Connections Between Voltaire and Rousseau: Themes of the Enlightenment

Freedom, tolerance, and equality were some of the hallmarks of the Enlightenment that stretched “roughly from the mid-decades of the seventeenth century through the eighteenth century.”[1] This period, which was also characterized by the quest for reason over superstition,[2] gave birth to two of the most fascinating figures in Western intellectual thought, Frenchman Voltaire, whose birth name was François-Marie Arouet, and Jean Jacques Rousseau, who was born in Geneva, Switzerland. Though coming from different educational pedigrees, the former the product of Jesuit education and training, and the latter having been “reared on the fringes of a frugal, relatively egalitarian, self-consciously republican society,”[3] they stood out in a field of other brilliant figures in Europe. Even though as key figures of the Enlightenment, they sought to be guided by the light of “reason and sensory experiences as sources of knowledge,”[4] Voltaire and Rousseau, in their contributions to the discourses of their era and in conversation with one another, at times, displayed seeming contradictions in their character and thought. While some of these contradictions are surprising, even shocking, in the end, they reveal the complexity of the human mind and heart and perhaps teach us that despite their contradictions, they were both fully committed to the project of human emancipation, and as such, their ambiguities should not undercut our appreciation of their roles and contributions to the Enlightenment, which led “to an unprecedented expansion of scientific discovery and application, political reform, social liberation, and individual empowerment,[5] and to which Western modernity is incalculably indebted.

The Enlightenment: Impressions

The world into which Voltaire and Rousseau were born was one in which old authorities, such as monarchies and established religions, were either subject to doubt or under attack. In terms of religion, as Parker (2006) notes, “Both Voltaire and Rousseau experienced the unpalatable in religion and both incorporated deism in their responses. For them as for others of the period, religion was neither true nor false absolutely, but an inevitable, though potentially dangerous human inclination.”[6]

In short, this was “a time of radical questioning”[7] and both Voltaire and Rousseau remained at the center of the amazing intellectual adventure of their time.

The notion has come down to us that the Enlightenment philosophers were single-minded in their focus on supplanting the diverse traditions of yesteryear and replacing them with a new vision steeped in rationality and universalism.[8] As the lives of just two such intellectuals of the era, Voltaire and Rousseau, demonstrate, the story is a much more nuanced one.

Though not all scholars agree, Israel (2016) conceives of the Enlightenment as dividing between “two broad streams,”[9] in which the early philosophers operated underground and were subject to persecution by both “the political and church authorities.”[10] On a basic level, the authoritative doctrine of the Christian church and other religions did not seem compatible with the ideals of reason, since much of the claims of religion could not be proven scientifically. A more moderate stream of philosophers emerged, including Voltaire, who, while calling for reform, avoided a direct attack on established powers such as the church, the monarchy, and the aristocracy.[11] It is in this sense that Voltaire has been described as having been a liberal.[12] For the things he despised, Voltaire used ridicule and biting satire to attack some of the old, established beliefs. He was a clever writer, who could interpret others’ ideas in clear, persuasive writing to his audiences,[13] for example, introducing the ideas of English scientists to French readers. In order to sweep away the cobwebs of old ideas, Voltaire was an advocate for free speech and discussion. As Sherover (1998) writes, “Voltaire perceived the beliefs and institutions of the inherited culture as standing in the way of progress. The prime focus of his attacks was on any ruling dogmatism which sought to forestall open discussion.”[14] With the support of other intellectuals, dissent and discussion became a part and parcel of the political process in France.[15]

Though Rousseau shared Voltaire’s advocacy for free and open discussions, Rousseau is considered to have opened the way to the future even as, in some ways, Voltaire remained tethered to the mainstream of the Enlightenment. Among the issues that riled Rousseau were the sin of atheism, lack of respect for human emotions, the placement of science on a pedestal, the copying of aristocratic modes of living and morals, that is, society’s “dogmatic belief in a materialist notion of progress, its elitism, and, ultimately, its searing potential for revolutionary violence.”[16] In particular, when it came to the role that religion ought to play in the politics of a nation, Voltaire and Rousseau may have had their differences, which is not to say that there was no convergence in their thoughts on the subject.

