Giulia, o La nuova Eloisa: Lettere di due amanti di una cittadina ai piedi delle Alpi

by Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Giulia d'Etange, figlia unica di una famiglia di nobili origini, ama il suo giovane precettore, Saint-Preux, dotato delle più belle qualità dell'anima, ma povero e inferiore socialmente. Saint-Preux rappresenta per lei l'amore-passione. Wolmar è quello che si usa dire un buon partito, uomo ricco e solido, amico del padre di Giulia, che promette alla figlia un legame coniugale senza rischi. A partire da questi personaggi, delineati con assoluta maestria, Rousseau costruisce un romanzo filosofico attraversato da un logorante interrogativo di fondo: è più giusto abbandonarsi alla pura passione amorosa, sacra espressione della natura e dunque inalienabile diritto dell'uomo, oppure tener conto delle convenzioni sociali, certo e solido fondamento della convivenza umana?

Genres: Classics, Fiction, Philosophy, France, French Literature, 18th Century, Romance

940 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1760

About the author

Genevan philosopher and writer Jean Jacques Rousseau held that society usually corrupts the essentially good individual; his works include The Social Contract and Émile (both 1762).

This important figure in the history contributed to political and moral psychology and influenced later thinkers. Own firmly negative view saw the post-hoc rationalizers of self-interest, apologists for various forms of tyranny, as playing a role in the modern alienation from natural impulse of humanity to compassion. The concern to find a way of preserving human freedom in a world of increasingly dependence for the satisfaction of their needs dominates work. This concerns a material dimension and a more important psychological dimensions. Rousseau a fact that in the modern world, humans come to derive their very sense of self from the opinions as corrosive of freedom and destructive of authenticity. In maturity, he principally explores the first political route, aimed at constructing institutions that allow for the co-existence of equal sovereign citizens in a community; the second route to achieving and protecting freedom, a project for child development and education, fosters autonomy and avoids the development of the most destructive forms of self-interest. Rousseau thinks or the possible co-existence of humans in relations of equality and freedom despite his consistent and overwhelming pessimism that humanity will escape from a dystopia of alienation, oppression, and unfreedom. In addition to contributions, Rousseau acted as a composer, a music theorist, the pioneer of modern autobiography, a novelist, and a botanist. Appreciation of the wonders of nature and his stress on the importance of emotion made Rousseau an influence on and anticipator of the romantic movement. To a very large extent, the interests and concerns that mark his work also inform these other activities, and contributions of Rousseau in ostensibly other fields often serve to illuminate his commitments and arguments.

Reviews

[AiK · Rating 4 out of 5]

Если бы Гудридс существовал в восемнадцатом веке, то роман Жан-Жака Руссо "Новая Элоиза" имел бы лидерские позиции по всем категориям. Это был роман, волновавший умы, одинаково привлекательный и для просвещенной, образованной публики, и для обывателей, падких на романтику. Сентиментализм делал особый акцент на чувствах, на благородстве души, из-за чего персонажи становятся идеализированными, неестественно возвышенными, а весь окружающий мир поэтизировался.
Этот роман оказал огромное культурное влияние - знаменитое "Но я другому отдана, я буду век ему верна" Пушкинской Татьяны имеет корнями нравственные мотивы Юлии Руссо, хранившей верность Вольмару. Несомненно влияние этого романа и на Чернышевского, Гете и многих других.
Почему же роман так потряс читателей? Роман не просто лирический и сентиментальный, он ещё и философский. Он изменил или пытался изменить взгляды на многие вещи, которые регулировались законами или негласными правилами. Дуэли, которые не мог запретить король, но которые существенно сократились благодаря философам, этические вопросы самоубийства, сословные предрассудки - возможность любви между представителями разных сословий, утопически-идиллически идеальная организация поместья, основанная на "нравственном" равенстве хозяина и слуг или работников, религиозная терпимость - брак между католичкой и последователем "греческой" (православной веры), который впоследствии становится атеистом, вообще, новый идеал католички, чьи дети не читают катехизиса, которая, умирая, не желает помолиться богу, но ее смерть обращает в веру неверующих, новый тип любовных отношений, когда третья сторона любовного треугольника не только не изгоняется, но, наоборот, привлекается в семью, воспевание сельской жизни и противопоставление ее столичным развлечениям, воспитание детей и слуг, новый взгляд на проституцию, согласно которой женщины становились на этот путь не по своей порочности, а из-за неравенства в положении - все это было новым, меняло традиционные представления, давало пищу уму, требовало обсуждения, осмысления, развития.
Руссо возводил культ природы и человек должен жить согласно ей. Большое внимание уделяется любви, чувствам, свободе, а также концепции добродетели и идеалам общества. Это была революционная книга, менявшая мировоззрение, хотя на первый взгляд, это простой любовный роман.

[Jesús De la Jara · Rating 5 out of 5]

"¡Cuántas tristes reflexiones me asaltan! ¡Cuántos obstáculos me hacen prever mis temores! ¡Oh Julia! ¡Qué fatal presente del cielo es un alma sensible! Quien lo reciba, que se espere a no tener sino dolor y desdichas en la tierra"

Me enteré de esta obra tan escasamente traducida al español en un pasaje de "Rojo y Negro" cuando Stendhal contando sobre Julián decía: "recurrió a su memoria, como en otro tiempo, y recitó las frases más hermosas de la Nueva Eloísa"
A partir de ahí esperé más de 10 años para poder adquirir la obra e incluso en el trayecto traduje algunas frases de una versión en francés pero veía que la labor era demasiado extenuante, nada menos que 1200 páginas y muy eruditas.
Me hubiera gustado leerla en la adolescencia, y es que en Francia probablemente era una lectura obligada, encargada no sólo de contarnos una historia sino de instruir a los jóvenes. Y es así cómo leyendo sé que en su juventud Stendhal, Napoleón, Madame Roland y tantos otros personajes célebres han sido cautivados por esta gran "novela francesa".
Me ha hecho remontar a mi juventud, y la verdad encontré muchas semejanzas entre mis cartas amorosas de adolescente y la pluma de Rousseau (obviamente salvando grandes distancias), en la manera un poco rebuscada y exuberante de las descripciones, pero también en la sencillez y en la honestidad de lo que se siente. No sólo te expresan las cartas sensaciones o deseos incomprensibles, te explican por qué tanto te atrae la otra persona, en realzar no sólo el sentimiento sino en lo que esperas de él, en el cambio que opera en tu persona, en tu estilo de vida, en tus ilusiones y sobre todo le da una gran importancia a la virtud. El amor sirve para hacerte más grande y la devoción que se percibe sobre todo en las primeras partes es gran prueba de ello.
Me tomó mucho tiempo terminarla pues no sólo leí la historia en sí sino resalté muchas frases que fueron de mi gran gusto y analicé el gran impacto filosófico que le da Rousseau a todo el escrito (las notas de mi edición me ayudaron en gran medida), pues la "Nueva Eloísa" no se puede leer sólo como la historia de dos jóvenes habitantes de los alpes suizos sino como un verdadero tratado filosófico de temas recurrentes en Rousseau, como el verdadero amor, la virtud, la pasión, pasando incluso por la libertad de los pueblos, la servidumbre, el lujo y muchos otros temas puntos de debate del siglo de las Luces.
Esto quizás no les pueda gustar a muchos, pues aunque este conjunto tan heterogéneo de cartas puede marear si no sigues el hilo de la historia en sí, por momentos desvía claramente la acción y Rousseau aprovecha algunos detalles para explayarse de temas que claramente tiene él la intención de analizar mediante sus personajes.
Muchas de sus ideas hoy pueden tomarse como equivocadas, y es que Rousseau en la novela pretende también aleccionar a la juventud sobre sus opiniones sobre diversas cosas, esas divergencias pueden hacer también que la obra se vuelva un poco pesada, pero al fin y al cabo, la manera de pensar siempre ha sido diferente a través de generaciones y es reconfortante conocer algunas ideas de ese siglo ya tan lejano.
Es una novela como digo a todas luces aleccionadora, se puede calificar de simbólicos muchos de sus personajes: Julia d'Étange, alma pura (para algunos tal vez no tanto) y sensible, Clara, su prima, vivaz y elocuente, Saint-Preux, el maestro sensible y honorable, Milord Eduardo, un extranjero amigo, y un largo etcétera. Pero aún así ha sido para mí una obra muy romántica y campo de diversas frases enternecedoras.
Hay una maestría incomparable en Rousseau en hacer una novela llena de cartas de los diferentes personajes, en distintos estilos (aunque a veces sí se puede criticar cierta "erudición" de todos ellos) y que por añadidura cuenta una historia en cierto grado intrigante. Sí debo mencionar que las últimas partes pierden cierto interés y sobre todo la historia no fue tanto de mi agrado en ese punto como lo fue en las primeras.
No puedo recomendarla a todos pues es una novela larga, muy filosófica, llena de rasgos de moral y virtud (creo que esto último ha sido tergiversado en la actualidad y hasta cierto punto enterrada), aunque claro que no faltan algunas dosis de hipocresía, de explicaciones amplias y demasiado idealista, tanto que puede parecer ridículas algunas escenas a la hora actual.
Termino diciendo que nunca usé tantos marcadores de páginas como con este libro y no es sólo por su extensión de seguro.

