L nvtnmv-m.

LANOUVELLEHELOISE; ;   _
aoussmu AND M msmmavmm; g-g Jiggxf; v,

 

 

i‘,‘~.';‘y’-‘.".
$ 3... - f'

V . ‘
re. s -.-;.

aaaaa
......
.....

‘ ; Thesisiermemme of?“
_ '-‘MEGHEGMZS'FA’EEfiKNER-Sifl ‘ g '32-15-2; f :   I -
? 'aams ALBERI ROBITAELLE ’ ' "
“mm ‘A

25$ ”2,3:

 

WWWMM- -. a...» —:ov~——.~--.._ . - . .-.~._-

- - mm...-

o---- ~“Wm~..o--q~- ass-o.-. .—

~0-

 

 

 

 

 

lll'llllllllllllllll'llll imam ‘

 

 

3 1293 10_8__0_6 9793 ‘ _ . «3..»
'"‘“—"—'“’ .. ’ ,1] .1 .1 4‘
it I {I a V, i .1 Sfi)ti—f /
.. u'10! a
¥ .(of

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

LA NOUVELLE HELOISE:
ROUSSEAU AND THE EPISTOLARY FORM

presented by
DENIS ALBERT ROBITAILLE

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph . D . French

 

 

degree in

WW

I
Majo‘r/professor

Date 33/4- 5J \‘l‘l Ll

 

0-7639

     
     

~—
‘5-

? amounts av
"MB & SBNS'
300K BINDERY INC.

LIBR‘RY BINDERS
SPIII‘NIEY. MICIIISI'I

| .1 '"\

   
  

  

 

 

 

 

works,

forms

 

pepula
greate
Rousse
attenf
and t}
Few W4
epist
with

0f th
ters'

With!

tola
eXam
the
Own
with
in t
the

an e

ABSTRACT

LA NOUVELLE HELOISE:
BOUSSEAU AND THE EPISTOLABY FORM

By
Denis Albert Robitaille

In order to increase the verisimilitude of their
works, eighteenth century French novelists tried literary
forms which resembled authentic documents. One of the most
papular of these forms was the epistolary novel. One of the
greatest epistolary novels of the eighteenth century,
Rousseau's La Nouvelle Heloise, has received much critical
attention. Most scholarly work has centered on the ideas
and theories of Rousseau that find expression in the novel.
Few works examine Rousseau the artist and fewer still.the
epistolary form of the work. Most of the works that do deal
with the novel's form refer to the advantages and disadvantages
of the form but generally ignore the way in which the let-
ters, with their strengths and deficiencies, function
within the circumstances of the story.

In attempting to determine the function of the epis-
tolary form in La Nouvelle Heloise, the present study first
examines the significance of letters for Rousseau himself and
the reasons for his choice of the epistolary form. In his
own relationships with others, Rousseau felt more at ease
with correSpondence than with conversation. Statements made
in the Qggfessions reveal that Rousseau felt intimidated by
the presence of an interlocutor and that writing letters was

an effective means of continuing to communicate with others

 

while
chose
fanta
ponds
main

for l

 

of me
come
betwe
write
verse
the

of t
Juli
love
is 1

PES'

Va:
ti:
of
ho

f0

Da
Se

Denis-Albert Robitaille

while escaping their discomforting presence. Rousseau

chose the epistolary form as the result of a personal
fantasy in which he imagined himself engaging in corres-
pondence with an ideal woman (Book IX, Confessions). His
main characters, Julie and Saint Preux,share his preference
for letters over conversation. This preference is the cause
of many of the infractions committed by Rbusseau against the
conventions of epistolary fiction, eSpecially that of distance
between the correspondents. Julie and Saint Preux often
write in situations in which they could have easily con-
versed. But this affinity for written eXpression points at
the same time to the principle which determines the function
of the epistolary form throughout the novel: the need for
Julie and Saint Preux to separate in order to eXpress their
love. Their correspondence, because it implies separation,
is the symbol of their search for a love based on mutual
respect rather than on constant physical intimacy.

Chapter II analyzes the variations in the use of let-
ters by Julie and Saint Preux and the way in which these
variations correspond to the changes in the lovers' rela-
tionship throughout the novel. While in the very beginning
of the novel Julie and Saint Preux live in the same house-
hold, letters represent a desire on their part to maintain
a respectful distance while first revealing their feelings
for each other. When later in Part I they discover their
passion is increasing and growing dangerous and Julie asks

Saint Preux to leave, letters become a means of drawing

Denis Albert Robitaille

closer together. Because they do not have to worry about
the dangers of physical intimacy, the lovers become more
passionate in their letters. The function of their letters
throughout the novel is to strike a balance between the
necessity of virtuous separation and union in love. This
balance becomes increasingly difficult and is resolved only
in Julie's death. Her last letter, read posthumously by
Saint Preux, beckons him to Join her one day in the absolute
union of the hereafter.

The last chapter examines how the eXperience of writing
aniepistolary novel influenced Rousseau's subsequent auto-
biographical writings. Through one of the basic conventions
of the epistolary novel--the fiction of authenticity--Rousseau
consciously drew attention to his own role in the composition
of the letters. In the two prefaces to the novel Rousseau
remained purposely ambiguous on his role as editor in an
effort to induce the reader to identify him with Saint Preux.
This deception was necessary in order to deal with a per-
sonal dilemma: convincing his reading public that he was not
contradicting his previous condemnation of the arts, and of
novels in particular, in writing a work of fiction. This
concern for his own reputation, and the use of an essential
convention of the epistolary form in expressing it, esta-
blishes the epistolary form as a precursor to his autobio-
graphical works which deal directly with self-understanding
and self-Justification.

LAsNOUVELLE HELOISE:
ROUSSEAU AND THE EPISTOLARY FORM

By

Denis Albert Robitaille

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Romance Languages

l97h

C,%7“Es‘\

Copyright by
DENIS ALBERT ROBITAILLE
197a

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

To Professor Herbert Josephs, my gratitude and
appreciation for his scholarly guidance and constant
encouragement and understanding during the research and
writing of the present study. He made a formal academic
task a rewarding educational and intellectual eXperience.

I wish to eXpress my thanks for the generous financial
aid of the Woodrow Wilson Foundation in awarding me a
Dissertation Fellowship and to the University of Pittsburgh
at Johnstown for their financial assistance in preparing this
manuscript.

I am also grateful to my colleague Professor Angelica
Trzepacz for proofreading the manuscript and for her help-
ful suggestions. .

And most importantly, to my wife Rosalyn, my gratitude
for the good fortune of her patience and understanding
during theinnumerable hours I had to Spend with Rousseau

rather than with her.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION...OOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOO.00000.00.00.00000000000001

Chapter
I. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF LETTERS FOR ROUSSEAU
AND THE CHOICE OF THE EPISTOLARY FORM..........17

II. THE FUNCTION OF THE EPISTOLARY FORM
INMNOUVELI-‘E HEmISEOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOO0.00....52

III. EPISTOLARY NOVEL: PRELUDE TO AUTOBIOGRAPHY.......97

BIBLIOGRAPHY.OOOOOOOOOOOOOI...00.0.0000...0.0.0.00000000159

ii

INTRODUCTION

In his well-known study Le Dilemme du roman au
XVIIIe sieclel Georges May characterizes the develOpment
of the novel in the first forty years of the eighteenth cen-
tury in terms of the effort made by novelists to test various
literary techniques and forms directed at enhancing the
verisimilitude of their narration. The first person approach
of memoirs and the fiction of an authentic collection of
letters were the most frequently used methods of creating
the illusion of actuality. Long accustomed to associating
the term "roman" with extravagant stories in the vein of
L'Astrfie, the reading public demanded assurances from au-
thors that the stories were true in order to accept them
as 'vraisemblable.' Authors provided these assurances
through a well-deveIOped repertoire of literary stratagems,

all pertaining to the documentary validity of the novel.2

 

IGeorges hay, Le Dilemme du roman au XVIIIe siecle
(Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1963).

2For a detailed analysis of the techniques of the

Inemoir or first-person novel and of the epistolary novel,
(consult: Vivienne hylne, The Eighteenth Century French
.Nbve*, Techniques of Illusion (New York: Barnes and Noble,
19 5 ; Bertil Romberg, Studies in the Narrative Technique

f the First-person Novel (Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell,
19325; and Philip Stewart, Imitation and Illusion in the
French Memoir-Novel, 1700-1250. The Art of Make-Believe
(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1969). Romberg's study

2

Few believed these claims of authenticity, but literal be-
lief was hardly ever the author's goal. As long as the
reader could entertain the possibility that the novel was
true, hence distinguishing it from the concept of ”romanes-
que,'.then the often intricate techniques of memoir and
epistolary novels, which were intended to increase verisi-
militude, served to improve the novel's literary reputation.
However, as Francois Jost points out in commenting on this
search for a form that would bring respectability to the
novel, too many novelists, and especially epistolary novel-
ists, looked upon these techniques as a facile recipe to
success.

Les tatonnements des romanciers ne menerent donc

point, semble-t-il, a la prompte découverte d'une

recette. Précisément, parce que tres souvent ce

ne fut qu'une simple recette qu'ils cherchaient:

et le roman épistolaire, pour la foule des médiocres,

en restait une. Pour les génies, ce fut, dans le

domaine, la trouvaille du siecle, dont les consé-

quences, pour l'évolution du roman, n'ont guere en-

core été étudiées.3

Rousseau was one of those geniuses who made of the

epistolary novel the “trouvaille du sibcle.‘ La Nouvelle
§§19fl§§,(1761) was the best-seller of the eighteenth cen-
tury. According to Daniel hornet, there were over seventy

editions before the year 1800.“ In its influence upon the

 

encompasses the literature of many countries. Stewart's
work is the most complete study of technique in the French
novel of the eighteenth century.

3Frangois Jost, 'Le Roman épistolaire et la tech-
nique narrative au XVIIIe sikcle,’ Comparative Literature
Studies, 1968, pp. 397-98.

“Jean-Jacques Rousseau, La Nouvelle Heloise, ed.
Daniel Hornet, Vol. I (Paris: Hachette, 1925}, p. 231.

 

 

3

EurOpean novel of the Romantic period, La Nouve;;e Hélglgg
was surpassed only by Goethe's Werther.5 And along with
Hontesquieu's Lettres Persanes and Laclos's Liaisons Dan-
ereuses, it is one of the three greatest epistolary novels
in French literature. However, relatively little attention
has been given to the significance of the epistolary form
in L5 Nguvelle Héloise. This neglect is due in part to the
decline of the epistolary novel after the first quarter of
the nineteenth century. In the eighteenth century the epi-
stolary form was one of the most p0pular narrative techni-
ques. There were over one thousand epistolary novels pub-
lished in EurOpe between 1740 and 1820.6 The letter
achieved prominence in the realm of fiction because it was
a form with which the eighteenth century reader could readi-
ly identify. As the sole means of communicating over long
distances, it was an integral part of daily life. Further-
more, the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries represented
'the golden age of the letter as an established art form.
{The letters of famous literary or historical figures were
widely read and admired. Such letters, because they were
often intended for publication, were highly stylized and
treated subjects that suited a reading public rather than

a private correspondent. In his article 'Réalité vécue et

~

SCharles Dédéyan, J.-J2;Rousseau: La Nouvelle‘

Efigfig¥gg (Paris: Centre de documentation universitaire,
, pp. 180-86.

6Francois Jost, 'Le Roman épistolaire et la tech-
mQue narrative au XVIIIe sibcle,’ p. l+21.

a
réussite littéraire: Le statut particulier de la lettre,“
Eager Duchéne distinguishes between two different types of
letter writers in the period from the sixteenth to the
nineteenth centuries: 'épistoliers,‘ writers who sent let-
ters to a specific recipient, and 'auteurs épistolaires,”
who wrote letters eSpecially for a reading public or re-
worked private letters for the public.7 Inevitably the
formality of published letters influenced the familiar
N3fi3tolier,’ and educated peOple became more conscious of
the importance of style and tone, if not of orthography, in
their own letters. In the eighteenth century, correspon-
dence was a means of entertainment as well as a necessity.
But since the Revolution, the art of letter writing has de-
clined and the epistolary novel along with it. And amid
the telecommunications of the twentieth century, the epi-
stolary novel seems a contrived, cumbersome, and outmoded

means of narration. In short, it has become increasingly

 

7Roger Duchene, 'Réalité vécue et réussite lit-
téraire: Le statut particulier de la 1ettre,' Revue
d‘histgige littéraire de la France, 710 année, mars-avril
1971, no. 2, pp. 177-95. This article provides an excel-
lent analysis of the role of public and private epistolary
styles in the develOpment of the epistolary novel. To
Duchene the success of many epistolary novels during this
period seemed to depend upon the novelist's skill in wri-
ting letters of interest to all (as 'auteurs épistolaires')
while injecting the epistolary situation of the characters
with the naturalness and intimacy of letters of actual
'6pistoliers.‘ For detailed information on the historical
develOpment of the epistolary novel up to the eighteenth
century, consult Robert Adams Day Told in Letters (Ann
Arbor: U. of Michigan Press, 1966 , Charles Kany, The Begin

ni s of the E istolar Novel in France. Ital and S ain
(Berkeley: 19375, G.F. Singer, The Epistolary Novel (Phila-
delphia, i933), and Laurent Versini, Laclos et la tradition
(Paris: 1968).

 

5
difficult for readers to appreciate immediately the subtle-

ties of meaning in the epistolary form.

William head has remarked that many studies of Lg
Nouvelle HéloIse 's'intéressent aux idées de Rousseau et a
la maniere dont see idées se métamorphosent en symboles.

De l'homme de lettres, du 'romancier,' ils ont peu de choses
a dire."8 The epistolary form itself accounts in part for

this stress on ideology. In his 'Quelques réflexions sur

Lg: Lettres persanes' (175a), Montesquieu proclaimed that

the most unique prOperty of the epistolary novel was pre-
cisely its ability to disseminate phiIOSOphical, moral, and
political ideas in an entertaining form:

Enfin, dans.les romans ordinaires, les digressions

ne peuvent etre permises que lorsqu'elles forment
elles-memes un nouveau roman. On n'y saurait meler
de raisonnements, parce qu'aucun des personnages

n'y ayant été assemblé pour raisonner, cela choque—
rait 1e dessein et la nature de l'ouvrage. Mais dans
la forme de lettres, ou les acteurs ne sont pas
choisis, et oh les sujets qu'on traite ne sont dé- ‘
pendants d'aucun dessein ou d'aucun plan déja formé,
l'auteur s'est donné l'avantage de pouvoir joindre de
la philosOphie, de la politique et de la morale a

un roman, et de lier le tout par une chaine secrete
et, en quelque faqon, inconnue.

Rousseau took full advantage of the didactic prOperties of
the epistolary form. The letters of La Nouvelle HéldIse

touch upon a great variety of subjects. Even the

 

8William Mead, Jean-Jacques Rousseau ou le roman-

cier enchaing (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France,
19 , p. 3.

9hontesquieu, 'Quelques réflexions sur Les Lettres
ersanes' in Les Lettres persanes (Paris: Garnier, 19653,

pp. 3 .

6
correspondence of the story's two lovers is often as dis-
cursive as it is passionate. It is not difficult to dis-
cern Rousseau's ideas flowing from the pen of his characters.
Some critical works consider La Nouvglle HéLoIse
only insofar as it dramatizes ideas expressed in Rousseau's
previous or subsequent works. Madeleine B. Ellie‘s £2112

gu Lg Nogvelle Heloise, a_§ynthesis of Rousseau's Thought
L1252:11521,demonstrates the novel's ideological agreement

 

with Rousseau's work up to the completion of the novel in
1759.10 Her work was meant to counter earlier studies which
claimed that La Nguvelle Héléigg did not represent a logi-
cal continuity in Rousseau's thought. In laying stress on
Rousseau the thinker, however, Ellie's work tends to obscure
Rousseau the artist. A more recent study, Lester Crocker's
“Julie ou la Nouvelle Duplicité'll, interprets the novel
from a political standpoint. He focuses his attention on
Rousseau's vision of an ideal community, Clarens. Crocker
finds the atmosphere of this moral eXperiment (the harmony
of virtue and passion) very repressive. His analysis of the
characters, especially Julie and Saint Preux, points to the
deceitful behavior they must adOpt in order to sustain the

experiment. Crocker incorporated many of these observations

1°hadeleine R. Ellis, iglie on a Nouvelle H lodse
a §ynthe§is of Rgusseau's Thought 17_9-1 Toronto: U.
of Toronto Press, 19 9 .

11Lester G. Crocker, 'Julie ou la Nouvelle Duplici-
té,‘ Anna es Jean-Jae ues Rousseau, Vol. XXXVI, 1963-65,
pp. 105-152.

 

 

7

in a later work, Rousseau's Social Contract12, in order to
prove Rousseau a totalitarian ideologist, comparing some of
the statements and situations of La Nouvelle HéldIse to
those of works such as Brave New Wong and ngg, There are
unquestionably many political ramifications to La Nouvelle
Hglglse; but considered only as a vehicle of Rousseau's po-
litical thought, the novel appears to be little more than
an unsuccessful “roman a these.“ Rousseau's attempts at
exploring and revealing his own personality through his
characters, the activity in which he engaged more directly
-in his later autobiographical works, are ignored.

Many studies of La Nouvelle Heloise do give consi-
deration to Rousseau the artist and to his use of the epis-
tolary form. William head maintains that one of the great-
est artistic achievements of La NouggLLe HéLoise was Rous-
seau's use of the epistolary form, at least in Part I.
Compared to his most illustrious predecessor in the episto-
lary novel, Samuel Richardson, Rousseau gave the correspon-
dence of his characters the appearance of real letters 'qui
traduisent des états d'esprit passagers, qui saisissent des
pensees au vol..."13 Richardson was too loquacious and
failed to observe the realistic limitations of the indivi-

dual letter. However, continues Mead, Rousseau was not

 

12Lester G. Crocker, Rousseau's Social Contract
(Cleveland: Case Western Reserve University Press, 1963).

13Jean-Jaggues Rousseau ou le romancier enchainé,
p. 5“.

8
sufficiently committed to the novel to maintain this ap-
proach to the epistolary form and often imitated the R1-
chardsonian style in much of the last five parts of Lg
Nouvelle Heloise. In his efforts at didacticism, Rousseau
sacrificed much of the artist within himself for the
ideologue. Head finds La Nouvelle Hélgigg great and power-
ful, but uneven, especially in its use of the conventions
of the epistolary form. 'Complexe et plein de contradic-
tions oomme 1e génie de son createur, il [the noveI] échappe
a touts tentative de definition; un miroir n'explique pas,
il constate.'1“

Jean-Louis Lecercle's well documented Rousseau et
l'ggt du roman examines Rousseau's creative imagination and
its develOpment over his whole literary career.15 Lecercle
shows how Rousseau develOped his skill as a novelist in
writing La Nouvelle Heloise and how his creative imagination
contributed to his treatise on education, L'Emile (1762),
and to his autobiographical works. Rousseau's imagination
animated the abstractions of his didactic theories, and the

Jean-Jacques described in the Confessions 'est le produit

 

1“ Ibid., p. 102.

1~5Jean-Louis Lecercle, Rousseau et 1'art du rgg_an_
(Paris: Armand Colin, 1969). Lecercle organizes and develOps
on a larger scale pgints made in a number of earlier works
on La Nouvelle Héloise which deserve to be mentioned here:
Bernard Guyon, 'Introduction,‘ Jean-Jacgues Rousseau, Oeuvres
co letes, Vol. II (Paris:Gallimard, 19 4), pp. xvii-lxix;
Daniel Hornet, La Nouvelle Héloise de Rousseau (Paris: Mel-
lotée, 1929); Philippe Van Tieghem,‘LgLNpuvelle Héloise de

Jegg-Jaggues Rousseau (Paris: Nizet, 1956).

9
changeant d'une imagination fantasque."16 Lecerclels exa-
mination of La Nouvelle HéloIse includes a scholarly pre-
sentation of the most important characteristics of the epis-
tolary technique of La Nouvelle HéloIse.17 Letters permit-
ted Rousseau to express directly a multiplicity of subjective
viewpoints, each one representing one aSpect of his extremely
complex personality. With letters the passions of the cha-
racters can be conveyed with greater power and immediacy
than would have been possible in a memoir-novel. And, con-
tends Lecercle, the greatest artistic advantage of the episd
tolary novel for Rousseau was the aura of mystery which it
conferred upon the characters.18 The power to disguise one's
true feelings inherent in the epistolary form provided the
future author of the Confessiong with the experience of the
difficulties of sincerity. For much of the interest of the
novel, observes Lecercle, lies in the intellectual and sen-
timental contest between Julie and Saint Preux who try to
distinguish true feelings from dissimulation in each other's
letters. Besides these advantages, Lecercle points to the
many difficulties of the epistolary form to which Rousseau
fell prey. In order to satisfy the epistolary convention,
the characters are depicted writing letters even when they

would be able to speak with each other or writing of the

 

161b1d., p. 373.
17Ib1do, pp. 118-190
18Ib1d., pp. 128-30.

 

6‘.
86
re
on

f0]

kis

cull

and

PI'GL

 

 

10
successive and sometimes contradictory feelings that pos-
sess them, when even the most unsOphisticated of letters
requires that one write one's giggl thoughts and conclusions
on a given subject. Another disadvantage of the epistolary
form is that events cannot always be described in letters.
The important 'bosquet' scene, for example, in which Julie
kisses Saint Preux is not described, for it would seem ridi-
culous for one of the lovers to narrate it to the other;
and at this particular point in the novel, Julie and Saint
Preux cannot describe this eXperience in letters to third
parties because they must keep their love a secret.

Though all these observations made by Head, Lecercle,
and others are valid, they seem to avoid very fundamental
questions concerning the epistolary form of Lg_youvelle Hé-
lgigg, For instance, why did Rousseau first choose the
epistolary form? True, many of the letters of La Nouvelle
H loise seem natural; but Rousseau states elsewhere that he
detested correspondence. Letters were a “genre dont je
n'ai jamais pu prendre 1e ton, et dont l'occupation me met
an supplice.'19 The subjectivity, the multiplicity of view-

points, the convenience of inserting didactic digressions,

and the mystery surrounding the characters described by

 

19Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Les Confessions in Oeuvres
co etes (Paris: Gallimard, La Pléiade, i959ij’voi. I, p.
11 . All future quotations from Rousseau's work shall be
taken from this edition (with the exception of the Lettre
a d'Alembert and the Essai sur l'origine des lgngges .
Four volumes have appeared to date. Future references shall
be limited to title, volume, and page placed in parentheses
after each quotation.

11

Lecercle are important characteristics of Rousseau's use of
the epistolary form; but many of these characteristics are
found in other epistolary novels and in other forms of
fictional narration. And in addition to analyzing the
achievements and failures of Rousseau's epistolary tech-
nique, his ability or inability to make the letters of Lg
Nouvelle Hélgise as credible as an authentic correSpondence,
it is necessary to study the way in which the letters, with
their strengths and often glaring deficiencies, function
within the circumstances of the story and.their meaning
in the novel. In any work of art, meaning and form com-
plement each other; but in epistolary novels, this relation-
ship assumes an extra dimension in that the characters, in-
sofar as they are portrayed as correspondents, are partici-
pants, though seldom if ever conscious ones, in the crea-
tion of the literary work. In great epistolary novels,
the letters assume an essential role in the novel, above
and beyond the mere conventions of the genre. The form is
part of the story itself. And with reSpect to La Nouvelle
Hglolse, one must ask how well Rousseau utilized all the
potentialities of the genre.

There are two works which address themselves to
the questions mentioned above and which have been of great
benefit in defining the scape of the present study. Robert
Ellrich, in a study of the relationship of Rousseau with

his reader, directs his attention to the writer-reader

12
relationship of the characters of La Nouvelle HéloIse.2°
Julie and Saint Preux, says Ellrich, are possessed by an
overwhelming compulsion to write rather than speak. Using
many examples of this compulsion in La Nouvelle Héloigg
and in other works, Ellrich proves that Rousseau was a
'reader-directed' author, highly apprehensive about the
reactions of his reading public and more eager than most
writers to direct the reader's reactions to his own ends.
For as he grew increasingly reluctant to associate with
others, Rousseau depended more and more upon his writings
in order to remain in contact and deal with society.
Though Ellrich applies his insights into Rousseau's attrac-
tion toward the written medium to a broad study of Rousseau's
relationship with his reader, he points clearly to the prin-
ciples governing Rousseau's choice of the epistolary form.
Rousseau's decision to portray his characters through their
own letters, to place in their hands, as it were, the nar-
ration of Lg Nouvelle Heloise, rested more on his personal
need for this form of narration than on purely literary
considerations. This interpretation applies primarily to
the early stages of the novel's creation. As Jean Rousset
idemonstrates in a chapter of his study Forme et siggifica-
‘gi9221, Rousseau certainly directed his attention to the

 

20Robert J. Ellrich, Rougseau and his Reader: The
Rhgtoricg; Situation of the Major Works (Chapel Hill: North
Caroli Studies Laggpmance Langggggg_ggg_LL§§§g§g§§§, 1939).

21Jean Rousset, Forme et signification (Paris: Jose
Corti, 1964), pp. 65-92. Rousset also discussed the ideas
presented in this chapter in an earlier gtudy: “Rousseau
romancier,' Jean-Jacgues Rousseau (Neuchatel: 1962), pp.67-80.

 

13
literary significance of the letters as the novel began to
take shape. Rousset analyzes the manner in which Rousseau
arranges the letters of La Nouvelle Heloise so that develOp-
ments in the story are reflected in the correspondence of
the characters. Rousset observes that as Julie and Saint
Preux renounce their passion in order to fulfill their
duties to society, their correspondence diminishes and
then ceases while letters to and from third parties increase.
Rousseau thus establishes the artistic harmony of ”forms at
signification."

The full significance of the epistolary form in.Lg
Nouvelle Héloise, however, does not lie only in Rousseau's
spontaneous, personal attraction for letters nor only in
his conscious, artistic handling of the letters. Both as-
pects must be considered. Jacques Borel, commenting on the
sources of literary creation, writes:

Il n'y a donc pas a Opposer les aspirations de
l'écrivain aux inspirations de ses devanciers,

a trancher entre son experience vécue et son expe-

rience livresque, a nier l'une en raison de l'autre.

Elles s 'appellent, se completent, se confondent...

La reverie personnelle de l'écrivain va done as

doubler d'une reverie littéraire.22

The present study will examine the nature of Rous-

seau's creative experience, both the 'réverie personnelle“ and

'11tt6raire,“ and the significance of the epistolary form
in.that experience. Letters, it will be seen, provided

Rousseau an outlet for some of his deepest psychological

 

I 22Jacques Borel, Le L s dans la vallée et les
sources rofondes de la creation ba zacienne (Paris: José
""Cor"t 1" 1" '95) ,"'p"'. '6'.————"l——o

‘E:

 

14
anxieties. And the letters of La NouggLLg_Hé;oIse repre-
sented, in the early stages of the novel's composition,
Rousseau's attempts at enacting his private fantasies about
a love affair with an ideal woman, a love which he felt he
deserved but which life had denied him. Thus, Rousseau did
not begin to write a novel in epistolary form only in order to
profit from the pOpularity of that particular literary form,
but in order to express his own feelings of love. Through
the letters of Lg_NouggL;e Heloise Rousseau transformed his
fantasies into a work of art.

The experience of having written La Nouvelle Hélolse
also had considerable effect on the course of Rousseau's
literary career. Along with L'Emile and Le Contrat_gongL,
Lg Nouvelle Heloise occupies a central position in his per-
sonal develOpment. A cursory view of Rousseau's career re-
veals a movement from the observation and criticism of so-
ciety (Discourssur les sgggnces et les arts, 1750, Discours
cu: L'inégglité, 1754) to a personal vision of ideal men
and ideal societies (Lngouvellngéloise, 1761, Le Contrat
§Q§;§1_and L'Emile, 1762), to the examination of his own
personality and of his posture vis-a-vis society (Les Con-

zesgigns, 1770, Lgs Diglogges, 1776, and Lgs Réveries‘dg
pgoggnegz sglitgire, 1778). From work to work, the person

of Rousseau looms more important. Jean Starobinski has

 

shown that Rousseau, even in the earliest of his works,
was dealing with an intensely personal problem which Sta-

robinski identifies as a desire to render himself transparent

15

to everyone's gaze.23 Starobinski follows the progression
of Rousseau's quest for transparency as it manifests itself
more and more directly in his works. Ronald Grimsley also
concentrates on Rousseau's growing self-awareness by ana-
lyzing Rousseau's psychological develOpment, especially his
increasing need to reveal his own personality more directly
in his works.2“ As Grimsley demonstrates, self-awareness
was the goal of all Rousseau's work, a fact which first
became apparent in the letters of La Nouvelle Hélolse.

The present study, therefore, will also examine
the epistolary form of the novel as an important act in the
personal drama of Rousseau's quest for an adequate form of
self-expression. Special attention will be given to one
of the essential conventions of the epistolary form, the
fiction of authenticity. For Rousseau consciously used it
to direct attention to himself, specifically, to his role
in the novel's creation. This use of the fiction of au-
thenticity was extraordinary since this literary convention
‘was usually intended to efface the author's presence by the
suggestion that the letters were genuine. Insofar as it
represented a conscious attempt by Rousseau to make himself
the subject of his work, the epistolary form prefigured the

autobiographical form of Rousseau's later works; and

 

23Jean Starobinski, Jean-Jacques Rousseau: la
trangparence et l'obstacle (Paris: Gallimard, 1971).

24Ronald Grimsley, Jean-Jacqges Rousseau: a study
in.self-awareness (Cardiff: 1961).

16
moreover, it was the self-reflective character of the epis-
tolary form that constituted the originality of La Nouvelle
Hgloise in the develOpment of the novel in France.

CHAPTER I

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF LETTERS FOR ROUSSEAU
AND THE CHOICE OF THE EPISTOLARY FORM

The conventions of the epistolary novel are unique
in fictional literature. The characters are portrayed in
the act of writing about the events they experience. The
events narrated and the narration itself are parts of the
story. Unlike the memoir-novel in which the first person
narrator postulates, usually in a preface or epilogue, his
reasons for writing, the epistolary’novel is a genre in
which the epistolary or narrative situation-~those circum-
stances which demand an exchange of letters by the charac-
ters (e.g. a great distance separating the characters or the
presence of other characters which prevents the transmittal
of certain information)--represents an integral part of the
whole fictional situation--those circumstances and events
which comprise the story itself. The means of narration,
the letters, influence the actions of the novel's corres-
pondents. In order to conform to the demands of the epis-
tolary novel, its two fundamental conventions-~the act
itself of communicating by letters and, implicit in the
first, the distance separating the characters which neces-

sitates their correspondence--must remain constant motifs
17

18

of the novel. Two classic examples of the masterful use of
these conventions are Les Lettres persanes and Les Liaisons
Dgggereuses. In his article on Hontesquieu's novell, Robert
F. O'Reilly shows how the author, in conveying the meaning
of his story, played repeatedly upon the great distance
separating Usbek from his Persian domain and upon the let-
ters he must exchange with his wives and eunuchs in order
to rule his harem. Far from home, exposed to new experi-
ences, Usbek easily formulates humane philOSOphical con-
cepts in analyzing and criticizing foreign cultures. But
in matters concerning the rule of his own subjects, he makes
wanton use of force in keeping with Persian custom. In
arranging the novel's correspondence, Hontesquieu inter-
spersed the letters in which Usbek eXpounds universal
principles among those which convey the Persian ruler's
dictatorial orders to his subordinates so as to bring out,
with maximum ironic effect, the meaning of the work-~the
difficulty of reconciling new ideas based on intellectual
principles with traditional ways of life. In Les Liaisons
Qggggnggggg letters are weapons in a battle of the sexes.
Jean-Luc Seylaz writes:

...on sent bien que la plupart des lettres de ce

recueil offrent 1e meme caractere de concerté,

de prémédité. Ruses, attaques, defenses; mots

derriere lesquels on se retranche, sophismes,

demonstrations: ces lettres sont des moyens de
combat et des actes. En d'autres termes, elles

 

1Robert F. O'Reilly, ”The Structure and Meaning of
the ttres Persanes ' Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth
Contgzz; i969,"v"ol."67, pp. 91-131.

 

19

sont la matiere de l'action, et non pas seulement
son reflet.2

Laclos's novel is an incomparable study of the beguiling
power of the letter. The fiendnmmess of Valmont and
Herteuil is heightened by the fact that they are able to
manipulate others from a distance, as if their letters
were some magical remote-control device. These two roués
carry on their own rivalry entirely through letters.

They meet but once in the entire novel (Letter 151). And
by simply making public the content of their correSpon-
dence, the only record of their iniquities, they forever
seal their own fate.

In Lg_Nouvelle HéloIse, however, the distance
separating the correspondents implicit in epistolary novels
seems at times insufficient to warrant communication by
letter. “...Je vous vois tous les jours,‘ writes Saint
Preux in his first letter to Julie. As her preceptor, he
spends many hours of the day with her. Yet while present
in the same household and free to converse virtually at
will, Julie and Saint Preux exchange some thirty-seven let-
ters. The most conspicuous example of this extreme proxi-
mity occurs in Letter LIV of Part I. The scene is Julie's
room where the lovers have agreed to meet. While awaiting
Julie, Saint Preux expresses, in a letter addressed to her,

the thoughts and feelings that this place inspires in him.

 

2Jean-Luc Seylaz, Les Liaisons Dangereuses et la
ggégtign romanesque chez Laclos (Geneva: 1958), p. 39.

20

Upon hearing a noise, Saint Preux imagines that it might
be Julie's father. Undaunted, he continues to record his
thoughts even when he discovers that it is Julie herself
who has entered the room.

