between rulers and ruled. Any contract of the kind that obtained was merely a political convenience strictly subject to conditions. Governors were merely the dele- gates or mandatories of the people. The form of gov- ernment was to Rousseau more or less a minor matter. Although a democracy had the most advantages, yet it was quite possible for the mandates of the people to be adequately carried out by a special body of men (an aristocracy), or even by one man (a king). But every form of government was bound to recognize the will of the people as sovereign in all things.
The classicism of the French Revolution is also largely represented in Rousseau. The Roman constitution is in- variably the source of his illustrations and the model to be copied or amended. As regards toleration, Rousseau would allow the civil power the right of suppressing views which were deemed contrary to good citizenship. Like the Romans, he would tolerate all religions equally that did not menace the State. There is probably no single book that has produced such stupendous results within a few years, if at all, as Rousseau’s Social Contract. It is the text-book of the French Revolution. Every ordi- nance, every law, every draft of constitution bears the mark of its influence. Although more logical in the work- ing out of the theory than its founders, it is needless to say that Rousseau’s own views are singularly barren and unhistorical, as every theory must be that deals only with the political side of things. One may admire his loathing at the artificiality of the world around him, at the “ organ- ized hypocrisy ” called religion and morality; but in his day it was impossible to uncover its historical roots, and hence, to modern ears, his diatribes lose much of their Gfiect.
The influence of the second of the important precur- sors of the French Revolution, Francois-Marie Arouet de Voltaire (7694-1778), was much more indirect than that of Rousseau. Voltaire’s influence was almost purely
