? : •!!DYIN HRiT^OISM EDERIKA MAGDONALD ' mk h. ,9 fll LiSi^ARY UN1V-;^5;TY OP CaLI ?-">'■■ -A SAN UlbSO J UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO ■ II' III II! IIP I mil II mil IN III III ml illlllllllllllllllllllll 3 1822 00541 0352 A Central University Library Pleas, No,.: This fte„ 13 subjeco recall after two weeks. Date Due JEAN JACQUES ROUSSEAU From a Portrait (if Rousseai; at JSixiken Now in the salon of Les Chaniiettes. It has this inscription, " Rousseau adolescent." (Portrait presume ayant toujours existe dans la maison de Jean Fraiicjois Favre, avocat d'Annecy, decede le 7 mars 1855.) [Frontispiece (1). Jean Jacques Rousseau A NEW CRITICISM BY FREDERIKA. MACDONALD ' ILIAD OF THE EAST,' 'tHE FLOWER AND THE SPIRIT,' 'studies in the FRANCE OF VOLTAIRE AND ROUSSEAU,' ETC. * II a deplore, expi6, rachetd ses fautes. II a cherche le vrai, ador^ le Bien ; proclam^ le droit ; soufFert pour la justice. II a beaucoup entrepris et beaucoup suscit^ ... la seconde moiti6 de sa vie a ete d^voue aux plus grandes causes. Qu'on lui maintienne sa place dans le prytanee des mortels glorieux ; et qu'on lui rouvre la porte de cette enceinte, qui a pour inscription : 'Aux grands ouvriers de I'histoire la posterite reconnaissante.' — Amiel. *J'ai parle pour le bien des hommes : — pour une si grande cause qui refuserait jamais de soufFrir?' — Jean Jacques Rousseau. 'Jamais les discours d'un homme qu'on croit parler centre sa pensee ne toucheront ceux qui ont cette opinion. Tous ceux qui, pensant mal de moi, disent avoir profite dans la vertu par la lecture de mes livres, mentent, et meme trfes-sottement. Ce sont ceux-la qui sont vraiment des Tartufes.' — J. J. Rousseau, Third Dialogue, VOL. I LONDON CHAPMAN AND HALL, Ltd. 1906 Richard Clay & Sons, Limited, bread street hill, e.g., and bungay, suffolk. Waterfall near Les Charmettes. (Called after J. J. Rousseau.) See Confessions, Part I. liv. iv. for Rousseau's deseriiition of it. (A better image of a life that brought refreshment to an arid age than the stagnant Pool, "affreux, sombre et dormant, on des reptiles noirs fourmillent vaguement.") [Frontispiece (2). TO MY HUSBAND JOHN MACDONALD i t) emirate THIS WORK, WHICH REPRESENTS TWENTY YEARS OP RESEARCH J. J. Riu's.seau at Sixty '•Toutes ces passions si; peignaient successivement sur son visage suivant que les snjets de la conversation affectai^int son ame ; inais dans une situation calnie sa figure conservait une empreinte de toutes ces affections, et offrait a la fois je ne sais quoi d'aimable, de fin, de touchant, de digne, de jiilie, et de respect." — Bernardin de Saint Pierre. [Frontispiece (3). CONTENTS INTRODUCTION PAGE THE PURPOSE AND THE METHOD OP THIS NEW CRITICISM . . 1 PART I THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS OP THE QUESTION BEFORE MY NEW CRITICISM COMMENCED Two Theories 1. THAT Rousseau's disinterested life and virtuous char- acter LENT authority TO HIS WRITINGS 2. THAT WE SHOULD RECOGNIZE TWO MEN IN HIM : A PROPHETIC WRITER, AND A MORAL CRETIN First Theory. — " Le vertueux Citoyen de Geneve " CHAPTER I the verdict of CONTEMPORARIES 11 CHAPTER II THE JUDGMENT OF THE BEST MINDS ON THE CASE BETWEEN ROUSSEAU AND THE ENCYCLOPiEDISTS IN THE GENERATION AFTER HIS OWN ........ 17 CHAPTER III THE OPINION UPON HIS CONFESSIONS OF WELL-INFORMED CRITICS IN THE EPOCH WHEN THE SECOND PART WAS PUBLISHED, COMPARED WITH THE OPINION OF LATER CRITICS . . 24 viii CONTENTS Second Theory. — ** L'artificieux Sc^l^rat Jean Jacques" CHAPTER IV PAGE THE PUBLICATION OP grimm's cohrespondance litt&raire, 1812, AND OF MADAME d'ePINAY's MEMOIRS, 1818, INAUGURATED THE CHANGE OP OPINION WHICH HAS REVERSED THE JUDGMENT OP Rousseau's contemporaries ..... 35 CHAPTER V THE IMPRESSION PRODUCED BY THESE WORKS, AND ESPECIALLY BY THE MEMOIRS, ON LITERARY CRITICS, REPRESENTS THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE MODERN DOCTRINE OP ROUSSEAu's " REPULSIVE PERSONALITY " 52 PART II THE HISTORICAL INQUIRY. DOCUMENTARY PROOFS THAT MADAME D'EPINAY'S MEMOIRS REPRESENT AN INSTRUMENT OF THE PLOT TO CREATE A FALSE REPUTATION FOR ROUSSEAU AND TO HAND IT DOWN TO POSTERITY. The Printed Book CHAPTER I HISTORICAL INQUIRY INTO THE ORIGINS OF THE MEMOIRS AND INTO THE AUTHORITY OP THE CLAIMS MADE FOR THEM. THE FIRST EDITION OF THE MEMOIRS AND ITS EDITORS' ACCOUNT OP THE WORK. MUSSET PATHAY's CRITICISM, AND J. C. BRUNET's REPLY. BOITEAU's EDITION AND NOTES. LITERARY CRITICISM OP SAINTE-BEUVE AND OP E. SCHERER. CLAIMS MADE BY MM. PEREY AND MAUGRAS FOR THE " VERACITY " OP THE MEMOIRS . . . . . . . .71 The Two Manuscripts CHAPTER II THE MANUSCRIPT DIVIDED BETWEEN THE ARCHIVES AND ARSENAL LIBRARIES IS MADAME d'ePINAY's ORIGINAL WORK. IT SHOWS CONTENTS ix PAGE THE SUBSTITUTION FOR HER OWN STORY OF ROUSSEAU OF AN INTERPOLATED HISTORY FABRICATED IN A SERIES OF NOTES DRAWN UP BY GRIMM AND DIDEROT. (FACSIMILES OP NOTES AND OP INTERPOLATIONS SHOWN IN THE MANUSCRIPT) . 84 CHAPTER III THE MANUSCRIPT BELONGING TO THE BIBLIOTHEQUE HISTORIQUE, RUE DE SEVIGNE, THE ONE USED BY J. C. BRUNET. THE PAIR COPY OP THE ORIGINAL IMS. ; IT REVEALS GRIMm's CARE TO PRESERVE THE DOCUMENT AND TO PREPARE ITS PUBLICATION WHEN ALL CONTEMPORARIES HAD DISAPPEARED . . .96 CHAPTER IV THE MANUSCRIPT OP THE RUE DE S^VIGNE SHOWS THE FALSIPICA- TION OP THE BOOK BY THE EDITORS OP THE PRINTED MEMOIRS; WITH THE PURPOSE OF LENDING IT THE CHARACTER OP A GENUINE HISTORICAL WORK 109 PART III CHAPTER I PLAN AND PURPOSE OP FALSE HISTORY OF ROUSSEAU INTER- POLATED IN MADAME d'ePINAY's WORK. THE MYTHICAL JEAN JACQUES OP GRIMM AND DIDEROT, WHOSE ESSENTIAL QUALITY IS FALSITY. DIDEROT's TABLETTES AND THE LEGEND OP Rousseau's seven crimes 123 CHAPTER II STUDY OF HISTORICAL EVIDENCE WHICH THROWS NEW LIGHT ON THE LEGEND OF ROUSSEAU'S CHILDREN Evidence in the Registers op the "Enfants Trouves." — See Appendix, Note E. THE historical FACTS GO TO PROVE HE HAD NONE ; ROUSSEAu's MORAL CULPABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY IS FOR A DOCTRINE X CONTENTS HE AFTERWARDS CAME TO RECOGNIZE WAS AN ERROR. HE WAS NOT GUILTY EVEN IN INTENTION OF CRUELTY IN EXPOSING ANY INFANT ; OF TYRANNY OR INJUSTICE IN FORCING THER^SE TO RENOUNCE HER CHILDREN ; OF HYPOCRISY IN PROFESSING ONE DOCTRINE AND PRACTISING ANOTHER .... 140 PART IV THE LEGEND OF ROUSSEAU'S SEVEN CRIMES I. — Rousseau's alleged Crimes against Madame d'Epinay CHAPTER I KOUSSEAU'S friendship FOR MADAME d'ePINAY. HER PREPARA- TION OP THE HERMITAGE AN ACT OP FRIENDSHIP, NOT A BENEFIT. PROOF THAT THE STORY AS IT STANDS IN THE MEMOIRS WAS ARRANGED TO PIT IN WITH DIDEROt'S AND GRIMm's ACCOUNTS. PROOF THAT ROUSSEAU WAS MADAME D'ePINAY'S FRIEND AND NOT HER PBOTioE . . .185 CHAPTER II THE FIRST YEAR AT THE HERMITAGE. MADAME d'ePINAy's SYMPATHY WITH ROUSSEAU; HIS CONFIDENCE IN HER; HIS CODE OF FRIENDSHIP. THE LEGENDARY RENE AND THE FALSE HISTORY OP HIS SOPHISTRIES AND IMPOSTURES . . .221 CHAPTER III MADAME d'hOUDETOT INTERVENES. THE FIRST QUARREL. THE "ANONYMOUS LETTER TO SAINT-LAMBERT." THE STORY OF IT RELATED IN THE MEMOIRS AN INTERPOLATED INCIDENT . 240 CHAPTER IV MADAME d'ePINAy's ATTEMPT TO BRING ABOUT A RECONCILIATION BETWEEN GRIMM AND ROUSSEAU DIFFERENTLY RELATED IN THE CONFESSIONS AND IN THE MEMOIRS .... 261 CONTENTS xi CHAPTER V PAGE THE JOURNEY TO GENEVA AND THE LETTER THAT WAS "A PRODIGY OP INGRATITUDE ' EXAMINED IN CONNECTION WITH THE DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS GIVEN IN THE CONFESSIONS AND IN THE MEMOIRS 270 APPENDIX Note A. interpretations of rousseau's works by psycho- logical METHODS ...... 301 A A. testimony OF IMPARTIAL CONTEMPORARIES . . 304 B. LIBELS PUBLISHED IMMEDIATELY AFTER HIS DEATH . 320 C. HOLBACH's account OF THE RUPTURE OF HIS INTIMACY WITH ROUSSEAU E. THE REGISTERS OF THE ENFANTS TROUVllS, JOSEPH CATHERINE ROUSSEAU 364 CO. LA HARPE's LIBELS ....... 366 D. MANUSCRIPTS AND DIFFERENT NOTES CONNECTED WITH THEM. DOUBLE CAHIBRS. ALTERATIONS MADE BY EDITORS OF PRINTED BOOK. ARSENAL NOTES . 368 415 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS J. J. ROUSSEAU AT SIXTEEN. THE MOUNTAIN TORRENT (a BETTER IMAGE OP HIS LIFE THAN THE STAGNANT POOL). j. j. rousseau at sixty seven facsimiles of pages from the ms. of the memoirs : 1. specimen of handwriting no. 1 (of original narrative) 2. ,, ,, „ NO. 2 (of THE FALSI- FIED story) 3. „ ,, „ NO. 1 ALTERED BY NO. 2 4 5. „ „ „ NO. 2 AN INTERPOLATED PASSAGE 6. „ „ „ AN INTERPOLATED LIBEL 7. „ „ ,, AN INTERPOLATED RE- FERENCE TO THE LETTER TO d'alembert 8. SPECIMEN OF NOTES, WITH ONE IN DIDEROT's HNADWRITING 9. „ „ „ GIVING -^ DIRECTIONS TO RE-WRITE HISTORY OF RENE LBS CHARMETTES .... MADAME DE WARENS' SALON MADAME DE WARENS AT TWENTY-EIGHT MADAME D'HOUDETOT Frontispiece To face ji- 86, 87 92, 93 94, 95 125 200 212 251 JEAN JACQUES ROUSSEAU A NEW CRITICISM INTRODUCTION THE PURPOSE OF THIS NEW CRITICISM What is the purpose of this new criticism of J. J, Rousseau ? And at this time of day, what is my excuse for supposing that it can interest modern readers ? The purpose is to establish by newly- discovered historical evidence a fact which, presented as a theory, has been pronounced too improbable to deserve serious consideration — the fact, viz. that, as the result of a conspiracy between two men of letters, who were his contemporaries, an entirely false reputation of Rousseau has been handed down to us. Condemned by the voice of public opinion in his own day, and by the decision of the best minds in the generation after his own, this false reputation gained acceptance in an epoch when the last of Rousseau's contemporaries had disappeared. And it now serves as the foundation of the accepted doctrine of his repulsive personality, adopted by his best known French and English biographers. But if even the fact be as I have stated it, does it constitute a valid excuse for this new criticism ? At the commencement of the twentieth century, have not all discussions about Rousseau's personality become profoundly indifferent to us 1 The author of the VOL. I, 1 2 A NEW CRITICISM OF ROUSSEAU Contrat Social and of Emile, if he survive at all, lives in his books. And the worth, or worthlessness of these books, tried by their competency to meet modern spiritual needs, remains the same, whether the man who wrote them had, in his generation, a virtuous or a repulsive character. When replying to these objections, I shall not attempt to impose my own conviction upon my readers. I will merely state it, and find my valid excuse on less debatable grounds. To me, then, it seems that the personal character of a great writer who in a momentous epoch was a leader of souls, can never be indifferent to "US. Such a writer, in so far as he has helped to form the mind that lives in us, is, as Emerson has finely said, " More ourselves than we are." When he falls short morally, our ideal interests suffer. And what is best in us, what is *'more ourselves than we are," gains power, when the fame of such a leader of souls is cleansed from unjust reproach. But, in this case, as I have said, I may leave my own convictions out of the argument. I can find a sufficient excuse and reason for a new criticism of Rousseau in the actual conditions of modern opinions about the man, and about his books. These conditions do not show that Rousseau's person- ality has ceased to interest modern critics ; or that people read the Contrat Social and Emilc to-day with disinterested forgetfulness of all theories about the private character of the man who wrote them. What these conditions of opinion do show is, that Rousseau's personality is made extremely interesting to psychological and pathological critics, by the theory that a writer whose distinction was " depth and fervour of the moral sentiment, bringing with it the indefinable gift of touching many hearts with love of virtue and the things of the spirit " ^ was himself a moral cretin. This theory renders Rousseau's personality valuable to 1 See Life of Rousseau by Mr. John Morley, vol. i. p. 3, 4. INTRODUCTION 3 supporters of the doctrine (essentially modern, as every- one will admit) that a corrupt tree brings forth the choicest fruit, and that only a hair divides genius from insanity. It also determines the method of criticizing the author of the Contrat Social by jDsycho- logical, instead of by historical methods. And that this theory of his personality serves as the foundation of the criticism of Rousseau's life and doctrines accepted as authoritative by the vast majority of English readers at the present hour, is proved by the verse of Victor Hugo's which Mr. John Morley prints on his title page, as an appropriate text and clue to his study of Rousseau. "Comme dans les etangs, assoupis sous les bois Dans plus d'une Time, on voit deux choses a la fois : Le ciel, qui teint les eaux, a peine remuees, Avec tous ses rayons, et toutes ses nuees; Et la vase, fond morne, affreux, sombre, et dormant, Ou des reptiles noirs, fourmillent vaguement." ^ In other words, the starting-point, and raisoyi d'etre, of the accepted method of criticizing Rousseau is the extraordinary problem his genius and his repulsive personality are supposed to otier psychologists. And if this problem have no existence, if there were no reptiles swarming in Rousseau's under-nature, then this criticism is unsatisfactory ; because a method that starts with wrong assumptions will not reach right conclusions. On the other hand, with regard to the study of his books, and a just and clear understanding of his doctrines and influences, these conditions of modern opinion show that the theory of his abominable private life, and detestable personal character, leads to ^ " As in still pools, beneath the forest green. In many a soul, two things at once are seen : The sky reflected, beauteous to behold, In sunlit radiance, and clouds touch'd with gold, — And sullen depths, of stagnant water, sleeping Where, swarming in black slime, reptiles are vaguely creeping." (Free translation.) 4 A NEW CRITICISM OF ROUSSEAU the neglect of his works by people formed to derive profit from them ; earnest and sincere minds, who do not count it worth while to weigh seriously the social theories, or the philosophy of life, of a moral cretin. And further, they show that this theory leads also to a special criticism of his books as well as of his life by psychological biographers, who seek in them, not the author's openly-expressed ideas and convictions, but the underlying fallacies, veiled sophistries, and extravagant absurdities of an unbalanced mind, constantly, so it is assumed, in contradiction with itself. And these subtle interpretations of books that, read as they are written, present no contradictions or difficulties, create confusion in the minds of readers incessantly warned that they must not accept the statements made as a plain exposition of the author's convictions ; ^ and as a final result do leave " in a cloud of blank incomprehensible- ness" the teachings, as well as the personality, of one of the most lucid as well as one of the most eloquent of writers. So that, accepting the proposition that Rousseau survives to-day in his books, and that our chief concern is with the serviceableness, or unserviceableness, of his social doctrines and philosophy of life, my contention is that a new criticism of him is required, where the first step must be the revision of the doctrine that he was a moral cretin, because, as it stands, this doctrine, when it does not lead to the complete neglect of his works, lends authority to a false method of criticizing them. But, I shall again be asked, in view of the adverse judgment pronounced upon Rousseau by his best known French and English biographers, Saint-Marc Girardin and Mr. John Morley, and of the authoritative opinion expressed by such distinguished men of letters as Sainte-Beuve, E. Scherer, M. Maurice Tourneux, and 1 See Morley's Rousseau, vol. ii. : Criticism on the Contrat Social, pp. 127, 143, 155, 180, 195.— See Appendix, Note A. INTRODUCTION 5 their modern continuators in this field of criticism, is there not something that savours of presumption in my effort to re-open a question these eminent judges pronounce settled ? " Rousseau! s repulsive and equi- vocal personality has deservedly " — so Mr. John Morley affirms — '^ fared ill in the esteem of the saner and moi^e rational of those who have judged him."^ How can I suppose that any fresh arguments I may bring will disturb the confidence felt by modern readers in the conclusions reached by these authorities ? Here, too, I have to make my own position plain. I do not expect, nor ask, that any arguments or impressions of mine should be weighed against the impressions and arguments of the many accomplished literary critics in whose esteem Rousseau's personality has (deservedly or undeservedly) fared extremely ill. My contention is that whereas this question has been decided heretofore by arguments, it is one that can only be finally settled by historical evidence. And my claim is that, as a result of the discovery and comparative study of previously unexplored documents, I am able to bring to its final solution incontrovertible proofs that the doctrine of Rousseau's private life and personal character accepted by his leading French and English critics at the present hour, has for its foundation an audacious historical fraud. To establish a claim of this sort, I must of course prove the authenticity and importance of the docu- mentary evidence that puts out of court the most subtle arguments. But first of all, in connection with the weight attributed to these arguments, it is necessary to establish also that, even taking the question as it stands, the situation is 7iot correctly summed up in Mr. John Morley's sentence. For who are the most sane and rational judges in this particular case ? If by this phrase he intended the best informed and most competent of Rousseau's ^ Rousseau, vol. i. p. 5. 6 A NEW CRITICISM OF ROUSSEAU critics, ought we to look for them amongst modern men of letters who, by their own admission, have not made it their task to obtain a precise knowledge of facts that have become ghostly to them, a puzzle that can now never be found out, or (in their estimation) be worth findino out ? ^ Should we not rather seek these most sane and rational judges amongst critics equally distinguished by mental superiority, who judged con- tradictory assertions and facts in dispute, in the light of their own recollections and of the testimony of still living witnesses ? Accepting this position, we must not allow the authoritative tone adopted by some modern upholders of the doctrine that there were two men in Rousseau — an eloquent writer " with the gift of touching many hearts with love of virtue and the things of the spirit," and a man whose vile character " made his life a scandal to others and a misery to himself"^ — to conceal from us the fact that there exists an exactly opposite doctrine to this — viz. that Rousseau's private life was an example, in an artificial age, of sincerity, independence, simplicity, and disinterested devotion to great principles ; and that his virtuous character and impressive personality lent authority to his writings. Nor between these two doctrines can we accept as correct the assumption that the first theory (of Rousseau's double nature) is held by all jmtient students of his life, and that the second theory (of his virtuous character as the source of his genius) is held only by "fanatics." So far is this from being true that, if we take the trouble of separating into two classes the different critics by whom "Jean Jacques" (as Carlyle expressed it) " was alternately deified and cast to the dogs," we shall find all students of the facts in the first class, amongst admirers of Rousseau ; and all fanatics, in the sense of the despisers of evidence and the holders 1 Morley's Roiisseau, vol. i. p. 278. ^ Rousseau, vol. ii. p, 300. INTRODUCTION 7 fast by a faith they refuse to verify, amongst the casters of Jean Jacques to the dogs. The first step in our historical inquiry must then be to establish the actual conditions of the question, before our own new criticism commences. And to this end, let us examine how much truth belongs to the assumption that the doctrine of Rousseau's detestable private character is supported (1) by the verdict passed upon him by his contemporaries, (2) by the decision of his best informed and most competent critics, (3) by the judgment passed upon his Co7ifessions by the best minds in an epoch when the events and personages dealt with were still kept in remembrance ; and when the book was tried by the literary and moral standards of the time when it was written. PART I THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS OF THE QUESTION {BEFORE MY NEW CRITICISM COMMENCED) TWO THEORIES 1. That Rousseau's Disinterested Life and Virtuous Char- acter LENT Authority to his Writings. 