,note3 ,images of the original pages are
 available through        the the       
,google ,books ,library ,project4 ,see  
http3_/_/www4google4com_/books8idex,n,p,
a,a,a,a,m,a,a,j            ,,the        
,,social ,,contract  ,,discourses    by 
,,jean ,,jacques ,,rousseau             
,london  ,toronto  ,published by ,j4 ,m4
 ,dent  ,sons  ,in ,new ,york by ,e4 ,p4
 ,dutton  ,co          ,everyman's      
,library    ,edited by ,ernest ,rhys    
,philosophy and ,theology               
,,rousseau',s ,,social ,,contract1      
,,etc4    ,translated with ,introduction
 by ,g4,d4,h4 ,cole1    ,fellow of      
,magdalen ,college1 ,oxford             
,,introduction      ,for the study of   
the great writers and thinkers of the   
past1 historical  imagination is the    
first necessity4 ,without mentally      
referring to the  environment in which  
they lived1 we cannot hope to penetrate 
below the  inessential and temporary to 
the absolute and permanent value of     
their  thought4 ,theory1 no less than   

action1 is subject to these necessities2
  the form in which men cast their      
speculations1 no less than the ways  in 
which they behave1 are the result of the
 habits of thought and  action which    
they find around them4 ,great men make1 
indeed1 individual  contributions to the
 knowledge of their times2 but they can 
never  transcend the age in which they  
live4 ,the questions they try to answer 
will always be those their              
contemporaries are asking2 their        
statement  of fundamental problems will 
always be relative to the traditional   
statements that have been handed down to
 them4 ,when they are stating  what is  
most startlingly new1 they will be most 
likely to put it in an  old-fashioned   
form1 and to use the inadequate ideas   
and formulae of  tradition to express   
the deeper truths towards which they are
 feeling  their way4 ,they will be most 
the children of their age1 when they are
  rising most above it4    ,rousseau has
 suffered as much as any one from       

critics without a sense  of history4 ,he
 has been cried up and cried down by    
democrats and  oppressors with an equal 
lack of understanding and imagination4  
,his  name1 a hundred and fifty years   
after the publication of the ,social    
,contract1 is still a controversial     
watchword and a party cry4 ,he is       
accepted as one of the greatest writers 
,france has produced2 but even  now men 
are inclined1 as political bias prompts 
them1 to accept or  reject his political
 doctrines as a whole1 without sifting  
them or  attempting to understand and   
discriminate4 ,he is still revered or   
hated  as the author who1 above all     
others1 inspired the ,french            
,revolution4    ,at the present day1 his
 works possess a double significance4   
,they are  important historically1 alike
 as giving us an insight into the mind  
of the eighteenth century1 and for the  
actual influence they have had  on the  
course of events in ,europe4 ,certainly 
no other writer of the  time has        

exercised such an influence as his4 ,he 
may fairly be called  the parent of the 
romantic movement in art1 letters and   
life2 he  affected profoundly the       
,german romantics and ,goethe himself2  
he set the  fashion of a new            
introspection which has permeated       
nineteenth century  literature2 he began
 modern educational theory2 and1 above  
all1 in  political thought he represents
 the passage from a traditional theory  
rooted in the ,middle ,ages to the      
modern philosophy of the ,state4 ,his   
influence on ,kant's moral philosophy   
and on ,hegel's philosophy of ,right    
are two sides of the same fundamental   
contribution to modern thought4  ,he is1
 in fact1 the great forerunner of       
,german and ,english ,idealism4    ,it  
would not be possible1 in the course of 
a short introduction1 to  deal both with
 the positive content of ,rousseau's    
thought and with  the actual influence  
he has had on practical affairs4 ,the   
statesmen  of the ,french ,revolution1  

from ,robespierre downwards1 were       
throughout  profoundly affected by the  
study of his works4 ,though they seem   
often  to have misunderstood him1 they  
had on the whole studied him with  the  
attention he demands4 ,in the nineteenth
 century1 men continued  to appeal to   
,rousseau1 without1 as a rule1 knowing  
him well or  penetrating deeply into his
 meaning4 ,the ,social ,contract1 says  
,m4 ,dreyfus-,brisac1 is the book of all
 books that is most talked of  and least
 read4 ,but with the great revival of   
interest in political  philosophy there 
has come a desire for the better        
understanding of  ,rousseau's work4 ,he 
is again being studied more as a thinker
 and less  as an ally or an opponent2   
there is more eagerness to sift the true
  from the false1 and to seek in the    
,social ,contract the principles of     
political right1 rather than the great  
revolutionary's ipse dixit  in favour of
 some view about circumstances which he 
could never have  contemplated4    ,the 

,social ,contract1 then1 may be regarded
 either as a document  of the ,french   
,revolution1 or as one of the greatest  
books dealing  with political           
philosophy4 ,it is in the second        
capacity1 as a work  of permanent value 
containing truth1 that it finds a place 
among the  world's great books4 ,it is  
in that capacity also that it will be   
treated in this introduction4 ,taking it
 in this aspect1 we have no less  need  
of historical insight than if we came to
 it as historians pure and  simple4 ,to 
understand its value we must grasp its  
limitations2 when  the questions it     
answers seem unnaturally put1 we must   
not conclude  that they are meaningless2
 we must see if the answer still holds  
when  the question is put in a more     
up-to-date form4    ,first1 then1 we    
must always remember that ,rousseau is  
writing in the  eighteenth century1 and 
for the most part in ,france4 ,neither  
the ,french  monarchy nor the ,genevese 
aristocracy loved outspoken criticism1  

and ,rousseau had always to be very     
careful what he said4 ,this may  seem a 
curious statement to make about a man   
who suffered continual  persecution on  
account of his subversive doctrines2    
but1 although  ,rousseau was one of the 
most daring writers of his time1 he was 
forced  continually to moderate his     
language and1 as a rule1 to confine     
himself  to generalisation instead of   
attacking particular abuses4 ,rousseau's
  theory has often been decried as too  
abstract and metaphysical4 ,this is  in 
many ways its great strength2 but where 
it is excessively so1 the  accident of  
time is to blame4 ,in the eighteenth    
century it was1 broadly  speaking1 safe 
to generalise and unsafe to             
particularise4 ,scepticism  and         
discontent were the prevailing temper of
 the intellectual classes1  and a       
short-sighted despotism held that1 as   
long as they were confined  to these1   
they would do little harm4 ,subversive  
doctrines were only  regarded as        

dangerous when they were so put as to   
appeal to the  masses2 philosophy was   
regarded as impotent4 ,the intellectuals
 of the  eighteenth century therefore   
generalised to their hearts' content1   
and  as a rule suffered little for their
 lse-majest3 ,voltaire is the  typical  
example of such generalisation4 ,the    
spirit of the age favoured  such        
methods1 and it was therefore natural   
for ,rousseau to pursue  them4 ,but his 
general remarks had such a way of       
bearing very obvious  particular        
applications1 and were so obviously     
inspired by a particular  attitude      
towards the government of his day1 that 
even philosophy became  in his hands    
unsafe1 and he was attacked for what men
 read between  the lines of his works4  
,it is owing to this faculty of giving  
his  generalisations content and        
actuality that ,rousseau has become the 
father of modern political philosophy4  
,he uses the method of his time  only to
 transcend it2 out of the abstract and  

general he creates the  concrete and    
universal4    ,secondly1 we must not    
forget that ,rousseau's theories are to 
be studied  in a wider historical       
environment4 ,if he is the first of     
modern  political theorists1 he is also 
the last of a long line of ,renaissance 
theorists1 who in turn inherit and      
transform the concepts of medival       
thought4 ,so many critics have spent so 
much wasted time in proving  that       
,rousseau was not original only because 
they began by identifying  originality  
with isolation3 they studied first the  
,social ,contract by  itself1 out of    
relation to earlier works1 and then1    
having discovered  that these earlier   
works resembled it1 decided that        
everything it had  to say was borrowed4 
,had they begun their study in a truly  
historical  spirit1 they would have seen
 that ,rousseau's importance lies just  
in  the new use he makes of old ideas1  
in the transition he makes from old  to 
new in the general conception of        

politics4 ,no mere innovator could  have
 exercised such an influence or hit on  
so much truth4 ,theory makes  no great  
leaps2 it proceeds to new concepts by   
the adjustment and  renovation of old   
ones4 ,just as theological writers on   
politics1 from  ,hooker to ,bossuet1    
make use of ,biblical terminology and   
ideas2 just as  more modern writers1    
from ,hegel to ,herbert ,spencer1 make  
use of the  concept of evolution1       
,rousseau uses the ideas and terms of   
the ,social  ,contract theory4 ,we      
should feel1 throughout his work1 his   
struggle to  free himself from what is  
lifeless and outworn in that theory1    
while  he develops out of it fruitful   
conceptions that go beyond its scope4 ,a
  too rigid literalism in the           
interpretation of ,rousseau's thought   
may  easily reduce it to the possession 
of a merely historical interest3  if we 
approach it in a truly historical       
spirit1 we shall be able to  appreciate 
at once its temporary and its lasting   

value1 to see how it  served his        
contemporaries1 and at the same time to 
disentangle from it  what may be        
serviceable to us and for all time4     
,rousseau's ,emile1 the greatest of all 
works on education1 has already  been   
issued in this series4 ,in this volume  
are contained the most  important of his
 political works4 ,of these the ,social 
,contract1 by  far the most significant1
 is the latest in date4 ,it represents  
the  maturity of his thought1 while the 
other works only illustrate his         
development4 ,born in #agab1 he issued  
no work of importance till #agej2  but  
he tells us1 in the ,confessions1 that  
in #agdc1 when he was  attached to the  
,embassy at ,venice1 he had already     
conceived the idea of  a great work on  
,political ,institutions1 which was to  
put the seal on  his reputation4 ,he    
seems1 however1 to have made little     
progress with  this work1 until in #agdi
 he happened to light on the            
announcement of a  prize offered by the 

,academy of ,dijon for an answer to the 
question1  ,has the progress of the arts
 and sciences tended to the purification
  or to the corruption of morality8 ,his
 old ideas came thronging back1  and    
sick at heart of the life he had been   
leading among the ,paris  lumires1 he   
composed a violent and rhetorical       
diatribe against  civilisation          
generally4 ,in the following year1 this 
work1 having been  awarded the prize by 
the ,academy1 was published by its      
author4 ,his  success was instantaneous2
 he became at once a famous man1 the    
lion  of ,parisian literary circles4    
,refutations of his work were issued by 
professors1 scribblers1 outraged        
theologians and even by the ,king of    
,poland4 ,rousseau endeavoured to answer
 them all1 and in the course of         
argument his thought developed4 ,from   
#agej to the publication of the  ,social
 ,contract and ,emile in #agfb he       
gradually evolved his views3  in those  
twelve years he made his unique         

contribution to political  thought4     
,the ,discourse on the ,arts and        
,sciences1 the earliest of the works    
reproduced in this volume1 is not in    
itself of very great importance4        
,rousseau has given his opinion of it in
 the ,confessions4 ,full of  warmth and 
force1 it is wholly without logic or    
order2 of all my  works it is the       
weakest in argument and the least       
harmonious4 ,but  whatever gifts a man  
may be born with1 he cannot learn the   
art of  writing in a moment4 ,this      
criticism is just4 ,the first ,discourse
  neither is1 nor attempts to be1 a     
reasoned or a balanced production4  ,it 
is the speech of an advocate1 wholly    
one-sided and arbitrary1 but  so        
obviously and naively one-sided1 that it
 is difficult for us to  believe in its 
entire seriousness4 ,at the most1 it is 
only a rather  brilliant but flimsy     
rhetorical effort1 a sophistical        
improvisation1  but not a serious       
contribution to thought4 ,yet it is     

certain that this  declamation made     
,rousseau's name1 and established his   
position as a  great writer in ,parisian
 circles4 ,d',alembert even devoted the 
preface  of the ,encyclopdia to a       
refutation4 ,the plan of the first      
,discourse  is essentially simple3 it   
sets out from the badness1 immorality   
and  misery of modern nations1 traces   
all these ills to the departure from a  
natural state1 and then credits the     
progress of the arts and sciences  with 
being the cause of that departure4 ,in  
it1 ,rousseau is already in  possession 
of his idea of nature as an ideal2 but  
he has at present  made no attempt to   
discriminate1 in what is unnatural1     
between good  and bad4 ,he is merely    
using a single idea1 putting it as      
strongly as  he can1 and neglecting all 
its limitations4 ,the first ,discourse  
is  important not for any positive      
doctrine it contains1 but as a key to   
the development of ,rousseau's mind4    
,here we see him at the beginning  of   

the long journey which was to lead on at
 last to the theory of the  ,social     
,contract4    ,in #agee appeared the    
,discourse on the ,origin and           
,foundation of  ,inequality among ,men1 
which is the second of the works given  
in this  volume4 ,with this essay1      
,rousseau had unsuccessfully competed in
 #agec  for a second prize offered by   
the ,academy of ,dijon1 and he now      
issued  it prefaced by a long           
,dedication to the ,republic of ,geneva4
 ,in this  work1 which ,voltaire1 in    
thanking him for a presentation copy1   
termed  his second book against the     
human race1 his style and his ideas     
have made a great advance2 he is no     
longer content merely to push a  single 
idea to extremes3 while preserving the  
broad opposition between  the state of  
nature and the state of society1 which  
runs through all  his work1 he is       
concerned to present a rational         
justification of  his views and to admit
 that a little at any rate may be said  

on the  other side4 ,moreover1 the idea 
of nature has already undergone a  great
 development2 it is no longer an empty  
opposition to the evils  of society2 it 
possesses a positive content4 ,thus half
 the ,discourse  on ,inequality is      
occupied by an imaginary description of 
the state  of nature1 in which man is   
shown with ideas limited within the     
narrowest range1 with little need of his
 fellows1 and little care  beyond       
provision for the necessities of the    
moment4 ,rousseau declares  explicitly  
that he does not suppose the state of   
nature ever to have  existed3 it is a   
pure idea of reason1 a working concept  
reached by  abstraction from the state  
of society4 ,the natural man1 as opposed
  to man's man1 is man stripped of all  
that society confers upon him1 a        
creature formed by a process of         
abstraction1 and never intended for a   
historical portrait4 ,the conclusion of 
the ,discourse favours not this  purely 
abstract being1 but a state of savagery 

intermediate between the  natural and   
the social conditions1 in which men may 
preserve the  simplicity and the        
advantages of nature and at the same    
time secure the  rude comforts and      
assurances of early society4 ,in one of 
the long notes  appended to the         
,discourse1 ,rousseau further explains  
his position4  ,he does not wish1 he    
says1 that modern corrupt society should
 return  to a state of nature3          
corruption has gone too far for that2 he
 only  desires now that men should      
palliate1 by wiser use of the fatal     
arts1  the mistake of their             
introduction4 ,he recognises society as 
inevitable  and is already feeling his  
way towards a justification of it4 ,the 
second ,discourse represents a second   
stage in his political thought3  the    
opposition between the state of nature  
and the state of society is  still      
presented in naked contrast2 but the    
picture of the former has  already      
filled out1 and it only remains for     

,rousseau to take a nearer  view of the 
fundamental implications of the state of
 society for his  thought to reach      
maturity4    ,rousseau is often blamed1 
by modern critics1 for pursuing in the  
,discourses a method apparently that of 
history1 but in reality wholly          
unhistorical4 ,but it must be remembered
 that he himself lays no  stress on the 
historical aspect of his work2 he gives 
himself out  as constructing a purely   
ideal picture1 and not as depicting any 
actual stages in human history4 ,the use
 of false historical concepts  is       
characteristic of the seventeenth and   
eighteenth centuries1 and  ,rousseau is 
more to be congratulated on having      
escaped from giving them  too much      
importance than criticised for employing
 them at all4    ,it is doubtful whether
 the ,discourse on ,political ,economy1 
first  printed in the great ,encyclopdia
 in #agee1 was composed before or  after
 the ,discourse on ,inequality4 ,at     
first sight the former seems to  be far 

more in the manner of the ,social       
,contract and to contain views          
belonging essentially to ,rousseau's    
constructive period4 ,it would not1     
however1 be safe to conclude from this  
that its date is really later4  ,the    
,discourse on ,inequality still has     
about it much of the rhetorical         
looseness of the prize essay2 it aims   
not so much at close reasoning  as at   
effective and popular presentation of a 
case4 ,but1 by reading  between the     
lines1 an attentive student can detect  
in it a great  deal of the positive     
doctrine afterwards incorporated in the 
,social  ,contract4 ,especially in the  
closing section1 which lays down the    
plan  of a general treatment of the     
fundamental questions of politics1 we   
are already to some extent in the       
atmosphere of the later works4 ,it  is  
indeed almost certain that ,rousseau    
never attempted to put into  either of  
the first two ,discourses any of the    
positive content of his  political      

theory4 ,they were intended1 not as     
final expositions of his  point of view1
 but as partial and preliminary studies1
 in which his aim  was far more         
destructive than constructive4 ,it is   
clear that in first  conceiving the plan
 of a work on ,political ,institutions1 
,rousseau  cannot have meant to regard  
all society as in essence bad4 ,it is   
indeed  evident that he meant1 from the 
first1 to study human society and       
institutions in their rational aspect1  
and that he was rather diverted  from   
his main purpose by the ,academy of     
,dijon's competition than first  induced
 by it to think about political         
questions4 ,it need1 therefore1  cause  
no surprise that a work probably written
 before the ,discourse on  ,inequality  
should contain the germs of the theory  
given in full in the  ,social ,contract4
 ,the ,discourse on ,political ,economy 
is important as  giving the first sketch
 of the theory of the ,general ,will4   
,it will  readily be seen that ,rousseau

 does not mean by political economy     
exactly what we mean nowadays4 ,he      
begins with a discussion of the         
fundamental nature of the ,state1 and   
the possibility of reconciling its      
existence with human liberty1 and goes  
on with an admirable short study  of the
 principles of taxation4 ,he is thinking
 throughout of political  in the sense  
of public economy1 of the ,state as the 
public financier1  and not of the       
conditions governing industry4 ,he      
conceives the ,state  as a body aiming  
at the well-being of all its members and
 subordinates  all his views of taxation
 to that end4 ,he who has only          
necessaries  should not be taxed at all2
 superfluities should be supertaxed2    
there  should be heavy imposts on every 
sort of luxury4 ,the first part of  the 
article is still more interesting4      
,rousseau begins by demolishing  the    
exaggerated parallel so often drawn     
between the ,state and the  family2 he  
shows that the ,state is not1 and cannot

 be1 patriarchal in  nature1 and goes on
 to lay down his view that its real     
being consists  in the ,general ,will of
 its members4 ,the essential features of
 the  ,social ,contract are present in  
this ,discourse almost as if they were  
commonplaces1 certainly not as if they  
were new discoveries on which  the      
author had just hit by some happy       
inspiration4 ,there is every            
temptation1 after reading the ,political
 ,economy1 to suppose that  ,rousseau's 
political ideas really reached maturity 
far earlier than has  generally been    
allowed4    ,the ,social ,contract      
finally appeared1 along with ,emile1 in 
#agfb4  ,this year1 therefore1          
represents in every respect the         
culmination of  ,rousseau's career4     
,henceforth1 he was to write only       
controversial  and confessional works2  
his theories were now developed1 and1   
simultaneously1 he gave to the world his
 views on the fundamental  problems of  
politics and education4 ,it is now time 

to ask what  ,rousseau's system1 in its 
maturity1 finally amounted to4 ,the     
,social  ,contract contains practically 
the whole of his constructive political 
theory2 it requires to be read1 for full
 understanding1 in connection  with his 
other works1 especially ,emile and the  
,letters on the ,mount  7#agfd71 but in 
the main it is self-contained and       
complete4 ,the title  sufficiently      
defines its scope4 ,it is called ,the   
,social ,contract  or ,principles of    
,political ,right1 and the second title 
explains  the first4 ,rousseau's object 
is not to deal1 in a general way1 like  
,montesquieu1 with the actual           
institutions of existing ,states1 but to
  lay down the essential principles     
which must form the basis of every      
legitimate society4 ,rousseau himself1  
in the fifth book of the ,emile1  has   
stated the difference clearly4          
,montesquieu1 he says1 did not  intend  
to treat of the principles of political 
right2 he was content  to treat of the  

positive right 7or law7 of established  
governments2  and no two studies could  
be more different than these4 ,rousseau 
then  conceives his object as being     
something very different from that of   
the ,spirit of the ,laws1 and it is a   
wilful error to misconstrue  his        
purpose4 ,when he remarks that the      
facts1 the actual history of  political 
societies1 do not concern him1 he is not
 contemptuous of  facts2 he is merely   
asserting the sure principle that a fact
 can in  no case give rise to a right4  
,his desire is to establish society on a
  basis of pure right1 so as at once to 
disprove his attack on society          
generally and to reinforce his criticism
 of existing societies4    ,round this  
point centres the whole dispute about   
the methods proper  to political theory4
 ,there are1 broadly speaking1 two      
schools of  political theorists1 if we  
set aside the psychologists4 ,one       
school1 by  collecting facts1 aims at   
reaching broad generalisations about    

what  actually happens in human         
societies6 the other tries to penetrate 
to  the universal principles at the root
 of all human combination4 ,for the     
latter purpose facts may be useful1 but 
in themselves they can prove  nothing4  
,the question is not one of fact1 but   
one of right4    ,rousseau belongs      
essentially to this philosophical       
school4 ,he is not1  as his less        
philosophic critics seem to suppose1 a  
purely abstract  thinker generalising   
from imaginary historical instances2 he 
is a  concrete thinker trying to get    
beyond they inessential and changing to 
the permanent and invariable basis of   
human society4 ,like ,green1 he is  in  
search of the principle of political    
obligation1 and beside this  quest all  
others fall into their place as         
secondary and derivative4  ,it is       
required to find a form of association  
able to defend and  protect with the    
whole common force the person and goods 
of every  associate1 and of such a      

nature1 that each1 uniting himself with 
all1  may still obey only himself1 and  
remain as free as before4 ,this is  the 
fundamental problem of which the ,social
 ,contract provides the  solution4 ,the 
problem of political obligation is seen 
as including  all other political       
problems1 which fall into place in a    
system based  upon it4 ,how1 ,rousseau  
asks1 can the will of the ,state help   
being for  me a merely external will1   
imposing itself upon my own8 ,how can   
the  existence of the ,state be         
reconciled with human freedom8 ,how can 
man1  who is born free1 rightly come to 
be everywhere in chains8    ,no-one     
could help understanding the central    
problem of the ,social  ,contract       
immediately1 were it not that its       
doctrines often seem  to be strangely   
formulated4 ,we have seen that this     
strangeness is  due to ,rousseau's      
historical position1 to his use of the  
political  concepts current in his own  
age1 and to his natural tendency to     

build  on the foundations laid by his   
predecessors4 ,there are a great many   
people whose idea of ,rousseau consists 
solely of the first words of  the       
opening chapter of the ,social          
,contract1 ,man is born free1 and       
everywhere he is in chains4 ,but1 they  
tell you1 man is not born free1  even if
 he is everywhere in chains4 ,thus at   
the very outset we are  faced with the  
great difficulty in appreciating        
,rousseau4 ,when we  should naturally   
say man ought to be free1 or perhaps man
 is born  for freedom1 he prefers to say
 man is born free1 by which he means    
exactly the same thing4 ,there is       
doubtless1 in his way of putting it1  an
 appeal to a golden age2 but this golden
 age is admittedly as  imaginary as the 
freedom to which men are born is bound1 
for most of  them1 to be4 ,elsewhere    
,rousseau puts the point much as we     
might put  it ourselves4 ,nothing is    
more certain than that every man born in
  slavery is born for slavery4444 ,but  

if there are slaves by nature1 it  is   
because there have been slaves against  
nature 7,social ,contract1  ,book ,i1   
chap4 ii74    ,we have seen that the    
contrast between the state of nature and
 the  state of society runs through all 
,rousseau's work4 ,the ,emile  is a plea
 for natural education2 the ,discourses 
are a plea for a  naturalisation of     
society2 the ,new ,hlose is the         
romantic's  appeal for more nature in   
human relationships4 ,what then is the  
position of this contrast in ,rousseau's
 mature political thought8 ,it  is clear
 that the position is not merely that of
 the ,discourses4 ,in  them1 he         
envisaged only the faults of actual     
societies2 now1 he is  concerned with   
the possibility of a rational society4  
,his aim is to  justify the change from 
nature to society1 although it has left 
men in chains4 ,he is in search of the  
true society1 which leaves men  as free 
as before4 ,altogether1 the space       
occupied by the idea of  nature in the  

,social ,contract is very small4 ,it is 
used of necessity  in the controversial 
chapters1 in which ,rousseau is refuting
 false  theories of social obligation2  
but when once he has brushed aside  the 
false prophets1 he lets the idea of     
nature go with them1 and  concerns      
himself solely with giving society the  
rational sanction he  has promised4 ,it 
becomes clear that1 in political matters
 at any rate1  the state of nature is   
for him only a term of controversy4 ,he 
has  in effect abandoned1 in so far as  
he ever held it1 the theory of a  human 
golden age2 and where1 as in the ,emile1
 he makes use of the  idea of nature1 it
 is broadened and deepened out of all   
recognition4  ,despite many passages in 
which the old terminology cleaves to    
him1 he  means by nature in this period 
not the original state of a thing1  nor 
even its reduction to the simplest      
terms3 he is passing over to  the       
conception of nature as identical with  
the full development of  capacity1 with 

the higher6 idea of human freedom4 ,this
 view may be seen  in germ even in the  
,discourse on ,inequality1 where1       
distinguishing  self-respect 7amour de  
soi7 from egoism 7amour-propre71        
,rousseau  makes the former1 the        
property of the natural man1 consist not
 in  the desire for self-aggrandisement1
 but in the seeking of satisfaction  for
 reasonable desire accompanied by       
benevolence2 whereas egoism is  the     
preference of our own interests to those
 of others1 self-respect  merely puts us
 on an equal footing with our fellows4  
,it is true that  in the ,discourse     
,rousseau is pleading against the       
development of many  human faculties2   
but he is equally advocating the fullest
 development  of those he regards as    
natural1 by which he means merely good4 
,the state of society1 as envisaged in  
the ,social ,contract1 is no  longer in 
contradiction to the state of nature    
upheld in the ,emile1  where indeed the 
social environment is of the greatest   

importance1 and1  though the pupil is   
screened from it1 he is none the less   
being trained  for it4 ,indeed the views
 given in the ,social ,contract are     
summarised  in the fifth book of the    
,emile1 and by this summary the         
essential  unity of ,rousseau's system  
is emphasised4    ,rousseau's object1   
then1 in the first words of the ,social 
,contract1  is to inquire if1 in the    
civil order1 there can be any sure and  
certain1 rule of administration1 taking 
men as they are and laws as  they might 
be4 ,montesquieu took laws as they were1
 and saw what sort  of men they made3   
,rousseau1 founding his whole system on 
human freedom1  takes man as the basis1 
and regards him as giving himself what  
laws he  pleases4 ,he takes his stand on
 the nature of human freedom3 on this he
  bases his whole system1 making the    
will of the members the sole basis  of  
every society4    ,in working out his   
theory1 ,rousseau makes use throughout  
of three  general and1 to some extent1  

alternative conceptions4 ,these are the 
,social ,contract1 ,sovereignty and the 
,general ,will4 ,we shall now have to   
examine each of these in turn4    ,the  
,social ,contract theory is as old as   
the sophists of ,greece 7see  ,plato1   
,republic1 ,book ,,ii and the ,gorgias71
 and as ,i elusive4  ,it has been       
adapted to the most opposite points of  
view1 and used1  in different forms1 on 
both sides of every question to which it
  could conceivably be applied4 ,it is  
frequent in medival writers1  a         
commonplace with the theorists of the   
,renaissance1 and in the  eighteenth    
century already nearing its fall before 
a wider conception4  ,it would be a     
long1 as well as a thankless1 task to   
trace its history  over again3 it may be
 followed best in ,d4 ,g4 ,ritchie's    
admirable essay  on it in ,darwin and   
,hegel and ,other ,studies4 ,for us1 it 
is important  only to regard it in its  
most general aspect1 before studying the
  special use made of it by ,rousseau4  

,obviously1 in one form or another1  it 
is a theory very easily arrived at4     
,wherever any form of government  apart 
from the merest tyranny exists1         
reflection on the basis of the  ,state  
cannot but lead to the notion that1 in  
one sense or another1  it is based on   
the consent1 tacit or expressed1 past or
 present1 of  its members4 ,in this     
alone1 the greater part of the ,social  
,contract  theory is already latent4    
,add the desire to find actual          
justification  for a theory in facts1   
and1 especially in an age possessed only
 of the  haziest historical sense1 this 
doctrine of consent will inevitably  be 
given a historical setting4 ,if in      
addition there is a tendency  to regard 
society as something unnatural to       
humanity1 the tendency  will become     
irresistible4 ,by writers of almost all 
schools1 the  ,state will be represented
 as having arisen1 in some remote age1  
out  of a compact or1 in more legal     
phrase1 contract between two or more    

parties4 ,the only class that will be   
able to resist the doctrine is  that    
which maintains the divine right of     
kings1 and holds that all  existing     
governments were were imposed on the    
people by the direct  interposition of  
,god4 ,all who are not prepared to      
maintain that will be  partisans of some
 form or other of the ,social ,contract 
theory4    ,it is1 therefore1 not       
surprising that we find among its       
advocates  writers of the most opposite 
points of view4 ,barely stated1 it is a 
mere formula1 which may be filled in    
with any content from absolutism  to    
pure republicanism4 ,and1 in the hands  
of some at least of its  supporters1 it 
turns out to be a weapon that cuts both 
ways4 ,we shall  be in a better position
 to judge of its usefulness when we have
 seen  its chief varieties at work4     
,all ,social ,contract theories that are
 at all definite fall under one  or     
other of two heads4 ,they represent     
society as based on an original         

contract either between the people and  
the government1 or between all  the     
individuals composing the ,state4       
,historically1 modern theory passes     
from the first to the second of these   
forms4    ,the doctrine that society is 
founded on a contract between the people
  and the government is of medival      
origin4 ,it was often supported by      
references to the ,old ,testament1 which
 contains a similar view in  an         
unreflective form4 ,it is found in most 
of the great political  writers of the  
sixteenth century2 in ,buchanan1 and in 
the writings  of ,james ,i3 it persists 
into the seventeenth in the works of    
,grotius  and ,puffendorf4 ,grotius is  
sometimes held to have stated the theory
  so as to admit both forms of contract2
 but it is clear that he is  only       
thinking of the first form as admitting 
democratic as well as  monarchical      
government4 ,we find it put very clearly
 by the ,convention  ,parliament of     
#afhh1 which accuses ,james ,,ii of     

having endeavoured  to subvert the      
constitution of the kingdom by breaking 
the original  contract between king and 
people4 ,while ,hobbes1 on the side of  
the  royalists1 is maintaining the      
contract theory in its second form1 the 
,parliamentarian ,algernon ,sidney      
adheres to the idea of a contract       
between the people and the government4  
,in this form1 the theory clearly admits
 of opposite interpretations4 ,it  may  
be held that the people1 having given   
itself up once for all to its  rulers1  
has nothing more to ask of them1 and is 
bound to submit to any  usage they may  
choose to inflict4 ,this1 however1 is   
not the implication  most usually drawn 
from it4 ,the theory1 in this form1     
originated with  theologians who were   
also lawyers4 ,their view of a contract 
implied  mutual obligations2 they       
regarded the ruler as bound1 by its     
terms1  to govern constitutionally4 ,the
 old idea that a king must not violate  
the sacred customs of the realm passes  

easily into the doctrine that he  must  
not violate the terms of the original   
contract between himself and  his       
people4 ,just as in the days of the     
,norman kings1 every appeal on  the part
 of the people for more liberties was   
couched in the form of a  demand that   
the customs of the good old times of    
,edward the ,confessor  should be       
respected1 so in the seventeenth century
 every act of popular  assertion or     
resistance was stated as an appeal to   
the king not to  violate the contract4  
,the demand was a good popular cry1 and 
it seemed  to have the theorists behind 
it4 ,rousseau gives his refutation of   
this  view1 which he had1 in the        
,discourse on ,inequality1 maintained in
  passing1 in the sixteenth chapter of  
the third book of the ,social           
,contract4 7,see also ,book ,i1 chap1   
iv1 init47 ,his attack is really        
concerned also with the theory of       
,hobbes1 which in some respects         
resembles1 as we shall see1 this first  

view2 but1 in form at least1  it is     
directed against this form of contract4 
,it will be possible to  examine it more
 closely1 when the second view has been 
considered4    ,the second view1 which  
may be called the ,social ,contract     
theory proper1  regards society as      
originating in1 or based on1 an         
agreement between  the individuals      
composing it4 ,it seems to be found     
first1 rather  vaguely1 in ,richard     
,hooker's ,ecclesiastical ,polity1 from 
which ,locke  largely borrowed3 and it  
reappears1 in varying forms1 in         
,milton's  ,tenure of ,kings and        
,magistrates1 in ,hobbes's ,leviathan1  
in ,locke's  ,treatises on ,civil       
,government1 and in ,rousseau4 ,the     
best-known  instance of its actual use  
is by the ,pilgrim ,fathers on the      
,mayflower  in #afbj1 in whose          
declaration occurs the phrase1 ,we do   
solemnly and  mutually1 in the presence 
of ,god and of one another1 covenant and
  combine ourselves together into a     

civil body politic4 ,the natural        
implication of this view would seem to  
be the corollary of complete  popular   
,sovereignty which ,rousseau draws4 ,but
 before ,rousseau's time  it had been   
used to support views as diverse as     
those which rested on  the first form4  
,we saw that1 in ,grotius's great work1 
,de ,jure ,belli et  ,pacis1 it was     
already possible to doubt which of the  
two theories was  being advocated4 ,the 
first theory was1 historically1 a means 
of popular  protest against royal       
aggression4 ,as soon as popular         
government was  taken into account1 the 
act of contract between people and      
government  became in effect merely a   
contract between the individuals        
composing  the society1 and readily     
passed over into the second form4       
,the second theory1 in its ordinary     
form1 expresses only the view  that the 
people is everywhere ,sovereign1 and    
that1 in the phrase  of ,milton's       
treatise1 the power of kings and        

magistrates is only  derivative4        
,before1 however1 this view had been    
worked up into a  philosophical theory1 
it had already been used by ,hobbes to  
support  precisely opposite principles4 
,hobbes agrees that the original        
contract  is one between all the        
individuals composing the ,state1 and   
that the  government is no party to it2 
but he regards the people as agreeing1  
not merely to form a ,state1 but to     
invest a certain person or certain      
persons with the government of it4 ,he  
agrees that the people is  naturally    
supreme1 but regards it as alienating   
its ,sovereignty by  the contract       
itself1 and delegating its power1 wholly
 and for ever1  to the government4 ,as  
soon1 therefore1 as the ,state is set   
up1 the  government becomes for ,hobbes 
the ,sovereign2 there is no more        
question  of popular ,sovereignty1 but  
only of passive obedience3 the people is
  bound1 by the contract1 to obey its   
ruler1 no matter whether he governs     

well or ill4 ,it has alienated all its  
rights to the ,sovereign1 who is1       
therefore1 absolute master4 ,hobbes1    
living in a time of civil wars1  regards
 the worst government as better than    
anarchy1 and is1 therefore1  at pains to
 find arguments in support of any form  
of absolutism4 ,it is  easy to pick     
holes in this system1 and to see into   
what difficulties  a conscientious      
,hobbist might be led by a revolution4  
,for as soon as  the revolutionaries get
 the upper hand1 he will have to        
sacrifice one  of his principles3 he    
will have to side against either the    
actual or  the legitimate ,sovereign4   
,it is easy also to see that alienation 
of  liberty1 even if possible for an    
individual1 which ,rousseau denies1     
cannot bind his posterity4 ,but1 with   
all its faults1 the view of ,hobbes  is 
on the whole admirably1 if ruthlessly1  
logical1 and to it ,rousseau  owes a    
great deal4    ,the special shape given 
to the second ,social ,contract theory  

by ,hobbes  looks1 at first sight1 much 
like a combination1 into a single act1  
of both the contracts4 ,this1 however1  
is not the view he adopts4 ,the  theory 
of a contract between government and    
people had1 as we have  seen1 been used 
mainly as a support for popular         
liberties1 a means of  assertion against
 the government4 ,hobbes1 whose whole   
aim is to make  his government          
,sovereign1 can only do this by leaving 
the government  outside the contract3 he
 thus avoids the necessity of submitting
 it to  any obligation whatsoever1 and  
leaves it absolute and irresponsible4   
,he  secures1 in fact1 not merely a     
,state which has unbounded rights       
against  the individual1 but a          
determinate authority with the right to 
enforce  those rights4 ,his theory is   
not merely ,statism 7tatisme72 it is    
pure  despotism4    ,it is clear that1  
if such a theory is to be upheld1 it can
 stand only  by the view1 which ,hobbes 
shares with ,grotius1 that a man can    

alienate  not merely his own liberty1   
but also that of his descendants1 and   
that1 consequently1 a people as a whole 
can do the same4 ,this is the  point at 
which both ,locke and ,rousseau attack  
it4 ,locke1 whose aim is  largely to    
justify the ,revolution of #afhh1 makes 
government depend1  not merely at its   
institution1 but always1 on the consent 
of the  governed1 and regards all rulers
 as liable to be displaced if they      
govern tyrannically4 ,he omits1 however1
 to provide any machinery short  of     
revolution for the expression of popular
 opinion1 and1 on the whole1  seems to  
regard the popular consent as something 
essentially tacit and  assumed4 ,he     
regards the ,state as existing mainly to
 protect life and  property1 and is1 in 
all his assertions of popular rights1 so
 cautious  as to reduce them almost to  
nothing4 ,it is not till we come to     
,rousseau  that the second form of the  
contract theory is stated in its purest 
and  most logical form4    ,rousseau    

sees clearly the necessity1 if popular  
consent in government  is to be more    
than a name1 of giving it some          
constitutional means of  expression4    
,for ,locke's theory of tacit consent1  
he substitutes an  active agreement     
periodically renewed4 ,he looks back    
with admiration  to the city-states of  
ancient ,greece and1 in his own day1    
reserves  his admiration for the ,swiss 
free cities1 ,berne and1 above all1     
,geneva1 his native place4 ,seeing in   
the ,europe of his day no case in  which
 representative government was working  
at all democratically1  he was unable to
 conceive that means might be found of  
giving effect  to this active agreement 
in a nation-state2 he therefore held    
that  self-government was impossible    
except for a city4 ,he wished to break  
up  the nation-states of ,europe1 and   
create instead federative leagues of    
independent city-states4    ,it matters1
 however1 comparatively little1 for the 
appreciation of  ,rousseau's political  

theory in general1 that he failed to    
become the  theorist of the modern      
,state4 ,by taking the ,state1 which    
must have1  in essentials1 everywhere   
the same basis1 at its simplest1 he was 
able1 far better than his predecessors1 
to bring out the real nature  of the    
social tie1 an alternative name which he
 often uses for  the ,social ,contract4 
,his doctrine ,i of the underlying      
principle of  political obligation is   
that of all great modern writers1 from  
,kant to  ,mr4 ,bosanquet4 ,this        
fundamental unity has been obscured only
 because  critics have failed to put the
 ,social ,contract theory in its proper 
place in ,rousseau's system4    ,this   
theory was1 we have seen1 a commonplace4
 ,the amount of historical  authenticity
 assigned to the contract almost        
universally presupposed  varied         
enormously4 ,generally1 the weaker a    
writer's rational basis1  the more he   
appealed to history--and invented it4   
,it was1 therefore1  almost inevitable  

that ,rousseau should cast his theory   
into the  contractual form4 ,there were1
 indeed1 writers of his time who laughed
  at the contract1 but they were not    
writers who constructed a general       
system of political philosophy4 ,from   
,cromwell to ,montesquieu and  ,bentham1
 it was the practically minded man1     
impatient of unactual  hypotheses1 who  
refused to accept the idea of contract4 
,the theorists  were as unanimous in its
 favour as the ,victorians were in      
favour of  the organic theory4 ,but we1 
criticising them in the light of later  
events1 are in a better position for    
estimating the position the  ,social    
,contract really took in their political
 system4 ,we see that  ,locke's doctrine
 of tacit consent made popular control  
so unreal that  he was forced1 if the   
,state was to have any hold1 to make his
 contract  historical and actual1       
binding posterity for all time1 and that
 he was  also led to admit a            
quasi-contract between people and       

government1 as a  second vindication of 
popular liberties4 ,rousseau1 on the    
other hand1  bases no vital argument on 
the historical nature of the contract1  
in  which1 indeed1 he clearly does not  
believe4 ,how1 he asks1 did this  change
 from nature to society come about8 ,and
 he answers that he  does not know4     
,moreover1 his aim is to find a sure and
 legitimate rule  of administration1    
taking men as they are and laws as they 
might be2  that is to say1 his ,social  
,contract is something which will be    
found  at work in every legitimate      
society1 but which will be in abeyance  
in  all forms of despotism4 ,he clearly 
means by it no more and no less than    
the fundamental principle of political  
association1 the basis of the  unity    
which enables us1 in the ,state1 to     
realise political liberty by  giving up 
lawlessness and license4 ,the           
presentation of this doctrine  in the   
quasi-historical form of the ,social    
,contract theory is due to  the accident

 of the time and place in which         
,rousseau wrote4 ,at the same  time1 the
 importance of the conception is best to
 be seen in the hard  death it dies4    
,though no-one1 for a hundred years or  
so1 has thought  of regarding it as     
historical1 it has been found so hard to
 secure  any other phrase explaining as 
well or better the basis of political   
union that1 to this day1 the phraseology
 of the contract theory largely         
persists4 ,a conception so vital cannot 
have been barren4    ,it is indeed1 in  
,rousseau's own thought1 only one of the
 three  different ways in which the     
basis of political union is stated1     
according to the preoccupation of his   
mind4 ,when he is thinking              
quasi-historically1 he describes his    
doctrine as that of the ,social         
,contract4 ,modern anthropology1 in its 
attempts to explain the complex  by     
means of the simple1 often strays       
further from the straight paths  of     
history and reason4 ,in a semi-legal    

aspect1 using the terminology1  if not  
the standpoint1 of jurisprudence1 he    
restates the same doctrine  in the form 
of popular ,sovereignty4 ,this use tends
 continually to pass  over into the more
 philosophical form which comes third4  
,sovereignty  is the exercise of the    
general will4 ,philosophically1         
,rousseau's  doctrine finds its         
expression in the view that the ,state  
is based  not on any original           
convention1 not on1 any determinate     
power1 but  on the living and sustaining
 rational will of its members4 ,we have 
now to examine first ,sovereignty and   
then the ,general ,will1 which is       
ultimately ,rousseau's guiding          
conception4    ,sovereignty is1 first   
and foremost1 a legal term1 and it has  
often been  held that its use in        
political philosophy merely leads to    
confusion4 ,in  jurisprudence1 we are   
told1 it has the perfectly plain meaning
 given  to it in ,austin's famous       
definition4 ,the ,sovereign is a        

determinate  human superior1 not in a   
habit of obedience to a like superior1  
but  receiving habitual obedience from  
the bulk of a given society4  ,where    
,sovereignty is placed is1 on this view1
 a question purely of  fact1 and never  
of right4 ,we have only to seek out the 
determinate  human superior in a given  
society1 and we shall have the          
,sovereign4 ,in  answer to this theory1 
it is not enough1 though it is a        
valuable point1  to show that such a    
determinate superior is rarely to be    
found4 ,where1  for instance1 is the    
,sovereign of ,england or of the        
,british ,empire8 ,is  it the ,king1 who
 is called the ,sovereign8 ,or is it the
 ,parliament1  which is the legislature 
7for ,austin's ,sovereign is regarded as
 the  source of law78 ,or is it the     
electorate1 or the whole mass of the    
population1 with or without the right of
 voting8 ,clearly all these  exercise a 
certain influence in the making of laws4
 ,or finally1 is it  now the ,cabinet8  

,for ,austin1 one of these bodies would 
be ruled out as  indeterminate 7the mass
 of the population7 and another as      
responsible  7the ,cabinet74 ,but are we
 to regard the ,house of ,commons or    
those who  elect it as forming part of  
the ,sovereign8 ,the search for a       
determinate  ,sovereign may be a        
valuable legal conception2 but it has   
evidently  nothing to do with political 
theory4    ,it is1 therefore1 essential 
to distinguish between the legal        
,sovereign  of jurisprudence1 and the   
political ,sovereign of political       
science  and philosophy4 ,even so1 it   
does not at once become clear what this 
political ,sovereign may be4 ,is it the 
body or bodies of persons in whom       
political power in a ,state actually    
resides8 ,is it merely the complex  of  
actual institutions regarded as         
embodying the will of the society8      
,this would leave us still in the realm 
of mere fact1 outside both right  and   
philosophy4 ,the ,sovereign1 in the     

philosophical sense1 is neither  the    
nominal ,sovereign1 nor the legal       
,sovereign1 nor the political           
,sovereign of fact and common sense3 it 
is the consequence of the  fundamental  
bond of union1 the restatement of the   
doctrine of ,social  ,contract1 the     
foreshadowing of that of ,general ,will4
 ,the ,sovereign  is that body in the   
,state in which political power ought   
always to  reside1 and in which the     
right to such power does always reside4 
,the idea at the back of the            
philosophical conception of ,sovereignty
  is1 therefore1 essentially the same as
 that we found to underlie the  ,social 
,contract theory4 ,it is the view that  
the people1 whether it  can alienate its
 right or not1 is the ultimate director 
of its own  destinies1 the final power  
from which there is no appeal4 ,in a    
sense1  this is recognised even by      
,hobbes1 who makes the power of his     
absolute  ,sovereign1 the predecessor of
 ,austin's determinate human superior1  

issue first of all from the ,social     
,contract1 which is essentially a       
popular act4 ,the difference between    
,hobbes and ,rousseau on this point  is 
solely that ,rousseau regards as        
inalienable a supreme power which       
,hobbes makes the people alienate in its
 first corporate action4 ,that  is to   
say1 ,hobbes in fact accepts the theory 
of popular supremacy in  name only to   
destroy it in fact2 ,rousseau asserts   
the theory in its  only logical form1   
and is under no temptation to evade it  
by means of  false historical           
assumptions4 ,in ,locke1 a distinction  
is already drawn  between the legal and 
the actual ,sovereign1 which ,locke     
calls supreme  power2 ,rousseau unites  
the absolute ,sovereignty of ,hobbes and
 the  popular consent of ,locke into the
 philosophic doctrine of popular        
,sovereignty1 which has since been the  
established form of the theory4  ,his   
final view represents a return from the 
perversions of ,hobbes to  a doctrine   

already familiar to medival and         
,renaissance writers2 but  it is not    
merely a return4 ,in its passage the    
view has fallen into its  place in a    
complete system of political philosophy4
    ,in a second important respect      
,rousseau differentiates himself from   
,hobbes4 ,for ,hobbes1 the ,sovereign is
 identical with the government4  ,he is 
so hot for absolutism largely because he
 regards revolution1  the overthrow of  
the existing government1 as at the same 
time the  dissolution of the body       
politic1 and a return to complete       
anarchy or to  the state of nature4     
,rousseau and1 to some extent1 ,locke   
meet this  view by sharp division       
between the supreme power and the       
government4  ,for ,rousseau1 they are so
 clearly distinct that even a completely
  democratic government is not at the   
same time the ,sovereign2 its  members  
are sovereign only in a different       
capacity and as a different  corporate  
body1 just as two different societies   

may exist for different  purposes with  
exactly the same members4 ,pure         
democracy1 however1 the  government of  
the ,state by all the people in every   
detail1 is not1  as ,rousseau says1 a   
possible human institution4 ,all        
governments are  really mixed in        
character2 and what we call a democracy 
is only a  more or less democratic      
government4 ,government1 therefore1 will
 always  be to some extent in the hands 
of selected persons4 ,sovereignty1 on   
the other hand1 is in his view absolute1
 inalienable1 indivisible1 and          
indestructible4 ,it cannot be limited1  
abandoned1 shared or destroyed4  ,it is 
an essential part of all social life    
that the right to control  the destinies
 of the ,state belongs in the last      
resort to the whole  people4 ,there     
clearly must in the end be somewhere in 
the society an  ultimate court of       
appeal1 whether determinate or not2 but1
 unless  ,sovereignty is distinguished  
from government1 the government1 passing

  under the name of ,sovereign1 will    
inevitably be regarded as absolute4     
,the only way to avoid the conclusions  
of ,hobbes is1 therefore1 to  establish 
a clear separation between them4        
,rousseau tries to do this by an        
adaptation of the doctrine of the  three
 powers4 ,but instead of three          
independent powers sharing the  supreme 
authority1 he gives only two1 and makes 
one of these wholly  dependent on the   
other4 ,he substitutes for the          
co-ordination of the  legislative1 the  
executive1 and the judicial authorities1
 a system  in which the legislative     
power1 or ,sovereign1 is always supreme1
 the  executive1 or government1 always  
secondary and derivative1 and the       
judicial power merely a function of     
government4 ,this division he makes1    
naturally1 one of will and power4 ,the  
government is merely to carry  out the  
decrees1 or acts of will1 of the        
,sovereign people4 ,just as  the human  
will transfers a command to its members 

for execution1 so  the body politic may 
give its decisions force by setting up  
authority  which1 like the brain1 may   
command its members4 ,in delegating the 
power  necessary for the execution of   
its will1 it is abandoning none of its  
supreme authority4 ,it remains          
,sovereign1 and can at any moment recall
  the grants it has made4 ,government1  
therefore1 exists only at the           
,sovereign's pleasure1 and is always    
revocable by the sovereign will4    ,it 
will be seen1 when we come to discuss   
the nature of the ,general  ,will1 that 
this doctrine really contains the most  
valuable part of  ,rousseau's theory4   
,here1 we are concerned rather with its 
limitations4  ,the distinction between  
legislative and executive functions is  
in practice very hard to draw4 ,in      
,rousseau's case1 it is further         
complicated by the presence of a second 
distinction4 ,the legislative  power1   
the ,sovereign1 is concerned only with  
what is general1 the  executive only    

with what is particular4 ,this          
distinction1 the full  force of which   
can only be seen in connection with the 
,general ,will1  means roughly that a   
matter is general when it concerns the  
whole  community equally1 and makes no  
mention of any particular class2 as     
soon as it refers to any class or       
person1 it becomes particular1 and  can 
no longer form the subject matter of an 
act of ,sovereignty4 ,however  just this
 distinction may seem in the abstract1  
it is clear that its  effect is to place
 all the power in the hands of the      
executive3 modern  legislation is almost
 always concerned with particular       
classes and  interests4 ,it is not1     
therefore1 a long step from the view of 
,rousseau  to the modern theory of      
democratic government1 in which the     
people has  little power beyond that of 
removing its rulers if they displease   
it4  ,as long1 however1 as we confine   
our view to the city-state of which     
,rousseau is thinking1 his distinction  

is capable of preserving for the  people
 a greater actual exercise of will4 ,a  
city can often generalise  where a      
nation must particularise4    ,it is in 
the third book of the ,social ,contract1
 where ,rousseau is  discussing the     
problem of government1 that it is most  
essential to  remember that his         
discussion has in view mainly the       
city-state and  not the nation4 ,broadly
 put1 his principle of government is    
that  democracy is possible only in     
small ,states1 aristocracy in those of  
medium extent1 and monarchy in great    
,states 7,book ,,iii1 chap4 iii74  ,in  
considering this view1 we have to take  
into account two things4  ,first1 he    
rejects representative government2 will 
being1 in his  theory1 inalienable1     
representative ,sovereignty is          
impossible4 ,but1 as  he regards all    
general acts as functions of            
,sovereignty1 this means  that no       
general act can be within the competence
 of a representative  assembly4 ,in     

judging this theory1 we must take into  
account all the  circumstances of       
,rousseau's time4 ,france1 ,geneva and  
,england were the  three ,states he took
 most into account4 ,in ,france1        
representative  government was          
practically non-existent2 in ,geneva1 it
 was only  partially necessary2 in      
,england1 it was a mockery1 used to     
support a  corrupt oligarchy against a  
debased monarchy4 ,rousseau may well be 
pardoned for not taking the ordinary    
modern view of it4 ,nor indeed is  it1  
even in the modern world1 so            
satisfactory an instrument of the       
popular will that we can afford wholly  
to discard his criticism4 ,it is  one of
 the problems of the day to find some   
means of securing effective  popular    
control over a weakened ,parliament and 
a despotic ,cabinet4    ,the second     
factor is the immense development of    
local government4  ,it seemed to        
,rousseau that1 in the nation-state1 all
 authority must  necessarily pass1 as it

 had in ,france1 to the central power4  
,devolution  was hardly dreamed of2 and 
,rousseau saw the only means of securing
  effective popular government in a     
federal system1 starting from  the small
 unit as ,sovereign4 ,the nineteenth    
century has proved the  falsehood of    
much of his theory of government2 but   
there are still  many wise comments and 
fruitful suggestions to be found in the 
third  book of the ,social ,contract and
 in the treatise on the ,government  of 
,poland1 as well as in his adaptation   
and criticism of the  ,polysynodie of   
the ,abb de ,saint-,pierre1 a scheme of 
local government  for ,france1 born out 
of its due time4    ,the point in       
,rousseau's theory of ,sovereignty that 
offers most  difficulty is his view     
7,book ,,ii1 chap1 vii7 that1 for every 
,state1  a ,legislator is necessary4 ,we
 shall understand the section only  by  
realising that the legislator is1 in    
fact1 in ,rousseau's system1  the spirit
 of institutions personified2 his place1

 in a developed  society1 is taken by   
the whole complex of social custom1     
organisation  and tradition that has    
grown up with the ,state4 ,this is made 
clearer  by the fact that the legislator
 is not to exercise legislative power2  
he is merely to submit his suggestions  
for popular approval4 ,thus  ,rousseau  
recognises that1 in the case of         
institutions and traditions as          
elsewhere1 will1 and not force1 is the  
basis of the ,state4    ,this may be    
seen in his treatment of law as a whole 
7,book ,,ii1 chap1  vi71 which deserves 
very careful attention4 ,he defines laws
 as acts  of the general will1 and1     
agreeing with ,montesquieu in making law
 the  condition of civil association1   
goes beyond him only in tracing it  more
 definitely to its origin in an act of  
will4 ,the ,social ,contract  renders   
law necessary1 and at the same time     
makes it quite clear that  laws can     
proceed only from the body of citizens  
who have constituted  the ,state4       

,doubtless1 says ,rousseau1 there is a  
universal justice  emanating from reason
 alone2 but this justice1 to be admitted
 among us1  must be mutual4 ,humbly     
speaking1 in default of natural         
sanctions1 the  laws of justice are     
ineffective among men4 ,of the law which
 set up  among men this reign of mutual 
justice the ,general ,will is the       
source4    ,we thus come at last to the 
,general ,will1 the most disputed1 and  
certainly the most fundamental1 of all  
,rousseau's political concepts4  ,no    
critic of the ,social ,contract has     
found it easy to say either  what       
precisely its author meant by it1 or    
what is its final value for  political  
philosophy4 ,the difficulty is increased
 because ,rousseau  himself sometimes   
halts in the sense which he assigns to  
it1 and even  seems to suggest by it two
 different ideas4 ,of its broad meaning1
  however1 there can be no doubt4 ,the  
effect of the ,social ,contract is  the 
creation of a new individual4 ,when it  

has taken place1 at once1  in place of  
the individual personality of each      
contracting party1 the  act of          
association creates a moral and         
collective body1 composed of as  many   
members as the assembly contains voters1
 and receiving from the  act its unity1 
its common identity 7moi commun71 its   
life and its  will 7,book ,i1 chap4 vi74
 ,the same doctrine had been stated     
earlier1  in the ,political ,economy1   
without the historical setting4 ,the    
body  politic is also a moral being1    
possessed of a will1 and this general   
will1 which tends always to the         
preservation and welfare of the whole   
and of every part1 and is the source of 
the laws1 constitutes for all  the      
members of the ,state1 in their         
relations to one another and to it1  the
 rule of what is just or unjust4 ,it    
will be seen at once that the  second   
statement1 which could easily be        
fortified by others from the  ,social   
,contract1 says more than the first4 ,it

 is not apparent that  the common will1 
created by the institution of society1  
need tend  always to the welfare of the 
whole4 ,is not the common will at least 
as  fallible as the will of a single    
individual8 ,may it not equally be led  
away from its true interests to the     
pursuit of pleasure or of something     
which is really harmful to it8 ,and1 if 
the whole society may vote what         
conduces to the momentary pleasure of   
all the members and at the same  time to
 the lasting damage of the ,state as a  
whole1 is it not still  more likely that
 some of the members will try to secure 
their private  interests in opposition  
to those of the whole and of others8    
,all these  questions1 and others like  
them1 have been asked by critics of the 
conception of the ,general ,will4       
,two main points are involved1 to one of
 which ,rousseau gives a clear  and     
definite answer4 ,there is often1 he    
says1 a great deal of  difference       
between the will of all and the general 

will2 the latter  takes account only of 
the common interest1 while the former   
takes  private interest into account1   
and is no more than a sum of particular 
wills4 ,the agreement of all interests  
is formed by opposition to that  of each
 7,book ,,ii1 chap4 iii74 ,it is indeed 
possible for a citizen1  when an issue  
is presented to him1 to vote not for the
 good of the  ,state1 but for his own   
good2 but1 in such a case1 his vote1    
from the  point of view of the ,general 
,will1 is merely negligible4 ,but does  
it  follow that the general will is     
exterminated or corrupted8 ,not at all3 
it is always constant1 unalterable1 and 
pure2 but it is subordinated  to other  
wills which encroach upon its sphere4444
 ,the fault each  man commits in        
detaching his interest from the common  
interest is  that of changing the state 
of the question1 and answering something
  different from what he is asked4      
,instead of saying by his vote ',it is  
to the advantage of the ,state1' he     

says1 ',it is to the advantage of  this 
or that man or party that this or that  
view should prevail4' ,thus  the law of 
public order in assemblies is not so    
much to maintain in  them the general   
will as to secure that the question be  
always put  to it1 and the answer always
 given by it 7,book ,,iv1 chap4 i74     
,these  passages1 with many others that 
may be found in the text1 make it quite 
clear that by the ,general ,will        
,rousseau means something quite distinct
  from the ,will of ,all1 with which it 
should never have been confused4  ,the  
only excuse for such confusion lies in  
his view that when1 in a  city-state1   
all particular associations are avoided1
 votes guided  by individual            
self-interest will always cancel one    
another1 so that  majority voting will  
always result in the ,general ,will4    
,this is clearly  not the case1 and in  
this respect we may charge him with     
pushing the  democratic argument too    
far4 ,the point1 however1 can be better 

dealt  with at a later stage4 ,rousseau 
makes no pretence that the mere voice   
of a majority is infallible2 he only    
says1 at the most1 that1 given his      
ideal conditions1 it would be so4       
,the second main point raised by critics
 of the ,general ,will is  whether in   
defining it as a will directed solely to
 the common  interest1 ,rousseau means  
to exclude acts of public immorality and
  short-sightedness4 ,he answers the    
questions in different ways4 ,first1  an
 act of public immorality would be      
merely an unanimous instance  of        
selfishness1 different in no particular1
 from similar acts less  unanimous1 and 
therefore forming no part of a ,general 
,will4 ,secondly1  a mere ignorance of  
our own and the ,state's good1 entirely 
unprompted  by selfish desires1 does not
 make our will anti-social or           
individual4  ,the general will is always
 right and tends to the public          
advantage2  but it does not follow that 
the deliberations of the people are     

always  equally correct4 ,our will is   
always for our own good1 but we do not  
always see what that is3 the people is  
never corrupted1 but it is often        
deceived1 and on such occasions only    
does it seem to will what is bad  7,book
 ,,ii1 chap4 iii74 ,it is impossible to 
acquit ,rousseau in some of  the        
passages in which he treats of the      
,general ,will1 of something worse  than
 obscurity--positive contradiction4 ,it 
is probable1 indeed1 that  he never     
quite succeeded in getting his view     
clear in his own mind2  there is nearly 
always1 in his treatment of it1 a       
certain amount of  muddle and           
fluctuation4 ,these difficulties the    
student must be left to  worry out for  
himself2 it is only possible to present1
 in outline1 what  ,rousseau meant to   
convey4    ,the treatment of the        
,general ,will in the ,political        
,economy is brief  and lucid1 and       
furnishes the best guide to his meaning4
 ,the definition  of it in this work1   

which has already been quoted1 is       
followed by  a short account of the     
nature of general wills as a whole4     
,every  political society is composed of
 other smaller societies of various     
kinds1 each of which has its interest   
and rules of conduct2 but those         
societies which everybody perceives1    
because they have an external  or       
authorised form1 are not the only ones  
that actually exist in the  ,state3 all 
individuals who are united by a common  
interest compose as  many others1 either
 temporary or permanent1 whose influence
 is none the  less real because it is   
less apparent4444 ,the influence of all 
these  tacit or formal associations     
causes by the influence of their will as
  many modifications of the public will4
 ,the will of these particular          
societies has always two relations2 for 
the members of the association1  it is a
 general will2 for the great society1 it
 is a particular will2  and it is often 
right with regard to the first object   

and wrong as to  the second4 ,the most  
general will is always the most just1   
and the  voice of the people is1 in     
fact1 the voice of ,god4    ,the        
,general ,will1 ,rousseau continues in  
substance1 is always for the  common    
good2 but it is sometimes divided into  
smaller general wills1  which are wrong 
in relation to it4 ,the supremacy of the
 great ,general  ,will is the first     
principle of public economy and the     
fundamental  rule of government4 ,in    
this passage1 which differs only in     
clearness  and simplicity from others in
 the ,social ,contract itself1 it is    
easy  to see how far ,rousseau had in   
his mind a perfectly definite idea4     
,every association of several persons   
creates a new common will2 every        
association of a permanent character has
 already a personality of  its own1 and 
in consequence a general will2 the      
,state1 the highest  known form of      
association1 is a fully developed moral 
and collective  being with a common will

 which is1 in the highest sense yet     
known to  us1 general4 ,all such wills  
are general only for the members of the 
associations ,which exercise them2 for  
outsiders1 or rather for other          
associations1 they are purely particular
 wills4 ,this applies even to  the      
,state2 for1 in relation to what is     
outside it1 the ,state becomes  a simple
 being1 an individual 7,social          
,contract1 ,book ,i4 chap4 vii74  ,in   
certain passages in the ,social         
,contract1 in his criticism of  the ,abb
 de ,saint-,pierre's ,project of        
,perpetual ,peace1 and in the  second   
chapter of the original draft of the    
,social ,contract1 ,rousseau  takes into
 account the possibility of a still     
higher individual1 the  federation of   
the world4 ,in the ,political ,economy1 
thinking of the  nation-state1 he       
affirms what in the ,social ,contract   
7,book ,,ii1 chap1  iii7 he denies of   
the city1 and recognises that the life  
of a nation  is made up of the whole    

complex of its institutions1 and that   
the  existence of lesser general wills  
is not necessarily a menace to the      
,general ,will of the ,state4 ,in the   
,social ,contract1 he only treats  of   
these lesser wills in relation to the   
government1 which1 he shows1  has a will
 of its own1 general for its members1   
but particular for  the ,state as a     
whole 7,book ,,iii1 chap4 ii74 ,this    
governmental will he  there prefers to  
call corporate will1 and by this name it
 will be  convenient to distinguish the 
lesser general wills from the ,general  
,will of the ,state that is over them   
all4    ,so far1 there is no great      
difficulty2 but in discussing the       
infallibility of the ,general ,will we  
are on more dangerous ground4           
,rousseau's treatment here clearly      
oscillates between regarding it  as a   
purely ideal conception1 to which human 
institutions can only  approximate1 and 
holding it to be realised actually in   
every republican  ,state1 i4e4 wherever 

the people is the ,sovereign in fact as 
well as  in right4 ,book ,,iv1 chap1 ii 
is the most startling passage expressing
  the latter view4 ,when in the popular 
assembly a law is proposed1 what  the   
people is asked is not exactly whether  
it accepts or rejects the  proposal1 but
 whether it is in conformity with the   
general will1 which  is its will4444    
,when1 therefore1 the opinion that is   
contrary to my own  prevails1 this      
proves neither more nor less than that  
,i was mistaken1  and that what ,i      
thought to be the general will was not  
so4 ,on his own  principles laid down   
elsewhere1 ,rousseau would have to admit
 that it  proves nothing of the sort1   
except in so far as the other voters    
have  been guided by the general        
interest4 ,though he sometimes affirms  
the  opposite1 there is no security on  
his principles that the will of the     
majority will be the ,general ,will4 ,at
 the most it can only be said that      
there is a greater chance of its being  

general than of the will of any         
selected class of persons not being led 
away by corporate interests4  ,the      
justification of democracy is not that  
it is always right1 even in  intention1 
but that it is more general than any    
other kind of supreme  power4           
,fundamentally1 however1 the doctrine of
 the ,general ,will is independent  of  
these contradictions4 ,apart from       
,kant's narrow and rigid logic1  it is  
essentially one with his doctrine of the
 autonomy of the will4  ,kant takes     
,rousseau's political theory1 and       
applies it to ethics as a  whole4 ,the  
germ of mis application is already found
 in ,rousseau's own  work2 for he       
protests more than once against attempts
 to treat moral  and political          
philosophy apart1 as distinct studies1  
and asserts their  absolute unity4 ,this
 is brought out clearly in the ,social  
,contract  7,book ,i1 chap1 viii71 where
 he is speaking of the change brought   
about by the establishment of society4  

