McNeill, Gordon H.

English

ScholarWorks@UARK

Journal of the Arkansas Academy of ScienceVolume 10 Article 51957Rousseau and MonarchyGordon H. McNeillUniversity of Arkansas, FayettevilleFollow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaasPart of the French and Francophone Literature CommonsThis article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able toread, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking priorpermission from the publisher or the author.This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academyof Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact scholar@uark.edu, ccmiddle@uark.edu.Recommended CitationMcNeill, Gordon H. (1957) "Rousseau and Monarchy," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 10 , Article 5.Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol10/iss1/5»ROUSSEAU AND MONARCHY13Gordon H. MoNeillUniversity of ArkansasV.'eird and wonderful things are said about thepolitical ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in text-books, in lectures, a n d in student examinationbooks. The present paper is an attempt to dispelat least some of the oonfusion—without adding¦to it—by considering Rousseau's thinking on theparticular and important subject of monarchy, asexpressed in first his personal attitudes, secondhis political theory, and third his practical ad-vice on the eubjeot. Only after all three of theseapproaches have been considered should one attemptto answer the question: What -was Rousseau's atti-tude toward monarchy?We begin withRousseau' s personal attitudes, forhe was a man of strong opinions and feelings. Someof them he shared with his contemporaries, the phi-losophes of the Enlightenment. Enlightened thin-kers and writers in mid-eighteenth century Francedid not condemn monarchy per se. The tendency in-stead was to follow the English political theoristLocke in rejecting irresponsible and tyrannical ab-solute raonarohy, while aooepting quite readily en-lightened, non-tyrannical monarchy, even if it wasabsolute. Enlightened despotism might be a welcomeshortcut to the political promised land. A Freder-ick the Great or a Catherine the Great might bepersuaded to institute by a stroke of the pen themost far reaching reforms. But the writers of theEnlightenment stillvoiced a cautious preference,for example in the Enoyolopldie , for limited mon-archy, English style, with definite restrictionson the arbitrary power of king.(l)Rousseau had no enthus iasm for enlightened des-potism or for limited monarchy. But he was never-theless torn by conflicting feelings. His societywas one in which men of letters relied on the pa-tronage of the high born—recall the story ofSamuel Johnson—so it is not unusual that he hadhigh praise for enlightened rulers, and some notso enlightened, in his early writings, (2) Nor isit surprising that he accepted a pension from George13Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 10 [1957], Art. 5Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1957ARKANSAS ACADEMY OF SCIENCE14111.(3) It is more surprising to Americans cer-tainly that in his last years a picture of the de-oidedly undemocratic and illiberalmonarch gracedthe wallof Rousseau' s Paris apartment ,(4 ) He mightalso have been the beneficiary of another pensionfrom the thoroughly unenlightened Louis XV, as areward for a very successful light opera he wrote,if he had not declined to appear at oourt. He re-called inhis Confessions years later his pleasurein witnessing the enthusiastic reception of hiswork by the court, but he had a basic contempt forcourt society, for the oourtier type, for royalt ,favorites.( 5)Rousseau's enthusiasm was reserved for a simplerand, he always insisted, a more wholesome society.Rome and the other sturdy republics of ancient timeshe constantly praised in his writings. While theCorsicans struggled to win their independence, heundertook the project of vrriting a constitutionfor them which would provide that island witha re-publican and democratic form of government ; and hewas confident that these simple peasants had a won-derful political future ahead of them a s long asthey remained unspoiled .