E — Etats, Gouvernemens
Original French
Quel est le meilleur?
Je n’ai jusqu’à présent connu personne qui n’ait gouverné quelque état. Je ne parle pas de Messieurs les ministres, qui gouvernent en effet, les uns deux ou trois ans, les autres six mois, les autres six semaines; je parle de tous les autres hommes qui à souper ou dans leur cabinet étalent leur systême de gouvernement, réformant les armées, l’église, la robe & la finance.
L’abbé de Bourzeis se mit à gouverner la France vers l’an 1645. sous le nom de cardinal de Richelieu, & fit ce testament politique dans lequel il veut enroler la noblesse dans la cavalerie pour trois ans, faire payer la taille aux chambres des comptes & aux parlements, priver le roi du produit de la gabelle; il assure surtout que pour entrer en campagne avec cinquante mille hommes, il faut par économie en lever cent mille. Il affirme que la Provence seule a beaucoup plus de beaux ports de mer, que l’Espagne & l’Italie ensemble.
L’abbé de Bourzeis n’avait pas voyagé. Au reste, son ouvrage fourmille d’anacronismes & d’erreurs; il fait signer le cardinal de Richelieu d’une maniére dont il ne signa jamais, ainsi qu’il le fait parler comme il n’a jamais parlé. Au surplus, il employe un chapitre entier à dire que la raison doit être la règle d’un état, & à tâcher de prouver cette découverte; cet ouvrage de ténèbres, ce bâtard de l’abbé de Bourzeis a passé longtemps pour le fils légitime du cardinal de Richelieu, & tous les académiciens, dans leurs discours de réception, ne manquaient pas de loüer démesurément ce chef-d’œuvre de politique.
Le Sr. Gratien de Courtils voyant le succès du testament politique de Richelieu, fit imprimer à la Haye le testament de Colbert, avec une belle lettre de Mr. Colbert au Roi. Il est clair que si ce ministre avait fait un pareil testament; il eût falu l’interdire; cependant ce livre a été cité par quelques auteurs. Un autre gredin, dont on ignore le nom, ne manqua pas de donner le testament de Louvois, plus mauvais encor, s’il se peut, que celui de Colbert; & un abbé de Chévremont fit tester aussi Charles Duc de Lorraine.
Mr. de Boisguilebert, auteur du détail de la France, imprimé en 1695. donna le projet inéxécutable de la dixme royale, sous le nom du maréchal de Vauban.
Un fou nommé la Jonchère, qui n’avait pas de pain, fit en 1720. un projet de finance en quatre volumes, & quelques sots ont cité cette production, comme un ouvrage de la Jonchère le trésorier général, s’imaginant qu’un trésorier ne peut faire un mauvais livre de finances.
Mais il faut convenir que des hommes très-sages, très dignes peut-être de gouverner, ont écrit sur l’administration des états, soit en France, soit en Espagne, soit en Angleterre. Leurs livres ont fait beaucoup de bien; ce n’est pas qu’ils ayent corrigé les ministres qui étaient en place quand ces livres parurent, car un ministre ne se corrige point, & ne peut se coriger; il a pris sa croissance, plus d’instructions, plus de conseils, il n’a pas le temps de les écouter, le courant des affaires l’emporte; mais ces bons livres forment les jeunes gens destinés aux places, ils forment les princes, & la seconde génération est instruite.
Le fort & le faible de tous les gouvernements a été examiné de près dans les derniers temps. Dites moi donc, vous qui avez voyagé, qui avez lû & vû, dans quel état, dans quelle sorte de gouvernement voudriez-vous être né? Je conçois qu’un grand seigneur terrien en France ne serait pas fâché d’être né en Allemagne; il serait souverain, au lieu d’être sujet. Un pair de France serait fort aise d’avoir les privilèges de la pairie Anglaise, il serait législateur.
L’homme de robe & le financier se trouveraient mieux en France qu’ailleurs.
Mais quelle patrie choisirait un homme sage, libre, un homme d’une fortune médiocre, & sans préjugés?
Un membre du conseil de Pondicheri, assez savant, revenait en Europe par terre avec un Brame, plus instruit que les Brames ordinaires. Comment trouvez-vous le gouvernement du grand Mogol? dit le conseiller. Abominable, répondit le Brame; comment voulez-vous qu’un état soit heureusement gouverné par des Tartares? Nos Rayas, nos Omras, nos Nababs sont fort contents; mais les citoyens ne le sont guères, & des millions de citoyens sont quelque chose.