,the passage from the state of  nature  
to the civil state produces a very      
remarkable change in man1  by           
substituting justice for instinct in his
 conduct1 and giving his  actions the   
morality they had hitherto lacked4444   
,what man loses by  the social contract 
is his natural liberty and an unlimited 
right to  everything he tries to get and
 succeeds in getting2 what he gains is  
civil liberty 444 which is limited by   
the general will4444 ,we might1  over   
and above all this1 add to what man     
acquires in the civil state  moral      
liberty1 which alone makes him truly    
master of himself2 for the  mere impulse
 of appetite is slavery1 while obedience
 to a law which we  prescribe to        
ourselves is liberty4    ,this one      
chapter contains the gist of the        
,kantian moral philosophy1  and makes it
 quite clear that ,rousseau perceived   
its application to  ethics as well as to
 politics4 ,the morality of our acts    
consists in  their being directed in    

accordance with universal law2 acts in  
which  we are guided merely by our      
passions are not moral4 ,further1 man   
can  only possess freedom when his whole
 being is unified in the pursuit of  a  
single end2 and1 as his whole being can 
be unified only in pursuit of  a        
rational end1 which alone excludes      
contradiction1 only moral acts1  only   
men directing their lives by universal  
law1 are free4 ,in ,kantian  language1  
the will is autonomous 7i4e4 prescribes 
to itself its own  law7 only when it is 
directed to a universal end2 when it is 
guided  by selfish passions1 or         
particular considerations1 it is        
heteronomous  7i4e4 receives its law    
from something external to itself71 and 
in  bondage4 ,rousseau1 as he says      
7,book ,i1 chap1 viii71 was not directly
  concerned with the ethical sense of   
the word liberty1 and ,kant was1        
therefore1 left to develop the doctrine 
into a system2 but the phrases  of this 
chapter prove false the view that the   

doctrine of a ,real ,will  arises first 
in connection with politics1 and is only
 transferred  thence to moral           
philosophy4 ,rousseau bases his         
political doctrine  throughout on his   
view of human freedom2 it is because man
 is a free  agent capable of being      
determined by a universal law prescribed
 by  himself that the ,state is in like 
manner capable of realising the         
,general ,will1 that is1 of prescribing 
to itself and its members a  similar    
universal law4    ,the ,general ,will1  
then1 is the application of human       
freedom to  political institutions4     
,before the value of this conception can
 be  determined1 there is a criticism to
 be met4 ,the freedom which is  realised
 in the ,general ,will1 we are told1 is 
the freedom of the ,state  as a whole2  
but the ,state exists to secure         
individual freedom for  its members4 ,a 
free ,state may be tyrannical2 a despot 
may allow his  subjects every freedom4  
,what guarantee is there that the       

,state1 in  freeing itself1 will not    
enslave its members8 ,this criticism has
 been  made with such regularity that it
 has to be answered in some detail4     
,the problem is to find a form of       
association which will defend and       
protect with the whole common force the 
person and goods of each  associate1 and
 in which each1 while uniting himself   
with all1 may still  obey himself alone1
 and remain as free as before4 ,the     
clauses of the  contract 444 are        
everywhere the same and everywhere      
tacitly admitted  and recognised4444    
,these clauses1 properly understood1 may
 be reduced  to one--the total          
alienation of each associate1 together  
with all his  rights1 to the whole      
community4442 for1 if the individuals   
retained  certain rights1 as there would
 be no common superior to decide between
  them and the public1 each1 being on   
one point his own judge1 would ask  to  
be so on all1 and the state of nature   
would continue 7,book ,i1 chap4  vi74   

,rousseau sees clearly that it is       
impossible to place any limits  upon the
 power of the ,state2 when the people   
combine into a ,state1 they  must in the
 end submit to be guided in all things  
by the will of the  effective majority4 
,limited ,sovereignty is a contradiction
 in terms2  the ,sovereign has a right  
to all that reason allows it1 and as    
soon as  reason demands that the ,state 
shall interfere1 no appeal to individual
  rights can be made4 ,what is best for 
the ,state must be suffered by the      
individual4 ,this1 however1 is very far 
from meaning that the ruling  power     
ought1 or has the moral right1 to       
interfere in every particular  case4    
,rousseau has been subjected to much    
foolish criticism because1  after       
upholding the ,state's absolute         
supremacy1 he goes on 7,book ,,ii1      
chap1 iv7 to speak of the limits of the 
sovereign power4 ,there is no           
contradiction whatsoever4 ,wherever     
,state intervention is for the best1    

the ,state has a right to intervene2 but
 it has no moral right1 though  it must 
have a legal right1 to intervene where  
it is not for the best4  ,the ,general  
,will1 being always in the right1 will  
intervene only when  intervention is    
proper4 ,the ,sovereign1 therefore1     
cannot impose upon  its subjects any    
fetters that are useless to the         
community1 nor can  it even wish to do  
so4 ,as1 however1 the infallibility of  
the ,general  ,will is not enough to    
make the ,state infallible1 there still 
remains  an objection4 ,since the       
,general ,will cannot always be arrived 
at1 who  is to judge whether an act of  
intervention is justified8 ,rousseau's  
answer fails to satisfy many of his     
critics4 ,each man alienates1 ,i  admit1
 by the social compact1 only such part  
of his powers1 goods and  liberty as it 
is important for the community to       
control2 but it must  also be granted   
that the ,sovereign is sole judge of    
what is important4  ,this1 we are told1 

is mere ,state tyranny over again4 ,but 
how is it  possible to avoid such a     
conclusion8 ,rousseau has already given 
his  reasons for objecting to a limited 
,sovereignty 7,book ,i1 chap1 vi73 it   
follows absolutely that we must take the
 best machinery we can find for  the    
execution of the ,state's functions4 ,no
 doubt the machinery will  be imperfect2
 but we can only try to get as near the 
,general ,will as  possible1 without    
hoping to realise it fully4    ,the     
answer1 therefore1 to the critics who   
hold that1 in securing civil  liberty   
,rousseau has sacrificed the individual 
may be put after this  fashion4 ,liberty
 is not a merely negative conception2 it
 does not  consist solely in the absence
 of restraint4 ,the purest              
individualist1  ,herbert ,spencer for   
example1 would grant that a certain     
amount of  ,state interference is       
necessary to secure liberty2 but as soon
 as  this idea of securing liberty is   
admitted in the smallest degree1 the    

whole idea has undergone profound       
modification4 ,it can no longer be      
claimed that every interference on the  
part of the ,state lessens the  liberty 
of the individual2 the liberty-fund     
theory is as untenable  as that of the  
wages-fund3 the members of a ,state may 
be more free  when all are restrained   
from doing one another mutual damage    
than when  any one is left free to      
enslave another or be himself enslaved4 
,this  principle once admitted1 the     
precise amount of ,state interference   
that  is necessary to secure freedom    
will be always a matter for particular  
discussion2 every case must be decided  
on its own merits1 and1 in  right1 the  
,sovereign will be omnipotent1 or       
subject only to the law of  reason4     
,it has often been held that ,rousseau  
cannot really have inspired the  ,french
 ,revolution because this view is       
totally inconsistent with the  rights of
 man1 which the revolutionaries so      
fervently proclaimed4  ,if every right  

is alienated in the ,social ,contract1  
what sense can  there be in talking of  
natural rights afterwards8 ,this1       
however1 is  to misrepresent ,rousseau's
 position4 ,the rights of man as they   
are  preached by the modern             
individualist1 are not the rights of    
which  ,rousseau and the revolutionaries
 were thinking4 ,we have seen that the  
theory of the ,social ,contract is      
founded on human freedom3 this  freedom 
carries with it1 in ,rousseau's view1   
the guarantee of its own  permanence2 it
 is inalienable and indestructible4     
,when1 therefore1  government becomes   
despotic1 it has no more right over its 
subjects  than the master has over his  
slave 7,book ,i1 chap1 iv72 the question
 is  then purely one of might4 ,in such 
cases1 appeal may be made either to  the
 terms of the ,social ,contract1 or1    
putting the same idea another  way1 to  
the natural right of human freedom4     
,this natural right is  in no sense     
inconsistent with the complete          

alienation supposed in the  ,contract2  
for the ,contract itself reposes on it  
and guarantees its  maintenance4 ,the   
,sovereign must1 therefore1 treat all   
its members  alike2 but1 so long as it  
does this1 it remains omnipotent4 ,if it
  leaves the general for the particular1
 and treats one man better than         
another1 it ceases to be ,sovereign2 but
 equality is already presupposed  in the
 terms of the ,contract4    ,it is more 
profitable to attack ,rousseau for his  
facile identification  of the interests 
of each of the citizens with those of   
all2 but here1  too1 most of the critics
 have abused their opportunity4 ,he does
 not  maintain that there can be no     
opposition between a man's particular   
interests and the ,general ,will as     
present in him2 on the contrary1 he     
explicitly and consistently affirms the 
presence of such opposition  7,book ,i1 
chap4 vii74 ,what he asserts is1 first1 
that the ,sovereign1 as  such1 cannot   
have any interest contrary to the       

interest of the citizens  as a          
whole--that is obvious2 and1 secondly1  
that it cannot have an  interest        
contrary to that of any individual4 ,the
 second point ,rousseau  proves by      
showing that the omnipotence of the     
,sovereign is essential  to the         
preservation of society1 which in turn  
is necessary for the  individual4 ,his  
argument1 however1 really rests on the  
fundamental  character of the ,general  
,will4 ,he would admit that1 in any     
actual  ,state1 the apparent interest of
 the many might often conflict with that
  of the few2 but he would contend that 
the real interest of ,state and         
individual alike1 being subject to      
universal law could not be such as  to  
conflict with any other real interest4  
,the interest of the ,state1  in so far 
as it is directed by the ,general ,will1
 must be the interest  of every         
individual1 in so far as he is guided by
 his real will1 that  is1 in so far as  
he is acting universally1 rationally and

 autonomously4    ,thus the             
justification of ,rousseau's theory of  
liberty returns to the  point from which
 it set out--the omnipotence of the real
 will in  ,state and individual4 ,it is 
in this sense that he speaks of man in  
the  ,state as forced to be free by the 
,general ,will1 much as ,kant might     
speak of a man's lower nature as forced 
to be free by the universal  mandate of 
his higher1 more real and more rational 
will4 ,it is in this  recognition of the
 ,state as a moral being1 with powers of
 determination  similar to the powers of
 the individual mind1 that the          
significance  of the ,general ,will     
ultimately lies4 ,even1 however1 among  
those who  have recognised its meaning1 
there are some who deny its value as a  
conception of political philosophy4 ,if1
 they say1 the ,general ,will is  not   
the ,will of ,all1 if it cannot be      
arrived at by a majority vote  or by any
 system of voting whatsoever1 then it is
 nothing2 it is a  mere abstraction1    

neither general1 nor a ,i will4 ,this   
is1 of course1  precisely the criticism 
to which ,kant's real will is often     
subjected4  ,clearly1 it must be granted
 at once that the ,general ,will does   
not  form the whole actual content of   
the will of every citizen4 ,regarded  as
 actual1 it must always be qualified by 
in so far as or its  equivalent4 ,this1 
however1 is so far from destroying the  
value of the  conception that therein   
lies its whole value4 ,in seeking the   
universal  basis of society1 we are not 
seeking anything that is wholly         
actualised  in any ,state1 though we    
must be seeking something which exists1 
more or  less perfectly1 in every       
,state4    ,the point of the ,social    
,contract theory1 as ,rousseau states   
it1 is that  legitimate society exists  
by the consent of the people1 and acts  
by  popular will4 ,active will1 and not 
force or even mere consent1 is the      
basis of the republican ,state1 which   
can only possess this character  because

 individual wills are not really        
self-sufficient and separate1  but      
complementary and inter-dependent4 ,the 
answer to the question ,why  ought ,i to
 obey the ,general ,will8 is that the   
,general ,will exists in  me and not    
outside me4 ,i am obeying only myself1  
as ,rousseau says4  ,the ,state is not a
 mere accident of human history1 a mere 
device for  the protection of life and  
property2 it responds to a fundamental  
need  of human nature1 and is rooted in 
the character of the individuals  who   
compose it4 ,the whole complex of human 
institutions is not a mere  artificial  
structure2 it is the expression of the  
mutual dependence  and fellowship of    
men4 ,if it means anything1 the theory  
of the ,general  ,will means that the   
,state is natural1 and the state of     
nature an  abstraction4 ,without this   
basis of will and natural need1 no      
society  could for a moment subsist2 the
 ,state exists and claims our obedience 
because it is a natural extension of our

 personality4    ,the problem1 however1 
still remains of making the ,general    
,will1 in  any particular ,state1 active
 and conscious4 ,it is clear that there 
are ,states in which visible and        
recognised institutions hardly answer   
in any respect to its requirements4     
,even in such ,states1 however1  there  
is a limit to tyranny2 deep down1 in    
immemorial customs with  which the      
despot dare not interfere1 the ,general 
,will is still active  and important4   
,it does not reside merely in the       
outward and visible  organisation of    
social institutions1 in that complex of 
formal  associations which we may call  
the ,state2 its roots go deeper and its 
branches spread further4 ,it is         
realised1 in greater or less degree1 in 
the whole life of the community1 in the 
entire complex of private and  public   
relations which1 in the widest sense1   
may be called ,society4 ,we  may        
recognise it not only in a ,parliament1 
a ,church1 a ,university or a  ,trade   

,union1 but also in the most intimate   
human relationships1 and the  most      
trivial1 as well as the most vital1     
social customs4    ,but1 if all these   
things go to the making of the ,general 
,will in every  community1 the ,general 
,will has1 for politics1 primarily a    
narrower  sense4 ,the problem here is to
 secure its supremacy in the official   
institutions and public councils of the 
nation4 ,this is the question to  which 
,rousseau chiefly addressed himself4    
,here1 too1 we shall find the  ,general 
,will the best possible conception for  
the guidance of political  endeavour    
,for the ,general ,will is realised not 
when that is done  which is best for the
 community1 but when1 in addition1 the  
community  as a whole has willed the    
doing of it4 ,the ,general ,will demands
 not  only good government1 but also    
self-government--not only rational      
conduct1 but good-will4 ,this is what   
some of ,rousseau's admirers are  apt to
 forget when they use his argument1 as  

he himself was sometimes  inclined to   
use it1 in support of pure aristocracy4 
,rousseau said that  aristocracy was the
 best of all governments1 but he said   
also that it  was the worst of all      
usurpers of ,sovereignty4 ,nor must it  
be forgotten  that he expressly         
specified elective aristocracy4 ,there  
is no ,general  ,will unless the people 
wills the good4 ,general ,will may be   
embodied in  one man willing            
universally2 but it can only be embodied
 in the ,state  when the mass of the    
citizens so wills4 ,the will must be    
general in  two senses3 in the sense in 
which ,rousseau used the word1 it must  
be  general in its object1 i4e4         
universal2 but it must also be generally
  held1 i4e4 common to all or to the    
majority4#a    ,the ,general ,will is1  
then1 above all a universal and1 in the 
,kantian  sense1 a rational will4 ,it   
would be possible to find in ,rousseau  
many more anticipations of the views of 
,kant2 but it is better here  to confine

 comment to an important difference     
between them4 ,it is  surprising to find
 in ,kant1 the originator of modern     
intellectualism1  and in ,rousseau1 the 
great apostle of sentiment1 an          
essentially  similar view on the nature 
and function of the will4 ,their views1 
however1 present a difference2 for1     
whereas the moving force of ,kant's     
moral imperative is purely rational1    
,rousseau finds the sanction of  his    
,general ,will in human feeling itself4 
,as we can see from a passage  in the   
original draft of the ,social ,contract1
 the ,general ,will  remains purely     
rational4 ,no-one will dispute that the 
,general ,will is  in each individual a 
pure act of the understanding1 which    
reasons while  the passions are silent  
on what a man may demand of his         
neighbour and  on what his neighbour has
 a right to demand of him4 ,the will    
remains  purely rational1 but ,rousseau 
feels that it needs an external motive  
power4 ,if natural law1 he writes1 were 

written only on the tablets  of human   
reason it would be incapable of guiding 
the greater part of  our actions2 but it
 is also graven on the heart of man in  
characters  that cannot be effaced1 and 
it is there it speaks to him more       
strongly  than all the precepts of the  
philosophers 7from an unfinished essay  
on  ,the ,state of ,war74 ,the nature of
 this guiding sentiment is explained  in
 the ,discourse on ,inequality 7p4 #aig1
 note #b71 where egoism  7amour-propre7 
is contrasted with self-respect 7amour  
de soi74  ,naturally1 ,rousseau holds1  
man does not want everything for        
himself1  and nothing for others4       
,egoism and altruism are both one-sided 
qualities arising out of the perversion 
of man's1 natural goodness4  ,man is    
born good1 that is1 man's nature really 
makes him desire only  to be treated as 
one among others1 to share equally4     
,this natural love  of equality 7amour  
de soi7 includes love of others as well 
as love  of self1 and egoism1 loving    

one's self at the expense of others1 is 
an unnatural and perverted condition4   
,the rational precepts of the  ,general 
,will1 therefore1 find an echo in the   
heart of the natural  man1 and1 if we   
can only secure the human being against 
perversion by  existing societies1 the  
,general ,will can be made actual4      
,this is the meeting-point of           
,rousseau's educational with his        
political  theory4 ,his view as a whole 
can be studied only by taking together  
the  ,social ,contract and the ,emile as
 explained by the ,letters on the       
,mount and other works4 ,the fundamental
 dogma of the natural goodness  of man  
finds no place directly in the ,social  
,contract2 but it lurks  behind the     
whole of his political theory1 and is   
indeed1 throughout1  his                
master-conception4 ,his educational1 his
 religious1 his political  and his      
ethical ideas are all inspired by a     
single consistent attitude4  ,here we   
have been attending only to his         

political theory2 in the volume  which  
is to follow1 containing the ,letters on
 the ,mount and other  works1 some      
attempt will be made to draw the various
 threads together  and estimate his work
 as a whole4 ,the political works1      
however1 can be  read separately1 and   
the ,social ,contract itself is still by
 far the  best of all text-books of     
political philosophy4 ,rousseau's       
political  influence1 so far from being 
dead1 is every day increasing2 and as   
new  generations and new classes of men 
come to the study of his work1 his      
conceptions1 often hazy and undeveloped1
 but nearly always of lasting  value1   
will assuredly form the basis of a new  
political philosophy1 in  which they    
will be taken up and transformed4 ,this 
new philosophy is  the work of the      
future2 but1 rooted upon the conception 
of ,rousseau1  it will stretch far back 
into the past4 ,of our time1 it will be 
for  all time2 its solutions will be at 
once relatively permanent and           

ceaselessly progressive4    ,g4 ,d4 ,h4 
,,cole4      #a ,the term general will  
means1 in ,rousseau1 not so much will   
held  by several persons1 as will having
 a general 7universal7 object4 ,this  is
 often misunderstood2 but the mistake   
matters the less1 because the  ,general 
,will must1 in fact1 be both4           
,a ,,note ,,on ,,books      ,there are  
few good books in ,english on           
,rousseau's politics4 ,by far the  best 
treatment is to be found in ,mr4        
,bernard ,bosanquet's ,philosophical    
,theory of the ,state4 ,viscount        
,morley's ,rousseau is a good life1  but
 is not of much use as a criticism of   
views2 ,mr4 ,w4 ,boyd's ,the            
,educational ,theory of ,rousseau       
contains some fairly good chapters  on  
the political views4 ,d4 ,g4 ,ritchie's 
,darwin and ,hegel includes  an         
admirable essay on ,the ,social         
,contract ,theory and another on        
,sovereignty4 ,the ,english translation 
of ,professor ,gran's ,rousseau  is an  

interesting biography4    ,in ,french1  
there is a good cheap edition of        
,rousseau's complete works  published by
 ,hachette in thirteen volumes4 ,m4     
,dreyfus-,brisac's great  edition of the
 ,contrat ,social is indispensable1 and 
there is a good  small edition with     
notes by ,m4 ,georges ,beaulavon4 ,m4   
,faguet's study  of ,rousseau in his    
,dix-huitime sicle--tudes littraires and
 his  ,politique compare de             
,montesquieu1 ,voltaire et ,rousseau are
 useful1  though ,i am seldom in        
agreement with them4 ,m4 ,henri ,rodet's
 ,le ,contrat  ,social et les ides      
politiques de ,j4 ,j4 ,rousseau is      
useful1 if not  inspired1 and there are 
interesting works by ,,mm4 ,chuquet1    
,fabre and  ,lematre4 ,the ,french      
translation of ,professor ,hffding's    
little volume  on ,rousseau3 sa vie et  
sa philosophie is admirable4    ,miss   
,foxley's translation of the ,emile1    
especially of ,book ,v1 should  be      
studied in connection with the ,social  

,contract4 ,a companion  volume1        
containing the ,letters on the ,mount   
and other works1 will be  issued        
shortly4    ,g4,d4,h4,c4                
,,bibliography      ,,principal ,,works3
 ,article in the ,mercure in answer to  
one entitled  ,si le monde que nous     
habitons est une sphre ou une sphrode1  
#agch2  ,le ,verger de ,mme4 de ,warens1
 #agci2 ,sur la musique moderne1 #agdc2 
,si  le rtablissement des ,sciences et  
des ,arts a contribu  purer les  ,murs1 
prize essay1 #agej1 translated by ,r4   
,wynne1 #ageb1 by anonymous  author1    
#agfj1 by ,h4 ,smithers1 #ahah2 ,devin  
du ,village 7opera71 #agec1  translated 
by ,c4 ,burney1 #agff2 ,narcisse1 ou    
,amant de lui-mme1 #agec2  ,lettre sur  
la musique ,francaise1 #agec2 ,sur      
l'origine de l'ingalit  parmi les       
hommes1 #agee2 ,discours sur deux       
principes avancs par ,rameau1  #agee2   
,sur l'conomie politique1 #ageh2 ,letter
 to d',alembert on his  article ,genve  
in the ,encyclopdie1 #ageh1 translated  

#ageie ,lettres   ,voltaire1 #agei2     
,julie1 ou la nouvelle ,hlose1 first    
published under  the title of ,lettres  
de deux amants1 habitants d'une petite  
ville  au pied des ,alpes1 etc1 #agfa2  
,contrat ,social1 or ,principes du droit
  politique1 #agfb2 ,emile1 ou ,de      
l',education1 #agfb2 ,lettre            
,christophe  de ,beaumont1 ,archevque de
 ,paris1 #agfc2 ,alle de ,silvie 7poem71
 #agfc2  ,lettres crites de la          
,montagne1 #agfd2 ,de l'imitation       
thtrale1 #agfd2  ,dictionnaire de       
musique1 #agfg1 translated by ,w4       
,waring1 #aggi2 ,lettres  sur son exil  
du ,canton de ,berne1 #aggj4            
,,posthumous ,,works3 ,emile et ,sophie1
 #aghj2 ,les consolations des misres  de
 ma vie1 #agha2 ,considrations sur le   
gouvernement de ,pologne1 #aghb2  ,les  
,confessions1 and ,rveries du ,promeneur
 ,solitaire1 #d vols41 #aghb-i2         
,nouveau ,ddale1 #ahja2 ,la ,botanique  
de ,j4 ,j4 ,rousseau1 #ahje2 translated1
  with additional letters1 by ,t4       

,martyn1 #aghe1 #gth edition1 #ahjg2    
,testament de ,j4 ,j4 ,rousseau1 #ahbj4 
,,translations3 ,hlose 7,eloisa71 #agfa1
 with a sequel found after the  author's
 death1 #aghd1 #agie1 #ahaj2 ,emile1 by 
,nugent1 #agfc2 anonymous  translator   
the same year2 abridged and annotated by
 ,w4 ,h4 ,payne1 #ahic2  ,emile et      
,sophie1 by ,nugent1 #agfe 7871 by the  
translator of ,eloisa1  #agfg2 ,contrat 
,social1 #agfd1 #agia1 in vol4 iii4 of  
,political ,classics1  #agie2 #ahdj 7871
 by ,r4 ,m4 ,harrington1 with           
,introduction by ,e4 ,l4  ,walter1      
#ahic2 by ,h4 ,j4 ,tozer #ahie1 #aijb1  
#aije2 ,confessions1 #b vols41  #aghc2  
#agif-ij1 #ahfa1 #ahia 7,masterpieces of
 ,foreign ,authors71 abridged  from     
#ahif edition1 with preface by ,g4 ,j4  
,holyoake1 #aheg2 complete  translation 
7privately printed71 #b vols41 #ahif2   
with ,introduction  by ,hesketh ,milis  
7,sisley ,books71 #aijg2 the second     
part1 with a new  collection of letters1
 #c vols41 #agia4    ,,works3 #agfd 7#f 

vols472 #agfi 7#aa vols472 #aggd        
7,london1 #i vols472 #aghb1  etc4 7#ag  
vols472 #agij 7#cc vols472 #agij 7#cj   
vols41 or #ce72 #aghh-ic 7#ci  vols472  
#agic-ahjj 7,didot1 #ah vols471 and     
later editions from this same  firm2    
,musset-,pathay1 #ahbc-f4               
,,miscellaneous ,,works3 #e vols41      
#agfg4    ,,posthumous ,,works3 #aghb1  
#aghc2 uvres indites 7,musset-,pathay71 
#ahbe1  #ahcc2 ,fragments indits1 etc41 
by ,a4 de ,bougy1 #ahec2 uvres et       
,correspondence indites                 
7,streckeisen-,moultou71 #ahfa2         
,fragments indits2  ,recherches         
biographiques et littraires1 ,a4        
,jansen1 #ahhb4    ,works translated    
from the ,french1 #aj vols41 #aggc-gd4  
,,letters3 ,sur diffrents ,sujets1 #e   
vols41 #agdj-ec2 ,lettres nouvelles sur 
le motif de sa retraite  la ,campagne1  
adresses  ,m4 de ,malesherbes1  #aghj2  
,nouvelles lettres1 #aghi2 ,lettres au  
citoyen ,lenieps1 etc1  #agic 7872      
,correspondance originate et incite avec

 ,mme4 ,latour de  ,tranqueville et ,m4 
du ,peyrou1 #b vols41 #ahjc2 ,lettres   
indites  ,mme4  d',epinay 7see ,memoirs 
of ,mme4 d',epinay71 #ahah2 ,lettres de 
,voltaire et  de ,rousseau  ,c4 ,j4     
,panckoucke1 #ahbh2 ,lettres indites    
,m4 ,m4 ,rey1  #aheh2 ,lettres  ,mme4   
,dupin 7in ,le ,portefeuille de ,mme4   
,dupin71 #ahhd2  ,lettres indites       
7correspondence with ,mme4 ,roy de      
,latour71 published  by ,h4 de          
,rothschild1 with preface by ,l4        
,claretie1 #ahib2 ,lettres  7between    
,rousseau and ,henriette71 published by 
,h4 ,buffenoir1 #aijb2  ,correspondance 
avec ,lonard ,usteri1 #aiaj4            
,,translations3 ,original letters to ,m4
 de ,malesherbes1 d',alembert1  ,mme4 la
 ,m4 de ,luxembourg1 etc41 #agii1 #ahbj2
 ,eighteen letters to ,mme4             
d',houdetot1 ,october #ageg-,march      
#ageh1 #aije4    ,,life1 etc43 ,j4 ,h4  
,fuessli1 ,remarks on the ,writings and 
,conduct of ,jean  ,jacques ,rousseau1  
#agfg2 ,stal-,holstein 7,baroness de    

,rocco71 ,letters  on the ,work and     
,character of ,jean ,jacques ,rousseau  
7translation71  #aghi1 #ahad2 ,j4       
,morley1 ,rousseau1 #ahgc1 #ahhf2 ,h4   
,g4 ,graham1 ,rousseau  7,foreign       
,classics for ,english ,readers71 #ahhb2
 ,t4 ,davidson1 ,rousseau and           
,education according to ,nature 7,great 
,educators71 vol4 ix41 #ahih2 ,j4       
,texte1 ,jean ,jacques ,rousseau and the
 ,cosmopolitan ,spirit in ,literature1  
etc4 7translation71 #ahii2 ,h4 ,h4      
,hudson1 ,rousseau and ,naturalism in   
,life  and ,thought 7,world's ,epoch    
,makers71 #aijc2 ,f4 ,macdonald1 ,jean  
,jacques  ,rousseau1 a new criticism1   
#aijf2 ,j4 ,c4 ,collins1 ,voltaire1     
,montesquieu1  and ,rousseau in         
,england1 #aijh4          ,,contents    
,,introduction    ,,the ,,social        
,,contract    ,,book ,i    ,,foreword   
,in which it is inquired why man passes 
from the state  of nature to the state  
of society and what are the essential   
conditions of the compact4           ,i 

,the ,subject of the first ,book        
,,ii   ,the first ,societies       ,,iii
   ,the ,right of the ,strongest        
,,iv   ,slavery         ,v   ,that we   
must always go back to a first          
,convention        ,,vi   ,the ,social  
,compact       ,,vii   ,the ,sovereign  
,,viii   ,the ,civil ,state        ,,ix 
,real ,property      ,,book ,,ii        
,which treats of legislation4           
,i   ,that ,sovereignty is inalienable  
,,ii   ,that ,sovereignty is indivisible
       ,,iii   ,whether the general     
,will is fallible        ,,iv   ,the    
,limits of the ,sovereign ,power        
,v   ,the ,right of ,life and ,death    
,,vi   ,law       ,,vii   ,the          
,legislator      ,,viii   ,the ,people  
,,ix   ,the ,people 7continued7         
,x   ,the ,people 7continued7           
,,xi   ,the various ,systems of         
,legislation       ,,xii   ,the         
,division of the ,laws      ,,book ,,iii
    ,which treats of political laws1    
that is to say1 of the form of          

government4           ,i   ,government  
in ,general        ,,ii   ,the          
constituent ,principle in the various   
,forms of ,government       ,,iii   ,the
 ,division of ,governments        ,,iv  
,democracy         ,v   ,aristocracy    
,,vi   ,monarchy       ,,vii   ,mixed   
,governments      ,,viii   ,that all    
,forms of ,government do not suit all   
,countries        ,,ix   ,the ,marks of 
a good ,government         ,x   ,the    
,abuse of ,government and its ,tendency 
to ,degenerate        ,,xi   ,the ,death
 of the ,body ,politic       ,,xii      
,how the ,sovereign ,authority maintains
 itself      ,,xiii   ,how the          
,sovereign ,authority maintains itself  
7continued7       ,,xiv   ,how the      
,sovereign ,authority maintains itself  
7continued7        ,,xv   ,deputies or  
,representatives       ,,xvi   ,that the
 ,institution of ,government is not a   
,contract      ,,xvii   ,the            
,institution of ,government     ,,xviii 
,how to check the ,usurpations of       

,government    ,,book ,,iv    ,which    
treats further of political laws and    
sets forth the  means of strengthening  
the ,constitution of the ,state4        
,i   ,that the general ,will is         
indestructible        ,,ii   ,voting    
,,iii   ,elections        ,,iv   ,the   
,roman ,comitia         ,v   ,the       
,tribunate        ,,vi   ,the           
,dictatorship       ,,vii   ,the        
,censorship      ,,viii   ,civil        
,religion        ,,ix   ,conclusion     
,a ,,discourse ,,on ,,the ,,arts ,,and  
,,sciences  ,a ,,discourse ,,on ,,the   
,,origin ,,of ,,inequality -- ,appendix 
,a ,,discourse ,,on ,,political         
,,economy          ,,the ,,social       
,,contract    ,,or    ,,principles ,,of 
,,political    ,,right    ,fderis quas  
,dicamus leges4 7,vergil1 neid ,,xi47   
,,foreword    ,this little treatise is  
part of a longer work which ,i began    
years ago  without realising my         
limitations1 and long since abandoned4  
,of the  various fragments that might   

have been extracted from what ,i wrote1 
this is the most considerable1 and1 ,i  
think1 the least unworthy of  being     
offered to the public4 ,the rest no     
longer exists4          ,,book ,i       
,i mean to inquire if1 in the civil     
order1 there can be any sure and        
legitimate rule of administration1 men  
being taken as they are and laws  as    
they might be4 ,in this inquiry ,i shall
 endeavour always to unite  what right  
sanctions with what is prescribed by    
interest1 in order that  justice and    
utility may in no case be divided4    ,i
 enter upon my task without proving the 
importance of the subject4 ,i  shall be 
asked if ,i am a prince or a legislator1
 to write on politics4  ,i answer that  
,i am neither1 and that is why ,i do so4
 ,if ,i were a prince  or a legislator1 
,i should not waste time in saying what 
wants doing2 ,i  should do it1 or hold  
my peace4    ,as ,i was born a citizen  
of a free ,state1 and a member of the   
,sovereign1  ,i feel that1 however      

feeble the influence my voice can have  
on public  affairs1 the right of voting 
on them makes it my duty to study them3 
and ,i am happy1 when ,i reflect upon   
governments1 to find my inquiries       
always furnish me with new reasons for  
loving that of my own country4          
,,chapter ,i    ,,subject ,,of ,,the    
,,first ,,book      ,man is born free2  
and everywhere he is in chains4 ,one    
thinks himself  the master of others1   
and still remains a greater slave than  
they4 ,how  did this change come about8 
,i do not know4 ,what can make it       
legitimate8  ,that question ,i think ,i 
can answer4    ,if ,i took into account 
only force1 and the effects derived from
 it1 ,i  should say3 ,as long as a      
people is compelled to obey1 and obeys1 
it  does well2 as soon as it can shake  
off the yoke1 and shakes it off1  it    
does still better2 for1 regaining its   
liberty by the same right  as took it   
away1 either it is justified in resuming
 it1 or there was  no justification for 

those who took it away4 ,but the social 
order is  a sacred right which is the   
basis of all other rights4              
,nevertheless1  this right does not come
 from nature1 and must therefore be     
founded on  conventions4 ,before coming 
to that1 ,i have to prove what ,i have  
just  asserted4            ,,chapter    
,,ii    ,,the ,,first ,,societies       
,the most ancient of all societies1 and 
the only one that is natural  is the    
family3 and even so the children remain 
attached to the father  only so long as 
they need him for their preservation4   
,as soon as this  need ceases1 the      
natural bond is dissolved4 ,the         
children1 released from  the obedience  
they owed to the father1 and the father1
 released from  the care he owed his    
children1 return equally to             
independence4 ,if they  remain united1  
they continue so no longer naturally1   
but voluntarily2  and the family itself 
is then maintained only by convention4  
,this common liberty results from the   

nature of man4 ,his first law is  to    
provide for his own preservation1 his   
first cares are those which  he owes to 
himself2 and1 as soon as he reaches     
years of discretion1  he is the sole    
judge of the proper means of preserving 
himself1 and  consequently becomes his  
own master4    ,the family then may be  
called the first model of political     
societies3  the ruler corresponds to the
 father1 and the people to the children2
  and all1 being born free and equal1   
alienate their liberty only for  their  
own advantage4 ,the whole difference is 
that1 in the family1 the  love of the   
father for his children repays him for  
the care he takes of  them1 while1 in   
the ,state1 the pleasure of commanding  
takes the place  of the love which the  
chief cannot have for the peoples under 
him4    ,grotius denies that all human  
power is established in favour of the   
governed1 and quotes slavery as an      
example4 ,his usual method of  reasoning
 is constantly to establish right by    

fact4#a ,it would be  possible to employ
 a more logical method1 but none could  
be more  favourable to tyrants4    ,it  
is then1 according to ,grotius1 doubtful
 whether the human race  belongs to a   
hundred men1 or that hundred men to the 
human race3 and1  throughout his book1  
he seems to incline to the former       
alternative1  which is also the view of 
,hobbes4 ,on this showing1 the human    
species is  divided into so many herds  
of cattle1 each with its ruler1 who     
keeps  guard over them for the purpose  
of devouring them4    ,as a shepherd is 
of a nature superior to that of his     
flock1 the  shepherds of men1 i4e4 their
 rulers1 are of a nature superior to    
that of the peoples under them4 ,thus1  
,philo tells us1 the ,emperor  ,caligula
 reasoned1 concluding equally well      
either that kings were gods1  or that   
men were beasts4    ,the reasoning of   
,caligula agrees with that of ,hobbes   
and ,grotius4  ,aristotle1 before any of
 them1 had said that men are by no means

 equal  naturally1 but that some are    
born for slavery1 and others for        
dominion4    ,aristotle was right2 but  
he took the effect for the cause4       
,nothing  can be more certain than that 
every man born in slavery is born for   
slavery4 ,slaves lose everything in     
their chains1 even the desire of        
escaping from them3 they love their     
servitude1 as the comrades of  ,ulysses 
loved their brutish condition4#b ,if    
then there are slaves by  nature1 it is 
because there have been slaves against  
nature4 ,force made  the first slaves1  
and their cowardice perpetuated the     
condition4    ,i have said nothing of   
,king ,adam1 or ,emperor ,noah1 father  
of the three  great monarchs who shared 
out the universe1 like the children of  
,saturn1 whom some scholars have        
recognised in them4 ,i trust to getting 
due thanks for my moderation2 for1 being
 a direct descendant of one  of these   
princes1 perhaps of the eldest branch1  
how do ,i know that a  verification of  

titles might not leave me the legitimate
 king of the  human race8 ,in any case1 
there can be no doubt that ,adam was    
sovereign  of the world1 as ,robinson   
,crusoe was of his island1 as long as he
  was its only inhabitant2 and this     
empire had the advantage that the       
monarch1 safe on his throne1 had no     
rebellions1 wars1 or conspirators  to   
fear4      #a ,learned inquiries into   
public right are often only the history 
of  past abuses2 and troubling to study 
them too deeply is a profitless         
infatuation 7,essay on the ,interests of
 ,france in ,relation to its            
,neighbours1 by the ,marquis            
d',argenson74 ,this is exactly what     
,grotius  has done4    #b ,see a short  
treatise of ,plutarch's entitled ,that  
,animals ,reason4          ,,chapter    
,,iii    ,,the ,,right ,,of ,,the       
,,strongest      ,the strongest is never
 strong enough to be always the master1 
unless  he transforms strength into     
right1 and obedience into duty4 ,hence  

the  right of the strongest1 which1     
though to all seeming meant ironically1 
is really laid down as a fundamental    
principle4 ,but are we never to  have an
 explanation of this phrase8 ,force is a
 physical power1 and ,i  fail to see    
what moral effect it can have4 ,to yield
 to force is an act  of necessity1 not  
of will--at the most1 an act of         
prudence4 ,in what  sense can it be a   
duty8    ,suppose for a moment that this
 so-called right exists4 ,i maintain    
that the sole result is a mass of       
inexplicable nonsense4 ,for1 if force   
creates right1 the effect changes with  
the cause3 every force that  is greater 
than the first succeeds to its right4   
,as soon as it is  possible to disobey  
with impunity1 disobedience is          
legitimate2 and1 the  strongest being   
always in the right1 the only thing that
 matters is  to act so as to become the 
strongest4 ,but what kind of right is   
that  which perishes when force fails8  
,if we must obey perforce1 there is no  

need to obey because we ought2 and if we
 are not forced to obey1 we are  under  
no obligation to do so4 ,clearly1 the   
word right adds nothing to  force3 in   
this connection1 it means absolutely    
nothing4    ,obey the powers that be4   
,if this means yield to force1 it is a  
good  precept1 but superfluous3 ,i can  
answer for its never being violated4    
,all power comes from ,god1 ,i admit2   
but so does all sickness3 does that     
mean that we are forbidden to call in   
the doctor8 ,a brigand surprises  me at 
the edge of a wood3 must ,i not merely  
surrender my purse on  compulsion2 but1 
even if ,i could withhold it1 am ,i in  
conscience bound  to give it up8 ,for   
certainly the pistol he holds is also a 
power4    ,let us then admit that force 
does not create right1 and that we are  
obliged to obey only legitimate powers4 
,in that case1 my original  question    
recurs4          ,,chapter ,,iv         
,,slavery      ,since no man has a      
natural authority over his fellow1 and  

force creates  no right1 we must        
conclude that conventions form the basis
 of all  legitimate authority among men4
    ,if an individual1 says ,grotius1   
can alienate his liberty and make       
himself the slave of a master1 why could
 not a whole people do the same  and    
make itself subject to a king8 ,there   
are in this passage plenty  of ambiguous
 words which would need explaining2 but 
let us confine  ourselves to the word   
alienate4 ,to alienate is to give or to 
sell4  ,now1 a man who becomes the slave
 of another does not give himself2 he   
sells himself1 at the least for his     
subsistence3 but for what does a  people
 sell itself8 ,a king is so far from    
furnishing his subjects with  their     
subsistence that he gets his own only   
from them2 and1 according  to ,rabelais1
 kings do not live on nothing4 ,do      
subjects then give their  persons on    
condition that the king takes their     
goods also8 ,i fail to  see what they   
have left to preserve4    ,it will be   

said that the despot assures his        
subjects civil  tranquillity4 ,granted2 
but what do they gain1 if the wars his  
ambition brings down upon them1 his     
insatiable avidity1 and the  vexatious  
conduct of his ministers press harder on
 them than their  own dissensions would 
have done8 ,what do they gain1 if the   
very  tranquillity they enjoy is one of 
their miseries8 ,tranquillity is found  
also in dungeons2 but is that enough to 
make them desirable places to  live in8 
,the ,greeks imprisoned in the cave of  
the ,cyclops lived there  very          
tranquilly1 while they were awaiting    
their turn to be devoured4    ,to say   
that a man gives himself gratuitously1  
is to say what is absurd  and           
inconceivable2 such an act is null and  
illegitimate1 from the mere  fact that  
he who does it is out of his mind4 ,to  
say the same of a whole  people is to   
suppose a people of madmen2 and madness 
creates no right4    ,even if each man  
could alienate himself1 he could not    

alienate his  children3 they are born   
men and free2 their liberty belongs to  
them1  and no one but they has the right
 to dispose of it4 ,before they come to 
years of discretion1 the father can1 in 
their name1 lay down conditions  for    
their preservation and well-being1 but  
he cannot give them1  irrevocably and   
without conditions3 such a gift is      
contrary to the ends  of nature1 and    
exceeds the rights of paternity4 ,it    
would therefore be  necessary1 in order 
to legitimise an arbitrary government1  
that in  every generation the people    
should be in a position to accept or    
reject  it2 but1 were this so1 the      
government would be no longer arbitrary4
    ,to renounce liberty is to renounce 
being a man1 to surrender the rights  of
 humanity and even its duties4 ,for him 
who renounces everything no  indemnity  
is possible4 ,such a renunciation is    
incompatible with man's  nature2 to     
remove all liberty from his will is to  
remove all morality  from his acts4     

,finally1 it is an empty and            
contradictory convention  that sets up1 
on the one side1 absolute authority1    
and1 on the other1  unlimited obedience4
 ,is it not clear that we can be under  
no obligation  to a person from whom we 
have the right to exact everything8     
,does not  this condition alone1 in the 
absence of equivalence or exchange1 in  
itself involve the nullity of the act8  
,for what right can my slave have       
against me1 when all that he has belongs
 to me1 and1 his right being  mine1 this
 right of mine against myself is a      
phrase devoid of meaning8    ,grotius   
and the rest find in war another origin 
for the so-called right  of slavery4    
,the victor having1 as they hold1 the   
right of killing  the vanquished1 the   
latter can buy back his life at the     
price of his  liberty2 and this         
convention is the more legitimate       
because it is to  the advantage of both 
parties4    ,but it is clear that this  
supposed right to kill the conquered is 

by no  means deducible from the state of
 war4 ,men1 from the mere fact that1    
while they are living in their primitive
 independence1 they have no  mutual     
relations stable enough to constitute   
either the state of peace  or the state 
of war1 cannot be naturally enemies4    
,war is constituted by  a relation      
between things1 and not between persons2
 and1 as the state  of war cannot arise 
out of simple personal relations1 but   
only out of  real relations1 private    
war1 or war of man with man1 can exist  
neither  in the state of nature1 where  
there is no constant property1 nor in   
the  social state1 where everything is  
under the authority of the laws4        
,individual combats1 duels and          
encounters1 are acts which cannot       
constitute a state2 while the private   
wars1 authorised by the  ,establishments
 of ,louis ,,ix1 ,king of ,france1 and  
suspended by the ,peace  of ,god1 are   
abuses of feudalism1 in itself an absurd
 system if ever  there was one1 and     

contrary to the principles of natural   
right and to  all good polity4    ,war  
then is a relation1 not between man and 
man1 but between ,state and  ,state1 and
 individuals are enemies only           
accidentally1 not as men1 nor  even as  
citizens1#a but as soldiers2 not as     
members of their country1  but as its   
defenders4 ,finally1 each ,state can    
have for enemies only  other ,states1   
and not men2 for between things         
disparate in nature there  can be no    
real relation4    ,furthermore1 this    
principle is in conformity with the     
established  rules of all times and the 
constant practice of all civilised      
peoples4  ,declarations of war are      
intimations less to powers than to their
  subjects4 ,the foreigner1 whether     
king1 individual1 or people1 who robs1  
kills or detains the subjects1 without  
declaring war on the prince1  is not an 
enemy1 but a brigand4 ,even in real war1
 a just prince1  while laying hands1 in 
the enemy's country1 on all that belongs

 to  the public1 respects the lives and 
goods of individuals3 he respects       
rights on which his own are founded4    
,the object of the war being the        
destruction of the hostile ,state1 the  
other side has a right to kill  its     
defenders1 while they are bearing arms2 
but as soon as they lay  them down and  
surrender1 they cease to be enemies or  
instruments of the  enemy1 and become   
once more merely men1 whose life no one 
has any right  to take4 ,sometimes it is
 possible to kill the ,state without    
killing  a single one of its members2   
and war gives no right which is not     
necessary to the gaining of its object4 
,these principles are not those  of     
,grotius3 they are not based on the     
authority of poets1 but derived  from   
the nature of reality and based on      
reason4    ,the right of conquest has no
 foundation other than the right of the 
strongest4 ,if war does not give the    
conqueror the right to massacre the     
conquered peoples1 the right to enslave 

them cannot be based upon a  right which
 does not exist ,no one has a right to  
kill an enemy except  when he cannot    
make him a slave1 and the right to      
enslave him cannot  therefore be derived
 from the right to kill him4 ,it is     
accordingly an  unfair exchange to make 
him buy at the price of his liberty his 
life1  over which the victor holds no   
right4 ,is it not clear that there is a 
vicious circle in founding the right of 
life and death on the right of  slavery1
 and the right of slavery on the right  
of life and death8    ,even if we assume
 this terrible right to kill everybody1 
,i maintain  that a slave made in war1  
or a conquered people1 is under no      
obligation  to a master1 except to obey 
him as far as he is compelled to do so4 
,by taking an equivalent for his life1  
the victor has not done him  a favour2  
instead of killing him without profit1  
he has killed him  usefully4 ,so far    
then is he from acquiring over him any  
authority in  addition to that of force1

 that the state of war continues to     
subsist  between them3 their mutual     
relation is the effect of it1 and the   
usage  of the right of war does not     
imply a treaty of peace4 ,a convention  
has  indeed been made2 but this         
convention1 so far from destroying the  
state  of war1 presupposes its          
continuance4    ,so1 from whatever      
aspect we regard the question1 the right
 of slavery  is null and void1 not only 
as being illegitimate1 but also because 
it  is absurd and meaningless4 ,the     
words slave and right contradict  each  
other1 and are mutually exclusive4 ,it  
will always be equally  foolish for a   
man to say to a man or to a people3 ,i  
make with you a  convention wholly at   
your expense and wholly to my advantage2
 ,i shall  keep it as long as ,i like1  
and you will keep it as long as ,i like4
      #a ,the ,romans1 who understood   
and respected the right of war more     
than any other nation on earth1 carried 
their scruples on this head  so far that

 a citizen was not allowed to serve as a
 volunteer without  engaging himself    
expressly against the enemy1 and against
 such and  such an enemy by name4 ,a    
legion in which the younger ,cato was   
seeing  his first service under         
,popilius having been reconstructed1 the
 elder  ,cato wrote to ,popilius that1  
if he wished his son to continue serving
  under him1 he must administer to him a
 new military oath1 because1 the  first 
having been annulled1 he was no longer  
able to bear arms against  the enemy4   
,the same ,cato wrote to his son telling
 him to take great  care not to go into 
battle before taking this new oath4 ,i  
know that the  siege of ,clusium and    
other isolated events can be quoted     
against me2  but ,i am citing laws and  
customs4 ,the ,romans are the people    
that least  often transgressed its laws2
 and no other people has had such good  
ones4        ,,chapter ,v    ,,that ,,we
 ,,must ,,always ,,go ,,back ,,to ,a    
,,first ,,convention      ,even if ,i   

granted all that ,i have been refuting1 
the friends of  despotism would be no   
better off4 ,there will always be a     
great  difference between subduing a    
multitude and ruling a society4 ,even if
  scattered individuals were            
successively enslaved by one man1       
however  numerous they might be1 ,i     
still see no more than a master and his 
slaves1 and certainly not a people and  
its ruler2 ,i see what may be  termed an
 aggregation1 but not an association2   
there is as yet neither  public good nor
 body politic4 ,the man in question1    
even if he has  enslaved half the world1
 is still only an individual2 his       
interest1  apart from that of others1 is
 still a purely private interest4 ,if   
this  same man comes to die1 his empire1
 after him1 remains scattered and       
without unity1 as an oak falls and      
dissolves into a heap of ashes when  the
 fire has consumed it4    ,a people1    
says ,grotius1 can give itself to a     
king4 ,then1 according  to ,grotius1 a  

people is a people before it gives      
itself4 ,the gift  is itself a civil    
act1 and implies public deliberation4   
,it would be  better1 before examining  
the act by which a people gives itself  
to a  king1 to examine that by which it 
has become a people2 for this act1      
being necessarily prior to the other1 is
 the true foundation of society4        
,indeed1 if there were no prior         
convention1 where1 unless the election  
were unanimous1 would be the obligation 
on the minority to submit  to the choice
 of the majority8 ,how have a hundred   
men who wish for  a master the right to 
vote on behalf of ten who do not8 ,the  
law of  majority voting is itself       
something established by convention1 and
  presupposes unanimity1 on one occasion
 at least4          ,,chapter ,,vi      
,,the ,,social ,,compact      ,i suppose
 men to have reached the point at which 
the obstacles in the  way of their      
preservation in the state of nature show
 their power of  resistance to be       

greater than the resources at the       
disposal of each  individual for his    
maintenance in that state4 ,that        
primitive condition  can then subsist no
 longer2 and the human race would perish
 unless it  changed its manner of       
existence4    ,but1 as men cannot       
engender new forces1 but only unite and 
direct  existing ones1 they have no     
other means of preserving themselves    
than  the formation1 by aggregation1 of 
a sum of forces great enough to         
overcome the resistance4 ,these they    
have to bring into play by means of  a  
single motive power1 and cause to act in
 concert4    ,this sum of forces can    
arise only where several persons come   
together3  but1 as the force and liberty
 of each man are the chief instruments  
of  his self-preservation1 how can he   
pledge them without harming his own     
interests1 and neglecting the care he   
owes to himself8 ,this difficulty1  in  
its bearing on my present subject1 may  
be stated in the following  terms--     

,the problem is to find a form of       
association which will defend and       
protect with the whole common force the 
person and goods of each  associate1 and
 in which each1 while uniting himself   
with all1 may  still obey himself alone1
 and remain as free as before4 ,this is 
the fundamental problem of which the    
,social ,contract provides the          
solution4    ,the clauses of this       
contract are so determined by the nature
 of the act  that the slightest         
modification would make them vain and   
ineffective2  so that1 although they    
have perhaps never been formally set    
forth1  they are everywhere the same and
 everywhere tacitly admitted and        
recognised1 until1 on the violation of  
the social compact1 each regains  his   
original rights and resumes his natural 
liberty1 while losing the  conventional 
liberty in favour of which he renounced 
it4    ,these clauses1 properly         
understood1 may be reduced to one--the  
total  alienation of each associate1    

together with all his rights1 to the    
whole community for1 in the first place1
 as each gives himself  absolutely1 the 
conditions are the same for all2 and1   
this being so1 no  one has any interest 
in making them burdensome to others4    
,moreover1 the alienation being without 
reserve1 the union is as perfect  as it 
can be1 and no associate has anything   
more to demand3 for1 if  the individuals
 retained certain rights1 as there would
 be no common  superior to decide       
between them and the public1 each1 being
 on one  point his own judge1 would ask 
to be so on all2 the state of nature    
would thus continue1 and the association
 would necessarily become  inoperative  
or tyrannical4    ,finally1 each man1 in
 giving himself to all1 gives himself to
 nobody2  and as there is no associate  
over whom he does not acquire the same  
right as he yields others over himself1 
he gains an equivalent for  everything  
he loses1 and an increase of force for  
the preservation of  what he has4    ,if

 then we discard from the social compact
 what is not of its essence1  we shall  
find that it reduces itself to the      
following terms--    ,each of us puts   
his person and all his power in common  
under the  supreme direction of the     
general will1 and1 in our corporate     
capacity1  we receive each member as an 
indivisible part of the whole4    ,at   
once1 in place of the individual        
personality of each contracting  party1 
this act of association creates a moral 
and collective body1  composed of as    
many members as the assembly contains   
votes1 and  receiving from this act its 
unity1 its common identity1 its life and
  its will4 ,this public person1 so     
formed by the union of all other        
persons1 formerly took the name of      
city1#a and now takes that of  ,republic
 or body politic2 it is called by its   
members ,state when  passive1 ,sovereign
 when active1 and ,power when compared  
with others  like itself4 ,those who are
 associated in it take collectively the 

name  of people1 and severally are      
called citizens1 as sharing in the      
sovereign power1 and subjects1 as being 
under the laws of the ,state4  ,but     
these terms are often confused and taken
 one for another3 it is  enough to know 
how to distinguish them when they are   
being used with  precision4      #a ,the
 real meaning of this word has been     
almost wholly lost in  modern times2    
most people mistake a town for a city1  
and a townsman  for a citizen4 ,they do 
not know that houses make a town1 but   
citizens  a city4 ,the same mistake long
 ago cost the ,carthaginians dear4 ,i   
have never read of the title of citizens
 being given to the subjects  of any    
prince1 not even the ancient            
,macedonians or the ,english of  to-day1
 though they are nearer liberty than any
 one else4 ,the ,french  alone          
everywhere familiarly adopt the name of 
citizens1 because1  as can be seen from 
their dictionaries1 they have no idea of
 its  meaning2 otherwise they would be  

guilty in usurping it1 of the crime  of 
lse-majest3 among them1 the name        
expresses a virtue1 and not  a right4   
,when ,bodin spoke of our citizens and  
townsmen1 he fell into  a bad blunder in
 taking the one class for the other4 ,m4
 d',alembert  has avoided the error1    
and1 in his article on ,geneva1 has     
clearly  distinguished the four orders  
of men 7or even five1 counting mere     
foreigners7 who dwell in our town1 of   
which two only compose the  ,republic4  
,no other ,french writer1 to my         
knowledge1 has understood the  real     
meaning of the word citizen4            
,,chapter ,,vii    ,,the ,,sovereign    
,this formula shows us that the act of  
association comprises a mutual          
undertaking between the public and the  
individuals1 and that each  individual1 
in making a contract1 as we may say1    
with himself1 is bound  in a double     
capacity2 as a member of the ,sovereign 
he is bound to the  individuals1 and as 
a member of the ,state to the           

,sovereign4 ,but the  maxim of civil    
right1 that no one is bound by          
undertakings made to  himself1 does not 
apply in this case2 for there is a great
 difference  between incurring an       
obligation to yourself and incurring one
 to a  whole of which you form a part4  
,attention must further be called to the
 fact that public deliberation1  while  
competent to bind all the subjects to   
the ,sovereign1 because of  the two     
different capacities in which each of   
them may be regarded1  cannot1 for the  
opposite reason1 bind the ,sovereign to 
itself2 and  that it is consequently    
against the nature of the body politic  
for the  ,sovereign to impose on itself 
a law which it cannot infringe4 ,being  
able to regard itself in only one       
capacity1 it is in the position of an   
individual who makes a contract with    
himself2 and this makes it clear  that  
there neither is nor can be any kind of 
fundamental law binding  on the body of 
the people--not even the social contract

 itself4 ,this  does not mean that the  
body politic cannot enter into          
undertakings with  others1 provided the 
contract is not infringed by them2 for  
in relation  to what is external to it1 
it becomes a simple being1 an           
individual4    ,but the body politic or 
the ,sovereign1 drawing its being wholly
 from  the sanctity of the contract1 can
 never bind itself1 even to an          
outsider1 to do anything derogatory to  
the original act1 for instance1  to     
alienate any part of itself1 or to      
submit to another ,sovereign4           
,violation of the act by which it exists
 would be self-annihilation2 and  that  
which is itself nothing can create      
nothing4    ,as soon as this multitude  
is so united in one body1 it is         
impossible to  offend against one of the
 members without attacking the body1 and
 still  more to offend against the body 
without the members resenting it4 ,duty 
and interest therefore equally oblige   
the two contracting parties to  give    

each other help2 and the same men should
 seek to combine1 in their  double      
capacity1 all the advantages dependent  
upon that capacity4    ,again1 the      
,sovereign1 being formed wholly of the  
individuals who  compose it1 neither has
 nor can have any interest contrary to  
theirs2  and consequently the sovereign 
power need give no guarantee to its     
subjects1 because it is impossible for  
the body to wish to hurt all  its       
members4 ,we shall also see later on    
that ,it cannot hurt any in  particular4
 ,the ,sovereign1 merely by virtue of   
what it is1 is is always  what it should
 be4    ,this1 however1 is not the case 
with the relation of the subjects to the
  ,sovereign1 which1 despite the common 
interest1 would have no security  that  
they would fulfil their undertakings1   
unless it found means to  assure itself 
of their fidelity4    ,in fact1 each    
individual1 as a man1 may have a        
particular will  contrary or dissimilar 
to the general will which he has as a   

citizen4  ,his particular interest may  
speak to him quite differently from the 
common interest3 his absolute and       
naturally independent existence may     
make him look upon what he owes to the  
common cause as a gratuitous            
contribution1 the loss of which will do 
less harm to others than the  payment of
 it is burdensome to himself2 and1      
regarding the moral person  which       
constitutes the ,state as a persona     
ficta1 because not a man1 he  may wish  
to enjoy the rights of citizenship      
without being ready to  fulfil the      
duties of a subject4 ,the continuance of
 such an injustice  could not but prove 
the undoing of the body politic4    ,in 
order then that the social compact may  
not be an empty formula1 it  tacitly    
includes the undertaking1 which alone   
can give force to the  rest1 that       
whoever refuses to obey the general will
 shall be compelled  to do so by the    
whole body4 ,this means nothing less    
than that he will  be forced to be free2

 for this is the condition which1 by    
giving each  citizen to his country1    
secures him against all personal        
dependence4 ,in  this lies the key to   
the working of the political machine2   
this alone  legitimizes civil           
undertakings1 which1 without it1 would  
be absurd1  tyrannical1 and liable to   
the most frightful abuses4              
,,chapter ,,viii    ,,the ,,civil       
,,state      ,the passage from the state
 of nature to the civil state produces a
 very  remarkable change in man1 by     
substituting justice1 for instinct in   
his  conduct1 and giving his actions the
 morality they had formerly lacked4     
,then only1 when the voice of duty takes
 the place of physical impulses  and    
right of appetite1 does man1 who so far 
had considered only  himself1 find that 
he is forced to act on different        
principles1 and  to consult his reason  
before listening to his inclinations4   
,although1  in this state1 he deprives  
himself of some advantages which he got 

from nature1 he gains in return others  
so great1 his faculties are  so         
stimulated and developed1 his ideas so  
extended1 his feelings so  ennobled1 and
 his whole soul so uplifted1 that1 did  
not the abuses of  this new condition   
often degrade him below that which he   
left1 he would  be bound to bless       
continually the happy moment which took 
him from it  for ever1 and1 instead of a
 stupid and unimaginative animal1 made  
him  an intelligent being and a man4    
,let us draw up the whole account in    
terms easily commensurable4  ,what man  
loses by the social contract in his     
natural liberty and  an unlimited right 
to everything he tries to get and       
succeeds in  getting2 what he gains is  
civil liberty and the proprietorship of 
all  he possesses4 ,if we are to avoid  
mistake in weighing one against the     
other1 we must clearly distinguish      
natural liberty1 which is bounded  only 
by the strength of the individual1 from 
civil liberty1 which is  limited by the 

general will2 and possession1 which is  
merely the effect  of force or the right
 of the first occupier1 from property1  
which can  be founded only on a positive
 title4    ,we might1 over and above all
 this1 add1 to what man acquires in the 
civil state1 moral liberty1 which alone 
makes him truly master of  himself2 for 
the mere impulse of appetite is slavery1
 while obedience  to a law which we     
prescribe to ourselves is liberty4 ,but 
,i have already  said too much on this  
head1 and the philosophical meaning of  
the word  liberty does not now concern  
us4          ,,chapter ,,ix    ,,real   
,,property      ,each member of the     
community gives himself to it1 at the   
moment of  its foundation1 just as he   
is1 with all the resources at his       
command1  including the goods he        
possesses4 ,this act does not make      
possession1 in  changing hands1 change  
its nature1 and becomes property in the 
hands  of the ,sovereign2 but1 as the   
forces of the city are incomparably     

greater than those of an individual1    
public possession is also1 in  fact1    
stronger and more irrevocable1 without  
being any more legitimate1  at any rate 
from the point of view of foreigners4   
,for the ,state1 in  relation to its    
members1 is master of all their goods by
 the social  contract1 which1 within the
 ,state1 is the basis of all rights2    
but1  in relation to other powers1 it is
 so only by the right of the first      
occupier1 which it holds from its       
members4    ,the right of the first     
occupier1 though more real than the     
right of the  strongest1 becomes a real 
right only when the right of property   
has  already been established4 ,every   
man has naturally a right to everything 
he needs2 but the positive act which    
makes him proprietor of one thing       
excludes him from everything else4      
,having his share1 he ought to keep  to 
it1 and can have no further right       
against the community4 ,this is why  the
 right of the first occupier1 which in  

the state of nature is so  weak1 claims 
the respect of every man in civil       
society4 ,in this right  we are         
respecting not so much what belongs to  
another as what does not  belong to     
ourselves4    ,in general1 to establish 
the right of the first occupier over a  
plot of  ground1 the following          
conditions are necessary3 first1 the    
land must  not yet be inhabited2        
secondly1 a man must occupy only the    
amount he  needs for his subsistence2   
and1 in the third place1 possession must
 be  taken1 not by an empty ceremony1   
but by labour and cultivation1 the  only
 sign of proprietorship that should be  
respected by others1 in  default of a   
legal title4    ,in granting the right  
of first occupancy to necessity and     
labour1  are we not really stretching it
 as far as it can go8 ,is it possible   
to leave such a right unlimited8 ,is it 
to be enough to set foot on a  plot of  
common ground1 in order to be able to   
call yourself at once  the master of it8