[Czarny Pies · Rating 3 out of 5]

This novel written by the great philosopher Rousseau is a brilliant demonstration of his thesis that everywhere men are born free but live in chains. The protagonists, Julie a noble and Saint Preux her commoner tutor, are two free spirits who live in a society that is a prison. They are profoundly in love but can never marry because such a marriage would be against every rule of society. Like the original Heloise and her Abelard, their love simply cannot be.

Modern readers will agree with Rousseau but are likely to be appalled by the excesses of his novel. Rousseau like most thinkers of his era thought human emotions were powerful and unpredictable forces. To make this point clear he wrote this novel in the epistolary format. Like Heloise and Abelard, Julie and Saint Preux exchange a lengthy series of extravagant and uncontrolled love letters which probably portray accurately the romantic epistles exchanged by young lovers in the 18th century but which to the contemporary adult reader are nothing but pointless babble.

Adolescent readers are a different matter. I remember the bizarre craze of the first decade of this century in which teenage girls devoured the incredibly turgid and bloated Twilight novels in a state of rapture overjoyed by their appalling length. The absurdly long Julie which has the same faults as the Twilight series outsold every other book published in the 18th century by a wide margin. Then as now young people want their romance novels to gush.

I read Rousseau's book because it was on a course I took. I still shudder to think of the experience. However, I was perhaps old before my time. Add two more stars to my rating if you are one of this individuals who would like to live in a painting by Boucher or Fragonard.

[Marc Lamot · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this 15 years ago in the original French, starting with very low expectations, but this was really a surprise! Rousseau (1712-1778) used all the possibilities of the "roman à lettres" to tell a romantic story. The young master Saint-Preux begins an secret relationship with his pupil, the noble Mademoiselle Julie d'Etange, but of course it doesn't end very well.

This seems a quite simple story, but it's written in a superb manner, in the most beautiful French I have ever read. And of course, it's testimony to the discovery of all the traits of the Romantics of the 18th century: exalted emotions between people, striving for the noblest of ideals, exploring the concept of personal freedom, finding refuge and inspiration in nature as counter part to chilly rationalism. The second part of the book is a little less interesting because of the wide digressions. But still, this really is a superb read.

[Lacey · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've read Abelard and Heloise's letters to each other at least twice a year since my second year of college when I first came across them in my Western Civ class. There's just something hauntingly beautiful and compelling about a tragic love story, made the even more so when recounted by someone whose writing ability rivals Nabokov's. So, obviously, when I learned that Rousseau wrote an epistolary novel based on Abelard and Heloise's romance, I didn't waste any time ordering a copy.

I think it's probably unfair of me to judge this book in comparison to the original letters, but it's hard not to when the title of the book itself implores readers to draw the comparison. While I really did enjoy Rousseau's "retelling," it lacked the desperation and spark that continue to bring me back time and again to Abelard and Heloise's letters. Not to mention--and this is definitely not Rousseau's fault--that many of the allusions and references were just totally lost on me, even with the footnotes, because it was written for people in eighteenth century France, and to say my knowledge of French culture at that time is slim would be a bit of an understatement. Nevertheless, this was my first Rousseau novel and a more than welcome reprieve from his political writings.

[Monty Milne · Rating 1 out of 5]

Only a perverse kind of sado-masochistic determination kept me reading this book to the very end. I feel like the heavy metal fan who banged his head against the wall because he enjoyed the sensation of how it felt when it stopped. Why is this book so bad? Try this from the pen of the heroine:

"Heavens! My mother sends for me! Whither shall I fly? How shall I support her presence? O that I could hide myself in the centre of the earth! I tremble every limb, and am unable to move one step....O my heart, how piercing! She waits for me- I can stay no longer - she will know - I must tell her all....write no more - who knows if ever - yet I might - what! - deceive her! - deceive my mother! - alas!....we are undone!"

We are expected to believe the heroine is spending a good ten minutes transcribing this dross (no doubt in beautiful copperplate script with a goose quill) while her mother is yelling at her from down the stairs...and this kind of drivel goes on and on for page after tedious page...hundreds of tedious pages:

Perhaps we will get more sense and less melodramatic guff from the hero, do you think? Think again - here he is:

"The pen falls from my hand. I have been of late much indisposed...Oh! My head! My poor heart! I feel, I feel - I shall faint - Will heaven have no mercy on my sufferings? I am no longer able to support myself - I will retire to my bed, and console myself with the thought of rising no more. Adieu, my only love! adieu, for the last time, my dear, my tender friend! Ah! I live no longer for thee! have I not then already ceased to live?"

...And on and on and ON he drones for hundreds and HUNDREDS of pages.

The unutterable tedium of a boring lot of old love letters written in an absurdly histrionic and artificial style is not at all relieved by being interspersed with a plot - of sorts - whose dullness is only exceeded by its many absurd contrivances. Add to the mix many lengthy "philosophical" discourses - which seem to be an exercise in making a false, stupid or trite point with as much tedious verbosity as possible - and then throw in a few pinches of dismal and cloying sentimentality from assorted devoted servants and small children...and you have all the ingredients for an emetic bore-fest.

I am now going to read Emile, partly because I cannot seriously believe ANYTHING can be worse than Julie, and partly because I have become mentally deranged as a result of spending the last fortnight immersed in this horrible book.

[Orhan Pelinkovic · Rating 5 out of 5]

"I thank you for your books; but I no longer read those I understand, and it's too late for me to learn to read those I don't."

