INTRODUCTION
1. TEXT
Manuscripts Copies.
René Louis d'Argenson's major political treatise appeared in manuscript and printed form under several different titles. When the Marquis de Paulmy prepared the d'Argenson family library catalogue in the years after 1775, he identified the manuscript copy in that collection as follows.
"Jusques où la démocratie peut être admise dans le gouvernement monarchique; traité de politique composé à l'occasion de ceux de M. de Boulainvilliers touchant l'ancien gouvernement de France, etc. Mss. in-fol. et in-4o, 7 vol., dont 3 sous le titre de Gouvernement monarchique, et 4 sous celui de Démocratie monarchique, partie reliés, partie en carton. Nota. C'est l'ouvrage de feu M. le marquis d'Argenson qui a été imprimé en 1764." ( "Les premieres exemplaires sont à peu près conformes à l'impression. Les derniers sont fort perfectionnés et beaucoup mieux. (Note de Paulmy.))1.
Five manuscript copies of this work have survived.
1. Traitté de Politique/ Dans lequel on Examine a quel pour/ la Democratie peut être admise dans (dans=marked out)/ sont le gouvernement Monarchique en france/ Jusques-ou/ La Democratie peut être/ admise dans le gouvernement/ monarchique/ pour repondre aux ecrits de Mr. de / Boulanvilliers en faveur de l'ancien/ gouvernement feodal de france./ -1737.-/ essay de l'exercice du Tribunal europoen/ par la france seule, pour la Pacification/ universelle, appliqué au tems courant. novr./ 1737./ (Jusques to 1737=marked out). 126 folios. Location: Archives des Affaires étrangères, Fonds France: noo 502. "Oeuvres meslées de M. le marquis d'Argenson." The entire collection is in one volume with 275 folios and tables. It is designated as A in the text.
2. Jusques-ou/ La Democratie peut être/ admise dans le Gouvernement/ Monarchique/<line>/ Ce Traitté de Politique à esté/ composé a l'occasion de ceux de Mr. de Boulainvilliers touchant / l'ancien gouvernement feodal de/ France/ 1737./<line>/ Autre Traitté des Principaux/ interets de la France avec ses/ voisins, a l'occasion du Projet/ d'un Tribunal Europoen par Mr./ l'abbé de Ste. Pierre. Novembre 1737./ vi + 382 p. and inserted leaves A and B; inserted leaf A contains a letter signed by l'Abbé de Saint-Pierre written to Comte d'Argenson dated April 8, 1738; inserted leaf B contains Saint Pierre's observations on the manuscript ; there is an engraved frontispiece on the top and right side of the title page; paper, 231x186 millim. Location: Bibliothèque de l'Arsenal, Mss. 2337. This manuscript is designated as B in the text.
3. Jusques-où/ La Democratie peut être/ admise dans le Gouvernement/ Monarchique/<line> / Ce Traité de Politique à eté composé/ à l'occasion de ceux M. de Boulainvilliers/ touchant l'ancien gouvernement feodal/ de France./ 1737/<line>/ Autre Traité des principaux intérets/ de la France avec ses voisins, à l'occasion/ du projet d'un/ Tribunal Europeen/ par Mr. l'abbe des St. Pierre. Novembre 1737./ vi+ 427p; there is a frontispiece with an engraving which surrounds the text on the title page; on the interior of the first side there is the engraved ex-libris of d'Argenson; paper, 230x187 millim. Location: Bibliothèque de l'Arsenal, Mss. 2335. The manuscript is designated as C in the text.
4. Jusques-où/ La Democratie/ peut estre admis/ dans le gouvernement monarchique./<line>/ Ce Traitté de Politique a esté/ composé a l'occasion de ceux de Mr. de Boulainvilliers, touchant/ l'ancien gouvernement Feodal de/ France. 1737./ Autré Traitté des/ principaux Interets de la France/ avec ses voisins, a l'occasion du/ projet d'un Tribunal Europoen par/ Mr. l'abbé de St. Pierre. Novembre 1737./ vi + 375p and a hand written note titled "Appreciation de M. Dupin, fermier général."; there is an engraved frontispiece on the title page which surrounds the text; on the interior of the first side is the engraved ex-libris of d'Argenson; paper, 227x185 millim. Location: Bibliothèque de l'Arsenal Mss. 2334. The manuscript is designated as D in the text.
5. Jusques où/ La Démocratie/ peut être admise dans le/ Gouvernement Monarchique./ composé en 1737./ vi + 316p; paper, 273x202 millim. Location: Bibliothèque de l'Arsenal Mss. 2338. The manuscript is designated E in the text.