 ,is it to be enough that a man has the 
strength to  expel others for a moment1 
in order to establish his right to      
prevent  them from ever returning8 ,how 
can a man or a people seize an immense  
territory and keep it from the rest of  
the world except by a punishable        
usurpation1 since all others are being  
robbed1 by such an act1 of  the place of
 habitation and the means of subsistence
 which nature  gave them in common8     
,when ,nuez ,balbao1 standing on the    
sea-shore1  took possession of the      
,south ,seas and the whole of ,south    
,america in  the name of the crown of   
,castille1 was that enough to dispossess
 all  their actual inhabitants1 and to  
shut out from them all the princes of   
the world8 ,on such a showing1 these    
ceremonies are idly multiplied1  and the
 ,catholic ,king need only take         
possession all at once1 from  his       
apartment1 of the whole universe1 merely
 making a subsequent  reservation about 
what was already in the possession of   

other princes4    ,we can imagine how   
the lands of individuals1 where they    
were contiguous  and came to be united1 
became the public territory1 and how the
 right  of ,sovereignty1 extending from 
the subjects over the lands they held1  
became at once real and personal4 ,the  
possessors were thus made more          
dependent1 and the forces at their      
command used to guarantee their         
fidelity4 ,the advantage of this does   
not seem to have been felt  by ancient  
monarchs1 who called themselves ,king of
 the ,persians1  ,scythians1 or         
,macedonians1 and seemed to regard      
themselves more as  rulers of men than  
as masters of a country4 ,those of the  
present  day more cleverly call         
themselves ,kings of ,france1 ,spain1   
,england1  etc43 thus holding the land1 
they are quite confident of holding the 
inhabitants4    ,the peculiar fact about
 this alienation is that1 in taking over
 the  goods of individuals1 the         
community1 so far from despoiling them1 

only  assures them legitimate           
possession1 and changes usurpation into 
a true  right and enjoyment into        
proprietorship4 ,thus the possessors1   
being  regarded as depositaries of the  
public good1 and having their rights1   
respected by all the members of the     
,state and maintained against  foreign  
aggression by all its forces1 have1 by a
 cession which benefits  both the public
 and still more themselves1 acquired1 so
 to speak1  all that they gave up4 ,this
 paradox may easily be explained by the 
distinction between the rights which the
 ,sovereign and the proprietor  have    
over the same estate1 as we shall see   
later on4 ,it may also happen  that men 
begin to unite one with another before  
they possess anything1  and that1       
subsequently occupying a tract of       
country which is enough for  all1 they  
enjoy it in common1 or share it out     
among themselves1 either  equally or    
according to a scale fixed by they      
,sovereign4 ,however the  acquisition be

 made1 the right which each individual  
has to his own  estate is always        
subordinate to the right which the      
community has over  all3 without this1  
there would be neither stability in the 
social tie1  nor real force in the      
exercise of ,sovereignty4    ,i shall   
end this chapter and this book by       
remarking on a fact on  which the whole 
social system should rest3 i4e4 that1   
instead of  destroying natural          
inequality1 the fundamental compact     
substitutes1  for such physical         
inequality as nature may have set up    
between men1 an  equality that is moral 
and legitimate1 and that men1 who may be
 unequal  in strength or intelligence1  
become every one equal by convention and
  legal right4#a          ,,book ,,ii   
,,chapter ,i    ,,that ,,sovereignty    
,,is ,,inalienable      ,the first and  
most important deduction from the       
principles we have  so far laid down is 
that the general will alone can direct  
the ,state  according to the object for 

which it was instituted1 i4e4 the       
common good3 for if the clashing of     
particular interests made the           
establishment of societies necessary1   
the agreement of these very  interests  
made it possible4 ,the common element in
 these different  interests is what     
forms the social tie2 and1 were there no
 point of  agreement between them all1  
no society could exist4 ,it is solely on
 the  basis of this common interest that
 every society should be governed4    ,i
 hold then that ,sovereignty1 being     
nothing less than the exercise of  the  
general will1 can never be alienated1   
and that the ,sovereign1 who  is no less
 than a collective being1 cannot be     
represented except by  himself3 the     
power indeed may be transmitted1 but not
 the will4    ,in reality1 if it is not 
impossible for a particular will to     
agree on  some point with the general   
will1 it is at least impossible for the 
agreement to be lasting and constant2   
for the particular will tends1  by its  

very nature1 to partiality1 while the   
general will tends to  equality4 ,it is 
even more impossible to have any        
guarantee of this  agreement2 for even  
if it should always exist1 it would be  
the effect  not of art1 but of chance4  
,the ,sovereign may indeed say3 ,i now  
will  actually what this man wills1 or  
at least what he says he wills2 but  it 
cannot say3 ,what he wills tomorrow1 ,i 
too shall will because it is  absurd for
 the will to bind itself for the future1
 nor is it incumbent  on any will to    
consent to anything that is not for the 
good of the  being who wills4 ,if then  
the people promises simply to obey1 by  
that  very act it dissolves itself and  
loses what makes it a people2 the       
moment a master exists1 there is no     
longer a ,sovereign1 and from that      
moment the body politic has ceased to   
exist4    ,this does not mean that the  
commands of the rulers cannot pass for  
general wills1 so long as the           
,sovereign1 being free to oppose them1  

offers no opposition4 ,in such a case1  
universal silence is taken to  imply the
 consent of the people4 ,this will be   
explained later on4      #a ,under bad  
governments1 this equality is only      
apparent and illusory3  it serves only  
to keep the pauper in his poverty and   
the rich man in  the position he has    
usurped4 ,in fact1 laws are always of   
use to those  who possess and harmful to
 those who have nothing3 from which it  
follows that the social state is        
advantageous to men only when all have  
something and none too much4            
,,chapter ,,ii    ,,that ,,sovereignty  
,,is ,,indivisible      ,sovereignty1   
for the same reason as makes it         
inalienable1 is  indivisible2 for will  
either is1 or is not1 general2#a it is  
the  will either of the body of the     
people1 or only of a part of it4 ,in    
the first case1 the will1 when declared1
 is an act of ,sovereignty and          
constitutes law3 in the second1 it is   
merely a particular will1 or act  of    

magistracy--at the most a decree4       
,but our political theorists1 unable to 
divide ,sovereignty in  principle1      
divide it according to its object3 into 
force and will2  into legislative power 
and executive power2 into rights of     
taxation1  justice and war2 into        
internal administration and power of    
foreign  treaty4 ,sometimes they confuse
 all these sections1 and sometimes they 
distinguish them2 they turn the         
,sovereign into a fantastic being       
composed of several connected pieces3 it
 is as if they were making man  of      
several bodies1 one with eyes1 one with 
arms1 another with feet1  and each with 
nothing besides4 ,we are told that the  
jugglers of ,japan  dismember a child   
before the eyes of the spectators2 then 
they throw  all the members into the air
 one after another1 and the child falls 
down alive and whole4 ,the conjuring    
tricks of our political theorists  are  
very like that2 they first dismember the
 body politic by an  illusion worthy of 

a fair1 and then join it together again 
we know not  how4    ,this error is due 
to a lack of exact notions concerning   
the ,sovereign  authority1 and to taking
 for parts of it what are only          
emanations from  it4 ,thus1 for example1
 the acts of declaring war and making   
peace have  been regarded as acts of    
,sovereignty2 but this is not the case1 
as  these acts do not constitute law1   
but merely the application of a law1  a 
particular act which decides how the law
 applies1 as we shall see  clearly when 
the idea attached to the word law has   
been defined4    ,if we examined the    
other divisions in the same manner1 we  
should find  that1 whenever ,sovereignty
 seems to be divided1 there is an       
illusion3  the rights which are taken as
 being part of ,sovereignty are really  
all  subordinate1 and always imply      
supreme wills of which they only        
sanction  the execution4    ,it would be
 impossible to estimate the obscurity   
this lack of exactness  has thrown over 

the decisions of writers who have dealt 
with political  right1 when they have   
used the principles laid down by them to
 pass  judgment on the respective rights
 of kings and peoples4 ,every one can   
see1 in ,chapters ,,iii and ,,iv of the 
,first ,book of ,grotius1 how the       
learned man and his translator1         
,barbeyrac1 entangle and tie themselves 
up in their own sophistries1 for fear of
 saying too little or too  much of what 
they think1 and so offending the        
interests they have to  conciliate4     
,grotius1 a refugee in ,france1         
ill-content with his own  country1 and  
desirous of paying his court to ,louis  
,,xiii1 to whom his  book is dedicated1 
spares no pains to rob the peoples of   
all their  rights and invest kings with 
them by every conceivable artifice4     
,this  would also have been much to the 
taste of ,barbeyrac1 who dedicated his  
translation to ,george ,i of ,england4  
,but unfortunately the expulsion  of    
,james ,,ii1 which he called his        

abdication1 compelled him to use  all   
reserve1 to shuffle and to tergiversate1
 in order to avoid making  ,william out 
a usurper4 ,if these two writers had    
adopted the true  principles1 all       
difficulties would have been removed1   
and they would  have been always        
consistent2 but it would have been a sad
 truth for  them to tell1 and would have
 paid court for them to no-one save the 
people4 ,moreover1 truth is no road to  
fortune1 and the people dispenses       
neither ambassadorships1 nor            
professorships1 nor pensions4      #a   
,to be general1 a will need not always  
be unanimous2 but every  vote--must be  
counted3 any exclusion is a breach of   
generality4          ,,chapter ,,iii    
,,whether ,,the ,,general ,,will ,,is   
,,fallible      ,it follows from what   
has gone before that the general will is
 always  right and tends to the public  
advantage2 but it does not follow that  
the deliberations of the people are     
always equally correct4 ,our will  is   

always for our own good1 but we do not  
always see what that is2  the people is 
never corrupted1 but it is often        
deceived1 and on such  occasions only   
does it seem to will what is bad4       
,there is often a great deal of         
difference between the will of all and  
the general will2 the latter considers  
only the common interest1 while  the    
former takes private interest into      
account1 and is no more than a  sum of  
particular wills3 but take away from    
these same wills the pluses  and minuses
 that cancel one another1#a and the     
general will remains as  the sum of the 
differences4    ,if1 when the people1   
being furnished with adequate           
information1 held  its deliberations1   
the citizens had no communication one   
with another1  the grand total of the   
small differences would always give the 
general  will1 and the decision would   
always be good4 ,but when factions      
arise1  and partial associations are    
formed at the expense of the great      

association1 the will of each of these  
associations becomes general  in        
relation to its members1 while it       
remains particular in relation  to the  
,state3 it may then be said that there  
are no longer as many  votes as there   
are men1 but only as many as there are  
associations4  ,the differences become  
less numerous and give a less general   
result4  ,lastly1 when one of these     
associations is so great as to prevail  
over  all the rest1 the result is no    
longer a sum of small differences1 but a
  single difference2 in this case there 
is no longer a general will1 and  the   
opinion which prevails is purely        
particular4    ,it is therefore         
essential1 if the general will is to be 
able to express  itself1 that there     
should be no partial society within the 
,state1  and that each citizen should   
think only his own thoughts3#b which    
was indeed the sublime and unique system
 established by the great  ,lycurgus4   
,but if there are partial societies1 it 

is best to have as  many as possible and
 to prevent them from being unequal1 as 
was done by  ,solon1 ,numa and ,servius4
 ,these precautions are the only ones   
that can  guarantee that the general    
will shall be always enlightened1 and   
that  the people shall in no way deceive
 itself4      #a ,every interest1 says  
the ,marquis d',argenson1 has different 
principles4 ,the agreement of two       
particular interests is formed by       
opposition to a third4 ,he might have   
added that the agreement of all         
interests is formed by opposition to    
that of each4 ,if there were no         
different interests1 the common interest
 would be barely felt1 as it  would     
encounter no obstacle2 all would go on  
of its own accord1 and  politics would  
cease to be an art4    #b ,in fact1 says
 ,macchiavelli1 there are some divisions
 that are  harmful to a ,republic and   
some that are advantageous4 ,those which
  stir up sects and parties are harmful2
 those attended by neither are          

advantageous4 ,since1 then1 the founder 
of a ,republic cannot help  enmities    
arising1 he ought at least to prevent   
them from growing into  sects 7,history 
of ,florence1 ,book vii74 ,rousseau     
quotes the ,italian4          ,,chapter 
,,iv    ,,the ,,limits ,,of ,,the       
,,sovereign ,,power      ,if the ,state 
is a moral person whose life is in the  
union of its  members1 and if the most  
important of its cares is the care for  
its  own preservation1 it must have a   
universal and compelling force1 in      
order to move and dispose each part as  
may be most advantageous to the  whole4 
,as nature gives each man absolute power
 over all his members1  the social      
compact gives the body politic absolute 
power over all its  members also2 and it
 is this power which1 under the         
direction of the  general will1 bears1  
as ,i have said1 the name of            
,sovereignty4    ,but1 besides the      
public person1 we have to consider the  
private persons  composing it1 whose    

life and liberty are naturally          
independent of it4  ,we are bound then  
to distinguish clearly between the      
respective rights  of the citizens and  
the ,sovereign1#a and between the duties
 the former  have to fulfil as subjects1
 and the natural rights they should     
enjoy as  men4    ,each man alienates1  
,i admit1 by the social compact1 only   
such part of  his powers1 goods and     
liberty as it is important for the      
community to  control2 but it must also 
be granted that the ,sovereign is sole  
judge  of what is important4    ,every  
service a citizen can render the ,state 
he ought to render as soon  as the      
,sovereign demands it2 but the          
,sovereign1 for its part1 cannot  impose
 upon its subjects any fetters that are 
useless to the community1  nor can it   
even wish to do so2 for no more by the  
law of reason than by  the law of nature
 can anything occur without a cause4    
,the undertakings which bind us to the  
social body are obligatory only  because

 they are mutual2 and their nature is   
such that in fulfilling  them we cannot 
work for others without working for     
ourselves4 ,why is it  that the general 
will is always in the right1 and that   
all continually  will the happiness of  
each one1 unless it is because there is 
not a  man who does not think of each as
 meaning him1 and consider himself  in  
voting for all8 ,this proves that       
equality of rights and the idea  of     
justice which such equality creates     
originate in the preference  each man   
gives to himself1 and accordingly in the
 very nature of man4  ,it proves that   
the general will1 to be really such1    
must be general  in its object as well  
as its essence2 that it must both come  
from all  and apply to all2 and that it 
loses its natural rectitude when it is  
directed to some particular and         
determinate object1 because in such  a  
case we are judging of something foreign
 to us1 and have no true  principle of  
equity to guide us4    ,indeed1 as soon 

as a question of particular fact or     
right arises on  a point not previously 
regulated by a general convention1 the  
matter  becomes contentious4 ,it is a   
case in which the individuals concerned 
are one party1 and the public the other1
 but in which ,i can see neither  the   
law that ought to be followed nor the   
judge who ought to give the  decision4  
,in such a case1 it would be absurd to  
propose to refer the  question to an    
express decision of the general will1   
which can be  only the conclusion       
reached by one of the parties and in    
consequence  will be1 for the other     
party1 merely an external and particular
 will1  inclined on this occasion to    
injustice and subject to error4 ,thus1  
just  as a particular will cannot stand 
for the general will1 the general  will1
 in turn1 changes its nature1 when its  
object is particular1 and1  as general1 
cannot pronounce on a man or a fact4    
,when1 for instance1  the people of     
,athens nominated or displaced its      

rulers1 decreed  honours to one1 and    
imposed penalties on another1 and1 by a 
multitude  of particular decrees1       
exercised all the functions of          
government  indiscriminately1 it had in 
such cases no longer a general will in  
the  strict sense2 it was acting no     
longer as ,sovereign1 but as magistrate4
  ,this will seem contrary to current   
views2 but ,i must be given time to     
expound my own4    ,it should be seen   
from the foregoing that what makes the  
will general  is less the number of     
voters than the common interest uniting 
them2  for under this system1 each      
necessarily submits to the conditions he
  imposes on others2 and this admirable 
agreement between interest and  justice 
gives to the common deliberations an    
equitable character which  at once      
vanishes when any particular question is
 discussed1 in the  absence of a common 
interest to unite and identify the      
ruling of the  judge with that of the   
party4    ,from whatever side we        

approach our principle1 we reach the    
same  conclusion1 that the social       
compact sets up among the citizens an   
equality of such a kind1 that they all  
bind themselves to observe the  same    
conditions and should therefore all     
enjoy the same rights4 ,thus1  from the 
very nature of the compact1 every act of
 ,sovereignty1 i4e4  every authentic act
 of the general will1 binds or favours  
all the  citizens equally2 so that the  
,sovereign recognises only the body of  
the  nation1 and draws no distinctions  
between those of whom it is made up4    
,what1 then1 strictly speaking is an act
 of ,sovereignty8 ,it is not a          
convention between a superior and an    
inferior1 but a convention between  the 
body and each of its members4 ,it is    
legitimate1 because based on  the social
 contract1 and1 equitable1 because      
common to all2 useful1  because it can  
have no other object than the general   
good1 and stable1  because guaranteed by
 the public force and the supreme power4

 ,so long  as the subjects have to      
submit only to conventions of this sort1
 they  obey no-one but their own will2  
and to ask how far the respective       
rights of the ,sovereign and the        
citizens extend1 is to ask up to what   
point the latter can enter into         
undertakings with themselves1 each with 
all1 and all with each4    ,we can see  
from this that the sovereign power1     
absolute1 sacred and  inviolable as it  
is1 does not and cannot exceed the      
limits of general  conventions1 and that
 every man may dispose at will of such  
goods and  liberty as these conventions 
leave him2 so that the ,sovereign never 
has  a right to lay more charges on one 
subject than on another1 because1 in    
that case1 the question becomes         
particular1 and ceases to be within its 
competency4    ,when these distinctions 
have once been admitted1 it is seen to  
be so  untrue that there is1 in the     
social contract1 any real renunciation  
on the part of the individuals1 that the

 position in which they find  themselves
 as a result of the contract is really  
preferable to that in  which they were  
before4 ,instead of a renunciation1 they
 have made an  advantageous exchange3   
instead of an uncertain and precarious  
way of  living they have got one that is
 better and more secure2 instead of     
natural independence they have got      
liberty1 instead of the power to  harm  
others security for themselves1 and     
instead of their strength1  which others
 might overcome1 a right which social   
union makes  invincible4 ,their very    
life1 which they have devoted to the    
,state1  is by it constantly protected2 
and when they risk it in the ,state's   
defence1 what more are they doing than  
giving back what they have  received    
from it8 ,what are they doing that they 
would not do more often  and with       
greater danger in the state of nature1  
in which they would  inevitably have to 
fight battles at the peril of their     
lives in defence  of that which is the  

means of their preservation8 ,all have  
indeed to  fight when their country     
needs them2 but then no one has ever to 
fight  for himself4 ,do we not gain     
something by running1 on behalf of what 
gives us our security1 only some of the 
risks we should have to run for         
ourselves1 as soon as we lost it8       
#a ,attentive readers1 do not1 ,i pray1 
be in a hurry to charge me with         
contradicting myself4 ,the terminology  
made it unavoidable1 considering  the   
poverty of the language2 but wait and   
see4          ,,chapter ,v    ,,the     
,,right ,,of ,,life ,,and ,,death       
,the question is often asked how        
individuals1 having no right to dispose 
of their own lives1 can transfer to the 
,sovereign a right which they  do not   
possess4 ,the difficulty of answering   
this question seems to me  to lie in its
 being wrongly stated4 ,every man has a 
right to risk his  own life in order to 
preserve it4 ,has it ever1 been said    
that a man  who throws himself out of   

the window to escape from a fire is     
guilty  of suicide8 ,has such a crime   
ever been laid to the charge of him who 
perishes in a storm because1 when he    
went on board1 he knew of the  danger8  
,the social treaty has for its end the  
preservation of the contracting         
parties4 ,he who wills the end wills the
 means also1 and the means must  involve
 some risks1 and even some losses4 ,he  
who wishes to preserve  his life at     
others expense should also1 when it is  
necessary1 be  ready to give it up for  
their sake4 ,furthermore1 the citizen is
 no  longer the judge of the dangers to 
which the law desires him to expose     
himself2 and when the prince says to    
him3 ,it is expedient for the  ,state   
that you should die1 he ought to die1   
because it is only on that  condition   
that he has been living in security up  
to the present1 and  because his life is
 no longer a mere bounty of nature1 but 
a gift made  conditionally by the       
,state4    ,the death-penalty inflicted 

upon criminals may be looked on in much 
the  same light3 it is in order that we 
may not fall victims to an assassin     
that we consent to die if we ourselves  
turn assassins4 ,in this treaty1  so far
 from disposing of our own lives1 we    
think only of securing  them1 and it is 
not to be assumed that any of the       
parties then expects  to get hanged4    
,again1 every malefactor1 by attacking  
social rights1 becomes on forfeit  a    
rebel and a traitor to his country2 by  
violating its laws he ceases  to be a   
member of it2 he even makes war upon it4
 ,in such a case the  preservation of   
the ,state is inconsistent with his own1
 and one or the  other must perish2 in  
putting the guilty to death1 we slay not
 so much  the citizen as an enemy4 ,the 
trial and the judgment are the proofs   
that he has broken the social treaty1   
and is in consequence no longer  a      
member of the ,state4 ,since1 then1 he  
has recognised himself to be  such by   
living there1 he must be removed by     

exile as a violator of the  compact1 or 
by death as a public enemy2 for such an 
enemy is not a  moral person1 but merely
 a man2 and in such a case the right of 
war is  to kill the vanquished4    ,but1
 it will be said1 the condemnation of a 
criminal is a particular  act4 ,i admit 
it3 but such condemnation is not a      
function of the  ,sovereign2 it is a    
right the ,sovereign can confer without 
being able  itself to exert it4 ,all my 
ideas are consistent1 but ,i cannot     
expound  them all at once4    ,we may   
add that frequent punishments are always
 a sign of weakness  or remissness on   
the part of the government4 ,there is   
not a single  ill-doer who could not be 
turned to some good4 ,the ,state has no 
right  to put to death1 even for the    
sake of making an example1 any one whom 
it can leave alive without danger4      
,the right of pardoning or exempting the
 guilty from a penalty imposed  by the  
law and pronounced by the judge belongs 
only to the authority  which is superior

 to both judge and law1 i4e4 the        
,sovereign2  even its right in this     
matter is far from clear1 and the cases 
for  exercising it are extremely rare4  
,in a well-governed ,state1 there  are  
few punishments1 not because there are  
many pardons1 but because  criminals are
 rare2 it is when a ,state is in decay  
that the multitude  of crimes is a      
guarantee of impunity4 ,under the ,roman
 ,republic1 neither  the ,senate nor the
 ,consuls ever attempted to pardon2 even
 the people  never did so1 though it    
sometimes revoked its own decision4     
,frequent  pardons mean that crime will 
soon need them no longer1 and no-one can
  help seeing whither that leads4 ,but  
,i feel my heart protesting and         
restraining my pen2 let us leave these  
questions to the just man who  has never
 offended1 and would himself stand in no
 need of pardon4          ,,chapter ,,vi
    ,,law      ,by the social compact we
 have given the body politic existence  
and  life3 we have now by legislation to

 give it movement and will4 ,for the    
original act by which the body is formed
 and united still in no respect         
determines what it ought to do for its  
preservation4    ,what is well and in   
conformity with order is so by the      
nature of  things and independently of  
human conventions4 ,all justice comes   
from  ,god1 who is its sole source2 but 
if we knew how to receive so high an    
inspiration1 we should need neither     
government nor laws4 ,doubtless1  there 
is a universal justice emanating from   
reason alone2 but this  justice1 to be  
admitted among us1 must be mutual4      
,humanly speaking1 in  default of       
natural sanctions1 the laws of justice  
are ineffective among  men3 they merely 
make for the good of the wicked and the 
undoing of  the just1 when the just man 
observes them towards everybody and     
nobody  observes them towards him4      
,conventions and laws are therefore     
needed to  join rights to duties and    
refer justice to its object4 ,in the    

state of  nature1 where everything is   
common1 ,i owe nothing to him whom ,i   
nave  promised nothing2 ,i recognise as 
belonging to others only what is of no  
use to me4 ,in the state of society all 
rights are fixed by law1 and the  case  
becomes different4    ,but what1 after  
all1 is a law8 ,as long as we remain    
satisfied with  attaching purely        
metaphysical ideas to the word1 we shall
 go on arguing  without arriving at an  
understanding2 and when we have defined 
a law of  nature1 we shall be no nearer 
the definition of a law of the ,state4  
,i have already said that there can be  
no general will directed to a           
particular object4 ,such an object must 
be either within or outside the  ,state4
 ,if outside1 a will which is alien to  
it cannot be1 in relation  to it1       
general2 if within1 it is part of the   
,state1 and in that case  there arises a
 relation between whole and part which  
makes them two  separate beings1 of     
which the part is one1 and the whole    

minus the part  the other4 ,but the     
whole minus a part cannot be the whole2 
and while  this relation persists1 there
 can be no whole1 but only two unequal  
parts2 and it follows that the will of  
one is no longer in any respect  general
 in relation to the other4    ,but when 
the whole people decrees for the whole  
people1 it is  considering only itself2 
and if a relation is then formed1 it is 
between two aspects of the entire       
object1 without there being any         
division of the whole4 ,in that case the
 matter about which the decree  is made 
is1 like the decreeing will general4    
,this act is what ,i call a  law4       
,when ,i say that the object of laws is 
always general1 ,i mean that  law       
considers subjects en masse and actions 
in the abstract1 and  never a particular
 person or action4 ,thus the law may    
indeed decree  that there shall be      
privileges1 but cannot confer them on   
anybody by  name4 ,it may set up several
 classes of citizens1 and even lay down 

the qualifications for membership of    
these classes1 but it cannot  nominate  
such and such persons as belonging to   
them2 it may establish a  monarchical   
government and hereditary succession1   
but it cannot choose  a king1 or        
nominate a royal family4 ,in a word1 no 
function which has a  particular object 
belongs to the legislative power4    ,on
 this view1 we at once see that it can  
no longer be asked whose  business it is
 to make laws1 since they are acts of   
the general will3  nor whether the      
prince is above the law1 since he is a  
member of the  ,state2 nor whether the  
law can be unjust1 since no one is      
unjust to  himself2 nor how we can be   
both free and subject to the laws since 
they  are but registers of our wills4   
,we see further that1 as the law unites 
universality of will with  universality 
of object1 what a man1 whoever he be1   
commands of his  own motion cannot be a 
law2 and even what the ,sovereign       
commands with  regard to a particular   

matter is no nearer being a law1 but is 
a  decree1 an act1 not of sovereignty1  
but of magistracy4    ,i therefore give 
the name ',republic' to every ,state    
that is governed by  laws1 no matter    
what the form of its administration may 
be3 for only  in such a case does the   
public interest govern1 and the res     
publica  rank as a reality4 ,every      
legitimate government is republican2#a  
what  government is ,i will explain     
later on4    ,laws are1 properly        
speaking1 only the conditions of civil  
association4  ,the people1 being subject
 to the laws1 ought to be their author3 
the conditions of the society ought to  
be regulated solely by those  who come  
together to form it4 ,but how are they  
to regulate them8 ,is  it to be by      
common agreement1 by a sudden           
inspiration8 ,has the body  politic an  
organ to declare its will8 ,who can give
 it the foresight to  formulate and     
announce its acts in advance8 ,or how is
 it to announce  them in the hour of    

need8 ,how can a blind multitude1 which 
often does  not know what it wills1     
because it rarely knows what is good for
 it1  carry out for itself so great and 
difficult an enterprise as a system  of 
legislation8 ,of itself the people wills
 always the good1 but of  itself it by  
no means always sees it4 ,the general   
will is always in  the right1 but the   
judgment which guides it is not always  
enlightened4  ,it must be got to see    
objects as they are1 and sometimes as   
they ought  to appear to it2 it must be 
shown the good road it is in search of1 
secured from the seductive influences of
 individual wills1 taught to  see times 
and spaces as a series1 and made to     
weigh the attractions  of present and   
sensible advantages against the danger  
of distant and  hidden evils4 ,the      
individuals see the good they reject2   
the public  wills the good it does not  
see4 ,all stand equally in need of      
guidance4  ,the former must be compelled
 to bring their wills into conformity   

with  their reason2 the latter must be  
taught to know what it wills4 ,if that  
is done1 public enlightenment leads to  
the union of understanding and  will in 
the social body3 the parts are made to  
work exactly together1  and the whole is
 raised to its highest power4 ,this     
makes a legislator  necessary4      #a  
,i understand by this word1 not merely  
an aristocracy or a  democracy1 but     
generally any government directed by the
 general will1  which is the law4 ,to be
 legitimate1 the government must be1 not
 one  with the ,sovereign1 but its      
minister4 ,in such a case even a        
monarchy is  a ,republic4 ,this will be 
made clearer in the following book4     
,,chapter ,,vii    ,,the ,,legislator   
,in order to discover the rules of      
society best suited to nations1  a      
superior intelligence beholding all the 
passions of men without  experiencing   
any of them would be needed4 ,this      
intelligence would have  to be wholly   
unrelated to our nature1 while knowing  

it through and  through2 its happiness  
would have to be independent of us1 and 
yet  ready to occupy itself with ours2  
and lastly1 it would have1 in the  march
 of time1 to look forward to a distant  
glory1 and1 working in one  century1 to 
be able to enjoy in the next4#a ,it     
would take gods to give  men laws4      
,what ,caligula argued from the facts1  
,plato1 in the dialogue called the      
,politicus1 argued in defining the civil
 or kingly man1 on the basis  of right4 
,but if great princes are rare1 how much
 more so are great  legislators8 ,the   
former have only to follow the pattern  
which the  latter have to lay down4 ,the
 legislator is the engineer who invents 
the machine1 the prince merely the      
mechanic who sets it up and makes  it   
go4 ,at the birth of societies1 says    
,montesquieu1 the rulers of  ,republics 
establish institutions1 and afterwards  
the institutions mould  the rulers4#b   
,he who dares to undertake the making of
 a people's institutions ought  to feel 

himself capable1 so to speak1 of        
changing human nature1 of  transforming 
each individual1 who is by himself a    
complete and solitary  whole1 into part 
of a greater whole from which he in a   
manner receives  his life and being2 of 
altering man's constitution for the     
purpose of  strengthening it2 and of    
substituting a partial and moral        
existence  for the physical and         
independent existence nature has        
conferred on  us all4 ,he must1 in a    
word1 take away from man his own        
resources and  give him instead new ones
 alien to him1 and incapable of being   
made  use of without the help of other  
men4 ,the more completely these  natural
 resources are annihilated1 the greater 
and the more lasting  are those which he
 acquires1 and the more stable and      
perfect the new  institutions2 so that  
if each citizen is nothing and can do   
nothing  without the rest1 and the      
resources acquired by the whole are     
equal  or superior to the aggregate of  

the resources of all the individuals1   
it may be said that legislation is at   
the highest possible point of           
perfection4    ,the legislator occupies 
in every respect an extraordinary       
position  in the ,state4 ,if he should  
do so by reason of his genius1 he does  
so  no less by reason of his office1    
which is neither magistracy1 nor        
,sovereignty4 ,this office1 which sets  
up the ,republic1 nowhere enters  into  
its constitution2 it is an individual   
and superior function1 which  has       
nothing in common with human empire2 for
 if he who holds command  over men ought
 not to have command over the laws1 he  
who has command  over the laws ought not
 any more to have it over men2 or else  
his laws  would be the ministers of his 
passions and would often merely serve to
  perpetuate his injustices3 his private
 aims would inevitably mar the  sanctity
 of his work4    ,when ,lycurgus gave   
laws to his country1 he began by        
resigning  the throne4 ,it was the      

custom of most ,greek towns to entrust  
the  establishment of their laws to     
foreigners4 ,the ,republics of modern   
,italy in many cases followed this      
example2 ,geneva did the same and       
profited by it4#c ,rome1 when it was    
most prosperous1 suffered a  revival of 
all the crimes of tyranny1 and was      
brought to the verge of  destruction1   
because it put the legislative authority
 and the sovereign  power into the same 
hands4    ,nevertheless1 the decemvirs  
themselves never claimed the right to   
pass  any law merely on their own       
authority4 ,nothing we propose to you1  
they said to the people1 can pass into  
law without your consent4  ,romans1 be  
yourselves the authors of the laws which
 are to make you  happy4    ,he1        
therefore1 who draws up the laws has1 or
 should have1 no right of  legislation1 
and the people cannot1 even if it       
wishes1 deprive itself  of this         
incommunicable right1 because1 according
 to the fundamental  compact1 only the  

general will can bind the individuals1  
and there  can be no assurance that a   
particular will is in conformity with   
the  general will1 until it has been put
 to the free vote of the people4  ,this 
,i have said already2 but it is worth   
while to repeat it4    ,thus in the task
 of legislation we find together two    
things which  appear to be incompatible3
 an enterprise too difficult for human  
powers1 and1 for its execution1 an      
authority that is no authority4         
,there is a further difficulty that     
deserves attention4 ,wise men1 if  they 
try to speak their language to the      
common herd instead of its  own1 cannot 
possibly make themselves understood4    
,there are a thousand  kinds of ideas   
which it is impossible to translate into
 popular  language4 ,conceptions that   
are too general and objects that are too
  remote are equally out of its range3  
each individual1 having no taste  for   
any other plan of government than that  
which suits his particular  interest1   

finds it difficult to realise the       
advantages he might hope  to draw from  
the continual privations good laws      
impose4 ,for a young  people to be able 
to relish sound principles of political 
theory and  follow the fundamental rules
 of statecraft1 the effect would have to
  become the cause2 the social spirit1  
which should be created by these        
institutions1 would have to preside over
 their very foundation2 and men  would  
have to be before law what they should  
become by means of law4  ,the legislator
 therefore1 being unable to appeal to   
either force or  reason1 must have      
recourse to an authority of a different 
order capable  of constraining without  
violence and persuading without         
convincing4    ,this is what has1 in all
 ages1 compelled the fathers of nations 
to  have recourse to divine intervention
 and credit the gods with their  own    
wisdom1 in order that the peoples1      
submitting to the laws of the  ,state as
 to those of nature1 and recognising the

 same power in the  formation of the    
city as in that of man1 might obey      
freely1 and bear  with docility the yoke
 of the public happiness4    ,this      
sublime reason1 far above the range of  
the common herd1 is that  whose         
decisions the legislator puts into the  
mouth of the immortals1  in order to    
constrain by divine authority those whom
 human prudence  could not move4#d ,but 
it is not anybody who can make the gods 
speak1  or get himself believed when he 
proclaims himself their interpreter4    
,the great soul of the legislator is the
 only miracle that can prove  his       
mission4 ,any man may grave tablets of  
stone1 or buy an oracle2 or  feign      
secret intercourse with some divinity1  
or train a bird to whisper  in his ear1 
or find other vulgar ways of imposing on
 the people4 ,he  whose knowledge goes  
no further may perhaps gather round him 
a band of  fools2 but he will never     
found an empire1 and his extravagances  
will  quickly perish with him4 ,idle    

tricks form a passing tie2 only wisdom  
can make it lasting4 ,the ,judaic law1  
which still subsists1 and that  of the  
child of ,ishmael1 which1 for ten       
centuries1 has ruled half the  world1   
still proclaim the great men who laid   
them down2 and1 while the  pride of     
philosophy or the blind spirit of       
faction sees in them no more  than lucky
 impostures1 the true political theorist
 admires1 in the  institutions they set 
up1 the great and powerful genius which 
presides  over things made to endure4   
,we should not1 with ,warburton1        
conclude from this that politics and    
religion have among us a common object1 
but that1 in the first periods  of      
nations1 the one is used as an          
instrument for the other4      #a ,a    
people becomes famous only when its     
legislation begins to  decline4 ,we do  
not know for how many centuries the     
system of ,lycurgus  made the ,spartans 
happy before the rest of ,greece took   
any notice of it4    #b ,montesquieu1   

,the ,greatness and ,decadence of the   
,romans1 ch4 i4    #c ,those who know   
,calvin only as a theologian much       
underestimate the  extent of his genius4
 ,the codification of our wise edicts1  
in which  he played a large part1 does  
him no less honour than his ,institute4 
,whatever revolution time may bring in  
our religion1 so long as the  spirit of 
patriotism and liberty still lives among
 us1 the memory of  this great man will 
be for ever blessed4    #d ,in truth1   
says ,macchiavelli1 there has never     
been1 in any  country1 an extraordinary 
legislator who has not had recourse to  
,god2  for otherwise his laws would not 
have been accepted3 there are1 in  fact1
 many useful truths of which a wise man 
may have knowledge without  their having
 in themselves such clear reasons for   
their being so as  to be able to        
convince others 7,discourses on ,livy1  
,bk4 v1 ch4 xi74  7,rousseau quotes the 
,italian47          ,,chapter ,,viii    
,,the ,,people      ,as1 before putting 

up a large building1 the architect      
surveys and  sounds the site to see if  
it will bear the weight1 the wise       
legislator  does not begin by laying    
down laws good in themselves1 but by    
investigating the fitness of the people1
 for which they are destined1  to       
receive them4 ,plato refused to         
legislate for the ,arcadians and the    
,cyrenans1 because he knew that both    
peoples were rich and could not  put up 
with equality2 and good laws and bad men
 were found together  in ,crete1 because
 ,minos had inflicted discipline on a   
people already  burdened with vice4     
,a thousand nations have achieved       
earthly greatness1 that could never     
have endured good laws2 even such as    
could have endured them could  have done
 so only for a very brief period of     
their long history4 ,most  peoples1 like
 most men1 are docile only in youth2 as 
they grow old they  become incorrigible4
 ,when once customs have become         
established and  prejudices inveterate1 

it is dangerous and useless to attempt  
their  reformation2 the people1 like the
 foolish and cowardly patients who  rave
 at sight of the doctor1 can no longer  
bear that any one should lay  hands on  
its faults to remedy them4    ,there are
 indeed times in the history of ,states 
when1 just as some  kinds of illness    
turn men's heads and make them forget   
the past1  periods of violence and      
revolutions do to peoples what these    
crises do  to individuals3 horror of the
 past takes the place of forgetfulness1 
and the ,state1 set on fire by civil    
wars1 is born again1 so to speak1  from 
its ashes1 and takes on anew1 fresh from
 the jaws of death1 the  vigour of      
youth4 ,such were ,sparta at the time of
 ,lycurgus1 ,rome after  the ,tarquins1 
and1 in modern times1 ,holland and      
,switzerland after the  expulsion of the
 tyrants4    ,but such events are rare2 
they are exceptions1 the cause of which 
is always to be found in the particular 
constitution of the ,state  concerned4  

,they cannot even happen twice to the   
same people1 for it  can make itself    
free as long as it remains barbarous1   
but not when the  civic impulse has lost
 its vigour4 ,then disturbances may     
destroy it1  but revolutions cannot mend
 it3 it needs a master1 and not a       
liberator4  ,free peoples1 be mindful of
 maxim2 ,liberty may be gained1 but can 
never be recovered4    ,youth is not    
infancy4 ,there is for nations1 as for  
men1 a period of  youth1 or1 shall we   
say1 maturity1 before which they should 
not be  made subject to laws2 but the   
maturity of a people is not always      
easily recognisable1 and1 if it is      
anticipated1 the work is spoilt4  ,one  
people is amenable to discipline from   
the beginning2 another1 not  after ten  
centuries4 ,russia will never be really 
civilised1 because  it was civilised too
 soon4 ,peter had a genius for          
imitation2 but he  lacked true genius1  
which is creative and makes all from    
nothing4 ,he  did some good things1 but 

most of what he did was out of place4   
,he  saw that his people was barbarous1 
but did not see that it was not  ripe   
for civilisation3 he wanted to civilise 
it when it needed only  hardening4 ,his 
first wish was to make ,germans or      
,englishmen1 when he  ought to have been
 making ,russians2 and he prevented his 
subjects from  ever becoming what they  
might have been by persuading them that 
they  were what they are not4 ,in this  
fashion too a ,french teacher turns out 
his pupil to be an infant prodigy1 and  
for the rest of his life to be  nothing 
whatsoever4 ,the empire of ,russia will 
aspire to conquer ,europe1  and will    
itself be conquered4 ,the ,tartars1 its 
subjects or neighbours1  will become its
 masters and ours1 by a revolution which
 ,i regard as  inevitable4 ,indeed1 all 
the kings of ,europe are working in     
concert to  hasten its coming4          
,,chapter ,,ix    ,,the ,,people        
7continued7      ,as nature has set     
bounds to the stature of a well-made    

man1 and1  outside those limits1 makes  
nothing but giants or dwarfs1 similarly1
  for the constitution of a ,state to be
 at its best1 it is possible to  fix    
limits that will make it neither too    
large for good government1  nor too     
small for self-maintenance4 ,in every   
body politic there is  a maximum        
strength which it cannot exceed and     
which it only loses  by increasing in   
size4 ,every extension of the social tie
 means its  relaxation2 and1 generally  
speaking1 a small ,state is stronger in 
proportion than a great one4    ,a      
thousand arguments could be advanced in 
favour of this principle4  ,first1 long 
distances make administration more      
difficult1 just as a  weight becomes    
heavier at the end of a longer lever4   
,administration  therefore becomes more 
and more burdensome as the distance     
grows  greater2 for1 in the first place1
 each city has its own1 which is  paid  
for by the people3 each district its    
own1 still paid for by the  people3 then

 comes each province1 and then the great
 governments1  satrapies1 and           
vice-royalties1 always costing more the 
higher you go1  and always at the       
expense of the unfortunate people4 ,last
 of all comes  the supreme              
administration1 which eclipses all the  
rest4 ,all these  overcharges are a     
continual drain upon the subjects2 so   
far from being  better governed by all  
these different orders1 they are worse  
governed  than if there were only a     
single authority over them4 ,in the     
meantime1  there scarce remain resources
 enough to meet emergencies2 and1 when  
recourse must be had to these1 the      
,state is always on the eve of          
destruction4    ,this is not all2 not   
only has the government less vigour and 
promptitude for securing the observance 
of the laws1 preventing  nuisances1     
correcting abuses1 and guarding against 
seditious  undertakings begun in distant
 places2 the people has less affection  
for  its rulers1 whom it never sees1 for

 its country1 which1 to its eyes1  seems
 like the world1 and for its            
fellow-citizens1 most of whom are       
unknown to it4 ,the same laws cannot    
suit so many diverse provinces with     
different customs1 situated in the most 
various climates1 and incapable  of     
enduring a uniform government4          
,different laws lead only to trouble    
and confusion among peoples which1      
living under the same rulers and in     
constant communication one with another1
 intermingle and intermarry1  and1      
coming under the sway of new customs1   
never know if they can call  their very 
patrimony their own4 ,talent is buried1 
virtue unknown and  vice unpunished1    
among such a multitude of men who do not
 know one  another1 gathered together in
 one place at the seat of the central   
administration4 ,the leaders1           
overwhelmed with business1 see nothing  
for themselves2 the ,state is governed  
by clerks4 ,finally1 the measures  which
 have to be taken to1 maintain the      

general authority1 which all  these     
distant officials wish to escape or to  
impose upon1 absorb all  the energy of  
the public1 so that there is none left  
for the happiness  of the people4 ,there
 is hardly enough to defend it when need
 arises1  and thus a body which is too  
big for its constitution gives way and  
falls crushed under its own weight4     
,again1 the ,state must assure itself a 
safe foundation1 if it is to  have      
stability1 and to be able to resist the 
shocks it cannot help  experiencing1 as 
well as the efforts it will be forced to
 make for  its maintenance2 for all     
peoples have a kind of centrifugal force
  that makes them continually act one   
against another1 and tend to  aggrandise
 themselves at their neighbours'        
expense1 like the vortices  of          
,descartes4 ,thus the weak run the risk 
of being soon swallowed up2  and it is  
almost impossible for any one to        
preserve itself except by  putting      
itself in a state of equilibrium with   

all1 so that the pressure  is on all    
sides practically equal4    ,it may     
therefore be seen that there are reasons
 for expansion and  reasons for         
contraction2 and it is no small part of 
the statesman's  skill to hit between   
them the mean that is most favourable to
 the  preservation of the ,state4 ,it   
may be said that the reason for         
expansion1 being merely external and    
relative1 ought to be subordinate  to   
the reasons for contraction1 which are  
internal and absolute4 ,a  strong and   
healthy constitution is the first thing 
to look for2 and it  is better to count 
on the vigour which comes of good       
government than on  the resources a     
great territory furnishes4    ,it may be
 added that there have been known       
,states so constituted that  the        
necessity of making conquests entered   
into their very constitution1  and that1
 in order to maintain themselves1 they  
were forced to expand  ceaselessly4 ,it 
may be that they congratulated          

themselves greatly on  this fortunate   
necessity1 which none the less indicated
 to them1 along  with the limits of     
their greatness1 the inevitable moment  
of their fall4          ,,chapter ,x    
,,the ,,people 7continued7      ,a body 
politic may be measured in two          
ways--either by the extent of its       
territory1 or by the number of its      
people2 and there is1 between these  two
 measurements1 a right relation which   
makes the ,state really great4  ,the men
 make the ,state1 and the territory     
sustains the men2 the right  relation   
therefore is that the land should       
suffice for the maintenance  of the     
inhabitants1 and that there should be as
 many inhabitants as  the land can      
maintain4 ,in this proportion lies the  
maximum strength  of a given number of  
people2 for if there is too much land1  
it is  troublesome to guard and         
inadequately cultivated1 produces more  
than is  needed1 and soon gives rise to 
wars of defence2 if there is not enough1

  the ,state depends on its neighbours  
for what it needs over and above1  and  
this soon gives rise to wars of offence4
 ,every people1 to which  its situation 
gives no choice save that between       
commerce and war1 is  weak in itself3 it
 depends on its neighbours1 and on      
circumstances2  its existence can never 
be more than short and uncertain4 ,it   
either  conquers others1 and changes its
 situation1 or it is conquered and      
becomes nothing4 ,only insignificance or
 greatness can keep it free4    ,no     
fixed relation can be stated between the
 extent of the territory  and the       
population that are adequate one to the 
other1 both because  of the differences 
in the quality of land1 in its          
fertility1 in the  nature of its        
products1 and in the influence of       
climate1 and because of  the different  
tempers of those who inhabit it2 for    
some in a fertile  country consume      
little1 and others on an ungrateful soil
 much4 ,the  greater or less fecundity  

of women1 the conditions that are more  
or  less favourable in each country to  
the growth of population1 and the       
influence the legislator can hope to    
exercise by his institutions1 must  also
 be taken into account4 ,the legislator 
therefore should not go  by what he     
sees1 but by what he foresees2 he should
 stop not so much  at the state in which
 he actually finds the population1 as at
 that  to which it ought naturally to   
attain4 ,lastly1 there are countless    
cases in which the particular local     
circumstances demand or allow  the      
acquisition of a greater territory than 
seems necessary4 ,thus1  expansion will 
be great in a mountainous country1 where
 the natural  products1 i4e4 woods and  
pastures1 need less labour1 where we    
know  from experience that women are    
more fertile than in the plains1 and    
where a great expanse of slope affords  
only a small level tract that  can be   
counted on for vegetation4 ,on the other
 hand1 contraction is  possible on the  

coast1 even in lands of rocks and nearly
 barren sands1  because there fishing   
makes up to a great extent for the lack 
of  land-produce1 because the           
inhabitants have to congregate together 
more  in order to repel pirates1 and    
further because it is easier to unburden
  the country of its superfluous        
inhabitants by means of colonies4    ,to
 these conditions of law-giving must be 
added one other which1  though it cannot
 take the place of the rest1 renders    
them all useless  when it is absent4    
,this is the enjoyment of peace and     
plenty2 for the  moment at which a      
,state sets its house in order is1 like 
the moment  when a battalion is forming 
up1 that when its body is least capable 
of  offering resistance and easiest to  
destroy4 ,a better resistance could  be 
made at a time of absolute              
disorganisation than at a moment of     
fermentation1 when each is occupied with
 his own position and not with  the     
danger4 ,if war1 famine1 or sedition    

arises at this time of crisis1  the     
,state will inevitably be overthrown4   
,not that many governments have not been
 set up during such storms2 but  in such
 cases these governments are themselves 
the ,state's destroyers4  ,usurpers     
always bring about or select troublous  
times to get passed1  under cover of the
 public terror1 destructive laws1 which 
the people  would never adopt in cold   
blood4 ,the moment chosen is one of the 
surest  means of distinguishing the work
 of the legislator from that of the     
tyrant4    ,what people1 then1 is a fit 
subject for legislation8 ,one which1    
already bound by some unity of origin1  
interest1 or convention1 has  never yet 
felt the real yoke of law2 one that has 
neither customs nor  superstitions      
deeply ingrained1 one which stands in no
 fear of being  overwhelmed by sudden   
invasion2 one which1 without entering   
into its  neighbours' quarrels1 can     
resist each of them single-handed1 or   
get the  help of one to repel another2  

one in which every member may be known  
by  every other1 and there is no need to
 lay on any man burdens too heavy  for a
 man to bear2 one which can do without  
other peoples1 and without  which all   
others can do2#a one which is neither   
rich nor poor1 but  self-sufficient2    
and1 lastly1 one which unites the       
consistency of an  ancient people with  
the docility of a new one4 ,legislation 
is made  difficult less by what it is   
necessary to build up than by what has  
to  be destroyed2 and what makes success
 so rare is the impossibility of        
finding natural simplicity together with
 social requirements4 ,all these        
conditions are indeed rarely found      
united1 and therefore few ,states  have 
good constitutions4    ,there is still  
in ,europe one country capable of being 
given  laws--,corsica4 ,the valour and  
persistency with which that brave people
  has regained and defended its liberty 
well deserves that some wise man  should
 teach it how to preserve what it has   

won4 ,i have a feeling that  some day   
that little island will astonish        
,europe4      #a ,if there were two     
neighbouring peoples1 one of which could
 not  do without the other1 it would be 
very hard on the former1 and very       
dangerous for the latter4 ,every wise   
nation1 in such a case1 would make      
haste to free the other from dependence4
 ,the ,republic of ,thlascala1  enclosed
 by the ,mexican ,empire1 preferred     
doing without salt to  buying from the  
,mexicans1 or even getting it from them 
as a gift  ,the ,thlascalans were wise  
enough to see the snare hidden under    
such  liberality4 ,they kept their      
freedom1 and that little ,state1 shut up
 in  that great ,empire1 was finally the
 instrument of its ruin4                
,,chapter ,,xi    ,,the ,,various       
,,systems ,,of ,,legislation      ,if we
 ask in what precisely consists the     
greatest good of all1 which  should be  
the end of every system of legislation1 
we shall find it  reduce itself to two  

main objects1 liberty and               
equality--liberty1  because all         
particular dependence means so much     
force taken from the  body of the       
,state1 and equality1 because liberty   
cannot exist without  it4    ,i have    
already defined civil liberty2 by       
equality1 we should  understand1 not    
that the degrees of power and riches are
 to be  absolutely identical for        
everybody2 but that power shall never be
  great enough for violence1 and shall  
always be exercised by virtue of  rank  
and law2 and that1 in respect of riches1
 no citizen shall ever be  wealthy      
enough to buy another1 and none poor    
enough to be forced to  sell himself3#a 
which implies1 on the part of the great1
 moderation  in goods and position1 and1
 on the side of the common sort1        
moderation  in avarice and covetousness4
    ,such equality1 we are told1 is an  
unpractical ideal that cannot  actually 
exist4 ,but if its abuse is inevitable1 
does it follow that we  should not at   

least make regulations concerning it8   
,it is precisely  because the force of  
circumstances tends continually to      
destroy  equality that the force of     
legislation should always tend to its   
maintenance4    ,but these general      
objects of every good legislative system
 need  modifying in every country in    
accordance with the local situation  and
 the temper of the inhabitants2 and     
these circumstances should  determine1  
in each case1 the particular system of  
institutions which  is best1 not perhaps
 in itself1 but for the ,state for which
 it is  destined4 ,if1 for instance1 the
 soil is barren and unproductive1 or    
the land too crowded for its            
inhabitants1 the people should turn  to 
industry and the crafts1 and exchange   
what they produce for the  commodities  
they lack4 ,if1 on the other hand1 a    
people dwells in rich  plains and       
fertile slopes1 or1 in a good land1     
lacks inhabitants1 it  should give all  
its attention to agriculture1 which     

causes men to  multiply1 and should     
drive out the crafts1 which would only  
result in  depopulation1 by grouping in 
a few localities the few inhabitants    
there  are4#b ,if a nation dwells on an 
extensive and convenient coast-line1    
let it cover the sea with ships and     
foster commerce and navigation4 ,it     
will have a life that will be short and 
glorious4 ,if1 on its coasts1  the sea  
washes nothing but almost inaccessible  
rocks1 let it remain  barbarous and     
ichthyophagous3 it will have a quieter1 
perhaps a better1  and certainly a      
happier life4 ,in a word1 besides the   
principles that  are common to all1     
every nation has in itself something    
that gives them  a particular           
application1 and makes its legislation  
peculiarly its own4  ,thus1 among the   
,jews long ago and more recently among  
the ,arabs1 the  chief object was       
religion1 among the ,athenians letters1 
at ,carthage and  ,tyre commerce1 at    
,rhodes shipping1 at ,sparta war1 at    

,rome virtue4 ,the  author of ,the      
,spirit of the ,laws has shown with many
 examples by  what art the legislator   
directs the constitution towards each of
 these  objects4    ,what makes the     
constitution of a ,state really solid   
and lasting is  the due observance of   
what is proper1 so that the natural     
relations  are always in agreement with 
the laws on every point1 and law only   
serves1 so to speak1 to assure1         
accompany and rectify them4 ,but if  the
 legislator mistakes his object and     
adopts a principle other than           
circumstances naturally direct2 if his  
principle makes for servitude  while    
they make for liberty1 or if it makes   
for riches1 while they  make for        
populousness1 or if it makes for peace1 
while they make  for conquest--the laws 
will insensibly lose their influence1   
the  constitution will alter1 and the   
,state will have no rest from trouble   
till it is either destroyed or changed1 
and nature has resumed her  invincible  

sway4      #a ,if the object is to give 
the ,state consistency1 bring the two   
extremes as near to each other as       
possible2 allow neither rich men  nor   
beggars4 ,these two estates1 which are  
naturally inseparable1 are  equally     
fatal to the common good2 from the one  
come the friends of  tyranny1 and from  
the other tyrants4 ,it is always between
 them that  public liberty is put up to 
auction2 the one buys1 and the other    
sells4    #b ,any branch of foreign     
commerce1 says ,m4 d',argenson1 creates 
on  the whole only apparent advantage   
for the kingdom in general2 it may      
enrich some individuals1 or even some   
towns2 but the nation as a whole  gains 
nothing by it1 and the people is no     
better off4          ,,chapter ,,xii    
,,the ,,division ,,of ,,the ,,laws      
,if the whole is to be set in order1 and
 the commonwealth put into the  best    
possible shape1 there are various       
relations to be considered4  ,first1    
there is the action of the complete body

 upon itself1 the  relation of the whole
 to the whole1 of the ,sovereign to the 
,state2 and  this relation1 as we shall 
see1 is made up of the relations of the 
intermediate terms4    ,the laws which  
regulate this relation bear the name of 
political laws1  and are also called    
fundamental laws1 not without reason if 
they are  wise4 ,for1 if there is1 in   
each ,state1 only one good system1 the  
people that is in possession of it      
should hold fast to this2 but if  the   
established order is bad1 why should    
laws that prevent men from  being good  
be regarded as fundamental8 ,besides1 in
 any case1 a people  is always in a     
position to change its laws1 however    
good2 for1 if it  choose to do itself   
harm1 who can have a right to stop it8  
,the second relation is that of the     
members one to another1 or to the  body 
as a whole2 and this relation should be 
in the first respect as  unimportant1   
and in the second as important1 as      
possible4 ,each citizen  would then be  

perfectly independent of all the rest1  
and at the same  time very dependent on 
the city2 which is brought about always 
by the  same means1 as the strength of  
the ,state can alone secure the liberty 
of its members4 ,from this second       
relation arise civil laws4    ,we may   
consider also a third kind of relation  
between the individual  and the law1 a  
relation of disobedience to its penalty4
 ,this gives  rise to the setting up of 
criminal laws1 which1 at bottom1 are    
less a  particular class of law than the
 sanction behind all the rest4    ,along
 with these three kinds of law goes a   
fourth1 most important of  all1 which is
 not graven on tablets of marble or     
brass1 but on the  hearts of the        
citizens4 ,this forms the real          
constitution of the ,state1  takes on   
every day new powers1 when other laws   
decay or die out1  restores them or     
takes their place1 keeps a people in the
 ways in which  it was meant to go1 and 
insensibly replaces authority by the    

force  of habit4 ,i am speaking of      
morality1 of custom1 above all of public
  opinion2 a power unknown to political 
thinkers1 on which none the less        
success in everything else depends4     
,with this the great legislator         
concerns himself in secret1 though he   
seems to confine himself to  particular 
regulations2 for these are only the arc 
of the arch1 while  manners and morals1 
slower to arise1 form in the end its    
immovable  keystone4    ,among the      
different classes of laws1 the          
political1 which determine the  form of 
the government1 are alone relevant to my
 subject4          ,,book ,,iii         
,before speaking of the different forms 
of government1 let us try to  fix the   
exact sense of the word1 which has not  
yet been very clearly  explained4       
,,chapter ,i    ,,government ,,in       
,,general      ,i warn the reader that  
this chapter requires careful reading1  
and that  ,i am unable to make myself   
clear to those who refuse to be         

attentive4    ,every free action is     
produced by the concurrence of two      
causes2 one  moral1 i4e4 the will which 
determines the act2 the other physical1 
i4e4 the power which executes it4 ,when 
,i walk towards an object1 it  is       
necessary first that ,i should will to  
go there1 and1 in the second  place1    
that my feet should carry me4 ,if a     
paralytic wills to run and  an active   
man wills not to1 they will both stay   
where they are4 ,the  body politic has  
the same motive powers2 here too force  
and will are  distinguished1 will under 
the name of legislative power and force 
under  that of executive power4 ,without
 their concurrence1 nothing is1 or      
should be1 done4    ,we have seen that  
the legislative power belongs to the    
people1 and can  belong to it alone4 ,it
 may1 on the other hand1 readily be     
seen1 from  the principles laid down    
above1 that the executive power cannot  
belong  to the generality as legislature
 or ,sovereign1 because it consists     

wholly of particular acts which fall    
outside the competency of the law1  and 
consequently of the ,sovereign1 whose   
acts must always be laws4    ,the public
 force therefore needs an agent of its  
own to bind it  together and set it to  
work under the direction of the general 
will1 to  serve as a means of           
communication between the ,state and the
 ,sovereign1  and to do for the         
collective person more or less what the 
union of soul  and body does for man4   
,here we have what is1 in the ,state1   
the basis of  government1 often wrongly 
confused with the ,sovereign1 whose     
minister  it is4    ,what then is       
government8 ,an intermediate body set up
 between the  subjects and the          
,sovereign1 to secure their mutual      
correspondence1  charged with the       
execution of the laws and the           
maintenance of liberty1  both civil and 
political4    ,the members of this body 
are called magistrates or kings1 that is
 to  say governors1 and the whole body  

bears the name prince4#a ,thus  those   
who hold that the act1 by which a people
 puts itself under a  prince1 is not a  
contract1 are certainly right4 ,it is   
simply and solely  a commission1 an     
employment1 in which the rulers1 mere   
officials of the  ,sovereign1 exercise  
in their own name the power of which it 
makes them  depositaries4 ,this power it
 can limit1 modify or recover at        
pleasure2  for the alienation of such a 
right is incompatible with the nature of
  the social body1 and contrary to the  
end of association4    ,i call then     
government1 or supreme administration1  
the legitimate  exercise of the         
executive power1 and prince or          
magistrate the man or  the body         
entrusted with that administration4     
,in government reside the intermediate  
forces whose relations make up  that of 
the whole to the whole1 or of the       
,sovereign to the ,state4 ,this  last   
relation may be represented as that     
between the extreme terms of a          

continuous proportion1 which has        
government as its mean proportional4    
,the government gets from the ,sovereign
 the orders it gives the people1  and1  
for the ,state to be properly balanced1 
there must1 when everything  is reckoned
 in1 be equality between the product or 
power of the  government taken in       
itself1 and the product or power of the 
citizens1  who are on the one hand      
sovereign and on the other subject4     
,furthermore1 none of these three terms 
can be altered without the  equality    
being instantly destroyed4 ,if the      
,sovereign desires to govern1  or the   
magistrate to give laws1 or if the      
subjects refuse to obey1  disorder takes
 the place of regularity1 force and will
 no longer act  together1 and the ,state
 is dissolved and falls into despotism  
or  anarchy4 ,lastly1 as there is only  
one mean proportional between each      
relation1 there is also only one good   
government possible for a ,state4  ,but1
 as countless events may change the     

relations of a people1 not only  may    
different governments be good for       
different peoples1 but also for  the    
same people at different times4    ,in  
attempting to give some idea of the     
various relations that may hold  between
 these two extreme terms1 ,i shall take 
as an example the number  of a people1  
which is the most easily expressible4   
,suppose the ,state is composed of ten  
thousand citizens4 ,the ,sovereign  can 
only be considered collectively and as a
 body2 but each member1 as  being a     
subject1 is regarded as an individual3  
thus the ,sovereign is  to the subject  
as ten thousand to one1 i4e4 each member
 of the ,state  has as his share only a 
ten-thousandth part of the sovereign    
authority1  although he is wholly under 
its control4 ,if the people numbers a   
hundred thousand1 the condition of the  
subject undergoes no change1  and each  
equally is under the whole authority of 
the laws1 while his  vote1 being reduced
 to one hundred thousandth part1 has ten

 times less  influence in drawing them  
up4 ,the subject therefore remaining    
always  a unit1 the relation between him
 and the ,sovereign increases with the  
number of the citizens4 ,from this it   
follows that1 the larger the  ,state1   
the less the liberty4    ,when ,i say   
the relation increases1 ,i mean that it 
grows more unequal4  ,thus the greater  
it is in the geometrical sense1 the less
 relation  there is in the ordinary     
sense of the word4 ,in the former sense1
  the relation1 considered according to 
quantity1 is expressed by the  quotient2
 in the latter1 considered according to 
identity1 it is  reckoned by similarity4
    ,now1 the less relation the         
particular wills have to the general    
will1  that is1 morals and manners to   
laws1 the more should the repressive    
force be increased4 ,the government1    
then1 to be good1 should be             
proportionately stronger as the people  
is more numerous4    ,on the other hand1
 as the growth of the ,state gives the  

depositaries  of the public authority   
more temptations and chances of abusing 
their  power1 the greater the force with
 which the government ought to be       
endowed for keeping the people in hand1 
the greater too should be the  force at 
the disposal of the ,sovereign for      
keeping the government in  hand4 ,i am  
speaking1 not of absolute force1 but of 
the relative force  of the different    
parts of the ,state4    ,it follows from
 this double relation that the          
continuous proportion  between the      
,sovereign1 the prince and the people1  
is by no means an  arbitrary idea1 but a
 necessary consequence of the nature of 
the body  politic4 ,it follows further  
that1 one of the extreme terms1 viz4 the
  people1 as subject1 being fixed and   
represented by unity1 whenever the      
duplicate ratio increases or diminishes1
 the simple ratio does the  same1 and is
 changed accordingly4 ,from this we see 
that there is not a  single unique and  
absolute form of government1 but as many

 governments  differing in nature as    
there are ,states differing in size4    
,if1 ridiculing this system1 any one    
were to say that1 in order to find  the 
mean proportional and give form to the  
body of the government1  it is only     
necessary1 according to me1 to find the 
square root of  the number of the       
people1 ,i should answer that ,i am here
 taking this  number only as an         
instance2 that the relations of which ,i
 am speaking  are not measured by the   
number of men alone1 but generally by   
the  amount of action1 which is a       
combination of a multitude of causes2   
and  that1 further1 if1 to save words1  
,i borrow for a moment the terms of     
geometry1 ,i am none the less well aware
 that moral quantities do not  allow of 
geometrical accuracy4    ,the government
 is on a small scale what the body      
politic which includes  it is on a great
 one4 ,it is a moral person endowed with
 certain  faculties1 active like the    
,sovereign and passive like the ,state1 

and capable of being resolved into other
 similar relations4 ,this  accordingly  
gives rise to a new proportion1 within  
which there is yet  another1 according  
to the arrangement of the magistracies1 
till an  indivisible middle term is     
reached1 i4e4 a single ruler or supreme 
magistrate1 who may be represented1 in  
the midst of this progression1  as the  
unity between the fractional and the    
ordinal series4    ,without encumbering 
ourselves with this multiplication of   
terms1 let us  rest content with        
regarding government as a new body      
within the ,state1  distinct from the   
people and the ,sovereign1 and          
intermediate between  them4    ,there is
 between these two bodies this essential
 difference1 that  the ,state exists by 
itself1 and the government only through 
the  ,sovereign4 ,thus the dominant will
 of the prince is1 or should be1        
nothing but the general will or the law2
 his force is only the public  force    
concentrated in his hands1 and1 as soon 

as he tries to base  any absolute and   
independent act on his own authority1   
the tie that  binds the whole together  
begins to be loosened4 ,if finally the  
prince  should come to have a particular
 will more active than the will of the  
,sovereign1 and should employ the public
 force in his hands in obedience  to    
this particular will1 there would be1 so
 to speak1 two ,sovereigns1  one        
rightful and the other actual1 the      
social union would evaporate  instantly1
 and the body politic would be          
dissolved4    ,however1 in order that   
the government may have a true existence
  and a real life distinguishing it from
 the body of the ,state1 and  in order  
that all its members may be able to act 
in concert and  fulfil the end for which
 it was set up1 it must have a          
particular  personality1 a sensibility  
common to its members1 and a force and  
will  of its own making for its         
preservation4 ,this particular existence
  implies assemblies1 councils1 power of