I enjoyed this novel. It's entirely narrated through letters (an epistolary novel) and the romance plot, with all its twists and turns, comfortably withstands the test of time.

Even though the long title: Julie; or, The New Heloise, Letter of Two Lovers Who Live in a Small Town at the Foot of the Alps leaves a little for the imagination. Nevertheless, this passionate love story is full of depth and sentimentality in which Rousseau illustrates, through the pain and sacrifice of his characters, his devotion to virtue.

For Rousseau, virtue that stands above all, even reason, and any sacrifice made for the price of virtue is justified.

It's a love story for the most part, but Rousseau goes a little off-topic and discusses parenting, education, labor environment and atmosphere, and societies.

The tone throughout is melancholic and the characters are in a continuous moral quandary between succumbing to their yearning, desires and just allowing nature to take its course or carrying out what's expected of them from the society, their family and following the code of honor.

Though a little long, I would still recommend it. Here are a few quotes from the book:

"I remind myself that for me there is only one way to be happy, and million ways to be miserable."

"...it is not death I fear, but the shame of deserving it..."

"...what good would it be to stop loving you if I must continue to worship you?"

"...patience is bitter, but its fruit is sweet!"

"You did not put it correctly, it seems to me: let us live to love each other. Ah! you should have said: let us love each other to live."

"A thousand will worship you, no doubt; but me alone knew how to love you."

"Let rank be regulated by merit, and the union of hearts by choice, that is the true social order; those who regulate it by birth or weather are the true disruptors of that order; they are the ones who should be decried or punished."

"I will never marry you without my father's consent; but I will never marry another without your consent."

"...you should undertake to reform others only when you have nothing more to achieve within yourself."

4.5/5.0

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

i'm not gonna finish this for a while, or maybe ever. but in case anyone else out there is curious about the 18th century epistolary-novels-about-virtuous-girls-being-seduced genre, this is DEFINITELY the one to read. the big british author in the genre, samuel richardson, is incredibly dull. if we had literature departments instead of english departments, no one would read richardson. they'd read this book. it's dripping with pathos.

[Armin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bahn brechender Roman oder hochmoralische Wixvorlage?

5 Sterne für den Erkenntnisgewinn, der vermeintliche Liebesroman ist nicht nur eines der wirkungsmächtigsten Bücher des 18. Jahrhunderts, Tugendterror und damit verbundene Manipulationsmechanismen sind immer noch ein ziemlich virulentes Phänomen. Rousseau nimmt nicht umsonst eine prominente Rolle in der Genese des Poststrukturalismus und unserem postfaktischen Zeitalter ein. Die Lektüre einer Übersicht auf Wikipedia oder in einer Geschichte der französischen Literatur vermittelt nicht den Hauch einer Ahnung, was so alles in diese Liebesgeschichte eingewickelt ist.
Die ziemlich verschwurblete Schmonzette hätte mich wirklich nicht dazu bewegen können, mir die härteste Zumutung dieses Lesejahres anzutun. Allerdings war ich durch den Umstand angespitzt, dass Napoleon auf Sankt Helena beim Zusammentreffen mit seinen Getreuen nur öfter aus der Bibel vorlas und Kant, als Reaktion auf die Lektüre, seine Philosophie von Grund auf neu aufstellte. Alle beide keine Sentimentaliker, schon gar nicht als reife Männer, die längst ganz andere Welten erobert hatten. Den Ausgangspunkt von Kants Pflichtethik, die auf ziemlich deutsche oder preussische Weise weiterentwickelt wurde, lässt sich hier finden. Weniger in der Geschichte junger Liebender, aber bei der Schilderung des Musterhaushalts der mittlerweile an einen älteren Mann verheirateten Julie, der auf Goethes Spätwerk oder Stifters Nachsommer vorausweist, in dem die Mutter der Tochter nur die Bekenntnisse einer schönen Seele zu lesen gibt, die Unmoral der Theaterkapitel von Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahren aber wohlweislich ausspart. Eine ländliche Politeia mit christlich-protestantischem Hintergrund.
Wilhelm Meister ist zugleich eine tödliche Vergleichsgröße, denn die pietistischen Bekenntnisse sind ein Einschub, der nicht mal ein Achtels des Romans ausmacht, Julie ist selbst als junges Mädchen eine schreckliche Tugendgans, auch wenn sie sich von St. Preux' Glut zu einer echten Liebesnacht hinreißen lässt, die sie den Rest ihres Lebens bereut, aller Liebe zum Trotz.
Worauf ich eigentlich hinaus wollte: Julie ist länger als Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre und besteht nur aus Bekenntnissen von schönen Seelen, gegenseitigen Ermahnungen zu mehr Tugend oder allerlei Definitionsdebatten, die sich über 800 Seiten hinziehen. Auch ein paar maßlosen Selbstmordphantasien von St. Preux als Julie, nach dem Tod ihrer Mutter, dem Vater nicht noch mehr Leid zufügen will und ihrer Kindespflicht folgt und den Wunschkandidaten ihres alten Herren heiratet. Denn Herr von Wolmar hat im Krieg ihrem Vater das Leben gerettet. Der ganze Roman besteht aus Abwägungen, welche Instanz bei Konflikten die älteren oder besser begründeten Rechte geltend machen kann.
St. Preux wird die Vorfahrt durch einen älteren Mann genommen, der bei den Eltern einen besseren Stand hat und über mehr Lebenserfahrung verfügt. Eine nur zu bekannte Konstellation, auch Albert lässt als Lottes Verlobter ihren Verehrer immer mal wieder als ziemlich unreif dastehen?
Ist Rousseaus Roman ein Vorläufer oder gar die Anregung zum Werther? Jein, erstens weil bei Goethe ein tieferer persönlicher Erfahrungskern dazu kommt, ganz zu schweigen vom literarischen Talent. im Vergleich zu den naturtrunkenen Briefen des später vom Leben enttäuschten Schwärmers wirken Rousseaus Schilderungen des Alpenlandes, auch wenn sie seinerzeit einen Tourismusboom in die Alpen losgetreten haben, wie die Malereien eines Grundschülers.
Auch wenn Rousseau die mystischen Götter und Helden des Barock durch alltägliche Menschen ersetzt hat, liefert er schier endlose Opera seria-Arien in Prosa. Mehrere Briefe, in denen allenfalls ein paar schwache Echos der Zusammenkünfte nachhallen fordern mehr eine Stunde Lesezeit.
Goethe liefert mit dem Ball und Klopstock-Kurzschluss beim Gewitter ein unmittelbares Erlebnis, das die Verliebtheit rechtfertigt.

