Department of History, Zhejiang University Zhang Chi
In my collection, Da Rangsong's "On the Ancient and Modern Government of France" (1765) is very special. First, because this book had a great influence on the development of French political thought in the 18th century, but this influence itself was not so obvious and seemed very mysterious; second, because one of the owners of this book was famous, their family influenced ten times. European politics in the second half of the ninth century.
First talk about the circulation and publication of the manuscript "On the Ancient and Modern Government of France" and its relationship with French thoughts at that time.
Rousseau has cited many books in his " Social Contract Theory ", one of which he cited the most, four times before and after, and gave a very high evaluation. In one of the citations (Volume 4, Chapter 8), Rousseau wrote:
I have cited a manuscript that the public has not yet known, and cannot resist the fun in it. I want to pay tribute to this outstanding and proud person. Although he is in the Tai Pavilion, he has always maintained a true citizen's heart and maintained a correct and healthy view of his national government.
Later in a letter to Leonhard Usteri, Rousseau revealed that the author of the manuscript he mentioned in "The Social Contract" was the "late Marquis Darensong". He continued to praise that despite his high position and serving as Foreign Minister, Tajangsong was still "a righteous and kind-hearted person." In 1764, it was under the promotion of Rousseau that the manuscript was officially published for the first time. At this time, Tajangsong had passed away for seven years. Another philosopher who praised Darensong was Voltaire . The two of them may have known each other when they were in Louis King high school and maintained a lifelong friendship. Darensong revealed his idea of writing "About the Ancient and Modern Government of France" to Voltaire very early, and sent him a copy of the manuscript on May 1, 1739. After reading it, Voltaire said in his reply: "In your work, I discovered all my thoughts." The influence of "About the Ancient and Modern Government of France" is not only that, it also has the political reforms and politics of France before the revolution. The radicalization of the big debate has a direct impact. However, in the genealogy of the history of political thought, the image of "About the Ancient and Modern Government of France" is not so clear and there is not much research. Most of the works will mention Da Rangsong, but what impact his "About the Ancient and Modern Government of France" has had is unknown. "History of Political Thought in Cambridge 18th Century" mentions Da Jeansong's name only twice. There are not many researches, only one monograph, and there are several articles, but they only involve some perspectives in Da Rangsong. In 2019, Canadian scholar Janchill (Andrew Jainchill) proofread and compiled it based on multiple manuscripts and published by the Voltaire Foundation. This is the first reprint of this book after the 18th century. So, from a research perspective, Darensong and his "About the Ancient and Modern Government of France" are like a mystery to be solved, which is very attractive.
I noticed that Da Rangsong was also accidental. I was very interested in the history of French institutions in the 18th century and I was even more interested in reforming local administrative systems. Because this is related to another issue that people in the study of the eighteenth century will pay attention to, that is, what reforms did the French government carry out in the old system? Why can't reform save the monarchy? Regarding the reform of this administrative system, Pierre Renouvin (1893-1974), a giant in the history of international relations, wrote a very detailed book in the 1920s, "The Provincial Parliament in 1787: Origin, Development and Results 》, specifically analyzes and discusses local administrative reforms in 1787. This reform has established a brand new "provincial parliament" in 17 fiscal and taxation districts across the country. The scope and impact of this are far greater than any previous reform. When analyzing the ideological origin of the "provincial parliament" reform, Lenuvan talked about "About the Ancient and Modern Government of France". He believed that this book has a turning point, because before, although some people mentioned administrative reforms, they were only targeting local issues. Repair, and the "On the Ancient and Modern Government of France" proposed a comprehensive reform for the first time, requiring not only abolishing privileges, but also allowing proprietors to participate in local management (Page 10).This caught my attention: Since Darensong was a noble, why did he not defend local privileges like Marquis Mirapo, advocate the establishment of local three-level meetings, but instead oppose his own hierarchical interests? His plan looks very modern on the surface, not only is it very similar to the reform plan in 1787, but it is also very similar to the basic spirit of the Constituent Assembly in 1789 to reform the local administrative system? Why did such a plan come from a nobleman from the first half of the eighteenth century? So, I started reading Da Rangsong.