The Place of Religion in Politics and Government

Voltaire favored absolute monarchy, though not one with unfettered powers, but rather, one that was “properly-bounded — as a cornerstone for the maintenance of good order without religion.”[17] Voltaire, it must be noted, did not necessarily think that the probity of public authorities was beyond reproach;[18] nonetheless, he did not think that religion should feature prominently in determining the policies of the state. He did not see the Christian story as a series of positive episodes in history but rather, as with many other religions, one that included a succession of crimes, foolishness, and misfortunes.[19] Voltaire had also had the experience of observing provincial courts dominated by Jansenist Christianity and determined that the follies and foibles associated with such governments should not be a part of the national political experience. Thus, he chose to “back a restrained central authority against the fanaticism and cruelty of devolved powers, such as those in the provincial courts (parlements).”[20] Voltaire’s confidence in absolute monarchies may also have come from his personal experiences of some of these royals. For example, he communicated with royals such as Frederick the Great of Prussia and was a houseguest of the king for several years.[21] As well, he maintained years’ long correspondence with Catherine the Great, empress of Russia.

But Voltaire’s opposition to the active inclusion or participation of religion in politics did not mean that religion should be subject to persecution or ill-treatment. Rather, a government, untainted by the dissension and diversity in religion, held out the best hope for avoiding an excess of contention in the public sphere, thus, “monarchical order takes the place of the political processes of society: government replaces politics.”[22] Politics, in this sense, might refer to the dissension that often results when factions with vastly different interests seek to exert control over public affairs.

Rousseau, on the other hand, was apt to look upon the positive side of religion.[23] He saw private opinion and values forged from religious beliefs as being consequential in that the secular culture that was advocated by other intellectuals of the era “was a pre-eminent instance of an artificiality, pretense and competitiveness that, in his view, was undermining the mutual trust and self-knowledge necessary equally for communal life and for personal moral peace.”[24] In his book, Emile, he expounded upon the role that sound religion, one unsullied by greed, corruption, or venality, could impart towards the growth of citizens. Some of Rousseau’s attitude towards religion and its potential benefits are encapsulated in his book, The Confessions of a Savoyard Priest, featuring a man who sought to live by the virtues of right and wrong.[25] But Rousseau was not unaware of the dark side of religion, and his criticisms were many.

For one, he saw the strict demands of conventional Christianity as not conducive to the wellbeing of the state, in that Christianity rendered men soft, merciful, humane, and obedient,[26] all qualities unlikely to help in the defense of a nation. Moreover, Christianity, which insisted on monotheism and the rightness of its doctrines had been responsible for the kind of intolerance that had resulted in the persecution of unbelievers. [27]. He mused, however, that early Christianity, “like the Judaism from which it sprang, was firmly antiphilosophical; for ‘it was not to the learned that Jesus Christ wished to entrust his doctrine and his ministry…[but to] the lowly and the simple.’”[28] In this regard, he saw some hope for bringing some form of Christianity into the political sphere. In the end, Rousseau’s plan was meant “to readmit religion to the political, but to so discriminate the different levels at which belief operates so that it becomes possible for different sets of beliefs to coexist in society without coming into conflict.”[29] Rather than having people discard their individual beliefs in favor of some absolute truth that science or research would unveil, Rousseau wanted society to co-opt what was good of religion, including belief in a good God, the notion of reward in the afterlife, and respect for the social contract and its laws, to make society a better place.

A Nuanced View of Government

Even though Enlightenment thinkers are often portrayed almost as worshippers of reason, it appears that Voltaire was not fanatical about reason as potentially yielding the one best notion of government leadership. Rather, there was a practical streak in his writings and pronouncements. As Rasmussen notes, “Throughout his long career and voluminous writings, Voltaire never put forward an ideal regime or set of laws that he conceived of as universally applicable, or even appealed to a universal standard of natural law to judge existing ones.”[30] Rather, he recognized that different societies had different needs and that while a parliamentary form of government served England well, the popular republic in Holland was no less effective for its people and neither was the “more centralized one in Frederick’s Prussia and Catherine’s Russia.”[31] Even though Voltaire thought very highly of royal patronage and “also celebrated the age of Louis XIV and the advent of absolute monarchy,”[32] when asked whether a republican government was preferable to one led by a king, Voltaire is said to have written that, “The argument always ends up with agreement that men are very difficult to govern.”[33] For a passionate advocate of reason, along with liberal institutions and practices, it seems that Voltaire was unwilling to trust society to one supposedly rational type of government that would be a panacea to all the ills of the world.