An unknown number of manuscripts were copied and distributed to friends for their comments. Here are some of the references to these copies. A copy was read by Voltaire; a copy secured from Gabriel Cramer by M.M. Rey served as the basis for the 1764 edition; Jean Jacques Rousseau had read a copy; D'Alembert refers to a copy; a copy was described as being in the possession of marquis de Paulmy in 1765; a manuscript copy identified by E.J.B. Rathery as written in 1752 was in the Papiers d'Argenson in the Bibliothèque Louvre. This copy was destroyed in the fire of 1871.
Other related manuscript copies are :
1. Jusques où la démocratie peut être admise dans le gouvernement monarchique. Traitté des principaux intérêts de la France avec ses voisins. Par M. le marquis d'Argenson. 195p. Paper. 207x162 millim. Located: Bibliothèque d' Arles, noo 72. Although this bears the same title as the manuscript copies, it was a handwritten copy of the 1764 printed edition by Guillaume de Nicolay.
2. Considérations sur le gouvernement ancien et présent de la France. par le marquis d'Argenson. Seconde édition préparée sur l'imprimé de la première. Notes et additions de la main de l'auteur. 1783. 223p. Paper. 270x210 millim. Located: Bibliothèque de Salins, noo 195. This manuscript no longer exists in the Bibliothèque de Salins. This copy was dated 1783 and may have been the copy that de Paulmy used when he made changes and notes.2.
3. Considérations sur le gouvernement de la France, par M. le marquis d'Argençon. 39p. This is not a copy of d'Argenson's Considérations. It was a critique written by Marquis de Mirabeau probably in 1787-88.
Printed copies.
1. CONSIDÉRATIONS/ SUR LE/ GOUVERNEMENT/ ANCIEN ET PRÉSENT/ DE LA/ FRANCE./ PAR MR. LE MARQUIS D'ARGENSON./ <VIGNETTE> / A AMSTERDAM,/ Chez MARC MICHEL REY./ MDCCLXIV./ xvi+ 328p; sig. *3-4,A-V5, X4; 8o. Bibliothèque nationale, o38 b 969. This copy is designated as I in the text.
2. CONSIDÉRATIONS/ SUR LE/ GOUVERNEMENT/ ANCIEN ET PRÉSENT/ DE LA/ FRANCE./ < sans nom auteur >/<VIGNETTE>/ A AMSTERDAM./ Chez Marc Michel Rey./ M.DCC.LXV./ xvi+ 328p; sig. *3-4, A-V5, X4; 8o. Bibliothèque Nationale, o38 b. 969 C. This copy is designated as Ia in the text.
3. CONSIDÉRATIONS/ SUR LE/ GOUVERNEMENT/ ANCIEN ET PRÉSENT/ DE LA/ FRANCE/ PAR MR. LE MARQUIS D'ARGENSON./ <VIGNETTE>/ A AMSTERDAM./ Chez MARC MICHEL REY/ M.DCC.LXV./ xvi+ 328p; sig. *3-4, A-V5, X4; 8o. The text is a slight variant of I and identical to Ia. It is designated as Ib. The vignette for item 1 and 3 are the same. The vignette for item 2 differs.
4. CONSIDÉRATIONS/ SUR LE/ GOUVERNEMENT/ ANCIEN ET PRÉSENT/ DE LA/ FRANCE./ PAR MR. LE MARQUIS ARGENSON./<VIGNETTE>/ YVERDON./ <line>/ MDCCLXIV./ viii+ 244p; sig. *1-2, A5,B-P4,Q2; 8o. Bibliothèque Nationale o38 b 969A. This copy is designated II in the text.
5. CONSIDÉRATIONS/ SUR LE/ GOUVERNEMENT/ ANCIEN ET PRÉSENT/ DE LA/ FRANCE./ PAR LE MARQUIS D'ARGENSON./ A AMSTERDAM=PARIS,/ Chez MARCMICHEL REY,/ M. DCC. LXV./ vii+ 312p; sig.*1-2,A-T4,V2; 8o. Bibliothèque Nationale o38 b. 969 B. This is the base 1765 Text used in this work.
6. CONSIDÉRATIONS/ SUR LE/ GOUVERNEMENT/ ANCIEN ET PRÉSENT/ DE LA /FRANCE,/ Par M. le Marquis D'ARGENSON./ <VIGNETTE>/ A AMSTERDAM,/ Chez MARC MICHEL REY,/ M. DCC. LXV./ iv+ 272p; sig. A-Z4; 8o; page 266 is numbered 626. This copy is designated as III in the text. The 1974 University of Michigan Microform copy of this printing has a different vignette on the title page.
7. Considérations sur le gouvernement ancien et présent de la France. Par Mr. le marquis d'Argenson. A Amsterdam, Marc Michel Rey, 1765. viii+ 206p ; 8o. This has been designated as IIIa. This is listed by Gesler. He had not seen it. I have not seen it.
8. Considérations sur le gouvernement ancien et présent de la France, comparé avec celui des autres Etats, suivies d'un nouveau plan d'administration. Par M. le marquis d'Argenson. Deuxième édition, corrigée sur ses manuscrits. A Amsterdam = Paris, 1784. 8o, <3>, viii+ 9-304 p; 303f.=Errata. This is text designated as IV.