Le Conseiller & le Brame traversèrent en raisonnant toute la haute Asie. Je fais une réflexion, dit le Brame, c’est qu’il n’y a pas une république dans toute cette vaste partie du monde; Il y a eu autrefois celle de Tyr, dit le conseiller, mais elle n’a pas duré longtemps; il y en avait encor une autre vers l’Arabie pétrée, dans un petit coin nommé la Palestine, si on peut honorer du nom de république une horde de voleurs & d’usuriers, tantôt gouvernée par des juges, tantôt par des espèces de rois, tantôt par des grands pontifes, devenue esclave sept ou huit fois, & enfin chassée du pays qu’elle avait usurpé.
Je conçois, dit le Brame, qu’on ne doit trouver sur la terre que très peu de républiques. Les hommes sont rarement dignes de se gouverner eux-mêmes. Ce bonheur ne doit appartenir qu’à de petits peuples, qui se cachent dans des îles, ou entre des montagnes, comme des lapins qui se dérobent aux animaux carnassiers, mais à la longue ils sont découverts & dévorés.
Quand les deux voyageurs furent arrivés dans l’Asie mineure, le conseiller dit au Brame, Croiriez-vous bien qu’il y a eu une république formée dans un coin de l’Italie, qui a duré plus de cinq cent ans, & qui a possédé cette Asie mineure, l’Asie, l’Afrique, la Grèce, les Gaules, l’Espagne, & l’Italie entiére? Elle se tourna donc bien vîte en monarchie, dit le Brame; Vous l’avez deviné, dit l’autre. Mais cette monarchie est tombée, & nous faisons tous les jours de belles dissertations pour trouver les causes de sa décadence & de sa chûte. Vous prenez bien de la peine, dit l’indien; cet empire est tombé parce qu’il existait. Il faut bien que tout tombe; j’espère bien qu’il en arrivera tout autant à l’empire du grand Mogol.
A propos, dit l’Européan, croyez-vous qu’il faille plus d’honneur dans un état despotique, & plus de vertu dans une république? L’indien, s’étant fait expliquer ce qu’on entend par honneur, répondit que l’honneur était plus nécessaire dans une république, & qu’on avait bien plus besoin de vertu dans un état monarchique. Car, dit-il, un homme qui prétend être élu par le peuple, ne le sera pas s’il est deshonoré; au lieu qu’à la cour il poura aisément obtenir une charge, selon la maxime d’un grand prince, qu’un courtisan pour réüssir doit n’avoir ni honneur, ni humeur. A l’égard de la vertu, il en faut prodigieusement dans une cour pour oser dire la vérité. L’homme vertueux est bien plus à son aise dans une république, il n’a personne à flater.
Croyez-vous, dit l'homme d’Europe, que les loix & les religions soient faites pour les climats, de même qu’il faut des fourures à Moscou, & des étoffes de gaze à Dély? Oui, sans doute, dit le Brame; toutes les loix qui concernent la physique, sont calculées pour le méridien qu'on habite; il ne faut qu’une femme à un Allemand, & il en faut trois ou quatre à un Persan.
Les rites de la religion sont de même nature. Comment voudriez-vous, si j’étais chrétien, que je disse la messe dans ma province, où il n’y a ni pain ni vin? A l’égard des dogmes, c’est autre chose; le climat n’y fait rien. Vôtre religion n’a-t-elle pas commencé en Asie, d’où elle a été chassée; n’existe-t-elle pas vers la mer Baltique, où elle était inconnüe?
Dans quel état, sous quelle domination aimeriez-vous mieux vivre? dit le conseiller. Partout ailleurs que chez moi, dit son compagnon; & j’ai trouvé beaucoup de Siamois, de Tunquinois, de Persans, & de Turcs qui en disaient autant. Mais encor une fois, dit l’Européan, quel état choisiriez-vous? Le Brame répondit; Celui où l’on n’obéit qu’aux loix. C’est une vieille réponse, dit le conseiller; Elle n’en est pas plus mauvaise, dit le Brame. Où est ce pays-là? dit le conseiller. Le Brame dit, Il faut le chercher.
Musean translation
Mouseia’s complete machine-assisted Musean translation of the 73 articles in the 1764 first edition, made directly from the French and reviewed against the scan-collated French text. The author’s notes, quotations and verse are retained. Historical ethnic labels, including offensive terms, are retained from the 1764 text.
