Art. Raynal and Diderot on American Revolution

8/12/2019 Art. Raynal and Diderot on American Revolution

1/23

Variations on Montesquieu: Raynal and Diderot's "Histoire des deux Indes" and the AmericanRevolutionAuthor(s): Guillaume AnsartSource: Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 70, No. 3 (Jul., 2009), pp. 399-420Published by: University of Pennsylvania PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20621900.

Accessed: 10/07/2014 21:34

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of Pennsylvania Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Journal of the History of Ideas.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 157.92.4.12 on Thu, 10 Jul 2014 21:34:48 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upennhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/20621900?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/20621900?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upenn


2/23

Variations onMontesquieu: Raynal andDiderofs Histoire des deux Indes andtheAmerican Revolution

Guillaume Ansart

Within the rich body of literatureon theUnited States published inFranceduring theperiod extending from thebeginning of the rebellion in the colonies to the start of the French Revolution, Raynal and Diderot's Histoirepbilosophique et politique des etablissements et du commerce des Europ?ern dans les deux Indes (APhilosophical and political history of the settlements and trade of theEuropeans in theEast and West Indies, 1770-80)holds a privileged place.1 Little known today, theHistoire des deux Indes,1Among themost important firsthand accounts of America of the period, one shouldmention Saint John de Crevecoeur's Lettres d'un cultivateur americain (1784), a substantially revised French version of his 1782 Letters from an American Farmer, Voyages dansVAmerique Septentrionale (Travels inNorth America, 1786) by themarquis de Chastellux, officer inRochambeau's army, and Nouveau voyage dans les Etats-Unis de VAmerique Septentrionale (New Travels in the United States of America, 1791), an account ofhis 1788 trip to the United States by Brissot de Warville, the future Girondin leader.Works more purely political or philosophical innature include Mably's Observations surle gouvernement et les lois des Etats-Unis d'Amerique (Observations on theGovernmentand the Laws of the United States of America, 1784), Condorcet's "De l'influence de laRevolution d'Amerique sur l'Europe" ("On the Influence of theAmerican Revolution onEurope," 1786-88) and "Eloge de Franklin" ("Eulogy of Franklin," 1790), Filippo Mazzei's Rech erches historiques et politiques sur les Etats-Unis de VAmerique Septentrionale(Historical and Political Researches on the United States of America, 1788), and theextended notes by Condorcet, Dupont de Nemours, and J.-A. Gallois to Examen dugouvernement d'Angleterre, compare aux constitutions des Etats-Unis (Observations ontheGovernment of England compared to the constitutions of the United States, 1789), a

Copyright ? by journal of theHistory of Ideas, Volume 70,Number 3 (July 009)399

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/23

JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF IDEAS JULY 2009

an encyclopedic philosophical history ofEuropean colonization throughouttheworld, was one of themost important and successfulworks written bythephilosopbes of the French Enlightenment. In fact, the chapters devotedto the thirteen colonies and theUnited States in theHistoire2 constitutewhat was probably the singlemost influential account ofAmerica writtenin eighteenth-century France.3 First published in 1770, Raynal's colonialencyclopedia was then revised and substantially expanded in 1774 and1780. Itwent through thirtyto fiftyditions between 1770 and 1820, depending on whether only official editions are considered or pirated ones aswell.4 Suchwas its success that itwas very rapidly translated into themainEuropean languages.5In addition, theHistoire des deux Indes was not thework of Raynalalone, but of several contributors, chief among themDiderot.6 Itsmode ofcomposition, characterized by a plurality of collaborators, successive revitranslation of John Stevens's pamphlet Observations on Government (1787), erroneouslyattributed toWilliam Livingston.2Chapters I-V and XVIII-XXX of book 17 and the whole of book 18, or approximatelyfivehundred pages. These chapters can be divided into two sections. Preceding the discussion of the Revolution itself, the first and longest section presents a detailed and quiteinteresting treatment of the history of the thirteen colonies, a treatment which, however,we need not consider indepth here. I have discussed the image of colonial America in theHistoire des deux Indes in "From Voltaire to Raynal and Diderot's Histoire des deuxIndes: The French Philosophes and Colonial America," in America Through EuropeanEyes: British and French Reflections on theNew World from the Eighteenth Century tothe Present, ed. A. Craiutu and J.C. Isaac (University Park: Penn State University Press,2009), 71-89.3See Durand Echeverria, Mirage in theWest: A History of the French Image ofAmericanSociety to 1815 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957), 3-174 on the philosophes.Echeverria's book remains the indispensable study of the vast literature on America ineighteenth- and early nineteenth-century France.4 See Cecil P. Courtney, "Les metamorphoses d'un best-seller: VHistoire des deux Indesde 1770 a 1820," inRaynal, de la polemique ? l'histoire, ed. G. Bancarel and G. Goggi(Oxford: Voltaire Foundation, 2000), 109-20.5On the reception and impact of theHistoire des deux Indes throughout Europe and

America, see, in addition to the volume just cited: H.-J. L?sebrink and M. Tietz, eds.,Lectures de Raynal. LTIistoire des deux Indes en Europe et en Amerique au XVIIIe siede(Oxford: Voltaire Foundation, 1991).6Up to a third of theHistoire could be attributed toDiderot, according to some contemporaries. His contribution was all themore significant since it included most of the general developments in political and moral philosophy. Michele Duchet has identified withgreat precision all the segments of theHistoire that can be credited to him with a reasonable degree of certainty. In the sections on the United States or future United States,Diderot contributed chapters IV and XXI of book 17 and chapters I,XLII, XLIII, XLIV,and XLV of book 18 as well as many shorter fragments which we will identify whenappropriate. See Diderot et /'Histoire des deux Indes ou Vecriture fragmentaire (Paris:

Nizet, 1978).

