الهوامش
مقدمة
(1)
The Papers of Thomas
Jefferson, ed. Julian P. Boyd, 31 vols. (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1950–), vol. 1 (1760–1776), esp. p. 423, but see also pp.
309–433.
(2)
D. O. Thomas, ed., Political
Writings/Richard Price (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1991), p. 195. Burke quote from paragraph 144, available
online at Reflections on the French
Revolution. vol. XXIV, Part 3. New York: P. F. Collier &
Son, 1909–14; Bartleby.com, 2001. www.bartleby.com/24/3/
[January 21, 2005].
(3)
Jacques Maritain, one of the leaders of the UNESCO
Committee on the Theoretical Bases of Human Rights, quoted in Mary Ann
Glendon, A World Made New: Eleanor Roosevelt and
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (New York:
Random House, 2001), p. 77. On the American Declaration, see Pauline
Maier, American Scripture: Making the
Declaration of Independence (New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
1997), pp. 236–41.
(4)
On the difference between the American Declaration of
Independence and the English Declaration of Rights of 1689, see Michael
P. Zuckert, Natural Rights and the New
Republicanism (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1994), esp. pp. 3–25.
(5)
The Jefferson quote comes from Andrew A. Lipscomb and
Albert E. Bergh, eds., The Writings of Thomas
Jefferson, 20 vols. (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson
Memorial Association of the United States, 1903-04), vol. 3, p. 421. I
have been able to trace Jefferson’s usage of terms on the University of
Virginia library Web site of his quotations:
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations.
There is more to be done on the question of human rights terms, and as
online databases expand and are refined, such research will become less
cumbersome. “Human rights” is used from the very early years of the
eighteenth century in English, but most often occurs in conjunction with
religion, as in “divine and human rights” or even “divine divine right”
vs. “divine human right.” The latter occurs in Matthew Tindal, The Rights of the Christian Church Asserted, against
the Romish, and All Other Priests who Claim an Independent Power
over It (London, 1706), p. liv; the former in, e.g.,
A Compleat History of the Whole Proceedings
of the Parliamerit of Great Britain against Dr. Henry
Sacheverell (London, 1710), pp. 84 and
87.
(6)
The language of human rights is most easily traced in
French thanks to ARTFL, an online database of some 2,000 French texts
from the thirteenth to the twentieth century. ARTFL includes only a
selection of texts written in French, and it favors literature over
other categories. For a description of the resource,
see http://humanities.uchicago.edu/orgs/ARTFL/artfl.flyer.html. Nicolas Lenglet-Dufresnoy, De l’usage des romans. OÙ l’on fait voir leur utilité
et leurs différents caractéres. Avec une bibliothèque des romans,
accompagnee de remarques critiques sur leurs choix et leurs
éditions (Amsterdam: Vve de Poilras, 1734; Geneva:
Slatkine Reprints, 1970), p. 245. Voltaire, Essay sur l’histoire générale et sur les moeurs et l’esprit des
nations, depuis Charlemagne jusqu’à nos jours (Geneva:
Cramer, 1756), p. 292. Consulting Voltaire
électronique, a searchable CD-ROM of Voltaire’s collected
works, I found droit humain used
seven times (droits humains in the
plural never), four of them in Treatise on
Tolerance, and one in each of three other works. In
ARTFL, the expression shows up once in Louis-François Ramond, Lettres de W. Coxe à W. Melmoth (Paris:
Belin, 1781), p. 95; but in the context, it means human law as opposed
to divine law. The search function of the electronic Voltaire makes it
virtually impossible to quickly determine whether Voltaire used
droits de l’homme or droits de l’humanité in any of his works
(it will only give you the thousands of references to droits and homme, for example, in the same work, not in a
consecutive phrase, in contrast to
ARTFL).
(7)
ARTFL gives as the citation Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet,
Méditations sur L’Evangile (1704;
Paris: Vrin, 1966), p. 484.
(8)
Rousseau may have taken the term “rights of man” from
Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, who used it in the table of contents of
Principes du droit naturel par J. J.
Burlamaqui, Conseiller d’Etat, et ci-devant Professeur en droit
naturel et civil à Genevè
(Geneva: Barrillot et fils,
1747), part one, chap. VII, sect. 4 (“Fondement général des Droits de
l’homme”). It appears as “rights of man” in the English translation by
Nugent (London, 1748). Rousseau discusses Burlamaqui’s ideas of
droit naturel in his Discours sur l’origine et les fondements de
l’inégalité parmi les hommes, 1755, Oeuvres Complètes, ed. Bernard Gagnebin and
Marcel Raymond, 5 vols. (Paris: Gallimard, 1959–95), vol. 3 (1966), p.
124. The report on Manco comes from
Mémoires secrets pour servir à l’histoire de
la République des lettres en France, depuis MDCCLXII jusqu’à nos
jours, 36 vols. (London: J. Adamson, 1784–89, vol. 1, p.
230. The Mémoires secrets covered the
years 1762–87. Not the work of a single author (Louis Petit de
Bachaumont died in 1771) but probably several hands, the “memoirs”
included reviews of books, pamphlets, plays, musical performances, art
exhibitions, and sensational court cases—See Jeremy D. Popkin and
Bernadette Fort, The Mémoires secrets
and the Culture of Publicity in
Eighteenth-Century France (Oxford: Voltaire Foundation,
1998), and Louis A. Olivier, “Bachaumont the Chronicler: A Questionable
Renown,” in Studies on Voltaire and the
Eighteenth Century, vol. 143 (Voltaire Foundation:
Banbury, Oxford, 1975), pp. 161–79. Since the volumes were published
after the dates they purported to cover, we cannot be entirely certain
that usage of “rights of man” was as common as the writer infers by
1763. In Act One, Scene II, Manco recites: “Born, like them, in the
forest, but quick to know ourselves/Demanding both the title and the
rights of our being/We have recalled to their surprised hearts/Both this
title and these rights too long profaned”—Antoine Le Blanc de Guillet,
Manco-Capac, Premier Ynca du Pérou,
Tragédie, Représentée pour la premiere fois par les Comédiens
François ordinaires du Roi, le 12 Juin 1763 (Paris:
Belin, 1782), p. 4.
(9)
“Rights of man” appears once in William Blackstone,
Commentaries on the Laws of
England, 4 vols. (Oxford, 1765–69), vol. 1 (1765), p. 121. The first use
The first use I have found in English is in John Perceval, Earl of
Egmont, A Full and Fair Discussion of the
Pretensions of the Dissenters, to the Repeal of the Sacramental
Test (London, 1733), p. 14. It also appears in the 1773
“poetical epistle” The Dying Negro,
and in an early tract by the abolitionist leader Granville Sharp,
A Declaration of the People’s Natural Right
to a Share in the Legislature … (London, 1774), p. xxv. I
found these using the online service of Thomson Gale, Eighteenth-Century
Collections Online, and am grateful to Jenna Gibbs-Boyer for help with
this research. Quote from Condorcet in Oeuvres
complètes de Condorcet, ed. by Maire Louise Sophie de
Grouchy, marquise de Condorcet, 21 vols. (Brunswick: Vieweg; Paris:
Henrichs, 1804), vol. XI, pp. 240–42, 251, 249. Sieyès used the term
droits de l’homme only once: “Il
ne faut point juger de ses [Third Estate’s] demandes par les
observations isolées de quelques auteurs plus ou moins instruits des
droits de l’homme”—Emmanuel Sieyes, Le
Tiers-Etat (1789; Paris: E. Champion, 1888), p. 36. In
his letter to James Madison from Paris dated January 12, 1789, Thomas
Jefferson sent Madison Lafayette’s draft declaration. Its second
paragraph began, “Les droits de l’homme assurent sa proprieté, sa
liberté, son honneur, sa vie”—Jefferson
Papers, vol. 14, p. 438. Condorcet’s draft is dated to
some time prior to the opening of the Estates-General on May 5, 1789, in
Iain McLean and Fiona Hewitt, Condorcet:
Foundations of Social Choice and Political Theory
(Aldershot, Hants: Edward Elgar, 1994), p. 57, and see pp. 255–70 for
the draft declaration “of rights,” which uses the expression “rights of
man” but not in its title. See the texts of the various projects for a
declaration in Antoine de Baecque, ed., L’An I
des droits de l’homme (Paris: Presses du CNRS,
1988).
(10)
Blackstone, Commentaries on the
Laws of England, vol. 1, p. 121. P. H. d’Holbach,
Système de la Nature (1770;
London, 1771), p. 336. H. Comte de Mirabeau, Lettres écrites du donjon (1780; Paris, 1792), p.
41.
(11)
Quoted in Lynn Hunt, ed., The
French Revolution and Human Rights: A Brief Documentary
History (Boston: Bedford Books/St. Martin’s Press, 1996),
p. 46.
(12)
Denis Diderot and Jean Le Rond d’Alembert, eds., Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences,
arts, et des métiers, 17 vols. (Paris, 1751–80), vol. 5
(1755), pp. 115-16. This volume includes two different articles on
“Droit Naturel.” The first is titled “Droit Naturel (Morale),”
pp. 115-16, and begins with Diderot’s characteristic editorial asterisk
(signaling his authorship); the second is titled “Droit de la nature, ou
Droit naturel,” pp. 131–34, and is signed “A” (Antoine-Gaspard Boucher
d’Argis). Information on authorship comes from John Lough, “The
Contributors to the Encyclopédie,” in
Richard N. Schwab and Walter E. Rex, Inventory
of Diderot’s Encyclopédie, vol. 7: Inventory of the Plates, with a Study of the
Contributors to the Encyclopédie by fohn Lough (Oxford:
Voltaire Foundation, 1984), pp. 483–564. The second article by Boucher
d’Argis consists of a history of the concept and is largely based on
Burlamaqui’s 1747 treatise, Principes du droit
naturel.
(13)
Burlamaqui, Principes du droit
naturel, p. 29 (his emphasis).
(14)
J. B. Schneewind, The Invention of
Autonomy: A History of Modern Moral Philosophy
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), p. 4. Autonomy seems to
be the crucial element lacking in natural law theories up to the middle
of the eighteenth century. As Haakonssen argues, “According to most
natural lawyers in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, moral
agency consisted in being subject to natural law and carrying out the
duties imposed by such law, whereas rights were derivative, being mere
means to the fulfilment of duties”—Knud Haakonssen, Natural Law and Moral Philosophy: From Grotius to the
Scottish Enlightenment (Cambridge: Cambridge Univerity
Press, 1996), p. 6. In this regard, Burlamaqui, such a great influence
on the Americans in the 1760s and 1770s, may well mark an important
transition. Burlamaqui insists that men are subject to a superior power,
but that that power must accord with man’s inner nature: “In order for a
law to regulate human actions, it must absolutely accord with the nature
and the constitution of man and it must relate in the end to his
happiness, which is what reason necessarily makes him seek
out”—Burlamaqui, Principes, p. 89. On
the general importance of autonomy to human rights, see Charles Taylor,
Sources of the Self: The Making of Modern
Identity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989),
esp. p. 12.
