Rousseau's Dog (36 page)
Authors: David Edmonds
It was at this point that a disjunction in their intellectual personalities ensured that the division between them would be unbridgeable. Rousseau conceived a bold conclusion, and then filled in the details. Hume operated in the other wayâstarting with the facts, and using these to build a case. So Rousseau imagined the deadly and extensive conspiracy against him, before unearthing his corroborative evidence. Hume, in contrast, went straight to that evidence. By examination of each piece, he sought to discredit his attacker's nightmare thesis, to persuade the public that there were more reasons to disbelieve than to believe it. Rousseau's reliance on intuitive imagination disoriented and enraged his erstwhile benefactor.
All this goes some way to explaining why Hume erupted so violently when he saw Rousseau's allegations, and why he made such frenetic efforts to limit any damage from what was plausibly the most potent and destructive pen in Europe, for he never lost sight of Rousseau's genius. But the unremitting brutality of Hume's reaction put his reputation in Paris more at risk than any claim of Rousseau's: in effect he exchanged roles with his accuser in his search for vengeance. He also demonstrated how little he had assimilated the manners of the salons in which he was feted. Perhaps he had not been offered the opportunity to study the
Rule of Life
on Mme de Boufflers's bedroom wall.
M
ORE PERPLEXING IS
Hume's persistent mendacityâhis utter falsehoods, his economies with the truth, his deviousness.
Before the “plot” coalesced, these included the false impression he gave that he was ignorant of the King of Prussia letter; his holding back its authorship from Rousseau, then telling him that Walpole had intended it to remain secret; his not forwarding letters to Rousseau from de L'Espinasse and (later) d'Alembert; the exaggeration of his role in winning Rousseau's pension.
The affair of the faux retour chaise is illuminating. Biographers have traditionally skirted over Rousseau's sense of humiliation at being treated as a beggar living on alms, dismissing it as a typical overreaction from the hypersensitive Genevan. At the time, the benevolent Davenport must have been taken aback. Surely this was subterfuge with the purest of motives, for he was both supporting the indigent and concealing the charity.
Hume was just as unlikely to give the ploy a second thought. When it came to the truth, he had an instrumentalist outlook, telling his publisher, Sir William Strahan, in August 1770: “You see I am a good casuist, and can distinguish cases very nicely. It is certainly a wrong thing to deceive any body, much more a friend; but yet the difference must still be allowed infinite between deceiving a man for his good and for his injury.”
That attitude, to Rousseau, was anathema. As so often, there are puzzling inconsistencies in Rousseau's pronouncements, but his gut instinct was to recoil at any form of deception. For Rousseau, a white lie was still a lie, an act that both slighted its target and sullied its creator. Even if Hume was not the originator of the trick over the chaise, his awareness of it, in Rousseau's eyes, made him complicit; his private judgment as to what was in his guest's best interest was both condescending and contemptuous.
In the Fourth Walk of the
Reveries,
where he confesses to having sometimes lied out of shame or embarrassment, he writes, “The lies we call white lies are real lies, because to act deceitfully in one's interest or that of others is no less unjust than to act deceitfully against the interests of others.” Rousseau saw himself as the apostle of truth: for him, the truth was of paramount importance, for him his “horror of falsehood outweighed all other things.”
There were other Hume lies. Following the retour chaise debacle, and after Rousseau exposed the “plot,” Hume persistently gave misleading
information to his supporters, for instance, his assertion that Rousseau had called him
le plus noir de tous les hommes;
the bald statement that he had proof that Rousseau had plotted against him for two months, proof he never produced; the assertion that Rousseau had provided no sign of his distrust of Humeânot so, if we accept that Rousseau mentioned the word
traitor
in Lisle Street. There were his claims that Conway and Hertford had advised publication and that his French friends had “extorted” his consent to publish the
Concise Account;
his tricky exchanges with Walpole over the editing of Walpole's letter in the French
Account;
his wrongly describing Davenport as disliking Le Vasseur. An observer in possession of the full facts could have identified at least twelve lies, apart from little embellishments, committed by the Scot. Particularly mystifying are his deceptions of Mme de Boufflersânot only over the Rousseau affair but over personal matters such as his plans to return to Paris. Of all people, she was the one who deserved his candor.
P
ERHAPS THE MORAL
of the whole sad encounter is that while sane men cannot make madmen sane, madmen can make sane men mad. In his momentary madness, fury, and panic, Hume never grasped the root of Rousseau's complaint: that though Hume had carried out the obligations of a friend in practice, he was constitutionally incapable of doing so in spirit. Rousseau expected his friends to be entirely straight with him, to open their heart, to be motivated purely by love. Friendship required a special form of understanding. He warned Mme d'épinay: “My expressions rarely have the usual significance, for it is always my heart that communes with you, and some day maybe you will realise that its language is not that of other hearts.”