2. That His Vile Outer Life and Repulsive Personality Leave the Social Prophet in a " Cloud op Black Incomprehensibleness " unless he be Criticized by Psychological Methods. "All the faculties of his mind, his morals, his writings, bear the stamp of his character. There was never a man so consistently true to his principles as Kousseau." — Bernardin de Saint-Pierre. " Why not admit once and for all that there were two men in Koiisseau — the writer, the thinker to whom every one does justice ; and then the man, whose frightful character is undeniable." — L. I'erey and Gaston Maugras. The first theory has the support of the verdict passed upon Rousseau by his contemporaries, and of the best minds who judged him in the generation after his own. The second theory is accepted by modern critics, who base their judgment on the testimony of Madame d'Epiuay in her Memoirs, and of Grimm in the Literary Correspondence. THE FIRST THEORY "Le vertueux Citoyen cle Geneve" CHAPTER I THE VERDICT PRONOUNCED UPON J. J. ROUSSEAU 's CASE BY HIS CONTEMPORARIES What was the judgment passed upon J. J. Rousseau's personal character by the voice of public opinion in his own day ; and by spectators of his daily life, and listeners to his familiar conversation, who have reported, without prejudice or favour, the impression he made upon them ? The popular judgment pronounced upon him stands recorded in a most unmistakable manner in all contemporary documents that did not owe their origin to his personal enemies, the Encyclopsedists. Thus, in the same infallible way tliat, in these documents, the phrase "this great man," " ee grand Iwrnme',' follows the name of Voltaire, the term "virtuous," "Ze vertueitx,'' precedes the name of Jean Jacques Rousseau. But the public who described him as " the virtuous citizen of Geneva," "the virtuous Jean Jacques," "the virtuous Rousseau," it will ])e said, knew him through his writings. What was the opinion of those impartial witnesses amongst his contemporaries who enjoyed the best opportunities of studying his personal tastes, temper, and habits, in his daily life ? To decide this question, and to discover whether the impartial testimony of his contemporaries confirms the doctrine of his repulsive and equivocal personality, we must not follow the example of writers who, like the 12 A NEW CRITICISM OF ROUSSEAU authors of those two widely-read volumes La Jeunesse and Les Dernier es Annees de Madame d'Epinay, look for this contemporary judgment amongst the very men whom the author of the Confessions accused as associates in a plot to create for him an entirely false reputation. Thus MM. Lucien Percy and Gaston Maugras, when they have quoted Sainte-Beuve, Saint-Marc Girardin, and E. Scherer, as modern supporters of the theory that the author of the Contrat Social was a "liar," an " impostor," and the base " calumniator of benefactors who had overwhelmed him with touching kindnesses," conclude in this fashion : — " Here, then, we have the judgment pronounced by three masters in modern criticism, upon the disputed case between Rousseau and his benefactress.^ To obtain its conjlrmation by contemjioraries tve might quote a thousand ]jassages from Voltaire, from^ Diderot, from, d^ Alembert, from Hume, from Tronchin which would testify to our impartiality, for we have been accused of too much indulgence for Madame d'Epinay and Grimm ; and of a prejudice against Rousseau. But after the authorities we have quoted, it does seem to us that a time has come when one might make an end of this eternal discussion about Rousseau. Why not admit, once for all, that there were two men in him : the writer, the thinker, to whom everyone renders justice — and the private man whose frightful character one can- not but recognize ? " The selection of contemporary witnesses made by MM. Percy and Maugras does not testify to their impartiality. It convicts them of the singularly unjust method of instituting as judges in this case Rousseau's private enemies — in other words, the very men who, taken together, represent one of the parties to the suit. But if we reject the evidence of Rousseau's so-called "old friends," who (as a result, it is alleged, of his bad behaviour to them) became later on his accusers and ^ Madame d'Epinay. J. J. ROUSSEAU'S CASE 13 enemies, do we not deprive ourselves of the testimony of precisely those contemporaries who knew him best, and who had enjoyed opportunities possessed by no one else of observing his daily life ? Here is an assumption often taken for granted, but it is one that investigation shows to be entirely unsound. The name of Rousseau's "old friends," generally adopted by Rousseau's calumniators, belonged at the most to three persons amongst them — to Madame d'Epinay, Diderot and Grimm. Madame d'Epinay's friendship for Rousseau lasted ten years, and it will later on be established that her judgment voluntarily pronounced upon her old friend Jean Jacques was not the one found to-day in her Memoii's. Diderot's friend- ship for Rousseau commenced in 1741, and for eleven years of the seventeen that passed before their open quarrel, he showed himself sincerely attached to the man he afterwards denounced as a monster and an artificial scoundrel. This intimacy of eleven years is not honourable to Diderot, if the man he made his chosen companion deserved the epithets bestowed upon him. As for Grimm's claim to speak wdth authority about Rousseau's faults in the character of an " old friend," this "old" friendship dated from 1749, when Grimm came to Paris as reader in the household of the young hereditary Prince of Saxe Gotha, and when Rousseau, already famous, took the friendless young German by the hand, and introduced him to Diderot, to the Baron d'Holbach, and to Madame d'Epinay. Grimm's friendship towards the man to whom he owed these introductions lasted until he had established his position securely amongst the acquaintances thus given him. In 1754, as a power in the society of the Baron d'Holbach, and the preferred friend of Diderot, he had become superciliously disdainful of Rousseau. In 1756, as the accepted lover of Madame d'Epinay, he had become rancorously antagonistic to her old friend Jean Jacques. By 1758 he had succeeded in alienating from 14 A NEW CRITICISM OF ROUSSEAU Rousseau all the friends lie had received from him. Here then was Grimm's authority as an interpreter of the true Rousseau. A number of Rousseau's contemporaries, who had no motive for painting him other than they knew him to be, enjoyed quite as good opportunities as Diderot, Grimm, Madame d'Epinay, and David Hume,^ for studying him in his daily life ; and much better opportunities than were ever possessed by Voltaire, Tronchin, or d'Alembert, or, for that matter, by the Baron d'Holbach, by Marmontel, or by La Harpe, none of whom had ever lived on terms of friendly intimacy with Rousseau. The name of " old friend " belonged much more correctly to Deleyre, who remained constantly attached to Rousseau for twenty-five years ; to Dapeyrou, who was on affectionate and confidential terms with him for sixteen years; to the Count d'Eschernay, who was his near neighbour, and the companion of his botanizing excursions during his residence at Motiers Travers ; to Bernardin de Saint- Pierre, whose sympathetic friendship was Rousseau's chief solace during the eight years of his last residence in Paris ; to Corancez, who by his own statement " saw Rousseau constantly and without interruption, during the last ten years of his life." All these writers have left full and detailed accounts of the impression he made upon them ; and of his personal tastes, habits, temper and character.^ Comparing these separate portraits together, we find they all agree in attributing to the Rousseau they knew not a repulsive, but a singularly lovable, and, at the same time, an imi^ressive, personality, distinguished by the very qualities one would expect to discover in the author of his works — simplicity and nobility, affectionateness, and an amiable readiness to enter into and enjoy the small pleasures of ^ Hume, as a matter of fact, was only on speaking terms with Rousseau for three months, from December 1765 to Mai-ch 1766. - See Appendix, Note A A, vol. i. p. 304. J. J. ROUSSEAU'S CASE 15 life, and to sympathize with and share the interests of all sorts and manners of men and women, upon the condition that they approached him with frankness and confidence ; but with these gentle qualities, some sterner ones — impatience of routine and of conventional restraints, and of any endeavour to bring him under their yoke ; and, especially, uncompromising severity for all forms, and amongst them more than any other, for the benevolent form, of deceit.^ But what about the opposite picture of him, given by the Encyclopa3dists ? Are we free to reject as a gratuitous libel, the portrait of Jean Jacques painted by Grimm, by Diderot, and by Madame d'Epinay ; where the prophet of sincerity to others appears as an impostor, devoured by insane vanity and love of notoriety ; a sophist, who does not wish to enlighten, but merely to dazzle, his readers ; an egoist ; an iugrate ; a morbid misanthrope ; and the base calumniator of his benefactors ? We shall be better able to answer this question later on. But, in connection with the verdict passed upon Rousseau by his contemporaries, we are bound to recognize that this portrait of him in the character of an artificial scoundrel, ivas never openly published during his life-time, as the achnoivledged op)inion and account of him given by his '' old friends" ; but that it tvas circidated by secret methods, in anonymous pamjohlets and in secret manuscrip)t jouryials, and tJiat the men ivho carried on these attacks, op)enly professed to believe Jean Jacques insane because he suspected them of being his hidden persecutors. So that this description does not represent a con- temporary judgment passed upon him. What is more, it does not represent a doctrine that amongst his contemporaries obtained supporters and advocates outside ^ See Note A A for Eousseau's reply to d'Eschernay : " Sir, I do not like to be deceived even when the intention is to serve me," vol. i. p. 310. i6 A NEW CRITICISM OF ROUSSEAU of the immediate circle of the Encyclopaedists. And this is the more remarkable when we recollect the exceptional opportunities for secretly sowing libels against their " old friend " Jean Jacques, broadcast, possessed by its two most active promulgators : — by Diderot, who as director of the Eywyclopcedia employed and could command to serve his views, all the pens most active in anonymous journalism throughout France ; and by Grimm, who as editor of the Cor?^e- spondance Litteraire, exercised a strong hidden control over opinions in cultivated circles in all the courts of Europe. Notwithstanding the talents and influence of both these men, their known animosity to Rousseau, and the baseness of their methods of attacking him in a way that gave him no chance of defending himself, so discredited their evidence, that the legend of his abominable character, industriously circulated by them, gained no serious belief until the whole generation which had known both the original hero and the originators of the legend, had passed away. CHAPTER II THE JUDGMENT PASSED UPON ROUSSEAU IN THE GENERATION AFTER HIS OWN So mucli then for the judgment passed upon Rousseau by his contemporaries. We have now to see what was the verdict pronounced upon the case between himself and the Encyclopaedists by the best minds in the generation after his own. There are excellent reasons why, if we really wish to acquaint ourselves with the decision arrived at by the " saner and more rational of those who have judged him," we should look for the authoritative critics of Rousseau in this epoch. It does not admit of denial that if we recognize an equality of intellectual and critical endowments between judges in this epoch and in our time, the historical position of the earlier judges lends necessarily more authority to their decisions than to those arrived at by men of letters who, at a distance of more than a hundred years from the person and events connected with this case, base their conclusions upon arguments about what it seems most reasonable to suppose true ; and not upon a knowledge of facts " become," as Mr. Morley affirms, "ghostly to us." Looking back to judges for whom the true facts of Rousseau's life, and of the behaviour towards him of his enemies, had not become ghostly, I shall not be accused of depreciating the intellectual rank of the three masters of modern criticism quoted by MM. Percy and Maugras, if I class with them four earlier master critics, whose historical position gave them advantages not possessed by Sainte-Beuve, by Saint-Marc Girardin, by E. Scherer, VOL. I. 17 2 i8 A NEW CRITICISM OF ROUSSEAU or by Mr. John Morley ; and whose decision, con- sequently, in this particular case, must be recognized as having greater authority. These representative critics, whose unanimous opinion, arrived at from different standpoints, may surely be described as the sentence upon Rousseau pronounced by " the saner and more rational of those who have judged him," are Mirabeau, the politician of genius ; Madame de Stael, the accom- plished woman of the world as well as of letters ; Emanuel Kant, the philosophic critic ; and Schiller, the ideal poet. Miraheau's judgment. Before acquainting ourselves with Mirabeau's estimate of the personal character of the author of the Contrat Social, let us see what circum- stances lend more authority to his decision than belongs to the convictions and impressions of a literary critic who, like Sainte-Beuve, gives it as his "opinion" that the author of the Confessions was a liar. Gabriel Honore Mirabeau was born in 1749 ; in other words, he entered life in the same year when, at thirty- seven years of age, the author of the Discourse upon the Influences upon Morality of the Arts and Sciences commenced his career as a social prophet. Gabriel Honore was ten years of age, and old enough and bright enough, we may be sure, to attend to the discussions going on amongst his elders, when the publication of the Lettre ci d'Alemhert announced to the public the rupture of Rousseau's intimacy with Diderot. In 1768, when, after his quarrel with Hume, Rousseau was offered by the elder Mirabeau (the Friend of Man, but the enemy of his own household) a retreat in one of his chateaux, Gabriel Honore was already an officer in the army ; and in the way of hearing all that was said for, and against, a famous man on terms of intimate correspondence with his terrible father. In 1778, the date of Rousseau's death, Gabriel Honore Mirabeau was twenty-nine years of age. His mature judgment upon Rousseau pronounced two years later, was delivered in full view of the savage JUDGMENT ON ROUSSEAU 19 attacks made upon their " old friend " Jean Jacques, by the Encyclopaedists, and in the year when the First Part of the Confessions was published. We have Mirabeau's judgment expressed in one of his Letters to Sophie — written from his Vincennes prison. " It was I, my Friend," he wrote, " who taught you first your enthusiasm for Rousseau : and I shall never regret it. Not for his talents do I envy this extra- ordinary man ; but for his virtue — the source of his eloquence, the soul of his works ! I knew Rousseau personally, and amongst my friends are many of those who were intimate with him. He was always the same — full of integrity, of frankness and of simplicity ; without any sort of conceit or affectation ; or any eftbrt to mask his faults, or show off his own merits. One can only forgive those who decry him, by supposing that they did not know him. Every one is not able to conceive the sublimity of such a soul ; and one can only be justly judged by one's peers. Whatever people may say, or think, of him during another century (the interval of time envy may give his traducers), there was never perhaps a man so virtuous ; for he continued so, although he was persuaded others did not believe in the sincerity of his writings and actions. He was virtuous in despite of nature, of man, and of fortune ; and although all these overwhelmed him with misfortunes, calumnies, sorrows and persecutions ; he was virtuous, though suffering from the most lively sense of injustice and wrong ; he was virtuous, notwithstanding the weak- nesses which he has revealed in the Memoirs of his Life, — for, endowed by nature with the incorruptible and virtuous soul of an epicurean, he yet observed in his habits the austere morals of a stoic. Whatever bad use may be made of his own Confessions, they will always prove the good faith of a man who spoke as he thought, wrote as he spoke, lived as he wrote, and died as he had lived." Madame de StaeVs judgment. It was in 1789, that 20 A NEW CRITICISM OF ROUSSEAU is to say eleven years after Rousseau's death, and a year after tlie publication of the Second Part of the Confessions, that Madame de Stael, then twenty years of age, made her literary debut with her Letters upon the Confessions. The young authoress was writing of a man who in 17G5 had known and warmly sympathized with her mother, then Mademoiselle Curchod, heartlessly treated by Gibbon, who broke off his engagement with her for reasons of worldly prudence. Later on, Madame de Stael's father, Necker, also became one of Rousseau's correspondents. In other words, the authoress of the Letters u])on the Confessions had behind her sources of information, in the way of family records, that gave authority to her decided views about Rousseau's sincerity. " Rousseau a hypocrite ! " ejaculates Madame de Stael. " No ! Throughout his life I find him to have been a man who spoke, who thought, who wrote, who acted spontaneously." And she goes on to institute a comparison between Rousseau and BufFon. " M. de Buffon's imagination," she says, " colours and adorns his style : Rousseau's style is animated by his character. The first writer carefully chooses his expres- sions — the second speaks straight from the heart. A finished intellect, and extraordinary talents, could only produce such eloquence as M. de Buffon's is ; but the source of Rousseau's eloquence is passionate sincerity." Emanuel Kanf s judgment. And now for the judg- ment of the philosopher. Emanuel Kant was born twelve years after Rousseau ; and he survived him twenty-six years. The author of the Criticism of Pure Reason has acknowledged his intellectual obligations to the author of Emile in the most generous terms ; and the impression the work made upon him at the first readinsf stands recorded in a familiar little anecdote. In 1763 Kant was principal librarian at Konigsberg, and the unfailing punctuality of his habits was such that the Konigsberg town-folk set their clocks by the hour JUDGMENT ON ROUSSEAU 21 the Magister Kant took his afternoon walk. One day, however, Konigsberg clocks were thrown into confusion. Its principal librarian failed to appear at the usual hour, and the cause of this falling away from perfect punctuality was that Kant had lost count of time when reading JEmile. But there was another writer besides Rousseau who, Kant affirms, exercised a strong influence on his develop- ment, and this writer was David Hume. Necessarily, then, the much talked of quarrel between two famous men, to both of whom, he felt himself spiritually related, must have engaged Kant's attention in 1767. The incident, however, did not lead him to the conclusion that there were two persons in Rousseau, the writer and thinker, in whom he maintained, " intellectual j)e7ietratio7i, vigour of genius, and sensibility of soul reached a degree of 'perfection that has perhaijs never been equalled in any time, or amongst any people, ^^ and a man of frightful character, an ingrate, an artificial scoundrel, etc. On the contrary, Kant's verdict upon Rousseau was that it was the association in him of personal and moral excellences with intellectual powers, that made the supreme value of his influence. " The young should be taught to prize intellectual culture for moral as well as for mental reasons," he writes. "Thus in my own case, I am by mental temperament a