Rousseau's Dog: Two Great Thinkers at War in the Age of Enlightenment

by David Edmonds, John Eidinow

In 1766 Jean-Jacques Rousseau -- philosopher, novelist, composer, educational and political provocateur -- was on the run from intolerance, persecution, and enemies who decried him as a madman, dangerous to society. David Hume, now recognized as the foremost philosopher in the English language, was universally lauded as a paragon of decency. Having willingly put himself under Hume's protection, Rousseau, with his beloved dog, Sultan, took refuge in England, where he would find safety and freedom. Yet within months, the exile had accused Hume of plotting to dishonor him. The violence of Hume's response was totally out of character, and the resulting furor involved leading figures in British and French society, and became the talk of intellectual Europe. In Rousseau's Dog , David Edmonds and John Eidinow bring their engaging style and probing analysis to the bitter and very public quarrel that turned these two giants, the most influential thinkers of the Age of Enlightenment, into the deadliest of foes. The result is a story of celebrity and its price, of shameless spin, of destroyed reputations and shattered friendships. It is a story of two men whose writings would forever shape our world but whose personalities and ideas could scarcely have had less in common. It is also the story of reason and skepticism, as epitomized by Hume, colliding with the emotionalism and highly personalized confessional style pioneered by Rousseau. As brilliantly researched as it is briskly paced, Rousseau's Dog traces the path from the Age of Enlightenment to our own Age of Celebrity and, at its core, tells a most human tale of compassion, treachery, anger, and revenge.

Genres: Philosophy, History, Nonfiction, Biography, Historical

340 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2006

About the author

Journalist of BBC

Reviews

[Brad Lyerla · Rating 2 out of 5]

I admit it. I generally enjoy short philosophy-lite books like ROUSSEAU’S DOG. Edmund and Eidinow’s earlier WITTGENSTEIN’S POKER was no masterpiece. But it was hugely fun. So naturally, I looked forward to ROUSSEAU’S DOG.

But DOG is a disappointment. It may not be the fault of the authors. It might be that the subject matter just did not sit well with me. There is something about the falling out between David Hume and Jean-Jacques Rousseau that is unpleasant and tawdry. Edmund and Eidinow expose Rousseau and Hume at their worst. Especially Hume, who seems to have been a likable and sensible person most of his life. But not here. Here, he comes off as petty and back-stabbing.

To set the stage, Hume and Rousseau were contemporaries. They were very unlike one another in temperament and philosophical thought. Yet, they are two of the most consequential philosophers in the entire western tradition.

Hume and Rousseau were both products of the Enlightenment. Hume is often described as the greatest of the English-speaking philosophers. He was the grandmaster of the Enlightenment’s tradition of Rational Skepticism. He epitomized the Enlightenment’s assumption that the careful analysis of philosophical problems can improve the quality of our thinking, and lead us to purge superstition and backwards institutions. That, in turn, will improve the quality of our lives.

Rousseau popularized the notion that government is predicated on a social contract. But more importantly, he questioned the Enlightenment’s assumption that the human condition is improved by civilization and culture. He embraced religious experience (though curiously, it was religion without God), nature and the emotional experience of life. He planted the seeds that became the Romantic Movement after his death.

It is difficult to assess which has been more influential. Both are hugely so. But it might be fair to generalize that Hume has had greater influence in the US and United Kingdom and Rousseau has had more on the continent.

Though they pursued very different philosophical projects, their falling out had nothing to do with differences in their philosophies, though there were many. The falling out pretty much had to do with Rousseau’s nuttiness and then was exacerbated by Hume’s misplaced concern for his personal reputation.

Here, in short, is what went down. Rousseau was constantly in trouble with the censors in Switzerland and France. He often was in peril of going to jail for his writing, which inaccurately was deemed anti-religious. During such a period, a common friend prevailed on Hume to help Rousseau. Hume did, and offered to bring Rousseau with him back to England, where the censors had little power and Rousseau could write in peace.