9. CONSIDÉRATIONS/ SUR/ LE GOUVERNEMENT / ANCIEN ET PRÉSENT/ DE LA FRANCE,/ COMPARE/ AVEC CELUI DES AUTRES ETATS;/ SUIVIES/ D'UN NOUVEAU PLAN D'ADMINISTRATION./ Par M. le Marquis D'ARGENSON./ <line>/ DEUXIÈME ÉDITION, CORRIGÉE SUR SES MANUSCRITS./<line>/ <VIGNETTE>/ AMSTERDAM/ <line>/<line>/ M. DCC. LXXXIV./ viii+ 9-301p; sig. A-T4; 8o. Bibliothèque Nationale Lb 38. 969E. This copy is the 1784 text used in this work.
10. CONSIDÉRATIONS/ SUR/ LE GOUVERNEMENT/ ANCIEN ET PRÉSENT/ DE LA FRANCE,/ COMPARE/ AVEC CELUI DES AUTRES ETATS;/ SUIVIES/ D'UN NOUVEAU PLAN D'ADMINISTRATION./ Par M. le Marquis D'ARGENSON./ <line>/ DEUXIÈME ÉDITION, CORRIGÉE SUR SES MANUSCRITS./ <line>/ <VIGNETTE>/ A LIÈGE,/ Chez C. PLOMPTEUX, Imprimeur de/ Messeigneurs les Etats./ <line>/ M.DCC.LXXXVII./ viii+ 330p.sig. a2,A-X2; 8o,<4>. Bibliothèque Nationale .Z 150 volume XIII, 1. This copy is designated in the text as VI.
2. PRESENTATION
The present text is organized as follows. The basic text used for 1765 is CONSIDÉRATIONS/ SUR LE/ GOUVERNEMENT/ ANCIEN ET PRÉSENT/ DE LA/ FRANCE./ PAR LE MARQUIS D'ARGENSON./ A AMSTERDAM=PARIS,/ Chez MARCMICHEL REY,/ M. DCC. LXV./. The text here is identical to the that text. The basic text used for 1784 is CONSIDÉRATIONS/ SUR/ LE GOUVERNEMENT/ ANCIEN ET PRÉSENT/ DE LA FRANCE,/ COMPARE/ AVEC CELUI DES AUTRES ETATS;/ SUIVIES/ D'UN NOUVEAU PLAN D'ADMINISTRATION./ Par M. le Marquis D'ARGENSON./ <line>/ DEUXIÈME ÉDITION, CORRIGÉE SUR SES MANUSCRITS./<line>/ <VIGNETTE>/ AMSTERDAM/ <line>/<line>/ M. DCC. LXXXIV.
The line format has been retained for both texts. Spelling and punctuation have been retained. Pagination for both texts is represented by <number>. Line numbers at intervals of five appear in the 1765 edition and related to the text changes found in the notes. They appear as [number].
The present edition has been prepared for an E-text three frame and link presentation. In the text portions of this work the 1765 edition has been placed in the frame to the left and the 1784 edition has been placed in the frame to the right. The frame in the center contains by all the textual variants for the manuscript and other printed copies. The cross reference system is organized by page and line number. To access the textual variants use the page link and find the line number in the note. Where there have been extensive textual changes (Chapitre VIII-I and II-1765 and Chapitre IX-1784) links have been established so as to give the complete text content.
The sequential organization of the footnote is as follows. (1) Footnote number and/or initial designation represents the line number or title in which the change occurs. (2) Capital letter(s) refer to the manuscript copies and roman numerals to printed copies in which the change occurs. (3) Word(s) prior to / represent the material in the text in which the change occurs. (4) Word(s) after / represent the change in the manuscript and/or printed copy.
Code letters and numbers in italics explain the nature of the change made. These are as follows:
1. (1) or (2) or other numbers in parenthesis = two or more identical words are in the line. The number identifies which word(s) the change refers to.
2. (o) = in text of work cited preceding word, phrase, sentence, paragraph is omitted.
3. (a) = in text of work cited following word, phrase, sentence, paragraph are added.
4. (e) = in text of work cited preceding word, phrase, sentence, paragraph is marked out.
5. (ea) = in text of work cited preceding word, phrase, sentence, paragraph cited is marked out and the following is added in its place.
6. (ae) = in text of work cited the following word, phrase, sentence, paragraph is added and marked out.
7. (e: word) = in text of work cited the word, phrase, sentence, paragraph which follows the colon is marked out.
8. (mn) = in text of work cited the following word., phrase, sentence, paragraph is located in the margin.
9. (amn) = in text of work cited the following word, phrase, sentence, paragraph is added as a marginal note.
