INTRODUCTION In the latter half of the nineteenth century, a century which was inclined to seek its salvation in the development of science and scientific method (a development to which Rousseau had not contributed), there seemed to be a very general disposition both in France and England to look upon the author of the Contrat Social as one of those great figures whose work in the world, for good or for ill, had now been finally accomplished. Critical opinion was fairly agreed in admitting that, historically considered, his rôle had been extraordinary, and usually ended by assigning to him the foremost place as a fomenter of eighteenth century discontent, and by accepting him as the virtual leader of the intellectual and especially the sentimental revolt which brought about the French Revolution. It was admitted that he had influenced Wordsworth in England and perhaps unworthily Kant' in Germany. Here, however, agreement ceased, and in the further discussion on the value of Rousseau's services to civilization generally, the temperamental differences and political preconceptions of his critics became apparent. The interest in this phase of the quarrel was, however, largely academic, for it was tacitly assumed on both 1 For later and juster estimates of Rousseau's influence on Kant cf. John Grier Hibben, The Philosophy of the Enlightenment, 1910, pp. 157-159; and V. Delbos, La Philosophie Pratique de Kant, 1905, pp. 106 et seq. sides that the currents of nineteenth century thought had swept out beyond him. For reasons which it would be impossible to explain fully in a brief introduction there seems to be at present a strong revival of interest in this unhappy man of genius. The very violence of the attacks which have recently been directed against him and his disciples bears testimony to the fact that in certain quarters, at least, he is once more looked upon as a living menace. It may be that this renewed interest is due in part to the wide appeal of Tolstoi, one of the most earnest, or from the point of view of the opposition, perverted of his disciples, and to the appearance of a new philosophy which in certain of its assumptions carries us back to Rousseau. For whatever cause, Rousseau has undoubtedly once more become a center of interest and a target of attack. 3 Coincident with this revival of interest in Rousseau as an active factor in contemporary thought, there has come a revival of interest in Rousseau scholarship, and it is safe to say that at present we know much more of his life and of the conditions under which his work was produced than did the critics and scholars of a half-century ago. Recent research has, however, failed to make quite clear along just what line it is 2 Lasserre. Le Romantisme Français. 3° éd. 1907; Seillière. Le Mal Romantique. 1908; Maigron. Le Romantisme et les Mœurs. 1910; Babbitt, Rousseau and Romanticism. 1919. 3 Benrubi. Tolstoi continuateur de J.-J. Rousseau. Annales J.-J. Rousseau, 1907, Vol. III, pp. 83-118. 4 Irving Babbitt. Bergson and Rousseau. Nation 1912, vol. XCV, pp. 452-455. that we the hist been to eration seau's, a in the p of la b good, m English degrees British 5 that we must seek for his own special contribution to the history of modern thought. The tendency has been to show that those elements which the earlier generation of scholars looked upon as peculiarly Rousseau's, are to be found in the current thought and even in the published literature of his time. The doctrine of la bonté naturelle, the idea that man is by nature good, mgiht be found in an author as well known to English readers as Alexander Pope, and in varying degrees it permeates the thought of an entire school of British philosophers. So too, feeling for nature, of 7 6 5 Mornet, Le Sentiment de la Nature en France de J.-J. Rousseau à Bernardin de Saint-Pierre, 1907; also Le Romantisme en France au XVIII° siècle, 1912; Schinz. Rousseau devant l'érudition modern. Modern Philology, 1912, Vol. X, pp. 265-288. 6 "Nor think, in nature's state they blindly trod; The state of nature, was the reign of God: Pride then was not; nor arts, that pride to aid; Man walk'd with beast, joint tenant of the shade, The shrine with gore unstain'd, with gold undrest, And man's prerogative, to rule, but spare. 7 Cf. Leslie Stephen's chapters on the English Deists. English Thought in the Eighteenth Century. 1876, Vol. I, pp. 74-278. 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 Rous been quick to seize upon this weakness of his exposi- 8 Myra Reynolds. Treatment of Nature in English Poetry between Pope and Wordsworth. Chicago, 1896. 9 Lemaître. J.-J. Rousseau, 1907. converge will tend the first passed t ously m and in t sacrifice impressi tain bro First D likewise violence his emp Only on of this accept work is Befor gence o endeav famous this ess and it were a ordinat which never curred cennes! who h 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. " |