 deliberation and decision1  rights1    
titles1 and privileges belonging        
exclusively to the prince  and making   
the office of magistrate more honourable
 in proportion  as it is more           
troublesome4 ,the difficulties lie in   
the manner of so  ordering this         
subordinate whole within the whole1 that
 it in no way  alters the general       
constitution by affirmation of its own1 
and always  distinguishes the particular
 force it possesses1 which is destined  
to aid in its preservation1 from the    
public force1 which is destined  to the 
preservation of the ,state2 and1 in a   
word1 is always ready to  sacrifice the 
government to the people1 and never to  
sacrifice the  people to the government4
    ,furthermore1 although the          
artificial body of the government is the
 work  of another artificial body1 and  
has1 we may say1 only a borrowed and    
subordinate life1 this does not prevent 
it from being able to act with  more or 
less vigour or promptitude1 or from     

being1 so to speak1 in more  or less    
robust health4 ,finally1 without        
departing directly from the  end for    
which it was instituted1 it may deviate 
more or less from it1  according to the 
manner of its constitution4    ,from all
 these differences arise the various    
relations which the  government ought to
 bear to the body of the ,state1        
according to the  accidental and        
particular relations by which the ,state
 itself is  modified1 for often the     
government that is best in itself will  
become  the most pernicious1 if the     
relations in which it stands have       
altered  according to the defects of the
 body politic to which it belongs4      
#a ,thus at ,venice the ,college1 even  
in the absence of the ,doge1 is  called 
,most ,serene ,prince4                  
,,chapter ,,ii    ,,the ,,constituent   
,,principle ,,in ,,the ,,various ,,forms
 ,,of ,,government      ,to set forth   
the general cause of the above          
differences1 we must here  distinguish  

between government and its principle1 as
 we did before  between the ,state and  
the ,sovereign4    ,the body of the     
magistrate may be composed of a greater 
or a less  number of members4 ,we said  
that the relation of the ,sovereign to  
the  subjects was greater in proportion 
as the people was more numerous1  and1  
by a clear analogy1 we may say the same 
of the relation of the  government to   
the magistrates4    ,but the total force
 of the government1 being always that of
 the ,state1  is invariable2 so that1   
the more of this force it expends on its
 own  members1 the less it has left to  
employ on the whole people4    ,the more
 numerous the magistrates1 therefore1   
the weaker the  government4 ,this       
principle being fundamental1 we must do 
our best to  make it clear4    ,in the  
person of the magistrate we can         
distinguish three essentially  different
 wills3 first1 the private will of the  
individual1 tending  only to his        
personal advantage2 secondly1 the common

 will of the  magistrates1 which is     
relative solely to the advantage of the 
prince1  and may be called corporate    
will1 being general in relation to the  
government1 and particular in relation  
to the ,state1 of which the  government 
forms part2 and1 in the third place1 the
 will of the people  or the sovereign   
will1 which is general both in relation 
to the ,state  regarded as the whole1   
and to the government regarded as a part
 of the  whole4    ,in a perfect act of 
legislation1 the individual or          
particular will  should be at zero2 the 
corporate will belonging to the         
government  should occupy a very        
subordinate position2 and1 consequently1
 the  general or sovereign will should  
always predominate and should be the    
sole guide of all the rest4             
,according to the natural order1 on the 
other hand1 these different  wills      
become more active in proportion as they
 are concentrated4 ,thus1  the general  
will is always the weakest1 the         

corporate will second1 and  the         
individual will strongest of all3 so    
that1 in the government1 each  member is
 first of all himself1 then a           
magistrate1 and then a citizen  --in an 
order exactly the reverse of what the   
social system requires4    ,this        
granted1 if the whole government is in  
the hands of one man1 the  particular   
and the corporate will are wholly       
united1 and consequently  the latter is 
at its highest possible degree of       
intensity4 ,but1 as the  use to which   
the force is put depends on the degree  
reached by the  will1 and as the        
absolute force of the government is     
invariable1 it  follows that the most   
active government is that of one man4   
,suppose1 on the other hand1 we unite   
the government with the  legislative    
authority1 and make the ,sovereign      
prince also1 and all the  citizens so   
many magistrates3 then the corporate    
will1 being confounded  with the general
 will1 can possess no greater activity  

than that will1  and must leave the     
particular will as strong as it can     
possibly be4  ,thus1 the government1    
having always the same absolute force1  
will be at  the lowest point of its     
relative force or activity4    ,these   
relations are incontestable1 and there  
are other considerations  which still   
further confirm them4 ,we can see1 for  
instance1 that  each magistrate is more 
active in the body to which he belongs  
than  each citizen in that to which he  
belongs1 and that consequently the      
particular will has much more influence 
on the acts of the government  than on  
those of the ,sovereign2 for each       
magistrate is almost always  charged    
with some governmental function1 while  
each citizen1 taken  singly1 exercises  
no function of ,sovereignty4            
,furthermore1 the bigger  the ,state    
grows1 the more its real force          
increases1 though not in  direct        
proportion to its growth2 but1 the      
,state remaining the same1  the number  

of magistrates may increase to any      
extent1 without the  government gaining 
any greater real force2 for its force is
 that of the  ,state1 the dimension of  
which remains equal4 ,thus the relative 
force or  activity of the government    
decreases1 while its absolute or real   
force  cannot increase4    ,moreover1 it
 is a certainty that promptitude in     
execution diminishes  as more people are
 put in charge of it3 where prudence is 
made too  much of1 not enough is made of
 fortune2 opportunity is let slip1 and  
deliberation results in the loss of its 
object4    ,i have just proved that the 
government grows remiss in proportion as
  the number of the magistrates         
increases2 and ,i previously proved     
that1  the more numerous the people1 the
 greater should be the repressive       
force4 ,from this it follows that the   
relation of the magistrates to the      
government should vary inversely to the 
relation of the subjects to the         
,sovereign2 that is to say1 the larger  

the ,state1 the more should the         
government be tightened1 so that the    
number of the rulers diminish in        
proportion to the increase of that of   
the people4    ,it should be added that 
,i am here speaking of the relative     
strength of  the government1 and not of 
its rectitude3 for1 on the other hand1  
the  more numerous the magistracy1 the  
nearer the corporate will comes to  the 
general will2 while1 under a single     
magistrate1 the corporate will  is1 as  
,i said1 merely a particular will4      
,thus1 what may be gained on  one side  
is lost on the other1 and the art of the
 legislator is to know  how to fix the  
point at which the force and the will of
 the government1  which are always in   
inverse proportion1 meet in the relation
 that is  most to the advantage of the  
,state4          ,,chapter ,,iii        
,,the ,,division ,,of ,,governments     
,we saw in the last chapter what causes 
the various kinds or forms of           
government to be distinguished according

 to the number of the members  composing
 them3 it remains in this to discover   
how the division is made4    ,in the    
first place1 the ,sovereign may commit  
the charge of the  government to the    
whole people or to the majority of the  
people1 so  that more citizens are      
magistrates than are mere private       
individuals4  ,this form of government  
is called democracy4    ,or it may      
restrict the government to a small      
number2 so that there are  more private 
citizens than magistrates2 and this is  
named aristocracy4    ,lastly1 it may   
concentrate the whole government in the 
hands of a  single magistrate from whom 
all others hold their power4 ,this third
  form is the most usual1 and is called 
monarchy1 or royal government4    ,it   
should be remarked that all these forms1
 or at least the first two1  admit of   
degree1 and even of very wide           
differences2 for democracy may  include 
the whole people1 or may be restricted  
to half4 ,aristocracy1 in  its turn1 may

 be restricted indefinitely from half   
the people down to  the smallest        
possible number4 ,even royalty is       
susceptible of a measure  of            
distribution4 ,sparta always had two    
kings1 as its constitution  provided2   
and the ,roman ,empire saw as many as   
eight emperors at once1  without it     
being possible to say that the ,empire  
was split up4 ,thus  there is a point at
 which each form of government passes   
into the next1  and it becomes clear    
that1 under three comprehensive         
denominations1  government is really    
susceptible of as many diverse forms as 
the ,state  has citizens4    ,there are 
even more3 for1 as the government may   
also1 in certain  aspects1 be subdivided
 into other parts1 one administered in  
one  fashion and one in another1 the    
combination of the three forms  may     
result in a multitude of mixed forms1   
each of which admits of  multiplication 
by all the simple forms4    ,there has  
been at all times much dispute          

concerning the best form of  government1
 without consideration of the fact that 
each is in some  cases the best1 and in 
others the worst4    ,if1 in the        
different ,states1 the number of supreme
 magistrates should  be in inverse ratio
 to the number of citizens1 it follows  
that1  generally1 democratic government 
suits small ,states1 aristocratic       
government those of middle size1 and    
monarchy great ones4 ,this rule  is     
immediately deducible from the principle
 laid down4 ,but it is  impossible to   
count the innumerable circumstances     
which may furnish  exceptions4          
,,chapter ,,iv    ,,democracy      ,he  
who makes the law knows better than any 
one else how it should be  executed and 
interpreted4 ,it seems then impossible  
to have a better  constitution than that
 in which the executive and legislative 
powers  are united2 but this very fact  
renders the government in certain       
respects inadequate1 because things     
which should be distinguished are       

confounded1 and the prince and the      
,sovereign1 being the same person1      
form1 so to speak1 no more than a       
government without government4    ,it is
 not good for him who makes the laws to 
execute them1 or for the  body of the   
people to turn its attention away from a
 general standpoint  and devote it to   
particular objects4 ,nothing is more    
dangerous than  the influence of private
 interests in public affairs1 and the   
abuse of  the laws by the government is 
a less evil than the corruption of the  
legislator1 which is the inevitable     
sequel to a particular standpoint4  ,in 
such a case1 the ,state being altered in
 substance1 all reformation  becomes    
impossible4 ,a people that would never  
misuse governmental  powers would never 
misuse independence2 a people that would
 always  govern well would not need to  
be governed4    ,if we take the term in 
the strict sense1 there never has been a
 real  democracy1 and there never will  
be4 ,it is against the natural order for

  the many to govern and the few to be  
governed4 ,it is unimaginable that  the 
people should remain continually        
assembled to devote their time to       
public affairs1 and it is clear that    
they cannot set up commissions for  that
 purpose without the form of            
administration being changed4    ,in    
fact1 ,i can confidently lay down as a  
principle that1 when the  functions of  
government are shared by several        
tribunals1 the less  numerous sooner or 
later acquire the greatest authority1 if
 only  because they are in a position to
 expedite affairs1 and power thus       
naturally comes into their hands4       
,besides1 how many conditions that are  
difficult to unite does such a          
government presuppose6 ,first1 a very   
small ,state1 where the people can      
readily be got together and where each  
citizen can with ease know all  the     
rest2 secondly1 great simplicity of     
manners1 to prevent business  from      
multiplying and raising thorny problems2

 next1 a large measure  of equality in  
rank and fortune1 without which equality
 of rights and  authority cannot long   
subsist2 lastly1 little or no           
luxury--for luxury  either comes of     
riches or makes them necessary2 it      
corrupts at once  rich and poor1 the    
rich by possession and the poor by      
covetousness2 it  sells the country to  
softness and vanity1 and takes away from
 the ,state  all its citizens1 to make  
them slaves one to another1 and one and 
all  to public opinion4    ,this is why 
a famous writer has made virtue the     
fundamental principle  of ,republics2   
for all these conditions could not exist
 without virtue4  ,but1 for want of the 
necessary distinctions1 that great      
thinker was  often inexact1 and         
sometimes obscure1 and did not see that1
 the  sovereign authority being         
everywhere the same1 the same principle 
should be found in every                
well-constituted ,state1 in a greater or
 less  degree1 it is true1 according to 

the form of the government4    ,it may  
be added that there is no government so 
subject to civil wars  and intestine    
agitations as democratic or popular     
government1 because  there is none which
 has so strong and continual a tendency 
to change  to another form1 or which    
demands more vigilance and courage for  
its  maintenance as it is4 ,under such a
 constitution above all1 the citizen    
should arm himself with strength and    
constancy1 and say1 every day of  his   
life1 what a virtuous ,count ,palatine#a
 said in the ,diet of ,poland3  ,malo   
periculosam libertatem quam quietum     
servitium4    ,were there a people of   
gods1 their government would be         
democratic4 ,so  perfect a government is
 not for men4      #a ,the ,palatine of 
,posen1 father of the ,king of ,poland1 
,duke of  ,lorraine4 ,i prefer liberty  
with danger to peace with slavery4      
,,chapter ,v    ,,aristocracy      ,we  
have here two quite distinct moral      
persons1 the government and  the        

,sovereign1 and in consequence two      
general wills1 one general in  relation 
to all the citizens1 the other only for 
the members of the  administration4     
,thus1 although the government may      
regulate its internal  policy as it     
pleases1 it can never speak to the      
people save in the  name of the         
,sovereign1 that is1 of the people      
itself1 a fact which must  not be       
forgotten4    ,the first societies      
governed themselves aristocratically4   
,the heads  of families took counsel    
together on public affairs4 ,the young  
bowed  without question to the authority
 of experience4 ,hence such names  as   
priests1 elders1 senate1 and gerontes4  
,the savages of ,north  ,america govern 
themselves in this way even now1 and    
their government is  admirable4    ,but1
 in proportion as artificial inequality 
produced by institutions  became        
predominant over natural inequality1    
riches or power#a were put  before age1 
and aristocracy became elective4        

,finally1 the transmission  of the      
father's power along with his goods to  
his children1 by creating  patrician    
families1 made government hereditary1   
and there came to be  senators of       
twenty4    ,there are then three sorts  
of aristocracy--natural1 elective and   
hereditary4 ,the first is only for      
simple peoples2 the third is the  worst 
of all governments2 the second is the   
best1 and is aristocracy  properly so   
called4    ,besides the advantage that  
lies in the distinction between the two 
powers1 it presents that of its members 
being chosen2 for1 in popular           
government1 all the citizens are born   
magistrates2 but here magistracy  is    
confined to a few1 who become such only 
by election4#b ,by this  means          
uprightness1 understanding1 experience  
and all other claims to  pre-eminence   
and public esteem become so many further
 guarantees of  wise government4        
,moreover1 assemblies are more easily   
held1 affairs better discussed and      

carried out with more order and         
diligence1 and the credit of the ,state 
is better sustained abroad by venerable 
senators than by a multitude  that is   
unknown or despised4    ,in a word1 it  
is the best and most natural arrangement
 that the wisest  should govern the     
many1 when it is assured that they will 
govern  for its profit1 and not for     
their own4 ,there is no need to multiply
  instruments1 or get twenty thousand   
men to do what a hundred picked men  can
 do even better1 but it must not be     
forgotten that corporate interest  here 
begins to direct the public power less  
under the regulation of the  general    
will1 and that a further inevitable     
propensity takes away from  the laws    
part of the executive power4    ,if we  
are to speak of what is individually    
desirable1 neither should  the ,state be
 so small1 nor a people so simple and   
upright1 that the  execution of the laws
 follows immediately from the public    
will1 as  it does in a good democracy4  

,nor should the nation be so great that 
the rulers have to scatter in order to  
govern it and are able to play  the     
,sovereign each in his own department1  
and1 beginning by making  themselves    
independent1 end by becoming masters4   
,but if aristocracy does not demand all 
the virtues needed by popular           
government1 it demands others which are 
peculiar to itself2 for  instance1      
moderation on the side of the rich and  
contentment on that  of the poor2 for it
 seems that thorough-going equality     
would be out of  place1 as it was not   
found even at ,sparta4    ,furthermore1 
if this form of government carries with 
it a certain  inequality of fortune1    
this is justifiable in order that as a  
rule the  administration of public      
affairs may be entrusted to those who   
are most  able to give them their whole 
time1 but not1 as ,aristotle maintains1 
in  order that the rich may always be   
put first4 ,on the contrary1 it is of   
importance that an opposite choice      

should occasionally teach the people    
that the deserts of men offer claims to 
pre-eminence more important  than those 
of riches4      #a ,it is clear that the
 word optimates meant1 among the        
ancients1  not the best1 but the most   
powerful4    #b ,it is of great         
importance that the form of the election
 of  magistrates should be regulated by 
law2 for if it is left at the           
discretion of the prince1 it is         
impossible to avoid falling into        
hereditary aristocracy1 as the          
,republics of ,venice and ,berne        
actually  did4 ,the first of these has  
therefore long been a ,state dissolved2 
the  second1 however1 is maintained by  
the extreme wisdom of the senate1 and   
forms an honourable and highly dangerous
 exception4          ,,chapter ,,vi     
,,monarchy      ,so far1 we have        
considered the prince as a moral and    
collective person1  unified by the force
 of the laws1 and the depositary in the 
,state of  the executive power4 ,we have

 now to consider this power when it is  
gathered together into the hands of a   
natural person1 a real man1 who  alone  
has the right to dispose of it in       
accordance with the laws4 ,such  a      
person is called a monarch or king4     
,in contrast with other forms of        
administration1 in which a collective   
being stands for an individual1 in this 
form an individual stands for a         
collective being2 so that the moral     
unity that constituted the prince  is at
 the same time a physical unity1 and all
 the qualities1 which in  the other case
 are only with difficulty brought       
together by the law1  are found         
naturally united4    ,thus the will of  
the people1 the will of the prince1 the 
public force  of the ,state1 and the    
particular force of the government1 all 
answer to  a single motive power2 all   
the springs of the machine are in the   
same  hands1 the whole moves towards the
 same end2 there are no conflicting     
movements to cancel one another1 and no 

kind of constitution can be  imagined in
 which a less amount of effort produces 
a more considerable  amount of action4  
,archimedes1 seated quietly on the bank 
and easily  drawing a great vessel      
afloat1 stands to my mind for a skilful 
monarch1  governing vast states from his
 study1 and moving everything while he  
seems himself unmoved4    ,but if no    
government is more vigorous than this1  
there is also none  in which the        
particular will holds more sway and     
rules the rest more  easily4 ,everything
 moves towards the same end indeed1 but 
this end is  by no means that of the    
public happiness1 and even the force of 
the  administration constantly shows    
itself prejudicial to the ,state4       
,kings desire to be absolute1 and men   
are always crying out to them  from afar
 that the best means of being so is to  
get themselves loved  by their people4  
,this precept is all very well1 and even
 in some  respects very true4           
,unfortunately1 it will always be       

derided at court4  ,the power which     
comes of a people's love is no doubt the
 greatest2 but  it is precarious and    
conditional1 and princes will never rest
 content  with it4 ,the best kings      
desire to be in a position to be wicked1
 if  they please1 without forfeiting    
their mastery3 political sermonisers    
may tell them to their hearts' content  
that1 the people's strength  being their
 own1 their first interest is that the  
people should be  prosperous1 numerous  
and formidable2 they are well aware that
 this  is ,untrue4 ,their first personal
 interest is that the people should  be 
weak1 wretched1 and unable to resist    
them4 ,i admit that1 provided  the      
subjects remained always in submission1 
the prince's interest  would indeed be  
that it should be powerful1 in order    
that its power1  being his own1 might   
make him formidable to his neighbours2  
but1 this  interest being merely        
secondary and subordinate1 and strength 
being  incompatible with submission1    

princes naturally give the preference   
always to the principle that is more to 
their immediate advantage4 ,this  is    
what ,samuel put strongly before the    
,hebrews1 and what ,macchiavelli  has   
clearly shown4 ,he professed to teach   
kings2 but it was the people  he really 
taught4 ,his ,prince is the book of     
,republicans4#a    ,we found1 on general
 grounds1 that monarchy is suitable only
 for  great ,states1 and this is        
confirmed when we examine it in itself4 
,the more numerous the public           
administration1 the smaller becomes the 
relation between the prince and the     
subjects1 and the nearer it comes  to   
equality1 so that in democracy the ratio
 is unity1 or absolute  equality4       
,again1 as the government is restricted 
in numbers the ratio  increases and     
reaches its maximum when the government 
is in the hands  of a single person4    
,there is then too great a distance     
between prince  and people and the      
,state lacks a bond of union4 ,to form  

such a bond1  there must be intermediate
 orders1 and princes1 personages and    
nobility  to compose them4 ,but no such 
things suit a small ,state1 to which all
  class differences mean ruin4    ,if1  
however1 it is hard for a great ,state  
to be well governed1 it is  much harder 
for it to be so by a single man2 and    
every one knows what  happens when kings
 substitute others for themselves4      
,an essential and inevitable defect1    
which will always rank monarchical      
below republican government1 is that in 
a republic the public voice  hardly ever
 raises to the highest positions men who
 are not enlightened  and capable1 and  
such as to fill them with honour2 while 
in monarchies  these who rise to the top
 are most often merely petty blunderers 
petty  swindlers1 and petty intriguers1 
whose petty talents cause them to  get  
into the highest positions at ,court1   
but1 as soon as they have  got there1   
serve only to make their ineptitude     
clear to the public4  ,the people is far

 less often mistaken in its choice than 
the prince2  and a man of real worth    
among the king's ministers is almost as 
rare  as a fool at the head of a        
republican government4 ,thus1 when1 by  
some fortunate chance1 one of these born
 governors takes the helm of  ,state in 
some monarchy that has been nearly      
overwhelmed by swarms of  'gentlemanly' 
administrators1 there is nothing but    
amazement at the  resources he          
discovers1 and his coming marks an era  
in his country's  history4    ,for a    
monarchical ,state to have a chance of  
being well governed1 its  population and
 extent must be proportionate to the    
abilities of its  governor4 ,if is      
easier to conquer than to rule4 ,with a 
long enough  lever1 the world could be  
moved with a single finger2 to sustain  
it  needs the shoulders of ,hercules4   
,however small a ,state may be1 the     
prince is hardly ever big enough for it4
 ,when1 on the other hand1  it happens  
that the ,state is too small for its    

ruler1 in these rare  cases too it is   
ill governed1 because the ruler1        
constantly pursuing  his great designs1 
forgets the interests of the people1 and
 makes  it no less wretched by misusing 
the talents he has1 than a ruler of     
less capacity would make it for want of 
those he had not4 ,a kingdom  should1 so
 to speak1 expand or contract with each 
reign1 according to  the prince's       
capabilities2 but1 the abilities of a   
senate being more  constant in quantity1
 the ,state can then have permanent     
frontiers  without the administration   
suffering4    ,the disadvantage that is 
most felt in monarchical government is  
the  want of the continuous succession  
which1 in both the other forms1         
provides an unbroken bond of union4     
,when one king dies1 another is  needed2
 elections leave dangerous intervals and
 are full of storms2 and  unless the    
citizens are disinterested and upright  
to a degree which  very seldom goes with
 this kind of government1 intrigue and  

corruption  abound4 ,he to whom the     
,state has sold itself can hardly help  
selling  it in his turn and repaying    
himself1 at the expense of the weak1 the
  money the powerful have wrung from    
him4 ,under such an administration1     
venality sooner or later spreads through
 every part1 and peace so  enjoyed under
 a king is worse than the disorders of  
an interregnum4    ,what has been done  
to prevent these evils8 ,crowns have    
been made  hereditary in certain        
families1 and an order of succession has
 been  set up1 to prevent disputes from 
arising on the death of kings4 ,that  is
 to say1 the disadvantages of regency   
have been put in place of  those of     
election1 apparent tranquillity has been
 preferred to wise  administration1 and 
men have chosen rather to risk having   
children1  monstrosities1 or imbeciles  
as rulers to having disputes over the   
choice of good kings4 ,it has not been  
taken into account that1 in  so exposing
 ourselves to the risks this possibility

 entails1 we are  setting almost all the
 chances against us4 ,there was sound   
sense in  what the younger ,dionysius   
said to his father1 who reproached him  
for  doing some shameful deed by asking1
 ,did ,i set you the example8 ,no1      
answered his son1 but your father was   
not king4    ,everything conspires to   
take away from a man who is set in      
authority  over others the sense of     
justice and reason4 ,much trouble1 we   
are  told1 is taken to teach young      
princes the art of reigning2 but their  
education seems to do them no good4 ,it 
would be better to begin by  teaching   
them the art of obeying4 ,the greatest  
kings whose praises  history tells were 
not brought up to reign3 reigning is a  
science we  are never so far from       
possessing as when we have learnt too   
much of  it1 and one we acquire better  
by obeying than by commanding4 ,nam     
utilissimus idem ac brevissimus bonarum 
malarumque rerum delectus  cogitare quid
 aut nolueris sub alio principe1 aut    

volueris4#b    ,one result of this lack 
of coherence is the inconstancy of royal
  government1 which1 regulated now on   
one scheme and now on another1          
according to the character of the       
reigning prince or those who  reign for 
him1 cannot for long have a fixed object
 or a consistent  policy--and this      
variability1 not found in the other     
forms of  government1 where the prince  
is always the same1 causes the ,state to
  be always shifting from principle to  
principle and from project to  project4 
,thus we may say that generally1 if a   
court is more subtle  in intrigue1 there
 is more wisdom in a senate1 and        
,republics advance  towards their ends  
by more consistent and better considered
 policies2  while every revolution in a 
royal ministry creates a revolution in  
the ,state2 for the principle common to 
all ministers and nearly all  kings is  
to do in every respect the reverse of   
what was done by their  predecessors4   
,this incoherence further clears up a   

sophism that is very familiar to        
royalist political writers2 not only is 
civil government likened to  domestic   
government1 and the prince to the father
 of a family--this  error has already   
been refuted--but the prince is also    
freely credited  with all the virtues he
 ought to possess1 and is supposed to be
 always  what he should be4 ,this       
supposition once made1 royal government 
is  clearly preferable to all others1   
because it is incontestably the         
strongest1 and1 to be the best also1    
wants only a corporate will more  in    
conformity with the general will4       
,but if1 according to ,plato1#c the king
 by nature is such a rarity1  how often 
will nature and fortune conspire to give
 him a crown8 ,and1 if  royal education 
necessarily corrupts those who receive  
it1 what is to  be hoped from a series  
of men brought up to reign8 ,it is1     
then1 wanton  self-deception to confuse 
royal government with government by a   
good  king4 ,to see such government as  

it is in itself1 we must consider it as 
it is under princes who are incompetent 
or wicked3 for either they will  come to
 the throne wicked or incompetent1 or   
the throne will make them  so4    ,these
 difficulties have not escaped our      
writers1 who1 all the same1  are not    
troubled by them4 ,the remedy1 they say1
 is to obey without a  murmur3 ,god     
sends bad kings in ,his wrath1 and they 
must be borne as  the scourges of       
,heaven4 ,such talk is doubtless        
edifying2 but it would  be more in place
 in a pulpit than in a political book4  
,what are we to  think of a doctor who  
promises miracles1 and whose whole art  
is to  exhort the sufferer to patience8 
,we know for ourselves that we must put 
up with a bad government when it is     
there2 the question is how to find  a   
good one4      #a ,macchiavelli was a   
proper man and a good citizen2 but1     
being  attached to the court of the     
,medici1 he could not help veiling his  
love  of liberty in the midst of his    

country's oppression4 ,the choice of his
  detestable hero1 ,csar ,borgia1       
clearly enough shows his hidden aim2    
and the contradiction between the       
teaching of the ,prince and that of  the
 ,discourses on ,livy and the ,history  
of ,florence shows that this  profound  
political thinker has so far been       
studied only by superficial  or corrupt 
readers4 ,the ,court of ,rome sternly   
prohibited his book4 ,i  can well       
believe it2 for it is that ,court it    
most clearly portrays4      #b ,tacitus1
 ,histories1 i4 #af4 ,for the best1 and 
also the shortest  way of finding out   
what is good and what is bad is to      
consider what you  would have wished to 
happen or not to happen1 had another    
than you been  ,emperor4    #c ,in the  
,politicus4          ,,chapter ,,vii    
,,mixed ,,governments      ,strictly    
speaking1 there is no such thing as a   
simple government4 ,an  isolated ruler  
must have subordinate magistrates2 a    
popular government  must have a head4   

,there is therefore1 in the distribution
 of the  executive power1 always a      
gradation from the greater to the lesser
  number1 with the difference that      
sometimes the greater number is         
dependent on the smaller1 and sometimes 
the smaller on the greater4             
,sometimes the distribution is equal1   
when either the constituent parts  are  
in mutual dependence1 as in the         
government of ,england1 or the          
authority of each section is            
independent1 but imperfect1 as in       
,poland4  ,this last form is bad2 for it
 secures no unity in the government1 and
  the ,state is left without a bond of  
union4    ,is a simple or a mixed       
government the better8 ,political       
writers are  always debating the        
question1 which must be answered as we  
have already  answered a question about 
all forms of government4    ,simple     
government is better in itself1 just    
because it is simple4  ,but when the    
executive power is not sufficiently     

dependent upon the  legislative power1  
i4e4 when the prince is more closely    
related to  the ,sovereign than the     
people to the prince1 this lack of      
proportion  must be cured by the        
division of the government2 for all the 
parts have  then no less authority over 
the subjects1 while their division makes
  them all together less strong against 
the ,sovereign4    ,the same            
disadvantage is also prevented by the   
appointment of  intermediate            
magistrates1 who leave the government   
entire1 and have  the effect only of    
balancing the two powers and maintaining
 their  respective rights4 ,government  
is then not mixed1 but moderated4       
,the opposite disadvantages may be      
similarly cured1 and1 when the          
government is too lax1 tribunals may be 
set up to concentrate it4  ,this is done
 in all democracies4 ,in the first case1
 the government is  divided to make it  
weak2 in the second1 to make it strong3 
for the  maxima of both strength and    

weakness are found in simple            
governments1  while the mixed forms     
result in a mean strength4              
,,chapter ,,viii    ,,that ,,all ,,forms
 ,,of ,,government ,,do ,,not ,,suit    
,,all ,,countries      ,liberty not     
being a fruit of all climates1 is not   
within the reach of  all peoples4 ,the  
more this principle1 laid down by       
,montesquieu1 is  considered1 the more  
its truth is felt2 the more it is       
combated1 the  more chance is given to  
confirm it by new proofs4    ,in all the
 governments that there are1 the public 
person consumes  without producing4     
,whence then does it get what it        
consumes8 ,from the  labour of its      
members4 ,the necessities of the public 
are supplied out  of the superfluities  
of individuals4 ,it follows that the    
civil ,state  can subsist only so long  
as men's labour brings them a return    
greater  than their needs4    ,the      
amount of this excess is not the same in
 all countries4 ,in some  it is         

considerable1 in others middling1 in yet
 others nil1 in some  even negative4    
,the relation of product to subsistence 
depends on the  fertility of the        
climate1 on the sort of labour the land 
demands1 on  the nature of its products1
 on the strength of its inhabitants1 on 
the  greater or less consumption they   
find necessary1 and on several further  
considerations of which the whole       
relation is made up4    ,on the other   
side1 all governments are not of the    
same nature3 some are  less voracious   
than others1 and the differences between
 them are based  on this second         
principle1 that the further from their  
source the public  contributions are    
removed1 the more burdensome they       
become4    ,the charge should be        
measured not by the amount of the       
impositions1 but  by the path they have 
to travel in order to get back to those 
from whom  they came4 ,when the         
circulation is prompt and               
well-established1 it does  not matter   

whether much or little is paid2 the     
people is always rich  and1 financially 
speaking1 all is well4 ,on the contrary1
 however little  the people gives1 if   
that little does not return to it1 it is
 soon  exhausted by giving continually3 
the ,state is then never rich1 and the  
people is always a people of beggars4   
,it follows that1 the more the distance 
between people and government           
increases1 the more burdensome tribute  
becomes3 thus1 in a democracy1  the     
people bears the least charge2 in an    
aristocracy1 a greater charge2  and1 in 
monarchy1 the weight becomes heaviest4  
,monarchy therefore suits  only wealthy 
nations2 aristocracy1 ,states of        
middling size and wealth2  and          
democracy1 ,states that are small and   
poor4    ,in fact1 the more we reflect1 
the more we find the difference between 
free and monarchical ,states to be this3
 in the former1 everything is  used for 
the public advantage2 in the latter1 the
 public forces and  those of individuals

 are affected by each other1 and either 
increases  as the other grows weak2     
finally1 instead of governing subjects  
to make  them happy1 despotism makes    
them wretched in order to govern them4  
,we find then1 in every climate1 natural
 causes according to which the  form of 
government which it requires can be     
assigned1 and we can even  say what sort
 of inhabitants it should have4         
,unfriendly and barren lands1 where the 
product does2 not repay the  labour1    
should remain desert and uncultivated1  
or peopled only by  savages2 lands where
 men's labour brings in no more than the
 exact  minimum necessary to subsistence
 should be inhabited by barbarous       
peoples3 in such places all polity is   
impossible4 ,lands where the  surplus of
 product over labour is only middling   
are suitable for free  peoples2 those in
 which the soil is abundant and fertile 
and gives a  great product for a little 
labour call for monarchical government1 
in order that the surplus of            

superfluities among the subjects may be 
consumed by the luxury of the prince3   
for it is better for this excess  to be 
absorbed by the government than         
dissipated among the individuals4  ,i am
 aware that there are exceptions2 but   
these exceptions themselves  confirm the
 rule1 in that sooner or later they     
produce revolutions  which restore      
things to the natural order4    ,general
 laws should always be distinguished    
from individual causes that  may modify 
their effects4 ,if all the ,south were  
covered with ,republics  and all the    
,north with despotic ,states1 it would  
be none the less true  that1 in point of
 climate1 despotism is suitable to hot  
countries1  barbarism to cold countries1
 and good polity to temperate regions4  
,i  see also that1 the principle being  
granted1 there may be disputes on  its  
application2 it may be said that there  
are cold countries that are  very       
fertile1 and tropical countries that are
 very unproductive4 ,but  this          

difficulty exists only for those who do 
not consider the question  in all its   
aspects4 ,we must1 as ,i have already   
said1 take labour1  strength1           
consumption1 etc41 into account4        
,take two tracts of equal extent1 one of
 which brings in five and the  other    
ten4 ,if the inhabitants of the first   
consume four and those of  the second   
nine1 the surplus of the first product  
will be a fifth and  that of the second 
a tenth4 ,the ratio of these two        
surpluses will then  be inverse to that 
of the products1 and the tract which    
produces only  five will give a surplus 
double that of the tract which produces 
ten4    ,but there is no question of a  
double product1 and ,i think no one     
would  put the fertility of cold        
countries1 as a general rule1 on an     
equality  with that of hot ones4 ,let   
us1 however1 suppose this equality to   
exist3  let us1 if you will1 regard     
,england as on the same level as        
,sicily1 and  ,poland as ,egypt--further

 south1 we shall have ,africa and the   
,indies2  further north1 nothing at all4
 ,to get this equality of product1 what 
a difference there must be in tillage3  
in ,sicily1 there is only need  to      
scratch the ground2 in ,england1 how men
 must toil6 ,but1 where  more hands are 
needed to get the same product1 the     
superfluity must  necessarily be less4  
,consider1 besides1 that the same number
 of men consume much less in  hot       
countries4 ,the climate requires        
sobriety for the sake of health2  and   
,europeans who try to live there as they
 would at home all perish  of dysentery 
and indigestion4 ,we are1 says ,chardin1
 carnivorous  animals1 wolves1 in       
comparison with the ,asiatics4 ,some    
attribute  the sobriety of the ,persians
 to the fact that their country is less 
cultivated2 but it is my belief that    
their country abounds less in           
commodities because the inhabitants need
 less4 ,if their frugality1 he  goes on1
 were the effect of the nakedness of the

 land1 only the poor  would eat little2 
but everybody does so4 ,again1 less or  
more would be  eaten in various         
provinces1 according to the land's      
fertility2 but the  same sobriety is    
found throughout the kingdom4 ,they are 
very proud of  their manner of life1    
saying that you have only to look at    
their hue  to recognise how far it      
excels that of the ,christians4 ,in     
fact1 the  ,persians are of an even hue2
 their skins are fair1 fine and smooth2 
while the hue of their subjects1 the    
,armenians1 who live after the          
,european fashion1 is rough and blotchy1
 and their bodies are gross and         
unwieldy4    ,the nearer you get to the 
equator1 the less people live on4 ,meat 
they hardly touch2 rice1 maize1 curcur1 
millet and cassava are  their ordinary  
food4 ,there are in the ,indies millions
 of men whose  subsistence does not cost
 a halfpenny a day4 ,even in ,europe we 
find  considerable differences of       
appetite between ,northern and ,southern

  peoples4 ,a ,spaniard will live for a 
week on a ,german's dinner4 ,in the     
countries in which men are more         
voracious1 luxury therefore turns  in   
the direction of consumption4 ,in       
,england1 luxury appears in a           
well-filled table2 in ,italy1 you feast 
on sugar and flowers4    ,luxury in     
clothes shows similar differences4 ,in  
climates in which the  changes of season
 are prompt and violent1 men have better
 and simpler  clothes2 where they clothe
 themselves only for adornment1 what is 
striking is more thought of than what is
 useful2 clothes themselves are  then a 
luxury4 ,at ,naples1 you may see daily  
walking in the ,pausilippeum  men in    
gold-embroidered upper garments and     
nothing else4 ,it is the same  with     
buildings2 magnificence is the sole     
consideration where there is  nothing to
 fear from the air4 ,in ,paris and      
,london1 you desire to be  lodged warmly
 and comfortably2 in ,madrid1 you have  
superb salons1 but  not a window that   

closes1 and you go to bed in a mere     
hole4    ,in hot countries foods are    
much more substantial and succulent2 and
  the third difference cannot but have  
an influence on the second4 ,why  are so
 many vegetables eaten in ,italy8       
,because there they are good1           
nutritious and excellent in taste4 ,in  
,france1 where they are nourished  only 
on water1 they are far from nutritious  
and are thought nothing of  at table4   
,they take up all the same no less      
ground1 and cost at least  as much pains
 to cultivate4 ,it is a proved fact that
 the wheat of  ,barbary1 in other       
respects inferior to that of ,france1   
yields much more  flour1 and that the   
wheat of ,france in turn yields more    
than that of  northern countries2 from  
which it may be inferred that a like    
gradation  in the same direction1 from  
equator to pole1 is found generally4    
,but  is it not an obvious disadvantage 
for an equal product to contain less    
nourishment8    ,to all these points may

 be added another1 which at once depends
 on  and strengthens them4 ,hot         
countries need inhabitants less than    
cold  countries1 and can support more of
 them4 ,there is thus a double  surplus1
 which is all to the advantage of       
despotism4 ,the greater the  territory  
occupied by a fixed number of           
inhabitants1 the more difficult  revolt 
becomes1 because rapid or secret        
concerted action is impossible1  and the
 government can easily unmask projects  
and cut communications2  but the more a 
numerous people is gathered together1   
the less can  the government usurp the  
,sovereign's place3 the people's leaders
 can  deliberate as safely in their     
houses as the prince in council1 and    
the crowd gathers as rapidly in the     
squares as the prince's troops in  their
 quarters4 ,the advantage of tyrannical 
government therefore lies  in acting at 
great distances4 ,with the help of the  
rallying-points  it establishes1 its    
strength1 like that of the lever1#a     

grows with  distance4 ,the strength of  
the people1 on the other hand1 acts only
 when  concentrated3 when spread abroad1
 it evaporates and is lost1 like  powder
 scattered on the ground1 which catches 
fire only grain by grain4  ,the least   
populous countries are thus the fittest 
for tyranny3 fierce  animals reign only 
in deserts4      #a ,this does not      
contradict what ,i said before 7,book   
ii1 ch4 ix7 about  the disadvantages of 
great ,states2 for we were then dealing 
with the  authority of the government   
over the members1 while here we are     
dealing  with its force against the     
subjects4 ,its scattered members serve  
it as  rallying-points for action       
against the people at a distance1 but it
 has  no rallying-point for direct      
action on its members themselves4 ,thus 
the  length of the lever is its weakness
 in the one case1 and its strength  in  
the other4          ,,chapter ,,ix      
,,the ,,marks ,,of ,a ,,good            
,,government      ,the question ,what   

absolutely is the best government8 is   
unanswerable  as well as indeterminate2 
or rather1 there are as many good       
answers as  there are possible          
combinations in the absolute and        
relative situations  of all nations4    
,but if it is asked by what sign we may 
know that a given people is well  or ill
 governed1 that is another matter1 and  
the question1 being one of  fact1 admits
 of an answer4    ,it is not1 however1  
answered1 because every-one wants to    
answer it in  his own way4 ,subjects    
extol public tranquillity1 citizens     
individual  liberty2 the one class      
prefers security of possessions1 the    
other that  of person2 the one regards  
as the best government that which is    
most  severe1 the other maintains that  
the mildest is the best2 the one wants  
crimes punished1 the other wants them   
prevented2 the one wants the  ,state to 
be feared by its neighbours1 the other  
prefers that it should  be ignored2 the 
one is content if money circulates1 the 

other demands  that the people shall    
have bread4 ,even if an agreement were  
come to  on these and similar points1   
should we have got any further8 ,as     
moral  qualities do not admit of exact  
measurement1 agreement about the mark   
does not mean agreement about the       
valuation4    ,for my part1 ,i am       
continually astonished that a mark so   
simple is not  recognised1 or that men  
are of so bad faith as not to admit it4 
,what  is the end of political          
association8 ,the preservation and      
prosperity  of its members4 ,and what is
 the surest mark of their preservation  
and  prosperity8 ,their numbers and     
population4 ,seek then nowhere else this
  mark that is in dispute4 ,the rest    
being equal1 the government under       
which1 without external aids1 without   
naturalisation or colonies1 the         
citizens increase and multiply most1 is 
beyond question the best4  ,the         
government under which a people wanes   
and diminishes is worst4  ,calculators1 

it is left for you to count1 to measure1
 to compare4#a      #a ,on the same     
principle it should be judged what      
centuries deserve  the preference for   
human prosperity4 ,those in which       
letters and arts  have flourished have  
been too much admired1 because the      
hidden object  of their culture has not 
been fathomed1 and their fatal effects  
not  taken into account4 ,idque apud    
imperitos humanitas vocabatur1 cum  pars
 servitutis esset4 ,fools called        
'humanity' what was a part of  slavery1 
,tacitus1 ,agricola1 #ca4 ,shall we     
never see in the maxims  books lay down 
the vulgar interest that makes their    
writers speak8  ,no1 whatever they may  
say1 when1 despite its renown1 a country
 is  depopulated1 it is not true that   
all is well1 and it is not enough that  
a poet should have an income of #ajj1jjj
 francs to make his age the  best of    
all4 ,less attention should be paid to  
the apparent repose and  tranquillity of
 the rulers than to the well-being of   

their nations as  wholes1 and above all 
of the most numerous ,states4 ,a        
hail-storm lays  several cantons waste1 
but it rarely makes a famine4 ,outbreaks
 and  civil wars give rulers rude       
shocks1 but they are not the real ills  
of  peoples1 who may even get a respite1
 while there is a dispute as to who     
shall tyrannise over them4 ,their true  
prosperity and calamities come  from    
their permanent condition3 it is when   
the whole remains crushed  beneath the  
yoke1 that decay sets in1 and that the  
rulers destroy  them at will1 and ubi   
solitudinem faciunt1 pacem appellant    
,where  they create solitude1 they call 
it peace1 ,tacitus1 ,agricola1 #ca4     
,when the bickerings of the great       
disturbed the kingdom of ,france1 and   
the ,coadjutor of ,paris took a dagger  
in his pocket to the ,parliament1  these
 things did not prevent the people of   
,france from prospering and  multiplying
 in dignity1 ease and freedom4 ,long ago
 ,greece flourished  in the midst of the

 most savage wars2 blood ran in         
torrents1 and yet  the whole country was
 covered with inhabitants4 ,it appeared1
 says  ,macchiavelli1 that in the midst 
of murder1 proscription and civil war1  
our republic only throve3 the virtue1   
morality and independence of the        
citizens did more to strengthen it than 
all their dissensions had done  to      
enfeeble it ,a little disturbance gives 
the soul elasticity2 what  makes the    
race truly prosperous is not so much    
peace as liberty4          ,,chapter ,x 
,,the ,,abuse ,,of ,,government ,,and   
,,its ,,tendency ,,to ,,degenerate      
,as the particular will acts constantly 
in opposition to the general  will1 the 
government continually exerts itself    
against the ,sovereignty4  ,the greater 
this exertion becomes1 the more the     
constitution changes2  and1 as there is 
in this case no other corporate will to 
create an  equilibrium by resisting the 
will of the prince1 sooner or later the 
prince must inevitably suppress the     

,sovereign and break the social  treaty4
 ,this is the unavoidable and inherent  
defect which1 from the  very birth of   
the body politic1 tends ceaselessly to  
destroy it1 as age  and death end by    
destroying the human body4    ,there are
 two general courses by which government
 degenerates3 i4e4  when it undergoes   
contraction1 or when the ,state is      
dissolved4    ,government undergoes     
contraction when it passes from the many
 to the  few1 that is1 from democracy to
 aristocracy1 and from aristocracy to   
royalty4 ,to do so is its natural       
propensity4#a ,if it took the backward  
course from the few to the many1 it     
could be said that it was relaxed2  by  
this inverse sequence is impossible4    
,indeed1 governments never change their 
form except when their energy  is       
exhausted and leaves them too weak to   
keep what they have4 ,if a  government  
at once extended its sphere and relaxed 
its stringency1 its  force would become 
absolutely nil1 and it would persist    

still less4 ,it  is therefore necessary 
to wind up the spring and tighten the   
hold as it  gives way3 or else the      
,state it sustains will come to grief4  
,the dissolution of the ,state may come 
about in either of two ways4    ,first1 
when the prince ceases to administer the
 ,state in accordance  with the laws1   
and usurps the ,sovereign power4 ,a     
remarkable change then  occurs3 not the 
government1 but the ,state1 undergoes   
contraction2 ,i  mean that the great    
,state is dissolved1 and another is     
formed within  it1 composed solely of   
the members of the government1 which    
becomes for  the rest of the people     
merely master and tyrant4 ,so that the  
moment the  government usurps the       
,sovereignty1 the social compact is     
broken and  all private citizens recover
 by right their natural liberty1 and are
  forced1 but not bound1 to obey4       
,the same thing happens when the members
 of the government severally  usurp the 
power they should exercise only as a    

body2 this is as great  an infraction of
 the laws1 and results in even greater  
disorders4 ,there  are then1 so to      
speak1 as many princes as there are     
magistrates1 and  the ,state1 no less   
divided than the government1 either     
perishes or  changes its form4    ,when 
the ,state is dissolved1 the abuse of   
government1 whatever it  is1 bears the  
common name of anarchy4 ,to distinguish1
 democracy  degenerates into ochlocracy 
and aristocracy into oligarchy and ,i   
would add that royalty degenerates into 
tyranny2 but this last word  is         
ambiguous and needs explanation4    ,in 
vulgar usage1 a tyrant is a king who    
governs violently and without  regard   
for justice and law4 ,in the exact      
sense1 a tyrant is an  individual who   
arrogates to himself the royal authority
 without having  a right to it4 ,this is
 how the ,greeks understood the word    
tyrant3  they applied it indifferently  
to good and bad princes whose authority 
was not legitimate4#b ,tyrant and       

usurper are thus perfectly  synonymous  
terms4    ,in order that ,i may give    
different things different names1 ,i    
call  him who usurps the royal authority
 tyrant1 and him who usurps the         
sovereign power a despot4 ,the tyrant is
 he who thrusts himself in  contrary to 
the laws to govern in accordance with   
the laws2 the despot  is he who sets    
himself above the laws themselves4 ,thus
 the tyrant  cannot be a despot1 but the
 despot is always a tyrant4      #a ,the
 slow formation and the progress of the 
,republic of ,venice in  its lagoons are
 a notable instance of this sequence2   
and it is most  astonishing that1 after 
more than twelve hundred years'         
existence1 the  ,venetians seem to be   
still at the second stage1 which they   
reached with  the ,serrar di ,consiglio 
in #aaih4 ,as for the ancient ,dukes who
 are  brought up against them1 it is    
proved1 whatever the ,squittinio della  
libert veneta may say of them1 that they
 were in no sense ,sovereigns4    ,a    

case certain to be cited against my view
 is that of the ,roman  ,republic1      
which1 it will be said1 followed exactly
 the opposite course1  and passed from  
monarchy to aristocracy and from        
aristocracy to  democracy4 ,i by no     
means take this view of it4    ,what    
,romulus first set up was a mixed       
government1 which soon  deteriorated    
into despotism4 ,from special causes1   
the ,state died an  untimely death1 as  
new-born children sometimes perish      
without reaching  manhood4 ,the         
expulsion of the ,tarquins was the real 
period of the birth  of the ,republic4  
,but at first it took on no constant    
form1 because1  by not abolishing the   
patriciate1 it left half its work       
undone4 ,for1  by this means1 hereditary
 aristocracy1 the worst of all          
legitimate  forms of administration1    
remained in conflict with democracy1 and
 the  form of the government1 as        
,macchiavelli has proved1 was only fixed
  on the establishment of the tribunate3

 only then was there a true  government 
and a veritable democracy4 ,in fact1 the
 people was then not  only ,sovereign1  
but also magistrate and judge2 the      
senate was only a  subordinate tribunal1
 to temper and concentrate the          
government1 and the  consuls themselves1
 though they were patricians1 first     
magistrates1 and  absolute generals in  
war1 were in ,rome itself no more than  
presidents  of the people4    ,from that
 point1 the government followed its     
natural tendency1  and inclined strongly
 to aristocracy4 ,the patriciate1 we may
 say1  abolished itself1 and the        
aristocracy was found no longer in the  
body  of patricians as at ,venice and   
,genoa1 but in the body of the senate1  
which was composed of patricians and    
plebeians1 and even in the body  of     
tribunes when they began to usurp an    
active function3 for names do  not      
affect facts1 and1 when the people has  
rulers who govern for it1  whatever name
 they bear1 the government is an        

aristocracy4    ,the abuse of           
aristocracy led to the civil wars and   
the triumvirate4  ,sulla1 ,julius ,csar 
and ,augustus became in fact real       
monarchs2 and  finally1 under the       
despotism of ,tiberius1 the ,state was  
dissolved4  ,roman history then         
confirms1 instead of invalidating1 the  
principle ,i  have laid down4    #b     
,omnes enim et habentur et dicuntur     
tyranni1 qui potestate utuntur  perpetua
 in ea civitate qu libertate usa est    
7,cornelius ,nepos1 ,life  of           
,miltiades74 ,for all those are called  
and considered tyrants1  who hold       
perpetual power in a ,state that has    
known liberty4 ,it is  true that        
,aristotle 7,nicomachean ,ethics1 ,book 
viii1 chapter x7  distinguishes the     
tyrant from the king by the fact that   
the former  governs in his own interest1
 and the latter only for the good of his
  subjects2 but not only did all ,greek 
authors in general use the word  tyrant 
in a different sense1 as appears most   

clearly in ,xenophon's  ,hiero1 but also
 it would follow from ,aristotle's      
distinction that1  from the very        
beginning of the world1 there has not   
yet been a single  king4                
,,chapter ,,xi    ,,the ,,death ,,of    
,,the ,,body ,,politic      ,such is the
 natural and inevitable tendency of the 
best constituted  governments4 ,if      
,sparta and ,rome perished1 what ,state 
can hope to endure  for ever8 ,if we    
would set up a long-lived form of       
government1 let us  not even dream of   
making it eternal4 ,if we are to        
succeed1 we must not  attempt the       
impossible1 or flatter ourselves that we
 are endowing the  work of man with a   
stability of which human conditions do  
not permit4    ,the body politic1 as    
well as the human body1 begins to die as
 soon as  it is born1 and carries in    
itself the causes of its destruction4   
,but  both may have a constitution that 
is more or less robust and suited to    
preserve them a longer or a shorter     

time4 ,the constitution of man is  the  
work of nature2 that of the ,state the  
work of art4 ,it is not in  men's power 
to prolong their own lives2 but it is   
for them to prolong  as much as possible
 the life of the ,state1 by giving it   
the best  possible constitution4 ,the   
best constituted ,state will have an    
end2  but it will end later than any    
other1 unless some unforeseen accident  
brings about its untimely destruction4  
,the life-principle of the body politic 
lies in the sovereign authority4  ,the  
legislative power is the heart of the   
,state2 the executive power  is its     
brain1 which causes the movement of all 
the parts4 ,the brain  may become       
paralysed and the individual still live4
 ,a man may remain  an imbecile and     
live2 but as soon as the heart ceases to
 perform its  functions1 the animal is  
dead4    ,the ,state subsists by means  
not of the laws1 but of the legislative 
power4 ,yesterday's law is not binding  
to-day2 but silence is taken for  tacit 

consent1 and the ,sovereign is held to  
confirm incessantly the  laws it does   
not abrogate as it might4 ,all that it  
has once declared  itself to will it    
wills always1 unless it revokes its     
declaration4    ,why then is so much    
respect paid to old laws8 ,for this very
 reason4 ,we  must believe that nothing 
but the excellence of old acts of will  
can  have preserved them so long3 if the
 ,sovereign had not recognised them  as 
throughout salutary1 it would have      
revoked them a thousand times4  ,this is
 why1 so far from growing weak1 the laws
 continually gain new  strength in any  
well constituted ,state2 the precedent  
of antiquity  makes them daily more     
venerable3 while wherever the laws grow 
weak as  they become old1 this proves   
that there is no longer a legislative   
power1 and that the ,state is dead4     
,,chapter ,,xii    ,,how ,,the          
,,sovereign ,,authority ,,maintains     
,,itself      ,the ,sovereign1 having no
 force other than the legislative power1

 acts  only by means of the laws2 and   
the laws being solely the authentic acts
  of the general will1 the ,sovereign   
cannot act save when the people is      
assembled4 ,the people in assembly1 ,i  
shall be told1 is a mere chimera4  ,it  
is so to-day1 but two thousand years ago
 it was not so4 ,has man's  nature      
changed8    ,the bounds of possibility1 
in moral matters1 are less narrow than  
we imagine3 it is our weaknesses1 our   
vices and our prejudices that  confine  
them4 ,base souls have no belief in     
great men2 vile slaves smile  in mockery
 at the name of liberty4    ,let us     
judge of what can be done by what has   
been done4 ,i shall say  nothing of the 
,republics of ancient ,greece2 but the  
,roman ,republic was1  to my mind1 a    
great ,state1 and the town of ,rome a   
great town4 ,the last  census showed    
that there were in ,rome four hundred   
thousand citizens  capable of bearing   
arms1 and the last computation of the   
population  of the ,empire showed over  

four million citizens1 excluding        
subjects1  foreigners1 women1 children  
and slaves4    ,what difficulties might 
not be supposed to stand in the way of  
the  frequent assemblage of the vast    
population of this capital and its      
neighbourhood4 ,yet few weeks passed    
without the ,roman people being in      
assembly1 and even being so several     
times4 ,it exercised not only the       
rights of ,sovereignty1 but also a part 
of those of government4 ,it dealt  with 
certain matters1 and judged certain     
cases1 and this whole people  was found 
in the public meeting-place hardly less 
often as magistrates  than as citizens4 
,if we went back to the earliest history
 of nations1 we should find that  most  
ancient governments1 even those of      
monarchical form1 such as the           
,macedonian and the ,frankish1 had      
similar councils4 ,in any case1 the one 
incontestable fact ,i have given is an  
answer to all difficulties2 it is  good 
logic to reason from the actual to the  

possible4          ,,chapter ,,xiii     
,,the ,,same 7continued7      ,it is not
 enough for the assembled people to have
 once fixed the  constitution of the    
,state by giving its sanction to a body 
of law2  it is not enough for it to have
 set up a perpetual government1 or      
provided once for all for the election  
of magistrates4 ,besides the            
extraordinary assemblies unforeseen     
circumstances may demand1 there  must be
 fixed periodical assemblies which      
cannot be abrogated or  prorogued1 so   
that on the proper day the people is    
legitimately called  together by law1   
without need of any formal summoning4   
,but1 apart from these assemblies       
authorised by their date alone1 every   
assembly of the people not summoned by  
the magistrates appointed for  that     
purpose1 and in accordance with the     
prescribed forms1 should be  regarded as
 unlawful1 and all its acts as null and 
void1 because the  command to assemble  
should itself proceed from the law4     

,the greater or less frequency with     
which lawful assemblies should occur    
depends on so many considerations that  
no exact rules about them can be  given4
 ,it can only be said generally that the
 stronger the government  the more often
 should the ,sovereign show itself4     
,this1 ,i shall be told1 may do for a   
single town2 but what is to be  done    
when the ,state includes several8 ,is   
the sovereign authority to be  divided8 
,or is it to be concentrated in a single
 town to which all the  rest are made   
subject8    ,neither the one nor the    
other1 ,i reply4 ,first1 the sovereign  
authority  is one and simple1 and cannot
 be divided without being destroyed4 ,in
 th  second place1 one town cannot1 any 
more than one nation1 legitimately  be  
made subject to another1 because the    
essence of the body politic  lies in the
 reconciliation of obedience and        
liberty1 and the words  subject and     
,sovereign are identical correlatives   
the idea of which  meets in the single  

word citizen4    ,i answer further that 
the union of several towns in a single  
city is  always bad1 and that1 if we    
wish to make such a union1 we should not
  expect to avoid its natural           
disadvantages4 ,it is useless to bring  
up  abuses that belong to great ,states 
against one who desires to see only     
small ones2 but how can small ,states be
 given the strength to resist  great    
ones1 as formerly the ,greek towns      
resisted the ,great ,king1 and  more    
recently ,holland and ,switzerland have 
resisted the ,house of  ,austria8       
,nevertheless1 if the ,state cannot be  
reduced to the right limits1 there      
remains still one resource2 this is1 to 
allow no capital1 to make the  seat of  
government move from town to town1 and  
to assemble by turn in  each the        
,provincial ,estates of the country4    
,people the territory evenly1 extend    
everywhere the same rights1 bear  to    
every place in it abundance and life3 by
 these means will the ,state  become at 

once as strong and as well governed as  
possible4 ,remember  that the walls of  
towns are built of the ruins of the     
houses of the  countryside4 ,for every  
palace ,i see raised in the capital1 my 
mind's  eye sees a whole country made   
desolate4          ,,chapter ,,xiv      
,,the ,,same 7continued7      ,the      
moment the people is legitimately       
assembled as a sovereign body1  the     
jurisdiction of the government wholly   
lapses1 the executive power  is         
suspended1 and the person of the meanest
 citizen is as sacred and  inviolable as
 that of the first magistrate2 for in   
the presence of  the person represented1
 representatives no longer exist4 ,most 
of the  tumults that arose in the       
comitia at ,rome were due to ignorance  
or  neglect of this rule4 ,the consuls  
were in them merely the presidents of   
the people2 the tribunes were mere      
speakers2#a the senate was nothing  at  
all4    ,these intervals of suspension1 
during which the prince recognises or   

ought to recognise an actual superior1  
have always been viewed by him  with    
alarm2 and these assemblies of the      
people1 which are the aegis  of the body
 politic and the curb on the government1
 have at all times  been the horror of  
rulers3 who therefore never spare pains1
 objections1  difficulties1 and         
promises1 to stop the citizens from     
having them4 ,when  the citizens are    
greedy1 cowardly1 and pusillanimous1 and
 love ease  more than liberty1 they do  
not long hold out against the redoubled 
efforts of the government2 and thus1 as 
the resisting force incessantly  grows1 
the sovereign authority ends by         
disappearing1 and most cities  fall and 
perish before their time4    ,but       
between the sovereign authority and     
arbitrary government there  sometimes   
intervenes a mean power of which        
something must be said4      #a ,in     
nearly the same sense as this word has  
in the ,english  ,parliament4 ,the      
similarity of these functions would have

 brought the  consuls and the tribunes  
into conflict1 even had all jurisdiction
 been  suspended4          ,,chapter    
,,xv    ,,deputies ,,or                 
,,representatives      ,as soon as      
public service ceases to be the chief   
business of the  citizens1 and they     
would rather serve with their money than
 with their  persons1 the ,state is not 
far from its fall4 ,when it is necessary
  to march out to war1 they pay troops  
and stay at home3 when it is  necessary 
to meet in council1 they name deputies  
and stay at home4 ,by  reason of        
idleness and money1 they end by having  
soldiers to enslave  their country and  
representatives to sell it4    ,it is   
through the hustle of commerce and the  
arts1 through the greedy  self-interest 
of profit1 and through softness and love
 of amenities  that personal services   
are replaced by money payments4 ,men    
surrender  a part of their profits in   
order to have time to increase them at  
leisure4 ,make gifts of money1 and you  

will not be long without chains4  ,the  
word finance is a slavish word1 unknown 
in the city-state4 ,in a  country that  
is truly free1 the citizens do          
everything with their own  arms and     
nothing by means of money2 so far from  
paying to be exempted  from their       
duties1 they would even pay for the     
privilege of fulfilling  them           
themselves4 ,i am far from taking the   
common view3 ,i hold enforced  labour to
 be less opposed to liberty than taxes4 
,the better the constitution of a ,state
 is1 the more do public affairs         
encroach on private in the minds of the 
citizens4 ,private affairs are  even of 
much less importance1 because the       
aggregate of the common  happiness      
furnishes a greater proportion of that  
of each individual1  so that there is   
less for him to seek in particular      
cares4 ,in a  well-ordered city every   
man flies to the assemblies3 under a bad
  government no one cares to stir a step
 to get to them1 because no one  is     

interested in what happens there1       
because it is foreseen that the  general
 will will not prevail1 and lastly      
because domestic cares are              
all-absorbing4 ,good laws lead to the   
making of better ones2 bad ones  bring  
about worse4 ,as soon as any man says of
 the affairs of the ,state  ,what does  
it matter to me8 the ,state may be given
 up for lost4    ,the lukewarmness of   
patriotism1 the activity of private     
interest1 the  vastness of ,states1     
conquest and the abuse of government    
suggested  the method of having deputies
 or representatives of the people in    
the national assemblies4 ,these are     
what1 in some countries1 men have       
presumed to call the ,third ,estate4    
,thus the individual interest of two    
orders is put first and second2 the     
public interest occupies only the  third
 place4    ,sovereignty1 for the same   
reason as makes it inalienable1 cannot  
be  represented2 it lies essentially in 
the general will1 and will does not     

admit of representation3 it is either   
the same1 or other2 there is no         
intermediate possibility4 ,the deputies 
of the people1 therefore1 are  not and  
cannot be its representatives3 they are 
merely its stewards1  and can carry     
through no definitive acts4 ,every law  
the people has not  ratified in person  
is null and void--is1 in fact1 not a    
law4 ,the people  of ,england regards   
itself as free2 but it is grossly       
mistaken2 it is  free only during the   
election of members of parliament4 ,as  
soon as they  are elected1 slavery      
overtakes it1 and it is nothing4 ,the   
use it makes  of the short moments of   
liberty it enjoys shows indeed that it  
deserves  to lose them4    ,the idea of 
representation is modern2 it comes to us
 from feudal  government1 from that     
iniquitous and absurd system which      
degrades  humanity and dishonours the   
name of man4 ,in ancient republics and  
even  in monarchies1 the people never   
had representatives2 the word itself    

was unknown4 ,it is very singular that  
in ,rome1 where the tribunes  were so   
sacrosanct1 it was never even imagined  
that they could usurp  the functions of 
the people1 and that in the midst of so 
great a  multitude they never attempted 
to pass on their own authority a single 
plebiscitum4 ,we can1 however1 form an  
idea of the difficulties caused         
sometimes by the people being so        
numerous1 from what happened in the     
time of the ,gracchi1 when some of the  
citizens had to cast their votes  from  
the roofs of buildings4    ,where right 
and liberty are everything1             
disadvantages count for  nothing4 ,among
 this wise people everything was given  
its just value1  its lictors were       
allowed to do what its tribunes would   
never have dared  to attempt2 for it had
 no fear that its lictors would try to  
represent  it4    ,to explain1 however1 
in what way the tribunes did sometimes  
represent  it1 it is enough to conceive 
how the government represents the       

