게시판  검색  자료실  사이트맵  예수와나?


철학 - 지혜의 탐구

Jean-Jacques Rousseau




Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the least academic of modern philosophers, was in many ways the most influential. His thought marked the end of the Age of Reason and the birth of Romanticism. He propelled political and ethical thinking into new channels. His reforms revolutionized taste, first in music, then in the other arts. He had a profound impact on people's way of life; he taught parents to take a new interest in their children and to educate them differently; he furthered the expression of emotion rather than polite restraint in friendship and love. He introduced the cult of religious sentiment among people who had discarded religious dogma. He opened men's eyes to the beauties of nature, and he made liberty an object of almost universal aspiration.


Formative years.

Rousseau was born in Geneva--the city of Calvin--on June 28, 1712. His mother died in childbirth and he was brought up by his father, who taught him to believe that the city of his birth was a republic as splendid as Sparta or ancient Rome. Rousseau senior had an equally glorious image of his own importance; after marrying above his modest station as a watchmaker, he got into trouble with the civil authorities by brandishing the sword that his upper-class pretentions prompted him to wear, and he had to leave Geneva to avoid imprisonment. Rousseau, the son, then lived for six years as a poor relation in his mother's family, patronized and humiliated, until he, too, at the age of 16, fled from Geneva to live the life of an adventurer and a Roman Catholic convert in the kingdoms of Sardinia and France. (see also  Calvinism)

Rousseau was fortunate in finding in the province of Savoy a benefactress named the Baronne de Warens, who provided him with a refuge in her home and employed him as her steward. She also furthered his education to such a degree that the boy who had arrived on her doorstep as a stammering apprentice who had never been to school developed into a philosopher, a man of letters, and a musician.

Mme de Warens, who thus transformed the adventurer into a philosopher, was herself an adventuress--a Swiss convert to Catholicism who had stripped her husband of his money before fleeing to Savoy with the gardener's son to set herself up as a Catholic missionary specializing in the conversion of young male Protestants. Her morals distressed Rousseau, even when he became her lover. But she was a woman of taste, intelligence, and energy, who brought out in Rousseau just the talents that were needed to conquer Paris at a time when Voltaire had made radical ideas fashionable.

Rousseau reached Paris when he was 30 and was lucky enough to meet another young man from the provinces seeking literary fame in the capital, Denis Diderot. The two soon became immensely successful as the centre of a group of intellectuals--or "Philosophes"--who gathered round the great French Encyclopédie, of which Diderot was appointed editor. The Encyclopédie was an important organ of radical and anticlerical opinion, and its contributors were as much reforming and even iconoclastic pamphleteers as they were philosophers. Rousseau, the most original of them all in his thinking and the most forceful and eloquent in his style of writing, was soon the most conspicuous. He wrote music as well as prose, and one of his operas, Le Devin du village (1752; The Cunning-Man), attracted so much admiration from the king and the court that he might have enjoyed an easy life as a fashionable composer, but something in his Calvinist blood rejected this type of worldly glory. Indeed, at the age of 37 Rousseau had what he called an "illumination" while walking to Vincennes to visit Diderot, who had been imprisoned there because of his irreligious writings. In the Confessions, which he wrote late in life, Rousseau says that it came to him then in a "terrible flash" that modern progress had corrupted instead of improved men. He went on to write his first important work, a prize essay for the Academy of Dijon entitled Discours sur les sciences et les arts (1750; A Discourse on the Sciences and the Arts), in which he argues that the history of man's life on earth has been a history of decay.

This Discourse is by no means Rousseau's best piece of writing, but its central theme was to inform almost everything else he wrote. Throughout his life he kept returning to the thought that man is good by nature but has been corrupted by society and civilization. He did not mean to suggest that society and civilization were inherently bad but rather that both had taken a wrong direction and become more harmful as they had become more sophisticated. This idea in itself was not unfamiliar when Rousseau published his Discourse on the Sciences and the Arts. Many Roman Catholic writers deplored the direction that European culture had taken since the Middle Ages. They shared the hostility toward progress that Rousseau had expressed. What they did not share was his belief that man was naturally good. It was, however, just this belief in man's natural goodness that Rousseau made the cornerstone of his argument.

Rousseau may well have received the inspiration for this belief from Mme de Warens; for although that unusual woman had become a communicant of the Roman Catholic Church, she retained--and transmitted to Rousseau--much of the sentimental optimism about human purity that she had herself absorbed as a child from the mystical Protestant Pietists who were her teachers in the canton of Bern. At all events, the idea of man's natural goodness, as Rousseau developed it, set him apart from both conservatives and radicals. Even so, for several years after the publication of his first Discourse, he remained a close collaborator in Diderot's essentially progressive enterprise, the Encyclopédie, and an active contributor to its pages. His speciality there was music, and it was in this sphere that he first established his influence as reformer. (see also  music, history of)


Controversy with Rameau.

The arrival of an Italian opera company in Paris in 1752 to perform works of opera buffa by Pergolesi, Scarlatti, Vinci, Leo, and other such composers suddenly divided the French music-loving public into two excited camps, supporters of the new Italian opera and supporters of the traditional French opera. The Philosophes of the Encyclopédie--d'Alembert, Diderot, and d'Holbach among them--entered the fray as champions of Italian music, but Rousseau, who had arranged for the publication of Pergolesi's music in Paris and who knew more about the subject than most Frenchmen after the months he had spent visiting the opera houses of Venice during his time as secretary to the French ambassador to the doge in 1743-44, emerged as the most forceful and effective combatant. He was the only one to direct his fire squarely at the leading living exponent of French operatic music, Jean-Philippe Rameau.

Rousseau and Rameau must at that time have seemed unevenly matched in a controversy about music. Rameau, already in his 70th year, was not only a prolific and successful composer but was also, as the author of the celebrated Traité de l'harmonie (1722; Treatise on Harmony) and other technical works, Europe's leading musicologist. Rousseau, by contrast, was 30 years younger, a newcomer to music, with no professional training and only one successful opera to his credit. His scheme for a new notation for music had been rejected by the Academy of Sciences, and most of his musical entries for Diderot's Encyclopédie were as yet unpublished. Yet the dispute was not only musical but also philosophical, and Rameau was confronted with a more formidable adversary than he had realized. Rousseau built his case for the superiority of Italian music over French on the principle that melody must have priority over harmony, whereas Rameau based his on the assertion that harmony must have priority over melody. By pleading for melody, Rousseau introduced what later came to be recognized as a characteristic idea of Romanticism, namely, that in art the free expression of the creative spirit is more important than strict adhesion to formal rules and traditional procedures. By pleading for harmony, Rameau reaffirmed the first principle of French Classicism, namely, that conformity to rationally intelligible rules is a necessary condition of art, the aim of which is to impose order on the chaos of human experience.

In music, Rousseau was a liberator. He argued for freedom in music, and he pointed to the Italian composers as models to be followed. In doing so he had more success than Rameau; he changed people's attitudes. Gluck, who succeeded Rameau as the most important operatic composer in France, acknowledged his debt to Rousseau's teaching, and Mozart based the text for his one-act operetta Bastien und Bastienne on Rousseau's Devin du village. European music had taken a new direction. But Rousseau himself composed no more operas. Despite the success of Le Devin du village, or rather because of its success, Rousseau felt that, as a moralist who had decided to make a break with worldly values, he could not allow himself to go on working for the theatre. He decided to devote his energies henceforth to literature and philosophy.