While Voltaire seems to have accommodated himself to possible rule by royal decree, Rousseau was emphatic about the need for “government by law — and by law ensuing from popular consent.”[34] Even though Rousseau looked forward to a world in which a republican government elected by citizens would be the order of the day, he looked for gradual and steady progress, as did Voltaire,[35] rather than revolutionary upheaval.[36] In his hometown, Geneva, Rousseau saw an opportunity to challenge the rule by an oligarchic few that seemed not to have much use for democracy. In the dedication to his radical work, the Discourse on Inequality, he sought to inspire ordinary citizens “to fight corruption and protect their republican constitution.”[37]

Seeming Contradictions

Both Voltaire and Rousseau displayed some apparent contradictions in their lives. They also dealt with each other, though they have nowhere been described as having been bosom friends. Voltaire, it appears, reserved his primary allegiance to the educated class to which he belonged and to royalty. Voltaire did not suppose that the ideas that he espoused would be of much value to the masses, most of who, he believed, did not think,[38] and as such, that, the churches did not have much to fear from philosophers. To any threat that the church might have felt from philosophers, Voltaire offered that most philosophers, the few that existed, were not so interested in proselytizing and turning the masses against the church. Even so, he marveled at how people such as Mohammed, Luther, and Calvin, had been able to amass such huge followings. In that connection, Voegelin (1982), suggests that there was some ambiguity in Voltaire’s attitude:

On the one hand, the philosophers are a small group and they do not want to bother the public; on the other hand, he hopes that they will have public meetings when their sect becomes more numerous, and the comparison with the Reformers and Mohammed leaves hardly a doubt that he looks with envy on the mass success of other religious movements.[39]

Voltaire was also not averse to accepting royal patronage though he noted that danger for a philosopher to become dependent on either wealthy people or the market.[40]

One of the most important moments in Voltaire’s life came when, in 1761, Jean Calas, a cloth merchant and Protestant, was accused of killing his eldest son. The society was mostly Catholic and the relationship between these two Christian religions was not always the best. When the case went to court, Calas was convicted. “The sentence called for Calas to be questioned while tortured in two ways, then broken on the wheel, then burned. The assumption was that in the throes of agony, Calas would confess…”[41] Voltaire became a tireless crusader on behalf of Calas, and others. He saw an injustice in the making in that toxic stew of religious animus and intolerance. Eventually, another verdict was issued by a panel of forty judges; as King (2015) notes, “Voltaire, by appealing directly to the people, helped establish the power of public opinion as a tool to fight injustice.”[42]

Rousseau, on the other hand, was not comfortable with having to accept such patronage and disdained any system that would make him subservient to another. Thus, “Early on in his career he made the decision to support himself by the humble craft of music-copying rather than accept any gifts that could even be construed as patronage.”[43] He even refused an overpayment that a generous friend, the Marquise de Crequi, had made to him for music copying as a way to get around Rousseau’s refusal of patronage. In another instance, following the success of his opera, Le Devin du village, which attracted the potential patronage of the king, Rousseau turned the patronage down, noting that the mere thought of it gave him bouts of anxiety and perplexity.[44] In this case, Voltaire had suggested that this would have been a great opportunity for Rousseau. In fact, not only was Rousseau unwilling to accept royal patronage he decried the practice of his fellow intellectuals “who turned themselves into servants of a monarchy and thereby aided and abetted an oppressive social and political order.”[45]

Rousseau is often portrayed as a sensitive soul. But he was hardened in some of his convictions. When a Protestant minister in France, who had been sentenced to death for conducting services in public, wrote to ask for Rousseau’s help, he declined. While acknowledging the cruelty of a system that would sentence a preacher to death for sharing his faith, he nevertheless chastised the minister, writing, “This same word of God is explicit on the duty to obey the laws of princes. The forbidding of assembly belongs incontestably to their rights, and after all, since these assemblies are not of the essence of Christianity, one can abstain from them without renouncing one’s faith.[46] It seems that Rousseau saw in this minister just another hardheaded person who could not use common sense to preserve himself.