(15)
I traced “torture” in ARTFL. Marivaux’s phrase comes from
Le Spectateur français (1724) in
Frédéric Deloffre and Michel Gilet, eds., Journaux et oeuvres diverses (Paris: Garnier, 1969), p.
114. Montesquieu, The Spirit of the
Laws, trans. and ed. Anne M. Cohler, Basia Carolyn
Miller, and Harold Samuel Stone (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1989), pp. 92-93.
(16)
My view is clearly a much rosier one than that elaborated
by Michel Foucault, who emphasizes psychological surfaces rather than
depth and connects new views of the body to the rise of discipline
rather than freedom. See, e.g., Foucault’s Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans.
Alan Sheridan (New York: Vintage, 1979).
(17)
Benedict Anderson, Imagined
Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of
Nationalism (London: Verso, 1983), esp. pp.
25–36.
(18)
Leslie Brothers, Friday’s
Footprint: How Society Shapes the Human Mind (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1997). Kai Voigeley, Martin Kurthen, Peter
Falkai, and Walfgang Maier, “Essential Functions of the Human Self Model
Are Implemented in the Prefrontal Cortext,” Consciousness and Cognition, 8 (1999):
343–63.
الفصل الأول: فيض المشاعر
(1)
François-Marie Arouet de Voltaire to Marie de Vichy de
Chamrond, marquise du Deffand, March 6, 1761, in Correspondance complète de Jean Jacques Rousseau, ed. R.
A. Leigh, 52 vols. (Geneva: Institut et Musée Voltaire, 1965–98), vol. 8
(1969), p. 222. Jean Le Rond d’Alembert to Rousseau, Paris, February 10,
1761, in Correspondance complète de Jean Jacques
Rousseau, vol. 8, p. 76. For the reader responses cited
in this and the following paragraph, see Daniel Mornet, J.-J. Rousseau: La Nouvelle Héloïse, 4
vols. (Paris: Hachette, 1925), vol. 1, pp.
246–49.
(2)
On the English translations, see Jean-Jacques Rousseau,
La Nouvelle Héloïse, trans.
Judith H. McDowell (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University
Press, 1968), p. 2. On the French editions, see Jo-Ann E. McEachern,
Bibliography of the Writings of Jean Jacques
Rousseau to 1800, vol. 1: Julie,
ou la Nouvelle Héloïse (Oxford: Voltaire Foundation,
Taylor Institution, 1993), pp. 769–75.
(3)
Alexis de Tocqueville, L’Ancien
Régime, ed. J. P. Mayer (1856; Paris: Gallimard, 1964),
p. 286. Olivier Zunz was kind enough to give me this
reference.
(4)
Jean Decety and Philip L. Jackson, “The Functional
Architecture of Human Empathy,” Behavioral and
Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3 (2004): 71–100; see
esp. p. 91.
(5)
On the general evolution of the French novel, see Jacques
Rustin, Le Vice à la mode: Etude sur le roman
français du XVIIIe siècle de Manon Lescaut à l’apparition de La
Nouvelle Héloïse (1731–1761) (Paris: Ophrys, 1979), p.
20. I compiled figures on the publication of new French novels from
Angus Martin, Vivienne G. Mylne, and Richard Frautschi, Bibliographie du genre Romanesque français,
1751–1800 (London: Mansell, 1977). On the English novel,
see James Raven, British Fiction
1750–1770 (Newark, DE: University of Delaware Press,
1987), pp. 8-9, and James Raven, “Historical Introduction: The Novel
Comes of Age,” in Peter Garside, James Raven, and Rainer Schöwerling,
eds., The English Novel, 1770–1829: A
Bibliographical Survey of Prose Fiction Published in the British
Isles (London and New York: Oxford University Press,
2000), pp. 15–121, esp. pp. 26–32. Raven shows that the percentage of
epistolary novels dropped from 44 percent of all novels in the 1770s to
18 percent in the 1790s.
(6)
This is not the place for an exhaustive list of works. Most
influential for me has been Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of
Nationalism (London: Verso,
1983).
(7)
[abbè Marquet] Lettre sur
Pamela (London, 1742), pp.
3, 4.
(8)
I have kept the original punctuation. Pamela: or, Virtue Rewarded. In a Series of Familiar
Letters from a Beautiful Young Damsel to her Parents: In four
volumes. The sixth edition; corrected. By the late Mr. Sam.
Richardson (London: William Otridge, 1772), vol. 1, pp.
22-23.
(9)
Aaron Hill to Samuel Richardson, December 17, 1740. Hill
begs Richardson to reveal the author’s name, no doubt suspecting it is
Richardson himself—Anna Laetitia Barbauld, ed., The Correspondence of Samuel Richardson, Author of Pamela,
Clarissa, and Sir Charles Grandison. Selected from the Original
Manuscripts …, 6 vols. (London: Richard Phillips, 1804),
vol. I, pp. 54-55.
(10)
T. C. Duncan Eaves and Ben D. Kimpel, Samuel Richardson: A Biography (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1971), pp. 124–41.
(11)
Bradshaigh letter dated January 11, 1749, quoted in Eaves
and Kimpel, Samuel Richardson, p.
224. Edwards letter of January 26, 1749, in Barbauld, ed., Correspondence of Samuel Richardson, vol.
III, p. 1.
(12)
On French personal libraries, see François Jost, “Le Roman
épistolaire et la technique narrative au XVIIIe siècle,” in Comparative Literature Studies, 3 (1966):
397–427, esp. pp. 401-02. This is based on a study by Daniel Mornet from
1910. On newsletter reactions (newsletters written by intellectuals in
France for foreign rulers who wanted to follow the latest developments
in French culture), see Correspondance
littéraire, philosophique et critique par Grimm, Diderot, Raynal,
Meister, etc., revue sur les textes originaux, comprenant outre ce
qui a ètè publiè à diverses époques les fragments supprimés en 1813
par la censure, les parties inédites conservées à la Bibliothèque
ducale de Gotha et à l’Arsenal à Paris, 16 vols. (Paris:
Garnier, 1877–82; Nendeln, Lichtenstein: Kraus, 1968), pp. 25 and 248
(January 25, 1751, and June 15, 1753). Abbé Guillaume Thomas Raynal was
the author of the first and Friedrich Melchior Grimm most likely wrote
the second.
(13)
Richardson did not return Rousseau’s compliment; he claimed
to have found it impossible to read Julie (he did, however, die the year of Julie’s publication in French). See Eaves
and Kimpel, Samuel Richardson, p. 605, for Rousseau’s quote and Richardson’s response to Julie. Claude Perroud, ed., Lettres de Madame Roland, vol. 2
(1788–1793) (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1902), pp. 43–49, esp. p.
48.
(14)
Robert Darnton, The Great Cat
Massacre and Other Episodes in French Cultural History
(New York: W. W. Norton, 1984), quote p. 243. Claude Labrosse, Lire au XVIIIe siècle: la Nouvelle Héloïse et ses
lecteurs (Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon, 1985),
quote p. 96.
(15)
For a recent review of writing on the epistolary novel, see
Elizabeth Heckendorn Cook, Epistolary Bodies:
Gender and Genre in the Eighteenth-Century Republic of
Letters (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996). On
the origins of the genre, see Jost, “Le Roman
épistolaire.”
(16)
W. S. Lewis, ed., The Yale Edition
of Horace Walpole’s Correspondence, vol. 22 (New Haven,
1960), p. 271 (Letter to Sir Horace Mann, December 20, 1764). Remarks on Clarissa, Addressed to the Author.
Occasioned by some critical Conversations on the Characters and
Conduct of that Work. With Some Reflections on the Character and
Behaviour of Prior’s Emma (London, 1749), pp. 8 and
51.
(17)
Gentleman’s Magazine, 19
(June 1749), pp. 245-46, and 19 (August 1749), pp. 345–49, quotes.on pp.
245 and 346.
(18)
N. A. Lenglet-Dufresnoy, De l’usage
des romans, où l’on fait voir leur utilité et leurs différents
caractères, 2 vols. (1734. Geneva: Slatkine Reprints,
1979), quotes, pp. 13 and 92 [vol. 1: 8 and 325 in original]. Twenty
years later, Lenglet-Dufresnoy was invited to collaborate with other
Enlightenment figures on Diderot’s Encyclopedie.
(19)
Armand-Pierre Jacquin, Entretiens
sur les romans (1755; Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1970),
quotes pp. 225, 237, 305, 169, and 101. The antinovel literature is
discussed in Daniel Mornet, J.-J. Rousseau: La
Nouvelle Héloïse, 4 vols. (Paris: Hachette, 1925), vol.
1.
(20)
Richard C. Taylor, “James Harrison, ‘The Novelist’s
Magazine,’ and the Early Canonizing of the English Novel,” Studies in English Literature, 1500–1900,
33 (1993): 629–43, quote p. 633. John Tinnon Taylor, Early Opposition to the English Novel: The Popular
Reaction from 1760 to 1830 (New York: King’s Crown Press,
1943), p. 52.
(21)
Samuel-Auguste Tissot, L’Onanisme (1774; Latin edn. 1758; Paris: Editions de la
Différence, 1991), esp. pp. 22 and 166-67. Taylor, Early Opposition, p.
61.
(22)
Gary Kelly, “Unbecoming a Heroine: Novel Reading,
Romanticism, and Barrett’s The Heroine,”
Nineteenth-Century Literature, 45 (1990): 220–41, quote
p. 222.
(23)
(London: Printed for C. Rivington, in St. Paul’s
Church-Yard; and J. Osborn [etc.], 1741).
(24)
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Julie, or
The New Heloise, trans. Philip Stewart and Jean Vaché,
vol. 6 of Roger D. Masters and Christopher Kelly, eds., The Collected Writings of Rousseau
(Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 1997), quotes pp. 3 and
15.
(25)
“Eloge de Richardson,” Journal
étranger, 8 (1762; Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1968),
7–16, quotes pp. 8-9. For a more detailed analysis of this text, see
Roger Chartier, “Richardson, Diderot et la lectrice impatiente,”
MLN, 114 (1999): 647–66. It is
not known when Diderot first read Richardson; references to him in
Diderot’s correspondence only begin to appear in 1758. Grimm referred to
Richardson in his correspondence as early as 1753—June S. Siegel,
“Diderot and Richardson: Manuscripts, Missives, and Mysteries,”
Diderot Studies, 18 (1975):
145–67.
(26)
“Eloge,” pp. 8, 9.
(27)
Ibid., p. 9.
(28)
Henry Home, Lord Kames, Elements of
Criticism, 3rd edn., 2 vols. (Edinburgh: A. Kincaid
& J. Bell, 1765), vol I, pp. 80, 82, 85, 92. See also Mark Salber
Phillips, Society and Sentiment: Genres of
Historical Writing in Britain, 1740–1820 (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2000), pp. 109-10.
(29)
Julian P. Boyd, ed., The Papers of
Thomas Jefferson, 30 vols. (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1950–), vol. 1, pp. 76–81.