At first, they got on well, but Hume’s correspondence shows that it did not take long before he found Rousseau to be a burden. What Hume had not known was that Rousseau was a schizophrenic hypochondriac, whose life careened from paranoid episode to paranoid episode. An unrestrained drama queen, Rousseau could not get along with other people. In fact, Rousseau had a dog named Sultan. But the dog to whom the title of the book refers is not Sultan, but rather is a metaphor for Rousseau’s mental illness. You see, Rousseau had two dogs, Sultan and his illness. Predictably, soon after arriving in England, Rousseau began to suspect that Hume had lured him there to take advantage in some vague way. Things went downhill from there.

The lone surprise here was how badly Hume over-reacted. Fearing that Rousseau might write an unflattering account of the episode, Hume began corresponding with common friends and influential third parties in an effort to undermine Rousseau. Hume comes off badly in this correspondence. And in retrospect, it seems so foolish. Even then, many friends advised Hume to leave it alone and he would be judged fairly. That was good advice. Hume had done nothing to give Rousseau any legitimate grievance.

Posterity has mostly judged Hume kindly. He is widely regarded as having been a good natured and generous man. But that is not how Edmund and Eidinow portray him. To provide dramatic tension for their book, they seem to want Hume to appear equally at fault with Rousseau. But it does not work. There is no genuine tension in ROUSSEAU'S DOG. Mostly because it does not matter. Unlike WITTGENSTEIN’S POKER, where the violent argument between Wittgenstein and Popper was all about their philosophical differences, the falling out between Rousseau and Hume is completely disconnected from their work. In the end, I was left thinking that I would be happier knowing less about this lowly chapter in the lives of two men whose philosophy I admire greatly.

[Viji (Bookish endeavors) · Rating 4 out of 5]

The dog's tail..

The second dog(no,not Sultan..) of Rousseau,the dog that always barked and led to the tarnishing of many prominent names. This is the story of that dog. Well.. The problem with this dog was that it was undomesticated. It barked at anyone and everyone.
But it's not this dog that caused the problems that are discussed in this book,the problems which covered decades and multiple renowned personalities. It might have been a minor cause,not the whole dog but may be it's tail..
It seemed that being sensitive and mentally weak is a virtue,that others should bear the burden if a man behaves out of his paranoid feelings. It's acceptable at a personal level,but when it occurs at a social level,is it acceptable.? Doesn't one have to give evidence so as to clear his name.?
I'm not as acquainted with Rousseau's works as I am with Hume's. From Hume's own autobiography and from other materials,I was under the impression that he is a gentleman among philosophers. This book presents him in a slightly different color.
Well-researched and well-presented,this book offers a really interesting view of the lives of both philosophers. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.

[Barney · Rating 4 out of 5]

I don't want to give any of the pleasures of this book away but it is a PERFECT example of Twain's dictum that people NEVER change. It's the enlightenment and the players are Hume and Rousseau but what a disaster. Not much enlightenment here. Just a great example of "smart" people behaving just like the rest of us - or, in Rousseau's case, far worse. This Edmond's fellow is on to something and WITTGENSTEIN'S POKER just got jumped to near the front of the queue. You would NOT want to read two books like this back-to-back as you would give up on humanity as having any hope of going forward.

- Barney Dannelke

[Rosary · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think I learned more about Rousseau's and Hume's philosophies from this book than from anything else I had read about them--including some of their own works. Edmonds and Eidinow manage to take philosophy and work it into an intriguing story of two very opposite personalities.

This was a fun read, if a bit dense; however, it was certainly less dense than the work of either Rousseau and Hume. It has also made me want to read the works of both men and inspired me to want to read Boswell's Life of Johnson.

[Jo Walton]

I was thoroughly enjoying this book until it came to the actual quarrel between Rousseau and Hume, which was not "two thinkers at war" but two men in emotional distress in a way that's not fun to read about.

Meticulous research, extensive quotes from letters, good writing, even-handedness and an inherently interesting subject don't make up for the sheer pain of Rousseau's paranoia and Hume's distress and indignation as a response to being accused of treachery.