Rousseaus Poetik

Vergleiche mit Nachfolgern, die über weiter entwickelte Stilmittel verfügen, sind immer schwierig.
Um ein Beispiel aus der klassischen Musik zu nehmen: Mozart konnte viel, schrieb aber kein einziges Scherzo, da der dritte Satz der Sinfonie zu seiner Zeit noch ein Menuett war. Die Londoner Sinfonien des älteren Haydn bilden die nächste Entwicklungsstufe und klingen wie das Bindeglied zu Beethoven, aber diese entstanden war Mozart schon ein paar Jahre tot und aus dem Geschäft.
Goethe, so sehr er auch zeitlebens Rousseau verpflichtet bleibt, lässt mehr Erfahrung und weniger Ideal einfließen, auch wenn er sich als Romancier den klassischen Antagonisten oder Bösewicht ebenso erspart wie Rousseau. Julie ist bewusst frei von Schurken gehalten, weil sein Autor keinerlei kreative Säfte auf die Erfindung eines solchen verschwenden, geschweige denn das Risiko eingehen wollte, sich mit negativen Kräften abgeben wollte. Statt dessen hat er ein manipulatives Monster geschaffen, bzw. einen ganzen Haushalt um diese Person gruppiert, in dem alle Mitglieder und Dienstboten zu ihrem Besten motiviert und zu einem besseren Menschen umgeschaffen werden.
Wer nicht dem System folgt, wird gleich wieder entlassen, ein Beispiel: Niemand wird beim geselligen Sonntagsumtrunk zur Mäßigung ermahnt, aber wenn ein Diener oder eine Magd dabei das rechte Maß verliert, wird die betreffende Person am nächsten Morgen verabschiedet.
Es gibt auch ein umfangreiches Loblied von St. Preux auf Julies Kindermanipulationskünste, tausend Tricks, wie man Kinder dazu bringt, nicht zu quengeln, das Urteil der Eltern als Naturgesetz zu betrachten oder sich, gemäß den eigenen Anlagen zu entwickeln. Den eigenen Anlagen, die ihre Eltern vorher diagnostiziert haben. So schlau sich auch manches liest, kindliche Gegenlist oder Heuchelei sind in dieser heilen Welt kein Thema. Aber so ein Erziehungsratgeber
fand damals wohl auch seine Leser. Die Liebesgeschichte allein erklärt nicht den Erfolg, der sogar stündliche Ausleihen nötig oder möglich machte. Denn es gibt nicht den Hauch eines Spannungsbogens.
Statt dessen lauern hinter den Kulissen so allerlei verbotene Inhalte jenseits der Zensurgrenze. Kritik am höfischen Leben, dem verknöcherten Theaterwesen in Paris, der großstädtischen Gesellschaft und ihren Wendehälsen, allerlei Staatsphilosophie und Kritik an gewissen religiösen Phänomenen wie dem Mystizismus einer Madame Guyon. Die Urmutter des Pietismus kriegt auch ihr Fett ab, um Julies lebenspraktisches Christentum um so höher zu preisen.
Das Nachwort zu meienr Übersetzung von Anno 1860 geht ziemlich kritisch mit der fast schon pathologischen Frömmigkeit der Titelheldin und der damit einher gehenden Scheinlogik um, auch mit ihren manipulativen Strategien und einem gewissen Anteil an Selbstbelügung. Insofern hat sich Rousseau in seiner hochmoralischen Wixvorlage (Der erotische Auslöser wird in den Bekenntnissen enthüllt) wohl doch selbst einen Streich gespielt, wenn man ihm schon vor dem Durchbruch von Psychologie und anderen Schlüsseln zum Hintereingang auf die Schliche kommen konnte. Aber gerade die unfreiwillige Entlarvung frommer Selbstbelügungstechniken macht Julie zum schwer erträglichen Meisterwerk.

Finale Urteilsbegründung:

Literarische Monster provozieren extreme Bewertungen, entweder man klopft sich für Mann ohne Eigenschaften und Co mit fünf Sternen selbst auf die Schulter, wenn man besagte literarische Eiger-Nordwand hinter sich hat. Oder verfällt, früher oder etwas später, ins andere Extrem.
Ich kann jeden verstehen, der nach 50 Seiten oder weniger mit einem Stern abbricht. Für heutige Lesegewohnheiten ist der revolutionäre Bestseller durch die HIntertür eine Zumutung, die sich niemand antun sollte, der nicht gewisse Erkenntnisinteressen hat. Bei mir waren der seltsame Bestsellerstatus, sowie die rätselhafte Wertschätzung von Kant und Napoleon die Auslöser. Rein literarisch und auch sonst sind die Bekenntnisse, in denen auch die Umstände der Entstehung beschrieben werden, das weit bessere Buch. Gerade die Jugendzeit des späteren Moralpredigers ist auch erotisch nicht ganz uninteressant. Die Frau, die den jungen Rousseau ausgebeutet oder mit einer Trostnummer ruhig gestellt hat, ist in vieler Hinsicht das exakte Gegenteil von Julie, auch in Sachen ruinöse Haushaltsführung. Insofern steckt im Ideal auch viel Reaktion auf die eigene Biographie.
Die Einsichten in die Einflüsse auf Goethe und seine literarischen Nachfahren bis Stifter oder die radikalen Gegenentwürfe von Choderlos Laclos und Marquis de Sade waren ein ganz enormer Bonus. Ich kann viele Klassiker jetzt anders schätzen oder bin schon scharf auf den nächsten Durchgang. Die fünf Sterne gibt es für den Erkenntnisgewinn und die Nachwirkungen.
Sogar den einst als Gipfel der Langeweile abqualifizierten Nachsommer schätze ich jetzt irgendwie mehr, obwohl eine Wiederlesen mit Rousseaus Bekenntnissen deutlich wahrscheinlicher ist. Alles in allem bleibt Julie eine hochmoralische Wixvorlage, die überhaupt nicht meine Fetische anspricht, sondern eher eine Gegendyspotie motivieren würde. Aber erst mal Gefähliche Liebschaften lesen, so lange mich Julie noch so richtig nervt.

[Pierre E. Loignon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Voilà un des livres que j’aime le plus à offrir à mes amies.
Je trouve que les romans par lettres constituent des phénomènes artistiques vraiment intéressants.
De prime abord, entrer dans une correspondance d’inconnus ne me semble pas très intéressant et mon indifférence est encore accentuée lorsque je sais que ces personnages sont fictifs. A priori, je n’aime donc pas trop et pourtant, sitôt que j’arrive à m’imposer l’effort de lire quelques dizaines des premiers épîtres, me voilà entraîné irrésistiblement jusqu’à la dernière missive. Cela s’explique, je crois, du fait que le lecteur d’un roman par lettre doit faire l’effort de reconstruire l’histoire et les personnages à partir des indices qu’on lui donne exclusivement dans les billets échangés par les personnages. Cela implique un effort et prend un certain temps d’adaptation, mais une fois que les fondations nécessaire à la reconstruction sont en place, le lecteur participe à l’écriture, se prend à rêver à ce qui se produit et aux personnages comme si tout cela existait réellement et c’est pourquoi ces romans si ardus à aborder laissent souvent, lorsqu’ils sont réussis, comme c’est le cas pour La nouvelle Héloïse, les souvenirs les plus indélébiles dans l’esprit de leurs lecteurs.
Dans le cas de ce roman par lettre en particulier, l’approche des personnages est légèrement facilité au lecteur puisque Rousseau y présente une Héloïse nouvelle, personnage idéalisé à partir de la maîtresse du grand Abélard dont la tragique histoire d’amour a été immortalisée dans un échange de lettre authentique du XIIe siècle. Si on fait abstraction de la médiocrité de Saint-Preux par rapport à Abélard, le portrait général de la situation dans le roman reproduit assez bien l’horizon historique où les destins d’Héloïse et d’Abélard se sont croisés, et cela permet à Rousseau de mettre génialement en contraste le progrès offert par ses idées morales par rapport à celles qui ont fait le malheur de la véritable Héloïse. En effet, l’Héloïse de Rousseau trouve une douce sérénité rendue possible par l’acceptation de son repentir et l’accomplissement de la vertu que l’ancienne, malgré tous les efforts d’Abélard, n’arrivera jamais à atteindre. Ce succès n’a évidemment rien d’une démonstration, mais il donne envie au lecteur de croire en sa possibilité.
La conclusion est en effet sublime, autant sur le plan artistique que moral. Rousseau, cet homme de cœur aux belles idées et à la sensibilité communicative, est ici au sommet de son art, accomplissant l’exploit trop rare d’une synthèse intellectuelle parfaite entre formes romanesque et philosophique.