400



4/23

Ansart Raynal, Diderot, and the American Revolution

sions and additions, and Raynal's own practice of borrowing freelyfromvarious sources,while creating inconsistencies and some lack of cohesionin structure and content, also made theHistoire a remarkably representativework. By incorporating somuch of the ideological patrimony sharedby the philosophes, it became a faithful reflectionof their outlook and asortof encyclopedia of liberal ideaswidely adopted by reformist intellectualelites of late eighteenth-centuryFrance. Indeed, theHistoire should be numbered among the most significant early, pre-revolutionary examples ofFrench liberal political thought.The sections on theUnited States are particularly interesting in this regard, partly because they abound in?mostlyunacknowledged?references to The Spirit of theLaws (1748), thereby illustratingboth the continued relevance ofMontesquieu in thepolitical debates of the end of the Old Regime and the sort of uneasy ambivalenceelicited by theMontesquieuan approach to politics among those who argued forprofound political reforms.As with theHistoire des deux Indes as awhole, Raynal and Diderot'sobservations on America present a characteristic blend of historical analysisand liberal political aspirations. On one hand, the two philosophes werefairlywell-informed about American realities. Raynal, for example, was amember of theAmerican Philosophical Society and consequently corresponded with it.On theother hand, theHistoire contributed greatly to thepropagation in France, Europe, and beyond, of a "philosophical" imageof America. This idealized image ofAmerica as a land of frugal,virtuousrepublicanism reminiscent ofAntiquity played a critical role in the historical development of American national consciousness. Moreover, the impactof Raynal's work in this respect was furthermagnified by Crevecoeur,whose influenceon the emergence of a distinctlyAmerican sense of nationalidentitywas considerable. Crevecoeur had read theHistoire with enthusiasm and even dedicated his Letters from an American Farmer toRaynal.7For such reasons, Raynal and Diderot's reflections on theAmericanRevolution deserve to be rescued from the relative oblivion towhich theyhave been confined for thepast two hundred years. Groundbreaking workon the Histoire and Diderot's contribution to itwas published by YvesBenot and Michele Duchet in the early 1970s. More recently, importantstudies by Anthony Pagden, SankarMuthu, and J.G. A. Pocock have appeared.8 However, these have focused primarily on the general ideological7See David Eisermann, "La 'Raynalisation' de VAmerican farmer: la reception de VHistoire des deux Indes par Crevecoeur," in Lectures de Raynal, 329-39.8Yves Benot, Diderot, de Vatheisme a Vanticolonialisme (Paris: Maspero, 1970), 162

259; Michele Duchet, Anthropologie etHistoire au siede des lumieres (Paris: Maspero,1971), 170-77, 407-75; Anthony Pagden, European Encounters with theNew World:

401



5/23


orientation of theHistoire, in particular its anti-imperialist and anticolonial stance. They only mention very briefly, ifat all, Raynal and Diderot's extended comments on theAmerican Revolution. In a sense, thereis hardly anything surprising about this apparent oversight. For Diderotespecially, thenew United States represented the antithesis of empire: localself-government instead of despotic rule froma distantmetropole; and opentrade and industrybased, at least inpart and in theNorth, on free labor asopposed to exploitative forms of commerce involvingmonopolies or slavery. In his penetrating reading of theHistoire, Pagden onlymentions Diderot's reflections on the United States tomake a similar point: Diderotconsidered the new republic the sole exception to the barbaric imperialistrule exercised by Europeans all over the Americas.9 On the other hand,and for the same reason, Raynal and Diderot's response to theAmericanRevolution should also be viewed as the necessary revolutionary complement to the overall anti-imperialist outlook of theHistoire des deux Indes,adding much depth to thepolitical dimension ofRaynal's work.The point that the thirteencolonies are a unique exception in the historyof European imperialism ismade early on in theHistoire, before thepages on the American Revolution. Writing about Pennsylvania, Raynalproclaimed:

The mind of thewriter and of his reader dwells with pleasure onthispart of modern history, and feels some kind of compensationfor the disgust, horror, ormelancholy, which thewhole of it,butparticularly the account of the European settlements inAmerica,inspires.Hitherto we have only seen these barbarians depopulating the country before they took possession of it,and laying everythingwaste before they cultivated it. It is time to observe thedawnings of reason, happiness, and humanity, rising from amongthe ruins of a hemisphere, which still reekswith the blood of all itspeople, civilized aswell as savage.10

From Renaissance to Romanticism (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1993),141-88; Sankar Muthu, Enlightenment against Empire (Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress, 2003), 72-121; J.G. A. Pocock, Barbarism and Religion, vol. 4: Barbarians, Savages and Empires (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 229-328.9Pagden, European Encounters with theNew World, 161.10Guillaume-Thomas Raynal, A Philosophical and Political History of the Settlementsand Trade of the Europeans in the East and West Indies, trans. John Justamond, 6 vols.(New York: Negro Universities Press, 1969), Book 18, 10. All references to theHistoryof the East and West Indies will be to this 1969 edition (with book numbers followed bypage numbers), reprint of the 1798 translation published by J.Mundell & Co., London,

402



6/23


In fact, the colonial enterprise of theAnglo-Americans turns out to be sucha radical exception in theminds ofRaynal and Diderot, that itfinds itselfin the position to redeem not only the history of European colonizationacross the world but also perhaps the entire history of Europe: "If everdespotism, superstition, orwar, should plunge Europe again into that stateof barbarism out of which philosophy and the arts have extricated it, thesacred firewill be kept alive inPhiladelphia, and come from thence to enlightentheworld."11 In this regard, theHistoire continues a traditionwhichwas well established among the philosophes, a traditionwhich idealizedcolonial North America and Pennsylvania inparticular, as a land of virtue,enlightenment and tolerance. Earlier expressions of this tradition can befound inVoltaire's Philosophical Letters (1734, Letter IV), the Encyclopedie, and even inThe Spirit of theLaws (Book IV,Chapter 6,where Montesquieu compares Pennsylvania to Sparta and William Penn to Lycurgus,even though the two legislators had obviously very differentobjectives infosteringvirtue).Benot was thereforequite justifiedtopoint out, as he did inhis pioneering study,that the sections on theAmerican Revolution, strategically placedat the end of thenext to lastbook, constitute in fact thepolitical conclusionof the entire Histoire.12 After the chapters on the United States, the finalbook, number 19, presents a recapitulative general conclusion, organizedthematically,which does contain a long section on government, but dealsexclusivelywith theOld World: thevarious governments of themain European nations plus theOttoman Empire. Interestingly,Raynal seized thisopportunity to express, inopenlyMontesquieuan terms,his admiration fortheEnglish constitution, emphasizing the separation of powers and balancebetween King, Lords, and Commons, and concluding, with Diderot, that"there hath never been a constitution sowell regulated upon the face of thewhich itself reproduced the translation by John Justamond based on the 1780 French textand first published in 1783. The chapters on the American Revolution are in vol. 6,122-214. Because this translation is sometimes inaccurate and even omits certain passages, we will also provide page references to the original French text we used, the "definitive" 1780 edition (chapters are not numbered in the translation and the division involumes is different from the original, on the other hand, the division in books remainsidentical): Raynal, Histoire philosophique etpolitique des etablissements et du commercedes Europeens dans les deux Indes, 10 vols. (Geneva: Jean-Leonard Pellet, 1780), Bk. 18,16-17. The chapters on theAmerican Revolution are in vol. 9, 218-382. The first criticaledition of theHistoire des deux Indes, prepared by an international team of scholarsunder the direction of Anthony Strugnell, will be published by the Centre internationald'etude du XVIIIe siecle, Ferney-Voltaire, beginning later this year.11Raynal, History, Bk. 18, 24; Histoire, 42.12Benot, Diderot, de Vatheisme ? Vanticolonialisme, 241.