[Shaun · Rating 5 out of 5]

To think that two great philosophers and “men of reason” — David Hume and Jean-Jacques Rousseau — could fall prey to their uncontrollable passions in the Age of Enlightenment make this an exceptionally interesting book. The Scotsman David Hume was loved and adored more in the famous “fashionable salons of France” than his home country of England, whereas Jean-Jacques Rousseau was feted, followed and lionized in England and treated as a traitor by the French royalty and aristocracy. Both men influenced the Age of Enlightenment and, in Hume’s case, the great scientific thinkers in the 18th, 19th and 20th Century. Little known fact: Albert Einstein was reading and devouring Hume’s work just before he came up with the theory of relativity. Einstein cites Hume’s work as influencing the physicist’s thoughts at a critical juncture in his professional life. Rousseau’s literary work influenced all of the great writers, educators and politicians since the late 1700’s.

This book operates on many levels with the great irony noted herein above not lost on this reader. History of the French salons and these two great philosopher’s life is just some of the gems mined from this work. That Rousseau was a paranoid who suffered from delusions of persecution, some real and some extraordinarily fantastic, is without peradventure. That Hume let his reasoning down by publishing an account of the war of letters between these two great thinkers is likewise without exaggeration. “Why” is the question. The only rationale explanation comes from the notion that both individuals were truly “modern” ushering in the current Age of Celebrity we are all suffering at present.

This particular non-fiction book was a Xmas/Winter Holiday gift from a fellow member of the Second Tuesday of the Month “Gentlemen’s” Book Club. I am forever grateful to that individual and to ALL members of said august group. I would never have thought to pick this particular book up and read it. This and other outstanding books and “raison de fraternite, egalite and liberte” are why I cherish my membership in this particular Book Club. Yes, ‘tis a great and wondrous reading life made so much better and more interesting with readers like you in it. Rock on, mis Amigas and Amigos!

[Pterodactyl · Rating 4 out of 5]

What I've learned of philosophy was removed from history, so I never realized before picking up this book that David Hume and Jean-Jacques Rousseau were contemporaries, let alone that they had a very public feud. The book wasn't what I expected... okay, to be honest, I expected an episode of the odd couple in which one of the protagonists denies causality. But what I received instead was a well written, painstakingly researched history with a solid thesis. The authors occasionally step aside from the action and talk about the very different philosophies and personalities of our philosophers in order to explain how a childish feud could erupt between two very "enlightened" men. The book is slow in the beginning and I actually set it aside for about a month, but it has a good payoff, and I intend to pick up another book by Edmonds and Eidinow, "Wittgenstein's Poker."

Oh, and I was also expecting the book to talk more about Rousseau's dog, Sultan. They tie him into the conclusion, but still...

[Rebecca · Rating 4 out of 5]

Goodness, gracious, what a dust-up! Edmonds and Eidinow do a very convincing job of encapsulating the intellectual and emotional contradictions inherent in these two exemplars of Enlightenment thought: the Swiss-French Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the Scotch-British David Hume. From a seemingly simple act of apparent goodwill explodes a spat followed and speculated-on by all of western Europe for the entire year of 1766.

To conclude succinctly (and hopefully enticingly to you readers!), this summary on p.270:
"Perhaps the moral of the whole sad encounter is that while sane men cannot make madmen sane, madmen can make sane men mad."

[Martin Henson · Rating 4 out of 5]

The public spat between Rousseau and Hume (and many others) was an incident that appears as a side-story in many a book covering either one of these philosophers. Notable accounts appear in The Infidel and the Professor: David Hume, Adam Smith, and the Friendship That Shaped Modern Thought and in A Wicked Company: The Forgotten Radicalism of the European Enlightenment, for example. It was, however, significant and tantalising enough to deserve a book-length account, and this is what our authors have done; and done so very skilfully.

