"The tax on property，" said he， in 1750， "should be proportioned and equally distributed among all the king's subjects and the members of the government， in proportion to the property each really possesses in the kingdom； in England， the lands of the nobility， the clergy and the Third-Estate pay alike without distinction， and nothing is more just."In the six years which follow the flood increases. People denounce the government in the cafés， on their promenades， while the police dare not arrest malcontents "because they would have to arrest everybody." The disaffection goes on increasing up to the end of the reign. In 1744， says the bookseller Hardy， during the king's illness at Metz， private individuals cause six thousand masses to be said for his recovery and pay for them at the sacristy of Notre Dame； in 1757， after Damiens's attempt on the king's life， the number of masses demanded is only six hundred； in 1774， during the malady which carries him off， the number falls down to three. The complete discredit of the government， the immense success of Rousseau， these two events， occurring simultaneously， afford a date for the conversion of the Third-Estate to philosophy[25]. A traveler， at the beginning of the reign of Louis XVI， who returns home after some years' absence， on being asked what change he noticed in the nation， replied， "Nothing， except that what used to be talked about in the drawing-rooms is repeated in the streets."[26] And that which is repeated in the streets is Rousseau's doctrine， the Discourse on Inequality， the Social Contract amplified， popularized and repeated by adherents in every possible way and in all their forms. What could be more fascinating for the man of the Third-Estate？ Not only is this theory in vogue， and encountered by him at the decisive moment when， for the first time， he turns his attention to general principles， but again it provides him with arms against social inequality and political absolutism， and much sharper than he needs. To people disposed to put restraints on power and to abolish privileges， what guide is more sympathetic than the writer of genius， the powerful logician， the impassioned orator， who establishes natural law， who repudiates historic law， who proclaims the equality of men， who contends for the sovereignty of the people， who denounces on every page the usurpation， the vices， the worthlessness， the malefactions of the great and of kings！ And I omit the points by which he makes acceptable to a rigid and laborious bourgeoisie， to the new men that are working and advancing themselves， his steady earnestness， his harsh and bitter tone， his eulogy of simple habits， of domestic virtues， of personal merit， of virile energy， the commoner addressing commoners. It is not surprising that they should accept him as a guide and welcome his doctrines with that fervor of faith called enthusiasm， and which invariably accompanies the newborn idea as well as the first love.
A competent judge， and an eye-witness， Mallet du Pan，[27] writes in 1799：
"Rousseau had a hundred times more readers among the middle and lower classes than Voltaire. He alone inoculated the French with the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people and with its extremist consequences. It would be difficult to cite a single revolutionary who was not transported over these anarchical theories， and who did not burn with ardor to realize them. That Contrat Social， the disintegrator of societies， was the Koran of the pretentious talkers of 1789， of the Jacobins of 1790， of the republicans of 1791， and of the most atrocious of the madmen. . . . I heard Marat in 1788 read and comment on the Contrat Social in the public streets to the applause of an enthusiastic auditory."The same year， in an immense throng filling the great hall of the Palais de Justice， Lacretelle hears that same book quoted， its dogmas put forward by the clerks of la Bazoche， "by members of the bar，[28] by young lawyers， by the ordinary lettered classes swarming with new-fledged specialist in public law." Hundreds of details show us that it is in every hand like a catechism. In 1784[29] certain magistrates' sons， on taking their first lesson in jurisprudence of an assistant professor， M. Saveste， have the "Contrat Social" placed in their hands as a manual. Those who find this new political geometry too difficult learn at least its axioms， and if these repel them they discover at least their palpable consequences， so many handy comparisons， the trifling common practice in the literature in vogue， whether drama， history， or romance[30]. Through the "Eloges" by Thomas， the pastorals of Bernadin de Saint-Pierre， the compilation of Raynal， the comedies of Beaumarchais and even the "Young Anarcharsis"and the literature of the resuscitated Greek and Roman antiquity， the dogmas of equality and liberty infiltrate and penetrate the class able to read[31]. "A few days ago，" says Métra，[32] "a dinner of forty ecclesiastics from the country took place at the house of curate of Orangis， five leagues from Paris. At the dessert， and in the truth which came out over their wine， they all admitted that they came to Paris to see the 'Marriage of Figaro.' . . Up to the present time it seems as if comic authors intended to make sport for the great at the expense of the little， but here， on the contrary， it is the little who laugh at the expense of the great." Hence the success of the piece.