403



7/23


globe."13 Other sections ofBook 19, notably thechapter entitled "Morale,"are clearlyMontesquieuan in spirit.But no other part of theHistoire is asconsistently Montesquieuan as its account of the American Revolution.

Writing more specifically about Diderot's contribution to the sectionson the United States, Anthony Strugnell has convincingly argued that "asan increasingly important contributor toRaynal's Histoire des deux Indeshe transformed it in the course of its three editions froma fairlyrun-of-themill attack on the colonizing endeavours of the European powers into abarely covert revolutionarymanifesto."14 Yet this crucial dimension of theHistoire des deux Indes, most evident in the chapters on revolutionaryAmerica, has been woefully understudied.Chapters XXXVIII-LII of Book 18 are devoted to the rebellion in the colonies and the birth of the new United States.15Raynal dealt primarilywiththe task of recounting the events leading to the rebellion and themilitaryoperations (up to and including the year 1778, the date of official Frenchrecognition of theUnited States and of formal alliance between the twocountries). His account presents historical informationwith some analysis.Diderot's contributions (chaptersXLII-XLV of Book 18 and shorter fragments), on the other hand, are more abstractly analytical, providing political and philosophical commentary.

Typical of the uneasiness feltbymany late eighteenth-century liberalreformers regarding the empirical orientation of much of The Spirit of theLaws, the only explicit reference toMontesquieu in theNorth-Americanchapters of theHistoire is somewhat critical, even though these chaptersare obviously Montesquieuan in inspiration. Early in Book 18, Raynalwrites: "The author of a work, the permanency of which will render theglory of the French nation immortal, evenwhen tyranny shall have brokenall the springs, and all themonuments of the genius of a people esteemedby thewhole world for somany brilliant and amiable qualities; evenMontesquieu himself did not perceive that hewas making men forgovernments,13Raynal, History, Bk. 19, 261; Histoire, 83.14Anthony Strugnell, Diderot's politics: A Study of the Evolution of Diderot's Political

Thought after the Encyclopedic (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1973), 216. Strugnell'sbook includes a very suggestive discussion of Diderot's writings on the American Revolution for theHistoire des deux Indes on pages 205-17.15Almost immediately after the publication of the 1780 edition, these chapters were pirated and published separately in French (under the title, Revolution de l'Amerique) andinEnglish translation. A reprint has made one such translation, published inEdinburgh in1783, more readily available tomodern readers; see Raynal, The Revolution of America(Boston: Gregg Press, 1972).

404



8/23


instead of governments formen."16 However, in spite ofRaynal distancinghimself here fromwhat he seems to have considered asMontesquieu's excessive relativism, the influence of The Spirit of the Laws is noticeablethroughout his, and above all Diderot's, reflectionson theUnited States. InAmerica, forexample, the landscape itselffostersa spiritof freedom amongthepeople who inhabit it:

Even the soil they [thechildren ofAmerica] inhabitmust keep upin them a sentiment favourable to these ideas [liberty].Dispersedover an immense continent, free

as nature, which surrounds them,amidst the rocks, themountains, the vast plains of theirdeserts,and on the skirts of those forestswhere every thing is stillwild,and where nothing calls tomind neither the servitude nor the tyranny ofman, they seem to receive fromnatural objects lessons ofliberty nd independence.17

Echoing Montesquieu, Raynal and Diderot accepted the idea that specificnatural or social factors (such as climate, size, population, landscape, traditions and opinions, religion, etc.) have some influence in shaping the formof government of a particular nation. Likewise, they also believed, as wewill have theopportunity to observe, that these factorsmust be taken intoaccount when contemplating which governmentmight be best suited to anygiven country at any given time.18

Retracing the inner logic behind Diderot's argumentswill make itclearhow his assessment of theUnited States succeeds inmaintaining a subtlebalance between the application of general principles and the recognitionof local factors, in other words between universalism and particularism.Diderot beginswith what seems to be an elaboration on and a justificationof the second paragraph of theDeclaration of Independence. He firstposesa strict distinction between society and government: "Society is the first,and in itsorigin independent and free;government hath been instituted for16Raynal, History, Bk. 18, 51; Histoire, 89.17Raynal, History, Bk. 18, 128; Histoire, 229-30.18Itmust be emphasized that we are not primarily concerned in the present study with

Montesquieu's complex science of politics per se but rather with what our two philosophes made of it.Obviously, the author of The Spirit of the Laws was not a simplerelativist-empiricist and recognized universal principles of justice. See, for instance: CecilP. Courtney, "Montesquieu and Natural Law," inMontesquieu's Science of Politics. Essays on The Spirit of Laws, ed. D. W. Carrithers, M. A. Mosher, and P. A. Rahe (Lanham,Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001), 41-67. However, it is the empiricist dimension of histhought thatmostly seems to have captured Raynal and Diderot's attention.