That some kind of trouble was ahead for Hume and Rousseau is rather easy to see with hindsight. It is hard to think of two men with such different temperaments:

“In terms of personality, while Hume’s outlook was adventurous and temperate, Rousseau was by instinct rebellious; Hume was an optimist, Rousseau a pessimist; Hume gregarious, Rousseau a loner. Hume was disposed to compromise, Rousseau to confrontation. In style, Rousseau revelled in paradox; Hume revered clarity. Rousseau‘s language was pyrotechnical and emotional, Hume’s straightforward and dispassionate. Moreover, while they were both philosophers, two people with a hunger and capacity for abstract thought and with the power to express their ideas, they occupied separate philosophical universes. It was less that they disagreed than that they had no prospect of engagement.” (p. 163)

Rousseau was already an over-sensitive soul and prone to see, with some justification, conspiracies everywhere. For him to leave home in Geneva and then from Paris, where he could at least communicate, for such a different culture in England, and in which direct communication was almost impossible, was a recipe for disaster. He and Hume barely knew one another and their link was based only on a mutual admiration for one another’s intellect - despite their obvious disagreements in substance. Rousseau, already primed by threats from both Geneva and Paris, saw demons everywhere, and took this with him on the boat in January 1766.

David Edmonds and John Eidinow have written a clear and even-handed account that goes beyond merely seeing fault on both sides. Rather, the book diagnoses the errors of perception and understanding of both Rousseau and Hume in terms of character and personality; and relates, indeed in some cases contrasts them, against the protagonists’ avowed philosophies. It’s possible that some readers will judge the book to be Rousseau friendly, but I think that will only be because most other accounts are much more forgiving of Hume’s behaviour.

“Perhaps the moral of the whole sad encounter is that while sane men cannot make madman sane, mad men can make sane man mad. In his momentary madness, fury and panic, Hume never grasped the root of Rousseau’s complaint: that though Hume had carried out the obligations of a friend in practice, he was constitutionally incapable of doing so in spirit. Rousseau expected his friends to be entirely straight with him, to open their heart, to be motivated purely by love. Friendship required a special form of understanding.” (p. 340)

Like their earlier book, the entertaining Wittgenstein's Poker: The Story of a Ten-Minute Argument Between Two Great Philosophers, our authors have done us a service in providing a nuanced account of a significant event in intellectual history. In the two books mentioned above, Dennis C. Rasmussen's book The Infidel and the Professor: David Hume, Adam Smith, and the Friendship That Shaped Modern Thought focuses on the relationship between Hume and Adam Smith, and so this story with Rousseau is only dealt with in passing. In the book A Wicked Company: The Forgotten Radicalism of the European Enlightenment by Philipp Blom, the author has an agenda, which I think a rather one-dimensional account of the Enlightenment, in which Rousseau is castigated at every turn, mostly for his philosophy, so the relationship with Hume is, naturally, treated as just one more stick to beat the philosopher whom, it should be recalled, Kant later described as “The Newton of the Mind”.

[Molly Sinderbrand · Rating 2 out of 5]

Even paranoids have real enemies sometimes. Contrary to the thesis of this book, in Rousseau’s case, the enmity seems justified.
One would think that authors writing about two philosophers would endeavor to have more than a cursory understanding of their philosophies. Hume could not have been a rationalist and an empiricist. That’s a contradiction in terms.
The authors seem set on excusing and apologizing for everything Rousseau did, from abandoning his five children to die at an orphanage to his relentlessly sexist theories, thoroughly refuted by the (oddly unmentioned) philosopher Mary Wollstonecraft in the 18th c. They often state how unsympathetic they are to Hume’s (violent? How violent?) behavior, but fail to convince the reader that any of his behavior was unjustified or over-the-top. It is no wonder there were rumors that Rousseau had “the French disease”; his behavior seems to indicate psychiatric disorder.
In the end, this book seems an unwarranted apology for a man who sadly lost the majority of his friends through his paranoia.
The authors are lazy in their intellectual history, preferring sensationalism. There is no mention of Rousseau’s correspondence with Adam Smith (seems relevant) and the Scot is often described as an economist instead of a moral philosopher, a distinction that didn’t exist yet.
Overall, the narrative is strained to fit a conclusion that reality seems not to support and the dog metaphor is groan-worthy at best.