11 me semble entendre du bruit.. Seroit-ce ton

barbare pere? Je ne crois pas etre 1ache.....

mais qu'en ce moment la mort me seroit horrible?

Hon deseSpoir seroit égal a l'ardeur qui me con-

sume. Ciel! Je te demande encore une heure de

vie, et j'abandonne 1e reste de mon 6tre a ta

rigueur. O desirst 6 crainte! 6 palpitations

cruellesl....on ouvrel....on entre!....c' est

elle! je l'entrevois, je l'ai vue, j'entens re-

fermer la porte. Mon coeur, mon foible coeur,

tu succombes a tant d'agitations. Ah cherche

des forces pour supporter 1a félicité qui t'ac-

cable (La Nouvelle Héloise, Vol. II, p. 147)!
The proximity of the two principal correSpondents results
in other irregularities in the novel's epistolary situation.
On two occasions, Saint Preux describes to Julie in detail
incidents in which both participated. After Julie kisses
Saint Preux in the 'bosquet' of Clarens, Saint Preux writes
her a letter (Part 1, Letter XIV) in which he reports chro-
nologically every action leading up to the kiss. Later in
the story, another letter from Saint Preux (Part I, Letter
LV) to Julie depicts the tender moments of their rendezvous
in her bedroom. These irregularities in the convention of
distance between correspondents are certainly not the re-
sult of oversight. They are simply too obvious to have
escaped Rousseau's notice. Faced with this seemingly will-
ful desregard for the most fundamental conventions of cor-
respondence, one must ask what prompmfl.Rousseau to recount

the story of Julie and Saint Preux through letters. And

21
how does one explain the motives of the young lovers for
writing to each other under circumstances which would nor-
mally make correspondence unnecessary? The answer lies
primarily in Rousseau's attitude toward letter writing.
Re preferred letters to conversation. Indeed, he prefer-
red writing to all other forms of social contact. In his
Confessions, Rousseau comments, at times quite extensively,
on the meaning of letters and, more importantly, of writing
itself in his own life. These comments, taken in conjunc-
tion with his detailed analysis of the circumstances sur-
rounding the composition of La Nouvelle HéloIse, reveal how
his choice of the epistolary form for his novel helped to
fulfill deep psychological and emotional needs. Rousseau
did not ignore the conventions of the epistolary novel but
rather attached to them a very personal significance.

In the third book of the Confgssions, Rousseau tells
of a visit he made when in his teens to a M. d'Aubonne, an
influential relative of Mme de Warens, then Jean-Jacques's
protectress. Mme de Warens had sent him to H. d'Aubonne
in order to obtain the latter's Opinion about her charge's
intellectual abilities. Rousseau recalls that after an
affable interview, M. d'Aubonne pronounced him inept and
somewhat shallow and that the most he could aSpire to be-
come was a simple village priest. Rousseau's purpose in
relating this incident (only one of many similar to it) was
to investigate and explain the possible reasons for so ob-

viously erroneous a judgment. He goes on to describe two

22
basic traits of his personality which invite unfavorable
Opinions about his intellectual ability: an impetuous tem-
perament and slow-wittedness.
Deux choses presque inaliables s'unissent en moi
sans que j'en puisse concevoir 1a maniére: un
temperament tres ardent, des passions vives,
impétueuses, et des idées lentes a naitre, embar-
rassées, et qui ne se présentent jamais qu 'apres
coup. On diroit que mon coeur et mon esprit
n 'appartiennent pas au méme individu. Le senti-
ment plus prompt que 1' éclair vient remplir mon
ame, mais au lieu de m'éclairer 11 me brule et
m'éblouit. Je sens tout et je ne vois rien. Je

suis emporté mais stupide; il faut que je sois de
sang-froid pour penser (Les Confessiogg, Vol. I,

p. 113).

In the course of his conversation with M. d'Aubonne, these
traits were all too apparent. Face to face with this im-
portant gentleman, Rousseau could hardly have felt 'de sang
froid.II His capacity to feel intensely surpassed and im-
peded not only his ability to think, but also his ability
to eXpress himself. In his interview with H. d'Aubonne,
Rousseau's speech was the only evidence upon which he could
be judged. Under these circumstances Rousseau could not
be at his best. '...J'ai cependant le tact assez sfir, de
la penetration, de la finesse m6me pourvu qu'on m'attende...‘
(anfegsions, Vol. I, p. 113). Unfortunately, conversation
is not conducive to long pauses. Rousseau felt wronged
‘because what made M. d'Aubonne and many others underesti-
mate him was a deceptive disparity between his conversational
ability and the actual profundity of his discernment.
Rousseau's ineffectuality as a conversationalist
'plagued him throughout his life. The very essence of

eighteenth century conversation among the upper classes and

23
the intelligentsia was quick-wittedness, the apt phrase,
and the ability to please and entertain one's interlocu-
tors. These traits are summed up in Duclos's description
of '1s bon ton' in conversation:

Toute question importante, tout raisonnement
suivi, tout sentiment raisonnable sont exclus
dss sociétés brillantes, st sortent du bon ton.
...Ls bon ton dans ceux qui ont le plus d'es-
prit, consists a dire agréablement des riens...
il faut surtout amuser.

Voltaire, in his article entitled 'ESprit' in the Encyclo-
pfiggg, defined wit in Speech as Idire les choses d'une

facon nouvelle.’ These were perdurable characteristics of
the nso-classic age. A century before Rousseau's Confessions,
they figured prominently in Alceste's condemnation of society.

...Js ne hais rien tant que les contorsions

De tous ces grands faiseurs de protestations,

Ces affablss donneurs d'embrassades frivoles,

Ces obligeants diseurs d'inutilss paroles,

Qui de civilités avec tous font combat,

Et traitent du m6me air l'honnete homme st ls fat.
Quel avantage a-t-on qu'un homme vous caresse,

Vous jure amitié, foi, ZEIe, estime, tendresse,

Et vous fasse de vous un éloge éclatant,

Lorsque au premier faquin il court en fairs autant?“

Rousseau, like Holiere's Alceste, could not abide the arti-
ficiality implicit in salon conversation. Rousseau lacked
the necessary self-assurance. When with a large group of
psOple, Rousseau appeared obtuse; but in conversation ap-

pearances were everything. When he felt his ineptitude was

BCharles Duclos, Qpnsidéraglpns sur les moeurs de
pg Bibsls in Oeuvres completes (Geneva: Slatkine Reprints,
19 , Vol.1, p. 103.

 

“Moliere, quvrss completes (Paris: Garnier, 1962),
Vol. I, p, 313;»,_ -

24

all too obvious, it contributed to a further loss of calm
and tact. There were simply too many factors to consider
all at once:

...pour parler a pr0pos, il faut penser a la fois

st sur le champ a mille choses. La seule idée de

tant de convenances dont je suis sur d'oublier au

moins quelqu' une suffit pour m 'intimider. Je ne

comprends pas m6me comment on ose parler dans un

cercle: car a chaque mot il faudroit passer en

revue tous les gens qui sont la: 11 faudroit con-

noitre tous leurs caracteres, savoir leurs histoires

pour 6tre sur de ne rien dire qui puisse offenser

quelqu' un (Confessions, Vol. I, p. 115).
The greatest fear arising from such an uncomfortable situa-
tion was that of making a mistake, an‘almost infallible oc-
cursnce in Rousseau's case, for, unlike the polished social-
ite, Rousseau did not keep abreast of the current gossip.
A seemingly innocuous remark could suggest an unfortunate
or embarrassing experience in the personal affairs of
someone in attendance. If those whose entire life was
centered around rumor and scandal committed occasional ver-
bal transgressions, imagine theixuumerable 'faux pas” of a
young bourgeois like Rousseau only recently admitted to the
'beau monde' of Paris. In the more intimate 't6te-a-t6te,'
Rousseau did not fare any better. There were fewer peOple,
fewer "histoires" to be taken into account; but the tension
here derived from the frequency of rejoinder.

Dans le t6te-a-t6te 11 y a un autre inconvenient

que je trouvs pire; la necessité ds parler toujours.

Quand on vous parle il faut répondre, et 81 1' on

ne dit mot, il faut relever la conversation. Cetts

insupportable contrainte m 'eut seule dégouté de la

société. Je ne trouvs point de g6ne plus terrible

que l'obligation de parler sur le champ st toujours.

Js ne sais si ceci tient a ma mortelle aversion pour
tout assujstissement; mais c 'est assez qu'il faills

25

absolumsnt que je parle pour que je dise une sotise
infailliblsment (Confessions, Vol. I, p. 115).

The constraint which Rousseau felt in conversation
was the result of an acute sensitivity to the presence of
the interlocutor. Rousseau perceived each of his interlo-
cutors to be a judge of his conduct and each conversation,

a form of trial. As the two previous quotations indicate,
conversation, whether within a group or with an individual,
implies the strong possibility of an offense or blunder fol-
lowed immediately by judgment on the part of his interlocu-
tors. Little matter that others actually passed unfavorable
verdicts upon him; his volatile imagination generated his
guilt feelings. An anecdote from Book VIII of the Confes-
.giggg illustrates his predicament. While sitting in a café,
Rousseau overheard a conversation in which a military offi-
cer said to a group of friends that he was acquainted with
the author of the recently premiered Deggp du villa e, Jean-
Jacques Rousseau; but the man failed to recognize Rousseau
who was seated close-by. This situation had a singular ef-
fect on Rousseau.

...Tandis qu'il débitoit ses mensonges, je rou-

gissois, je baissois les yeux, j'étois sur les

épines; je cherchois quelque fois en moi-m6me

s'il n' y auroit pas moyen de le croire dans l'er-

reur et de bonne foi (Confessiogg, Vol. I, p. 377).
Rousseau hurriedly finished his drink, lowered his head, and
departed for fear of being recognized.

Je m' appercus dans la rue que j'étois en sueur,

et je suis sur que si quelcun m 'eut reconnu et

nommé avant ma sortie, on m 'auroit vu la honte st
l'embarras d'un coupable, par le seul sentiment

26

de la psine que ce pauvre homme auroit a souffrir '
si son mensongs étoit reconnu (Confessions, Vol. I,

P. 377).
Despite the fact that he was never discovered by the others
present and that there was no question of a lie on his part,
Rousseau experienced through immediate empathy the shame of
culpability. Though he was only a witness of and not a
participant in the conversation, he did not identify him-
self with the officer's interlocutors, the judges, but with
the party that compromised itself.

The culpability which Rousseau felt in conversation
reveals on a minor scale the guilt which pervaded his en-
tire life and motivated his conduct.5 The feeling never
left him. Not only his interlocutors in conversation but
virtually everyone appeared to be judging him, and usually
unfavorably. Consequently, much as Rousseau sought to
avoid the constraints of conversation, he devoted most of

his life to denying the guilt that plagued him. His efforts

 

5Jean Starobinski's essay on Rousseau in L'Oeil
vivggt (Paris: Gallimard, 1961, pp. 93-190) analyzes in
detail the very complex sociological and psychological
causes of Rousseau's overwhelming sense of culpability.
Rousseau was first brought up in the Oppressive moral
atmosphere of calvinist Geneva. All his actions were
subject to judgment. The first book of the Confessions,
remarks Starobinski, hardly ever shows a misdeed for which
IRousseau was not apprehended and punished. Rousseau
grew up associating desire, even the most innocuous,
‘with sin. In order to combat this moral anguish, he
attributed the condemnation of his desires to others,
thus freeing himself from the inner torment of self-
icondemnation. Starobinski shows how all Rousseau's
major works reflect an attempt at escaping the rebuke he
.ascribsd to others. His attitude led him to scorn and
avodd society and resulted ultimately in the paranoia
of his later years.

27

to excuse the mendacious officer and convince himself of
the latter's sincerity reflects his own pursuit of self-
justification and sincerity which characterized much of his
literary career, particularly the period of the Confessions,
Dialoggss, and R6veries (1764-1778). Similar to his exit
from the café in order to avoid being recognized by the
officer's interlocutors and experiencing vicariously the
braggart's guilt, Rousseau fled the daily company of his
contemporaries in order to eXplain in his writings the moral
integrity which he sensed to be his and which society seemed
to overlook because of his dour, misanthrOpic mien in public.

J'aimerois la société comme un autre, si je n'étois

sur ds m' y montrer non seulement a mon desavantage,

mais tout autre que je ne suis. Le part1 que j' ai

pris d'écrire at me cacher est précisément celui

qui me convenoit. Moi préssnt on n 'auroit jamais

su es que je valois, on ne l'auroit as soupconné

m6me... (Confessions, Vol. I, p. 116.

Rousseau was convinced that he could show society
his true worth through writing for two reasons, both of which
concern the notion of hiding (in dealing with individuals,
the principle applies to letter writing). First, the act
of writing, while still permitting Rousseau to communicate,
removed from his presence the intimidating, critical gaze
of others. ,In the absence of those he viewed as judges of
his conduct, his feeling of guilt diminished. This pheno-
menon is well illustrated by another example of Rousseau's
aversion for conversation. In his Confessions Rousseau

expressed the desire to conduct a conversation through

letters:

28

...je fais d'excellens impromptus a loisir; mais

sur ls tems js n'ai jamais rien fait ni dit qui

vaille. Js ferois une fort jolie conversation

par la posts, comme on dit que les ESpagnols jouent

aux échecs (Confessions, Vol. I, p. 113).
Rousseau preferred writing to conversation because it
concealed his mental confusion as he attempted to sort
out his ideas and present them cogently. He compared his
state of mind while writing to the stage of an Italian Opera
where disorder is transformed into an impeccable Spectacle.

Dans les changemens de scéns i1 régne sur ces grands

théatrss un désordre desagréable, st qui dure assez

longtsms; toutes les decorations sont entre m6léss;

on voit de toutes parts un tiraillement qui fait

seine; on croit que tout va renverser. Cependant psu

psu tout s'arrange, rien ne manque, st l'on est

tout surpris ds voir succéder a cs long tumulte un

spectacle ravissant. Cetts manoeuvre est a psu prés

cells qui se fait dans mon cerveau uguand je vsux

écrire (Confessions, Vol. I, p. 114
Though Rousseau was at great pains to organize his thoughts
even in writing, the reader saw only the final arrangement
of hisridsas. Writing provided him the curtain lacking at
the Italian theater. The confusion described in this pas-
sage is mental in character, but it applies equally well to
the moral disorder of Rousseau's guilt-ridden conscience.
Conversation aggravated this moral disorder. For Rousseau
each conversation represented a confrontation. He felt
scrutinized, as though on trial. His analogy of the chess
game reveals how inherently antagonistic he thought conver-
sation and all forms of social intercourse to be. Even alone
with pen and paper, he never eluded the persistent sense of

sin--the disarray of his mind as he wrote, like his distress

29

in conversation, suggests his consciousness of guilt. But
at least in writing, away from the judging interlocutor,
Rousseau was free to seek and intelligibly express the good
he felt within himself and that others should recognize.6

...J'étois sfir qu'a travers mes fautes et mes

foiblsssss, a travers mon inaptituds a supporter

aucun joug, on trouvsroit toujours un homme justs,

bon, sans fisl, sans hains, sans jalousie, prompt

h rsconnoitrs ses prOpres torts, plus prompt a

oublier ceux d'autrui; cherchant touts sa félicité

dans les passions aimantes st doucss, st portant

en touts chose la sincérité jusqu'a l'imprudsnce,

jusqu'au plus incroyable desinteressement (Confes-

sions, Vol. I, pp. 639-40).
And while writing by its very nature implies the ab-
sence of the writer with reapect to his reader, the notion
of writing in hiding was of exceptional significance to
Rousseau. In describing the course of action which best
suited him, he placed equal emphasis on writing and hiding:
“écrire st me cacher.‘ 'Me cacher' refers here to Rousseau's
public withdrawal from society. This withdrawal constitutes

the second reason for which he felt that writing was the

 

5T0 Rousseau the efficacy of communication increased

in direct pr0portion to the degree of his interlocutor's
effacsment. Robert Ellrich observes that Rousseau's prefer-
ences.in all verbal communication, oral or written, depen-
ded upon the degree to which he was conscious of the pre-
sence of his reader or interlocutor. Ellrich suggests a
descending order of preference in verbal communication:

...talking to oneself (as Rogsssau will understand

himself to be doing in his Rsveries); writing highly

controlled discourse with no Specific reader in mind;

writing to a Specific reader; talking to friends

(as in certain privileged moments with Mme ds Warens

and Mme d'Houdetot); talking to strangers or enemies

(Robert J. Ellrich, “Rousseau and his Reader: The

Rhetorical Situation of the Major Works,“ p. 19.

30

best means of revealing his true self. Ever since the
first Disgours (1750) in which he denounced the many evils
of society, Rousseau felt compelled to spurn all social
conventions and eventually to renounce regular social con-
tacts. He felt that his actions had to remain consistent
with his beliefs.7 To Rousseau the withdrawal was equally
as important as writing itself. It was a public withdrawal
intended to serve as an example of his profound moral con-
viction, thus focusing the attention of the public even
more upon his works.

Mes livres couroient les villes tandis que leur

Auteur ne couroit que les forets. Tout ms lisoit,

tout me critiquoit, tout parloit de moi, mais dans

mon absence; j'étois aussi loin des discours que

des hommes; js ne savois rien ds cs qu'on disoit...

11 y avoit un Rousseau dans le grand monde, et un

autre dans la retraits qui ne lui rsssembloit en

rien (Ebauches des Confessions, Vol. I, p. 1151).
Writing served well the guilt-ridden, but proud Rousseau;
it at once concealed him from the gaze of the castigating
judge and called attention to him as a lonely seeker of

virtue.8

 

7Cf. Confgggicns, Vol. I of Oeuvres complttss pp.
361-65 for the description of Rousseau's 'réforme“ (1751).
It would not be until his retirement to L'Ermitage in 1756
that he would actually leave his friends in Paris, but his
”reform prepared his eventual departure. The principles
which moved him are essentially the same in both instances.
Cf. also pp. 401, 416,417.

8"Pour qu'on sache enfin cs qu'il vaut,'writes
Jean Starobinski, “Jean-Jacques s'éloigne st se met a com-
poser des livres, de la musique...Il confie son etre (sa
personnalité) a un paraitre d'une autre sorts, qui n'sst
plus son corps, son visage, sa parole concrete, mais le
message pathétique d'un absent. I1 compose ainsi une
image ds 1ui-m6me, qui s'imposera aux autrss a la fois

31
For all its advantages, writing was not without its

drawbacks. Guilt often continued to plague Rousseau as he
wrote; and the reader, though less conSpicuous than an
interlocutor, also assumed the role of judge. Merely rs-
placing the interlocutor for an absent reader was insuffi-
cient to make writing a panacea. If Rousseau was to benefit
from the solitude provided by writing, his mental image of
the reader had to be one of a sympathetic or at least toler-
ant individual. Concerning his personal corrsSpondence for
example, Rousseau would not answer a letter if he felt his
reader was angry with him. Since Rousseau often procrasti-
nated in answering, he assumed that his reader had taken
offense.

L'exactitude a écrire a toujours été au degsus de

mes forces; sitot que js commence a me relacher,

la honte, et l'embarras ds reparer ma fauts me la

font aggravsr, et je n'écris plus du tout (gggfigg:

sions, Vol. I, p. 281).

In literary works, the very form or style Rousseau

 

par le prestige de l'absence et par la vibration de la
sentence écrite" (Jean-Jacques Rousseau: la tranSparsnce

st l'obstacle, p. 155). Starobinski's celebrated interpre-
tation of Rousseau's work in terms of transparency and ob-
stacle points up the tendency implicit in Rousseau's writing
to present to the reader his own view of himself--which he
considers to be the truth--while concealing his outward
behavior--which he believes conceals his true nature.
“Rousseau désirs la communication et la transparencs des
coeurs; mais il est frustré dans son attente et, choisis-
sant la vois contraire, il accepte--et suscite--l'obstacle,
qui lui permst ds se replier dans la résignation passive et
dans la certitude de son innocence“ (p. ii). For Rousseau,
writing implies both transparency, because it communicates,
and obstacle, because it provides him the solitude to medi-
tate upon and convince himself of his goodness, his true
self. 'Paradoxalement, 11 se cachsra pour mieux se montrer,
et 11 se confiera a la parole écrite' (p. 154).

32

associated with any of his writings was enough to exacer-
bate his sense of inadequacy.

...Je réussis mieux aux ouvrages qui demandent du

travail, qu'a ceux qui veulent 6tre faits avec uns

certaine légsreté, comme les lettres; genre dont

je n 'ai jamais pu prendre ls ton, st dont l'occupa-

tion me met au supplice. Je n 'écris point do lettres

sur les moindres sujets qui ns me coutsnt des heurss

de fatigue, ou si je vsux écrire ds suits ce qui me

vient, js ne sais ni commencer ni finir, ma lettrs

est un long st confus verbiage; a psine m 'sntend-

on quand on la lit (Confessions, Vol. I, p. 114).
Letters, or any other form of writing, is unpleasant to
Rousseau only when he is conscious of having to comply with
stylistic rules. These rules imply a reader who judges the
writer's success in adhering to them. Under these circum-
stances even letters, which normally appeal to Rousseau as
a means of avoiding the disturbing presence of one judge,
the interlocutor, force him to direct his attention to an-
other. As in conversation, a form of communication which
also demands “une certaine légereté,“ Rousseau must court
the approval of others on their terms. The result too is
the same: incoherence and the appearance of insipience.

However, works “qui demandent du travail,“ that is,
ones that permitted Rousseau to concentrate his efforts on
the subject matter, his ideas, rather than on the criteria
imposed by others, allowed himself to be the Judge of his
work, at least while in the act of writing. He felt free
to be himself. Rousseau experienced this freedom in the
1

letters of La Nouvelle Héloise. His Opinion of the fic-
tional letters contrasts sharply with that of his real

correspondence:

33
Si vous les lisez Des lettres] comme l'ouvrage
d'un Auteur qui vsut plaire, ou qui se pique d'écrire,
elles sont détsstables. Mais prsnez-les pour cs
qu 'slles sont, et jugez-lss dans leur sspece. Deux
ou trois jsunss gens simples, mais sensibles, 3' en-
trstiennent entr' eux dss intér6ts de leur coeurs.
Ils ne songsnt point a briller aux yeux les uns des
autrss. Ils se connoissent st s'aiment trOp mutu-
ellement pour que l'amour-prOpre n'ait plus rien a
fairs sntr'eux. Ils sont snfans penseront-ils en
hommes? Ils sont étrangsrs, écriront-ils correcte-
ment? Ils sont solitaires, connoitront-ils 1e monds
et la société? Plsins du seul sentiment qui les
occups, ils sont dans le délirs, st psnsent philo- ‘
sapher. Voulsz-vous qu'ils sachent observer juger,
réfléchir? Ils ne savent rien de tout cela La

Nguvells Héloise, Seconds Préfacs, Vol. II, pp. 16-
Writing the letters of Julie and Saint Preux gave Rousseau
the sympathy and tolerance he sought. He invites the reader
of the novel to judge the letters as his characters do,
“dans leur sspece.“ There is no need to sacrifice true
feelings to “amour-prOprs,“ that need to think and act in
accord with the criteria established by society. Julie and
Saint Preux write with the attitude that Rousseau sought to
assume in real life: “plsins du ssul sentiment qui les
occups...‘ In the letters of La Nouvelle Hngiss Rousseau
could take full advantage of the solitude of writing because
he could present his thoughts in a manner that suited his
conception of them, and not one that appealed to literary
vogue.

Rousseau's whole career reflected his inability to
write in deference to literary fashion and his need to choose
forms which set him apart from other men and the criteria

by which they are judged. In his early years as a writer

34
(1740's), he tried his hand at light verse and at works
for the stage. Since the seventeenth century the theater
remained virtually the standard for literary success. But
with the exception of his Opera Ls Devin du lelags (1752),
Rousseau achieved no success in the traditional genres.
It was only those characteristics which set the letters of
Lg Nouvelle HélOIss apart from conventional correspondence--
the feeling Of independence from the reader and Of communion
with his own feelings and ideas-~that enabled Rousseau to
write successfully.

Rousseau's first two literary triumphs, Le Discours
pg: les sciences et les arts (1750) and Le Discours sur
l'inégalité (1755), though written in the traditional, highly
rigid oratorical form, gave Rousseau a sense of liberation
from many of the standards of society. In attacking all
that the Enlightenment held in absolute sstsem--its insti-
tutions, art, science, customs, and tastes--Rousseau placed
himself in a position to pass judgment on the guilt of
society. As a result of his famous “illumination“ in 1749,
an experience in which he became “un autre homme,“ the
discourses gave him the sensation of oneness with truth and
with himself. He described the period as one of unprece-
dented sslf-confidsnce in his bearing and self-expression.
He had the exhilarating feeling of moral and literary super-
iority.

J'étois vraiment transformé; mes amis, mes con-

noissances ns me reconnoissoient plus. Je n'étois
plus cet homme timids et plustot honteux que modsste,

35

qui n'osOit ni se presenter ni parler; qu'un mot

badin déconcertoit, qu'un regard de femme faisoit

rougir. Audacieux, fier, intrépide, 3e portois par

tout une assurance d'autant plus ferme qu'elle étoit

simple et résidoit dans mon ame plus que dans mon

maintien. Le mépris que mes profondes meditations

m'avoient inspiré pour les moeurs, les maximes et

les préjugés de mon siécle me rendoit insensible

aux railleries de ceux qui les avoient, et j'écra-

sois leurs petits bons-mots avec mes sentences,

comme J‘écraserois un insecte entre mes doigts

(Confessions, Vol. I, pp. “16-17).
Rousseau attained a similar sense of ascendancy in L'Emile
and Le Qontrat social. These works laid the basis for a
new society, one in which the defects he previously criti-
cized were absent. In them Rousseau assumed, as author, the
admirable roles of tutor and legislator described therein.
Rather than feeling guilt and inadequacy before his fellow
man, Rousseau, as he wrote these works, felt himself to be
a leader of men: and a figure to be admired. In the auto-
biographical works, Rousseau is on the defensive with re-
spect to his readers, repeatedly attempting to Justify him-
self in their eyes. The public seemed hostile. In order to
blot out the distressing image of a reproachful reader and
to enable him to explain himself in his own way, Rousseau
simply replaced this reader in his mind with another. In
writing the Confessions the vision of his reader as a dis-
tant posterity reassured him in his endeavor. “...Cet ou-
vrage ne pouvant paroitre qu'apres ma mort et celle de beau-
coup d'autres, cela m'enhardissoit davantage a faire mes
confessions dont jamais 3e n'aurois a rougir devant per-

sonne' (anfessions, Vol. I, p. 517). In the Dialogues the

36

interlocutor 'Le Francois” represents the reading public.
In the presence of this interlocutor Rousseau rends himself
in two, the one examining the other (Rousseau Juge deJean-kqms
as the actual title suggests), in order to find the reason,
the mysterious sin, for which everyone seems bent on per-
secuting him. Having created, in a sense, his own reader,
Rousseau succeeded in securing his support at the end of the
Troisieme Dialogue. But even the process of having to con-
vince an imaginary reader was for Rousseau a 'douloureuse
tacho' (Dialogges, Vol. I, p. 977), for throughout the Dia-
logues Rousseau had to imagine 'Le Francois" imbued with the
prejudices of society toward himself. The search for a
totally c00perative reader reached its logical conclusion with
the Réveries. In this work Rousseau himself became the in-
tended reader.

...Je n'écris mes reveries que pour moi. Si dans mes

plus vieux jours aux approches du départ, 3e reste,

comme 3e 1' espére, dans la meme diaposition ou je suis,

leur lecture me rapellera la douceur que je gbute a

les écrire, et faisant renaitre ainsi pour moi le tems

passé doublera pour ainsi dire mon existence. En

dépit des hommes 3e saurai gouter encore 1e charme

de la société et Je vivrai decrepit avec moi dans un

autre age, comme Je vivrois avec un moins vieux ami

(Reveries, Vol. I, p. 1001).
In this 'dédoublement'--both writer and reader--Rousseau at-
tained not only the solitude which he needed to express him-
self clearly and persuasively, as suggested by the statement

in the Confessions of his decision to write and to hide, but

 

also the solace of a sympathetic reader, one who sees him-

self as he does and grants approval.9

9Rousseau's preference for writing as a means of

37

Though this “dédoublement” as writer and reader
occurred only in the last two years of Rousseau's life, the
choice of the epistolary form for La Nouvelle Heloise repre-
sented an earlier stage in the same process. The appeal of
the letters lay in their capacity to provide him not only a
sympathetic reader, but a loving one. For the letters that
were to become La Nouvegge Heloise were originally Rousseau's
imaginary correspondence with the woman of his dreams, not
an attempt to write a formal epistolary novel. To borrow
Carol Blum's apt phrase, Rousseau did not choose to put his
novel into epistolary form but put his letters into novel

form.10 According to Rousseau's account of the early

 

avoiding the gaze of others who pass judgment on him and of
explaining himself to his contemporaries, whether expressed
through his desire for a “conversation par la poste“ or
through his choice of forms which suited him and not public
taste alone, attests to what Robert Ellrich calls the author's
“other-mind problem.“ Ellrich treats Rousseau's principal
works as successive attempts by Rousseau to flee the ever
present reader in order to achieve a more perfect descrip-
tion of himself. No matter what he wrote, Rousseau felt he
was misunderstood. Ellrich demonstrates that each of
Rousseau's ensuing attempts to dispel the misunderstanding
was an effort at substituting the real reader (the reading
public that actually read and at times adversely judged his
works) with an ideal reader (one who would understand and
judge Rousseau as Rousseau himself did). ’
He senses that there exists an “other-mind problem,“ and
that the capacities of the real reader to understand are
limited, but keeps the uncomfortable recognition at bay
through evasive tactics: the nourishment of a fantasy of
a perfect reader, with whom he can enjoy complete soli-
darity; the simple rejection of the unc00perative reader;
and the exclusion of the reader through adoption of a
form in which he cannot be addressed directly.
“Rousseau and his Reader,“ p. #2.

10Carol Blum, “La Nouvelle Heloise: An Act in the
Life of Jean-Jacques Rousseau,“ L'ESprit Créateur, Fall,

1969.

38
develOpment of the novel, he alone was to be the reader of
Julie and Saint Preux's letters, not his reading public.
Rousseau wished to enjoy for himself the fantasy of lovers
who exchange letters. A brief examination of Book IX of the
Confessions11 will reveal that it was Rousseau's attempt at
making real and enjoying the fantasy he created by imagining
himself as both writer and reader that determined the choice
of the epistolary form.

In the spring of 1756, Rousseau went to l'Ermitage
outside Paris, hOping to find there serenity and happiness.
In the idyllic atmosphere of l'Ermitage Rousseau's thoughts
turned immediately to love. However, there was no one he
knew whom he could love nor who could love him precisely in
the total, uncompromising way he desired.

...L'impossibilité d'atteindre aux €tres réels me

jetta dans le pays des chiméres, et ne voyant rien

d'existant qui fut digne de mon délire, je le nour-

ris dans un monde idéal que mon imagination créa-

trice eut bientot peuplé d'etres selon mon coeur

(Confessions, Vol.1, p. 427).
This rather vague “pays des chiméres“ and “monde idéal“
inhabited by “des étres selon [sory coeur“ became in time
more precise as Rousseau became more acquainted, as it were,

with his imagined friends. He pictured two girls, one

blonde and one brunette. Both were attractive, virtuous, and

 

110f. Henri Guillemin, “Les Affaires de l'Ermitage,“
Agggles Jean-chg_es Rousseau, Vol. XXIX, pp. 59- -258 and
Robert Osmont, “Remarques sur la genese de la composition de
La Nouvelle Heloise," Annalee Jean-Jacq_es Rousseau, Vol.
XXXIII, pp. 93-1153 for detailed analyses of the develOp-
ment of La Nouvelle Héloise.

39

the closest of friends. Rousseau then placed himself in the
midst of the two girls by giving one of them a lover who
acted as his alter ego.

Epris de mes deux charmans modéles, je m'identifiois

avec l'amant et l'ami le plus qu'il m'étoit possible;

mais je le fis aimable et jeune, lui donnant au surplus

les vertus et les défauts que je me sentois (Confes-

sions, Vol. I, p. 430).
After having given himself entirely to this fantasy for three
or four months and having elaborated his daydreams (he gave
his imaginary world a specific setting: the little town of
Vevai on the shores of Lake Geneva), Rousseau committed them
to paper. This act represented an effort at actualizing
them. Not only was he visualizing attractive situations for
his imaginary love, but by writing a correSpondence he had
the impression of participating in it.

Ces fictions, a force de revenir prirent enfin plus

de consistance et se fixérent dans mon cerveau sous

une forme déterminée. Ce fut alors que la fantaisie

me prit d'eXprimer sur le papier quelques unes des

situations qu'elles m'offroient, et rappellant tout

ce que j'avois senti dans ma jeunesse, de donner

ainsi l'essor en quelque sorte au désir d'aimer que

je n'avois pu satisfaire, et dont je me sentois

dévoré (Confessions, Vol. I, p. 431).
Identifying himself with “l'ami' as he wrote, Rousseau ex-
perienced actual contact with a remarkable woman. Were not
the letters he could see before him real? Did not they
confirm the existence of the beings he imagined? He had
only to reread them, and the real world disappeared and was
replaced by “des é‘tres selon Csorfl coeur.“

Replacing real societies with imaginary ones was

one of his favorite pastimes:

#0
Je trouve mieux mon compte avec les étres chimeriques
que je rassemble autour de moi qu'avec ceux que je
vois dans le monde, et la société dont mon imagina-

tion fait les frais dans ma retraits acheve de me
degouter de toutes celles que j'ai guittées (Let-

tres g Malesherbes, Vol. I, p. 1131
Letters simply gave an added measure of reality to this

pastime. It is especially noteworthy that Rousseau chose
letters and not a first or third person narration in order
to record his fantasy. “Je jettai d'abord sur le papier
quelques lettres éparses sans suite et sans liaison...“

(C nfes 1 ns, Vol. I, p. #31). The choice seems automatic,
almost instinctive. When Rousseau decided to give form to
his fantasy, writing became an integral part of the fantasy
itself. The characters he depicted not only love one an-
other, but also eXprese that love in writing. However, in
light of the fact that Rousseau considered writing a means
of improving, even idealizing social relationships, the pre-
sence of letters in his ideal society seems quite normal.
Communicating with others through writing reduced hostility
and guilt. These flaws, or anything that might cause them,
were specifically excluded from his imaginary love affair.
“...Je n'admis ni rivalité ni querelles ni jalousie, parce
que tout sentiment pénible me cofite a imaginer, et que je ne
voulois ternir ce riant tableau par rien qui dégradat la
nature“ (Confessions, Vol. I, p. #30). Rousseau equated
inature with goodness, the absence of sin. Because he as-
sociated all physical desire, and especially sexual desire,

with sin and its attendant guilt, letters were a necessary

#1
and convenient way of averting sexual contact and of puri-
fying love while still eXpressing it.