405



9/23


it,and is only its instrument.The formerhas the rightof commanding, thelattermust obey."19 From the start, it is essential forDiderot to refuteanypolitical theorywhich might regard certain forms of government (such asabsolute monarchy) as somethingmore thanmere political institutions, thatis to say as reflections of a divine or natural order. Society is the primaryand natural phenomenon; government is only a secondary, artificial one.Society, itcould be said, needs no legitimatingoutside itself.But the sameis not true of government, which must always derive its legitimacy fromsociety. The following principles, therefore,must be universally acknowledged:

That there isno form of government, theprerogative ofwhichis to be immutable.That there isno political authority, created eitheryesterday ora thousand years ago, which cannot be abrogated, either tenyears

hence, or to-morrow. . . .All authority in thisworld hath begun eitherby the consent ofthe subjects, or by the strengthof themaster. Itmay be legallyputa stop to in either of the cases. There is nothing which favourstyrannyagainst liberty.20

Government isnothingmore than amalleable, adaptable tool in the serviceof society.More precisely, government can only assert its legitimacy insofaras it fulfills itsprimary purpose: to ensure and protect the general welfareof society and that of itsmembers. Writing about the colonies, Raynal hadalready affirmed that: "All legislation, in itsnature, should aim at thehappiness of society."21Diderot echoes the pronouncement of his colleague,stating that,where nations are concerned, "the public felicity is the firstlaw, as it is thefirstduty."22Along with theprinciple ofmutability of government comes itscorollary, the principle of "public happiness": themainfunction of government is to secure public welfare. Change is justifiedwhenever public happiness is lost:

If people be happy under their form of government, theywillmaintain it. If theybewretched, itwill be . . . the impossibility of19Raynal, History, Bk. 18, 139; Histoire, 249.20Raynal, History, Bk. 18, 142; Histoire, 253-54.21Raynal, History, Bk. 18, 113; Histoire, 202.22Raynal, History, Bk. 18, 145; Histoire, 260.

406



10/23


sufferinganymore, or for any longer time,which will determinethem to change. A salutary commotion, which the oppressor willcall revolt, though it be no more than the legal exercise of an unalienable and natural rightof theman who isoppressed, and evenof him who isnot oppressed.23So far,Diderot and Raynal's foremost preoccupation seems to havebeen to establish a setof absolute, universal political principles. In fact, thisisnot quite the case. For public happiness is a relative notion which varies

fromcountry to country.The influenceofMontesquieu's empirical relativism isobvious when Raynal writes: "The means bywhich it [legislation] isto attain this great end [thehappiness of society], depend entirely on itsnatural qualities. Climate, that is to say, the sky and the soil, are the firstrule for the legislator."24Diderot, for his part, emphasizes the role of amore social variable, public opinion:In all that a prince ordains, the happiness of his people is concerned. The opinion of the public, in a nation that thinks andspeaks, is the rule of thegovernment; and theprince should neverthwart thatopinion without public reasons, nor oppose itwithouthaving firstconvinced the people of their error.Government is tomodel all its forms according to public opinion: this, it iswellknown, varies with manners, habits, and information.25

He isparticularly insistenton thispoint:The firstduty of a prudent administration is ... to respect

the prevailing opinions of a country; foropinions are the kind ofproperty towhich thepeople are more attached than even to thatof their fortune. Itmay, indeed, endeavour to rectify them byknowledge, or alter themby persuasion, ifthey should be prejudicial to the strengthof the state.But it isnot allowable to contradictthemwithout necessity; and thereneverwas any to reject the system adopted byNorth America.26

23Raynal, History, Bk. 18, 141; Histoire, 252-53.24Raynal, History, Bk. 18, 113; Histoire, 202.25Raynal, H/s*ory, Bk. 18, 110-11; Histoire, 198.26Raynal, History, Bk. 18, 126; Histoire, 226. Edoardo Tortarolo has pointed out thesimilarities between Diderot and Burke in the use of the concept of public opinion: "LaRevolution americaine dans VHistoire des deux Indes: la narration comme dialogue?" in

407



11/23


This emphasis on public opinion, of course, introduces a strongmeasure ofrelativism inDiderot's political philosophy. The appropriate form of government for "a nation that thinks and speaks" is likely to be ill-suited toless enlightened societies: "Barbarous nations are naturally subject to theoppressive yoke of despotic power, till in the advanced stateof societyprogress teaches them to conduct themselves according to their interests."17Tobe more precise, liberty can thrivewhen, as inNorth America, a nationcombines a certain degree of enlightenmentwith a spirit of equality andfrugality (thisdoes not mean that the idea of liberty is not universally attractive, only that the Anglo-Americans, for socio-historical reasons, areparticularly attached to it):

These people [theAnglo-Americans], who are almost all of themdevoted to agriculture, to commerce, and to useful labours,whichelevate and strengthen themind by giving simplicity to themanners,who have been hitherto as far removed from riches as frompoverty, cannot yet be corrupted either by an excess of luxury orby amultiplicity ofwants. It is [in] this statemore especially, thatman who enjoys liberty can maintain it, and can show himselfjealous of defending an hereditary rightwhich seems to be the sureguarantee of all the other rights. Such was the resolution of theAmericans.28

Here again, the influence ofMontesquieu isunmistakable. Democraticliberties,Montesquieu believed, are best preserved when, in a republic, thelove of equality and frugality is inscribed in the laws and alive in the spiritof the people.29 Inseparable from each other, equality and frugalityconstiL'Histoire des deux Indes; reecriture et Polygraphie, ed. H.-J. L?sebrink and A. Strugnell(Oxford: Voltaire Foundation, 1995), 205-21. It should be added that both Burke andDiderot drew from theMontesquieuan concept of esprit general.27Raynal, History, Bk. 18, 110; Histoire, 197. The part in italics ismy own translation,the 1798 translation being clearly incorrect here. Itmight seem at first difficult to reconcile this statement by Diderot with the praise of "natural" societies found in the Supplement au voyage de Bougainville (1772) or in other sections of theHistoire, for examplethe "Comparaison des peuples polices &c des peuples sauvages" (Bk. 17, Ch. IV, by Diderot), which is not in favor of civilization. The term "barbare," however, is not meanthere to apply tomembers of natural societies (Tahitians, Native Americans) but rather topopulations having reached a later,more complex stage of social and political development, that of the traditional despotic state.28Raynal, History, Bk. 18, 128; Histoire, 230.29See Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws, trans. A. M. Cohler, B. C. Miller, and H. S.Stone (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), Book V, Chapters 3-7.

