ROUSSEAU. 
a remote cause of his literary fame. He had already ac¬ 
quired some reputation by his pen, and the undertakers of 
the Encyclopaedia engaged him, in 1749, to compose the 
musical articles in their dictionary. The following year was 
the epoch of his first appearance, under his own name, on 
the theatre of letters. The academy of Dijon had proposed 
for its prize question, “ Whether the re-establishment of the 
arts and sciences has contributed to purify morals ■?” Rous¬ 
seau, it is said, had intended to take the affirmative side; but 
by the persuasion of Diderot, was induced to support the 
negative, as more likely to attract notice: whether or not 
this assertion be correct, he displayed so much ingenuity and 
eloquence in his discourse on this occasion, that it was 
crowned by the academy, and was generally read with the 
interest usually inspired by a splendid paradox. Several 
answers appeared to it, one of wliich was written by the 
king of Poland, Stanislaus: but it was enough for Rousseau 
to have made his name known with so much distinction in 
the literary world. The part which Rousseau chose to take, 
seems durably to have impressed him with that preference 
of savage to civilized life which was so frequent a subject 
of his declamation. Among other attacks which this dis¬ 
course drew upon him, was that of being ridiculed on the 
stage of Nancy, by Palissot, in his “ Comedie des Philoso- 
phes." The king of Poland (then duke of Lorraine) was so 
much displeased with this insult, that he caused a letter of 
apology to be written to Rousseau, at the same time ac¬ 
quainting him that he had deprived Palissot of his place in 
the academy of Nancy; and it is to the philosopher’s credit 
that he immediately interceded for him and obtained his res¬ 
toration. 
In 1752, Rousseau wrote a comedy, entitled “ Narcisse, 
ou l'Amant de lui-meme,” represented by the Comediens 
Franqois. He also composed his musical entertainment of 
*♦ Le Devin du Village,” both the words and the music ; a 
piece of charming simplicity, which was represented with the 
greatest success at Paris. In the midst of the applause it excited, 
this strange paradoxical being took occasion in his “ Lettre sur 
la Musique Franqoise,” to prove that the French had no such 
thing as vocal music, and, from the defects of their language, 
could not have. The letter was written with great taste and 
knowledge of the subject; but this ungracious return for the 
favour shewn to his own performance, and the severity with 
which he treated the national idol, le grand opera, brought 
down a storm of resentment on his head. Besides the abuse 
he underwent in various publications, he was burnt in effigy 
at the theatre of the opera, whilst he pleasantly returned 
thanks to those “ who at length had withdrawn him from 
the torture.” Returning to Geneva in 1754, he abjured the 
Roman Catholic religion, and was restored to his rights of 
citizenship. For this favour he made a return by the truly 
eloquent and patriotic dedication to the republic of his 
« Discours sur les Causes de l’lnegalite parmi les Hommes, 
et sur 1’Origine des Societes.” It is impossible for any one 
to appear, at least, a better man and citizen, or to give 
more salutary advice to his fellow-citizens, than he has done 
in this dedication. The discourse itself, written upon a prize- 
question proposed by the academy of Dijon, and crowned by 
it with manyjustand enlightened sentiments on the subject on 
which it treats, is upon the whole rather rhetorical than argu¬ 
mentative, and is over-run with idle declamation in praise of a 
savage, and depreciation of a civilized state, which the author 
has repeated in his works till it becomes quite disgusting. 
In 1758, Rousseau, who was now living at Montmorency, 
near Paris, as a studious solitary, published his letter to M. 
D’Alembert, on the design-of establishing a theatre at Ge¬ 
neva. This piece is written with great force of reasoning, 
and much solid observation on life and manners; and though 
he may have carried too far his objections to theatrical ex¬ 
hibitions in general, it cannot be denied that he has pro¬ 
duced many good arguments against their introduction into 
a place under the circumstances of Geneva. Nor was there 
so much real as seeming inconsistency in his opposing at his 
native city, spectacles for which he had been a writer at 
Paris. This work is said to have laid the foundation of that 
Vox.. XXII. No. 1511. 
