celebrated author into the object of ancult. . . . Julie . . . established him asna dominant figure in European culture.nIt changed the ways in whichnpeople thought and felt and acted.”nPrecisely so, which is why betweenn1761 and 1780, 50 books in Francenimitated Julie and 72 editions ofnRousseau’s novel appeared beforen1800. “Sensibility” is of paramountnimportance in the 18th-century, andnalthough Rousseau did not originatenthe ethics of feeling, his vital role innspreading it throughout Europe is annecessary part of his intellectual andnmoral biography. Cranston’s threenbrief sentences on Rousseau’s novelnare hardly an adequate treatment ofnthis sensibility. Undoubtedly, an”Lockean biography” cannot handlensuch a complex psychological subject,nwhich would carry us into the intellectualnand moral domain in the history ofnideas during the 18th century.nOther important subjects involvingnboth Rousseau’s private life and socialntheories are also omitted because theynlie outside of Cranston’s self-imposednempirical-rational method. Indeed,neverything that makes Rousseau controversialnas a person and thinker is leftnunresolved. For example, the enormousngap remains frxed between hownRousseau perceived himself and hownhe is viewed by his admirers, in contrastnto how his enemies saw him in hisnown time, and critics up to the presentnhave understood him. Perhaps no writernsurpassed Rousseau in the art ofnconverting good friends into lifelongnbitter enemies. While they were stillnfriends he wrote to Grimm: “As fornkindnesses, I do not like them, I do notnwant them, and I do not feel grateful tonthose who force me to accept them.”nRousseau never distinguished betweennpatronage and benevolent friendship,nand therefore treated gratitude for favorsnnot as a social virtue but as a moralnvice. He was quite ambivalent in accepting,nyet resenting, generous assistancenfrom Mme. d’Epinay and others,nwhile indignantly scorning smaller giftsnfrom them. Such behavior createsnproblems for his defenders, who perceivenhim as a man of integrity, independence,nand firm adherence to principle.nIt also provides an opening fornhis critics, who find at the core of hisnexalted, abstract moralism a bleak epicureannand self-righteous nihilism andnvanity: in short, a psychotic personality.nWhich view of Rousseau is valid?nEmpirical biographical facts alone donnot answer that vital question.nOne final ironic touch is worthnnoting. During the 18th and 19thncenturies, critics of Rousseau oftennaccused him of being a “primiHvist.”nTwo of his early 20th-century defenders,nErnest Hunter Wright and ArthurnO. Lovejoy, among others, defendednRousseau from this charge. Cranstonncalls his biography The Noble Savage,nwhich infers that “primitivism” is nonlonger perceived as a pejorative term.nBut Rousseau was not so much anprimitive noble savage as he was anhermit living occasionally a rural lifenwithin the polished institutions of Europeanncivilization. He strongly resentednDiderot’s remark that only an evilnman needed to live apart from society,nbecause he regarded himself as thenembodiment of his doctrine that man isnby nature good, and that only organizednsociety is evil. <§>nTHE WISDOM OF THE PLANNED GIFTnThere are a variety of ways to give to educational and charitable organizations, likenThe Rockford Institute, publisher of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture.nMost people make outright gifts which result in a “charitable deduction” from theirntaxable income in a given year. But there are other ways to give that can preservenincome or assets for a donor and his beneficiaries, avoid capital gains and estatentaxes, and benefit the Institute or other charities of your choice. These are oftennreferred to as “planned gifts.”nPooled Income Funds provide income to a donor or his beneficiary and can benestablished at the $5,000 level. The amount in the fund can be added to each year,nand’the amount of income depends on the performance of the pooled fund. This fundnhas both high income and growth-oriented investments, and the return is generallynmuch higher than stock dividends. The amount of charitable tax deduction for the giftndepends on the fair market value of the assets contributed (there is no capital gains taxnon stock contributions) and is related to the age of the donor or beneficiaries. There is no capital gains tax to thendonor on the increased value of the fund over time. Upon the death of the donor or beneficiary, the assets go to thenInstitute and bypass estate taxes.nLegacy Program, The Rockford Institute, 934 North Main Street, Roclsford, IL 61103nD Please send me general information on the various “Planned Giving” options.nD Please send me information on the Institute’s Pooled Income Fund.nNAMEnADDRESSnCITY _nSTATE ZIP PHONEnIf you have a specific asset, such as stocks, that you are considering for a contribution, and if you would like the Institute to evaluate the financialntax implications for your gift, please include the following information:nSS # SS # (SPOUSE)nCOST OF ASSET ESTIMATED MARKET VALUEnnnAPRIL 1992/31-n