Rousseau's Dog: Two Great Thinkers at War in the Age of Enlightenment (P.S.) (Paperback)

~ (Author), John Eidinow (Author) "ON THE EVENING of January 10, 1766, the weather in the English Channel war foul-stormy, wet, and cold..." (more)
Key Phrases: royal pension, Mme de Boufflers, David Hume, James's Chronicle (more...)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

In 1766, Scottish philosopher David Hume helped the radical Swiss intellectual Jean-Jacques Rousseau find asylum in England; a few months later, the volatile philosopher accused his benefactor of masterminding a murky conspiracy against him and triggered a virulent response. The argument had nothing to do with philosophy (or Rousseau's dog), but, as in their well-received Wittgenstein's Poker, the authors use the dispute as a pretext for an engaging rundown of the two thinkers' great ideas—with a big swig of human interest to wash down the philosophical morsels. Their (sometimes excessively) detailed, meandering account of the feud points to something larger: the contrast between the affable, urbane rationalist Hume and the moody, paranoid, emotionally overwrought Rousseau prefigures, they believe, the shift from the Enlightenment cult of reason to the Romantic cult of feeling. The authors widen their vivid portraits of the antagonists into a panorama of the cross-Channel intellectual community that refereed the squabble, taking in the ancien régime salons and their brilliant hostesses and the London and Paris streets where visiting philosophers were mobbed like rock stars. The result is an absorbing cultural history of the republic of letters in its exuberant youth. (Mar.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

Review

"A detailed and fascinating reexamination of this story by David Edmonds and John Eidinow." (New York Review of Books )

"Sprightly and accessible . . . David Edmonds and John Eidinow have heightened intellectual feuds beyond the shallows of anecdote." (San Francisco Chronicle )

"As we've come to expect from Edmunds and Eidinow, their analysis of the personalities in question is sharp and engaging." (Los Angeles Times )

"An enthralling account of a trifling provocation inflated to epic proportions." (Kirkus Reviews )

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 368 pages
• Publisher: Harper Perennial (April 10, 2007)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 006074491X
• ISBN-13: 978-0060744915
• Product Dimensions: 7.8 x 5.1 x 1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 6.4 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.3 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (15 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #512,834 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

31 of 35 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Dogged by paranoia, March 14, 2006

By	Ralph Blumenau (London United Kingdom) - See all my reviews (TOP 500 REVIEWER)

This review is from: Rousseau's Dog: Two Great Thinkers at War in the Age of Enlightenment (Hardcover)

The authors have earned fame for a hugely successful earlier book, Wittgenstein's Poker, in which a poker played a symbolical part in the dispute between Wittgenstein and Popper. Rousseau's dog Sultan plays no such part in this book about the antagonism that developed between Rousseau and Hume. Only on the penultimate page is there a single paragraph in which the authors comment on the unconditional love between man and dog that was the yardstick by which Rousseau judged all other friendships and to which none of his other friendships could live up. But the title might also have another explanation: two or three times in the text the authors have invented another "dog". The philosopher Grimm had written about the "companion who will not suffer him [Rousseau] to rest in peace", meaning the paranoid personality which he thought was Rousseau's alter ego. Grimm does not describe this alter ego as a dog, but the authors see it as one, doubtlessly having in mind that Winston Churchill had called his own depression his Black Dog.

When Rousseau was being driven from one place to another on the continent because of the authorities there objected to his writings, David Hume, then serving at the British Embassy in Paris, had invited Rousseau to seek asylum in England, had brought him over in 1766, and intended to help him there in any way he could. Unfortunately Rousseau was by that time a florid paranoiac. Both in France and in England woundingly satirical but anonymous writings were circulating about him, and Rousseau suspected that the kindly Hume had had a hand in them and was plotting with his enemies against him. He wrote some bitter letters of accusation to Hume, and also denounced him in letters to his contacts on the continent, some of whom were also friends of Hume's, and this forced Hume into publishing his own defence.

