ŒUVRES C. S. Éc. POL. POL. WRIT. AULARD MERCIER ABBREVIATIONS = Euvres de J. J. Rousseau, 13 vols. Ed. Hachette, = Correspondance de J. J. Rousseau avec M. M. Rey. Ed. Bosscha, Amsterdam, 1858. Political Writings of J. J. Rousseau, 2 vols. Ed. = Aulard, Histoire politique de la Révolution française, I vol. 4to. Paris (3rd edition, 1905). = Sébastien Mercier, De J. J. Rousseau, considéré comme l'un des principaux auteurs de la Révolution française, 2 vols. Paris, 1791. X INTRODUCTION I THE Contrat social was published in the spring of 1762, a few weeks before Émile. It-or rather, the larger work, Institutions politiques, of which it is the only surviving fragment—was first conceived, as Rousseau himself tells us, nearly twenty years earlier, during his residence at Venice (1743-44).1 But we know that he did not begin to work at his design until 1750 or 1751- that is, we may fairly assume, until after the publication of his first Discourse (Jan. 1751); 2 that five years later (1756) he had 'made hardly any way with it';3 and that early in 1759 his progress was still so slow that, abandoning the larger design, he resolved to confine himself to the more abstract portions, Principes du droit politique, which could be 'detached' without much difficulty from the work as originally planned, and to burn the rest.'4 The first draft of the more modest scheme, half of which still survives in a manuscript now in the Geneva Library, was completed by the end of the following year (1760).5 The whole thing was, however, recast, and in particular the chapter on 'Civil Religion' added, in the course of the next seven or eight months; and, owing to this and other delays, the manuscript was not finally sent to press until November 1761.7 Before 6 1 Confessions, ix. ; 3 Ib. p. 289. Euvres, viii. 6 lb. p. 126. 2 Ib. p. 289. 5 Bosscha, pp. 111, 116, 126. 7 Ib. pp. 121-23. the book was published the rejected portions-or, at any rate, the greater part of them-seem to have been destroyed.1 II Of all speculative writings, the Contrat social is perhaps the most explosive. It had a deep influence upon the generation which prepared the way for the Revolution. It had an influence deeper yet upon the men who carried the Revolution to triumph. In the latter case, the influence told in two different, indeed in two opposite, directions. During the opening phase of the Revolution, during what has been called the 'spontaneous anarchy' of the National and Legislative Assemblies (1789-92), it kindled and kept alive the worship of individual liberty, the hatred of oppression in all its forms, which was the leading passion of the time. 'Hitherto,' wrote Mercier of this period, the Contrat social was the least read of all Rousseau's works. Now every citizen broods over it and learns it by heart.'2 And another writer gives the companion picture of Marat expounding it to all and sundry at the corners of the streets. A year or two later, the wind was blowing from the opposite quarter. Under the stress of invasion and civil war, in the fury of suspicion and hatred they inevitably excited, individual liberty was thrown to the winds; everything was sacrificed to the need of warding off disruption from within, and the avenging sword of the Coalition from without. Here too, however, appeal was made to the authority of Rousseau; and the Contrat social was again invoked to authorise those restrictive measures without which France must have been broken in pieces, to justify those acts of cruelty which no man would have condemned more passionately than the author. That the principles of '93 were the direct contrary to those of '89 was obvious to all Europe. And to many the earlier principles were hardly less odious than the later. Let 1 C.S. Avertissement.. 2. Mercier, ii. p. 99. us turn to Burke, the bitterest, as he was also the most clearsighted, enemy of both alike. In the earlier phase of the movement, he accuses the revolutionists of disbanding France into her original moleculae '1: in other words, of an extravagant individualism. And some of the most striking passages of the Reflections are those devoted to an assault upon the 'rights of man,' as the recognised charter of disintegration. In his later writings, the charge launched against the French is of exactly the opposite description: 'Individuality is left out of their scheme of government. The State is all in all.' 2 And for the one excess, as for the other, he was apparently ready to throw the chief blame upon Rousseau. 'Rousseau,' he writes, "is their canon of holy writ. Him they study; him they meditate; him they turn over in all the time they can spare from the debauches of the night, or the laborious mischief of the day.' 3 But, it may fairly be asked, how can a doctrine which worked in directions so different ever have formed a consistent whole? If the authority of Rousseau could be invoked at one moment in support of individualism, at another in aid of its direct contrary, is not this a sure proof that his system is made up of discordant elements? Is it not as strong a condemnation of the writer as his bitterest enemy could have desired? The question has been hotly debated; and this is not the place to discuss it in detail. (Summarily, however, it may be said that the contradiction, if contradiction there be, is not to be found in the Contrat social, nor in any other of the writings for instance, the Économie politique-which are devoted to distinctly political subjects. In all these writings, Rousseau is the consistent enemy of individualism, the consistent champion of the absolute surrender of the individual, with all his rights and all his powers,' to the sovereignty of the 1 Burke, Works, i. p. 389 (Reflections, 1790). 2 Ib. ii. p. 315 (Letters on a Regicide Peace, 1796). 3 lb. i. p. 482 (Letter to a Member of the National Assembly, 1791). b |