Major works of political philosophy.

As part of what Rousseau called his "reform," or improvement of his own character, he began to look back at some of the austere principles that he had learned as a child in the Calvinist republic of Geneva. Indeed he decided to return to that city, repudiate his Catholicism, and seek readmission to the Protestant church. He had in the meantime acquired a mistress, an illiterate laundry maid named Thérèse Levasseur. To the surprise of his friends, he took her with him to Geneva, presenting her as a nurse. Although her presence caused some murmurings, Rousseau was readmitted easily to the Calvinist communion, his literary fame having made him very welcome to a city that prided itself as much on its culture as on its morals.

Rousseau had by this time completed a second Discourse in response to a question set by the Academy of Dijon: "What is the origin of the inequality among men and is it justified by natural law?" In response to this challenge he produced a masterpiece of speculative anthropology. The argument follows on that of his first Discourse by developing the proposition that natural man is good and then tracing the successive stages by which man has descended from primitive innocence to corrupt sophistication. (see also  philosophical anthropology)

Rousseau begins his Discours sur l'origine de l'inegalité (1755; Discourse on the Origin of Inequality) by distinguishing two kinds of inequality, natural and artificial, the first arising from differences in strength, intelligence, and so forth, the second from the conventions that govern societies. It is the inequalities of the latter sort that he sets out to explain. Adopting what he thought the properly "scientific" method of investigating origins, he attempts to reconstruct the earliest phases of man's experience of life on earth. He suggests that original man was not a social being but entirely solitary, and to this extent he agrees with Hobbes's account of the state of nature. But in contrast to the English pessimist's view that the life of man in such a condition must have been "poor, nasty, brutish and short," Rousseau claims that original man, while admittedly solitary, was healthy, happy, good, and free. The vices of men, he argues, date from the time when men formed societies. (see also  "Discourse Upon the Origin and Foundation of the Inequality Among Mankind, A," , primitivism)

Rousseau thus exonerates nature and blames society for the emergence of vices. He says that passions that generate vices hardly exist in the state of nature but begin to develop as soon as men form societies. Rousseau goes on to suggest that societies started when men built their first huts, a development that facilitated cohabitation of males and females; this in turn produced the habit of living as a family and associating with neighbours. This "nascent society," as Rousseau calls it, was good while it lasted; it was indeed the "golden age" of human history. Only it did not endure. With the tender passion of love there was also born the destructive passion of jealousy. Neighbours started to compare their abilities and achievements with one another, and this "marked the first step towards inequality and at the same time towards vice." Men started to demand consideration and respect; their innocent self-love turned into culpable pride, as each man wanted to be better than everyone else.

The introduction of property marked a further step toward inequality since it made it necessary for men to institute law and government in order to protect property. Rousseau laments the "fatal" concept of property in one of his more eloquent passages, describing the "horrors" that have resulted from men's departure from a condition in which the earth belonged to no one. These passages in his second Discourse excited later revolutionaries such as Marx and Lenin, but Rousseau himself did not think that the past could be undone in any way; there was no point in men dreaming of a return to the golden age.

Civil society, as Rousseau describes it, comes into being to serve two purposes: to provide peace for everyone and to ensure the right to property for anyone lucky enough to have possessions. It is thus of some advantage to everyone, but mostly to the advantage of the rich, since it transforms their de facto ownership into rightful ownership and keeps the poor dispossessed. It is a somewhat fraudulent social contract that introduces government since the poor get so much less out of it than do the rich. Even so, the rich are no happier in civil society than are the poor because social man is never satisfied. Society leads men to hate one another to the extent that their interests conflict, and the best they are able to do is to hide their hostility behind a mask of courtesy. Thus Rousseau regards the inequality between men not as a separate problem but as one of the features of the long process by which men become alienated from nature and from innocence.

In the dedication Rousseau wrote for the Discourse, in order to present it to the republic of Geneva, he nevertheless praises that city-state for having achieved the ideal balance between "the equality which nature established among men and the inequality which they have instituted among themselves." The arrangement he discerned in Geneva was one in which the best men were chosen by the citizens and put in the highest positions of authority. Like Plato, Rousseau always believed that a just society was one in which everyone was in his right place. And having written the Discourse to explain how men had lost their liberty in the past, he went on to write another book, Du Contrat social (1762; The Social Contract), to suggest how they might recover their liberty in the future. Again Geneva was the model; not Geneva as it had become in 1754 when Rousseau returned there to recover his rights as a citizen, but Geneva as it had once been; i.e., Geneva as Calvin had designed it.

The Social Contract begins with the sensational opening sentence: "Man was born free, but he is everywhere in chains," and proceeds to argue that men need not be in chains. If a civil society, or state, could be based on a genuine social contract, as opposed to the fraudulent social contract depicted in the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, men would receive in exchange for their independence a better kind of freedom, namely true political, or republican, liberty. Such liberty is to be found in obedience to a self-imposed law.

Rousseau's definition of political liberty raises an obvious problem. For while it can be readily agreed that an individual is free if he obeys only rules he prescribes for himself, this is so because an individual is a person with a single will. A society, by contrast, is a set of persons with a set of individual wills, and conflict between separate wills is a fact of universal experience. Rousseau's response to the problem is to define his civil society as an artificial person united by a general will, or volonté générale. The social contract that brings society into being is a pledge, and the society remains in being as a pledged group. Rousseau's republic is a creation of the general will--of a will that never falters in each and every member to further the public, common, or national interest--even though it may conflict at times with personal interest. (see also  liberalism)

Rousseau sounds very much like Hobbes when he says that under the pact by which men enter civil society everyone totally alienates himself and all his rights to the whole community. Rousseau, however, represents this act as a form of exchange of rights whereby men give up natural rights in return for civil rights. The bargain is a good one because what men surrender are rights of dubious value, whose realization depends solely on an individual man's own might, and what they obtain in return are rights that are both legitimate and enforced by the collective force of the community.

There is no more haunting paragraph in The Social Contract than that in which Rousseau speaks of "forcing a man to be free." But it would be wrong to interpret these words in the manner of those critics who see Rousseau as a prophet of modern totalitarianism. He does not claim that a whole society can be forced to be free but only that an occasional individual, who is enslaved by his passions to the extent of disobeying the law, can be restored by force to obedience to the voice of the general will that exists inside of him. The man who is coerced by society for a breach of the law is, in Rousseau's view, being brought back to an awareness of his own true interests.

