Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) [France] Lesquerre "... Rousseau constantly avoided any even superficial compromises with the existing regime..." Karl Marx: "Letter to J. Bar. Schweitzer" January 24, 1865 a civilian While the most advanced sections of the third estate were gathering their forces for a general assault on the ancien régime, Jean-Jacques Rousseau published his first important work, "On Science and Art," in 1750.This is an era that produces great books.These great works provided a new world view in the entire field of thought (philosophy, natural science, history, ethics, law, etc.), shaking the foundation of the feudal system and autocratic politics with Catholicism as the main spiritual pillar.Montesquieu's "Spirit of Laws" was published in 1749, as did Diderot's "Letters Concerning the Blind" and the first volume of Buffon's "Natural History". The "Compendium of the Encyclopedia" was published in 1750; the first volume of the Encyclopedia and the introduction written by D'Alembert appeared in 1751; Voltaire's "The Age of Louis XIV" was also published at the same time.

These years can be said to be the turning point of the eighteenth century.In recent years, scholars who have discussed the origin and foundation of human inequality have basically shown a fighting spirit in their writings, at least some of the most famous works.These writings expressed the demands of the third estate who were deprived of all political rights and rose up against the feudal system at that time.Because the feudal system allowed a small group of parasites to live a life that built their own enjoyment on top of the poverty of the people, hindering the development of productive forces and the realization of national unity.

The third estate united against the absolute monarchy; Around 1750, this level of power had formed a huge united front, leading the battle all the way to the French Revolution. But the third estates do not all belong to the same social class. The small peasants, who accounted for the vast majority of the population, bore the full burden of feudal exploitation and the king's taxation.On the contrary, the big bourgeoisie, who appeared as taxpayers, benefited from the taxation system of the autocratic regime, and they all lived a life that based their enjoyment on the poverty of the people.

In the countryside, the poor peasants, who were unwilling to give up the traditional rights of the rural communes, opposed the big taxpayers who managed the land according to the new capitalist method.During the slack period, these poor peasants had to work at home for the merchants who supplied them with raw materials, so they were again exploited by the merchants. In the cities, the small handicraftsmen were unable to compete with the manufactures; in times of famine, the petty bourgeois starved to death, while the grain speculators made a fortune. These conflicts of interests had already been reflected in various theories at that time before the armed conflict broke out during the Great Revolution.

Montesquieu, a noble-born judge of the High Court, was a feudal landowner who had extensive ties to the old regime.Montesquieu's writings were an attempt to reconcile the contradictions between the aspirations of the bourgeoisie and the feudal system.Voltaire and the encyclopaedia faction were more advanced. They represented the interests of the progressive bourgeoisie and resolutely fought against the old system.Voltaire himself, as well as Helvetius and Holbach, were financiers and capitalists. Their program is in line with the direction of historical development because it aims to develop productive forces.Philosophically, some of them have become materialists.They believe that people can discover the essence of things through science, develop culture, and ensure people's happiness in this world; they have confidence in the progress of society.But in politics, although they dared to support the idea of ​​democracy under the absolute monarchy (Didero's "political authority" article for the encyclopedia), we cannot regard them as democrats.It is only from a benevolent point of view that these people are willing to ensure the happiness of the people.However, in their view, ensuring the well-being of the people should not be the business of the people themselves, or of the untouchables "deprived of wisdom and reason" (Holbach's words).Because Voltaire and others are bourgeois, they are wary of ordinary people who are prone to turmoil.They believed that establishing the kingdom of reason should be the responsibility of a few enlightened people.

However, as Engels said: "This kingdom of reason is nothing but the idealized kingdom of the bourgeoisie."The hereditary nobility was replaced by the money nobility.So-called progress can only be achieved through the exploitation of the masses of the people.The petty bourgeoisie agrees to fight against the old system together with the big bourgeoisie, but the petty bourgeoisie has no reason to allow the development of capitalism, because the development of capitalism will inevitably lead to bankruptcy and expropriation.The petty bourgeoisie cannot gain any benefits from feudal exploitation.Under the oppression of the old system, it has suffered more, so it is easier to accept democratic ideas.

But it is impossible for the petty bourgeoisie to come up with an effective economic programme.In desperation, it still clings to the petty private ownership that is doomed to decline by history and refuses to let go.What positive thing can it replace the old system with?Its aspirations became a utopian dream: a social system in which all citizens would be small proprietors under an egalitarian social system.Since this dream contradicts the inevitable economic development, this class can only lament the progress of society; in the process of social progress, the petty bourgeoisie actually sees a decline, and this The downfall is its own downfall.It takes a skeptical attitude towards the development of science-the tool that promotes progress; nor can it trust unreservedly in reason-the weapon of scientific research.

It is from this perspective that we should look at Rousseau's works, which provide a system of thought to the broad masses of the petty bourgeoisie.Rousseau was more progressive than the Encyclopedists, but at the same time more cautious.Though far more daring and profound in politics, he lags far behind the most progressive scholars of the encyclopaedia in philosophy.This is the profound contradiction in Rousseau's writings.Not because of a defect in his genius, but because he spoke for the petty bourgeoisie, a class whose position was inherently contradictory. The years of growing up (1712-1750)

Rousseau was born in Geneva in 1712.To see him as a Genevan writing for the people of Geneva distorts Rousseau's work and at the same time underestimates its significance.Today we can almost affirm that when he wrote "The Social Contract," he was still a stranger to political organization in Geneva.The reason why we regard Rousseau as a Frenchman is not so much because his ancestors were French Protestants in exile in the sixteenth century, but because his education was completely French, and he had a great deal of knowledge in French literature, thought In society, and in political life, he once played a major role.