Tatsumatsu came from an ancient aristocratic family. The family history can be traced back to 1244, and similar families have become very rare in the eighteenth century. Since the seventeenth century, the Tajangsong family has held a position as a senior civilian in the government. Dajensong's experience is not much different from most nobles at that time: graduated from prestigious schools (Louis King High School, University of Paris), exile from other provinces (he served as the supervisor of Eno-Cambresis in the southwest for three years), and returned to Paris to work ( As a consultant in different departments) and promoted (assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs in 1744). However, Tatsuratsu was not good at being an official and was ridiculed as a "fool" by people in the officialdom at that time. After three years as minister, he resigned and retired and focused on writing. However, he wrote not much, and even fewer were officially published during his lifetime. He signed and published only one book on the public law of the church. In addition, he published it in the Journal of Economics (Journal Œconomique, founded in 1751 and suspended in 1772). Five articles. Tajangsong left a lot of notes, diaries and memorials. After his death, these materials were inherited by his descendants and confiscated by the authorities during the French Revolution for various reasons. They were later owned by the Bibliothèque du Louvre and the Arsenal Library respectively. In the first half of the 19th century, scholars published two versions of Tajangsong's memoirs and diaries based on the collection of the Louvre Library. Because Tajangsong has a keen observation and a unique view of the current situation, his diary is an indispensable material for anyone studying the eighteenth century. In 1871, the Louvre Library unfortunately caught fire and the materials were burned. Fortunately, Darensong's descendants copied some of the materials before this, which are now in the Library of Poitiers University.
"On the Ancient and Modern Government of France" is one of Darensong's main works. It was first printed in 1764 and reprinted the following year. The same manuscript is likely to be used in these two publications, and there is little difference. According to a German historian's research, this manuscript may be the manuscript he collected in "Theory of Social Contract". However, Rousseau had a lot of opinions on this edition. He said in his letter that there were too many errors and omissions, and some important paragraphs in the manuscript were deleted for some reason, so he wanted to reprint it, but it failed to achieve it in the end. In 1784, Paulmy d’Argenson, son of Tatsuron Matsu, republished the book.
In his preface, he claimed that this edition was based on the last draft left by his father during his lifetime. This draft is very different from the 1764 edition. However, since Tarantongsong's literary treasure was destroyed, it is actually unlikely that we will know whether he made any other modifications after giving it to Yue Rousseau and others. However, based on some of the contents, it can be speculated that at least some parts cannot be made by Da Renmatsu, because their content and wording are the same as those of Durge and his assistant Nemore de DuPont's "Memorandum of Municipal Management" ( Mémoires sur les municipalités) is very close. However, people were deceived at that time. Marquis Mirapo, the representative of the School of Agricultural Reward, exclaimed: Durge's "Memorandum of Municipal Management" is "as true to Darensong's "Democracy". This also made more people more confident in the reform of the provincial parliament. This also reflects Taratsu's reputation among literati from another perspective.
1737 manuscript cover (Manuscript 2)
The manuscript of "On the Ancient and Modern Government of France" is more complicated. Because Da Rangsong revised the manuscript many times, and the different revised versions have been circulating in the literary circle for a long time. Therefore, there are many versions left behind, and the content is different. It is difficult to give a clear answer which draft is earlier. In addition, the title of the manuscript is completely different from that of the printed version. Researcher Giangill searched for major French libraries and compiled four major versions. The title is translated as follows:
Manuscript 1: Political Paper.To what extent democracy is accepted by the monarchical government. Until democracy was accepted by the monarchical government, responding to Mr. Blanvilier's political paper on supporting the ancient feudal government in France. 1737. (In the manuscript, the underlined part is the deletion symbol)
Manuscript 2: Until democracy is accepted by the monarchical government. This political paper was created by Blanvilier's political paper on the ancient feudal government of France. 1737 (see picture above)
Manuscript 3: Until democracy is accepted by the monarchical government. 1752 (destroyed in the fire in 1871, and was based on the draft in 1764)
Manuscript 4: Until democracy was accepted by the monarchical government (no date)
Jangel's book uses "Manuscript 2" as the basis. He believed that judging from the transcription situation and binding style, "Manuscript 2" seems to be the most formal manuscript, and it is likely that it was the final draft handed over by Tatsurasong to friends for review. Jangill carefully proofreads "Manuscript 2" from other manuscripts and the 1764 book, and found more than 1,800 differences. However, there is no need to explain these differences in detail here, but only talk about some basic situations related to the manuscript.