Writing to the woman he loved was a very attractive
situation for Rousseau. “Je me souviens qu'une fois Made de
Luxembourg me parloit en raillant d'un homme qui quittoit ea
maitresse pour lui écrire. Je lui dis que j'aurois bien été
cet homme-la, et j'aurois pfi ajouter que je l'avois été quel-
quefois“ (Confessions, Vol. I, p. 181). Rousseau often felt
inferior in the presence of a woman to whom he was attracted,
and writing was often the only way he could declare himself.
The rich and influential Mme Dupin was one such woman.

31 son maintien réeervé n'attiroit pas beaucoup les
jeunes gens, sa societé d'autant mieux composée
n'en étoit que plus imposante, et le pauvre J. J.
n'avoit pas dequoi se flatter de briller beaucoup
au milieu de tout cela. Je n'osai donc parler, mais
ne pouvant plus me taire j'osai écrire (Confessions,
Vol. I, p. 292).
His initiative in this instance failed. However, letters
played an important part in the one great love affair of
Rousseau's life.

In January of 1757, while still preoccupied with the
letters of La Nouvelle Heloise, Rousseau was visited at
l'Ermitage by the Countess Sophie d'Houdetot. Rousseau was
taken with the young woman and soon became infatuated with
her. He identified her with his Julie.

Elle vint, je la vie, j'étois ivre d'amour sans
objet, cette ivresse fascina mes yeux, cet objet
se fixa sur elle, je vie ma Julie en Made d'Houde-‘
tot, et bientot je ne vie plus que Made d'Houdetot,

mais revétue de toutes les perfections dont je
venois d'orner l'idole de mon coeur (Confessions,

Vol. I, p. ##O).

#2

The shame he felt because of his desire for her made him
insecure in her presence. One of the signs of this inse-
curity was his inability to tell SOphie of his love.

La honte compagne du mal me rendit muet tremblant

devant elle; je n'osois ouvrir la bouche ni lever

les yeux; j'étois dans un trouble ineXprimable

qu'il étoit impossible qu'elle ne vit pas. Je

pris 1e parti de le lui avouer, et de lui en laie-

ser deviner la cause: c'étoit la lui dire assez

clairement (Confessions, Vol. I, p. ##1).
As was the case in most of his amorous relationships (with
Mme de Warens and Mme Basile for example), the woman had to
take the initiative. In this instance, Rousseau left it to
Mme d'Houdetot to deduce that his agitation was the result
of his love for her. And if he could not speak of love to
her, sexual advances were virtually unthinkable. Forced to
sublimate his passion, he began to worship her as a symbol
of virtue that physical possession would destroy. Adherence
to this ideal produced severe emotional and sexual tension.
“...Je ne sentois plus aupres d'elle que l'importunité
d'une vigueur inépuisable et toujours inutile“ (Confes-
sions, Vol. I, p. ##5). Frustrated by his inability to
control the direction of their relationship, Rousseau, even
while on his way to see SOphie, took to writing love letters
in order to vent his turbulent emotions. “Pour me distraire
j'essayois d'écrire avec mon crayon des billets que j'aurois
pu tracer du plus pur de mon sang...“ (Confessions, Vol. I,
pp. ##5-#6). In such letters Rousseau expressed the passion

he dared not voice in her presence. Their purpose was in

part cathartic and therapeutic. Many of the letters were

43
never sent. The writing of his feelings was at times more
important than the actual communication of the message. But
while his letters to SOphie relieved his emotional stress,
they also represented his efforts at becoming the interpre-
ter of the idealistic love he felt their relationship should
symbolize, a love Springing from their mutual devotion to
virtue. They were a means of disavowing his sometimes in-
discreet behavior when alone with her in order to emphasize
the moral excellence of his principles.

...Si je n 'ai pu contenir de meme mes discours, mes
regards, mes ardens desires, de quoi peux-tu m' ac-
cuser ei ce n 'est de m' etre engage pour te plaire ‘
a plus que la force humaine ne peut tenir? Sophie,
j' aimai trente ans la vertu. Ah! crois-tu que
j'aye déja 1e coeur endurci au crime? Non, mes
remords égalent mes transports; c‘est tout dire.
Mais pourquoi ce coeur se livroit- i1 aux légeres
faveurs que tu daignois m 'accorder, tandis que

son murmurs effrayant me détournoit si fortement
d'un attentat plus téméraire? Tu le sais, toi qui
vis mes égaremens, si meme alors, ta personne me
fut sacrée! Jamais mes ardens desires, jamais mes
tendres supplications n' osérent un instant sol-
iciter 1e bonheur supreme que je ne me sentisse
arreté par les cris intérieurs d'une ame épou-
vantée. Cette voix terrible qui ne trompe point
me faisoit frémir a la seule idée de souiller de
parjure et d'infidélité celle que j'aime, celle
que je voudrois voir aussi parfaite que 1' image
que j' on porte au fond de mon coeur, celle qui
doit m'etre inviolable a tent de titres. J'aurois
donné l'univers pour un moment de félicité: mais
t'avilir, Sophie! ah, non, il n'est pas possible,
et quand j'en serois le maitre, je t'aime trOp
pour te posseder jamais.12

In effect, Rousseau created through his letters a

love based on good intentions. Whereas these honorable

 

12Jean-Jacquee Rousseau, Correspondance complete
ed. R. A. Leigh (Geneva: Institut et Musée Voltaire, 1967),

Vol. IV, p. 277.

##

intentions expressed the essential goodness of his character,
his speech and actions, for which he felt guilt, were more
accidents. They reflected extremely difficult circum-
stances which were not indicative of his true nature.
Through letters Rousseau elevated himself to the same pedes-
tal of virtue upon which he had placed SOphie. Unable to
succeed sexually, he tried to dominate her morally and in-
tellectually. These efforts were particularly evident in
the series of six Lettres Morales which Rousseau wrote to
Saphie and hOped some day to publish with her permission.
These letters constituted, as their title suggests, moral
lessons with Rousseau as teacher.

...C' est maintenant mon tour, 0 Sephie, c 'est a

moi de vous rendre 1e prix de vos soins, puisque

vous avez conservé mon ame aux vertus qui vous

sont chéres, je veux pénétrer le votre de celles

qui lui sont peut etre encore inconnuee. Que je

m 'estime heureux de n 'avoir jamais prostitué ma

plume ni ma bouche au mensongs, je m' en sens moins

indigne d'etre aujourd' hui pres de vous l' organe

de la vérité (Lettres Morales, Vol. IV, p. 1081).
This last sentence reflects the great extent to which Rous-
seau depended upon his abilities as a writer to assist him
in.courting Mme d'Houdetot. Writing to SOphie became such
(an.integral part of his relationship with her that he con-
sidered his letters to be the sole convincing testimony to
the sublimity of his love for her. When in the late sum-
:mer of 1757 Mme d'Houdetot, upon the return of Saint-
ILambert from the army, requested that Rousseau return her
‘letters to her and destroyed the letters she received from

him, Rousseau felt that the very existence of his love was

negated.

#5
Elle me redemanda ses lettres; je les lui rendis
toutes avec une fidélité dont elle me fit l'injure
de douter un moment....Elle ne pouvoit retirer
ses lettres sans me rendre les miennee. Elle me
dit qu'elle les avoit brulées; j'en osai douter a
mon tour, et j'avoue que j'en doute encore [1770].
Non l'on ne met point an feu de pareilles lettres.
On a trouvé brulantes celles de la Julie. Eh Dieu!
qu'auroit-on donc dit de celles-la? Non, non,
jamais celle qui peut inepirer une pareille pas-
sion n'aura le courage d'en bruler les preuves....
Si ces lettres sont encore en etre, et qu'un jour
elles soient vues, on connoitra comment j'ai aimé
(Confessions, Vol. I, pp. #63-6#).

The factors which governed the choice of the epis-
tolary form of La Nouvelle Heloise were more personal than
literary (essentially, the important role of writing in al-
leviating Rousseau's problems in dealing with society and
the genesis of La Nouvelle Heloise from a very private fan-
tasy enjoyed through the use of letters). Literary consi-
derations were a troublesome afterthought, the original pur-
pose of the letters being to simulate an intimate personal
relationship with “des étres selon tsora coeur.“ Rousseau
experienced great difficulty in logically arranging the let-
ters of Parts I and II. “...Lorsque je m'avieai de les
vouloir coudre j'y fus souvent fort embarraseé” (Confes-
sions, Vol. I, p. #31). The personal nature of his choice
resulted in a marked penchant on the part of Julie and
Saint Preux for the written word in expressing their love,
a penchant reflected in the serious infractions of the
epistolary convention of distance.

“...Employons a nous écrire,“ writes Julie, “les
momens que nous ne pouvons passer a nous voir“ (La Nouvelle

Héloise, Vol. II, p. 52). Julie makes an important

#6

distinction here on the manner in which she and Saint Preux
spend their time together in the home of her parents at
Vevai. There is a time for eXpressing themselves verbally
and a time for being together. The distinction implies more
than an economy of time, and writing is more than a supple-
ment for conversation. They seem to reserve their corres-
pondence for the eXpression of their personal feelings, their
inner being. Saint Preux, while traveling in his native
country, writes to Julie:

Je ne vous ferai point ici un détail de mon voyage

et de mes remarques; j'en ai fait une relation que

je compte vous porter. Il faut reserver notre

correspondence pour les choses qui nous touchent

de plus pres l'un et l'autre. Je me contenterai

de vous parler de la situation de mon ame: il est

juste de vous rendre compte de l'usage qu'on fait
de votre bien (La Nouvelle Heloise, Vol. II, p.

76).
Little mention is made throughout La Nouvelle Heloise of
conversations in which Julie and Saint Preux discuss inti-
mate matters.13 In their moments together they seem sin-
gularly taciturn on the subject of their love. The letter
which Saint Preux writes to Julie immediately after their
“nuit d'amour“ reveals how infrequent were their words
when alone together.

Bend-moi cette étroitte union des ames, que tu

m'avois annoncée et que tu m'as si bien fait

gouter. Bend-moi cet abbatement si doux rempli

par les effusions de nos coeurs; rend-moi ce

sounneil enchanteur trouvé sur ton sein; rend-
moi ce réveilplus délicieux encore, et ces

 

130ne notable exception is found in Part IV, Letter
XVII. Saint Preux describes to Milord Edouard a trip to
Meillerie during which he speaks of his love to Julie.

47

soupirs entrecoupés, et ces douces larmes, et

ces baisere qu'une voluptueuse langueur nous faisoit
lentement savourer, et ces gemissemens si tendres,
durant lesquels tu pressois sur ton coeur ce coeur
fait Sour s'unir s lui (La Nouvelle Héloiee, Vol. II,

p. 1#

The absence of epeech at such a sensitive moment is under-
standable; words are superfluous. Yet even though Julie is
quite aware of what transpired during the meeting in ques-
tion and Saint Preux sees her frequently enough to inform

her of the feelings this “union des ames“ inspired in him,

he communicates his experience in writing. His purpose seems
to be more than the communication of his impressions of their
mutual experience. His letter here is a means of transcend-
ing the physical limitations of time. In his poetic re-
frain, “rend-moi,“ he attempts to renew and prolong, for
himself and Julie, an exquisite but evanescent experience.

In another letter that describes an event at which
both were present, Saint Preux clearly tries to recreate an

ephemeral experience, in this case the kiss given him by

Julie in the “bosquet.”

hais que devins-je...quand je sentis.....la main
me tremble......un doux frémiesement......ta bouche
de roses........la bouche de Julie.....se poser,

se presser sur la mienne, et mon corps serré dans
tee bras? Non, 1e feu du ciel n'est pas plus vif
ni plus prompt que celui qui vint a l'instant
m'embraser. Toutes les parties de moi meme se
rassemblerent sous ce toucher délicieux. Le feu
s'exhaloit avec nos soupirs de nos levres bru-
lantes, et mon coeur se mouroit sous le poids de
‘la volupté....quand tout a coup je te vie palir,
fermer’tes beaux yeux, t'apuyer sur ta cousine,

let tomber en défaillance. Ainsi la frayeur éteignit
le plaisir, et mon bonheur ne fut qu'un éclair

(La Nouvelle Heloise, Vol. II, pp. 6#-65).

#8

The breathless tension of the situation is reflected in

the short fragmented sentences. Every moment of the epi-

sode is described so that sentiments left unSpoken at the

time are placed into their context. Both for Julie and

Saint Preux, the written account of this eXperience acts

as a limited but real compensation for a lost moment of

happiness.
Besides being a method of recapturing past eXperi-

ences, writing becomes a substitute for actual contact be-

tween Julie and Saint Preux. Julie confesses to a compul-

sion to devote every free moment of solitude to correSpon-

dence with her lover.

Mon ami je sens que je m'attache a vous chaque

jour davantage; je ne puis plus me séparer de
vous, la moindre absence m'eet insupportable,

et il faut que je vous voye ou que je vous écrive,
afin de m'occuper de vous sans cesse (La Nouvellg

Heloise, Vol. II, p. 54).
With the aid of imagination, writing letters is a means of

summoning her absent lover. This is precisely the purpose

of Saint Preux's letter to Julie which he writes in her
room in order to relieve the anguish of solitude (Part I ,

Letter LIV), unquestionably the most unconventional and
unrealistic letter of the entire novel. Alone for the

first time in Julie's room, excited by these unusual and

suggestive surroundings, Saint Preux needs an outlet for

his emotions. The act of writing functions as this safety

valve. Though Julie is soon to arrive, he cannot seem to

resist immediately addressing his feelings to Julie on paper.

 

“9

Quel bonheur d'avoir trouvé de l'encre et du papier!
J'exprime ce que je sens pour en tempérsr l'exces,
is donne ls change a mes transports en les décrivant

La Nouvelle Heloise, Vol. II, p. 1#7).

Referring to this particular passage, Robert Ellrich
observes that for Saint Preux writing is an auto-erotic act.“+
“Donner le change a la nature,“ notes Ellrich, was the eigh-
teenth century euphemism for masturbation. Indeed, some of
Saint Preux's remarks in this letter indicate that he is
engaging in an auto-erotic fantasy. At one point, his ima-
gination runs rampant at the sight of Julie's clothes.

Toutes les garties de ton habillement éparses

présentent mon ardente imagination celles de

toi-meme qu'ellss recellent.... Cet heureux

fichu contre lsquel une fois au moins js n'aurai

point a murmurer;...ces mules si mignonnes qu'un

pied souple remplit sans psine; ce corps si délié

qui touche et embrasse.....quslle taille enchan-

terssss.....au devant deux legers contours......

o spectacle de volupté....la baleine a cedé a la

force ds l'impression.....empreintes délicieuses,

que je vous baise mille foisl....Dieux! Dieux!

que sera-ce quand........Ah, je crois déja sentir

cs tendre coeur battre sous une heureuse main

(La Nouvelle Réloise, Vol. II, p. 1#7)!
Saint Preux seems to be writing his sentiments almost auto-
matically. He does not put aside his pen until after Julie
appears. This incredible letter is an example of Julie and
Saint Preux's need to express their feelings in letters
carried to a state of obsession.

Such exaggerated uses of correspondence cannot be

simply dismissed as aberrations of the epistolary form.

Certainly, they remain serious infractions of conventional

g

luEllrich, “Rousseau and his Reader,“ p. 21.

50
epistolary form and diminish the verisimilitude of the

novel. Jean-Louis Lecercle argues that these irregularities
in the epistolary situation are due primarily to the inherent

rigors of the epistolary form.15 The writer must narrate

a story to his reader at the same time as one character

writes to another. The reasons Rousseau offers as justi-

fication for these technical errors (such as the statement

in Letter LIV of Part I: “Je donne le change a mes trans-
ports en les décrivant“) are unconvincing. They seem to

draw only more attention to the improbability of the situa-

However, inasmuch as these faults in the epistolary

tion.
conventions are accountable in large part to Julie and Saint

Preux's affinity for the written word, and the result of a

similar affinity for writing on Rousseau's part, the causes

which determine the infractions in the convention of distance

govern the function of all Julie and Saint Preux's letters
As revealed in their strikingly un-

throughout the novel.
conventional uses of letters, Julie and Saint Preux do not

corrsSpond simply because they are apart and wish to convey

information. They write to fulfill an emotional need. If
Julie and Saint Preux write even when they could speak, it

.15 because they need to be separated in order to express

The distance implicit in correSpondence is

their love.
self- imposed; it is internal rather than external.

81 J 'ose former des voeux extremes ce n'est plus
qu'en votre absence; mes desire n'osant aller

15Lscsrcle, Rousseau st l'art du roman, p. 126.

51
jusqu'a vous s 'addressent s votre image, et c'est

Bur elle que je me venge du respect que je. suis
contraint de vous porter (La Nouvelle Héloi____§_e, Vol.

11.131). 53-510.
Saint Preux's words convey Rousseau's ideal conditions for
self-expression: hiding and writing. Apart from Julie,
Saint Preux need not dwell upon the sinfulness of his desires,
desires he must usually mask by reSpect; and he may address

himself, as in a letter, to an imagined, idealized Julie who
responds favorably to his desires. The need to imagine a
more compliant Julie resembles Rousseau's own need to create
an ideal reader. Just as Rousseau's life represents a long
search for perfect self-eXpression in writing, so the story
of Julie and Saint Preux's love is inseparable from the

drama of their efforts at expressing that love.

CHAPTER'II

THE FUNCTION OF THE EPISTOLARY FORM
IN LA NOUVELLE HELOISE

In Speaking of Les Liaisons Daggereuses, Tzvstan

Todorov states: “...The letter here is more than a more tech-
nique, it figures as an important element of the world that
is evoked. The best proof of this is that one cannot even
give an account of the plot without mentioning these letters...
All of the important turning points in the plot can be said
to be bound to the verbal phenomenon of the letter.”1 The
same may be said about the letters of La Nouvelle HéloTse.
The epistolary situation constitutes an important element of
the fictional situation. Variations in the correspondence
of Julie and Saint Preux follow the vicissitudes of their
love affair. Throughout the novel, their letters are a
'mgd2§_gmagd_. Although the letters of Parts II through VI,
As William Mead has observedz, do not resemble real letters
as much as those of Part I, their meaning in the novel is

not dependent primarily upon epistolary verisimilitude.

 

Ilzvetan Todorov, “The Discovery of Language:

Egg Eigisgns Daggereuses and Adol he,“ Yale French Studies,
No. 5, 1970, p. 115.

# ZJean-Jacgues Rousseau ou le romancier enchafné,
p. 5 -

 

52

53

The letters of La Nouvelle Heloise function within
the story itself in terms of the connotation which Rousseau
gives to the act of writing in general and to letter writing
in.particular, a connotation apart from the meaning of the
written words themselves: being able to separate himself
from the judging gaze of others and to remain in contact
with others at the same time. From the very first line of
his initial letter to Julie, Saint Preux is conscious of the
necessity of separation: “11 faut vous fuir, Mademoiselle.'
The need for separation arises from Saint Preux's respect
for Julie's high moral character; for although his letter
is an avowal of love which constitutes an increase in inti-
macy over their relationship as tutor and pupil, it is her
virtuous behavior more than her physical beauty which at-
tracts him. Saint Preux writes in the same letter:

Non, belle Julie; vos attraits avoient ébloui mes
yeux, jamais ils n 'eussent égaré mon coeur, sans
l'attrait plus puissant qui les anime. C'est cette
union touchsnte d'une sensibilité s1 vive st d'une
inaltérabls douceur,c c'est cette pitié si tendre

a tous les maux d'autrui, c'est cet esprit juste
et ce gout exquis qui tirent leur pureté de cells
do l'ame, cs sont, en un mot, les charmes des sen-
timens bien plus que ceux de la personne, que j'a-
dore en vous. Je consene qu'on vous puisse imagi-
ner plus belle encore; mais plus aimable et plus

digne du coeur d'un honnete homme, ngn Julie, il
n'est pas possible (L Nouvelle Heloise, Vol. II,

p. 32).
(Since virtue is the source of Julie's charm, Saint Preux

finds himself in a serious predicament. Any surrender to
the desire for physical love compromises the virtuous

qualities upon which love is dependent; and, by the same

5#
token, any excessive adherence to the precepts of virtue
excludes all sexual satisfaction. The danger of sharing a
relationship under these conditions is exemplified later in
the novel (Part I, Letter XXIX) when Julie surrenders her
virginity to Saint Preux. Julie, who for her part is at-
tracted to Saint Preux by his commitment to moral rectitude,
grants him this favor out of admiration and pity for his
I respectful continence.
Cent fois mes yeux furent témoins de ses combats
et de sa victoire; les siens étincelloient du
feu de ses desire, il s'élancoit vsrs moi dans
l'impétuosité d'un tranSport aveugle; il s'ar-
retoit tout a coup; une barriers insurmontable
sembloit m'avoir entourée, et jamais son amour
impétueux mais honnete ne l'eut franchie... .
Je la vie dans dee agitations convulsives, pret

a s'évanouir a mes pieds. Peut-étre l'amour seul
m'auroit épargnée; 0 ma Cousins c'est la pitié

qui me perdit (Lg Nouvelle Heloise, Vol. II, p. 96).

Virtue and love seem so inseparable that their basic incom-
patibility is obscured. Julie deceives herself by presuming
them to be identical. “Il sembloit que ma passion funests
vouloit se couvrir pour me séduire du masque de toutes les
vertus“ (La Nouvelle Heloise, Vol. II, p. 96). The result
of her error is shame, remorse, and the jeOpardy of both
love and virtue. Saint Preux's first letter represents an
attempt at resolving this dilemma.

For Saint Preux, who neither wishes to leave nor
offend Julie by a face-to-face avowal of his feelings, a
letter permits him to achieve a respectful distance and to
convey his heretofore unspoken love. His letter draws him

away from Julie so that he may communicate with her more

55

intimately than before and is thus a more effective stra-
tagem. The reverential indirectness of Saint Preux's means
of approach invites Julie to commit herself. Saint Preux
asks her to decide his fate. She must permit him to stay
with full cognizance of his true sentiments or banish him.

Si la commiseration naturelle aux ames bien nées

peut vous attendrir sur les peines d'un infortuné

auquel vous avez témoigné quelque estime, de

legers changemens dans votre conduits rendront ea

situation moins violente, et lui feront supporter

plus paisiblement et son silence et ses maux: si

sa retsnue et son état ne vous touchent pas, et

que vous vouliez user du droit de le perdre, vous
ls pouvez sans qu'il en murmure...(La Nouvelle

Hélolse, Vol. II, p. 34).
In writing to Julie, Saint Preux has established a pattern

in dealing with the problem of love and virtue. For through-
out the novsl, letters serve to relieve the anguishing ef-
fects of the dilemma upon the lovers as they endeavor to
resolve it. In this function the letters exchanged by
Julie and Saint Preux reflect every major develOpment in
their affair. The Opening letter announces the novel's
first crisis: the confession of love. With each ensuing
crisis, there occurs a concomitant modification in the role
of their correspondence. It is these modifications in the
epistolary form of Lg Nguvelle Heloise and their signifi-
cance with respect to the story of Julie and Saint Preux
that will now be examined.

In the period immediately following Julie's re-
sponse to Saint Preux's amorous overtures (Part I, Letters

V through XIII), the function of their letters resembles that

56

cf the first letter. Their correspondence is a means of
eXplcring each other's feelings and intentions while pre-
serving a distance conducive to prOper conduct. Most of
their comments deal with the joys and difficulties which
result from the delicate balance of love and virtue.

Que je la relies mills fois, cette lettrs adorable

ch ton amour et tes sentimens sont écrits en

caractéres de feu; oh malgré tout l'emportement

d'un coeur agité, je vois avec transport combien

dans une ame honnete les passions les plus vives
ardent encore 1e saint caractére de la vertu

Lg Nogvelle Heloise, Vol. II, pp. #1-#2).

Saint Preux, however, feels unfulfilled even in the know-
ledge that Julie respects and loves him.

Quels sont, belle Julie, les bizarres caprices de

l'amour? Mon coeur a plus qu'il n'esperoit, st

n'est pas content. Vous m'aimez, vous me le dites,

et je soupirs. Ce coeur injuste ose desirer encore,

quand il n'a plus rien e desirer; 11 me punit de

ses fantaisies, et me rend inquiet au sein du bon-

heur (Lg Nouvelle Heloise, Vol. II, p. #7).
In response to her lover's complaint and as a reward for his
patient continence, Julie allows him a kiss (Part I, Letter
XIV). But because their kiss dangerously arouses their pas-
sion, Julie requests that Saint Preux absent himself for a
time from Vevai. With his departure, their correspondence
no longer serves primarily to divide the lovers, but to
unite them. Apart, less concerned with an immediate threat
to their morals, Julie and especially Saint Preux give vent
to their passion in their correspondence. They now depend
almost entirely upon their letters as a substitute for the

°nJOyment of being together.

57

Returning to his own country to attend to personal
business as Julie suggested he do, Saint Preux discovers that
when he is far from Julie he obtains great pleasure by ima-
gining himself on much more intimate terms with her than
he ever was when still at Vevai. The restraint he was ob-
liged to maintain with Julie is forgotten, and his letters
become more audacious.

Gui, cruelle, guoique vous ayez su faire, vous

n'avez pu me e parer de vous tout entier. Je

n'ai trains dans mon exil que la moindre partie

de moi-meme: tout ce qu'il y a de vivant en moi

demeure aupres de vous sans cesse. Il erre im-

punément sur vos charmes; il pénstre par tout comme

une vapeur subtile, et je suis plus heureux en

dépit de vous, que je ne fus jamais de votre gré...

Je ne suis point a plaindre dans la solitude,

ch je puis m'oecuper de vous et me tgansportsr aux

lieux cu vous etes (La Nouvelle Héloiee, Vol. II,

p. 69).
The vicarious pleasure that Saint Preux receives from these
fantasies derives in large part from the knowledge that he
is able to share them with Julie through his letters.3 This
pleasure is described in a letter written from the snow-
covered mountain country around Meillerie where Saint Preux
establishes himself while awaiting Julie's permission to
return. The area is located directly across Lake Geneva
from Julie's home at Vevai. There, looking through a tele-
sccpe at Vevai and what he believes to be Julie's house,

Saint Preux devotes all his time to imagining all the events

 

3It probably derives as well from the sexual release
they provide. Later in the story, Julie warns Saint Preux
against the habit of masturbation (“voluptés solitaires“)
hiwhich he has admittedly indulged (Part III, Letter XV).

58
taking place there. He has brought pen and paper in order
to communicate his fantasies to Julie. He writes:

C'est de la qu'a travers les airs et les murs,

il ose en secret pénétrer jusques dans ta-chambre.
Tes traits charmans le frapent encore; tee re-
gards tendres raniment son coeur mourant; i1
entend ls son de ta douce voix; il ose chercher
encore en tee bras ce délire qu'il éprouva dans
le bcsquet. Vain fant5me d'une ame agitée qui
s'égare dans ses désirs! Bientot forcé de rentrsr
en moi-meme, je te contemple au moins dans le
detail de ton innocents vie; je suis de loin les
diverses occupations de ta journée, et je me les
réprésente dans les tems et les lieux oh j'en fus
quelquefois l'heureux témoin (La Nouvelle Heloise,
Vol. II, p. 91).

One of the “diverses occupations“ that Saint Preux most
enjoys to imagine is Julie reading his letters and writing
to him.
Quelques momens, ah pardonne! j'ose te voir meme
t'occuper de moi; je vois tee yeux attendris par-
courir une de mes Lettres; je lie dans leur douce

langueur que c'est a ton amant fortuné que s'ad-
dressent les lignes que tu traces...(La Nouvelle

Hgloise, Vol. II, p. 91).
Separated from Julie for the first time by a great physical

distance, Saint Preux becomes more aware of the inherent
capacity of letters to overcome separation. The same means
of communication that he once considered an instrument of
virtuous isolation while in Julie's company at Vevai, he
now sees as his only real link with Julie, one which enables
them to share the thoughts, feelings, and fantasies that
constitute the whole of their love for as long as they are
apart. If in his solitude Saint Preux's only comfort is the
increasingly passionate visions he has of Julie, the letters
in which he expresses them ensure that Julie directs her

thoughts to him as she reads and answers them.

59

The reassurances and satisfaction that letter
writing affords Saint Preux during his absence is unfor-
tunately temporary. Correspondence is also a persistent
reminder of their separation. They may share their feel-
ings through letters, but the fruit of repeated reflection
upon their love while apart is frustration. “Je 1e sens,
mon ami, ls poids ds l'absence m'accable. Je ne puis vivre
sans tci, js ls sens; c'est cs qui m'effraye ls plus“ (Lg
NggvelLs Héloiss, Vol. II, p. 88). They try to vent their
frustration in their correspondence by increasingly passion-
ate outbursts. Saint Prsux advocates total physical posses-
sion and describes Julie's virtues as delirium. “...Je suis
capable de tout, hors de renoncer a toi, et 11 n'y a rien,
non rien que je ne fasse pour ts posséder ou mourir... L'en-
thcusiasme ds l'honnéteté t'6te 1a raison, et ta vertu n'est
plus qu'un délire“ (La Nouvelle Heloise, Vol. II, p. 92).
Separation gives them a false sense of security from the
evils of physical possession. Julie perceives this danger
of prolonged separation: “C'est au milieu du sommeil, c'est
dans le sein d'un doux rspos qu'il faut se défisr des sur-
prises: mais c'est, sur tout, la continuité des maux qui
rend leur poids insupportable, st l'ame resists bien plus
aissment aux vives doulsurs qu'a la tristesss prolongée“ (Lg
Nggvells Hgloise, Vol. II, p. 87). But upon Saint Preux's
return.to Vevai, they succumb to desire (Part I, Letter XXIX)
and fulfill in reality the passion they expressed more and

more unrestrainedly in their letters.

60
But what they believed would be the supreme pleasure

of sexual union soon transforms itself into a sense of loss.
In giving themselves over entirely to passion without con-
cern for the virtue that both cherish, Julie and Saint Preux
destroy the precious balance of love and virtue sustained up
until this point by their correspondence. And apprOpriately
enough the first sign of this imbalance between love and
virtue appears in their scrrespondence. Julie, far more
sensitive to the loss of virtue than her lover, notices im-
mediately the transformation in the tone of their letters.

11 fut un tems, mon aimable ami, oh nos Lettres

étoient faciles et charmantss; ls sentiment qui

les dictoit couloit avec une élegante simplicité;

il n'avoit besoin ni d'art ni de colorie, et ea

pursté faisoit touts sa parure. Cet heureux tsms

'n'est plus: hélas! il ne peut revenir; et pour

premier effet d'un changement si cruel, nos coeurs

ont déja cesse de 8 'entsndre (La Nouvelle Heloise,

Vol. II, p. 102).
An example of the contrivance that has replaced the straight-
forward expression of sentiment is a letter in which Saint
Preux prcposes that Julie now devote herself completely to
love rather than mourn her virtue. She is now committed
to him, he says, and should remain faithful to that commit-
ment. V

veuillez etre a moi, tu n' es plus coupable.

0 mon spouse! 0 ma digne et chaste compagne!

ogloire st bonheur de ma vie! non cs n 'est point
as qu'a fait ton amour qui peut etre un crime

mais ce que tu lui voudrois 6ter: cs n'est qu'en
acceptant un autre époux que tu peux offenser

l'homneur (Lg NouveLLe Heloise, Vol. II, p. 101).
Julie views this attitude as a vain attempt at absolving their

guilt. Saint Preux's letters have become sophistical. The

61

honor of which he speaks has been transformed by his convo-
lutsd reasoning from that of sexual purity to the honor of
total physical commitment to him. Julie too, despite her
regret over the loss of her innocence, writes in order to
justify the triumph of passion. She views love as inevi-
table and all-consuming.

Js vois, mon ami, par la trempe de nos ames et par

le tour commun de nos gouts, que 1' amour sera la

grands affairs de notre vie. Quand une fois il a

fait les impressions profondes que nous en avons

recues, i1 faut qu' il éteigns ou absorbs toutes les

autres passions; 1e moindre refroidissement seroit

bient6t pour nous la langueur de la mort; un dé-

gout invincible, un éternel ennui, succederoient

a l'amour éteint, et nous ne saurianslongtems vivre

aprss avoir cessé d'aimer. En mon particulier,

tu sens bien qu'il n'y a que le delirs de la pas-

sion qui puisse me voiler l'horreur de ma situation

presents, et qu'il faut que j' aims avec traneport,

cu que je msure de douleur (La Nouvelle THéloise,

Vol. II, p. 109).
They have ceased to understand one another as before because
their letters speak now only the artificial language of pas-
sion and no longer the simple language of the heart. Their
letters have become an instrument of aberration in their
relationship. They no longer serve virtue, and the love
originally based on mutual respect is perverted.

