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).

جميع الحقوق محفوظة لمؤسسة هنداوي © ٢٠٢١