Which is best?
So far I have known no one who has not governed some state. I do not mean the ministers, who really do govern, some for two or three years, others for six months, others for six weeks. I mean all the other men who, over supper or in their studies, display their systems of government, reforming the armies, the Church, the judiciary, and the finances.
Around 1645 the Abbé de Bourzeis set about governing France under the name of Cardinal Richelieu, and made that political testament in which he wishes to enroll the nobility in the cavalry for three years, make the audit chambers and parlements pay the taille, and deprive the king of the proceeds of the salt tax. Above all, he assures us that to take the field with fifty thousand men, economy requires raising a hundred thousand. He affirms that Provence alone has far more fine seaports than Spain and Italy together.
The Abbé de Bourzeis had not traveled. Moreover, his work swarms with anachronisms and errors; he makes Cardinal Richelieu sign in a fashion in which he never signed, just as he makes him speak as he never spoke. Besides this, he spends a whole chapter saying that reason must be a state’s rule and trying to prove this discovery. This work of darkness, this bastard of the Abbé de Bourzeis, long passed for Cardinal Richelieu’s legitimate son; and all the academicians, in their admission speeches, never failed to praise this masterpiece of politics beyond measure.
Seeing the success of Richelieu’s Political Testament, a certain Gratien de Courtilz had Colbert’s testament printed at The Hague, with a fine letter from Mr. Colbert to the king. Clearly, had that minister made such a testament, he would have had to be declared incompetent; yet some authors have cited this book. Another scoundrel, whose name is unknown, did not fail to produce Louvois’ testament, worse still, if possible, than Colbert’s; and an Abbé de Chèvremont also made Charles, Duke of Lorraine, draw up a will.
Mr. de Boisguilbert, author of The Detail of France, printed in 1695, produced the impracticable scheme of the royal tithe under the name of Marshal Vauban.
In 1720 a madman named La Jonchère, who had no bread, produced a financial scheme in four volumes; and some fools have cited this production as a work of La Jonchère the treasurer-general, imagining that a treasurer cannot write a bad book on finance.
But it must be admitted that very wise men, perhaps very worthy of governing, have written on the administration of states, in France, Spain, and England. Their books have done much good: not that they corrected the ministers in office when these books appeared, for a minister does not correct himself and cannot correct himself. He is fully grown; no more instruction, no more advice—he has no time to listen. The current of affairs carries him away. But these good books train the young people destined for office; they train princes, and the second generation is instructed.
The strengths and weaknesses of all governments have been closely examined in recent times. Tell me, then, you who have traveled, read, and seen: in what state, under what kind of government, would you wish to have been born? I can understand that a great landed lord in France would not mind having been born in Germany: he would be a sovereign instead of a subject. A peer of France would be very glad to have the privileges of an English peer: he would be a legislator.
The magistrate and the financier would find themselves better off in France than elsewhere.
But what country would a wise, free, unprejudiced man of moderate fortune choose?
A fairly learned member of the council of Pondicherry was returning to Europe overland with a Brahmin more knowledgeable than ordinary Brahmins. “What do you think of the Great Mogul’s government?” asked the councilor. “Abominable,” answered the Brahmin. “How do you expect a state to be happily governed by Tartars? Our rajas, our omrahs, our nawabs are very content; but the citizens are hardly so, and millions of citizens count for something.”
The councilor and the Brahmin traveled through all Upper Asia, reasoning as they went. “Something occurs to me,” said the Brahmin: “there is not a republic in this whole vast part of the world.” “There was once Tyre,” said the councilor, “but it did not last long. There was another toward Arabia Petraea, in a little corner called Palestine—if one can honor with the name of republic a horde of thieves and usurers, governed now by judges, now by a kind of kings, now by high pontiffs, enslaved seven or eight times and finally driven from the country it had usurped.”
“I can understand,” said the Brahmin, “that very few republics are to be found on earth. Men are seldom worthy of governing themselves. This happiness can belong only to little peoples hiding on islands or among mountains, like rabbits escaping carnivorous animals; but in the long run they are discovered and devoured.”
When the two travelers reached Asia Minor, the councilor said to the Brahmin: “Would you believe that a republic formed in a corner of Italy lasted more than five hundred years and possessed this Asia Minor, Asia, Africa, Greece, Gaul, Spain, and all Italy?” “Then it very quickly turned into a monarchy,” said the Brahmin. “You have guessed it,” said the other. “But this monarchy fell, and every day we write fine dissertations to discover the causes of its decline and fall.” “You take a great deal of trouble,” said the Indian. “That empire fell because it existed. Everything must fall. I very much hope the same will happen to the Great Mogul’s empire.”