Thus in the third stage of Julie and Saint Preux's
affair (Part I, Letters XXXII to LII), their correspondence
assists them in the pursuit of further physical intimacy.
‘Decsncy, honor, and a devotion to virtuous principles are
still the subject of many of these letters, but these qua-
lities do not preclude the desire for sensual pleasures.

Rather, they enhance it. Julie writes:

62

Le veritable amour toujours modeste n'arrachs

point see faveurs avec audace; il les dérobe

avec timidité. Le mistere, le silence, la honte

craintive aiguisent st cachsnt ses doux traneports;

ea flame honors st purifie toutes see caresses;

la décence et P honneteté 1' accompagnent au sein

de la volupté meme, et lui seul sait tout ac-

ccrder aux désirs sans rien 6ter a la pudeur

(La Nouvelle Heloise, Vol. II, p. 138).
Since the lovers have now experienced sexual fulfillment,
letters are no longer satisfactory substitutes. Although
they still enjoy exchanging letters, they write mainly out
of necessity. The primary purpose of their letters is to
plan.private encounters. Saint Preux has relinquished his
position as Julie's preceptor (Letter XXXII) and has avoided
frequent public visits to Julie in order not to arouse sus-
picion of their affair. Seven of the twenty letters indi-
cated above deal at least in part with a prcposed rendez-
vous. Letters no longer provide pleasure in and for them-
selves. Words seem irrelevant. For example, when Julie
tries to calm Saint Preux's impatient ardor, he replies:
“...Js te dirai encore, ma jolie préchsuse, qu'il est in-
utils de vouloir donner 1e change a mes droits, et qu'un
amour affamé ne se nourrit point de sermons“(La NouvelLe
Hglcise, Vol. II, p. 126). The silent, passionate embrace,
that moment of ecstasy which renders all other pursuits un-
important are the only language that Julie and Saint Preux
now understand.

After the clandestine rendezvous of the lovers in

Julie's room has taken place (Part I, Letter LV), letters

once again assume great importance in their relationship.

63

Julie and Saint Preux discover that a virtuous “amitié'
offers them more sustained happiness than sexual intimacy.

J'ai pris pour toi des sentimens plus paisibles, il

est vrai, mais plus affectueux et de plus de diffé-

rsntes especes; sans s'affoiblir ils se sont multi-

pliés; les douceurs de l'amitié tempérsnt les em-

portemene de l'amour, et j'imagine s psine quelque

sorte d'attachsment qui ne m'unisse pas a toi (La

Nouvelle Heloise, Vol. II, p. 1#9).
This amitié increases in significance as their relationship
progresses. Compared to passionate love, the tender, less
turbulent “amitfiF offers hOpe rather than deepair. “Amitié'
is based on sentiment, not sensuality. It aspires to per-
fect love, sufficient unto itself. When Julie and Saint
Preux are obliged to separate once again after the Baron
d'Etange learns of their mutual affection, their letters
become the only means by which they exchange the sentiments
of the heart which constitute the charm of their new
“amitié! But not only are their letters a means of preserv-
ing and enjoying their love, they also symbolize the commit-
ment to virtue and to social duties implicit in their deci-
sion to part company. For Saint Preux's decision to depart
at Julie's request is an extension of his original choice of
letters in declaring his love. Once again their letters
represent a movement toward virtuous distance and toward
intimate communion in love.

The adjustment from a period of personal intimacy

to one of separation is difficult. As in previous moments

of crisis, there occurs in adjusting to the new situation a

similar crisis in the composition of letters. In the

6#
Opening lines of his very first letter to Julie after his
departure (Part II, Letter I), Saint Preux states that he
feels awkward in writing.
J'ai pris et quitté cent fois la plume; j'hésite
dss le premier mot; je ne sais quel ton je dois
prendre; je ne sais par cu commencer; st c'est e
Julie que je vsux écrire! Ah malheureux! que
suis-je devenu? Il n'est donc plus cs tems oh
mills sentimens délicieux couloient de ma plume
comme un intarissable torrent! Ces doux momens de
confiance et d'épanchement sont passés: Nous ne
sgmmes plus l'un e l'autre, nous ne sommes plus les
memes, et je ne sais plus a qui j'écris. Daigne-
rsz-vous recevoir mes Lettres? vos yeux daigneront-
ils les parcourir? les trouverez-vous assés reser-
vées, assés circonspectes? Oserois-je y garder
encore une ancienne familiarité? Oserois-je par-

ler d'un amour éteint ou méprisé, et ne suis-je pas
plus reculé que le premier jour oh je vous écri-

vis (La Nouvelle Héloise, Vol. II, p. 189)?
Saint Preux's difficulty in finding prcper words with which

to address Julie is a sign that their relationship has re-
gressed. All that has occurred between him and Julie since
his first letter seems to have been obliterated. Saint
Preux, compelled to adept an attitude of great reserve to-
ward Julie by her request to leave, feels as he did on the
first day he wrote to her--insecure and aware that in defer-
ence to her virtue and despite his attraction to her he must
separate himself from her. Saint Preux realizes that he must
discover a way to pay homage to Julie's virtue and to
achieve some satisfaction in his love for her. The key to
this discovery lies in the notion of “amitié,“ various as-
pects of which Saint Preux calls to mind as he overcomes his
temporary verbal uncertainty.

Viens image adorée, remplir un coeur qui ne vit
que par tci: sui-moi dans mon exil, console-moi

65

dans mes peines, ranime st soutien mon espérance

éteinte. Toujours cs coeur infortuné sera ton

sanctuaire inviolable, d'ob 1e sort ni les hommes

ne pourront jamais t'arracher. Si je suis mort

au bonheur, je ne le suis point a l'amour qui m'en

rend digne. Cet amour est invincible comme le charme

qui l'a fait naitre. Il est fonds sur la base

inebranlable du mérite et des vertus; il ne peut

périr dans une ame immortelle; il n'a plus besoin

de l'appui de l'espérance, st le passé lui donne

des forces pour un avenir éternel (La Nouvelle

Heloise, Vol. II, p. 190).
Saint Preux takes solace in the spiritual and sentimental
values of their love. His statement that he is dead to
happiness echoes his feeling after the night he spent with
Julie that sexual pleasures would only decline in the future.
His vocabulary emphasizes love's spirituality: “image,“
“coeur,“ “merits,“ “vertus,“ and “ame.“ Though it is only
an image of Julie that Saint Preux summons for consolation
in his solitude, his heart and his soul are made full by
that image. Her real presence no longer seems necessary for
him to experience love. The principle of love based on
virtue, temporarily obscured by their quest for physical
gratification, assumes renewed importance. The sensual as-
pect of love is not disavowed; Saint Preux simply recognizes
its limitations. Though the absent Saint Preux is no lon-
ger able to renew sexual relations with Julie, their one
moment of supreme passionate fulfillment lives in his memory,
always present to nourish and lend meaning to his spiritu-
alized love. “...Ls passé lui donne des forces pour un
avenir étsrnel.“ With the realization that all satisfaction

must be spiritual in nature, Saint Preux finds the eloquence

66
he previously had in his letters. Expressing in writing the
feelings that constitute this spiritual love and sharing
them with Julie become a manner of achieving such satisfac-
tion. The enjoyment of their love through correspondence
implies both separation and contact. Whereas the separative
character of the letter was at one time emphasized over its
unifying character (in Saint Preux's initial letter to
Julie) and vice versa (when Saint Preux was at Heillerie),
each now assumes equal importance.

With the separative and unifying prcperties of the
letter in balance, the letter attains its full potential as
a means for Julie and Saint Preux to pursue their love. In
this fourth stage of their relationship (Part II, Letter I
to Part III, Letter XX), letters are in a very real sense a
means of making love at a distance. They provide Julie and
Saint Preux a convenient middle ground which permits them to
reveal themselves to each other, to experience true contact
despite their separation, while ensuring that this contact
remains in conformity with their spiritual love, their “ami-
ti‘.“ In offering this middle ground the letter functions
as a mirror. Saint Preux sees reflected in Julie's letters
her thoughts, hepes, love, and, with the help of his imagi-
nation, her very person.

J'ai recu ta lettrs avec les memes transports
que m 'auroit causés ta presence, et dans l'em-

portement de ma joys un vain papier me tenoit
lieu de toi.
an;tonne'as'n'garaamoien'...‘1...... tes
lettres? Comment pr6ter un ton si touchent st

67

des sentimens s1 tendres a une autre figure que
la tienne? A chaque phrase ne voit-on pas le
doux regard de tes yeux? A chaque mot n'entend-
on pas ta voix charmante? Quells autre que Julie
a jamais aime, pensé, parlé, agi, écrit comme
elle? Ne sois done pas surprise si tes lettres
qui te pgignent si bien.font quelquefois sur

ton idolatre amant 1e meme effet que ta presence.
En les relisant je perds la raison, ma tste
s'égare dans un delirs continuel, un fsu dévorant
me consume, mon sang s'allume et petills, une
fureur me fait tresseillir. Je crois ts voir, te
toucher, ts presser contre mon sein...objet
ador6, fills enchanteresse, source de délice

at de volupté, comment en te voyant ne pas voir les
houris faites pour les bienheureux?...ah vien!...
je la ssns...elle m'échappe, et je n'embrasse

qu'une ombre (Lg Nguvells Heloise, Vol. II, pp.
2#0 and 2##).

Julie's letters render an accurate likeness of her, an actual
extension of her presence; and though Saint Preux realizes,
as he rereads her letters and fancies that he hears, sees,
and embraces her, that Julie remains only an image, they
trouble and arouse him as much as her physical presence.
Their letters stimulate their imagination; and at this
moment in the novel, Julie and Saint Preux experience love
jprimarily through their imagination. They need the solace
of an illusory personal contact when circumstances conspire
to keep them apart. Julie, who creates her own fantasy
around the portrait of herself that she has sent to Saint
Preux (Part II, Letter XX), acknowledges the necessity of
such illusions:

Cent fois 1e jour quand js suis seule un tres-

seillement me saisit comme si je te sentois

prés de moi. Je m'imagine que tu tiens mon

jportrait, et suis si folle que je crois sentir

l'impression dos caresses que tu lui fais et

des baisere que tu lui donnes: ma bouche crgit
les recevoir, mon tendre coeur croit les gouter.

68

0 douces illusions! 6 chimeres dernieres res-

sources dss malheureux! Ah, s'il se pgut, tenez-

nous lieu de réalité (La Nouvelle Héloise, Vol.

II. p. 289).
The virtue of letters in a situation which requires the
substitution of visions for reality is that they lend sub-
stance to the dreams of Julie and Saint Preux. For the let-
ters in which their dreams are expressed are real. Though
the image of Julie disappears with Saint Preux's attempt to
touch it, it may be summoned again with each new reading.
The letter does not disappear, and like the mirror it at-
tests to the reality of the person whose thoughts it re-
flects. Insofar as Julie and Saint Preux embrace the notion
that the pleasure of love lies in the union of the heart,
the exchange of their letters, which express the feelings
of the heart, constitutes true love-making in spite of
their separation. And since they no longer dare to share
these sentiments when together for fear of succumbing to
purely sensual desires, their correspondence allows them to
indulge their passionate feelings upon each other's image
without actually transgressing their virtuous principles
and without experiencing the deterioration of those feel-
ings. Under these rigorous conditions, love as intense as
theirs can only be enjoyed in the world of their imagina-
tion and shared obliquely in the mirror of that imagination,

their correspondence.“

 

“One of the most revealing scenes in the Confes-
,?Lgn§ involves the use of a mirror in communicating love
Vol. I, pp. 75-76). The adolescent Rousseau, enamored of

69
The letters exchanged by Julie and Saint Preux in
Parts II and III of Lg Nouvelle Heloise serve not only to

 

a young Italian woman, Mme Basile, sneaks up to her room.
_Shs is seated in the room with her back to the door where
Rousseau is standing. Moved by the sight of his loved
one, the intsmperate youth then kneels with his arms out-
stretched toward her. He does not believe that he is
seen and greatly enjoys this moment of stolen intimacy.
Suddenly, Mme Basile sees the kneeling Jean-Jacques re-
flected in a mirror facing her. She does not turn around
but does acknowledge her awareness of his presence by
pointing to the mat at her feet. Neither of the two
speak. There seems to be a silent complicity in enjoying
this moment.
Jean Starobinski, in his chapter on Rousseau in
L'Qg;1 vivggt (Paris: Gallimard, 1960, pp. 110-11) gives
a lucid analysis of the appeal this indirect approach had
for Rousseau.
0n imagine volontiers, cependant, que cette
approche indirecte lui convenait mieux que touts
autre et qu'il aurait pu l'avoir délibérément
ohoisie: elle lui permettait de se montrer “en
effigie,“ sans toutefois se laisser attsindre
dens se personne réelle par le regard de Mme
Basile. D'une fecon msrveilleusement synthe-
tique, le miroir est ici a la fois au service de
la timidité et de la tendence exhibitionniste.
ll trahit et 11 protege; il donne a voir, mais 11
no livre qu'un reflet; il annonce une presence, mais
la reduit a une image. ...Réfugiés tous deux dans
le monde pur des images at des reflets, ils ne sont
pas coupables. Leur rencontre s'accomplit sans eux,
chacun n'etant pour l'autre qu'un fantome. C'est
la condition requise pour que Jean-Jacques connaisse
le plus haut bonheur, c'est-a-dirg cet état oh
l'exaltation, per son intensité meme, aboutit a la
dépsrsonalisation. Ainsi triomphe la magie, qui
stablit a la fois la distance et le contact, réalisant
ls miracle d'un contact a distance.
The indirectnesspf the contact afforded by the letters of
N v e H o as is a source of genuine enjoyment
or Jul e and Saint Preux. And it is more than coinci-
dental that in the same period that Rousseau was beginning
to create the imaginary correspondence of Julie and Saint
Preux (1756-57) his thoughts were drawn also to the inci-
dent with hme Basile. The scene is described in.the ngggggg
Co 8 ions (Vol. I, pp. 1160-61) which,according to
arcel Raymond and Bernard Gagnebin,may very well have
been written in the summer of 1756 at L'Ermitage. Cf.
0 v co letes, Vol. I, p. 1857.

70

units them in space, but in time as well. While letters
bring the lovers from their solitude into each other's
presence, they also convey the memory of their past inti-
macy in order to console and sustain their present separa-
tion. They permit Julie and Saint Preux to live in the past,
at least momentarily. For the memory of their past begins
to play an increasingly important role in their lives.

“...Que le ciel gards ses bienfaits,“ writes Saint
Preux, “at me laisse, avec ma misere, 1e souvenir ds mon
bonheur passé. J'aime mieux les plaisirs qui sont dens ma
memoirs et les regrets qui déchirent mon ame que d'6tre a
jamais heureux sans ma Julie'5(La Nouvelle Heloise, Vol. II,
p. 190). Fidelity to each other and to the memory of their
days spent together at Vevai becomes a recurring theme in
their letters. It is the source of most of the dramatic in-
terest of Parts II and III. Saint Preux fears that he will
lose Julie to whomever her father might betroth her (Part II,
Letter X); Julie fears Saint Preux will be corrupted by the
world (Part II, Letter XI). 0f the twenty-five letters ex-
changed by Julie and Saint Preux in Parts II and III, nine
deal with fidelity (Part II, Letters I, x, xx, x11, XIII, xx,
and XXVI; Part III, Letters V and XVIII). These letters
provoke memories of their past love, thereby keeping it
alive in the present.

 

5Wolmar, in the second half of the novel, will
seek, by destroying the memory of their young love, to cure
them of the last remnant of their passion.

71

Though letters can bring Julie and Saint Preux to-
gether across the miles that separate them and can soothe
the melancholy of their present situation with recollections
of the blissful moments of their past, they also constantly
remind them, because of the time which slapses between the
sending and receiving of each letter, of the anguish of
separation.

Un des plus grands maux de l'absence, et le seul
auquel la raison ne peut rien, c'est l'inquietude
sur l'6tat actuel de ce qu'on aims. Sa santé,

sa vie, son repos, son amour, tout échape g qui
craint de tout perdre; on n'est pas plus sur du
présent que de l'avenir, et tous les accidens
possibles se réalisent sans cesse dens l'esprit
d'un amant qui les redoute. Enfin je respirs,.
je vis, tu te portss bien, tu m'aimes, cu plutot
11 y a dix jours que tout cela étoit vrai; mais
qui me répondra aujourd'hui? 0 absence! 0 tourment!
c bizarre et funests étet, ofi l'on ne peut jouir
que du moment passe, et ou le present n'est oint
encore,(La Nouvelle Heloise, Vol. II, p. 2#0)!

Because of its epistolary nature, the relationship of Julie
and Saint Preux seems fixed in the past. Georges Poulet,
commenting on the significance of La Nouvelle Heloise in the
history of fiction, especially from the point of view of the
literary representation of time, callsit “...Le premier
grand roman, on l'6tre humain est presents dens l'ensemble
de sa durés, cu plus exactement dens un.présent qui est

toujours en rapport avec son passé.“6 The epistolary form

. 6Georges Poulet, Etudes sug Le tegps humain, (Paris:
Plcn, 1950), p. 158.

Other scholars have drawn attention to the impor-
tance of time in La Nouvelle Héloise. In his excellent
article “La Hémoire et 1 oubli dens La Nouvelle Héloise,“

6 -J c use Rousseau, Vol. XXXV, pp. 9-71, Ber-

nard Guyon argues that time and not virtue is the true

72
of the novel contributes significantly to the impression of
duration, of the present in relation to the past, because,
as Saint Preux suggests, when one communicates only through
correspondence one cannot escape the past for the present.
In Julie and Saint Preux's attempts at uniting with each
other emotionally, spiritually, and intellectually, union in
the present is never achieved because they are communicating
on a temporal treadmill--the letter always bringing to the
one what is now the other's past. Though their correspon-
dence affords them genuine solace during their separation,
Julie and Saint Preux become more sensitive to the discre-

pancy implicit in letters between the time of their

 

conflicting element against passion. Shortly after her
marriage to Wolmar, Julie points out to Saint Preux that
passion burns itself out with time and is therefore incom-
patible with the married state (Oeuvres completgg, Vol. II,
pp. 372-73). Sexual pleasure is numbed by repeated indul-
gence. Guyon shows that Julie and Saint Preux preserve
their “amour-passion“ by remembering one another as they
were in a changeless past. Conversely, Wolmar tries to
cure them of their passion by having them forget the past
and immersing themselves in the ever-changing present.

Letters, then, are an excellent means of overcoming
the ravages of time, for as Saint Preux remarks about cor-
respondence: “...On ne peut jouir que du moment passe.“
Julie and Saint Preux experience love only in the past be-
cause chenges that might have occurred since the time of
the letteris dispatch are hidden from them. “...On n'est
pas plus sur du present que de l'avenir.“ Though the tem-
poral discrepancies of correspondence are painful to Saint
Preux in the first half of the novel, they will be seen in
a better light later in the novel. His words with regard to
the conditions of correspondence--“cet 6tet...ou 1e présent
n'est point encore“--prefigures Julie's later praise of
anticipated pleasures--“...il n'y a rien de beau que ce qui
n'est pas“-(Lg Nogvells Heloise, Vol. II, p. 693).

For a mpre exhaustive study of the role of time in

No ve le H loise cf. Francois Van Leere, Une Lecture du

to s s Nouvelle Heloise (Neuchatel: La Baconnigre,

19 .

73
composition and that of their reading. The letters ex-

changed by the lovers in Parts II and III remind them of
the painful incompleteness of their love.

The only thing that enables Julie and Saint Preux
to continue marking time, making devotion to their previous
experience of love suffice in the present, substituting an
imaginary presence through letters for a real one, is the
hcpe that in the future they will find a way to live to-
gether. Though Julie realizes after her miscarriage of
Saint Preux's child (end of Part I) that there is little
chance of a respectable marriage, she sustains his hopes in
order to preserve her own. She conceals from him the news
that her father has already chosen a spouse for her and
promises him that she will never marry anyone without his
consent (Part II, Letter XI). Saint Preux, still hOpsful
for the future, continues to write generally Optimistic
letters; and the feelings expressed in those letters are in
turn.Julie's only consolation and encouragement. “Je n'avais
plus d'honneur,“ writes Julie in Part III reflecting upon
this period in her affair with Saint Preux, “que le votre,
plus d'espéranoe qu'en votre bonheur, et les sentimens qui
me venoisnt ds vous stoient les seuls dont je crusse pou-
voir 6tre encore emus“ (La Nouvelle Hgloise, Vol. II, p. 3#6).
Ironically, the letters themselves figure prominently in the
ruin of this hcpe that encourages Julie and Saint Preux to
continue writing. When ame d'Etange discovers Saint Preux's
letters to her daughter (Part II, Letter XXVII), the lovers

7#
realize exactly how bleak their future is and how fruitless,
their correspondence. Claire points this out to Saint
Preux immediately after his letters have been discovered.
...Le sacrifice que vous avez fait a l'honneur
de Julie en quitant ce pays m'est gerant de celui
que vous allez faire a son repos en rompant un
commerce inutils. Les premiers actes ds vertu
sont toujours les plus pénibles, et vous ne per-
drez point 1s prix d'un effort qui vous a tent
couté, en vous obstinent a soutsnir une vaine
correspondence dont les risques sont terribles
pour votre amante, les dédomagemens nuls pour

tous les deux, et qui ne fait que prolonger sans
fruit les tourmens de l'un et de l'autre (La

Nogve1;e HéLOIse, Vol. II, p. 309).

Saint Preux accedes to Claire's request and promises Mme
d'Etange to cease all correspondence with her daughter (Part
III, Letter II). Shortly thereafter (Part III, Letter V)
Julie also rsnounces all future correSpondence.

The decision by Julie and Saint Preux to refrain
from further correspondence implies more than despair over
their future, however. It risks negating their love al-
together, for up to this point in the story the predominant
means of expressing their love, their correspondence, is
synonymous with it. Though Julie's formal engagement to
H. de Wolmar (Part III, Letters X and X11) makes even more
obvious the futility of continued correspondence, the lovers
continue to write for want of a viable alternative to let-
ters as a means of feeling and expressing their love.

Julie pledges her undying love to Saint Preux and hepes that
her father, Claire, and Saint Preux will each find happi-

ness despite her sorrow.

75

Oui,tendre et généreux amant, ta Julie sera

, toujours tienne, elle t'aimera toujours: 11 1e
faut, Je le veux, 3e 1e dois...Mon parti est pris,
Je ne veux désoler aucun de ceux que J'aime.
Qu'un pere esclave de sa parole et jaloux d'un
vain titre dispose de ma main qu'il a promise;
que l'amour seul dispose de mon coeur; que mes
pleura ne cessent de couler dans le sein d'une tendre
amie. Que 3e sois vile et malheureuse; mais que
tout ce qui m'est cher soit heureux et content s'il
est possible. Formez tous trois ma seule existence,
et que votre bonheur me fasse oublier ma misere

et non desespoir (Lg Nouvelle Heloise, Vol. II,
PP- BBQ-35).

However, Julie does not indicate how Saint Preux is to re-
main happy in the future with her simple pledge of love
when.he knows that she will be sad and that they will not

be able to write to nor see each other. Saint Preux

answers:

L'espoir que tu me rends est triste et sombre;

il éteint cette lueur si pure qui nous guida

tant de fois; tes attraits s'en ternissent et
n’en deviennent que plus touchans; Je te vois
tendre et malheureuse; mon coeur est inondé des
pleura qui coulent de tes yeux, at as me reproche
avec amertume un bonheur que je ne puis plus,gou-

ter qu'aux depends du tien (La Nouvelle Heloise,
Vol. II, p. 338).

It is only after Julie's mystical experience on the day of
.her'wedding that Julie discovers a way of vivifying their
llove even though they must deny themselves every manner of
expressing that love available to them in the past. Her
encounter with Divine Providence impresses upon Julie the
sacredness and goodness of the marital state; and her atti-
tude toward Saint Preux, though still one of love, changes.

Tout est change entre nous; il faut nécessairement

que votre coeur change. Julie de Wolmar n'est

jplus votre ancienne Julie; la revolution de vos
sentimens pour elle est inevitable, et 11 us vous

p 76
reste que le choix de faire honneur de ce changement
an vice on a la vertu.... Oui, mon bon et digne ami,
pour nous aimer toujours il faut renoncer l'un a

l'autre. Oublions tout le rests et soyez l'amant
de mon ame.... Si vous perdez une tendre amante,

vous gagnez une fidelle amie (La Nouxelle Helgise,

Vol. II. Pp. 363-6n-65).
Their love is not lost but is absorbed in friendship.
This 'amitié' is based on the renunciation of physical love
infavor of a platonic one--"...soyez l'amant de mon ame.‘
Their correspondence, which was an essential element of
their past love, has no place in this newly conceived
friendship since Julie is now Julie de Wolmar. Obviously
there is nothing very strange about a young, devoted bride
wishing to discontinue all contact with her former lover.
However, because of the change in the nature of Julie and
Saint Preux's love, the discontinuation of their correspon-
dence does not signify the extinction of their love. Rather,
it becomes an integral part of it. The absence of letters
between Julie and Saint Preux gives meaning to their
'amiti“ in.very much the same way as their incessant cor-
respondence symbolized their passionate love.

The period of silence between Julie and Saint

,Preux extends from Part III, Letter xx to Part VI, Letter
‘VI, a.pericd of approximately seven years. During this
long span, their letters are addressed primarily to Mme
d'Orbe and hilord Edouard. These letters reflect the com-
mitment that the lovers have made to sublimate their love
in favor of a total devotion to family and friends. Jean

Rousset has shown that as early as the beginning of Part

77
III the letters between Julie and Saint Preux become less
frequent and that their letters to third parties increase.7
Rousset sees a close relationship between the situation of
the story and the epistolary situation. Part III depicts
the discovery of Saint Preux's letters and the death of
Mme d'Etange, events which compel Julie and Saint Preux to
view their love in the larger context of family and friends.
The lovers adapt a mode of conduct that subordinates anti-
social passion to social virtue. Communication becomes
collective. By the end of Part III, Julie and Saint Preux
no longer communicate directly, but through others. In
her last letter to Saint Preux, Julie writes:

Voici la derniere lettre que vous recevrez de moi.
Je vous supplie aussi de ne plus m'écrire. Cepen-
dant comme Je ne cesserai Jamais de prendre a vous
le plus tendre intéret et que ce sentiment est

aussi pur que le Jour qui m'éclaire, 3e serai

bien aise de savoir quelquefois de vos nouvelles

et de vous voir parvenir au bonheur que vous méri-
tes. Vous pourrez de tame a autre écrire 3 Made
d'Orbe dans les occasions at vous aurez quelque
évenement intéressant a nous apprendre. J'espere
que 1' honneteté de votre ame se peindra toujours
dans vos lettres. D'ailleurs ma Cousins est vertueuse
et sage, pour ne me communiquer que ce qu'il me con-
viendra de voir, et pour supprimer cette corres-
pondance si vous étiez capable d'en abuser (Lg

Nggvelle Hélgise, Vol. II, pp. 375-76 ).
with Claire as censor, only those feelings that comply with

the principle of 'amitié' are acceptable for transmittal.
The sublimation of Julie and Saint Preux's passionate love

toward a platonic friendship is thus reflected in the

 

7 Jean Bousset,Forme et signification and "Rousseau
romancier.“

78
extreme obliqueness of the means of communicating their
affection. The fervor of their previous correspondence is
reduced to the polite exchange of news. In effect, the
indirectness of their communication is designed to eXpur-
gate all sentiments that might rekindle their past love.

Although the letters that Julie and Saint Preux
address to third parties represent the new direction of
their relationship, that of 'amitié,‘ they take little ad-
vantage of this means of cultivating their friendship.
From the time of Julie's last letter to Saint Preux (Part
III, Letter XX) to Saint Preux's return to Clarens at the
invitation of M. de Wolmar (Part IV, Letter IV), there are
only two letters exchanged by Claire and Saint Preux (Part
III, Letter XXVI and Part IV, Letter III). This repre-
sents a period of six years, one year longer than the
period of the lovers' entire previous correspondence.
True, Saint Preux was voyaging around the world and was
incommunicado for four of the six years. But in the two
years preceding his Journey, the only news he sent to Claire
was that of his departure. During that same period Saint
Preux received no letters at all from Claire.

The infrequency of these letters indicates how
difficult it is for Julie and Saint Preux to think of each
other’only as friends and no longer as lovers. Their silence
betrays a persistent passion which remains hidden at the
:root of their 'amitié.‘ They do not Openly admit the ex-

istence of such passion because they are entirely committed

79

to its elimination, especially since Julie's marriage.
Yet they indulge in it by more subtle means. Since cor-
respondence no longer functions as an outlet for their
amorous feelings, they prefer a mute solitude which gives
voice to memories of a more ardent past. To Saint Preux
these memories are his only consolation and sustenance on
a lonely voyage. To Julie such memories are simultaneously
attnactive and distressing. The ambiguity of her feelings
perplexes her since she believes that her voluntary separa-
tion from Saint Preux and silence toward him is incontro-
vertible evidence of her triumph over passion. But even
after six years of exemplary virtue as wife and mother,
Julie admits to a fondness for moments of solitude during
which memories of her past love trouble the serenity of her
n0. 11fe.

...La solitude m'est dangereuse précisément

parce qu'elle m'est douce, et que souvent Je

a cherche sans y songer. Ce n'est pas tu le

sais, que mon coeur se ressente encore de ses

anciennes blessures; non, il est guéri, Je le

sens, J'en suis tres sure, J'ose me croire ver-

tueuse. Ce n'est point le présent que 3e crains;

c'est le passe qui me tourmente. Il est des

souvenirs aussi redoutables que le sentiment

actual; on s'attendrit par reminiscence; on a
honte de se sentir pleurer, et l'on n'en pleure

que davantage (Lg Nouvelle Heloise, Vol. II,

P. #02).
IDuring her affair with Saint Preux, Julie spent her soli-
tary moments writing letters to him. Reminiscence of that
affair now replaces correspondence as a means of occupying
Iher solitude and of ventilating her emotions (2...On s'at-

tendrdt par reminiscence“) and consequently constitutes as

80

serious a threat to her happiness as her letters once did.
Julie and Saint Preux separated and renounced their corres-
pondence as an affirmation of respectful friendship, but
their solitude and silence serve only to ressurect images of
their previous love. Renunciation of communication is in-
sufficient because one of the essential and most appealing
aspects of correspondence, solitude, the time to think of
one another at will and in whatever way they choose, remains
intact. They have become so accustomed to these solitary
fantasies after their protracted correspondence that in
spite of their abstinence from it they continue to behave.
towards each other mentally and emotionally as if they were
still writing. The only image he and Julie will retain of
one another is that of young lovers. As Claire points out
to Saint Preux before his departure:

...Vous serez toujours l'un pour l'autre a

la fleur des ans; vous vous verrez sans cesse

tels que vous vous vites en vous quitant, et

vos coeurs unis Juqu'au tombeau prolongeront

dans une illusion charmante votre Jeunesse avec vos

amours (La Nouvelle Heloise, Vol. II, p. 321).
Ironically, correspondence, by its very absence in their
dadly lives and because the separation essential to it is
rigorously maintained, continues to influence Julie and
Saint Preux because the act of remembering they substitute
:for'the act of writing induces the illusion of an immutable
love.

If the suspension of correspondence between Julie

and Saint Preux eliminates the private communication of love,

81

love smolders and represents a silent threat to future hap-
piness. Wolmar sees the flaw in denying all contact between
Julie and Saint Preux. He realizes that the memory of
their love is preserved and even aroused by their separa-
tion, not weakened and eradicated; and his decision to
reunite Julie and Saint Preux (Part IV, Letter IV) repre-
sents a deliberate effort at nullifying that persistent
memory. Wolmar, the dispassionate observer of human be-
havior, believes that by having Julie and Saint Preux see
each other as they are in the present their memory, which is
the only remaining source of passionate love between them,
can be effectively neutralized. Wolmar deems this to be
especially efficacious with Saint Preux who sees in Julie a
‘woman entirely different from the one he left.

Ce n'est pas de Julie de Wolmar qu'il est amou-

reux, c'est de Julie d'Etange; 11 me me hait

point comme le possesseur de la personne qu'il

aime, mais comme le ravisseur de celle qu'il a

aimée. La femme d'un autre n'est point sa mai-

tresse, la mere de deux enfans n'est plus son

ancienne 6coliere. Il est vrai qu'elle lui

ressemble beaucoup et qu'elle lui en rappelle

souvent 1e souvenir. Il l'aime dans le tems

passe: voila le vrai mot de l'énigme. 0tez-
lui la memoirs, il n'aura plus d'amour (Lg

Nggvglle Héloise, Vol. II, p. 509).
Taking away Saint Preux's memory entails the systematic

tnvalidation or elimination of every place or object remind-
.ful of his affair with Julie. The 'bosquet,‘ for example,
where years before the young lovers first kissed (Part IV,
Letter XII) is purposely profaned by Wolmar. There, he
embraces Julie and Saint Preux and insists they do likewise.

