Answer: “He who knows others is wise. He who knows himself is enlightened."
The style, purpose in writing, values presented, and personality portrayed in the autobiographies of two great enlightenment thinkers, Benjamin Franklin and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, disclose the similarities and differences of enlightenment ideals surfacing in Europe and America. Reflecting on the words of Lao Tzu there seems little need to directly address broad ideals on subjects such as government, the rights of man, independence, religion, virtue, science, and progress as knowing one’s self is the most basic and pure realization of enlightenment. In this respect, it is each philosopher’s basic principals, the details and nature of their thoughts and actions, which dictate their stance on larger issues.
Both Franklin and Rousseau have written autobiographies that, through years of circulation, have achieved status as important, influential works. After writing the first section of autobiographic advice to his son, Franklin received a letter from Able James, a friend, encouraging him to continue in his writing. James writes that Franklin’s continuation in writing “would be useful and entertaining not only to a few but to millions”.[2] Rousseau’s autobiography is described in the text of The West in the World as “one of the most striking autobiographical works ever written”.[3]
While different underlying rational may have motivated the commencement of both autobiographies, in effect, they contain several similarities. The motivating force which initiated Franklin’s writing was rooted in his desire to imbue upon his son the lessons and stories of his life.[4] Only after several years and the urging of others does Franklin write with the public in mind.[5] Rousseau, on the other hand, began writing his autobiography Confessions, “to set before my fellow-mortals a man in all the truth of nature”.[6] In effect, both autobiographies address all of mankind as they elucidate subjects and emotions that touch everyone. Even the portions Franklin writes for his son and the letters to friends and family present issues that people around the world can identify to.[7] In actuality it is Franklin who champions the lower classes, reflecting a divergence in the American and European Enlightenments. Franklin speaks for “general conversation” and “common tradesmen and farmers” exemplifying this divergence.[8]
Before examining the content of Rousseau and Franklin’s autobiographies, similarities and differences between them must be examined with regard to subject matter and overall style. With regard to subject matter both autobiographies present some form of philosophical enlightenment material, as opposed to a simple chronology of events. Franklin delineated his philosophy concerning thirteen virtues he had found to be most pertinent in “arriving at moral perfection”. Rousseau incorporated enlightenment philosophy through the use of what he labels “impressions”, meaning the investigation of events to discover the emotional results. Both Franklin and Rousseau were extremely moralistic individuals, indicating the importance of morals in Enlightenment ideals in both Europe and America.[9]`[10] Franklin, for example, practiced his thirteen virtues and even kept a list of his personal adherence to them.[11] Rousseau describes his education with the statement, “If ever education was perfectly chaste, it certainly that I received; my three aunts were of exemplary prudence”.[12] In his second book Rousseau writes:
I repeat, and shall perhaps repeat again, an assertion I have already advanced, and of those truth I every day receive fresh conviction, which is, that if ever child received a reasonable and virtuous education, it was myself. Born in a family of unexceptionable morals, every lesson I received was replete with maxims of prudence and virtue.[13]
Throughout their autobiographies Rousseau and Franklin often indicated the state of their adherence to sound moral principals. Franklin wrote, “It may be well to let you know the then state of my mind with regard to my principles and morals, that you may see how far those influenced the future events of my life”.[14] Similarly, Rousseau described his moral state writing, “I had no companions to vitiate my morals: I became idle, careless, and obstinate, but my principles were not impaired.”[15]
Franklin and Rousseau each took different approaches in analyzing countless subjects ranging from women to politics. Franklin tended to view a certain situation with the given moral basis that he himself possessed, not allowing himself to step outside certain boundaries. Franklin writes, “So convenient a thing is it to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do”.[16] Franklin views the world in a very direct precise manner, as one who studied hard science would view his work. This view is supported by the fact that Franklin was very influenced by science, just as science was influenced by Franklin. Franklin, in conjunction with the American Revolution, represents these straight forward ideals. The nature of this particular time period in American history mandated the necessity of applicable moral decision making, clarity, and action in Enlightenment ideals.[17]
On the other hand, to attempt to generalize Rousseau’s moral convictions is a lesson in contradiction. Rousseau writes of himself, “Thus began to form and demonstrate itself a heart at once haughty and tender, a character effeminate, yet invincible; which, fluctuating between weakness and courage, luxury and virtue, has ever set me in contradiction to myself; causing abstinence and enjoyment, pleasure and prudence, equally to shun me”.[18] Rousseau did not posses the straight forward scientific mind Franklin wielded. In fact, Rousseau believed, “arts and sciences corrupted rather than improved human conduct”.[19] Inferred from Rousseau and Franklin’s respective autobiographies is the supposition that moral thinking or straightforward reasoning based on morals played a large role in the American Enlightenment while contradictory ideals used to examine “the truth of nature” formed the essence of the European Enlightenment.
