FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[385]Streckeisen, ii. 315-328.[386]Streckeisen, ii. 337.[387]June 19, 1767.Corr., v. 172.[388]Corr., v. 267, 375.[389]Corr., v. 330-381, 408, etc.[390]Bourgoin, Aug. 1768, to March, 1769. Monquin, to July 1770.[391]See above,vol. i. chap. iv.[392]The life of Bernardin de St. Pierre (1737-1814) was nearly as irregular as that of his friend and master. But his character was essentially crafty and selfish, like that of many other sentimentalists of the first order.[393]Oeuv., xii. 69, 73.[394]Oeuv., xii. 104, etc.; and also thePréambule de l'Arcadie,Oeuv., vii. 64, 65.[395]St. Pierre, xii. 81-83.[396]Dusaulx, p. 81. For his quarrel with Rousseau, see pp. 130, etc.[397]Rulhières in Dusaulx, p. 179. For a strange interview between Rulhières and Rousseau, see pp. 185-186.[398]Musset-Pathay, i. 181.[399]Ib.[400]Musset-Pathay, i. 209. Rousseau gave a copy of the Confessions to Moultou, but forbade the publication before the year 1800. Notwithstanding this, printers procured copies surreptitiously, perhaps through Theresa, ever in need of money; the first part was published four years, and the second part with many suppressions eleven years, after his death, in 1782 and 1789 respectively. See Musset-Pathay, ii. 464.[401]Ch. v. Such a curtailment, he says, "would no doubt be a great evil for the parts dismembered, but it would be a great advantage for the body of the nation." He urged federation as the condition of any solid improvement in their affairs.[402]Bernardin de St. Pierre, xii. 37. Comte had a similar admiration for Spain and for the same reason.[403]Corancez, quoted in Musset-Pathay, i. 239. AlsoCorr., vi. 295.[404]Corr., vi. 303.[405]Robespierre, then a youth, is said to have invited him here. See Hamel'sRobespierre, i. 22.[406]See above,vol. i. pp. 16, 17.[407]Corr., vi. 264.[408]The case stands thus:—(1) There was the certificate of five doctors, attesting that Rousseau had died of apoplexy. (2) The assertion of M. Girardin, in whose house he died, that there was no hole in his head, nor poison in the stomach or viscera, nor other sign of self-destruction. (3) The assertion of Theresa to the same effect. On the other hand, we have the assertion of Corancez, that on his journey to Ermenonville on the day of Rousseau's burial a horse-master on the road had said, "Who would have supposed that M. Rousseau would have destroyed himself!"—and a variety of inferences from the wording of the certificate, and of Theresa's letter. Musset-Pathay believes in the suicide, and argued very ingeniously against M. Girardin. But his arguments do not go far beyond verbal ingenuity, showing that suicide was possible, and was consistent with the language of the documents, rather than adducing positive testimony. See vol. i. of hisHistory, pp. 268, etc. The controversy was resumed as late as 1861, between theFigaroand theMonde Illustré. See also M. Jal'sDict. Crit. de Biog. et d'Hist., p. 1091.

[385]Streckeisen, ii. 315-328.

[386]Streckeisen, ii. 337.

[387]June 19, 1767.Corr., v. 172.

[388]Corr., v. 267, 375.

[389]Corr., v. 330-381, 408, etc.

[390]Bourgoin, Aug. 1768, to March, 1769. Monquin, to July 1770.

[391]See above,vol. i. chap. iv.

[392]The life of Bernardin de St. Pierre (1737-1814) was nearly as irregular as that of his friend and master. But his character was essentially crafty and selfish, like that of many other sentimentalists of the first order.

[393]Oeuv., xii. 69, 73.

[394]Oeuv., xii. 104, etc.; and also thePréambule de l'Arcadie,Oeuv., vii. 64, 65.

[395]St. Pierre, xii. 81-83.

[396]Dusaulx, p. 81. For his quarrel with Rousseau, see pp. 130, etc.

[397]Rulhières in Dusaulx, p. 179. For a strange interview between Rulhières and Rousseau, see pp. 185-186.

[398]Musset-Pathay, i. 181.

[399]Ib.

[400]Musset-Pathay, i. 209. Rousseau gave a copy of the Confessions to Moultou, but forbade the publication before the year 1800. Notwithstanding this, printers procured copies surreptitiously, perhaps through Theresa, ever in need of money; the first part was published four years, and the second part with many suppressions eleven years, after his death, in 1782 and 1789 respectively. See Musset-Pathay, ii. 464.

[401]Ch. v. Such a curtailment, he says, "would no doubt be a great evil for the parts dismembered, but it would be a great advantage for the body of the nation." He urged federation as the condition of any solid improvement in their affairs.

[402]Bernardin de St. Pierre, xii. 37. Comte had a similar admiration for Spain and for the same reason.

[403]Corancez, quoted in Musset-Pathay, i. 239. AlsoCorr., vi. 295.

[404]Corr., vi. 303.

[405]Robespierre, then a youth, is said to have invited him here. See Hamel'sRobespierre, i. 22.

[406]See above,vol. i. pp. 16, 17.

[407]Corr., vi. 264.

[408]The case stands thus:—(1) There was the certificate of five doctors, attesting that Rousseau had died of apoplexy. (2) The assertion of M. Girardin, in whose house he died, that there was no hole in his head, nor poison in the stomach or viscera, nor other sign of self-destruction. (3) The assertion of Theresa to the same effect. On the other hand, we have the assertion of Corancez, that on his journey to Ermenonville on the day of Rousseau's burial a horse-master on the road had said, "Who would have supposed that M. Rousseau would have destroyed himself!"—and a variety of inferences from the wording of the certificate, and of Theresa's letter. Musset-Pathay believes in the suicide, and argued very ingeniously against M. Girardin. But his arguments do not go far beyond verbal ingenuity, showing that suicide was possible, and was consistent with the language of the documents, rather than adducing positive testimony. See vol. i. of hisHistory, pp. 268, etc. The controversy was resumed as late as 1861, between theFigaroand theMonde Illustré. See also M. Jal'sDict. Crit. de Biog. et d'Hist., p. 1091.

Back to Index Next