ROUSSEAU. 171

respect for his memory, Ermenonville was exemptedfrom contribution.

Rousseau has described himself; but, though sincerein an unexampled degree, it is difficult to appreciate hischaracter from the “ Confessions.” A recent writer, Ba-rante, founding his opinion on this work, considers him aproud and envious egotist, full of vague aspirations aftervirtue, incapable of a virtuous deed; yet we find SaintPierre, who knew him during the latter years of hislife, when the struggle between circumstances and hisdisposition had ceased, and his character was formed,applaud his firm probity, his mild benevolence, hisfrankness and natural gaiety of heart. One fact stampsRousseau with nobleness of soul. We turn to the pagesof Voltaire ’s Correspondence, and find it full of the mostvilifying and insolent epithets applied to his great con-temporary— the opprobrium and insult with which heloads his name bearing the stamp of the impurity andarrogance of his own heart. Rousseau never spoke illof Voltaire : when others dispraised, he defended him ;this might be the result of pride, but it was a noble andgenerous pride.

Rousseau was proud; nourished in dreams of ancientvirtue or chivalrous romance, he respected himself, andhe felt deeply aggrieved if he did not meet respect inothers. It is a strange anomaly to find this proud manconfessing the most degrading errors; but this arosefrom the highest pride of all, and the most mistaken :he declared his faults, and yet assumed himself to bebetter than other men.

Was Rousseau envious ? Grimm says, that angerat finding men of greater genius preferred engender-ed most of his ill-humour against society. But whowere these superior men ? not Voltaire , with whom,as older than himself, he never competed : it wasHelvetius, Thomas, and, above all, Diderot . What-ever merits Diderot had in society and conversation,he is so poor a writer that Rousseau could never havebeen really hurt by any mistaken preference shown