162

LITERARY AND SCIENTIFIC MEN.

conspiracy against his reputation and writings, byproving that he was possessed hy insanity, ought tohave excited pity;—he met with none. An indignantcry was raised by Hume and echoed by his enemies,accusing him of base ingratitude, and a wicked in-tention to vilify his friends. This conduct served toexcite his monomania to its highest pitch, by givingsome colour to his suspicions; and he appeared tohimself most calm and reasonable while he was themost entirely under the dominion of the species ofinsanity that had come over him. We must not, how-ever, he misunderstood. Rousseau was very ill-treated ;Voltaire and his sect spared no ridicule, no opprobrium ;his friends, even Hume , would join in the laugh excitedby Horace Walpole’s fabrication; Baron d’Holbach and his coterie, reigned over by Grimm, never spoke ofhim except as a mixture of impostor and madman.Here was much for Rousseau to resent. But hismadness consisted in the idea that there was an organ-ised combination formed against him, which was todestroy his reputation while living, falsify his writings,and hand him down to posterity in the darkest colours.Such combinations are never formed; and those whofancy themselves the object of such are decidedly insane.*

The consequence was that his personal friends con-iEtat. tinued to treat him with consideration. The prince of55. Conti offered him an asylum in his chateau de Trie,near Amiens . He remained there about a year. Theunfortunate disposition of Therese soon turned allthe servants and dependants of the place into enemies.He quickly felt the effects of the mischief she excited,and fancying that the cause existed not in her, butothers, was glad to get away.

An exile and a wanderer, he could not tell where totake up his abode- At one time he appears to have

* There is an admirable letter addressed by the countess de Boufflers toHume, which proves the ill-treatment which Rousseau met, and thegeneral spirit- of unkindness and treacherous ridicule iu vogue againsthim ; while at the same time the writer does not defend Rousseau ’s ex-travagant suspicions and conduct. The good sense and good taste of thewhole letter is remarkable. Unfortunately placid David Hume had suf-fered himself to be led away by anger, ar.d it was of no avail.