( 6) Rousseau himself wasa Genevan, and he was fullof admiration and affec-tion for this non-monarchical Swiss republic Hepraised his native city extravagantly in the dedi-cation of his second Piscours , and in his matureyears he proudly signed his works as "Citizen ofGeneva," untilhe had been condemned by his govern-ment.Suchwere Rousseau's personal attitudes and feel-ings. They reflect a man of high principle. Buthe was not only a man with opinions and personalpredilections; he was also a theorist, and it wasas a theorist that he parted company publicly fromthe rest of the philosophies most completely. Inthe eyes of posterity he has been exclusively atheorist, and a dogmatic, rigid one. This stereo-type is one for which he must share responsibility,for he often wrote in uncompromising and unrealis-tic terms. "I am seeking Right and reason, Iamnot arguing about facts," he wrote in the originaldraft of the Contra t social. (7 ) Yet we should noteat the outset that he was admittedly not a revolu-tionary. He had no confidence that a society whichhad declined from an earlier and better stage could14Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 10 [1957], Art. 5http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol10/iss1/5ROUSSEAU AND MONARCHY15be much improved, and he shrank from the Idea ofrevoltttio.ru (8), p. 34. Considering the fact the bthe attack of eighteenth century libera.lisu -t.s di--rected against absolute monarchy, it is surprisingthat Rousseau had really so little t o say on thesubject,, Whether or not he would have spoken and-written more i'reely and extensively under a lessrepressive government is not easily answered. Onecan assume that ho would hare done so.- but it isan open question how much more he might have said.Yet be lidwrite enough, primarily in his Contratsocf.al., to enable us to summarise his theory con—ce r"nit.g mor.archyoFor Rousseau, a fundamental right, justified byreason, was sovereignty not of the monarch but ofthe people 9 whioh for him wa3 a sovereignty whichcould not be a liena ted or transferred, not even bya Lockeian social compact. Any exercise of thalegislative or lawir.i-king function by any other thanthe sovereign people is illegitimatet he insisted.(9), pp- 250, 296,,Having determined that the legislative power be-longed to the sovereign people, Rousseau next turnedto the quits different executive power, the "gov-ernment," as that term is used in parliamentarystates today. As to whether or not the executivehead of the government should be a monarch, ratherthan a group of men (aristooracy —- he never usesthe term oligarchy), or the people (democracy),depended upon circumstances, Following Montesquieu,for whom he had high praise., Rousseau rejected thopossibility of theoretically determining what wasthe best form of government, and believed that fac-tors of size : climate, and level of advancementshould determine whether the best form for ?, par-ticular state was monarchy, aristocracy, or democ-racy. The last named, democracy, is obviouslysuitable only for very small political units suchas a New England town,. (Ho would have called ourstate or national government elective aristocracy,)Monarchy is appropriate for large and underdevelopedstaten., and provides a maximum of vigoz* and con-centration of power. (9) po. 279-82, 289, 293«Allof this is in accordance with the thinkingof Montesquieu, But Rousseau went onto argue thatthe social contract is not between the people andtheir king, as Locke had said, but is an agreement15Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 10 [1957], Art. 5Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1957ARKANSAS ACADEMY OF SCIENCE16between and among the people themselves, by whichthey have established an organized political sooi-ety. Thus if there is a monarch, he is not thesovereign, he has no power to make laws, and he isnot a party to the contract. Instead he is merelyan appointee, without tenure, without a contract,and subject to dismissal, even if the monarchy ishereditary .(9 )> pp. 304-6. Rousseau further insis-ted that there were inevitable tendencies for a kingeither to be or to become narrow and malicious, towant to keep his people backward, for his appoin-tees to be inferior men, and for the hereditaryprinciple to bring t o the throne infants and im-beciles, (9)» PP» 284-7- He insisted that there wasan inherent and inevitable tendency for the govern-ment, no matter its form, to encroach on the sov-ereign people. (9) » pp. 2S4-5- In the case of mon-archy, he bluntly asserted that if one acceptsAristotle's distinction between a tyrant and a king—that only a king governs in the interests of hissubjects — that there has never existed aking inthe true sense of the word since the beginning ofthe world.