Even so, because he grew up in Geneva, this had to have a certain influence on his writings.He was born a Calvinist, that is to say, he believed in a religion that was more individualistic and rationalistic than Catholicism (Marx once said that the Reformation was the result of a bourgeois revolution) Herald).More importantly, Geneva is a republic, so Rousseau was proud all his life that, among the subjects of the French king, he was born in a republic; the only title he kept throughout his life was "citizen of Geneva". "This title.Although the Republic of Geneva is in fact an oligarchy of the rich, with all its power vested in a small parliament of twenty-five men, we do not think that this is of great significance here, and Rousseau only It was not until after the publication of his great work that Rousseau realized that he had something unique in France at the time, in the fact that he was "born a citizen of the republic."

His father was a watchmaker, and his family belonged to the petty bourgeoisie.Rousseau did not consider himself born of the poorest class.In his "Confessions", he said that he was born "in a family whose customs and habits were different from those of the common people".However, he lost the care of his family since he was a child and lived among the people.His father was an unconstrained and imaginative man.While he often repaired the clock, he let the seven-year-old Jean Jacques read him lyrical novels, but also let him read Pludak's "Life of Celebrities", which has become a favorite of all since the sixteenth century. A civic reader for the people of the republic.His father had left Geneva because of a dispute with others, and since then he has never cared for Jean Jacques, who lost his mother at birth. For two years Jacques was entrusted to the priest Lambercier.At the vicar's house he began to study Latin.This was probably his only formal study under the supervision of others.He then apprenticed for two years with a carver.The life of an apprentice was the hardest life at that time.Rousseau had been bullied and beaten.He defended himself in the same way that children usually do, he lied, he stole.One day, he finally escaped.Since then, he has lived a wandering life for thirteen years, learned various occupations, and suffered all kinds of pain.He lived off a young woman, Mrs. Warren, who later became her lover.This young woman was also a wild woman in life.Perhaps as a result of temporary expediency, Rousseau converted to Catholicism.He worked as a servant and taught music, although he was still a layman in music at that time.At Annecy, and later at Chambery, he was with Madame de Warrens; he read a great deal, and conducted systematic studies by himself. In 1740, Rousseau became the children's teacher of M. de Mabrey's family in Lyon.M. de Mabrey was the brother of two philosophers, Étienne Bono Condillac and Gabriel Bono Mabrey.He later arrived in Paris with a draft of the score.He hoped to make a fortune from this score, and he gave it to the Academy of Sciences, but got nothing. Rousseau got acquainted with Diderot, a young writer who was as unknown as himself, and was introduced to various salons, such as the salon of Madame Dupin, the daughter of the financier Samuel Bainar.As a result of teaching music from time to time, Rousseau finally learned music and wrote an opera: "Elegant Poetry".But all this could not sustain his life, and being impoverished again, he accepted the post of secretary to the ambassador in Venice.He held this position for eighteen months.It was during this period that he began to care about political issues, and thus had the original idea of ​​writing a book called "Political System".Regarding this work, he only wrote an introduction: "Social Contract Theory".Soon, because of disagreements with the ambassador, he returned to Paris and planned to live in Paris for a long time. Rousseau was first known as a musician and playwright.After his "Elegant Poetry" was staged, he co-edited an opera with Voltaire: "La Mier's Festival".At the same time he also acted as secretary to Mrs. Dupin's son-in-law, M. de Frangeuil.At this time, he lived with a hotel maid who was completely illiterate, Délais Levasseur, and had five children, all of whom he sent to orphanages. Rousseau's contacts with philosophers became more extensive.In addition to Diderot and Condillac as his companions, he also met Mrs. Abinet, who was born in a financier