The “Confessions”, frequently referred to as the first modern autobiography, came out in 1782, four years after author Jean-Jacques Rousseau's death. It covers the first 53 years of his life, from 1712 through 1765. He apparently intended to continue through a few more years, including his time in England, but he died in 1778 without adding anything to what we have here.
Rousseau's professed purpose in writing “Confessions” was to show all of himself, at his best and at his worst. Another purpose for the book was obviously to justify himself to the world, which, to him, consisted almost exclusively of his enemies. So on the one hand he wanted to show himself to that world with no attempt to convince anyone of anything, and on the other hand to let the world know that he was justified in everything he did. That sounds kind of contradictory to me, and indeed he didn't altogether achieve either end. Which doesn't make “Confessions” a bad book – just a little confusing.
It must be said, however, that if Rousseau wanted to let the world know what he was really like, he didn't necessarily do himself any favors. He describes himself as a gentle, peace-loving man who wants nothing so much as to live a quiet, retired life out in the country, rambling in the countryside and studying the plants. He doesn't come across as any such thing, I'm afraid. Rather, he spends enormous amounts of time bad-mouthing his opponents and complaining about not getting the treatment he thinks he deserves for telling the people what they need to hear, whether they want to hear it or not. That is, his narrative here suggests that he thinks of himself as better (or at any rate more knowledgeable) than just about anyone else.
Historically speaking, we already knew this. Many people, some of them in positions of authority, disliked Rousseau and his works, and many of those who actually knew him liked him even less. That's where “Confessions” is historically useful; with this book, we learn at one and the same time what Rousseau's intent was when it came to contributing to his society in western Europe, and a little something about why that intent wasn't fulfilled. Both have something to do with the fact that Rousseau was ahead of his time, and the fact that his society wasn't at all interested in what he had to say. He insisted on speaking his mind anyway, on paper at least, and he acknowledged that he was not very good at being civil to the people he met. He attributed this last characteristic to his native shyness and awkwardness at making conversation, yet he declares his confusion at not receiving the credit he felt he deserved.
This strikes me as more than somewhat contradictory. He continued to write books and articles that attacked the foolishness of his age, and seemed surprised at the reaction this drew from his readers. Well, what did he expect?
Today, the attitude toward Rousseau is much more favorable, at least in part because his thought had a profound impact on the American and French revolutions. Despite this, I find myself wondering what the reaction would be to him personally if he were with us now. There's a big difference between reading a great author's words and hearing them in person from a man who lacks social graces.
I haven't said much about the “Confessions” as a piece of writing. Well, however unpleasant he might have been, he was nevertheless a very good writer. He was probably better at communicating important ideas than he was at talking about his feelings and experiences, but “Confessions” is still a good read. Rousseau describes his surroundings and acquaintances in such a way that we readers can experience his life and times with great vividness. In his descriptions of country and city life, we come away with a good understanding of why he preferred the former.
So did he accomplish his goal of explaining himself to his contemporaries? More or less. He explains, at various times, that he expects to be understood much more clearly years after his death, and that seems to have come true.
Difficulties with “Confessions” include the large number of characters we encounter, some well-known and some less so. It can be hard to keep the many characters straight, although that may have as much to do with their distinctly French names as with their numbers. We also learn that Rousseau was not particularly accurate as to dates and the order of events – I assume this is because he describes a good deal of material from many years in his past without notes. Apart from this, “Confessions” is worth the time, though it can be a bit of a struggle. Then again, a lot of important literature requires attention and concentration. “Confessions” is one such.
Benshlomo says, It's often worth it to struggle through something that promises great rewards.
Commentaires