“By the way,” said the European, “do you think more honor is needed in a despotic state and more virtue in a republic?” After having the meaning of honor explained to him, the Indian answered that honor was more necessary in a republic and virtue far more needed in a monarchical state. “For,” he said, “a man who hopes to be elected by the people will not be elected if he is dishonored; whereas at court he may easily obtain an office, according to a great prince’s maxim that to succeed a courtier must have neither honor nor temper. As for virtue, a prodigious amount is needed at court to dare speak the truth. The virtuous man is far more comfortable in a republic: he has no one to flatter.”
“Do you believe,” said the European, “that laws and religions are made for climates, just as furs are needed in Moscow and gauze fabrics in Delhi?” “Yes, undoubtedly,” said the Brahmin. “All laws concerning physical things are calculated for the meridian where one lives. A German needs only one wife; a Persian needs three or four.
“Religious rites are of the same nature. If I were a Christian, how could you expect me to say Mass in my province, where there is neither bread nor wine? Doctrines are another matter: climate has nothing to do with them. Did your religion not begin in Asia, from which it was driven out? Does it not exist near the Baltic Sea, where it was unknown?”
“In what state, under what dominion, would you most like to live?” asked the councilor. “Anywhere but my own country,” said his companion; “and I have found many Siamese, Tonkinese, Persians, and Turks who said the same.” “But once again,” said the European, “what state would you choose?” The Brahmin answered, “One where only the laws are obeyed.” “That is an old answer,” said the councilor. “It is no worse for that,” said the Brahmin. “Where is this country?” asked the councilor. The Brahmin said, “We must look for it.”
Plain English translation
Mouseia’s complete machine-assisted Plain English translation of the same 73 articles, made directly from the French and reviewed against the scan-collated French text. The author’s notes, quotations and verse are retained. Historical ethnic labels, including offensive terms, are retained from the 1764 text.
Which is best?
I’ve yet to meet anyone who hasn’t run a state. I’m not talking about the ministers who really do run them. Some last two or three years, some six months, some six weeks. I mean all the other men with plans for government. At supper or in their studies, they explain how they’d reform the army, the Church, the courts, and public finances.
The abbé de Bourzeis started running France around 1645, using Cardinal Richelieu’s name. He wrote the political testament that proposes three years of cavalry service for nobles. It would make the courts of accounts and the parlements pay the land tax. It would also take the salt-tax revenue away from the king. Above all, he insists on this economy: to put fifty thousand men in the field, recruit a hundred thousand. He claims that Provence by itself has many more fine seaports than Spain and Italy put together.
The abbé de Bourzeis hadn’t traveled. His book is also packed with errors and things placed in the wrong period. The signature he gives Richelieu is nothing like the cardinal’s real signature. Nor does Richelieu ever talk the way he makes him talk. A whole chapter explains that a state must take reason as its guide. He even tries to prove this discovery. This dark, confusing book was Bourzeis’s bastard child. For a long time, people took it for Richelieu’s legitimate son. Every new member of the Academy, in his admission speech, lavished praise on this masterpiece of politics.
Richelieu’s political testament did so well that Mr. Gratien de Courtilz followed its example. In The Hague, he published Colbert’s testament, with a fine letter from Colbert to the king. A minister who actually wrote such a testament would clearly need to be declared legally incapable. Still, some writers have quoted this book. Another scoundrel, whose name we don’t know, duly brought out Louvois’s testament. If possible, it was even worse than Colbert’s. An abbé de Chévremont also supplied a testament for Charles, Duke of Lorraine.
Mr. de Boisguilebert wrote the Detailed Account of France, printed in 1695. Under Marshal de Vauban’s name, he put out the royal-tithe scheme, which couldn’t possibly work.
La Jonchère was a madman who couldn’t afford bread. In 1720 he produced a four-volume plan for public finances. Some fools have quoted it as the work of La Jonchère the treasurer general. They seem to think a treasurer can’t write a bad book on finance.