For Rousseau there is a radical dichotomy between true law and actual law. Actual law, which he describes in the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, simply protects the status quo. True law, as described in The Social Contract, is just law, and what ensures its being just is that it is made by the people in its collective capacity as sovereign and obeyed by the same people in their individual capacities as subjects. Rousseau is confident that such laws could not be unjust because it is inconceivable that any people would make unjust laws for itself. (see also  law, philosophy of)

Rousseau is, however, troubled by the fact that the majority of a people does not necessarily represent its most intelligent citizens. Indeed, he agrees with Plato that most people are stupid. Thus the general will, while always morally sound, is sometimes mistaken. Hence Rousseau suggests the people need a lawgiver--a great mind like Solon or Lycurgus or Calvin--to draw up a constitution and system of laws. He even suggests that such lawgivers need to claim divine inspiration in order to persuade the dim-witted multitude to accept and endorse the laws it is offered. (see also  monarchy, church and state, divine right of kings)

This suggestion echoes a similar proposal by Machiavelli, a political theorist Rousseau greatly admired and whose love of republican government he shared. An even more conspicuously Machiavellian influence can be discerned in Rousseau's chapter on civil religion, where he argues that Christianity, despite its truth, is useless as a republican religion on the grounds that it is directed to the unseen world and does nothing to teach citizens the virtues that are needed in the service of the state, namely, courage, virility, and patriotism. Rousseau does not go so far as Machiavelli in proposing a revival of pagan cults, but he does propose a civil religion with minimal theological content designed to fortify and not impede (as Christianity impedes) the cultivation of martial virtues. It is understandable that the authorities of Geneva, profoundly convinced that the national church of their little republic was at the same time a truly Christian church and a nursery of patriotism, reacted angrily against this chapter in Rousseau's Social Contract. (see also  religion, philosophy of)

By the year 1762, however, when The Social Contract was published, Rousseau had given up any thought of settling in Geneva. After recovering his citizen's rights in 1754, he had returned to Paris and the company of his friends around the Encyclopédie. But he became increasingly ill at ease in such worldly society and began to quarrel with his fellow Philosophes. An article for the Encyclopédie on the subject of Geneva, written by d'Alembert at Voltaire's instigation, upset Rousseau partly by suggesting that the pastors of the city had lapsed from Calvinist severity into unitarian laxity and partly by proposing that a theatre should be erected there. Rousseau hastened into print with a defense of the Calvinist orthodoxy of the pastors and with an elaborate attack on the theatre as an institution that could only do harm to an innocent community such as Geneva.


Years of seclusion and exile.

By the time his Lettre à d'Alembert sur les spectacles (1758; Letter to Monsieur d'Alembert on the Theatre) appeared in print, Rousseau had already left Paris to pursue a life closer to nature on the country estate of his friend Mme d'Épinay near Montmorency. When the hospitality of Mme d'Épinay proved to entail much the same social round as that of Paris, Rousseau retreated to a nearby cottage, called Montlouis, under the protection of the Maréchal de Luxembourg. But even this highly placed friend could not save him in 1762 when his treatise on education, Émile, was published and scandalized the pious Jansenists of the French Parlements even as The Social Contract scandalized the Calvinists of Geneva. In Paris, as in Geneva, they ordered the book to be burned and the author arrested; all the Maréchal de Luxembourg could do was to provide a carriage for Rousseau to escape from France. Rousseau spent the rest of his life as a fugitive moving from one refuge to another. (see also  Épinay, Louise-Florence-Pétronille Tardieu d'Esclavelles, dame de La Live d')

The years at Montmorency had been the most productive of his literary career; besides The Social Contract and Émile, Julie: ou, la nouvelle Héloïse (1761; Julie: or, The New Eloise) came out within 12 months, all three works of seminal importance. The New Eloise, being a novel, escaped the censorship to which the other two works were subject; indeed of all his books it proved to be the most widely read and the most universally praised in his lifetime. It develops the Romanticism that had already informed his writings on music and perhaps did more than any other single work of literature to influence the spirit of its age. It made the author at least as many friends among the reading public--and especially among educated women--as The Social Contract and Émile made enemies among magistrates and priests. If it did not exempt him from persecution, at least it ensured that his persecution was observed, and admiring femmes du monde intervened from time to time to help him so that Rousseau was never, unlike Voltaire and Diderot, actually imprisoned.

The theme of The New Eloise provides a striking contrast to that of The Social Contract. It is about people finding happiness in domestic as distinct from public life, in the family as opposed to the state. The central character, Saint-Preux, is a middle-class preceptor who falls in love with his upper-class pupil, Julie. She returns his love and yields to his advances, but the difference between their classes makes marriage between them impossible. Baron d'Étange, Julie's father, has indeed promised her to a fellow nobleman named Wolmar. As a dutiful daughter, Julie marries Wolmar and Saint-Preux goes off on a voyage around the world with an English aristocrat, Bomston, from whom he acquires a certain stoicism. Julie succeeds in forgetting her feelings for Saint-Preux and finds happiness as wife, mother, and chatelaine. Some six years later Saint-Preux returns from his travels and is engaged as tutor to the Wolmar children. All live together in harmony, and there are only faint echoes of the old affair between Saint-Preux and Julie. The little community, dominated by Julie, illustrates one of Rousseau's political principles: that while men should rule the world in public life, women should rule men in private life. At the end of The New Eloise, when Julie has made herself ill in an attempt to rescue one of her children from drowning, she comes face-to-face with a truth about herself: that her love for Saint-Preux has never died.

The novel was clearly inspired by Rousseau's own curious relationship--at once passionate and platonic--with Sophie d'Houdetot, a noblewoman who lived near him at Montmorency. He himself asserted in the Confessions (1781-88) that he was led to write the book by "a desire for loving, which I had never been able to satisfy and by which I felt myself devoured." Saint-Preux's experience of love forbidden by the laws of class reflects Rousseau's own experience; and yet it cannot be said that The New Eloise is an attack on those laws, which seem, on the contrary, to be given the status almost of laws of nature. The members of the Wolmar household are depicted as finding happiness in living according to an aristocratic ideal. They appreciate the routines of country life and enjoy the beauties of the Swiss and Savoyard Alps. But despite such an endorsement of the social order, the novel was revolutionary; its very free expression of emotions and its extreme sensibility deeply moved its large readership and profoundly influenced literary developments.

Émile is a book that seems to appeal alternately to the republican ethic of The Social Contract and the aristocratic ethic of The New Eloise. It is also halfway between a novel and a didactic essay. Described by the author as a treatise on education, it is not about schooling but about the upbringing of a rich man's son by a tutor who is given unlimited authority over him. At the same time the book sets out to explore the possibilities of an education for republican citizenship. The basic argument of the book, as Rousseau himself expressed it, is that vice and error, which are alien to a child's original nature, are introduced by external agencies, so that the work of a tutor must always be directed to counteracting those forces by manipulating pressures that will work with nature and not against it. Rousseau devotes many pages to explaining the methods the tutor must use. These methods involve a noticeable measure of deceit, and although corporal punishment is forbidden, mental cruelty is not. (see also  education, philosophy of, pedagogy)