409 
hatred which Voltaire never ceased to entertain for the Ge¬ 
nevan philosopher. It was replied to by d’Alembert and 
Marmontel. 
In 1760, Rousseau published his famous novel, entitled 
“ Lettres de Deux Amants, &c.” but commonly known by 
the title of “ Julie, ou la Nouvelle Heloise.” In the preface 
he justifies his consistency on this head also, in the following 
words: “ Public spectacles are necessary for great cities, and 
romances for a corrupted people. I have viewed the man¬ 
ners of my age, and I have published these letters. Why 
did not I live at a time when I ought to have thrown them 
into the fire ?” He further affects to say that his work is not 
made for extensive circulation, and that it will suit few 
readers. With regard to its effects on the female sex, he 
satisfies his conscience with saying, “ Never, chaste girl, read 
romances; and I have given this book a decisive title, that 
on opening it a reader may know what to expect. She who, 
notwithstanding, shall dare to read a single page, is undone : 
but let her not impute her ruin to me—the mischief was done 
before.” In all this there is as much bad faith, as insolence 
and vanity. He made the work as seductive as he could, 
and would have been much mortified if it had not been very 
generally read; nor could he doubt that many young girls, 
even among his innocent Genevans, would be readers. If 
he thought it of so inflammatory a tendency that its perusal 
woujd corrupt female chastity, he ought to have thrown it 
into the fire, whatever were the character of the age in which 
he lived. But in reality he assumes in it the tone of a moral 
teacher of the highest order; nor can it be denied, amidst 
much improper matter, to contain many lessons of domestic 
prudence and exalted virtue. This is not the place to enter 
into an estimate of a work universally known, and both 
praised and censured without moderation. In warmth of 
painting and eloquence of sentiment, it must be allowed to 
have no superior in its class; in moral inconsistency and 
improbability, scarcely an equal. With deep knowledge 
of the authoi’s heart, it joins great ignorance of that of others; 
with much sober and useful truth, all the extravagance of 
exaggerated feeling. It is a dangerous work, but has been 
the parent of others more dangerous, because affording easier 
objects of imitation. Not long after the Nouvelle Heloise, 
appeared the author’s tract “ DuContrat Social, ou Principes 
du Droit Politique,” alleged to be an extract from a more 
extensive work which he had commenced, but had long 
abandoned as beyond his powers. This is a closely-rea¬ 
soned dissertation on the fundamental principles of civil 
polity, firmly supporting those doctrines upon which alone 
public liberty can be established. He excludes from the rank 
of free governments all except real democracies, in which 
every citizen gives his personal consent to the laws which he 
is to obey. Accordingly, Rousseau has been accounted one 
of the principal incendiaries of the conflagration in which so 
large a portion of Europe has been involved ; but to this im¬ 
putation he is liable only in common with all the other writers 
in favour of freedom, though the eloquence aud popularity 
of his works may have rendered them peculiarly operative 
on the European continent. The work in question was pro¬ 
hibited in France, and also in republican Switzerland; and 
from its publication may be dated that warfare between the au¬ 
thor and the supporters of authority, civil and religious, which 
exposed all the rest of his life to storms and persecutions. 
Rousseau’s “ Emile, ou de l’Education," was published in 
1762. It may be regarded as the author’s principal work, 
as it was also that in which he the most boldly opposed re¬ 
ceived opinions, and, of course, excited against himself the 
greatest mass of hostility. His fundamental idea in education 
is to suffer the young mind to develope by itself, rather pre¬ 
venting it from imbibing any thing mischievous, than 
hastening to impress it with lessons of preceptive instruction ; 
presenting to it objects of nature rather than of art; and 
regulating conduct more by the restraints of necessity than 
of principle, till a foundation is laid for the operation of 
reason unbiassed by habit and prejudice. That many of his 
observations display excellent sense and sound philosophy, 
and may be applied to great advantage in the business of 
5 M education 