First, "1737" is the earliest date that appears on all manuscripts. This is likely the date of the draft, but not the date of drafting. Based on existing materials, the manuscript was drafted around the late 1720s. At that time, Dajensong was a member of the club de l’Entresol, the most famous political salon in Paris. He had revealed to the club members that he was considering some institutional issues regarding the monarchy. Around 1733, he formed some ideas. In a note this year, he said he would "write a paper specifically" to discuss "how to make the monarchical government accept the concept of democracy." The "mezzanine club" was a very important political club in the first half of the 18th century. It was not large in scale, but its status was extraordinary. Thought historian Charleston believes that "from Bosue's "On Politics in the Bible" to Montesquieu's "The Spirit of the Law", the transformation of French political thought was laid out by the manuscripts of the members of the mezzanine club." .
In addition, from the title of "Manuscript 1", it can be inferred that "response to Mr. Blanvilier..." is likely to be the initially proposed subtitle, but it was gradually abandoned later. This title reveals an important message. Darensong's original purpose in writing this book was probably to debate with Blanvilier. Blanvilier was a historian in the early 18th century. He wrote "History of Ancient French Government", etc., and is the representative of "thèse nobiliare". The so-called "noble theory" simply means that France originated from the conquest of the Franks. The history of conquest established the legitimacy of aristocratic power, supported the feudal system, and believed that the absolute monarchy violated the spirit of the "ancient political system" in their ideals. . Opposite it is the "royale". The royalists believed that the French political system originated from Rome and was an absolute monarchy from beginning to end. The feudal system was distorted and the corruption of the system, and the political system established by Louis XIV was precisely the return of the "ancient political system". Since Dajens refuted Branville, he is a member of the "king faction". His support for the monarchy and opposition to the aristocratic power expressed in "About the Ancient and Modern French Government" can all be regarded as evidence.
Why did “response to Mr. Blanvilier…” gradually disappear later? I guess there may be two reasons. First of all, Tajangsong's attitude towards the "king faction" was originally reserved, which may be related to his experience in other provinces. Eno Cambresis, under the jurisdiction of Darensun, is a barren and backward area. Although this experience was not long, it left him with deep memories. Da Rangsong left a lot of words in his memories and diary, describing the sufferings of local people. He even compared France behind Louis XIV to a "huge shelter." He believes that "pas trop gouverner" is the reason why the poverty in other provinces cannot be ignored, because it ignores local interests and social welfare. Everything serves Versailles and everything serves the palace. It can be seen that he felt that the king was too absolute and excessive interference was the main reason for social barrenness.Another reason may be that Darensong believes that if he wants to get rid of social poverty, he must make "public welfare" the basic principle of rule, and avoid interference in self-interest and "over-regulation". These thoughts are far beyond " The debate between the theory of aristocraticism and the theory of kingship. Therefore, the original title was discarded.
There is also a material that can confirm the changes in Da Rangsong's thoughts and attitudes. Tajangsong was very dissatisfied with the High Court, believing that this was a group of selfish nobles and felt that the High Court should only take charge of the lawsuit and not interfere in other matters. But "Manuscript 4" is different on this issue. Tajangson fully recognized the traditional rights of the High Court, believing that such rights were "a great benefit to both subjects and public order" (p. 172). This material is likely written in the 1750s, when the High Court and the King were confronting each other due to tax issues and refused to give in. This history may have made Tajangson realize that the High Court has an irreplaceable role in restricting the monarchy. In his diary of March 12, 1749, he wrote about the opposition of the Bordeaux High Court to tithe: This move by the High Court was "Not for their own rights, not for their own arrogant privileges, but for the people groaning in poverty and taxation." (Journal et mémoires, tome 5, p. 410)
The French political liberalism in the eighteenth century was born largely from a deep understanding of people's sufferings and social inequality. For the generation of Darensong, the history of Louis XIV's late rule not only frustrated their nationalist complex, but also allowed them to witness with their own eyes the disaster brought about by the infinitely inflated desire for power. The facts prove in an irrefutable way that "national rationality" does not always match "bien public" or "peuple interests" and that conflicts between the two are definitely not the case. Accidental phenomenon. In the text to Louis XIV, Fernelon even refused to call Louis XIV by "Majesté". The reason is very simple. The people are "hungry and cold, hungry and cold", which is completely The fault of "king and father". The feeling of compassion for the world first gave birth to a social philosophy that emphasizes humanitarianism and social equality. Plans for building public welfare have begun to emerge, and people have called on the state and society to assume the responsibilities of public charity. In addition, economic freedom thought has begun to mature and gradually integrates a natural order into the analysis of the economic process. In Buaguilber's view, spontaneous adjustment of market and price is a more stable, balanced and healthier order. Therefore, public welfare or the interests of the people are regarded as new norms, and even replaces "national rationality" and "national interests", and regards it as the standard for good governance of society, which is the basic goal of governance.