family, and later met Grimm. In the summer of 1749, Diderot was imprisoned in Vinciny Castle.One day Rousseau walked to Vinciny Castle, wanting to spend an afternoon with his friend.On the way, he was reading the "French Mercury" and came across the title of the call for papers from the Academy of Dijon: Has the progress of science and art corrupted or improved morals? "The moment I read this title, I saw another world, and I became another person." What kind of person was Rousseau when he was about to become famous? Reactionary critics accused Rousseau of various weaknesses and shortcomings, saying that he was capricious and fickle (he had converted from Jesus to Catholicism, and then converted from Catholicism to Jesus), and his relationship with Mrs. Warren was ambiguous. : Sometimes, living by her, on the one hand being her lover, he called her mother at the same time; and at one time, he even agreed to share this woman with the gardener Claude Anais.In particular, Rousseau's abandonment of his children is regarded by critics as an unforgivable sin for an author who has written educational treatises. The least mean, or most cunning, reactionary critics attribute it all to his insanity."Rousseau is a madman," they said.This is the most ingenious way of slandering one of the leading figures who inspired the revolution.The facts cited in these criticisms are not false.Jean Jacques suffered all his life from illnesses affecting his nervous system.But he suffered from intermittent insanity only in his later years, mainly as a result of his persecution.To say that the author of such a coherent book as "On Inequality," "Emile," or "The Social Contract" was a madman is a foolish slander. Of course, when Rousseau was young, he gave people the impression that he was wandering in life, didn't know what morality was, and couldn't restrain his emotional impulse.But we should know that this is inevitable for a young man who has no upbringing since childhood, was oppressed by society early, and ended up relying on a profligate woman for a living; Young people, but made themselves such outstanding figures.One cannot forgive his abandonment of his children, but we should not criticize it from a modern point of view.In the eighteenth century it was the fashion, even among the nobility.For example: D'Alembert is the son of Mrs. Denson, and Mrs. Denson once left him under the aisle of a church door, which is a well-known secret. Rousseau, who, like many others, had sent the child to an orphanage because of financial difficulties to support the whole family of Délèse Levasseur, was more forgivable than Madame Danson.Rousseau's question is particularly noteworthy because he later wanted to propose a new ethic against that of the aristocracy; but he had not yet considered it when he abandoned his children.In his later years, he seemed to regret this behavior very much.From this point of view, Rousseau is not so much a guilty person as a victim. As for being accused of lack of constancy, in fact, this should be counted as a kind of credit to him, for such a sensitive person cannot bear any restraint.He felt the pain of oppression more than anyone else, and whenever his freedom was violated, he walked away immediately.This is why he is adrift in life.He would rather live a free life of hardship and adventure than a comfortable slave life.For him, on the origin and basis of human inequality, love of liberty is deeper than love of anything else.He would like to always be what he is: to keep life, emotion, and thought free.When he decides to speak in defense of a correct idea, no apprehension about property, career, or even personal safety can silence him.Even if he is the only person in the world who holds such a view, he will insist on what he believes to be the truth. Among Rousseau's contemporaries, he is the only one who has experience in wandering life.During his journeys, he knew the suffering of the people.Rousseau personally experienced the humiliation of living and being dominated by others. He learned to love the people; among the people, he always felt so warm. At the same time, this person who has been trained through hard life education has finally found a way to acquire advanced knowledge through self-study.Although Rousseau's knowledge is not as profound as Diderot, who has in-depth research on science, Rousseau has a mind that is proficient in all kinds of knowledge.This is attested to