Whereas The Social Contract is concerned with the problems of achieving freedom, Émile is concerned with achieving happiness and wisdom. In this different context religion plays a different role. Instead of a civil religion, Rousseau here outlines a personal religion, which proves to be a kind of simplified Christianity, involving neither revelation nor the familiar dogmas of the church. In the guise of La Profession de foi du vicaire savoyard (1765; The Profession of Faith of a Savoyard Vicar) Rousseau sets out what may fairly be regarded as his own religious views, since that book confirms what he says on the subject in his private correspondence. Rousseau could never entertain doubts about God's existence or about the immortality of the soul. He felt, moreover, a strong emotional drive toward the worship of God, whose presence he felt most forcefully in nature, especially in mountains and forests untouched by the hand of man. He also attached great importance to conscience, the "divine voice of the soul in man," opposing this both to the bloodless categories of rationalistic ethics and to the cold tablets of biblical authority. (see also  religion, philosophy of)

This minimal creed put Rousseau at odds with the orthodox adherents of the churches and with the openly atheistic Philosophes of Paris, so that despite the enthusiasm that some of his writings, and especially The New Eloise, excited in the reading public, he felt himself increasingly isolated, tormented, and pursued. After he had been expelled from France, he was chased from canton to canton in Switzerland. He reacted to the suppression of The Social Contract in Geneva by indicting the regime of that city-state in a pamphlet entitled Lettres écrites de la montagne (1764; Letters Written from the Mountain). No longer, as in the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, was Geneva depicted as a model republic but as one that had been taken over by "twenty-five despots"; the subjects of the king of England were said to be free men by comparison with the victims of Genevan tryranny. (see also  Calvinism)

It was in England that Rousseau found refuge after he had been banished from the canton of Bern. The Scottish philosopher David Hume took him there and secured the offer of a pension from King George III; but once in England, Rousseau became aware that certain British intellectuals were making fun of him, and he suspected Hume of participating in the mockery. Various symptoms of paranoia began to manifest themselves in Rousseau, and he returned to France incognito. Believing that Thérèse was the only person he could rely on, he finally married her in 1768, when he was 56 years old.


The last decade.

In the remaining 10 years of his life Rousseau produced primarily autobiographical writings, mostly intended to justify himself against the accusations of his adversaries. The most important was his Confessions, modeled on the work of the same title by St. Augustine and achieving something of the same classic status. He also wrote Rousseau juge de Jean-Jacques (1780; "Rousseau, Judge of Jean-Jacques") to reply to specific charges by his enemies and Les Rêveries du promeneur solitaire (1782; Reveries of the Solitary Walker), one of the most moving of his books, in which the intense passion of his earlier writings gives way to a gentle lyricism and serenity. And indeed, Rousseau does seem to have recovered his peace of mind in his last years, when he was once again afforded refuge on the estates of great French noblemen, first the Prince de Conti and then the Marquis de Girardin, in whose park at Ermenonville he died on July 2, 1778. (M.C.)


루소 (Jean-Jacques Rousseau). 1712. 6. 28 제네바~1778. 7. 2 프랑스 에르므농빌. 프랑스의 철학자·교육학자·음악가·음악평론가.

루소, Maurice-Quentin de La Tour가 그린 파스텔화(1753)
이성의 시대를 끝맺고 낭만주의를 탄생시킨 사상을 전개했다. 그의 개혁사상은 음악을 비롯한 여러 예술에 혁신을 가져왔고 사람들의 생활방식에 큰 영향을 끼쳤으며 자녀에 대한 부모의 교육방식에도 변화를 일으켰다. 우정과 사랑에서 예의바른 절도보다는 자유로운 감정표현을 중시했다. 종교를 버린 이들에게는 종교적 감성을 숭배하도록 인도했으며, 누구나 자연의 아름다움에 눈뜨고 자유를 가장 보편적 동경의 대상으로 여길 것을 역설했다.


어머니가 루소를 낳다가 죽자 가난한 시계공이었던 아버지가 그를 길렀다. 아버지가 칼을 휘두른 일 때문에 가족이 제네바로 도망쳐 6년 동안 외가에서 가난하게 살다가 16세 때 모험가의 삶을 꿈꾸며 제네바를 떠났다. 그러나 사보이 지방에서 후원자인 바랑 남작부인을 만나 집사로 일하면서 철학자·문인·음악가가 되기 위한 공부를 할 기회를 얻었다.

30세 때 파리에 도착하여, 문필가로서 야망을 지닌 드니 디드로를 운좋게 만났다. 두 사람은 곧 디드로가 편집자로 임명되었던 프랑스 〈앙시클로페디 L'Encyclopédie〉를 중심으로 모인 지식인 집단인 '철학자들'에서 중심역할을 했다. 급진적·반(反)교권적 견해를 발표하는 주요수단이었던 〈앙시클로페디〉 기고자들은 대개 철학자이자 개혁가·구습타파주의자였다. 이 가운데 루소는 가장 독창적이고 강렬하면서도 유려한 글솜씨를 지녔다. 뿐만 아니라 오페라 〈마을의 점쟁이 Le Devin du village〉(1752)를 작곡하여 왕과 왕실로부터 인정받기도 했다. 그러나 그는 칼뱅주의적 기질 때문에 이러한 세속의 영화를 거부했다.

37세 때 반종교적 성향의 글로 구속된 디드로를 만나기 위해 뱅센으로 가는 도중, 훗날 〈고백록 Confessions〉에서 밝혔듯이 '빛'을 보았으며, 그 빛은 당시의 진보가 인간을 개선하기는 커녕 타락시키고 있다는 '무서운 섬광'으로 다가왔다. 이러한 통찰은 뒤이어 쓴 디종 아카데미 현상 논문 〈학예론 Discours sur les sciences et les arts〉(1750)의 골격을 이루고 있다. 이 논문은 "인간은 본래 선하지만 사회와 문명 때문에 타락했다"는 그의 사상의 중심 주제를 잘 보여주고 있다. 많은 로마 가톨릭 작가들도 유럽 문화가 중세 이래 타락했다고 지적했지만, 루소는 인간이 본래 선하다고 본 점에서 독특했다.

라모와의 논쟁

첫 논문이 출판된 후 루소는 몇 년 간 음악을 전문분야로 삼아 〈앙시클로페디〉 기고가로 활발하게 활동했다. 1752년 당시 파리에서 페르골레시, 스카를라티, 빈치, 레오 등의 이탈리아 오페라가 상연되기 시작하자 사람들은 이탈리아 오페라 지지자와 프랑스 전통 오페라 지지자로 나눠졌는데, '백과전서파'인 달랑베르·디드로·올바크·루소 등은 이탈리아 오페라를 지지했다. 루소는 당시 유명한 작곡가 라모와 이 문제를 두고 논쟁을 벌였다. 이 논쟁은 음악적일 뿐 아니라 철학적 성격을 띤 것이었다. 라모는 화음을 중시하여 합리적·지성적 규칙을 지키는 것이 예술의 필수조건이라고 주장한 반면, 루소는 멜로디가 화음에 우선해야 한다는 원칙을 내세우면서 이탈리아 오페라가 프랑스 전통 오페라보다 우월하다고 주장했다. 그는 예술에서 창조정신을 자유롭게 표현하는 것이 형식적 규칙과 전통적 절차를 지키는 일보다 중요하다고 봄으로써 낭만주의 사상의 기반을 닦았다. 루소는 음악에서 자유를 옹호한 해방자였다.

