Frontispiece Interpretation of Rousseaus Discourse Essay Example For Students

Frontispiece Interpretation of Rousseaus Discourse Essay In this essay I will provide an interpretation of the frontispiece in Rousseau’s second discourse, a summary of some important ideas in Rousseau’s work, and an explanation how the frontispiece corresponds to Rousseau’s ideas. A description and a brief analysis of the frontispiece are necessary. The frontispiece us a black and white wood engraving pressed on to paper. The style is reminiscent of the high renaissance engraver Albrecht Durer. The stark black and white contrast is reflective of the thematic contrast between the figures within the frontispiece. The left side of the piece features five adult white men. For descriptive purposes, these men will be called â€Å"the nobles†. All wearing plumed hats, pointed shoe, and frilly shirts; these are staples of ostentatious European fashion. In the background behind the nobles is a castle towering to the clouds. Four of the five nobles appear to be arguing, perhaps there is a power struggle among them. Unlike his peers, the fifth noble is sitting. His facial expression and body language seem to indicate that he is in a state of dissatisfaction and deep reflection. On the opposite side of the frontispiece is a tribe of naked savages sitting around huts. This part of the piece contains little detail and the faces of the tribesmen are hidden. The tribe’s nakedness, primitive shelters, and position in the background suggest that the tribe is living in the distant past. In the foreground between the tribe and the nobles, a central figure stands. The central figure is a barefoot man in a loin cloth, a necklace hung over his neck and a sword at his hip, his back is to the nobles and his left hand is pointing towards the tribe. The light source of the frontispiece illuminates the central figure’s chest, while his backside remains shadowed. Looking back over his right shoulder, there is no longing in his eyes to return to the nobles, but rather a look of contempt. Before the central figure a bundle of clothes and other items lay on the ground, presumably these are possessions of the central figure he is leaving behind. Below the frontispiece, â€Å"He returns to his equals† is inscribed. In addition, Rousseau instructs us to see note P. In note P, it is revealed that the frontispiece is actually the depiction of a historical event. The Dutch came to Africa around the 16th century. The Dutch called the natives â€Å"Hottentots† and introduced them to a European lifestyle that they have never seen. The Dutch governor of the Cape of Good Hope adopted an infant Hottentot, raising him in the Christian faith and educating him in European customs. As a young man, the governor’s adopted son visited his people for the first time. He was introduced to the way his ancestors have lived for generations. For once he did not feel like a misfit in the world. The governor’s adopted son returned to the Dutch wearing a sheepskin loincloth, his old clothes bundled in a pile. The young denied the Christian faith and the European lifestyle and said, â€Å"My resolution is to live and die in the religion, ways, and customs of my ancestors. The sole favor I ask of you is to let me keep the necklace and cutlass I am wearing. † (225). The governor’s son then returned to live with his people without listening to a reply from his old family. The story behind the frontispiece is enigmatic. Why does the young man hold on to the cutlass and the necklace? He wants to reject the European ways of life and venture wholeheartedly into the ways of his ancestors, but he still holds on to pieces of his European life. He says he wants to keep the necklace and sword on account of the love he has for the governor, but he does not even afford his loved ones the chance to say good-bye. How could the governor’s son love the man who kidnapped him and robbed him of his way of life? The inscription below the frontispiece is also troubling. Explorers of the Renaissance EssayIn forests they made bows and arrows, and became hunters and warriors. In cold countries they covered themselves, with the skins of the beasts they killed† (143). The needs of men were no longer so simple and immediate. Men began living in closer proximity to one another. More complex language were needed to communicate with each other (145). Laws and rules were needed to keep peace. Rousseau says, â€Å"The idea of justice stems from believing everyone has a right to be considered by other people† (149). Natural man simply did not have the capacity to conceive of justice because of his undeveloped reasoning and his solitary lifestyle. Instead of living in the shade of trees and caves men started building shelters. This is the begging of the age of the huts. Rousseau says the age of the huts, â€Å"was the epoch of a first revolution, which produced the establishment and differentiation of families and introduced a sort of property- from which perhaps many quarrels and fights arose† (146). Men and women began to live together in these huts. This is the beginning of the family, a society within society (147). The course of man at this point has been forever altered. Even still, the age of the huts was not a far departure from the state of nature. Rousseau claims the introduction of the economy catapulted men further out of the natural state. He says men should have, â€Å"applied themselves only to tasks that a single person could do that did not require the cooperation of several hands, they lived free as soon as they observed that it was useful for a single person to have the provisions of two, equality disappeared, property was introduced, labor became necessary† (151). Social classes developed based upon peoples skills one could provide other people. Some became more valuable than others; inequality resulted (154-155). The introduction of the economy produced an increased desire to consume, which caused for an increased need for technology, which then caused an increased expansion between the classes. The longer this went on, the greater the distance between man and his natural state became. Rousseau believes that man has reached a point where man cannot fully return to his natural state (157). The nobles in the frontispiece are symbolic of the high society. They are materialistic and have many needs. They are in a constant power struggle because of pressures society has placed upon them to be superior. They have the need to have an outward display of power by wearing fancy clothes. The tribe is the depiction of men living in a more natural state. The tribesmen live a simpler more authentic lifestyle, and have been maintaining their way of life for generations. Their needs are fewer, they do not have the constant struggle for power because they are equal with each other. The central figure of the frontispiece is a man who desperately wants to reconnect to his more natural state. He recognizes that he cannot make a full return to his natural state. How can he forget his entire life living as a noble? In the same sense how can we, as a society, forget all of the knowledge that has accumulated for thousands of years? The central figure recognizes that the technology and education he can bring back to his people can be beneficial, especially in dealings with people such as the nobles. Since we can not make the full return back to our natural state, we should try, as Rousseau says, â€Å"maintaining a golden mean between the indolence of the primitive and the petulant activity of our vanity† (151). The moral of the frontispiece and of Rousseau’s second discourse are the same; be a natural man in an unnatural society. This is done by recognizing people as equals and curbing our desire to always consume more than is necessary. Bibliography: Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, Roger D. Masters, Judith R. Masters, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The First and Second Discourses. New York: St. Martins, 1964. Print.