(30)
Jean Starobinski demonstrates that this debate about the
effects of identification applied to the theater as well, but argues
that Diderot’s analysis of Richardson constitutes an important turning
point in developing a new attitude toward identification—“‘Se mettre à
la place’: la mutation de la critique de I’âge classique à Diderot,”
Cahiers Vilfredo Pareto, 14 (1976): 364–78.
(31)
On this point, see esp. Michael McKeon, The Origins of the English Novel, 1600–1740
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987), p. 128.
(32)
Andrew Burstein, The Inner
Jefferson: Portrait of a
Grieving Optimist (Charlottesville, VA: University of
Virginia Press, 1995), p. 54. J. P. Brissot de Warville, Mémoires (1754–1793); publiés avec étude critique et
notes par Cl. Perroud (Paris: Picard, n.d.), vol. 1, pp.
354-55.
(33)
Immanuel Kant, “An Answer to the Question: What is
Enlightenment?” in What Is Enlightenment!
Eighteenth-Century Answers and Twentieth-Century
Questions, ed. James Schmidt (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1996), pp. 58–64, quote p. 58. The chronology of
autonomy is not easy to pin down. Most historians agree that the scope
of individual decision making generally increased between the sixteenth
and twentieth centuries in the Western world, even if they disagree
about how and why it did so. Countless books and articles have been
written about the history of individualism as a philosophical and social
doctrine and its associations with Christianity, Protestant conscience,
capitalism, modernity, and Western values more generally—See Michael
Carrithers, Steven Collins, and Steven Lukes, eds., The Category of the Person: Anthropology, Philosophy,
History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985). A
brief review of the literature can be found in Michael Mascuch,
Origins of the Individualist Self:
Autobiography and Self-Identity in England, 1591–1791
(Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996), pp. 13–24. One of the few
to relate these developments to human rights is Charles Taylor,
Sources of the Self: The Making of Modern
Identity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1989).
(34)
Quoted in Jay Fliegelman, Prodigals
and Pilgrims: The American Revolution Against Patriarchal Authority,
1750–1800 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982),
p. 15.
(35)
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Émile, ou
l’Éducation, 4 vols. (The Hague: Jean Néaume, 1762), vol.
I, pp. 2–4. Richard Price, Observations on The
Nature of Civil Liberty, the Principles of Government, and the
Justice and Policy of the War with America to which is added, An
Appendix and Postscript, containing,
A State of the National
Debt, An Estimate of the Money drawn from the Public by the Taxes,
and An Account of the National Income and Expenditure since the last
War, 9th edn. (London: Edward & Charles Dilly and
Thomas Cadell, 1776), pp. 5-6.
(36)
Lynn Hunt, The Family Romance of
the French Revolution
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992), pp.
40-41.
(37)
Fliegelman, Prodigals and
Pilgrims, pp. 39, 67.
(38)
Lawrence Stone, The Family, Sex and
Marriage in England
1500–1800 (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1977). On
swaddling, weaning, and toilet training, see Randolph Trumbach,
The Rise of the Egalitarian Family:
Aristocratic Kinship and Domestic Relations in Eighteenth-Century
England (New York: Academic Press, 1978), pp.
197–229.
(39)
Sybil Wolfram, “Divorce in England 1700–1857,” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 5 (Summer
1985): 155–86. Roderick Phillips, Putting
Asunder: A History of Divorce in Western Society
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), p. 257. Nancy F. Cott,
“Divorce and the Changing Status of Women in Eighteenth-Century
Massachusetts,” William and Mary
Quarterly, 3rd ser., vol. 33, no. 4 (October 1976):
586–614.
(40)
Frank L. Dewey, “Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on Divorce,”
William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd
ser., vol. 39, no. 1, The Family in Early
American History and Culture (January 1982): 212–23,
quotes pp. 219, 217, 216.
(41)
“Empathy” entered English only in the early twentieth
century as a term in aesthetics and psychology. A translation of the
German word Einfühlung, it was
defined as “the power of projecting one’s personality into (and so fully
comprehending) the object of
contemplation”—http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/00074155?
(42)
Francis Hutcheson, A Short
Introduction to Moral Philosophy, in Three Books;
Containing the Elements of Ethicks and the Law of Nature,
1747; 2nd edn. (Glasgow: Robert & Andrew Foulis, 1753), pp.
12–16.
(43)
Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral
Sentiments, 3rd edn. (London, 1767), p.
2.
(44)
Burstein, The Inner
Jefferson, p. 54; The Power of
Sympathy was written by William Hill Brown. Anne C. Vila,
“Beyond Sympathy: Vapors, Melancholia, and the Pathologies of
Sensibility in Tissot and Rousseau,” Yale French
Studies, No. 92, Exploring the
Conversible World: Text and Sociability from the Classical Age to
the Enlightenment (1997): 88–101.
(45)
There has been much debate about Equiano’s background
(whether he was born in Africa, as he claimed, or in the United States),
but this is not relevant to my point here. For the most recent
discussion, see Vincent Carretta, Equiano, the
African: Biography of a Self-Made Man (Athens, GA:
University of Georgia Press, 2005).
(46)
Abbé Sieyès, Préliminaire de la
constitution française (Paris: Baudoin,
1789).
(47)
H. A. Washington, ed., The Writings
of Thomas Jefferson, 9 vols. (New York:
John C. Riker, 1853–57), vol. 7 (1857), pp. 101–03. On Wollstonecraft,
see Phillips, Society and Sentiment,
p. 114, and especially Janet Todd, ed., The
Collected Letters of Mary Wollstonecraft (London: Allen
Lane, 2003), pp. 34, 114, 121, 228, 253, 313, 342, 359, 364, 402,
404.
(48)
The Writings of Thomas
Jefferson, ed. Andrew A. Lipscomb and Albert E. Bergh, 20
vols. (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association of the
United States, 1903-04), vol. 10, p. 324.
الفصل الثاني: بشر أمثالُنا
(1)
The best general account is still David D. Bien, The Calas
Affair: Persecution, Toleration, and Heresy in Eighteenth-Century
Toulouse (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960).
The tortures of Calas are described in Charles Berriat-Saint-Prix,
Des Tribunaux et de la procédure du grand
criminel au XVIIIe siècle jusqu’en 1789 avec des recherches sur la
question ou torture (Paris: Auguste Aubry, 1859), pp.
93–96. I base my description of breaking on the wheel on the report of
an eyewitness to breaking on the wheel in Paris—James St. John, Esq.,
Letters from France to a Gentleman in the
South of Ireland: Containing Various Subjects Interesting to both
Nations. Written in 1787, 2 vols. (Dublin: P. Byrne,
1788), vol. II: Letter of July 23, 1787, pp.
10–16.
(2)
Voltaire published a 21-page pamphlet in August 1762 on
Histoire d’Elisabeth Canning et des
Calas. He used the case of Elisabeth Canning to show how
English justice functioned in a superior manner but most of the pamphlet
is devoted to the Calas case. Voltaire’s framing of the case in terms of
religious intolerance can be seen most clearly in Traité sur la tolérance à l’occasion de la mort de
Jean Calas (1763). The quote is taken from Jacques van
den Heuvel, ed., Mélanges/Voltaire
(Paris: Gallimard, 1961), p. 583.
(3)
The connection between torture and Calas can be traced in
Voltaire électronique, CD-ROM,
ed. Ulla Kölving (Alexandria, VA: Chadwyck-Healey; Oxford: Voltaire
Foundation, 1998). The 1766 denunciation of torture can be found in
An Essay on Crimes and Punishments,
Translated from the Italian, with
a Commentary Attributed
to Mons. De Voltaire, Translated from the French, 4th
edn. (London: F. Newberry, 1775), pp. xli-xlii. For the article on
“Torture” in the Philosophical
Dictionary, see Theodore Besterman, et al., eds.,
Les Oeuvres complètes de
Voltaire, 135 vols. (1968–2003), vol. 36, ed. Ulla
Kölving (Oxford: Voltaire Foundation, 1994), pp. 572-73. Voltaire only
argued for the actual abolition of torture in 1778 in his Prix de la justice et de l’humanitè.—See
Franco Venturi, ed., Cesare Beccaria, Dei
Delitti e delle pene, con une raccolta di lettere e documenti
relativi alla nascita dell’opera e alla sua fortuna nell’Europa del
Settecento (Turin: Giulio Einaudi, 1970), pp.
493–95.
(4)
J. D. E. Preuss, Friedrich der
Grosse: eine Lebensgeschichte, 9 vols
(Osnabrück, West Germany: Biblio Verlag, 1981; reprint of 1832 Berlin
edn.), vol. I, pp. 140-41. The French king’s decree left open the
prospect of reestablishing the question
préalable if experience proved it necessary. Moreover,
the decree was one of a number related to the crown’s effort to diminish
the authority of the parlements. After having to register it in a
lit de justice, Louis XVI
suspended the implementation of all these decrees in September 1788. As
a consequence, torture was
not definitively abolished until the National Assembly suppressed it on
October 8, 1789—Berriat-Saint-Prix, Des
Tribunaux, p. 55. See also David Yale Jacobson, “The
Politics of Criminal Law Reform in Pre-Revolutionary France,” PhD diss.,
Brown University, 1976, pp. 367–429. For the text of the decrees of
abolition, see Athanase Jean Léger et al., eds., Recueil général des anciennes lois françaises depuis l’an 420
jusqu’à la Révolution de 1789, 29 vols. (Paris: Plon,
1824–57), vol. 26 (1824), pp. 373–75, and vol. 28 (1824), pp. 526–32.
Benjamin Rush, An Enquiry into the Effects of
Public Punishments upon Criminals, and Upon Society. Read in the
Society for Promoting Political Enquiries, Convened at the House of
His Excellency Benjamin Franklin, Esquire, in Philadelphia, March
9th, 1787 (Philadelphia: Joseph James, 1787), in
Reform of Criminal Law in Pennsylvania:
Selected Enquiries, 1787–1810 (New York: Arno Press,
1972), with original page numbering, quote p. 7.
(5)
On the general establishment and abolition of torture in
Europe, see Edward Peters, Torture
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985). Although torture
was not abolished in some Swiss cantons until the mid-nineteenth
century, the practice largely disappeared (at least as legally
recognized) in Europe in the course of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic
wars. Napoleon abolished it in Spain, for example, in 1808, and it was
never reestablished. For the history of the development of juries, see
Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, A History of the
Criminal Law of England, 3 vols. (1883; Chippenham,
Wilts: Routledge, 1996), vol. 1, pp. 250–54. On witchcraft cases and the
use of torture, see Alan Macfarlane, Witchcraft
in Tudor and Stuart England: A Regional and Comparative
Study (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1970), pp.
139-40; and Christina A. Larner, Enemies of God:
The Witch-hunt in Scotland (London: Chatto & Windus,
1981), p. 109. As Larner points out, the constant injunctions from
Scottish and English judges demanding an end to torture in witchcraft
cases show that it remained an issue. James Heath, Torture and English Law: An Administrative and Legal
History from the Plantagenets to the Stuarts (Westport,
CT: Greenwood Press, 1982), p. 179, details several references to the
use of the rack in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, but these
were not sanctioned by common law. See also Kathryn Preyer, “Penal
Measures in the American Colonies: An Overview,” American Journal of Legal History, 26 (October 1982):
326–53, esp. p. 333.