[Yann · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rebuté au début par le style, j'ai été gagné par degrés par la sincérité des personnages. Moi qui ne suis pas particulièrement sujet à la sensiblerie, la fin m'a presque tiré des larmes. Rousseau peint un idéal, c'est une belle œuvre.

[Olga Vallinsgren · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a one long, odd and emotionally mixed read. First of all it would be helpful to have had some experience in volatile emotions, otherwise one will not understand the depth of the experiences that this book conveys. Yet reading it without being smitten kind of makes you wonder how such emotions can be possible, or how silly they can seem to be when you are not part of them.

In the middle of the book I began to wish for someone of the main characters to die, so that the whole story would end and spare everyone the misery of going through those experiences. This was when the forced marriage took place and I never perceived Julie to have fought against it with all of her might. On second thought, I think she did so, but that she were too weak to win the battle. Somehow I also wished that Julie's lover would do what he could to save her - but he never did. I really felt that there must be someone to blame here, and eventually I found society that had encouraged odd moral reasoning. This is what you wanted, right, Rousseau?

Everyone's destiny is different, and here we see a way of making the very best of it even if it does not seem that the best is still possible to have. Love can survive even though it remains hidden during all those years, even if it is never expressed with the passion that it holds, and even if everyone is fooled that it has died off. Nay, passion knows to hide itself only to make sure that it will not be fought against again. Only when it is safe will it show itself fully.

[Martin · Rating 1 out of 5]

Usually it takes me about 20-25 pages into a book to know whether it's worthy to continue to the end, or put it down so I don't waste my time. On rare ocassions, it'll take 5-10. Rarer still is 2. The rarest? One flip of the pages.

That was the case here. I opened the monstrosity and found that it was an epistolary novel. Strike 1. Between two lovers. Strike 2. Who write 40-page letters to each because they don't have smartphones and they're bored with their lives.

That, ultimately, is what did this book in. I've complained about other books in the 1,001 Books to Read series in which nothing of intererest happens. Add another to the list.

There was only one thing left for me to do, knowing immediately how much I would hate this experience: practice every speed-reading technique that I know. This way I wouldn't care if I didn't retain everything. My brain doesn't have to get through the entire book, just my eyes, which are so glazed over, it'll take me weeks to recover.

Braindead from reading this, I think even if it wouldn't have been translated from the French, I might not have known any better. It's definitiely dullesville in that language too.

Epistolary novels don't work. They're stilted, numb, boring, and nobody should try it, ever.

Please, no more books like it on the 1,001 list. I can't take it anymore.

[Tanaïs · Rating 3 out of 5]

Je l'ai lu jusqu'au bout juste pour la fin qui est dramatique au possible😂plus dramatique tu meurs😂c'est drôle (mais bon entre deux c'est quand même chiant)

[Julia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Letters, in life, are wonderful. Their tenuous existence between the past and the present makes them both magical and conciliatory. Nostalgia is aggravated and mended, as these little time travel agents expand on all the silences and all the time spent. I think it was Maeterlinck who said that someone’s silence is like someone’s laughter : it is unique. A letter is a silence rectified with a footnote. It’s a silence that explains itself and names itself, with love and urgency; a silence that wants to keep living with us.

You can build a whole novel around the complex feelings that surround a letter. Persuasion, my favorite novel by Austen, is a sad automnal novel up until Captain Wentworth’s confession. In less than a page, his passionate words brighten everything that was seething under the surface with true longing.

Take Call me by your name : It is a nostalgic novel precisely because Elio is constantly writing to Oliver in his mind. He’s trying to be more in tune with him, failing to understand that the height of closeness is precisely in the attempt.

I could go on : Portrait of a lady on fire and its use of paintings, Le Lys dans la Vallée and Henriette’s last letter... Art thrives on repressed feelings.

Which brings me to Rousseau.

Julie ou la Nouvelle Héloïse, Letters of Two Lovers of the Alps isn’t about one letter : its a novel formed by letters. Everything we read and know about these characters is expressed with the need, longing and tenderness of the epistolary form.

It’s the only novel Rousseau ever wrote and his philosophical ideas and concepts resonate deeply with the form he has chosen.

Rousseau believed that we had lost the state of nature and that consequently, true joy will never be ours to keep. Society, its laws and virtues, must always control our access to happiness and will deny us our utmost wishes.

Hence this story of lovers. First, we read about the birth of their requited feelings, the elation and tender longing of it. Then, for several years, they grow together and think together as they make a home out of their love. When separation comes, for it must come, they choose to let go. The last two parters of the novel reunite them again : They are aged and haunted people, pretending not to feel the bite of what could have been, had the world not separated them. They are good people, made better by the touch of love they once felt, but the generosity of their character stems from grief.

Back to the place they fell in love in, the time that has elapsed between joyful youth and guarded adulthood can only be felt in silence. They will never be as they were. That life is lost. Another life has taken its place, a good and virtuous one but it is not the one their hearts would have chosen.

It has dry moments. It’s an aged novel. It’s grandiose and saccharine and breathtakingly sincere.

In the space between the instrumentals of Mystery of Love and Visions of Gideon, it became one of the most heartfelt literary and ethical experience I’ve had the pleasure to experience. And one of the most beautiful novels I’ve ever read.

[Sasha]

I hear this is maybe like a less shitty version of Pamela.

[Alberony Martínez · Rating 3 out of 5]

Este novela epistolar encuentra su trasfondo en la interpretación moral, la pasión amorosa, la retórica sentimental, la desigualdad social y que a través de elementos estéticos y filosóficos procura irradiar Rousseau, ya que tras instalarse en el campo en una pequeña casa, dicha casa la cual había sido reservada por su amiga la Sra. D’Épinay, siente el peso de la soledad y los años, decisiones como esta hizo que el punzante aguijón de la nostalgia sobrevolara con los recuerdos de amor para dar paso a los primeros garabatos de letras apasionadas sin intriga real, pero fue el primer picazo de partida para Julia, o La nueva Eloísa.

Una novela construida sobre una trama simple, es una de las grandes novelas de la literatura francesa, y una de las más importantes de la literatura europea, la cual a vista de águila sobre su espiral argumental, con sus intrigas, mal entendidos, tiene un mayor efecto interpretativa al tener un acercamiento a El contrato social, el Emilio o los Discursos. Una novela marcada por la estructura epistolar, es decir, por cartas entre dos o más personajes, la cual, siendo cartas, tienen como objetivos hacerla creíbles.