[Glen · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is well-researched and well-written, but in a sense I knew before I read it that the verdict on the Hume/Rousseau feud would not have much impact on me or my interest in either philosopher. Human is as high as any of us, even world-historical figures, go, which is not to say that we should abandon the quest to improve as humans, but lofty thoughts can sometimes prove weak adversaries when confronted by the aggrieved ego, as this famous clash of titans demonstrates. Rousseau was doubtless a genius, but a tormented one whose persecution in Europe left his grasp on interpersonal realties rather tentative. Hume was also a genius of the first rank, but he envied Rousseau's literary fame and philosophical renown, something he would not enjoy except posthumously. I came to the conclusion that Rousseau's petulance was not out of character, but Hume's furious response to Rousseau's claims was, which leaves one with the question, whom would you rather invite to dinner? Levity aside, those who are looking for an excuse to dismiss philosophical thought because its author is a hypocrite (a popular pastime in this era of "cancel culture") will find ample grist for that mill here, but for me this was just a bit of a literary lark, and a reminder that, in the end, what matters is not whether the author of a given set of arguments and ideals lived up to them, but whether I wish to make the effort or not.

[Pranjal Awasthi · Rating 3 out of 5]

At the face of it - a verbal spat and epistolary quarrel between two 18th century Enlightenment philosophers is not something a 21st century lay reader would be interested in. This interest further subsides when this quarrel has no fable-esque proportions with deep wisdom at the conclusion.
Despite these bottlenecks, David Edmonds, one of the foremost writers of pop-philosophy, along with John Eidinow, weave up a very engaging yarn. It is almost gossipy, not in a flippant way but in a way where you feel it is not Hume and Rousseau quibbling but your own friends and you're just sitting in the middle trying to pick a side. Hume and Rousseau are dealt with decent philosophical and historical depth and their characters (with a combination of scholarly erudition and eccentricities) come out really well. While I've read about the philosophy of Hume and Rousseau, this was really the first time I came to know of them as regular 18th century Europeans going about their business with their quirks and traits.

[Cam · Rating 2 out of 5]

Found this boring which was disappointing because I love Hume and find Rousseau's biography interesting. Also their other book Wittgenstein's Poker: The Story of a Ten-Minute Argument Between Two Great Philosophers was great too.

[Thomasso · Rating 1 out of 5]

Rousseau spent a year and a bit in England at the invitation of Hume. They fell out - clash of personalities and outlooks. End of story? not for these authors- they provide a meticulous reconstruction on what went wrong, where and how. Interesting? no; Philosophy? no; Boring: yes. This couple did better with some other books, but now I am wondering: did they really?

[Hunter Farish · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really really wanted to enjoy this book. There were probably three times I considered putting it back up on the shelf. I am glad I ended up sticking with it, though it is not an endeavor I would undertake again.

[Rick · Rating 3 out of 5]

I admit that I was less interested in how well Rousseau and Hume got along - or didn't get along - than I was in comparisons of their philosophy...which was scarce in this book.

[Vincent Hernot · Rating 3 out of 5]

Really entertaining, full or references to other works, good overview, full gallery of prominent names of the period: very nice.

[Charliecat · Rating 4 out of 5]

When David Hume met Jean Jacques Rousseau. Rationalism with a regard to reputation meets emotionalism laced with paranoia. Not a love story.

[Lindsay Dusi · Rating 2 out of 5]

Like reading a history book from high school seasoned with the drama of a bad reality TV show.

[John Crippen · Rating 2 out of 5]

Sadly, I think less of both of them after reading this.

