Dyer sets out to answer whether Jean-Jacques Rousseau proposed a viable theory of republican government. After all, Rousseau's political ideas have been rejected because they allegedly led to tyranny. Dyer, however, defends Rousseau's republic. She argues that in Rousseau's republic, citizens are more virtuous, the republic does not pursue an empire, and commerce does not corrupt. Against those who claim that Rousseau removed man's grounding in nature, Dyer argues that Rousseau's conventions remain rooted in nature, and against those who claim that Rousseau's republic is devoid of proper ends, she argues that love of the community guides republican citizens. Readers will receive the latter argument skeptically, but it is to Dyer's credit that she clearly states her case, allowing readers to quarrel with her. Dyer's conclusion--that future republican politics would benefit from more, not less, Rousseau--is grounded in an impressive knowledge of Rousseau, his philosophical interlocutors, and Dyer's full command of the secondary literature. Her argument has not been made, at least in a while, and scholars should take her up on her challenge. Recommended. Graduate students and faculty.

"Megan K. Dyer offers bold and refreshing interpretations of both Rousseau and republican theory. This learned and provocative consideration is sure to engage scholars for many years to come."

"Many have attempted to untangle the republican strands of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's republicanism, but few have been successful. One successful author, Megan Dyer, is in not only understanding Rousseau's republican principles, but in connecting them so persuasively to the republican tradition. This will be essential reading for those eager to understand both Rousseau and republicanism more broadly."