10. ( Text : word, etc.) = material varies between the various manuscripts/printed editions. The manuscript and/or printed edition is identified and the variant follows.
11. ( Text o: word, etc. ) same as above but material cited is omitted.
12. ( Text e; word, etc. ) same as above but material cited is marked out.
3. COMMENTARY
1. AAE 502 (Mss A) is the earliest extant manuscript copy. Brette identified it as a copy of earlier drafts.3. Gesler identified it as the first complete draft of the manuscript.4. The original title page carries the date 1737 although the manuscript was probably written 1732-1733 or earlier.5. D'Argenson may have composed this work in various stages. The dating of the origins of the various parts is rooted in three events. The "Plan du gouvernement proposé pour la France" may have been written as early as 1720-1725 when d'Argenson served as intendant in Hainault and Cambrésis.6. The reference to Henri Boulainvilliers in the under title, the critical remarks on Boulainvilliers political ideas7. and the disputes which followed its appearance are dated from the publication of Boulainvillier's Histoire de l'ancien gouvernement de la France in 1727.8. The development of the historical and comparative framework and the preparation of drafts may have taken place between 1726 and 1730 when d'Argenson was an active member of the Club Entresol.9.
The title page of Mss A carries two different titles. One title was Traitté de Politique/ Dans lequel on Examine a quel pour/ la Democratie peut être admise dans (dans=marked out)/ sont le gouvernement Monarchique en france/ Jusques-ou/ La Democratie peut être/ admise dans le gouvernement/ monarchique/ pour repondre aux ecrits de Mr. de / Boulanvilliers en faveur de l'ancien/ gouvernement feodal de france./ -1737.-/ ; the addition was/ essay de l'exercice du Tribunal europoen/ par la france seule, pour la Pacification/ universelle, appliqué au tems courant. novr./ 1737.
The addition is written in a different handwriting, dated separately and appears to have been added. The above title, under title and addition were crossed out and replaced with Traitté de Politique/ Dans lequel on Examine a quel pour/ la Democratie peut admise dans < dans=crossed out>/ sont Le gouvernement Monarchique en france/. The same title change was also made on page 1 of the text.
The manuscript is handwritten. Zevort, who examined the d'Argenson manuscripts in the Archives des Affaires étrangéres identified d'Argenson's signature on many of the pieces.10. Renouvin, following Zevort, believed that while much of Mss A may have been written by a scribe, that certain passages and titles placed in the margin were written by d'Argenson himself.11. Johnson believes that all Mss A is in d'Argenson's handwritting.12.
Unlike other manuscript copies which are scribal copies, Mss A contains numerous handwritten cross outs, additions and word/phrase changes. These changes appear primarily in the "Table des Matieres", chapter headings, additions in the margins and word/phrase changes.
Mss A differs from other later manuscripts and printed copies. The titles used in Mss B,C,D,E are adaptations of both titles used in Mss A. The title used in Mss E makes no reference to Boulainvilliers or the "essay". In Mss A the short piece on "pacification universelle" is identified as an essay whereas in Mss B,C,D it is identified on the title page as "Autre Traitté" suggesting that d'Argenson intended to write a treatise on international affairs to parallel his treatise on politics. This same piece appears in the 1764/1765 edition but is not represented on the title page. Secondly, there are changes related to the "Plan". Article 45 and 46 in Mss A as well as Mss B,C,D are combined into Article XLV in Mss E and the 1764/1765 edition.13. Article 52 in the manuscript copies (Article 51 in Mss E) entitled "Intendants et subdelegues de Paris" does not appear in the printed edition of 1764/1765.14. Thirdly, the "essay" in Mss A has been edited and shortened to form "Autre Traitté" in Mss B,C,D and the printed edition of 1764/1765.15. Finally, the conclusion to the main body of the text differs from the conclusions in other manuscript copies and the 1764/1765 edition.16.
One can conclude from this that the major word/phrase changes were made at four stages in the history of the manuscript copies and the first printed edition. The changes were made in the editing of Mss A, between the completion of Mss A and the preparation of Mss B,C,D and between these manuscript copies and the first printed edition. In addition changes and especially additions were made when one compares Mss E with the earlier manuscript copies.
Mss A has been used primarily by Zevort, Brette, Renouvin, and Gesler. Zevorts study of d'Argenson's career as foreign minister utilized the d'Argenson materials in the Archives des Affaires étrangéres which includes Mss A. Zevort uses the "Essai" as a basis for parts of his study.16. Brette lists and briefly describes Mss A in his lengthy but at times misleading "Notice Bibliographie" attached to his edition of the Journal published in 1898.17. Renouvin uses Mss A to authenticate the 1764 Amsterdam printed edition.18. Gesler discusses Mss A in his useful description of the manuscript copies of the work.19.