seeker after truth ; I feel very powerfully the thirst for knowledge and the desire for intellectual progress. There was a time when I believed this progress only did honour to humanity ; and I despised the people because they cared nothing for all this. Rousseau brought me to a truer state of mind. My foolish vanity has disappeared. I have learned to honour men, and I should count myself more useless than the commonest labourer did I not believe that intellectual progress lends value to every form of human progress and establishes the rights of man upon a secure foundation." Schiller s judgment. But it is Schiller's judgment of 22 A NEW CRITICISM OF ROUSSEAU Rousseau that will most bewilder people who accept as authoritative the doctrine of his equivocal and repulsive personality, taught by modern critics. Yet here, too, should it not be realized that in the character of a sane and rational judge between the author of the Confessions and his accusers, more weight belongs to the decision of Schiller, who in 1782 stood by Rousseau's grave, in a world still warm with memories of him, and still loud with the voices of those who defamed him, than to the convictions and conclusions of a Sainte-Beuve, who in 1853, or of a Mr. John Morley, who in 1873, decided this case in accordance with preconceived theories of the dispositions and circumstances of the persons concerned ? To Schiller, the argument uttered by Diderot two years earlier : " Too many honest men would have been in the wrong had Jean Jacques been in the right," did not appear convincing. For him, these self-styled honest men had proved themselves, by their own words and actions, the malignant calumniators of the " old friend" whose last years their secret persecutions had embittered. As for Rousseau himself, to this watcher in a place just left vacant of his presence, his vision reappeared, not in the repulsive form of a diseased sensualist, or of a mischievous maniac, or of an atrocious scoundrel, but in the guise of a modern Socrates, a Christ-like soul, teaching Christians true humanity ; a lofty spirit and a gentle heart, at once too high and too humble to have found happiness on earth. VERSES ON THE OCCASION OF A VISIT TO ROUSSEAU'S GRAVE AT ERMENONVILLE, 1782. {Free translation) " O Monument ! putting thine age to shame ! O llecord of thy country's endless l)lame ! O Grave of Rousseau ! — Soil that I revere ! Repose and peace, in life, he sought in vain : Repose from evil men, and peace fi'om pain — Repose and peace be found ; but only — here ! JUDGMENT ON ROUSSEAU Ah, when shall end old wars against the right ? Once darkness fought with wisdom in the night : Now wise men die, battling with summer blindness ! — Sophists slew Socrates, professing truth : Christians stab Rousseau, without thought of ruth, — ■ Rousseau, — who Christians urged to human kindness. And who aie they who dare to judge this Sage ? Half-finished brains, small minds, devoured with rage. Under the gaze of Genius, on them turned : — Pigmies the Giant Rousseau justly hate, Because his greatness shows their mean estate ; Poor souls, where fire Promethean never burned. But not for this earth was thy soul designed, O Rousseau ! still by evil men maligned. O Christ-like Soul — too humble, and too high ; Let the world's madness go the way it will. Return thou, where angelic spirits still Summon their Brother, wandered from the sky." " Monument von unsrer Zeiten Schande, Ew'ge Schmachschrift deinem Mutterlande Rousseavi's Grab, — gegriisset seist du mir ! Fried' und Ruh' den Trlimmern deines Lebens, Fried' und Ruhe suchtest du vergebens, Fried' und Ruhe fandst du hier ! Wann wird doch die alte Wunde narben 1 Einst war's finster, und die Weisen sbarben ! Nun ist's lichter, und der Weise stirbt : Sokrates ging unter durch Sofisten, Rousseau leidet, Rousseau fallt durch Christen, Rousseau, der aus Christen Menschen wirbt. Und wer sind sie, die den Weisen richten ? Geistesschwache, dir zur Tiefe fliichten, Vor dem Silberblicke des Genies Abgesplittert von dem Schopfungswerke, Gegen Riesen Rousseau Kind'sche Zwerge, Denen nie Pi'ometheus Feuer blies. Nicht f lir diese "Welt warst du — zu biedei^, Warst du ihr zu hoch, vielleicht zu nieder, Rousseau, noch warst du ein Christ, Mag der Wahnwitz diese Erde gangeln ! Geh du heim zu deinen Briidern Engeln Denen du entlaufen bist." ^ 1 Schiller, Anthologie, 1788. Edition Heidelberg, 1850. CHAPTER III THE JUDGMENT PASSED UPON THE CONFESSIONS BY CONTEMPORARY AND BY MODERN CRITICS The judgment passed upon the Confessions in the epoch when the book was first given to the world, was not the judgment pronounced by modern critics, who try the work by the literary and moral standards of a different age to the one when it was written ; and who look back at its author across a century of libels. It has been seen that for Mirabeau and Madame de Stael, the Confessions stood out as the shining proof of Rousseau's sincerity. We shall presently see that this was the general view taken by critics who stood near to the events and personages dealt with ; l)ut first of all, in order to judge how the same things may wear an entirely different air to people who look at them from different standpoints, let us hear a modern man of letters, pass judgment upon a work that he admitted he considered it "superfluous" to study with the pur- pose of testing the author's veracity. In a biographical Essay upon Grimm, E, Scherer incidentally favours his readers with his opinion about the Confessions, which he describes as " this gallery of iniquities and extrava- gances ; — cette galerie de noirceurs et dJ extravagances.^^ '^1 know nothing more revolting than the Second Part of the work," ^ wrote M. Scherer ; " the most odious ingratitude, the most vindictive malice, here are allied with effusions of sensibility and professions of virtue. Everything is base in this man, who believes 1 The Second Part contains Eousseau's story of his betrayal by his "friends" ; as a matter of fact, everything that shocks modern decency is in the First Pai-t of the Confessions. 24 JUDGMENT ON THE CONFESSIONS 25 that lie atones for disgusting vices by confiding tliem to the public ; that he gets rid of the burthen of gratitude by abusing those who have overwhelmed him witli touch- ing kindnesses ; and whose favourite companion is the servant girl he makes the mother of children, whom he packs ofi" as they are born to the Foundling Hospital. In vain are we assured that this man was mad, and that his madness was of a kind well known by its peculiar symptoms. We refuse to describe malice, cunning and base suspiciousness, as pathological symptoms. We feel that the soul of this author must always have been base, and we experience a certain pleasure when re- cognizing that, with all his talent, the writer cannot conceal his native vulgarity. Eloquence he has of a sort, but no true nobility of style. Genius he has also, but genius stripped of the beauty that should adorn it.i " It is superfluous to look for any information upon any subject whatever, in the last books of the Con- ^ E, Scherer has not, in this disparaging view of Rousseau's style, the support of that exquisite litt6rateur, Sainte-Beuve. Here is what this perfect stylist has to say of one he recognizes, here, as his " Master." " Je voudrais parler de cette langue du xviii*^ siccle consideree dans I'ecrivain qui lui a fait faire le plus grand progres, qui lui a fait subir du moins la plus grande revolution, depuis Pascal : une revolution de laquelle nous autres du xix'' siccle nous datons. Avant Rousseau et depuis Fenelou il y avait eu bien des essais de maniere d'ecrire qui n'etaient pas celles du pur xvii'" siicle — Rousseau parut, le jour ou il se decouvrit tout entier a lui meme, il rovela du mcme coup a son siccle I'ecrivain le plus fait pour exprimer avec nouveaute avec vigueur, avec une logique melee de flamme, les idees confuses qui s'agitaient et qui voulaient naitre. Depuis Jean Jacques c'est dans la forme de langage (^tablie et cr6ee par lui que nos plus grands ecrivains ont jet6 leurs propres innovations et qu'ils ont tente de rencherir . . . . je n'ai pu indiquer qu'en courant dans I'auteur des Confessions les grands cotes par lesquels il demeure un Maitre — que saluer le createur de la reverie, celui qui nous a inoculc le sentiment de la nature et le sens de la realite, le pore de la litterature intime et de la peinture d'intime, — quel dommage que I'orgueil misanthropique s'y mcle ; et que des tons cyniques fassent taches au milieu de tant de beautes charmantes et solides." — Causories, Nov. 1850. 26 A NEW CRITICISM OF ROUSSEAU fessions. Resentment here betrays its own cause by the extravagance of its exaggerations." The last sentence proves that M. Scherer did not himself examine Rousseau's charges, and that he accepted the assertions of the persons who professed to be Jean Jacques' benefactors, because the story told in the Confessions appeared to him incredible. But this was not the view taken by judges who, as observers of the conduct and language of the men denounced in the Confessions, were better qualified than modern critics can be to decide whether these persons were Rousseau's benefactors, or his betrayers. Such an observer was Claude Joseph Dorat, the poet of Les Baisers. Dorat was born in 1734. He was, then, thirty-six years of age when he heard Rousseau read his Confessions in 1770. Possessed of private means, and untroubled by ambition, Dorat had not, like so many other young men of letters in his day, to seek the patronage, or dread the displeasure, of the powerful sect of the Encyclopjedists ; and his intimate and independent relations with the leaders of the sect (Diderot, Grimm, and d'Holbach, and with their militant disciples, Marmontel and La Harpe) enabled him to form a free judgment of their characters and sentiments. This personal acquaintanceship with Jean Jacques' professing " old friends " did not lead Dorat to conclude that they were malignantly, or insanely, calumniated, when accused by Rousseau of treacherously using the claims of their old friendship to mask their efforts to injure him. We find, on the contrary, that Dorat accepted these charges with unquestioning confidence in Rousseau's veracity. We find, also, that this refined and over-exquisite poet remained entirely unconscious of the "revolting" character of the Confessions; and of the " coarseness, baseness, and vulgarity " that so shock and disgust modern critics. In brief, we find that the same work M. Scherer saw darkly, from a distance, as a " gallery of iniquities," stood out, in the sight of a JUDGMENT ON THE CONFESSIONS 27 critic who judged it by the morcal and literary standards of his own and Rousseau's day, as "a masterpiece of genius, simplicity, candour, and courage." Dorat was present at the second private reading of the Confessions at the house of his friend the Marquis de Pezai. We have the description given in a letter written immediately after the event by the susceptible poet, who imagined himself bound to share with a lady to whom he was temporarily devoted, all " the sweet and honour- able impressions his heart experienced." " I have come home, madame," wrote Dorat, -^ " intoxi- cated with admiration. I was prepared for a sitting of perhaps eight hours, but the reading took between fourteen and fifteen hours, without any other intervals than those required for meals ; and these interruptions, brief though they were, appeared all too long to us. What a work, madame ! How well Rousseau paints himself; and how one loves to recognize him in the portrait ! He achioivledfjes his good qualities ivith a nohle frankness, and his faults with a frankness more nohle still. He dreiv tears from us hy the touching picture of his tnisfortunes ; of his iveaknesses ; of his confidence repaid ivith ingratitude ; of cdl the storms of his heart, so ofte^i wounded hy the treacherous caresses of hyp)ocritcs ; above all, of his softer passions, still dear to the soul they have made unfortunate. And here, perchance my actual state, madame, as much as what I listened to, intensified my emotion. The good Jean Jacques, in his divine memoirs, makes of a woman he adored so enchanting and so lovable a picture, that it seemed to me I recognized you in the portrait, and I rejoiced in this resemblance ; and this joy was exclusively my own " But do not let me speak of myself, lest I should lose your interest ! In truth, the work I am telling you about is a masterpiece of genius, simplicity, candour, and courage. How many supposed giants transformed into ^ First printed in the Journal de Paris, October 9, 1778. 28 A NEW CRITICISM OF ROUSSEAU dwarves ! How many liumble and virtuous men justified and avenged of the injustice of the wicked by the praise of one such honest man ! Every one is named. No one ivho has done the author the smallest kindness is 2)assed over without achnoivledgment : hut, at the same time, he unmasks ivith equal truthfulness the ijnj^ostors ivho ahound in this e^^och. I dwell upon all this, madame, because I have read your generous, noble and delicate soul ; because you love Rousseau ; because you are worthy to admire him ; because I should esteem it a sin to hide from you any of the sweet and honourable impressions my heart experiences." We have now to see what was the judgment passed upon Rousseau's statement of his own case by the public at large when, eighteen years after the private readings and ten years after the author's death, his posthumous story of his misfortunes and wrongs was first given to the world. It must be remembered that his enemies' statement of their case had been already given. A few months after his death, Diderot, whose attacks upon him had been hidden ones during his life-time, published in a note added on to his Essay on Seneca a savage denunciation of the scoundrel, hypocrite, maniac and monster, who, when he had been alive, this same Diderot spoke of as his " old friend Jean Jacques." La Harpe, the exponent of the views of the society of the Baron of Holbach, published in the Mercure de France an obituary notice of Rousseau crowded with calumnies.^ In 1779, d'Alembert, going out of his way to write an obituary notice of Lord Marcchal Keith, took the opportunity of introducing into his article the entirely false charge against Rousseau of base ingratitude and treachery towards his benefactor." In 1780,^ La Harpe, in conjunction with Pierre Rousseau, the editor of the Journal Enci/clo2^edi(jue, endeavoured to launch the theory that Jean Jacques had 1 2 3 gge Appendix, Note B. JUDGMENT ON THE CONFESSIONS 29 basely stolen from an obscure young composer the music of his opera, the Devin du Village. Acquainted with all these calumnies, the public which received the first editions of the Confessions in 1788 did not decide that Rousseau's belief that his self-styled old friends and the society of Baron d'Holbach were his secret enemies and traducers proved the author of Confessions a suspicious maniac. But they held that these suspicions were justi- fied by the behaviour of the very men he accused immediately after his death. Ginguene's Xe^^res sur les " Confessions," published in 1791, represents the authoritative criticisms of the Second Part of the Confessions by a writer who was able to compare Rousseau's statements with facts personally known to him. In the estimation of this competent critic the author of the Co7ifcssions had shown extraordinary moderation and had studiously respected the rule he laid down for himself of saying, even of his enemies, all the good he could, and only the evil he was compelled to reveal in order to explain his own history. Ginguen^ made it his task to show that no charge made by Rousseau was founded upon mere suspicions, but that in every case his statements were based upon the facts of his own experience. And further, Ginguene proved that the persons the author of the Confessions accused of traducing and persecuting him could in every case be shown to have acted in the way he said, and to have used even more malice than he w^as aware of in their efforts to destroy his reputation. " Take Voltaire," wrote Ginguene. "Was Rousseau wrong when he described him as a secret and vindictive enemy ? Consider Voltaire's sentiments towards Rousseau, expressed in different letters ; consider his intimacy with Jean Jacques' enemies, in Paris, in Geneva, in England ; consider what he is known to have said and written, as well as all the writings attributed to him. How could the fugitive and unfortunate author of Emile fail to regard him as an active and implacable enemy ? In 30 A NEW CRITICISM OF ROUSSEAU this epoch, perhaps, it might seem that there were wrongs on both sides. But, no ; one grieves to say it : nothing even in the Letters from the Mountains affords any excuse for the wicked and odious allusions to Rousseau in the War of Geneva, and (since the time has come for giving all men their due) in the execrable anonymous libel the Sentimerit of Citizens. Without mentioning here the name of a man who is still alive, and who has been made famous only by Rousseau's accusations,^ was not the philosopher Hume an enemy of Rousseau's ? Was he not (at the very moment when he was posing in the world's sight as Jean Jacques' protector and benefactor) associated in the composition of a malicious letter, contrived to represent Rousseau as an impostor ? Was not the philosopher d'Alembert Rousseau's enemy 1 Although during Jean Jacques' lifetime he dissimulated his hatred, were not Rousseau's suspicions of his malicious sentiments proved true, by d'Alembert's base accusation asjainst him of insfratitude towards Milord Marechal,^ an accusation as gratuitously false as it was libellous ? Was not the philosopher Diderot, Rousseau's enemy ? A secret enemy during his lifetime, who unmasked himself after his death by his gross and outrageous attack upon the memory of a man who had tenderly loved him ; and who even in his Confessions accused him only of lightness and indiscre- tion, and of too easily allowing himself to be influenced by others ? But to judge between Diderot and Jean Jacques, what is needed ? Merely to compare the note to the Essay on Seneca with the note added on to the Letter to (V Alemhert ; or with the (7on/emo?i5. I know all that our epoch owes to the two first editors of the Encyclopcedia. I respect their courage, learning and literary talents. I am not discussing the motives of their hatred of Rousseau, I am merely pointing out that the violence of this hatred, and the difficulty of holding it in check, are proved by its outbreak immedi- ^ Grimm. - See Appeudix, Note B. JUDGMENT ON THE CONFESSIONS 31 ately after his death ; and that this outbreak lends great probability to Rousseau's belief that it had been for a long time beforehand as secretly active as it was implacable. Finally, was not the reputed good-humoured and kindly Baron d'Holbach, if not a vindictive and bitter enemy of Rousseau's, at any rate a friend of a very singular and doubtful sort ? But, here, I will not go to the Confessions for evidence — I will refer you to the letter of Cerutti of the 2nd December, 1789. To this let me add that I knew M. d'Holbach personally, and that I am willing to agree cordially in all the good things his friends say of Lim, but, all the same, I would point out that under his soft and good-natured appearance he had a great disposition to mockery, that there was something spiteful and cruel in his sarcasms, and that he had a domineering spirit. One fact is certain : doubtless every one does not love and admire Rousseau to the same extent, yet it is not ordinary to hear him described as an impostor, a scamp, a knave, or an infamous scoundrel.^ Well : but an observation I have made, and from which you may derive any conclusions you please, is that I know scarcely any one belonging to the intimate society of the Baron d'Holbach who did not employ these epithets when speaking of Rousseau, and that I never heard them from the mouth of any man who did not belong to this society." Cerutti's letter^ alluded to by Ginguene is worth quoting, in connection with the modern assumption that the notion of a plot against Rousseau amongst les Holhachiens, as he himself styled the Baron's society, is too absurd to be considered. It will be noticed that in this letter d'Holbach admits there was a conspiracy between Diderot, Grimm and himself against Rousseau — " Une conspiration amicale',' to serve Rousseau, in spite of himself, by the singular method of sowing division in his household. ^ In 1791 it had not become the popular doctrine. - It appeared in the Journal de Paris, Dec. 3, 1789. 