주요 정치철학 저작

루소는 가톨릭교에서 프로테스탄트교로 개종하기 위해 칼뱅주의도시인 제네바로 돌아가면서 당시 사귀었던 세탁소 여종업원 테레즈 르바쇠르를 동행해 사람들을 놀라게 했으며 구설수도 있었으나 그는 별탈없이 칼뱅주의파 교회에 재가입했고 문필가로서의 명성 덕분에 큰 환영을 받았다.

루소는 디종 아카데미의 질문에 답하는 2번째 논문 〈인간 불평등기원론 Discours sur l'origine de l'inegalité parmi les hommes〉(1755)을 완성했다. 그 질문은 "인간들 사이의 불평등의 기원은 무엇이며, 그것은 자연법에 의해 정당화될 수 있는가?"였다. 이 물음에 대해 그는 자연상태의 인간은 선했지만 이후 타락했다는 주장을 발전시킴으로써 첫 논문인 〈학예론〉의 맥을 잇고 있다. 〈인간 불평등기원론〉은 이 주장을 더 가다듬어 자연적 불평등과 인위적 불평등을 구별했다. 자연적 불평등은 건강·지성 등의 차이에 따른 불평등이고, 인위적 불평등은 사회를 지배하는 규율에 의해 생긴 불평등이다. 그가 문제삼은 것은 인위적 불평등이다. 그는 인간 불평등의 기원을 탐구하는 나름대로의 '과학적' 방법으로 인류생활의 초기단계를 재구성했다. 그는 최초의 인간은 사회적 존재가 아니라 고독한 존재였다고 보는 점에서 홉스의 자연상태에 관한 설명에 동조했다. 그러나 자연상태의 인간생활이 '가난하고 불결하고 거칠고 부족한' 것이라고 본 영국 비관론자와 달리 최초의 인간이 건강하고 행복하고 착하고 자유롭다고 주장했다. 악은 인간이 사회를 형성한 때부터 시작되었다.

루소는 악의 출현과 관련해서 자연은 책임이 없으며 사회에 문제가 있다고 주장했다. 사회는 인간이 남녀 공동생활을 용이하게 하기 위해 처음으로 거주지를 만들면서 형성되었다. 가족이 형성되고 이웃과 교제하는 생활방식이 생겼다. 이러한 '초기(미숙한) 사회'는 실로 인간의 '황금시기'로서 그것이 지속되는 동안은 좋았다. 그러나 그 시기는 오래 갈 수 없었다. 사랑의 감정과 함께 질투의 파괴적 감정이 일어나고, 사람들은 자신의 능력과 성취물을 다른 이와 비교하기 시작했다. 이것이 "불평등을 향한 첫걸음이자 악을 향한 첫걸음이었다". 인간 각자가 다른 이보다 나은 사람이 되기를 열망하면서부터 때묻지 않은 자기사랑은 자만심으로 바뀌어 갔다.

재산의 출현으로 재산을 보호하기 위해 법과 정부를 만드는 일이 필요해짐에 따라 불평등은 더욱 심해졌다. 루소는 토지가 누구에게도 속하지 않은 상태를 벗어난 데서 비롯된 '끔찍한 사태'를 묘사하면서 재산이라는 '치명적인' 것이 생겨난 상태를 한탄했다. 그러나 과거는 어떤 방식으로든 보존될 수 없고 황금시기로 돌아갈 수도 없다.

시민사회는 2가지 목적, 즉 모든 사람에게 평화를 제공하는 한편 재산에 대한 권리를 보장하기 위해 등장한다. 시민사회는 모든 사람에게 이익을 주지만 주로 부자에게 이익을 준다. 왜냐하면 기존의 소유권을 적법한 것으로 정착시킴으로써 가난한 자를 계속 무소유상태로 만들기 때문이다. 정부를 세우는 일은 가난한 자가 부자보다 얻는 것이 적은 한 어떤 의미에서는 정당하지 못한 사회계약이다. 그렇지만 사회 속의 인간은 결코 만족을 모르기 때문에 가난한 자 못지 않게 부자도 행복하지는 않다. 사회 속에서 사람은 각자의 이해관계 때문에 끊임없이 갈등하며, 적개심을 친절이라는 가면 뒤에 숨긴 채 서로 미워한다. 루소는 인간 불평등을 별개의 독자적 문제로 보지 않고 인간이 자연과 순진무구함으로부터 소외되어 온 오랜 역사과정의 부산물로 보았다.

〈인간 불평등기원론〉을 제네바 공화국에 바치기 위해 쓴 헌정사에서 루소는 이 도시국가가 '자연이 인간들 사이에 설정한 평등과 인간이 그들 사이에서 제도화한 불평등' 간의 이상적 균형을 이루었다고 찬사를 보냈다. 그가 제네바에서 눈여겨본 것은 최선의 사람이 시민에 의해 선출되고 최고의 지위까지 올라갈 수 있는 점이었다. 플라톤과 마찬가지로 그는 모든 사람이 자신에게 알맞는 자리에 있는 것이 공정한 사회라고 보았다. 인간이 어떻게 자유를 잃어버렸는가를 설명하기 위해 〈인간 불평등기원론〉을 쓴 루소는 인간이 앞으로 어떻게 자유를 되찾을 수 있는가를 문제로 〈사회계약론 Du Contrat social ou principes du droit politique〉(1762)을 썼다. 이 글의 모델도 제네바였다.

〈사회계약론〉은 "인간은 자유롭게 태어났으나 모든 곳에서 사슬에 매여 있다"는 유명한 문장으로 시작해서 인간이 사슬에 묶여 있을 필요가 없다는 주장으로 나아간다. 〈인간 불평등기원론〉에서 묘사된 부정한 사회계약과 반대로 시민사회나 국가가 참된 사회계약에 바탕을 두고 있다면, 인간은 자연상태의 독립을 희생한 대가로 더 나은 자유, 즉 참된 정치적 자유를 얻을 수 있다. 그러한 자유는 스스로 부과한 법에 복종함으로써 찾을 수 있다.

루소가 정의한 정치적 자유에는 문제가 있다. 개인은 단일한 의지를 지닌 존재이기 때문에 스스로 정한 규칙에 복종함으로써 자유로울 수 있다. 그에 반해서 사회는 서로 다른 의지를 가진 개인들의 집합이기 때문에 개별의지들 사이에는 갈등이 있다. 이 문제에 대해 루소는 시민사회를 일반의지에 의해 통합된 인위적 존재라고 답한다. 루소가 말하는 공화국은 비록 개인적 이익 때문에 가끔 갈등을 일으키기도 하지만 일반의지의 창조물이다. 일반의지는 결코 각 구성원의 의지로 흩어지지 않으며, 공적·국가적 이익을 지향하는 의지이다.

시민사회 구성원이 되겠다는 협약 아래 모든 사람은 자신과 자신의 모든 권리를 남김없이 공동체에 양도해야 한다고 본 점에서 루소는 토머스 홉스와 비슷하다. 그러나 루소는 이러한 양도를 시민권을 갖기 위해 자연권을 포기하는 일종의 권리교환으로 이해한다. 이 거래는 다음과 같은 이유에서 유리하다. 즉 포기하는 권리는 전적으로 개인 자신의 힘으로 실현되기 때문에 불분명한 가치를 지닌 데 반해, 대가로 얻은 권리는 공동체의 집합적 힘에 의해 강화되는 합법적 권리이기 때문이다.