by the great variety and variety of themes of his writings.His works include music, drama, poetry, chemistry, botany, linguistics, political economy, law, education, novels, and more.This kind of knowledge is not learned in school.Rousseau was not schooled.He was a solitary man, but he possessed a peculiar intellect, able to fully grasp what he had learned, and accustomed to put all ideas to strict judgment. Rousseau was such a man when he appeared in the Paris salons in 1741.Of course he was driven to the salon by youthful ambition.Paris was the cultural capital of that time, and only the salons could make a man famous.An intellectual born in the common people, if the salons do not promote him to the literary world, there will be no hope of becoming famous.It was a gathering place for literary rich men, hospitable and powerful ladies who supported outstanding writers.For example: Marmontaire, Grimm, and Beaumarchais all became famous in the salon.Why was Jean Jacques not so lucky?He had no prejudices against the aristocracy of the Parisian salons at that time.Nor do we find any trace of hostility to contemporary dignitaries in the works of his youth. However, when Rousseau came into contact with those dignitaries, he began to hate them.His "morbid sensitivity" also developed from this.His growing hostility to the nobles may indeed be explained in his character.To stand out in the salon, one must be a person who is free and easy, but he is a shy and unsociable person; what is needed in the salon is a fluent answer, but he is clumsy with words, which can only be done when he is alone. Created; in the salon must be able to discuss the most important issues with ease and wit, but he always maintains a serious attitude, all the energy is concentrated on the various conflicts of ideas.In short, he should be like Voltaire, but he is Jean Jacques.But the more important reason is class contradictions.In the salons, the aristocrats and the big bourgeoisie live a luxurious life that impoverishes the people, and Jean Jacques feels himself the people.Baron Holbach asked Rousseau one day why he was so cold to him ?, Rousseau replied: "You are too rich".These rich people have no hearts.They are hypocritical. "Among the common masses, natural affection is pervasive, though strong passions are only intermittent. In the upper classes there is no such affection at all. They are veiled under the mask of false affection." , governed only by profit or vanity." Another man would have groveled and groveled, but Rousseau's characteristic was his indomitable spirit.People try to make him a salon figure, a little Voltaire, but that won't work!He was always Jean Jacques Rousseau, a citizen of Geneva, and he would expose all the hypocrisy of a society that made the few rich, the many poor, and the whole unhappy. The Writing of Great Books (1750-1762) The dissertation "On Science and Art" was awarded a prize by the Academy of Dijon, and immediately aroused great repercussions.Then began a series of pen battles.Various writers (sometimes also some amateur writers, such as King Stanislav of Poland Ös) participated in the attack on Rousseau; Rousseau defended, and the controversy continued until the publication of the second paper.His opponents, who had attempted to undermine his reputation, affirmed from the "memoirs" of Marmontaire and Morrelet that Rousseau had been inspired by Diderot in writing this treatise.They believe that Rousseau had informed his friend of his dissertation project for admission to the Academy of Dijon, which originally advocated the progress of science and art, and actually had the effect of improving customs.Because Diderot was fond of strange theories, he felt that Rousseau's arguments were too ordinary, and advised him to be unconventional and make a blockbuster, and temporarily published some arguments. Rousseau later developed Diderot's arguments in his papers.This slander is not worth refuting.They insulted not only Rousseau, but Diderot as well, describing both of them as charlatans eager for instant fame.These two men deserved a different kind of reputation for their love of truth, at all personal sacrifices.What reason should we have for assuming that Rousseau persevered throughout his life with the novel arguments offered by his friend?And Diderot did not confirm Marmontaire's claim anywhere.On the contrary, Diderot, in his "Refutation of the 'Natural History of Man'", clearly