(6)
On the general methods of punishment, see J. A. Sharpe,
Judicial Punishment in England
(London: Faber & Faber, 1990). Punishment on the pillory could
include having one’s ears cut off or having one’s ear nailed to the
pillory (p. 21). Stocks were a wooden device to hold the feet of an
offender. The pillory was a device in which offenders stood with their
head and hands between two pieces of wood—Leon Radzinowicz, A History of English Criminal Law and Its
Administration from 1750, 4 vols. (London: Stevens &
Sons, 1948), vol. I, pp. 3–5, and 165–227. For a review of recent
research in this now very richly mined vein, see Joanna Innes and John
Styles, “The Crime Wave: Recent Writing on Crime and Criminal Justice in
Eighteenth-Century England,” Journal of British
Studies, 25 (October 1986):
380–435.
(7)
Linda Kealey, “Patterns of Punishment: Massachusetts in the
Eighteenth Century,” American Journal of Legal
History, 30 (April 1986): 163–86, quote p. 172. William
M. Wiecek, “The Statutory Law of Slavery and Race in the Thirteen
Mainland Colonies of British America,” William
and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., vol. 34, no. 2 (April
1977): 258–80, esp. pp. 274-75.
(8)
Richard Mowery Andrews, Law,
Magistracy, and Crime in Old Regime Paris, 1735–1789,
vol. 1: The System of Criminal
Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994),
especially pp. 385, 387-88.
(9)
Benoît Garnot, Justice et société
en France aux XVIe, XVIIe et XVIlIe siècles (Paris:
Ophrys, 2000), p. 186.
(10)
Romilly is quoted in Randall McGowen, “The Body and
Punishment in Eighteenth-Century England,” Journal of Modern History, 59 (1987): 651–79, p. 668.
Beccaria’s famous phrase can be found in Crimes
and Punishments, p. 2. Jeremy Bentham took Beccaria’s
motto as the foundation for his doctrine of Utilitarianism. For him,
Beccaria was nothing less than “my master, first evangelist of
Reason”—Leon Radzinowicz, “Cesare Beccaria and the English System of
Criminal Justice: A
Reciprocal Relationship,” in Atti del convegno
internazionale su Cesare Beccari promosso dall’Accademia delle
Scienze di Torino nel secondo centenario dell’opera “Dei delitti e
delle pene,” Turin, October 4–6, 1964 (Turin: Accademia
delle Scienze, 1966), pp. 57–66, quote p. 57. On the reception in France
and elsewhere in Europe, see the letters reprinted in Venturi, ed.,
Cesare Beccaria, esp. pp. 312–24.
Voltaire reported reading Beccaria in a letter of October 16, 1765; in
the same letter he refers to the Calas Affair and to the Sirven case
(also involving Protestants)—Theodore Besterman, et al., eds., Les Oeuvres complètes de Voltaire, 135
vols. (1968–2003), vol. 113, ed. Theodore Besterman, Correspondence and Related Documents, April–December
1765, vol. 29 [1973]):346.
(11)
The Dutch scholar Peter Spierenburg traces moderation of
punishment to growing empathy: “The death and suffering of fellow human
beings were increasingly experienced as painful, just because other
people were increasingly perceived as fellow human beings”—Spierenburg,
The Spectacle of Suffering: Executions and
the Evolution of Repression: From a Preindustrial Metropolis to the
European Experience (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1984), p. 185. Beccaria, Crimes and
Punishments, quotes pp. 43, 107, and 112. Blackstone too
argued for punishments proportional to crimes, and he lamented the large
number of death penalty offenses in England—William Blackstone,
Commentaries on the Laws of
England, 4 vols., 8th edn. (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1778), vol. IV, p. 3. Blackstone cites Montesquieu and Beccaria in a
note to this page. For the influence of Beccaria on Blackstone, see
Coleman Phillipson, True Criminal Law Reformers:
Beccaria, Bentham, Romilly (Montclair, NJ: Patterson
Smith, 1970), esp. p. 90.
(12)
In recent years scholars have questioned whether Beccaria
or the Enlightenment more generally had any role at all in eliminating
judicial torture or moderating punishment and even whether the abolition
was such a good thing—See John H. Langbein, Torture and the Law of Proof: Europe and England in the Ancien
Régime (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976);
Andrews, Law, Magistracy, and Crime;
J. S. Cockburn, “Punishment and Brutalization in the English
Enlightenment,” Law and History
Review, 12 (1994): 155–79; and esp. Michel Foucault,
Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the
Prison, trans. Alan Sheridan (New York: Vintage,
1979).
(13)
Norbert Elias, The Civilizing
Process: The Development of Manners, trans. Edmund
Jephcott (German edn., 1939; New York: Urizen Books, 1978), quote pp.
69-70. For a critical view of this narrative, see Barbara H. Rosenwein,
“Worrying About Emotions in History,” American
Historical Review, 107 (2002):
821–45.
(14)
James H. Johnson, Listening in
Paris: A Cultural History (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1995), quote p. 61.
(15)
Jeffrey S. Ravel emphasizes the continuing rambunctiousness
of the standing pit in The Contested Parterre:
Public Theater and French Political Culture, 1680–1791
(Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999).
(16)
Annik Pardailhè-Galabrun, The Birth
of Intimacy: Privacy and Domestic Life in Early Modern
Paris, trans. Jocelyn Phelps (Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1991). John Archer, “Landscape and Identity: Baby
Talk at the Leasowes, 1760,” Cultural
Critique, 51 (2002): 143–85.
(17)
Ellen G. Miles, ed., The Portrait
in Eighteenth Century America (Newark, DE: University of
Delaware Press, 1993), p. 10. George T. M. Shackelford and Mary Tavener
Holmes, A Magic Mirror: The Portrait in France,
1700–1900 (Houston: Museum of the Fine Arts, 1986), p. 9.
Walpole quote from Desmond Shawe-Taylor, The
Georgians: Eighteenth-Century Portraiture and Society
(London: Barrie & Jenkins, 1990), p. 27.
(18)
Lettres sur les peintures,
sculptures et gravures de Mrs. de l’Académie Royale, exposées au
Sallon du Louvre, depuis MDCCLXVII jusqu’en MCDDLXXIX
(London: John Adamson, 1780), p. 51 (Salon of 1769). See also Rémy G.
Saisselin, Style, Truth and the
Portrait (Cleveland: Cleveland Museum of Art, 1963), esp.
p. 27. The complaints about portraiture and “tableaux du petit genre”
continued in the 1770s—Lettres sur les
peintures, pp. 76, 212, 229. Jaucourt’s article can be
found in Encylopédie ou dictionnaire raisonné
des sciences, des arts et des métiers, 17 vols. (Paris,
1751–80), vol. 13 (1765), p. 153. Mercier’s comment from the 1780s is
quoted in Shawe-Taylor, The
Georgians, p. 21.
(19)
On the importance of fabrics and the impact of consumerism
on portrait painting in the British North American colonies, see T. H.
Breen, “The Meaning of ‘Likeness’: Portrait-Painting in an
Eighteenth-Century Consumer Society,” in Miles, ed., The Portrait, pp.
37–60.
(20)
Angela Rosenthal, “She’s Got the Look! Eighteenth-Century
Female Portrait Painters and the Psychology of
a Potentially ‘Dangerous
Employment,’” in Joanna Woodall, ed., Portraiture: Facing the Subject (Manchester: Manchester
University Press, 1997), pp. 147–66 (Boswell quote p. 147). See also
Kathleen Nicholson, “The Ideology of Feminine ‘Virtue’: The Vestal
Virgin in French Eighteenth-Century Allegorical Portraiture,” in ibid.,
pp. 52–72. Denis Diderot, Oeuvres complètes de
Diderot, revue sur les éditions originales, comprenant ce qui a été
publié à diverses époques et les manuscrits inédits, conservés a la
Bibliothèque de l’Ermitage, notices, notes, table analytique. Etude
sur Diderot et le mouvement philosophique au XVIIIe siècle, par J.
Assézat, 20 vols. (Paris: Garnier, 1875–77; Nendeln,
Lichtenstein: Kraus, 1966), vol. 11: Beaux-Arts
II, arts du dessin (Salons), pp.
260–62.
(21)
Sterne, A Sentimental
Journey, pp. 158 and 164.
(22)
Howard C. Rice, Jr., “A ‘New’ Likeness of Thomas
Jefferson,” William and Mary
Quarterly, 3rd ser., vol. 6, no. 1 (January 1949): 84–89.
On the process more generally, see Tony Halliday, Facing the Public: Portraiture in the Aftermath of the
French Revolution (Manchester: Manchester University
Press, 1999), pp. 43–47.
(23)
Muyart did not put his name to the pamphlets defending
Christianity: Motifs de ma foi en jésus-Christ,
par un magistrat (Paris: Vve Hérissant, 1776) and
Preuves de l’authenticité de nos évangiles,
contre les assertions de certains critiques modernes. Lettre à
Madame de …. Par l’auteur de motifs de ma foi en
Jésus-Christ (Paris: Durand et Belin,
1785).
(24)
Pierre-François Muyart de Vouglans, Réfutation du Traité des délits et peines, etc., printed
at the end of his Les Loix criminelles de
France, dans leur ordre naturel (Paris: Benoît Morin,
1780), pp. 811, 815, and 830.
(25)
Ibid., p. 830.
(26)
Anon., Considerations on the
Dearness of Corn and Provisions (London: J. Almon, 1767),
p. 31; Anon., The Accomplished
Letter-Writer; or, Universal Correspondent. Containing Familiar
Letters on the Most Common Occasions in Life (London,
1779), pp. 148–50. Donna T. Andrew and Randall McGowen, The Perreaus and Mrs. Rudd: Forgery and Betrayal in
Eighteenth-Century London (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 2001) p. 9.
(27)
Spierenburg, The Spectacle of
Suffering, p. 53.
(28)
St. John, Letters from
France, vol. II: Letter of July 23, 1787, p.
13.
(29)
Crimes and Punishments,
pp. 2 and 179.
(30)
For eighteenth-century work on pain, see Margaret C. Jacob
and Michael J. Sauter, “Why Did Humphry Davy and Associates Not Pursue
the Pain-Alleviating Effects of Nitrous Oxide?” Journal of the History of Medicine, 58 (April 2002):
161–76. Dagge quoted in McGowen, “The Body and Punishment in
Eighteenth-Century England,” p. 669. For colonial fines, see Preyer,
“Penal Measures,” pp. 350-51.
(31)
Eden quoted in McGowen, “The Body and Punishment in
Eighteenth-Century England,” p. 670. My analysis follows that of McGowen
in many respects. Benjamin Rush, An
Enquiry, see esp. pp. 4, 5, 10, and 15.
