Jean-Jacques Rousseau · Complete work
Book I, Chapter 5
Book I, Chapter 5 of 49. Read it here for reference, or continue through the entire work without leaving the reader.
Open the complete readerOriginal French
Qu’il faut toujours remonter à une premiere convention.
Quand j’accorderois tout ce que j’ai réfuté jusqu’ici, les fauteurs du despotisme n’en seroient pas plus avancés. Il y aura toujours une grande différence entre soumettre une multitude, & régir une société. Que des hommes épars soient successivement asservis à un seul, en quelque nombre qu’ils puissent être, je ne vois là qu’un maitre & des esclaves, je n’y vois point un peuple & son chef; c’est si l’on veut une agrégation, mais non pas une association; il n’y a là ni bien public ni corps politique. Cet homme, eut-il asservi la moitié du monde, n’est toujours qu’un particulier; son intérêt, séparé de celui des autres, n’est toujours qu’un intérêt privé. Si ce même homme vient à périr, son empire après lui reste épars & sans liaison, comme un chêne se dissout & tombe en un tas de cendres, après que le feu l’a consumé.
Un peuple, dit Grotius, peut se donner à un roi. Selon Grotius un peuple est donc un peuple avant de se donner à un roi. Ce don même est un acte civil, il suppose une délibération publique. Avant donc que d’examiner l’acte par lequel un peuple élit un roi, il seroit bon d’examiner l’acte par lequel un peuple est un peuple. Car cet acte étant nécessairement antérieur à l’autre est le vrai fondement de la société.
En effet, s’il n’y avoit point de convention antérieure, où seroit, à moins que l’élection ne fut unanime, l’obligation pour le petit nombre de se soumettre au choix du grand, & d’où cent qui veulent un maitre ont-ils le droit de vôter pour dix qui n’en veulent point? La loi de la pluralité des suffrages est elle-même un établissement de convention, & suppose au moins une fois l’unanimité.
Musean translation
Mouseia’s complete machine-assisted Musean translation, made directly from the complete French text of the 1762 edition, all four books and the appendix for fidelity, the author’s force and cadence, and modern clarity.
That We Must Always Go Back to a First Convention.
Even if I granted everything I have refuted so far, the advocates of despotism would be no further ahead. There will always be a great difference between subjugating a multitude and governing a society. Let scattered men be enslaved one after another by a single man, however many they may be: I see only a master and slaves, not a people and its leader. Call it an aggregation, if you like, but not an association; there is neither a public good nor a body politic. Even if this man had enslaved half the world, he would still be no more than an individual; his interest, distinct from that of others, would still be only a private interest. Should he perish, the empire he leaves behind would remain scattered and unconnected, as an oak crumbles into a heap of ashes after fire has consumed it.
A people, says Grotius, may give itself to a king. According to Grotius, then, a people is a people before it gives itself to a king. This gift itself is a civil act; it presupposes a public deliberation. Before examining the act by which a people chooses a king, then, we would do well to examine the act by which a people becomes a people. For that act, necessarily prior to the other, is the true foundation of society.
Indeed, if there were no prior convention, where—unless the election were unanimous—would the minority's obligation to submit to the majority's choice come from? And by what right do a hundred men who want a master vote on behalf of ten who do not? The rule of majority voting is itself established by convention and presupposes unanimity on at least one occasion.
Plain English translation
Mouseia’s complete Plain English edition, made independently and directly from the complete French text of the 1762 edition, all four books and the appendix.
Why We Must Always Go Back to an Initial Agreement.
Even if I granted everything I have argued against so far, supporters of despotism would be no further ahead. There is always a big difference between subduing a crowd and governing a society. Suppose scattered people are enslaved one after another by a single man, however many there are. I see only a master and slaves, not a people and its leader. You can call it a gathering, but not an association. There is no public good and no political body. Even if this man enslaves half the world, he is still just an individual. His interest, separate from everyone else's, is still private. If he dies, the empire he leaves falls apart, with nothing to hold it together, just as an oak breaks down into a heap of ashes after fire consumes it.
A people, Grotius says, can give itself to a king. So according to Grotius a people is already a people before giving itself to a king. Giving itself is itself a civil act and assumes public deliberation. Before examining how a people chooses a king, then, it would be wise to examine how a people becomes a people. That act must come first and is the true foundation of society.
Indeed, if there had been no prior agreement, why would the minority have to accept the majority's choice, unless the election was unanimous? And how can a hundred people who want a master have the right to vote on behalf of ten who do not? The rule of majority voting is itself established by agreement and assumes unanimity at least once.