Julia enamorada de su tutor, Saint-Preux, un joven plebeyo sin fortuna, Julie d'Étange se convirtió en su amante. Su padre, negándose a este tipo de enredos, cambio las pretensiones de Julia obligándola a casarse con M. de Wolmar, un hombre treinta años mayor que ella. Este tipo de tensiones familiares produjo que hasta la madre de Julia muriera. Desesperado, Saint-Preux, y para olvidar esta ilusión amorosa tronchada por un padre que marca la división social, se ve involucrado en la expedición comandada por el Almirante Anson. Volviendo cuatro años más tarde, se sorprendió de ser recibido por los Wolmar en su dominio de Clarens, a orillas del lago Lemán, donde descubrió con asombro una propiedad administrada magistralmente, por una pareja armoniosa, una familia ideal. ¿Está muerto el amor? Julie, que se convirtió después de su culpa en una esposa y madre ejemplar, murió antes de que nada pusiera en peligro la felicidad de Clarens, pero confesando un sentimiento de que ni sus esfuerzos ni los años se habían debilitado.

Una novela de amor altamente irresistible y fatal, concebida como una totalidad, significado y sentimiento, donde el primero trascendido por el segundo. Con personajes que en medio de sus sensibilidad, hay un tormentoso hecho. Podría terminar en una novela edificante. El rasgo genial es haber barrido todo esto: cuando el sueño parece a punto de hacerse realidad, Julie muere. La felicidad estable está prohibida al hombre, excepto con Dios, donde finalmente escapa de la contingencia. El amor triunfa, pero en "el otro mundo", protegido de las vicisitudes de la realidad. Así, la obra no fue negada, sino ampliada, y la coronación cristiana no tiene nada ficticio: a quien se le niega la pasión y a quien el orden interno de Clarens no ha traído apaciguamiento, sigue siendo la vida eterna, que finalmente dispensa el derecho al amor "sin crimen".

En lo personal, siendo una novela larga y estructurada a través de las cartas, hay momentos que te mueven a tomar ciertos respiros, claro para los románticos es increíble. Julia o La Nueva Eloísa debe su éxito a un público cuyas reacciones son conocidas por primera vez en la historia por cartas de oscuros admiradores. Porque todo el mundo ha leído la Julie, y a aquellos que no pueden permitirse comprarla, los libreros la ofrecen en alquiler. Y este público lee para dejarse llevar, devastado por la emoción. Letras asombrosas, que son solo espasmos y sollozos, delirio, lágrimas de ternura y felicidad.

[bojana ♡ · Rating 4 out of 5]

As someone who doesn't agree with Rousseau's philosophy one bit, the fact that I really enjoyed this book took me completely by surprise. Masked by a tragic love story, what this book truly reads as is an exposé of XVIIIth century France, and more specifically Rousseau's personal views on themes such as virtue, religion, love, family and society. With that being said, seeing how this book is a "retelling", I'm really interested in reading Abelard and Heolise's original letters.

[La Tammina]

È il primo romanzo del diciottesimo secolo che proprio non sono riuscita a digerire, l'ho trovato inutilmente estenuante.

[Jennifer Uhlich · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have finally finished this monster of a book, foreword, appendices, notes and all. I should say right off the bat that the fourth star up there is solely for the absolute thoroughness of the editorial work on this: the notes are excellent, the translation readable, the index first-rate.

And I must confess(!) that I came into this with a very heavy bias, as Rousseau is not my favorite person and I was reading this book in part to flesh out a story idea I'd had, one that was a bit heavy-handed in its anti-Rousseau sentiment . . . but I suppose I should give some points to the jerk in that by the end of his Julie I was actually somewhat moved, and my idea became less, uh, virulent in its sentiments (though he still gets his, trust), and I am more than anything else just relieved to have this brick out of my knapsack.

The story of Julie is in fact fairly brief; what makes it long is the amount of personal philosophy Rousseau crams into the letters, along with long, detailed descriptions of the Valais, Geneva, and Paris--there are pages alone devoted to the dress and manners of Paris women. If you haven't read Emile, you can get the gist here, and some of the text as well--paragraphs are lifted wholesale. And you can also learn every nuance of his personal brand of Protestantism, how a nobleman should extricate himself from an ignoble affair, how to produce various flavors of wine from one vineyard, how to train a servant . . . we won't get into the various books the characters quote and advise each other on, because there were so many my head is spinning.

Julie herself deserves a place in the family tree of Mary Sues. While I expected the rapturous descriptions from her lover, as it turns out, everyone loves Julie and Julie loves everyone--but she loves virtue more, hurrah for her. This is a woman who does everything right, who is able to look back on every blow in her life--even, say, the death of her mother--and see it was all for the best. That doing everything right includes sending her lover away for years at sea, nearly killing him, only to bring him back to her house and make him observe at close detail her new life with her husband and children . . . ugh.

And therein lies the rub, for me. I appreciate the romance in this, the idea of a virtuous love, I can understand the emotion such an idea carries. As, apparently, did most of Europe--this book is one of the first runaway bestsellers, perhaps the first bestseller; it made Rousseau capital-F Famous, deluging him in fanmail and proposals, sending readers by the droves to the little Swiss towns he describes.

But like so much of Rousseau's work, it's just implausible, and completely at odds with his own less-than-virtuous life experiences. Julie is beautiful, everyone loves her; her house is not fancy but still perfectly suited to her station; her servants adore her, her otherwise emotionless husband loves her, her cousin loves her, her perfectly-behaved children love her (so much so that her cousin gives Julie her own daughter to raise), and she happily prescribes life choices to everyone around her that they accept like some kind of commandment from a goddess. She is nothing more or less than Rousseau's perfect mouthpiece. This is a woman who is granted thirty pages in which to die, so she can demonstrate just how Rousseau thinks we should go into that good night--even going so far as to school her own Minister on how one should go to God.

For us mere mortals, I'm guessing we're supposed to love her too, and aspire to conduct ourselves like her . . . but quite frankly if her creator couldn't be bothered, why should I? Personally, I would have high-tailed it to England with my foxy and adoring tutor, taken the estate his friend offered us for free, and lived happily ever after. Dear J-J, you can in fact go through life without the mental hairshirts of virtue and class and still be a good person. Trust me.

I had said at the start of this ramble that I was moved at the end, though. And I was. But not by Julie's epic death; I was moved by all the people whose lives she had shaped and were now left with the emotional vacuum of her loss. Her lover who gave up everything for her, who had denied himself any kind of surrogate happiness (or, ahem, release); her cousin who I suspect might have found other words to describe her love were they alive today . . . those were the plights that moved me, and it seems peculiarly apt that for Rousseau it was enough of an end to have these two young adults simply devote their lives towards the raising of Julie's children, full stop, when he never even kept his own.

[Padmin · Rating 4 out of 5]

E che!

E' un'esclamazione che occorre ripetutamente nell'epistolario rousseauiano, utilizzata da tutti i protagonisti. Potrei tradurla con espressioni come: "e che diamine!", "e suvvia!", "e insomma!".
A suggello dell'opera, notissima (che conoscevo soprattutto sotto l'aspetto tramandato dalle Sacre Pedagogie, racchiudendo essa in miniatura le teorie sviluppate da Rousseau con l' Émile) inserisco anche la mia esclamazione (che nulla toglie -sia chiaro- alla validità letteraria del libro ed a certe sue preziose riflessioni):
E che palle!
................
Scremato dai languori e dalle paturnie dei due principali protagonisti (il precettore e Giulia: il giovane Abelardo e la nuova Eloisa) e sopportata la continua celebrazione della virtù -non solo muliebre, ma soprattutto muliebre- si arriva alla fine all'imperdibile scena madre finale.
N.B.: sono quasi mille (!!!) pagine di buonismo caramelloso, ma alla fine è come entrare in un film di Buñuel. Surrealismo puro.
Questa Giulia, esempio di ogni virtù, un bel giorno cade in acqua per salvare il figlioletto, s'intossica -credo- di cloruro di sodio e muore. Ma mica subito! Eh, no!
Eppure, anche sul letto di morte deve strafare in buonismo e ricomincia a dispensare a destra e a manca precetti, consigli e raccomandazioni. E così fa arredare la camera come mai prima; si fa vestire e imbellettare di tutto punto; arriva addirittura a far apparecchiare la tavola vicino al suo letto e tutti mangiano e bevono (anche lei!) per due o tre giorni. Da scompisciarsi.