[Margaux Tatin Blanc]

What a complicated story... and what mass of letters the writers of this book must have had to find,locate and read... and then did they really re-read Hume and Rousseau? I have my doubts on that point as there seems to be so little of the philosophy and the ideas of both men in that book... and for that matter, so little about his dog... We learn he had a first dog who died, and he was heart broken, then he got a second one and named him SULTAN and the dog is mentioned here and there... but really not enough to deserve a mention in the title...
Of course there is always the possibility that HUME was Rousseau's dog... The writers would see Rousseau manipulating and mistreating the Scottish writer and philosopher... and treating him like a dog? But then Sultan is treated very well and loved always...
So not sure this can be the comparison!
In any case it is at the same time fascinating and totally forgettable... Did Walpole write the famous Letter of the King of Prussia, was he sorry for it, did he acknowledge this to Hume, did he apologize for it, when he wrote the letter to Hume, did he know that Hume would make the letter, or rather part of the letter public? WHO CARES??????????????????
In a way I care as Rousseau was mentioned so many times when I grew up in France. I had to read his book... I went to Ermenonville to see where he ended and was buried (but then taken out and moved to a better place with a bigger recognition in France) And therefore I know enough about all these characters writing and questioning and answering to be interested...
But hey after reading the whole book I still think that Rousseau was a cry baby who exploited Therese LeVasseur, wrote about education but did not have any and did not give any as he abandoned five children to the orphanage... FIVE!!! He was the opposite of a feminist, and thought that women were "sensitive"...
But despite all this I was still interested to read that Hume thought Rousseau had not read much in his life, and to hear about all the adventures, including his encounter with the grand father of Charles Darwin, Erasmus Darwin... Of course by then Rousseau was so paranoid that meeting this man who obviously had positioned himself in the woods to meet the fabled philosopher and amateur botanist, he treated him shamelessly and Darwin swore never to be on Rousseau's path again...
So in truth, I cannot recommend the book to anybody, but I did enjoy the read in a very twisted way....

[L. Blake]

STARTED READING JANUARY 1, 2019

• Jan 1: pp 1-13 (Chap 1-2)
• Jan 2: pp 14-26 (Chap 3)
• Jan 3: pp 27-36 (Chap 4)
• Jan 5: pp 37-51 (Chap 5)
• Jan 6: pp 52-64 (Chap 6)
• Jan 8: pp 65-80 (Chap 7)

[D · Rating 3 out of 5]

Let me begin by saying that I like the authors and how they approach their subjects. Previously I'd read their book about the 1972 World Chess Championship game between Spasky and Bobby Fischer. John Edinow is the other author who isn't mentioned in the title of the above edition.

Now they turn their attention to an unlikely friendship between David Hume and Rousseau, two Philosophical stars in the Age of Enlightenment. In 1766 Jean Jacques Rousseau has to flee Europe where he's made himself enemies of many by writing such incendiary lines like

'The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this imposter; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.'

Remember there is still a King in France when he is writing this stuff. A little over twenty years later, the Bastille get's stormed and the powdered heads of aristocratic France started falling into baskets. His writings had considerable influence and from what I picked up in this book I can see why.

The man who aided him in his escape from mainland Europe and even attempted to source him an income and support from the King of England - was David Hume. He played in the games of politics at the time and had spent time in Paris as a Emissary, secretary to Lord Hertford. He has been grouped with the British Empiricists(knowledge comes through experience) and appears to be an unlikely natural friend to Rousseau, all passion and indignation on the lack of rights for man. In fact Hume wrote 'Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions'.

Jean Jacques in Émile appears to write a treatise on how you can educate and raise a a citizen who as an individual maintains 'inate human goodness' whilst being in a corrupting collective society.

So should we be surprised when the whole thing falls apart for the thinking mans odd couple of the 18th century. Not really. We see it coming and in fact it is a selling point of the book. Just as all TV appears to have devolved into fights ala Jerry Springer show, there is a fascination with a good public fight.

It appears that Hume was flattered to be 'seen' to help the infamous and lauded J.J. Rousseau at this time. The escaping thinker appears to be a deeply suspicious individual and he convinces himself that his protector is involved or the orchestrator of some plot against him and quickly the relationship unravels into a public slagging match.

I enjoyed the book, and it filled out a clean slate for me - in terms of that part of history. It takes a fight to get me to read a book on the 18th century, and I think in that there is something to reflect on human nature there. Perhaps this book is an example of 'edutainment'.