82
Consequently, for Julie and Saint Preux the 'bosquet' no lon-
ger represents their former love, but the transformations
that have occurred between their previous relationship and
. their present one. And similar to the profanation of the
'bosquet,‘ the continued renunciation of their correspon-
dence also removes from life at Clarens an essential part of
their past. Under the direction of Wolmar, however, all as-
pects of correspondence are eliminated, and particularly
the solitary moments which stimulate the imagination and
memory of Julie and of Saint Preux and which were formerly
devoted to the written expression of love. In place of
private thoughts and ideas, Wolmar presents, for the contin-
ual consideration of all the inhabitants of Clarens, the
image of selfless communal living. For Saint Preux, who
is the newest member of the community and, hence, very
vulnerable to images of the past, it is imperative that he
see Julie in the company of the other members of the com-
munity. 'A la place de sa maitresse,‘I writes Wolmar, '3e
1e force de voir toujours l'épouse d'un honnéte homme et
la mere de mes enfans: J'efface un tableau par un autre,
et couvre le passe du present'I (La Nouvelle Heloise, Vol.
II, p. 511). Correspondence is a covert, exclusive acti-
vity and, therefore, a threat to the spirit of community.
In.attacking Julie and Saint Preux's preferred method of
communication, Wolmar is really attacking the privacy of
their thoughts. Their first thoughts of love and their

method of first revealing them were secret. For Julie,

83
wife and mother, and for Saint Preux, recently appointed
tutor of the Holmar children, secrecy is dangerous.
Encore un coup, continua Made de wolmar d'un ton
plus tranquille, ce n'est point dans les assem-
blées nombreuses oh tout le monde nous voit et
nous scoute, mais dans des entretiens particu-

liers ob regnent 1e secret et la liberté, que
les moeursnpeuvent courir des risques (La Nou-

velle Heloise, Vol. II, p. 457).

Wolmar insists that communication at Clarens be essentially
communal, that is, that each member of this intimate society
endeavor to lay bare his thoughts and feelings to all the
others. This Openness is experienced most perfectly in

the episode of the 'matinée a l'anglaise.' On this occa-
sion, all those present, Saint Preux, h. and Mme de Wolmar,
and their children, enjoy and share the same feelings of
mutual love and respect. The occasion is particularly ex-
ceptional because the transmittal of these sentiments is
non-verbal. “Que de choses se sont dites sans ouvrir la
bouche! Que d'ardens sentimens se sont communiqués sans

la froide entremise de la parole' (La Nouvelle Heloise,
Vol. II, p. 560)! This immediacy in the communication of
feelings is rare. But under the direction of Wolmar, all at

Clarens at least aspire to this goal. Thus, correspondence,

 

31m eXploring the totalitarian tendencies of
Rousseau's political philosOphy, Lester Crocker (Rousse u's
Sggigl Contract and 'Julie ou la nouvelle duplicité'I
refers often to Holmar's efforts at thought control. He
likens them to the 'Big Brother'' governments depicted in
books such as 1284 and Brave New World and establishes
Rousseau as their fictional precursor. The elimination of
correspondence between Julie and Saint Preux in this part

of Lg Nouzelle Hgloise lends support to his views.

8b

which adds the mediacy of written symbols to communication,
becomes unattractive to Julie and Saint Preux.

The letters written by Julie and Saint Preux in
Parts IV and V of L9 Nouvelle Heloise are addressed only
to persons who are absent from the community of Clarens.
The fact that they cease even to desire to write to each
other reflects their commitment to the ideals of straight-
forwardness and friendship. Their letters usually describe
the activities at Clarens and often contain an exhortation
for the correspondent to return to its cpen ambiance. This
devotion to the high principles of Clarens is especially
apparent in Saint Preux's letters to Hilord Edouard which
constitute the majority of his correspondence in the second
half of the novel. In several long letters Saint Preux
describes in great detail and with abiding admiration M.
de Holmar's beneficent governance of his people and lands.
He also calls upon his English friend to assist him in his
efforts at overcoming his passion and strengthening his
dedication to virtuous friendship with all. 'C'est par
*vos soins, c'est sous vos yeux que J'espere honorer mon
état present de mes fautes passées' (La Nouvelle Heloise,
Vol. II, p. 55?). writing to Milord Edouard provides Saint
.Preux with the Opportunity to observe and analyze himself
systematically and rationally. 'J'ai besoin.de vos avis

let Je veux m'observer de pres' (Lg Nouvelle Heloise, Vol.
II, p» #26). Saint Preux's letters mirror no longer his

85
love for Julie, but his devotion to the community of Julie's
family and friends.
Julie's letters, addressed mostly to Mme d'Orbe

in Parts IV and V, deal primarily with her duties as wife
and mother and with her attitude toward Saint Preux. Her
letters become less and less frequent, however, and cease
altogether in Part V (Part IV, Letter XVI to Part V, Letter
XIII; some one hundred and ten.pages). Her growing reluc-
tance to discuss her feelings even with her most trusted
confidante, Mme d'Orbe, stands in marked contrast to Saint
Preux's constant preoccupation with life at Clarens in his
correspondence with Bomston. Wolmar remarks about his wife:

Un voile de sagesse et d'honneteté fait tant de

replis autour de son coeur, qu'il n 'est plus

possible a l'oeil humain d y pénétrer, pas meme

au sien prcpre. La seule chose qui me fait

soupconner qu'il lui reste quelque defiance a

vaincre est qu'elle ne cesse de chercher en

elle-meme ce qu'elle feroit si elle étoit tout-

a-fait guérie, et le fait avec tant d'exactitude,

que si elle 6toit réellement guérie elle no le
feroit pas si bien (La Nouvelle Lfléloise, Vol. II,

p. 509).

The disappearance of all letters from Julie symbolizes her
isolation from the community. Her introspection betrays the
crisis to come. Julie's behavior is virtuous, but it con-
'ceals feelings of love for Saint Preux which she cannot
eradicate. Since the suppression of thoughts and feelings
is frowned upon at Clarens, Julie's silence attests to
serious flaws in Holmar's carefully controlled experiment.
Her moral rectitude itself, the I'sagesse" and 'honnéteté,‘

creates the veil over her heart. The inner conflict which

86
it obscures--whether she will succumb to her love for Saint
Preux--remains a constant threat to the moral excellence she
has attained since her marriage.

The realization of the precariousness of her situa-
tion festers within Julie during her long silence and sur-
faces again in her surprising request that Mme d'Orbe
marry Saint Preux (Part v, Letter x111). After long, silent
reflection, Julie decides that she must act to change the
situation created by Wolmar's invitation to Saint Preux to
live at Clarens. With Claire and Saint Preux united in
marriage, Julie hOpes that her former lover's sexual desire
will be satisfied by her friend and that the threat Of a
renewed affair will be more effectively nullified than is
possible with Holmar's efforts at controlling the memory of
their love.9 Julie insists in her letter to Claire that
should her friend refuse to marry Saint Preux, the present

state of affairs at Clarens must be discontinued.

 

9A marriage between Claire and Saint Preux might

talso provide Julie, though she does not express this pos-
sibility explicitly, with an Opportunity to experience the
intimacy of marriage to Saint Preux vicariously. Such an
interpretation of Julie's request to Claire has been sug-
gested by H. Holpe in his article 'Psychological Ambiguity
in.gg Nouvelle Héloise'(University of Toronto Quarterly,
195 '59. pp. 279-90 and by Aram Vartanian in 'The Death
of Julie: A Psychological Post-mortem'I (L'Esgrit créateug,
‘Vol. VI, no. 2 pp. 77-84). Holpe sees ambiguity through-
out the novel in the relationship between Julie, Saint
.Preux, and Claire. At times one wonders if the three are
[friends or lovers. Rousseau states in Book IX of the Qgge

s ions that from the very beginning of the novel's concep-
‘tion.he imagined such a triangular relationship. Claire is
'1'ins6parable cousine' during the period of Julie and
Saint Preux's affair. She becomes their intermediary during
Saint Preux's long absence. As Saint Preux's wife, her
:role as intermediary would reach its logical conclusion.

 

87

Que si, malgré mes raisons, ce prOJet ne te

convient pas, mon avis est qu'a quelque prix

que ce soit nous écartions de nous cet homme

dangereux, toujours redoutable a l'une on a

l'autre; car, quoi qu'il arrive, l'éducation

de nos enfans nous imports encore moins que la

vertu de leurs méres (L Nouvelle Heloise, Vol.

II. p. 63“).
The resumption of Julie's correspondence represents her
realization that her love for Saint Preux is ineradicable
and signals the beginning of her final attempt at resolving
the dilemma in which it places her. She soon resumes her
correspondence with Saint Preux (Part VI, Letter VI); and
her love increasingly reasserts itself until in her last
letter Julie acknowledges its invincibility. In this way,
the direction in which Julie and Saint Preux's correspon-
dence proceeded in the first half of the novel--from inti-
mate and passionate letters to indirect communication
through Claire, to silence-~13 inverted. Julie's letter
to Claire, which ends her silence, is followed by her last
three letters to Saint Preux. The resumption of correspon-
dence between Julie and Saint Preux forms a rapid coda for
the novel and restores to their relationship the intensity
of the night Of love they shared in Julie's room.

When Claire declines to act upon her suggestion,

Julie makes the same request to Saint Preux (Part VI,
JLetter VI). Though Julie's letter urges him to marry
another, its very presence and appearance stir the passion-
filled memories he has been trying to overcome. His reply
begins:

Julie! une lettre de vous!...apres sept ans de
silence...oui c'est elle; Je le vois, Je le sens:

88
mes yeux meconnoitroient-ils des traits que mon
coeur me put oublier? Quoi? vous vous souvenez
de mon.nom? vous 1e savez encore écrire7...en
formant ce nom votre main.n'a-t-elle point trem-
ble?...Je m'égare, et c'est votre faute. La
forms, 1e pli, 1e cachet, l'addresse tout dans
cette lettre m'en rappelle de trOp différentes.
Le coeur et la main semblent se contredire. Ah!
deviez-vous employer la meme écriture pour tracer

d'autres sentimens (La Nouvelle Héloise, Vol. II,
p. 674)?

In this passage perhaps more than in any other, we can see
just how closely their letters are associated with their
love. The agitation apparent in his words, the exclama-
tions, interrogatives, and disjointed phrases are the re-
sult of the letter itself. It is a form of communication
once consecrated to love alone; and because of the request
contained in Julie's letter, Saint Preux accuses her of
betraying that form. Julie herself, despite the virtuous
jprinciples she proclaims in her letter to Saint Preux, does
:not deny the pleasure implicit in writing to him. 'Quel
sentiment delicieux j'éprouve en commencant cette lettre'
(g Nouvelle Héloise, Vol. II, p. 664). Although neither
.Julie nor Saint Preux admit that love alone remains the
:foundation of their relationship, their correspondence,
‘which.omce signaled the birth of their love, new announces
its rebirth.

Saint Preux rejects Julie's prcposal on the
grounds that marriage to Claire would constitute infidelity
‘towerd.their past love. without such fidelity, he insists
(Part VI, Letter VII), their 'amitié' would be rendered

meaningless. Saint Preux's position, however, makes Julie

89

more apprehensive about the adequacy and benefit of their
dedication to virtue. She demands that he stay away from
Clarens (at the time of these letters, Saint Preux is_in
Italy with Hilord Edouard). But included in Julie's demand
for a renewed separation is the request that they re-
establish a regular correspondence.

Si vous croyez devoir donner encore quelques

années d'absence aux restes toujours suspects

d'une jeunesse impétueuse, écrivez-moi souvent,

venez nous voir quand vous voudrez, entretenons

la correspondence la plus intime. Quelle peine

n'est pas adoucie par cette consolation? Quel
éloignement ne supporte-t-on pas par l'espoiru

de finir ses jours ensemble (La Nouvelle Héloise,

Vol. II, p. 693)?
In her effort to preserve their hard-won virtue, Julie re-
stores the intimacy discouraged at Clarens. Her letter
fulfills the same purpose as Saint Preux's very first letter
which begins with the words: I'Il faut vous fuir, Mademoi-
selle.‘ It establishes a distance conducive to virtue and
a means of pursuing the joys of a love that cannot be
denied. Indeed, their only joy lies in the pursuit of a
more perfect union in love. The separation implicit in
correspondence finds its compensation in the expression of
their hOpe for a life no longer threatened by sin. It is
precisely the 'espoir' which Julie seeks in a renewed cor-
respondence that is absent from the community of Clarens.
Although Julie experienced greater happiness in her years
at Clarens than at any other period of her life, Julie

feels an unexplainable emptiness in the midst of content-

ment.

90

Voila ce que j'eprouve en partie depuis mon
mariage, et depuis votre retour. Je ne vois
par tout que sujets de contentement, et je ne
suis pas contents. Une langueur secrette s'in-
sinue au fond de mon coeur; je le sens vuide

et gonflé, comme vous disiez autrefois du votre;
l'attachement que j'ai pour tout ce qui m'est
cher ne suffit pas pour l'occuper, il lui reste
une force inutile dont il ne sait que faire.
Cette ine est bizarre, j'en conviens; mais

elle n est pas moins réelle. Mon ami, je suis
trapflheureuse; le bonheur m'ennuye (La Nouvelle

Heloise, Vol. II, p. 694).
Julie realizes that life at Clarens, as happy as it seems,

is stagnant. There, happiness itself is wearisome because
it depends upon a perfect balance Of love and duty. There
exists an incessant tension. All personal feelings and
aspirations are subservient to community interests. Even
Julie and Saint Preux's memories are denied them and super-
seded by the tableau of a blissful present. The transfor-
mation Of their love into 'amitié' depends, in effect, upon
the dissolution Of their love. The happiness produced by
this friendship is artificial because it denies the reality
of their passion for each other. Julie is 'too happy“ in
the sense that she has had enough of this contrived well-
being. The total concentration on the present and on the
community of friends necessary for happiness at Clarens
destroys all hOpe in the future and in.the satisfaction of
real personal needs, which for Julie constitute true human
happiness. In one of the novel's most eloquent passages,
Julie tells Saint Preux of her conviction that all human
happiness lies essentially in its anticipation.

Tant qu'on desire on cut so passer d'étre
lueureux; on s'attend le devenir; si le bonheur

91

me vient point, l'espoir se prolonge, et le
charme de l'illusicn dure autant que la passion
qui le cause. Ainsi cet état se suffit a lui-
meme, et l'inquietude qu'il donne est une sorte
de jouissance qui supplée a la réalité.

Qui vaut mieux pout-etre. Malheur a qui n'a
plus rien a desirer! il perd pour ainsi dire
tout ce qu'il possede. 0n jouit moins de ce
qu' on obtient que de ce qu' on espere, et l'on
n'est heureux qu'avant d'etre heureux. En effet,
l'homme avide et borné, fait pour tout vouloir
et peu Obtenir, a recu du ciel une force conso-
lante qui rapproche de lui tout ce qu'il desire,
qui le soumet a son imagination, qui le lui rend
present at sensible, qui le lui livre en quelque
sorte, et pour lui rendre cette imaginaire pro-
priété plus douce, le modifie au gré de sa passion.
Hais tout ce prestige diaparoit devant l'objet
meme; rien n 'embellit plus cet objet aux yeux du
possesseur; on no se figure point ce qu' on voit;
l'imagination ne pare plus rien de ce qu'on.pos-
sede, l'illusicn cesse ou commence la jouissance.
Le pays des chimeres est en ce monde 1e seul digne
d'etre habité, et tel est le néant des choses
humaines, qu'hors l'Etre existant par lui-meme,
il n'y a rien.de beau que ce qui n est pas (L_

Nouvelle Héloise, Vol. II, p. 693).

Correspondence prevents the union for which they yearn
while permitting them to pursue it. It allows for the excer-
cise of the imagination which is an essential element Of the
happiness that Julie describes. Because the act of writing
is solitary, Julie and Saint Preux may visualize each other
in.circumstances which afford them the perfect union which
‘they seek and which would cease if they were actually
together. In this respect, the postponement of the ulti-
mate enjoyment of their love inherent in their correspon-
dence is the closest they may come in this world to the
state of self-sufficiency applicable to God alone.

The preservation of their love through letters is

an old solution. Saint Preux experienced the illusion Of

92
union with Julie as he wrote to her from Heillerie (Part I,
Letter XXVI). Julie understands the benefits of correspon-
dence with Saint Preux more fully now that she realizes that
the happiness they seek in union is paradoxically dependent
upon their separation. However, Julie feels as much frustra-
tion as happiness from this perpetuation of desire. She
fervently hOpes to enjoy the pleasure of reunion with Saint
Preux: 'Quel éloignement ne supporte-t-on.pas par l'espoir
de finir ses jours ensemble'I (La Nouvelle Heloise, Vol. II,
p. 692)? But in the very letter in which she urges Saint
Preux to resume a regular correspondence, she doubts whether
there is anything worth hOping for in this world.

Concevez-vous quelque remede s cc dégout du bien-
etre? Pour moi, je vous avoue qu' un sentiment

si peu raisonnable et si peu volontaire a beau-
coup oté du prix que je donnois a la vie, et je
n'imagine pas quelle sorte de charme on y peut
trouver qui me manque ou qui me suffise....

mon coeur ignore ce qu'il lui manque; il desire
sans savoir quoi.

Ne trouvant donc rien ici-has qui lui suffise,
mon ame avide cherche ailleurs dequoi la remplir;
en s'elevant a la source du sentiment et de l'etre,
elle y perd sa sécheresse et sa langueur; elle y
renait, elle s'y ranime, elle y trouvs un nouveau
ressort, elle y puise une nouvelle vie; elle y
prend une autre existence qui ne tient point aux
passions du corps, ou plutot elle n 'est plus en
moi-meme; elle est toute dans l'Etre immense
qu 'elle contemple, et dégagée un moment de ses
entraves, elle se console d'y rentrer, par cet
essai d'un état lus sublime,H u 'elle espere etre

un jour le sien La NouvelleH loise, Vol. II, pp.
6%-95) 0

:Life at Clarens has lost its charm, and correspondence with
Saint Preux can provide at best only temporary satisfaction

of her needs. Her only hOpe is to transcend an existence

 

 

 

 

 

93

founded on the constant enmity of duty and passion. The
thirst for a new existence is, in effect, a death-wish
which is soon fulfilled thanks to a fortuitous accident
(Part VI, Letter IX).10 Yet even in death, correspondence
assumes a pivotal role.

0n.her death bed, Julie composes a letter to Saint
Preux in which she unequivocally discredits the faith she
placed in Holmar's plan fOr a harmonious 'ménage a trois'
and reaffirms her love for her former tutor.

Il faut renoncer a nos projets. Tout est change,
mon bon ami; souffrons ce changement sans mur-
mure; il vient d'une main plus sage ue nous.

Nous songions a nous réunir: cette r union n'étoit
pas bonne. C'est un bienfait du Ciel de l'avoir
prevenue; sans doute il previent des malheurs.

Je me suis longtems fait illusion. Cette
illusion me fut salutaire; elle se détruit au
moment que je n'en a1 plus.besoin. Vous m'avez
cru guérie, et j'ai cru l'etre. Rendons grace
a celui qui fit durer cette erreur autant qu'elle
6toit utile; qui sait si me voyant si prbs de
l'abime, la tete ne m'eut tourné? Oui, j'eus beau
vouloir étouffer le premier sentiment qui m'a fait
vivre, il s'est concentré dans mon occur. 11
s'y reveille au moment qu'il n'est plus a craindre;
11 me soutient quand mes forces m'abandonnenti 11

me ranime quand je me meurs (La Nguvelle Hglo se,
Vol. II, pp. 740-41).

She summarizes her whole life in terms of her feelings for
Saint Preux. Her love for him is primordial ('le premier
sentiment qui m'a fait vivre') and enduring ('il s'est

concentré dans mon occur”); it sustains her in the face of

 

1OAram Vartanian (“The Death of Julie: a Psycho-
logical Post-mortem,’ L'Esprit Crgateur, Vol. VI, no. 2,
pp. 77-84) has demonstrated most ably that despite the
flimsy physical pretense for Julie's death, the psycholo-
gical aspects of her passing deserve our greatest atten-
tion. Julie seems eager to die; and the more grave her
condition, the greater her joy and satisfaction.

94

death ('11 me soutient quand mes forces m'abandonnent') and
guarantees eternal life ('11 me ranime quand je me meurs').
For Julie, death, faith in an afterlife, and love for Saint
Preux are an indivisible goal. "...Death,'l observes
Vartanian, I'was so attractive to Julie because it had become
for her, involuntarily, an affirma o desire, which was
no longer possible under the self-imposed conditions of her
virtuous life."11 Thus, Julie's letter, in expressing her
desire, performs the same function at the end of her life
that it has performed since the beginning of her relation-
ship with Saint Preux--the communication and preservation Of
love. Its last paragraph refers to the cyclical nature of
their affair and to the critical role that the letter played
in it: I

Adieu, adieu, mon doux ami... Hélasl j'acheve

de vivre comme j'ai commence. J'en dis trOp,

pent-etre, en ce moment ou le coeur ne déguise

plus rien... Eh pour quoi craindrois-je d'ex-

primer tout ce que je sens? Ce n'est plus moi

qui te parle; je suis déja dans les bras de la

mort. Quand tu verras cette Lettre, les vers

rongeront le visage de ton amante, et son coeur

oh tu ne seras plus. Hais mon ame existeroit-

elle sans toi, sans toi quelle félicité goutercis-

je? Non, je no te quitte pas, je vais t'attendre.

La vertu qui nous sépara sur la terre, nous uni-

ra dans le séjour éternel. Je meurs dans cette

douce attente. TrOp heureuse d'acheter au prix de

ma vie le droit de t'aimer toujours sans crime,
at de te le dire encore une fois (Lg Nouvelle

gglgggg, Vol. II, p. 743).
Though this letter maintains the tradition of their previous

correspondence, it also represents a momentous transition

 

111bid., p. 82.

95
in.their relationship. Love is communicated and preserved
on a new plans. The letter unites the temporal world with
the eternal. It beckons Saint Preux toward the new spiri-
tual realm into which Julie has crossed. Julie's letter is
posthumous and constitutes Julie's last physical remains.
Its words are the symbolic representation of Julie's spirit
which has triumphed over the corruptibility of the body and
over the physical desires which constantly menace the spi-
ritual needs of love. 'Ce n'est plus moi qui te parle, je
suis déja dans les bras de la mort. Quand tu verras cette
lettrs, des vers rongeront le visage de ton amante, et son
coeur ou tu me seras plus.‘I The discrepancy in time be-
tween the letter's composition and its reception coupled
with the knowledge that Julie is already dead12 leave the
impression, to repeat Jean Rousset's phrase, 'que ces
paroles sont jetées par dessus la tombe.'13 Death esta-
blishes the final separation of the lovers; and, as has
been the letter's function throughout their affair, Julie's
letter 'd'outre tombe' spans the gulf between them and
unites them in spirit. 'In the end, as from the beginning,
their letters are a symbol of the Opposing forces, attraction
and separation, which simultaneously govern their relation-

ship. However, Julie's last letter has one trait that

 

12Julie's passing was described to Saint Preux by
Holmar in the letter previous to Julie's. He is, therefore,
aware of the letter's posthumous nature.

IBRousset, "Rousseau romancier,‘ p. 79.

96
distinguishes it from all the others. It expresses Julie's
firm belief that this time the letter, which announces the
need to flee Saint Preux at the same time as it expresses a
desire for closer union, will lead him into a world where
one need no longer write letters, where lovers can be united
by the virtue which once separated them. Recognizing the
limitations of love by correspondence but still subjected to
them while she is alive, Julie must write the letter to end
all letters before passing into the realm Of silent, absolute

union.

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER III
EPISTOLABY NOVEL: PRELUDE TO AUTOBIOGRAPHY

Just as the act of writing letters was an integral
part of Julie and Saint Preux's love, writing was a whole
way of life for Rousseau himself. For this man who found
it difficult to accept and adjust to the conventions of
life in society, writing was a means both of expressing
his displeasure with society and of finding a place within
it. Rousseau saw in his writing a fatal force. From the
moment he decided to write his first Discours, his literary
career began to follow a path from which there was no re-
turn. “Tout le reste de ma vie et de mes malheurs fut
l'effet inevitable de cet instant d'égarement“ (Confessions,
Vol. I, p. 351). The epistolary dialogue of La Nouvelle
Héloise is a metaphor for the dialogue that Rousseau re-
peatedly sought to maintain with his contemporaries through
his works.

From the time of his earliest works, Rousseau de-
tected a fatal power implicit in verbal expression. The
develOpment of language and its effect upon man are impor-

tant aspects of the second Discours (1755) and are the main

tOpics Of his Essai sur l'origine des langues.1 In the

 

1The Essai was first published posthumously in
97

98

second Qiggguz§_Rousseau located in the develOpment of
language one of the signs and causes of man's evolution
from the state of nature to that of civilized man. He de-
velcpedthis Opinion at length in the Egsai sur L'origine
des es.. In this seldom read work, Rousseau theorized
that man progressed in minute steps and over a long period
of time from a state of relative silence to one of highly
sOphisticated communication. In the earliest stages of
language, feelings and emotions, as Opposed to abstract
ideas, were communicated by drawings, pantomime, or “cris
de la nature.“ As imprecise as these methods may have been,
their main virtue, which has been lost in advanced civiliza-
tions, was that they communicated exactly what the physical
signs or inarticulate cries denoted. These signs permitted
neither subtlety nor deception. Meaning and form were at
one. But with the develOpment Of society and man's grow-
ing dependence upon social conventions in order to overcome
the physical hardships inflicted by his natural environment,
language became more complex and conventional. These
changes created as many problems as they solved and repre-
sented both a loss and a gain for man.

A mesure que les besoins croissent, que les affaires

s'embrouillent, que les lumieres s'étendent, le

langage change de caractére; il devient plus juste

et moins passionné; il substitue aux sentiments les

idées; il ne parle plus an coeurI mais a la raison.
Par 1a meme l'accent s'éteint, l articulation

 

1781. Recent scholarship estimates its composition to have
occurred during the period of the second Disgours. Cf.
0e e c lets , Vol. I, p. 1548.

99

s'étend, la langue devient plus exacte, plus claire,

mais plus trainante, plus sourde, et plus froide.

Ce progres me parait tout-a-fait naturel.2
Though there are advantages and disadvantages to be had from
the progress of language, man is not free to choose between
systems of expression that speak primarily to the heart and
those that speak primarily to reason. The evolution of lan-
guage from passion and simplicity toward coldness and com-
plexity is inevitable, “tout-a-fait naturel.“ With each
ensuing generation, man must exert a greater intellectual
effort in order to eXpress himself and understand others.
He is doomed either to bear the burden of this constant
effort or to succumb to willful lies and facile ambiguity.

The period of autobiographical works in Rousseau's
career (L93 Confessions, 1765-1770; Les Dialo es, 1773-1776;
Leg Révezies, i776-i778) was marked by an agonizing ambi-
valence on the author's part toward the whole tactic of
writing and hiding upon which he depended in order to deal
with society. 0n the one hand, Rousseau remained committed
to writing as a means of explaining himself to and recon-
ciling himself with the rest of mankind; but on the other,
he became the prisoner and victim of his works.
The Opening lines of the Confessions convey his

confidence in his ability to describe himself faithfully to

his readers: “Voici le seul portrait d'homme, peint exactement

 

ZJean-Jacques Rousseau, Essai sur l'ori ine de
lgngggg, 0e v as co letes, ed. Husset-Pathay (Paris:
82%), Vol. II, p.

Dupont, 1 429.

100
d'apres nature et dans toute sa vérité, qui existe et qui
probablement existera jamais'I (Vol. I, p. 3). Furthermore,
he was convinced that the reader could not help but benefit
from “...un ouvrage unique et utile, lequel peut servir de
premiere piéce de comparaison pour l'étude des hommes, qui
certainement est encore a commencer...“ (Vol. I, p. 3).
However, despite the masterful chronicle of his destiny
that was the Confesgions and the frenetic self-justifica-
tion of the Dialo es, the goal of the work that was to end
with his death, the Réveries, remained the same. In the
Opening paragraph of the first Promenade he states: 'Hais
moi, d6tach6 d'eux [les hommes) et de tout, que suis-je moi-
méme? Voila ce qui me reste a chercher' (Vol. I, p. 995).
Rousseau could never cease addressing himself to

the same problem of self-knowledge and self-expression be-
cause the judgment Of his readers never seemed satisfactory.
When, for example, L'Emile and Le Contgat social were burned
and a warrant issued for Rousseau's arrest in 1763, it was
Obvious to him that they had failed to understand him.
Rousseau attributed the misinterpretation of his works to
the inexplicable ill will of the public toward Jean-Jacques
personally.

Dans l'orage qui m'a submerge, mes livres ont servi

de pretexte, mais c'étoit a ma personne qu'on en

vouloit. 0n se soucioit tres peu de l'auteur, mais

on vouloit perdre Jean-Jaques, et le plus grand mal

qu'on ait trouvé dans mes Ecrits 6toit l'honneur
qu'ils pouvoient me faire...Tout ce qu'il y a de

hardi dans e Contrat soc 6toit auparavant dans
le 1 c r sur l'in alit ; tout ce qu'il y a de
hardi dans 1 Emile toit auparavant dans la Julie

101

0r ces choses hardies n'excitérent aucune rumeur

contre les deux premiers ouvrages; donc ce ne furent

pas elles qui l'excitérent contre les derniers

(C nfessions, Vol. I, pp. 406-07).
In Rousseau's mind, works which should have engendered respect
somehow betrayed him and became weapons in the hands of a
hostile society. Nevertheless, the only means available
to Rousseau to exonerate himself from the misrepresentations
of others was to take up the pen once again. And so began
for Rousseau the unremitting cycle of writing, unsatisfactory
responses, and written rebuttal that marked the years fol-
lowing L'Emile and Le Contrat sogial. According to Rousseau's
account at the end of the Confessions, his public reading
of the work3 was greeted with icy silence by his audience.
It was this strange silence which prompted the Dialogges:
“Le silence profond, universel, non moins inconcevable que
le mistére qu'il couvre, mistére que depuis quinze ans on
me cache avec un soin que je m'abstiens de qualifier...“
(Vol. I, p. 662). But when Rousseau tried to leave the
manuscript of the Dialogpes on the main altar of Notre-Dame
and found the gate to the sanctuary barred shut, he felt
that God too had rejected him.“ The Dialogues were fol-
lowed by a short 'billet circulaire“ which Rousseau tried

to distribute to passers-by. host refused to accept it.

Even when Rousseau finally decided to cease writing for the

 

3The Confessions were published only posthumously.
Rousseau made several public readings of them, however.

89 “cr. Histoire du précédent écrit, Vol. I, pp. 977-

102
public, he ended his life writing his Reveries for himself,
still convinced there remained something in himself to be
explained. Regardless of his contention that his writings
were only pretexts used by the public to attack him person-
ally, the result was the same: writing, the very means by
which Rousseau sought to solve his problems, provoked new
ones.

Written between the period of the Discours and
that of the autobiographical writings, La Nouvelle Heloise
(1761) played a central role in shaping Rousseau's ambiva-
lent attitude toward writing. Operative within Lg Nouvelle
Hfiloise is a need to write again and again. Julie and
Saint Preux feel a powerful fatality attached to their
letters. And Rousseau, in two separate prefaces to the
novel, consciously directed the question of the authenticity
of the novel's correspondence toward himself. By virtue Of
the epistolary form of La Nouvelle Heloise, Rousseau first
experienced for himself man's drama of self-expression and
anticipated the seemingly inexorable impulse which in the
last fifteen years of his life compelled him, even after
repeated disappointments, to seek the understanding of his
contemporaries in works of self-explanation and self-
justification. In this way the epistolary form served as a
prelude to the autobiographical form.

To Rousseau's hero and heroine, letters are vir-
tually synonymous with their efforts at achieving unity in
love and happiness. Julie and Saint Preux Often reflect

103
upon the meaning of correspondence in their relationship.
They come to consider the letters they exchange an equi-
vocal fatal force which seems simultaneously to inflict
misfortune and bestow blessings upon them.

“Avec quelle ardeur ne voudrois-je pas revenir
sur le passe, et faire que vous n'eussiez point vu cette
fatale lettre“ (La Nouvelle Héloise, Vol. II, p. 35). This
statement is from Saint Preux's second letter to Julie. At
the very birth of their affair the lovers detect the power
of destiny in their letters. All their ensuing letters
follow inevitably from the first. In her first letter to
Saint Preux, Julie expresses the same feelings about the
letter's fatal effects:

Des le premier jour que j'eus 1e malheur de te voir,
je sentis le poison qui corrompt mes sens et ma
raison; je le sentis du premier instant, et tes

yeux, tes sentimens, tes discours, ta plume crimi-
nelle le rendent chaque jour plus mortel (Lg Nou-

velle Hgloise, Vol. II, p. 39
Of all Saint Preux's attractive qualities, it is his episto-

lary talents (“ta plume criminelle'), placed last in Julie's
enumeration, which register the decisive blow to Julie's
virtue. Reflecting on the origins of their love later in
the novel (Part III, Letter XVIII), Julie reaffirms this
conviction about the power of the letter. “Je sentis mon
coeur et me jugeai perdue a votre premier mot“ (Vol. II,
P. 341).

Once the first letter has been written, it is as

if a chain reaction occurs. The lovers are swept up into the

 

 

104
guid pro guo of correspondence and have no means with which
to restrain it. By their very presenceletters provide a point
of crisis in which all Julie and Saint Preux's feelings are
irrevocably forced into the Open.

For Saint Preux who initiates the correspondence,
the crisis consists of anxiety in anticipation of Julie's
response. She refuses to acknowledge his letter for over a
week. Her silence is particularly frustrating because no
reply at all is worse than a refusal to reciprocate his love.
It negates the very existence of the sentiments expressed in
his letter. In the face of this negation Saint Preux has
no alternative but to write again and insist upon the sin-
cerity of his love.