Rousseau’s Critique of the Enlightenment

While contributing articles and books that were both celebrated and proscribed for the powerful ideas they contained, Rousseau was nevertheless the “preeminent critic” [47]of the Enlightenment. In what has come to be known as Rousseau’s First Discourse, he praised such men as Newton, Descartes, and even the Chancellor of England for their contributions to the Enlightenment and the promise the movement held to increase the happiness of humankind. But then, he pointed out that these same arts and sciences had not added to the real happiness of humanity and had, in fact, corrupted human morals.[48] He praised Sparta, a city that had chased away its artists and the arts, as well as the sciences and the learned men. He saw in the increasingly commercialized world, not progress, but a world in which people hid their true selves. In addition, Rousseau saw the arts as spreading garlands of flowers over the chains of iron that bound and thus, “stifle in them the sentiment of that original liberty for which they seem to have been born, make them love their slavery…”[49] He was saddened by a world full of knowledge but one in which no sincere friendships were formed because of envy, fear, hatred, and treachery. He lamented, that in this brave new world, “We have Physicists, Geometricians, Chemists, Astronomers, Poets, Musicians, Painters…We no longer have citizens; or if there still remain some among us, they are dispersed in the country districts that have been abandoned; there they perish indigent [and] despised.”[50]

Quite apart from the dangers he perceived from the spread of the arts and sciences, Rousseau praised the sublime geniuses and privileged souls who were removing the veils of ignorance from society; he also acknowledged their remove from the masses. In particular, Rousseau identified Voltaire as possibly being one of those individuals whose renown might have become corrupted. But to the whole slew of Enlightenment intellectuals, “The most grievous charge was his flat denial that the Enlightenment project would result in a liberation of the human intellect.”[51]

Though Rousseau and Voltaire have been described as despising each other, they conformed to the mores of scholarship in their era, which involved correspondence with other intellectuals. Thus, there are indications that they read each other’s works and even exchanged letters with each other.[52] Following Voltaire’s death, part of his library was purchased by the Russian empress, Catherine the Great, and in most of Voltaire’s books, “especially works by Jean Jacques Rousseau, and in particular in the Contrat social, one finds curious and humorous notes written in Voltaire’s hand.”[53] Though Rousseau and Voltaire met only once, at a salon in Paris before Rousseau also became famous, in time, their careers became practically intertwined.[54]

Between 1745 and 1765, they exchanged a dozen letters, beginning with Rousseau’s effusive compliment to the effect that he had been working for fifteen years to make himself worthy of Voltaire’s notice, and concluding with his accusation that Voltaire was a scoundrel for suggesting that he had not really been the secretary to the French ambassador in Venice but merely his valet.[55]

In Rousseau’s book, Discourse on Inequality, he praised the so-called natural man as being akin to animals. Voltaire responded thus, “I have read your new book against the human race…Thank you….No one ever employed so much wit in order to make us animals.”[56] And later, in 1760, “following the controversy surrounding the publication of his Letter on the Theater, Rousseau wrote to Voltaire: “I do not like you, sir…You have destroyed Geneva…I hate you really…Adieu.”[57] But their exchanges were not all a matter of bitterness and hatred. At one point, Voltaire had invited Rousseau to visit him in Geneva, to which Rousseau had replied, “I appreciate your invitation, and if my health this winter permits me to return to my homeland in the spring, I shall take advantage of your kindness.”[58]

Conclusion

This paper has not been able to capture but a minuscule part of the complexities of thought, expression, and contributions of Voltaire and Rousseau. But their efforts, whether in terms of their contributions to literature or the project of reforming society for the better, provide a great deal of inspiration for those of us who have come after them and may be full of doubts about our own abilities, and how, as individuals, we can make a difference. Though the ideas of Voltaire and Rousseau have contributed to opening up some of the darker corners of the human experience and perhaps made society freer than it otherwise might have been, we see all around us numerous other problems that shout for attention in our own time: global warming, human trafficking, terrorism, poverty, racism, sexism, ageism, and many others. Voltaire and Rousseau did their part with whatever powers they had, and though they may have butted heads in life, in their death, in recognition of their contributions to their society and the world, they were brought together. As Wokler (1998) notes, “No doubt the great quarrel between Voltaire and Rousseau continues every night, in person, under the vault of the Pantheon, to which the ashes of each man were transported during the French Revolution.”[59]

These two, Voltaire and Rousseau, did their part for humanity; what would our contributions be?

