possible to look upon Rousseau as did an earlier generation as a novus homo, a sort of bewildered Man from Mars suddenly set down in the alien atmosphere of the eighteenth century, it is likewise as useless to deny him originality, or to attempt to nullify his importance by setting forth in detail the inconsistency of his practice and his doctrine and the many contradictions in his various works. Not even Rousseau's friends can hold that his was a well balanced personality or intelligence. His temperament was abnormal, unstable and explosive. If consistency is the virtue of little minds, Rousseau may be said to have vindicated his claims to greatness by the number and the violence of his self-contradictions. Critics have 9 been quick to seize upon this weakness of his exposition and have made somewhat too much of it. Rousseau from the first writes for what he considers a hostile audience and is forever in the position of one who is "hitting back." Passionate in his devotion to himself and his ideas, he surrenders to the impulse of the moment, and in the interest of driving home a telling blow fails to leave open for himself the avenue of retreat. Nowhere is this more evident than in the First Discourse and in his later attempts to answer the objections which were urged upon him from all sides. The general lines of his philosophy are none the less 8 Myra Reynolds. Treatment of Nature in English Poetry between Pope and Wordsworth. Chicago, 1896. 9 Lemaître. J.-J. Rousseau, 1907. convergent, and most of the seeming contradictions will tend to disappear when the student remembers in the first place that Rousseau was an auto-didact who passed through a period of development which seriously modified the harshness of his first conclusions, and in the second, that with his passionate temper he sacrificed everything to emphasis and the momentary impression. It is only natural, therefore, to see a certain broadening of his views from the period of his First Discourse (1749) to the Émile (1762). It is likewise possible to reconcile statements which in their violence seem to threaten each other, when we discount his emphasis and consider merely his logical intention. Only on such a basis will the student find his way out of this somewhat disconcerting maze and be able to accept Lanson's statement that at bottom Rousseau's work is consistent.10 Before discussing what may be called the convergence of Rousseau's efforts in the various fields of his endeavor, it will be well to turn for a moment to the famous Discours sur les Arts et les Sciences. It was this essay which first brought him into prominence, and it was doubtless written at a time when his ideas were as yet neither entirely clear nor altogether coordinated. According to Rousseau's own statement, which has sometimes been called into question but never seriously impeached, the idea of writing it occurred to him one day on the road from Paris to Vincennes. He was on his way to visit his friend Diderot who had been imprisoned there for an offending arti 10 La Grande Encyclopédie. Article J.-J. Rousseau. cle, and was reading a copy of the Mercure de France11 when his eyes suddenly fell upon an announcement that the Academy of Dijon was offering a prize for the best discussion on the subject whether the reestablishment of the arts and sciences had contributed to improve les mœurs, which in this case we may translate by morals.12 The announcement threw him, so he says, into a fever of excitement and in a kind of trance, oblivious of his surroundings, he sank down under a tree and began his impassioned answer, writing then and there his famous apostrophe to Fabricius. At this time Rousseau and Diderot were bound by ties of closest intimacy. Some years later, in 1755, their friendship began to cool, and not long after, ended in a noisy and undignified rupture which was followed by a long train of bitter recriminations. Those who follow with eagerness the chronique scandaleuse of literary history will find that the details of this somewhat unseemly quarrel have been quite fully recorded by scholars. We are interested in but a single phase of that dispute. The report was later scattered by 11 Rousseau. Euvres, Hachette. 1905, Vol. VIII, p. 249. (For a fuller discussion of this question cf. Note 1, on the text, and the first Lettre à M. de Malesherbes here printed.) 12 It is worthy of remark that up to a certain point at least Rousseau accepted the eighteenth century ideas of progress and human perfectibility. It is interesting to note that in the Confessions he gives the subject of his discourse as follows: "Si le progrès des sciences et des arts a contribué à corrompre ou à épurer les mœurs." Human perfectibility he insists upon with special emphasis in the note on the Second Discourse, Vol. I, p. 142, cf. also Dreyfus-Brisac Du Contrat Social, 1896. Introduction. 15 partisans of Diderot,13 in particular by Marmontel, that on Rousseau's arrival at Vincennes he was inclined to take the affirmative side of the question proposed by the Academy, and that it was only on Diderot's instance that he was induced to answer in the negative. For various reasons that report no longer deserves very serious consideration.14 It seems to indicate, however, that at this time and on this point Rousseau and Diderot were in entire agreement, and we shall find further testimony to this agreement when we remember that it was Diderot who later had Rousseau's discourse published, and that he was overjoyed at its success. Much of the confusion on this point has been due to a fundamental misconception. It has been rather hastily assumed that there was something extraordinarily startling in Rousseau's negative, and that his attitude must therefore be explained. A moment's reflection will show that such was not the case. The theme was not of his choosing. It had been put out as a subject for discussion by one of the most famous learned societies of France and it is therefore necessary to accept the fact that in certain quarters even of the French intellectual world it was regarded as an open question. It should be remembered further that if it was possible that the question could be answered in the negative by Diderot, who was already the editor of the Encyclopédie and, therefore, the 13 Diderot. Euvres. 1875, Vol. III, p. 98. Marmontel. Mémoires, Bk. VII; Morellet. Mémoires, Chap. V. 14 Ducros. J.-J. Rousseau, de Genève à l'Hermitage, 1908, pp.. 168. 167, 15 Rousseau, Vol. VIII, p. 258. avowed champion of the scientific and artistic progress of his age, it was more reasonable and natural that Rousseau, from the first always more or less of an alien to the thought and especially the feeling of his time,16 should so have answered it. In assigning to this discourse its proper place in the body of Rousseau's work two points should be carefully considered. In the first place we should note exactly the scope of the question under discussion. He himself takes pains to call our attention to this. The question is not whether the arts and sciences are in themselves desirable. Rousseau is willing to admit that "si les intelligences célestes cultivaient les sciences il n'en resulterait que de bien; j'en dis autant des grands hommes qui sont faits pour guider les autres." Neither is it a question whether the arts and sciences are necessary to mankind at a certain stage in their history. He concedes, somewhat grudgingly to be sure, that the arts are necessary to us now as crutches are necessary for the old and decrepit.18 The question to be discussed was whether in the ages marked by the discoveries and ever-widening applications of the arts and sciences there had not been a loss in moral fibre and individual character. Rousseau proclaimed in his first discourse, perhaps with a too evident satisfaction, that this moral deterioration had followed in the wake of the advancement of the arts. This fundamental conception provides him with the starting point of his system. In the second place we should remember that the form of 16 Ducros. Op. cit. 1908, pp. 149-167. 17 Euvres, Réponse à M. Bordes, I, p. 48. |