32 A NEW CRITICISM OF ROUSSEAU " In tlie very hour of his fame," Cerutti makes d'Holbach say, " Rousseau had bound himself to a most sordid union. Impossible to imagine a more afflicting contrast than the one between his genius and his Therese. Diderot, Grhnm and I entered into a friendly conspiracy against this ridicidous and bizarre assemblage. He took offence at our zeal. But the scene which determined his rupture with us, you will find it difficult to believe possible." D'Holbach is here made to give a demonstrably false account of a scene made by Rousseau at his house in July 1755 1— . . . . " We thought," thus, by Cerutti's account, d'Holbach continued, " that Rousseau's rage against us would cool down, and pass away. But it only increased as time went on. Diderot, Grimm and I sought vainly to regain him. He fled from us. Then his misfortunes began. Our only part in them was the affliction they gave us. But he thought our affliction a pretence, and believed we were the cause of all the evil that befell him. One had to renounce, not indeed pitying and admiring him, but loving him, or at least showing him love." This account of d'Holbach's professed " affliction " at Rousseau's misfortunes, and of the pity and admiration he and his associates continued to feel for the unreason- able man who made it impossible for his old friends to go on loving him, must not, of course, be taken literally. We know that what d'Holbach, Diderot and Grimm actually professed to believe was that Rousseau's misfortunes were either imaginary or contrived by himself and his admirers to stimulate public sympathy, and win him notoriety. The epithets that Ginguene quote as fami- liarly employed by d'Holbach and his intimates about Rousseau do not express admiration and pity, but contempt and abhorrence. But the date of this letter must be remembered. In 1789, and still more in 1791, it was unsafe to describe the author of the Contrat ^ See Appendix, Note C, vol. i. p. 364. JUDGMENT ON THE CONFESSIONS z?> Social as " Un gueux, un drole, tm vil coquin, un scelerat," etc. Cerutti's letter to the Journal de Paris is the first public announcement of the revised doctrine, wherein it is no lonojer all Rousseau's old friends who had abandoned him because he had committed actions rendering him unworthy to associate with honest men, but Rousseau who had abandoned his old friends ; not because he was really wicked or malicious, but because he was mad. It is important to establish the true origins of this doctrine — often favoured by the most indulgent of those modern critics who agree in the view that it is " super- fluous to investigate the charges made by the author of the Confessions against his old friends, because they stand condemned by their extravagance." " All the partisans of Rousseau," state the authors of Les Dernieres Annees de Madame d'Epi7iay, " excuse him, by maintaining that he was mad. Let them, have it so. But why then impose upon us as articles of faith, the visions of a madman ? For how should one fail to recognize the crazy extravagance of these perpetual accusations against his friends ? There is no way out of this dilemma. Either Jean Jacques was mad, and his allegations have no value ; or he was in his right mind, and the calumnies he heaped on his friends justify the epithet of ' monster ' Hume applied to him." Attention to evidence shows that the dilemma pre- sented to their readers by MM. Percy and Maugras has no historical existence : inasmuch as the partisans of Rousseau do not attempt to excuse him by maintain- ing that he was mad. The originators of this theory were not his partisans, but his old traducers ; the same men, and the associates of the same men, who, in the days when it was safe to do so, described him as an arti- ficial scoundrel, but who, in full Revolution, found it more prudent to adopt a different theory and profess the belief that the author of the Confessions was mad. To sum up the conclusions reached : — it has been found, VOL. I. 3 34 A NEW CRITICISM OF ROUSSEAU 1st, that, tried by the moral and literary standards of the epoch when the book was written, the Confessions was not judged a "revolting" work, proving the author's depravity, but that the work was pronounced a " masterpiece of genius, sincerity, and courage." 2nd. That judged by critics wlio knew personally the men accused by Rousseau as his secret persecutors and calumniators, his accusations were not considered either extravagant or exaggerated ; but were pronounced en- tirely credible, and confirmed by actions of these same men after Rousseau's death. 3rd. The theory that Rousseau's assertions have no value because they w^ere the allegations of a madman has been found to represent not a doctrine invented by apologists of Rousseau, but an apology made for them- selves by the Holbachians still alive at the time of the Revolution. In brief, the opinion of the best qualified judges of the Confessions does not support the modern opinion that this book alone proves the man who wrote it a monster of depravity ; and in addition to this, " a liar " with regard to his old friends Grimm and Diderot ; but the verdict of these judges leaves undisturbed the theory that Rousseau's character and life lent authority to his writings. THE SECOND THEORY The Sophist and Impostor Jean Jacqiies : or else The double-natured Rousseau CHAPTER IV THE ORIGINS OF, AND THE AUTHORITY FOR, THE MODERN DOCTRINE. GRIMm's LITERARY CORRESPONDENCE, 1812. — MADAME d'ePINAY's MEMOIRS, 1818. AVe have now to see how and why the judgment passed upon Rousseau and upon his Confessions by his contemporaries, and by the best minds in the generation after his own, came to be reversed ; and by what circum- stances and processes of reasoning, distinguished men of letters, who were not historical researchers, arrived at an exactly opposite doctrine of Rousseau's character to the one supported by Mirabeau, Kant and Schiller. Let us trace back to its commencement the turning of the tide of public favour against Rousseau, and the resuscitation, as a sound argument, of Diderot's once un- successful plea — " too many honest men would be in the wrong, if Jean Jacques were in the right." We shall find that the starting-point of the change was the effect pro- duced by a series of publications that followed each other, at short intervals, during a period of six years, from 1812 to 1818. The two most important of these publications were : a printed edition of Grimm's secret manuscript journal, the Correspondance Litteraire; and the posthumous work of Madame d'Epinay's, incorrectly described as her Memoirs. But we have also to count as helpful to the impressions these books produced a series of articles published in the first edition of the BiograjjJiie Uni- verselle, where, under the headings d'Epinay, Grimm, 35 36 A NEW CRITICISM OF ROUSSEAU George Keitli, and J. J. Rousseau, old discredited libels were revived ; and a volume entitled Nouveau Supple- ment au Cours de Litter ature de M. de la Harpe, where La Harpe's former attacks upon Rousseau in the Merciire were reproduced. If we examine under whose auspices these publica- tions were made, we shall find ourselves amongst a group of literary editors and bibliographers who have, no doubt, rendered valuable services to students of France in the eighteenth century, but who, in so far as the deliberate defamation of J. J. Rousseau with the purpose of justify- ing Grimm and Diderot is concerned, were, beyond doubt, the continuators in the nineteenth century of the work done before the Revolution by the society of the Baron d'Holbach. Four master editors stand out, amongst a group of men of letters, as the direct heirs of the Encyclopsedists ; heirs not merely of their sympathies and antipathies, but also, oddly enough, of their position of influence, as well as of their entirely unfair and dishonest methods of utilizing it. For, like the director of the Encyclopcedia and the editor of the Correspo7idance Litteraire, in their day, these leaders of a new campaign of calumny against Rousseau, in an epoch when those who remembered the real man had disappeared (or were soon to disappear), exercised, as editors of the Biographie Universelle, the Manuel des Libraires, and the Dictionnaire des Ano- 7iymes, the powers of commanders-in-chief over a large army of contemporary writers, actually working under their directions ; but who, in the eyes of the public, appeared as the independent supporters of the views they promulgated. These four leading editors and publicists were — 1. Michaud, director and editor-in-chief of the Biographie Universelle ; also one of the editors of the nine printed volumes of the first edition of Grimm's Correspond ance Litteraire. 2. J. C. Brunet, author of the Manuel des Libraires ; THE MODERN DOCTRINE z7 also the purchaser of the original manuscript from which in 1818 he produced the three printed volumes he published under the title of Memoires de Madame d'Epinay. 3. Autoine Alexandre Barbier, the most active and notable of the four. A. A. Barbier was Librarian to the Council of State under Napoleon ; and, after the Restor- ation, Director of the King's library. He is chiefly known to-dav as the author of the Dictionnaire des Anonymcs; but he was also an assistant-editor with Midland of the Biographie Universelle, and one of the editors of the Correspondance Litteraire. Querard in his France Litteraire, and Boiteau in the preface to his second edition of the Memoirs, report that it was to A. A. Barbier in the first instance that the manuscript of Madame d'Epinay's posthumous work— afterwards pur- chased by J. C. Brunet — was offered, and that he kept it for some time and wrote an analysis of the nine volumes.^ He wrote, at any rate, in the guise of a preface to his Nouveau Supplement au Cours de Litterature de la Harpe, a laudatory introductory advertisement for J. C. Brunet's edition of the Memoirs of Madame d'Epinay. 4. Jean Baptiste Suard, a member of the French Academy, before the Revolution, and its secretary, under Napoleon, and after the Restoration. J. B. Suard, al- though more than seventy years of age in 1812, was not only one of the most active editors of the Correspond- ance Litteraii'e ; he appears to have been the originator of ^ This analysis of the original manuscript by A. A. Barbier would be of extreme interest could it be discovered. I have, up to the present moment, hunted vainly through the public libraries in Pai'is for any cojjy of a work which is nevertheless given by Querard and Vapereau amongst the published books of A. A. Barbier. My own experience teaches me caution in the way of positive assertions about the impossibility of recovering lost docu- ments ; but Barbier would seem to have withdrawn his own analysis of Madame d'Epinay's original work out of consideration for J. C. Brunet and Parison, who had transformed it into the printed Memoirs. Nevertheless if this analysis ever was printed and published, it is hardly probable that every copy could have been destroyed. 38 A NEW CRITICISM OF ROUSSEAU the literary enterprise of collecting and printing this secret chronicle that throughout the eighteenth century was read only by its abonnes. It was Suard who obtained (from what sources have not been disclosed) the portion of the Correspondance and the private letters of Grimm that were reproduced in a supplement to the first edition/ The reader has to recollect that this is the same Jean Baptiste Suard who in 1767 had assisted d'Alembert to translate into French, and introduce by a jDreface, Hume's "Succinct Exposure" of the dispute between himself and J. J. Rousseau, and that in the biography of Suard by Garat, it stands stated, that the Baron d'Uolhach loved him as a brother (" le Baron d'Holbach le cherissait comme un frere "). Here then, if proofs were needed of a fact that be- comes palpable when we attend to the methods of these editors, we have established the connection between the literary coterie in the eighteenth century where (and where only by Ginguene's account) Jean Jacques was habitually described as an impostor, a scoundrel, and a calumniator, and the group of editors in the first quarter of the nineteenth century, who were responsible for the collection and dissemination of libels calculated to produce upon the public mind the impression that Rousseau had really deserved these names. Let us now see, in connection with the most important of these publications, viz. the Corres^^ondance Litteraire and the Memoirs of MadaTYie d'Epinay, both the claims made for them and the authority for these claims. The Correspondance Litteraire represented (as has been said) a chronicle of literary, social and political gossip sent away from Paris every fortnight during a period of thirty-seven years (1753-1790). Grimm, the responsible editor, had the active assistance of Diderot and Madame d'Epinay throughout the period of his ^ See in the excellent edition of the Correspondance Litteraire, edited by M. Maurice Tourneux, his introductory notice, vol. i., and also vol. xvi. for the best account of this publication. THE MODERN DOCTRINE 39 secret campaign of calumny against Rousseau. From 1770 onwards the laborious duties of editorship were taken ofi' his hands by Mercier, a Swiss of Zurich, but the new editor of the Correspondance still acted under his predecessor's direction. The essential characteristic of this secret manuscript journal, in an epoch when the activity of the censorship made secret journalism almost a necessity, was that the ahonnes to the Correspondance Litteraire were the ruling Sovereigns in Europe, and a select circle of Ministers, leading politicians, queens of society, and conspicuous men of letters, who, taken together, repre- sented the material and intellectual controllers of the prosjDerity or adversity of any marked individual in Europe. Mr. Morley does not adequately describe the position of influence held by the editor of this secret journal, when he affirms that Grimm " became the literary correspondent of several German sovereigns." He was the literary correspondent, in the first place, of Frederick of Prussia and of Catherine of all the Russias ; those powerful rulers who made it their pride to be protectors of letters, and of persecuted authors of genius. After these potentates, George the Third of England certainly received, if he did not subscribe to, the Correspondance Litteraire. The King of Poland and Queen of Sweden were ahonnes. The reigning Duchess, and after her the reigning Duke of Saxe-Gotha were its constant sup- porters ; so were the Prince of Hesse Darmstadt, the Margrave of Anspach, the Duke des Deux Fonts ; the Prince of Brunswick Wolfenbiittel. It will be under- stood that the secrecy upon which the existence of the manuscript journal depended, stood in the way of any precise record of the editor's most important patrons amongst Royal people. But I am printing here for the first time a list given in a document that will be found amongst Grimm's papers preserved at the Bihliotheque Nationale, of the ahonnes who had paid their subscrip- tions during the years 1 763-1 7G6 : — 40 A NEW CRITICISM OF ROUSSEAU Ducliesse de Saxe-Gotha Baronne de Buchwald .... Princesse Palatine, Duchess des deux Ponts Prince Hereditaire Hesse Darmstadt Princes et Princesses (enfants de la Princesse Hereditaire) Marquise de la Ferte Imbault Marquise de Polignac (Dame d'honneur de la Ducliesse d'Orleans) Madame la Princess de B M. and Mme. Necker . M. Bcthuen de Bordeaux M. Bergerat Mile, de Marx . M. Helvetius Une Societe de Messieurs M. Delorme, Maitre des Eau M. Gatti, medecin du roi H. Walpole M. le Porteur M. de la Fosse . Le Comte de Creutz Comte de Wertlier Marquis de Tavistock . Comte de Pleard . M. de la Live Diderot Commission de Geneve Le Porteur . Mme. de B. S. A. Prince Hereditaire Wolfenbiittel 120 Mozart, Maitre de Chapelle .... 6 Ducliesse d'Enville i 1200 4020 X et des Forets de Brunswick 1 The Duchess d'Enville, who rented Voltaire's house at Geneva, was no doubt as the patroness of the Correspondance Litteraire a THE MODERN DOCTRINE 41 This list as it stands, although it is Dot to be accepted as a complete one, sufficiently indicates the different spheres of influence thrown open to the editor. If he chose to use his opportunities for sowing false statements against a private enemy, the victim, although ignorant of the calumnies circulated against him, would never- theless feel their results in rumours and evil reports of him, current in different countries ; and in the sus- picious or malevolent behaviour towards him of persons who had received these libels as secret information, that could not be verified, because the sources it came from were confidential and personal. But are we free to assume that Grimm did use his position of editor of a secret journal whose ahonnes were the Rulers of Europe, to circulate malignant and gratui- tous calumnies against Rousseau ? Is it not more reasonable to suppose that, called upon as a chronicler of passing events to keep his patrons informed of the doings and writings of a much-talked-of man, he said what he honestly thought about a personage he disliked, and about an author whose genius he was, by his own positive and logical temper, unable to appreciate ? We are free to assume nothing in this inquiry. The only way of determining whether Grimm was a truthful critic or a gratuitous calumniator of Rousseau is to compare his statements about his old friend Jean Jacques in the Coi'respondance Litteraire, ivith the facts of Rousseau's life as Grimm, kneiv them to he ; and the criticism, of his hooks, with the hooks themselves. The results obtained (as we shall presently see) are con- clusive. They show that Grimm attributed to Rousseau screen for Yoltaire himself. See in Moultou's letters to Eousseau from 1762 to 1765, the frequent references to the salon of the Duchesse d'Enville as the place where Voltaire, Tronchin, and other enemies of Rousseau discuss him : thus Letter xix, p. 50 (July 7, 1762), Letter xxiv, p. 57 (August 21, 1762), Letter liv, p. 100 (July 15, 1763), /. J. Rousseau, ses Amis et ses Ennemis. Streckeisen- Moultou. 42 A NEW CRITICISM OF ROUSSEAU actions he knew well his old friend had never committed; and that he condemned and ridiculed in his writings principles and opinions which are nowhere professed by Rousseau. They show, too, that the purpose of these falsehoods was to create in the minds of high and mighty personages on whom a persecuted author would neces- sarily depend for protection, the impression that here was a mischievous sophist and a dangerous demagogue who, wherever he settled, created quarrels and disorder. Unfortunately, however, this method of inquiry, al- though a simple, is a laborious one. It was not the one adopted when the publication of the Correspondance Litteraire, in 1812, gave to the world for the first time, thirty-four years after Rousseau's death (that is to say, when the true man was forgotten), the whole collection of libels against him that Grimm had industriously circulated amongst his illustrious patrons during a period of thirty-seven years ; and, moreover, gave these libels as unanswered statements ; because (as has been said) neither Rousseau nor any of his defenders knew about this undero-round stream of calumnies flowino; in hidden places. For judges who based their opinions on what it seems most reasonable to suppose, it may easily be understood that the conclusion reached was that a man incessantly represented upon all manner of different occasions as false, treacherous, ungrateful, must, if even he did not deserve all the evil said of him, have deserved a goodly portion of it. Yet the impression produced by the Corresiwndance Litteraire would hardly have sustained itself, and espe- cially it would not have affected the opinions of the large number of readers for whom criticism is always tiresome, and only narrative entertaining, had not these nine volumes sown with libels been soon followed by a shorter work, where all the charges against Rousseau reappeared interwoven amongst the incidents of a viva- cious and well- written story. This novel with a purpose was published in 1818, under the title of Memoires de THE MODERN DOCTRINE 43 Madame cVEpinay. The manuscript employed by J. C. Brunet, the editor, professed he had purchased in 1817, from the heirs of a person unknown to fame but de- scribed as a former secretary of Grimm's, and called Lecourt de Villiere. Querard and Boiteau, it has been seen, affirm that before being acquired by Brunet, the manuscript had been offered to A. A. Barbier, and we shall presently find it proved that before 1815 the editors of the Biogi^aphie Univei^selle must have been familiar with the manuscript afterw^ards used by the editor of these so-called Memoirs. By the account given in a preface which introduced this edition, Madame d'Epiuay's posthumous work was said to represent her reminiscences ; containing her own justification and the justification of her lover Grimm from the charges brought against them by the author of the Confessions. It was further alleged by the writer of this preface that Madame d'Epinay had not intended this work for publication, but that it was written by her for the entertainment of a chosen circle of friends to whom she had been in the habit of reading it aloud, during the last years of her life. Grimm, who had inherited it after her death, had not only neglected to publish it, but had contemptuously described it in the account he gave of the manuscripts left by Madame d'Epinay, as the sketch of a long novel, — " rebauche d'un long romanJ' " This novel," affirmed the editor of the printed book, " was, as a matter of fact, the lady's Memoirs.'