루소는 참된 법과 실정법을 근본적으로 구별한다. 〈인간 불평등기원론〉에서 묘사되듯이 실정법은 단순히 현상태를 보호하는 것에 지나지 않는다. 그러나 〈사회계약론〉에서 서술하는 참된 법은 정당한 주권자인 민중의 집합적 능력에 의해 만들어졌을 뿐 아니라 다같은 시민인 민중이 복종하기 때문에 정당한 법이다. 루소는 어떤 민중도 자신에게 부당한 법을 만든다고는 볼 수 없으므로 그 법은 부당할 수 없다고 확신했다.

그런데 루소는 민중이 반드시 가장 지성적인 시민을 대표로 선출하지는 않는다는 사실 때문에 고민했다. 실제로 그는 플라톤과 마찬가지로 대부분의 민중이 어리석다는 점을 인정했다. 일반의지는 도덕적으로 항상 건전하지만 때로는 잘못을 범할 수 있다. 그래서 루소는 민중에게는 솔론, 리쿠르고스, 칼뱅과 같이 헌법이나 법률체계를 구상하는 훌륭한 정신을 소유한 입법자가 필요하다고 제안했다.

이 제안은 마키아벨리도 비슷하게 제시한 적이 있다. 루소는 마키아벨리를 매우 칭송했으며, 마키아벨리가 공화국정부를 옹호한 점에 공감했다. 마키아벨리의 영향은 시민종교에 관한 서술에서 더 두드러지게 나타난다. 루소에 따르면 그리스도교는 보이지 않는 세계를 지향하기 때문에 시민에게 국가에 봉사하는 데 필요한 용기·남성다움·애국심 등의 덕목을 가르치지 않으므로 공화국종교로서는 쓸모가 없다. 마키아벨리처럼 이교적 제례의식의 부활까지 주장하지는 않았지만 루소는 군사적 덕목의 개발을 강화하기 위해 최소한의 신학적 내용을 가진 시민종교를 제창했다.

관련 인터넷 링크

은둔·유배의 시기

루소는 1754년 시민권을 회복한 뒤 다시 파리로 돌아왔다. 이전처럼 백과전서파와 어울렸지만 점차 이러한 세속적 생활에 짜증이 났고 동료 철학자들과 다투기 시작했다. 루소는 다시 파리를 떠나 자연에 파묻혀 생활하기 위해 몽모랑시 근처에 있는 친구 에피네 부인의 시골 영지에서 머물다가 얼마 뒤 마레샬 드 뤽상부르의 보호 아래 '몽루이'라는 근처 별장으로 은둔했다. 그러나 높은 지위에 있는 이 친구도 1762년 교육에 관한 저서 〈에밀 Émile〉이 출판되어 프랑스 의회의 독실한 얀센주의자들이 분노했을 때에는 루소를 도와줄 수 없었다. 얀센주의자들은 이 책을 불태우게 했고 저자를 체포하도록 했다. 루소는 피난처를 이리저리 옮겨 다니면서 여생을 보냈다.

몽모랑시에서 지낸 몇 년 동안은 가장 창조적으로 저술활동을 한 시기였다. 〈사회계약론〉과 〈에밀〉에 이어 〈신(新) 엘로이즈 Julie:ou, la nouvelle Héloïse〉(1761)가 1년 안에 나왔는데, 이 세 작품은 모두 독창적이다. 〈신 엘로이즈〉는 소설로 〈사회계약론〉이나 〈에밀〉과 달리 검열을 받지 않았다. 이 소설은 널리 읽혔고 루소의 생애 동안 가장 많은 사람들에게 칭찬받았으며 음악에 관한 글들과 마찬가지로 다른 어떤 문학작품보다 더 낭만주의를 발전시켰다. 또한 〈사회계약론〉과 〈에밀〉이 치안판사와 목사를 적으로 만든 것과는 달리, 특히 교양있는 여성들을 중심으로 많은 독자를 친구로 만들었다. 그래서 루소가 박해를 받을 때면 볼테르나 디드로와는 달리 많은 여성이 그를 위기에서 구해 주었다.

〈신 엘로이즈〉는 〈사회계약론〉과 상당히 대조적으로 국가나 공적 생활이 아닌 가정생활에서 행복을 찾는 사람들에 관한 소설이다. 이 소설에서 주인공인 중류계급의 교사 생 프뢰와 상류계급의 학생 줄리가 신분법상 금지된 사랑에 빠지는 이야기는 루소 자신의 경험을 반영한다. 이 책은 그러한 사회질서를 승인하지만 자유로운 감정표현과 극단적인 감수성을 나타낸 점에서 혁명적이었으며 문학발전에 큰 영향을 미쳤다.

〈에밀〉은 소설과 교육학논문의 중간형태로서, 〈사회계약론〉의 공화주의윤리와 〈신 엘로이즈〉의 귀족윤리를 번갈아 내세운다. 이 작품은 한 가정교사가 어떤 부자의 아들을 가르치는 이야기이다. 루소는 여기서 악과 오류는 어린이의 본성이 아니라 외적 영향에 의해서 일어나므로 가정교사는 이러한 악영향을 막고 어린이가 자연(본성)에 따르도록 가르쳐야 한다고 주장했다.

〈사회계약론〉이 자유실현에 관한 것이라면 〈에밀〉은 행복과 지혜에 관한 것이다. 루소는 〈에밀〉에서는 시민종교 대신 개인종교를 제시하는데, 그것은 계시나 교리를 갖지 않는 단순화한 그리스도교의 일종이다. 그는 〈사브와 지방 보좌신부의 신앙고백 La Profession de foi du vicaire savoyard〉(1765)에서 신의 존재와 영혼의 불멸성을 의심하는 데 그치지 않고, 신을 경배하는 강한 감정적 충동을 자연, 특히 인간의 손이 닿지 않는 산이나 숲의 자연에서 느낀다. '인간 안에 있는 신성한 목소리'인 양심을 강조하면서 냉철한 합리주의적 윤리범주나 성서의 권위를 모두 반대한다.

이러한 최소화한 신앙 때문에 루소는 교회 정통파나 파리의 공공연한 무신론자와 어울릴 수 없었다. 자신의 작품 특히 〈신 엘로이즈〉가 열렬한 찬사를 받았음에도 불구하고 그는 점차 고독하고 고통받고 박해받고 있다고 느꼈다. 루소는 프랑스에서 추방된 후 스위스의 여러 주(州)로 쫓겨다녔다. 그는 제네바에서 〈사회계약론〉을 탄압하는 데 대해 〈산에서 쓴 편지 Lettres écrites de la montagne〉(1764)라는 소책자에서 도시국가체제를 고발함으로써 반격하고 있다. 그는 제네바가 25명의 독재자에 의해 통치되는 곳이라고 비난했다.