(9), P- 296.With such an assertion there is no need to readbetween the lines. Here we have the revolutionaryimplications of Rousseau, the hardy author of theContra t social, the uncompromising political theo-rist. But note that, as he said in his own defenselater, he never held any particular government upto contempt ,(10 ) and he wrote other political stud-ies which present us with a more oautious, a moreconservative ,a decidedly anti-revolutionary Rous-seau. He was quite aware of the difference betweentheory and practice, and he knew there was a timeto "set aside the facts," as he proposed at the be-ginning of his second Discours,(2), p. 23 and alsoa time to be completely practical in the actualworld of uncompromising facts. In the Emile he hasthe pupil refer to the Rousseauan political theoryas quite artificial, and the tutor replies thatone must begin by establishing first principles andthen study things as they are.(ll)An occasion for studying things a s they were,and our best example of point three (Rousseau'spractical advice on the subject of monarchy) camewhen he was asked by a Polish patriot, Count Wiel-horski, to recommend changes in the oonstitut ion16Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 10 [1957], Art. 5http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol10/iss1/5IROUSSEAU AND MONARCHY17of Poland. That country faced imminent dissolutionand partition by greedy neighbors, as eventuallytook place, and Wielhorski hoped by reforms to fore-stall such a disaster. Rousseau made a thoroughstudy of the problems involved, and drafted a seriesof recommendations in his not very well known butsignificant Considerations sur le gouvernement dePologne.The theme of this work o f practical advice iscaution. The proposals made for Poland call onlyfor incidental ohanges in the government,, Nowhereis there the radioal theme of rebuilding the Polishstate completely. He refers occasionally to thebasic principles o f the Contrat social, on whichhis proposals are based, but there appears none ofthe dogmatic harshness of the Contrat social. Po-land was a monarchy and Rousseau proposed that itremain such. A large state could not manage, hewrote, without a king serving for life. (12), p.372. But he was insistent that Poland keep itselective monarchy, and make it truly elective. Thepoint is significant. Eighteenth century Polandhas been oriticized ever since for the weakness ofhaving an eleoted king, Rousseau, however, saw thisas a source of strength in checking what he saw inmonarchy as the "habitual tendenoy in the directionof despotism." (12),p. 3&0, He pessimistically as-sumed that each king would take steps in the direc-tion of arbitrary power. But a particular king'sdeath and the election of his suocessor would undowhat had been done during his reign, so that nopermanent progress toward despoti sm developed. Hei»-editary monarchy would operate otherwise, and wastherefore incompatible with liberty, Rousseau in-sisted. (12), p. 374 « So ne recommended that theson of a king be forever forbidden to rule.(12),P« 375 • He further suggested that the king be cho-sen from among those who have risen to the highestrank inthe government, three names to be drawn atrandom from the group and the diet then electingone of the three immediately, before there was anyopportunity for bribery or corrupt ion. (12), pp.408-10.Tn order to further guarantee that the libertiesof the Poles would not be usurped by the monarch,Rousseaumade specific suggestions for limiting theking's power, such as restricting his power of ap-17Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 10 [1957], Art. 5Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1957*ARKANSAS ACADEMY OF SCIENCE18pointment and setting fixed meeting times for thelegislative authority so it need not wait for theroyal call.(12), pp. 372-3 » 376-6. The inevitablemisfortune that a king is an enemy of liberty couldbe considerably lessened, he announced, if thechanges he suggested were made.