stated: "Rousseau did what he had to do because he was Rousseau. I may have done nothing, or I may have done something else, because I am me after all." What Diderot narrates in "The Life of Seneca" seems to be true.Rousseau told Diderot of his intention to be recruited, and Diderot shouted: "There is nothing to hesitate, you will definitely take the idea that no one else will take." Diderot knew Rousseau's tendency, so he had early Rousseau's answer to this question was anticipated. As soon as this first paper "On Science and Art" was published, it laid the foundation for Rousseau's fame.But it's not a masterpiece.Rousseau himself was devoid of literary vanity, so consider this essay one of his worst writings. "Of all the writing that has come out of my pen, this is the weakest in argument, the most incongruous in writing." Although this dissertation is nothing more than an essay with beautiful rhetoric to promote morality, it is of great significance, because the germination of all Rousseau's theories is contained in it.Rousseau's affirmation that the progress of science and art has played a role in corrupting customs is exactly the opposite of the concept generally accepted by philosophers at that time.At that time, "Encyclopedia Compendium" was like a hymn to science, extolling that science can make society rebuild according to the requirements of reason.However, Rousseau has observed that society is built on unequal foundations, that culture serves the decadent aristocracy, and that the luxurious life of the aristocracy is based on the poverty of the people.The real novelty of Rousseau's treatise does not lie in the opposition of good nature to corrupt society.Many scholars before Rousseau had made this comparison, and the argument that the savage is good was extremely popular in the eighteenth century. But Rousseau was the first person to point out in a passionate tone that the other side of the luxury of some people is the poverty of those people.This argument, which was implicit in this first treatise, became more and more explicit in the ensuing battles of writing, especially in the letter to the King of Poland.Rousseau's critique is not just against feudal society, but against all societies built on the basis of property inequality. Since then, Rousseau has found his own path.He did not break with the philosophers, for the conflict which set him against them was still latent.D'Alembert, in the introduction to the "Encyclopedia", and Grimm, in his "Literary Letters", both have well-intentioned criticisms of Rousseau's first essay.Rousseau also participated in the compilation of the encyclopedia, providing those entries on music. In 1755, he also provided the "Encyclopedia" with his "On Political Economy".In this essay he develops his arguments even more, and turns from an ethical to a political point of view.He still maintained a very close relationship with Diderot; it can be seen that Diderot was Rousseau's closest friend.Diderot, like him, was a petty bourgeois who for a long time lived the life of a vagabond. At this time Rousseau became more and more alienated from the salons, began his "spiritual transformation", and decided to live independently like a small handicraftsman.The famous author therefore made his living by copying musical scores (at ten sous per page) on his own.He set the example of a serious and adrift life.It was this respectable example of personal life that won him the hearts of the petty bourgeoisie; ?Characters like Robespierre are influenced by his life and his works. In 1752, Rousseau's musical comedy: "The Country Soothsayer" was staged; followed by another of his comedy: "Narsis", the preface of this play clearly affirms the ideas in his first treatise .He turned down an annuity offered by the king for a successful performance in "The Country Soothsayer." In 1755, he participated in a call for papers organized by the Dijon Academy of Sciences. "On the Origin of Inequality" is the thesis for this application.The content of this paper will be analyzed below.After finishing his dissertation, he traveled to Geneva, where he converted to Calvinism. Tired of life in Paris, Rousseau went to live in a small garden-style house that Madame Abinet had prepared for him in the garden of her Villa Chevret, and that small house was called the Hermitage.From that time on, the debate between him and the Encyclopedists began to rage.Bourgeois critics