Rousseau and Revolution

90 Rousseau and Revolution
philosopher. When Palissot asked for a certifi cat de civisme [civic certifi cate], 6
mainly to protect himself from any accusations, a magistrate of the Paris
commune by the name of Chaumette refused to grant him the favour
because of Palissot’s reputation as an anti-Rousseauist. Thus, in a speech
to the Commune, Chaumette charged Palissot for attempting to defi le the
revolution’s idol even before the revolution,
The same Palissot is the one who, like a venomous caterpillar, attempt to
sully the crown of the celebrated Jean-Jacques Rousseau; [ . . . ] Cursed
be the monsters who struck Rousseau’s tender heart with the sharp iron
of slander! It’s the duty of patriots to avenge the earnest friend of humanity,
the angel of light who showed freedom to men and could raise in
them the desire for it. [ . . . ] Consequently, I object to the issuing of a
certifi cate of civism to Palissot; may this act of justice be an expiatory
sacrifi ce to the Manes of the famed and righteous Rousseau, who will
always be cherished by all those who possess a good, sensitive and virtuous
heart! (Moniteur, 1860, 646)
Years later in Mémoire sur la Littérature, Palissot writes that to defend himself
from what had become a grave offense, he answered, ‘that Rousseau be a
divine man, or even a God (I replied to this oddball), I am far from being
opposed to this apotheosis: but I ask you, is it reason enough to sacrifi ce
human victims?’ (cited in Meaume, 1864, 44).
Even more than these blasphemies, what seemed to exasperate some of
Rousseau’s admirers the most was to see his remains taken to the Pantheon
to rest besides those of Mirabeau and Voltaire. Like Marat, an anonymous
author of a pamphlet entitled Voyage à Ermenonville argued against the
translation of Rousseau’s relics because it was in nature that the author of
Émile should be worshipped. Although the author refuses any superstitious
or religious trait to such adoration, he does not shy away from moving the
censer around:
The nations [ . . . ] will come and burn incense far from Ignorance and
Superstition. [ . . . ] Romans made Numa a god; Turks turned Mahomet
into a prophet; [ . . . ] While not as superstitious, why would we not be as
grateful? Why wouldn’t Rousseau be among us an object of national devotion?
[ . . . ] He would be as great as Lycurgus or Solon if seen from the
same distance; a century passed over his glory will make it shine twice as
brightly; he will be greater than them when our government is established
on the foundations he laid. (Voyage à Ermenonville, 1794, 17–18)