(l2), p. 372»This then was Rousseau's practical approach tomonarchy. We could use more information than wehave, and we should like to have his testimony onthe subject taken under some sort of retroactivehistorical immunity law so that we oould be surehe was speaking freely and frankly. If his Con-sideVations sur le gouvernement de Pologne is ofvalue, how much more revealing would be a frank andoutspoken Considerations sur le gouvernement deFrance .Rousseau ha s been charged with inconsistency inhis discussions of government. What are the facts?It is the writer's opinion that there is no moreinconsistency tnan one might expect under the cir-cumstances between and among personal attitudesand feelings, theories, and practical advice. Letthe completely consistent political theorist castthe first stone. Rousseau had no love for monarchy;he saved his affection for simple republics. Buthe could adjust to monarchy when it was necessary.When he wrote on the level of theory, he acceptedmonarchy for certain kinds of states, providing thesovereign lawmaking power remained in the hands ofthe people; but he insisted that there was a naturaltendenoy for even the best monarchy to degenerate.Here we are close to the heart of Rousseau's thought.Society, he always maintained, has—in spite ofsuperficial advances in the arts and technology—declined from its natural simplicity. Eighteenthcentury monarchy, he would have said, is a goodillustration of what is wrong with a supposedlyadvanced society. He always insisted, however,that one cannot reverse the trend; one cannot re-turn to an earlier simplicity and perfeotion. ( 8),p. 33- Thus, when he was called upon to suggestreforms in the Polish government, he rejected anyidea of fundamental ohange. It is this writer'sconclusion that such might have been his recommen-dation for France if he had lived until the Revo-lution, and credenoe is thus given to those anti-revolutionaries in1789 w&° argued that ifRousseau18Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 10 [1957], Art. 5http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol10/iss1/5I19ROUSSEAU AND MONARCHYwere still alive he -would have opposed the Revo-lution. (l3) One can guess, on the basis of hisPolish recommendations, that he would have had noenthusiasm for the fundamental changes of the Revo-lution. But at the same time he probably ¦would havebeen very much interested in the many incidentalreforms proposed. He would have been repelled bythe violence, but at the same time his highly emo-tional and idealistic approach to life might havemade him a ready or at least reluctant convert tothe optimistio and emotional fervor of the firstyears of the revolution.LITERATURE CITED( 1) The Encyolopedie of Diderot and d'Alembert,selected articles, J. Lough (Editor ). 19 54.Cambridge.(2) "Oraison funebre de S. A. S. Monseigneur ledue d'Orleans, premier prince du sang deFrance," Oeuvres completes de J. J. Rous-seau (Paris: Baudouin frSres, 1826) I,193,209 ;Disoours sur le s sciences, et les arts,George R. Havens 194b. New York,151-2; Discours sur l'origine et les fonde-ments de lf in6galite" parmi leT hommes, F.~C~. Green (L ditorj. 1954 • Cambridge. p.123.{3) Green, F. C« 1955* Jean-Jacques Rousseau,a critical study of his life and writings.Cambridge. pp. 336-41.(4) Bernardin de Saint-Pierre c 1907. La vie et lesouvrages de Jean— Jacques Rousseau, Paris.P. 33.(5) Les confessions, Ad. Van Bever (Editor). (Paris:Gamier freres, n. d.), II,205-11.(6) Projedt pour la Corse, in Rousseau: politicalwritings, Frederick Watkins (Translator).1953. U. p.t Nelson).( / ) The political writings 0 f Jean Jacques Rous-seau, C. E. Vaughan (Editor) . 1915. Cam-bridge. I, 462.8 Rou sseau juge de Jean-Jacques, Oeuvres com-Plates, Ii:on^ ra "^ social ou prinoipes du droit politi-que. [Paris : Gamier fr6res, n. d.)19Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 10 [1957], Art. 5Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1957ARKANSAS ACADEMY OF SCIENCE20(10 ) Lettres Sorites de la montagne, inLes rever-ies d'un promeneur solitaire . . . (Paris:Gamier fr6res, n. d. ). p~. TfTl(ll) Emile ou de 1' education (Paris: Gamier fre—res, n. d.). p"! !?7 8 «(12 ) Considerations sur le gouvernement de Pologneet sur sa reformation projete"e"en avril Yf]2^in Contrat social . . . (Paris : Gamierfr6r'es', n. d. )..(13) McNeil, Gordon H. 1953. The anti-revolution-ary Rousseau. American historical review,LVIII,pp. 808-23 .20Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 10 [1957], Art. 5http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol10/iss1/5

Rousseau and Monarchy