408



12/23


tute in fact thevery essence of the spiritof democracy. Diderot and Raynalagree. They also agreewith Montesquieu regarding the crucial importanceof the question of land distribution in this respect. For the author of TheSpirit of the Laws, the best way to establish equality and frugality in anewly founded republic is through the initial distribution of land. Ideally,land should be divided among citizens in lots of equal and modest size.Furthermore, laws regulating the acquisition and transmission of propertyshould be such that,within reasonable limits,equality and frugalitybe preserved. This is possible even when thewealth of a republic is based ontrade, since the spiritof commerce, according toMontesquieu, carries withit the spirit of frugality.30 or similar reasons, Raynal insistson the paramount importance ofwell-established property rights: "The wisdom of legislationwill chiefly appear in the distribution of property. It is a generalrule,which obtains in all countries, that,when a colony is founded, anextent of land be given to every person sufficientfor themaintenance of afamily;"31"The chief basis of a society for cultivation or commerce, isproperty. It is the seed of good and evil, natural ormoral, consequent on thesocial state."32He adds a few lines below: "It is then to the repartition oflands that a legislatorwill turnhis principal attention. The more wisely thatdistribution shall be managed, themore simple, uniform, and exact, willbe those laws of the countrywhich chiefly conduce to the preservation ofproperty."33 Simplicity,uniformity,and precision in the regulation of propertyrights are essential to thepromotion and preservation of equality, andtherefore of democracy itself.At the end of Book 18, inhis final address tothe people ofNorth America, Diderot returns once more to this centraltheme. Luxury and inequality, he asserts, are firstamong the dangers thatcould threaten the stability of the new republic. The last of the chaptersdevoted to the United States in theHistoire thus ends on thiswarning:"Dread the influence of gold, which, with luxury, introduces corruption ofmanners and contempt of the laws. Dread too unequal a repartition ofriches,which indicates a small number ofwealthy citizens, and amultitudeof citizens plunged inmisery; fromwhence arises the insolence of the former, and thedegradation of the latter."34Another notable example of convergence with Montesquieu inDiderot's assessment of theUnited States can be found inhis comments on the30On all this, see more particularly book V, chapters 5 and 6 of The Spirit of the Laws.31Raynal, History, Bk. 18, 113; Histoire, 203.32Raynal, History, Bk. 18, 115; Histoire, 207.33Raynal, History, Bk. 18, 116; Histoire, 208.34Raynal, History, Bk. 18, 213; Histoire, 380-81.

409



13/23


firstAmerican constitution, the Articles of Confederation. In Diderot'sopinion, the American form of government, a federative republic, artfullycombines the advantages of a republic (freedom and democracy within)with those of a monarchy (efficiency, specially in the domain of foreignaffairs): "The united states of America gave themselves a confederate constitution,which added all the exterior strengthof themonarchy to all theinterior advantages of a republican government."35 This comes directlyfromThe Spirit of theLaws, where Montesquieu describes "a kind of constitution thathas all the internal advantages of republican government andthe external force ofmonarchy," making immediately clearwhat he has inmind: "I speak of the federal republic."36 In addition, Diderot highlightsthe fact that the federal system of government devised in theArticles ofConfederation isperfectly adapted to the specificgeographical and historical situation of theUnited States. Refuting arguments inspired by contemporary (Holland, Switzerland) as well as ancient examples (Greece) offederal republics, he approves of the relatively strong powers vested inCongress and the central government inpart because of the inevitable difficultyin communicating over thevast territory overed by thenew nation:

The case isnotwith them [theAmericans] aswith the confederaterepublics we see in Europe, I mean Holland and Switzerland,which only occupy a territoryof small extent, and where it is aneasymatter to establish a rapid communication between the several provinces. The same thingmay be said of the confederacies ofancient Greece. . . . But the united states of America, dispersedover an immense continent, occupying in theNew World a spaceof near fifteendegrees, separated by deserts,mountains, gulfs, andby a vast extent of coasts, cannot enjoy so speedy a communication. If congress were not empowered to decide upon political interestswithout the particular deliberations of each province; ifupon everyoccasion of the least importance, and everyunforeseenevent, itwere necessary for the representatives to receive new orders, and as itwere a new power, this body would remain in astate of inactivity.The distances to be traversed, togetherwith thelengthand themultiplicity of the debates, might be too frequentlyprejudicial to thegeneral good.37

35Raynal, History, Bk. 18, 170; Histoire, 304.36Montesquieu, Bk. IX, Ch. 1,131.37Raynal, History, Bk. 18, 171-72; Histoire, 306-8.

410



14/23


Along with themain physical and geographical features of the UnitedStates, political reality also contributes to thenecessity of a strong centralgovernment. Certain historical situations, Diderot explains, require suchresolve and continuity in action as can only be expected fromone smallbody of representatives:

Ifwe consult thehistory of republics,we shall find that themultitude have almost always the impetuosityand the ardour of thefirstmoment; but that it is only in a small number ofmen chosen andfit to serve as chiefs, inwhom reside those constant and vigorousresolutions which proceed with a firmand certain step towards agreat aim, and which are never altered, but obstinately struggleagainst calamities, fortune,and mankind.38

In the case of the United States, then, geography (sheer size) and history(the turmoil ofwar and revolution) combined as itwere to plead in favorof a powerful central government, at least in some domains.

Finally, it isnot impossible thatDiderot and Raynal rememberedMontesquieu's famous judgmenton England, "the people in theworld who havebest known how to take advantage of each of these threegreat thingsat thesame time: religion, commerce, and liberty,"39when they?briefly?dealtwith the role of religion in theAmerican Revolution. Given thephilosopheroverall hostility toward organized religion, expressions ofwhich abound intheHistoire, aswell as Diderot's atheism, it isnot surprising that thepositive role of religion in the American Revolution should have appeared almost paradoxical to the authors of theHistoire. Describing the situation inBoston in 1774, Raynal remarks that:

The minds ofmen grewmore andmore exalted at Boston. The cryof libertywas reinforced by that of religion. The churches resounded with themost violent exhortations against England. Itwas undoubtedly an interesting spectacle for philosophy, to seethat in the temples and at the feet of the altars,where superstitionhad so often blessed thechains of thepeople, where thepriests hadso often flatteredthe tyrants, that libertyshould raise itsvoice todefend theprivileges of an oppressed nation.. . .40

38Raynal, History, Bk. 18, 173; Histoire, 309-10.39Montesquieu, Bk. XX, Ch. 7, 343.40Raynal, History, Bk. 18, 134; Histoire, 239-40.