What we find fascinating is that two great thinkers of their age, can, when they get right down to it, behave like children in a school yard. Instead of the burly Scot Hume inviting little Jean Jacques to meet later for a pugilistic dispute resolution, they printed articles in the papers of the day do defend and attack one another.

[Joyce · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rousseau's Dogthe is a compelling read and Edmonds & Eidenow present a good argument for the well-chosen title of this book. Although it may seem comical the title is crucial to the authors' thesis for the basis of the "war" between Enlightenment 'philosophes' David Hume and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The Scotsman Hume, dry, reserved, unattached and cosmopolitan was the antithesis of the Swiss Rousseau, emotional, natural, sensitive and a celebrity both adored and despised.

Prior to meeting, the philosphers exchanged letters with a sort of "man crush" sensibility, expressing deep admiration for each others' works and reasoning abilities. However, shortly after the two met in person, they became quickly disenchanted with each other. Their relationship, full of misunderstandings and misreadings right from the start, involved many in the Parisian salons of the Republic of Letters and soon became a public quarrel. Friends and foes on both sides of the channel took sides and it was altogether quite a scandal. More compassion on Hume's part and less narcisicism on Rousseau's would have prevented the whole sordid episode that did credit to neither; they both behaved badly. To paraphrase Bruce Campbell "philosophers are a bunch of bitchy little girls."

The authors researched extensively and provide readers with biographies and summaries of each man's philosophy and writings. We learn about religious and political activities in France, England and Switzerland at the time and the salons of the Republic of Letters. The authors also kindly provide a chronology of major events, a list of dramatis personae, a selected bibliography and an index. I would recommend the book to anyone. One needn't be a philosopher or Enlightenment scholar to appreciate the men beneath the writings who have so influenced western thought

[Socraticgadfly · Rating 4 out of 5]

First, this isn't a "philosophy" book per se.

Edmonds and Eidenow don't make that claim, any blurbs aside. But, they do presume at least an encylopedia of philosophy or Wikipedia page knowledge of the main philosophical ideas of Rousseau and Hume. For people complaining they didn't learn anything new about the philosophy of either one, that's not the thrust of this book.

That said, what does this book have?

Above all, insights into a very human David Hume, exemplified above all by his overreaction to Rousseau, including misreading his comments about the possibility of getting a British royal pension.

I think E&E could have done a little more digging, or at least offered a little more speculation, on Hume tut-tutting Holbach, Grimm, and d'Alembert when being warned he was taking a viper to his breast. Did Hume tut-tut because he thought a change of climate would help Rousseau? Or had "le bon David" let Paris "press clippings" go to his head enough that he thought he could succeed with Rousseau where these others had failed?

The attention to detail that some deride is warranted, I believe, as "scene-setting."

That said, though, perhaps a little more scene-setting of Rousseau's relationship with the philosophes might have been helpful.

Overall, this is definitely one of those books where I wish Amazon had half-star ratings. A 3.5 would be perfect for this book. But, with some of the unreasonable 1-star ratings, I think it needs the half star bump up, not down.

[Matt · Rating 2 out of 5]

What works the first time might not be so great the second.

Wittgenstein's Poker dealt very seriously with philosophical themes, and did a fair job of presenting the primary arguments proffered by both Wittgenstein and Popper. In spite of that, it was highly readable, and I found it downright entertaining.

I picked up Rousseau's Dog expecting the same. Just as with Poker, I knew a fair bit about both of the main characters -- Rousseau and Hume -- before picking up the book. In fact, I was actually looking forward to hearing some of my favorite Hume anecdotes. But I was disappointed.

First, the book had a fragmented feel. Transitions were jerky, and that delightful feeling of "reading a story" that I experience with Poker was substituted by the impression of attending a series of undergraduate lectures.

Second, I'm afraid that I just didn't feel that the philosophical perspectives of Hume and Rousseau were presented that well. Here were two powerhouse thinkers who had tremendous impact on the future of social philosophy, political science, epistemology, metaphysics, psychology, and ethics... but the book seemed far more restrained in its examinations than (dare I make the comparison again?) Wittgenstein's Poker.

