ROUSSEAU

ROUSSEAU (John James), a celebrated philosopher, was the son of a watchmaker at Geneva, and was born in 1712. In the early part of his life he embraced the Roman Catholic religion, and travelled into Italy. Some time after, he went into France; and was secretary to M. de Montaigne ambassador at Venice in 1743. Till he was 40 years of age he remained entirely unknown in the literary world. His Discourse against the Sciences, which in 1750 was honoured with the prize by the academy of Dijon, first drew him from this obscurity. Though the subject had formerly been treated by the famous Henry Cornelius Agrippa, Rousseau gave his subject all the charms of novelty; displaying the most uncommon resources of genius and knowledge. A variety of writers attacked his opinion; dispute on dispute ensued, and he found himself engaged in the most formidable lists of literary controversy. His discourse on the Inequality among Men and of the Origin of Society, tho' it supports a false system, is yet done with admirable art; and this performance, especially its dedication to the Republic of Geneva, are among those master-pieces of eloquence, of which the ancients alone have given us any idea. His Letter to M. d'Alembert on the Project of establishing a Theatre at Geneva, published in 1757, contains, amidst many paradoxes, some of the most important truths. This letter, in which he decries the stage, was the source of an irreconcileable enmity between him and the celebrated Voltaire. However, it is remarkable, that even Rousseau, this enemy of plays, wrote a comedy, and presented a Pastoral to the theatre; the poetry and music of which he composed with the most pleasing attention to the simplicity of rural sentiment and manners. The author, who had an excellent talent for music, had cultivated it from his infancy with equal taste; and his Dictionary of Music is one of the best works of the kind. His Epistolary Romance, to which

which the English translator had given the name of Eloisa, is universally known; but of all the works of this celebrated writer, his Emilius, or Treatise on Education, made the greatest noise. The most exceptionable part of this work is the third volume; which is almost full of objections to Christianity. This proved fatal to his repose. He had lived from the year 1754 in a country-house near Montmorency; a retreat which he owed to the generosity of a farmer-general of the revenues. The parliament of Paris condemned the last-mentioned work in 1762, and commenced a criminal process against the author, which obliged him to fly from that city. Being proscribed also in his native place, he at length found an asylum in Switzerland in the sovereignty of Neuchâtel. His first care was to defend his Emilius against the anathemas of the archbishop of Paris. His "Letters from the Mountains" were published soon after; but this book, less eloquent than his "Letter to the archbishop of Paris," and filled with uninteresting invectives against the magistrates and ecclesiastics of Geneva, irritated the Protestant ministers without reconciling him to the Romish clergy.

In the year 1753, Rousseau had solemnly abandoned the Romish religion; and, what is remarkable, at the very time that he had determined to reside in a Catholic country. This conversion, however, could not regain the esteem of the Protestant teachers; nor could the protection of the king of Prussia secure him against the vengeance of the minister of the village where he resided. He therefore took the resolution of visiting England; but here he soon embroiled himself with the celebrated Mr Hume, by whose means he had been placed in an agreeable retreat in Derbyshire, and who had obtained for him a pension from the king. He again returned to France, where his patrons obtained leave for him to reside in Paris, but on condition that he should not write any thing on the subjects of religion or government. He obeyed this injunction inviolably, and wrote nothing on any subject, but contented himself with the peaceful life of a philosopher. In May 1776 he accepted the invitation of the marquis and marchioness de Girardin, who had prepared a neat little house for him at a small distance from their delightful castle of Ermenonville, about 30 miles from Paris. This retreat was perfectly conformable to the wishes of Rousseau. Every day he amused himself in a neighbouring wood in collecting plants for his herbarium. The marquis, who was himself a philosopher, indulged his passion for rural life, and was enamoured with the writings of the singular Rousseau. They had musical parties frequently, at which he assisted; and he composed several airs in all that simple style of nature for which he had ever been remarked. Among others he set several passages of our Shakespeare to music, and played them himself on the forte piano in the most enchanting manner.—In this sweet retirement he lived two years in the most agreeable manner; and died on the 2d of July 1778, in the 66th year of his age. The marquis has since erected a sepulchral monument, to cover the remains of his departed friend. This mausoleum is constructed of white marble, with the bust of the deceased by Houdon; and its decorations are in the best taste. One of its sides exhibits two doves, for Eloisa; another, a mother sucking her child, for Emilius; a third, children sacrificing on the

altar of nature; and the fourth, a lyre, with other symbols of poetry and music. The inscription on the monument is long; and contains a pompous encomium on the genius, sentiments, and moral character of Mr Rousseau.