411



15/23


As forDiderot, he is somewhat ambiguous when exhorting theAmericanrebels in the following terms:Americans, letyour priests be incessantly seen inyour pulpits,withcrowns in their hands, and showing you the heavens opened.Priests of theNew World, it is time to expiate the ancient fanaticism,which hath desolated and ravaged America, by a fanaticismmore fortunate, the offspring of politics and of liberty.But youwill not deceive your fellow citizens.God, who is the firstprincipleof justice and of order, abhors tyrants.God hath imprinted in theheart ofman the sacred love of liberty,and will not suffer thatservitude should degrade and disfigure themost beautiful of hisworks.41

Can religion and libertybe trueallies, or isreligion, in the eyes of the atheistDiderot, simply a political tool to be exploited? Is there a substantial, authentic connection, as Montesquieu seemed to imply, between a specificform of religion, Protestantism, and liberty (and commerce)? Indeed,Montesquieu thought Protestantism, and especially Calvinism, had been shapedby, and thus reflected, republican values.42Whatever his exact personal beliefsmay have been, it is certain that the author of The Spirit of theLawstreats religion primarily as a social phenomenon.43 As such, religion ispartof the espritgeneral of a nation, sometimesmore favorable to liberty (as inProtestant Northern Europe) sometimes less (as inCatholic Southern Europe). Diderot seems to adopt a similar perspective here.However significantMontesquieu's influencemay have been in shapingDiderot and Raynal's views concerning the United States, what remainsbeyond debate is the unequivocal support for theAmerican cause demonstrated in theHistoire. Diderot, inparticular, is enthusiastically optimisticnot only about theAmerican Revolution itselfbut also regarding itspoweras regenerative factor for the restof theworld. Once again addressing himselfdirectly to theAmerican people, hewrites, highlighting the importanceof the "American exception":

Let the account of your happiness invite around your dwellings allthe unfortunatemen upon the face of the earth. Let tyrantsof all41Raynal, History, Bk. 18, 152; Histoire, 270-71.42See The Spirit of the Laws, Bk. XXIV, Ch. 5.43See Rebecca E. Kingston, "Montesquieu on Religion and on the Question of Toleration," inMontesquieu's Science of Politics, 375-408.

412



16/23


countries, and all oppressors, whether political or religious, know,that there exists a place upon the earthwhere onemay escape fromtheirchains; where humanity disgraced hath raised itshead again;where theharvests grow for thepoor; where the laws are no morethan the guarantee of happiness; where religion is free,and conscience hath ceased to be a slave; where Nature, in aword, seemstowish to justifyherself forhaving createdman; and where government, for so long a time guilty over all the earth, at lastmakesample reparation for its crimes. Let the idea of such an asylumalarm the despots, and serve as a restraint to them. . . .44

Diderot's enthusiasm appears most clearly in this emotional, lyrical outburst:

Heroic country mine advanced agewill not allow me to visitthee I shall never be present amidst the respectable persons whocompose your Areopagus. I shall never assist at the deliberationsof your congress. I shall die without having seen the residence oftoleration, ofmorality, and of sound laws; of virtue, and of liberty.A free and sacred landwill not covermy ashes; but I could havewished it: and my lastwords shall be vows addressed toHeavenforyour prosperity.45

Raynal, on the other hand, although generally supportive of the ideals oftheAmerican Revolution, is at the same time less idealistic about it. In hisaccount of themilitary campaign, theAmerican side appears to sufferfroma low level of enthusiasm for itsown cause.46 His reaction to the FrancoAmerican treaty is towonder what can lead an absolute monarchy to enterinto an alliance with a people defending itsfreedom.Realistically, the courtofVersailles's main motivation isunlikely to have been a pure love of liberty and justice.47Thomas Paine roundly criticizedRaynal for these viewsinhis Letter addressed to theabbe Raynal on theaffairs ofNorth-America.In which themistakes in the abbes account of the revolution ofAmerica44Raynal, History, Bk. 18,156; Histoire, 279.1 corrected "at length" in the 1798 translation to "at last."45Raynal, History, Bk. 18, 168; Histoire, 300-301. I corrected "region" in the 1798translation to "country."46Raynal, History, Bk. 18, 184-90; Histoire, 328-39.47Raynal, History, Bk. 18,199-200; Histoire, 356-57.

413



17/23


are corrected and cleared up (1782).48 But inmy view, themostly negativereception ofRaynal's Histoire in revolutionaryAmerica had less to do withfundamental disagreements on matters of political philosophy than withsecondary questions about which American national pride could understandably be sensitive: controversies surrounding the theory of Americandegeneration (see below), the immediate causes justifyingthe rebellion, orthe conduct of thewar, for example.

Raynal is not quite sure that the Franco-American allies will be militarily successful either.More importantly,he does not seem very optimisticabout the future of theUnited States once victorious. On the all-importantquestion of population growth, widely seen in the eighteenth century as anindicator of prosperity and thereforeas a sign of good government, Raynaloffers two completely contradictory views concerning thenew country.Citing the authority of Franklin himself,whose observations on thematter arerelated inorder to demonstrate why the rate of population growth shouldbe so much greater inNorth America than inEurope, he firstmaintainsthat, evenwithout taking immigration into account, thepopulation of thecolonies naturally doubles every twenty-fiveyears. Consequently, "in lessthan two centuries,North America will arrive at an immense degree ofpopulation."49 However, Raynal's last words on the United States,whichimmediately precede Diderot's final address to theAmerican people, paintan entirely differentpicture, that of a countrywith littlehuman or economic potential:

It cannot be determined without rashness what will one daybe the population of theUnited States. This calculation, generallyvery difficult,becomes impracticable in a regionwhere the landsdegenerate very rapidly, andwhere reproduction isnot inproportion to the labours and expences bestowed upon them. Itwill be aconsiderable thing, if tenmillions ofmen can ever find a certainsubsistence in these provinces, and even then the exports will bereduced to littleor nothing: but internal industrywill supply theplace of foreign industry. he countrywill nearly be able to supplyitsown wants, provided the inhabitants know how to be happy byeconomy and inmediocrity.50

48See Edoardo Tortarolo, "La reception de YHistoire des deux Indes aux Etats-Unis," inLectures de Raynal, 305-28.49Raynal, History, Bk. 18, 106-7; Histoire, 189-92.50Raynal, History, Bk. 18, 213; Histoire, 380.