,sovereign4 ,law being purely the       
declaration of the general will1 it is  
clear that1 in the exercise of the      
legislative power1 the people cannot  be
 represented2 but in that of the        
executive power1 which is only the      
force that is applied to give the law   
effect1 it both can and should be       
represented4 ,we thus see that if we    
looked closely into the matter we       
should find that very few nations have  
any laws4 ,however that may be1  it is  
certain that the tribunes1 possessing no
 executive power1 could  never represent
 the ,roman people by right of the      
powers entrusted to  them1 but only by  
usurping those of the senate4    ,in    
,greece1 all that the people had to do1 
it did for itself2 it was  constantly   
assembled in the public square4 ,the    
,greeks lived in a mild  climate2 they  
had no natural greed2 slaves did their  
work for them2  their great concern was 
with liberty4 ,lacking the same         
advantages1 how  can you preserve the   

same rights8 ,your severer climates add 
to your  needs2#a for half the year your
 public squares are uninhabitable2 the  
flatness of your languages unfits them  
for being heard in the open air2  you   
sacrifice more for profit than for      
liberty1 and fear slavery less  than    
poverty4    ,what then8 ,is liberty     
maintained only by the help of slavery8 
,it may be  so4 ,extremes meet4         
,everything that is not in the course of
 nature has  its disadvantages1 civil   
society most of all4 ,there are some    
unhappy  circumstances in which we can  
only keep our liberty at others'        
expense1  and where the citizen can be  
perfectly free only when the slave is   
most  a slave4 ,such was the case with  
,sparta4 ,as for you1 modern peoples1   
you have no slaves1 but you are slaves  
yourselves2 you pay for their  liberty  
with your own4 ,it is in vain that you  
boast of this preference2  ,i find in it
 more cowardice than humanity4    ,i do 
not mean by all this that it is         

necessary to have slaves1 or that  the  
right of slavery is legitimate3 ,i am   
merely giving the reasons why  modern   
peoples1 believing themselves to be     
free1 have representatives1  while      
ancient peoples had none4 ,in any case1 
the moment a people allows  itself to be
 represented1 it is no longer free3 it  
no longer exists4    ,all things        
considered1 ,i do not see that it is    
possible henceforth for  the ,sovereign 
to preserve among us the exercise of its
 rights1 unless  the city is very small4
 ,but if it is very small1 it will be   
conquered8  ,no4 ,i will show later on  
how the external strength of a great    
people#b  may be combined with the      
convenient polity and good order of a   
small  ,state4      #a ,to adopt in cold
 countries the luxury and effeminacy of 
the ,east is  to desire to submit to its
 chains2 it is indeed to bow to them far
 more  inevitably in our case than in   
theirs4    #b ,i had intended to do this
 in the sequel to this work1 when  in   

dealing with external relations ,i came 
to the subject of  confederations4 ,the 
subject is quite new1 and its principles
 have still  to be laid down4           
,,chapter ,,xvi    ,,that ,,the         
,,institution ,,of ,,government ,,is    
,,not ,a ,,contract      ,the           
legislative power once well established1
 the next thing is to  establish        
similarly the executive power2 for this 
latter1 which  operates only by         
particular acts1 not being of the       
essence of the  former1 is naturally    
separate from it4 ,were it possible for 
the  ,sovereign1 as such1 to possess the
 executive power1 right and fact  would 
be so confounded that no one could tell 
what was law and what was  not2 and the 
body politic1 thus disfigured1 would    
soon fall a prey to  the violence it was
 instituted to prevent4    ,as the      
citizens1 by the social contract1 are   
all equal1 all can  prescribe what all  
should do1 but no one has a right to    
demand that  another shall do what he   

does not do himself4 ,it is strictly    
this  right1 which is indispensable for 
giving the body politic life and        
movement1 that the ,sovereign1 in       
instituting the government1 confers     
upon the prince4    ,it has been held   
that this act of establishment was a    
contract between  the people and the    
rulers it sets over itself4--a contract 
in which  conditions were laid down     
between the two parties binding the one 
to  command and the other to obey4 ,it  
will be admitted1 ,i am sure1 that  this
 is an odd kind of contract to enter    
into4 ,but let us see if this  view can 
be upheld4    ,first1 the supreme       
authority can no more be modified than  
it can be  alienated2 to limit it is to 
destroy it4 ,it is absurd and           
contradictory  for the ,sovereign to set
 a superior over itself2 to bind itself 
to obey  a master would be to return to 
absolute liberty4    ,moreover1 it is   
clear that this contract between the    
people and such  and such persons would 

be a particular act2 and from this it   
follows  that it can be neither a law   
nor an act of ,sovereignty1 and that    
consequently it would be illegitimate4  
,it is plain too that the contracting   
parties in relation to each other  would
 be under the law of nature alone and   
wholly without guarantees  of their     
mutual undertakings1 a position wholly  
at variance with the  civil state4 ,he  
who has force at his command being      
always in a position  to control        
execution1 it would come to the same    
thing if the name  contract were given  
to the act of one man who said to       
another2 ,i  give you all my goods1 on  
condition that you give me back as much 
of  them as you please4    ,there is    
only one contract in the ,state1 and    
that is the act of  association1 which  
in itself excludes the existence of a   
second4 ,it  is impossible to conceive  
of any public contract that would not be
 a  violation of the first4             
,,chapter ,,xvii    ,,the ,,institution 

,,of ,,government      ,under what      
general idea then should the act by     
which government is  instituted be      
conceived as falling8 ,i will begin by  
stating that the  act is complex1 as    
being composed of two others--the       
establishment' of  the law and its      
execution4    ,by the former1 the       
,sovereign decrees that there shall be a
 governing  body established in this or 
that form2 this act is clearly a law4   
,by the latter1 the people nominates the
 rulers who are to be entrusted  with   
the government that has been            
established4 ,this nomination1 being a  
particular act1 is clearly not a second 
law1 but merely a consequence  of the   
first and a function of government4     
,the difficulty is to understand how    
there can be a governmental act  before 
government exists1 and how the people1  
which is only ,sovereign  or subject1   
can1 under certain circumstances1 become
 a prince or  magistrate4    ,it is at  
this point that there is revealed one of

 the astonishing  properties of the body
 politic1 by means of which it          
reconciles  apparently contradictory    
operations2 for this is accomplished by 
a  sudden conversion of ,sovereignty    
into democracy1 so that1 without        
sensible change1 and merely by virtue of
 a new relation of all to all1  the     
citizens become magistrates and pass    
from general to particular  acts1 from  
legislation to the execution of the law4
    ,this changed relation is no        
speculative subtlety without instances  
in practice3 it happens every day in the
 ,english ,parliament1 where1  on       
certain occasions1 the ,lower ,house    
resolves itself into ,grand  ,committee1
 for the better discussion of affairs1  
and thus1 from being  at one moment a   
sovereign court1 becomes at the next a  
mere commission2  so that subsequently  
it reports to itself1 as ,house of      
,commons1 the  result of its proceedings
 in ,grand ,committee1 and debates over 
again  under one name what it has       

already settled under another4    ,it   
is1 indeed1 the peculiar advantage of   
democratic government that it  can be   
established in actuality by a simple act
 of the general will4  ,subsequently1   
this provisional government remains in  
power1 if this  form is adopted1 or else
 establishes in the name of the         
,sovereign the  government that is      
prescribed by law2 and thus the whole   
proceeding  is regular4 ,it is          
impossible to set up government in any  
other manner  legitimately and in       
accordance with the principles so far   
laid down4          ,,chapter ,,xviii   
,,how ,,to ,,check ,,the ,,usurpations  
,,of ,,government      ,what we have    
just said confirms ,chapter ,,xvi1 and  
makes it clear that  the institution of 
government is not a contract1 but a law2
 that the  depositaries of the executive
 power are not the people's masters1 but
  its officers2 that it can set them up 
and pull them down when it likes2  that 
for them there is no question of        

contract1 but of obedience2 and  that in
 taking charge of the functions the     
,state imposes on them they  are doing  
no more than fulfilling their duty as   
citizens1 without  having the remotest  
right to argue about the conditions4    
,when therefore the people sets up an   
hereditary government1 whether  it be   
monarchical and confined to one family1 
or aristocratic and  confined to a      
class1 what it enters into is not an    
undertaking2 the  administration is     
given a provisional form1 until the     
people chooses to  order it otherwise4  
,it is true that such changes are always
 dangerous1 and that the  established   
government should never be touched      
except when it comes  to be incompatible
 with the public good2 but the          
circumspection this  involves is a maxim
 of policy and not a rule of right1 and 
the ,state is  no more bound to leave   
civil authority in the hands of its     
rulers than  military authority in the  
hands of its generals4    ,it is also   

true that it is impossible to be too    
careful to observe1  in such cases1 all 
the formalities necessary to distinguish
 a regular  and legitimate act from a   
seditious tumult1 and the will of a     
whole  people from the clamour of a     
faction4 ,here above all no further     
concession should be made to the        
untoward possibility than cannot1 in    
the strictest logic1 be refused it4     
,from this obligation the prince        
derives a great advantage in preserving 
his power despite the people1  without  
it being possible to say he has usurped 
it2 for1 seeming to  avail himself only 
of his rights1 he finds it very easy to 
extend them1  and to prevent1 under the 
pretext of keeping the peace1 assemblies
 that  are destined to the              
re-establishment of order2 with the     
result that he  takes advantage of a    
silence he does not allow to be broken1 
or of  irregularities he causes to be   
committed1 to assume that he has the    
support of those whom fear prevents from

 speaking1 and to punish those  who dare
 to speak4 ,thus it was that the        
decemvirs1 first elected for  one year  
and then kept on in office for a second1
 tried to perpetuate  their power by    
forbidding the comitia to assemble2 and 
by this easy  method every government in
 the world1 once clothed with the public
  power1 sooner or later usurps the     
sovereign authority4    ,the periodical 
assemblies of which ,i have already     
spoken are designed  to prevent or      
postpone this calamity1 above all when  
they need no  formal summoning2 for in  
that case1 the prince cannot stop them  
without  openly declaring himself a     
law-breaker and an enemy of the ,state4 
,the opening of these assemblies1 whose 
sole object is the maintenance  of the  
social treaty1 should always take the   
form of putting two  propositions that  
may not be suppressed1 which should be  
voted on  separately4    ,the first is3 
,does it please the ,sovereign to       
preserve the present  form of           

government8    ,the second is3 ,does it 
please the people to leave its          
administration  in the hands of those   
who are actually in charge of it8    ,i 
am here assuming what ,i think ,i have  
shown2 that there is in the  ,state no  
fundamental law that cannot be revoked1 
not excluding the  social compact       
itself2 for if all the citizens         
assembled of one accord  to break the   
compact1 it is impossible to doubt that 
it would be very  legitimately broken4  
,grotius even thinks that each man can  
renounce his  membership of his own     
,state1 and recover his natural liberty 
and his  goods on leaving the country4#a
 ,it would be indeed absurd if all the  
citizens in assembly could not do what  
each can do by himself4      #a         
,provided1 of course1 he does not leave 
to escape his obligations  and avoid    
having to serve his country in the hour 
of need4 ,flight  in such a case would  
be criminal and punishable1 and would   
be1 not  withdrawal1 but desertion4     

,,book ,,iv    ,,chapter ,i    ,,that   
,,the ,,general ,,will ,,is             
,,indestructible      ,as long as       
several men in assembly regard          
themselves as a single body1  they have 
only a single will which is concerned   
with their common  preservation and     
general well-being4 ,in this case1 all  
the springs of  the ,state are vigorous 
and simple and its rules clear and      
luminous2  there are no embroilments or 
conflicts of interests2 the common good 
is  everywhere clearly apparent1 and    
only good sense is needed to perceive   
it4 ,peace1 unity and equality are the  
enemies of political subtleties4  ,men  
who are upright and simple are difficult
 to deceive because of  their           
simplicity2 lures and ingenious pretexts
 fail to impose upon  them1 and they are
 not even subtle enough to be dupes4    
,when1 among the  happiest people in the
 world1 bands of peasants are seen      
regulating  affairs of ,state under an  
oak1 and always acting wisely1 can we   

help  scorning the ingenious methods of 
other nations1 which make themselves    
illustrious and wretched with so much   
art and mystery8    ,a ,state so        
governed needs very few laws2 and1 as it
 becomes necessary  to issue new ones1  
the necessity is universally seen4 ,the 
first man to  propose them merely says  
what all have already felt1 and there is
 no  question of factions or intrigues  
or eloquence in order to secure the     
passage into law of what every one has  
already decided to do1 as soon  as he is
 sure that the rest will act with him4  
,theorists are led into error because1  
seeing only ,states that have  been from
 the beginning wrongly constituted1 they
 are struck by the  impossibility of    
applying such a policy to them4 ,they   
make great game  of all the absurdities 
a clever rascal or an insinuating       
speaker might  get the people of ,paris 
or ,london to believe4 ,they do not know
 that  ,cromwell would have been put to 
the bells by the people of ,berne1 and  

the ,due de ,beaufort on the treadmill  
by the ,genevese4    ,but when the      
social bond begins to be relaxed and the
 ,state to grow  weak1 when particular  
interests begin to make themselves felt 
and the  smaller societies to exercise  
an influence over the larger1 the common
  interest changes and finds opponents3 
opinion is no longer unanimous2  the    
general will ceases to be the will of   
all2 contradictory views and  debates   
arise2 and the best advice is not taken 
without question4    ,finally1 when the 
,state1 on the eve of ruin1 maintains   
only a vain1  illusory and formal       
existence1 when in every heart the      
social bond  is broken1 and the meanest 
interest brazenly lays hold of the      
sacred  name of public good1 the general
 will becomes mute3 all men1 guided  by 
secret motives1 no more give their views
 as citizens than if the  ,state had    
never been2 and iniquitous decrees      
directed solely to private  interest get
 passed under the name of laws4    ,does

 it follow from this that the general   
will is exterminated or  corrupted8 ,not
 at all3 it is always constant1         
unalterable and pure2 but  it is        
subordinated to other wills which       
encroach upon its sphere4 ,each  man1 in
 detaching1 his interest from the common
 interest1 sees clearly  that he cannot 
entirely separate them2 but his share in
 the public  mishaps seems to him       
negligible beside the exclusive good he 
aims at  making his own4 ,apart from    
this particular good1 he wills the      
general  good in his own interest1 as   
strongly as any one else4 ,even in      
selling  his vote for money1 he does not
 extinguish in himself the general      
will1 but only eludes it4 ,the fault he 
commits is that of changing the  state  
of the question1 and answering something
 different from what he  is asked4      
,instead of saying1 by his vote1 ,it is 
to the advantage of  the ,state1 he     
says1 ,it is of advantage to this or    
that man or party  that this or that    

view should prevail4 ,thus the law of   
public order  in assemblies is not so   
much to maintain in them the general    
will as  to secure that the question be 
always put to it1 and the answer always 
given by it4    ,i could here set down  
many reflections on the simple right of 
voting  in every act of ,sovereignty--a 
right which no-one can take from the    
citizens--and also on the right of      
stating views1 making proposals1        
dividing and discussing1 which the      
government is always most careful  to   
leave solely to its members2 but this   
important subject would need a  treatise
 to itself1 and it is impossible to say 
everything in a single  work4           
,,chapter ,,ii    ,,voting      ,it may 
be seen1 from the last chapter1 that the
 way in which general  business is      
managed may give a clear enough         
indication of the actual  state of      
morals and the health of the body       
politic4 ,the more concert  reigns in   
the assemblies1 that is1 the nearer     

opinion approaches  unanimity1 the      
greater is the dominance of the general 
will4 ,on  the other hand1 long debates1
 dissensions and tumult proclaim the    
ascendancy of particular interests and  
the decline of the ,state4    ,this     
seems less clear when two or more orders
 enter into the  constitution1 as       
patricians and plebeians did at ,rome2  
for quarrels  between these two orders  
often disturbed the comitia1 even in the
 best  days of the ,republic4 ,but the  
exception is rather apparent than real2 
for then1 through the defect that is    
inherent in the body politic1  there    
were1 so to speak1 two ,states in one1  
and what is not true of  the two        
together is true of either separately4  
,indeed1 even in the  most stormy times1
 the plebiscita of the people1 when the 
,senate did  not interfere with them1   
always went through quietly and by large
  majorities4 ,the citizens having but  
one interest1 the people had but a      
single will4    ,at the other extremity 

of the circle1 unanimity recurs2 this is
 the  case when the citizens1 having    
fallen into servitude1 have lost both   
liberty and will4 ,fear and flattery    
then change votes into acclamation2     
deliberation ceases1 and only worship or
 malediction is left4 ,such  was the    
vile manner in which the senate         
expressed its views under the           
,emperors4 ,it did so sometimes with    
absurd precautions4 ,tacitus observes   
that1 under ,otho1 the senators1 while  
they heaped curses on ,vitellius1       
contrived at the same time to make a    
deafening noise1 in order that1  should 
he ever become their master1 he might   
not know what each of them  had said4   
,on these various considerations depend 
the rules by which the methods  of      
counting votes and comparing opinions   
should be regulated1 according  as the  
general will is more or less easy to    
discover1 and the ,state  more or less  
in its decline4    ,there is but one law
 which1 from its nature1 needs unanimous

 consent4  ,this is the social compact2 
for civil association is the most       
voluntary  of all acts4 ,every man being
 born free and his own master1 no-one1  
under any pretext whatsoever1 can make  
any man subject without his  consent4   
,to decide that the son of a slave is   
born a slave is to decide  that he is   
not born a man4    ,if then there are   
opponents when the social compact is    
made1 their  opposition does not        
invalidate the contract1 but merely     
prevents them  from being included in   
it4 ,they are foreigners among citizens4
 ,when the  ,state is instituted1       
residence constitutes consent2 to dwell 
within its  territory is to submit to   
the ,sovereign4#a    ,apart from this   
primitive contract1 the vote of the     
majority always  binds all the rest4    
,this follows from the contract itself4 
,but it is  asked how a man can be both 
free and forced to conform to wills that
  are not his own4 ,how are the         
opponents at once free and subject to   

laws  they have not agreed to8    ,i    
retort that the question is wrongly put4
 ,the citizen gives his  consent to all 
the laws1 including those which are     
passed in spite of  his opposition1 and 
even those which punish him when he     
dares to break  any of them4 ,the       
constant will of all the members of the 
,state is the  general will2 by virtue  
of it they are citizens and free4#b     
,when in  the popular assembly a law is 
proposed1 what the people is asked is   
not  exactly whether it approves or     
rejects the proposal1 but whether it is 
in conformity with the general will1    
which is their will4 ,each man1 in      
giving his vote1 states his opinion on  
that point2 and the general will  is    
found by counting votes4 ,when therefore
 the opinion that is contrary  to my own
 prevails1 this proves neither more nor 
less than that ,i was  mistaken1 and    
that what ,i thought to be the general  
will was not so4 ,if  my particular     
opinion had carried the day ,i should   

have achieved the  opposite of what was 
my will and it is in that case that ,i  
should not  have been free4    ,this    
presupposes1 indeed1 that all the       
qualities of the general will  still    
reside in the majority3 when they cease 
to do so1 whatever side a  man may take1
 liberty is no longer possible4    ,in  
my earlier demonstration of how         
particular wills are substituted  for   
the general will in public deliberation1
 ,i have adequately pointed  out the    
practicable methods of avoiding this    
abuse2 and ,i shall have  more to say of
 them later on4 ,i have also given the  
principles for  determining the         
proportional number of votes for        
declaring that will4  ,a difference of  
one vote destroys equality2 a single    
opponent destroys  unanimity2 but       
between equality and unanimity1 there   
are several grades  of unequal division1
 at each of which this proportion may be
 fixed in  accordance with the condition
 and the needs of the body politic4     

,there are two general rules that may   
serve to regulate this relation4        
,first1 the more grave and important the
 questions discussed1 the nearer  should
 the opinion that is to prevail approach
 unanimity4 ,secondly1 the  more the    
matter in hand calls for speed1 the     
smaller the prescribed  difference in   
the numbers of votes may be allowed to  
become3 where an  instant decision has  
to be reached1 a majority of one vote   
should be  enough4 ,the first of these  
two rules seems more in harmony with the
  laws1 and the second with practical   
affairs4 ,in any case1 it is the        
combination of them that gives the best 
proportions for determining the         
majority necessary4      #a ,this should
 of course be understood as applying to 
a free ,state2  for elsewhere family1   
goods1 lack of a refuge1 necessity1 or  
violence  may detain a man in a country 
against his will2 and then his dwelling 
there no longer by itself implies his   
consent to the contract or to its       

violation4    #b ,at ,genoa1 the word   
,liberty may be read over the front of  
the  prisons and on the chains of the   
galley-slaves4 ,this application of the 
device is good and just4 ,it is indeed  
only malefactors of all estates  who    
prevent the citizen from being free4 ,in
 the country in which  all such men were
 in the galleys1 the most perfect       
liberty would be  enjoyed4              
,,chapter ,,iii    ,,elections      ,in 
the elections of the prince and the     
magistrates1 which are1 as ,i  have     
said1 complex acts1 there are two       
possible methods of procedure1  choice  
and lot4 ,both have been employed in    
various republics1 and a  highly        
complicated mixture of the two still    
survives in the election of  the ,doge  
at ,venice4    ,election by lot1 says   
,montesquieu1 is democratic in nature4  
,i agree  that it is so2 but in what    
sense8 ,the lot1 he goes on1 is a way   
of making choice that is unfair to      
nobody2 it leaves each citizen a        

reasonable hope of serving his country4 
,these are not reasons4    ,if we bear  
in mind that the election of rulers is a
 function of  government1 and not of    
,sovereignty1 we shall see why the lot  
is the  method more natural to          
democracy1 in which the administration  
is better  in proportion as the number  
of its acts is small4    ,in every real 
democracy1 magistracy is not an         
advantage1 but a  burdensome charge     
which cannot justly be imposed on one   
individual  rather than another4 ,the   
law alone can lay the charge on him on  
whom  the lot falls4 ,for1 the          
conditions being then the same for all1 
and  the choice not depending on any    
human will1 there is no particular      
application to alter the universality of
 the law4    ,in an aristocracy1 the    
prince chooses the prince1 the          
government is  preserved by itself1 and 
voting is rightly ordered4    ,the      
instance of the election of the ,doge of
 ,venice confirms1 instead  of          

destroying1 this distinction2 the mixed 
form suits a mixed  government4 ,for it 
is an error to take the government of   
,venice for a  real aristocracy4 ,if the
 people has no share in the government1 
the  nobility is itself the people4 ,a  
host of poor ,barnabotes never gets     
near any magistracy1 and its nobility   
consists merely in the empty  title of  
,excellency1 and in the right to sit in 
the ,great ,council4 ,as  this ,great   
,council is as numerous as our ,general 
,council at ,geneva1 its  illustrious   
members have no more privileges than our
 plain citizens4  ,it is indisputable   
that1 apart from the extreme disparity  
between the  two republics1 the         
bourgeoisie of ,geneva is exactly       
equivalent to the  patriciate of        
,venice2 our natives and inhabitants    
correspond to  the townsmen and the     
people of ,venice2 our peasants         
correspond  to the subjects on the      
mainland2 and1 however that republic be 
regarded1 if its size be left out of    

account1 its government is no more      
aristocratic than our own4 ,the whole   
difference is that1 having no           
life-ruler1 we do not1 like ,venice1    
need to use the lot4    ,election by lot
 would have few disadvantages in a real 
democracy1 in  which1 as equality would 
everywhere exist in morals and talents  
as  well as in principles and fortunes1 
it would become almost a matter  of     
indifference who was chosen4 ,but ,i    
have already said that a real  democracy
 is only an ideal4    ,when choice and  
lot are combined1 positions that require
 special  talents1 such as military     
posts1 should be filled by the former2  
the  latter does for cases1 such as     
judicial offices1 in which good sense1  
justice1 and integrity are enough1      
because in a ,state that is well        
constituted1 these qualities are common 
to all the citizens4    ,neither lot nor
 vote has any place in monarchical      
government4 ,the  monarch being by right
 sole prince and only magistrate1 the   

choice of  his lieutenants belongs to   
none but him4 ,when the ,abb de         
,saint-,pierre  proposed that the       
,councils of the ,king of ,france should
 be multiplied1  and their members      
elected by ballot1 he did not see that  
he was  proposing to change the form of 
government4    ,i should now speak of   
the methods of giving and counting      
opinions in  the assembly of the people2
 but perhaps an account of this aspect  
of  the ,roman constitution will more   
forcibly illustrate all the rules ,i    
could lay down4 ,it is worth the while  
of a judicious reader to follow  in some
 detail the working of public and       
private affairs in a ,council           
consisting of two hundred thousand men4 
,,chapter ,,iv    ,,the ,,roman         
,,comitia      ,we are without          
well-certified records of the first     
period of ,rome's  existence2 it even   
appears very probable that most of the  
stories told  about it are fables2      
indeed1 generally speaking1 the most    

instructive  part of the history of     
peoples1 that which deals with their    
foundation1  is what we have least of4  
,experience teaches us every day what   
causes  lead to the revolutions of      
empires2 but1 as no new peoples are now 
formed1 we have almost nothing beyond   
conjecture to go upon in  explaining how
 they were created4    ,the customs we  
find established show at least that     
these customs had  an origin4 ,the      
traditions that go back to those        
origins1 that have  the greatest        
authorities behind them1 and that are   
confirmed by the  strongest proofs1     
should pass for the most certain4 ,these
 are the rules  ,i have tried to follow 
in inquiring how the freest and most    
powerful  people on earth exercised its 
supreme power4    ,after the foundation 
of ,rome1 the new-born republic1 that   
is1 the  army of its founder1 composed  
of ,albans1 ,sabines and foreigners1 was
  divided into three classes1 which1    
from this division1 took the name  of   

tribes4 ,each of these tribes was       
subdivided into ten curi1 and  each     
curia into decuri1 headed by leaders    
called curiones and  decuriones4        
,besides this1 out of each tribe was    
taken a body of one hundred  ,equites or
 ,knights1 called a century1 which shows
 that these  divisions1 being           
unnecessary in a town1 were at first    
merely military4  ,but an instinct for  
greatness seems to have led the little  
township of  ,rome to provide itself in 
advance with a political system suitable
 for  the capital of the world4    ,out 
of this original division an awkward    
situation soon arose4 ,the  tribes of   
the ,albans 7,ramnenses7 and the        
,sabines 7,tatienses7 remained  always  
in the same condition1 while that of the
 foreigners 7,luceres7  continually grew
 as more and more foreigners came to    
live at ,rome1  so that it soon         
surpassed the others in strength4       
,servius remedied  this dangerous fault 
by changing the principle of cleavage1  

and  substituting for the racial        
division1 which he abolished1 a new one 
based on the quarter of the town        
inhabited by each tribe4 ,instead of    
three tribes he created four1 each      
occupying and named after one of the    
hills of ,rome4 ,thus1 while redressing 
the inequality of the moment1 he  also  
provided for the future2 and in order   
that the division might be  one of      
persons as well as localities1 he       
forbade the inhabitants of one  quarter 
to migrate to another1 and so prevented 
the mingling of the  races4    ,he also 
doubled the three old centuries of      
,knights and added twelve  more1 still  
keeping the old names1 and by this      
simple and prudent  method1 succeeded in
 making a distinction between the body  
of ,knights  and the people1 without a  
murmur from the latter4    ,to the four 
urban tribes ,servius added fifteen     
others called rural  tribes1 because    
they consisted of those who lived in the
 country1  divided into fifteen cantons4

 ,subsequently1 fifteen more were       
created1  and the ,roman people finally 
found itself divided into thirty-five   
tribes1 as it remained down to the end  
of the ,republic4    ,the distinction   
between urban and rural tribes had one  
effect which  is worth mention1 both    
because it is without parallel          
elsewhere1 and  because to it ,rome owed
 the preservation of her morality and   
the  enlargement of her empire4 ,we     
should have expected that the urban     
tribes would soon monopolise power and  
honours1 and lose no time in  bringing  
the rural tribes into disrepute2 but    
what happened was exactly  the reverse4 
,the taste of the early ,romans for     
country life is well  known4 ,this taste
 they owed to their wise founder1 who   
made rural and  military labours go     
along with liberty1 and1 so to speak1   
relegated to  the town arts1 crafts1    
intrigue1 fortune and slavery4    ,since
 therefore all ,rome's most illustrious 
citizens lived in the  fields and tilled

 the earth1 men grew used to seeking    
there alone the  mainstays of the       
republic4 ,this condition1 being that of
 the best  patricians1 was honoured by  
all men2 the simple and laborious life  
of the villager was preferred to the    
slothful and idle life of the           
bourgeoisie of ,rome2 and he who1 in the
 town1 would have been but a  wretched  
proletarian1 became1 as a labourer in   
the fields1 a respected  citizen4 ,not  
without reason1 says ,varro1 did our    
great-souled ancestors  establish in the
 village the nursery of the sturdy and  
valiant men  who defended them in time  
of war and provided for their           
,sustenance in  time of peace4 ,pliny   
states positively that the country      
tribes were  honoured because of the men
 of whom they were composed2 while      
cowards  men wished to dishonour were   
transferred1 as a public disgrace1 to   
the  town tribes4 ,the ,sabine ,appius  
,claudius1 when he had come to settle   
in ,rome1 was loaded with honours and   

enrolled in a rural tribe1 which        
subsequently took his family name4      
,lastly1 freedmen always entered the    
urban1 and never the rural1 tribes3 nor 
is there a single example1  throughout  
the ,republic1 of a freedman1 though he 
had become a citizen1  reaching any     
magistracy4    ,this was an excellent   
rule2 but it was carried so far that in 
the end  it led to a change and         
certainly to an abuse in the political  
system4    ,first the censors1 after    
having for a long time claimed the right
 of  transferring citizens arbitrarily  
from one tribe to another1 allowed  most
 persons to enrol themselves in whatever
 tribe they pleased4 ,this  permission  
certainly did no good1 and further      
robbed the censorship  of one of its    
greatest resources4 ,moreover1 as the   
great and powerful  all got themselves  
enrolled in the country tribes1 while   
the freedmen  who had become citizens   
remained with the populace in the town  
tribes1  both soon ceased to have any   

local or territorial meaning1 and all   
were  so confused that the members of   
one could not be told from those of     
another except by the registers2 so that
 the idea of the word tribe  became     
personal instead of real1 or rather came
 to be little more than  a chimera4     
,it happened in addition that the town  
tribes1 being more on the spot1  were   
often the stronger in the comitia and   
sold the ,state to those who  stooped to
 buy the votes of the rabble composing  
them4    ,as the founder had set up ten 
curi in each tribe1 the whole ,roman    
people1 which was then contained within 
the walls1 consisted of thirty  curia1  
each with its temples1 its gods1 its    
officers1 its priests and  its          
festivals1 which were called compitalia 
and corresponded to the  paganalia1 held
 in later times by the rural tribes4    
,when ,servius made his new division1 as
 the thirty curi could not be  shared   
equally between his four tribes1 and as 
he was unwilling to  interfere with     

them1 they became a further division of 
the inhabitants  of ,rome1 quite        
independent of the tribes3 but in the   
case of the rural  tribes and their     
members there was no question of curi as
 the  tribes had then become a purely   
civil institution1 and1 a new system  of
 levying troops having been introduced1 
the military divisions of  ,romulus were
 superfluous4 ,thus1 although every     
citizen was enrolled in  a tribe1 there 
were very many who were not members of a
 curia4    ,servius made yet a third    
division1 quite distinct from the two we
 have  mentioned1 which became1 in its  
effects1 the most important of all4  ,he
 distributed the whole ,roman people    
into six classes1 distinguished  neither
 by place nor by person1 but by wealth2 
the first classes  included the rich1   
the last the poor1 and those between    
persons of  moderate means4 ,these six  
classes were subdivided into one hundred
 and  ninety-three other bodies1 called 
centuries1 which were so divided that   

the first class alone comprised more    
than half of them1 while the last       
comprised only one4 ,thus the class that
 had the smallest number of  members had
 the largest number of centuries1 and   
the whole of the last  class only       
counted as a single subdivision1        
although it alone included  more than   
half the inhabitants of ,rome4    ,in   
order that the people might have the    
less insight into the results  of this  
arrangement1 ,servius tried to give it a
 military tone3 in  the second class he 
inserted two centuries of armourers1 and
 in the  fourth two of makers of        
instruments of war3 in each class1      
except the  last1 he distinguished young
 and old1 that is1 those who were under 
an  obligation to bear arms and those   
whose age gave them legal exemption4    
,it was this distinction1 rather than   
that of wealth1 which required  frequent
 repetition of the census or counting4  
,lastly1 he ordered that  the assembly  
should be held in the ,campus ,martius1 

and that all who  were of age to serve  
should come there armed4    ,the reason 
for his not making in the last class    
also the division of  young and old was 
that the populace1 of whom it was       
composed1 was not  given the right to   
bear arms for its country3 a man had to 
possess a  hearth to acquire the right  
to defend it1 and of all the troops of  
beggars who to-day lend lustre to the   
armies of kings1 there is perhaps  not  
one who would not have been driven with 
scorn out of a ,roman  cohort1 at a time
 when soldiers were the defenders of    
liberty4    ,in this last class1        
however1 proletarians were distinguished
 from  capite censi4 ,the former1 not   
quite reduced to nothing1 at least gave 
the ,state citizens1 and sometimes1 when
 the need was pressing1 even  soldiers4 
,those who had nothing at all1 and could
 be numbered only by  counting heads1   
were regarded as of absolutely no       
account1 and ,marius  was the first who 
stooped to enrol them4    ,without      

deciding now whether this third         
arrangement was good or bad in  itself1 
,i think ,i may assert that it could    
have been made practicable  only by the 
simple morals1 the disinterestedness1   
the liking for  agriculture and the     
scorn for commerce and for love of gain 
which  characterised the early ,romans4 
,where is the modern people among whom  
consuming greed1 unrest1 intrigue1      
continual removals1 and perpetual       
changes of fortune1 could let such a    
system last for twenty years  without   
turning the ,state upside down8 ,we must
 indeed observe that  morality and the  
censorship1 being stronger than this    
institution1  corrected its defects at  
,rome1 and that the rich man found      
himself  degraded to the class of the   
poor for making too much display of his 
riches4    ,from all this it is easy to 
understand why only five classes are    
almost always mentioned1 though there   
were really six4 ,the sixth1 as  it     
furnished neither soldiers to the army  

nor votes in the ,campus  ,martius1#a   
and was almost without function in the  
,state1 was seldom  regarded as of any  
account4    ,these were the various ways
 in which the ,roman people was divided4
 ,let  us now see the effect on the     
assemblies4 ,when lawfully summoned1    
these  were called comitia3 they were   
usually held in the public square  at   
,rome or in the ,campus ,martius1 and   
were distinguished as ,comitia          
,curiata1 ,comitia ,centuriata1 and     
,comitia ,tributa1 according to  the    
form under which they were convoked4    
,the ,comitia ,curiata were  founded by 
,romulus2 the ,centuriata by ,servius2  
and the ,tributa  by the tribunes of the
 people4 ,no law received its sanction  
and no  magistrate was elected1 save in 
the comitia2 and as every citizen  was  
enrolled in a curia1 a century1 or a    
tribe1 it follows that no  citizen was  
excluded from the right of voting1 and  
that the ,roman  people was truly       
sovereign both de jure and de facto4    

,for the comitia to be lawfully         
assembled1 and for their acts to have   
the force of law1 three conditions were 
necessary4 ,first1 the body  or         
magistrate convoking them had to possess
 the necessary authority2  secondly1 the
 assembly had to be held on a day       
allowed by law2 and  thirdly1 the       
auguries had to be favourable4    ,the  
reason for the first regulation needs no
 explanation2 the second is  a matter of
 policy4 ,thus1 the comitia might not be
 held on festivals  or market-days1 when
 the country-folk1 coming to ,rome on   
business1 had  not time to spend the day
 in the public square4 ,by means of the 
third1  the senate held in check the    
proud and restive people1 and meetly    
restrained the ardour of seditious      
tribunes1 who1 however1 found more  than
 one way of escaping this hindrance4    
,laws and the election of rulers were   
not the only questions submitted  to the
 judgment of the comitia3 as the ,roman 
people had taken on itself  the most    

important functions of government1 it   
may be said that the lot  of ,europe was
 regulated in its assemblies4 ,the      
variety of their objects  gave rise to  
the various forms these took1 according 
to the matters on  which they had to    
pronounce4    ,in order to judge of     
these various forms1 it is enough to    
compare  them4 ,romulus1 when he set up 
curi1 had in view the checking of  the  
senate by the people1 and of the people 
by the senate1 while  maintaining his   
ascendancy over both alike4 ,he         
therefore gave the  people1 by means of 
this assembly1 all the authority of     
numbers to  balance that of power and   
riches1 which he left to the patricians4
  ,but1 after the spirit of monarchy1 he
 left all the same a greater  advantage 
to the patricians in the influence of   
their clients on the  majority of votes4
 ,this excellent institution of patron  
and client  was a masterpiece of        
statesmanship and humanity without which
 the  patriciate1 being flagrantly in   

contradiction to the republican  spirit1
 could not have survived4 ,rome alone   
has the honour of having  given to the  
world this great example1 which never   
led to any abuse1  and yet has never    
been followed4    ,as the assemblies by 
curi persisted under the kings till the 
time  of ,servius1 and the reign of the 
later ,tarquin was not regarded as      
legitimate1 royal laws were called      
generally leges curiat4    ,under the   
,republic1 the curi still confined to   
the four urban  tribes1 and including   
only the populace of ,rome1 suited      
neither the  senate1 which led the      
patricians1 nor the tribunes1 who1      
though  plebeians1 were at the head of  
the well-to-do citizens4 ,they therefore
  fell into disrepute1 and their        
degradation was such1 that thirty       
lictors used to assemble and do what the
 ,comitia ,curiata should have  done4   
,the division by centuries was so       
favourable to the aristocracy that it   
is hard to see at first how the senate  

ever failed to carry the day in  the    
comitia bearing their name1 by which the
 consuls1 the censors and  the other    
curule magistrates were elected4        
,indeed1 of the hundred and             
ninety-three centuries into which the   
six classes of the whole ,roman  people 
were divided1 the first class contained 
ninety-eight2 and1 as  voting went      
solely by centuries1 this class alone   
had a majority over  all the rest4 ,when
 all these centuries were in agreement1 
the rest of  the votes were not even    
taken2 the decision of the smallest     
number  passed for that of the          
multitude1 and it may be said that1 in  
the  ,comitia ,centuriata1 decisions    
were regulated far more by depth of     
purses than by the number of votes4     
,but this extreme authority was modified
 in two ways4 ,first1 the  tribunes as a
 rule1 and always a great number of     
plebeians1 belonged  to the class of the
 rich1 and so counterbalanced the       
influence of the  patricians in the     

first class4    ,the second way was     
this4 ,instead of causing the centuries 
to vote  throughout in order1 which     
would have meant beginning always with  
the  first1 the ,romans always chose one
 by lot which proceeded alone to  the   
election2 after this all the centuries  
were summoned another day  according to 
their rank1 and the same election was   
repeated1 and as a  rule confirmed4     
,thus the authority of example was taken
 away from rank1  and given to the lot  
on a democratic principle4    ,from this
 custom resulted a further advantage4   
,the citizens from the  country had     
time1 between the two elections1 to     
inform themselves of  the merits of the 
candidate who had been provisionally    
nominated1  and did not have to vote    
without knowledge of the case4 ,but1    
under  the pretext of hastening matters1
 the abolition of this custom was       
achieved1 and both elections were held  
on the same day4    ,the ,comitia       
,tributa were properly the council of   

the ,roman people4  ,they were convoked 
by the tribunes alone2 at them the      
tribunes were  elected and passed their 
plebiscita4 ,the senate not only had no 
standing in them1 but even no right to  
be present2 and the senators1  being    
forced to obey laws on which they could 
not vote1 were in this  respect less    
free than the meanest citizens4 ,this   
injustice was  altogether ill-conceived1
 and was alone enough to invalidate the 
decrees of a body to which all its      
members were not admitted4 ,had all  the
 patricians attended the comitia by     
virtue of the right they had as         
citizens1 they would not1 as mere       
private individuals1 have had any       
considerable influence on a vote        
reckoned by counting heads1 where the   
meanest proletarian was as good as the  
princeps senatus4    ,it may be seen1   
therefore1 that besides the order which 
was achieved  by these various ways of  
distributing so great a people and      
taking its  votes1 the various methods  

were not reducible to forms indifferent 
in  themselves1 but the results of each 
were relative to the objects which      
caused it to be preferred4    ,without  
going here into further details1 we may 
gather from what has  been said above   
that the ,comitia ,tributa were the most
 favourable to  popular government1 and 
the ,comitia ,centuriata to aristocracy4
 ,the  ,comitia ,curiata1 in which the  
populace of ,rome formed the majority1  
being fitted only to further tyranny and
 evil designs1 naturally fell  into     
disrepute1 and even seditious persons   
abstained from using a  method which too
 clearly revealed their projects4 ,it is
 indisputable  that the whole majesty of
 the ,roman people lay solely in the    
,comitia  ,centuriata1 which alone      
included all2 for the ,comitia ,curiata 
excluded the rural tribes1 and the      
,comitia ,tributa the senate and the    
patricians4    ,as for the method of    
taking the vote1 it was among the       
ancient ,romans  as simple as their     

morals1 although not so simple as at    
,sparta4 ,each  man declared his vote   
aloud1 and a clerk duly wrote it down2  
the  majority in each tribe determined  
the vote of the tribe1 the majority  of 
the tribes that of the people1 and so   
with curi and centuries4  ,this custom  
was good as long as honesty was         
triumphant among the  citizens1 and each
 man was ashamed to vote publicly in    
favour of an  unjust proposal or an     
unworthy subject2 but1 when the people  
grew  corrupt and votes were bought1 it 
was fitting that voting should be       
secret in order that purchasers might be
 restrained by mistrust1 and  rogues be 
given the means of not being traitors4  
,i know that ,cicero attacks this       
change1 and attributes partly to it the 
ruin of the ,republic4 ,but though ,i   
feel the weight ,cicero's authority     
must carry on such a point1 ,i cannot   
agree with him2 ,i hold1 on the         
contrary1 that1 for want of enough such 
changes1 the destruction of the  ,state 

must be hastened4 ,just as the regimen  
of health does not suit  the sick1 we   
should not wish to govern a people that 
has been corrupted  by the laws that a  
good people requires4 ,there is no      
better proof of  this rule than the long
 life of the ,republic of ,venice1 of   
which the  shadow still exists1 solely  
because its laws are suitable only for  
men  who are wicked4    ,the citizens   
were provided1 therefore1 with tablets  
by means of which  each man could vote  
without any one knowing how he voted3   
new methods  were also introduced for   
collecting the tablets1 for counting    
voices1  for comparing numbers1 etc42   
but all these precautions did not       
prevent  the good faith of the officers 
charged with these functions#b from     
being often suspect4 ,finally1 to       
prevent intrigues and trafficking in    
votes1 edicts were issued2 but their    
very number proves how useless  they    
were4    ,towards the close of the      
,republic1 it was often necessary to    

have  recourse to extraordinary         
expedients in order to supplement the   
inadequacy of the laws4 ,sometimes      
miracles were supposed2 but this        
method1 while it might impose on the    
people1 could not impose on those  who  
governed4 ,sometimes an assembly was    
hastily called together1  before the    
candidates had time to form their       
factions3 sometimes a  whole sitting was
 occupied with talk1 when it was seen   
that the people  had been won over and  
was on the point of taking up a wrong   
position4  ,but in the end ambition     
eluded all attempts to check it2 and the
 most  incredible fact of all is that1  
in the midst of all these abuses1  the  
vast people1 thanks to its ancient      
regulations1 never ceased to  elect     
magistrates1 to pass laws1 to judge     
cases1 and to carry through  business   
both public and private1 almost as      
easily as the senate itself  could have 
done4      #a ,i say in the ,campus     
,martius because it was there that the  

comitia  assembled by centuries2 in its 
two other forms the people assembled  in
 the forum or elsewhere2 and then the   
capite censi had as much  influence and 
authority as the foremost citizens4     
#b ,custodes1 diribitores1 rogatores    
suffragiorum4          ,,chapter ,v     
,,the ,,tribunate      ,when an exact   
proportion cannot be established between
 the constituent  parts of the ,state1  
or when causes that cannot be removed   
continually  alter the relation of one  
part to another1 recourse is had to the 
institution of a peculiar magistracy    
that enters into no corporate  unity    
with the rest4 ,this restores to each   
term its right relation to  the others1 
and provides a link or middle term      
between either prince  and people1 or   
prince and ,sovereign1 or1 if necessary1
 both at once4    ,this body1 which ,i  
shall call the tribunate1 is the        
preserver of the  laws and of the       
legislative power4 ,it serves sometimes 
to protect the  ,sovereign against the  

government1 as the tribunes of the      
people did  at ,rome2 sometimes to      
uphold the government against the       
people1 as  the ,council of ,ten now    
does at ,venice2 and sometimes to       
maintain the  balance between the two1  
as the ,ephors did at ,sparta4    ,the  
tribunate is not a constituent part of  
the city1 and should have  no share in  
either legislative or executive power2  
but this very fact  makes its own power 
the greater3 for1 while it can do       
nothing1 it can  prevent anything from  
being done4 ,it is more sacred and more 
revered1  as the defender of the laws1  
than the prince who executes them1 or   
than  the ,sovereign which ordains them4
 ,this was seen very clearly at ,rome1  
when the proud patricians1 for all their
 scorn of the people1 were  forced to   
bow before one of its officers1 who had 
neither auspices nor  jurisdiction4     
,the tribunate1 wisely tempered1 is the 
strongest support a good  constitution  
can have2 but if its strength is ever so

 little excessive1  it upsets the whole 
,state4 ,weakness1 on the other hand1 is
 not natural  to it3 provided it is     
something1 it is never less than it     
should be4    ,it degenerates into      
tyranny when it usurps the executive    
power1 which  it should confine itself  
to restraining1 and when it tries to    
dispense  with the laws1 which it should
 confine itself to protecting4 ,the     
immense power of the ,ephors1 harmless  
as long as ,sparta preserved its        
morality1 hastened corruption when once 
it had begun4 ,the blood of  ,agis1     
slaughtered by these tyrants1 was       
avenged by his successor2 the  crime and
 the punishment of the ,ephors alike    
hastened the destruction  of the        
republic1 and after ,cleomenes ,sparta  
ceased to be of any  account4 ,rome     
perished in the same way3 the excessive 
power of the  tribunes1 which they had  
usurped by degrees1 finally served1 with
 the  help of laws made to secure       
liberty1 as a safeguard for the emperors

  who destroyed it4 ,as for the         
,venetian ,council of ,ten1 it is a     
tribunal  of blood1 an object of horror 
to patricians and people alike2 and1 so 
far from giving a lofty protection to   
the laws1 it does nothing1 now  they    
have become degraded1 but strike in the 
darkness blows of which no  one dare    
take note4    ,the tribunate1 like the  
government1 grows weak as the number of 
its  members increases4 ,when the       
tribunes of the ,roman people1 who first
  numbered only two1 and then five1     
wished to double that number1 the       
senate let them do so1 in the confidence
 that it could use one to check         
another1 as indeed it afterwards freely 
did4    ,the best method of preventing  
usurpations by so formidable a body1    
though no government has yet made use of
 it1 would be not to make it  permanent1
 but to regulate the periods during     
which it should remain  in abeyance4    
,these intervals1 which should not be   
long enough to give  abuses time to grow

 strong1 may be so fixed by law that    
they can easily  be shortened at need by
 extraordinary commissions4    ,this    
method seems to me to have no           
disadvantages1 because1 as ,i have      
said1 the tribunate1 which forms no part
 of the constitution1 can be  removed   
without the constitution being affected4
 ,it seems to be also  efficacious1     
because a newly restored magistrate     
starts not with the  power his          
predecessor exercised1 but with that    
which the law allows him4               
,,chapter ,,vi    ,,the ,,dictatorship  
,the inflexibility of the laws1 which   
prevents them from adapting  themselves 
to circumstances1 may1 in certain cases1
 render them  disastrous1 and make them 
bring about1 at a time of crisis1 the   
ruin  of the ,state4 ,the order and     
slowness of the forms they enjoin       
require  a space of time which          
circumstances sometimes withhold4 ,a    
thousand  cases against which the       
legislator has made no provision may    

present  themselves1 and it is a highly 
necessary part of foresight to be       
conscious that everything cannot be     
foreseen4    ,it is wrong therefore to  
wish to make political institutions so  
strong  as to render it impossible to   
suspend their operation4 ,even ,sparta  
allowed its laws to lapse4    ,however1 
none but the greatest dangers can       
counter-balance that of  changing the   
public order1 and the sacred power of   
the laws should  never be arrested save 
when the existence of the country is at 
stake4  ,in these rare and obvious      
cases1 provision is made for the public 
security by a particular act entrusting 
it to him who is most worthy4  ,this    
commitment may be carried out in either 
of two ways1 according to  the nature of
 the danger4    ,if increasing the      
activity of the government is a         
sufficient remedy1  power is            
concentrated in the hands of one or two 
of its members3 in  this case the change
 is not in the authority of the laws1   

but only in  the form of administering  
them4 ,if1 on the other hand1 the peril 
is  of such a kind that the             
paraphernalia of the laws are an        
obstacle to  their preservation1 the    
method is to nominate a supreme ruler1  
who  shall silence all the laws and     
suspend for a moment the sovereign      
authority4 ,in such a case1 there is no 
doubt about the general will1  and it is
 clear that the people's first intention
 is that the ,state  shall not perish4  
,thus the suspension of the legislative 
authority is  in no sense its abolition2
 the magistrate who silences it cannot  
make  it speak2 he dominates it1 but    
cannot represent it4 ,he can do         
anything1  except make laws4    ,the    
first method was used by the ,roman     
senate when1 in a consecrated  formula1 
it charged the consuls to provide for   
the safety of the  ,republic4 ,the      
second was employed when one of the two 
consuls nominated  a dictator3#a a      
custom ,rome borrowed from ,alba4       

,during the first period of the         
,republic1 recourse was very often had  
to  the dictatorship1 because the ,state
 had not yet a firm enough basis to  be 
able to maintain itself by the strength 
of its constitution alone4  ,as the     
state of morality then made superfluous 
many of the precautions  which would    
have been necessary at other times1     
there was no fear that  a dictator would
 abuse his authority1 or try to keep it 
beyond his term  of office4 ,on the     
contrary1 so much power appeared to be  
burdensome  to him who was clothed with 
it1 and he made all speed to lay it     
down1  as if taking the place of the    
laws had been too troublesome and too   
perilous a position to retain4    ,it is
 therefore the danger not of its abuse1 
but of its cheapening1  that makes me   
attack the indiscreet use of this       
supreme magistracy in  the earliest     
times4 ,for as long as it was freely    
employed at elections1  dedications and 
purely formal functions1 there was      

danger of its  becoming less formidable 
in time of need1 and of men growing     
accustomed  to regarding as empty a     
title that was used only on occasions of
 empty  ceremonial4    ,towards the end 
of the ,republic1 the ,romans1 having   
grown more  circumspect1 were as        
unreasonably sparing in the use of the  
dictatorship as they had formerly been  
lavish4 ,it is easy to see  that their  
fears were without foundation1 that the 
weakness of the  capital secured it     
against the magistrates who were in its 
midst2 that  a dictator might1 in       
certain cases1 defend the public        
liberty1 but  could never endanger it2  
and that the chains of ,rome would be   
forged1  not in ,rome itself1 but in her
 armies4 ,the weak resistance offered by
  ,marius to ,sulla1 and by ,pompey to  
,csar1 clearly showed what was to be    
expected from authority at home against 
force from abroad4    ,this             
misconception led the ,romans to make   
great mistakes2 such1 for  example1 as  

the failure to nominate a dictator in   
the ,catilinarian  conspiracy4 ,for1 as 
only the city itself1 with at most some 
province  in ,italy1 was concerned1 the 
unlimited authority the laws gave to the
  dictator would have enabled him to    
make short work of the conspiracy1      
which was1 in fact1 stifled only by a   
combination of lucky chances  human     
prudence had no right to expect4        
,instead1 the senate contented itself   
with entrusting its whole power  to the 
consuls1 so that ,cicero1 in order to   
take effective action1 was  compelled on
 a capital point to exceed his powers2  
and if1 in the first  transports of joy1
 his conduct was approved1 he was justly
 called1  later on1 to account for the  
blood of citizens spilt in violation of 
the laws4 ,such a reproach could never  
have been levelled at a dictator4  ,but 
the consul's eloquence carried the day2 
and he himself1 ,roman  though he was1  
loved his own glory better than his     
country1 and sought1  not so much the   

most lawful and secure means of saving  
the ,state1 as to  get for himself the  
whole honour of having done so4#b ,he   
was therefore  justly honoured as the   
liberator of ,rome1 and also justly     
punished  as a law-breaker4 ,however    
brilliant his recall may have been1 it  
was  undoubtedly an act of pardon4      
,however this important trust be        
conferred1 it is important that its     
duration should be fixed at a very brief
 period1 incapable of being  ever       
prolonged4 ,in the crises which lead to 
its adoption1 the ,state  is either soon
 lost1 or soon saved2 and1 the present  
need passed1  the dictatorship becomes  
either tyrannical or idle4 ,at ,rome1   
where  dictators held office for six    
months only1 most of them abdicated     
before their time was up4 ,if their term
 had been longer1 they might  well have 
tried to prolong it still further1 as   
the decemvirs did when  chosen for a    
year4 ,the dictator had only time to    
provide against the  need that had      

caused him to be chosen2 he had none to 
think of further  projects4      #a ,the
 nomination was made secretly by night1 
as if there were  something shameful in 
setting a man above the laws4    #b     
,that is what he could not be sure of1  
if he proposed a dictator2  for he dared
 not nominate himself1 and could not be 
certain that his  colleague would       
nominate him4          ,,chapter ,,vii  
,,the ,,censorship      ,as the law is  
the declaration of the general will1 the
 censorship is  the declaration of the  
public judgment3 public opinion is the  
form of  law which the censor           
administers1 and1 like the prince1 only 
applies to  particular cases4    ,the   
censorial tribunal1 so far from being   
the arbiter of the people's  opinion1   
only declares it1 and1 as soon as the   
two part company1 its  decisions are    
null and void4    ,it is useless to     
distinguish the morality of a nation    
from the objects  of its esteem2 both   
depend on the same principle and are    

necessarily  indistinguishable4 ,there  
is no people on earth the choice of     
whose  pleasures is not decided by      
opinion rather than nature4 ,right men's
  opinions1 and their morality will     
purge itself4 ,men always love what is  
good or what they find good2 it is in   
judging what is good that they  go      
wrong4 ,this judgment1 therefore1 is    
what must be regulated4 ,he who  judges 
of morality judges of honour2 and he who
 judges of honour finds  his law in     
opinion4    ,the opinions of a people   
are derived from its constitution2      
although  the law does not regulate     
morality1 it is legislation that gives  
it  birth4 ,when legislation grows weak1
 morality degenerates2 but in such      
cases the judgment of the censors will  
not do what the force of the  laws has  
failed to effect4    ,from this it      
follows that the censorship may be      
useful for the  preservation of         
morality1 but can never be so for its   
restoration4 ,set  up censors while the 

laws are vigorous2 as soon as they have 
lost their  vigour1 all hope is gone2 no
 legitimate power can retain force when 
the laws have lost it4    ,the          
censorship upholds morality by          
preventing opinion from growing         
corrupt1 by preserving its rectitude by 
means of wise applications1 and         
sometimes even by fixing it when it is  
still uncertain4 ,the employment  of    
seconds in duels1 which had been carried
 to wild extremes in the  kingdom of    
,france1 was done away with merely by   
these words in a royal  edict3 ,as for  
those who are cowards enough to call    
upon seconds4 ,this  judgment1 in       
anticipating that of the public1        
suddenly decided it4 ,but  when edicts  
from the same source tried to pronounce 
duelling itself an  act of cowardice1 as
 indeed it is1 then1 since common       
opinion does not  regard it as such1 the
 public took no notice of a decision on 
a point  on which its mind was already  
made up4    ,i have stated elsewhere#a  

that as public opinion is not subject to
  any constraint1 there need be no trace
 of it in the tribunal set up to        
represent it4 ,it is impossible to      
admire too much the art with which  this
 resource1 which we moderns have wholly 
lost1 was employed by the  ,romans1 and 
still more by the ,lacedmonians4    ,a  
man of bad morals having made a good    
proposal in the ,spartan ,council1  the 
,ephors neglected it1 and caused the    
same proposal to be made by a  virtuous 
citizen4 ,what an honour for the one1   
and what a disgrace for  the other1     
without praise or blame of either6      
,certain drunkards from  ,samos#b       
polluted the tribunal of the ,ephors3   
the next day1 a public  edict gave      
,samians permission to be filthy4 ,an   
actual punishment would  not have been  
so severe as such an impunity4 ,when    
,sparta has pronounced  on what is or is
 not right1 ,greece makes no appeal from
 her judgments4      #a ,i merely call  
attention in this chapter to a subject  

with which ,i  have dealt at greater    
length in my ,letter to ,m4 d',alembert4
    #b ,they were from another island1  
which the delicacy of our language      
forbids me to name on this occasion4    
,,chapter ,,viii    ,,civil ,,religion  
,at first men had no kings save the     
gods1 and no government save  theocracy4
 ,they reasoned like ,caligula1 and1 at 
that period1 reasoned  aright4 ,it takes
 a long time for feeling so to change   
that men can make  up their minds to    
take their equals as masters1 in the    
hope that they  will profit by doing so4
    ,from the mere fact that ,god was   
set over every political society1 it    
followed that there were as many gods as
 peoples4 ,two peoples that were        
strangers the one to the other1 and     
almost always enemies1 could not  long  
recognise the same master3 two armies   
giving battle could not obey  the same  
leader4 ,national divisions thus led to 
polytheism1 and this in  turn gave rise 
to theological and civil intolerance1   

which1 as we shall  see hereafter1 are  
by nature the same4    ,the fancy the   
,greeks had for rediscovering their gods
 among the  barbarians arose from the   
way they had of regarding themselves as 
the  natural ,sovereigns of such        
peoples4 ,but there is nothing so absurd
  as the erudition which in our days    
identifies and confuses gods of         
different nations4 ,as if ,moloch1      
,saturn and ,chronos could be the same  
god6 ,as if the ,phnician ,baal1 the    
,greek ,zeus1 and the ,latin ,jupiter   
could be the same6 ,as if there could   
still be anything common to  imaginary  
beings with different names6    ,if it  
is asked how in pagan times1 where each 
,state had its cult  and its gods1 there
 were no wars of religion1 ,i answer    
that it was  precisely because each     
,state1 having its own cult as well as  
its  own government1 made no distinction
 between its gods and its laws4         
,political war was also theological2 the
 provinces of the gods were1 so  to     

speak1 fixed by the boundaries of       
nations4 ,the god of one people had  no 
right over another4 ,the gods of the    
pagans were not jealous gods2  they     
shared among themselves the empire of   
the world3 even ,moses and  the ,hebrews
 sometimes lent themselves to this view 
by speaking of the  ,god of ,israel4 ,it
 is true1 they regarded as powerless the
 gods of  the ,canaanites1 a proscribed 
people condemned to destruction1 whose  
place they were to take2 but remember   
how they spoke of the divisions  of the 
neighbouring peoples they were forbidden
 to attack6 ,is not  the possession of  
what belongs to your god ,chamos        
lawfully your due8  said ,jephthah to   
the ,ammonites4 ,we have the same title 
to the lands  our conquering ,god has   
made his own4#a ,here1 ,i think1 there  
is a  recognition that the rights of    
,chamos and those of the ,god of ,israel
  are of the same nature4    ,but when  
the ,jews1 being subject to the kings of
 ,babylon1 and1  subsequently1 to those 

of ,syria1 still obstinately refused to 
recognise  any god save their own1 their
 refusal was regarded as rebellion      
against  their conqueror1 and drew down 
on them the persecutions we read of  in 
their history1 which are without        
parallel till the coming of             
,christianity4#b    ,every religion1    
therefore1 being attached solely to the 
laws of the  ,state which prescribed it1
 there was no way of converting a people
  except by enslaving it1 and there     
could be no missionaries save           
conquerors4 ,the obligation to change   
cults being the law to which the        
vanquished yielded1 it was necessary to 
be victorious before suggesting  such a 
change4 ,so far from men fighting for   
the gods1 the gods1 as in  ,homer1      
fought for men2 each asked his god for  
victory1 and repayed him  with new      
altars4 ,the ,romans1 before taking a   
city1 summoned its gods  to quit it2    
and1 in leaving the ,tarentines their   
outraged gods1 they  regarded them as   

subject to their own and compelled to do
 them homage4  ,they left the vanquished
 their gods as they left them their     
laws4 ,a  wreath to the ,jupiter of the 
,capitol was often the only tribute they
  imposed4    ,finally1 when1 along with
 their empire1 the ,romans had spread   
their  cult and their gods1 and had     
themselves often adopted those of the   
vanquished1 by granting to both alike   
the rights of the city1 the  peoples of 
that vast empire insensibly found       
themselves with multitudes  of gods and 
cults1 everywhere almost the same2 and  
thus paganism  throughout the known     
world finally came to be one and the    
same religion4    ,it was in these      
circumstances that ,jesus came to set up
 on earth a  spiritual kingdom1 which1  
by separating the theological from the  
political system1 made the ,state no    
longer one1 and brought about  the      
internal divisions which have never     
ceased to trouble ,christian  peoples4  
,as the new idea of a kingdom of the    

other world could never  have occurred  
to pagans1 they always looked on the    
,christians as really  rebels1 who1     
while feigning to submit1 were only     
waiting for the chance  to make         
themselves independent and their        
masters1 and to usurp by guile  the     
authority they pretended in their       
weakness to respect4 ,this was the      
cause of the persecutions4    ,what the 
pagans had feared took place4 ,then     
everything changed its  aspect3 the     
humble ,christians changed their        
language1 and soon this  so-called      
kingdom of the other world turned1 under
 a visible leader1  into the most       
violent of earthly despotisms4          
,however1 as there have always been a   
prince and civil laws1 this double      
power and conflict of jurisdiction have 
made all good polity impossible  in     
,christian ,states2 and men have never  
succeeded in finding out  whether they  
were bound to obey the master or the    
priest4    ,several peoples1 however1   

even in ,europe and its neighbourhood1  
have  desired without success to        
preserve or restore the old system3 but 
the spirit of ,christianity has         
everywhere prevailed4 ,the sacred cult  
has always remained or again become     
independent of the ,sovereign1 and      
there has been no necessary link between
 it and the body of the ,state4         
,mahomet held very sane views1 and      
linked his political system well        
together2 and1 as long as the form of   
his government continued under  the     
caliphs who succeeded him1 that         
government was indeed one1 and so  far  
good4 ,but the ,arabs1 having grown     
prosperous1 lettered1 civilised1  slack 
and cowardly1 were conquered by         
barbarians3 the division between  the   
two powers began again2 and1 although it
 is less apparent among  the ,mahometans
 than among the ,christians1 it none the
 less exists1  especially in the sect of
 ,ali1 and there are ,states1 such as   
,persia1  where it is continually making

 itself felt4    ,among us1 the ,kings  
of ,england have made themselves heads  
of the  ,church1 and the ,czars have    
done the same3 but this title has made  
them  less its masters than its         
ministers2 they have gained not so much 
the  right to change it1 as the power to
 maintain it3 they are not its          
legislators1 but only its princes4      
,wherever the clergy is a corporate     
body1#c it is master and legislator in  
its own country4 ,there are  thus two   
powers1 two ,sovereigns1 in ,england and
 in ,russia1 as well as  elsewhere4     
,of all ,christian writers1 the         
philosopher ,hobbes alone has seen the  
evil and how to remedy it1 and has dared
 to propose the reunion of the  two     
heads of the eagle1 and the restoration 
throughout of political  unity1 without 
which no ,state or government will ever 
be rightly  constituted4 ,but he should 
have seen that the masterful spirit of  
,christianity is incompatible with his  
system1 and that the priestly  interest 

would always be stronger than that of   
the ,state4 ,it is not so  much what is 
false and terrible in his political     
theory1 as what is  just and true1 that 
has drawn down hatred on it4#d    ,i    
believe that if the study of history    
were developed from this point  of view1
 it would be easy to refute the contrary
 opinions of ,bayle and  ,warburton1 one
 of whom holds that religion can be of  
no use to the body  politic1 while the  
other1 on the contrary1 maintains that  
,christianity  is its strongest support4
 ,we should demonstrate to the former   
that  no ,state has ever been founded   
without a religious basis1 and to the   
latter1 that the law of ,christianity at
 bottom does more harm by  weakening    
than good by strengthening the          
constitution of the ,state4 ,to  make   
myself understood1 ,i have only to make 
a little more exact the too  vague ideas
 of religion as relating to this        
subject4    ,religion1 considered in    
relation to society1 which is either    

general  or particular1 may also be     
divided into two kinds3 the religion of 
man1 and that of the citizen4 ,the      
first1 which has neither temples1  nor  
altars1 nor rites1 and is confined to   
the purely internal cult  of the supreme
 ,god and the eternal obligations of    
morality1 is the  religion of the       
,gospel pure and simple1 the true       
theism1 what may be  called natural     
divine right or law4 ,the other1 which  
is codified in a  single country1 gives 
it its gods1 its own tutelary patrons2  
it has its  dogmas1 its rites1 and its  
external cult prescribed by law2 outside
 the  single nation that follows it1 all
 the world is in its sight infidel1     
foreign and barbarous2 the duties and   
rights of man extend for it only  as far
 as its own altars4 ,of this kind were  
all the religions of early  peoples1    
which we may define as civil or positive
 divine right or law4    ,there is a    
third sort of religion of a more        
singular kind1 which gives  men two     

codes of legislation1 two rulers1 and   
two countries1 renders  them subject to 
contradictory duties1 and makes it      
impossible for  them to be faithful both
 to religion and to citizenship4 ,such  
are  the religions of the ,lamas and of 
the ,japanese1 and such is ,roman       
,christianity1 which may be called the  
religion of the priest4 ,it leads  to a 
sort of mixed and anti-social code which
 has no name4    ,in their political    
aspect1 all these three kinds of        
religion have their  defects4 ,the third
 is so clearly bad1 that it is waste of 
time to stop  to prove it such4 ,all    
that destroys social unity is worthless2
 all  institutions that set man in      
contradiction to himself are worthless4 
,the second is good in that it unites   
the divine cult with love of  the laws1 
and1 making country the object of the   
citizens' adoration1  teaches them that 
service done to the ,state is service   
done to its  tutelary god4 ,it is a form
 of theocracy1 in which there can be no 

pontiff save the prince1 and no priests 
save the magistrates4 ,to die  for one's
 country then becomes martyrdom2        
violation of its laws1  impiety2 and to 
subject one who is guilty to public     
execration is to  condemn him to the    
anger of the gods3 ,sacer estod4    ,on 
the other hand1 it is bad in that1 being
 founded on lies and error1  it deceives
 men1 makes them credulous and          
superstitious1 and drowns the  true cult
 of the ,divinity in empty ceremonial4  
,it is bad1 again1 when  it becomes     
tyrannous and exclusive1 and makes a    
people bloodthirsty and  intolerant1 so 
that it breathes fire and slaughter1 and
 regards as a  sacred act the killing of
 every one who does not believe in its  
gods4  ,the result is to place such a   
people in a natural state of war with   
all  others1 so that its security is    
deeply endangered4    ,there remains    
therefore the religion of man or        
,christianity--not the  ,christianity of
 to-day1 but that of the ,gospel1 which 

is entirely  different4 ,by means of    
this holy1 sublime1 and real religion   
all men1  being children of one ,god1   
recognise one another as brothers1 and  
the  society that unites them is not    
dissolved even at death4    ,but this   
religion1 having no particular relation 
to the body politic1  leaves the laws in
 possession of the force they have in   
themselves  without making any addition 
to it2 and thus one of the great bonds  
that  unite society considered in       
severalty fails to operate4 ,nay1 more1 
so  far from binding the hearts of the  
citizens to the ,state1 it has the      
effect of taking them away from all     
earthly things4 ,i know of nothing  more
 contrary to the social spirit4    ,we  
are told that a people of true          
,christians would form the most  perfect
 society imaginable4 ,i see in this     
supposition only one great  difficulty3 
that a society of true ,christians would
 not be a society of  men4    ,i say    
further that such a society1 with all   

its perfection1 would be  neither the   
strongest nor the most lasting3 the very
 fact that it was  perfect would rob it 
of its bond of union2 the flaw that     
would destroy  it would lie in its very 
perfection4    ,every one would do his  
duty2 the people would be law-abiding1  
the  rulers just and temperate2 the     
magistrates upright and incorruptible2  
the soldiers would scorn death2 there   
would be neither vanity nor  luxury4 ,so
 far1 so good2 but let us hear more4    
,christianity as a religion is entirely 
spiritual1 occupied solely with         
heavenly things2 the country of the     
,christian is not of this world4 ,he    
does his duty1 indeed1 but does it with 
profound indifference to the  good or   
ill success of his cares4 ,provided he  
has nothing to reproach  himself with1  
it matters little to him whether things 
go well or ill  here on earth4 ,if the  
,state is prosperous1 he hardly dares to
 share  in the public happiness1 for    
fear he may grow proud of his country's 

glory2 if the ,state is languishing1 he 
blesses the hand of ,god that is  hard  
upon ,his people4    ,for the ,state to 
be peaceable and for harmony to be      
maintained1 all the  citizens without   
exception would have to be good         
,christians2 if by ill  hap there should
 be a single self-seeker or hypocrite1 a
 ,catiline or a  ,cromwell1 for         
instance1 he would certainly get the    
better of his pious  compatriots4       
,christian charity does not readily     
allow a man to think  hardly of his     
neighbours4 ,as soon as1 by some trick1 
he has discovered  the art of imposing  
on them and getting hold of a share in  
the public  authority1 you have a man   
established in dignity2 it is the will  
of  ,god that he be respected3 very soon
 you have a power2 it is ,god's will    
that it be obeyed3 and if the power is  
abused by him who wields it1  it is the 
scourge wherewith ,god punishes ,his    
children4 ,there would be  scruples     
about driving out the usurper3 public   

tranquillity would have  to be          
disturbed1 violence would have to be    
employed1 and blood spilt2  all this    
accords ill with ,christian meekness2   
and after all1 in this  vale of sorrows1
 what does it matter whether we are free
 men or serfs8  ,the essential thing is 
to get to heaven1 and resignation is    
only an  additional means of doing so4  
,if war breaks out with another ,state1 
the citizens march readily out  to      
battle2 not one of them thinks of       
flight2 they do their duty1 but  they   
have no passion for victory2 they know  
better how to die than  how to conquer4 
,what does it matter whether they win or
 lose8 ,does  not ,providence know      
better than they what is meet for them8 
,only  think to what account a proud1   
impetuous and passionate enemy could    
turn their stoicism6 ,set over against  
them those generous peoples who  were   
devoured by ardent love of glory and of 
their country1 imagine  your ,christian 
republic face to face with ,sparta or   