References

Armstrong, Ken. Broken on the Wheel. The Paris Review, Mar 13, 2015. www.theparisreview.org

Capaldi, Nicholas. “The Pragmatic Enlightenment: Recovering the Liberalism of Hume, Smith, Montesquieu, and Voltaire By Dennis C. Rasmussen, Cambridge University Press, 2014. Philosophy 91.3 (2016): 431–436.

Davidson, Ian. Voltaire: a life. Pegasus Books, 2012.

“Enlightenment.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. www.plato.stanford.edu

Gorbatov, Inna. “From Paris to St. Petersburg: Voltaire’s Library in Russia.” Libraries & the Cultural Record 42.3 (2007): 308–324.

Israel, Jonathan. “Rousseau, Diderot, and the” Radical Enlightenment”: A Reply to Helena Rosenblatt and Joanna Stalnaker.” Journal of the History of Ideas 77.4 (2016): 649–677.

Marks, Jonathan D. “Rousseau’s Use of the Jewish Example.” The Review of Politics 72.3 (2010): 463–481.

Melzer, Arthur M. “The origin of the counter-enlightenment: Rousseau and the new religion of sincerity.” American Political Science Review 90.2 (1996): 344–360.

Parker, Noel. “RELIGION AND POLITICS: Voltaire’s and Rousseau’s Enlightenment Strategies.” Distinktion: Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory 7.1 (2006): 93–115.

Rahe, Paul A. “The Enlightenment Indicted: Rousseau’s Response to Montesquieu.” Journal of the Historical Society 8.2 (2008): 273–302.

Rasmussen, Dennis C. “Burning Laws and Strangling Kings? Voltaire and Diderot on the Perils of Rationalism in Politics.” The Review of Politics 73.1 (2011): 77–104.

Rosenblatt, Helena. “Rousseau’s gift to Geneva.” Modern Intellectual History3.1 (2006): 65–73.

Rosenblatt, Helena. “Rousseau, the “Traditionalist”. Journal of the History of Ideas” 77 (4):627–635 (2016)

Sherover, Charles M. “Forming the Mind of Modernity.” International Journal on World Peace (1998): 23–49.

Voegelin, E. (1982). From enlightenment to revolution. Duke University Press, p. 29.

Wokler, Robert. “The subtextual reincarnation of Voltaire and Rousseau.” The American Scholar 67.2 (1998): 55–64.

[1] Enlightenment. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. www.plato.stanford.edu

[2] Graeme Garrard, “The enlightenment and its enemies.” American Behavioral Scientist 49.5 (2006): 676.

[3] Paul A. Rahe, “The Enlightenment Indicted: Rousseau’s Response to Montesquieu.” Journal of the Historical Society 8.2 (2008): 273–302.

[4] Graeme Garrard, “The enlightenment and its enemies.” American Behavioral Scientist 49.5 (2006): . 666.

[5] Ibid, p. 664.

[6] Noel Parker, “RELIGION AND POLITICS: Voltaire’s and Rousseau’s Enlightenment Strategies.” Distinktion: Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory 7.1 (2006): 94.

[7] Charles M. Sherover, “Forming the Mind of Modernity.” International Journal on World Peace (1998): 25.

[8] Rasmussen, Dennis C. “Burning Laws and Strangling Kings? Voltaire and Diderot on the Perils of Rationalism in Politics.” The Review of Politics 73.1 (2011): 79.

[9] Jonathan Israel, “Rousseau, Diderot, and the” Radical Enlightenment”: A Reply to Helena Rosenblatt and Joanna Stalnaker.” Journal of the History of Ideas 77.4 (2016): 650.

[10] Ibid, 650.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Dennis C. Rasmussen, “Burning Laws and Strangling Kings? Voltaire and Diderot on the Perils of Rationalism in Politics.” The Review of Politics 73.1 (2011): 83.

[13] Charles M. Sherover, “Forming the Mind of Modernity.” International Journal on World Peace (1998):. 36.

[14] Charles M. Sherover, “Forming the Mind of Modernity.” International Journal on World Peace (1998):. 37.

[15] Ibid, p. 38.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Noel Parker, “RELIGION AND POLITICS: Voltaire’s and Rousseau’s Enlightenment Strategies.” Distinktion: Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory 7.1 (2006): 95.

[18] Ibid, p. 96.

[19] Ibid, 96.

[20] Ibid, 97.