The nature of friendship is something Rousseau returns to time after time. In the
Confessions,
he reveals the bar of suspicion potential friends had to hurdle.
Some friendships ⦠are very dear to me. They have often caused me to regret that happy obscurity, when those who called themselves my friends were really such, and loved me for myself, from pure goodwill, not from the vanity of being intimate with a well-known man, or from the secret desire of thus finding more opportunity of injuring him.
Rousseau had a visceral grasp of Aristotle's analysis of friendship in the
Nicomachean Ethics:
“What is just is not the same for a friend towards a friend as towards a stranger.” Friendship involves a basket of mutual emotionsârespect, trust, warmth, a desire for that person's happiness and success, a desire to be in that person's companyâreinforced by action. And friendship is sustained over time. Do not expect friendship to ripen too quickly, Rousseau admonished young François Coindet in 1758. Friendship “is something that must mature slowly over the years, so that true friends are friends long before they use the word âfriend.'”
Hume was baffled by Rousseau's fondness for Sultan, “his affection for that creature is above all expression or conception.” But Rousseau's relationship with the canine gives us some insight into Rousseau's relationship with his fellow humans. Friendship for Rousseau was achievable only by equals, who were independent of each other. A true friend had every claim on his heart but none on his liberty. During Boswell's pilgrimage to Rousseau in Môtiers, Rousseau maintained that a person's attitude to cats was a vital test of character. Those of a despotic nature “do not like cats because the cat is free and will never consent to become a slave.” A relationship with a dog, too, should not be one of ruler and subject. About the predecessor to Sultan, Rousseau wrote, “My dog himself was my friend, not my slave: we always had the same will, but it was not because he obeyed me.” As for Sultan, though he was a source of endless trouble, he could never be mendacious; he could never be disingenuous, insincere, hypocritical, or patronizing. Sultan was incapable of disloyalty.
Watching Rousseau converse with his lugubrious neighbor Bernard Granville, or botanize in the Dove valley, one might have spotted nothing amiss. But forever scurrying beside the exile was that second dogâthe one forewarning of betrayal and conspiracyâits bark echoing in the solitude of Wootton. Although Rousseau's enemies were not chimeras, there was no conspiracy. The “plot” was the fruit of Rousseau's paranoid imaginings. Yet why did he put Hume at the nucleus of it?
Perhaps it was the simple consequence of Hume's inability to fulfill Rousseau's criteria for friendship. But Rousseau, that apostle of truth and shrewd observer of motivation and personality, could equally have identified some characteristics in his savior that led him to recoil: some lack of commitment to the truth, a certain looseness in Hume's respect for others. In particular, he may have intuited Hume's fundamental disdain for him. And that lay behind the word
traitor
on their last evening together, in Lisle Street.
Hume was no plotter. However, the prolonged aggression of his counterattack (and his final insistence on Rousseau's needing a keeper) was surely fueled by the knowledge that he was not guiltless: he had contributed to his charge's discomfiture and had acted behind his back. In this light, it is hardly surprising that, once it was over, he would do his best to erase the row from his personal history. Although they had preoccupied a year and a half of his life and demonstrated his benevolence, in
My Own Life
his dealings with so prominent a figure as Jean-Jacques Rousseau merit not one mention.
The image of
le bon David
has endured. That is how Hume is portrayed in philosophy and history books, and by biographers. Of course, in Rousseau's case, he did much to warrant it. But how ironic that his going to Rousseau's aid put that image at risk. And it was precisely
le bon David's
attempt to preserve his reputation that brought him so close to tarnishing it.
With his rigorous reasoning, Hume had punctured the Enlightenment's inflated claims on behalf of reason. So there was irony, too, in his overwrought response to the assault by Rousseau, the man of sensibility. When, in the summer of 1766, Hume jettisoned a lifetime of moderation, he seemed fixed on demonstrating that reason was indeed the slave of the passions.
1711
David Hume born in Edinburgh on April 26, 1711 (“old style”âi.e., before 1752, when Britain changed from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar).
1712
Jean-Jacques Rousseau born in Geneva on June 28, 1712.
1758
Rousseau writes
Letter to d'Alembert on the Theater,
bringing worsening relations with d'Alembert, Voltaire, and Diderot. He becomes convinced of a plot against him involving Mme d'épinay, Grimm, and d'Alembert, leading to a severance of relations with them. He moves to Montmorency under the wing of the Duc and Duchesse de Luxembourg and lives at Mont-Louis. He meets Mme de Boufflers.
1759
Rousseau's initial antipathy for Mme de Verdelin warms into fondness.
1760
George III ascends British throne.
1761
Rousseau settles into Montmorency. Mme de Boufflers initiates contact with Hume.