루소는 베른 주에서 추방된 뒤 영국으로 피신했다. 데이비드 흄이 그를 도와 조지 3세에게서 연금을 받도록 해주었으나 영국 지식인들이 자신을 조롱하고 있고 흄도 마찬가지라고 의심했다. 그는 여러 가지 정신분열증 징후를 보였으며 마침내 이름을 숨긴 채 다시 프랑스로 돌아갔다. 테레즈가 의지할 수 있는 유일한 사람이라고 확신하고 1768년 56세 때 그녀와 결혼했다.


마지막 10년 동안 루소는 주로 적들의 비난에 대해 자신을 정당화하는 자서전적 글을 썼는데, 가장 중요한 책은 〈고백록〉이다. 또 적들이 씌운 혐의에 답하기 위해 〈루소는 장 자크를 심판한다 Rousseau juge de Jean-Jacques〉(1780)를 썼다.

가장 감동적인 책 가운데 하나인 〈 고독한 산책자의 몽상 Les Rêveries du promeneur solitaire〉(1782)에서는 초기의 강렬한 열정이 온화한 서정성과 진지함으로 나타난다. 그는 말년에 정신적 평온을 얻었고 프랑스 대귀족 콩티 공과 지라르댕 후작의 영지로 피신했다가 죽었다.

M. Cranston 글 | 梁雲悳 참조집필


Major Works


NOVELS: Julie: ou, la nouvelle Héloïse (1761; Julie: or, The New Eloise, trans. by Judith H. McDowell, 1968); Émile: ou, de l'éducation (1762; Emile: or, On Education, trans. by Allan Bloom, 1979).

AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL WORKS: Rousseau juge de Jean-Jacques: dialogue (1780); Les Rêveries du promeneur solitaire (1782; The Reveries of the Solitary Walker, trans. by Charles E. Butterworth, 1979); Les Confessions (1782-89; The Confessions, trans. by J.M. Cohen, 1953).

ESSAYS: Discours qui a remporté le prix à l'Académie de Dijon en l'année 1750; sur cette question proposée par la même académie si le rétablissement des sciences et des arts a contribué à épurer les moeurs (1750; "Discourse on the Sciences and Arts," trans. by Roger D. Masters and Judith R. Masters, in The First and Second Discourses, 1964); Discours sur l'origine et les fondements de l'inégalité parmi les hommes (1755; Discourse on Inequality, trans. by Maurice Cranston, 1984); Du Contrat social (1762; The Social Contract, trans. by Maurice Cranston, 1968); Considérations sur le gouvernement de Pologne (1782; The Government of Poland, trans. by Willmoore Kendall, 1972); Lettres élémentaires sur la botanique (1780; Letters on the Elements of Botany, trans. by Thomas Martyn, 1785).

LETTERS: J.J. Rousseau, citoyen de Genève, à M. d'Alembert, sur son article Genève dans le septième volume de l'Encyclopédie, et particulièrement sur le projet d'établir un Th羽tre de Comédie en cette ville (1758; Politics and the Arts: Letter to M. d'Alembert on the Theatre, trans. by Allan Bloom, 1960); Lettres écrites de la montagne (1764).

COLLECTED WORKS: Oeuvres complètes, ed. by Bernard Gagnebin and Marcel Raymond (1959- ), will eventually be the definitive collected edition. Four carefully annotated volumes have been published so far. Oeuvres complètes, ed. by Michel Launay, 3 vol. (1967-71), is the most comprehensive contemporary edition, but far from complete. In some earlier editions of Rousseau's collected works, published at the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th centuries, material can be found that has not been reprinted in the 20th-century collections.

The Correspondance complète de Jean Jacques Rousseau: édition critique, ed. by R.A. Leigh (1965- ), of which 43 volumes have so far appeared, wholly supersedes the Correspondance générale de J.-J. Rousseau, 20 vol., ed. by Théophile Dufour and Pierre P. Plan (1924-34).





JEAN SÉNELIER, Bibliographie générale des oeuvres de Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1950), is still the best available source. THÉOPHILE DUFOUR, Recherches bibliographiques sur les oeuvres imprimées de J.J. Rousseau, 2 vol. (1925, reprinted in 1 vol., 1971), is not entirely superseded by Sénelier's work. ALBERT SCHINZ, État present des travaux sur J.-J. Rousseau (1941, reprinted 1971), includes publications in languages other than French. PETER GAY, The Party of Humanity (1963, reissued 1971), contains a critical bibliography in English of Rousseau and his contemporaries. SOCIÉTÉ JEAN-JACQUES ROUSSEAU, GENEVA, Annales (irregular), published since 1905, contains reviews of all important publications in several languages, concerning Rousseau. HERMINE DE SOUSSURE, Rousseau et les manuscrits des Confessions (1958), and Étude sur le sort des manuscrits de J.-J. Rousseau (1974), provide information on the whereabouts of Rousseau's manuscripts.



JEAN GUÉHENNO, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 2 vol. (1966; originally published in French, 1948-52; new ed. 1983), is still the most comprehensive biography. LESTER G. CROCKER, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 2 vol. (1968-73), is a detailed but somewhat hostile biographical study; as is FREDERICK C. GREEN, Jean-Jacques Rousseau: A Critical Study of His Life and Writings (1955, reprinted 1970). BERNARDIN DE SAINT-PIERRE, La Vie et les ouvrages de Jean-Jacques Rousseau, ed. from the author's unfinished manuscript by MAURICE SOURIAU (1907), is the only biography by an author who knew Rousseau personally. LOUIS J. COURTOIS, Chronologie critique de la vie et des oeuvres de Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1924, reprinted 1973), sets out the events of Rousseau's life in chronological order; as does, on a smaller scale and in English, GEORGE R. HAVENS, Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1978). MAURICE CRANSTON, Jean-Jacques: The Early Life and Work of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 1712-1754 (1983), is based on original manuscript sources but covers only the first 42 years of Rousseau's life. WILLIAM H. BLANCHARD, Rousseau and the Spirit of Revolt (1967); and JACQUES BOREL, Génie et folie de Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1966), are both Freudian biographies; while RONALD GRIMSLEY, Jean-Jacques Rousseau: A Study in Self-Awareness, 2nd ed. (1969), discusses the psychological aspects of Rousseau's Confessions from a more philosophical perspective. DANIEL MORNET, Rousseau, l'homme et l'oeuvre, 5th ed. (1967), sets out to correct many popular misconceptions about Rousseau's life and work. GASPARD VALLETTE, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Genevois (1911); and J.S. SPINK, Jean-Jacques Rousseau et Genève (1934), investigate Rousseau's origins in Geneva. RENÉ HUBERT, Rousseau et l'Encyclopédie: essai sur la formation des idées politiques de Rousseau, 1742-1756 (1928), examines Rousseau's relations as a young man with the Philosophes of Paris. JULIEN TIERSOT, J.-J. Rousseau, 2nd ed. (1920, reprinted 1978), is one of the rare studies of Rousseau's career as a reformer of music. HENRI GUILLEMIN, Un Homme, deux ombres: (Jean-Jacques, Julie, Sophie) (1943), discusses Rousseau's relationships with women as reflected in his novels. ELIZABETH A. FOSTER, Le Dernier Séjour de J.J. Rousseau à Paris (1921), is an account of Rousseau's last years.