414



18/23


This obvious contradiction could at least be partly explained by Raynal'schange in attitude toward the "theory ofAmerican degeneration" between1770 and 1780. The principal exponent of this fairly influential theory inthe second half of the eighteenth centurywas theDutch philosopher Cornelius de Pauw inhis Recherches philosophiques sur lesAmericains (Philosophical researches on theAmericans, 1768). Inspired byMontesquieu'stheoryof climate and above all by Buffon,who had claimed that the floraand fauna of theNew World were underdeveloped compared to those oftheOld, de Pauw expanded the theory to include human populations, bothnative and transplanted fromEurope. The American climatewas so inhospitable to life, so the theorywent, that humans living in theNew Worldwould soon show signs of physical aswell asmental degeneration.51

Having abandoned the central tenetof the theory,thenotion thatnatural conditions in theNew World are unfavorable to human population,Raynal would simplyhave neglected to amend or eliminate, in thedefinitive1780 edition, a number of passages reflectinghis earlier opinion on thesubject, including the paragraph quoted above. Indeed, several segmentsinherited fromearly editions and connected to the theoryofAmerican degeneration coexist in the 1780 versionwith others refuting it.On the otherhand, it is hard to imagine how Raynal could have overlooked such animportant paragraph, so prominently positioned as to constitute the defacto conclusion of thewhole section of theHistoire dealing with NorthAmerica. Was he not entirely convinced one way or the other, so that hestillwished to present both sides of the argument? Besides, this strategyofpresenting both the pros and the cons on a particular issue is not uncommon in theHistoire des deux Indes. It is used quite deliberately, for instance, in the chapters on China (Book 1, chapters XX-XXI) and on theJesuitmissions inParaguay (Book 8, chaptersXIV-XVII).

Raynal was more penetrating when he identifiedanother, less imaginary, danger potentially facing the new United States, unwittingly puttinghis fingeron a powerful argument in favor ofAmerican exceptionalism:

If therebe any circumstance wanting to thehappiness of BritishAmerica, it is that of forming one entire nation. Families arethere found sometimes united, sometimes dispersed, originatingfrom all the different countries of Europe. These colonists, in51The classic book on this topic is Antonello Gerbi's The Dispute of the New World:The History of a Polemic, 1750-1900, trans. Jeremy Moyle (Pittsburgh: University ofPittsburgh Press, 1973), 3-288 on the Enlightenment.

415



19/23


whatever spot chance or discernment may have placed them, allpreserve, with a prejudice not to be worn out, their mothertongue, thepartialities and the customs of theirown country. Separate schools and churches hinder them frommixing with the hospitable people who afforded them a place of refuge. Alwaysestranged from thispeople by worship, bymanners, and probablyby their feelings, theyharbour seeds of dissension thatmay oneday prove the ruin and total overthrow of the colonies. The onlypreservative against thisdisaster depends entirelyon theforms ofgovernment.52

At the threshold of the historical age of transition from baroque dynasticstates tomodern nation-states, theUnited States presented, indeed stillpresent today, a special case. InEurope, modernity entailed a gradual reductionof old social and cultural differences within the soon-to-become nationstates. The result would be political entitieswhere the whole populationcould identifywith a fairlyhomogenized (high) culture. But thisEuropeanpattern does not entirely apply to theUnited States; although uniformity inthe social or Tocquevillian sensewould rapidly getmore pronounced therethan inEurope, cultural homogenization would encounter special obstaclessuch as theones alluded to by Raynal. What is suggested in thisparagraphisyet another original aspect of theAmerican experiment: the emergence ofamodern statewhose cohesion will not restprimarily on popular identification with a national culture but on identificationwith a form of govern

ment.At this point the reader might wonder why so crucial a question as

slaveryhas not been touched upon. In fact, forawork whose general stanceis resolutely anti-colonial and anti-slavery, theHistoire devotes surprisinglylittle attention (about half a dozen pages out of five hundred) to theproblem of slavery inNorth America. Two reasons can be invoked to accountfor this apparent negligence. The firstand most obvious is that slavery hasalready been dealt with inpreceding sections, particularly in those on theAntilles (see Book 11, chapters XXII-XXIV). There is perhaps also a tendency to downplay the evil of slavery in theNorth American context: "It52Raynal, History, Bk. 18, 109; Histoire, 195-96. Words in italics are corrections to the1798 translation. Interestingly, Montesquieu had made a similar observation regardingEngland. As a rule, the general spirit of a nation constitutes the organic social reality outof which grew the laws and form of government. However, this is less truewith England,where the general spirit is largely a product of the laws and form of government themselves. See The Spirit of the Laws, Bk. XIX, Ch. 27.

416



20/23

Ansart Raynal, Diderot, and theAmerican Revolution

will not be disowned, that they [the slaves] may be better fed, betterclothed, less ill treated, and less overburdened with toil, than in the islands.The laws protect themmore effectually,and they seldom become the victims of the barbarity or caprice of an odious tyrant."53Nevertheless, Diderot and Raynal's fundamental position, that slavery can never be justified,ismade very clear; ina sense, the existence of slavery ina freecountry liketheUnited States is all themore shocking: "I shall never comprehend bywhat fatalitythat legislation,which is themost happily planned of any thathath ever existed, hath been capable of preferring the interestof a few ofitsmerchants to thedictates of nature, of reason, and of virtue."54A similar observation can bemade concerning the brutal treatmentofindigenous populations. Condemnation of the cruelties perpetrated on native peoples is, as much as opposition to slavery, at the root of Raynaland Diderot's anti-colonial stance. Yet theHistoire des deux Indes remainsalmost silent on this topic in connection with theAmerican Revolution.Only a few sharply critical but briefpassages included in the chapters covering the history of the thirteen colonies mention instances of atrocitiescommitted inNew England, Virginia, or Carolina in a fairlydistant past.On the other hand, the counter-example of Pennsylvania serves to reinforcea general sense of American exceptionalism: "His [Penn's] arrival in theNew World was signalized by an act of equity,which made his person andprinciples equally beloved. Not thoroughly satisfiedwith the right givenhim to his extensive territory,by the grant he had received of it from theBritishministry, he determined tomake ithis own property by purchasingitof the natives."55 Penn's humane treatmentof native populations iscalled"an example of moderation and justice inAmerica, which was neverthought of before by theEuropeans,"56 and thepurchase of Pennsylvania issingled out to be the subject of the engraving byMoreau le jeune placed onthe frontispieceof volume 9 (book 18) in the 1780 Pellet edition.Too often overlooked today, the chapters on the United States inRaynaland Diderot's Histoire constitutewithout doubt one of themost significanttextson America to issue from thepen of pro-American philosophes at theend of theOld Regime. They provide a richlyrepresentative sample of ideason America which were prevalent among the liberal intellectual elites of53Raynal, History, Bk. 18,103; Histoire, 184-85.54Raynal, History, Bk. 18, 105-6; Histoire, 189.55Raynal, History, Bk. 18, 9; Histoire, 15.56Raynal, History, Bk. 18, 9; Histoire, 15.