generally attribute Rousseau's break with the Encyclopedists to personal causes.They considered Rousseau's suspicious, sensitive, and self-inflicted eccentricities, Diderot's negligence, and Grimm's insidiousness to be the cause of the rupture.These insignificant reasons may, on the contrary, cover up deeper reasons that exist in the ideology of both parties.But it is the duty of the critic to set aside all gossip and go all the way back to the source of the conflict.Because it was originally a class conflict.The Progressives (Diderot, Holbach) among the Encyclopedists, like the Centrists (Voltaire), all developed the progressive program of the bourgeoisie, while Rousseau represented the interests of the democratic masses.The democratic masses, though more revolutionary, do not have a positive economic program, so they have to escape in utopia. In 1758, after Rousseau broke with Madame Abinet, he settled in Montmorency, living in a small house in Mont-Louis.This is the period when he wrote most in his life.He first published "Letter to D'Alembert on Acting".This letter finally caused Rousseau to completely break with the Encyclopedia.In the letter, Rousseau did not oppose art in general, nor did he oppose all types of theater indiscriminately.Rousseau has repeatedly expressed his conviction that art will function morally well under a system that is no longer based on social inequality.Art should have its ethical and political content.Rousseau opposed classical theater because he thought it was an aristocratic art.Although his view was incorrect, it was necessary at that time in order to pave the way for people's art. The final paragraph of the "Letter to D'Alembert" proposes a proposal for a festival for the people and citizens.This scheme was later adopted during the period of the Great Revolution.The major revolutionary festivals established by David's decree can be found theoretical basis in Rousseau's writings. From 1761 to 1762, Rousseau published three of his most important works: "New Heloise", "The Social Contract" and "Emile".All three works are educational.Up until now Rousseau had only revealed the reasons for the depravity of his contemporaries in a society based on the inequality of property.Now he refers to his contemporaries as a new man. "Social Contract Theory" proposes a democratic and egalitarian social principle.People in that society can be said to be morally motivated citizens, in other words, patriots. The book "New Heloise" proposes a bourgeois ideal family morality against the corruption of the nobles; against pornography and licentiousness, it proposes a healthier emotional life. But not only that, Rousseau at that time believed that in order to build a better society, individuals must be transformed, so he put forward an educational plan in line with natural law in his book "Emile". The three works are related to each other, as if they all belong to a whole great plan. But the inherent contradictions of Rousseau's thought, and of the class he represented, can be found everywhere in these three works.Only a relatively detailed analysis can reveal those contradictions.In this brief review, however, we shall merely point out the historical importance of each of these three works. "Social Contract Theory" is a treatise on political law, the content is very abstract, and it is boring to read, but it is the most profound and mature work proclaiming the principle of popular sovereignty.In order to secure his own liberty, each citizen places himself at the mercy of a sovereign sovereign who represents the general will, which is the will of the people.Rousseau also distinguished the sovereign, in other words, the general will, from the government responsible for enforcing the laws.Difficulties arise here, because Rousseau stays in the bourgeois thought category and does not consider the problem of eliminating private ownership.Since there are rich and poor in society, how to prevent the rich from seizing power and violating the public will?This is a problem that bourgeois thinking cannot solve, and Rousseau has to use some utopias to get rid of these problems.He admired the equality of property, and the laws against luxury which prevent the development of commerce and industry.He had a presentiment of the futility of these means, and he resorted to the establishment of a state religion, to strengthen the organization of the state. For the Jacobin Revolutionaries, nothing