[21] Charles M. Sherover, “Forming the Mind of Modernity.” International Journal on World Peace (1998):35.

[22] Noel Parker, “RELIGION AND POLITICS: Voltaire’s and Rousseau’s Enlightenment Strategies.” Distinktion: Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory 7.1 (2006):101.

[23] Ibid, 104.

[24] Ibid, 104.

[25] Ibid, 105.

[26] Melzer, Arthur M. “The origin of the counter-enlightenment: Rousseau and the new religion of sincerity.” American Political Science Review 90.2 (1996): 345.

[27] Arthur M. Melzer, “The origin of the counter-enlightenment: Rousseau and the new religion of sincerity.” American Political Science Review 90.2 (1996): 345.

[28] Ibid, 346.

[29] Noel Parker, “RELIGION AND POLITICS: Voltaire’s and Rousseau’s Enlightenment Strategies.” Distinktion: Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory 7.1 (2006):105.

[30] Dennis C. Rasmussen, “Burning Laws and Strangling Kings? Voltaire and Diderot on the Perils of Rationalism in Politics.” The Review of Politics 73.1 (2011): 84.

[31] Ibid, 84.

[32] Helena Rosenblatt, “Rousseau’s gift to Geneva.” Modern Intellectual History3.1 (2006): 70.

[33] Nicholas Capaldi, “The Pragmatic Enlightenment: Recovering the Liberalism of Hume, Smith, Montesquieu, and Voltaire By Dennis C. Rasmussen, Cambridge University Press, 2014, Philosophy 91.3 (2016): 100.

[34] Charles M. Sherover, “Forming the Mind of Modernity.” International Journal on World Peace (1998): 40.

[35] Dennis C. Rasmussen, “Burning Laws and Strangling Kings? Voltaire and Diderot on the Perils of Rationalism in Politics.” The Review of Politics 73.1 (2011): 82.

[36] Charles M. Sherover, “Forming the Mind of Modernity.” International Journal on World Peace (1998): 43.

[37] Helena Rosenblatt, “Rousseau’s gift to Geneva.” Modern Intellectual History3.1 (2006): 73.

[38] E. Voegelin, (1982). From enlightenment to revolution. Duke University Press, p. 31.

[39] E. Voegelin, (1982). From enlightenment to revolution. Duke University Press, p. 31.

[40] Helena Rosenblatt, “Rousseau’s gift to Geneva.” Modern Intellectual History 3.1 (2006): 68.

[41] Ken Armstrong. Broken on the Wheel. The Paris Review, Mar 13 2015. www.theparisreview.org

[42] Ibid.

[43] Helena Rosenblatt, “Rousseau’s gift to Geneva.” Modern Intellectual History 3.1 (2006): 68.

[44] Rosenblatt, Helena. “Rousseau’s gift to Geneva.” Modern Intellectual History3.1 (2006):69.

[45] Ibid, 71.

[46] Arthur M. Melzer, “The origin of the counter-enlightenment: Rousseau and the new religion of sincerity.” American Political Science Review 90.2 (1996): 357.

[47] Paul A. Rahe, “The Enlightenment Indicted: Rousseau’s Response to Montesquieu.” Journal of the Historical Society 8.2 (2008): 276

[48] Ibid, 284.

[49] Ibid, 286.

[50] Jean Jacques Rousseau, cited in Rahe, Paul A. “The Enlightenment Indicted: Rousseau’s Response to Montesquieu.” Journal of the Historical Society 8.2 (2008): 289.

[51] Paul A. Rahe, “The Enlightenment Indicted: Rousseau’s Response to Montesquieu.” Journal of the Historical Society 8.2 (2008): 292

[52] Robert Wokler, “The subtextual reincarnation of Voltaire and Rousseau.” The American Scholar 67.2 (1998): 55–64.

[53] Inna Gorbatov, “From Paris to St. Petersburg: Voltaire’s Library in Russia.” Libraries & the Cultural Record 42.3 (2007): 319.

[54] Robert Wokler, “The subtextual reincarnation of Voltaire and Rousseau.” The American Scholar 67.2 (1998): 63.

[55] Robert Wokler, “The subtextual reincarnation of Voltaire and Rousseau.” The American Scholar 67.2 (1998): 63.

[56] Ibid, 63.

[57] Ibid.

[58] Ibid, 64.

[59] Ibid.