2. Mss. 2337(B), 2335(C), 2334(D) are very similar.20. They were hand written copies prepared by scribes for private circulation.21. These manuscripts were probably prepared during the winter of 1737-1738 or shortly thereafter. Each manuscript is dated 1737 on the title page.22. Mss C and D are almost identical copies. Mss B although similar to the above has more changes which are primarily stylistic and editorial in nature. One can assume that the Cramer manuscript that served as the basis for the 1764 printing was a copyist text probably written at about the same time.
With the exception of the frontispiece design, the title pages are almost identical. The "Plan" in all three manuscript copies are almost identical. The "Effets, Objections, Conclusion" are almost identical in each manuscript but differs from the "Conclusion" in the 1764/1765 printed edition.23. The "Essai" in all three copies is almost identical.
Attached to Mss B is a letter dated April 8, 1739 written by Abbe de Saint Pierre to d'Argenson's brother Comte Marc-Pierre d'Argenson. Attached to the letter are a series of observations made by Abbe de Saint Pierre and Bernard de Fontenelle on the text.24. Attached to Mss D is a brief note of appreciation written by M. Dupin, fermier generale.25. No note is attached to Mss C.
These three manuscripts were first identified by Henry Martin.26. Others following Martin have listed and/or briefly discussed these manuscript copies. These include Zevort (1884)27., Ogle (1893)28. , Brette (1898)29., Hintze (1928)30., Renouvin (1921)31. and Gesler(1957)32.. Mss B is the most frequent manuscript cited and used. Mss C has been used by several recent critics.33. Mss D, although almost identical in every respect to C has not been used.
3. Mss. 2338(E) is a unique manuscript. This manuscript is titled as follows: Jusques où/ La Démocratie/ peut être admise dans le/ Gouvernement Monarchique./ composé en 1737. Although the date 1737 appears on the title page, the entry is in a handwriting which differs from the remainder of the title and was probably added at a later date to designate the compositional date of the earlier work rather than the date that the manuscript was written. The exact date when this manuscript was written has not been determined.34. The manuscript appears to be a transitional copy written and added to in the late 1740's and the early 1750's when d'Argenson's own views were changing and it is believed that he was considering and perhaps undertaking a revision of his earlier political treatise. E.J.B. Rathery was the first to identify a 1752 manuscript copy that was subsequently destroyed. Mss E may have been written about the same time. If one accepts Arthur Ogles fallacious argument that the manuscript which served as the basis for the second edition (1784) was written partially between 1748-1752 and partially in 1755, Mss E may have come from the same general period.
This manuscript has had very limited use. It is listed with the other three Arsenal manuscripts in Martin, Ogle, Ritter, and Gesler.35. Brette and Hintze do not include it in their bibliographical studies.36. Gesler and Henry alone discuss this manuscript.37. The manuscript contains numerous additions and subtractions including additional sections, added text, two inserted pages and marginal notes. 38. Some additions, most notably the marginal notes, are in d'Argenson's own handwriting. 39.The text is organized in a manner similar to earlier manuscript copies and the first printed edition. The reference to "Boulainvilliers" in the under title does not appear on the title page. In the "Plan", the earlier manuscript articles 45 and 46 are combined into one article (XLV). The "Plan" in this manuscript has not undergone the major changes which anticipate the significantly altered "Plan" of the second edition. The "Essay" has been dropped from this text as it was also dropped from the second edition.
The major changes in Mss E are of the following general character. There are major text additions which appear only in Mss E.40. Secondly, in Mss E there are revisions and/or additions of earlier manuscripts' text which appear in the revised form in the second edition.41. There are also text additions which appear in Mss E and appear only in the second edition.42. Finally, there are text additions in mss E which are revised extensively in the second edition.43.
The second edition (1784) contains two new sections in which the forms of government of China and Paraguay are examined. Mss E contains an early draft of the section on China but not on Paraguay.44. The Mss E and second edition discussions of China are organized in a similar manner. The manuscript version is longer; it contains informational detail that has been edited out of the second edition.45. D'Argenson admired the Chinese system of government because it represented for him a monarchical form of government with a decentralized and enlightened administration.
Mss E has two additional pages written in d'Argenson's handwriting which modify his earlier statements on Switzerland. In all of the manuscript copies and the first printed edition discussions on Switzerland are part of a longer discussion on forms of government (Chapter I) and a discussion of the impact of aristocracy and democracy on other European countries (Chapter III). The manuscript and first edition statement in Chapter I identify Switzerland as a pure democracy in which the aristocracy are honored but play no role in the governments. Bailiffs and other elected individuals run the governments of the cantons.46. D'Argenson's correction rejects the distinguished position of the nobility and explains in more detail the election of the bailiffs. This entire discussion is eliminated from the second edition. 47. Article IX in Mss A-D and the first edition describe the political character of the Swiss in complimentary language but describe the Swiss people as "la grossiereté."48. A marginal note in Mss. B and C partially retracts this statement by acknowledging Swiss friends who are able and distinguished.49. Mss. E and the second edition retains the remark on the people but attributes it to a "Ecrivian Politique." The quote is preceded with a new description of the Swiss people which depicts them as "le modele de ce que les hommes devroient être heureux...."50.