However, despite sympathy with society and criticism of Louis XIV, this generation has not yet opposed the monarchy. They are just reformers, not revolutionaries. Their purpose is to adjust the order of the kingdom to ensure that public welfare can be reflected, rather than subvert the order. Their ideas are not complicated: since most problems are caused by "overregulation" of power, restoring reasonable order means that the tentacles of power should not be extended too long. Expressed in the economic and commercial field, this is anti-mercantilist speech, and reflected in the political field, that is, a kind of political liberalism. However, this kind of political liberalism is not about rights, but about interests, not about participation in politics, but about governance. In the final analysis, it is about how to ensure that the interests of subjects are smoothly reflected and reasonably implemented.
Darjensong is also responding to this question. He believes that the problem of France is that "the more absolute the monarchy is, the more public power can crush everything, destroy everything, annihilate everything, society will become weak and the population will decrease" (Mémoires et journal inédit, tome 5, p. 364) . Therefore, it is necessary to curb public power and to get rid of "an almost universal prejudice since Richelieu's rule, that is, the glory and power of the authority of the royal authority lies in the slavery of the subjects" (dépendance service, Considérations, p. 73 ).He believes that the way out is to apply the principle of economic freedom to the national management level. Darensong put forward a very "advanced" slogan: the better you manage
, the less you should manage. (Pour gouverner mieux il faudrait gouverner moins,Journal et mémoires, tome 8, p. 220)
Why "the better you manage, the less you should manage"? Tajangsong gave two reasons. The first reason comes from experience, because the principle of "laissez aller la nature et la liberte natureelle, Journal et mémoires, tome 4, p. 454) has made the prosperity of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands , so There is no reason France cannot benefit from it. The second reason comes from theory, which is in the traditional absolute monarchy, because the monarchy should be like God, "God ruled everything and assisted everything, but would allow all causes seconds to operate freely... All ruling skills ( art du gouvernement is to imitate God perfectly” (Considérations, p. 84). Therefore, the royal power should be "regulated but not ruled". The part that the monarch lets go is filled by what he calls "administration populaire". To this end, Da Rangsong initially designed a local administrative system. The reform was not to erode the royal power, so the supervisor was retained. He represented the "guverner" of the royal power, but his power was restricted and he only played the role of "inspection", did not directly interfere in local affairs, and he also changed his election every three years. "People's management" is under the responsibility of "magistrats populaires", whose powers are similar to those of the provincial three-level meetings, and are responsible for local public security and taxation. The way of "civilian officials" is very special. They are not elected by the people, but are first "referred by the people through voting", and then the supervisor and his adjutant negotiate and decide. This is a brand new administrative role and the most distinctive part of Darensong's reform plan. Another unique feature of this plan is that Darensong envisions dividing the country into several "provinces" (département, Considérations, p. 84), each province with a smaller area than the current "financial and taxation zone" (généralité) to establish a unified administration The system means that the supervisor is responsible for supervision, the public officials are responsible for local affairs, and the local high courts are responsible for local justice. Tajangsong distrusts the nobles, so he greatly weakens the power of the High Court. The word "province" originally meant to be shared, including the sharing of tax burden and the sharing of administrative affairs. However, the transformation of Jingda and Rangsong has become an administrative division, with a change in meaning, and this usage has continued to this day.
So, as far as local administrative system reform is concerned, Da Rangsong's idea is very radical, but not radical. He was said to be radical because according to his vision, France's local administrative system would move towards a unified direction, which means that local privileges would no longer exist. Traditionally, the systems of each place are unique and unique, because systems are shaped by "unrememberable" history, and unique history and traditions constitute the essence of local privileges. So, unity means ending local privileges. In fact, one of the purposes of Darensong's reform was to abolish not only local privileges, but also abolition of noble privileges. In his opinion, all privileges are nothing more than feudal remnants. The nobles are essentially "separate from all other civic ranks". To demonstrate the public welfare of the country, it is necessary to completely abolish personal interests, "destroy the nobles", and realize "between citizens". complete equality” (Considérations, p. 194).