^ Why Grimm should have described Madame d'Epinay's Memoirs as the " sketch of a novel," and why especially he did not publish a work full of literary merit, and which seemed especially written for his own (Grimm's) glorification, J. C. Brunet did not attempt to explain. Nor did he explain how he himself came to discover this very interesting manuscript thus late in the day, in the possession of persons whom he did not name otherwise than as " the heirs of Lecourt de Villiere." But here, too, the Memoirs were accepted by the 44 A NEW CRITICISM OF ROUSSEAU general reader in good faith ; and the delay in publica- tion was supposed to have arisen naturally as a result of the motive of the authoress to justify herself in the eyes of her private friends only, in a journal written without any notion that it would ever be made public, still less be handed down to posterity. Evidently also the accidental character attributed to the discovery of the manuscript enhanced the value of Madame d'Epinay's testimony as that of a witness taken unawares, and off her guard ; and whose corroboration of the charges made by the editor of the Correspondancc Litter aire was consequently a proof of their veracity. We shall have by and by to examine whether atten- tion to the facts of the case allows us to believe that it was by accident that the discovery of the manuscript work left by Madame d'Epinay followed immediately after the death of the last person amongst Rousseau's con- temporaries who could have contradicted the account given in it of the quarrel between Rousseau and his old friends. But here we must attend to the other writings, pre- pared to appear in such a way as to lend support to the theory of Rousseau's character set forth in the Corre- spondancc Litteraire, and in the Memioirs; and to strengthen the impressions these works produced. Different articles in the Biographic Universellc and in the Manuel des Lihraires were used to revive old discredited libels against Rousseau, refuted and rejected by his contemporaries ; but which, resuscitated when the disputes that had once occupied public attention were forgotten, served to give new force to the argument that where there is smoke there is fire ; and that if Rousseau were innocent, it seems strange so many different persons should unite to describe an honest man as an impostor. Amongst the articles in the Biogi^aphie Universelle containing allusions to Rousseau, the notice upon Madame d'Epinay is especially important : because it confirms the statements that the manuscript employed THE MODERN DOCTRINE 45 for tlie production of Madame d'Epinay's Memoirs was, before its purchase by J. C. Brunet, in the possession of A. A. Barbier. Barbier, it must not be forgotten, was one of the editors of the Biograpliie Universelle ; and we feel this editor at the elbow of the contributor Laporte, who writes and signs the notice upon Madame d'Epinay, giving him special information, intended to prepare the way for the publication that was to be made three years later. It may safely be affirmed that when the first edition of the Biograpliie Universelle appeared, no one had ever heard of the existence of a work of Madame d'Epinay's destined to serve as a rejDly to the author of the Confessions. A sufficient proof exists of the falsity of the statement tha.t Madame d'Epinay was in the habit of reading this work to a private circle of friends, and that its existence and purpose were open secrets. When the Second Part of the Confessions appeared, in 1789, Ginguene, as we have seen, directly challenged Grimm and Grimm's friend, to defend him against Rous- seau's charges, if they were false. Can it be supposed that if the secret that Madame d'Epinay had written a reply to the Confessions had been an open one, no defender of Grimm's would have reminded Ginguene of the existence of this work ? "Some of Madame d'Epinay's contemporaries affirm," wrote Laporte in the Biograijliie Utiiverselle, " that they knew the Memoirs of her life, a work apparently intended to destroy the displeasing impressions of her left by Rousseau's account of her given in the Second Part of the Confessions. This work was kept for a long time in manuscript form, and the authoress was in the habit of reading it aloud to a number of her most assiduous friends. It is further said these very interesting Memoirs were suppressed, either by Madame d'Epinay herself, or by Grimm. One cannot but regret it ! Who would not have wished to hear the two society women upon whom this famous author has, with such grave 46 A NEW CRITICISM OF ROUSSEAU indiscretion, fastened public attention, not indeed defend themselves, for neither Madame d'Epinay nor Madame d'Houdetot appear to have merited any blame — but relate their version of the story, and reply to a man who had on his side the huge advantage of pleading his own cause unanswered and with all the force lent him by the most seductive style ? " It will be observed that no attempt is made by Laporte to specify who were the contemporaries who affirmed that they had known the Memoirs of Madame d'Epinay. In the conditions of prevailing ignorance of the author's intention, his affirmation provoked neither comment nor inquiry. It was only three years later that the object of these affirmations might (had any critic been on his guard) have been discovered. In the preface to J. 0. Brunet's edition of the printed Memoirs, the editor quotes the author of the notice on Madame d'Epinay in the JBiograjDhie Universelle as his authority, and the only authority he can cite, for the assertion that Madame d'Epinay's contemporaries knew she had written the Memoirs of her life ! " Several persons," wrote the author of the preface, " who knew that Madame d'Epinay had written the Memoirs of her life, and that at her death the manuscript remained in Grimm's hands, had appeared to fear that Grimm had suppressed the work. Such, for instance, is the opinion of the author of the notice upon Madame d'Epinay in the Biographic Universelle." Another notice in the Biographic Universelle affords proof that the manuscript used for Madame d'Epinay's Memoir's was in the hands of the editors. In the article under the heading "J. J. Rousseau," by Sevelinges,^ was reproduced a libellous story which is the original inven- 1 S. V. S. signature. Sevelinges belonged to the circle of the Encyclopaedists. Diderot, writing to Mile. Voland on Nov. 17, 1765, says, "La Baronne (d'Holbach) nous prit, Grimm M. Sevelinges et moi, dans son carosse : nous allames en corps entendre le Pantalone," etc. — Corresp. de Diderot. THE MODERN DOCTRINE 47 tion of the author of tlic Memoirs, and is found in no other version of these events — viz. the imaginary incident of the anonymous letter sent to Saint-Lambert, which in Madame d'Epinay's story is made to explain how the Marquis in Westphalia came to be informed that Jean Jacques and Madame d'Houdetot were taking too long and too frequent rambles in the forest of Montmorency. The motive of this invented anonymous letter was to find a method of escape from the conclusion that Rousseau's suspicions were correct : and that Madame d'Epinay must have been the person who let Saint- Lambert know that his mistress was consoling herself in his absence by a perilous flirtation with Rousseau. The article by Sevelinges upon J. J. Rousseau, pub- lished under the direction of Michaud and A. A. Barbier, as editors of the Biographie Universelle, excited a great deal of indignation in circles where Rousseau's memory was still respected. This is how Querard speaks of the notice in his France Contemporaine : — " The notice of J. J. Rousseau in volume xxxix. of the Biographie Univei'selle is an infamous libel. It has been made the subject of a protest inserted in the Globe, voL i. p. 335, and we reproduce it literally, because it seems to us to describe, m so far as Rousseau is con- cerned, the sjnrit M. Michaud has given his publica- tion. ' A livins; man who is calumniated can invoke the aid of the law ; but calumny in history can only be de- nounced and exposed by the public. Journalists, who represent public opinion, ought then to punish it by denouncing it. In volume xxxix. of the Biographie Universelle, at the article " J. J. Rousseau," where one would expect to find a critical appreciation of a famous man, one finds merely a spiteful selection from his own Confessions of the stories about his faults exclusively. So far one has only to complain of the waste of time and the lack of criticism. But what is much graver, two imputations are made which, if advanced at all, required 48 A NEW CRITICISM OF ROUSSEAU to be supported by solid proofs. Thus the biographer affirms that Rousseau was the author of an anonymous letter to Saint-Lambert and that he did not hesitate to lay the charge of this base action to some one else. What authority does he quote to prove that infamous charge ? The Memoirs of Mwrnnontel,^ without giving the f)age, and the testimony of a person he does not name, who had (so it is said) as good opportunities as Marmontel had, to know the real facts. As if one ever had good opportunities for knowing the author of an anonymous letter ! Or as if, in the event of possessing such know- ledge, one were not bound to indicate how one had obtained it, when making one's information public. The writer elsewhere insinuates that it was not an old ribbon which Rousseau stole in the house of Madame de Vercellis. At first sight the object stolen may seem of small importance, when the theft is ad- mitted. But if Jean Jacques imposed upon his readers when making this avowal, the merit and pathos of his repentance would be spoilt by this falsehood — so thus one would naturally expect that S. V. S. would bring some irrefutable proofs in support of this grave allegation 1 *' ' But here we have his own words : " Incfiuries made a long tim^e since in the home of this event have led to the presumption that this ' old ribbon ' ivas in reality a silver spoon ; other people say, a diamond." One must have a great taste for defamation to reproduce, in a pro- fessedly historical notice, rumours of this sort, which have only one merit — that they contradict each other. It may easily be understood that immediately after the death of a celebrated man — when all the passions that were felt and excited by him are still living memories around his coffin, people may eagerly discuss his character and actions ; and that those who were jealous ^ Marmontel says nothing whatever about an anonymous letter attributed to Madame d'Epinay. He follows Diderot and accuses Rousseau of having written " an atrocious letter " to Saint-Lambert. THE MODERN DOCTRINE 49 of the superiority of liis genius, may studiously hunt up and dilate upon his private weaknesses. That is a pleasure belonging to contemporaries, which in this case we need not envy our fathers. But when the ashes of a great writer are cold, and when posterity is called upon to judge — to arrive with the spiteful gossip and slanders of the scandal- mongers of fifty years ago, is to offend against the respect one owes to genius, to one's readers and to one's self.' The editors of the Globe have added to this letter the following reflections : ' After reading this letter, we made it our task to look up the article denounced. As a matter of fact, this notice is written with savage hatred (ecrit avec une haine acharnee). We do not know the works of Monsieur S. V. S. But he should be an ineffably superior being who can wind up his notice by such a sentence as this : " The writer who took for his motto Vitam impendere vero has not perhaps left behind him one truthful utterance useful to tiie human race." If S. V. S. is merely ridiculous, what are we to say of M. Michaud ? ' " Another publication has to be noticed. In 1818, a few months after the appearance of the Memoira of Madame dEpinay by J. C. Brunet, A. A. Barbier published a volume under the title of Nouveaii Supplement au cows de Litterature de M. de la Haipe. The so-called Supplement to La Harpe's Cours de Litterature represented merely a reprint from the Mercure of his libellous articles ao:ainst Rousseau, but the volume gains importance from the preface, where we find it plainly stated by A. A. Barbier, that, with the Memoirs of Madame d'Epinay, and ivith Grimms Correspondance, the Supplement was intended to pro- duce a reversal of the judgment passed upon Rousseau by his contem^poraries. " The apology of the great men of the eighteenth century against J, J. Rousseau," wrote A. A. Barbier in this preface, " is contained in the account given by M. de la Harpe in the Mercure de France of M. Ginguen^'s VOL. I. 4 50 A NEW CRITICISM OF ROUSSEAU Letters upon the Confessions. In these well-written letters, M. Ginguen^ had shown hnnself convinced of the real existence of a sort of conspiracy amongst the eigh- teenth century philosophers against the most eloquent man amongst them. M. de la Harpe, who had remarked on a number of occasions the fatal symptoms of the malady by luhich J. J. Rousseau ivas tormented, de- fended with manly energy the great men accused in the Confessions and by M. Ginguene. These articles, five in number, form a work distinguished by a fine style and by force of argument.^ The malady of J. J. Rousseau took such developments that, in the last years of his life, he believed the whole world conspired against him. M. J. C. Brunet, author of the excellent Manuel des Libr aires, has just published the Memoirs and Corre- spondence of Madame d'Epinay ; where the authoress gives the details of her relationships with Duclos, J. J. Rousseau, Grimm, Diderot, the Baron d'Holbach and other celebrated personages in the eighteenth century. The details given by Madame d'Epinay ought to show in their true light the suspicions and precautions of J. J. Rousseau against his principal friends. Already Grimm's Correspondaiice Litter aire had greatly contributed to rehabilitate the memory of this philosophical man of letters. Thus it happens that a severe and an impartial posterity sooner or later re-establishes the truths obscured by the passions and prejudices of contempo- raries. One experiences a sweet satisfaction, when these revelations contribute to the justification of men distin- guished by their talents." Later on in this inquiry we shall discover how in- secure were the foundations of A. A. Barbier's " sweet satisfaction " in the belief that the publication of the Corresp>ondance Litter aire would serve to rehabilitate Grimm, and to justify him from the charge of being a gratuitous calumniator of Rousseau if ever " a severe and an impartial posterity " took the trouble to re-establish ^ fc>ee Appendix, Note C C, vol, i. p. 366. THE MODERN DOCTRINE 51 by historical investigatious the true facts of his treatment of his old friend Jean Jacques. But, first of all, we have to see how Barbier's satisfac- tion was justified by the immediate impression these publications produced, not only upon the general reader, but also upon critics who were men of letters, and not historical researchers — literary connoisseurs, to use an expression favoured by Saint-Beuve, whose special func- tion was not to sift evidence, but to deal intelligently and artistically with ideas and opinions as they were presented to them. CHAPTER V THE IMPRESSION MADE UPON LITERARY CONNOISSEURS BY MADAME D'ePINAy's MEMOIRS. The position taken up by literary critics who formed their judgment of Jean Jacques Rousseau upon Grimm's Literary Correspondence and Madame d'Epinay's Memoirs is one that recommends itself at first sight by its extreme reasonableness. With regard to Grimm first of all. It is not claimed for him that he is an entirely impartial or a trustworthy judge of Rousseau. It is admitted that he disliked him, for personal reasons ; it is also recognized that his position and practical spirit rendered him insensible to Rousseau's peculiar merits as a literary artist. But when allowances have been made for these antipathies and limitations, it is afiirmed that Grimm had a clear head and a judicial mind ; that he knew Rousseau very well : and that his opinion is worth considering. Again, with regard to Madame d'Epinay : it is not claimed that her Memoirs give us a faultlessly exact and an historically accurate narrative of her relations with Rousseau. Here, too, we must make allowances, and understand that when painting her own picture, and the pictures of the men and women of her society, this skilful artist has naturally flattered some of her portraits, and exaggerated the ugly features in others. In the case of her ungrateful j^^'ot^ge, Jean Jacques, we may take it for granted that when describing his behaviour Madame d'Epinay has heightened the colour of his ofi"ences ; and toned down any causes he may have had for irritation against Grimm for high-handed treatment of his foibles and extravagances ; and any cause of dissatisfaction with 52 i MADAME D'EPINAY'S MEMOIRS 53 herself for indiscretion or curiosity in connection with his passion for Madame d'Houdetot. But when all these admissions have been made, there still remains, in addition to the strong argument of the agreement between her own description and Grimm's, an irresistible impression (so these literary critics decide) that her portrait is too vivid and startling in its reality not to be painted from the life. But about Madame d'Epinay's merits as a painter of the life of her epoch, and about the impression of essential veracity conveyed by her Memoirs, let us hear the opinion of critics who were themselves word-painters of extraordinary merit — I mean the Brothers de Goncourt. " We have a masterpiece produced in this epoch," w^rote the authors of La Femme au Dix-huitieme Siecle, " a masterpiece by a woman's hands, where the excellence is not due to imagination, but to observation ; a psychological observation which penetrates and interprets character and feeling. The woman who has given us this strange and fascinating book wrote under the charm of a novel of Eousseau's. She, too, imagined herself to be writing a novel. But it is her own life she discloses — her own epoch that she lays bare. She had only aspired to equal the Nouvelle Helo'ise — she succeeded in surpassing the Confessions ! For in Eousseau's Confessions we have one man, but in Madame d'Epinay's Memoirs we have a whole society. Marriage customs and intrigues, domestic life and adultery, conventions and scandals, old institutions and prejudices, and restless new ideas ; the whole drama in all its general aspects is played out before us, at the same time that special scenes unravel their complications and reach their climax. And around these facts of the daily life, the atmosphere of the century circulates. Conversations come to us from this book with the sound iof voices. We hear the guests chatter, sittins; round Mile. Qumault's dinner table. Indiscreetly, we listen at 54 A NEW CRITICISM OF ROUSSEAU tlie door to tlie scene of jealousy between Madame d'Epinay and Madame de Yersel, an admirable scene — no dialogue upon our modern stage equals it in natural- ness ! The faces of the women stand out from the pages of the