There are extended additions in Mss E which serve as the bases for discussions in the second edition. Several of these additions contain margin additions indicating reworking which is in d'Argenson's handwriting.51. However, with the exception of only one severely edited piece, these additions are not transferred per se into the second edition.52.
The administrative plan in Mss E with the exception of one statement follows the earlier manuscript copies of the plan rather than the new plan of the second edition. In the earlier manuscript copies of the plan (and the first edition) d'Argenson supported a separation of the judicial and legislative powers.53. A new article added in Mss E describes the Parlements and other superior courts as overseers of the law.54. The same general argument supporting judicial prerogative appears in the 1784 plan. 55.
D'Argenson's argument for absolute state authority and an enlightened society is a reoccurring theme in these additions. This is the central problem discussed in a seven page addition following a discussion of public interest,56. a four page addition examines the function of public power,57. a seven page addition comparing mixed governments and absolute authority,58. and six additional paragraphs in the conclusion which relate to this topic and others identified below.59. The general idea is found again in the "Avertissement de l'Editeur" in the second edition.60.
D'Argenson's aversion to national assemblies (Etats General) appears in several additions in Mss E.61. This serves as the basis for further discussion of this matter at the conclusion of "Objections et reponses" in the second edition.62. Likewise, his critical views of the nobility in "Articles XXX-XXXIII" in the second edition are anticipated in several additions in Mss E.63. While recognizing the past importance of the nobility, d'Argenson was critical of their privileged position and especially their exemption from taxation. In general these views are also expressed in the earlier manuscripts.
The general conclusion to the text in Mss E contain paragraphs which were are not included in other manuscript copies and printed editions. These additional paragraphs examine critically the public role of the absolute monarch v. the private ambitions of ministers and other subordinate officials in so far as they relate to public interests. The table below compares the conclusions of the manuscript and printed copies by paragraph number and shows the location of additions in Mss E and the subsequent editing in the first and second editions. 64.
A B,C,D E 1765 1784
1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2
3(new)
4(new)
5(new)
6(new)
3 3 7 3 1
8(new)
9(new)
4 4
5 5 10
6 11 4 2
7 12 5 2
6 8 13
8 14
9 15
8 10 16 6 3
9 11 17
10 12 18 7-8
11 13 19 7-8
marginal
note
12 14 20 9
13 15 21 10 4
marginal
note
4. E.J.B. Rathery in the "Introduction" to Journal et Memoires du Marquis d'Argenson reports that he had seen in the d'Argenson family papers in the Bibliothèque Louvre a manuscript copy of this work dated 1752.65. He stated that the manuscript had many changes in d'Argenson's own handwriting. Other identifying features noted were the title: Jusques où la démocratie peut estre admise dans le gouvernement monarchique and an epigraph which appears only in Mss E and the 1784/1787 edition.66. This manuscript was burned in the fire which destroyed the Bibliothèque Louvre in May 1871. Rathery's description of the 1752 manuscript also fits the description in general of Mss E.67.
5. Rousseau's references to Considérations in his 1762 Contrat Social is generally believed to be the cause for its posthumous publication in 1764. Rousseau's publisher M.M. Rey secured a copy of the manuscript from a Geneva business friend Gabriel Cramer.68. This manuscript copy no longer exists. The editor in the " Avis du Libraire" of the 1764 published edition described this manuscript as having many mistakes.69.
Little is known about d'Argenson's relationship with Rousseau. Both submitted essays to the Academy of Dijon in 1754. Both dealt with the subject of inequality based on wealth. Rousseau received first prize.70. Rousseau had read a copy of d'Argenson's political treatise in manuscript when he was preparing his Contrat Social. He cited the work in four notes. He was highly complimentary. These quotes differ somewhat from the manuscript texts due to the fact that Rousseau may have been using a variant manuscript copy or he retained less than precise notations from his reading. They are all rooted in this text as opposed to other written works of d'Argenson that Rousseau may have had access to.71.
6. The first printed edition appeared in 1764/1765 under the title Considérations sur le govenement ancien et présent de la France.72. There were seven printings in 1764 and 1765. Texts I, Ia and Ib can be treated as a group.73. Text I dated 1764 was published by M.M. Rey in Amsterdam. Text Ia dated 1765 was published by M.M. Rey in Amsterdam. Text Ib dated 1765 but without the authors name was published by M.M.Rey in Amsterdam. An unknown Parisian publisher rather than Rey was probably the true publisher of all three. I, Ia and Ib have identical pagination with the exception of a two page errata sheet which is not in Ia. Texts I and Ia have identical title pages except for the publication dates. Text Ib has a title page which differs from I and Ia in that the authors name is missing and the vignette differs. Text Ib is a copy of I with only the title page and the publication date different.74. In every other respect they are identical. Text Ia appears to be the corrected copy of this same printing.