could have had a greater impact than this book.In their view, it was a handbook for revolutionary morality, national spirit, and in a word, patriotism.Nothing is more at odds with cosmopolitanism than Rousseau's thought.It is in the "social contract theory" that one can see most clearly that before 1789 patriotism and republicanism were inseparable. On the other hand, according to Rousseau, since all citizens have handed over all their rights to the supreme authority, in order to guarantee freedom, the supreme authority should have unlimited power.This proposition provided the Jacobins with a theoretical basis for revolutionary terror. Finally, the theory of national religion in the "social contract theory" once inspired Robespierre to establish a belief in the supreme sovereign. The monograph "Emile" on children's education has played a progressive role, especially if one compares Rousseau's thought with the kind of education implemented in schools at that time, its progressive significance is even more obvious.Most of those schools were in the hands of the Jesuits until their expulsion in 1762.Following the example of the great humanists of the Renaissance, Rousseau demanded the all-round development of human beings both physically and spiritually.Rousseau advocated the implementation of object education, replacing book knowledge with direct observation of things as much as possible. In this kind of education, science should play a major role, and theory should be combined with practice.Emile learned a craft because "we have faced a crisis and the era of revolution is coming", and any social status will inevitably be shaken.This kind of child-seeing education is based on the following principles: the individuality of the child should be developed, the good endowment given to the child by nature should be respected, and he should be kept away from all prejudices and traditions that are not based on reason; Develop a person who can judge independently.This is very important on the eve of the Great Revolution. But perhaps it is in "Emile" that Rousseau's ideological contradictions and his fantasy-loving character are most obvious.First of all, Rousseau's views on the role of children's education in cultivating newcomers are utopian.Because who is going to train new people?In order for the education of children to have a revolutionary significance, the educators must first be educated.From this we can see the idealism of the philosophers of the eighteenth century. They thought that ideas ruled the world, and therefore believed that in order to transform society, individuals must be transformed. On the other hand, what kind of man did Rousseau want to cultivate?Is it a natural person?Or what about citizens in the "social contract theory"? "Everything is good when it comes out of the creator's hand, but everything is bad when it comes into the hands of man", these are the two sentences at the beginning of the book "Emile".However, Rousseau soon affirmed: "A good social system is the kind that is most adept at changing human nature."We see Rousseau here as hovering between the two, that is, between bourgeois patriotism and bourgeois individualism, the former finding its greatest strength in the heroic Utopianism of the Jacobins.出色的表现，后者，则是为了发展以竞争为基础的资本主义所必需的。我们可以说，在这里卢梭深刻地表达了资产阶级的基本倾向，这些矛盾的倾向是卢梭所不能超越的，因为要超越这些矛盾，只有近代的无产阶级才有可能。实际上，应当成为公民的爱弥尔，是与一切社会生活完全隔绝，在孤独中成长起来，至少在他十五岁以前是那样的。 这种反社会的倾向，后来竟被反动思想家所利用。现在资产阶级仍然特别注意使儿童在不知社会生活的情形下来受教育。另一方面，卢梭为了想使爱弥尔不受一切成见的影响，竟不让他知道人类的文化，而人类文化，乃是人们生活经验的果实。爱弥尔直到十二岁都没接触过书本，而且只是从那时起人们才开始启发他的智慧。从各方面看，卢梭可以算得是儿童教育家的鼻祖，不过使用的所谓新方法，实际上是表明了资产阶级文化的倒退。 因此，这部内容复杂的作品发生了双重的影响。它启发了雅各宾党的进步的教育计划，例如雷伯乐季耶·德·圣·法尔果和圣·鞠斯特的教育计划，但也助长了十九世纪以及今日某些儿童教育家的反动理论。 至于卢梭在“爱弥尔”一书中所写的著名的“撒瓦雅副主教发愿词”则应另当别论。在那篇发愿词中，卢梭陈述了他所主张的宗教原则。他相信灵魂不灭，相信天上有一个赏善罚恶的上帝。他所看到的自然界的奇迹和他的良知的直觉，使他确信上帝的存在，这种直觉即所谓“神赋的本能”。因此卢梭可以说是自然神论者。表面上他是和伏尔泰接近的，因为伏尔泰也是自然神论者。卢梭和伏尔泰完全一样，否认出于这一教会或那一教会的一切神圣启示、教仪和信条。他所理想的宗教和伏尔泰所理想的一样，很可以不用教士。我们不应当忽略卢梭和其他哲学家一样，是向教会作斗争的，因为教会是封建制度的主要堡垒。 实际上，卢梭创立自然神论的愿望是和伏尔泰的愿望完全不相同的。伏尔泰不接受唯物主义，至少他没有正式承认过唯物主义，因为他需要在人世之外有一个监视人民的神，使人民服从，并保护私有财产。相反地，卢梭则需要一个神作人民的安慰者，在人世之外，替被压迫的人复仇，惩治恶人，也就是说惩治富人。 “若真没有神的存在，当今有权势的人们、富人们、幸福者们一定是很高兴的。但是对来世生活的期待，却可以安慰人民和受苦者的现世生活。” 为了判断“发愿词”在历史上所起的作用，不应仅以研究其中简单的信条为满足。我们可以断言，卢梭因为保持了一种宗教信仰，所以更容易和他那一时代的小资产阶级和人民相接近，因为对于他们来说，天主教仍然是有一种强有力的影响的。恩格斯曾经指出，在法国，唯物主义起源于贵族；百科全书派始终是和人民有距离的。此外，卢梭还和宗教进行了妥协，因而移转了斗争的重心。这已不是理性对宗教的斗争，而是人民——农民、小资产阶级，无论他们是否信仰宗教——反对贵族和富人的斗争了。我们可以说在“发愿词”里，已经蕴含有罗伯斯庇尔政策的思想。