The nature of the dispute between them was not of a philosophical kind at all (unlike, say, that of the dispute between Wittgenstein and Popper or that between Leibniz and Spinoza, so brilliantly examined by Matthew Stewart in his recent book The Courtier and the Heretic - see my review). Of course it could have been about philosophy: Rousseau was committed to the romantic and emotional approach, Hume to the ultra-rational examination of philosophical issues; Rousseau had come to hate the philosophes, Hume had greatly enjoyed their company while he was living in Paris. The dispute was not even overtly about their respective attitudes to society. Hume loved society and was at ease in it; Rousseau hated it and loved the solitary life. Such differences between them are handsomely set out in the excellent chapter 11, but if the two great thinkers were indeed "at war in the Age of Enlightenment" (the subtitle of the book), it is sadly not possible to dignify that war as one caused by differences in philosophy or life-style. Indeed, our authors do mention that in all the correspondence between Rousseau and Hume, "there is no dialogue or engagement about ideas", nor, to the best of my knowledge, did either of them take issue in print directly with the philosophical ideas of the other. Their war took the form exclusively of an attack by a floridly paranoiac Rousseau on his benefactor, and then, because the paranoiac was at that time so famous, of Hume feeling forced (against the initial advice of his friends) into defending himself against the charges circulating against him in Europe, and doing so in an uncharacteristically intemperate and less than entirely honest manner.

The story of the actual quarrel (which begins only half-way through the book) is well told. The authors give a judicious account of and carefully expose the inconsistencies in the cases of both contenders in this sad and pathetic story. Rousseau was a very sick man, but Hume, too, comes out it all rather worse than is perhaps commonly assumed, especially in the summing up in the last chapter.

In the end it was not any clash of ideas but merely gossip that excited the intellectuals of Europe about this dispute. It was a great "media story", but not a significant one. And like so many media stories today, it was about personalities and not about issues. Although there are some good assessments of Rousseau's and Hume's importance in the history of Europe, the book focusses on what was least important, least stimulating, least edifying and least enduring about them. It is of course the authors' good right to give their book that focus. And it is a good read.

9 of 10 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Engaging and Intelligent, June 11, 2006

By	Arkadiy Dubovoy (Virginia) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Rousseau's Dog: Two Great Thinkers at War in the Age of Enlightenment (Hardcover)

I loved Wittgenstein's Poker, and I was not disappointed with Rousseau's Dog. David Edmonds and John Eidinow write in the same witty and intelligent style, leaving just enough unsaid to stimulate your own thought and understanding (this subtle art of understatement has been sorely lacking lately). Reading the book I could freely engage in the discussion and create my own opinions about the events, I felt respected by the authors, and I thank them for that.

The book describes in great detail the infamous personal conflict between David Hume and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. As you can expect now from David Edmonds and John Eidinow, there is much more: not only the portraits of both protagonists are colorful and compelling, but the conflict itself serves as a central theme for a vivid account of the very interesting time in European history. The authors used letters and newspaper articles of the time to re-create an engaging picture of the cultural atmosphere in Europe in 1760's. One of the most intriguing discoveries for me was the fact that, on a human level, we may understand a lot more about XVIII century than about our time because in the past people regularly wrote letters discussing not only the events of the day, but their feelings. Unfortunately, we have lost the sense of importance of our lives (funny as it is, but Jean-Jacques, this great trivializer, may be the one to blame for it).

Rousseau's Dog is well-edited and carefully published. At the end of the book you find Chronology of Main Events, Dramatis Personae (a paragraph-long description of about fifty main characters and historical figures mentioned in the text), Selected Bibliography, and Index. Rousseau's Dog is not for everyone, but if you are interested in history of ideas and amused by psychological investigations, this is a book for you.

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars long and tired, December 10, 2007

By	S. E. Rowe "tinydancer" (Hawaii) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

This review is from: Rousseau's Dog: Two Great Thinkers at War in the Age of Enlightenment (Hardcover)

Wittgenstein's Poker was delightful. This is not. It's filled with detail that is not compelling nor germaine to the issue at hand. It may be the issue at hand is really not that interesting. Hence the need to pad it with redundant details.

The best thing that could have happened to this book is a good edit. It's worth about half to two thirds the pages used to present a relatively simple tale of two radically dissimilar spirits and intellects. Perhaps if it had focused on these elements in more depth it may have produced the substance the authors try to conjure. As it is there really isn't the stuff of drama and the information packed into the book is only mildly interesting. It reads much more like gossip than their previous effort. Though such were the times.

I like the premise these authors have set out. There IS real drama within the history of philosophy and the debates that philosophy has engendered. There may be here. I'm not sure. But I wasn't convinced by this read.