,rome3 the pious  ,christians will be   
beaten1 crushed and destroyed1 before   
they know  where they are1 or will owe  
their safety only to the contempt their 
enemy will conceive for them4 ,it was to
 my mind a fine oath that was  taken by 
the soldiers of ,fabius1 who swore1 not 
to conquer or die1 but  to come back    
victorious--and kept their oath4        
,christians1 would never  have taken    
such an oath2 they would have looked on 
it as tempting ,god4    ,but ,i am      
mistaken in speaking of a ,christian    
republic2 the terms  are mutually       
exclusive4 ,christianity preaches only  
servitude and  dependence4 ,its spirit  
is so favourable to tyranny that it     
always  profits by such a rgime4 ,true  
,christians are made to be slaves1  and 
they know it and do not much mind3 this 
short life counts for too  little in    
their eyes4    ,i shall be told that    
,christian troops are excellent4 ,i deny
 it4 ,show  me an instance4 ,for my     
part1 ,i know of no ,christian troops4  

,i shall be  told of the ,crusades4     
,without disputing the valour of the    
,crusaders1  ,i answer that1 so far from
 being ,christians1 they were the       
priests'  soldiery1 citizens of the     
,church4 ,they fought for their         
spiritual  country1 which the ,church   
had1 somehow or other1 made temporal4   
,well  understood1 this goes back to    
paganism3 as the ,gospel sets up no     
national religion1 a holy war is        
impossible among ,christians4    ,under 
the pagan emperors1 the ,christian      
soldiers were brave2 every  ,christian  
writer affirms it1 and ,i believe it3 it
 was a case of  honourable emulation of 
the pagan troops4 ,as soon as the       
emperors were  ,christian1 this         
emulation no longer existed1 and1 when  
the ,cross had  driven out the eagle1   
,roman valour wholly disappeared4       
,but1 setting aside political           
considerations1 let us come back to what
  is right1 and settle our principles on
 this important point4 ,the right  which

 the social compact gives the ,sovereign
 over the subjects does  not1 we have   
seen1 exceed the limits of public       
expediency4#e ,the  subjects then owe   
the ,sovereign an account of their      
opinions only to  such an extent as they
 matter to the community4 ,now1 it      
matters very  much to the community that
 each citizen should have a religion4   
,that  will make him love his duty2 but 
the dogmas of that religion concern  the
 ,state and its members only so far as  
they have reference to  morality and to 
the duties which he who professes them  
is bound to do  to others4 ,each man may
 have1 over and above1 what opinions he 
pleases1  without it being the          
,sovereign's business to take cognisance
 of them2  for1 as the ,sovereign has no
 authority in the other world1 whatever 
the lot of its subjects may be in the   
life to come1 that is not its  business1
 provided they are good citizens in this
 life4    ,there is therefore a purely  
civil profession of faith of which the  

,sovereign should fix the articles1 not 
exactly as religious dogmas1 but  as    
social sentiments without which a man   
cannot be a good citizen or  a faithful 
subject4#f ,while it can compel no one  
to believe them1 it  can banish from the
 ,state whoever does not believe        
them--it can banish  him1 not for       
impiety1 but as an anti-social being1   
incapable of truly  loving the laws and 
justice1 and of sacrificing1 at need1   
his life to  his duty4 ,if any one1     
after publicly recognising these dogmas1
 behaves  as if he does not believe     
them1 let him be punished by death3 he  
has  committed the worst of all crimes1 
that of lying before the law4    ,the   
dogmas of civil religion ought to be    
few1 simple1 and exactly  worded1       
without explanation or commentary4 ,the 
existence of a mighty1  intelligent and 
beneficent ,divinity1 possessed of      
foresight and  providence1 the life to  
come1 the happiness of the just1 the    
punishment  of the wicked1 the sanctity 

of the social contract and the laws3    
these are its positive dogmas4 ,its     
negative dogmas ,i confine to one1      
intolerance1 which is a part of the     
cults we have rejected4    ,those who   
distinguish civil from theological      
intolerance are1 to my  mind1 mistaken4 
,the two forms are inseparable4 ,it is  
impossible to  live at peace with those 
we regard as damned2 to love them would 
be  to hate ,god who punishes them3 we  
positively must either reclaim or       
torment them4 ,wherever theological     
intolerance is admitted1 it must        
inevitably have some civil effect2#g and
 as soon as it has such an  effect1 the 
,sovereign is no longer ,sovereign even 
in the temporal  sphere3 thenceforth    
priests are the real masters1 and kings 
only their  ministers4    ,now that     
there is and can be no longer an        
exclusive national religion1  tolerance 
should be given to all religions that   
tolerate others1  so long as their      
dogmas contain nothing contrary to the  

duties of  citizenship4 ,but whoever    
dares to say3 ,outside the ,church is no
  salvation1 ought to be driven from the
 ,state1 unless the ,state is the       
,church1 and the prince the pontiff4    
,such a dogma is good only in a         
theocratic government2 in any other1 it 
is fatal4 ,the reason for which  ,henry 
,,iv is said to have embraced the ,roman
 religion ought to make  every honest   
man leave it1 and still more any prince 
who knows how to  reason4      #a ,nonne
 ea qu possidet ,chamos deus tuus1 tibi 
jure debentur8  7,judges xi4 #bd74 ,such
 is the text in the ,vulgate4 ,father de
 ,carrires  translates3 ,do you not     
regard yourselves as having a right to  
what  your god possesses8 ,i do not know
 the force of the ,hebrew text3 but  ,i 
perceive that1 in the ,vulgate1         
,jephthah positively recognises the     
right of the god ,chamos1 and that the  
,french translator weakened this        
admission by inserting an according to  
you1 which is not in the ,latin4    #b  

,it is quite clear that the ,phocian    
war1 which was called the  ,sacred ,war1
 was not a war of religion4 ,its object 
was the punishment  of acts of          
sacrilege1 and not the conquest of      
unbelievers4    #c ,it should be noted  
that the clergy find their bond of union
 not so  much in formal assemblies1 as  
in the communion of ,churches4          
,communion  and ex-communication are the
 social compact of the clergy1 a compact
  which will always make them masters of
 peoples and kings4 ,all priests  who   
communicate together are                
fellow-citizens1 even if they come  from
 opposite ends of the earth4 ,this      
invention is a masterpiece of           
statesmanship3 there is nothing like it 
among pagan priests2 who have  therefore
 never formed a clerical corporate body4
    #d ,see1 for instance1 in a letter  
from ,grotius to his brother 7,april    
#aa1 #afdc71 what that learned man found
 to praise and to blame in the  ,de     
,cive4 ,it is true that1 with a bent for

 indulgence1 he seems to  pardon the    
writer the good for the sake of the bad2
 but all men are not  so forgiving4     
#e ,in the republic1 says the ,marquis  
d',argenson1 each man is  perfectly free
 in what does not harm others4 ,this is 
the invariable  limitation1 which it is 
impossible to define more exactly4 ,i   
have not  been able to deny myself the  
pleasure of occasionally quoting from   
this  manuscript1 though it is unknown  
to the public1 in order to do honour  to
 the memory of a good and illustrious   
man1 who had kept even in the  ,ministry
 the heart of a good citizen1 and views 
on the government of  his country that  
were sane and right4    #f ,csar1       
pleading for ,catiline1 tried to        
establish the dogma that the  soul is   
mortal3 ,cato and ,cicero1 in           
refutation1 did not waste time in       
philosophising4 ,they were content to   
show that ,csar spoke like a bad        
citizen1 and brought forward a doctrine 
that would have a bad effect on  the    

,state4 ,this1 in fact1 and not a       
problem of theology1 was what the       
,roman senate had to judge4    #g       
,marriage1 for instance1 being a civil  
contract1 has civil effects  without    
which society cannot even subsist4      
,suppose a body of clergy  should claim 
the sole right of permitting this act1 a
 right which every  intolerant religion 
must of necessity claim1 is it not clear
 that in  establishing the authority of 
the ,church in this respect1 it will be 
destroying that of the prince1 who will 
have thenceforth only as many  subjects 
as the clergy choose to allow him8      
,being in a position to  marry or not to
 marry people1 according to their       
acceptance of such  and such a doctrine1
 their admission or rejection of such   
and such a  formula1 their greater or   
less piety1 the ,church alone1 by the   
exercise  of prudence and firmness1 will
 dispose of all inheritances1 offices   
and citizens1 and even of the ,state    
itself1 which could not subsist  if it  

were composed entirely of bastards8     
,but1 ,i shall be told1 there  will be  
appeals on the ground of abuse1         
summonses and decrees2 the              
temporalities will be seized4 ,how sad6 
,the clergy1 however little1 ,i  will   
not say courage1 but sense it has1 will 
take no notice and go its  way3 it will 
quietly allow appeals1 summonses1       
decrees and seizures1  and1 in the end1 
will remain the master4 ,it is not1 ,i  
think1 a great  sacrifice to give up a  
part1 when one is sure of securing all4 
,,chapter ,,ix    ,,conclusion    ,now  
that ,i have laid down the true         
principles of political right1 and      
tried to give the ,state a basis of its 
own to rest on1 ,i ought next  to       
strengthen it by its external relations1
 which would include the  law of        
nations1 commerce1 the right of war and 
conquest1 public right1  leagues1       
negotiations1 treaties1 etc4 ,but all   
this forms a new subject  that is far   
too vast for my narrow scope4 ,i ought  

throughout to have  kept to a more      
limited sphere4          ,a ,,discourse 
,,which ,,won ,,the ,,prize ,,at ,,the  
,,academy ,,of ,,dijon ,,in #agej1 ,,on 
,,this ,,question  ,,proposed ,,by ,,the
 ,,academy3    ,,has ,,the ,,restoration
 ,,of ,,the ,,arts ,,and ,,sciences     
,,had ,a ,,purifying ,,effect  ,,upon   
,,morals8    ,barbaras his ego sum1 qui 
non intelligor illis4--,,ovid4#a    #a  
,here ,i am1 a barbarian1 because men   
understand me not4          ,,preface   
,the following pages contain a          
discussion of one of the most sublime   
and interesting of all moral questions4 
,it is not concerned1 however1  with    
those metaphysical subtleties1 which of 
late have found their way  into every   
department of literature1 and from which
 even our academic  curricula are not   
always free4 ,we have now to do with one
 of those  truths on which the happiness
 of mankind depends4    ,i foresee that 
,i shall not readily be forgiven for    
having taken up the  position ,i have   

adopted4 ,setting myself up against all 
that is nowadays  most admired1 ,i can  
expect no less than a universal outcry  
against me3  nor is the approbation of a
 few sensible men enough to make me     
count  on that of the public4 ,but ,i   
have taken my stand1 and ,i shall be at 
no  pains to please either intellectuals
 or men of the world4 ,there are in  all
 ages men born to be in bondage to the  
opinions of the society in  which they  
live4 ,there are not a few1 who to-day  
play the free-thinker  and the          
philosopher1 who would1 if they had     
lived in the time of the  ,league1 have 
been no more than fanatics4 ,no author1 
who has a mind to  outlive his own age1 
should write for such readers4    ,a    
word more and ,i have done4 ,as ,i did  
not expect the honour conferred  on me1 
,i had1 since sending in my ,discourse1 
so altered and enlarged  it as almost to
 make it a new work2 but in the         
circumstances ,i have  felt bound to    
publish it just as it was when it       

received the prize4 ,i  have only added 
a few notes1 and left two alterations   
which are easily  recognisable1 of which
 the ,academy possibly might not have   
approved4  ,the respect1 gratitude and  
even justice ,i owe to that body seemed 
to me  to demand this acknowledgment4   
,,moral ,,effects    ,,of ,,the ,,arts  
,,and ,,sciences    ,decipimur specie   
recti4--,,horace4      ,the question    
before me is1 ,whether the ,restoration 
of the arts and  sciences has had the   
effect of purifying or corrupting       
morals4 ,which  side am ,i to take8     
,that1 gentlemen1 which becomes an      
honest man1 who is  sensible of his own 
ignorance1 and thinks himself none the  
worse for it4    ,i feel the difficulty 
of treating this subject fittingly1     
before the  tribunal which is to judge  
of what ,i advance4 ,how can ,i presume 
to  belittle the sciences before one of 
the most learned assemblies in  ,europe1
 to commend ignorance in a famous       
,academy1 and reconcile my  contempt for

 study with the respect due to the truly
 learned8    ,i was aware of these      
inconsistencies1 but not discouraged by 
them4 ,it  is not science1 ,i said to   
myself1 that ,i am attacking2 it is     
virtue  that ,i am defending1 and that  
before virtuous men--and goodness is    
even  dearer to the good than learning  
to the learned4    ,what then have ,i to
 fear8 ,the sagacity of the assembly    
before which  ,i am pleading8 ,that1 ,i 
acknowledge1 is to be feared2 but rather
 on  account of faults of construction  
than of the views ,i hold4 ,just        
sovereigns have never hesitated to      
decide against themselves in  doubtful  
cases2 and indeed the most advantageous 
situation in which a  just claim can be1
 is that of being laid before a just and
 enlightened  arbitrator1 who is judge  
in his own case4    ,to this motive1    
which encouraged me1 ,i may add another 
which finally  decided me4 ,and this is1
 that as ,i have upheld the cause of    
truth to  the best of my natural        

abilities1 whatever my apparent success1
 there  is one reward which cannot fail 
me4 ,that reward ,i shall find in the   
bottom of my heart4          ,,the      
,,first ,,part      ,it is a noble and  
beautiful spectacle to see man raising  
himself1 so  to speak1 from nothing by  
his own exertions2 dissipating1 by the  
light  of reason1 all the thick clouds  
in which he was by nature enveloped2    
mounting above himself2 soaring in      
thought even to the celestial  regions2 
like the sun1 encompassing with giant   
strides the vast extent  of the         
universe2 and1 what is still grander and
 more wonderful1 going  back into       
himself1 there to study man and get to  
know his own nature1  his duties and his
 end4 ,all these miracles we have seen  
renewed within  the last few            
generations4    ,europe had relapsed    
into the barbarism of the earliest ages2
 the  inhabitants of this part of the   
world1 which is at present so highly    
enlightened1 were plunged1 some         

centuries ago1 in a state still-worse   
than ignorance4 ,a scientific jargon1   
more despicable than mere  ignorance1   
had usurped the name of knowledge1 and  
opposed an almost  invincible obstacle  
to its restoration4    ,things had come 
to such a pass1 that it required a      
complete revolution  to bring men back  
to common sense4 ,this came at last from
 the quarter  from which it was least to
 be expected4 ,it was the stupid        
,mussulman1  the eternal scourge of     
letters1 who was the immediate cause of 
their  revival among us4 ,the fall of   
the throne of ,constantine brought to   
,italy the relics of ancient ,greece2   
and with these precious spoils  ,france 
in turn was enriched4 ,the sciences soon
 followed literature1  and the art of   
thinking joined that of writing3 an     
order which may  seem strange1 but is   
perhaps only too natural4 ,the world now
 began to  perceive the principal       
advantage of an intercourse with the    
,muses1 that  of rendering mankind more 

sociable by inspiring them with the     
desire to  please one another with      
performances worthy of their mutual     
approbation4    ,the mind1 as well as   
the body1 has its needs3 those of the   
body are the  basis of society1 those of
 the mind its ornaments4    ,so long as 
government and law provide for the      
security and well-being  of men in their
 common life1 the arts1 literature and  
the sciences1  less despotic though     
perhaps more powerful1 fling garlands of
 flowers  over the chains which weigh   
them down4 ,they stifle in men's breasts
  that sense of original liberty1 for   
which they seem to have been born2      
cause them to love their own slavery1   
and so make of them what is  called a   
civilised people4    ,necessity raised  
up thrones2 the arts and sciences have  
made them  strong4 ,powers of the earth1
 cherish all talents and protect those  
who  cultivate them4#a ,civilised       
peoples1 cultivate such pursuits3 to    
them1  happy slaves1 you owe that       

delicacy and exquisiteness of taste1    
which  is so much your boast1 that      
sweetness of disposition and urbanity of
  manners which make intercourse so easy
 and agreeable among you--in a  word1   
the appearance of all the virtues1      
without being in possession of  one of  
them4    ,it was for this sort of       
accomplishment1 which is by so much the 
more  captivating as it seems less      
affected1 that ,athens and ,rome were   
so much distinguished in the boasted    
times of their splendour and            
magnificence3 and it is doubtless in the
 same respect that our own age  and     
nation will excel all periods and       
peoples4 ,an air of philosophy  without 
pedantry2 an address at once natural and
 engaging1 distant  equally from        
,teutonic clumsiness and ,italian       
pantomime2 these are  the effects of a  
taste acquired by liberal studies and   
improved by  conversation with the      
world4 ,what happiness would it be for  
those who  live among us1 if our        

external appearance were always a true  
mirror of  our hearts2 if decorum were  
but virtue2 if the maxims we professed  
were  the rules of our conduct2 and if  
real philosophy were inseparable from   
the title of a philosopher6 ,but so many
 good qualities too seldom go  together2
 virtue rarely appears in so much pomp  
and state4    ,richness of apparel may  
proclaim the man of fortune1 and        
elegance the  man of taste2 but true    
health and manliness are known by       
different  signs4 ,it is under the      
home-spun of the labourer1 and not      
beneath the  gilt and tinsel of the     
courtier1 that we should look for       
strength and  vigour of body4           
,external ornaments are no less foreign 
to virtue1 which is the strength  and   
activity of the mind4 ,the honest man is
 an athlete1 who loves to  wrestle stark
 naked2 he scorns all those vile        
trappings1 which prevent  the exertion  
of his strength1 and were1 for the most 
part1 invented  only to conceal some    

deformity4    ,before art had moulded   
our behaviour1 and taught our passions  
to speak  an artificial language1 our   
morals were rude but natural2 and the   
different ways in which we behaved      
proclaimed at the first glance the      
difference of our dispositions4 ,human  
nature was not at bottom better  then   
than now2 but men found their security  
in the ease with which  they could see  
through one another1 and this advantage1
 of which we no  longer feel the value1 
prevented their having many vices4      
,in our day1 now that more subtle study 
and a more refined taste have  reduced  
the art of pleasing to a system1 there  
prevails in modern  manners a servile   
and deceptive conformity2 so that one   
would think  every mind had been cast in
 the same mould4 ,politeness requires   
this  thing2 decorum that2 ceremony has 
its forms1 and fashion its laws1 and    
these we must always follow1 never the  
promptings of our own nature4    ,we no 
longer dare seem what we really are1 but

 lie under a perpetual  restraint2 in   
the meantime the herd of men1 which we  
call society1 all  act under the same   
circumstances exactly alike1 unless very
 particular  and powerful motives       
prevent them4 ,thus we never know with  
whom we have  to deal2 and even to know 
our friends we must wait for some       
critical  and pressing occasion2 that   
is1 till it is too late2 for it is on   
those  very occasions that such         
knowledge is of use to us4    ,what a   
train of vices must attend this         
uncertainty6 ,sincere  friendship1 real 
esteem1 and perfect confidence are      
banished from  among men4 ,jealousy1    
suspicion1 fear1 coldness1 reserve1 hate
 and  fraud lie constantly concealed    
under that uniform and deceitful veil   
of politeness2 that boasted candour and 
urbanity1 for which we are  indebted to 
the light and leading of this age4 ,we  
shall no longer take  in vain by our    
oaths the name of our ,creator2 but we  
shall insult ,him  with our blasphemies1

 and our scrupulous ears will take no   
offence4  ,we have grown too modest to  
brag of our own deserts2 but we do not  
scruple to decry those of others4 ,we do
 not grossly outrage even our  enemies1 
but artfully calumniate them4 ,our      
hatred of other nations  diminishes1 but
 patriotism dies with it4 ,ignorance is 
held in contempt2  but a dangerous      
scepticism has succeeded it4 ,some vices
 indeed are  condemned and others grown 
dishonourable2 but we have still many   
that  are honoured with the names of    
virtues1 and it is become necessary     
that we should either have1 or at least 
pretend to have them4 ,let who  will    
extol the moderation of our modern      
sages1 ,i see nothing in it but  a      
refinement of intemperance as unworthy  
of my commendation as their  artificial 
simplicity4#b    ,such is the purity to 
which our morals have attained2 this is 
the  virtue we have made our own4 ,let  
the arts and sciences claim the share   
they have had in this salutary work4 ,i 

shall add but one reflection  more2     
suppose an inhabitant of some distant   
country should endeavour  to form an    
idea of ,european morals from the state 
of the sciences1 the  perfection of the 
arts1 the propriety of our public       
entertainments1  the politeness of our  
behaviour1 the affability of our        
conversation1  our constant professions 
of benevolence1 and from those          
tumultuous  assemblies of people of all 
ranks1 who seem1 from morning till      
night1  to have no other care than to   
oblige one another4 ,such a stranger1 ,i
  maintain1 would arrive at a totally   
false view of our morality4    ,where   
there is no effect1 it is idle to look  
for a cause3 but here  the effect is    
certain and the depravity actual2 our   
minds have been  corrupted in proportion
 as the arts and sciences have improved4
 ,will  it be said1 that this is a      
misfortune peculiar to the present age8 
,no1  gentlemen1 the evils resulting    
from our vain curiosity are as old as   

the world4 ,the daily ebb and flow of   
the tides are not more regularly        
influenced by the moon1 than the morals 
of a people by the progress  of the arts
 and sciences4 ,as their light has risen
 above our horizon1  virtue has taken   
flight1 and the same phenomenon has been
 constantly  observed in all times and  
places4    ,take ,egypt1 the first      
school of mankind1 that ancient country1
 famous  for its fertility under a      
brazen sky2 the spot from which         
,sesostris  once set out to conquer the 
world4 ,egypt became the mother of      
philosophy and the fine arts2 soon she  
was conquered by ,cambyses1 and  then   
successively by the ,greeks1 the        
,romans1 the ,arabs1 and finally the    
,turks4    ,take ,greece1 once peopled  
by heroes1 who twice vanquished ,asia4  
,letters1 as yet in their infancy1 had  
not corrupted the disposition  of its   
inhabitants2 but the progress of the    
sciences soon produced a  dissoluteness 
of manners1 and the imposition of the   

,macedonian yoke3  from which time      
,greece1 always learned1 always         
voluptuous and always a  slave1 has     
experienced amid all its revolutions no 
more than a change  of masters4 ,not all
 the eloquence of ,demosthenes could    
breathe life  into a body which luxury  
and the arts had once enervated4    ,it 
was not till the days of ,ennius and    
,terence that ,rome1 founded by  a      
shepherd1 and made illustrious by ,i    
peasants1 began to degenerate4  ,but    
after the appearance of an ,ovid1 a     
,catullus1 a ,martial1 and the  rest of 
those numerous obscene authors1 whose   
very names are enough to  put modesty to
 the blush1 ,rome1 once the shrine of   
virtue1 became the  theatre of vice1 a  
scorn among the nations1 and an object  
of derision  even to barbarians4 ,thus  
the capital of the world at length      
submitted  to the yoke of slavery it had
 imposed on others1 and the very day  of
 its fall was the eve of that on which  
it conferred on one of its  citizens the

 title of ,arbiter of ,good ,taste4     
,what shall ,i say of that metropolis of
 the ,eastern ,empire1 which1 by  its   
situation1 seemed destined to be the    
capital of the world2 that  refuge of   
the arts and sciences1 when they were   
banished from the rest  of ,europe1 more
 perhaps by wisdom than barbarism8 ,the 
most profligate  debaucheries1 the most 
abandoned villainies1 the most atrocious
 crimes1  plots1 murders and            
assassinations form the warp and woof of
 the  history of ,constantinople4 ,such 
is the pure source from which have      
flowed to us the floods of knowledge on 
which the present age so prides  itself4
    ,but wherefore should we seek1 in   
past ages1 for proofs of a truth1 of    
which the present affords us ample      
evidence8 ,there is in ,asia a vast     
empire1 where learning is held in       
honour1 and leads to the highest        
dignities in the state4 ,if the sciences
 improved our morals1 if they  inspired 
us with courage and taught us to lay    

down our lives for the  good of our     
country1 the ,chinese should be wise1   
free and invincible4  ,but1 if there be 
no vice they do not practise1 no crime  
with which they  are not familiar2 if   
the sagacity of their ministers1 the    
supposed  wisdom of their laws1 and the 
multitude of inhabitants who people that
  vast empire1 have alike failed to     
preserve them from the yoke of the  rude
 and ignorant ,tartars1 of what use were
 their men of science and  literature8  
,what advantage has that country reaped 
from the honours  bestowed on its       
learned men8 ,can it be that of being   
peopled by a race  of scoundrels and    
slaves8    ,contrast with these         
instances the morals of those few       
nations which1  being preserved from the
 contagion of useless knowledge1 have by
  their virtues become happy in         
themselves and afforded an example to   
the rest of the world4 ,such were the   
first inhabitants of ,persia1  a nation 
so singular that virtue was taught among

 them in the same  manner as the        
sciences are with us4 ,they very easily 
subdued ,asia1  and possess the         
exclusive glory of having had the       
history of their  political institutions
 regarded as a philosophical romance4   
,such were  the ,scythians1 of whom such
 wonderful eulogies have come down to   
us4  ,such were the ,germans1 whose     
simplicity1 innocence and virtue1       
afforded  a most delightful contrast to 
the pen of an historian1 weary of       
describing the baseness and villainies  
of an enlightened1 opulent and          
voluptuous nation4 ,such had been even  
,rome in the days of its poverty  and   
ignorance4 ,and such has shown itself to
 be1 even in our own times1  that rustic
 nation1 whose justly renowned courage  
not even adversity  could conquer1 and  
whose fidelity no example could         
corrupt4#c    ,it is not through        
stupidity that the people have preferred
 other  activities to those of the mind4
 ,they were not ignorant that in other  

countries there were men who spent their
 time in disputing idly about  the      
sovereign good1 and about vice and      
virtue4 ,they knew that these  useless  
thinkers were lavish in their own       
praises1 and stigmatised  other nations 
contemptuously as barbarians4 ,but they 
noted the morals  of these people1 and  
so learnt what to think of their        
learning4#d    ,can it be forgotten     
that1 in the very heart of ,greece1     
there arose  a city as famous for the   
happy ignorance of its inhabitants1 as  
for  the wisdom of its laws2 a republic 
of demi-gods rather than of men1  so    
greatly superior their virtues seemed to
 those of mere humanity8  ,sparta1      
eternal proof of the vanity of science1 
while the vices1 under  the conduct of  
the fine arts1 were being introduced    
into ,athens1 even  while its tyrant was
 carefully collecting together the works
 of the  prince of poets1 was driving   
from her walls artists and the arts1 the
  learned and their learning6    ,the   

difference was seen in the outcome4     
,athens became the seat of  politeness  
and taste1 the country of orators and   
philosophers4 ,the  elegance of its     
buildings equalled that of its language2
 on every side  might be seen marble and
 canvas1 animated by the hands of the   
most  skilful artists4 ,from ,athens we 
derive those astonishing performances1  
which will serve as models to every     
corrupt age4 ,the picture of  ,lacedmon 
is not so highly coloured4 ,there1 the  
neighbouring nations  used to say1 men  
were born virtuous1 their native air    
seeming to  inspire them with virtue4   
,but its inhabitants have left us       
nothing but  the memory of their heroic 
actions3 monuments that should not count
 for  less in our eyes than the most    
curious relics of ,athenian marble4     
,it is true that1 among the ,athenians1 
there were some few wise men who        
withstood the general torrent1 and      
preserved their integrity even in  the  
company of the muses4 ,but hear the     

judgment which the principal1  and most 
unhappy of them1 passed on the artists  
and learned men of his  day4    ,i have 
considered the poets1 says he1 and ,i   
look upon them as people  whose talents 
impose both on themselves and on others2
 they give  themselves out for wise men1
 and are taken for such2 but in reality 
they are anything sooner than that4     
,from the poets1 continues ,socrates1 ,i
 turned to the artists4 ,nobody  was    
more ignorant of the arts than myself2  
nobody was more fully  persuaded that   
the artists were possessed of amazing   
knowledge4 ,i soon  discovered1 however1
 that they were in as bad a way as the  
poets1 and  that both had fallen into   
the same misconception4 ,because the    
most  skilful of them excel others in   
their particular jobs1 they think       
themselves wiser than all the rest of   
mankind4 ,this arrogance spoilt  all    
their skill in my eyes1 so that1 putting
 myself in the place of  the oracle1 and
 asking myself whether ,i would rather  

be what ,i am or  what they are1 know   
what they know1 or know that ,i know    
nothing1 ,i very  readily answered1 for 
myself and the god1 that ,i had rather  
remain as ,i  am4    ,none of us1       
neither the sophists1 nor the poets1 nor
 the orators1 nor  the artists1 nor ,i1 
know what is the nature of the true1 the
 good1  or the beautiful4 ,but there is 
this difference between us2 that1       
though none of these people know        
anything1 they all think they know      
something2 whereas for my part1 if ,i   
know nothing1 ,i am at least in no      
doubt of my ignorance4 ,so the          
superiority of wisdom1 imputed to me by 
the oracle1 is reduced merely to my     
being fully convinced that ,i am        
ignorant of what ,i do not know4        
,thus we find ,socrates1 the wisest of  
men in the judgment of the god1  and the
 most learned of all the ,athenians in  
the opinion of all ,greece1  speaking in
 praise of ignorance4 ,were he alive    
now1 there is little  reason to think   

that our modern scholars and artists    
would induce him  to change his mind4   
,no1 gentlemen1 that honest man would   
still persist  in despising our vain    
sciences4 ,he would lend no aid to swell
 the flood  of books that flows from    
every quarter3 he would leave to us1 as 
he did  to his disciples1 only the      
example and memory of his virtues2 that 
is  the noblest method of instructing   
mankind4    ,socrates had begun at      
,athens1 and the elder ,cato proceeded  
at ,rome1 to  inveigh against those     
seductive and subtle ,greeks1 who       
corrupted the  virtue and destroyed the 
courage of their fellow-citizens3       
culture1  however1 prevailed4 ,rome was 
filled with philosophers and orators1   
military discipline was neglected1      
agriculture was held in contempt1  men  
formed sects1 and forgot their country4 
,to the sacred names of  liberty1       
disinterestedness and obedience to law1 
succeeded those of  ,epicurus1 ,zeno and
 ,arcesilaus4 ,it was even a saying     

among their own  philosophers that since
 learned men appeared among them1 honest
 men had  been in eclipse4 ,before that 
time the ,romans were satisfied with the
  practice of virtue2 they were undone  
when they began to study it4    ,what   
would the great soul of ,fabricius have 
felt1 if it had been  his misfortune to 
be called back to life1 when he saw the 
pomp and  magnificence of that ,rome1   
which his arm had saved from ruin1 and  
his honourable name made more           
illustrious than all its conquests4  ,ye
 gods6 he would have said1 what has     
become of those thatched  roofs and     
rustic hearths1 which were formerly the 
habitations of  temperance and virtue8  
,what fatal splendour has succeeded the 
ancient  ,roman simplicity8 ,what is    
this foreign language1 this effeminacy  
of  manners8 ,what is the meaning of    
these statues1 paintings and buildings8 
,fools1 what have you done8 ,you1 the   
lords of the earth1 have made           
yourselves the slaves of the frivolous  

nations you have subdued4  ,you are     
governed by rhetoricians1 and it has    
been only to enrich  architects1        
painters1 sculptors and stage-players   
that you have watered  ,greece and ,asia
 with your blood4 ,even the spoils of   
,carthage are the  prize of a           
flute-player4 ,romans6 ,romans6 make    
haste to demolish those  amphitheatres1 
break to pieces those statues1 burn     
those paintings2  drive from among you  
those slaves who keep you in subjection1
 and whose  fatal arts are corrupting   
your morals4 ,let other hands make      
themselves  illustrious by such vain    
talents2 the only talent worthy of ,rome
 is  that of conquering the world and   
making virtue its ruler4 ,when ,cyneas  
took the ,roman senate for an assembly  
of kings1 he was not struck by  either  
useless pomp or studied elegance4 ,he   
heard there none of that  futile        
eloquence1 which is now the study and   
the charm of frivolous  orators4 ,what  
then was the majesty that ,cyneas       

beheld8 ,fellow citizens1  he saw the   
noblest sight that ever existed under   
heaven1 a sight which  not all your     
riches or your arts can show2 an        
assembly of two hundred  virtuous men1  
worthy to command in ,rome1 and to      
govern the world4    ,but let pass the  
distance of time and place1 and let us  
see what has  happened in our own time  
and country2 or rather let us banish    
odious  descriptions that might offend  
our delicacy1 and spare ourselves the   
pains of repeating the same tilings     
under different names4 ,it was not  for 
nothing that ,i invoked the ,manes of   
,fabricius2 for what have ,i  put into  
his mouth1 that might not have come with
 as much propriety  from ,louis the     
,twelfth or ,henry the ,fourth8 ,it is  
true that in ,france  ,socrates would   
not have drunk the hemlock1 but he would
 have drunk of  a potion infinitely more
 bitter1 of insult1 mockery and contempt
 a  hundred times worse than death4     
,thus it is that luxury1 profligacy and 

slavery1 have been1 in all ages1  the   
scourge of the efforts of our pride to  
emerge from that happy  state of        
ignorance1 in which the wisdom of       
providence had placed us4  ,that thick  
veil with which it has covered all its  
operations seems to  be a sufficient    
proof that it never designed us for such
 fruitless  researches4 ,but is there1  
indeed1 one lesson it has taught us1 by 
which  we have rightly profited1 or     
which we have neglected with impunity8  
,let  men learn for once that nature    
would have preserved them from science1 
as a mother snatches a dangerous weapon 
from the hands of her child4  ,let them 
know that all the secrets she hides are 
so many evils from  which she protects  
them1 and that the very difficulty they 
find in  acquiring knowledge is not the 
least of her bounty towards them4 ,men  
are perverse2 but they would have been  
far worse1 if they had had the          
misfortune to be born learned4    ,how  
humiliating are these reflections to    

humanity1 and how mortified  by them our
 pride should be6 ,what6 it will be     
asked1 is uprightness  the child of     
ignorance8 ,is virtue inconsistent with 
learning8 ,what  consequences might not 
be drawn from such suppositions8 ,but to
  reconcile these apparent              
contradictions1 we need only examine    
closely  the emptiness and vanity of    
those pompous titles1 which are so      
liberally bestowed on human knowledge1  
and which so blind our judgment4  ,let  
us consider1 therefore1 the arts and    
sciences in themselves4 ,let us  see    
what must result from their advancement1
 and let us not hesitate  to admit the  
truth of all those points on which our  
arguments coincide  with the inductions 
we can make from history4      #a       
,sovereigns always see with1 pleasure a 
taste for the arts of  amusement and    
superfluity1 which do not result in the 
exportation of  bullion1 increase among 
their subjects4 ,they very well know    
that1  besides nourishing that          

littleness of mind which is proper to   
slavery1  the increase of artificial    
wants only binds so many more chains    
upon  the people4 ,alexander1 wishing to
 keep the ,ichthyophages in a state  of 
dependence1 compelled them to give up   
fishing1 and subsist on the  customary  
food of civilised nations4 ,the         
,american savages1 who go  naked1 and   
live entirely on the products of the    
chase1 have been always  impossible to  
subdue4 ,what yoke1 indeed1 can be      
imposed on men who  stand in need of    
nothing8    #b ,i love1 said ,montaigne1
 to converse and hold an argument2 but  
only with very few people1 and that for 
my own gratification4 ,for to do  so1 by
 way of affording amusement for the     
great1 or of making a parade  of one's  
talents1 is1 in my opinion1 a trade very
 ill-becoming a man of  honour4 ,it is  
the trade of all our intellectuals1 save
 one4    #c ,i dare not speak of those  
happy nations1 who did not even know the
  name of many vices1 which we find it  

difficult to suppress2 the savages  of  
,america1 whose simple and natural mode 
of government ,montaigne  preferred1    
without hesitation1 not only to the laws
 of ,plato1 but to  the most perfect    
visions of government philosophy can    
ever suggest ,he  cites many examples1  
striking for those who are capable of   
appreciating  them4 ,but1 what of all   
that1 says he1 they can't run to a pair 
of  breeches6    #d ,what are we to     
think was the real opinion of the       
,athenians  themselves about eloquence1 
when they were so very careful to banish
  declamation from that upright         
tribunal1 against whose decision even   
their gods made no appeal8 ,what did the
 ,romans think of physicians1  when they
 expelled medicine from the republic8   
,and when the relics of  humanity left  
among the ,spaniards induced them to    
forbid their lawyers  to set foot in    
,america1 what must they have thought of
 jurisprudence8  ,may it not be said    
that they thought1 by this single       

expedient1 to make  reparation for all  
the outrages they had committed against 
the unhappy  ,indians8          ,,the   
,,second ,,part      ,an ancient        
tradition passed out of ,egypt into     
,greece1 that some god1  who was an     
enemy to the repose of mankind1 was the 
inventor of the  sciences4#a ,what must 
the ,egyptians1 among whom the sciences 
first  arose1 have thought of them8 ,and
 they beheld1 near at hand1 the sources 
from which they sprang4 ,in fact1       
whether we turn to the annals of the    
world1 or eke out with philosophical    
investigations the uncertain  chronicles
 of history1 we shall not find for human
 knowledge an origin  answering to the  
idea we are pleased to entertain of it  
at present4  ,astronomy was born of     
superstition1 eloquence of ambition1    
hatred1  falsehood and flattery2        
geometry of avarice2 physics of an idle 
curiosity2 and even moral philosophy of 
human pride4 ,thus the arts and         
sciences owe their birth to our vices2  

we should be less doubtful of  their    
advantages1 if they had sprung from our 
virtues4    ,their evil origin is1      
indeed1 but too plainly reproduced in   
their  objects4 ,what would become of   
the arts1 were they not cherished by    
luxury8 ,if men were not unjust1 of what
 use were jurisprudence8  ,what would   
become of history1 if there were no     
tyrants1 wars1  or conspiracies8 ,in a  
word1 who would pass his life in barren 
speculations1 if everybody1 attentive   
only to the obligations of  humanity and
 the necessities of nature1 spent his   
whole life in serving  his country1     
obliging his friends1 and relieving the 
unhappy8 ,are we  then made to live and 
die on the brink of that well at the    
bottom of  which ,truth lies hid8 ,this 
reflection alone is1 in my opinion1     
enough  to discourage at first setting  
out every man who seriously endeavours  
to instruct himself by the study of     
philosophy4    ,what a variety of       
dangers surrounds us6 ,what a number of 

wrong paths  present themselves in the  
investigation of the sciences6 ,through 
how  many errors1 more perilous than    
truth itself is useful1 must we not     
pass to arrive at it8 ,the disadvantages
 we lie under are evident2 for          
falsehood is capable of an infinite     
variety of combinations2 but the  truth 
has only one manner of being4 ,besides1 
where is the man who  sincerely desires 
to find it8 ,or even admitting his good 
will1 by  what characteristic marks is  
he sure of knowing it8 ,amid the        
infinite  diversity of opinions where is
 the criterion#b by which we may        
certainly judge of it8 ,again1 what is  
still more difficult1 should we  even be
 fortunate enough to discover it1 who   
among us will know how to  make right   
use of it8    ,if our sciences are      
futile in the objects they propose1 they
 are  no less dangerous in the effects  
they produce4 ,being the effect of      
idleness1 they generate idleness in     
their turn2 and an irreparable  loss of 

time is the first prejudice which they  
must necessarily cause  to society4 ,to 
live without doing some good is a great 
evil as well in  the political as in the
 moral world2 and hence every useless   
citizen  should be regarded as a        
pernicious person4 ,tell me then1       
illustrious  philosophers1 of whom we   
learn the ratios in which attraction    
acts in  vacuo2 and in the revolution of
 the planets1 the relations of spaces   
traversed in equal times2 by whom we are
 taught what curves have  conjugate     
points1 points of inflexion1 and cusps2 
how the soul and body  correspond1 like 
two clocks1 without actual              
communication2 what planets  may be     
inhabited2 and what insects reproduce in
 an extraordinary  manner4 ,answer me1  
,i say1 you from whom we receive all    
this sublime  information1 whether we   
should have been less numerous1 worse   
governed1  less formidable1 less        
flourishing1 or more perverse1 supposing
 you had  taught us none of all these   

fine things4    ,reconsider therefore   
the importance of your productions2 and1
 since  the labours of the most         
enlightened of our learned men and the  
best of  our citizens are of so little  
utility1 tell us what we ought to think 
of that numerous herd of obscure writers
 and useless litterateurs1 who  devour  
without any return the substance of the 
,state4    ,useless1 do ,i say8 ,would  
,god they were6 ,society would be more  
peaceful1  and morals less corrupt4 ,but
 these vain and futile declaimers go    
forth  on all sides1 armed with their   
fatal paradoxes1 to sap the foundations 
of our faith1 and nullify virtue4 ,they 
smile contemptuously at such  old names 
as patriotism and religion1 and         
consecrate their talents and  philosophy
 to the destruction2 and defamation of  
all that men hold  sacred4 ,not that    
they bear any real hatred to virtue or  
dogma2 they are  the enemies of public  
opinion alone2 to bring them to the foot
 of the  altar1 it would be enough to   

banish them to a land of atheists4 ,what
  extravagancies will not the rage of   
singularity induce men to commit6       
,the waste of time is certainly a great 
evil2 but still greater evils  attend   
upon literature and the arts4 ,one is   
luxury1 produced like  them by indolence
 and vanity4 ,luxury is seldom          
unattended by the arts  and sciences2   
and they are always attended by luxury4 
,i know that our  philosophy1 fertile in
 paradoxes1 pretends1 in contradiction  
to the  experience of all ages1 that    
luxury contributes to the splendour of  
,states4 ,but1 without insisting on the 
necessity of sumptuary laws1 can  it be 
denied that rectitude of morals is      
essential to the duration of  empires1  
and that luxury is diametrically opposed
 to such rectitude8  ,let it be admitted
 that luxury is a certain indication of 
wealth2 that  it even serves1 if you    
will1 to increase such wealth3 what     
conclusion  is to be drawn from this    
paradox1 so worthy of the times8 ,and   

what  will become of virtue if riches   
are to be acquired at any cost8 ,the    
politicians of the ancient world were   
always talking of morals and  virtue2   
ours speak of nothing but commerce and  
money4 ,one of them will  tell you that 
in such a country a man is worth just as
 much as he will  sell for at ,algiers3 
another1 pursuing the same mode of      
calculation1  finds that in some        
countries a man is worth nothing1 and in
 others  still less than nothing2 they  
value men as they do droves of oxen4    
,according to them1 a man is worth no   
more to the ,state1 than the  amount he 
consumes2 and thus a ,sybarite would be 
worth at least thirty  ,lacedmonians4   
,let these writers tell me1 however1    
which of the two  republics1 ,sybaris or
 ,sparta1 was subdued by a handful of   
peasants1 and  which became the terror  
of ,asia4    ,the monarchy of ,cyrus was
 conquered by thirty thousand men1 led  
by a  prince poorer than the meanest of 
,persian ,satraps3 in like manner the   

,scythians1 the poorest of all nations1 
were able to resist the most  powerful  
monarchs of the universe4 ,when two     
famous republics contended  for the     
empire of the world1 the one rich and   
the other poor1 the  former was subdued 
by the latter4 ,the ,roman empire in its
 turn1 after  having engulfed all the   
riches of the universe1 fell a prey to  
peoples  who knew not even what riches  
were4 ,the ,franks conquered the ,gauls1
 and  the ,saxons ,england1 without any 
other treasures than their bravery and  
their poverty4 ,a band of poor          
mountaineers1 whose whole cupidity was  
confined to the possession of a few     
sheep-skins1 having first given a  check
 to the arrogance of ,austria1 went on  
to crush the opulent and  formidable    
house of ,burgundy1 which at that time  
made the potentates  of ,europe tremble4
 ,in short1 all the power and wisdom of 
the heir of  ,charles the ,fifth1 backed
 by all the treasures of the ,indies1   
broke  before a few herring-fishers4    

,let our politicians condescend to lay  
aside their calculations for a moment1  
to reflect on these examples2  let them 
learn for once that money1 though it    
buys everything else1  cannot buy morals
 and citizens4 ,what then is the precise
 point in  dispute about luxury8 ,it is 
to know which is most advantageous to   
empires1 that their existence should be 
brilliant and momentary1  or virtuous   
and lasting8 ,i say brilliant1 but with 
what lustre6 ,a  taste for ostentation  
never prevails in the same minds as a   
taste  for honesty4 ,no1 it is          
impossible that understandings1 degraded
 by a  multitude of futile cares1 should
 ever rise to what is truly great and   
noble2 even if they had the strength1   
they would want the courage4    ,every  
artist loves applause4 ,the praise of   
his contemporaries is the  most valuable
 part of his recompense4 ,what then will
 he do to obtain  it1 if he have the    
misfortune to be born among a people1   
and at a  time1 when learning is in     

vogue1 and the superficiality of youth  
is  in a position to lead the fashion2  
when men have sacrificed their  taste to
 those who tyrannise over their liberty1
 and one sex dare not  approve anything 
but what is proportionate to the        
pusillanimity of  the other2#c when the 
greatest masterpieces of dramatic poetry
 are  condemned1 and the noblest of     
musical productions neglected8 ,this is 
what he will do4 ,he will lower his     
genius to the level of the age1 and     
will rather submit to compose mediocre  
works1 that will be admired  during his 
life-time1 than labour at sublime       
achievements which will  not be admired 
till long after he is dead4 ,let the    
famous ,voltaire tell  us how many      
nervous and masculine beauties he has   
sacrificed to our  false delicacy1 and  
how much that is great and noble1 that  
spirit of  gallantry1 which delights in 
what is frivolous and petty1 has cost   
him4    ,it is thus that the dissolution
 of morals1 the necessary consequence of

  luxury1 brings with it in its turn the
 corruption of taste4 ,further1 if  by  
chance there be found among men of      
average ability1 an individual  with    
enough strength of mind to refuse to    
comply with the spirit of  the age1 and 
to debase himself by puerile            
productions1 his lot will  be hard4 ,he 
will die in indigence and oblivion4     
,this is not so much a  prediction1 as a
 fact already confirmed by experience6  
,yes1 ,carle and  ,pierre ,vanloo1 the  
time is already come when your pencils1 
destined to  increase the majesty of our
 temples by sublime and holy images1    
must  fall from your hands1 or else be  
prostituted to adorn the panels of a    
coach with lascivious paintings4 ,and   
you1 inimitable ,pigal1 rival of        
,phidias and ,praxiteles1 whose chisel  
the ancients would have employed  to    
carve them gods1 whose images almost    
excuse their idolatry in our  eyes2 even
 your hand must condescend to fashion   
the belly of an ape1 or  else remain    

idle4    ,we cannot reflect on the      
morality of mankind without             
contemplating with  pleasure the picture
 of the simplicity which prevailed in   
the earliest  times4 ,this image may be 
justly compared to a beautiful coast1   
adorned  only by the hands of nature2   
towards which our eyes are constantly   
turned1 and which we see receding with  
regret4 ,while men were innocent  and   
virtuous and loved to have the gods for 
witnesses of their actions1  they dwelt 
together in the same huts2 but when they
 became vicious1  they grew tired of    
such inconvenient onlookers1 and        
banished them to  magnificent temples4  
,finally1 they expelled their deities   
even from  these1 in order to dwell     
there themselves2 or at least the       
temples  of the gods were no longer more
 magnificent than the palaces of the    
citizens4 ,this was the height of       
degeneracy2 nor could vice ever be      
carried to greater lengths than when it 
was seen1 supported1 as it  were1 at the

 doors of the great1 on columns of      
marble1 and graven on  ,corinthian      
capitals4    ,as the conveniences of    
life increase1 as the arts are brought  
to  perfection1 and luxury spreads1 true
 courage flags1 the virtues  disappear2 
and all this is the effect of the       
sciences and of those  arts which are   
exercised in the privacy of men's       
dwellings4 ,when the  ,goths ravaged    
,greece1 the libraries only escaped the 
flames owing to an  opinion that was set
 on foot among them1 that it was best to
 leave the  enemy with a possession so  
calculated to divert their attention    
from  military exercises1 and keep them 
engaged in indolent and sedentary       
occupations4    ,charles the ,eighth    
found himself master of ,tuscany and the
 kingdom of  ,naples1 almost without    
drawing sword2 and all his court        
attributed  this unexpected success to  
the fact that the princes and nobles of 
,italy applied themselves with greater  
earnestness to the cultivation  of their

 understandings than to active and      
martial pursuits4 ,in fact1  says the   
sensible person who records these       
characteristics1 experience  plainly    
tells us1 that in military matters and  
all that resemble them  application to  
the sciences tends rather to make men   
effeminate and  cowardly than resolute  
and vigorous4    ,the ,romans confessed 
that military virtue was extinguished   
among them1  in proportion as they      
became connoisseurs in the arts of the  
painter1  the engraver and the          
goldsmith1 and began to cultivate the   
fine arts4  ,indeed1 as if this famous  
country was to be for ever an example to
  other nations1 the rise of the ,medici
 and the revival of letters has  once   
more destroyed1 this time perhaps for   
ever1 the martial reputation  which     
,italy seemed a few centuries ago to    
have recovered4    ,the ancient         
republics of ,greece1 with that wisdom  
which was so  conspicuous in most of    
their institutions1 forbade their       

citizens  to pursue all those inactive  
and sedentary occupations1 which by     
enervating and corrupting the body      
diminish also the vigour of the  mind4  
,with what courage1 in fact1 can it be  
thought that hunger and  thirst1        
fatigues1 dangers and death1 can be     
faced by men whom the  smallest want    
overwhelms and the slightest difficulty 
repels8 ,with what  resolution can      
soldiers support the excessive toils of 
war1 when they  are entirely            
unaccustomed to them8 ,with what spirits
 can they make  forced marches under    
officers who have not even the strength 
to travel  on horseback8 ,it is no      
answer to cite the reputed valour of all
 the  modern warriors who are so        
scientifically trained4 ,i hear much of 
their  bravery in a day's battle2 but ,i
 am told nothing of how they support    
excessive fatigue1 how they stand the   
severity of the seasons and the         
inclemency of the weather4 ,a little    
sunshine or snow1 or the want  of a few 

superfluities1 is enough to cripple and 
destroy one of our  finest armies in a  
few days4 ,intrepid warriors ,i permit  
me for once to  tell you the truth1     
which you seldom hear4 ,of your bravery 
,i am fully  satisfied4 ,i have no doubt
 that you would have triumphed with     
,hannibal  at ,cann1 and at ,trasimene3 
that you would have passed the ,rubicon 
with ,csar1 and enabled him to enslave  
his country2 but you never would  have  
been able to cross the ,alps with the   
former1 or with the latter to  subdue   
your own ancestors1 the ,gauls4    ,a   
war does not always depend on the events
 of battle3 there is in  generalship an 
art superior to that of gaining         
victories4 ,a man may  behave with great
 intrepidity under fire1 and yet be a   
very had  officer4 ,even in the common  
soldier1 a little more ,strength and    
vigour  would perhaps be more useful    
than so much courage1 which after all is
  no protection from death4 ,and what   
does it matter to the ,state whether    

its troops perish by cold and fever1 or 
by the sword of the enemy8    ,if the   
cultivation of the sciences is          
prejudicial to military  qualities1 it  
is still more so to moral qualities4    
,even from our  infancy an absurd system
 of education serves to adorn our wit   
and  corrupt our judgment4 ,we see1 on  
every side1 huge institutions1 where    
our youth are educated at great expense1
 and instructed in everything  but their
 duty4 ,your children will be ignorant  
of their own language1  when they can   
talk others which are not spoken        
anywhere4 ,they will be  able to compose
 verses which they can hardly           
understand2 and1 without  being capable 
of distinguishing truth from error1 they
 will possess  the art of making them   
unrecognisable by specious arguments4   
,but  magnanimity1 equity1 temperance1  
humanity and courage will be words of   
which they know not the meaning4 ,the   
dear name of country will never  strike 
on their ears2 and if they ever hear    

speak of ,god1#d it will  be less to    
fear1 than to be frightened of ,him4 ,i 
would as soon1 said a  wise man1 that my
 pupil had spent his time in the tennis 
court as in  this manner2 for there his 
body at least would have got exercise4  
,i well know that children ought to be  
kept employed1 and that idleness  is for
 them the danger most to be feared4 ,but
 what should they be  taught8 ,this is  
undoubtedly an important question4 ,let 
them be taught  what they are to        
practise when they come to be men2#e not
 what they  ought to forget4    ,our    
gardens are adorned with statues and our
 galleries with pictures4  ,what would  
you imagine these masterpieces of art1  
thus exhibited to  public admiration1   
represent8 ,the great men1 who have     
defended their  country1 or the still   
greater men who have enriched it by     
their  virtues8 ,far from it4 ,they are 
the images of every perversion of heart 
and mind1 carefully selected from       
ancient mythology1 and presented  to the

 early curiosity of our children1       
doubtless that they may have  before    
their eyes the representations of       
vicious actions1 even before  they are  
able to read4    ,whence arise all those
 abuses1 unless it be from that fatal   
inequality  introduced among men by the 
difference of talents and the cheapening
  of virtue8 ,this is the most evident  
effect of all our studies1 and the  most
 dangerous of all their consequences4   
,the question is no longer  whether a   
man is honest1 but whether he is clever4
 ,we do not ask  whether a book is      
useful1 but whether it is well-written4 
,rewards are  lavished on wit and       
ingenuity1 while virtue is left         
unhonoured4 ,there  are a thousand      
prizes for fine discourses1 and none for
 good actions4  ,i should be glad1      
however1 to know whether the honour     
attaching to the  best discourse that   
ever wins the prize in this ,academy is 
comparable  with the merit of having    
founded the prize4    ,a wise man does  

not go in chase of fortune2 but he is by
 no means  insensible to glory1 and when
 he sees it so ill distributed1 his     
virtue1 which might have been animated  
by a little emulation1 and  turned to   
the advantage of society1 droops and    
dies away in obscurity  and indigence4  
,it is for this reason that the         
agreeable arts must in  time everywhere 
be preferred to the useful2 and this    
truth has been but  too much confirmed  
since the revival of the arts and       
sciences4 ,we have  physicists1         
geometricians1 chemists1 astronomers1   
poets1 musicians1 and  painters in      
plenty2 but we have no longer a citizen 
among us2 or if  there be found a few   
scattered over our abandoned            
countryside1 they are  left to perish   
there unnoticed and neglected4 ,such is 
the condition to  which we are reduced1 
and such are our feelings towards those 
who give  us our daily bread1 and our   
children milk4    ,i confess1 however1  
that the evil is not so great as it     

might  have become4 ,the eternal        
providence1 in placing salutary simples 
beside noxious plants1 and making       
poisonous animals contain their  own    
antidote1 has taught the sovereigns of  
the earth1 who are its  ministers1 to   
imitate its wisdom4 ,it is by following 
this example that  the truly great      
monarch1 to whose glory every age will  
add new lustre1  drew from the very     
bosom of the arts and sciences1 the very
 fountains  of a thousand lapses from   
rectitude1 those famous societies1      
which1  while they are depositaries of  
the dangerous trust of human knowledge1 
are yet the sacred guardians of morals1 
by the attention they pay to  their     
maintenance among themselves in all     
their purity1 and by the  demands which 
they make on every member whom they     
admit4    ,these wise institutions1     
confirmed by his august successor and   
imitated by all the kings of ,europe1   
will serve at least to restrain  men of 
letters1 who1 all aspiring to the honour

 of being admitted  into these          
,academies1 will keep watch over        
themselves1 and endeavour  to make      
themselves worthy of such honour by     
useful performances and  irreproachable 
morals4 ,those ,academies also1 which1  
in proposing prizes  for literary merit1
 make choice of such subjects as are    
calculated to  arouse the love of virtue
 in the hearts of citizens1 prove that  
it  prevails in themselves1 and must    
give men the rare and real pleasure of  
finding learned societies devoting      
themselves to the enlightenment of      
mankind1 not only by agreeable exercises
 of the intellect1 but also by  useful  
instructions4    ,an objection which may
 be made is1 in fact1 only an additional
 proof of  my argument4 ,so much        
precaution proves but too evidently the 
need for  it4 ,we never seek remedies   
for evils that do not exist4 ,why1      
indeed1  must these bear all the marks  
of ordinary remedies1 on account of     
their  inefficacy8 ,the numerous        

establishments in favour of the learned 
are  only adapted to make men mistake   
the objects of the sciences1 and turn   
men's attention to the cultivation of   
them4 ,one would be inclined to  think1 
from the precautions everywhere taken1  
that we are overstocked  with           
husbandmen1 and are afraid of a shortage
 of philosophers4 ,i  will not venture  
here to enter into a comparison between 
agriculture  and philosophy1 as they    
would not bear it4 ,i shall only ask    
,what is  philosophy8 ,what is contained
 in the writings of the most celebrated 
philosophers8 ,what are the lessons of  
these friends of wisdom4 ,to hear  them1
 should we not take them for so many    
mountebanks1 exhibiting  themselves in  
public1 and crying out1 ,here1 ,here1   
come to me1 ,i am  the only true doctor8
 ,one of them teaches that there is no  
such thing  as matter1 but that         
everything exists only in               
representation4 ,another  declares that 
there is no other substance than matter1

 and no other  ,god than the world      
itself4 ,a third tells you that there   
are no such  things as virtue and vice1 
and that moral good and evil are        
chimeras2  while a fourth informs you   
that men are only beasts of prey1 and   
may  conscientiously devour one another4
 ,why1 my great philosophers1 do you    
not reserve these wise and profitable   
lessons for your friends and  children8 
,you would soon reap the benefit of     
them1 nor should we be  under any       
apprehension of our own becoming your   
disciples4    ,such are the wonderful   
men1 whom their contemporaries held in  
the  highest esteem during their lives1 
and to whom immortality has been        
attributed since their decease4 ,such   
are the wise maxims we have  received   
from them1 and which are transmitted1   
from age to age1 to our  descendants4   
,paganism1 though given over to all the 
extravagances of  human reason1 has left
 nothing to compare with the shameful   
monuments  which have been prepared by  

the art of printing1 during the reign of
  the gospel4 ,the impious writings of  
,leucippus and ,diagoras perished  with 
their authors4 ,the world1 in their     
days1 was ignorant of the art  of       
immortalising the errors and            
extravagancies of the human mind4  ,but 
thanks to the art of printing#f and the 
use we make of it1 the  pernicious      
reflections of ,hobbes and ,spinoza will
 last for ever4  ,go1 famous writings1  
of which the ignorance and rusticity of 
our  forefathers would have been        
incapable4 ,go to our descendants1 along
  with those still more pernicious works
 which reek of the corrupted  manners of
 the present age6 ,let them together    
convey to posterity  a faithful history 
of the progress and advantages of our   
arts and  sciences4 ,if they are read1  
they will leave not a doubt about the   
question we are now discussing1 and     
unless mankind should then be still     
more foolish than we1 they will lift up 
their hands to ,heaven and  exclaim in  

bitterness of heart3 ,almighty ,god6    
thou who holdest in ,thy  hand the minds
 of men1 deliver us from the fatal arts 
and sciences of  our forefathers2 give  
us back ignorance1 innocence and        
poverty1 which  alone can make us happy 
and are precious in ,thy sight4    ,but 
if the progress of the arts and sciences
 has added nothing to our  real         
happiness2 if it has corrupted our      
morals1 and if that corruption  has     
vitiated our taste1 what are we to think
 of the herd of text-book  authors1 who 
have removed those impediments which    
nature purposely laid  in the way to the
 ,temple of the ,muses1 in order to     
guard its approach  and try the powers  
of those who might be tempted to seek   
knowledge8  ,what are we to think of    
those compilers who have indiscreetly   
broken  open the door of the sciences1  
and introduced into their sanctuary a   
populace unworthy to approach it1 when  
it was greatly to be wished that  all   
who should be found incapable of making 

a considerable progress in  the career  
of learning should have been repulsed at
 the entrance1 and  thereby cast upon   
those arts which are useful to society4 
,a man who  will be all his life a bad  
versifier1 or a third-rate geometrician1
  might have made nevertheless an       
excellent clothier4 ,those whom nature  
intended for her disciples have not     
needed masters4 ,bacon1 ,descartes  and 
,newton1 those teachers of mankind1 had 
themselves no teachers4  ,what guide    
indeed could have taken them so far as  
their sublime  genius directed them8    
,ordinary masters would only have       
cramped their  intelligence1 by         
confining it within the narrow limits of
 their own  capacity4 ,it was from the  
obstacles they met with at first1 that  
they  learned to exert themselves1 and  
bestirred themselves to traverse the    
vast field which they covered4 ,if it be
 proper to allow some men to  apply     
themselves to the study of the arts and 
sciences1 it is only  those who feel    

themselves able to walk alone in their  
footsteps and to  outstrip them4 ,it    
belongs only to these few to raise      
monuments to the  glory of the human    
understanding4 ,but if we are desirous  
that nothing  should be above their     
genius1 nothing should be beyond their  
hopes4  ,this is the only encouragement 
they require4 ,the soul insensibly      
adapts  itself to the objects on which  
it is employed1 and thus it is that     
great occasions produce great men4 ,the 
greatest orator in the world  was       
,consul of ,rome1 and perhaps the       
greatest of philosophers ,lord          
,chancellor of ,england4 ,can it be     
conceived that1 if the former had  only 
been a professor at some ,university1   
and the latter a pensioner  of some     
,academy1 their works would not have    
suffered from their  situation4 ,let not
 princes disdain to admit into their    
councils those  who are most capable of 
giving them good advice4 ,let them      
renounce the  old prejudice1 which was  

invented by the pride of the great1 that
 the  art of governing mankind is more  
difficult than that of instructing      
them2 as if it was easier to induce men 
to do good voluntarily1 than  to compel 
them to it by force4 ,let the learned of
 the first rank find  an honourable     
refuge in their courts2 let them there  
enjoy the only  recompense worthy of    
them1 that of promoting by their        
influence the  happiness of the peoples 
they have enlightened by their wisdom4  
,it is  by this means only that we are  
likely to see what virtue1 science and  
authority can do1 when animated by the  
noblest emulation1 and working          
unanimously for the happiness of        
mankind4    ,but so long as power alone 
is on one side1 and knowledge and       
,understanding alone on the other1 the  
learned will seldom make great  objects 
their study1 princes will still more    
rarely do great actions1  and the       
peoples will continue to be1 as they    
are1 mean1 corrupt and  miserable4      

