Table Of ContentINFORMATION TO USERS
This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While
the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent
pages to insure you complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it
is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have
moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a
good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being
photographed the photographer followed a definite method in
"sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper
left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to
right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is
continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until
complete.
4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value,
however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from
"photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver
prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing
the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and
specific pages you wish reproduced.
5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as
received.
Xerox University Microfilms
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
13-21Ills
£D3907
• G7 Howell, Wilson McDaniel, 1923-
1952 The historicaVoutlook of Jean-
•H7 Jacques Rousseau.
iii;i82p. . . t
Thesis (Ph.D.) - N.Y.U., Graduate
School, 1952.
Bibliography: p.175-1821
D2l*
Shelf List
Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED.
m, 10RE OMTHBIT1
mjIVERSITT KEIWTS*
THE HISTORICAL OUTLOOK OF JEAN-JACQUES ROUSSEAU
By ^
Wilson Mr Howell
A dissertation in the department of history
submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy at New York University
April, 1952
i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Professor Leo Gershoy has been of invaluable assis
tance in the clarification of my ideas concerning the histor
ical outlook of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Professor Gershoy's
helpful advice and friendly criticisms provided the proper
stimulus in periods when the abundance of material on Rousseau
and the complicated and involved character of his thought
/
threatened to prolong indefinitely the time required for the
completion of this thesis. 1 would also like to thank my wife,
whose encouragement and support it is impossible to overestimate.
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I. INTRODUCTION.
A. Rousseau and his century..................... 1
B. The central problem of the thesis and its
ramifications.............................. 3
C. Other works concerning Rousseau and history 8
D. The distinction between this thesis and other
works concerning Rousseau and history......... 10
II. THE DEVELOPMENT OF ROUSSEAU'S HISTORICAL OUTLOOK.
A. The period prior to 1750................... 12
B. The Discourse on the Arts apd Sciences of 1750.. 19
C. The controversies concerning this Discourse 26
D. The Discourse on Inequality of 175^........... 31
III. A PERIOD OF INDECISION.
A. The article on Political Economy of 1755....... 50
B. Rousseau the critic of the Abb6 de Saint-
Pierre .................................... 59
C. The Letter to d'Alembert of 1758.............. 67
D. A study of national characteristics~the
Nouvelle Heloise and Bnlle.................. 79
E. Rousseau and skepticism...................... 93
IV. AN ATTEMPT AT RECONCILIATION.
A. The Social Contract of 1762— Rousseau's most
serious effort to reconcile the divergent
elements of his historical outlook.............102
ill
CONTENTS (continued)
B. The state as an organism.................... 105
C. The role of the lawgiver................ 115
D. The model states of Rome and Sparta.......... 120
E. Rousseau the prophet....................... 12*t
V. THE FINAL PHASE.
A. Christianity and the state.................. 128
B. The Letters Written from the Mountain of 176^. • • l*+0
C. Rousseau's counsel concerning the constitution
of Corsica................................. l*+6
D. Considerations upon the Government of Poland
of 1772................................... 156
VI. CONCLUSION.
A. Rousseau's dilemma......................... 166
B. Possible ways of escape from this dilemma..... 173
C. Rousseau's unwillingness to construct his
historical outlook on a geometric pattern..... 17^
BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................... 175
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER I
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A recurrent problem in the history of historiography
is the one concerned with the tantalizing question of the
utility of history. Whatever answer the historian gives, he
is subject to a certain amount of adverse criticism. If he
considers his duty to be limited to the reconstruction of the
past, then he is likely to be catalogued with the antiquarians
or storytellers, depending on whether he intends to present
the past in its minutiae or to entertain his readers with
tales of bygone days. If the historian assumes a skeptical
attitude, affirming the incomprehensibility of historical
phenomena, the impossibility of the formulation of historical
laws, and the futility of an attempt to go beyond a very frag
mentary and biased interpretation of events in the past, then
he probably will be confronted with the embarrassing question
of justifying his position in the practical world of affairs.
Finally, if he looks at the past only in the light of the pres
ent and attempts to use his historical knowledge to predict
the future or to offer suggestions pertaining to a partial
control over the future, he runs the risk of classification
on the same level as a prophet.
The men of eighteenth century Europe during the era
of the Enlightenment, it has been observed, were essentially
pragmatic in their attitude regarding the utility of history.
The past was regarded as a great storehouse of human experi
ence, furnishing lessons applicable to the present. Since
human nature, according to the philosophes, remained a con
stant factor throughout the centuries, man would always react
in the same manner to similar political and social conditions.
History, therefore, was useful for the prediction of the
future and as a guide for control over the future.^
As Leo Gershoy notes in his description of the
dominant trends in the historical philosophy of the Enlighten
ment,
The philosophes were least of all interested in what dif
ferentiated man from man, and most of all interested in
what linked mankind together. Their concern was to ex
tract from historical experience confirmation of the
great truth proclaimed by reasons that under the distract
ing play of surface differences human nature everywhere
remained constant in all recorded eternity. For them all
Hume's "constant and invariant principles of human nature"
meant constantly and invariably good— humane and generous,
tolerant and just, capable in brief of assuming a rational
responsibility for man's fate In an always insecure world.
If such was the function of historical investigation, it
was clearly not necessary to strain for pedantic fullness
of factual information, or even to have the facts speak
for themselves in a conventionally correct chronological
order. What mattered was to have the examples of history
demonstrate that wherever the fundamental attributes of
human nature were repressed and denied, as for instance
under the rule of tyrants and priests, then humanity
itself was deprived of its birthright. What mattered
^Tor a general picture of the historical thought of
the Enlightenment, sees Carl Becker, The Heavenly City of the
Eighteenth Century Philosophers (New Haven, 1932); J. B. Black
The Art"of History (New York, 1926): Nelly M. Schargo, History
in the Bacvclopfedie (New York, 19^7); and J. W. Thompson, A
History of Historical Writing. 2 vols. (New York, 19^-2).
3
even more was to have history demonstrate that where this
constant and invariant human nature was allowed expres
sion, as during those four happy ages of Pericles, the
Antonines, the Renaissance, and the enlightenment, the
arts and sciences flourished and man lived happily, free
from strife and oppression.2
Though not a historian in the traditional sense of
the term, Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his political writings
reflects this view of history as "philosophy teaching by exam
ples" which was so widespread in eighteenth century Europe.
He too faced the problem of the utility of history, and his
answer in some respects differed sharply from the viewpoints
of his contemporaries.
Rousseau's thought along these lines was centered
primarily on the utility of history for the state. This thesis
deals with the story of Rousseau's quest for a solution to
this problem. And his solution is not a simple one.
The difficulty lay in the duality in Rousseau's
historical outlook which he was never able to reconcile.
Rousseau's dilemma arose from his inability to reconcile two
divergent theories concerning the evolution of the state. The
question which Rousseau vainly tried to solve was whether the
course of the state was dependent upon human endeavor or whether
the development of the state was determined by a multiplicity
of diverse factors defying human endeavor. Acceptance of
either position carried serious implications for Rousseau's
ideas concerning the utility of history for the state. One led
2
Leo Gershoy, From Despotism to Revolution 176^-1789
(William L. Langer, ed., The Rise of Modern Europe. X, New York,
19Mf), pp. 203-H-.