All three copies contain "Avis du Libraire".75. In the "Avis" the editor mentions Rousseau's use of a manuscript copy and the references in the Contrat Social and the securing of a copy of the manuscript from the Geneva book dealer Cramer in July 1762. The editor states that parts of the book were based on a faulty manuscript copy which was only discovered when the proofs for the first eight sheets were read. An errata sheet is included in I and Ib but not Ia containing corrections for pp 1-128.76. There are thirty nine errors noted on the errata sheet. These are minor spelling errors or single words being added or removed. The changes are minor. The same errors appear in the text of I and Ib. Except for two items, the remaining errors were corrected in Ia. Other unlisted errors appear in this part of the text (pp.1-128) . In general these unlisted errors are of the same general character and magnitude as the errors noted on the errata sheet.
When compared to the earlier manuscript copies, these printings follow closely the text in Mss.B,C and D. The Conclusion pp. 299-301 has been shortened77. The "Plan" has been reduced from 54 to 52 articles. Article 45 and 46 from Mss.A,B,C,D, have been joined to become Article 45. Article 52 in the manuscript text is eliminated.78. The Essai contained in these printings is based on the text found in Mss.B,C and D rather than the longer text found in Mss. A.79. The most significant difference is the editors change of title from the more controversial title of the manuscript (Jusques...) to that of the printed editions (Considérations....).80.
7. A reprint of the 1764 copy was published in Yverdon in the same year. This copy lacks the errata sheets but contains twenty of the thirty nine errors identified on the errata sheet in I. This copy was extracted by the Mercure Suisse in the following year.81.
8. The first Paris edition and the basis for the present edition was started in November 1764. It carried a false imprint which identified Ray as the publisher and Amsterdam as the place of publication. The Parisian publisher is unknown. The text is organized as follows: title page, table de chapitres et des articles, avertissement, text of Considérations and the text of Essai. The " Avis du Libraire " which appeared in all printed copies except the Yverdon printing was omitted. No errata sheets are contained and it must be presumed that this represents a corrected copy. The Essai is the shorter rendition based on the copies found in Mss. B,C,D. The conclusion follows the conclusion of the earlier printed copies rather than the manuscript copies.
The first printed edition including this printing represent a fourth major revision in the history of the text. The changes varied in length from word changes to the addition and/or removal of significant pieces. In general, there were significant changes when the 1765 edition is compared to Mss A and E and many fewer and less important changes when compared to Mss B,C,D.
This 1765 printing was reviewed in several major pieces. Grimm reviewed it in Correspondence Literaire, Philosophique et Critique in the March 1, 1765 issue.82. It was reviewed in the Journal Encyclopedia on August 15, 1765.83. Bauchaumont in an entry in Memoires Secrets dated April 11, 1765 questioned the authenticity of the Paris edition as well as the earlier Amsterdam editions. He stated that the Marquis de Paulmy had the only correct copy perhaps giving credence later to the belief in a copy which served as the basis for the 1784 edition.84.
9. Two unauthorized printings also appeared in 1765. Both printings carry a title page which identified M.M.Rey as the publisher and Amsterdam as the place of publication. Text III appears to be based on the 1765 Paris printing with only minor spelling difference between the two copies.85. All else is the same with the exception of the format and the pagination of the text and the title page vignettes. A copy of Text IIIa has not been located.86.
10. A second edition appeared in 1784. It was reprinted in 1787. The second edition was the first in a series of d'Argenson's writings planned for publication by his son Marquis de Paulmy. This project resulted in the publication of two of d'Argenson's works prior to de Paulmy's death in 1787. Both works were originally privately printed for friends.87.
In the "Avertissement de l'éditeur" de Paulmy provides a rationale for the republication of his fathers work. This includes references to the faulty manuscript used by Rey in the publication of the first edition, a synopsis of d'Argenson's political ideas and their relevance to current issues, and what he perceives to be the influence of his fathers work on political and economic writings over the past half century. De Paulmy describes the current edition as an edition based on many authentic manuscript copies written at various dates and as a work which incorporates some "notions préliminaires" from a "Preface" attached to various manuscripts.
The text of the second edition represents a relatively major rewriting which results in stylistic improvements and somewhat greater clarity in the discussions. The second edition contains numerous additions which did not appear in the earlier printed edition. Some of these additions, as noted earlier, appear in a different form in Mss E. The two major additions consist of the "Plan d'une nouvelle Administration proposée pour la France" and "Objections et réponses." Both are totally new pieces. They do not appear in any form in any earlier manuscript or printed copy. The major question confronting critics of this edition is whether d'Argenson wrote these sections and if not when and under what conditions another author (most likely his son) authored these new parts.