,as for us1 ordinary men1 on whom       
,heaven has not been pleased to bestow  
such great talents2 as we are not       
destined to reap such glory1 let  us    
remain in our obscurity4 ,let us not    
covet a reputation we should  never     
attain1 and which1 in the present state 
of things1 would never  make up to us   
for the trouble it would have cost us1  
even if we were  fully qualified to     
obtain it4 ,why should we build our     
happiness on the  opinions of others1   
when we can find it in our own hearts8  
,let us leave  to others the task of    
instructing mankind in their duty1 and  
confine  ourselves to the discharge of  
our own4 ,we have no occasion for       
greater  knowledge than this4           
,virtue6 sublime science of simple      
minds1 are such industry and            
preparation needed if we are to know    
you8 ,are not your principles  graven on
 every heart8 ,need we do more1 to learn
 your laws1 than  examine ourselves1 and
 listen to the voice of conscience1 when

 the  passions are silent8    ,this is  
the true philosophy1 with which we must 
learn to be content1  without envying   
the fame of those celebrated men1 whose 
names are  immortal in the republic of  
letters4 ,let us1 instead of envying    
them1  endeavour to make1 between them  
and us1 that honourable distinction     
which was formerly seen to exist between
 two great peoples1 that the  one knew  
how to speak1 and the other how to act1 
aright4      #a ,it is easy to see the  
allegory in the fable of ,prometheus3   
and it  does not appear that the        
,greeks1 who chained him to the         
,caucasus1 had a  better opinion of him 
than the ,egyptians had of their god    
,theutus4 ,the  ,satyr1 says an ancient 
fable1 the first time he saw a fire1 was
 going  to kiss and embrace it2 but     
,prometheus cried out to him to forbear1
 or  his beard would rue it4 ,it burns1 
says he1 everything that touches it4    
#b ,the less we know1 the more we think 
we know4 ,the peripatetics  doubted of  

nothing4 ,did not ,descartes construct  
the universe with cubes  and vortices8  
,and is there in all ,europe one single 
physicist who does  not boldly explain  
the inexplicable mysteries of           
electricity1 which  will1 perhaps1 be   
for ever the despair of real            
philosophers8    #c ,i am far from      
thinking that the ascendancy which women
 have  obtained over men is an evil in  
itself4 ,it is a present which nature   
has made them for the good of mankind4  
,if better directed1 it might  be       
productive of as much good1 as it is now
 of evil4 ,we are not  sufficiently     
sensible of what advantage it would be  
to society to  give a better education  
to that half of our species which       
governs the  other4 ,men will always be 
what women choose to make them4 ,if you 
wish  then that they should be noble and
 virtuous1 let women be taught what     
greatness of soul and virtue are4 ,the  
reflections which this subject  arouses1
 and which ,plato formerly made1 deserve

 to be more fully  developed by a pen   
worthy of following so great a master1  
and defending  so great a cause4    #d  
,penses philosophiques 7,diderot74    #e
 ,such was the education of the         
,spartans with regard to one of the     
greatest of their-kings4 ,it is well    
worthy of notice1 says ,montaigne1  that
 the excellent institutions of          
,lycurgus1 which were in truth          
miraculously perfect1 paid as much      
attention to the bringing up of  youth  
as if this were their principal object1 
and yet1 at the very seat  of the       
,muses1 they make so little mention of  
learning that it seems as  if their     
generous-spirited youth disdained every 
other restraint1 and  required1 instead 
of masters of the sciences1 instructors 
in valour1  prudence and justice alone4 
,let us hear next what the same writer  
says of the ancient ,persians4  ,plato1 
says he1 relates that the heir to the   
throne was thus brought  up4 ,at his    
birth he was committed1 not to the care 

of women1 but to  eunuchs in the highest
 authority and near the person of the   
king1 on  account of their virtue4      
,these undertook to render his body     
beautiful  and healthy4 ,at seven years 
of age they taught him to ride and go   
hunting4 ,at fourteen he was placed in  
the hands of four1 the wisest1  the most
 just1 the most temperate and the       
bravest persons in the  kingdom4 ,the   
first instructed him in religion1 the   
second taught him to  adhere inviolably 
to truth1 the third to conquer his      
passions1 and the  fourth to be afraid  
of nothing4 ,all1 ,i may add1 taught him
 to be a good  man2 but not one taught  
him to be learned4    ,astyages1 in     
,xenophon1 desires ,cyrus to give him an
 account of his  last lesson4 ,it was   
this1 answered ,cyrus1 one of the big   
boys1 of the  school having a small     
coat1 gave it to a little boy and took  
away from  him his coat1 which was      
larger4 ,our master having appointed me 
arbiter  in the dispute1 ,i ordered that

 matters should stand as they were1 as  
each boy seemed to be better suited than
 before4 ,the master1 however1          
remonstrated with me1 saying that ,i    
considered only convenience1  whereas   
justice ought to have been the first    
concern1 and justice  teaches that no   
one should suffer forcible interference 
with what  belongs to him4 ,he added    
that he was punished for his wrong      
decision1  just as boys are punished in 
our country schools when they forget the
  first aorist of 4 ,my tutor must make 
me a fine harangue1 in  genere          
demonstrative1 before he will persuade  
me that his school is as  good as this4 
#f ,if we consider the frightful        
disorders which printing has already    
caused in ,europe1 and judge of the     
future by the progress of its evils     
from day to day1 it is easy to foresee  
that sovereigns will hereafter  take as 
much pains to banish this dreadful art  
from their dominions1  as they ever took
 to encourage it ,the ,sultan ,achmet1  

yielding to the  importunities of       
certain pretenders to taste1 consented  
to have a press  erected at             
,constantinople2 but it was hardly set  
to work before they  were obliged to    
destroy it1 and throw the plant into a  
well4    ,it is related that the ,caliph
 ,omar1 being asked what should be done 
with the library at ,alexandria1        
answered in these words4 ,if the books  
in the library contain anything contrary
 to the ,alcoran1 they are evil  and    
ought to be burnt2 if they contain only 
what the ,alcoran teaches1  they are    
superfluous4 ,this reasoning has been   
cited by oar men of  letters as the     
height of absurdity2 but if ,gregory the
 ,great had been  in the place of ,omar1
 and the ,gospel in the place of the    
,alcoran1 the  library would still have 
been burnt1 and it would have been      
perhaps the  finest action of his life4 
,a ,,discourse    ,,on ,a ,,subject     
,,proposed ,,by ,,the ,,academy ,,of    
,,dijon3    ,,what ,,is ,,the ,,origin  

,,of ,,inequality ,,among ,,men1 ,,and  
,,is ,,it ,,authorised ,,by  ,,natural  
,,law8    ,non in depravatis1 sed in his
 qua bene secundum naturam se habent1   
considerandum est quid sit naturale4    
,aristotle1 ,politics1 ,bk4 i1 ch4 #b4  
,we should consider what is natural not 
in things which are depraved  but in    
those which are rightly ordered         
according to nature4                    
,,dedication    ,,to ,,the    ,,republic
 ,,of ,,geneva      ,,most ,,honourable1
 ,,magnificent ,,and ,,sovereign        
,,lords1 convinced that  only a virtuous
 citizen can confer on his country      
honours which it  can accept1 ,i have   
been for thirty years past working to   
make myself  worthy to offer you some   
public homage2 and1 this fortunate      
opportunity  supplementing in some      
degree the insufficiency of my efforts1 
,i have  thought myself entitled to     
follow in embracing it the dictates of  
the  zeal which inspires me1 rather than
 the right which should have been my    

authorisation4 ,having had the happiness
 to be born among you1 how could  ,i    
reflect on the equality which nature has
 ordained between men1 and  the         
inequality which they have introduced1  
without reflecting on the  profound     
wisdom by which both are in this ,state 
happily combined and  made to coincide1 
in the manner that is most in conformity
 with natural  law1 and most favourable 
to society1 to the maintenance of public
 order  and to the happiness of         
individuals8 ,in my researches after the
 best  rules common sense can lay down  
for the constitution of a government1   
,i have been so struck at finding them  
all in actuality in your own1  that even
 had ,i not been born within your walls 
,i should have thought  it indispensable
 for me to offer this picture of human  
society to that  people1 which of all   
others seems to be possessed of its     
greatest  advantages1 and to have best  
guarded against its abuses4    ,if ,i   
had had to make choice of the place of  

my birth1 ,i should have  preferred a   
society which had an extent             
proportionate to the limits  of the     
human faculties2 that is1 to the        
possibility of being well  governed3 in 
which every person being equal to his   
occupation1 no one  should be obliged to
 commit to others the functions with    
which he was  entrusted3 a ,state1 in   
which all the individuals being well    
known to  one another1 neither the      
secret machinations of vice1 nor the    
modesty  of virtue should be able to    
escape the notice and judgment of the   
public2 and in which the pleasant custom
 of seeing and knowing one  another     
should make the love of country rather a
 love of the citizens  than of its soil4
    ,i should have wished to be born in 
a country in which the interest of  the 
,sovereign and that of the people must  
be single and identical2 to  the end    
that all the movements of the machine   
might tend always to  the general       
happiness4 ,and as this could not be the

 case1 unless the  ,sovereign and the   
people were one and the same person1 it 
follows that  ,i should have wished to  
be born under a democratic government1  
wisely  tempered4    ,i should have     
wished to live and die free3 that is1 so
 far subject to  the laws that neither  
,i1 nor anybody else1 should be able to 
cast off  their honourable yoke3 the    
easy and salutary yoke which the        
haughtiest  necks bear with the greater 
docility1 as they are made to bear no   
other4    ,i should have wished then    
that no one within the ,state should be 
able  to say he was above the law2 and  
that no one without should be able to   
dictate so that the ,state should be    
obliged to recognise his authority4     
,for1 be the constitution of a          
government what it may1 if there be     
within its jurisdiction a single man who
 is not subject to the law1 all  the    
rest are necessarily at his discretion4 
,and if there be a national  ruler      
within1 and a foreign ruler without1    

however they may divide  their          
authority1 it is impossible that both   
should be duly obeyed1 or  that the     
,state should be well governed4    ,i   
should not have chosen to live in a     
republic of recent institution1  however
 excellent its laws2 for fear the       
government1 being perhaps  otherwise    
framed than the circumstances of the    
moment might require1  might disagree   
with the new citizens1 or they with it1 
and the ,state  run the risk of         
overthrow and destruction almost as soon
 as it came  into being4 ,for it is with
 liberty as it is with those solid and  
succulent foods1 or with those generous 
wines which are well adapted  to nourish
 and fortify robust constitutions that  
are used to them1  but ruin and         
intoxicate weak and delicate            
constitutions to which they  are not    
suited4 ,peoples once accustomed to     
masters are not in a  condition to do   
without them4 ,if they attempt to shake 
off the yoke1  they still more estrange 

themselves from freedom1 as1 by         
mistaking for  it an unbridled license  
to which it is diametrically opposed1   
they  nearly always manage1 by their    
revolutions1 to hand themselves over to 
seducers1 who only make their chains    
heavier than before4 ,the ,roman  people
 itself1 a model for all free peoples1  
was wholly incapable of  governing      
itself when it escaped from the         
oppression of the ,tarquins4  ,debased  
by slavery1 and the ignominious tasks   
which had been imposed  upon it1 it was 
at first no better than a stupid mob1   
which it was  necessary to control and  
govern with the greatest wisdom2 in     
order  that1 being accustomed by degrees
 to breathe the health-giving air of    
liberty1 minds which had been enervated 
or rather brutalised under  tyranny1    
might gradually acquire that severity of
 morals and spirit  of fortitude which  
made it at length the people of all most
 worthy of  respect4 ,i should1 then1   
have sought out for my country some     

peaceful  and happy ,republic1 of an    
antiquity that lost itself1 as it were1 
in  the night of time3 which had        
experienced only such shocks as served  
to  manifest and strengthen the courage 
and patriotism of its subjects2 and     
whose citizens1 long accustomed to a    
wise independence1 were not only  free1 
but worthy to be so4    ,i should have  
wished to choose myself a country1      
diverted1 by a  fortunate impotence1    
from the brutal love of conquest1 and   
secured1 by  a still more fortunate     
situation1 from the fear of becoming    
itself the  conquest of other ,states3 a
 free city situated between several     
nations1  none of which should have any 
interest in attacking it1 while each    
had an interest in preventing it from   
being attacked by the others2  in short1
 a ,republic which should have nothing  
to tempt the ambition  of its           
neighbours1 but might reasonably depend 
on their assistance in  case of need4   
,it follows that a republican ,state so 

happily situated  could have nothing to 
fear but from itself2 and that1 if its  
members  trained themselves to the use  
of arms1 it would be rather to keep     
alive  that military ardour and         
courageous spirit which are so proper   
among  free-men1 and tend to keep up    
their taste for liberty1 than from the  
necessity of providing for their        
defence4    ,i should have sought a     
country1 in which the right of          
legislation  was vested in all the      
citizens2 for who can judge better than 
they of  the conditions under which they
 had best dwell together in the same    
society8 ,not that ,i should have       
approved of ,plebiscita1 like those     
among the ,romans2 in which the rulers  
in the ,state1 and those most           
interested in its preservation1 were    
excluded from the deliberations on      
which in many cases its security        
depended2 and in which1 by the most     
absurd inconsistency1 the magistrates   
were deprived of rights which the       

meanest citizens enjoyed4    ,on the    
contrary1 ,i should have desired that1  
in order to prevent  self-interested and
 ill-conceived projects1 and all such   
dangerous  innovations as finally ruined
 the ,athenians1 each man should not be 
at  liberty to propose new laws at      
pleasure2 but that this right should    
belong exclusively to the magistrates2  
and that even they should use it  with  
so much caution1 the people1 on its     
side1 be so reserved in giving  its     
consent to such laws1 and the           
promulgation of them be attended  with  
so much solemnity1 that before the      
constitution could be upset by  them1   
there might be time enough for all to be
 convinced1 that it is  above all the   
great antiquity of the laws which makes 
them sacred and  venerable1 that men    
soon learn to despise laws which they   
see daily  altered1 and that ,states1 by
 accustoming themselves to neglect their
  ancient customs under the pretext of  
improvement1 often introduce  greater   

evils than those they endeavour to      
remove4    ,i should have particularly  
avoided1 as necessarily ill-governed1 a 
,republic in which the people1 imagining
 themselves in a position  to do without
 magistrates1 or at least to leave them 
with only a  precarious authority1      
should imprudently have kept for        
themselves the  administration of civil 
affairs and the execution of their own  
laws4  ,such must have been the rude    
constitution of primitive governments1  
directly emerging from a state of       
nature2 and this was another of the     
vices that contributed to the downfall  
of the ,republic of ,athens4    ,but ,i 
should have chosen a community in which 
the individuals1  content with          
sanctioning their laws1 and deciding the
 most important  public affairs in      
general assembly and on the motion of   
the rulers1  had established honoured   
tribunals1 carefully distinguished the  
several departments1 and elected year by
 year some of the most  capable and     

upright of their fellow-citizens to     
administer justice  and govern the      
,state2 a community1 in short1 in which 
the virtue of  the magistrates thus     
bearing witness to the wisdom of the    
people1  each class reciprocally did the
 other honour4 ,if in such a case any   
fatal misunderstandings arose to disturb
 the public peace1 even these  intervals
 of blindness and error would bear the  
marks of moderation1  mutual esteem1 and
 a common respect for the laws2 which   
are sure signs  and pledges of a        
reconciliation as lasting as sincere4   
,such are the  advantages1 most         
honourable1 magnificent and sovereign   
lords1 which ,i  should have sought in  
the country in which ,i should have     
chosen to be  born4 ,and if providence  
had added to all these a delightful     
situation1  a temperate climate1 a      
fertile soil1 and the most beautiful    
countryside  under ,heaven1 ,i should   
have desired only1 to complete my       
felicity1 the  peaceful enjoyment of all

 these blessings1 in the bosom of this  
happy  country2 to live at peace in the 
sweet society of my fellow-citizens1    
and practising towards them1 from their 
own example1 the duties of  friendship1 
humanity1 and every other virtue1 to    
leave behind me the  honourable memory  
of a good man1 and an upright and       
virtuous patriot4    ,but1 if less      
fortunate or too late grown wise1 ,i had
 seen myself  reduced to end an infirm  
and languishing life in other climates1 
vainly  regretting that peaceful repose 
which ,i had forfeited in the imprudence
  of youth1 ,i should at least have     
entertained the same feelings in my     
heart1 though denied the opportunity of 
making use of them in my native         
country4 ,filled with a tender and      
disinterested love for my distant       
fellow-citizens1 ,i should have         
addressed them from my heart1 much in   
the following terms4    ,my dear        
fellow-citizens1 or rather my brothers1 
since the ties of  blood1 as well as the

 laws1 unite almost all of us1 it gives 
me  pleasure that ,i cannot think of    
you1 without thinking1 at the same      
time1 of all the blessings you enjoy1   
and of which none of you1  perhaps1 more
 deeply feels the value than ,i who have
 lost them4 ,the  more ,i reflect on    
your civil and political condition1 the 
less can ,i  conceive that the nature of
 human affairs could admit of a better4 
,in all other governments1 when there is
 a question of ensuring the  greatest   
good of the ,state1 nothing gets beyond 
projects and ideas1 or  at best bare    
possibilities4 ,but as for you1 your    
happiness is complete1  and you have    
nothing to do but enjoy it2 you require 
nothing more to be  made perfectly      
happy1 than to know how to be satisfied 
with being so4  ,your sovereignty1      
acquired or recovered by the sword1 and 
maintained  for two centuries past by   
your valour and wisdom1 is at length    
fully  and universally acknowledged4    
,your boundaries are fixed1 your rights 

confirmed and your repose secured by    
honourable treaties4 ,your  constitution
 is excellent1 being not only dictated  
by the profoundest  wisdom1 but         
guaranteed by great and friendly powers4
 ,your ,state enjoys  perfect           
tranquillity2 you have neither wars nor 
conquerors to fear2 you  have no other  
master than the wise laws you have      
yourselves made2 and  these are         
administered by upright magistrates of  
your own choosing4 ,you  are neither so 
wealthy as to be enervated by           
effeminacy1 and thence  to lose1 in the 
pursuit of frivolous pleasures1 the     
taste for real  happiness and solid     
virtue2 nor poor enough to require more 
assistance  from abroad than your own   
industry is sufficient to procure you4  
,in the  meantime the precious privilege
 of liberty1 which in great nations is  
maintained only by submission to the    
most exorbitant impositions1 costs  you 
hardly anything for its preservation4   
,may a ,republic1 so wisely and happily 

constituted1 last for ever1 for  an     
example to other nations1 and for the   
felicity of its own citizens6  ,this is 
the only prayer you have left to make1  
the only precaution  that remains to be 
taken4 ,it depends1 for the future1 on  
yourselves  alone 7not to make you      
happy1 for your ancestors have saved you
 that  trouble71 but to render that     
happiness lasting1 by your wisdom in    
its enjoyment4 ,it is on your constant  
union1 your obedience to the  laws1 and 
your respect for their ministers1 that  
your preservation  depends4 ,if there   
remains among you the smallest trace of 
bitterness  or distrust1 hasten to      
destroy it1 as an accursed leaven which 
sooner  or later must bring misfortune  
and ruin on the ,state4 ,i conjure you  
all to look into your hearts1 and to    
hearken to the secret voice  of         
conscience4 ,is there any among you who 
can find1 throughout the  universe1 a   
more upright1 more enlightened and more 
honourable body  than your magistracy8  

,do not all its members set you an      
example of  moderation1 of simplicity of
 manners1 of respect for the laws1 and  
of  the most sincere harmony8 ,place1   
therefore1 without reserve1 in such     
wise superiors1 that salutary confidence
 which reason ever owes to  virtue4     
,consider that they are your own choice1
 that they justify that  choice1 and    
that the honours due to those whom you  
have dignified are  necessarily yours by
 reflexion4 ,not one of you is so       
ignorant as not to  know that1 when the 
laws lose their force and those who     
defend them  their authority1 security  
and liberty are universally impossible4 
,why1  therefore1 should you hesitate to
 do that cheerfully and with just       
confidence which you would all along    
have been bound to do by your true      
interest1 your duty and reason itself8  
,let not a culpable and pernicious      
indifference to the maintenance  of the 
constitution ever induce you to neglect1
 in case of need1  the prudent advice of

 the most enlightened and zealous of    
your  fellow-citizens2 but let equity1  
moderation and firmness of resolution   
continue to regulate all your           
proceedings1 and to exhibit you to the  
whole universe as the example of a      
valiant and modest people1 jealous      
equally of their honour and of their    
liberty4 ,beware particularly1 as  the  
last piece of advice ,i shall give you1 
of sinister constructions  and venomous 
rumours1 the secret motives of which are
 often more  dangerous than the actions 
at which they are levelled4 ,a whole    
house  will be awake and take the first 
alarm given by a good and trusty        
watch-dog1 who barks only at the        
approach of thieves2 but we hate the    
importunity of those noisy curs1 which  
are perpetually disturbing the  public  
repose1 and whose continual ill-timed   
warnings prevent our  attending to them1
 when they may perhaps be necessary4    
,and you1 most honourable and           
magnificent lords1 the worthy and       

revered  magistrates of a free people1  
permit me to offer you in particular  my
 duty and homage4 ,if there is in the   
world a station capable of  conferring  
honour on those who fill it1 it is      
undoubtedly that  which virtue and      
talents combine to bestow1 that of which
 you have  made yourselves worthy1 and  
to which you have been promoted by your 
fellow-citizens4 ,their worth adds a new
 lustre to your own2 while1 as  you have
 been chosen1 by men capable of         
governing others1 to govern  themselves1
 ,i cannot but hold you as much superior
 to all other  magistrates1 as a free   
people1 and particularly that over which
 you  have the honour to preside1 is by 
its wisdom and its reason superior to   
the populace of other ,states4    ,be it
 permitted me to cite an example of     
which there ought to have  existed      
better records1 and one which will be   
ever near to my heart4  ,i cannot recall
 to mind1 without the sweetest emotions1
 the memory of  that virtuous citizen1  

to whom ,i owe my being1 and by whom ,i 
was often  instructed1 in my infancy1 in
 the respect which is due to you4 ,i see
  him still1 living by the work of his  
hands1 and feeding his soul on the      
sublimest truths4 ,i see the works of   
,tacitus1 ,plutarch and ,grotius1  lying
 before him in the midst of the tools of
 his trade4 ,at his side  stands his    
dear son1 receiving1 alas with too      
little profit1 the tender  instructions 
of the best of fathers4 ,but1 if the    
follies of youth made  me for a while   
forget his wise lessons1 ,i have at     
length the happiness  to be conscious   
that1 whatever propensity one may have  
to vice1 it is  not easy for an         
education1 with which love has mingled1 
to be entirely  thrown away4    ,such1  
my most honourable and magnificent      
lords1 are the citizens1 and  even the  
common inhabitants of the ,state which  
you govern2 such are  those intelligent 
and sensible men1 of whom1 under the    
name of workmen  and the people1 it is  

usual1 in other nations1 to have a low  
and false  opinion4 ,my father1 ,i own  
with pleasure1 was in no way            
distinguished  among his                
fellow-citizens4 ,he was only such as   
they all are2 and yet1  such as he was1 
there is no country1 in which his       
acquaintance would  not have been       
coveted1 and cultivated even with       
advantage by men of the  highest        
character4 ,it would not become me1 nor 
is it1 thank ,heaven1 at  all necessary 
for me to remind you of the regard which
 such men have a  right to expect of    
their magistrates1 to whom they are     
equal both by  education and by the     
rights of nature and birth1 and inferior
 only1 by  their own will1 by that      
preference which they owe to your merit1
 and1  for giving you1 can claim some   
sort of acknowledgment on your side4 ,it
  is with a lively satisfaction ,i      
understand that the greatest candour    
and condescension attend1 in all your   
behaviour towards them1 on that  gravity

 which becomes the ministers of the law2
 and that you so well  repay them1 by   
your esteem and attention1 the respect  
and obedience  which they owe to you4   
,this conduct is not only just but      
prudent2 as it  happily tends to        
obliterate the memory of many unhappy   
events1 which  ought to be buried in    
eternal oblivion4 ,it is also so much   
the more  judicious1 as it tends to make
 this generous and equitable people find
  a pleasure in their duty2 to make them
 naturally love to do you honour1  and  
to cause those who are the most zealous 
in the maintenance of their  own rights 
to be at the same time the most disposed
 to respect yours4    ,it ought not to  
be thought surprising that the rulers of
 a civil  society should have the       
welfare and glory of their communities  
at  heart3 but it is uncommonly         
fortunate for the peace of men1 when    
those  persons who look upon themselves 
as the magistrates1 or rather the       
masters of a more holy and sublime      

country1 show some love for the  earthly
 country which maintains them4 ,i am    
happy in having it in my  power to make 
so singular an exception in our favour1 
and to be able to  rank1 among its best 
citizens1 those zealous depositaries of 
the sacred  articles of faith           
established by the laws1 those venerable
 shepherds of  souls whose powerful and 
captivating eloquence are so much the   
better  calculated to bear to men's     
hearts the maxims of the gospel1 as they
  are themselves the first to put them  
into practice4 ,all the world knows  of 
the great success with which the art of 
the pulpit is cultivated at  ,geneva2   
but men are so used to hearing divines  
preach one thing and  practise another1 
that few have a chance of knowing how   
far the spirit  of ,christianity1       
holiness of manners1 severity towards   
themselves and  indulgence towards their
 neighbours1 prevail throughout the     
whole body  of our ministers4 ,it is1   
perhaps1 given to the city of ,geneva   

alone1  to produce the edifying example 
of so perfect a union between its       
clergy and men of letters4 ,it is in    
great measure on their wisdom1  their   
known moderation1 and their zeal for the
 prosperity of the ,state  that ,i build
 my hopes of its perpetual tranquillity4
 ,at the same time1  ,i notice1 with a  
pleasure mingled with surprise and      
veneration1 how  much they detest the   
frightful maxims of those accursed and  
barbarous  men1 of whom history         
furnishes us with more than one example2
 who1 in  order to support the pretended
 rights of ,god1 that is to say their   
own  interests1 have been so much the   
less greedy of human blood1 as they     
were more hopeful their own in          
particular would be always respected4   
,i must not forget that precious half of
 the ,republic1 which makes the         
happiness of the other2 and whose       
sweetness and prudence preserve its     
tranquillity and virtue4 ,amiable and   
virtuous daughters of ,geneva1  it will 

be always the lot of your sex to govern 
ours4 ,happy are we1  so long as your   
chaste influence1 solely exercised      
within the limits  of conjugal union1 is
 exerted only for the glory of the      
,state and  the happiness of the public4
 ,it was thus the female sex commanded  
at  ,sparta2 and thus you deserve to    
command at ,geneva4 ,what man can be    
such  a barbarian as to resist the voice
 of honour and reason1 coming from  the 
lips of an affectionate wife8 ,who would
 not despise2 the vanities  of luxury1  
on beholding the simple and modest      
attire which1 from the  lustre it       
derives from you1 seems the most        
favourable to beauty8 ,it  is your task 
to perpetuate1 by your insinuating      
influence and your  innocent and amiable
 rule1 a respect for the laws of the    
,state1 and  harmony among the citizens4
 ,it is yours to reunite divided        
families by  happy marriages2 and1 above
 all things1 to correct1 by the         
persuasive  sweetness of your lessons   

and the modest graces of your           
conversation1  those extravagancies     
which our young people pick up in other 
countries1  whence1 instead of many     
useful things by which they might       
profit1 they  bring home hardly         
anything1 besides a puerile air and a   
ridiculous  manner1 acquired among loose
 women1 but an admiration for ,i know   
not  what so-called grandeur1 and paltry
 recompenses for being slaves1 which    
can never come near the real greatness  
of liberty4 ,continue1 therefore1       
always to be what you are1 the chaste   
guardians of our morals1 and the  sweet 
security for our peace1 exerting on     
every occasion the privileges  of the   
heart and of nature1 in the interests of
 duty and virtue4    ,i flatter myself  
that ,i shall never be proved to have   
been mistaken1 in  building on such a   
foundation my hopes of the general      
happiness of the  citizens and the glory
 of the ,republic4 ,it must be          
confessed1 however1  that with all these

 advantages1 it will not shine with that
 lustre1 by  which the eyes of most men 
are dazzled2 a puerile and fatal taste  
for  which is the most mortal enemy of  
happiness and liberty4    ,let our      
dissolute youth seek elsewhere light    
pleasures and long  repentances4 ,let   
our pretenders to taste admire elsewhere
 the  grandeur of palaces1 the beauty of
 equipages1 sumptuous furniture1  the   
pomp of public entertainments1 and all  
the refinements of luxury  and          
effeminacy4 ,geneva boasts nothing but  
men2 such a sight has  nevertheless a   
value of its own1 and those who have a  
taste for it are  well worth the        
admirers of all the rest4    ,deign1    
most honourable1 magnificent and        
sovereign lords1 to receive1  and with  
equal goodness1 this respectful         
testimony of the interest ,i  take in   
your common prosperity4 ,and1 if ,i have
 been so unhappy as to  be guilty of any
 indiscreet transport in this glowing   
effusion of my  heart1 ,i beseech you to

 pardon me1 and to attribute it to the  
tender  affection of a true patriot1 and
 to the ardent and legitimate zeal of  a
 man1 who can imagine for himself no    
greater felicity than to see you  happy4
    ,most honourable1 magnificent and   
sovereign lords1 ,i am1 with the most   
profound respect1    ,your most humble  
and obedient servant and fellow-citizen4
                                        
,j4 ,j4 ,,rousseau4  ,chambry1  ,june   
#ab1 #aged4            ,,preface        
,of all human sciences the most useful  
and most imperfect appears  to me to be 
that of mankind3 and ,i will venture to 
say1 the single  inscription on the     
,temple of ,delphi contained a precept  
more difficult  and more important than 
is to be found in all the huge volumes  
that  moralists have ever written4 ,i   
consider the subject of the following   
discourse as one of the most interesting
 questions philosophy  can propose1 and 
unhappily for us1 one of1 the most      
thorny that  philosophers can have to   

solve4 ,for how shall we know the source
 of  inequality between men1 if we do   
not begin by knowing mankind8 ,and  how 
shall man hope to see himself as nature 
made him1 across all the  changes which 
the succession of place and time must   
have produced in  his original          
constitution8 ,how can he distinguish   
what is fundamental  in his nature from 
the changes and additions which his     
circumstances  and the advances he has  
made have introduced to modify his      
primitive  condition8 ,like the statue  
of ,glaucus1 which was so disfigured by 
time1  seas and tempests1 that it looked
 more like a wild beast than a god1  the
 human soul1 altered in society by a    
thousand causes perpetually  recurring1 
by the acquisition of a multitude of    
truths and errors1  by the changes      
happening to the constitution of the    
body1 and by  the continual jarring of  
the passions1 has1 so to speak1 changed 
in  appearance1 so as to be hardly      
recognisable4 ,instead of a being1      

acting constantly from fixed and        
invariable principles1 instead of  that 
celestial and majestic simplicity1      
impressed on it by its divine  ,author1 
we find in it only the frightful        
contrast of passion mistaking  itself   
for reason1 and of understanding grown  
delirious4    ,it is still more cruel   
that1 as every advance made by the human
 species  removes it still farther from 
its primitive state1 the more           
discoveries  we make1 the more we       
deprive ourselves of the means of making
 the most  important of all4 ,thus it   
is1 in one sense1 by our very study of  
man1  that the knowledge of him is put  
out of our power4    ,it is easy to     
perceive that it is in these successive 
changes in  the constitution of man that
 we must look for the origin of those   
differences which now distinguish men1  
who1 it is allowed1 are as equal  among 
themselves as were the animals of every 
kind1 before physical  causes had       
introduced those varieties which are now

 observable among  some of them4    ,it 
is1 in fact1 not to be conceived that   
these primary changes1 however  they may
 have arisen1 could have altered1 all at
 once and in the same  manner1 every    
individual of the species4 ,it is       
natural to think that1  while the       
condition of some of them grew better or
 worse1 and they  were acquiring various
 good or bad qualities not inherent in  
their  nature1 there were others who    
continued a longer time in their        
original  condition4 ,such was doubtless
 the first source of the inequality of  
mankind1 which it is much easier to     
point out thus in general terms1  than  
to assign with precision to its actual  
causes4    ,let not my readers therefore
 imagine that ,i flatter myself with    
having  seen what it appears to me so   
difficult to discover4 ,i have here     
entered upon certain arguments1 and     
risked some conjectures1 less in  the   
hope of solving the difficulty1 than    
with a view to throwing some  light upon

 it1 and reducing the question to its   
proper form4 ,others may  easily proceed
 farther on the same road1 and yet no   
one find it very  easy to get to the    
end4 ,for it is by no means a light     
undertaking to  distinguish properly    
between what is original and what is    
artificial  in the actual nature of man1
 or to form a true idea of a state which
  no longer exists1 perhaps never did   
exist1 and probably never will  exist2  
and of which1 it is1 nevertheless1      
necessary to have true  ideas1 in order 
to form a proper judgment of our present
 state4 ,it  requires1 indeed1 more     
philosophy than can be imagined to      
enable any  one to determine exactly    
what precautions he ought to take1 in   
order  to make solid observations on    
this subject2 and it appears to me that 
a good solution of the following problem
 would be not unworthy of the           
,aristotles and ,plinys of the present  
age4 ,what experiments would have  to be
 made1 to discover the natural man8 ,and

 how are those experiments  to be made  
in a state of society8    ,so far am ,i 
from undertaking to solve this problem1 
that ,i think ,i have  sufficiently1    
considered the subject1 to venture to   
declare beforehand  that our greatest   
philosophers would not be too good to   
direct such  experiments1 and our most  
powerful sovereigns to make them4 ,such 
a  combination we have very little      
reason to expect1 especially attended   
with the perseverance1 or rather        
succession of intelligence and          
good-will necessary on both sides to    
success4    ,these investigations1 which
 are so difficult to make1 and have been
  hitherto so little thought of1 are1   
nevertheless1 the only means that       
remain of obviating a multitude of      
difficulties which deprive us of  the   
knowledge of the real foundations of    
human society4 ,it is this  ignorance of
 the nature of man1 which casts so much 
uncertainty and  obscurity on the true  
definition of natural right3 for1 the   

idea of  right1 says ,burlamaqui1 and   
more particularly that of natural right1
  are ideas manifestly relative to the  
nature of man4 ,it is then from  this   
very nature itself1 he goes on1 from the
 constitution and state of  man1 that we
 must deduce the first principles of    
this science4    ,we cannot see without 
surprise and disgust how little         
agreement there  is between the         
different authors who have treated this 
great subject4  ,among the more         
important writers there are scarcely two
 of the same  mind about it4 ,not to    
speak of the ancient philosophers1 who  
seem  to have done their best purposely 
to contradict one another on the  most  
fundamental principles1 the ,roman      
jurists subjected man and the  other    
animals indiscriminately to the same    
natural law1 because they  considered1  
under that name1 rather the law which   
nature imposes on  herself than that    
which she prescribes to others2 or      
rather because  of the particular       

acceptation of the term law among those 
jurists2  who seem on this occasion to  
have understood nothing more by it than 
the general relations established by    
nature between all animated  beings1 for
 their common preservation4 ,the        
moderns1 understanding1  by the term    
law1 merely a rule prescribed to a moral
 being1 that is  to say intelligent1    
free and considered in his relations to 
other  beings1 consequently confine the 
jurisdiction of natural law to man1  an 
the only animal endowed with reason4    
,but1 defining this law1 each  after his
 own fashion1 they have established it  
on such metaphysical  principles1 that  
there are very few persons among us     
capable of  comprehending them1 much    
less of discovering them for themselves4
 ,so  that the definitions of these     
learned men1 all differing in everything
  else1 agree only in this1 that it is  
impossible to comprehend the law  of    
nature1 and consequently to obey it1    
without being a very subtle  casuist and

 a profound metaphysician4 ,all which is
 as much as to say  that mankind must   
have employed1 in the establishment of  
society1 a  capacity which is acquired  
only with great difficulty1 and by very 
few  persons1 even in a state of        
society4    ,knowing so little of       
nature1 and agreeing so ill about the   
meaning  of the word law1 it would be   
difficult for us to fix on a good       
definition of natural law4 ,thus all the
 definitions we meet with in  books1    
setting3 aside their defect in point of 
uniformity1 have yet  another fault1 in 
that they are derived from many kinds of
 knowledge1  which men do not possess   
naturally1 and from advantages of which 
they  can have no idea until they have  
already departed from that state4       
,modern writers begin by inquiring what 
rules it would be expedient  for men to 
agree on for their common interest1 and 
then give the name  of natural law to a 
collection of these rules1 without any  
other  proof than the good that would   

result from their being universally     
practised4 ,this is undoubtedly a simple
 way of making definitions1 and  of     
explaining the nature of things by      
almost arbitrary conveniences4    ,but  
as long as we are ignorant of the       
natural man1 it is in vain for us  to   
attempt to determine either the law     
originally prescribed to him1 or  that  
which is best adapted to his            
constitution4 ,all we can know with  any
 certainty respecting this law is that1 
if it is to be a law1 not  only the     
wills of those it obliges must be       
sensible of their submission  to it2 but
 also1 to be natural1 it must come      
directly from the voice of  nature4     
,throwing aside1 therefore1 all those   
scientific books1 which teach us  only  
to see men such as they have made       
themselves1 and contemplating  the first
 and most simple operations of the human
 soul1 ,i think ,i can  perceive in it  
two principles prior to reason1 one of  
them deeply  interesting us in our own  

welfare and preservation1 and the other 
exciting a natural repugnance at seeing 
any other sensible being1 and           
particularly any of our own species1    
suffer pain or death4 ,it is from  the  
agreement and combination which the     
understanding is in a position  to      
establish between these two principles1 
without its being necessary  to         
introduce that of sociability1 that all 
the rules of natural right  appear to me
 to be derived--rules which our reason  
is afterwards  obliged to establish on  
other foundations1 when by its          
successive  developments it has been led
 to suppress nature itself4    ,in      
proceeding thus1 we shall not be obliged
 to make man a philosopher  before he is
 a man4 ,his duties toward others are   
not dictated to him  only by the later  
lessons of wisdom and1 so long as he    
does not resist  the internal impulse of
 compassion1 he will never hurt any     
other man1  nor even any sentient being2
 except on those lawful occasions on    

which  his own preservation is concerned
 and he is obliged to give himself  the 
preference4 ,by this method also we put 
an end to the time-honoured  disputes   
concerning the participation of animals 
in natural law3 for it  is clear that1  
being destitute of intelligence and     
liberty1 they cannot  recognise that    
law2 as they partake1 however1 in some  
measure of our  nature1 in consequence  
of the sensibility with which they are  
endowed1  they ought to partake of      
natural rights so that mankind is       
subjected  to a kind of obligation even 
toward the brutes4 ,it appears1 in fact1
  that if ,i am bound to do no injury to
 my fellow-creatures1 this is less      
because they are rational than because  
they are sentient beings3 and  this     
quality1 being common both to men and   
beasts1 ought to entitle the  latter at 
least to the privilege of not being     
wantonly ill-treated by  the former4    
,the very study of the original man1 of 
his real wants1 and the  fundamental    

principles of his duty1 is besides the  
only proper method  we can adopt to     
obviate all the difficulties which the  
origin of moral  inequality presents1 on
 the true foundations of the body       
politic1 on  the reciprocal rights of   
its members1 and on many other similar  
topics  equally important and obscure4  
,if we look at human society with a calm
 and disinterested eye1 it  seems1 at   
first1 to show us only the violence of  
the powerful and  the oppression of the 
weak4 ,the mind is shocked at the       
cruelty of  the one1 or is induced to   
lament the blindness of the other2 and  
as  nothing is less permanent in life   
than those external relations1 which    
are more frequently produced by accident
 than wisdom1 and which are  called     
weakness or power1 riches or poverty1   
all human institutions  seem at first   
glance to be founded merely on banks of 
shifting sand4 ,it  is only by taking a 
closer look1 and removing the dust and  
sand that  surround the edifice1 that we

 perceive the immovable basis on which  
it  is raised1 and learn to respect its 
foundations4 ,now1 without a serious    
study of man1 his natural faculties and 
their successive development1  we shall 
never be able to make these necessary   
distinctions1 or to  separate1 in the   
actual constitution of things1 that     
which is the  effect of the divine will1
 from the innovations attempted by human
  art4 ,the political and moral         
investigations1 therefore1 to which the 
important question before us leads1 are 
in every respect useful2 while  the     
hypothetical history of governments     
affords a lesson equally  instructive to
 mankind4    ,in considering what we    
should have become1 had we been left to 
ourselves1 we should learn to bless     
,him1 whose gracious hand1  correcting  
our institutions1 and giving them an    
immovable basis1 has  prevented those   
disorders which would otherwise have    
arisen from them1  and caused our       
happiness to come from those very       

sources which seemed  likely to involve 
us in misery4          ,quem te deus    
esse      ,jussit1 et human qu parte    
locatus es in re1      ,disce4          
,persius1 ,satire iii1 #ga4             
,a ,,dissertation    ,,on ,,the ,,origin
 ,,and ,,foundation ,,of ,,the          
,,inequality ,,of ,,mankind      ,it is 
of man that ,i have to speak2 and the   
question ,i am investigating  shows me  
that it is to men that ,i must address  
myself3 for questions  of this sort are 
not asked by those who are afraid to    
honour truth4 ,i  shall then confidently
 uphold the cause of humanity before the
 wise  men who invite me to do so1 and  
shall not be dissatisfied if ,i acquit  
myself in a manner worthy of my subject 
and of my judges4    ,i conceive that   
there are two kinds of inequality among 
the human  species2 one1 which ,i call  
natural or physical1 because it is      
established by nature1 and consists in a
 difference of age1 health1  bodily     
strength1 and the qualities of the mind 

or of the soul3 and  another1 which may 
be called moral or political inequality1
 because  it depends on a kind of       
convention1 and is established1 or at   
least  authorised by the consent of men4
 ,this latter consists of the different 
privileges1 which some men enjoy to the 
prejudice of others2 such as  that of   
being more rich1 more honoured1 more    
powerful or even in a  position to exact
 obedience4    ,it is useless to ask    
what is the source of natural           
inequality1 because  that question is   
answered by the simple definition of the
 word4 ,again1  it is still more useless
 to inquire whether there is any        
essential  connection between the two   
inequalities2 for this would be only    
asking1  in other words1 whether those  
who command are necessarily better than 
those who obey1 and if strength of body 
or of mind1 wisdom or virtue  are always
 found in particular individuals1 in    
proportion to their  power or wealth3 a 
question fit perhaps to be discussed by 

slaves in  the hearing of their masters1
 but highly unbecoming to reasonable and
  free men in search of the truth4      
,the subject of the present discourse1  
therefore1 is more precisely  this4 ,to 
mark1 in the progress of things1 the    
moment at which right  took the place of
 violence and nature became subject to  
law1 and to  explain by what sequence of
 miracles the strong came to submit to  
serve  the weak1 and the people to      
purchase imaginary repose at the expense
 of  real felicity4    ,the             
philosophers1 who have inquired into the
 foundations of society1  have all felt 
the necessity of going back to a state  
of nature2 but not  one of them has got 
there4 ,some of them have not hesitated 
to ascribe  to man1 in such a state1 the
 idea of just and unjust1 without       
troubling  themselves to show that he   
must be possessed of such an idea1 or   
that  it could be of any use to him4    
,others have spoken of the natural right
  of every man to keep what belongs to  

him1 without explaining what  they meant
 by belongs4 ,others again1 beginning by
 giving the strong  authority over the  
weak1 proceeded directly to the birth of
 government1  without regard to the time
 that must have elapsed before the      
meaning  of the words authority and     
government could have existed among men4
  ,every one of them1 in short1         
constantly dwelling on wants1 avidity1  
oppression1 desires and pride1 has      
transferred to the state of nature      
ideas which were acquired in society2 so
 that1 in speaking of the  savage1 they 
described the social man4 ,it has not   
even entered into  the heads of most of 
our writers to doubt whether the state  
of nature  ever existed2 but it is clear
 from the ,holy ,scriptures that the    
first  man1 having received his         
understanding and commandments          
immediately  from ,god1 was not himself 
in such a state2 and that1 if we give   
such  credit to the writings of ,moses  
as every ,christian philosopher ought   

to give1 we must deny that1 even before 
the deluge1 men were ever in  the pure  
state of nature2 unless1 indeed1 they   
fell back into it from  some very       
extraordinary circumstance2 a paradox   
which it would be very  embarrassing to 
defend1 and quite impossible to prove4  
,let us begin then by laying facts      
aside1 as they do not affect the        
question4 ,the investigations we may    
enter into1 in treating this  subject1  
must not be considered as historical    
truths1 but only as  mere conditional   
and hypothetical reasonings1 rather     
calculated to  explain the nature of    
things1 than to ascertain their actual  
origin2  just like the hypotheses which 
our physicists daily form respecting    
the formation of the world4 ,religion   
commands us to believe that1 ,god       
,himself having taken men out of a state
 of nature immediately after  the       
creation1 they are unequal only because 
it is ,his will they should  be so3 but 
it does not forbid us to form           

conjectures based solely on  the nature 
of man1 and the beings around him1      
concerning what might  have become of   
the human race1 if it had been left to  
itself4 ,this  then is the question     
asked me1 and that which ,i propose to  
discuss in  the following discourse4 ,as
 my subject interests mankind in        
general1  ,i shall endeavour to make use
 of a style adapted to all nations1 or  
rather1 forgetting time and place1 to   
attend only to men to whom ,i am        
speaking4 ,i shall suppose myself in the
 ,lyceum of ,athens1 repeating the      
lessons of my masters1 with ,plato and  
,xenocrates for judges1 and the  whole  
human race for audience4    ,o man1 of  
whatever country you are1 and whatever  
your opinions may be1  behold your      
history1 such as ,i have thought to read
 it1 not in books  written by your      
fellow-creatures1 who are liars1 but in 
nature1 which  never lies4 ,all that    
comes from her will be true2 nor will   
you meet  with anything false1 unless ,i

 have involuntarily put in something of 
my  own4 ,the times of which ,i am going
 to speak are very remote3 how much  are
 you changed from what you once were6   
,it is so to speak1 the life of  your   
species which ,i am going to write1     
after the qualities which you  have     
received1 which your education and      
habits may have depraved1 but  cannot   
have entirely destroyed4 ,there is1 ,i  
feel1 an age at which the  individual   
man would wish to stop2 you are about to
 inquire about the  age at which you    
would have liked your whole species to  
stand still4  ,discontented with your   
present state1 for reasons which        
threaten your  unfortunate descendants  
with still greater discontent1 you will 
perhaps  wish it were in your power to  
go back2 and this feeling should be a   
panegyric on your first ancestors1 a    
criticism of your contemporaries1  and a
 terror to the unfortunates who will    
come after you4          ,,the ,,first  
,,part      ,important as it may be1 in 

order to judge rightly of the natural   
state  of man1 to consider him from his 
origin1 and to examine him1 as it  were1
 in the embryo of his species2 ,i shall 
not follow his organisation  through its
 successive developments1 nor shall ,i  
stay to inquire what  his animal system 
must have been at the beginning1 in     
order to become  at length what it      
actually is4 ,i shall not ask whether   
his long nails  were at first1 as       
,aristotle supposes1 only crooked       
talons2 whether  his whole body1 like   
that of a bear1 was not covered with    
hair2 or  whether the fact that he      
walked upon all fours1 with his looks   
directed  toward the earth1 confined to 
a horizon of a few paces1 did not at    
once point out the nature and limits of 
his ideas4 ,on this subject4 ,i  could  
form none but vague and almost imaginary
 conjectures4 ,comparative  anatomy has 
as yet made too little progress1 and the
 observations of  naturalists are too   
uncertain1 to afford an adequate basis  

for any  solid reasoning4 ,so that1     
without having recourse to the          
supernatural  information given us on   
this head1 or paying any regard to the  
changes  which must have taken place in 
the internal1 as well as the external1  
conformation of man1 as he applied his  
limbs to new uses1 and fed  himself on  
new kinds of food1 ,i shall suppose his 
conformation to have  been at all times 
what it appears to us at this day2 that 
he always  walked on two legs1 made use 
of his hands as we do1 directed his     
looks  over all nature1 and measured    
with his eyes the vast expanse of       
,heaven4    ,if we strip this being1    
thus constituted1 of all the            
supernatural gifts  he may have         
received1 and all the artificial        
faculties he can have  acquired only by 
a long process2 if we consider him1 in a
 word1 just as  he must have come from  
the hands of nature1 we behold in him an
 animal  weaker than some1 and less     
agile than others2 but1 taking him all  

round1 the most advantageously organised
 of any4 ,i see him satisfying  his     
hunger at the first oak1 and slaking his
 thirst at the first brook2  finding his
 bed at the foot of the tree which      
afforded him a repast2  and1 with that1 
all his wants supplied4    ,while the   
earth was left to its natural fertility 
and covered with  immense forests1 whose
 trees were never mutilated by the axe1 
it would  present on every side both    
sustenance and shelter for every species
 of  animal4 ,men dispersed up and down 
among the rest1 would observe and       
imitate their industry1 and thus attain 
even to the instinct of the  beasts1    
with the advantage that1 whereas every  
species of brutes was  confined to one  
particular instinct1 man1 who perhaps   
has not any one  peculiar to himself1   
would appropriate them all1 and live    
upon most of  those different foods1    
which other animals shared among        
themselves2 and  thus would find his    
subsistence much more easily than any of

 the rest4    ,accustomed from their    
infancy to the inclemencies of the      
weather and  the rigour of the seasons1 
inured to fatigue1 and forced1 naked and
  unarmed1 to defend themselves and     
their prey from other ferocious         
animals1 or to escape them by flight1   
men would acquire a robust and  almost  
unalterable constitution4 ,the children1
 bringing with them into  the world the 
excellent constitution of their parents1
 and fortifying  it by the very         
exercises which first produced it1 would
 thus acquire  all the vigour of which  
the human frame is capable4 ,nature in  
this case  treats them exactly as       
,sparta treated the children of her     
citizens3  those who come well formed   
into the world she renders strong and   
robust1 and all the rest she destroys2  
differing in this respect from  our     
modern communities1 in which the ,state1
 by making children a burden  to their  
parents1 kills them indiscriminately    
before they are born4    ,the body of a 

savage man being the only instrument he 
understands1 he  uses it for various    
purposes1 of which ours1 for want of    
practice1 are  incapable3 for our       
industry deprives us of that force and  
agility1  which necessity obliges him to
 acquire4 ,if he had had an axe1 would  
he  have been able with his naked arm to
 break so large a branch from a  tree8  
,if he had had a sling1 would he have   
been able to throw a stone  with so     
great velocity8 ,if he had had a ladder1
 would he have been so  nimble in       
climbing a tree8 ,if he had had a horse1
 would he have been  himself so swift of
 foot8 ,give civilised man time to      
gather all his  machines about him1 and 
he will no doubt easily beat the savage2
 but if  you would see a still more     
unequal contest1 set them together naked
  and unarmed1 and you will soon see the
 advantage of having all our  forces    
constantly at our disposal1 of being    
always prepared for every  event1 and of
 carrying one's self1 as it were1       

perpetually whole and  entire about one4
    ,hobbes contends that man is        
naturally intrepid1 and is intent only  
upon attacking and fighting4 ,another   
illustrious philosopher holds  the      
opposite1 and ,cumberland and           
,puffendorf also affirm that nothing  is
 more timid and fearful than man in the 
state of nature2 that he  is always in a
 tremble1 and ready to fly at the least 
noise or the  slightest movement4 ,this 
may be true of things he does not know2 
and ,i  do not doubt his being terrified
 by every novelty that presents itself1 
when he neither knows the physical good 
or evil he may expect from it1  nor can 
make a comparison between his own       
strength and the dangers he  is about to
 encounter4 ,such circumstances1        
however1 rarely occur in a  state of    
nature1 in which all things proceed in a
 uniform manner1 and  the face of the   
earth is not subject to those sudden and
 continual  changes which arise from the
 passions and caprices of bodies of men 

living together4 ,but savage man1 living
 dispersed among other animals  and     
finding himself betimes in a situation  
to measure his strength  with theirs1   
soon comes to compare himself with them2
 and1 perceiving  that he surpasses them
 more in adroitness than they surpass   
him in  strength1 learns to be no longer
 afraid of them4 ,set a bear1 or a wolf1
  against a robust1 agile1 and resolute 
savage1 as they all are1 armed  with    
stones and a good cudgel1 and you will  
see that the danger will  be at least on
 both sides1 and that1 after a few      
trials of this kind1  wild beasts1 which
 are not fond of attacking each other1  
will not be at  all ready to attack man1
 whom they will have found to be as wild
 and  ferocious as themselves4 ,with    
regard to such animals as have really   
more strength than man has adroitness1  
he is in the same situation as  all     
weaker animals1 which notwithstanding   
are still able to subsist2  except      
indeed that he has the advantage that1  

being equally swift of  foot1 and       
finding an almost certain place of      
refuge in every tree1 he  is at liberty 
to take or leave it at every encounter1 
and thus to fight  or fly1 as he        
chooses4 ,add to this that it does not  
appear that any  animal naturally makes 
war on man1 except in case of           
self-defence or  excessive hunger1 or   
betrays any of those violent            
antipathies1 which  seem to indicate    
that one species is intended by nature  
for the food of  another4    ,this is   
doubtless why negroes and savages are so
 little afraid of  the wild beasts they 
may meet in the woods4 ,the ,caraibs of 
,venezuela  among others live in this   
respect in absolute security and without
 the  smallest inconvenience4 ,though   
they are almost naked1 ,francis ,correal
  tells us1 they expose themselves      
freely in the woods1 armed only  with   
bows and arrows2 but no one has ever    
heard of one of them being  devoured by 
wild beasts4    ,but man has other      

enemies more formidable1 against which  
he is not  provided with such means of  
defence3 these are the natural          
infirmities  of infancy1 old age1 and   
illness of every kind1 melancholy proofs
 of  our weakness1 of which the two     
first are common to all animals1 and    
the last belongs chiefly to man in a    
state of society4 ,with regard to       
infancy1 it is observable that the      
mother1 carrying her child always  with 
her1 can nurse it with much greater ease
 than the females of many  other        
animals1 which are forced to be         
perpetually going and coming1  with     
great fatigue1 one way to find          
subsistence1 and another to suckle  or  
feed their young4 ,it is true that if   
the woman happens to perish1  the infant
 is in great danger of perishing with   
her2 but this risk is  common to many   
other species of animals1 whose young   
take a long time  before they are able  
to provide for themselves4 ,and if our  
infancy is  longer than theirs1 our     

lives are longer in proportion2 so that 
all  things are in this respect fairly  
equal2 though there are other rules  to 
be considered regarding the duration of 
the first period of life1  and the      
number of young1 which do not affect the
 present subject4 ,in  old age1 when men
 are less active and perspire little1   
the need for  food diminishes with the  
ability to provide it4 ,as the savage   
state  also protects them from gout and 
rheumatism1 and old age is1 of all      
ills1 that which human aid can least    
alleviate1 they cease to be1  without   
others perceiving that they are no more1
 and almost without  perceiving it      
themselves4    ,with respect to         
sickness1 ,i shall not repeat the vain  
and false  declamations which most      
healthy people pronounce against        
medicine2  but ,i shall ask if any solid
 observations have been made from which 
it may be justly concluded that1 in the 
countries where the art of  medicine is 
most neglected1 the mean duration of    

man's life is less  than in those where 
it is most cultivated4 ,how indeed can  
this be  the case1 if we bring on       
ourselves more diseases than medicine   
can  furnish remedies8 ,the great       
inequality in manner of living1 the     
extreme  idleness of some1 and the      
excessive labour of others1 the easiness
  of exciting and gratifying our sensual
 appetites1 the too exquisite  foods of 
the wealthy which overheat and fill them
 with indigestion1  and1 on the other   
hand1 the unwholesome food of the poor1 
often1 bad  as it is1 insufficient for  
their needs1 which induces them1 when   
opportunity offers1 to eat voraciously  
and overcharge their stomachs2  all     
these1 together with sitting up late1   
and excesses of every kind1  immoderate 
transports of every passion1 fatigue1   
mental exhaustion1 the  innumerable     
pains and anxieties inseparable from    
every condition of  life1 by which the  
mind of man is incessantly tormented2   
these are too  fatal proofs that the    

greater part of our ills are of our own 
making1  and that we might have avoided 
them nearly all by adhering to that     
simple1 uniform and solitary manner of  
life which nature prescribed4  ,if she  
destined man to be healthy1 ,i venture  
to declare that a state  of reflection  
is a state contrary to1 nature1 and that
 a thinking man  is a depraved animal4  
,when we think of the good constitution 
of the  savages1 at least of those whom 
we have not ruined with our spirituous  
liquors1 and reflect that they are      
troubled with hardly any disorders1     
save wounds and old age1 we are tempted 
to believe that1 in following  the      
history of civil society1 we shall be   
telling also that of human  sickness4   
,such1 at least1 was the opinion of     
,plato1 who inferred from  certain      
remedies prescribed1 or approved1 by    
,podalirius and ,machaon  at the siege  
of ,troy1 that several sicknesses which 
these remedies  gave rise to in his     
time1 were not then known to mankind3   

and ,celsus  tells us that diet1 which  
is now so necessary1 was first invented 
by  ,hippocrates4    ,being subject     
therefore to so few causes of sickness1 
man1 in the state  of nature1 can have  
no need of remedies1 and still less of  
physicians3  nor is the human race in   
this respect worse off than other       
animals1  and it is easy to learn from  
hunters whether they meet with many     
infirm  animals in the course of the    
chase4 ,it is certain they frequently   
meet  with such as carry the marks of   
having been considerably wounded1 with  
many that have had bones or even limbs  
broken1 yet have been healed  without   
any ,other surgical assistance than that
 of time1 or any other  regimen than    
that of their ordinary life4 ,at the    
same time their cures  seem not to have 
been less perfect1 for their not having 
been tortured  by incisions1 poisoned   
with drugs1 or wasted by fasting4 ,in   
short1  however useful medicine1        
properly administered1 may be among us1 

it is  certain that1 if the savage1 when
 he is sick and left to himself1 has    
nothing to hope but from nature1 he has1
 on the other hand1 nothing to  fear but
 from his disease2 which renders his    
situation often preferable  to our own4 
,we should beware1 therefore1 of        
confounding the savage man with the  men
 we have daily before our eyes4 ,nature 
treats all the animals left  to her care
 with a predilection that seems to show 
how jealous she  is of that right4 ,the 
horse1 the cat1 the bull1 and even the  
ass are  generally of greater stature1  
and always more robust1 and have more   
vigour1 strength and courage1 when they 
run wild in the forests than  when bred 
in the stall4 ,by becoming domesticated1
 they lose half these  advantages2 and  
it seems as if all our care to feed and 
treat them well  serves only to deprave 
them4 ,it is thus with man also3 as he  
becomes  sociable and a slave1 he grows 
weak1 timid and servile2 his effeminate 
way of life totally enervates his       

strength and courage4 ,to this it may   
be added that there is still a greater  
difference between savage and  civilised
 man1 than between wild and tame beasts3
 for men and brutes  having been treated
 alike by nature1 the several           
conveniences in which  men indulge      
themselves still more than they do their
 beasts1 are so  many additional causes 
of their deeper degeneracy4    ,it is   
not therefore so great a misfortune to  
these primitive men1 nor  so great an   
obstacle to their preservation1 that    
they go naked1 have no  dwellings and   
lack all the superfluities which we     
think so necessary4  ,if their skins are
 not covered with hair1 they have no    
need of such  covering in warm climates2
 and1 in cold countries1 they soon learn
  to appropriate the skins of the beasts
 they have overcome4 ,if they  have but 
two legs to run with1 they have two arms
 to defend themselves  with1 and provide
 for their wants4 ,their children are   
slowly and with  difficulty taught to   

walk2 but their mothers are able to     
carry them  with ease2 advantage which  
other animals lack1 as the mother1 if   
pursued1 is forced either to abandon her
 young1 or to regulate her  pace by     
theirs4 ,unless1 in short1 we suppose a 
singular and fortuitous  concurrence of 
circumstances of which ,i shall speak   
later1 and  which would be unlikely to  
exist1 it is plain in every state of the
  case1 that the man who first made     
himself clothes or a dwelling was       
furnishing himself with things not at   
all necessary2 for he had till  then    
done without them1 and there is no      
reason why he should not have  been able
 to put up in manhood with the same kind
 of life as had been  his in infancy4   
,solitary1 indolent1 and perpetually    
accompanied by danger1 the savage       
cannot but be fond of sleep2 his sleep  
too must be light1 like that of  the    
animals1 which think but little and may 
be said to slumber all the  time they do
 not think4 ,self-preservation being his