UARK (University of Arkansas )

Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 10 Article 5 1957 Rousseau and Monarchy Gordon H. McNeill University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas  Part of the French and Francophone Literature Commons Recommended Citation McNeill, Gordon H. (1957) "Rousseau and Monarchy," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 10 , Article 5. Available at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol10/iss1/5 This article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able to read, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact scholar@uark.edu. »ROUSSEAU AND MONARCHY13Gordon H. MoNeillUniversity of ArkansasV.'eird and wonderful things are said about thepolitical ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in text-books, in lectures, a n d in student examinationbooks. The present paper is an attempt to dispelat least some of the oonfusion—without adding¦to it—by considering Rousseau's thinking on theparticular and important subject of monarchy, asexpressed in first his personal attitudes, secondhis political theory, and third his practical ad-vice on the eubjeot. Only after all three of theseapproaches have been considered should one attemptto answer the question: What -was Rousseau's atti-tude toward monarchy?We begin withRousseau' s personal attitudes, forhe was a man of strong opinions and feelings. Someof them he shared with his contemporaries, the phi-losophes of the Enlightenment. Enlightened thin-kers and writers in mid-eighteenth century Francedid not condemn monarchy per se. The tendency in-stead was to follow the English political theoristLocke in rejecting irresponsible and tyrannical ab-solute raonarohy, while aooepting quite readily en-lightened, non-tyrannical monarchy, even if it wasabsolute. Enlightened despotism might be a welcomeshortcut to the political promised land. A Freder-ick the Great or a Catherine the Great might bepersuaded to institute by a stroke of the pen themost far reaching reforms. But the writers of theEnlightenment stillvoiced a cautious preference,for example in the Enoyolopldie , for limited mon-archy, English style, with definite restrictionson the arbitrary power of king.(l)Rousseau had no enthus iasm for enlightened des-potism or for limited monarchy. But he was never-theless torn by conflicting feelings. His societywas one in which men of letters relied on the pa-tronage of the high born—recall the story ofSamuel Johnson—so it is not unusual that he hadhigh praise for enlightened rulers, and some notso enlightened, in his early writings, (2) Nor isit surprising that he accepted a pension from George13Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 10 [1957], Art. 5Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1957ARKANSAS ACADEMY OF SCIENCE14111.(3) It is more surprising to Americans cer-tainly that in his last years a picture of the de-oidedly undemocratic and illiberalmonarch gracedthe wallof Rousseau' s Paris apartment ,(4 ) He mightalso have been the beneficiary of another pensionfrom the thoroughly unenlightened Louis XV, as areward for a very successful light opera he wrote,if he had not declined to appear at oourt. He re-called inhis Confessions years later his pleasurein witnessing the enthusiastic reception of hiswork by the court, but he had a basic contempt forcourt society, for the oourtier type, for royalt ,favorites.( 5)Rousseau's enthusiasm was reserved for a simplerand, he always insisted, a more wholesome society.Rome and the other sturdy republics of ancient timeshe constantly praised in his writings. While theCorsicans struggled to win their independence, heundertook the project of vrriting a constitutionfor them which would provide that island witha re-publican and democratic form of government ; and hewas confident that these simple peasants had a won-derful political future ahead of them a s long asthey remained unspoiled .