Although Darensong's vision is not exactly consistent with the reform in 1787, there is no doubt that he accurately foresaw the basic trend of reform, namely, restoring the tradition of local councils and expanding the social foundation of participation in politics. In addition, his analysis of charity (he has not analyzed the "public opinion") is also very similar to Rousseau's view. His criticism of the aristocratic rank is the word " Siers " "What is the third level·On privilege" It is also very similar, although it is not clear whether he has had a direct impact on the two people's thoughts. It can be seen that Darensong's writing has unusual temptation and is very charming, because it seems to foresee the history of France after the 1880s.In his diary of September 3, 1751, he wrote that France would experience a turmoil, when: the rebellion of
would turn into a total revolution, in which people would elect The people's true tribuns, the people's councils (comices), and the communes, and the kings and ministers will be deprived of their excessively destructive power. (Journal et mémoires, tome 6, p. 463)
This prophecy is not only tempting, but also very confusing. If you are not careful, you can easily regard Da Rangsong as a gravedigger of the monarchy and as He is a prophet of modern democracy. The Cambridge School's John Dunn has this view. In his passionate and literary book, he regards Darensong as the arrival of democracy in the second half of the eighteenth century and further development, he regards Darensong as the re-emergence of democracy in the second half of the eighteenth century and further development. A key part of changing the world. He believed that "On the Ancient and Modern French Government" was one of the most fascinating works on the political situation in France in the early 18th century, and Darensong was originally a monarchist, but a frustrated monarchist who deeply understood the crisis of the system. , believe that only by relying on limited democracy can the system be saved. Based on these judgments, Dunn believes that in his entire political life, what sets him apart is that to a certain extent he believes that it is necessary to introduce democratic procedures and institutions into the French way of rule. In his opinion, the necessary reason for establishing these procedures is... the difficulty of establishing public welfare. As far as this problem is concerned, democratic institutions and procedures have their own advantages. (Dunn, 2018, p. 70)
In theory, the Cambridge school should pay more attention to the historical context of text, and will not "look at the text to create meaning" and "explore" like the Strauss school. However, Professor Dunn made a serious mistake. He mistakenly believed that what Da Rangsong called "democracy" was democracy under the theory of people's sovereignty. In fact, this is not the case at all. Darensong does allow the people to participate freely and fully in the local management, but the people do not have sovereignty and do not have any authority. "People officials" are not elected, and it is even more impossible to challenge the supervisor and the royal power. In this regard, Darensong's intentions are very clear. He stressed that all public power comes fundamentally from the royal power (Considérations, p. 171), and the core of reform is to achieve a balance between "attention" and "abandon" and not change "dépendance". But "a certain independence" must be permitted (une espèce d'indépendance, Considérations, p. 86). Democracy is both participation and communication. By abolishing the intermediary barriers between the king and the local government, it ensures direct participation of the people, and achieves orders from above and situations from below. In this sense, the democracy proposed by Darensong has nothing to do with rights, but an administrative means to stimulate the enthusiasm of the people, "to achieve the best results" (Considérations, p. 37). He never opposed the monarchy, nor did he challenge the theory of absolute monarchy. The monarchy's power is not limited, but is more inflated. As long as the monarch's power can represent public welfare, the relationship between the monarch and his subjects can be completely like God and his subjects. This is very similar to the "enlightened autocracy" theory of the Agricultural School. Subjects have power, but they are always limited to the economic and social fields and have nothing to do with politics. They are not sovereigns, they are still subjects.
Of course, although Dunn has problems with his interpretation, his views reflect another related problem. When Darensong first wrote the "On the Ancient and Modern Government of France", he might have considered only social crises, not political crises, but in the 1850s, when he wrote that prophecy about the revolution, he What is considered is obviously a political crisis, not a social crisis. At this time, was the new system he had conceived merely as a system to express social welfare, or a prevention mechanism to prevent the emergence of true people's sovereignty with "limited rights"? This question may be very critical to understanding the direction of France in the mid-century.