Que ne pouvez-vous connoitre combien cette froideur
m'est cruelle! vous me trouveriez trOp puni. Avec
quelle ardeur ne voudrois-je pas revenir sur le passe,
et faire que vous n'eussiez point vu cette fatale
lettre! Non, dans la crainte de vous offenser encore,
je n'écrirois point celle-oi, si je n'eusse écrit la
premiere, et je ne veux pas redoubler ma faute, mais
la reparer. Faut-il pour vous appaiser dire que je

m 'abusois moi-meme? Faut-il protester que ce n'étoit
pas de l'amour que j' avois pour vous?...moi je pro-
noncerois cet odieux parjure! Le vil mensongs est-il
digne d'un coeur Oh vous regnez? Ah! que je sois
malheureux,s s'il faut l'etre; pour avoir été témé-

raire je ne serai ni menteur ni lache, et le crime
que mon coeur a commis, ma plume ne eut le desavouer

Lg Nouvelle Heloise, Vol. II, pp. 3-35).

Saint Preux senses that the forces of destiny are discharged
through his letters because both the reply he so painfully
awaits and the compulsion to write again (he pens three let-
ters to Julie before receiving an answer) is an inevitable

result of having written the first one.

105
Presented with these unexpected letters, Julie

has the burden of action thrust upon her. She must commit
herself. If before Saint Preux's avowal Of love she was
able to conceal her feelings and protect her virtue by
silence, the intrusion of her tutor's letter into her life
destroys the effectiveness Of silence.

J'eus beau par une froideur affectée vous tenir

éloigné dans le t6te a t6te; cette contrainte meme

me trahit: vous écrivites. Au lieu de jetter au feu

votre premiere lettre, ou de la porter a ma mere,

j'osai l'ouvrir. Ce fut 1a mon crime, et tout le

reste fut forcé. Je voulus m'empécher de répondre

a ces lettres funestes que je ne pouvois m'emp6cher

de lire. Cet affreux combat altéra ma santé. Je

vis l'abfme cu j' allais me précipiter. J'eus hor-

reur de moi-m6me, et ne pus me resoudre a vous laisser

partir. Je tombai dans une sorte de desespoir;

j'aurois mieux aimé que vous ne fussiez plus que do

n '6tre point a moi: j' en vins jusqu'a souhaiter

votre mort, jusqu'a vous la demander. Le Ciel a
vu mon coeur; cet effort doit racheter quelques

fautes (La Nouvelle Heloise, Vol. II, pp. 341-42).
After having read Saint Preux's letter, Julie risks mis-

leading him about her true feelings by not answering him.
Such a misrepresentation would have serious consequences for
Saint Preux who has threatened to commit suicide if Julie
refuses to reply. Furthermore, her silence would constitute
in effect an untruthful reply: that Saint Preux means nothing
to her. Honesty dictates that she should answer. However,
to reply, even if only to discourage further correspondence,
proves to be an equally unacceptable course Of action for
Julie. In a short “billet“ she suggests that she is not in
the least affected by his avowal Of love and encourages him

to be virtuous.

106
N'emportez pas l'Opinion d'avoir rendu votre éloigne-
ment nécessaire. Un coeur vertueux sauroit se vaincre

ou se taire, et deviendroit pent-6tre a craindre.
Hais vous........vous pouvez rester (La Nouvelle

H§LOIse, Vol. II, p. 37).

Her appeal to his “coeur vertueux“ actually reveals her
fears for her own virtue. She writes two other such “billets';
but despite the intended aloofness Of their style, they only
embolden Saint Preux. NO matter how evasive and dispas-
sionate Julie's “billets,“ their very existence is a recog-
nition of the validity of the issue with which they are con-
cerned--the feelings that they have for one another. Jean
Rousset, in an article on Crébillon Fils, referring to the
correspondence of the Marquise in Lettres de la marguise de
*** au comte de ***, states: “Ecrire si constamment qu'on
n'aimera pas est déja un aveu; par le seul fait de son
existence et de son envoi, la lettre est un acte d'amour,
elle engage dangereusement.“5 The situation applies to
Julie. The fact that she answers Saint Preux places her in
the spiral of correspondence. The letters now seem to grow
Of themselves, constantly raising questions that demand
answers which, in turn, spark further discussion and ques-
tioning. The three pairs of short “billets“ between Julie
and Saint Preux already mentioned (pp. 37-38) are a good
exampLe of this chain-reaction effect. They consist Of a
rapid succession of charges and countercharges and resemble

an argument in which the disputants seem to ignore the value

 

5Jean Rousset, “La honodie épistolaire: Crébillon
Fils,“ Eggdeg Littgraires, Vol. I, 1968, pp. 167-74.

107
of reticence and restraint. By the very fact of its exist-
ence, each statement provokes a retort regardless Of its
wisdom. It is after this short burst of “billets“ that
Julie and Saint Preux find themselves inextricably involved
in a love affair.

The letters themselves of course are not the root
cause of their love. That lies deep within each of the lovers.
But their letters are the instrument and symbol of all the
problems that spring from their love. The chronology Of
their affair is Often set in relation to Saint Preux's first
letter. The period before that letter is one of silence and
of immediate and affective communication. Julie writes:

Je.vis, je sentis que j'étois aimée et que je devois

l'etre. La bouche étoit muette; le regard étoit

contraint; mais le coeur se faisoit entendre: Nous

6prouvames bientot entre nous ce je-ne-sai-quoi qui

rend le silence eloquent, qui fait parler des yeux

baissés, qui donne une timidité téméraire, qui

montre les desirs par la crainte, et dit tout ce

qu'il n'ose exprimer (La Nouvelle Héloise, Vol. II,

p. 341). ‘
Their love was then a “je-ne-sai-quoi“ which required no
verbal communication. That time assumes the characteristics
of a personal garden of Eden. Indeed in another description
of this silent period, Julie's words are almost biblical in
tone. “Deux tendres amans passerent ensemble une année
entiere dans le plus rigoureux silence, leurs soupirs
n'osoient s'exhaler; mais leurs coeurs s'entendoient; ils
croyoient souffrir, et ils étoient heureux“ (La NouveLle
Hgloigg, Vol. II, p. 352). The syntax is uncomplicated.

There are no subordinating conjunctions. The simplicity

108

and straightforwardness Of those days is summed up in an
ingenuous statement of happiness. Furthermore, Julie refers
to Saint Preux and herself in the third person. They
appear to Julie as entirely different persons who are no
more. For their lives have been irrevocably altered by
that first fatal letter. Saint Preux's decision to reveal
his passion verbally is equivalent to original sin. His act
replaces the uncertainty of their feelings, the “je-ne-sai-
quoi,“ with the certain knowledge that this feeling is one
of love. At first unaware Of the consequence of his love,
Saint Preux realizes too late its irredeemable effects.

Cependant en revenant a non tour sur moi, je com-

mence a connoitra combien j'avois mal jugé de mon

prcpre coeur,-et je vois trOp tard que ce que j'avois

d'abord pris pour un délire passager, fera le destin

de ma vie... N'en doutez pas, divine Julie, si vous.

pouviez voir quel embrasement ces huit jours de

langueur ont allumé dans mon ame [the days.he has spent

waiting for a reply] , vous gemirez vous-meme des

maux que vous me causez. Ils sont desormais sans

reméde, et je sens avec desespoir que le feu qui
me consume ne s'éteindra qu'au tombeau (La Nouvelle

Hgloise, Vol. II, p. 37).

The anxiety which grows in anticipation of Julie's response
makes known to Saint Preux the suffering inherent in his
love. His first words of love initiate a dialogue with
Julie that ceases only with death. Much of this dialogue
is agonizing because in the course Of their lives each
decision to continue or suspend their correspondence is a
renewal of the choice of silence or response imposed by
that first letter. 30 great is the significance of that
letter for Julie and Saint Preux that all their ensuing

109
attempts to deal with their love are reflected immediately
in the intensity and frequency of their letters.

Although the letter represents a departure or a
fall from an earlier state Of innocence and happiness, it
is not purely a negative symbol. Julie enjoys rereading
the first letters from Saint Preux to the extent that they
remind her of the virtuous and relatively serene time before
her sexual surrender to Saint Preux.

Relisez nos premieres lettres; songez a ces momens
si courts et trOp peu goutés cu l'amour se paroit
3 nos yeux de tous les charmes de la vertu, et cu
nous nous aimions trOp pour former entre nous des

liens desavoués par elle (La Nouvelle Heloise, Vol.
II, p. 352). -

The act of rereading places Julie in contact once again with
her lost innocence.6 Yet the letters represent more than

a sentimental reminiscence. They are the only material
evidence of a once happy union of virtue and love. No mat-
ter what errors Julie and Saint Preux have committed, their
correspondence attests to the original goodness of their
love. Similarly, Saint Preux attributes great importance

to the rereading of Julie's letters; but to him they do more
than revive a beatific past. All her letters, those written

before and after their sexual union, pay tribute to the

 

6There are succeeding periods of relative innocence
to which the lovers frequently allude in La Nouvelle Hgloise
and which must be defined. The first is the period of si-
lence before the beginning of correspondence; the second is
the period of correspondence before their first sexual
contact. The first fall from innocence lies in the initial
letter which prefigures and prepares the fall of carnal
knowledge. It is to this latter period of innocence that
Julie refers in this last quotation.

110
excellence of Julie's virtuous principles and to her efforts
in adhering to them. So great is Saint Preux's admiration
for these pinciples that he reOOpies her letters in a bound
volume which then serves as his vade mecum.

En méditant en route sur ta derniere lettre, j'ai
résolu de rassembler en un recueil toutes celles que
tu m'as écrites, maintenant que je ne puis plus
recevoir tes avis de bouche. Quoiqu'il n'y en ait
pas une que je ne sache par coeur, et bien par coeur,
tu peux m'en croire; j'aime pourtant a les relire sans
cesse, ne fut-cs que pour revoir les traits de cette
main cherie qui seule peut faire mon bonheur. Mais
insensiblement le papier s'use, et avant qu'elles
soient déchirées je veux les cOpier toutes dans un
livre blanc que je viens de choisir expres pour cela.
Il est assés gros, mais je songe a l'avenir, et
j'espere ne pas mourir assés jeune pour me borner a
co volume. Je destine les soirées a cette occupation
charmante, et j'avancerai lentement pour la prolonger.
Ce précieux recueil no me quitera de mes jours; i1
sera mon manuel dans le monde cu je vais entrer; il
sera pour moi le contrepoison des maximes qu'on y
respire; 11 me consolera dans mes maux; il préviendra
ou corrigera mes fautes; il m'instruira durant ma
jeunesse, il m'édifiera dans tous les tems, et ea
seront a mom avis les premieres lettres d'amour dont
on aur? tiré cet usage (La Nouvelle Heloise, Vol. II,
p. 229 . '

Besides the moral benefit which Saint Preux reaps from this
volume, he procures a near sensual delight from the very act
of transcribing the letters into his book. The pleasure is
touflly apart from the meaning of the words. It lies in the
purely physical aspects Of correspondence--the markings on
paper and the act of tracing the marks. Just as the mere
sight of Julie's handwriting brings joy to Saint Preux, the
cOpying of her words provides a pleasure so exceptional that
he dedicates a specific part of his day for savoring this

activity. Retracing, as he reads, the words once penned by

111
her hand, Saint Preux establishes a physical as well as
spiritual communion with Julie. Furthermore, her letters
are more accessible than her person inasmuch as they can be
reread, and the communion, renewed at will. Rewriting them
simply gives an additional physical dimension to this
communion since Saint Preux shares in the act whereby Julie
transports herself to him. Ironically, both Julie and Saint
Preux seem destined to seek the pleasures of love in the
same form Of communication that in their Opinion brought sin
and trial into a life of innocence and simplicity.

The ambivalence of Rousseau's own attitude toward
his novel after its completion resembled that of his fic-
tional lovers toward the effects of their correspondence on
their lives. Like his characters, he did not seem to know
whether he should be proud or ashamed of the letters he had
written. Rousseau, who always took great pride in accepting
responsibility for his works, decided to sign his name to
Lg Nouvelle Héloise. The practice set Rousseau apart from
other authors in an age when anonymity was often a practical
necessity. Rousseau would learn this later during the up-
roar that followed Le Contrat social and L'Emile. Even on
epistolary novels in which the author pretended to be only
the editor of a real correspondence, few authors placed ‘
their real names, not even as editor. But in the Seconde
Préface to La Nouvelle Hgloise, Rousseau transformed the

whole issue into a point Of personal honor. The preface,

112
subtitled Entretien sur les romans, is in the form of a
dialogue between “Rousseau,“ the “editor' of the letters,
and an “Homme de lettres,“ the former defending the work
against the objections of the latter. The Homme de lettres,
in one of the more dramatic parts of the dialogue, presses
“Rousseau“ on this question.

N. (Abbreviation for the Homme de lettres) Si vous
croyez donner un livre utile, a la bonne heure; mais
gardez-vous de l'avouer.

R. (Abbreviation for Rousseau the editor) De 1' avouer,
Monsieur? Un honn6te homme se cache-t-il quand il
parle au Public? Ose-t-il imprimer ce qu'il n‘ oseroit
reconnoitre? Je suis l'Editeur de ce livre, et je
m'y nommerai comme Editeur.

. Vous vous y nommerez? Vous?

"Oi-meme e

Quoi! Vous y mettrez votre nom?

0ui, Monsieur.

Votre vrai nom? Jean-Jacques Rousseau, en toutes
lettres?

R. Jean-Jacques Rousseau en toutes lettres.

N. Vous n' y pensez pas! Que dira-t-on de vous?

R. Ce qu' on voudra. Je me nomme a la t6te de ce
recueil, non pour me l'apprOprier; mais pour en
répondre. S'il y a du mal, qu' on me l'impute; s'il

y a du bien, je n 'entends point m' en faire honneur.
Si l'on trouve le livre mauvais en lui-m6me, c'est
une raison de plus pour y mettre mon nom. Je ne veux
pas asser pour meilleur que je ne suis (La Nouvelle

HQLO se, Vol. II, pp. 26-27).

But when the Homme de lettres pursues the question still

2:11ng

further and mentions “Rousseau's“ self-conferred title,
“Citoyen de Geneve,“ and his motto, “vitam impendere vero,“
“Rousseau“ becomes extremely testy, refuses to include them
with his name, and denigrates the book.

N. A la t6te d'un livre d'amour on lira ces mots:
Pg; J,J, Rousgggu. Citoyen de Geggve!

R. gigoyen de Geneve? Non pas cela. Je ne profane
point le nom de ma patrie; je ne le mets qu'aux
écrits que je crois lui pouvoir faire honneur....

N. ...Mettrez-vous votre devise a ce livre?

113
R. Non, Monsieur, je ne mettrai point ma devise a

ce livre; mais je ne la quitterai pas pour cela, et
je m'effraye moins que jamais de l'avoir prise (Lg

Nggveng Héloise, Vol. II, p. 27).

In the period immediately preceding the novel's publication
(1761), Rousseau made even more deprecatory remarks about
La Nouvelle Héloise in some of his personal correspondence.
C'est une eSpéce de fade et plat roman dont je suis
l'6diteur, et dont quiconque en aura le courage,
pourra me croire l'auteur s'il veut (Corres ondance
cggplbte, Vol. VII, Letter 1176, p. 330 .
Pent-6tre avant la fin de ce mois le misérable et
plat roman dont vous parlez arrivera-t-il a Paris...
(Vol. VII, Letter 1191, p. 350).
...Mais concevez-vous M. Duclos aimant cette longue
trainerie de paroles emmiellées et de fade galima-
thias (Vol. VII, Letter 1190, p. 379).
Je ne sais quand arriveront de Hollande les exemplaires
du plat chiffon dont vous m'avez parle quelquefois
(Vol. VII, Letter 1195, p. 354).

...On annonce une traduction anglaise de cette
rapsodie...(VOl. VII, Letter 1210, p. 379).7

The insecurity Of Rousseau's position vis-a-vis his
own novel stems from the questionable esthetic and moral re-‘
putation of the novel in eighteenth century France and from
criticism that Rousseau himself leveled against the novel
and against-the arts in general.

Since the seventeenth century the novel had been
considered inferior to other literary genres. Georges May
has shown that the novel did not share the same literary

lineage as the more aristocratic genres of tragedy, comedy,

 

7William Head, in discussing the genesis of Lg
NogveLle Hgloise, calls attention to these same passages
from Rousseau's correspondence. Cf. Rousseau ou le roman-

gigz enghaing, p. 39.

114
and epic. It was considered to be a flight of fancy, an
unintellectual amusement far inferior to drama. Boileau
excluded the novel from the class of great genres because
it lacked historical credentials; it had never even been
mentioned by Aristotle or Horace, and none of the great
writers of antiquity wrote novels. However, it was precisely
to that absence of long, formal tradition that the novel
owed its freedom of expression, a freedom that led to the
excesses Of long novels such as L'Astrée. “Dans 1a litté-
rature comme dans la société,“ observes May, “la naissance
confers, avec des privileges certaine, des devoirs non moins
certaine. Si donc la tragédie ou l'épOpée a pour devise
'noblesse oblige,‘ celle du roman pourrait 6tre 'roture donne
licence.”8 Because the novel lacked rules, it was deemed
frivilous; and the very term “romanceque' implied frivolity
and exaggeration. Novelists were accused not only Of describ-
ing fantastic situations, but immoral ones as well. The
more risqué amorous tales, such as some Of the novels of
Diderot, Prévost, and Crébillon, were accused Of corrupting
morals. Nonetheless, novels were very pOpular. In the eyes
Of some authorities, too pOpular apparently. In 1737 the
chancelier Daguesseau issued atnringent ban on the publica-
tion of all novels in France. The ban curbed publication,
but not the novel's pOpularity. Criticism of the novel con-

tinuedtmroughout the century. Though Rousseau seldom

 

3 Di emme du roman au XVIIIe siecle, p. 17.

115
singled out the novel for criticism9, it was at least impli-
citly included in his frequent condemnation of the arts in
general.

Rousseau's two Discours presented an extremely
negative appraisal of the role of the arts in man's moral
development. In the Discours sur les sciences etfiLes arts
(1750) Rousseau suggested that art had taught men to hide
their true feelings behind conventions of language which
did not exist in earlier societies.

Avant que l'Art eut faconné nos maniéres et appris

a nos passions a parler un langage appr6té, nos

moeurs étoient rustiques, mais naturelles; et la

différence des procédés annoncoit au premier coup

d'oeil celle des caracteres (Vol. III, p. 8).
Even comedy and tragedy, genres traditionally considered
morally beneficial for society, came under rigorous attack.
In.his Lgttre a d'Alembert sur les spectacles (1758) Rousseau
dismissed the old dictum of comedy, “castigat ridendo mores,‘I
as a myth. Successful comedies merely cater to public Opi-
nion and do not correct the errors of the public.

Qu'on n'attribue donc pas au thé6tre le pouvoir de

changer des sentiments ni des moeurs qu'il ne peut

que suivre et embellir. Un auteur qui voudroit

heurter le gout général composeroit bient6t pour

lui seul. Quand Moliere corrigea la scene comique,
il attaqua des modes, des ridicules; mais 11 no

 

9From his earliest years Rousseau was attracted
to novels. But he was aware of the dangers of this attrac-
tion. In the Confessions he states that novels “...me
donnerent de la vie humaine des notions bizarres et ro-
manesques, dont l' eXperience et la réflexion n'ont jamais
bien pu me guerir“(Vol. L p. 8).

116

choqua pas pour cela le gout du public, 11 1e suivit
ou le déveIOppa.10

Rousseau considered tragedy no more successful than comedy
in affecting human behavior. The Aristotelian theory Of
catharsis is ultimately a myth as well. The feelings
tragedy excites are engendered by and are merely a part of
the play-acting.

J'entends dire que la tragédie mene a la pitié par

la terreur, soit. Mais quelle est cette pitié?

Une émotion passagere et vaine, qui ne dure pas

plus que 1' illusion qui l'a produite; un reste de

sentiment naturel étouffé bient6t par les passions,

tepitié stérile, qui se repait de quelques larmes,
n a jamais produit 1e moindre acte d' humanité

(Lgttge 3a d'Alembert, P. 140).

To Rousseau art had trained men to deceive, and the novel,
like tragedy and comedy, contributed to the develOpment of
insincerity in society. Instances of deceit were dramatized
in novels and held up as examples for the reader to emulate.
In.a recent study11, Peter Brooks describes the most influen-
tial novels of the first half of the eighteenth century along
these very lines of deception. And the very title of BrOoks's

work describes well Rousseau's impression of the novel: The

Ngvgl o; Worldliness.12

10Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Lettre g M, d'ALembert
(Paris: Garnier Preres,1962), pp. 135-3 . All ensuing
references to this work will be from this edition.

 

11Peter Brooks, The Nova of WO ld iness (Princeton:
Princeton.University Press, 19 9 .

12According to Brooks, the aristocratic society
portrayed in the works Of the most popular novelists of the
eighteenth century, Crébillon, Duclos, and Marivaux, is en-
gaged in playing a game of words. Social encounters take
place in the salons where polite conversation is the main

117
Having acquired for himself the reputation of a
moral crusader bent on exposing the insidious illusions of
art, Rousseau faced a troublesome dilemma when he decided
to publish Lg NouveLle Hgloise. The novel became not only
an embarrassment, buta threat to the validity of his pre-
vious works and to his own personal integrity.

Mon grand embarras étoit la honte de me démentir
ainsi moi-m6me si nettement et 81 hautement.

Apres les principes sévéres que je venois d'établir
avec tant de fracas, apres les maximes austéres

que j'avois si fortement pr6chées, apres tant d'in-
vectives mordantes contre les livres effeminés qui
respiroient l'amour et la molesse, pouvoit-on rien
imaginer de plus inattendu, de plus choquant, que
de me voir tout d'un coup m'inscrire de ma prcpre
main parmi les auteurs de ces livres que j'avois si
durement censurés? Je sentois cette inconsequence
dans toute sa force, je me la reprochois, j' en
rougissois, je m' en dépitois: mais tout cela ne

put suffire pour me ramener a la raison (Confes-

giggg, Vol. I, pp. 434-35).
Rousseau was undergoing a crisis of identity. Was he the
'Citoyen de Geneve,“ the man of moral principle, the consci-
ence of society? Or was he, as author of ngNouvelle Hélolse,
one of those he accused as corruptors of society?

If Rousseau could not totally condemn and disavow
his work and insisted that his name be placed on it, it was
due to an admittedly irrational and inconsistent commitment
to the fictional world he had created. “...Tout cela this

 

pastime. Words have a power all their own in these salons.
The strategy is to use the prcper verbal formula in order to
force one's interlocutor into revealing something of his
true self while one provides oneself with an impenetrable
verbal mask. In a world where all social relations seem
based on highly rigid and uniform modes of discourse and
department, the penetration of the true thoughts and
feelings of another places one at a great advantage.

118
previous position condemning 'les livres effeminés'] ne put
suffire pour me ramener a la raison.“ He tried to conform
his actions to the principles he had espoused and the public
“r6forme“ he had initiated, but failed. He was simply not
himself, that is, not the “citoyen,“ when engaged in his
idyllic fantasies.

Je n'étois plus un moment a moi-m6me, 1e délire no

me quittoit plus. Apres beaucoup d'efforts inutiles
pour 6carter de moi toutes ces fictions, je fus

enfin tout a fait séduit par elles, et je ne m 'occupai
plus qu'a t6cher d'y mettre quelque ordre et quelque
suite pour on faire une eSpéce de Roman (Confessions,
Vol. I, p. 434L

I

Julie, Claire, and Saint Preux were undeniably part of
himself; and whatever the consequences, Rousseau would not
disown them. “Subjugué completement il fallut me soumettre
a tout risque, et me resoudre a braver 1e qu'en dira-t-on...“
(Confegsions, Vol. I, p. 435). Rousseau was willing to
face this 'qu'en dira-t-on' because, in trying to arrange the
letters, he made every effort to give these “fictions“ the
morally didactic purpose that typified his earlier works.
...Je me jette a plein collier dans mes r6veries
et a force de les tourner et retourner dans ma tete,
'en forme enfin l'eSpéce de plan dont on a vu l'ex-
cution. C'étoit assurement 1e meilleur parti qui so
put tirer de mes folies: l'amour du bien, qui n'est
jamais sorti de mon coeur les tourna vers des objets

utiles et dont la morale eut pu3 faire son profit
(Confessions, Vol. I, p. 435).1

 

13William Mead has suggested that it was exactly
at the moment Rousseau sought to lay greater emphasis upon
the didactic possibilities of his work that he was influ-
enced by the English novelist Samuel Richardson whose
Clgzissg appeared in French translation in 1751.
Peut-6tre que le Citoyen de Geneva ne pouvait mettre
son mom a un ouvrage que Jean-Jacques ne savait plus

119
His story was one of illicit love but one in which virtue
and innocence had a part. He intended it to be different
from the portrayals Of love found in other novels. His
would culminate in the triumph of virtue.

Mes tableaux voluptueux auroient perdu toutes leurs
graces 81 1e doux coloris de l'innocence y eut manqué.
Une fille foible est un objet de pitié, que l'amour
peut rendre interessant et qui souvent n'est pas
moins aimable: mais qui peut supporter sans indigna-
tion le spectacle des moeurs a la mode et qu'y
a-t-il de plus révoltant que l'orgueil d'une femme
infidelle ui foulant ouvertement aux pieds tous ses
devoirs Pr tend que son mari soit pénétré de recon-
noissance de la grace qu'elle lui accorde de vouloir
bien ne pas se laisser prendre sur le fait? Les
etres parfaite ne sont pas dans la nature et leurs
lecons ne sont pas assez pres de nous. Mais qu'une
jeune personne née avec un coeur aussi tendre qu'hon-
nete se laisse vaincre a l'amour étant fille, et re-
trouve étant femme des forces pour le vaincre a son
tour et redevenir vertueuse: quiconque vous dira que
ce tableau dans sa totalité est scandaleux et n'est

 

comment abandonner, mais 11 y avait tout de m6me un
moyen acceptable de sortir do it. Et s'il y a, entre
tous les moments possibles, un moment vraiment naturel
pour supposer une quelconque “intervention“ de Richard-
son, ne serai-cc pas celui-oi? Un roman de la main du
Citoyen de Geneva ne pouvait relever que d'une seule
et uni ue classe de “fictions“, et s cc moment-la,
an 175 , en toute l'Eurcpe, aucun example de cette
classe n'était plus universellement connu que Clarissa
(Rousseau ou le romancier encggflné pp. 39-40).
It is difficult, as Mead admits, to determine the extent and
exact nature of Richardson's influence. One must be wary,
as Bernard Guyon points out, of an overly simplistic inter-
jpretation of Rousseau's preoccupation with the moral lesson
of his work. “...Parler de conversion, de brusque passage
de l'érotisme a la morale, c'est fausser la réalité“ (Oeuvges
létes, Vol. II, p. xlii). The first letters that Rousseau
*wrote and was later to arrange in a more orderly fashion
were already oriented toward this moral lesson. What is
important to remember, however, is that Rousseau did make
every effort to refine his work from a moral standpoint and
that this refinement was the fruit of his determination to
do'justice both to his fictional creation and to his repu-
tation as moral critic.

120

pas utile, est un menteur et un hypocrite; ne l'écou-
tez pas (Conf ssions, Vol. I, p. 435).

The “tableaux voluptueux“ that constituted most of the visions
which first inspired Rousseau to write were given a broader
perspective. He emphasized the story in its totality, the
movement from the errors of love to exemplary virtue, not

the particular scenes of passionate love which were neces-
sary to bring out the victory of moral principle.

If, on the other hand, Rousseau characterized his
work with irreverent epithets (“fade et plat roman,“ “fade
galimathias,“ “chiffon,“ etc.) and refused to grant it the
ultimate blessing of the trademarks of his reputation (“Ci-
toyen do Geneve“ and “vitam impendere vero“), he acted out
of shame and embarrassment over its form. Lg Nouvelle Hglolse
was undeniably a “roman,“ a “livre d'amour.“ Convinced
though he was after completing Lg NouvelLe Hgloise in Sep-
temper, 1758 that his work served a useful moral purpose for
its readers, Rousseau was not persuaded that the public would
not condemn him for having written a novel. Whereas it was
undeniable that Julie and Saint Preux, after having succumbed
to their sexual desires, dedicated themselves to the prac-
tice of virtue, the vehement passion of their earlier let-
ters painted a very attractive portrait of human moral weak-
ness. Rousseau himself criticized Richardson, then undis-
puted master Of the moralistic, sentimental novel, on the
matter of describing evil in order to dramatize the triumph
of good. In a letter to the novelist Duclos, he wrote:

121

Je persists malgré votre sentiment a croire cette
lecture [the reading of La Nouvelle HéloIsel tres
dangereuse aux filles. Je pense meme que R chard-
son s'est lourdement trompé en voulant les instruire
par des Romans. C'est mettre ls fsu a la maison

pour faire jouer les pompes (Correspgndgnce comgLete,
v01. VII. p0 319)-

IROusseau feared the accusation of self-contradiction; and
his fears, as comments made after the novel's publication
indicate, were not entirely idle. Although his contempora-
ries were generally pleased with La Nouvelle Héloise, they
were quick to notice the inconsistencies that its publica-
tion implied. D'Alembert wrote to Rousseau:

Quelques personnes paroissent surprises qye la

lettrs sur la comedic et la nouvelle Héloise (qui

vaut mieux que l'autre) soient sorties de la meme

plums, mais bien loin de me joindre a ces criti-

ques, plus ils auroient raison & plus je devrois

vous remercier pour ma part. Continuez, monsieur,

a médire & a meriter du genre humain, il merits

également l'un et l'autre; & conservez votre amitié

a ceux qui, comme moi vous aiment et vous honorent

(anrespondance compléte, Vol. VIII, p. 76).
Alluding to Rousseau's praise of primitive man and his con-
demnation of society and its works, Duclos wrote:

Coment l'Avocat des Sauvages a t 11 develOpé tant

de délicatesses d'amour et de vertu dont ls germs

est Sans doute dans ls coeur; mais que la Société

seule quoiqus tres corompue a pourtant develOpé

(C res ondance co lets, Vol. VII, p. 308)?
Critical comments such as these, like Rousseau's own, were
not meant tocpxetion the validity of the moral lesson to
be found in the events of La Nouvelle Hglolse, its message,
but the medium, the form of the work. How was it that
Rousseau, a man who only a short time earlier proclaimed in

the t e d'Alembert that he had chosen the motto “vitam

' 122
impendere vero,“ to submit one's life to the truth, could
place his name on the title page of a novel?

Realizing that he would probably be subject to
such criticism, Rousseau felt compelled to explain clearly,
before publication of La Nouvelle Héloise, the nature of his
work and its complete compatibility with the positions he
adapted in.his earlier works. He deferred sending his manu-
script tO his publisher Rey for yet a few more months and
completed (March 14, 1759) the Ent etien su les romans,
later called the Seconde Préface to La NguvelLe HélOISB.

It was in this work that Rousseau first confronted and at-
tempted to resolve the embarrassing issue of the novelistic
form of his work. Thus much like Julie and Saint Preux who
must continue to write letters in order to resolve the pro-
blems caused by their first ones, Rousseau wrote this pre-
face in response to the personal problems caused by his
novel. And with this preface, the epistolary form once
again assisted Rousseau, as when he turned to writing let-
ters in order to fulfill his need for an ideal love affair,
in dealing with these problems. For in the course of the
Entzgtien sur les romans, Rousseau exploited one of the
essential conventions Of the epistolary novel, the fiction
of authenticity.

Essentially, the fiction of authenticity is a claim
by the author Of an epistolary novel that the letters in
question are an authentic correspondence and that he is only

the editor. In most epistolary novels the fictional editor

123
explains, usually in a preface or editor's note, how the
letters came into his possession and the reasons for which
he had them published. With this technique, the author's
presence is not directly felt by the reader, thereby height-
ening the illusion that one is reading an actual collection
of letters. The concern for the illusion of truth was para-
mount among the eighteenth century novelists. Jean Rousset
has Observed that the eighteenth century novel had a bad
conscience.“4 Authors did not want their works to be consi-
dered as novels, but as truth. Most of the great novels of
the Enlightenment era were memoir or epistolary novels. As
Georges May demonstrates, this concern with “vraisemblance'
was due to the demands of the reading public and professional
literary critics.15 They thought Of the novel as a fanciful
tale, an amusement, such as the long heroic novels Of the
seventeenth century. The novel seemed to gain little atten-
tion.as a serious literary form unless the author explicitly
laid claim to historical truth. With the claim of truth
the novel had more in common with tragedy, whose plots were
taken from history, than with the unlikely escapades of
shepherds and shepherdesses. In epistolary novels the fic-
tion of authenticity served, in a sense, to reassure the
reader of the work's merit. If the story could be true, it

was worth reading. Given this attitude on the part of the

—‘

14Jean Rousset, Forms et siggLchation (Paris:
José Corti, 1964), p. 75.

15Le DiLemme du roman au XVIIIe siecle, p. 42.

124
reading public, the fiction Of authenticity was a necessity.
To omit it was a serious breach of the laws of esthetics
governing the novel. Besides demanding that the work be
“vraisemblable,“ the reading public of the eighteenth cen-
tury demanded to be LQLQ that the letters or memoirs (pOpu-
lar genres in their own right and with their own traditions)
were true. Although he Often suspected that the editorship
was fictitious, the eighteenth century reader almost invari-
ably lsnt himself to the illusion. As Philip Stewart Ob-
serves, “the reader was part of the act, not despite but
largely because of the historical pretense of the novel.“16
In order to induce the illusion, the fiction of authenticity,
even though recognized as pure convention, was a necessary
first step in the epistolary novel.

In the Entretien sgr les romans Rousseau played
upon the essential distinction of the fiction of authentici-
ty--that the letters are real and not a fictional narration--
not in order to strengthen the “vraisemblance' of Lg NouveLle
HgloIse in accord with the demands of the reading public,
but in order to Obscure in the reader's mind the self-contra-
diction implicit in his decision to publish a novel. Rous-
seau is purposely ambiguous on the question of authenticity.
He states explicitly that La NouveLle Hgloise is not a

“roman,“ but never says specifically that the letters are

 

16Philip Stewart, Imitation and Illusion in the
h Mem 1 -Nove 1 00-1_§0, The Art of Make-Believe
New Haven: Yale University Press, 19 9 s P. 1 1.