We shall conclude the life of this singular man with the character of himself and of his writings, as delivered by the masterly pen of Dr Brattie. "I consider Rousseau," says the Doctor, "as a moral writer of true genius. Sensibility of heart; a talent for extensive and accurate observation; liveliness and ardour of fancy; and a style, copious, nervous, and elegant, beyond that of any other French writer; are his distinguishing characteristics. In argument he is not always equally successful; for he often mistakes declamation for proof, and hypothesis for fact: but his eloquence, when addressed to the heart, overpowers with force irresistible. A greater number of important facts relating to the human mind are recorded in his works, than in all the books of all the sceptical philosophers ancient and modern. And he appears in general to be a friend to virtue, to mankind, to natural religion, and sometimes to Christianity. Yet none even of his best works are free from absurdity. His reasoning, on the effects of the sciences, and on the origin and progress of human society, are diffuse, inaccurate, and often weak; much perverted by theories of his own, as well as by too implicit an admittance of the vague assertions of travellers, and of the systems and doctrines of some favourite French philosophers. And he seems, in these, and frequently too in his own writings, to consider animal pleasure, and bodily accomplishments, as the happiness and perfection of man. His plan of education, though admirable in many parts, is in some injudicious and dangerous, and impracticable as a whole. The character of Julia's lover is drawn with a masterly hand indeed, and well conducted throughout; but the lady has two characters, and those incompatible. The wife of Wolmar is quite a different person from the mistress of St Prieux. Wolmar himself is an impossible character; destitute of principle, yet of rigid virtue; destitute of feeling, yet capable of tenderness and attachment; delicate in his notions of honour, yet not ashamed to marry a woman whom he knew to be to all intents and purposes devoted to another. Some of this author's remarks on the spirit of Christianity, and on the character of its Divine Founder, are not only excellent, but transcendently so; and I believe no Christian can read them without feeling his heart warmed, and his faith confirmed. But what he says of the absurdities which he fancies to be contained in the Sacred History, of the impropriety of the evidence of miracles, of the analogy between those of Jesus Christ and the tricks of jugglers, of the insignificance and impertinence of prayer, of the sufficiency of human reason for discovering a complete and comfortable scheme of natural religion, of the discouraging nature of the terms of salvation offered in the Gospel, of the measure of evidence that ought to accompany Divine Revelation (which, as he states it, would be incompatible with man's free agency and moral probation); what he says of these, and several other theological points of great importance, betrays a degree of ignorance and prejudice, of which, as a philosopher, as a scholar, and as a

man, he should have been utterly ashamed. He appears to be distressed with his doubts; and yet, without having ever examined whether they be well or ill founded, scruples not to exert all his eloquence on purpose to infuse them into others: a conduct which I must ever condemn as illiberal, unjust, and cruel. Had Rousseau studied the Scripture, and the writings of rational divines, with as much care as he seems to have employed in reading the books, and listening to the conversation of French infidels, and in attending to the unchristian practices and doctrines warranted by some ecclesiastical establishments; I may venture to assure him, that his mind would have been much more at ease, his works much more valuable, and his memory much dearer to all good men. Rousseau is, in my opinion, a great philosophical genius, but wild, irregular, and often self-contradictory; disposed, from

the fashion of the times, and from his desire of being reputed a bold speaker and free-thinker, to adopt the doctrines of infidelity; but of a heart too tender, and an imagination too lively, to permit him to become a thorough-paced infidel. Had he lived in an age less addicted to hypothesis, he might have distinguished himself as a moral philosopher of the first rank.—To conclude, the writings of this author, with all their imperfections, may be read by the philosopher with advantage, as they often direct to the right observation and interpretation of nature; and by the Christian, without detriment, as the cavils they contain against religion are too slight and too paradoxical to weaken the faith of any one who is tolerably instructed in the principles and evidences of Christianity. To the man of taste they can never fail to recommend themselves, by the irresistible charms of the composition.²⁰