(32)
An essential source not only on the Calas case
but the practice of torture
more generally is Lisa Silverman, Tortured
Subjects: Pain, Truth, and the Body in Early Modern
France (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001). See
also Alexandre-Jérôme Loyseau de Mauléon, Mémoire pour Donat, Pierre et Louis Calas (Paris: Le
Breton, 1762), pp. 38-39. Elie de Beaumont reports exactly the same
words from the mouth of Calas. Voltaire had included them in his
account, too. Jean-Baptiste-Jacques Elie de Beaumont, Mémoire pour Dame Anne-Rose Cabibel, veuve Calas, et
pour ses enfans sur le renvoi aux Requêtes de l’Hôtel au Souverain,
ordonné par arrêt du Conseil du 4 juin 1764 (Paris: L.
Cellot, 1765). Elie de Beaumont represented the Calas family before the
Royal Council. On the publication of this kind of legal brief, see Sarah
Maza, Private Lives and Public Affairs: The
Causes Célèbres of Prerevolutionary France (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1993), pp. 19–38.
(33)
Alain Corbin, Jean-Jacques Courtine, and Georges Vigarello,
eds., Histoire du corps, 3 vols.
(Paris: Editions du Seuil, 2005-06), vol.l: De
la Renaissance aux Lumières (2005), pp. 306–09. Crimes and Punishments, pp. 58 and
60.
(34)
The Parlement of Burgundy stopped ordering the
question préparatoire after 1766, and
its use of the death penalty declined from 13–14.5 percent of all
criminal condemnations in the first half of the eighteenth century to
under 5 percent between 1770 and 1789. The use of the question préalable, however, apparently
continued unabated in France—Jacobson, The Politics of Criminal Law
Reform, pp. 36–47.
(35)
Crimes and Punishments,
pp. 60-61 (emphasis in the original). Muyart de Vouglans, Réfutation du Traité, pp.
824–26.
(36)
See Venturi, ed., Cesare
Beccaria, pp. 30-31, for the definitive 1766 Italian
edition (the last one supervised by Beccaria himself). The paragraph
appears in the same location in the original English translation, in
chap. 11. On the later use of the French order, see for example,
Dei delitti e delle pene. Edizione rivista,
coretta, e disposta secondo l’ordine della traduzione francese
approvato dall’autore (London: Presso la Società dei
Filosofi, 1774), p. 4. According to Luigi Firpo, this volume was
actually printed by Coltellini in Livorno—Luigi Firpo, “Contributo alla
bibliografia del Beccaria. (Le edizioni italiane settecentesche del
Dei delitti e delle pene),” in Atti del
convegno internazionale su Cesare Beccaria, pp. 329–453,
esp. pp. 378-79.
(37)
The first French work openly critical of the judicial use
of torture appeared in 1682 and was written by a leading magistrate in
the Parlement of Dijon, Augustin Nicolas; his argument was against the
use of torture in judgments of witchcraft—Silverman, Tortured Subjects, p. 161. The most
definitive study of the various Italian editions of Beccaria can be
found in Firpo, “Contributo alla bibliografia del Beccaria,” pp.
329–453. On the English and other translations, see Marcello Maestro,
Cesare Beccaria and the Origins of Penal
Reform (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1973), p.
43. I have supplemented his count of the English-language editions with
the English Short Title Catalogue. Crimes and
Punishments, p. iii.
(38)
Venturi, ed., Cesare
Beccaria, p. 496. The piece appeared in Linguet’s
Annales politiques et
littéraires, 5 (1779).
(39)
Encylopédie ou dictionnaire
raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers, 17 vols.
(Paris, 1751–80), vol. 13 (1765), pp. 702–04. Jacobson, “The Politics of
Criminal Law Reform,” pp. 295-96.
(40)
Jacobson, “The Politics of Criminal Law Reform,” p. 316.
Venturi, ed., Cesare Beccaria, p.
517. Joseph-Michel-Antoine Servan, Discours sur
le progrès des connoissances humaines en général, de la morale, et
de la législation en particulier (n.p., 1781), p.
99.
(41)
I have a more favorable opinion of Brissot’s criminal law
writings than does Robert Darnton. See, for example, George Washington’s False Teeth: An Unconventional
Guide to the Eighteenth Century (New York: W. W. Norton,
2003), esp. p. 165. Quotes from Brissot come from Théorie des lois criminelles, 2 vols.
(Paris: J. P. Aillaud, 1836), vol. I, pp. 6-7.
(42)
The rhetorical strategies are analyzed in depth in Maza,
Private Lives and Public Affairs.
When Brissot published his Theory of Criminal
Laws (1781), originally written for an essay contest in
Bern, Dupaty wrote to him to celebrate their common effort “to make
truth triumph and humanity with it.” The letter was reprinted in the
1836 edition, Théorie des lois
criminelles, vol. I, p. vi. [Charles-Marguerite Dupaty],
Mémoire justificatif pour trois hommes
condamnés à la roue (Paris: Philippe-Denys Pierres,
1786), p. 221.
(43)
Dupaty, Mémoire
justificatif, pp. 226 and 240. L’Humanité appears
many times in the brief and in virtually every paragraph in the last
pages.
(44)
Maza, Private Lives and Public
Affairs, p. 253. Jacobson, “The Politics of Criminal Law
Reform,” pp. 360-61.
(45)
Jourdan, ed., Recueil général des
anciennes lois
françaises, vol. 28, p.
528. Muyart de Vouglans, Les Loix
criminelles, p. 796. In the rank of document-level
frequency of subjects (1 being highest, 1125 lowest), the criminal code
ranked 70.5 for the Third Estate, 27.5 for the Nobility, and 337 for the
Parishes; legal procedure ranked 34 for the Third Estate, 77.5 for the
Nobility, and 15 for the Parishes; criminal prosecution and penalties
ranked 60.5 for the Third Estate, 76 for the Nobility, and 171 for the
Parishes; and penalties under criminal law ranked 41.5 for the Third
Estate, 213.5 for the Nobility, and 340 for the Parishes. The two forms
of judicially sanctioned torture did not rank nearly as high because the
“preparatory question” had already been definitively eliminated and the
“preliminary question” had been provisionally abolished as well. Rank
order of subjects comes from Gilbert Shapiro and John Markoff, Revolutionary Demands: A Content Analysis of the
Cahiers de Doléances of 1789 (Stanford: Stanford
University Press, 1998), pp. 438–74.
(46)
Rush, An Enquiry, pp. 13
and 6-7.
(47)
Muyart de Vouglans, Les Loix
criminelles, esp. pp.
37-38.
(48)
Antonio Damasio, The Feeling of
What Happens: Body and
Emotion in the Making of Consciousness (San Diego:
Harcourt, 1999), and Looking for Spinoza: Joy,
Sorrow, and the Feeling Brain (San Diego: Harcourt,
2003). Ann Thomson, “Materialistic Theories of Mind and Brain,” in
Wolfgang Lefèvre, ed., Between Leibniz, Newton,
and Kant: Philosophy and Science in the Eighteenth
Century (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001),
pp. 149–73.
(49)
Jessica Riskin, Science in the Age
of Sensibility: The Sentimental Empiricists of the French
Enlightenment (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
2002), Bonnet quote p. 51. Sterne, A
Sentimental Journey, p. 117.
(50)
Rush, An Enquiry, p.
7.
الفصل الثالث: لقد ضربوا مثلًا عظيمًا
(1)
The meaning of “declaration” can be traced in the
Dictionnaires d’autre-fois function of ARTFL at
www.lib.uchicago.edu/efts/ARTFL/projects/dicos/. The
official title of the 1689 English Bill of Rights was “An Act Declaring
the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of
the Crown.”
(2)
Archives parlementaires de 1787 à
1860: Recueil complet des
débats legislatifs et politiques des chambres françaises,
series 1, 99 vols. (Paris: Librarie administrative de P. Dupont,
1875–1913), vol. 8, p. 320.
(3)
On the importance of Grotius and his treatise On the Law of War and Peace (1625), see
Richard Tuck, Natural Rights Theories: Their
Origin and Development (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1979). See also Léon Ingber, “La Tradition de Grotius. Les Droits
de l’homme et le droit naturel à l’époque contemporaine,” Cahiers de philosophie politique et
juridique, No. 11: “Des Théories du droit naturel” (Caen,
1988): 43–73. On Pufendorf, see T. J. Hochstrasser, Natural Law Theories in the Early
Enlightenment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2000).
(4)
I have not focused here on the distinction between natural
law and natural rights, partly because in French-language works, such as
Burlamaqui’s, it is often blurred. Moreover, eighteenth-century
political figures did not necessarily make clear distinctions
themselves. Burlamaqui’s 1747 treatise was translated immediately into
English as The Principles of Natural
Law (1748) and then Dutch (1750), Danish (1757), Italian
(1780), and eventually Spanish (1825)—Bernard Gagnebin, Burlamaqui et le droit naturel (Geneva:
Editions de la Fregate, 1944), p. 227. Gagnebin claims that Burlamaqui
had less influence in France, but one of the prominent authors writing
for the Encyclopédic (Boucher
d’Argis) used him as his source for one of the articles on natural law.
For Burlamaqui’s views on reason, human nature, and Scottish philosophy,
see J. J. Burlamaqui, Principes du droit naturel
par J. J. Burlamaqui, Conseiller d’Etat, et cidevant Professeur en
droit naturel et civil à Genève (Geneva: Barrillot et
fils, 1747), pp. 1-2 and 165.
(5)
Jean Lévesque de Burigny, Vie de
Grotius, avec l’histoire de ses ouvrages, et des négoçiations
auxquelles il fut employé, 2 vols. (Paris: Debure l’aîné,
1752). T. Rutherforth, D.D. F.R.S., Institutes
of Natural Law Being the substance of a Course of Lectures on
Grotius de Jure Belli et Pai, read in St. Johns College
Cambridge, 2 vols. (Cambridge: J. Bentham, 1754–56).
Rutherford’s lectures seem to be a perfect exemplification of
Haakonssen’s point that the natural law theory emphasis on duties proved
to be very difficult to reconcile with the emerging emphasis on
personally possessed natural rights (even though Grotius contributed to
both). Another Swiss jurist, Emer de Vattel, also wrote extensively
about natural law, but he focused more on the relations between nations.
Vattel too insisted on the natural liberty and independence of all men.
“On prouve en Droit Naturel, que tous
les hommes tiennent de la Nature une Liberté & une indépendance,
qu’ils ne peuvent perdre que par leur consentement”—M. de Vattel,
Le Droit des gens ou principes de la loi
natuielle appliqués à la conduite et aux affaires des nations et des
souverains, 2 vols. (Leyden: Aux Dépens de la compagnie,
1758), vol. I, p. 2.
(6)
John Locke, Two Treatises of
Government (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963),
pp. 366-67. James Farr, “‘So
Vile and Miserable an Estate’: The Problem of Slavery in Locke’s
Political Thought,” Political Theory,
vol. 14, no. 2 (May 1986): 263–89, quote p. 263.
(7)
William Blackstone, Commentaries on
the Laws of England, 8th edn., 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1778), vol. I, p. 129. The influence of natural rights discourse
is evident in Blackstone’s commentaries for he begins his discussion in
Book I with a consideration of “the absolute rights of individuals,” by which he meant “such as would
belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man
is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it” (I: 123; same
wording in 1766 edn., Dublin). There is an immense literature on the
relative influence of universalistic and particularistic ideas of rights
in the British North American colonies. For an inkling of the debates,
see Donald S. Lutz, “The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late
Eighteenth-Century American Political Thought,” American Political Science Review, 78 (1984):
189–97.