1761â62
Rousseau publishes
La Nouvelle Héloïse, On the Social Contract,
and
Ãmile.
The last part of
Ãmile,
the “Profession of Faith of the Savoyard Vicar,” brings widespread condemnation from the religious establishment in France and Switzerland.
1762
MAY
In Britain, John Stuart, earl of Bute, becomes first lord of the treasury.
JUNE
9
Warned that the Paris parlement has issued a warrant for his arrest, Rousseau goes into exile in Switzerland.
MID-JUNE
Mme de Boufflers informs Hume of Rousseau's plight and that she has advised him to go to England. Hume responds with the offer of his house in Edinburgh and the first mention of a possible pension for Rousseau from George III.
The Geneva ruling council resolves to burn
Ãmile
and
On the Social Contract
and to arrest Rousseau if he returns to the city. Bern follows suit.
JULY
10
Rousseau moves into Môtiers under the wings of Earl Marischal and Frederick the Great.
JULY
Rousseau resigns his citizenship of Geneva over its refusal to allow his
Letter to Beaumont
(archbishop of Paris, Christophe de Beaumont) to be published.
1763
FEBRUARY
10
Treaty of Paris concludes the Seven Years' War.
APRIL
The Earl of Hertford invited to become ambassador to France, and asks Hume to accompany him to act as his secretary.
APRIL
6
Bute resigns as first lord of the Treasury, succeeded by George Grenville.
APRIL
17
Mme de Boufflers travels to England but fails to meet Hume.
AUGUST
Grenville consolidates power. Bute dismissed from Court.
AUTUMN
In Geneva, prosecutor general Jean-Robert Tronchin publishes anonymously
Letters from the Country,
undermining the opposition
Représentants
(the Party of Liberty).
OCTOBER
18
Hume arrives in Paris as assistant secretary to Lord Hertford.
1764
APRIL
4
Hertford's brother, General Conway, dismissed from Court and regiment following his vote against general warrants.
DECEMBER
3
Rousseau publishes
Letters Written from the Mountain
in support of the Party of Liberty in Geneva; copies circulated in Geneva throw the oligarchy into disarray, but ironically the upheaval causes the
Party of Liberty to make peace overtures to the oligarchy.
Boswell arrives in Môtiers to meet Rousseau.
DECEMBER
Views of the Citizens on Letters Written from the Mountain
published anonymously, with scurrilous comments on Rousseau. Voltaire is accepted as having been the author.
1765
FEBRUARY
Grenville introduces Stamp Act for duties on North American colonies.
MARCH
Alexis-Claude Clairaut informs Hume of Rousseau's misery. Hume responds with a plan to increase Rousseau's income surreptitiously.
JUNE
3
Hume learns of his confirmation as embassy secretary.
JULY
10
Grenville dismissed as prime minister.
JULY
13
The Marquess of Rockingham takes over. In the subsequent reshuffle, Conway becomes secretary of state for the southern department and leading minister in the House of Commons. Hertford is offered lord lieutenancy of Ireland, with the Duke of Richmond to succeed him in Paris.
SEPTEMBER
Horace Walpole in Paris for start of six-month visit.
SEPTEMBER
6
Lapidation of Rousseau's house in Môtiers forces him to move on again, to Isle Saint-Pierre.
OCTOBER
22
Hume writes to Rousseau at Isle Saint-Pierre with offer of help to flee to Britain.
OCTOBER
29
Having left Isle Saint-Pierre, and stayed briefly in Bienne, Rousseau goes to Strasbourg, but he is still undecided where to seek refuge.
NOVEMBER
2
Arriving in Strasbourg, Rousseau puts up at La Fleur inn. Here he receives Hume's letter.
NOVEMBER
9
Duke of Richmond arrives in Paris to take up ambassadorship. Hume's post as secretary is effectively terminated.
DECEMBER
4
Rousseau writes to Hume, “the most illustrious of my contemporaries.” He will put himself under Hume's protection.
DECEMBER
9
Rousseau leaves Strasbourg for Paris.
DECEMBER
12
Walpole dines with Hume, Ossory, and Craufurd. At this jovial gathering, the quip is uttered that if Rousseau sought new misfortunes, Frederick the Great could supply all his needs.
DECEMBER
16
Rousseau arrives in Paris, parading next day in the Luxembourg gardens. He stays first with the widow Duchesne, then in the Temple.
DECEMBER
27
Walpole's King of Prussia spoof letter satirizing Rousseau becomes public knowledge.
1766
JANUARY
3
Making his farewells, Hume is warned by d'Holbach that he is clasping a viper to his bosom.
JANUARY
4
Hume, Rousseau, Jean-Jacques de Luze, and Sultan leave Paris for London.
