Rousseau's Socratic Aemilian Myths

ROUSSEAU'S SOCRATIC AEMILIAN MYTHS A Literary Collation of EMILE and the SOCIAL CONTRACT By Madeleine B. Ellis Ohio State University Press : Columbus $15.00 ROUSSEAU'S SOCRATIC AEMILIAN MYTHS A Literary Collation of "Emile" and the "Social Contract" By Madeleine B. Ellis In this illuminating study of two literary mile stones in the history of our civilization, a noted Rousseau scholar examines for the first time the nature of, and the inspiration for, the symbolic language that informs Rousseau's two great masterworks. Though Rousseau himself, in the pedagogical novel, invites such a study by including an aesthetic profession of faith and by warning the reader more than once that he is using the language of symbolic expression, Rousseauist criticism has, beyond noting the presence of a few symbols in Emile, produced as yet no systematic inquiry into the emblem atic conveyance of ideas therein. Professor Ellis's scrupulous collation of the texts of the two books and her adroit use of the Old and New Testaments and the Platonic dialogues reveal for the first time that not only is the Social Contract an "appendix" to Emile, as Rousseau says it is, but also that the two together constitute a Rousseauist version of Plato's Republic and Symposium trans figured by Judeo-Christian and biblical tradi tion. Although once again Rousseau himself invites such a comparison by calling both Christ and Socrates, or Plato, his "master," a distinction he accords to no one else, scholars have consistently ignored this invitation as they have the first. Dr. Ellis's study conclusively demonstrates that the imagery of these ancient writings, which is also Rousseau's, is the real clue to the relationship between the pedagog ical novel and its political appendix. She cites as but one example that, in the Republic, Socrates also tells a "story" about the educa tion of heroes and, moreover, includes a polit ical treatise as well, the two being one and the same treatment of citizenship. Socrates' ob jective is Rousseau's: to portray man's nature and duties, and to describe the nature of justice (Continued on back flap) ROUSSEAU'S SOCRATIC AEMILIAN MYTHS ROUSSEAU'S SOCRATIC AEMILIAN MYTHS A Literary Collation of EMILE and the SOCIAL CONTRACT By Madeleine B. Ellis Ohio State University Press : Columbus Copyright © 1977 by the Ohio State University Press All Rights Reserved Manufactured in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Ellis, Madeleine B Rousseau's Socratic Aemilian myths. Includes index. 1. Rousseau, Jean Jacques, 1712-1778. Emile 2. Rousseau, Jean Jacques, 1712-1778. Contrat social. I. Title. LB518.E4 370.1 76-28197 ISBN 0-8142-0223-3 TO MY MOTHER LILIAN FITZMAURICE ELLIS THE COMPANION OF MY LIFE AND OF MY WORK THIS BOOK IS GRATEFULLY DEDICATED CONTENTS Foreword ix Acknowledgements xiii I INTRODUCTION 3 II FOUNDATION 37 III STYLOBATE 81 IV THRESHOLD 145 V TEMPLE STRONGHOLD 195 VI INNER SANCTUM 305 VII CONCLUSION 383 Index 417 Foreword Without going so far as agreeing with Diderot, who called the Emile "une espece de galimatias," critics have gen erally had difficulty in appreciating this work fully, view ing many of its sections as digressions, paradoxes, or outright contradictions. The same can be said for parts of the Contrat social, which usually are dismissed as mere "padding." What is even more typical in modern Rousseau criticism—and an author such as he seems to provoke it— is the tendency to interpret these texts from a twentieth- century viewpoint, anachronistically ascribing to the author motives he could not even have conceived in his time, or pushing some of his statements to conclusions he never in tended. Not that such studies are invalid: there are in the works of all great authors implications of which they them selves were not always aware. That is why, for example, Diderot could refute Voltaire's objections to the material ism in the Lettre sur les aveugles by reminding him that his own statements in the Lettres philosophiques substantiated the blind Saunderson's position. That is why both Voltaire and Rousseau were regarded as heroes in the French Revo lution despite their comparative political conservatism. And a monumental work like Cassirer's The Philosophy of the Enlightenment does not lose its validity or utility be cause he imposes a systematic, Hegelian "synthesis" on an author like Diderot even though it does not correspond to the Encyclopedist's own temperament or methodology. But there comes a time in the explication of any signifi cant work when we must ask ourselves, What was the ix FOREWORD author's intention when he wrote it? Has he given us any clues as to what plan he followed or as to how we are to interpret his writings? Not to do so is to risk misinterpret ing or overlooking passages that are essential to that plan and