罗伯斯庇尔深刻地了解：如果一方面要消灭人民群众的宗教成见，而同时要把他们团结起来反对贵族，那是不可能的。在那个时候，吉隆特党人一般都是无神论者，也是百科全书派的拥护者（例如孔多塞），他们都背叛了大革命。 在这具有决定意义的时刻，卢梭的自然神论起了有益的作用。 尽管如此，在哲学思想史上，如果拿“发愿词”和百科全书派的唯物主义相比的话，不能不说前者标志着一种退步。卢梭竟乞灵于宗教上的蒙昧主义，由于他断言他的良知，先于一切理性，向他启示了神的存在，因此卢梭便为信仰主义敞开了大门。反动派没有放过利用这一事实的机会。“爱弥尔”刚一出版，勒夫朗·德·彭比年主教就祝贺卢梭创立了一个介于基督教与哲学家之间的第三派。所以马克思主义的大师们认为他们受狄德罗和百科全书派的影响大于卢梭的影响，那是不无理由的。 在今天，我们很难想象“新哀洛伊丝”一书，在过去许多世代中所产生的影响，因为象那种伤感的笔调现在已经没有那么大的动人力量了。这部通信体裁的长篇小说标志着小说史上的一个转折点。同时由于“新哀洛伊丝”一书所提问题的多样性，我们几乎可以说它是一部卢梭主义的百科全书。 在卢梭以前，小说只是供人消遣的言情文学所惯用的体裁，“新哀洛伊丝”一书给予这种贵族式的文风一个决定性的打击，因而使小说向现实主义道路迈进。在卢梭以前，并非没有伟大的现实主义小说家，例如勒萨日、马利沃、普勒弗斯特都是现实主义小说家，但是零零散散地见于他们作品里的写实主义成分，都集中在“新哀洛伊丝”里了。这真是一部写实的，同时又是抒情的小说。人们在这部小说里，特别是在第一卷里，可以读到对热情的歌颂，这种热情无疑会使人伤感，但同时却能丰富人的精神生活；它是生活的最高形式，它本身是善良的。在这一点上，卢梭和狄德罗一致，是反对基督教的。他控诉了因为阶级关系致使朱丽叶不能和她的情人圣·普乐结婚的那种社会制度；他控诉了那一时代的社会里妇女们所处的屈辱地位。 卢梭反对破坏家庭的贵族阶级的放荡生活，颂扬家庭生活的庄严。在“新哀洛伊丝”的第二卷里，朱丽叶始终忠实于她的丈夫沃尔马先生，这是那个时代的贵族们认为可笑的事情。关于这一点，卢梭也与狄德罗相近，是格罗兹的赞赏者①。 另一方面，卢梭把在乡村自然环境中人们所过的淳朴的、自然的生活，与都市里贵族们所过的腐化生活，加以对比。他以新的，从文艺复兴以来所不曾有的笔调，歌颂自然。除了狄德罗间或作不同的主张外，在其余的百科全书派学者们看来，自然是一个抽象的观念，一个哲学范畴；正如斯宾诺莎所说的，自然是以其自身为原因的实体。与百科全书派正相反，在卢梭看来，自然是一个活生生的实在物，充满了他可以用一切感官来享受的富源，它是灵感的源泉，它是人的一个知己。 ①格罗兹（１７２５—１８０５年）法国抒情画家。 ——Translator's Note “新哀洛伊丝”一书最突出的新颖之点或许是：这一作品重新采用了十八世纪很少见的抒情诗体，而卢梭却早就是一个最伟大的抒情诗人。他所写的散文并不仅以明晰而有力地表达思想为满足。他既是音乐家，所以他也善于用音韵来激起各种热烈的感情。澎湃的热情是有感染力的，这就是无数的女读者读了“新哀洛伊丝”所以要流泪的缘故。 但是“新哀洛伊丝”也反映着小资产阶级的各种矛盾。第一卷，是感情自由奔放的赞歌，第二卷则与第一卷恰恰相反，是劝人安于命运的说教。因为当朱丽叶由于父亲的命令，同意放弃她所爱的人而嫁给一个老头子的时候，这是天性在社会制度面前低了头，而这种制度，却是第一卷所雄辩地控诉过的。反动的浪漫主义就从这里面取得了种种的主题：在天堂中得到安慰的希望，忧郁、喜爱孤寂、静思与冥想、为感情而追求感情等等。 晚年（１７６２—１７７８年） “爱弥尔”一书的出版引起了当局对卢梭的迫害。高等法院检查了那部书，并发出通缉该书作者的命令。卢梭必须急忙逃亡。巴黎大主教发出了一个反对卢梭的教书；新教徒对他也没有表示更好的态度。他在日内瓦也受到了责难。他投到纽沙戴尔州的莫季耶村去，那里的牧师纠合当地的居民反对他。他逃避到伯尔尼州的比也纳湖中圣彼得岛上去，伯尔尼的上议院也立刻将他驱逐出境。他经过阿尔萨斯省到达了英国，那是哲学家大卫·休谟邀请他去的。不久，他们两个人闹了意见，卢梭又回到法国，重新过着流浪生活。１７７０年被当局赦免以后，他才定居在巴黎。直到１７７８年卢梭在爱尔蒙维尔逝世以前，都是过着隐居生活，只和少数友人来往，因而他不信任一切人了。反对他的有教会、高等法院、王室权贵以及哲学家们。当时他虽然在表面上与社会隔绝，过着孤独的生活，可是没有人比他有更大的影响和更多的热烈的崇拜者了。他曾接到过从科西嘉和波兰的来信，请求他为这两５２论人类不平等的起源和基础个民族起草宪法。一些和卢梭素不相识的崇拜卢梭的人们都想到他那偏僻的退隐的地方去拜访他。这位被驱逐的遁世者在舆论方面所具有的吸引力，是他的那些迫害者们所没有的。这一时期他写的东西还是很多，但是他的著作已改变了性质。此后，他所以还向世人说教，无非是给人们指出他自己的榜样，并极力向后人申诉他所受的诽谤和不公平的待遇。在这些写作中有“忏悔录”，随后他又写了“独行者的幻想”，但这部作品还没写完他就去世了。 “忏悔录”并不完全是卢梭的生活的历史，而主要是他的精神和情感的历史。这是对心理分析的杰作；是动人的论辩；是对他的论敌慷慨激昂的责难（虽然这种责难往往有失公正）；同时也是一首抒情的诗歌，一首世界文学中最美的诗。卢梭是在浪漫主义时代行将大放异彩的抒情文学的大师。他的个人主义是有它积极的一面的。在所有第三等级的人还被封闭在封建框子里，受着屈辱和被剥夺了权利的时候，作为“个人”的卢梭就业已肯定了“个人”具有无可代替的价值。他在“个人”身上发现了无限的精神财富；他向世人揭示了内心生活的宝藏和存在于人本身中的一切潜在力量。卢梭就这样为人的解放而工作。当然，伏尔泰及其他哲学家也曾为了使人确信人本身是神圣的、不可触知的（Ｉｎｔａｎｇｉｂｌｅ）这一观念而奋斗过，但那只是停留于抽象的概念上。卢梭把这一概念加以渲染了，并给了它以生命和血肉。 但是实际上卢梭所帮助建立的正是资产阶级制度。在这种制度下，个人只有倚靠自己。 资产阶级的个人主义很快就把它的反动的一面显露出来了：囿于自我、置身于社会之外来反对社会、为情感而崇拜情感，幻想以及心灵的消极状态。所有这一切已出现于卢梭的著作中，嗣后并在浪漫派中最反动的作家们的作品里泛滥起来（如在沙朵勃里盎和在德国的一些作家的作品里），直到今天这一切还在各种不同的形式下，支配着整个反动文学。 卢梭和我们 卢梭的影响是多方面的。关于卢梭，首先应该称颂的：他是雅各宾革命党人的鼓舞者。他在历史上的伟大功绩在于为小资产阶级提供了一种理论，使他们在大革命决定性的时刻，不管资产阶级的意向如何，领导了人民群众，拯救了被欧洲封建势力所进攻的资产阶级革命。被我们尊崇为最纯正的革命党人，象马 ?、罗伯斯庇尔和圣·鞠斯特那些人物，都是深受卢梭的著作思想影响的。人们曾在罗伯斯庇尔的手稿里找到了一段文字，似乎可以证明这位青年马克西米廉①，在大路易公学毕业后，曾去拜访过他所崇拜的大师。卢梭学说中的矛盾，也存在于罗伯斯庇尔派的纲领中。圣·鞠斯特使国民议会通过“六月命令”以后，计划建立一个平等的小私有者的民主制，这种乌托邦计划当然是被历史淘汰了。十一月事件②恰恰是可以用雅各宾党的经济编领的乌托邦性质来说明的。 ①罗伯斯庇尔的名字。 ——Translator's Note ②指１７９４年革命历１１月９日（即公历７月２７日）罗伯斯庇尔政权被推翻的事件。 ——Translator's Note 卢梭对于大革命的影响，不仅可以从他的思想来说明，还可以从和他的思想分不开的文笔来说明。他的激昂的雄辩；他的感人的诗词，确实可以推动当时民主大众。伏尔泰喜欢用的武器是讽刺；卢梭喜欢用的武器是雄辩，这种变化标志着革命准备中的一个新阶段。实际上１７５０年以前，讽刺是哲学家们所采用的主要文体。讽刺有一种破坏作用；同时对进步事业也有很大的贡献。讽刺善于以智慧的光芒来暴露封建社会和天主教的种种荒谬可笑之处。但是讽刺的作用有它一定的限度。讽刺是宫廷或沙龙里的人物所做的事情。他们即便了解到那些荒谬可笑之处，至多不过哄然一笑而已，因为决定性斗争的时机尚未到来，而且他们本身就是些贵族或大资产者，还有等待的时间。我们并不是说伏尔泰只是一个文艺欣赏家，没有热情地战斗过。１７５０年以后，他那讽刺的武器更强有力地发挥了鞭笞作用。但是雄辩则不是他所擅长的。相反地，卢梭的雄辩却能抓着人心，它是向不能再忍受压迫的、愤恨不平的人们而发的。它不只是启发了智慧，而且还把人身上的一切潜力都发动起来。政党俱乐部中以及各种集会上的大演说家们，在１７８９年用以唤起人民大众的就是这种雄辩。 大革命以后，卢梭的影响仍然是很大的。自从他的著作出现以后，作家们再不可能象以前那样地写作了。所有浪漫派的作家们，都自称是宗奉卢梭的榜样。沙朵勃里盎是这样，米什莱或 ?莫奈也是这样。在这以后，我们还可以看出卢梭对于各大作家的直接影响。托尔斯泰和卢梭相同的地方是那么多，以致自称是他的门徒。罗曼·罗兰的哲学上的理想主义，他的热爱人民，热爱正义、和平与自由的感情，都表现出他也是卢梭的一个拥护者。 另一方面，卢梭所激起的仇恨，一直到我们这一时代也还没有平息。世界上象他那样受到反动批评家的诬蔑的作家是很少的。在１９１２年他的诞生二百年纪念时，还有人对他表示了强烈地仇恨。 今天的资产阶级是不敢毫无顾忌地使用那些粗暴的手段了，而临着日益高涨的进步势力，他们必须采取狡猾的手段，必须使用种种方法来达到他们的反动的目的。对他们说来，与其毁谤卢梭，倒不如试图利用卢梭著作中一切可作反动解释的地方，更为有利。 因此，那些大声疾呼反对进步，提倡开倒车的空想主义者们；那些一面实行危害劳动人民的政策，一面滔滔不绝地讲说社会正义的人们；那些自认为一切皆备于我，皆备于自己的良知，因而认为不需要马克思主义社会科学的人们；那些把整个社会都予以否定的人们；那些在工人阶级里面散布小资产阶级思想的无政府主义者们，都抬出卢梭来作为他们理论的根据。 当然，现在也有许多可敬的研究卢梭的人，他们很诚恳地在努力发掘卢梭思想的真正意义，但是他们的工作并不一定总能阐明问题。天主教徒努力想把卢梭拉到他们那一面去；某些实证论者很有理由地对这一点深感不满，但他们竟想把卢梭说成是一个彻底的唯理论者，那也同样是不正确的。 马克思主义者批评的任务，在于使人们对卢梭的思想有全面的了解。要批评他的弱点并且对这些弱点加以说明，同时也要指出他对世界文化的巨大贡献。卢梭对祖国、对自由和对人民的热爱以及他对人民的剥削者的憎恨，都很卓越地表现在他的著作中。正因为这一点，我们的人民才以崇敬的心情怀念着这位哲学家让·雅克。他的著作是构成我们民族文化的主要的一环。