Still, we have to admit that some very wise men have written about running states. Perhaps they’d have been very fit to govern. France, Spain, and England have had such writers, and their books have done great good. They didn’t change the ministers in office when the books appeared. Ministers don’t change, and can’t change. A minister has finished growing. No more teaching, no more advice: he has no time to listen. The flow of business sweeps him along. But these good books teach young men who’ll hold office later. They teach princes too. The next generation learns from them.
Lately, people have closely studied what makes every government strong or weak. You’ve traveled, you’ve read, you’ve seen things. Tell me which state and kind of government you’d have liked to be born under. I can see why a great French landowning nobleman might prefer a German birth. Instead of being a subject, he’d rule in his own right. A French peer would love the privileges of an English peer. He’d have a part in making laws.
For someone in the courts or public finance, France would be better than anywhere else.
But suppose a man is wise, free, and unprejudiced, with modest means. What country would he pick?
A fairly learned councilor from Pondicherry was traveling back to Europe overland. His companion was a Brahmin who knew more than most Brahmins. The councilor asked, “How do you like the Great Mogul’s government?” “It’s dreadful,” the Brahmin answered. “How could a state do well under Tartar rule? Our rajas, omrahs, and nawabs are quite pleased. The citizens aren’t so happy. And millions of citizens matter.”
They kept discussing things as they crossed the whole of Upper Asia. The Brahmin said, “Something strikes me. There’s no republic anywhere in this huge part of the world.” The councilor answered, “Tyre used to have one, but it didn’t last long. There was another near Arabia Petraea, in a small corner called Palestine. That is, if a horde of thieves and loan sharks deserves the name of republic. Judges ruled them at times, a kind of king at others, and sometimes high priests. They were enslaved seven or eight times. Finally they were driven from the country they’d taken over.”
The Brahmin said, “I can see why the earth has so few republics. People rarely deserve to govern themselves. Only small peoples can enjoy that good fortune. They hide on islands or between mountains, like rabbits hiding from predators. But eventually they’re found and eaten.”
In Asia Minor, the councilor asked his companion, “Would you believe a corner of Italy once produced a republic that lasted over five hundred years? It held this Asia Minor, Asia, Africa, Greece, the Gauls, Spain, and the whole of Italy.” The Brahmin said, “Then it must soon have become a monarchy.” “You guessed right,” the councilor answered. “But the monarchy fell. Every day we write fine essays explaining why it declined and fell.” The Indian replied, “You’re taking a lot of trouble. That empire fell because it existed. Everything has to fall. I certainly hope the Great Mogul’s empire does too.”
“By the way,” the European asked, “does a despotic state need more honor, and a republic more virtue?” The Indian asked what honor meant. Once he’d heard the explanation, he gave the opposite answer. A republic needed honor more, and a monarchy needed virtue much more. “A disgraced man won’t get elected by the people,” he explained. “But he can easily get a job at court. A great prince put it this way: a successful courtier needs neither honor nor a temper. As for virtue, you need a tremendous amount to dare tell the truth at court. A virtuous man feels much more comfortable in a republic. There’s nobody he has to flatter.”
The European asked, “Are laws and religions meant to suit the climate? Is it like needing furs in Moscow and gauze in Delhi?” “Certainly,” the Brahmin replied. “All laws dealing with physical matters are fitted to where you live. A German needs just one wife; a Persian needs three or four.
“It’s the same with religious rites. Suppose I were Christian. How could I say Mass in my province, where there’s no bread or wine? Beliefs are different. Climate doesn’t affect them. Your religion started in Asia, didn’t it? It was driven out of there. Now it exists along the Baltic Sea, where it used to be unknown.”
The councilor asked, “What state would you most like to live in, and under whose rule?” His companion replied, “Anywhere but my own country. I’ve met plenty of Siamese, Tonkinese, Persians, and Turks who said the same.” “But I ask again,” the European said, “which state would you choose?” The Brahmin answered, “A place where the laws alone command obedience.” “That’s an old answer,” said the councilor. “Its age doesn’t make it worse,” the Brahmin replied. “Where is this country?” the councilor asked. “We’ll have to look for it,” said the Brahmin.
About this section
E — Etats, Gouvernemens is part of Pocket Philosophical Dictionary by Voltaire. This page sets the French original beside 2 direct-source translations, so any line can be checked against the source. It is article 36 of 73 in the work, which is kept in the European tradition.
Open the work page for the full contents, every edition, and the download links, or go back to Explore to browse other complete works in the European tradition. The reader keeps your place when you are signed in and lets you compare the original with each translation, one edition at a time.