to understanding their artistic and philosophical sig nificance. It is to these questions that Professor Ellis addresses herself. Rousseau more than once claimed that his Emile and Contrat social were of one cloth and formed an organic whole; but critics have either taken him at his word or dismissed it as another Rousseauistic paradox. It is not surprising that no one until now has fathomed that unity and proved it. The task requires a painstaking colla tion of texts, a complete familiarity not only with Rousseau's works but with those of the classical sources on which he relied, and, finally, a dispassionate, scholarly will to understand the author whether one agrees with him or not. This last requirement is particularly difficult to achieve when dealing with an author like Rousseau who somehow brings out the polemicist in some critics and leads them to write either hagiography or demonology. Not the least of this book's merits is its calm, matter-of-fact approach that is neither advocacy nor condemnation but explication in the highest sense. One reads its "revelations"—for that is what they are—with a sense of discovery that, because of the tightly reasoned and convincing evidence, compels assent. Professor Ellis has found the key not only to Emile and the Contrat social but to the central core of Rousseau's writings. Through her lucid and entirely convincing dem onstration, she has come as close to the intentions, meth odology, and meaning of these texts as anyone can hope to do. She captures the Genevan's mythical (and mystical) bent and clarifies many an obscure and heretofore baf fling allusion that can only be understood in the context of the master plan he followed. In so doing, she gives us a new insight into the artistry of this author who so person alized Socratic and biblical imagery that without Dr. Ellis's FOREWORD quotations of chapter and verse we would not have recog nized them as such. There will always be new and "con temporary" interpretations of Rousseau's works; but Dr. Ellis has brought us once and for all back to the intentions and sources of the author himself, without which knowledge much of what he wrote remained for us enigmatic and ob scure. Her book was sorely needed! And it will necessitate the abandonment or reevaluation of many an ingenious but henceforth untenable interpretation that our profession had hitherto taken for granted. Words like masterful or brilliant are so often used in con texts such as this that they tend to lose their meaning. Yet how else underline the importance of Dr. Ellis's impressive accomplishment, which represents years of thorough prep aration? Rousseau's Socratic Aemilian Myths is not just another book on Rousseau. It is bound to become required reading for anyone wishing to understand him; for it is a touchstone for the comprehension of the Genevan's alle gorical language and, thus, to a truer interpretation of what he himself regarded as the summa of his writings: Emile. John Pappas Fordham University XI Acknowledgments The author wishes to express her appreciation to the pub lishers of this book, especially the director of the Press, Mr. Weldon A. Kefauver, and the editor, Mr. Robert S. Demorest, for their thoughtful consideration and editorial advice. She is also profoundly grateful to friends and col leagues who helped handle many practical problems en countered in the work of publication. They are: Dr. Otis E. Fellows, professor at Columbia University; Dr. Wallace S. Lipton, professor at the City University of New York; and more especially, Dr. John N. Pappas, professor at Fordham University, who moreover generously offered to read the manuscript and kindly accepted the author's invitation to write a Foreword to the book. She also takes pleasure in acknowledging her indebted ness to other friends and colleagues whose good offices facilitated the progress of research during the many years of work that culminated in the book. They are: Dr. Henri M. Peyre, professor emeritus of Yale University, who, at an earlier stage in the study, graciously consented to read the Introduction; the late Dr. Charles Z. Wahl, professor at the City University of New York and a lifelong friend, whose invaluable services, including bibliographical as sistance, the loan of books, and occasional replacement of the author in various professional capacities during periods of intense research were terminated only by an untimely death in 1972; and finally the late Dr. J. S. Will, profes sor emeritus of the University of Toronto, whose illumin ating conversations on literary method and the problem of xiii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS form in the French novel never failed to open up vast per spectives in the spheres of aesthetic creativity and the na ture of beauty, which are hardly alien to the theme of this inquiry.

Load more