JANUARY
4/5
Rousseau hears Hume mutter in his sleep, “I hold Jean-Jacques Rousseau.”
JANUARY
10â11
Crossing the Channel from Calais, Hume raises the possibility of a pension from George III.
JANUARY
13
Rousseau, Hume, and Sultan enter London.
JANUARY
18
Hume tells Rousseau that the King of Prussia spoof letter is in circulation.
JANUARY
23
Rousseau and Hume see Garrick in Drury Lane royal performance.
JANUARY
28â30
The
St. James's Chronicle
carries a brief report from Paris of the King of Prussia letter.
JANUARY
31
Rousseau leaves London to lodge with the grocer Pullein in Chiswick.
Boswell and Le Vasseur set out together from Parisâthey begin an affair on the second night.
(IN THIS PERIOD)
Rockingham administration in parliamentary battle to repeal Grenville's Stamp Act.
FEBRUARY
13
Boswell escorts Le Vasseur to Chiswick, where she is reunited with Rousseau.
MARCH
1
Rousseau sits for portraitist Allan Ramsay at 67 Harley Street. He meets Richard Davenport, his future landlord at Wootton in Staffordshire. Sultan runs away, but later reappears.
MARCH
18
Rousseau and Le Vasseur stay overnight with Hume in Lisle Street before leaving for Wootton in the
retour chaise.
Rousseau's version of what occurred between him and Hume becomes central to his accusations against Hume.
MARCH
22
Rousseau arrives in Wootton. He writes to Hume, designing the letter to put Hume to the testâis Hume a traitor or not?
APRIL
3
The King of Prussia spoof letter appears in the
St. James's Chronicle.
APRIL
7
Rousseau writes to the
St. James's Chronicle
in protest at the King of Prussia letter. Rousseau's letter appears in the April 8â10 edition.
APRIL
9
Rousseau writes to Mme de Verdelin with first detailed account of Hume's plot against him.
MID-APRIL
The
London Chronicle
and the
Lloyd's Evening Register
carry a letter
(thought to be by Voltaire) to a Doctor Jean-Jacques Pansophe, mocking Rousseau.
APRIL
17â19
In a sequence sparked off by the King of Prussia letter and Rousseau's protest, the
St. James's Chronicle
carries letter from a Quaker “Z.A.” mocking Rousseau.
MAY
2
Conway notifies Hume that the king has offered a pension of £100 p.a. to Rousseau on condition it is secret.
MAY
3â6
The
St. James's Chronicle
carries letter from “X” defending Rousseau and criticizing author/s of April letters.
MAY
12
Rousseau writes to Conway explaining that he is too upset to decide on the pension and asking for its delay.
MAY
14
Conway becomes secretary of state for northern department.
MAY
17
Hume writes to Rousseau assuming that the pension's secrecy is the problem and hoping he will change his mind on that score. He adds that Walpole is sorry for the spoof letter.
JUNE
5â7
The
St. James's Chronicle
carries letter signed V.T.h.S.W. attacking Rousseau and apparently demonstrating personal knowledge of his time in London.
JUNE
19
Hume writes to Rousseau: if he promises to accept the pension, Conway will ask the king to make it public.
JUNE
21
Hume sends Rousseau a formal note requesting an answer to his offer of June 19 and explaining that, as he is returning to Scotland, he will be unable to help more.
JUNE
23
Rousseau sends Hume “the last letter you will receive from me.” He accuses Hume of bringing him to England in order to dishonor him.
JUNE
26
Hume replies to Rousseau demanding particulars of the accusations against him and the name of the “calumniator” who had made them.
JUNE
27
AND JULY
1
Hume writes letters to d'Holbach condemning Rousseau in language of extraordinary violence. Hume also sets about retrieving from Blair and Davenport his earlier letters praising Rousseau.
JULY
8
Hume tells Davenport that Rousseau had plotted the pension refusal so as to cancel all his obligations to Hume.
JULY
10
Rousseau sends Hume a detailed indictment. In it, he describes how he mocked Hume, giving him three (metaphorical) “slaps” that Hume did not feel.
JULY
22
Hume sends Rousseau his reply to the indictment. He goes on to annotate Rousseau's indictment in preparation for possible publication. He identifies twelve “lyes.”
At around this time, Hume's friends in Paris discuss how he should react to Rousseau's charges by publishing his defense.
JULY
30
Rockingham's administration is dismissed. The king asks Pitt (earl of Chatham) to form new government. Conway continues as secretary of state.
AUGUST
2
In a letter to his Paris publisher, Pierre Guy, Rousseau appears to be challenging Hume to publish. News of letter leaks out.
EARLY AUGUST
Hume sends all papers from the Rousseau affair to d'Alembert. Having read Rousseau's long indictment, d'Alembert and other friends tell Hume that his publishing a defense is unnecessary.