Left: Bookmark Right: Madame Standish (Elizabeth II collection, from Wikipedia)
Finally, let’s talk about the previous owner of this collection. She was Madame Standish in the mid-nineteenth century. To Chinese readers, the name Madame Standish sounds a bit strange, but if you mention the Duchess of Guermantes and her salon in Paris, those who have read "Remembrance of the Years" will definitely Have an impression. In fact, Mrs. Standish is the prototype of the Duchess of Gelmount. This lady was a famous lady in Paris and even the upper class in Europe at that time. She was extremely beautiful, talented and fashionable, and she deeply touched Proust's heart. Proust's servant once recorded this: "This lady has always been very beautiful and maintained a very elegant style... Mr. Proust knew her at the home of Countess Greffulhe (1860 -1952, another prototype of the Duchess of Gelmount (I believe that her outfit fascinates him." Mrs. Standish's life experience can be written into a book. She was born in the highly prominent family of Masion de Pérusse des Cars. The history of his family is comparable to that of the Tajangsong family. In the eighteenth century, if the history of the noble family could be traced back to 1400 AD, then it would be of honor to meet the king. This is the "Honneurs de la cour". At that time, there were 350,000 nobles in France, and only 942 noble families had this privilege, of which only 462 had reliable genealogy records. In addition, Mrs. Standish's mother came from the Turtzel family, which was also famous at that time. Duchesse de Tourzel (1749-1832) was Louis XVI's last "Gouvernante des enfants royaux". Mrs. Standish married Henry Noailles Widdrington Standish in 1870. Standish is a prominent British surname that can be traced back to the Norman Conquest. The family was originally a landlord of Lancashire and later inherited the title of landlord of Greater Manchester, and became increasingly powerful. Henry's grandmother was a descendant of the famous French writer Countess Jeanlis (1746-1830), and her relationship with the Orleans family is also extraordinary. Henry was born in Paris and grew up in France. Later, he participated in the army of the Second Empire expedition to Algeria. He had a close relationship with France, and after marrying Mrs. Standish, he had a closer relationship with the French upper class. This relationship provides the Standish family with unique political capital, making it the "guest of honor" of the Prince of Wales. In the second half of the 19th century, Britain and France gave up centuries of hatred and gradually moved towards joining forces. Queen Victoria and her son Prince of Wales are both "pro-French factions". The Prince of Wales is more obsessed with French culture. He spoke very well in French and recruited a group of British and French upper nobles at the Marlborough Palace in London to discuss the European situation, including the Standish couple. When the Prince of Wales lived in Paris, he often went to and from Mrs. Standish's mansion in Paris. What’s more interesting is that Mrs. Standish looks very similar to the prince’s wife, Princess Alexandra, so there are rumors that the prince and Mrs. Standish once had a story. After the Prince of Wales ascended the throne, he needed French aid to ease the situation in Europe, so he relied on the French upper nobles to give advice for him. Under the planning of a think tank including the Standish couple, Britain and France signed the British and French Agreement in 1902, which laid the foundation for the basic pattern of Europe before World War I. The Standish couple have no descendants. With Henry's death, the family that lasted for 650 years ended here. Mrs. Standish donated all her husband's collection to the Wigan Library in England. Ten years after her husband's death, Mrs. Standish died at the age of 86 in her mansion that had hosted various European celebrities. This mansion is now located at 3 Beroy St., Paris, the 16th district.
When I was harvesting this book "On the Ancient and Modern Government of France", I thought it was unlikely that Mrs. Standish would have expected that nearly a century after she left the world, her collection would appear on the bookshelf of an Oriental researcher.
References
d'Argenson, Considérations sur le gouvernement ancient et présent de la France, edited and introduced by Andrew Jainchill, Liverpool, England: Liverpool University Press, 2019
d'Argenson, Journal et mémoires du marquis d'Argenson, publiés par E. J. B. Rathery , 9 tomes, Paris, Mme ve J. Renouard, 1859-1867
d'Argenson, Mémoires et journal inédit du marquis d'Argenson, 5 tomes, Paris: P. Jannet, 1857-1858
François Bluche, Les honneurs de la Cour, 2 tomes, Paris, 1957
John Dunn, Setting the People Free : The Story of Democracy, New Haven: Princeton University Press, 2018
Pierre Renouvin, Les assemblées provinces de 1787: origins, développement, résultats, Paris: Picard, 1921
Editor: Peng Shanshan
Proofreading: Zhang Yan