[Nisma · Rating 4 out of 5]

من مصاف كارنينا و بوڤاري..
مبهرة قدرة روسو علي أثقال العمل بالعديد من القضايا الفلسفية و العقائدية في قالب رومانسي شديد العذوبة و لغة شعرية.. ربما أكثر من اللازم
چولي تصبح في منتصف العمل مملة و ربما متفلفسة.
فولمار.. وكأنما يصيغ روسو نفسه!

 "إن فرض العزوبة على جماعة كبيرة مثل قساوسة الكنيسة الكاثوليكية الرومانية ليس لمنعهم من أن يكون لهم زوجات، بقدر ما هو لأمرهم بأن يقنعوا بزوجات غيرهم من الرجال"

 "أغرب اللامعقول-إنساناً يفكر تفكير ملحد ويسلك مسلك مسيحي"

"أن المؤمن الحقيقي لا يتعصب ولا يضطهد غيره.. ولو كنت قاضياً؛ ولو قضى القانون بعقوبة الموت على الملحدين؛ لبدأت بحرق كل مبلغ يشي بإنسان آخر، لأنه هو نفسه ملحد.."

"إن فولمار الذي أقام في أقطار كاثوليكية رومانسية لم يغره ما خبره من إيمان أهلها بأن يرى في المسيحية رأياً أفضل.. فقد رأى أن مذهبه لا يتجه إلى لمصلحة كهنتهم، وهو يتألف بجملته من حركات مثيرة للسخرية ورطانة بألفاظ لا معنى لها، ولاحظ أن ذوي الفطرة السليمة والأمانة مجمعون على رأيه، وأنهم لا يتحرجون من الجهر برأيهم.. لا بل أن القساوسة أنفسهم في الخفاء كانوا يهزؤون سراً بما يعلمون ويثبتون في الأذهان علانية، ومن ثم فكثيراً ما أكد لنا أنه بعد أن أنفق كثيراً من الوقت والجهد في البحث، لم يلتقِ قط بأكثر من ثلاث قساوسة يؤمنون بالله!!"

[Kecia · Rating 4 out of 5]

What a lovely surprise! I never would have picked Julie up this year to read if it were not for the 1001 Books to Read Before You Die group. I was not quite sure what to expect except that it would be a series of letters between lovers. At first the flowery language was hard to digest, but after about 100 pages it came easier. The plot was full of twists and turns that I never expected and the ending brought a tear to my eye.

Julie's world and all those who inhabit it are idyllic. It was a lovely escape from our culture of base behavior. Her world is something I would like to recreate in my own little world.

[Deanne · Rating 3 out of 5]

A book written as a series of letters between 6 characters, a romantic novel, though as it's written in the 1700's there are aspects I find intensely irritating.
Rousseau is also one of those writers who seems to profess certain ideas but in real life seems to act differently. The writing is beautiful, but the characters come across as pathetic, though it is the 1700's and women and men are expected to spend a lot of time crying over their correspondence. Have to admit though he's a rogue I prefer Lovelace from Clarissa, Julie wouldn't know what had hit her if he turned up on her doorstep.

[RomPre · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wurde im Rahmen meines Hauptseminars in französischer Literaturwissenschaft gelesen, analysiert und besprochen. Das Seminar war eine gute und wichtige Stütze, manche Passagen wurden nur überflogen.

Der „roman épistolaire“ besteht nur aus Briefen, die zwischen den Protagonisten ausgetauscht werden. Die Handlung muss man sich von diesen ableiten. Das Thema ist das der Romantik, eine verbotene Liebe zwischen zwei Menschen aus verschiedenen Klassen, großes Drama, gesellschaftliche Konventionen, die Rolle der Natur als Metapher und viele von Rousseaus Ideen und Thesen zu Themen wie Liebe, Beziehung, Erziehung, Musik, Paris und die Natur. Mit Vor- und Nachwort, sowie zusätzlichen Erklärungen ein Buch mit fast 1000 Seiten, geschrieben im 18. Jahrhundert-Französisch. Keine leichte Kost. Teils anstrengend zu lesen, vor allem durch den larmoyanten Charakter der Hauptfigur Saint-Preux und der ständig bedrückenden melancholisch-depressiven Tonalität.
Durch die Überlänge des Romans, der in sechs Teile gegliedert ist, erreicht die Geschichte eine gewissen Epik und Breite. Viele Themen können angeschnitten werden ohne deplatziert zu wirken, da viele Abschnitte des Lebens abgeklappert werden.

Kurz: Man muss sich etwas durchkämpfen, es ist etwas anstrengend, liefert aber viel Analyse-Potential, ist interessant zu besprechen und ist rein als Werk betrachtet sehr vollständig, komplex, vollgestopft, durchdacht und ein adäquates Porträt von Frankreich und der Gesellschaft und dessen Moralität des 18. Jahrhunderts.

[Darren · Rating 4 out of 5]

Amazing, immaculately written epistolary novel detailing the progress of the love that develops/evolves between Julie and "Saint Preux", aided/abetted by their friends/relations (mainly cousin Claire, Lord Bomston, M. de Wolmar). Rousseau can't honestly have believed that people would ever speak/behave this way, but it comes over more as a Utopian ideal of how things could be if we all agreed with Rousseau on everything (not just human relationships, but literally e-ve-ry-thing). Judith McDowell's translation is superb, and I was ever so grateful for all (well most!) of the excisions she made (these are detailed in notes at the back so you know what you missed, and mostly sound like excruciatingly boring padding/digressions), keeping the focus on the main narrative arc.
Surprised this isn't still more widely read/appreciated, as it is clearly a near-masterpiece classic.

[Mathilde · Rating 3 out of 5]

Enfin.
Je n’écris pas souvent d’avis mais j’ai décidé de le faire pour ce livre parce que j’ai mis près de deux mois à le lire. J’ai eu beaucoup plus de mal que je ne le pensais à m’habituer au style de Rousseau ce qui faisait que je mettais beaucoup de temps à lire quelques pages. A force de persister j’ai réussi à m’adapter à son style et je dois dire que, même si j’ai trouvé quelques développements assez longs, certaines des thématiques développées à travers ces lettres étaient particulièrement intéressantes. En tout cas je suis quand même contente de l’avoir lu.

[Amandine]

Je ne note pas cette lecture, car elle n'a pas toujours été faite dans les meilleures conditions : interrompue par diverses obligations extérieures, elle a été longue, parfois pénible. Tantôt, je m'ennuyais ferme, vite lassée par les interminables réflexions philosophiques des personnages, mais à d'autres moments, plongée dans ce récit et les malheurs des personnages, je tournais les pages avec plaisir, ravie par le style de Rousseau. Bref, une lecture très inégale pour moi. Sans doute à retenter une prochaine fois, plus tard, dans de meilleures conditions, avec davantage de temps libre.