(8)
James Otis, The Rights of the
British Colonies Asserted and Proved (Boston: Edes &
Gill, 1764), quotes pp. 28 and 35.
(9)
On the influence of Burlamaqui in the American conflicts,
see Ray Forrest Harvey, Jean Jacques Bulamaqui:
A Liberal Tradition in American Constitutionalism (Chapel
Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1937), p. 116. On citations of
Pufendorf, Grotius, and Locke, see Lutz, “The Relative Influence of
European Writers,” esp. pp. 193-94, and on Burlamaqui’s presence in
American libraries, see David Lundberg and Henry F. May, “The
Enlightened Reader in America,” American
Quarterly, 28 (1976): 262–93, esp. p. 275. Quote from
Burlamaqui, Principes du droit
naturel, p. 2.
(10)
On the increasing desire for declaring independence, see
Pauline Maier, American Scripture: Making the
Declaration of Independence (New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
1997), pp. 47–96. For the Virginia Declaration, see Kate Mason Rowland,
The Life of George Mason,
1725–1792, 2 vols. (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1892),
vol. I, pp. 438–41.
(11)
For a brief but highly pertinent discussion, see Jack N.
Rakove, Declaring Rights: A Brief History with
Documents (Boston: Bedford Books, 1998), esp. pp.
32–38.
(12)
I am grateful to Jennifer Popiel for initial research on
English titles using the English Short Title Catalogue. I have made no
distinction in the use of the term “rights” and have not excluded the
considerable number of reprints over the years. The number of uses of
rights in titles increased twofold from the 1760s to the 1770s (from 51
in the 1760s to 109 in the 1770s) and then stayed about the same in the
1780s (95). [William Graham of Newcastle], An
Attempt to Prove, That every Species of Patronage is Foreign to the
Nature of the Church; and, That any MODIFICATIONS, which either have
been, or ever can be proposed,
are INSUFFICIENT to regain, and secure her in the Possession of the
LIBERTY, where with CHRIST hath made her free ….
(Edinburgh: J. Gray & G. Alston, 1768), pp. 163 and 167. Already in
1753, a James Tod had published a pamphlet titled The Natural Rights of Mankind Asserted: Or a Just and
Faithful Narrative of the Illegal Procedure of the Presbytery of
Edinburgh against Mr. James Tod Preacher of the Gospel ….
(Edinburgh, 1753). William Dodd, Popery
inconsistent with the Natural Rights of MEN in general, and of
ENGLISHMEN in particular: A Sermon preached at Charlotte-Street
Chapel (London: W. Faden, 1768). On Wilkes, see, for
example, “To the Electors of Aylesbury (1764),” in English Liberty: Being
a Collection of
Interesting Tracts, From the Year 1762 to 1769 containing the
Private Correspondence, Public Letters, Speeches, and Addresses, of
John Wilkes, Esq. (London: T. Baldwin, n.d.), p. 125. On
Junius, see for example, Letter XII (May 30, 1769) and XIII (June 12,
1769) in The Letters of Junius, 2
vols. (Dublin: Thomas Ewing, 1772), pp. 69 and
81.
(13)
[Manasseh Dawes], A Letter to Lord
Chatham, concerning the present War of Great Britain against
America; Reviewing Candidly and Impartially Its unhappy Cause and
Consequence; and wherein The Doctrine of Sir William Blackstone as
explained in his celebrated Commentaries on the Laws of England, is
opposed to Ministerial Tyranny, and held up in favor of America.
With some Thoughts on Government by a Gentleman of the Inner
Temple (London: G. Kearsley, n.d.; handwritten 1776),
quotes pp. 17 and 25. Richard Price, Observations on The Nature of Civil Liberty, the Principles of
Government, and the Justice and Policy of the War with America to
which is added, An Appendix and Postscript, containing,
A State of the National
Debt, An Estimate of the Money drawn from the Public by the Taxes,
and An Account of the National Income and Expenditure since the last
War, 9th edn. (London: Edward & Charles Dilly and
Thomas Cadell, 1776), quote p. 7. Price claimed eleven editions of his
tract in a letter to John Winthrop—D. O. Thomas, The Honest Mind: The Thought and Work of Richard Price
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977), pp. 149-50. The success of the pamphlet
was instantaneous. Price wrote to William Adams on February 14, 1776,
that the pamphlet had appeared three days before and had already almost
entirely sold out its edition of 1,000 copies—W. Bernard Peach and D. O. Thomas,
eds., The Correspondence of Richard
Price, 3 vols. (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, and
Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1983–94), vol. I: July 1748–March 1778 (1983), p. 243. For
the complete bibliography, see D. O. Thomas, John Stephens, and P.A.L.
Jones, A Bibliography of the Works of Richard
Price (Aldershot, Hants: Scolar Press, 1993), esp. pp. 54–80.
J. D. van der Capellen, letter of December 14, 1777, in Peach and
Thomas, eds., The Correspondence of Richard
Price, vol. I, p. 262.
(14)
Civil Liberty Asserted, and the
Rights of the Subject Defended, against The Anarchical Principles of
the Reverend Dr. Price. In which his Sophistical Reasonings,
Dangerous Tenets, and Principles of False Patriotism, contained in
his Observations on Civil Liberty, etc. are Exposed and Refuted. In
a Letter to a Gentleman in the Country. By a Friend to the Rights of
the Constitution (London: J. Wilkie, 1776), quotes pp.
38-39. Price’s opponents did not necessarily deny the existence of
universal rights. Sometimes they simply opposed his specific positions
on Parliament or the relation of Great Britain to the colonies. For
example, The Honor of Parliament and the Justice
of the Nation Vindicated. In a Reply to Dr. Price’s Observations on
the Nature of Civil Liberty (London: W. Davis, 1776) uses
the phrase “the natural rights of mankind” throughout in a favorable
sense. Similarly, Experience preferable to
Theory. An Answer to Dr. Price’s Observations on the Nature of Civil
Liberty, and the Justice and Policy of the War with
America (London: T. Payne, 1776) sees no problem with
referring to “the rights of human nature” (p. 3) or “the rights of
humanity” (p. 5).
(15)
Filmer’s lengthy rebuttal of Grotius can be found in
“Observations concerning the Original of Government” in his The Free-holders Grand Inquest, Touching Our
Sovereign Lord the King and his Parliament (London,
1679). He summarizes his position: “I have briefly presented here the
desperate Inconveniences which attend upon the Doctrine of the natural freedom and community of all
things; these and many more Absurdities are easily
removed, if on the contrary we maintain the natural and private Dominion of Adam, to be the
fountain of all Government and Propriety”—p. 58. Patriarcha: Or the Natural Power of Kings (London: R.
Chiswel, et al., 1685), esp. pp. 1–24.
(16)
Charles Warren Everett, ed., A
Comment on the Commentaries: A Criticism of
William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England by Jeremy
Bentham (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1928), quotes pp.
37-38. “Nonsense upon Stilts, or Pandora’s Box Opened, or The French
Declaration of Rights prefixed to the Constitution of 1791 Laid Open and
Exposed,” reprinted in Philip Schofield, Catherine Pease-Watkin, and
Cyprian Blamires, eds., The Collected Works of
Jeremy Bentham. Rights, Representation, and Reform: Nonsense upon
Stilts and Other Writings on the French Revolution
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002), pp. 319–75, quote p. 330. The pamphlet,
written in 1795, was not published until 1816 (in French) and 1824 (in
English).
(17)
Du Pont also insisted on the reciprocal duties of
individuals—Pierre du Pont de Nemours, De
l’Origine et des progrès d’une science nouvelle (1768),
in Eugène Daire, ed., Physiocrates. Quesnay,
Dupont de Nemours, Mercier de la Rivière, l’Abbè Baudeau, Le
Trosne (Paris: Librarie de Guil-laumin, 1846), pp.
335–66, quote p. 342.
(18)
On the “all-but-forgotten” Declaration of Independence, see
Maier, American Scripture, pp.
160–70.
(19)
Rousseau’s letter criticizing the overuse of “humanity” can
be found in R. A. Leigh, ed., Correspondance
complete de Jean Jacques Rousseau, vol. 27, Janvier 1769-Avril 1770 (Oxford: Voltaire
Foundation, 1980), p. 15 (Letter from Rousseau to Laurent Aymon de
Franquières, January 15, 1769). I am grateful to Melissa Verlet for her
research on this point. On Rousseau’s knowledge of Franklin and his
defense of the Americans, see the account by Thomas Bentley dated August
6, 1776, in Leigh, ed., Correspondance
complète, vol. 40, Janvier
1775-Juillet 1778, pp. 258–63 “… the Americans, who he
said had not the less right to defend their liberties because they were
obscure or unkown,” p. 259. Other than this account from a visitor to
Rousseau, there is no mention of American affairs in Rousseau’s own
letters from 1775 to his death.
(20)
Elise Marienstras and Naomi Wulf, “French Translations and
Reception of the Declaration of Independence,” Journal of American History, 85 (1999): 1299–1324. Joyce
Appleby, “America as a Model for the Radical French Reformers of 1789,”
William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd
ser., vol. 28, no. 2 (April 1971): 267–86.
(21)
For the uses of these phrases, see Archives parlementaires, 1: 711; 2:
57, 139, 348, 383 ; 3: 256, 348, 662, 666, 740; 4: 668; 5: 391, 545.
The first six volumes of the Archives
parlementaires contain only a selection of the thousands
of extant grievance lists; the editors included many of the “general”
lists (those of the nobles, clergy, and Third Estate of an entire
region) and few of those from the preliminary stages. I am grateful to
Susan Mokhberi for research on these terms. Most content analysis of
the grievance lists was undertaken before scanning and electronic
searching became available and therefore reflects the specific
interests of the authors and the rather clumsy means of analysis
previously available—Gilbert Shapiro and John Markoff, Revolutionary Demands: A Content Analysis of the
Cahiers de Doléances of 1789 (Stanford: Stanford
University Press, 1998).
(22)
Archives parlementaires,
2: 348; 5: 238. Beatrice Fry Hyslop, French
Nationalism in 1789 According to the General Cahiers (New
York: Columbia University Press, 1934), pp. 90–97. Stéphane Rials,
La Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du
citoyen (Paris: Hachette, 1989). Rather disappointing is
Claude Courvoisier, “Les droits de l’homme dans les cahiers de
doléances,” in Gérard Chinéa, ed., Les Droits de
l’homme et la conquête des libertés: Des Lumières aux révolutions de
1848 (Grenoble: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble,
1988), pp. 44–49.
(23)
Archives parlementaires,
8: 135, 217.
(24)
Julian P. Boyd, ed., The Papers of
Thomas Jefferson, 31 vols. (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1950–), vol. 15: March 27,
1789, to November 30, 1789 (1958), pp. 266–69. For the
titles of the various projects, see Antoine de Baecque, ed., L’An I des droits de l’homme (Paris:
Presses du CNRS, 1988). De Baecque provides essential background
information on the debates.