417



21/23


pre-revolutionary France. They also confirm the extent towhich Montesquieu?and the English model of liberty?remained an unavoidable, evenifproblematic, reference inconstitutional debates inFrance during the lastyears of theOld Regime.In his classic study on the image of America in France up to 1815,Durand Echeverria distinguished two interpretations of American societycommon in liberal circles on the eve of the French Revolution.57 Both viewsassociated theUnited Stateswith notions of libertyand enlightenment, butwhereas images of virtue and simplicity completed thepicture inone case,in the other the idea of progress supplied the additional central element.The Histoire showsmore affinity ith the "virtue and simplicity" thanwiththe"progress" paradigm. It tends to seeAmerica as a re-creation of an idealpast of equality and frugality,much in the spirit of the republicanism ofantiquity. Indeed, as I have argued elsewhere,58 theHistoire des deux Indes,in itsaccount of colonial America, left nresolved a fundamental ambiguity,a problematic tension between twomodels of political freedom: what Benjamin Constant would later call "ancient" and "modern" notions of liberty.59 ollowing the example of the insurgents,Raynal and Diderot, in thesubsequent chapters of theHistoire devoted to theAmerican Revolution,sketched a resolution of this tension along essentiallyMontesquieuan lines,by striking a balance between modern universalist principles (the recognition of natural individual rights) and empiricist-relativist ones derived inlargepart from the example of ancient republics (thenecessity to accommodate local realities and manage conflictinggroup interestswithin a communitarian outlook). In spite of an initial critical remark on The Spirit of theLaws, Raynal and Diderot's image ofAmerica clearly reflectsthe influenceofMontesquieu's empiricism aswell as his celebrated arguments thatvirtueconstitutes the principle of republican government and that the spirit ofdemocracy consists in the love of equality and frugality. heir veryMontesquieuan approach to constitutionalism, strivingforan equilibrium betweenuniversal ideas of justice and more relativist principles recognizing theweight of local factors, is comparable to the approach adopted later in theFederal Constitution and The Federalist (1787-88), both heavily indebted57Echeverria, Mirage in theWest, 144-61.58Ansart, "From Voltaire to Raynal and Diderot's Histoire des deux Indes," AmericaThrough European Eyes, 71-89.59Benjamin Constant, "De la liberte des anciens comparee ? celle des modernes" ("Onthe Liberty of the Ancients compared with that of theModerns"), lecture delivered in1819.

418



22/23

Ansart Raynal, Diderot, and theAmerican Revolution

toMontesquieu.60 Moreover, Diderot and Raynal regarded the UnitedStates in some respects as an extension of, or variation on, the Englishmodel rather than as a radically new one. By the late 1780s, however,Montesquieu?the "oracle" Montesquieu, asMadison famously called him?and the English model, also extolled in de Lolme's Constitution deVAngleterre {Constitution ofEngland, 1771), had lost some of theirappealinFrench liberal circles. Rousseau, Turgot, or Condorcet, to name only afew famous examples, had criticized the author of The Spirit of theLawsforbeing too preoccupied with what is rather thanwhat ought to be. To besure,Montesquieu was stillverymuch admired as an implacable enemy ofdespotism and intolerance; his masterwork still retained the prestige of "acomplete compendium of political knowledge ancient and modern, a comprehensive encyclopedia of political formswith insightfuldiscussions of thepolitical psychology, laws, and customs appropriate for each distinctivegovernmental type."61 But he was often deemed too respectful of established institutions, and too reluctant to advocate radical reform.His clearpreference, inconstitutional terms, foramonarchy with a privileged nobilityacting as a tempering intermediarypower also reinforced his conservative image among liberal reformers.By 1791, at any rate, theMontesquieuan approach to constitutionalself-governmenthad ceased to be a viable option.62The French revolutionaries tended instead to be divided between two other dominant and competing ideological alternatives: a revival of virtuous, communitarian classicalancient republicanism recast in universalist termswith the help of Rousseau; and a resolutelymodern vision of social progress based on rationalpublic debate and the recognition of universal natural rights,ofwhich Condorcet was perhaps themost articulate advocate.63 As we know, the party60Donald S. Lutz has established the preeminence ofMontesquieu as authority of reference inAmerican revolutionary literature; see "The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth-Century American Political Thought," American Political ScienceReview 78 (1984): 189-97. On the reception ofMontesquieu in revolutionary Americaand beyond see notably: Paul Carrese, "Montesquieu's Complex Natural Right and Moderate Liberalism: The Roots of American Moderation," Polity 36 (2004): 227-50; AnneM. Cohler, Montesquieu's Comparative Politics and the Spirit ofAmerican Constitutionalism (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1988); Paul M. Spurlin, Montesquieu inAmerica, 1760-1801 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1940).61David W. Carrithers, "Democratic and Aristocratic Republics: Ancient and Modern,"inMontesquieu's Science of Politics, 113.62

See Joyce Appleby, "America as aModel for the Radical French Reformers of 1789,"The William and Mary Quarterly 28 (1971): 267-86.63See for instance Keith M. Baker, "Defining the Public Sphere in Eighteenth-CenturyFrance: Variations on a Theme by Habermas," inHabermas and the Public Sphere, ed.C. Calhoun (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1992), 181-211.

419



23/23


of "ancient liberty,"Robespierre and theMontague, eventually, ifonly temporarily, prevailed after the failure of the Girondin constitution in 1793.Thus, a decade after the publication of the definitive edition of the

Histoire, Raynal's own political position during the French Revolution,based as itwas on some of the sameMontesquieuan principles that hadinformed his views on theAmerican Revolution, was bound to appear reactionary tomany, and in fact did. On May 31, 1791, in a rare interventionin thepublic debate (Raynal did not play any active role during theRevolution), the philosophe submitted an Adresse ? VAssemblee nationale readto the deputies the same day. In it,he shocked theNational Assembly byunexpectedly calling fora strengtheningof royal power and a ban on political clubs, warning against popular tyranny and violence. From then on,his image among liberals would be that of a counter-revolutionary and anAnglophile. But the surprise caused by theAdresse, which seemed tomanyin complete contradiction with theHistoire, was due, among other factors,to partial readings thathad ignored some of themore politically moderatesections ofRaynal's work, including the chapters on theUnited States.64

Indiana University.

64Including also the section on government in book 19. See Hans-J?rgen L?sebrink, "Lerole de Raynal et la reception de VHistoire des deux Indes pendant la Revolutionfranchise," in Lectures de Raynal, 85-97.

420

Documents

Art. Raynal and Diderot on American Revolution