book. Madame d'Ai'ty, Madame d'Houdetot, Madame de Jully, Mile. d'Ette, all personages who have in them the breath of life ; and this warm breath passes into their speech. Duclos frightens one : and Rousseau's likeness is terrifying. The smaller men too, Margency and his peers, are painted in a few words, sketched to the very soul of them, as they pass. Incomparable confessions — where, from the study of the world around her, of her husband, of her lover, of herfriends, of her family, the woman returns constantly to the study of herself : to the recomition of her own weaknesses, searching: out her mind and her heart, counting its beatings, exposing its cowardice and frailty. Self-knowledge, and the knowledge of others, have never perhaps under any man's pen gone so far as this ; under no woman's pen can they go further." Here we have a judgment delivered by literary connoisseurs that all appreciative readers of the Memoirs will pronounce correct. It is true that this skilful artist knows how to call back to life social surroundino;s and states of feeling that men and women of like passions with ourselves once knew, but which have ceased to exist. True, that she gives us an entrance into her salon, and that the conversations oroino- on there reach us " like the sound of voices." True that, by her talent, the sun is made to shine again upon a world where the sun has ceased to shine — but (and this is a question that at once shows us the difference between the purposes of literary and of historical criticism) because she has made the sun shine again does she necessarily render a true account of the things done under this sun f Tlie assumption is that she does : not perhaps a literal and an exact account, that can stand the testing of every detail : but an account that leaves a true MADAME D'EPINAY'S MEMOIRS 55 impression. Even the de Goncourts took this for granted. " Duclos," they wrote : " effraye. Rousseau ressemhle cb faire peur^ But the Duclos who frightens one by his cynical malice and wickedness in the Memoirs was, by the verdict of his contemporaries, one of the most estimable men of his time. But the sophist and hypocrite Rousseau of the Memoirs, who so closely resembles the " monster" painted by Diderot and Grimm, was the "virtuous citizen of Geneva," painted by impartial witnesses. If we examine into the matter attentively, we shall find that, with men of letters especially, it is before all things admiration of the essential veracity of Madame d'Epinay (when tried by literary and artistic standards) which convinces them that the portrait we have of Rousseau in her Memoirs must be accepted as historically correct — a portrait painted from the life. And this portrait has the same features which characterize the picture of Jean Jacques given by the editor of the Correspondance Litteraire. Here, then, we have arrived at the foundations of the doctrine of Rousseau's repulsive personality held by Sainte-Beuve, by Saint- Marc Girardiu and by E. Scherer, and after these distinguished French critics (counted by the English biographer of Rousseau the saner and more rational of those who have judged him) by Mr. John Morley. In the case of Sainte-Beuve. the literarv allegiance to the authoress of the Memoirs is easily established. One has only to refer to the Causeries and to the incessantly quoted articles — the first, upon Madame d'Epinay, June 1850, where Rousseau is accused by implication of having falsified the letters he reproduces in the Confessions ; the second on Grimm, January 1852, where Rousseau is frankly called a liar — in order to realize that the foundations of Sainte-Beuve's convictions are upon his belief in the essential veracity of ^ladame d'Epinay. It should, however, be recognized that Sainte-Beuve himself never professed to have pronounced an authori- 56 A NEW CRITICISM OF ROUSSEAU tative historical sentence upon Rousseau : that he gave his opinion emphatically in favour of Madame d'Epinay and of Grimm, and against the author of the Confessions, as a conviction that satisfied him, and not as a final historical judgment that everyone was bound to accept; and that he prefaced one of the most emphatic and important of these statements of his private opinions with the words : " II ne saurait etre de mon dessein d'examiner ici ce proces." Amongst critics of the Correspondance Litterairej Sainte-Beuve distinguished himself by affirming that Grimm was not only honest, but j)Ositively generous, in his treatment of Rousseau. The only supposition one can make which expLiins this astonishing assertion, is that the author of the Causeries did not in this case, either, feel it incumbent upon him to examine the facts : but that he based his conclusions solely upon Grimm's avoidance, in the sort of biographical sketch he drew up of his old friend's youth and early manhood, of all mention of the sending of his children to the Foundling Hospital. As a matter of fact, this biographical sketch, as will presently be seen, was especially planned to produce the false impression that Rousseau had been prepared by humiliations and bitter experiences in early manhood for the role of a mischievous demagogue and a sour- tempered misanthrope ; and especially for a secret malicious hatred of "great people" — such as were the ahonyiGS to the Correspondance Litteraire. His hints about the domestic life of one whom he has endeavoured to paint as base and despicable in all his relations, can hardly be supposed to indicate respect for the obligation of old friendship ; and we shall not fail to discover the true reasons for this apparent reticence later on. But let us hear Sainte-Beuve himself: — " In the Cori^espondance Litteraire,'' affirms this critic, " Rousseau is not badly treated, as one would have expected him to be. Even when his principles and systems are condemned, his talents are highly praised. MADAME D'EPINAY'S MEMOIRS 57 Grimm takes his stand by the Discourse upon Inequality. Here he finds the whole of Rousseau's doctrine. In a just and masterly argument, he fixes the precise point where he considers this eloquent writer goes astray, and where his doctrine lapses into extravagance ; and he makes it his task to refute what is false, and to rectify the central idea — viz. Rousseau's pretension to lead man back to one knows not what golden age, at which point he regrets that human progress was not arrested In the kind of biography ^ which Grimm gave of Rousseau at the time of Emile (June 15, 1762), the author of the Correspondance Litteraire stops short in his reminis- cences at the point when they might lead to indiscreet revelations, and to a violation of the claims of an old friendshii^ ; and after tracing the principal epochs of Rousseau's life and his first more or less strange adventures, he adds : ' His private and domestic life would 7iot make a less curious story, hut it is written in the memory of one or two of his old friends who from self- respect, refrain from writing it elsewhere.' Had Grimm been the perfidious traitor Rousseau believed, what a fine opportunity he might have had here to relate what, in contrast to the doctrines set forth in Emile, had been Rousseau's conduct to his own children ; as well as many other details, that were only made known afterwards by the Confessions.'' It is not, however, in reality Grimm or the Corre- spondance Litteraire, w^hich has produced upon Sainte- Beuve's mind the impression that Jean Jacques Rousseau was a calumniator. It is Madame d'Epinay who fasci- nates this literary connoisseur, as she fascinated those other literary connoisseurs, the de Goncourts, with her charm as a maitresse de salon, in that world whereon the sun has set ; and where she still entertains modern guests able to feel themselves at home in her domain, and to accept at her hands her introductions to famous people, and to men and women whose names have died, all upon 1 See vol. ii. pp. 95-100. 58 A NEW CRITICISM OF ROUSSEAU equal terms. Accomplished travellers like Sainte-Beuve, E. Scherer and the de Goncourts, in these domains of the mind where this typical woman of good society keeps always open house, show the sensitiveness of favoured guests to a charming hostess, where Madame d'Epinay is concerned. They are irritated by a small and petty criticism (as they take it to be) which convicts this fascinating mattresse de salon of inaccurate state- ments. Let fault-finders leave Madame d'Epinay's Memoirs alone — the fact that they find faults proves them bad critics. " The Memoirs of Madame d'E2nnay," affirmed Sainte-Beuve, " are not a book only, they give us an epoch. All the literature of the time is in Grimm : all the life of society is in Madame d'Epinay." Et voild. As to the origins of the book, whether it was rightly called the llemoirs of Madame d'Epinay ; whether it was a novel, that had been doctored by the editor of the printed edition ; whether this editor's story of how the original manuscript came into his hands were not suspiciously vague, etc., — about all these questions, the author of the Causeries not only had not a word to say, but showed no consciousness that they had ever been discussed, or deserved discussion. It hardly seems possible that Sainte-Beuve, writing in 1850-52, was unaware that Musset Pathay, in 1818 and in 1826, had called in question all the statements made by J. C. Bruuet, or by Parison, in the preface to the first edition of the Mem^oirs. Yet the author of the Causeries repeats all Brunet's assertions about the lucky discovery of this work that " ran a great risk of re- mainius: unknown — when it fell into the hands of the learned editor, M. Brunet." Sainte-Beuve takes Madame d'Epinay as literally as her editor. He bases his opinion of Grimm on the account given in the Memoirs and warns readers against the falsehoods — as he assumes them to be — told by the author of the Coifessions. MADAME D'EPINAY'S MEMOIRS 59 " Grimm," writes Sainte-Beuve, '' as I recognize him from the testimony given by his friend, is an upright, a judicious, a reliable man ; formed in early youth for com- merce with the world, having a poor opinion of men in general and judging them severely, and with none of the false views and philanthropic illusions of the time. Let us be on our guard against judging him by Rousseau's account, who never forgave him for having been the first to penetrate ivith a clear and pitiless gaze his inc^irable vanity. . . . People are not just to Grimm. One never hears his name mentioned without some displeasing adjective tacked on to it. For some time I had myself a prejudice against him. But when I inquired into the cause of this prejudice, I found that my dislike to Grimm was only based on the statements made about him by J. J. Rousseau in his Confessions. But Rousseau, whenever his diseased self-love and morbid vanity are concerned, has no scruples about lying. And J have arrived at this conviction — that with regard to Grimm, he was a liar." We are not told by what mental process Sainte-Beuve had reached this conviction. But the clue is found later on in the same Causerie. In connection with the final rupture between Rousseau and Madame d'Epinay, Sainte- Beuve draws attention to the different versions of important letters given in the Memoirs, and in the Confessions : — " It does not belong to me to decide the case," he writes ; " but when one reads Madame d'Epinay's Memoirs on the one hand, and the Confessions on the other, one discovers that letters quoted in both works — letters that should serve to throw light upon the questions at issue — are not reproduced in the same way : in other words, up)on one side or the other these im- portaiit letters have been falsified, and some one has lied. I do not believe it was Madame d'Epinay.'' That is to say, here again Sainte-Beuve had " arrived at the conviction " that Rousseau was a liar. 6o A NEW CRITICISM OF ROUSSEAU But twelve years after the author of the Causeries had confided to the world his views, the only evidence that could satisfactorily decide the case proved that Sainte- Beuve's " conviction " was a blunder. In 1865 M. Streck- eisen-Moultou published from the original autographs preserved in the Neuchatel Public Library, the authentic letters of Madame d'Epinay, of Rousseau, of Diderot and of Grimm, differently reproduced in the Confessions and in the Memoirs} This pul)lication establishes finally that Rousseau had reproduced the true documents : and that the " some one " who had lied, by falsifying evidence serving to throw light upon the questions at issue, ivas the author of the Memoirs. It is characteristic of the methods of criticism followed in this particular case, that M. Streckeisen-Moultou's volumes J. J. Rousseau, ses Amis et ses Ennemis, are frequentl)?- quoted by the same critics, who continue to cite, as though it remained an authoritative sentence, Sainte-Beuve's " conviction " that, with regard to Grimm and Madame d'Epinay, J. J. Rousseau was a liar. In so far as Sainte-Beuve is concerned, he was justified in saying that the character of his delightful essays in literature, published in the Revue des Deux Mondes weekly, under the title of " Causeries du lundi," did not pledge their author to solve by original researches vexed historical questions. The blame was, therefore, with his readers, rather than with the brilliant essayist himself, if the authority of a decisive judgment was imputed to what he put forward as a personal opinion upon a ques- tion of facts he was careful to state he had not made it his business to examine {il 7ie saurait etre de tnon dessein d' examiner ici ce proces). The same apology, however, does not hold good in the case of Saint-Marc 1 These letters are found in the Memoirs, vol. iii. pp. 70, 71, 73. In the Confessions, Part II, liv. ix. In Streckeisen-Moultou's J. J. Rousseau, ses Amis et ses Ennemis, vol. i. pp. 341, 342, 343. See also Prof. Ritter's Nouvelles Reciter dies sur la Correspondance de J. J. Rousseau. MADAME D'EPINAY'S MEMOIRS 6i Girardin ; who, as the author of what professed to be studies upon the Life and Writings of J. J. Rousseau, was bound by the character of his work to acquaint himself with established facts, as well as with all that had been said and written upon the subject. Neverthe- less in 1851, that is to say, thirty-one years after Musset Pathay's Life of Rousseau, this new biographer entirely ignored all the evidence put forward by his predecessor in proof of the unreliability of the so-called Memoirs of Madame cVEpinay (soit que ces Memoires ne rem- plissent aucune des conditions exigees pour constater la certitude, soit parcequ'il y a des faits dont la faussete est demontree). Without showing any know- ledge of the admissions of the original editor, J. C. Brunet, that the printed volumes given the public represented only those parts of the original narrative that wore an air of probability, and that evidently imaginary and fanciful episodes had been suppressed, Saint-Marc Girardin adopted in his serious biography the same method that Sainte-Beuve had, with much more excuse, followed in the Causeries. Trusting to his own personal conviction that Madame d'Epinay was a more trustworthy witness than Rousseau, he took the Memoirs in one hand and the Confessions in the other, compared the two narratives, reconciled them (when reconciliation was possible) by supposing Rousseau's account tainted by his mania of suspicion ; and when the different stories could not be reconciled, when it became evident that one of the two accounts must be false, and that " some one had lied," deciding off-hand that the " liar " was J. J. Rousseau. It is thus upon no more solid grounds than the asser- tion " Madame d'Epinay tells a different story " that this biographer rejects as "pure affectation of simplicity and awkwardness," Rousseau's account of his poor perform- ances as an actor in the private theatricals at I^a Chevrette ; his " fairy-tale " about Madame d'Epinay 's charming method of offering him the Hermitage ; his 62 A NEW CRITICISM OF ROUSSEAU " novel " (in other words his own account, given in the Confessions), of his romantic passion for Madame d'Houdetot. But this is not all. Saint-Marc Girardin not only prefers to accept the account given in the Memoirs about events differently related in the Confessions, for no better reason than his faith in the " essential veracity " of Madame d'Epinay, but, upon the same faith, he bases assertions about Rousseau's life and conduct which are directly contradicted by well-established facts and by the testimony of contemporaries. Nothing, for instance, is more certain than that Rousseau did practise the trade of a copyist of music seriously ; that he supported himself and Therese by his earnings ; and that without this supplement to the sums paid him at intervals for his books he could not have existed independently of the pensions and patronage that the more prosperous men of letters who sneered at him — Diderot and d'Alembert, to say nothing of Grimm — were constantly ready to accept and even solicit. Yet, on the faith of the statements of Madame d'Epinay and Grimm, this biographer boldly affirms that when professing to follow the trade of a copyist, Rousseau was an impostor, a charlatan ; and that his anger with Grimm, when this professed friend made it his task to decry his skill as a copyist, was not founded upon the real injury done him by depriving him of work he was honestly ready to perform, but was the result of vexation at the exposure of his sham pro- fessions to practise any trade but that of a man of letters. " What afflicted Rousseau," affirmed Saint-Marc Girardin, " was not that Grimm criticized his skill as a workman, but that he put him to shame by exposing him as a humbug." No fact, again, is more open to proof than Rousseau's true love of independence, and his consistent rejection of substantial benefits and offers of patronage and assist- ance pressed upon him (as he says himself) with all the MADAME D'EPINAY'S MEMOIRS 63 more zeal and persistency because his reluctance to accept favours Avas notorious. But all these proofs of disinterestedness are ignored ; and Saint-Marc Girardin boldly asserts that Rousseau did not refuse favours, but only declined to be grateful for them. " By way of a commencement Rousseau accepted everything," affirmed his biographer ; " services, benefits, carriages. He was, if I may so express it, prodigal in receiving. But on the very next day he began to make up his accounts ; and sought to free himself from obliga- tions by resentuient against those who had obliged him. His method of recovering independence was ingratitude. Then he realized his poverty and its inconvenience, but only as grievances against others. Thus, with angry emphasis, he told how he had to clean his own boots amongst twenty servants supposed to be at his disposal. Rousseau had in him every type of poverty — the poor man who is shy aud awkward, the envious and un- grateful poor man, and the ill-natured and declamatory poor man, a type of recent growth to a great extent created by him." " II acceptait tout le premier jour : — services, bienfaits, carrosses ; il etait prodigue a recevoir : mais des le lendemain il commencait a faire ses comptes et tachait de s'acquitter par le mecontentement." Here is a sentence almost as popular with modern critics of Rousseau as Sainte-Beuve's vigorous phrase describing the author of the Confessions as a liar. But here, also, examination into the historical authority for this sentence proves it founded upon an impression derived from demonstrably false assertions made by Madame d'Epinay. The judgment passed upon Rousseau by E. Scherer has also indubitably its foundations upon belief in the veracity of Madame d'Epinay. Upon Grimm's criticism of Rousseau, or calumnies against Rousseau, in the Correspondance Litteraire, E. Scherer has not much to say. " The quarrel," he affirms, " with 64 A NEW CRITICISM OF ROUSSEAU Jean Jacques was in 1757. Before that date, in the first volumes of the Coy^respondance, Rousseau is 'the austere and virtuous citizen of Geneva ' ; but even in this epoch there is no great cordiality of tone, and one recognizes that decidedly there was something of the philistine in the temperament of this critic." But, after the quarrel, " Grimm comes honourably out of this trial of his impartiality, when criticizing a man he had personally to complain of, who had insulted all his old friends with his odious suspicions and Madame d'Epinay with the abominable ingratitude we know." So much for Grimm, for whom E. Scherer had no immoderate partiality, although his antipathy to Rous- seau leads him to give this " French polished German," " cet AUemandfrotte de Frayicais," the benefit of the doubt in all cjuestions between Jean Jacques and him, But M. Scherer's sincere and devoted admiration for Madame d'Epinay, in the character of a literary connois- seur who has been entertained by her in the epoch when she still held her open salon, outdoes even Sainte- Beuve's sense of the oblig-ation left with all her guests to maintain her essential veracity. It is thus not so much as a writer who takes up a different point of view from his own, but much more as a mal eleve, an offender who sins against the courtesies of polished literary criticism, that poor Paul Boiteau, the editor of a second edition of Madame d' Epinay s Memoirs in 1883, is called to account by E. Scherer because he had ventured to convict Madame d'Epinay of different historical inaccuracies. " M. Boiteau," wrote E. Scherer in his Etudes sur la Litterature Contempoj^ame, " differs from most editors in that he professes very little esteem for the writer whose work he publishes. If I do not greatly err, all he has had in view when publishing Madame d'Ej^inay's Memjoirs has been to sacrifice her to Rousseau. Rousseau, one needs to recollect, has his fanatics, who never speak of him without making the sign of the cross, who take MADAME D'EPINAY'S MEMOIRS 65 his hallucinations seriously, and who believe in the universal plot of which he imagined himself the victim. M. Boiteau is one of these impassioned apologists. The notes with which he has enriched the Memoirs of Madame dJEpinay have often no other object than to justify the calumnies with which theGenevese philosopher paid the affection and benefits of his best friends.