Ayant beaucoup entendu parler/lu sur ce livre, je connaissais déjà l'intrigue, ainsi que son issue (révélée sur la 4e de couverture pour les ignorants éventuels... Ce que je regrette et reproche à l'édition Livre de poche), et avais une série d'attentes. Celles-ci ont été détrompées pour la plupart, positivement ou négativement. J'avais notamment de grandes espérances quant à la forme : grande admiratrice du roman "Les Liaisons dangereuses", que je savais héritier de cette œuvre de Rousseau, j'apprécie particulièrement les romans épistolaires du 18e siècle. J'aurais dû m'en douter, mais Rousseau exploite moins les possibilités du genre que son successeur (mieux que certains de ses prédécesseurs, néanmoins) : les lettres y sont un très bon support pour laisser les personnages exprimer leurs sentiments et s'épancher, mais c'est tout. Elles n'ont pas d'autre rôle que la narration à la première personne, et les différences de style ne sont guère marquantes : on y lit bien davantage Rousseau que les personnages mêmes. Ce sentiment est d'ailleurs renforcé par une série d'idées que je sais propres à l'auteur et développées dans d'autres de ses œuvres (sur l'éducation et sur la religion, par exemple) que j'ai retrouvées dans le discours de quasi tous les personnages, dans les passages philosophiques évoqués plus haut. J'ai donc été assez déçue par l'exploitation insuffisante des potentialités du roman épistolaire et par le manque de différenciation des personnages.

Ce qui m'a agréablement surprise par contre, c'est la dimension sensuelle de l'amour : elle n'est absolument pas niée, ni absente, contrairement à d'autres romans sentimentaux comme Delphine de Madame de Staël. Julie et Saint-Preux sont vertueux, mais n'en sont pas moins en proie aux affres du désir. De même, tous les sentiments qui peuvent être liés à l'amour sont exploités par Rousseau dans ce roman. Une réussite complète de ce point de vue, pour moi, même si cela dépeint un amour très utopique.

[Alex :) · Rating 3 out of 5]

I came into Rousseau’s Julie, Or the New Heloise, with mostly reasonable expectations. I was aware of the profound effect it had on its initial audience:

"The novel drove J.-F. Bastide to his bed and nearly drove him mad, or so he believed, while it produced the opposite effect on Daniel Roguin, who sobbed so violently that he cured himself of a severe cold."
- Robert Darnton, The Great Cat Massacre

Julie, Or the New Heloise was a cultural phenomenon. According to L-S. Mercier, it cost twelve sous per hour to rent a volume. Rousseau’s marketing tactics were also sublime. He utilized public interest of his love life, and never solidly stated whether Julie was truth or fiction, leading many readers to believe–at least to some extent–that the love story of Julie and Saint-Preux had indeed occurred. In fact, after reading Julie, Or the New Heloise, Marie-Anne Alissan de La Tour assumed the role of titular Julie, her friend Marie Madeleine Bernardoni assumed the role of Julie’s friend Claire, and the author himself, Rousseau, the role of Saint-Preux, Julie’s lover, in a correspondence which lasted several years. As a result of the public equivocation of Rousseau to the novel’s male protagonist Rousseau bragged that he could’ve had sex with any aristocratic woman that he wanted to, and ignoring his (ever present) ginormous ego, based on the propositions he received, he was right. Twilight wishes.

However, I also had read (some of) Samuel Richardson’s Pamela, the worst book I have ever had the misfortune to spend any amount of time or energy on, one which is often compared to this book. Therefore, any expectations the reactions of 18th century France at large would have otherwise imposed were lost on me, and I dreaded anything slightly reminiscent of Richardson’s… work.

Luckily, or perhaps, naturally, this book was far, far better than Pamela. Rousseau’s defense of his decision to write a novel was particularly interesting, not least of all because of his famous denunciation of novels, as explained in the expertly researched and worded introduction by Phillip Stewart. The most stirring part of the dialogues between Rousseau and the unnamed man of letters to whom Jean Neaulme, Nicolas Duchesne, and Denis Diderot have all been attributed to, was when Rousseau said of the main characters, “My young people are lovable; but to love them at thirty, you need to have known them at twenty.”

Throughout the novel, Rousseau’s affection for his “young people” is evident. The role he plays in the narrative is the founder and editor of these compiled letters, gently mocking the characters in the notes for the decisions he has written, the youthful pretensions they have at philosophy and reason, the various mistakes that he, as the true sole author, have made, but which he still attributes to the characters are nothing short of charming. The almost paternal chiding humanizes each character, creating an exceptional fondness within the reader for the cast of the story. His excuse that the letters were written by actual people made me forgive Rousseau of the flaws he had written, which would have otherwise been of note, was a smart one. To quote the preface again:

"N. ...Certainly, if it is all just fiction, you have made a bad book: but say that these two women have existed; and I shall reread this Collection every year for the rest of my life.
R. Oh! what does it matter whether they ever existed? In vain would you would seek them on the earth. They are no more.
N. They are no more? Then they once were?
R. This conclusion is conditional: if they once were, they are no more."

The letters themselves are pretty good as well. Part I was just alright, and Part IV, when the letters were elongated drastically, and the reader (or this particular reader) had only the urge to tell Rousseau to step off his soapbox, was just straight up tedious. But the rest of the book, particularly Parts II and III were very enjoyable. Several times, Rousseau had evoked particularly deep emotions within me.

Yet, there’s a reason that the contents of the book in this review have one measly paragraph detailing them, and besides that, took so long to even mention, which is that this novel, at times, suffers from its greatest strength. The care which Rousseau cultivates from the readers for the characters made me exasperated, especially in Part IV, when they functioned as mere mouthpieces to puppet Rousseau's ideas, at the expense of their characters and the plot. This instance could possibly be forgiven when one considers that for most people, extended periods of monotony pass, and so the lack of non-philosophical subject matter lend to the credibility of it being real letters written by real people. Perhaps, had they been shorter and more plot focused, less people would imagine that Julie, Or the New Heloise was nonfiction, but as a reader who is sure that these people are fictional, I can't appreciate this. That is not to say that I do not enjoy reading about philosophy nor that I particularly dislike books that combine plot and the author's own opinions, but that I was so enraptured by Julie, Saint-Preux, Claire, Monsieur de Wolmar, and the rest of Julie's characters that I would have rather heard about their happenings than reread Rousseau's well known opinions.

In short, I largely feel that this book holds up more as a cultural study than as a novel. Read this book if you’re interested in Rousseau, or in the 18th century, not as an introduction, but to further your knowledge. Read this book if only so you can better understand the “Responding to Rousseau” chapter in Darnton’s The Great Cat Massacre, which holds up fine without it, and also deserves the credit for most of the information on the public response to Julie, Or the New Heloise I included in this review. Do not read if you are purely interested in reading a novel, unless you are also interested in suffering excessive tedium. Particularly in Part IV.

[Tej · Rating 2 out of 5]

Yuck. My translated version actually cut out all of the intellectual discourse because, as the translator wrote, you can read the same stuff elsewhere in Rousseau's non-fiction. Part of me thinks I might have liked the book better with it because that's more interesting to me than all the love story nonsense. On the other hand, I can't imagine how much harder it would have been for me to stick with it if it had had several hundred more pages. If you want to read Rousseau, I'd suggest you stick with The Social Contract. Unlike Julie, it's short, to-the-point, and far more interesting.