125
real. When the Homme de lettres criticizes La Nouvelle
£6191§g for its lack Of adventures and its extraordinary
characters, “Rousseau,“ the “editor,“ replies:
C'est-a-dire, qu'il vous faut des hommes communs
et des événements rares? Je crois que j'aimerois
mieux ls contraire. D'ailleurs, vous jugez ce que

vous avez lu comme un Roman. Ce n'en est point un;
vous l'avez dit vous-meme. C'est un Recueil de

Lettres...(La Nouvelle HélOIse, Vol. II, p. 13).

The distinction that Rousseau makes does not rule out the
possibility that the“Recueil ds Lettres“ is fictional. When
Rousseau states that his book is not a “roman,“ but a “Re-
cueil de Lettres,“ he means simply that La Nouvelle Hgloise
does not share the many faults that have come to be as-
sociated with novels, such as the unlikely events and the
common, morally uninSpiring characters mentioned above.
The term “roman,“ throughout the dialogue, is consistently
given a pejorative meaning. In a critical comment which
prefigures the main theme of Flaubert's Madame Bovar ,
“Rousseau“ states:
L'on se plaint que les Romans troublent les t6tes:
je 1e crois bien. En montrant sans cesse a ceux qui
les lisent, les pr6tendus charmes d'un état qui n'est
pas le leur, ils les séduisent, ils leur font prendre
leur état en dédain, et en faire un échange imaginaire
contre celui qu'on leur fait aimer. Voulant etre ce
qu'on n'est pas, on parvient a se croire autre chose
que ce qu'on est, et voila comment on devient fou
Lg Nouvelle Héloise, Vol. II, p. 21).
On several occasions the “editor“ disdainfully refers to
novels as “vos Romans,“ the possessive adjective serving to
separate Lg Nouvelle Hgloise and himself, in the Homme de

lettres' mind, from that genre and its practitioners. To

126
Rousseau neither of the terms, “roman“ or “lettres,“ insofar
as the former implies pure fiction and the latter, histori-
cal truth, applies to Lg Nouvelle Heloise. The Homme de
lettres, Rousseau's foil in the diaIOgue, whose Judgment
reflects that of the general reading public, admits that
La Nouvelle Héloise does not fit either category.

. Oh! si elle [Julie] avoit existé!

Hé bien? ,

Mais surement ce n'est qu'une fiction.

. Supposez.

Enos cas, je ne connois rien de 81 maussade.

Ces Lettres ne sont point des Lettres; ce Roman

n 'est point un Roman; les personna es sont des gens
de 1' autre monde (La Nouvelle Hélo se, Vol. II, p. 12).

2!”ng

In leaving the issue of authenticity unresolxed, Rousseau
sought to focus the reader's attention solely on the work's
moral value and not on its authorship.

N. ...Cette correspondence est-elle réelle, ou si

c'est une fiction?

R. Je ne vois point la conséquence. Pour dire si

un Livre est ban on mauvais, qu'importe de savoir

comment on l'a fait (La Nouvelle fHéloise, Vol. II,

p. 11)?

If Rousseau stressed early in the Entretien the
importance of examining Lg Nouvelle Hgloise itself, it was
with the intention of demonstrating its superiority over
other novels and accepting credit for it. Rousseau's ambi-
guity over the origin of the letters could ease his dilemma
only in.part. It will be remembered that Rousseau's problem
was that his novel contradicted the principles he previously
professed but that at the same time he was compelled to
write and publish it. Rousseau's refusal to acknowledge

the author of the letters suspended for a moment the

127

accusation that he renounced his principles in writing a
novel, but it risked depriving him the privilege of acknow-
ledging the fruit of his labor. For in order to feel com-
fortable in associating himself with the letters, at least
as editor, Rousseau had to confront his past criticism of the
novel and eXplain how La Nouvelle HQLQise was able to over-
come the faults of the genre.

In 1758, the very year in which he completed Lg
Nogvelle Hgloise, Rousseau wrote in the Lettre a d'Alembert:
“Quand il seroit vrai qu'on ne peint au théétre que des
passions légitimes, s'ensuit-il de 1a que les impressions
en sont plus foibles, que les effets en sont moins dan-
gereux“ (p. 163)? Applied to the novel this was the one
major criticism against which Rousseau directed most of his
arguments in defense of La Nouvelle Heloise. Rousseau
could not deny that La Nouvelle Heloise depicted an illicit
love affair. But rather than admit that his work was incon-
sistent with his previous statements, Rousseau sought to
blame society and the individual reader for his inconsist-
ency. In the Lettre a d'Alembert Rousseau was eager to 0p-
pose the establishment of a theater in Geneva because he
believed his countrymen were modern-day Spartans combatting
by the practice of virtue the degenerative influence of
larger nations. In his Opinion theater and novels could
not ameliorate a basically good society such as Geneva's;
they could only pervert it. La Nouvelle HéloIse, on the

other hand, was intended especially for those societies

128
already corrupted by an excessive devotion to the arts,
that imitation of virtue which diverts men from its prac-
tice. It was a medicine for an already diseased pOpulace.
Dans des temps d'épidémie et de contagion, quand tout
est atteint des l'enfance, faut-il empecher 1e débit
des drogues bonnes aux malades, sous prétexte qu 'elles
pourroient nuire aux gens sains (La Nouvelle HéloIse,
Vol. II, p. 25)?
Rousseau believed that La Nouvelle Héloise, unlike other
novels, was constructed so as to generate and sustain a
truly beneficent moral effect. The passion of the early
parts served to attract those who habitually read novels
and led them to the noble tableau of idyllic, virtuous
Clarens. Those offended by the first part do not need the
moral lessons of the rest of the novel.
Je pense...que 1a fin de ce recueil seroit super-
flue aux lecteurs rebutés du commencement, et que
ce meme commencement doit etre agréable a ceux pour
qui 1a fin peut etre utile. Ainsi, ceux qui n 'ache-
veront pas le livre, ne perdront rien, puisqu'il ne
leur est pas prcpre; et ceux qui peuvent en profiter
ne l'auroient pas lu, s'il eut commencé plus grave-

ment. Pour rendre utile ce qu'on veut dire, il faut
d'abord se faire écouter de ceux qui doivent en faire

usage (L aNouvelle Héloise, Vol. II, p. 17)

This last statement leaves cpen to suspicion the
sincerity of Rousseau's contention that he signed his manu-
script as “editor“ only to answer for any moral harm it
might occasion and not to accept credit for any favorable
moral effect it might have. “Je me nomme a la t6te de ce
recueil, non pour me l'apprOprier; mais pour en répondre.
S'il y a du mal, qu'on me l'impute; s'il y a du bien, je
n'entends point m'en faire honneur“ (La Nouvelle Hgloise,

129

Vol. II, p. 27). Who else could accept credit but he who
affixed his real name as editor? Rousseau's decision to
include his name as editor, his refusal to lend the letters
the full support of his motto and title, and his defense of
the moral superiority of La Nouvelle Héloise had as their
purpose the exact Opposite of the one stated-~to be immune
from all blame of immoral influence and to be credited with
any moral benefit attributable to the reading of La Nouvelle
Hgloise. Rousseau wished to have the public associate him
with Lg Nogvelle Héloise but not with the term “romancier.“
These aims, though inconsistent in themselves, corresponded
perfectly with Rousseau's personal problems. The only way
Rousseau could escape from the accusation of self-contradic-
tion that he felt sure would result from the publication of
Lg Nouvelle Héloise was to render admissible that which
appeared blatantly contradictory. To him this was not at
all unreasonable because truth and consistency were not
coincidental.

Vous voulez qu'on soit toujours consequent; je doute

que cela soit possible a l'homme; mais ce qui lui

est possible est d'etre toujours vrai: voila ce que

je veux tacher d'6tre (La Nouvelle Heloise, Vol. II,

p. 27).
As an “editor“ who neither confirms nor denies that the
“Recueil de Lettres“ is real or fictional, Rousseau was able
to contradict himself without abandoning his much heralded

motto “vitam impendere vero.“ He concealed the whole truth

about the origin of the letters, but only in order to avoid
lying.

130

N. Quand je vous demande si vous etes l'auteur de

ces Lettres, pourquoi donc éludez-vous ma question?

R. Pour cela meme que je ne veux pas dire un men—

songe.

N. Mais vous refusez aussi de dire la vérité?

R. C'est encore lui rendre honneur que de déclarer

qu' on la veut taire: Vous auriez meilleur marché

d'un homme qui voudroit mentir (L Nouvelle Héloise,

Vol. II, pp. 27-28).
To Rousseau it would be lying either to renounce his pre-
vious condemnation of novels or to refuse to acknowledge the
greatness of La Nouvelle Héloise merely in order to remain
consistent in the eyes of the public. The truth that Rous-
seau wishes to honor transcends, in his mind, any inconsis-
tency between his statements and actions. The reader is
blind to this truth. He cannot judge the work in itself but
seeks to determine its authorship before accepting or reject-
ing it.
R. H6 bien, vous concluez donc?
N. Je ne conclus pas; je doute, et je ne saurois
vous dire, combien ce doute m' a tourmenté durant
la lecture de ces lettres. Certainement, si tout
cela n 'est que fiction, vous avez fait un mauvais

livre: mais dites que ces deux femmes ont existe;
et je relis ce Recueil tous.1es ans jusqu'a 1a fin

de ma vie (L La NouvelLe HéLOise, Vol. II, p. 29).

Either of these conclusions, if accepted as the truth, would
destroy the dual aims of Rousseau's fiction of authenticity.
He would either be accused of forsaking his principles by
writing a novel or would be denied the credit due him as
author of this “recueil.“ By keeping the reader in doubt on
the question of authenticity, as “Rousseau,“ the “editor,“
succeeds in doing with the Homme de lettres, Rousseau haped
to save himself from an oversimplified judgment on the

grounds of inconsistency alone.

131

The readers of Lg Nogvellg Hglgise unfortunately
would not necessarily react to Rousseau's ambiguous fiction
of authenticity as did the Homme de lettres. They were '
inured to similar claims of editorship made in countless
memoir and epistolary novels and usually concluded or at
least suspected that editor and author were one and the
same. Rousseau needed greater reassurance that some doubt
would always remain in the reader's mind about his role in
the composition of Lg Nouvelle HéLOIse. Not only might the
arguments of the Entretien sur les romans fail to convince
the reader that La Nouvelle Heloise must be judged on its
own merits, apart from the conditions of authorship, but
because the Entretien was published separately, it might
remain ignored by many. This possibility compelled Rousseau
to take up his pen once again on the same matter. “Cependant,
Rousseau,“ writes Bernard Guyon,

ne voulant pas laisser paraitre son roman sans lui
accorder d'une maniere ou d'une autre sa protection,
rédige aussitot apres un extrait ou un résumé de son
dialogue qu'il place en tete de la premiere partie du
Ms. Rey...C'est la 'Préface' (Oeuvres cogpletes, Vol.
II, p. 13h1).

Though essentially a résumé of the ideas of the
Entzgtien, the Préface contained some adjustments. The fic-
tion of authenticity was made even more ambiguous and con-
tained several purposely ill-disguised clues intended to let
the reader “discover“ that Rousseau was perhaps something

more than either the editor or the author of Lg NouveLle
Hfilolse, that he was one of the story's characters, namely

132
Saint Preux. This variation on the conventional claim of
authenticity was intended to mystify the reader even more
than did the ambiguous claims of the Entretien and thereby
make any accusation of self-contradiction inconclusive at
best.

The title page of La Nouvelle Hgloise reads: “Let-
tres de deux amans habitans d'une petite ville au pied des
Alpes. Recueillies et publiées par J. J. Rousseau.“ This
is the standard prelude to a direct claim of authenticity.
The roles seem clearly established: the lovers are the au-
thors and Rousseau is the editor. However, the choice of
the words “recueillies et publiées“ is important. These
terms in no way eliminate the possibility that Rousseau
himself has written these letters. This distinction, as
specious as it is, plays an important part in Rousseau's
fiction of authenticity. For the opening line of the Pré-
face casts some doubt on the statement of the title page.
“11 faut des spectacles dans les grandee villes, et des
Romans aux peuples corrompus. J'ai vfi les moeurs de mon
tems, et j'ai publié ces lettres“ (La Nouvelle Hgloise,
Vol. II, p. 5). Rousseau seems to play with words here,
referring to novels in general and juxtaposing them to his
letters. Everyone knew what Rousseau thought of the morals
of his day. He implies that he published the Letters be-
cause corrupt peOple need noveLs. Must one conclude that
this is a novel? Perhaps, but not necessarily. The equi-
vocation remains. Rousseau is careful to refer to his work

as “ces lettres.“

133
In the next paragraph, the strange ambiguity concern-

ing his relationship to the work becomes more tantalizing and
perplexing.

Quoique je ne porte ici que le titre d'Editeur

j' ai travaillé moi-meme s cc livre, et je ne m‘en

cache pas. Ai-je fait le tout, et la correspondance

entiere est-elle une fiction? Gens du monde, que

vous importe? C'est surement une fiction pour vous

(La Nouvelle Héloise, Vol. II, p. 5).
The point of all this is to get the reader to ask questions,
to question his own presuppositions. Nothing is stated di-
rectly and the reader is free to decide for himself if he
can. The first sentence, like the terms “recueillies et
publiées,“ provides a margin of doubt for the reader. Rous-
seau does not say that he Lg the editor but that he bears
the LLLLg of editor. He then belabors the point of his
editorship by saying he worked on the text. Why does Rousseau
bother to state the fact that an editor works on a text un-
less he wishes to imply that his role is slightly more than
editorial? He then follows up this implication, as if reading
the reader's mind, with the logical question: is he the author
of a fictional correspondence? But the sentence is inter-
rogatory, not declarative. It does not permit the reader a
firm conclusion about the letters. And the last sentence--
“c'est surement une fiction pour vous“--though it might seem
to be a direct admission of the work's purely imaginary
origin, clearly suggests, with its contemptuous “pour vous,“

that the letters are authentic but that the reader has been

weaned far too long on novels to be able to recognize truth

134
when he sees it. Rousseau bandies the reader about as if
he did not wish to permit him the Opportunity to form an
Opinion for or against authenticity. He leads the reader
in two directions at once, purposely confusing him, as if
wishing to conceal something he is reluctant to admit.

The fourth paragraph of the Préface elaborates
still further his ambiguous fiction of authenticity and
leaves the reader with the impression that he has something
he wishes to conceal.

Quant a la vérité des faits, je déclare qu'ayant
été plusieurs fois dans le pays des deux amans,
je n y ai jamais oui parler du Baron d'Etange ni
de sa fille, ni de M. d'Orbe, ni de Hilord Edouard
Bomston, ni de M. de Wolmar. J'avertis encore que
la tOpographie est grossierement altérée en plusieurs
endroits; soit pour mieux donner 1e change an lecteur;
soit qu'en effet l'auteur n'en sut pas davantage.

Voila tout ce que je puis dire. Que ghacun pense
comme il lui plaire (La Nouvelle Héloise, Vol. II,

p. 5).
Names of peOple and places have been changed for two pos-
sible reasons: either because there is something that must
be hidden from the reader or because the author was not
familiar with the area. Rousseau tells us that whatever the
reasons for the inaccuracy of these facts (these facts refer
only to names and locations; Rousseau never Openly questions
the veracity of the events themselves) it is possible that
these false details merely conceal real persons whose true
identity the author or editor, for his own reasons, cannot
reveal. This type of concealment does not originate with
Rousseau. Memoir novelists often avowed the use of fictional

names in order to strengthen the illusion that the story is

135
true, so true that the fictional editor or the narrator him-
self had to disguise or eliminate real names so as not to
embarrass certain public personnages.17 But because La Nou-
veLle Heloise is an epistolary novel, such a technique per-
plexes the reader and invites him to question further the
reasons for disguising names and tOpography. Ostensibly,
Rousseau claims to be the “editor“ in order to guarantee the
authenticity of the letters. He never relinquishes this
role. But he seems intent on confusing it with that of
“author.“ As “editor“ he credits these onomastic modifica-
tions in the text to the “author“: “soit pour mieux donner
le change an lecteur; soit qu'en effet l'auteur n'en sut pas
davantage.“ In this case the “author“ would seem to be one
of the correspondents of La Nouvelle Héloise. But if Rous-
seau is referring to one of the characters, why would the
latter change the names when he is not the one publishing the
letters? Rousseau, who in his role as “editor“ considers
himself to be a person distinct from the “author,“ is the
one who had them published. If, on the other hand, the
“author“ to whom he refers represents the possible writer of
entirely fictional letters, why did he not have the work
published and adOpt the role of “editor“ himself? Rousseau
seems anxious to let the reader observe him trying actively
but unsuccessfully to hide the fact that he was one of the

correspondents of the “recueil,“ that the “author“ and

 

17Cf. Stewart, op, cit., pp. 277-80.

136
“editor“ are one. “Voila tout ce que je puis dire. Que
chacun pense comme il lui plaira.“ Is not Rousseau invit-
ing the reader to replace these words with something on
the order of: “That is all I dare say. The truth is there to
find for him who searches for it?“

For anyone of Rousseau's time who first read the
story, the implications of Rousseau's ambiguity over author-
ship and editorship were, in all likelihood, not immediately
clear. The Préface merely laid the necessary seeds of doubt.
William Head describes how Rousseau continued to alert the
reader to some hidden truth with numerous hints spread across
the novel under the guise of editorial footnotes.18 For
example, Rousseau the “editor,“ reacting to a statement of
Hilord Edouard, encourages the reader to doubt the authenti-
city of the whole correspondence, if he has not already done
so.

La chimere des conditions! C'est un:pair d'Angleterre
qui parle ainsi! et tout ceci ne seroit pas une fic- ‘
tion? Lecteur, qu'en dites-vous (La Nouvelle HélOIse,
Vol. II, p. 200)?
Strange words from one who should be defending the validity
of the documents he has compiled! The reader must ask what
truth the editor feels obliged to veil.
But of all the suggestively ambiguous statements

made by the “editor,“ the most striking concern Saint Preux.

Having clearly implied in the Préface that the “author“ was

 

180r. William Head, it., Chapitre IV,
“Ambiguité.'

137
one of the correSpondents of La Nouvelle HéloYse and that
the “author“ and “editor“ were one, both facts that were
supposedly to remain secret, Rousseau completes the circle
of these all too tranSparent efforts at secrecy by indicat-
ing that Saint Preux is the character with the most to hide,
that he is the “author“ and “editor,“ that he and Rousseau
are the same.

Perhaps the most Obvious suggestion by Rousseau that
he is indeed the hero of the story lies in his overly con-
spicuous concealment of Saint Preux's supposed “real“ name.
In one of the many footnotes upon which Head comments, Rous-
seau refers to Saint Preux as “cet amant anonyme.“19 Saint
Preux, the reader learns, was a name given him by Julie and
Claire. Yet even before the bestowal Of this alias, Saint
Preux's “real“ name is never given. All letters addressed
to him are marked “A l'amant de Julie“ or “De Julie.“ Mead
remarks that this anonymity constantly reminds the reader
that he does not know who Julie's lover really is, whereas
at least the other characters have a name.20 Rousseau con-
tinues to raise the question of Saint Preux's name until the
last few letters. Mead draws our attention to a footnote
to Letter VII of Part VI. After seven years of silence,
Saint Preux receives a letter from Julie. His response-

begins: “Quoi! vous vous souvenez de mon nom! Vous le savez

 

19 La Nouvelle Héloise, Vol. II, p. 186.
20William Mead, op, cit., p. 108.

138
encore écrire...En formant ce nom, votre main n'a-t-elle pas

tremble“ (La Nouvelle HélOIse, Vol. II, p. 674)? At the
second mention of “now,“ Rousseau notes: “On a dit que Saint
Preux était un nom controuvé. Peut-étre le véritable était-
il sur l'adresse“ (p. 674). 'Peut-étre! Mais pourquoi ne
l'y serait-il pas?“ says Mead.

Si la lettre a Saint Preux était enfermée dans une
lettre a Milord, tant mieux, mais sinon, doit-on
supposer que “Saint Preux“ portait maintenant dans
le monde le nom qu'il avait porté a Clarens? Alors
comment une lettre adressée a un autre nom lui
parviendrait-elle? Sans la note, qui ne se trouve
ni dans le brouillon ni dans la cOpie personnelle
de Rousseau, on ne verrait dans la phrase de Saint-
Preux qu'une simple facon de dire: Julie m'a ac-
cepté dans sa maison et me conserve son amitié at
par comble de bonheur elle m'écrit. La note, an
contraire, sert a créer une énigme, car, encore une
fois, on devgit réfléchir que ce jeune homme “de
famille honnete quoique obscure“, connu de tout le
monde a Clarens et qui ne fait d ailleurs rien qui
déshonorerait le nom de ses parents, est le seul
des personnages a porter pour les autres un nom qui
n'est pas 1e sien. Le nom que la main de Julie a
tracé sur le papier ne sera-t-il done pas pour le
lecteur celui de Jean-Jacques Rousseau?21

It was not until the publication of the Confessions in 1778
that Rousseau revealed that La NouvelLe Heloise, though en-
riched by circumstances from his own life, was imaginary.
“Sans quelques reminiscences de jeunesse et Made d'Houdetot,
les amours que j'ai sentis et décrits n'auroient été qu'avec
des Sylphides“ (Confessions, Vol. I, p. 548).

It is impOssible to ascertain the percentage of
readers who actually believed Rousseau was Saint Preux. Some

apparently gave the question serious consideration. Mme de

 

211b1d., p. 109.

139

Polignac confessed in a letter to Mme de Verdelin that she
would like to ask Rousseau to see the portrait of Julie that
Saint Preux received.22 Charles Duclos, a novelist in his
own right, believed at least that Rousseau was hiding some
secret about the novel's origins.

Je desirois comme lecteur et citoyen qu'il [the novel]

fut d'un autre que de vous; comme ami, je Serois

faché qu'il n' en fut pas. Vous me rendez, je crois,

la justice de croire qu' en vous parlant ainsi, je

ne pompe pas votre Secret; quand je Suis curieux,

je fais mes questions crument; ainsi ne me repondez

pas a cet article la (Corregpondance comQLPte, Vol.

VII, Letter 1165, p. 317)}
There is actually little documentary evidence to indicate
that Rousseau succeeded in convincing many of his readers
that he was Julie's lover. Of greater importance, however,
in this whole matter is that Rousseau felt sufficiently
threatened by a possibly unprOpitious public reaction to
involve himself personally, in two separate prefaces, in
this elaborate and convoluted charade.

. Head's analysis of the personal bent Rousseau gave
Lg Nouvelle Hélolse through the fiction of authenticity is
aimed at establishing the exact nature of Rousseau's influ-
ence upon the “roman personnel“ and his originality as com-
pared to his most illustrious predecessor in the epistolary
novel, Richardson. While not truly a “roman personnel,“ Lg
Nouvelle Hgloise provided writers like Goethe, Chateaubriand,

and Constant a whole new approach to the novel. As for the

L

6 22Corres ondance com lete, Vol. VIII, Letter 1258,
p050

1&0

comparison to Richardson, Mead states that they achieved
common literary ends-~“vraisemblance'--through different
means--one subjective, the other objective.

Le coté “personnel“ de la Nouvelle Héloise, comme

l' objectivité de Clarissa, est destiné surtout a

nous procurer cette “utile“ sensation d' un contact

bouleversant avec l'existence de nos semblables.2
However, besides increasing the “vraisemblance“ of La Nouvelle
Héloise, Rousseau's efforts at sustaining the illusion of a
personal correSpondence had a significant effect upon Rous-
seau's career. It made him more aware that the examination
and expression of the self were the activities that best
suited his genius. For Rousseau, by creating a novel from
a very personal use of letters and orienting the epistolary
convention of the fiction of authenticity in both prefaces
toward the threat of that novel's publication on his personal
reputation, drew himself further and further into the drama
of written self—eXpression that is the epistolary novel and
that later became the drama of his autobiographical writings.

Bernard Guyon writes of the capacity of the epis-

tolary novel to reveal Rousseau's complex personality:

...Le roman par lettres, grace au diaIOgue permanent

qu' il institue entre des personnages qui sont tous,

a des degrés divers, des représentants de l' auteur,

offrait a un homme qui déja sentait s 'accumuler sur

lui les malentendus et les contresens, un moyen ex-

ceptionnel de faire apparaitre concurremment les

aspects multiples de sa sensibilité, les richesses

contrastées de sa pensée (Oeuvres co letes, Vol.
II, p. xxxvi).

Any author, of course, invariably shows something of himself

~—

23William Mead, Op, cit,, p. 106.

101
in all that he writes. However, Rousseau, as his description
of the novel's genesis in the anfesnggs indicates and as
Guyon implies here, was more conscious than most novelists
of the degree to which his characters express his own feel-
ings and ideas. Certainly, the epistolary form satisfied
Rousseau's penchant and need to reveal and explain himself
obliquely. But the epistolary form, through its conventional
fiction of authenticity, led Rousseau to an important dis-
covery, one that would greatly influence his later autobio-
graphical works: that the truth about himself, hidden be-
neath his incongruous behavior, lies in the written expres-
sion of his heart and mind. By its very nature the fiction
of authenticity invited Rousseau to reflect upon the letters
he had written and to comment on the degree of truth contained
therein. And, as was previously indicated, because Rousseau
labored under the handicap of an anti-novel, anti-theater
reputation, not only did his letters have to seem authentic,
but the illusion of their authenticity depended, at least in
his own mind, upon his ability to make himself credible,
that is, to make his novel an acceptable addition to the
body of his work, true to the Spirit of the Qiscours and
the Lgttre a d'Alembert. No novelist has ever seemed so
concerned about the manner in which his work, in its every
detail, reflected his own worth as a human being. He even
established La Nouvelle Hélgise as a standard for understand-
ing him. If one could thoroughly appreciate La Nouveng
Hgloise, this indicated that one had a special moral sense

1&2
which was necessary in order to understand him. “...J'ai
toujours cru qu'on ne pouvoit prendre un interest si vif a
l'Hgloise, sans avoir ce sixiéme sens, ce sens moral dont si
peu de cOeurs sont doués, et sans lequel nul ne sauroit en-
tendre le mien“ (Cogggssions, Vol. I, p. 5H7). It was out
of a desire that he be understood through his novel, despite
the apparent self-contradictions, that Rousseau centered
the whole question of authenticity around himself, Rousseau-
Saint Preux, editor-author.

The Prefaces to La Nouvelle Hélgigg did not mark
the first time that Rousseau felt the need to defend himself
against a charge of self-contradiction. In December of 1752,
Rousseau wrote in the Preface to his play Narcisse an apology
for his decision to have the comedy presented (the 18th and
20th of December, 1752) and later published. “11 faut, mal-
gré ma ré'pugnance, que je parle de moi; il faut que je con-
vienne des torts que l'on m'attribue, ou que je m'en justi-
fie“ (Narcisse, Vol. II, p. 959). Such an apology was prompt-
ed by the fact that two years earlier Rousseau had published
his famous Discours sur les sciences et les arts. Rousseau
was at the height of his “réforme” and was determined to
live up to the principles enunciated in his Discours. He
felt that the great fault of all philOSOphers was that they
never lived up to their principles. In defense of his own
transgressions on this score, he argued that Narcisse and
some other earlier plays and verse were the product of inex-

perienced youth.

1H3

...Je ne pense plus comme l'Auteur dont ils [his

earlier works] sont l'ouvrage. Ce sont des enfans

illégitimes que l'on caresse encore avec plaisir

en rougissant d'en etre 1e pére, a qui l'on fait

ses derniers adieux, et qu'on envoie chercher for-

tune, sans beaucoup s'embarrasser de ce qu'ils

deviendront (Narcisse, Vol. II, p. 963).
Rousseau also added, as he did later in the Preface to Lg
Nouvelle Héldise, that perhaps corrupted peOple need plays
and other such amusements. In contrast to the Prefaces to
his novel, however, Rousseau made no pretense of converting
peOple to virtue. Works such as Narcisse were entertainment
that diverted the audience from evil actions.

11 ne s'agit plus de porter les peuples a bien

faire, il faut seulement les distraire de faire

le mal; il faut les occuper a des niaiseries pour

les détourner des mauvaises actions; 11 faut les

amuser au lieu de les precher...c'est peut-etre

les servir utilement encore que d'offrir aux autres

des objets de distraction qui les e echent de songer

a eux Narcisse, Vol. II, pp. 972-73 .
With the exception of this last point concerning the moral
effect of his works, Rousseau's defense against the accusa-
tion of self-contradiction follows a very similar pattern in
the Prefaces to Ngrcisse and La Nouvelle Hgloise. However,
the Preface to La Nouvelle Héloise established-apnew and im-
portant departure on this question. Whereas the Preface to
Ngggisse was an appendage to the play, the Preface to Lg
Nouvelle Hgloise served an essential function in the novel
as the fiction of authenticity. For the first time, Rous-
seau's attempt to explain the discrepancies between his
principles and his conduct were integrated into the very

form of his work.

1st
In the Confessions, the Dialo es, and the Réveries

Rousseau confronted the same perplexing division in his per-
sonality which others observed, but misinterpreted.

Pour bien connoitre un caractére ily faudroit dis-

tinguer l'aquis d'avec la nature, voir comment 11

s 'est formé, quelles occashmnal'ont develOppé, quel

enchainement d'affections secrettes l'a rendu tel,

et comment 11 se modifie, pour produire quelquefois

les effets les plus inattendus (Ebauches des Confes-

sions, Vol. I, p. 11U9)

“La force de vos preuves,“ says Rousseau to la Francois of
the Dialogges who has accused Jean-Jacques of “abominations,“
ne me laisse pas douter un moment des crimes qu 'elles
attestent, et la-dessus je pense exactement comme
vous: mais vous unissez des choses que je sépare.

L' Auteur des Livres et celui des crimes vous paroit

la meme personne; je me crois fondé a en faire deux.

Voila, Monsieur le mot de l'énigme (Dialo ues, Vol.

I, p. 67h).
Rousseau, without denying that he had committed acts which
contravened the moral principles eSpoused in all his works
(theft, prevarication, false witness, abandonment of his
children to a public orphanage), refused to admit to any
charge of hypocrisy. His claims to moral authenticity in
the autobiographical works rested on contentions as dif-
ficult to verify as the fiction of authenticity Of La Nou-
velle Héloise: his inner self, his “affections secrettes,“
his “dispositions intérieures“ (Confessions, Vol. I, p. 86).
Rousseau maintained that his true nature, “...cette bien-
veillance innée pour mes semblables, cet amour ardent du
grand, du vrai, du beau, du juste; cette horreur du mal en
tout genre; cette impossibilité de hair, de nuire, et méme

de le vouloir“ (Confessions, Vol. I, pp. 356-57), remained

1&5

intact, even while committing reprehensible and shameful
acts. These acts were the result of unavoidable circum-
stances which at times distorted the voice of nature. How
was society to recognize his “diSpositions intérieures?‘I
Through careful consideration of his works which are their
outward manifestation.

Mais lisez tous ces passages dans le sens qu'ils

présentent naturellement a l'eSprit du lecteur et

qu'ils avoient dans celui de l'auteur en les écri-

vant,lisez-1es a leur place avec ce qui précéde

at ce qui suit, consultez la disposition de coeur

oh ces lectures vous mettent; c 'est cette diSposi-

tion qui vous éclairera sur leur véritable sens

(Dialo es, Vol. I, p. 695).

Ne songez point a l'Auteur en les lisant, et sans

vous prevenir ni pour ni contre, livrez votre ame

aux impressions qu 'elle en recevra. Vous vous assu-

rerez ainsi par vous-meme de 1' intention dans laquelle

ont été ecrits ces livres, et s'ils peuvent etre
l'ouvrage d'un scelerat qui couvoit de mauvais des-

seine (D ialogues, Vol. I, p. 699).
The directive to consider the work and not the author echoes
that of the Seconde Préface of La Nouvelle Héloise. The
purpose of the directive is essentially the same as that of
his novel's fiction of authenticity: to deter the reader
from drawing erroneous conclusions about the sincerity of
Rousseau‘s convictions from his often erratic behavior.

The authenticity that Rousseau sought to esta-
blish by purposely confusing the issue of editorship-
authorship and by seeking to inject himself into the story
applied to himself as well as to the letters. At its deep-
est level, the authenticity was moral, not literary. As

Saint Preux, author insofar as he is one of the correspondents

1h6
and editor insofar as he collects and gives a fictitious
cover to the letters, Rousseau tried to persuade the reader
to accept this paradoxical truth: that he was not a novelist
in the conventional sense and in no way betrayed his earlier
criticism of novels; and that at the same time he was the
author of La Nouvelle Héloise, a fictional “recueil de
lettres“ which depicted a successfulzfixuggle for virtue.
Rousseau saw himself and his novel as morally authentic be-
cause both remain consistent, in spirit if not in word, with
moral principle.

At issue for Rousseau in the autobiographical writ-
ings and the Prefaces to L§_Nouvelle Héloise is the truth
concerning his own character and its accurate reflection in
his works. And because Rousseau locates the source of truth
in his own natural impulses, it mattered little that his
claims of authenticity applied to entirely fictional letters.
The events described in the autobiographical works, though
based on fact, and the events of his novel are vehicles of
the same truth. To Rousseau the authenticity of La Nouvelle
Héloise and the authenticity of the Confessions represent
two sides of the same coin.