The earliest critic to use the second edition as the basis for a discussion of d'Argenson's political ideas was Charles Sainte-Beuve in his 1855 articles in the L'Atheneum Française. He described the 1764 edition as faulty and the 1784 edition as improved and edited by d'Argenson's son. A 1864 edition of Dictionnaire de l'economie politique contenant l'exposition des principes de la science describes the 1764 edition as incomplete and the 1784 edition as shortened and altered. Pierre Emile Levasseurs article on d'Argenson in 1869 cites the 1784 edition and refers to it as an edition that was carefully revised by the author. Charles Aubertin uses the 1784 edition which he believed represented a revision by de Paulmy.
The major 19th critic who supported the authenticity of the second edition and especially d'Argenson's authorship of the "Plan" was Arthur Ogle. Ogle uses an entire chapter to examine the two editions and in particular the two "Plans". He believed that the second edition was completed by d'Argenson in two stages. Chapter I-VI and VIII which represent the historical and comparative parts of the text were revised between 1748 and 1752. The new plan (Chapter VII), Chapter IX and the Conclusion were written about 1755. The evidence for these dates- especially the 1755 date-- was a major change in d'Argenson's own thinking that was occurring between 1752 and 1757 and is supported by entries from the Journal et Memoires. Ogle translates most of the 1784 "Plan". He compares some word/phrase changes between the two plans. Gesler88. and especially Ritter89. were critical of Ogles arguments.
W. Onchen recognizes the second edition (ie the 1787 printing) as authentic. In E. Champions introduction to Brettes abridged edition of Journal et Memoires he refers to the 1784 edition and supports the de Paulmy arguments that the 1765 work had had wide spread influence on late 18th C. political and economic thinking.90. Lachaze argues that d'Argenson's thought evolves between 1764 and 1784 and that the second edition is the result of this 'posthumous' development.91. Jean Lamsons mid 20th century study of d'Argenson's political ideas uses the 1784 edition but without any evaluation of the text problem.92.
Other critics question d'Argenson's authorship of the second edition especially the "Plan" and "Objections". They generally believe that de Paulmy in an attempt to update his fathers work wrote these sections. Their arguments are based on internal criticism and in particular evidence which relates the newer sections of the text to writers and ideas not in vogue until after d'Argenson's death in 1757. Hedwig Hintze bibliographical essay written in 1928 and attached to his Staatseinheit und Federelismus im Alten Frankreich und in der Revolution deals with the 1784 administrative plan. Hintze believes that the second edition and especially the administrative plan were updated by de Paulmy by giving it a more "physiocratic" tone and making it more popular.93. Onchen had discussed this problem in the mid 1880's.94. Esmein had discussed as early as 1904,95. the influence of physiocratic ideas on the second edition. The similarity between Turgots plan and d'Argenson's second plan and the possible influence of Turgot and the Physiocrats on the de Paulmy's rewriting was noted by Gomel in 1892,96. Lachaze in 190997. and most recently Henry.98. Gerhard Ritter99.examined d'Argenson's political ideas in an examination of reform programs developed in France before the French Revolution. The study in general, discusses the reform programs of d'Argenson along with those of Dupont de Nemours, The Physiocrats and Mirabeau. Ritter uses the 1764/1765 edition as his point of references although he acknowledges its earlier composition and its limited private circulation. He discusses possible inter-influences between d'Argenson, Mirabeau and Dupont. Discussing the 1784 edition, he responds to the earlier theories of Ogle and Wahl. He rejects Ogles attempt to attribute the basis for the second edition to d'Argenson's revisions of the 1748-52 and 1755 period on the grounds that his argument lacks supporting evidence. Ritter shares to some degree the views of Wahl. Wahl in his earlier Annalen des Deutschen Reichs supported de Paulmy's argument that d'Argenson's work had influenced a number of late 18th C. thinkers including Mirabeau and Dupont de Nemours. Wahl believed that d'Argenson had authored the 1784 "Plan" which he argues had originally taken the form of a draft of a proposal prepared for Louis XV by Balleroy and d'Argenson.100.
Peter Gesler discusses at some length the two editions. He described the second edition as an edition which was based on an overworking of earlier drafts rather than a particular manuscript. The de Paulmy edition represents an improved edition with several additions derived from a reworking of parts of Mss E and the new materials contained in the "Plan" and the "Objections". Gesler notes a shift in d'Argenson's thinking after 1737 from political interests to more economic interests which he believes is reflected in the second edition changes. Other evidence such as the possible influence of Dupont and Balleroy, the legalistic structure of the second plan and the restrictions placed on royal authority supports de Paulmy's authorship. Gesler concludes, however, that d'Argenson's own views had so changed by the 1750's that he considered but probably did not actually write a new draft. De Paulmy adapted and expanded the text so as to serve his purposes in the decade of the 1780's probably utilizing materials from Dupont's plan.101.
Joseph Gallanar