RONALD GRIMSLEY, The Philosophy of Rousseau (1973), provides a clear scholarly introduction to Rousseau's philosophical ideas. Other useful introductory commentaries are ERNEST HUNTER WRIGHT, The Meaning of Rousseau (1929, reissued 1963); and J.H. BROOME, Rousseau: A Study of His Thought (1963). ERNST CASSIRER, The Question of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1954, reprinted 1963; originally published in German, 1932), is an influential study, written from a Kantian perspective; and CHARLES WILLIAM HENDEL, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Moralist, 2 vol. (1934, reissued 1962), is a longer study reaching much the same conclusions. ROBERT DERATHÉ, Le Rationalisme de Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1948, reprinted 1979), which opened a new phase in Rousseau's scholarship, reaffirms Rousseau's place in the Cartesian tradition. PIERRE BURGELIN, La Philosophie de l'existence de J.-J. Rousseau, 2nd ed. (1973), places Rousseau between Pascal and Kierkegaard. BERNHARD GROETHUYSEN, J.-J. Rousseau (1949), demonstrates Rousseau's importance from the point of view of 20th-century philosophy. MARC F. PLATTNER, Rousseau's State of Nature: An Interpretation of the "Discourse on Inequality" (1979), is a scholarly though brief study of Rousseau's concepts.



LÉO LAUNAY and MICHEL LAUNAY, Le Vocabulaire littéraire de Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1979), provides a linguistic key to Rousseau's literary work. JEAN STAROBINSKI, Jean-Jacques Rousseau: la transparence et l'obstacle, new ed. (1971, reprinted 1976), is a seminal work by an academic psychologist turned literary critic. MARCEL RAYMOND, Jean-Jacques Rousseau: la quête de soi et la rêverie (1962), provides a subtle analysis of Rousseau's literary achievement. PHILIP E.J. ROBINSON, Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Doctrine of the Arts (1984), is a pioneering attempt to depict Rousseau's ideas on literature and the other arts as a coherent system. HENRI GOUHIER, Rousseau et Voltaire: portraits dans deux miroirs (1983), is an impartial appraisal of the two literary giants of the French Enlightenment. ALBERT SCHINZ, La Pensée de Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1929), is an important study of Rousseau's Romanticism.



The most substantial study of Rousseau's religious ideas is still PIERRE MAURICE MASSON, La Religion de J.-J. Rousseau, 3 vol. (1916, reprinted 1970). The best introduction to the subject in English is by RONALD GRIMSLEY, Rousseau and the Religious Quest (1968). PIERRE BURGELIN, Jean-Jacques Rousseau et la religion de Genève (1962), examines Rousseau's debt to Calvinism; and J.F. THOMAS, Le Pélagianisme de J.-J. Rousseau (1956), studies his links to Roman Catholic philosophy. ALBERT SCHINZ, La Pensée religieuse de Rousseau et ses récents interprètes (1927), relates Rousseau's theological views to those of his contemporaries. JEAN-JACQUES ROUSSEAU, Religious Writings of Rousseau, ed. by RONALD GRIMSLEY (1970), contains key passages in English translation.

Political and social theory:

ROBERT DERATHÉ, Jean-Jacques Rousseau et la science politique de son temps, 2nd ed. (1970), interprets Rousseau's political ideas within the tradition of the natural law school. A similar view is taken by ALFRED COBBAN, Rousseau and the Modern State, 2nd ed. (1964). The suggestion that Rousseau must be seen as a forerunner of totalitarianism is put forward unambiguously by J.L. TALMON, The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy (1952, reissued 1970; U.S. title, The Rise of Totalitarian Democracy); and in a modified form by JUDITH N. SHKLAR, Men and Citizens: A Study of Rousseau's Social Theory (1969, reprinted 1985). JOHN W. CHAPMAN, Rousseau--Totalitarian or Liberal? (1956, reprinted 1968), considers arguments for and against Talmon's interpretation. A commentary that stays close to the text is ROGER D. MASTERS, The Political Philosophy of Rousseau (1968, reprinted 1976); and an equally exacting study is JOHN CHARVET, The Social Problem in the Philosophy of Rousseau (1974). JAMES MILLER, Rousseau: Dreamer of Democracy (1984), stresses the democratic elements in Rousseau's political thought; while DAVID CAMERON, The Social Thought of Rousseau and Burke (1973), draws attention to resemblances between Rousseau's political ideas and those of the Irish conservative. STEPHEN ELLENBURG, Rousseau's Political Philosophy: An Interpretation from Within (1976), studies different interpretations of Rousseau's views. MICHEL LAUNAY, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, écrivain politique, 1712-1762 (1971), depicts Rousseau both as champion of the popular classes in Geneva and as a theorist of the left; while GALVANO DELLA VOLPE, Rousseau and Marx (1978; originally published in Italian, 4th ed., 1964), presents Rousseau as a prophet of Communism. RAYMOND POLIN, La Politique de la solitude: essai sur la philosophie politique de Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1971), considers Rousseau as a philosopher rather than an ideologue; and BRONISLAW BACZKO, Rousseau, solitude et communauté (1974; originally published in Polish, 1970), gives new grounds for regarding Rousseau as one of the greatest social thinkers of modernity. JOEL SCHWARTZ, The Sexual Politics of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1984), analyzes Rousseau's views on the role of sexuality in social politics and morals.

Shorter writings on his political thought are in SIMON HARVEY et al. (eds.), Reappraisals of Rousseau (1980); MAURICE CRANSTON and RICHARD S. PETERS (eds.), Hobbes and Rousseau (1982); R.A. LEIGH (ed.), Rousseau After Two Hundred Years (1982); COMITÉ NATIONAL POUR LA COMMÉMORATION DE J.-J. ROUSSEAU, Jean-Jacques Rousseau et son oeuvre: problèmes et recherches (1964); MICHEL LAUNAY et al., Jean-Jacques Rousseau et son temps: politique et littérature au XVIIIe siècle (1969).



  • 저서
    • 고독한 산책자의 몽상(혜원교양신서 15) : J. 루소, 박규순 역, 혜원출판사, 1992
    • 사회계약론(을유문고 249) : J. 루소, 이가형 역, 을유문화사, 1984
    • 학문·예술론 : J. 루소, 이문호 역, 신화사, 1983
    • 고백록 : J. 루소, 홍승오 역, 범조사, 1983
    • 에밀 : J. 루소, 박석주 역, 대문출판사, 1979
    • 인간불평등기원론 : J. 루소, 최현 역, 집문당, 1974
    • 전쟁과 평화(을유문고 87) : J. 루소, 김용구 역, 을유문화사, 1972
  • 연구서
    • 프랑스철학사 : A. 로비네, 류종렬 역, 서광사, 1987
    • 루소(세계사상대전집 11) : 민병산 편, 양우당, 1986
    • 서양근세철학 : 강대석, 서광사, 1985
    • 근대계몽사상의 비교론 : 최명관 외, 한국정신문화연구원, 1984
    • 루소(대철학가전집 9) : 신상초, 의명당, 1983
    • 계몽철학 : J. 코퍼, 최인숙 역, 서광사, 근간


 게시판  검색  자료실  사이트맵  예수와나? Homepage

This page was last modified 2001/09/12