( 6) Rousseau himself wasa Genevan, and he was fullof admiration and affec-tion for this non-monarchical Swiss republic Hepraised his native city extravagantly in the dedi-cation of his second Piscours , and in his matureyears he proudly signed his works as "Citizen ofGeneva," untilhe had been condemned by his govern-ment.Suchwere Rousseau's personal attitudes and feel-ings. They reflect a man of high principle. Buthe was not only a man with opinions and personalpredilections; he was also a theorist, and it wasas a theorist that he parted company publicly fromthe rest of the philosophies most completely. Inthe eyes of posterity he has been exclusively atheorist, and a dogmatic, rigid one. This stereo-type is one for which he must share responsibility,for he often wrote in uncompromising and unrealis-tic terms. "I am seeking Right and reason, Iamnot arguing about facts," he wrote in the originaldraft of the Contra t social. (7 ) Yet we should noteat the outset that he was admittedly not a revolu-tionary. He had no confidence that a society whichhad declined from an earlier and better stage could14Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 10 [1957], Art. 5https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol10/iss1/5ROUSSEAU AND MONARCHY15be much improved, and he shrank from the Idea ofrevoltttio.ru (8), p. 34. Considering the fact the bthe attack of eighteenth century libera.lisu -t.s di--rected against absolute monarchy, it is surprisingthat Rousseau had really so little t o say on thesubject,, Whether or not he would have spoken and-written more i'reely and extensively under a lessrepressive government is not easily answered. Onecan assume that ho would hare done so.- but it isan open question how much more he might have said.Yet be lidwrite enough, primarily in his Contratsocf.al., to enable us to summarise his theory con—ce r"nit.g mor.archyoFor Rousseau, a fundamental right, justified byreason, was sovereignty not of the monarch but ofthe people 9 whioh for him wa3 a sovereignty whichcould not be a liena ted or transferred, not even bya Lockeian social compact. Any exercise of thalegislative or lawir.i-king function by any other thanthe sovereign people is illegitimatet he insisted.(9), pp- 250, 296,,Having determined that the legislative power be-longed to the sovereign people, Rousseau next turnedto the quits different executive power, the "gov-ernment," as that term is used in parliamentarystates today. As to whether or not the executivehead of the government should be a monarch, ratherthan a group of men (aristooracy—-he never usesthe term oligarchy), or the people (democracy),depended upon circumstances, Following Montesquieu,for whom he had high praise., Rousseau rejected thopossibility of theoretically determining what wasthe best form of government, and believed that fac-tors of size : climate, and level of advancementshould determine whether the best form for ?, par-ticular state was monarchy, aristocracy, or democ-racy. The last named, democracy, is obviouslysuitable only for very small political units suchas a New England town,. (Ho would have called ourstate or national government elective aristocracy,)Monarchy is appropriate for large and underdevelopedstaten., and provides a maximum of vigoz* and con-centration of power. (9) po. 279-82, 289, 293«Allof this is in accordance with the thinkingof Montesquieu, But Rousseau went onto argue thatthe social contract is not between the people andtheir king, as Locke had said, but is an agreement15Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 10 [1957], Art. 5Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1957ARKANSAS ACADEMY OF SCIENCE16between and among the people themselves, by whichthey have established an organized political sooi-ety. Thus if there is a monarch, he is not thesovereign, he has no power to make laws, and he isnot a party to the contract. Instead he is merelyan appointee, without tenure, without a contract,and subject to dismissal, even if the monarchy ishereditary .(9 )> pp. 304-6. Rousseau further insis-ted that there were inevitable tendencies for a kingeither to be or to become narrow and malicious, towant to keep his people backward, for his appoin-tees to be inferior men, and for the hereditaryprinciple to bring t o the throne infants and im-beciles, (9) » PP» 284-7- He insisted that there wasan inherent and inevitable tendency for the govern-ment, no matter its form, to encroach on the sov-ereign people. (9) » pp. 2S4-5- In the case of mon-archy, he bluntly asserted that if one acceptsAristotle's distinction between a tyrant and a king—that only a king governs in the interests of hissubjects—that there has never existed aking inthe true sense of the word since the beginning ofthe world.