In the end, I confess, I didn't finish the book. I left it sitting on the nightstand, a bookmark poking out about three quarters of the way through the book, and I waited until the library recalled it.

[Loret Steinberg · Rating 3 out of 5]

Incredibly well-researched (making one of the author's points -- because people wrote so extensively during Rousseau's and Hume's era, this entire account could be pieced together with detail and insight), this is a loopy, fascinating and sometimes aggravating recreation of an era when philosophy was important enough that people would be scandalized or angry and be moved to pound on doors or write diatribes to friends and colleagues. Strange people, strange times from our perspective. The book isn't directly about the philosophies that developed but about the loyalties, expectations, ways of living and being in which the philosophies emerged. A real whack upside the head to see Rousseau in this light. And then to think he is the same man who wrote: "The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said “This is mine,” and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society.

"From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody."

And then there's Therese Le Vasseur, Rousseau's companion and, eventually, wife.... how I wish she had written letters to be found a couple hundred years later so we could hear her voice, too.

[Timothy Desrosiers · Rating 4 out of 5]

It should be stated that this is not a philosophical text; Rousseau's Dog is almost completely historical in content and only mildly grazes upon some of the central tenets in both thinker's works. But this fact shouldn't take away from the philosophical import involved in such a historical investigation; in my opinion, it is an example of exemplary research. Edmonds and Eidinow reveal how the quarrels (sometimes obnoxious quarrels at that) between Hume and Rousseau powerfully influenced many of the philosophical/theological inquiries during the Enlightenment. However, I felt as though the first hundred pages or so were rather clumsy (and oftentimes difficult to follow and reconstruct) in terms of the preceding history before the quarrels occurred, though I appreciated the relevance of both back-stories. Also, it is written with a juicy voice that keeps many of the fact-after-fact data enjoyable!

That aside, I feel as though anybody with an interest in philosophy and history should read this book considering the powerful influence both Hume and Rousseau had upon the shaping of contemporary thought.

[Trish · Rating 5 out of 5]

David Hume, generally regarded at the time as "the nicest man in Europe", takes pity on the appalling Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in flight from his enemies, real (not without cause, sometimes, if you've ever had to study the œuvres of JJ, you'll know what I mean!) or imagined - that's humanity without exception.

Rousseau behaves so badly that even the benign and decent Hume is driven to inexactitudes with the veracity (little white lies).

I'm not impartial- David Hume, in spite of his atheism (he died bravely with no hedging of bets) which opposes my Catholic faith, is an alumnus of my own university. I'd have enjoyed a wee jar with him in the hostelries of Edinburgh!

Rousseau, on the other hand, was an entirely unpleasant and egotistical misanthropic, misogynist, paranoid individual, incapable of love or affection, who has unfortunately exerted too much influence on post-Enlightenment thought. Bertrand Russell got it spot on when he described Rousseau as a precursor of Nazi ideology.

This is a fascinating account of the meeting of two men, so incompatible, both philosophers, at least if you're kind to JJ, and a warning that "no good deed ever goes unpunished"!!

[Ron · Rating 4 out of 5]

A study of the dust up between two of Europe's brightest thinkers in the 1760s, David Hume and JJ Rousseau. Its a terrfic example of historical research, with emphasis on the actual correspondence not only between the two, but amongst the men and women of letters of the time. The heavy reliance on quotation from these various letters has the effect of painting a vivid picture the era. The story of the fight itself is mostly unremarkable - Hume found himself working to secure a safe haven in England for the oft-persecuted and less than grateful Rousseau - and presented as unabashedly pro-Rousseau. The authors go to great lengths to contrast the two protagonists personalities, sometimes reducing Hume to a caricature, when their respective writings would have served to make the point better. But the structure of the book - a laser focus on a very small period of time, described from multiple points of view - is very effective for this kind of story. I enjoyed it and will read more from these gents.