^ Nothing can be more tiresome than this commentary. M. Boiteau has a right to be of any religio;i that seems good to him, but not to celebrate his faith thus in the public highways. (M. Boiteau a le droit d'etre de la religion qui bon lui semble, mais non pas de celebrer ainsi son culte sur la voie publique.)" This method of putting an end to the discussion, by refusing to believers in Rousseau's impressive personality and disinterested life the right to profess their faith openly, comes to one as somewhat arbitrary. But it belongs to the temper of mind of a superior critic who arrives at his opinions independently of evidence, by methods of argument. Thus when, between two con- tradictory theories, he accepts the one that on the face of things appears to him reasonable, and rejects the theory that looks to him extravagant, he is prone to feel im- patience with people who undertake superfluous inquiries in connection with a question he esteems is settled. Very much the same tone is adopted, because the same critical method is employed, by Rousseau's English biographer. But it is characteristic of the diflPerent intellectual temperaments of French and English critics, that Mr. John Morley does not at all share the enthusiasm of Sainte-Beuve and E. Scherer for Madame d'Epinay, and that he has a very qualified belief in the lady's " essential veracity." His own doctrine of Rousseau's repulsive personality is much more the result of the impression made upon him by the "positivity and 1 That is to say, the best friends of Rousseau were, in E. Scherer's opinion, the authors of the Essay upon Seneca, of the Coi'respondance Litteraire, and of the Memoirs of Madame d'Epinay. VOL. I. 5 66 A NEW CRITICISM OF ROUSSEAU firmness" lie discovers as the leading characteristics of the " coldly upright " editor of the Correspondance Litter aire. " Grimm," affirms Mr. Morley, *' was an able and helpful man, in spite of his having a rough manner, powdering his face, and being so monstrously scented as to earn the name of the musk bear. He had the firmness and positivity which are not always beautiful, but of which there is probably too little, rather than too much, in the world, certainly in the France of his time ; and of which there was none at all in Rousseau. Above all things, he hated declamation. It is easy to see how Rousseau's way of ordering himself would gradually estrange so hard a head as this. It is possible that jealousy may have stimulated the exercise of his natural shrewdness.^ But this shrewdness, added to entire want of imagination and a very narrow range of sympathy, was quite enough to account for Grimm's harsh judg- ment, without attributing to him sinister motives. . . . The characters of the two men were profoundly anti- pathetic. Rousseau we know : [?] sensuous, impulsive, extravagant, with little sense of the difference between reality and dream. Grimm was exactly the opposite : judicious, collected, self-seeking, coldly upright. After being secretary to several high people, he became the literary correspondent of various German sovereigns, keeping them informed of what was happening in the world of art and letters, just as an ambassador keeps his Government informed of what happens in politics. The sobriety, impartiality and discrimination of his criticism makes one think highly of his literary judg- ment. This is not all, however; his criticism is conceived in a tone that impresses us ivith the writer^ s integrity y^ In so far as his opinion of Jean Jacques Rousseau's private character is concerned, a critic who comes away 1 Jealousy of Madame d'Epinay is what Mr. Morley intends. 2 Vol. i. p. 280. MADAME D'EPINAY'S MEMOIRS 67 from the Correspondance Litteraire impressed by Grimm's integrity, holds the same doctrine as critics who believe in the essential veracity of the portraits of historical personages given in the Memoirs of Madame d'Epinay. And here we have what really constitutes the funda- mental argument that serves as the starting-point of the psychological criticism of Rousseau. Considered as a sound argument, it is unanswerable. We are bound to admit, in view of the agreement between the portrait of Rousseau found in Madame d'Epinay's Memoirs, and the description of him elabor- ated in innumerable anecdotes and criticisms in Grimm's secret Journal, that one of two conclusions forces itself upon us. Either Rousseau actually was the repulsive personage shown us in both these pictures, and then the resemblance between these separate portraits is explained naturally ; or, if the picture did not resemble him, inasmuch as these different authors could not have accidentally hit upon precisely the same falsehoods, Grimm, Madame d'Epinay, and Diderot were not only calumniators, but conspirators ; who must have consulted and plotted together to destroy an innocent man's reputation. But the last conclusion is pronounced untenable by literary critics, who try historical questions by methods of argument, and decide them in accordance with their own impressions and convictions of what it seems reasonable to suppose true. If, then, the case he settled in this sense, Jean Jacques remains prwed to have been the 7^ep)ulsive personage all these separate ivitnesses descHhed. But we have now to see how different are the con- clusions reached when, discarding arguments about what it seems reasonable to suppose, we make it our task, by an attentive examination of evidence, to arrive at an accurate knowledge of the historical facts. PART II THE HISTORICAL INQUIRY The Plot, and the two Instruments of the Plot, to create FOR Rousseau a false Reputation, The Memoirs; and the Literary Correspondence, Documentary Proofs that the book called Memoirs of Madame d'Upinay represents the Instrument designed and used to carry down this false history of rousseau to posterity. CHAPTER I HISTORICAL INQUIRY INTO THE ORIGINS OF THE MEMOIRS AND INTO THE AUTHORITY OF THE CLAIMS MADE FOR THIS WORK Although the campaign of the nineteenth-century editors against the verdict passed upon J. J. Rousseau by his contemporaries commenced with the publication of Grimm's Literary Correspondence, there are several reasons why our own inquiry should begin with an examination into the origins and history of Madame d'Epinay's Mertioirs. Here is the first reason : The action of the editor of Correspondance Litteraii^e as Rousseau's secret calum- niator and persecutor, is most sensationally evident during the period of five years, 1762 to 1767 ; when the author of Emile, actively and openly persecuted by the French and Swiss Governments, was secretly pursued step by step along the path of his misfortunes by the calumnies circulated by Grimm, amongst Sovereigns, influential statesmen, and men of leading in the difi"erent courts of Europe ; in such a way as to rob the exiled fugitive author of sympathy and protection. But before this epoch of persecutions, we have the still more important epoch of six years, from 1756 to 1762, spent by Rousseau at Montmorency, when all his greatest books were produced. What was his true behaviour, what was his moral and mental state, in the years when he produced the Lettre d d'Alemhert, the Nouvelle Helo'ise, the Contrat Social, and Emile? Upon our correct knowledge here depends our accept- ance, or rejection, of the theory that an impostor led a return to nature ; that an impure man purified morals 71 72 A NEW CRITICISM OF ROUSSEAU and revived the sentiment of romantic love ; that a morbid and ferocious maniac laid the foundations of modern educational and social systems, and in every domain of human life, sowed ideas that in every case have come to flower. And this correct knowledge of Rousseau's mental and moral state during these important years largely dej^ends upon whether we have a truthful story, or a libellous legend, handed down to us in Madame d'Epinay's Memoirs. Nor is this the only reason why our new criticism should commence with the examination of the Memoirs. It will be recollected that at the outset of this work my claim was, not only that the accepted doctrine of Rousseau's character was a false doctrine, but also that it had for its foundation an audacious historical fraud. The clue that leads up to the exposure of this fraud is obtained through the discovery and com- parative study of three different manuscripts of Madame d'Epinay's work — manuscripts at the present hour entombed in blue cardboard cases, and packed away safely on " reserve " shelves in three public libraries in Paris. By the aid of these yellow pages, of these faded characters, that, when the revelations they silently bring are borne in on one, dazzle one as with excess of clear- ness, a flood of light is let into the dark chamber. We see the Conspirators without their masks. We watch them fabricatino; their fraudulent document : we trace their arrangements for its concealment ; and we discover in what hour it is to be produced. And, later on, we see the one surviving Conspirator, in the perilous days of the Revolution, hurriedly and resolutely, and certainly, at the risk of his life, carrying through, before his flight from France, the measures necessary to secure the pro- duction after his death of his testament of vengeance. But before arriving at the revelations disclosed by the manuscripts, we have to sum up what was known before my own discoveries of the history of the printed Memoirs. THE MEMOIRS 73 It has been seen that J. C. Brunet's quotation of the writer in the Biogra'phie Universelle in support of his assertion that Madame d'Epinay's contemporaries knew she had written the Memoirs of her life, only proves that this writer (Laporte) knew of the existence of the manuscript which, three years later, Brunet published. All the evidence we have, on the contrary, and especially the negative evidence afforded by Grimm's silence, and the silence of his friends, after Ginguene's Letters, points to the fact that for thirty-two years after Madame d'Epinay's death (April, 1783), and for thirty-five years after the death of the author of the Confessions (1778), the secret of this posthumous work was jealously kept; and that no knowledge, or suspicion, of the existence of any reply made by Madame d'Epinay to J. J. Kousseau has ever been traced home to any of their contemporaries. The only allusion to a document that in 1782 must have been in course of preparation, is found in a sentence of Diderot's — meaningless, or enigmatical, to his contempor- aries — but that, in the light of future events, we can now discover had a prophetic significance. In Diderot's maledictory note against Rousseau added on to his Essay upon Seneca (Second Edition, 1782), we find this phrase following after the assertion that, when covering with opprobrious terms the name of a dead man, who during his lifetime he had been in the way of calling his " old friend," Diderot considered he was accomplishing a sacred duty. " If I did not fulfil this duty earlier," wrote Diderot, " if even here and now, I do not give full details, and unanswerable facts, several of Rousseau's defenders know my reasons and approve of them, and I would name them without hesitation ^ if it were possible for them to defend themselves without criminal indiscretions. But Rousseau himself, in a posthumous work where he has just declared himself to be mad, proud, a hypocrite, ^ Diderot probably means by Eousseau's defenders Saint-Lambert and Madame d'Houdetot. 74 A NEW CRITICISM OF ROUSSEAU and a liar,^ lias raised a corner of the veil ; time will complete the work, and justice will be dealt out to the dead, when it can be executed without afflict- ing the living. (Le temps achevra : et justice sera faite du mort, lorsqu'on le pourra, sans affliger les vivants.)" Amongst the persons implicated in the story of Rousseau's rupture with his old friends, well acquainted with the true circumstances and who were still living in 1782, we find that, Madame d'Epinay died in 1783; Diderot and d'Alembert in 1784 ; Deleyre (Rousseau's old friend also, and who would not have let calumnies against him pass without contradiction) died in 1797; the Baron d'Holbach in 1789; Saint-Lambert in 1803; Grimm himself in 1807 ; and, last of all, the person most competent to take Jean Jacques defence in con- nectio7i with a story where his devotion to her ivas the first cause of his misfortunes, Madame d'Houdetot, died, at eighty-six years of age, in 1813. The notice upon Madame d'Epinay in the Biographie UniverscUe in 1815 establishes (if we allow due time for the perusal of the manuscript and the production of the article) that the persons who had been made the depositories of this secret document must have offered it for sale immediately after the death of Madame d'Houdetot. Although the Memoirs were accepted in good faith by the public at large, and by literary connoisseurs who admired the book as a masterpiece of psychological insight, historical critics, from the first, protested against the endeavour to claim for Madame d'Epinay's narrative (arranged for publication by J. C. Brunet) the authority of serious testimony in the disputed case between the Encyclopaedists and Rousseau. Thus, in the same year that the Memoirs were published, Musset Pathay in his Anecdotes Inedites ^ It is needless to say that in no posthumous work did Rousseau declare himself any of these things. THE MEMOIRS 75 'pouT faire suite aux Memoires de Madame d'Ejyinay ^ insisted upon the fact that this book could not be accepted from the hands of its editors as a trustworthy auto- biography of the authoress ; inasmuch as many familiar facts of Madame d'Epinay's own life, and of the lives of her friends and relatives, were misrepresented ; and the whole story of her relations with Rousseau was sown with patent inaccuracies. Moreover, Musset Pathay pointed out that readers of the printed volume were not able to form a correct opinion of the original work in manuscript, which the editors themselves admitted had been arranged by them for publication. "When making these researches," wrote Musset Pathay,^ " we become painfully conscious that we are only dealing with the printed book, and that all we know about the original manuscript is what the editor has been pleased to tell us. But even so, what he does say suffices to put the reader on his guard. The editor admits that he has restored to the personages of the novel the real names which the author had disguised. So then the Memoirs have undergone important altera- tions. Or, rather, the title of Memoirs has been given to an extract from a novel." Here was a serious challenge that could have been taken up by the editor satisfactorily in one way only. Evidently what J. C. Brunet had to do, in order to prove that he had not made important alterations in the original work, was to invite his critic to compare the 1 " Voi9i les motifs pour lesquels on pent croire que Madame d'Epinay n'est point I'auteur des Memoires qui portent son nom. Elle ecrit avec inexactitude des localites et des personnes qu'elle connaissait parfaitement. Elle avouait ses galanteries et accusait son mari d'improbite. On dit, et I'cditeur repete, que Rousseau avait assez longtemps parle seul sans sa propre cause : qui done empeclia Grimm et Madame d'Epinay de parler dans les leurs 1 Tous deux ont survecu a Rousseau — Tous deux sont morts sans dire un mot. On sent bien que dans cette recherche nous n'avons a notre disposi- tion que les Memoires imprimes et que nous ne savons sur les pieces originales que ce que I'editeur veut bien nous en dire." 2 See Aiiecdotes Inedites. 76 A NEW CRITICISM OF ROUSSEAU printed book with the manuscript he still had in his possession. J. C. Brunet did not, however, take this course. On the contrary, with conspicuous mildness, he contented himself with the reply that his critic " committed an error " when accusing him of editorial dishonesty ! " The Memoirs of Madame cVEjoinay," wrote J. C. Brunet, in a new edition of the Manuel du Lihraire,^' were published by us in 1818 with the assistance, and after the revision of the late M. Parison,^ our regretted friend, and were reprinted three times in less than six months. In connection with this book should be mentioned a pamphlet entitled * Anecdotes inedites ijour faire suite aux Memoires de Madame d'Epinay' preceded by an examination of the Memoirs. The writer of this pamphlet commits an error when lie contests the authenticity of the Memoirs and even of the letters from Rousseau, of which we possess the originals.^ No doubt Madame d'Epinay, ivJio gave her tvork the form of a novel, did not always keep strictly to the exact facts {ne s est pas toujours renfermee dans la stricte exactitude desfaits), but the editor having cut out what appeared to him purely imaginary adornments has kept, without altering them,^ all the parts of the narrative that wore an air of probability. And it is perhaps this treatment which explains the success of this singular autobiography." Here, we recognize a serious abatement of the claim originally put forward for a work that was to throw new light upon Rousseau's suspicions of his old friends, and to correct his Confessions — but whose authoress is now admitted " to have not always kept strictly to facts." Musset Pathay, not satisfied with these concessions, returned two years later to the " error " inconsistently condemned by Brunet, and at the same time recognized by him as true. In his Life of Rousseau Musset Pathay again denied the historical character of this work. " M. Brunet," wrote Rousseau's most careful ^ 2 See Appendix, Note D D, vol. i. p. 385. ^ See page 110. THE MEMOIRS yy biograplier, " has publislied, under tlie title of Memoirs of Madame cVEpinay, a work that will always be read with pleasure, hut ivhich cannot he classed ivith historical mem^oirs, hoth hecause it has no title deeds of authenticity, and hecause it contains demonstrably false statements'' Very much the same judgment was pronounced in 1863, by Paul Boiteau, who brought out a second edition of the Memoirs, enriched with those notes and commentaries that drew down upon him the reprobation of E. Scherer.