(9), P- 296.With such an assertion there is no need to readbetween the lines. Here we have the revolutionaryimplications of Rousseau, the hardy author of theContra t social, the uncompromising political theo-rist. But note that, as he said in his own defenselater, he never held any particular government upto contempt ,(10 ) and he wrote other political stud-ies which present us with a more oautious, a moreconservative ,a decidedly anti-revolutionary Rous-seau. He was quite aware of the difference betweentheory and practice, and he knew there was a timeto "set aside the facts," as he proposed at the be-ginning of his second Discours,(2), p. 23 and alsoa time to be completely practical in the actualworld of uncompromising facts. In the Emile he hasthe pupil refer to the Rousseauan political theoryas quite artificial, and the tutor replies thatone must begin by establishing first principles andthen study things as they are.(ll)An occasion for studying things a s they were,and our best example of point three (Rousseau'spractical advice on the subject of monarchy) camewhen he was asked by a Polish patriot, Count Wiel-horski, to recommend changes in the oonstitut ion16Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 10 [1957], Art. 5https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol10/iss1/5IROUSSEAU AND MONARCHY17of Poland. That country faced imminent dissolutionand partition by greedy neighbors, as eventuallytook place, and Wielhorski hoped by reforms to fore-stall such a disaster. Rousseau made a thoroughstudy of the problems involved, and drafted a seriesof recommendations in his not very well known butsignificant Considerations sur le gouvernement dePologne.The theme of this work o f practical advice iscaution. The proposals made for Poland call onlyfor incidental ohanges in the government,, Nowhereis there the radioal theme of rebuilding the Polishstate completely. He refers occasionally to thebasic principles o f the Contrat social, on whichhis proposals are based, but there appears none ofthe dogmatic harshness of the Contrat social. Po-land was a monarchy and Rousseau proposed that itremain such. A large state could not manage, hewrote, without a king serving for life. (12), p.372. But he was insistent that Poland keep itselective monarchy, and make it truly elective. Thepoint is significant. Eighteenth century Polandhas been oriticized ever since for the weakness ofhaving an eleoted king, Rousseau, however, saw thisas a source of strength in checking what he saw inmonarchy as the "habitual tendenoy in the directionof despotism." (12),p. 3&0, He pessimistically as-sumed that each king would take steps in the direc-tion of arbitrary power. But a particular king'sdeath and the election of his suocessor would undowhat had been done during his reign, so that nopermanent progress toward despoti sm developed. Hei»-editary monarchy would operate otherwise, and wastherefore incompatible with liberty, Rousseau in-sisted. (12), p. 374 « So ne recommended that theson of a king be forever forbidden to rule.(12),P« 375 • He further suggested that the king be cho-sen from among those who have risen to the highestrank inthe government, three names to be drawn atrandom from the group and the diet then electingone of the three immediately, before there was anyopportunity for bribery or corrupt ion. (12), pp.408-10.Tn order to further guarantee that the libertiesof the Poles would not be usurped by the monarch,Rousseaumade specific suggestions for limiting theking's power, such as restricting his power of ap-17Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 10 [1957], Art. 5Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1957*ARKANSAS ACADEMY OF SCIENCE18pointment and setting fixed meeting times for thelegislative authority so it need not wait for theroyal call.(12), pp. 372-3 » 376-6. The inevitablemisfortune that a king is an enemy of liberty couldbe considerably lessened, he announced, if thechanges he suggested were made.