The truth of La Nouvelle Hélgigg lay in the feel-
ings and ideas eXpressed in its letters. In support of this
sentimental and intellectual authenticity, Rousseau pointed
to the conviction held by many of his readers that the feel-
ings and passions eXpressed in the letters had been really

eXperienced. Readers were mistaken only in their belief

147
that these sentiments were directed toward real persons.

Tout le monde étoit persuadé qu'on ne pouvait ex-
primer si vivement des sentimens qu'on n'auroit
point éprouvés, ni peindre ainsi les transports

de l'amour que d'appres son prcpre coeur. En cela
l'on avoit raison et 11 est certain que j'écrivis
ce roman dans les plus brulantes extases; mais on
se trompoit en pensant qu'il avoit fallu des objets
réels pour les produire; on étoit loin de concevoir
a quel point 3e puis m 'enflammer pour des etres
imaginaires (Confessions, Vol. I, p. 5&8).

Rousseau's ambiguity in the fiction of authenticity certainly_

contributed to the reader's error. On the level of fact,
his fiction of authenticity was a lie, and a far more ela-
borate and deceitful one than the simple traditional claim
of editorship. But fact and authenticity were not identical
for Rousseau. Authenticity meant truth, the “dispositions
intérieures.“ Fact pertained only to the historical reality
of an event: either something occurred or it did not. Rous-
seau, therefore, could not understand the need for revealing
the fictional nature of the letters.

Je ne voulus ni confirmer ni détruire une erreur

qui m'étoit avantageuse. On peut voir dans la

preface en dialogue que 3e fis imprimer a part

comment je laissai la-dessus 1e public an suspens.

Les rigoristes disent que j' aurois du déclarer

la vérité tout rondement. Pour moi Je ne vois pas

ce qui m' y pouvoit obliger, et je crois qu 'ily

auroit eu plus de betise que defranchise a cette

declaration faite sans necessité (Confessions,

V0101. p0 5&8).
To reveal that the letters were fictional would have been
more stupid than honest and totally unnecessary because the
reading public, as Rousseau was well aware, expected and
depended upon the fiction of authenticity in order to lend

themselves to the illusion of reality. And more important

I i l‘a V
Aha—m

A-
__‘

1??

1&8
for Rousseau, such a revelation, although factually true,
would have rendered ineffective that more profound inner
truth contained in the letters.

Even though the autobiographical works deal with
facts from Rousseau's life, the role of historical facts in
establishing the authenticity of these works differs little
from that of the fictional events of La Nouvelle Heloise.
They remain subordinate in importance to the inner being
where Rousseau locates truth.

.‘.J'écris moins l'histoire de ces évenenmens en eux-
memes que celle de l'état de mon ame, a mesure qu'ils
sont arrivés. Or les ames ne sont plus ou moins
illustres que selon qu'elles ont des sentimens plus

ou moins grands et nobles, des idées plus ou moins
vives et nombreuses. Les faits ne sont ici que des
causes occasionnelles....Les faits sont publics, et
chacun peut les connoitre; mais 11 s 'agit d'en trouver
les causes secrettes (Ebauches des Confessions, Vol.

I, pp. 1150- -51).
Rousseau believed that the events of his life, the facts,
should be interpreted in the light of his sentiments at the
time of their occurrence. For his memory of these feelings,
the “causes secrettes,“ is more reliable than that of parti-
cular incidents.

Je n 'ai qu' un guide fidelle sur lequel je puisse
compter; c'est la chains des sentimens qui ont
marqué la succession de mon etre, et par eux celle
des évenemens qui en ont été la cause on l'effet.
J'oublie aisément mes malheurs, mais je ne puis
oublier mes fautes, et 3' oublie encor moins mes bons
sentimens. Leur souvenir m 'est trOp cher pour s 'ef-
facer Jamais de mon coeur. Je puis faire des omis-
sions dans les faits, des tranSpositions, des er-
reurs de dates; mais je ne puis me tromper sur ce
que J'ai senti, ni sur ce que mes sentimens m'ont
fait faire; et voila dequoi principalement il
s'agit. L'objet prcpre de mes confessions est

de faire connoitre exactement mon intérieur dans

1&9

toutes les situations de ma vie. C'est l'histoire

de mon ame que j'ai promise, et pour l'écrire fi-

dellement je n'ai pas besoin d'autres mémoires: 11

me suffit, comme 9' ai faitjusqu'ici, de rentrer

au dedans de moi Confessions, Vol. I, p. 278).
The emphasis on sentiments was not to be construed as a
license to alter the facts. ”...Il ne suffit pas...que
mes recits soient fidelles il faut aussi qu'ils soient
exacts” (Confessions, Vol. I, p. 175). However, in the
absence of available facts, Rousseau saw no fraudulence in

substituting fictional elements, as long as they did not

 

misrepresent the inner truth.

Je n'ai rien tu de mauvais, rien ajouté de bon, et

s'il m'est arrivé d'employer quelque ornement indif-

férent, ce n' a jamais été que pour remplir un vide

occasionné par mon défaut de mémoire; 3' ai pu sup-

poser vrai ce que je savois avoir pu l'etre, jamais

ce que je savois etre faux (Confessions, Vol. I, p. 5).
As Rousseau observes in the Quatrieme Promenade (Vol. I, pp.
1030-31), “fiction” is not the same as “mensongs.” One lies
only when the statements made, be they factual or fictitious,
constitute an injustice, either toward oneself or others.
Rousseau believed that if truth and justice are to be served,
fact on occasion had to be seasoned with fiction much like
the fiction of La Nouvelle Héloise needed the hint that the
correspondence was in fact his own.

The task of accurately combining the multitude of
facts and feelings in order to realize truth is an extremely
ambitious if not impossible one. Rousseau pondered this is-
sue, central to all the autobiographical works, in the 'pré-

ambule' to the Neuchétel manuscript of the Confessions.

150

II faudroit pour ce que j'ai a dire inventer un

langage aussi nouveau que mon projet: car quel ton,

quel style prendre pour débrouiller ce cahos im-

mense de sentimens si divers, si contradictoires,

souvent si vils et quelquefois si sublimes dont

3e fus sans cesse Egité (Ebauches des Confessions,

Vol. I, p. 1153).2
The problems of determining the truth about himself are
really literary ones. He needs a special language, a new
tone and style. Rousseau believed that he was able to per-
ceive and to reveal in writing, as an observable reality,
his true self. 'Je veux montrer a mes semblables un homme
dans toute la vérité de la nature; et cet homme, ce sera
moi' (Confessions, Vol. I, p. 5). But the self, what he
referred to in the gbauches des Confessions as the 'modelle
intérieur," is really a literary creation. Robert C. Carroll
writes:'Rousseau's writing task eSpecially after the novels
is not a Justification of self but a creation of self and
an articulation of self within the linguistic atmOSphere.'25
'L'homme dans toute la vérité de la nature” that Rousseau
wishes men to see and understand is no more real than the
characters of La Nouvelle Héloisg. Stated more positively,
the reality of the autobiographical works is the same as

that of La Nouvelle Héloise: it is artistic. Their reality,

 

2“The Neuchétel manuscript (1764), titled Ebauches
des Confessions in the Oeuvres co letes, contains a much
longer statement of the goals of the Confessions than the
definitive Geneva mansucript. Cf. Oeuvres com létes, Vol.
I, pp. 1888-89 for more complete information on this manu-
script.

25Robert C. Carroll, ”Rousseau's bookish ontolbgy,‘
tudies on Volt ire and the Eighteenth Century. Vol. 79,
197i, p.'iéE.

 

 

151
their truth, is that of the printed page, not that of
observable facts. As far as Rousseau is concerned, others
must accept this written truth. For no one can know the
truth about the I'modelle intérieur" of another. “Comment
nous feroit-on connoitre ce modelle intérieur, que celui
qui le peint dans un.autre ne sauroit voir, et que celui
qui le voit en lui-meme ne veut pas montrer“ (Ebauches deg
Confessions, Vol. I, p. 1149)? And even though the Judgment
of the individual who examines his own “modelle intérieur'
is questionable, his is the least fallible. 'Nul ne peut
écrire la vie d'un homme que lui-m6me. Sa maniére d'6tre
intérieure, sa véritable vie n'est connue que de lui...‘
(Ebauches des Confeggigns, Vol. I, p. 1149). At its deepest
level the observable truth of Rousseau's autobiographical
works is that of a writer in the process of creating a self
from what he alone can perceive.

In the autobiographical works writing enabled Rous-
seau to create for himself an existence apart from a world
in which he appeared totally inept. “Rousseau's autobio-
graphical works are...an attempt to create a written world
where the subject can live his existence to the fullest, ex-
periencing a full presence without blinking or blushing be-
fore the monolithic regard of society."26 From the Confes-
si ms, to the Dialo es, to the Réveries, Rousseau never

ceased treating this written world in which his true self is

 

26Ipid., p. 237.

152
visible to all. As Jean Starobinski explains, the constantly
renewed verbal creation determines authentic self-expression.
La 101 de l'authenticité n‘interdit rien, mais n'est
Jamaissatisfaite. Elle n'exige pas que la parole
reproduise une réalité préalable, mais qu'elle pro-
dgise sa vérité dans un dévelOppement libre et inin-
terrompu.27
Self-creation in writing became a way of life for Rousseau.
Silence, though appealing, would have frustrated his goal of
correcting the false impression society had of him.
Un silence fier et dédaigneux est en pareil cas plus
a sa place, et eut été bien plus de mon gout; mais il
n'auroit pas rempli mon obJet, et pour le remplir il

falloit necessairement que Je disse de quel oeil, si
2'étois un autre, Je verrois un homme tel que Je suis

Dialogues, Vol. I, p. 665).

His true self lies in his written interpretation of himself.
It is in his imagined existence, his writings, that he wishes
to be Judged.

Que la trompette du Jugement dernier sonne quand

elle voudra; Je viendrai ce livre a la main me pré-

senter devant le souverain Juge. Je dirai hautement:

voila ce que J'ai fait, ce que J'ai pensé, ce que Je

fus (Confessions, Vol. I, p. 5).
The written word replaces the man as the basis of Judgment.

The significance of Rousseau's eXperience with the

epistolary form concerns precisely the act of written self-
creation. The epistolary form of La Nouvelle Réloise was the
instrument through which Rousseau established, as it were,
his laws of authentic self-eXpression which later governed

the autobiographical form. Rousseau first of all vicariously

 

27Jean-Jac ues Rousseau: l transnarence et l'ob-
m. p. 2370 ”-—

 

153
experienced what was for him an ideal love affair through the
letters of L§_Mouvelle Hélgigg. The characters themselves
achieve their most constant fulfillment in their correspon-
dence. There are very few overt, physical experiences of
love between Julie and Saint Preux. For the author and his
imaginary lovers, proof of the reality and authenticity of
the love they feel lies in their ability to eXpress it in
writing. Rousseau became more aware of the nature of his
ability to eXpress his true feelings in writing when, through
the fiction of authenticity, he had occasion to reflect upon
the meaning of these imaginary letters in his own life. Be-
cause he saw that on the one hand the fictitiousness of
these letters contradicted his previous pronouncements on
novels and that on the other they eXpressed his true senti-
ments, Rousseau realized that their authenticity transcended
the concepts of fact and fiction. By elaborating this theory
of authenticity in two separate prefaces, each one seeking
to establish the integrity of the work and of its “editor,“
Rousseau initiated a personal tradition of locating his true

self in the written expression of the self.

‘I-
'l- i-

The problem of literary truth, authenticity, raised
by Rousseau through his use of the epistolary form influenced
not only Rousseau's own intellectual development, but also
the develOpment of the novel in France.

In 1761 novelists still sought to persuade the

reader of the value of their works through a pretension to

154

authenticity. This had been the mainstay of memoir and
epistolary novels since the early part of the century. It
persisted even though it became unconvincing through overuse.
The novel, it was felt, had to affect the forms of genuine
documents: memoirs, histories, and letters, in order to im-
prove its reputation beyond that of pure fantasy. Commenting
on the dependence of French novelists of the eighteenth
century on claims of authenticity, Philip Stewart states:

The author in fact alludes more to technical devices--

the “revetement“--than to the essential verisimili-

tude of plot, which remained a problem, for most

novels were still an extravagant stringing together

of fortuitous tales studded with coincidences.28
Rousseau, though using the same “revétement,“ invites, indeed
dares the reader to go beyond the question of fact or fiction
and consider Lg Nouvelle Héloise as a self-contained artistic
entity before Judging its value as literature. As Rousseau
later eXplained in the Réveries, one should seek the “vérité
morale“ in fiction, for good fiction does not hide truth but
dramatizes useful truths.

Mentir sans profit ni préJudice de 801 hi d'autrui

n'est pas mentir: ce n'est pas mensonge, c'est fic-

tion.

Les fictions qui ont un obJet moral s 'appellent

apologues ou fables et comme leur obJet n'est ou

ne doit etre que d'envelOpper des vérités utiles

sous des formes sensibles et agréables, en pareil

cas on no s'attache guére a cacher le mensonge de

fait qui n 'est que l'habit de la vérité, et celui

qui ne débite une fable que pour une fable ne ment
on aucune facon (Vol. I, p. 1029).

28Imitation ggd Illusion in the French Memoiz;
Nove 00-1 0, p. 17 .

 

 

155
In defending fiction Rousseau's primary intention
was not to promote the novel genre per se. His main concern
was the moral effect of novels. LQZNouvglle Héloise was
actually intended to be the novel to end all novels, novels
here in the sense of exaggerated, frivolous adventures.

Il est d'autres fictions purement oiseuses telles
que sont la pluspart des contes et des romans qui,
sans renfermer aucune instruction véritable n'ont
pgu;)obJet que l'amusement (Reveries, Vol. I, p.

1 2 .

Saint Preux suggests that novels be permitted to be written
only by certain morally sensitive writers.

Les Romans sont peut-étre la derniere instruction
qu'il reste a donner a un peuple assés corrompu
pour que toute autre lui soit inutile; Je voudrois
qu'alors la composition de ces sortes de livres

ne fut permise qu'a des gens honnetes mais sen-
sibles dont le coeur se peignit dans leurs écrits,
a des auteurs qui ne fussent pas au dessus des
foiblesses de l'humanité, qui ne montrassent pas
tout d'un coup la vertu dans le Ciel hors de la
portéedes hommes mais qui la leur fissent aimer
en la peignant d‘abord moins austere, et puis du
sein du vice les y sussent conduire insensiblement

(Lg Nouvelle Heloise, Vol. II, p. 277).

One suspects, however, that if Rousseau took up Diogenes“
lantern in order to find these “honnétes gens,“ the only
man that he would discover to fit the description would be
Jean-Jacques Rousseau. This being the case, La Nouvelle
Hfiloise would have to be not only the last, but the only
“novel worthy of the term “utile.“ Nonetheless, La Nouvelle
Hgloise, because of its overall high moral tone, was in-
strumental in improving the novel's reputation in France

and in increasing its popularity.

156

La Nouvelle Héloise itself, of course, met with an
overwhelmingly favorable reaction. A reading of volume VIII
of Rousseau's Correspondance complete (ed. R. A. Leigh) re-
veals how deeply moved were its readers. Even some of Rous-
seau's stern countrymen from Geneva praised the work. In
the forty years following the publication of La Nouve;;g
Heloise (i761), literary critics looked more favorably upon
the novel. “By the end of the eighteenth century, thus, the
novel had won over a number of zealous defenders to its
cause; and their arguments served both to give the genre
status and to Justify the ever-growing interest of the read-
ing public.“29 Many of the arguments they presented in de-
fense of the novel restated those of Rousseau. Josephine
Grieder has shown that the critics stressed the importance
of feelings, “sensibilité,“ in novels and that “...they
argued that fiction was in fact truth--moral truth.“3o
Many novelists reacted to Rousseau's insistence on moral
over factual truth by stressing moral didacticism in their
works. There was a marked increase in the number of these
“romans moraux“: from 1741-1760, there were fifteen; from

1761-1780, ninety-seven.31 Most of these novels were little

 

29Josephine Grieder, “The Novel as a Genre: Formal
French Literary Theory, 1760-1800,“ French Review, Vol. XLVI,
No. 2, December, 1972, p. 289.

301b1d., p. 283.

31Cf. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, La Nouvelle Héloise,
3d. Daniel hornet, Vol. I (Paris: Hachette, 1925), pp. 303-
05.

157

more than ill-disguised sermons. However, the deeper im-
plications of the notion of “moral truth“ brought out in
La Nouvellg Héloise were not lost upon the novelists.
Bernard Guyon remarks that novelists from Restif and Laclos
to Balzac and Flaubert praised La Nouvelle Hélgise as one
of the milestones of art.32 Rousseau's skill in letting
the reader “discover“ that he was really Saint Preux Opened
the door to the many autobiographical novels of the Romantic
period. Says William Mead:

Hais les autres romanciers qui 1e lisaient n‘auront

pas manqué d'apprécier, et des la premiere heure,

de quelle facon cette découverte de l'autobiographie

romancée pouvait leur faciliter, a eux aussi, la

tache. Ils ne savaient peut-etre pas que Rousseau

mentait; mais 1e fallait-il savoir pour cgmprendre

combien ce genre de mensonge était utile73
And three generations later, Balzac's triumphant claim of
truth for the fruits of his imagination is a descendant of
Rousseau's ambiguous fiction of authenticity.

Ah! sachez-le; ce drame n'est ni une fiction, ni un

roman. All is true, 11 est si veritable, que chacun

peut en reconnaItEe les éléments chez soi, dans son

coeur peut-etre.3

Where lies truth? This question, insofar as it

pertains to art, is the most important one raised by Rous-

seau's handling of the epistolary form of La Nouvelle

 

32Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Oeuvres co letes, Vol.
II, p. xix.

33Jean-Jacques Rousseau ou le romancier enchaing,
p. 111.

Bunonoré de Balzac, Le Pere Goriot (Paris: Garnier,
19630 pp. 6'70

158
Hgquse. Subsequent novelists owed much to Rousseau, for
his skill served to loosen the fetters of overly esteemed

factual truth on the art of the novel in France.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY
A LIST OF WORKS CONSULTED

WORKS OF JEAN-JACQUES ROUSSEAU

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Correspondance complete. ed. R. A.
Leigh. 18 vols. Geneva: Institut et Musée Voltaire,

1965-73.

. Lgttre a thd'Alembert. In Du Contrat social.
Paris: Garnier, 1962, pp. 123-234.

 

. Lettre e M. diAlembert. ed. Fuchs, Geneva, 1948.

. La Nouvelle Héloisg. ed. Daniel Hornet. 4 vols.
Paris: Hachette, 1925.

. Oeuvres completes. eds. Bernard Gagnebin and
Marcel Ra mond. 4vols. Paris: Gallimard, Bibliotheque
de la Plé ade, 1959-69.

. Oeuvres completes. ed. Musset-Pathay. Vol. II:
Essai sur l'origine des langues. Paris: Dupont, 1824.

BOOKS ON ROUSSEAU

Borel, Jacques. genie et folie de Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
Paris: José Corti, 1966.

Burgelin, Pierre. La Philospphie de_;}existence de Jean:
Jaggues Rousseau. Paris: Presses Universitaires de
France, 1952.

Cassirer, Ernst. The Question of Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
Trans. and intro. by Peter Gay. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press, 1954.

Cracker, Lester G. RousseguL§_Social Contract. Cleveland:
Case Western Reserve University Press, 1968.

159

160

Eigeldinger, Marc. Jean-Jacques Rousseau et la réalité de
l'imaginaire. Neuchatel: A la Baconniere, 19 2.

Ellis, Madelaine B. Julge: or La Nouvelle HéloYseL_A Syn-
thesis of Rousseau's Thought (1749-1759IT‘ Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 1949.

Ellrich, Robert J. Rousseau and his Reader: The Rhetorical
Situation of the MaJor Works. Chapel Hill: North
Carolina Studies in Romance Langugges and Literatureg,

1959.

Guéhenno, Jean. Jean-Jacques1 Histoire d'une conscience.
2 vols. Paris: Gallimard, 1962.

Jean-Jacques Rousseaup(1712-177§). Société des Etudes
Robespierristes. Cap, 1963.

Launay, Michel. Jean-Jacques Rousseau et son temps. Paris:
Nizet, 1969.

Lecercle, Jean-Louis. Rousseau et l'art du roman. Paris:
Armand Colin, 1969.

Masters, Roger D. The Political Philosthy of Rousseau.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 19 8.
McManners, J. The Social Contract and Rousseau's Revolt

a ainst Societ . Leicester: Leicester University—
Press, 1968.

Head, William. Jean-Jacques Rousseau ou le romancier en-
chging. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1966.

 

Mornet, Daniel. La Nouvelle HéloIse de Rousseau. Paris:
Mellotée, 1929.

Plan, P.-P. Jean-Jacques Rousseau raconté_par les gazettes
de son tegp . Paris: 1912.

Raymond, Marcel. Jean-Jacques Rousseau la uéte de soi et
la reverie. Paris: JosEICorti, 1962.

 

 

Rousset, Jean. Forme et signification. Paris: José Corti,
1964, pp. 65-92.

Starobinski, Jean. Jean-Jacques Rousseau: la transparencs
et l'obstacle. Paris: Gallimard, 19587

. nggil_xiyggt. Paris: Gallimard, 1960, pp. 93-
190.

Temmer, Mark J. Timepin Rousseau and Kant. Paris: 1958.

r

161

Van Laere,.F. Une Lecture du temps dans la Nouvelle
Heloise. Neuchatel: A la BaconniEre, 19 .

Van Tieghem, Philippe. La Nouvelle HéloIse de Jean-Jacques
Rousseau. Paris: Nizet, 1956.

ARTICLES ON ROUSSEAU

Anderson, David. “Edouard and Jean-Jacques in retrospect,“
L'Esprit créateur, IX (Fall 1969), pp. 219-226.

Belaval, Y. “La Théorie du Jugement dans l'Emile." In

Jean-Jgggues Rousseau et son oeuvre. Paris: 1964,
pp. 149'1 70

Bellenot, J.-L. “Les Formes de l'amour dans la Nouvelle
Héloise,“ Annales Jean-Jacques Rousgeau, XXXIII (1953-
1955 9 pp. 149-208.

Blum, Carol. “La Nouvelle HéloIse: An Act in the Life of
Jezn;Jacques Rousseau," L'Esprit créateur, IX (Fall
19 9 .

Carré, J.-R. "Le Secret de Jean-Jacques Rousseau,“ Revue
d'histoire littérggre de la France, (avril-Juin et
Juillet-septembre 1949).

Carroll, Robert C. “Rousseau's Bookish Ontology,“ Studies

on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century, Vol. 79 (1971),
pp. 103-1520

Cherpack, C. “Space, Time, and Memory in la Nouvelle HéloIse,“
L'Esprit créateur (1963), pp. 167-171.

Coulet, Henri. “Sur la Composition de la Nouvelle HéloIse,“
L'Infogmation littéraire (1968), pp. 18-21.

Crocker, Lester G. “Julie ou la nouvelle duplicité “
es Jean-JacquegfiRousseau, XXXVI (1963-1965),

pp. 105-152 0

Dickman, A. J. “Lg_Temps est un songe et la Nouvelle Heloise,“
PhilolOgical Quarterly (195?), pp. 216-220.

Fabre, Jean. “Réalité et UtOpie dans la pensée politi ue de
Rousseau,“ Annales Jean-Jacques Rousseau, XXXVI 1963-
1965). pp. 181-221. '

Gagnebin, Bernard. “Vérité et véracité dans les Confessions.“
In Jegg-Jacgues Rousseagpet son oeuvre. Paris: 1964,
pp. 7-21 0

162

Gossman, L. “Time and History in Rousseau,“ Studies on

Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century, XXX, pp. 311-49.

________. “The Worlds of La Nouvelle Heloise,“ Spudies on
Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century, XLI (1966),
pp. 235-27 .

Grimsley, Ronald. “The Human Problem in La Nouvelle Héloise,“
Modern Lagguage,Revi§g, Vol. 53 (1958), pp. 171-184.

 

. “Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the Problem of 'Original'
Language,“ The Age of the Enlightenment (London: 19 7),
PD. 275‘2860

. “Unité et conflit dans les écrits personnels de
Rousseau.“ In Jean-Jacques Rousseau et son oeuvre.
Paris: 1964, pp. 63-75.

Guyon, Bernard. “Un Chef-d'oeuvre méconnu: Julie,“ Cahiers
du sud, Vol. 53 (1962), pp. 3359349.

.________. “La Mémoire et l'oubli dans la Nouvelle HéloIse,“
Annales Jean-Jacques Rousseau, XXXV (1959-1962), pp.
9'71.

Hall, H. G. “The Concept of Virtue in Lngouvg;le HéloIse,“
' Yale French Studies (1962), pp. 20-33.

Havens, George R. “The Theory ofuNatural Goodness in
Rousseau's Nouvelle Héloise,“ Modern Lagguage
Notes (1921 , pp. 385-394.

Hubert, R. “L'Amour, 1a nature et la sogiété chez Jean-
Jacques Rousseau: La Nouvelle Héloise, roman a these,“
Revue d'histoire de la_ph;losgphie‘(i939), pp. 193-214.

 

Labrosse, Claude. “Quelques lettres inédites sur la Nouvelle
Héloise: Essai de definition d'une lecture.“ In Jean-
Jacgues Rousseau et son temp_. Paris: Nizet, 1969,
pp. 1 5-210.

Lanson, Gustave. “L'Unité de la pensée de Jean-Jacques
Rousseau,“ Annales Jean-Jagques Rousseau, VIII (1912),

pp. 1-31.

Launay, Michel. “La Nouvelle Heloise: son contenu.“ In Jean-
Jac ues Rousseau et son temps. Paris: Nizet, 1969,
pp. 179-184.

Lecercle, Jean-Louis. “Ingonscient et création littéraire:

sur Lg Nouvelle Héloise,“ Etudes littérgires, I (1968),
pp. 197-20 .

 

 

163

Lecercle, Jean-Louis. "Rousseau et ses puulics.“ In Jean-

chgges Rousseau et son oeuvre. Paris: 1964, pp. 283-
302.

Lelievre,R . “Julie d' Etange ou la maternité frustrée,“
Revue d'histoire littéraire de la France (1962), pp.

LoveJoy Arthur 0. “The Supposed Primitivism of Rousseau' s
Discourse on Inequality,“ Essays in the Historypof
Ideas (New York: Putnam, 1960), pp. 14-37.

Mauzi, Robert. “La Conversion de Julie dans La Nouvelle
Héloise,“ Annales Jean-Jacgpes Rousseau, XXXV (1959-
1952), pp. 29-47.

. “Le Probleme religieux dans la Nouvelle Heloise.“
In Jean-Jacqmes Rousseau et son oeuvre. Paris: 19

Mead, William. “La Nouvelle Héloise and the public of 1761, “
Yale French Studiesfi(1962),u pp. 13-19.

 

Osmont, Robert. “Jean-Jac ues Rousseau and the Idea of Love,“
Ygle French Studies 1962), pp. 43-47.

. “Jean-Jacques Rousseau et la Jalousie,“ Annales
Jegg-Jacgues Rousseau, XXXV (1959-1962), pp. 73- -91.

 

. “Remarques sur la genese et la composition de La
Nouve e Héloise, “ Annales Jean-Jacgues Rousseau,
XXXIII. 1953-1955). pp. 93-148

. “Les Théories de Rousseau sur l'harmonie musicals
et leurs relations avec son art d'écrivain.“ In Jean-
Jacgues Rougseau et son oeuvre. Paris: 1964, pp. 329-

 

 

Pintard, R. “L'Humour de Rousseau.“ In Jean-Jacques
Rousseau et2§on oeuvre. Paris: 1964, pp. 113-124.

Politzer, Robert. “Rousseau on the Theatre and the actors,“
Romanic Review (1955) PP. 250-257.

Raymond, Marcel. “Les Confessions.“ In Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
Neuchatel: A la Baconniere, 1962.

Rougemont, Denis de. L_ye in the Western World. New York:
Fawcett, 1966, pp. 225- 228.

Rousset, Jean. “Rousseau romancier.“ In Jean-Jacques
Rousseau. Neuchate1:A la Baconniere, 1962, pp. 67-80.

164

Starobinski, Jean. “Jean-Jacques Rousseau et les pouvoirs
de l'imaginaire,“ Revue_internationale degphilosophie,
Vol. 51, (1960), pp. 9-31.

‘________. “Rousseau et la recherche des origines,“ Cahiers
du sud, Vol. 53 (1962), pp. 325-334.

Vance, Christie. “La Nouvelle Héloise: the Language of
Paris,“ Yale French Studies (1971), pp. 127-136.

Vartanian, Aram. “The Death of Julie: a Psycholo ical post-
lortem,“ L'ESprit créateur, VI, no. 2 (1966 , pp. 77-84.

Voisine, J. "Le Dialogue avec 1e lecteur dans les Confessions.“
In Jean-Jacques Rousseau et son oeuvre. Paris:1964,

pp- 23-32-

Voltaire ( iménes). “Lettre a M. de Voltaire sur La Nouvelle
Hglo se, ou 'Aloisa' de Jean-Jacques Rousseau, citoyen
de Genéve.“ In Oeuvres completes. Paris: Garnier,
1879, Vol.XXIV, pp. 165-179.

Webb, Donald P. “Did Rousseau Bungle the Nuit d'Amour?,“
Kentucky Romance Quarterly, Vol. 17 (1970), pp. 3-8.

Wilson, A. M. “The Unpuinshed Portion of Grimm's Critique
of La Nouvelle,Hé;oise,“ Modern Language Review (1964),
(pp. 27-29. '

Wolpe, H. “Psychological Ambiguity in La Nouvelle Héloise,“
University of Toronto Quarterly (1958-59), pp. 279-290.

BOOKS AND ARTICLES ON THE NOVEL AND RELATED SUBJECTS
Borel, Jacques. L9 Lys dans la vallée et les sougces
ngfiogdes ge is or ation balzacienne. Paris: José
Corti, 19 1.
Brooks, Peter. The Novel of Worldliness. Princeton:

Princeton University Press, 19 9.

Day, Robert Adams. Tgld in Lettezs. Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press, 19 .

Dieckmann, Herbert. “Philosophy and Literature in Eighteenth

Century France,“ Com arative Literature Studies, VIII
(March, 1971, pp. 21-41.

Duchene, Roger. "Réalité vécue et réussite littéraire: 1e
statut particulier de la lettre,“ Revue d'histoire

Littéraire de la France, 716 année, no. 2 (mars-avril,
1971 9 PP- 177-195.

165
Gay, Peter. The Party of Humanity. New York: KnOpf, 196a.
Gilson, Etienne. Leg Idées et les lettres. Paris: 1932.

Green, F. C. "Technique and Form in the French Seventeenth
and Eighteenth Century Novel." In Stil un Form Probleme
in der Literatur. Heidelberg: 1959, pp. 208-215.

Grieder, Josephine. “The Novel as a Genre: Formal French
Literary Theory, 1760-1800,“ French Review, XLVI, No. 2
1972. PP. 278-290.

Henriot, Emile. Courrier Littégaire XVIIIe siecle. Vol. II,
Paris: Albin Michel, 19 2. ,

Jost, Francois. ”Le Roman épistolaire et la technique nar-
rative du XVIIIe siécle," Comparative Literature
Studies (1969), pp. 397-“27.

 

Kany, Charles. The Beginnings of the Epistolary_Novel in
Fzggce, Italy..and Spain. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1937. p

Marmontel. némoires. Paris: Libraire des BibliOphiles, 1891.

Mattauoh, Hans. 'Sur la Proscription des romans en 1737-38,“

Bexue d'histoire littéraire de la France, Vol. 26 (mai-
avril, 19 ' pp. 10- 170

May, Georges. Le Dilemme du roman au XVIIIe siecle. Paris:
Presses Universitaires de France, 19 3.

Mylne, Vivienne. The Eighteenth Century French Novel, Tech-
nigues of Illusion. New York: Barnes and Noble, 19 5.
O'Reilly, Robert F. I'The Structure and Meaning of the Lettres

Persanes,“ Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth
Centu , Vol. 57 (19595, pp. 91-131.

 

Ouellet, Béal. "Deux théories romanesques au XVIIIe siecle:
1e roman 'bourgeois' et le roman 'épistolaire',‘
Etudes littéraires, I (1968), pp. 233-250.

Pascal, Roy. Design and Truth in Autobiography. London:1960.

Perkins, Jean A. The Concept of the Self in the French
Enlightenment. Geneva: Droz, 1969.

Peyre, Henri. Literature and Sinceritz. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 19 3.

Poulet, georges. Les Metamorphoses du cercle. Paris: Plon,
19 1.

166

Romberg, Bertil. Studies in the Narratige Technique of the
First-Person Novel. Stockhom: Almqvist and Wiksell,
1962

Rousset, Jean. 'La Monodie Epistolaire: Crébillon Fils,‘l
Etudes littéraires, I (1968), pp. 167-74.

Saisselin, Rémy. I'Boom at the TOp of the Eighteenth Century:
From Sin to Aesthetic Pleasure,“ Journal of Aesthetics
and Art Criticism, Vol. 26, pp. 355-50.

Seylaz, Jean-Luc. Les Liaisons Dangereuses et la création
zomanesgue chez Laclos. Geneva, 195 .

Singer, G. F. The Epistolary Novel. Philadelphia, 1933.

Stewart, Philip. Imitation and Illusion in the French Memoir-
Novel, 1200-1250. The Art of Make-Believe. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1969.

Thibaudeau, Jean. 'Le Roman comme autobiographie,’ Tel Quel,
Vol. 3“, pp. 67-74.

Todorov, Tzvetan. “The Discovery of Language: Les Liaisons

Daggereuses and Adol he,“ Ygle French Studies (19715,
pp. 113‘12 o

""""'8 Littérature et siggification. Paris: Larousse,
19 7.

Versini, Laurent. Laclos et la tradition. Paris, 1968.

GQN STRT

"Imymm“