^ In so far as the text is concerned, Boiteau's edition was a literal reproduction of the original edition published in 1818. And the reason was evident. J. C. Brunet was still alive in 1863, and the possessor of the only manuscript then known to exist. Boiteau says he was permitted to see a great part of it. But it is clear he was not allowed to see the part that would have enabled him to convict his predecessor of having falsified the text he professed to have reproduced literally. Boiteau, however, like Musset Pathay, took the trouble of comparing the narrative told by Madame d'Epinay with contemporary records ; and his notes show the numerous mis-statements and inaccuracies of this " singular autobiography." Also the conclusion reached by Boiteau is the same as the one pronounced by Musset Pathay : that the title of Memoirs has been wrongly given to a work correctly described by Grimm as a long novel. " In these so called Memoirs^' wrote Boiteau, " what we really have is a collection of letters, of fragments of a journal, of dialogues between personages with imaginary names, the whole put into shape by an able and a judicious editor, well up in the history of the time ; and who has cleverly made out of this ' sketch of a long novel' a work full of interest, but one to which we must not go for the truth, because the principal personages concerned had no interest in telling it. One ^ See page 63. 78 A NEW CRITICISM OF ROUSSEAU can only admire the cuDning of Grimm, who, when preserving the document that came into his possession after Madame d'Epiuay's death, called it the sketch of a long novel. By this language he sheltered himself from all responsibility. If the facts related in the story were doubted, he was free to pretend he had no share in the work ; but he calculated, and rightly enough, that in spite of his warning the story would be taken literally, because people are always inclined to believe evil of others." Here then, in so far as the historical criticism of the Memoirs went, the question remained until, in 1883, MM. Lucien Percy and Gaston Maugras, authors of La Jeunesse et les Dernieres Annees de Madame d'Epinay, certified their discovery (as a result of information given them by M. Maurice Tourneux, the accomplished critic and litterateur who has so successfully edited the collected works of Diderot and the Correspo7idanee Litteraii'e of Grimm) of a new manuscript of Madame d'Epinay's Memoirs, divided between the libraries of the Archives and Arsenal. " As a result of what vicissitudes," inquire these authors, in their preface, " was the division of this manuscript brought about ? How does it happen that one part fell to the share of the Archives, and that the other is found at the Arsenal, classified amongst Diderot's papers ? One thing only is certain ; and it is that the whole work was seized at Grimm's house when it was pillaged in 1793." We shall presently discover that a good deal more than this may be predicted as certain about this manuscript. MM. Percy and Maugras, however, felt, evidently, little interest in inquiries that would have had for their results the re-opening of the " eternal discussion about Rousseau," which these writers hold it is time to make an end of, by admitting that he was a frightful character.^ In connection with the early history 1 See p. 12. THE MEMOIRS 79 of Madame d'Epinay's heroine, these critics have reproduced some very interesting and valuable portions of her work suppressed by the first editors. But they have added nothing, in the way of fresh information, or helpful criticism, which throws new light upon the true story of Madame d'Epinay's attitude towards J. J. Rousseau. On the contrary, following the bad example of their predecessor, Brunet, they have ignored the testimony of facts, when making positive affirmations that cannot stand the test of inquiry, nor of exposure to the light of evidence. " We declare," these writers seriously affirm, " that after the most exact and conscientious work, we have arrived at a firm belief in the veracity of the Memoii'S, upon all essential points." This sentence occurs in the preface to their first volume. In the preface to their second volume, MM. Percy and Maugras repeat even more emphatically these asseverations. " As we have been led to speak of the Memoirs,'' they pronounce, " we take the opportunity of once more affirming their veracity. It is difficult to believe the extent to which Madame d'Epinay has been the slave of truth. Every time that chance has brought under our eyes, whether in our autograph documents, or in public collections, the history of a fact related by Madame d'Epinay, ive have been able to convince ourselves of the perfect exactitude of her narrative. The passionate denials of Musset Pathay and of other persons can have no power against undeniable facts ; besides, the evident object of Musset Pathay was to glorify Rousseau at the expense of Madame d'Epinay." One would not like to say that the evident object of MM. Perey and Maugras was to justify Madame d'Epinay and Grimm, at the expense of Rousseau. But what can be safely declared, because it is capable of proof is that what these writers describe as their "most exact and conscientious work " did not include the very 8o A NEW CRITICISM OF ROUSSEAU necessary precaution of acquainting themselves with facts of public knowledge in connection with the subject upon which they professed to be passing the judgment of specialists. Thus it was in 1865 that M. Streckeisen- Moultou had published from the original autographs preserved at Neuchatel, the true letters of Madame d'Epinay, of Rousseau, of Diderot, and of Grimm, written in 1757, that are given differently in the Memoirs and in the Confessions} This publication established, once and for ever, that Rousseau has repro- duced these letters correctly, and that those given in the Memoirs are forgeries. In 1883, that is to say, eighteen years after the blunder had become un- pardonable in any critic pi^ofessing an authoritative opinion upon this s^ibject, MM. Percy and Maugras reproduced these forgeries as genuine letters. In other words, the declarations and affirmations of these writers about the veracity of the Memoirs did not possess the authority that would have belonged to them could one have reconciled with the proofs of their neglect to acquaint themselves with evidence open to all the world, their claim to the most exact and conscientious original researches in connection with unknown auto- graph documents and unexplored manuscripts in public collections. But did the second manuscript of the Memoirs em- ployed by MM. Percy and Maugras afford any evidence of an unexplained character to justify the declarations a'nd affirmations of these writers in connection with their belief in the veracity of the work ? Here was the question as it presented itself to me before my examination of the manuscripts had com- menced. The careful study I had made of the Corre- spondance Litteraire had convinced me that this was the chief instrument of the Conspirators used in Rousseau's life-time to injure his fame, not only in France, but throughout Europe. I had reached the conclusion, too, ^ See page 59. THE MEMOIRS 8i that the Memoirs of Madame d'Epinay was the second instrument of this plot ; and that its pul^lication imme- diately after the death of Madame d'Houdetot proved that some arrangements must have been made to hold the document concealed, and to publish it only when all contemporaries had died. But whilst the conclusion about the Corres2:)ondance Litteraire was based upon evidence I was able to throw open to examination with entire confidence that every one who verified it must arrive at one decision — in the case of the Mem^oirs, my own conviction was the result of a collection of scattered facts and statements, needing to be weighed and con- sidered in relation to each other ; facts that, although they were entirely convincing to me, I knew would not convince (but would rather predispose to the opinion that I was a " fanatic," ready to take up with extrava- gant theories) the average fair-minded reader ; who had not become familiar, as I had done in the labour of years spent in disentangling their secret methods and systems, with the almost incredible industry, patience and talent, devoted by these self-styled honest men, to the task of creating a false J. J. Rousseau. What I needed and what at this time I did not possess, and, to tell the truth, had very little hope of discovering, was — 1st, positive evidence that the Conspirators, Grimm and Diderot, had taken an active part in constructing the history of Rousseau handed down in Madame d'Epinay's posthumous book ; 2nd, patent proofs that Grimm's description of this work as the " sketch of a long novel,'' and his neglect to publish it, concealed the design to hold the work back, and secure its publication, when no one was left to defend Rousseau against his calumniators. But could positive evidence, or patent proofs, be found in a case where the Conspirators had every motive for destroying all outward signs of their operations ? Here was the position I had reached when, by what may be described as a happy accident, one day, when VOL. I. 6 82 A NEW CRITICISM OF ROUSSEAU I was expecting no sensational discovery of any sort, in the small Reading Room of the Paris Archives the talis- man came into my hand which enables me to elucidate this mystery. And here, for the encouragement of other travellers by the arduous path of historical research, I may be allowed to record my own experience. It is that the explorer in these domains has to bear in mind the same rule that gave success to the lucky traveller in old fairy tales. The youngest brother, in the story, succeeds in his quest where his predecessors failed : he lodges at precisely the right inn where puts up the owner of the magic sword ; he meets at rest on the particular mile-stone the pedlar who sells him the shoes of swiftness ; he passes the one orchard in the land where ripen the only apples that can heal the king's daughter of her sickness — all this, and much more than all this, because, unlike his elder brothers, he has known how to close his ears asjainst tempters who have sought to lure him from the steep road. The " steep road " in the domains of historical research signifies the exploration of original documents. Every one who has travelled by it knows the fatigues by the way ; and the temptation to listen to counsellors who persuade one that the toil need not be taken, that the work of exploration has been done before, and done completely ; and that all points of interest have been noted down, and stand recorded in agreeable and easily-read printed volumes. But the explorer whose purpose is not to pass time pleasantly in well-worn bye- ways, but seriously to pursue his quest after historical facts, must not listen to tJiese counsels. Let him perse- vere, and tread the steep road himself, attentive to every bend and turn in it ; trusting to no accounts given him, but verifying all that comes under his observation as an independent inquirer, who renders his own account of things, unknown before he had examined them, and that must yield up their secret to him, before he passes on. THE MEMOIRS 83 And following this metliod, the chances are all in his favour that the good luck of the hero of the fairy tale will befall him also ! For, dull and tedious though the steep road of original historical research may for long periods appear, it is nevertheless a path sown with romantic surprises. Upon any day, the traveller by it may arrive unexpectedly at the Hostelry of Good Ad- venture. At any hour, he may pick up, without search- ing for it, some stray object, neglected by all who have gone before him, but that excites his curiosity; and, handling it for the first time in the right way, discover that he has come into possession of the talisman which will transport him where he needs to go, or call up around him ghosts from a vanished world, and compel them to answer his questions. To just such an adventure as this do I owe the dis- coveries which enable me to give for the first time the true history of Madame d'Epinay's Memoirs, and to find, as the starting-point and justification of the new criticism of Eousseau, what I had so long been in search of, viz. the patent and sensational proof of the conspiracy against him, which modern critics assume existed only as "a spectre of his diseased imagination." CHAPTER II THE ARCHIVES AND ARSENAL MANUSCRIPTS Archives, M. 789, Lettres de Madame de Montbrillant. Arsenal, 3158. 260 bis, B. F., Histoire de Madame de Ro/mhure. It will be already understood, that the inquiry which had for its results this important discovery, was the examination of the manuscript which MM. Percy and Maugras profess to have carefully and conscientiously studied. What I expected to find by the personal investigation of these documents was, at most, that the positive affirmations and declarations of these writers about the veracity of the Memoirs were based upon insufficient evidence. What I did find, was that they were made in defiance of a fact that must force itself upon the attention of every investigator with good eyesight, who looks through the separate folios of this manuscript — the fact, namely, that this document has quite 'patently heen tam^pered ivith : and that, especially the ivhole story of Rene (of Rousseau) as it stands to-day in the manuscript — and as it stands also in the printed edition of the Memoirs — is an interpolation that has heen substituted for an earlier history suppressed. This preliminary discovery is so unavoidably the result of examining the manuscript called Letti^es de Madame de Montbrillant possessed by the Archives Library, that a simple description of the documents (assisted by the facsimiles of handwritings reproduced at pages 87 to 94) will suffice to convince the reader that we are dealing with evidence that demands only good faith 84 ARCHIVES AND ARSENAL MSS. 85 upon the part of an investigator, once put in possession of it, to lead to inevitable conclusions about its significance. The manuscripts divided between these two public libraries ^ consist of a hundred and eighty-five small "cahiers" of the size of an ordinary school copybook, without the cover. The pages of each cahier are tied together with a small favour of blue ribbon. A hundred and forty cahiers make up the Archives Manuscript ; and in the blue cardboard case containing it is found a loose sheet of paper, undated, giving what must be recosfnized as a most uncertain account of the orio-inal ... . . ^ acquisition of the manuscript. Here is a literal transla- tion of this document. M. 789.- "Letters of Madame de Montbrillant — or Picture of Manners in the Eighteenth Century — a note found with this manuscript, se7it, it ajjj^ea^'s, hy the National Assembly, or hy the Convention^ to the Committee of Public Instruction,^ gives in the following order the names of the most remarkable personages who are here put forward. Monsieur and Madame Monsieur and Madame De Montbrillant d'Epinay De Lange d'Houdetot Desbarres Duclos Rene J. J. Rousseau Garnier Diderot Volx Grimm " One reads in the middle of a page in the 31st cahier, in a letter of one of the principal personages : ' I beg them ' (that is to say, the critics of this work) ' to ^ The Archives, Rue des Francs Bourgeois ; the Arsenal Libraiy, Rue de Sully, Paris. ^ Reference to the Catalogue of the Archives Library. ^ See page 99. 86 A NEW CRITICISM OF ROUSSEAU recollect throughout that this is not a novel I am giving to the public, but the true memoirs of a family ; and of several societies made up of men and women subject to the weaknesses that belong to human nature.' " Coming now to the facts that, as I have said, must force themselves upon the attention of every person gifted with good eyesight who examines the Archives Manuscript, the last fifty cahiers of the collection reveal unmistakable signs of having been not only altered, but to a great extent re- written ; and in a different hand to the delicate and irregular one that meanders evenly across the yellow pages of the first ninety cahiers. It is not as though the original handwriting broke off at the ninetieth cahier, leaving the story to the new-comer ; but this new-comer is plainly an intruder, who interrupts the original narrative, that still flows on evenly, except when the bolder, coarser hand breaks in, in interpolated passages, on pages pasted in, to take the place of pages that have evidently been cut out ; or in long marginal notes, or in passages written over the fainter writing barred out. And the intrusion of this handwriting always means mischief. Once having entered into the manuscript, like a malicious scandal-monger into a society of amiable people, this blacker pen is busy henceforth, sowing spiteful anecdotes in side notes, writing cynical reflections upon tender speeches, inserting indecent or blasphemous remarks in witty dialogues — but, especially, showing up as hypocritical impostors and mercenary schemers, the agreeable and entertaining people who had before been presented to us as Madame de Montbrillant's best friends. But it is especially with Rene's entrance into the story that the malice of this hand becomes evident ; so soon as this name appears, an interruption of the original narra- tive is certain to follow ; the scandalous pen dips itself into blacker ink, and writes down, or bars out, the delicate pale writing, which, nevertheless, we can still 1 Specimen of Haniiwiutixg of the Original Narrative ^/ , . ^ .^^/^ . ^/^/ 4f^ ^^'^ £^i^^ ..Yf^-J.^^^ Facsimile of the liandwritiiij; (No. 1) of the original unaltered manuscript. This page is reproduced from the 132nd cahier of the Archives MS. It is a passage from a letter where Madame d'Epinay makes the heroine relate— truthfully— her own efforts to soothe Rousseau's anger after Diderot's offensive letters to him early in 1757. (For t><° episode see p. 227, vol. i, Memoirs of Madame d'Epinay.) the 2 Specimkx of th?; Handwiiitinc; of tife Alterkd Story tTs%«^ kliuvJu^. U., Uwi^} vuyu^ului mi.iui^} m^'^'Jo^A dfu^^ J«^<.^- IM^cL^linnJ- -t^f^nUt. . - CAM. . .. Ucixiiui . eZ !PiMA<'i- c^ ;!;^< .Wi K J .!(.,•. ^r\/} OC'tU nit 1i 1.. !■!<(» • !t<. calirArchifes'Ms""Ti"' ^^^ '\"'"f "'*"' '"^' '"""''^^ '^-^ ^^"''^ '^f " «*"-' ^Ws page is frcu the 140th supposed sMfiln. Jr "^f '"-^^ '^'^^^ ^^-'-'"<^" ^^•'■"' the purpose of arranging the story of Rousseau's supposed selfishness and treachery to Diderot, as related in the Tablets. (For incident see vol ii pp 04 .5) 3 Specimen of Early Interpolatioxs ix the Original Narrative /cnl P-O^/'J^^^ A'/f^^rU-^ :'>i<':'U''\ \ ' Av/.i '/./'<'^' \ ' '^/^'^-^ ' W'fr^f (/i^i^f^ f^-f^/ y^ ,jJ/MA'^'^Xy///g.y<^f>u/ ^.^^ %^ c6tu/ .?r.- JA/ . 'V^/f/^Vx ; -Z.^^' /r^^^/'^f/ /^^"ai^t-' M\^ie^^ / - / ' ' - -^ ' ' r ■ ^ X :^i 'y^^^fdi^ At.'H^ ^'('^y _^ai^/^'C<^ .-^V^f/c-- r-'f^^/i^<^'^-^i.//k'^:>i:a/*^ ' ' / • '••->' . , ■"' , ... "'' ' pa^eTs reS"'!JT''"'^!r '," '''?"^T"''"-' ^° '' ■'''°'''"^' ''^'^ interpolated sentence in handm-iting Xo. 2. Tl.e oSo ti^rorS , "\ °? •"'■,"■ °' "" ^■^•'^•"''^ '*'• ^"^ P^^^P^^^ °^ ^'^^ interpolated sentence is to add >^ *. "t-ir 4! ^ ;^ V ^. ir s y »? > >i? i « I V. vi J^' ^ c^ s V $ 4 '^J^ ^* S ■ft, -c^ yj^/ V, * VI 'VT '^ -^ ^ > n *^ 5 ^*V ^^ ^^ '■ r :■' <^ > ^< ^- ;i ^Vg 7 <- "■'^. 5 I •V "^-^ ^j u -i r ^ ' (^ ■5 -M ; . . . -^ ^ . <> "s. ■^ **. *^ -5* . -S • ^ O ^ ■i.> *^ ^ ty^^jfit>W ?^'tM«** /'e^OfU* /iWl^ -^' ^ Uiul^ ^^ Y^] * <]lU I' Itf' lAnflll c(ui Haul <', e4fu Uau> '.'<« fill enHti^fuK itftiMuM "■^/ufi^ _^, % Mt' 'W.L * -L ,L Uci 4 l/tkillf^.)- '^ U'j/^ It Ipt'u /« } till, pt (M^ ti' !<' i^/zUH ? 5'J^ 5 I rhnmhi^ ■i.\ d^ A. j'«i ^ iiUui flvif uik diKt'it HUkiu'iL utt^ tn,uiiiu.1uir; ii ftltiuhit! ti'Jii!i.iuu}_ l?"?5^»' /'A ^''"^ itu' Uffui tk'Jil, qu'il ■h'lHuiM/i^UMi kWib iHK iMiHaite i "i.."? •.■,^«Vr«w. ;/«. rtL «««fi- (it It 1 1 >i 'it ^iii%-iini.u^ I'tn ti fffulejjUD HiSt'i Jclut^i^ii li a-etA u^„ JIfj-l h i-wai^h-y-iiMt^tMut. it i'lwviitnt'^JUmMi ^ tAnuJ-i U*ua.&<^ 1uiiAt^> duMtt/,^ H I P'f ''^ frlti-^ lli {LltHx^-tKlUl.3 fiiiLL-nJttir iniiiiiu III' lUUKtuil'i^ ,i\ n, tu'tu Witn'i in, , /, cf^tio Itiiini/,, Specimen of />' -^ P ■ • ■ I 1? ■ '^ ' ^^ f~ ' -- •^j!^/ UxWvfiUiiU- fin. CotuUfit. ei lilo-u 64^ f^ KA.i~ fltH.ix>2 -tO CwAc jii'tt^ us^ty 'liAU-i'U. fe^i-U C^Uituo. 'liM-iAli/L^ i{iLiUAJ LU.i ^ejftm^iti 'v<'c^i^ t>i tftt i ^ tl^i ' , v4 {cu. litest '{'lUti^uJjt^ twh^e liaJLa-i-^ ,dx wl Tins double page is reproduced from the 155th eahier, Arsenal MS., an old cahier whic m No. 2 liandwriting in the 155th old cahier, in the 147th cahier enters into the text of tl about his letter to Saint-Lambert as Diderot has related it in his Tablets. (For the incidt ; j/.J.&^iy,yu r'r gYMirs^Ts'.'X ^/...C/i..,,.^ w^,.^'"-''^^ "^"^f';' ^ it^ {/iH^' /tiSiiaiZFynf:^'^^ i'~*^^' i&i ii Xfi^ jy /■^fe^ /^^<8«K'/4«^< ^-^af^^Meif Af"^if/<^/i^ sf'-'' sS 1^^ 41 I -^a-i fi:r 3 ^ ^k .--V ■^.~i .^, ^ -^ ^ ^^. ^^ 2-::^^ o~3 ■•^ s:^^ ^r — ^iTirmMri- ---. _LmuLL '^ '"^