(25)
Rabaut is quoted in de Baecque, L’An I, p. 138. On the difficulty of explaining the
change in views about the necessity of a declaration, see Timothy
Tackett, Becoming
a Revolutionary: The
Deputies of the French National Assembly and the Emergence of a
Revolutionary Culture (1789-1790) (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1996), p. 183.
(26)
Session of the National Assembly of August 1, 1789,
Archives parlementaires, 8:
320.
(27)
The need for four declarations is mentioned in the
“recapitulation” given by the Committee on the Constitution on July 9,
1789—Archives parlementaires, 8:
217.
(28)
As quoted in D. O. Thomas, ed., Richard Price: Political Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1991), pp. 119 and 195.
(29)
The passage from Rights of
Man can be found at “Hypertext on American History from
the colonial period until Modern Times,” Department of Humanities
Computing, University of Groningen, the Netherlands,
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1776–1800/paine/ROM/rofm04.htm
(consulted July 13, 2005). Burke’s passage can be found at
www.bartleby.com/24/3/6.html
(April 7, 2006).
(30)
On English titles, see note 12 above. The number of English
titles using rights in the 1770s was 109, much higher than the 1760s but
still only one fourth of the number in the 1790s. Dutch titles can be
found in the Short Title Catalog of the Netherlands. On German
translations of Paine, see Hans Arnold, “Die Aufnahme von Thomas Paines
Schriften in Deutschland,” PMLA, 72
(1959): 365–86. On Jeffersonian ideas, see Matthew Schoenbachler,
“Republicanism in the Age of Democratic Revolution: The
Democratic-Republican Societies of the 1790s,” Journal of the Early Republic, 18 (1998): 237–61. On the
impact of Wollstonecraft in the United States, see Rosemarie Zagarri,
“The Rights of Man and Woman in Post-Revolutionary America,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., vol. 55,
no. 2 (April 1998): 203–30.
(31)
For the September 10, 1789, discussion, see Archives parlementaires, 8: 608. On the
final discussion and passage, see ibid., 9: 386-87, 392–96. The best
account of the politics surrounding the new criminal and penal
legislation can be found in Roberto Martucci, La
Costituente ed il problema penale in Francia, 1789–1791
(Milan: Giuffre, 1984). Martucci shows that the Committee of Seven
became the Committee on Criminal Law.
(32)
Archives parlementaires,
9: 394–96 (the final decree) and 9: 213–17 (report of the committee
given by Bon Albert Briois de Beaumetz). Article 24 in the final decree
was a slightly revised version of the original Article 23 submitted by
the committee on September 29. See also Edmond Seligman, La Justice en France pendant la Révolution,
2 vols. (Paris: Librairie Plon, 1913), vol. 1, pp. 197–204. The language
used by the committee bolsters the position taken by Barry M. Shapiro
that Enlightenment “humanitarianism” did animate the considerations of
the deputies—Shapiro, Revolutionary Justice in
Paris, 1789-1790 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1993).
(33)
Archives parlementaires,
26: 319–32.
(34)
Ibid., 26: 323. The press focused almost exclusively on the
question of the death penalty, though some noted with approval the
elimination of branding. The most vociferous opponent of the death
penalty was Louis Prudhomme in the Révolutions
de Paris, 98 (May 21–28, 1791), pp. 321–27, and 99 (May
28–June 4, 1791), pp. 365–470. Prudhomme cited Beccaria in his
support.
(35)
The text of the criminal code can be found in Archives parlementaires, 31: 326–39
(session of September 25, 1791).
(36)
Ibid., 26: 325.
(37)
Robespierre is quoted with agreement here in the critique
that Lacretelle published of the essay: “Sur le discours qui avait
obtenu un second prix à l’Académie de Metz, par Maximilien
Robespierrre,” in Pierre-Louis Lacretelle, Oeuvres, 6 vols. (Paris: Bossange, 1823-24), vol. III, pp. 315–34,
quote p. 321. For Lacretelle’s own essay, see vol. III, pp. 205–314.
See also Joseph I. Shulim, “The Youthful Robespierre and His
Ambivalence Toward the Ancien Régime,” Eighteenth-Century Studies, 5 (Spring 1972): 398–420. I
was alerted to the importance of honor in the criminal justice system by
Gene Ogle, “Policing Saint Domingue: Race, Violence, and Honor in an Old
Regime Colony,” PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania,
2003.
(38)
The definition of honor in the dictionary of the Académie
Française can be found at ARTFL,
http://colet.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/dicolloo.pl?-strippedhw=honneur.
(39)
Sébastien-Roch-Nicolas Chamfort, Maximes et pensées, anecdotes et caractères, ed. Louis
Ducros (1794; Paris: Larousse, 1928), p. 27. Eve Katz, “Chamfort,”
Yale French Studies, No. 40
(1968): 32–46.
الفصل الرابع: لن تكون هناك نهاية
(1)
Archives parlementaires,
10: 693-94, 754–57. On actors, see Paul Friedland, Political Actors: Representative Bodies and
Theatricality in the Age of the French Revolution
(Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002), esp. pp.
215–27.
(2)
Quoted in Joan R. Gundersen, “Independence, Citizenship,
and the American Revolution,” Signs: Journal of
Women in Culture and Society, 13 (1987):
63-64.
(3)
On July 20-21, 1789, Sieyès read his “Reconnaissance et
exposition raisonnée des droits de l’homme et du citoyen” to the
Committee on the Constitution. It was published as Préliminaire de la constitution française
(Paris: Baudoin, 1789).
(4)
On voting qualifications in Delaware and the other thirteen
colonies, see Patrick T. Conley and John P. Kaminski, eds., The Bill of Rights and the States: The Colonial and
Revolutionary Origins of American Liberties (Madison, WI:
Madison House, 1992), esp. p. 291. Adams is quoted in Jacob Katz Cogan,
“The Look Within: Property, Capacity, and Suffrage in Nineteenth-Century
America,” Yale Law Journal, 107
(1997): 477.
(5)
Antoine de Baecque, ed., L’An I des
droits de l’homme (Paris: Presses du CNRS, 1988), p. 165
(August 22), pp. 174–79 (August 23). Timothy Tackett, Becoming a Revolutionary: The Deputies of the French
National Assembly and the Emergence of a Revolutionary Culture
(1789-1790) (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1996), p. 184.
(6)
Archives
parlementaires, 10 (Paris, 1878):
693–95.
(7)
Ibid.: 780 and 782. The key phrase in the decree reads:
“No motive for the exclusion of a citizen from eligibility can be
offered other than those which result from constitutional decrees.” On
the reaction to the decision about Protestants, see Journal d’Adrien Duquesnoy, Député du tiers état de
Bar-le-Duc sur l’Assemblée Constituante, 2 vols. (Paris,
1894), vol. II, p. 208. See also Raymond Birn, “Religious Toleration
and Freedom of Expression,” in Dale Van Kley, ed., The French Idea of Freedom: The Old Regime and the
Declaration of the Rights of 1789 (Stanford: Stanford
University Press, 1994), pp. 265–99.
(8)
Tackett, Becoming a
Revolutionary, pp. 262-63. Archives parlementaires, 10 (Paris,
1878): 757.
(9)
Ronald Schechter, Obstinate
Hebrews: Representations of Jews in France, 1715–1815
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003), pp.
18–34.
(10)
David Feuerwerker, “Anatomie de 307 cahiers de doleances
de 1789,” Annales: E.S.C., 20
(1965): 45–61.
(11)
Archives
parlementaires, 11 (Paris, 1880):
364.
(12)
Ibid.: 364-65; 31 (Paris, 1888):
372.
(13)
Clermont-Tonnerre’s words come from his December 23, 1789,
speech—ibid., 10 (Paris, 1878): 754–57. Some critics take
Clermont-Tonnerre’s speech to be an example of refusal to countenance
ethnic difference within the national community. But a more anodyne
interpretation seems warranted. The deputies believed that all citizens
should live under the same laws and institutions; therefore, one group
of citizens could not be judged in separate courts. I clearly have a
more positive view than Schechter, who dismisses the “fabled
emancipation of the Jews.” The decree of September 27, 1791, he
insists, “was merely a revocation of restrictions,” and it changed “the
status of only a handful of Jews, namely, those who fulfilled the
stringent conditions” for active citizenship. That it granted the Jews
equal rights with all other French citizens is apparently not all that
significant to him, even though Jews did not gain this equality in the
state of Maryland until 1826 or in Great Britain until 1858—Schechter,
Obstinate Hebrews, p.
151.
(14)
For a discussion of Jewish petitions, see Schechter,
Obstinate Hebrews, pp. 165–78,
quote p. 166; Pétition des juifs établis en
France, adressée à l’Assemblée Nationale, le 28 janvier 1790, sur
l’ajournement du 24 décembre 1789 (Paris: Praul, 1790),
quotes pp. 5-6, 96-97.
(15)
Stanley F. Chyet, “The Political Rights of Jews in the
United States: 1776–1840,” American Jewish
Archives, 10 (1958): 14–75. I am grateful to Beth Wenger
for her help on this question.
(16)
A useful overview of the U.S. case can be found in Cogan,
“The Look Within.” See also David Skillen Bogen, “The Maryland Context
of Dred Scott: The Decline in the Legal Status of Maryland Free Blacks,
1776–1810,” American Journal of Legal
History, 34 (1990): 381–411.
(17)
Mémoire en faveur des gens de
couleur ou sang-mêlés de St.-Domingue, et des autres Ilies
françoises de l’Amérique, adressé à l’Assemblée
Nationale, par M. Grégoire, curé d’Emberménil, Député de
Lorraine (Paris, 1789).
(18)
Archives
parlementaires, 12 (Paris, 1881): 71. David Geggus,
“Racial Equality, Slavery, and Colonial Secession during the
Constituent Assembly,” American Historical
Review, vol. 94, no. 5 (December 1989):
1290–1308.
(19)
Motion faite par M. Vincent Ogé,
jeune à l’assemblée des colons, habitants de S.-Domingue, à l’hôtel
Massiac, Place des Victoires (probably Paris,
1789).
(20)
Laurent Dubois, Avengers of the New
World: The Story of the Haitian Revolution (Cambridge,
MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2004), p.
102.
(21)
Archives
parlementaires, 40 (Paris, 1893): 586 and 590
(Armand-Guy Kersaint, “Moyens proposés à l’Assemblée Nationale pour
rétablir la paix et l’ordre dans les colonies”).
(22)
Dubois, Avengers of the New
World, esp. p. 163. Décret de la
Convention Nationale, du 16 jour de pluviôse, an second de la
République françasie, une et indivisible (Paris:
Imprimerie Nationale Exécutive du Louvre, Year II
[1794]).
(23)
Philip D. Curtin, “The Declaration of the Rights of Man in
Saint-Domingue, 1788–1791,” Hispanic American
Historical Review, 30 (1950): 157–75, quote p. 162. On
Toussaint, see Dubois, Avengers of the New
World, p. 176. Dubois provides the fullest account of
slave interest in the rights of man.
