INTRODUCTION

In late 1844, Comte met Clotilde de Vaux, the woman to whom he later attributed his emotional development and most important ideas. His disciples and most historians have generally accepted his judgment about the impact she had on his evolution. Yet analyses of their relationship have usually been from Comte's point of view. We have already seen that his judgments about what influenced him are not always valid. To take the most salient example, Comte's repeated denials that he was influenced by Saint-Simon were meant to hide the fact that he took the main outlines of positivism from his former mentor's works. Similarly, Comte's contrary assertion that the path of his “second career” was determined by his love for Clotilde de Vaux needs to be re-examined. Were there other factors at work that molded Comte's general direction? Did de Vaux offer Comte the passive, dependent female companionship that he seemed to seek? Did she even love Comte?

Because Comte overshadowed her and only spoke of her as the ideal woman, it is hard to answer these questions and even to fathom de Vaux's character. Inasmuch as Comte's campaign to integrate worship of de Vaux into his Religion of Humanity seemed demented, scholars who studied his intellectual development tended to dismiss her, considering his relationship with her an embarrassment. John Stuart Mill, among others, accused her of being responsible for Comte's decline.