(l2), p. 372»This then was Rousseau's practical approach tomonarchy. We could use more information than wehave, and we should like to have his testimony onthe subject taken under some sort of retroactivehistorical immunity law so that we oould be surehe was speaking freely and frankly. If his Con-sideVations sur le gouvernement de Pologne is ofvalue, how much more revealing would be a frank andoutspoken Considerations sur le gouvernement deFrance .Rousseau ha s been charged with inconsistency inhis discussions of government. What are the facts?It is the writer's opinion that there is no moreinconsistency tnan one might expect under the cir-cumstances between and among personal attitudesand feelings, theories, and practical advice. Letthe completely consistent political theorist castthe first stone. Rousseau had no love for monarchy;he saved his affection for simple republics. Buthe could adjust to monarchy when it was necessary.When he wrote on the level of theory, he acceptedmonarchy for certain kinds of states, providing thesovereign lawmaking power remained in the hands ofthe people; but he insisted that there was a naturaltendenoy for even the best monarchy to degenerate.Here we are close to the heart of Rousseau's thought.Society, he always maintained, has—in spite ofsuperficial advances in the arts and technology—declined from its natural simplicity. Eighteenthcentury monarchy, he would have said, is a goodillustration of what is wrong with a supposedlyadvanced society. He always insisted, however,that one cannot reverse the trend; one cannot re-turn to an earlier simplicity and perfeotion. ( 8),p. 33- Thus, when he was called upon to suggestreforms in the Polish government, he rejected anyidea of fundamental ohange. It is this writer'sconclusion that such might have been his recommen-dation for France if he had lived until the Revo-lution, and credenoe is thus given to those anti-revolutionaries in1789 w&° argued that ifRousseau18Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 10 [1957], Art. 5https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol10/iss1/5I19ROUSSEAU AND MONARCHYwere still alive he -would have opposed the Revo-lution. (l3) One can guess, on the basis of hisPolish recommendations, that he would have had noenthusiasm for the fundamental changes of the Revo-lution. But at the same time he probably ¦would havebeen very much interested in the many incidentalreforms proposed. He would have been repelled bythe violence, but at the same time his highly emo-tional and idealistic approach to life might havemade him a ready or at least reluctant convert tothe optimistio and emotional fervor of the firstyears of the revolution.LITERATURE CITED( 1) The Encyolopedie of Diderot and d'Alembert,selected articles, J. Lough (Editor ). 19 54.Cambridge.(2) "Oraison funebre de S. A. S. Monseigneur ledue d'Orleans, premier prince du sang deFrance," Oeuvres completes de J. J. Rous-seau (Paris: Baudouin frSres, 1826) I,193,209 ;Disoours sur le s sciences, et les arts,George R. Havens 194b. New York,151-2; Discours sur l'origine et les fonde-ments de lf in6galite" parmi leT hommes, F.~C~. Green (L ditorj. 1954 • Cambridge. p.123.{3) Green, F. C« 1955* Jean-Jacques Rousseau,a critical study of his life and writings.Cambridge. pp. 336-41.(4) Bernardin de Saint-Pierre c 1907. La vie et lesouvrages de Jean— Jacques Rousseau, Paris.P. 33.(5) Les confessions, Ad. Van Bever (Editor). (Paris:Gamier freres, n. d.), II,205-11.(6) Projedt pour la Corse, in Rousseau: politicalwritings, Frederick Watkins (Translator).1953. U. p.t Nelson).( / ) The political writings 0 f Jean Jacques Rous-seau, C. E. Vaughan (Editor) . 1915. Cam-bridge. I, 462.8 Rou sseau juge de Jean-Jacques, Oeuvres com-Plates, Ii:on^ ra "^ social ou prinoipes du droit politi-que. [Paris : Gamier fr6res, n. d.)19Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 10 [1957], Art. 5Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1957ARKANSAS ACADEMY OF SCIENCE20(10 ) Lettres Sorites de la montagne, inLes rever-ies d'un promeneur solitaire . . . (Paris:Gamier fr6res, n. d. ). p~. TfTl(ll) Emile ou de 1' education (Paris: Gamier fre—res, n. d.). p"! !?7 8 «(12 ) Considerations sur le gouvernement de Pologneet sur sa reformation projete"e"en avril Yf]2^in Contrat social . . . (Paris : Gamierfr6r'es', n. d. )..(13) McNeil, Gordon H. 1953. The anti-revolution-ary Rousseau. American historical review,LVIII,pp. 808-23 .20Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 10 [1957], Art. 5https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol10/iss1/5

https://scholarworks.uark.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3234&amp;context=jaas

Rousseau and Monarchy

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarWorks@UARK

UARK (University of Arkansas )