(24)
On the failure of Napoleon’s efforts, see Dubois,
Avengers. Wordsworth’s poem “To
Toussaint L’Ouverture” (1803) can be found in E. de Selincourt, ed.,
The Poetical Works of William
Wordsworth, 5 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940–49),
vol. 3, pp. 112-13. Laurent Dubois, A Colony of
Citizens: Revolution and Slave Emancipation in the French
Caribbean, 1787–1804 (Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press, 2004), quote p. 421.
(25)
The explanation for the exclusion of women has been much
debated of late. See, e.g., the very suggestive intervention by Anne
Verjus, Le Cens de la famille: Les femmes et le
vote, 1789–1848 (Paris: Belin,
2002).
(26)
Rèflexions sur l’esclavage des
nègres (Neufchâtel: Société typographique, 1781), pp.
97–99.
(27)
For the references to women and Jews, see Archives parlementaires, 33 (Paris,
1889): 363, 431-32. On views about widows, see Tackett, Becoming a Revolutionary, p.
105.
(28)
“Sur l’Admission des femmes au droit de cité,” Journal de la Société de 1789, 5 (July 3,
1790): 1–12.
(29)
The pieces by Condorcet and Olympe de Gouges can be found
in Lynn Hunt, ed., The French Revolution and
Human Rights: A Brief Documentary History (Boston:
Bedford/St. Martin’s Press, 1996), pp. 119–21, 124–28. On the reaction
to Wollstonecraft and for the best account of her thought, see Barbara
Taylor, Mary Wollstonecraft and the Feminist
Imagination (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2003).
(30)
The contribution by Pierre Guyomar can be found in
Archives parlementaires, 63
(Paris, 1903): 591–99. The spokesman for the constitutional committee
brought up the question of women’s rights on April 29, 1793, and cited
two supporters of the idea, one of them Guyomar, only to reject it (pp.
561–64).
(31)
Lynn Hunt, The Family Romance of
the French Revolution
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992), esp. p.
119.
(32)
Rosemarie Zagarri, “The Rights of Man and Woman in
Post-Revolutionary America,” William and Mary
Quarterly, 3rd ser., vol. 55, no. 2 (April 1998):
203–30.
(33)
Zagarri, “The Rights of Man and Woman”; Carla Hesse,
The Other Enlightenment: How French Women
Became Modern (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
2001); Suzanne Desan, The Family on Trial in
Revolutionary France (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 2004). See also Sarah Knott and Barbara Taylor, eds., Women, Gender and Enlightenment (New York:
Palgrave/Macmillan, 2005).
(34)
“Rapport sur un ouvrage du cit. Theremin, intitule: De la
condition des femmes dans une republique. Par Constance D. T. Pipelet,”
Le Mois, vol. 5, no. 14, Year
VIII (apparently Prairial): 228–43.
الفصل الخامس: القوة الناعمة للإنسانية
(1)
Mazzini is quoted in Micheline R. Ishay, The History of Human Rights. From Ancient Times to
the Globalization Era (Berkeley and London: University
of California Press, 2004), p. 137.
(2)
J. B. Morrell, “Professors Robison and Playfair, and the
‘Theophobia Gallica’: Natural Philosophy, Religion and Politics in
Edinburgh, 1789–1815,” Notes and Records of the
Royal Society of London, vol. 26, no. 1 (June 1971):
43–63, quote pp. 47-48.
(3)
Louis de Bonald, Législation
primitive (Paris: Le Clere, Year XI-1802), quote p. 184.
See also Jeremy Jennings, “The Declaration des droits de l’homme et du
citoyen and Its Critics in France: Reaction and Ideologie,” Historical Journal, vol. 35, no. 4.
(December 1992): 839–59.
(4)
On the bandit Schinderhannes and his attacks on the French
and Jews in the Rhineland in the late 1790s, see T. C. W. Blanning,
The French Revolution in Germany:
Occupation and Resistance in the Rhineland, 1792–1802
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), pp. 292–99.
(5)
J. Christopher Herold, ed., The
Mind of Napoleon (New York: Columbia University Press,
1955), p. 73.
(6)
Laurent Dubois and John D. Garrigus, eds., Slave Revolution in the Caribbean, 1789–1804: A Brief
History with Documents (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s
Press, 2006), quote p. 176.
(7)
Germaine de Staël, Considérations
sur la Révolution Française (1817; Paris: Charpentier,
1862), p. 152.
(8)
Simon Collier, “Nationality, Nationalism, and
Supranationalism in the Writings of Simón Bolívar,” Hispanic American Historical Review, vol. 63,
no. 1 (February 1983): 37–64, quote p. 41.
(9)
Hans Kohn, “Father Jahn’s Nationalism,” Review of Politics, vol. 11, no. 4
(October 1949): 419–32, quote p. 428.
(10)
Thomas W. Laqueur, Making Sex: Body
and Gender from the Greeks to Freud (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1990).
(11)
The French revolutionary views are discussed in Lynn Hunt,
The Family Romance of the French
Revolution (Berkeley: University of California Press,
1992), esp. pp. 119 and 157.
(12)
The Mill text can be found at
www.constitution.org/jsm/women.htm. On Brandeis, see
Susan Moller Okin, Women in Western Political
Thought (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979),
esp. p. 256.
(13)
On Cuvier and the question more generally, see George W.
Stocking, Jr., “French Anthropology in 1800,” Isis, vol. 55, no. 2 (June 1964):
134–50.
(14)
Arthur de Gobineau, Essai sur
I’inégalité des races humaines, 2nd edn. (Paris:
Firmin-Didot, 1884), 2 vols., quote vol. I, p. 216. Michael D. Biddiss,
Father of Racist Ideology: The Social and
Political Thought of Count Gobineau (London: Weidenfeld
& Nicolson, 1970), quote p. 113; see also pp. 122-23 for the
civilizations based on Aryan stock.
(15)
Michael D. Biddiss, “Prophecy and Pragmatism: Gobineau’s
Confrontation with Tocqueville,” The Historical
Journal, vol. 13, no. 4 (December 1970): 611–33, quote
p. 626.
(16)
Herbert H. Odom, “Generalizations on Race in
Nineteenth-Century Physical Anthropology,” Isis, vol. 58, no. 1 (Spring 1967): 4–18, quote p. 8 On
the American translation of Gobineau, see Michelle M. Wright, “Nigger
Peasants from France: Missing Translations of American Anxieties on
Race and the Nation,” Callaloo, vol.
22, no. 4 (Autumn 1999): 831–52.
(17)
Biddiss, “Prophecy and Pragmatism,” p.
625.
(18)
Jennifer Pitts, A Turn to Empire:
The Rise of Imperial Liberalism in Britain and France
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005), p. 139. Patrick
Brantlinger, “Victorians and Africans: The Genealogy of the Myth of the
Dark Continent,” Critical Inquiry,
vol. 12, no. 1 (Autumn 1985): 166–203, quote from Burton, p. 179. See
also Nancy Stepan, The Idea of Race in Science:
Great Britain, 1800–1960 (Hamden, CT: Archon Books,
1982), and William H. Schneider, An Empire for
the Masses: The French Popular Image of Africa,
1870–1900 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press,
1982).
(19)
Paul A. Fortier, “Gobineau and German Racism,” Comparative Literature, vol. 19, no. 4
(Autumn 1967): 341–50. For the quote from Chamberlain,
see www.hschamberlain.net/grundlagen/division2_chapter5.html.
(20)
Robert C. Bowles, “The Reaction of Charles Fourier to the
French Revolution,” French Historical
Studies, vol. 1, no. 3 (Spring 1960): 348–56, quote p.
352.
(21)
Aaron Noland,
“Individualism in Jean Jaurès’ Socialist Thought,” Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 22,
no. 1 (January–March 1961): 63–80, quote p. 75. For Jaurès’s frequent
invocation of rights and his celebration of the declaration, see Jean
Jaurès, Etudes socialistes (Paris:
Ollendorff, 1902), which is available on Frantext
at www.lib.uchicago.edu/efts/ARTFL/databases/TLF/.
Jaurès’s major opponent, Jules Guesde, is quoted in Ignacio Walker,
“Democratic Socialism in Comparative Perspective,” Comparative Politics, vol. 23, no. 4 (July
1991): 439–58, quote p. 441.
(22)
Robert C. Tucker, The Marx-Engels
Reader, 2nd edn. (New York: W. W. Norton, 1978), pp.
43–46.
(23)
See Vladimir Lenin, The State and
Revolution (1918) at
www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s4.
(24)
Jan Herman Burgers, “The Road to San Francisco: The
Revival of the Human Rights Idea in the Twentieth Century,” Human Rights Quarterly, vol. 14, no. 4
(November 1992): 447–77.
(25)
The charter’s provision is quoted in Ishay, The History of Human Rights, p. 216. The
essential source on the history of the Universal Declaration is Mary Ann
Glendon, A World Made New: Eleanor Roosevelt
and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (New York:
Random House, 2001).
(26)
Douglas H. Maynard, “The World’s Anti-Slavery Convention of
1840,” Mississippi Valley Historical
Review, vol. 47, no. 3 (December 1960):
452–71.
(27)
Michla Pomerance, “The United States and
Self-Determination: Perspectives on the Wilsonian Conception,”
American Journal of International
Law, vol. 70, no. 1 (January 1976): 1–27, quote p. 2.
Marika Sherwood, “‘There Is No New Deal for the Blackman in San
Francisco’: African Attempts to Influence the Founding Conference of
the United Nations, April–July, 1945,” International Journal of African Historical Studies,
vol. 29, no. 1 (1996): 71–94. A. W. Brian Simpson, Human Rights and the End of Empire: Britain and the
Genesis of the European Convention (London: Oxford
University Press, 2001), esp. pp. 175–83.
(28)
Manfred Spieker, “How the Eurocommunists Interpret
Democracy,” Review of Politics, vol.
42, no. 4 (October 1980): 427–64. John Quigley, “Human Rights Study in
Soviet Academia,” Human Rights
Quarterly, vol. 11, no. 3 (August 1989):
452–58.
(29)
Kenneth Cmiel, “The Recent History of Human
Rights,” American Historical Review (February
2004), www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/109.1/cmiel.html
(April 3, 2006).
(30)
Edward Peters, Torture
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), p.
125.
(31)
Christopher R. Browning, Ordinary
Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in
Poland (New York: HarperCollins,
1992).
(32)
The hypothetical case is taken up in Part III, chap. 3 of
The Theory of Moral Sentiments
and can be consulted at
www.adamsmith.org/smith/tms/tms-p3-c3a.htm.
(33)
Jerome J. Shestack, “The Philosophic Foundations of Human
Rights,” Human Rights Quarterly,
vol. 20, no. 2 (May 1998): 201–34, quote p.
206.
(34)
Karen Halttunen, “Humanitarianism and the Pornography of
Pain in Anglo-American Culture,” American
Historical Review, vol. 100, no. 2 (April 1995):
303–34. On Sade, see Hunt, The Family
Romance, esp. pp. 124–50.
(35)
Carolyn J. Dean, The Fragility of
Empathy After the Holocaust (Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press, 2004).