Both Rousseau and Franklin’s values reflect a strong influence of organized religion on their lives despite the fact that both rejected the structured environment of religion. In his teens Rousseau ran away from his apprenticeship to a coppersmith “to escape the ridged discipline”.[20] Rousseau then lived for a short time with a Roman Catholic priest but was transferred to another household and found himself in a Protestant institution. Rousseau’s position on organized religion can be discerned from the following excerpt from Confessions: “whether I was an honest man or a knave was very immaterial, provided I went to mass. This ridiculous mode of thinking is not peculiar to Catholics, it is the voice of every dogmatical persuasion where merit consists in belief, and not in virtue”.[21] Franklin, like Rousseau, rejected organized religion and particularly mysticism. At age fifteen Franklin read a book that attempted to reject the ideology behind Deism. Franklin, however, found the arguments for Deism more compelling than those against. At this juncture in Franklin’s life he decided to abandon his Protestant upbringing, however, this abandonment was only in the organizational and mystical portions of religion. Franklin continued to maintain many of the Christian virtues as vital parts of his life.[22] Lack of religious structure was a factor in both the American and European Enlightenment. The American Enlightenment, however, emphasized Christian ideals and God more than the European as demonstrated by classic American documents such as The Declaration of Independence.
Stylistically, Rousseau emphasized emotional aspects of people and events, taking liberty to personalize the actions of the people as opposed to Franklin’s general lack of emotion. Speaking of Miss Lambercier, who was like a mother to Rousseau, there is mention of her look of “disapprobation and uneasiness”. Franklin’s style most often consists of a story that has a lesson to be learned as events unfold. Franklin, as compared to Rousseau, does not divulge into his inner emotions. Speaking about his marriage to Miss Reed, Franklin wrote, “We ventured, however, over all these difficulties, and I took her to wife, Sept. 1, 1730. None of the inconveniences happened that we had apprehended; she proved a good and faithful helpmate…”[23] Rousseau, on the other hand describes his association with the opposite sex with the words, “and when I became a man, that childish taste, instead of vanishing, only associated with the other that I never could remove from my sensual desires”.[24] Clearly Rousseau draws from emotions within to give the reader a clear idea of the situation and his feelings. In the end Franklin imparts his messages by putting the reader in his own shoes while Rousseau gives the reader access to his mind and inner emotions. This emotional aspect is another distinguishing factor present in the European Enlightenment which ultimately led to the growth of Romanticism in Europe.
Though Benjamin Franklin and Jean-Jacques Rousseau can be compared and contrasted on a number of levels with regards to a number of subjects, understanding the similarities and differences of both philosophers and their respective Enlightenments requires the examination of their inner personalities and motives. Both Franklin and Rousseau, if examined by Lao Tzu, would truly be deemed enlightened to the fullest extent. Benjamin Franklin, concurring with Lao Tzu, writes in Poor Richard’s Almanac, “Observe all men; thy self most.”[25] There remains little doubt that Franklin and Rousseau know themselves in a way that transcends time.