 chief and almost  sole concern1 he must
 exercise most those faculties which are
 most  concerned with attack or defence1
 either for overcoming his prey1 or  for
 preventing him from becoming the prey  
of other animals4 ,on the  other hand1  
those organs which are perfected only by
 softness and  sensuality will remain in
 a gross and imperfect state1           
incompatible  with any sort of delicacy2
 so that1 his senses being divided on   
this  head1 his touch and taste will be 
extremely coarse1 his sight1 hearing    
and smell exceedingly fine and subtle4  
,such in general is the animal          
condition1 and such1 according to the   
narratives of travellers1 is that  of   
most savage nations4 ,it is therefore no
 matter for surprise that  the          
,hottentots of the ,cape of ,good ,hope 
distinguish ships at sea1 with  the     
naked eye1 at as great a distance as the
 ,dutch can do with their  telescopes2  
or that the savages of ,america should  
trace the ,spaniards1  by their smell1  

as well as the best dogs could have     
done2 or that  these barbarous peoples  
feel no pain in going naked1 or that    
they use  large quantities of piemento  
with their food1 and drink the strongest
  ,european liquors like water4         
,hitherto ,i have considered merely the 
physical man2 let us now take a  view of
 him on his metaphysical and moral side4
    ,i see nothing in any animal but an 
ingenious machine1 to which nature  hath
 given senses to wind itself up1 and to 
guard itself1 to a certain  degree1     
against anything that might tend to     
disorder or destroy it4  ,i perceive    
exactly the same things in the human    
machine1 with this  difference1 that in 
the operations of the brute1 nature is  
the sole  agent1 whereas man has some   
share in his own operations1 in his     
character as a free agent4 ,the one     
chooses and refuses by instinct1 the    
other from an act of free-will3 hence   
the brute cannot deviate from the  rule 
prescribed to it1 even when it would be 

advantageous for it to do  so2 and1 on  
the contrary1 man frequently deviates   
from such rules to  his own prejudice4  
,thus a pigeon would be starved to death
 by the side  of a dish of the choicest 
meats1 and a cat on a heap of fruit or  
grain2  though it is certain that either
 might find nourishment in the foods    
which it thus rejects with disdain1 did 
it think of trying them4 ,hence  it is  
that dissolute men run into excesses    
which bring on fevers and  death2       
because the mind depraves the senses1   
and the will continues to  speak when   
nature is silent4    ,every animal has  
ideas1 since it has senses2 it even     
combines those  ideas in a certain      
degree2 and it is only in degree that   
man differs1  in this respect1 from the 
brute4 ,some philosophers have even     
maintained  that there is a greater     
difference between one man and another  
than  between some men and some beasts4 
,it is not1 therefore1 so much the      
understanding that constitutes the      

specific difference between the man  and
 the brute1 as the human quality of     
free-agency4 ,nature lays her  commands 
on every animal1 and the brute obeys her
 voice4 ,man receives  the same         
impulsion1 but at the same time knows   
himself at liberty  to acquiesce or     
resist3 and it is particularly in his   
consciousness  of this liberty that the 
spirituality of his soul is displayed4  
,for  physics may explain1 in some      
measure1 the mechanism of the senses    
and the formation of ideas2 but in the  
power of willing or rather of  choosing1
 and in the feeling of this power1      
nothing is to be found but  acts which  
are purely spiritual and wholly         
inexplicable by the laws of  mechanism4 
,however1 even if the difficulties      
attending all these questions  should   
still leave room for difference in this 
respect between men and  brutes1 there  
is another very specific quality which  
distinguishes  them1 and which will     
admit of no dispute4 ,this is the       

faculty of  self-improvement1 which1 by 
the help of circumstances1 gradually    
develops all the rest of our faculties1 
and is inherent in the species  as in   
the individual3 whereas a brute is1 at  
the end of a few months1  all he will   
ever be during his whole life1 and his  
species1 at the  end of a thousand      
years1 exactly what it was the first    
year of that  thousand4 ,why is man     
alone liable to grow into a dotard8 ,is 
it not  because he returns1 in this1 to 
his primitive state2 and that1 while    
the brute1 which has acquired nothing   
and has therefore nothing to  lose1     
still retains the force of instinct1    
man1 who loses1 by age  or accident1 all
 that his perfectibility had enabled him
 to gain1  falls by this means lower    
than the brutes themselves8 ,it would be
  melancholy1 were we forced to admit   
that this distinctive and almost        
unlimited faculty is the source of all  
human misfortunes2 that it is  this     
which1 in time1 draws man out of his    

original state1 in which  he would have 
spent his days insensibly in peace and  
innocence2 that  it is this faculty1    
which1 successively producing in        
different ages  his discoveries and his 
errors1 his vices and his virtues1 makes
 him  at length a tyrant both over      
himself and over nature4#a ,it would be 
shocking to be obliged to regard as a   
benefactor the man who first  suggested 
to the ,oroonoko ,indians the use of the
 boards they apply to  the temples of   
their children1 which secure to them    
some part at least  of their imbecility 
and original happiness4    ,savage man1 
left by nature solely to the direction  
of instinct1 or  rather indemnified for 
what he may lack by faculties capable at
 first  of supplying its place1 and     
afterwards of raising him much above it1
  must accordingly begin with purely    
animal functions3 thus seeing and       
feeling must be his first condition1    
which would be common to him and  all   
other animals4 ,to will1 and not to     

will1 to desire and to fear1  must be   
the first1 and almost the only          
operations of his soul1 till new        
circumstances occasion new developments 
of his faculties4    ,whatever moralists
 may hold1 the human understanding is   
greatly  indebted to the passions1      
which1 it is universally allowed1 are   
also  much indebted to the              
understanding4 ,it is by the activity of
 the  passions that pur reason is       
improved2 for we desire knowledge only  
because we wish to enjoy2 and it is     
impossible to conceive any reason  why a
 person who has neither fears nor       
desires should give himself the  trouble
 of reasoning4 ,the passions1 again1    
originate in our wants1  and their      
progress depends on that of our         
knowledge2 for we cannot  desire or fear
 anything1 except from the idea we have 
of it1 or from  the simple impulse of   
nature4 ,now savage man1 being destitute
 of every  species of intelligence1 can 
have no passions save those of the      

latter  kind3 his desires never go      
beyond his physical wants4 ,the only    
goods  he recognises in the universe are
 food1 a female1 and sleep3 the only    
evils he fears are pain and hunger4 ,i  
say pain1 and not death3 for  no animal 
can know what it is to die2 the         
knowledge of death and its  terrors     
being one of the first acquisitions made
 by man in departing  from an animal    
state4    ,it would be easy1 were it    
necessary1 to support this opinion by   
facts1  and to show that1 in all the    
nations of the world1 the progress  of  
the understanding has been exactly      
proportionate to the wants  which the   
peoples had received from nature1 or    
been subjected to by  circumstances1 and
 in consequence to the passions that    
induced them to  provide for those      
necessities4 ,i might instance the arts1
 rising up in  ,egypt and expanding with
 the inundation of the ,nile4 ,i might  
follow  their progress into ,greece1    
where they took root afresh1 grew up and

  towered to the skies1 among the rocks 
and sands of ,attica1 without  being    
able to germinate on the fertile banks  
of the ,eurotas3 ,i might  observe that 
in general1 the people of the ,north are
 more industrious  than those of the    
,south1 because they cannot get on so   
well without  being so3 as if nature    
wanted to equalise matters by giving    
their  understandings the fertility she 
had refused to their soil4    ,but who  
does not see1 without recurring to the  
uncertain testimony  of history1 that   
everything seems to remove from savage  
man both the  temptation and the means  
of changing his condition8 ,his         
imagination  paints no pictures2 his    
heart makes no demands on him4 ,his few 
wants  are so readily supplied1 and he  
is so far from having the knowledge     
which is needful to make him want more1 
that he can have neither  foresight nor 
curiosity4 ,the face of nature becomes  
indifferent to  him as it grows         
familiar4 ,he sees in it always the same

 order1 the  same successions3 he has   
not understanding enough to wonder at   
the  greatest miracles2 nor is it in his
 mind that we can expect to find  that  
philosophy man needs1 if he is to know  
how to notice for once what  he sees    
every day4 ,his soul1 which nothing     
disturbs1 is wholly wrapped  up in the  
feeling of its present existence1       
without any idea of the  future1 however
 near at hand2 while his projects1 as   
limited as his  views1 hardly extend to 
the close of day4 ,such1 even at        
present1 is the  extent of the native   
,caribean's foresight3 he will          
improvidently sell  you his cotton-bed  
in the morning1 and come crying in the  
evening to  buy it again1 not having    
foreseen he would want it again the next
 night4    ,the more we reflect on this 
subject1 the greater appears the        
distance  between pure sensation and the
 most simple knowledge3 it is impossible
  indeed to conceive how a man1 by his  
own powers alone1 without the aid  of   

communication and the spur of necessity1
 could have bridged so great  a gap4    
,how many ages may have elapsed before  
mankind were in a position  to behold   
any other ,are than that of the heavens4
 ,what a multiplicity  of chances must  
have happened to teach them the         
commonest uses of that  element6 ,how   
often must they have let it out before  
they acquired the  art of reproducing   
it8 and how often may not such a secret 
have died  with him who had discovered  
it8 ,what shall we say of agriculture1  
an  art which requires so much labour   
and foresight1 which is so dependent  on
 others that it is plain it could only  
be practised in a society  which had at 
least begun1 and which does not serve so
 much to draw  the means of subsistence 
from the earth--for these it would      
produce  of itself--but to compel it to 
produce what is most to our taste8 ,but 
let us suppose that men had so          
multiplied that the natural produce of  
the earth was no longer sufficient for  

their support2 a supposition1  by the   
way1 which would prove such a life to be
 very advantageous for  the human race2 
let us suppose that1 without forges or  
workshops1 the  instruments of husbandry
 had dropped from the sky into the hands
 of  savages2 that they had overcome    
their natural aversion to continual     
labour2 that they had learnt so much    
foresight for their needs2 that  they   
had divined how to cultivate the earth1 
to sow grain and plant  trees2 that they
 had discovered the arts of grinding    
corn1 and of  setting the grape to      
ferment--all being things that must have
 been  taught them by the gods1 since it
 is not to be conceived how they  could 
discover them for themselves--yet after 
all this1 what man among  them would be 
so absurd as to take the trouble of     
cultivating a field1  which might be    
stripped of its crop by the first comer1
 man or beast1  that might take a liking
 to it2 and how should each of them     
resolve to  pass his life in wearisome  

labour1 when1 the more necessary to him 
the  reward of his labour might be1 the 
surer he would be of not getting  it8   
,in a word1 how could such a situation  
induce men to cultivate the  earth1 till
 it was regularly parcelled out among   
them2 that is to say1  till the state of
 nature had been abolished8    ,were we 
to suppose savage man as trained in the 
art of thinking as  philosophers make   
him2 were we1 like them1 to suppose him 
a very  philosopher capable of          
investigating the sublimest truths1 and 
of  forming1 by highly abstract chains  
of reasoning1 maxims of reason and      
justice1 deduced from the love of order 
in general1 or the known will  of his   
,creator2 in a word1 were we to suppose 
him as intelligent and  enlightened1 as 
he must have been1 and is in fact found 
to have been1  dull and stupid1 what    
advantage ,would accrue to the species1 
from all  such metaphysics1 which could 
not be communicated by one to another1  
but must end with him who made them8    

,what progress could be made by         
mankind1 while dispersed in the woods   
among other animals8 and how far  could 
men improve or mutually enlighten one   
another1 when1 having no  fixed         
habitation1 and no need of one another's
 assistance1 the same  persons hardly   
met twice in their lives1 and perhaps   
then1 without  knowing one another or   
speaking together8    ,let it be        
considered how many ideas we owe to the 
use of speech2 how  far grammar         
exercises the understanding and         
facilitates its operations4  ,let us    
reflect on the inconceivable pains and  
the infinite space of  time that the    
first invention of languages must have  
cost4 ,to these  reflections add what   
preceded1 and then judge how many       
thousand ages  must have elapsed in the 
successive development in the human mind
 of  those operations of which it is    
capable4    ,i shall here take the      
liberty for a moment1 of considering the
  difficulties of the origin of         

languages1 on which subject ,i might    
content myself with a simple repetition 
of the ,abb ,condillac's                
investigations1 as they fully confirm my
 system1 and perhaps even  first        
suggested it4 ,but it is plain1 from the
 manner in which this  philosopher      
solves the difficulties he himself      
raises1 concerning the  origin of       
arbitrary signs1 that he assumes what ,i
 question1 viz4 that  a kind of society1
 must already have existed among the    
first inventors  of language4 ,while ,i 
refer1 therefore1 to his observations on
 this  head1 ,i think it right to give  
my own1 in order to exhibit the same    
difficulties in a light adapted to my   
subject4 ,the first which presents      
itself is to conceive how language can  
have become necessary2 for  as there was
 no communication among men and no need 
for any1 we can  neither conceive the   
necessity of this invention1 nor the    
possibility  of it1 if it was not       
somehow indispensable4 ,i might affirm1 

with many  others1 that languages arose 
in the domestic intercourse between     
parents and their children4 ,but this   
expedient would not obviate the         
difficulty1 and would besides involve   
the blunder made by those who1 in       
reasoning on the state of nature1 always
 import into it ideas gathered  in a    
state of society4 ,thus they constantly 
consider families as living  together   
under one roof1 and the individuals of  
each as observing among  themselves a   
union as intimate and permanent as that 
which exists  among us1 where so many   
common interests unite them3 whereas1 in
 this  primitive state1 men had neither 
houses1 nor huts1 nor any kind of       
property whatever2 every one lived where
 he could1 seldom for more  than a      
single night2 the sexes united without  
design1 as accident1  opportunity or    
inclination brought them together1 nor  
had they any  great need of words to    
communicate their designs to each other2
 and  they parted with the same         

indifference4 ,the mother gave suck to  
her  children at first for her own sake2
 and afterwards1 when habit had  made   
them dear1 for theirs3 but as soon as   
they were strong enough to  go in search
 of their own food1 they forsook her of 
their own accord2  and1 as they had     
hardly any other method of not losing   
one another  than that of remaining     
continually within sight1 they soon     
became quite  incapable of recognising  
one another when they happened to meet  
again4  ,it is farther to be observed   
that the child1 having all his wants to 
explain1 and of course more to say to   
his mother than the mother could  have  
to say to him1 must have borne the brunt
 of the task of invention1  and the     
language he used would be of his own    
device1 so that the number  of languages
 would be equal to that of the          
individuals speaking them1  and the     
variety would be increased by the       
vagabond and roving life they  led1     
which would not give time for any idiom 

to become constant4 ,for to  say that   
the mother dictated to her child the    
words he was to use in  asking her for  
one thing or another1 is an explanation 
of how languages  already formed are    
taught1 but by no means explains how    
languages were  originally formed4      
,we will suppose1 however1 that this    
first difficulty is obviated4 ,let  us  
for a moment then take ourselves as     
being on this side of the vast  space   
which must lie between a pure state of  
nature and that in which  languages had 
become necessary1 and1 admitting their  
necessity1 let  us inquire how they     
could first be established4 ,here we    
have a new  and worse difficulty to     
grapple with2 for if men need speech to 
learn  to think1 they must have stood in
 much greater need of the art of        
thinking1 to be able to invent that of  
speaking4 ,and though we might  conceive
 how the articulate sounds of the voice 
came to be taken as  the conventional   
interpreters of our ideas1 it would     

still remain for  us to inquire what    
could have been the interpreters of this
 convention  for those ideas1 which1    
answering to no sensible objects1 could 
not be  indicated either by gesture or  
voice2 so that we can hardly form any   
tolerable conjectures about the origin  
of this art of communicating our        
thoughts and establishing a             
correspondence between minds3 an art so 
sublime1 that far distant as it is from 
its origin1 philosophers still  behold  
it at such an immeasurable distance from
 perfection1 that there  is none rash   
enough to affirm it will ever reach it1 
even though the  revolutions time       
necessarily produces were suspended in  
its favour1  though prejudice should be 
banished from our academies or condemned
  to silence1 and those learned         
societies should devote themselves      
uninterruptedly for whole ages to this  
thorny question4    ,the first language 
of mankind1 the most universal and      
vivid1 in a  word the only language man 

needed1 before he had occasion to exert 
his eloquence to persuade assembled     
multitudes1 was the simple cry of       
nature4 ,but as this was excited only by
 a sort of instinct on urgent           
occasions1 to implore assistance in case
 of danger1 or relief in case  of       
suffering1 it could be of little use in 
the ordinary course of life1  in which  
more moderate feelings prevail4 ,when   
the ideas of men began to  expand and   
multiply1 and closer communication took 
place among them1  they strove to invent
 more numerous signs and a more copious 
language4  ,they multiplied the         
inflections of the voice1 and added     
gestures1  which are in their own nature
 more expressive1 and depend less for   
their meaning on a prior determination4 
,visible and movable objects  were      
therefore expressed by gestures1 and    
audible ones by imitative  sounds3 but1 
as hardly anything can be indicated by  
gestures1 except  objects actually      
present or easily described1 and visible

 actions2 as  they are not universally  
useful--for darkness or the             
interposition  of a material object     
destroys their efficacy--and as besides 
they  rather request than secure our    
attention2 men at length bethought      
themselves of substituting for them the 
articulate sounds of the voice1  which1 
without bearing the same relation to any
 particular ideas1 are  better          
calculated to express them all1 as      
conventional signs4 ,such an            
institution could only be made by common
 consent1 and must have been  effected  
in a manner not very easy for men whose 
gross organs had not  been accustomed to
 any such exercise4 ,it is also in      
itself still more  difficult to         
conceive1 since such a common agreement 
must have had  motives1 and speech seems
 to have been highly necessary to       
establish  the use of it4    ,it is     
reasonable to suppose that the words    
first made use of by mankind  had a much
 more extensive signification than those

 used in languages  already formed1 and 
that ignorant as they were of the       
division of  discourse into its         
constituent parts1 they at first gave   
every single  word the sense of a whole 
proposition4 ,when they began to        
distinguish  subject and attribute1 and 
noun and verb1 which was itself no      
common  effort of genius1 substantives  
were at first only so many proper       
names2 the present infinitive was the   
only tense of verbs2 and the very  idea 
of adjectives must have been developed  
with great difficulty2 for  every       
adjective is an abstract idea1 and      
abstractions are painful and  unnatural 
operations4    ,every object at first   
received a particular name without      
regard to  genus or species1 which these
 primitive originators were not in a    
position to distinguish2 every          
individual presented itself to their    
minds in isolation1 as they are in the  
picture of nature4 ,if one oak  was     
called ,a1 another was called ,b2 for   

the primitive idea of two  things is    
that they are not the same1 and it often
 takes a long time  for what they have  
in common to be seen3 so that1 the      
narrower the  limits of their knowledge 
of things1 the more copious their       
dictionary  must have been4 ,the        
difficulty of using such a vocabulary   
could not  be easily removed2 for1 to   
arrange beings under common and generic 
denominations1 it became necessary to   
know their distinguishing  properties3  
the need arose for observation and      
definition1 that is to  say1 for natural
 history and metaphysics of a far more  
developed kind  than men can at that    
time have possessed4    ,add to this1   
that general ideas cannot be introduced 
into the mind  without the assistance of
 words1 nor can the understanding seize 
them except by means of propositions4   
,this is one of the reasons why  animals
 cannot form such ideas1 or ever acquire
 that capacity for  self-improvement    
which depends on them4 ,when a monkey   

goes from one nut  to another1 are we to
 conceive that he entertains any general
 idea of  that kind of fruit1 and       
compares its archetype with the two     
individual  nuts8 ,assuredly he does    
not2 but the sight of one of these nuts 
recalls  to his memory the sensations   
which he received from the other1 and   
his  eyes1 being modified after a       
certain manner1 give information to the 
palate of the modification it is about  
to receive4 ,every general idea  is     
purely intellectual2 if the imagination 
meddles with it ever so  little1 the    
idea immediately becomes particular4 ,if
 you endeavour to  trace in your mind   
the image of a tree in general1 you     
never attain to  your end4 ,in spite of 
all you can do1 you will have to see it 
as great  or little1 bare or leafy1     
light or dark1 and were you capable of  
seeing  nothing in it but what is common
 to all trees1 it would no longer be    
like a tree at all4 ,purely abstract    
beings are perceivable in the same      

manner1 or are only conceivable by the  
help of language4 ,the definition  of a 
triangle alone gives you a true idea of 
it3 the moment you imagine  a triangle  
in your mind1 it is some particular     
triangle and not  another1 and you      
cannot avoid giving it sensible lines   
and a coloured  area4 ,we must then make
 use of propositions and of language in 
order to  form general ideas4 ,for no   
sooner does the imagination cease to    
operate  than the understanding proceeds
 only by the help of words4 ,if then the
  first inventors of speech could give  
names only to ideas they already  had1  
it follows that the first substantives  
could be nothing more than  proper      
names4    ,but when our new grammarians1
 by means of which ,i have no           
conception1  began to extend their ideas
 and generalise their terms1 the        
ignorance  of the inventors must have   
confined this method within very narrow 
limits2 and1 as they had at first gone  
too far in multiplying the names  of    

individuals1 from ignorance of their    
genus and species1 they made  afterwards
 too few of these1 from not having      
considered beings in all  their specific
 differences4 ,it would indeed have     
needed more knowledge  and experience   
than they could have1 and more pains and
 inquiry than  they would have bestowed1
 to carry these distinctions to their   
proper  length4 ,if1 even to-day1 we are
 continually discovering new species1   
which have hitherto escaped observation1
 let us reflect how many of  them must  
have escaped men who judged things      
merely from their first  appearance6 ,it
 is superfluous to add that the         
primitive classes and  the most general 
notions must necessarily have escaped   
their notice  also4 ,how1 for instance1 
could they have understood or thought of
 the  words matter1 spirit1 substance1  
mode1 figure1 motion1 when even our     
philosophers1 who have so long been     
making use of them1 have themselves  the
 greatest difficulty in understanding   

them2 and when1 the ideas  attached to  
them being purely metaphysical1 there   
are no models of them  to be found in   
nature8    ,but ,i stop at this point1  
and ask my judges to suspend their      
reading  a while1 to consider1 after the
 invention of physical substantives1    
which is the easiest part of language to
 invent1 that there is still a  great   
way to go1 before the thoughts of men   
will have found perfect  expression and 
constant form1 such as would answer the 
purposes of  public speaking1 and       
produce their effect on society4 ,i beg 
of them to  consider how much time must 
have been spent1 and how much knowledge 
needed1 to find out numbers1 abstract   
terms1 aorists and all the tenses  of   
verbs1 particles1 syntax1 the method of 
connecting propositions1  the forms of  
reasoning1 and all the logic of speech4 
,for myself1 ,i am  so aghast at the    
increasing difficulties which present   
themselves1  and so well convinced of   
the almost demonstrable impossibility   

that  languages should owe their        
original institution to merely human    
means1  that ,i leave1 to any one who   
will undertake it1 the discussion of    
the difficult problem1 which was most   
necessary1 the existence of  society to 
the invention of language1 or the       
invention of language  to the           
establishment of society4 ,but be the   
origin of language and  society what    
they may1 it may be at least inferred1  
from the little  care which nature has  
taken to unite mankind by mutual wants1 
and to  facilitate the use of speech1   
that she has contributed little to make 
them sociable1 and has put little of her
 own into all they have done  to create 
such bonds of union4 ,it is in fact     
impossible to conceive  why1 in a state 
of nature1 one man should stand more in 
need of the  assistance of another1 than
 a monkey or a wolf of the assistance of
  another of its kind3 or1 granting that
 he did1 what motives could  induce that
 other to assist him2 or1 even then1 by 

what means they  could agree about the  
conditions4 ,i know it is incessantly   
repeated  that man would in such a state
 have been the most miserable of        
creatures2 and indeed1 if it be true1 as
 ,i think ,i have proved1 that  he must 
have lived many ages1 before he could   
have either desire or  an opportunity of
 emerging from it1 this would only be an
 accusation  against nature1 and not    
against the being which she had thus    
unhappily  constituted4 ,but as ,i      
understand the word miserable1 it either
 has  no meaning at all1 or else        
signifies only a painful privation of   
something1 or a state of suffering      
either in body or soul4 ,i should be    
glad to have explained to me1 what kind 
of misery a free being1 whose  heart is 
at ease and whose body is in health1 can
 possibly suffer4 ,i  would ask also1   
whether a social or a natural life is   
most likely to  become insupportable to 
those who enjoy it4 ,we see around us   
hardly a  creature in civil society1 who

 does not lament his existence3 we even 
see many deprive themselves of as much  
of it as they can1 and laws  human and  
divine together can hardly put a stop to
 the disorder4 ,i  ask1 if it was ever  
known that a savage took it into his    
head1 when  at liberty1 to complain of  
life or to make away with himself4 ,let 
us  therefore judge1 with less vanity1  
on which side the real misery is  found4
 ,on the other hand1 nothing could be   
more unhappy than savage  man1 dazzled  
by science1 tormented by his passions1  
and reasoning about  a state different  
from his own4 ,it appears that          
,providence most wisely  determined that
 the faculties1 which he potentially    
possessed1 should  develop themselves   
only as occasion offered to exercise    
them1 in order  that they might not be  
superfluous or perplexing to him1 by    
appearing  before their time1 nor slow  
and useless when the need for them      
arose4  ,in instinct alone1 he had all  
he required for living in the state of  

nature2 and with a developed            
understanding he has only just enough to
  support life in society4    ,it       
appears1 at first view1 that men in a   
state of nature1 having no  moral       
relations or determinate obligations one
 with another1 could  not be either good
 nor bad1 virtuous or vicious2 unless we
 take these  terms in a physical sense1 
and call1 in an individual1 those       
qualities  vices which may be injurious 
to his preservation1 and those virtues  
which contribute to it2 in which case1  
he would have to be accounted  most     
virtuous1 who put least check on the    
pure impulses of nature4  ,but without  
deviating from the ordinary sense of the
 words1 it will  be proper to suspend   
the judgment we might be led to form on 
such a  state1 and be on our guard      
against our prejudices1 till we have    
weighed  the matter in the scales of    
impartiality1 and seen whether virtues  
or vices preponderate among civilised   
men2 and whether their virtues  do them 

more good than their vices do harm2 till
 we have discovered1  whether the       
progress of the sciences sufficiently   
indemnifies them for  the mischiefs they
 do one another1 in proportion as they  
are better  informed of the good they   
ought to do2 or whether they would not  
be1  on the whole1 in a much happier    
condition if they had nothing to fear   
or to hope from any one1 than as they   
are1 subjected to universal  dependence1
 and obliged to take everything from    
those who engage to  give them nothing  
in return4    ,above all1 let us not    
conclude1 with ,hobbes1 that because man
 has no  idea of goodness1 he must be   
naturally wicked2 that he is vicious    
because he does not know virtue2 that he
 always refuses to do his               
fellow-creatures services which he does 
not think they have a  right to demand2 
or that by virtue of the right he truly 
claims to  everything he needs1 he      
foolishly imagines himself the sole     
proprietor  of the whole universe4      

,hobbes had seen clearly the defects of 
all  the modern definitions of natural  
right3 but the consequences which  he   
deduces from his own show that he       
understands it in an equally  false     
sense4 ,in reasoning on the principles  
he lays down1 he ought  to have said    
that the state of nature1 being that in 
which the care  for our own preservation
 is the least prejudicial to that of    
others1  was consequently the best      
calculated to promote peace1 and the    
most  suitable for mankind4 ,he does say
 the exact opposite1 in consequence  of 
having improperly admitted1 as a part of
 savage man's care for                  
self-preservation1 the gratification of 
a multitude of passions which  are the  
work of society1 and have made laws     
necessary4 ,a bad man1 he  says1 is a   
robust child4 ,but it remains to be     
proved whether man in  a state of nature
 is this robust child3 and1 should we   
grant that he  is1 what would he infer8 
,why truly1 that if this man1 when      

robust and  strong1 were dependent on   
others as he is when feeble1 there is no
  extravagance he would not be guilty   
of2 that he would beat his mother  when 
she was too slow in giving him her      
breast2 that he would strangle  one of  
his younger brothers1 if he should be   
troublesome to him1 or  bite the arm of 
another1 if he put him to any           
inconvenience4 ,but that  man in the    
state of nature is both strong and      
dependent involves two  contrary        
suppositions4 ,man is weak when he is   
dependent1 and is his  own master before
 he comes to be strong4 ,hobbes did not 
reflect that  the same cause1 which     
prevents a savage from making use of his
 reason1  as our jurists hold1 prevents 
him also from abusing his faculties1 as 
,hobbes himself allows3 so that it may  
be justly said that savages are  not bad
 merely because they do not know what it
 is to be good3 for it  is neither the  
development of the understanding nor the
 restraint  of law that hinders them    

from doing ill2 but the peacefulness of 
their passions1 and their ignorance of  
vice3 tanto plus in illis  proficit     
vitiorum ignoratio1 quam in his cognitio
 virtutis4#b ,there  is another         
principle which has escaped ,hobbes2    
which1 having been  bestowed on mankind1
 to moderate1 on certain occasions1 the 
impetuosity  of egoism1 or1 before its  
birth1 the desire of self-preservation1 
tempers the ardour with which he pursues
 his own welfare1 by an innate          
repugnance at seeing a fellow-creature  
suffer4#c ,i think ,i need not  fear    
contradiction in holding man to be      
possessed of the only natural  virtue1  
which could not be denied him by the    
most violent detractor  of human virtue4
 ,i am speaking of compassion which is a
 disposition  suitable to creatures so  
weak and subject to so many evils as we 
certainly are3 by so much the more      
universal and useful to mankind1  as it 
comes before any kind of reflection2 and
 at the same time so  natural1 that the 

very brutes themselves sometimes give   
evident proofs  of it4 ,not to mention  
the tenderness of mothers for their     
offspring and  the perils they encounter
 to save them from danger1 it is well   
known  that horses show a reluctance to 
trample on living bodies4 ,one animal   
never passes by the dead body of another
 of its species3 there are even  some   
which give their fellows a sort of      
burial2 while the mournful  lowings of  
the cattle when they enter the          
slaughter-house show the  impressions   
made on them by the horrible spectacle  
which meets them4  ,we find1 with       
pleasure1 the author of the ,fable of   
the ,bees obliged to  own that man is a 
compassionate and sensible being1 and   
laying aside  his cold subtlety of      
style1 in the example he gives1 to      
present us with  the pathetic           
description of a man who1 from a place  
of confinement1  is compelled to behold 
a wild beast tear a child from the arms 
of its  mother1 grinding its tender     

limbs with its murderous teeth1 and     
tearing  its palpitating entrails with  
its claws4 ,what horrid agitation must  
not the eye-witness of such a scene     
experience1 although he would not  be   
personally concerned6 ,what anxiety     
would he not suffer at not being  able  
to give any assistance to the fainting  
mother and the dying infant6    ,such is
 the pure emotion of nature1 prior to   
all kinds of reflection6  ,such is the  
force of natural compassion1 which the  
greatest depravity  of morals has as yet
 hardly been able to destroy6 for we    
daily find  at our theatres men         
affected1 nay shedding tears at the     
sufferings of  a wretch who1 were he in 
the tyrant's place1 would probably even 
add  to the torments of his enemies2    
like the bloodthirsty ,sulla1 who was   
so sensitive to ills he had not caused1 
or that ,alexander of ,pheros  who did  
not dare to go and see any tragedy      
acted1 for fear of being  seen weeping  
with ,andromache and ,priam1 though he  

could listen without  emotion to the    
cries of all the citizens who were daily
 strangled at  his command4             
,mollissima corda      ,humano generi   
dare se natura fatetur1      ,qua       
lacrimas dedit4                         
,juvenal1 ,satire xv1 #aea4d            
,mandeville well knew that1 in spite of 
all their morality1 men would  have     
never been better than monsters1 had not
 nature bestowed on them  a sense of    
compassion1 to aid their reason3 but he 
did not see that  from this quality     
alone flow all those social virtues1 of 
which he  denied man the possession4    
,but what is generosity1 clemency or    
humanity  but compassion applied to the 
weak1 to the guilty1 or to mankind in   
general8 ,even benevolence and          
friendship are1 if we judge rightly1    
only  the effects of compassion1        
constantly set upon a particular object3
 for  how is it different to wish that  
another person may not suffer pain  and 
uneasiness and to wish him happy8 ,were 

it even true that pity is  no more than 
a feeling1 which puts us in the place of
 the sufferer1  a feeling1 obscure yet  
lively in a savage1 developed yet feeble
 in  civilised man2 this truth would    
have no other consequence than to       
confirm my argument4 ,compassion must1  
in fact1 be the stronger1 the  more the 
animal beholding any kind of distress   
identifies himself with  the animal that
 suffers4 ,now1 it is plain that such   
identification  must have been much more
 perfect in a state of nature than it is
 in  a state of reason4 ,it is reason   
that engenders self-respect1 and        
reflection that confirms it3 it is      
reason which turns man's mind back  upon
 itself1 and divides him from everything
 that could disturb or  afflict him4 ,it
 is philosophy that isolates him1 and   
bids him say1 at  sight of the          
misfortunes of others3 ,perish if you   
will1 ,i am secure4  ,nothing but such  
general evils as threaten the whole     
community can  disturb the tranquil     

sleep of the philosopher1 or tear him   
from his  bed4 ,a murder may with       
impunity be committed under his window2 
he has  only to put his hands to his    
ears and argue a little with himself1 to
  prevent nature1 which is shocked      
within him1 from identifying itself     
with the unfortunate sufferer4          
,uncivilised man has not this admirable 
talent2 and for want of reason and      
wisdom1 is always foolishly ready to    
obey the first promptings of humanity4  
,it is the populace that flocks         
together at riots and street-brawls1    
while the wise man prudently makes  off4
 ,it is the mob and the market-women1   
who part the combatants1 and  hinder    
gentle-folks from cutting one another's 
throats4    ,it is then certain that    
compassion is a natural feeling which1  
by  moderating the violence of love of  
self in each individual1 contributes  to
 the preservation of the whole species4 
,it is this compassion that  hurries us 
without reflection to the relief of     

those who are in  distress3 it is this  
which in a state of nature supplies the 
place of  laws1 morals and virtues1 with
 the advantage that none are tempted to 
disobey its gentle voice3 it is this    
which will always prevent a sturdy      
savage from robbing a weak child or a   
feeble old man of the sustenance  they  
may have with pain and difficulty       
acquired1 if he sees a  possibility of  
providing for himself by other means3 it
 is this which1  instead of inculcating 
that sublime maxim of rational justice1 
,do to  others as you would have them do
 unto you1 inspires all men with that   
other maxim of natural goodness1 much   
less perfect indeed1 but perhaps  more  
useful2 ,do good to yourself with as    
little evil as possible to  others4 ,in 
a word1 it is rather in this natural    
feeling than in any  subtle arguments   
that we must look for the cause of that 
repugnance1  which every man would      
experience in doing evil1 even          
independently of  the maxims of         

education4 ,although it might belong to 
,socrates and other  minds of the like  
craft to acquire virtue by reason1 the  
human race  would long since have ceased
 to be1 had its preservation depended   
only  on the reasonings of the          
individuals composing it4    ,with      
passions so little active1 and so good a
 curb1 men1 being rather  wild than     
wicked1 and more intent to guard        
themselves against the  mischief that   
might be done them1 than to do mischief 
to others1 were  by no means subject to 
very perilous dissensions4 ,they        
maintained no  kind of intercourse with 
one another1 and were consequently      
strangers  to vanity1 deference1 esteem 
and contempt2 they had not the least    
idea of meum and tuum1 and no true      
conception of justice2 they  looked upon
 every violence to which they were      
subjected1 rather as an  injury that    
might easily be repaired than as a crime
 that ought to be  punished2 and they   
never thought of taking revenge1 unless 

perhaps  mechanically and on the spot1  
as a dog will sometimes bite the stone  
which is thrown at him4 ,their quarrels 
therefore would seldom have  very bloody
 consequences2 for the subject of them  
would be merely the  question of        
subsistence4 ,but ,i am aware of one    
greater danger1 which  remains to be    
noticed4    ,of the passions that stir  
the heart of man1 there is one which    
makes the sexes necessary to each other1
 and is extremely ardent  and impetuous2
 a terrible passion that braves danger1 
surmounts all  obstacles1 and in its    
transports seems calculated to bring    
destruction  on the human race which it 
is really destined to preserve4 ,what   
must  become of men who are left to this
 brutal and boundless rage1 without     
modesty1 without shame1 and daily       
upholding their amours at the price  of 
their blood8    ,it must1 in the first  
place1 be allowed that1 the more violent
 the  passions are1 the more are laws   
necessary to keep them under restraint4 

,but1 setting aside the inadequacy of   
laws to effect this purpose1 which  is  
evident from the crimes and disorders to
 which these passions daily  give rise  
among us1 we should do well to inquire  
if these evils did not  spring up with  
the laws themselves2 for in this case1  
even if the laws  were capable of       
repressing such evils1 it is the least  
that could be  expected from them1 that 
they should check a mischief which would
 not  have arisen without them4    ,let 
us begin by distinguishing between the  
physical and moral  ingredients in the  
feeling of love4 ,the physical part of  
love is that  general desire which urges
 the sexes to union with each other4    
,the  moral part is that which          
determines and fixes this desire        
exclusively  upon one particular object2
 or at least gives it a greater degree  
of  energy toward the object thus       
preferred4 ,it is easy to see that the  
moral part of love is a factitious      
feeling1 born of social usage1 and      

enhanced by the women with much care and
 cleverness1 to establish their  empire1
 and put in power the sex which ought to
 obey4 ,this feeling1  being founded on 
certain ideas of beauty and merit which 
a savage is  not in a position to       
acquire1 and on comparisons which he is 
incapable  of making1 must be for him   
almost non-existent2 for1 as his mind   
cannot form abstract ideas of proportion
 and regularity1 so his heart  is not   
susceptible of the feelings of love and 
admiration1 which are  even insensibly  
produced by the application of these    
ideas4 ,he follows  solely the character
 nature has implanted in him1 and not   
tastes which  he could never have       
acquired2 so that every woman equally   
answers his  purpose4    ,men in a state
 of nature being confined merely to what
 is physical in  love1 and fortunate    
enough to be ignorant of those          
excellences1 which  whet the appetite   
while they increase the difficulty of   
gratifying  it1 must be subject to fewer

 and less violent fits of passion1  and 
consequently fall into fewer and less   
violent disputes4 ,the  imagination1    
which causes such ravages among us1     
never speaks to the  heart of savages1  
who quietly await the impulses of       
nature1 yield to  them involuntarily1   
with more pleasure than ardour1 and1    
their wants  once satisfied1 lose the   
desire4 ,it is therefore incontestable  
that  love1 as well as all other        
passions1 must have acquired in society 
that glowing impetuosity1 which makes it
 so often fatal to mankind4  ,and it is 
the more absurd to represent savages as 
continually cutting  one another's      
throats to indulge their brutality1     
because this opinion  is directly       
contrary to experience2 the ,caribeans1 
who have as yet  least of all deviated  
from the state of nature1 being in fact 
the most  peaceable of people in their  
amours1 and the least subject to        
jealousy1  though they live in a hot    
climate which seems always to inflame   

the  passions4    ,with regard to the   
inferences that might be drawn1 in the  
case of  several species of animals1 the
 males of which fill our poultry-yards  
with blood and slaughter1 or in spring  
make the forests resound with  their    
quarrels over their females2 we must    
begin by excluding all those  species1  
in which nature has plainly established1
 in the comparative  power of the sexes1
 relations different from those which   
exist among  us3 thus we can base no    
conclusion about men on the habits of   
fighting  cocks4 ,in those species where
 the proportion is better observed1     
these  battles must be entirely due to  
the scarcity of females in comparison   
with males2 or1 what amounts to the same
 thing1 to the intervals during  which  
the female constantly refuses the       
advances of the male3 for if  each      
female admits the male but during two   
months in the year1 it  is the same as  
if the number of females were           
five-sixths less4 ,now1  neither of     

these two cases is applicable to the    
human species1 in  which the number of  
females usually exceeds that of males1  
and among  whom it has never been       
observed1 even among savages1 that the  
females  have1 like those of other      
animals1 their stated times of passion  
and  indifference4 ,moreover1 in several
 of these species1 the individuals  all 
take fire at once1 and there comes a    
fearful moment of universal  passion1   
tumult and disorder among them2 a scene 
which is never beheld  in the human     
species1 whose love is not thus         
seasonal4 ,we must not  then conclude   
from the combats of such animals for the
 enjoyment of  the females1 that the    
case would be the same with mankind in a
 state  of nature3 and1 even if we drew 
such a conclusion1 we see that such     
contests do not exterminate other kinds 
of animals1 and we have no  reason to   
think they would be more fatal to ours4 
,it is indeed clear  that they would do 
still less mischief than is the case in 

a state of  society2 especially in those
 countries in which1 morals being still 
held in some repute1 the jealousy of    
lovers and the vengeance of  husbands   
are the daily cause of duels1 murders1  
and even worse crimes2  where the       
obligation of eternal fidelity only     
occasions adultery1 and  the very laws  
of honour and continence necessarily    
increase debauchery  and lead to the    
multiplication of abortions4    ,let us 
conclude then that man in a state of    
nature1 wandering up  and down the      
forests1 without industry1 without      
speech1 and without  home1 an equal     
stranger to war and to all ties1 neither
 standing in  need of his               
fellow-creatures nor having any desire  
to hurt them1 and  perhaps even not     
distinguishing them one from another2   
let us conclude  that1 being            
self-sufficient and subject to so few   
passions1 he could  have no feelings or 
knowledge but such as befitted his      
situation2  that he felt only his actual

 necessities1 and disregarded everything
  he did not think himself immediately  
concerned to notice1 and that  his      
understanding made no greater progress  
than his vanity4 ,if by  accident he    
made any discovery1 he was the less able
 to communicate  it to others1 as he did
 not know even his own children4 ,every 
art  would necessarily perish with its  
inventor1 where there was no kind of    
education among men1 and generations    
succeeded generations without the  least
 advance2 when1 all setting out from the
 same point1 centuries  must have       
elapsed in the barbarism of the first   
ages2 when the race was  already old1   
and man remained a child4    ,if ,i have
 expatiated at such length on this      
supposed primitive state1  it is because
 ,i had so many ancient errors and      
inveterate prejudices  to eradicate1 and
 therefore thought it incumbent on me to
 dig down to  their very root1 and show1
 by means of a true picture of the state
  of nature1 how far even the natural   

inequalities of mankind are from  having
 that reality and influence which modern
 writers suppose4    ,it is in fact easy
 to see that many of the differences    
which  distinguish men are merely the   
effect of habit and the different       
methods of life men adopt in society4   
,thus a robust or delicate              
constitution1 and the strength or       
weakness attaching to it1 are more      
frequently the effects of a hardy or    
effeminate method of education  than of 
the original endowment of the body4 ,it 
is the same with the  powers of the     
mind2 for education not only makes a    
difference between  such as are cultured
 and such as are not1 but even increases
 the  differences which exist among the 
former1 in proportion to their          
respective degrees of culture3 as the   
distance between a giant and  a dwarf on
 the same road increases with every step
 they take4 ,if we  compare the         
prodigious diversity1 which obtains in  
the education and  manner of life of the

 various orders of men in the state of  
society1  with the uniformity and       
simplicity of animal and savage life1 in
  which every one lives on the same kind
 of food and in exactly the  same       
manner1 and does exactly the same       
things1 it is easy to conceive  how much
 less the difference between man and man
 must be in a state  of nature than in a
 state of society1 and how greatly the  
natural  inequality of mankind must be  
increased by the inequalities of social 
institutions4    ,but even if nature    
really affected1 in the distribution of 
her gifts1  that partiality which is    
imputed to her1 what advantage would the
  greatest of her favourites derive from
 it1 to the detriment of others1  in a  
state that admits of hardly any kind of 
relation between them8  ,where there is 
no love1 of what advantage is beauty8   
,of what use is wit  to those who do not
 converse1 or cunning to those who have 
no business  with others8 ,i hear it    
constantly repeated that1 in such a     

state1 the  strong would oppress the    
weak2 but what is here meant by         
oppression8  ,some1 it is said1 would   
violently domineer over others1 who     
would  groan under a servile submission 
to their caprices4 ,this indeed is      
exactly what ,i observe to be the case  
among us2 but ,i do not see how  it can 
be inferred of men in a state of nature1
 who could not easily  be brought to    
conceive what we mean by dominion and   
servitude4 ,one  man1 it is true1 might 
seize the fruits which another had      
gathered1  the game he had killed1 or   
the cave he had chosen for shelter2 but 
how  would he ever be able to exact     
obedience1 and what ties of dependence  
could there be among men without        
possessions8 ,if1 for instance1 ,i am   
driven from one tree1 ,i can go to the  
next2 if ,i am disturbed in one  place1 
what hinders me from going to another8  
,again1 should ,i happen to  meet with a
 man so much stronger than myself1 and  
at the same time so  depraved1 so       

indolent1 and so barbarous1 as to compel
 me to provide for  his sustenance while
 he himself remains idle2 he must take  
care not to  have his eyes off me for a 
single moment2 he must bind me fast     
before  he goes to sleep1 or ,i shall   
certainly either knock him on the head  
or make my escape4 ,that is to say1 he  
must in such a case voluntarily  expose 
himself to much greater trouble than he 
seeks to avoid1 or can  give me4 ,after 
all this1 let him be off his guard ever 
so little2  let him but turn his head   
aside at any sudden noise1 and ,i shall 
be  instantly twenty paces off1 lost in 
the forest1 and1 my fetters burst       
asunder1 he would never see me again4   
,without my expatiating thus uselessly  
on these details1 every one  must see   
that as the bonds of servitude are      
formed merely by the  mutual dependence 
of men on one another and the reciprocal
 needs that  unite them1 it is          
impossible to make any man a slave1     
unless he be  first reduced to a        

situation in which he cannot do without 
the help  of others3 and1 since such a  
situation does not exist in a state of  
nature1 every one is there his own      
master1 and the law of the strongest  is
 of no effect4    ,having proved that   
the inequality of mankind is hardly     
felt1 and that  its influence is next to
 nothing in a state of nature1 ,i must  
next  show its origin and trace its     
progress in the successive developments 
of the human mind4 ,having shown that   
human perfectibility1 the  social       
virtues1 and the other faculties which  
natural man potentially  possessed1     
could never develop of themselves1 but  
must require the  fortuitous concurrence
 of many foreign causes that might never
 arise1  and without which he would have
 remained for ever in his primitive     
condition1 ,i must now collect and      
consider the different accidents  which 
may have improved the human             
understanding while depraving the       
species1 and made man wicked while      

making him sociable2 so as to bring  him
 and the world from that distant period 
to the point at which we now  behold    
them4    ,i confess that1 as the events 
,i am going to describe might have      
happened in various ways1 ,i have       
nothing to determine my choice but      
conjectures3 but such conjectures become
 reasons1 when they are the  most       
probable that can be drawn from the     
nature of things1 and the only  means of
 discovering the truth4 ,the            
consequences1 however1 which ,i mean  to
 deduce will not be barely conjectural2 
as1 on the principles just  laid down1  
it would be impossible to form any other
 theory that would  not furnish the same
 results1 and from which ,i could not   
draw the same  conclusions4    ,this    
will be a sufficient apology for my not 
dwelling on the manner in  which the    
lapse of time compensates for the little
 probability in the  events2 on the     
surprising power of trivial causes1 when
 their action is  constant2 on the      

impossibility1 on the one hand1 of      
destroying certain  hypotheses1 though  
on the other we cannot give them the    
certainty of  known matters of fact2 on 
its being within the province of        
history1  when two facts are given as   
real1 and have to be connected by a     
series  of intermediate facts1 which are
 unknown or supposed to be so1 to       
supply such facts as may connect them2  
and on its being in the province  of    
philosophy when history is silent1 to   
determine similar facts to  serve the   
same end2 and lastly1 on the influence  
of similarity1 which1  in the case of   
events1 reduces the facts to a much     
smaller number of  different classes    
than is commonly imagined4 ,it is enough
 for me to  offer these hints to the    
consideration of my judges1 and to have 
so  arranged that the general reader has
 no need to consider them at all4       
#a ,see ,appendix4    #b ,justin4 ,hist1
 ii1 #b4 ,so much more does the         
ignorance of vice profit  the one sort  

than the knowledge of virtue the other4 
#c ,egoism must not be confused with    
self-respect3 for they differ both  in  
themselves and in their effects4        
,self-respect is a natural feeling      
which leads every animal to look to its 
own preservation1 and which1  guided in 
man by reason and modified by           
compassion1 creates humanity  and       
virtue4 ,egoism is a purely relative and
 factitious feeling1 which  arises in   
the state of society1 leads each        
individual to make more of  himself than
 of any other1 causes all the mutual    
damage men inflict one  on another1 and 
is the real source of the sense of      
honour4 ,this being  understood1 ,i     
maintain that1 in our primitive         
condition1 in the true  state of nature1
 egoism did not exist2 for as each man  
regarded himself  as the only observer  
of his actions1 the only being in the   
universe who  took any interest in him1 
and the sole judge of his deserts1 no   
feeling  arising from comparisons he    

could not be led to make could take root
  in his soul2 and for the same reason1 
he could know neither hatred nor  the   
desire for revenge1 since these passions
 can spring only from a  sense of       
injury3 and as it is the contempt or the
 intention to hurt1  and not the harm   
done1 which constitutes the injury1 men 
who neither  valued nor compared        
themselves could do one another much    
violence1 when  it suited them1 without 
feeling any sense of injury4 ,in a word1
 each  man1 regarding his fellows almost
 as he regarded animals of different    
species1 might seize the prey of a      
weaker or yield up his own to a         
stronger1 and yet consider these acts of
 violence as mere natural  occurrences1 
without the slightest emotion of        
insolence or despite1 or  any other     
feeling than the joy or grief of success
 or failure4    #d ,nature avows she    
gave the human race the softest hearts1 
who gave   them tears4          ,,the   
,,second ,,part      ,the first man who1

 having enclosed a piece of ground1     
bethought himself  of saying ,this is   
mine1 and found people simple enough to 
believe  him1 was the real founder of   
civil society4 ,from how many crimes1   
wars  and murders1 from how many horrors
 and misfortunes might not any one  have
 saved mankind1 by pulling up the       
stakes1 or filling up the ditch1  and   
crying to his fellows1 ,beware of       
listening to this impostor2 you  are    
undone if you once forget that the      
fruits of the earth1 belong to  us all1 
and the earth itself to nobody4 ,but    
there is great probability  that things 
had then already come to such a pitch1  
that they could no  longer continue as  
they were2 for the idea of property     
depends on many  prior ideas1 which     
could only be acquired successively1 and
 cannot have  been formed all at once in
 the human mind4    ,mankind must have  
made very considerable progress1 and    
acquired  considerable knowledge and    
industry which they must also have      

transmitted and increased from age to   
age1 before they arrived at this  last  
point of the state of nature4 ,let us   
then go farther back and  endeavour to  
unify under a single point of view that 
slow succession of  events and          
discoveries in the most natural order4  
,man's first feeling was that of his own
 existence1 and his first care  that of 
self-preservation4 ,the produce of the  
earth furnished him  with all he needed1
 and instinct told him how to use it4   
,hunger and  other appetites made him at
 various times experience various modes 
of  existence2 and among these was one  
which urged him to propagate his        
species--a blind propensity that1 having
 nothing to do with the heart1  produced
 a merely animal act4 ,the want once    
gratified1 the two sexes  knew each     
other no more2 and even the offspring   
was nothing to its  mother1 as soon as  
it could do without her4    ,such was   
the condition of infant man2 the life of
 an animal limited  at first to mere    

sensations1 and hardly profiting by the 
gifts nature  bestowed on him1 much less
 capable of entertaining a thought of   
forcing  anything from her4 ,but        
difficulties soon presented themselves1 
and  it became necessary to learn how to
 surmount them3 the height of the       
trees1 which prevented him from         
gathering their fruits1 the competition 
of other animals desirous of the same   
fruits1 and the ferocity of those  who  
needed them for their own preservation1 
all obliged him to apply  himself to    
bodily exercises4 ,he had to be active1 
swift of foot1 and  vigorous in light4  
,natural weapons1 stones and sticks1    
were easily  found3 he learnt to        
surmount the obstacles of nature1 to    
contend in  case of necessity with other
 animals1 and to dispute for the means  
of  subsistence even with other men1 or 
to indemnify himself for what he  was   
forced to give up to a stronger4    ,in 
proportion as the human race grew more  
numerous1 men's cares  increased4 ,the  

difference of soils1 climates and       
seasons1 must have  introduced some     
differences into their manner of living4
 ,barren years1  long and sharp winters1
 scorching summers which parched the    
fruits of  the earth1 must have demanded
 a new industry4 ,on the sea-shore and  
the  banks of rivers1 they invented the 
hook and line1 and became fishermen  and
 eaters of fish4 ,in the forests they   
made bows and arrows1 and  became       
huntsmen and warriors4 ,in cold         
countries they clothed themselves  with 
the skins of the beasts they had slain4 
,the lightning1 a volcano1  or some     
lucky chance acquainted them with fire1 
a new resource against  the rigours of  
winter3 they next learned how to        
preserve this element1  then how to     
reproduce it1 and finally how to prepare
 with it the flesh  of animals which    
before they had eaten raw4    ,this     
repeated relevance of various beings to 
himself1 and one to  another1 would     
naturally give rise in the human mind to

 the perceptions  of certain relations  
between them4 ,thus the relations which 
we denote  by the terms1 great1 small1  
strong1 weak1 swift1 slow1 fearful1     
bold1  and the like1 almost insensibly  
compared at need1 must have at length   
produced in him a kind of reflection1 or
 rather a mechanical prudence1  which   
would indicate to him the precautions   
most necessary to his  security4    ,the
 new intelligence which resulted from   
this development increased his          
superiority over other animals1 by      
making him sensible of it4 ,he would    
now endeavour1 therefore1 to ensnare    
them1 would play them a thousand        
tricks1 and though many of them might   
surpass him in swiftness or in          
strength1 would in time become the      
master of some and the scourge of       
others4 ,thus1 the first time he looked 
into himself1 he felt the first  emotion
 of pride2 and1 at a time when he scarce
 knew how to distinguish  the different 
orders of beings1 by looking upon his   

species as of the  highest order1 he    
prepared the way for assuming           
pre-eminence as an  individual4         
,other men1 it is true1 were not then to
 him what they now are to us1  and he   
had no greater intercourse with them    
than with other animals2  yet they were 
not neglected in his observations4 ,the 
conformities1  which he would in time   
discover between them1 and between      
himself and  his female1 led him to     
judge of others which were not then     
perceptible2  and finding that they all 
behaved as he himself would have done in
 like  circumstances1 he naturally      
inferred that their manner of thinking  
and acting was altogether in conformity 
with his own4 ,this important  truth1   
once deeply impressed on his mind1 must 
have induced him1 from  an intuitive    
feeling more certain and much more rapid
 than any kind of  reasoning1 to pursue 
the rules of conduct1 which he had best 
observe  towards them1 for his own      
security and advantage4    ,taught by   

experience that the love of well-being  
is the sole motive of  human actions1 he
 found himself in a position to         
distinguish the few  cases1 in which    
mutual interest might justify him in    
relying upon the  assistance of his     
fellows2 and also the still fewer cases 
in which a  conflict of interests might 
give cause to suspect them4 ,in the     
former  case1 he joined in the same herd
 with them1 or at most in some kind of  
loose association1 that laid no         
restraint on its members1 and lasted no 
longer than the transitory occasion that
 formed it4 ,in the latter case1  every 
one sought his own private advantage1   
either by open force1 if he  thought    
himself strong enough1 or by address and
 cunning1 if he felt  himself the       
weaker4    ,in this manner1 men may have
 insensibly acquired some gross ideas of
  mutual undertakings1 and of the       
advantages of fulfilling them3 that  is1
 just so far as their present and       
apparent interest was concerned3  for   

they were perfect strangers to          
foresight1 and were so far from         
troubling themselves about the distant  
future1 that they hardly thought  of the
 morrow4 ,if a deer was to be taken1    
every one saw that1 in  order to        
succeed1 he must abide faithfully by his
 post3 but if a hare  happened to come  
within the reach of any one of them1 it 
is not to be  doubted that he pursued it
 without scruple1 and1 having seized his
  prey1 cared very little1 if by so     
doing he caused his companions to  miss 
theirs4    ,it is easy to understand    
that such intercourse would not require 
a  language much more refined than that 
of rooks or monkeys1 who associate      
together for much the same1 purpose4    
,inarticulate cries1 plenty of  gestures
 and some imitative sounds1 must have   
been for a long time the  universal     
language2 and by the addition1 in every 
country1 of some  conventional          
articulate sounds 7of which1 as ,i have 
already intimated1  the first           

institution is not too easy to explain7 
particular languages  were produced2 but
 these were rude and imperfect1 and     
nearly such as  now to be found among   
some savage nations4    ,hurried on by  
the rapidity of time1 by the abundance  
of things ,i have  to say1 and by the   
almost insensible progress of things in 
their  beginnings1 ,i pass over in an   
instant a multitude of ages2 for the    
slower the events were in their         
succession1 the more rapidly may they   
be described4    ,these first advances  
enabled men to make others with greater 
rapidity4  ,in proportion as they grew  
enlightened1 they grew industrious4     
,they  ceased to fall asleep under the  
first tree1 or in the first cave that   
afforded them shelter2 they invented    
several kinds of implements of  hard and
 sharp stones1 which they used to dig up
 the earth1 and to  cut wood2 they then 
made huts out of branches1 and          
afterwards learnt  to plaster them over 
with mud and clay4 ,this was the epoch  

of a  first revolution1 which           
established and distinguished families1 
and  introduced a kind of property1 in  
itself the source of a thousand         
quarrels and conflicts4 ,as1 however1   
the strongest were probably the  first  
to build themselves huts which they felt
 themselves able to  defend1 it may be  
concluded that the weak found it much   
easier and  safer to imitate1 than to   
attempt to dislodge them3 and of those  
who were once provided with huts1 none  
could have any inducement to            
appropriate that of his neighbour2 not  
indeed so much because it did  not      
belong to him1 as because it could be of
 no use1 and he could not  make himself 
master of it without exposing himself to
 a desperate  battle with the family    
which occupied it4    ,the first        
expansions of the human heart were the  
effects of a novel  situation1 which    
united husbands and wives1 fathers and  
children1 under  one roof4 ,the habit of
 living together soon gave rise to the  

finest  feelings known to humanity1     
conjugal love and paternal affection4   
,every  family became a little society1 
the more united because liberty--and    
reciprocal attachment were the only     
bonds of its union4 ,the sexes1  whose  
manner of life had been hitherto the    
same1 began now to adopt  different ways
 of living4 ,the women became more      
sedentary1 and  accustomed themselves to
 mind the hut and their children1 while 
the  men went abroad in search of their 
common subsistence4 ,from living a      
softer life1 both sexes also began to   
lose something of their strength  and   
ferocity3 but1 if individuals became to 
some extent less able to  encounter wild
 beasts separately1 they found it1 on   
the other hand1  easier to assemble and 
resist in common4    ,the simplicity and
 solitude of man's life in this new     
condition1 the  paucity of his wants1   
and the implements he had invented to   
satisfy  them1 left him a great deal of 
leisure1 which he employed to furnish   

himself with many conveniences unknown  
to his fathers3 and this was the  first 
yoke he inadvertently imposed on        
himself1 and the first source  of the   
evils he prepared for his descendants4  
,for1 besides continuing  thus to       
enervate both body and mind1 these      
conveniences lost with use  almost all  
their power to please1 and even         
degenerated into real needs1  till the  
want of them became far more            
disagreeable than the possession  of    
them had been pleasant4 ,men would have 
been unhappy at the loss of  them1      
though the possession did not make them 
happy4    ,we can here see a little     
better how the use of speech became     
established1 and insensibly improved in 
each family1 and we may form  a         
conjecture also concerning the manner in
 which various causes may  have extended
 and accelerated the progress of        
language1 by making it  more and more   
necessary4 ,floods or earthquakes       
surrounded inhabited  districts with    

precipices or waters3 revolutions of the
 globe tore off  portions from the      
continent1 and made them islands4 ,it is
 readily seen  that among men thus      
collected and compelled to live         
together1 a common  idiom must have     
arisen much more easily than among those
 who still  wandered through the forests
 of the continent4 ,thus it is very     
possible  that after their first essays 
in navigation the islanders brought over
  the use of speech to the continent3   
and it is at least very probable  that  
communities and languages were first    
established in islands1 and  even came  
to perfection there before they were    
known on the mainland4    ,everything   
now begins to change its aspect4 ,men1  
who have up to now  been roving in the  
woods1 by taking to a more settled      
manner of life1  come gradually         
together1 form separate bodies1 and at  
length in every  country arises a       
distinct nation1 united in character and
 manners1  not by regulations or laws1  

but by uniformity of life and food1 and 
the common influence of climate4        
,permanent neighbourhood could not  fail
 to produce1 in time1 some connection   
between different families4  ,among     
young people of opposite sexes1 living  
in neighbouring huts1  the transient    
commerce required by nature soon led1   
through mutual  intercourse1 to another 
kind not less agreeable1 and more       
permanent4  ,men began now to take the  
difference between objects into account1
  and to make comparisons2 they acquired
 imperceptibly the ideas of  beauty and 
merit1 which soon gave rise to feelings 
of preference4 ,in  consequence of      
seeing each other often1 they could not 
do without  seeing each other           
constantly4 ,a tender and pleasant      
feeling insinuated  itself into their   
souls1 and the least opposition turned  
it into an  impetuous fury3 with love   
arose jealousy2 discord triumphed1 and  
human  blood was sacrificed to the      
gentlest of all passions4    ,as ideas  

and feelings succeeded one another1 and 
heart and head  were brought into play1 
men continued to lay aside their        
original  wildness2 their private       
connections became every day more       
intimate  as their limits extended4     
,they accustomed themselves to assemble 
before their huts round a large tree2   
singing and dancing1 the true  offspring
 of love and leisure1 became the        
amusement1 or rather the  occupation1 of
 men and women thus assembled together  
with nothing  else to do4 ,each one     
began to consider the rest1 and to wish 
to be  considered in turn2 and thus     
a--value came to be attached to public  
esteem4 ,whoever sang or danced best1   
whoever was the handsomest1 the         
strongest1 the most dexterous1 or the   
most eloquent1 came to be of  most      
consideration2 and this was the first   
step towards inequality1  and at the    
same time towards vice4 ,from these     
first distinctions arose  on the one    
side vanity and contempt and on the     

other shame and envy3  and the          
fermentation caused by these new leavens
 ended by producing  combinations fatal 
to innocence and happiness4    ,as soon 
as men began to value one another1 and  
the idea of  consideration had got a    
footing in the mind1 every one put in   
his claim  to it1 and it became         
impossible to refuse it to any with     
impunity4  ,hence arose the first       
obligations of civility even among      
savages2 and  every intended injury     
became an affront2 because1 besides the 
hurt  which might result from it1 the   
party injured was certain to find in it 
a contempt for his person1 which was    
often more insupportable than the  hurt 
itself4    ,thus1 as every man punished 
the contempt shown him by others1 in    
proportion to his opinion of himself1   
revenge became terrible1 and men  bloody
 and cruel4 ,this is precisely the state
 reached by most of the  savage nations 
known to us3 and it is for want of      
having made a proper  distinction in our

 ideas1 and seen how very far they      
already are from  the state of nature1  
that so many writers have hastily       
concluded that  man is naturally cruel1 
and requires civil institutions to make 
him  more mild2 whereas nothing is more 
gentle than man in his primitive  state1
 as he is placed by nature at an equal  
distance from the  stupidity of brutes1 
and the fatal ingenuity of civilised    
man4 ,equally  confined by instinct and 
reason to the sole care of guarding     
himself  against the mischiefs which    
threaten him1 he is restrained by       
natural  compassion from doing any      
injury to others1 and is not led to do  
such a  thing even in return for        
injuries received4 ,for1 according to   
the axiom  of the wise ,locke1 ,there   
can be no injury1 where there is no     
property4    ,but it must be remarked   
that the society thus formed1 and the   
relations  thus established among men1  
required of them qualities different    
from  those which they possessed from   

their primitive constitution4 ,morality 
began to appear in human actions1 and   
every one1 before the institution  of   
law1 was the only judge and avenger of  
the injuries done him1 so  that the     
goodness which was suitable in the pure 
state of nature was  no longer proper in
 the new-born state of society4         
,punishments had  to be made more       
severe1 as opportunities of offending   
became more  frequent1 and the dread of 
vengeance had to take the place of the  
rigour of the law4 ,thus1 though men had
 become less patient1 and their  natural
 compassion had already suffered some   
diminution1 this period  of expansion of
 the human faculties1 keeping a just    
mean between the  indolence of the      
primitive state and the petulant        
activity of our  egoism1 must have been 
the happiest and most stable of epochs4 
,the  more we reflect on it1 the more we
 shall find that this state was the     
least subject to revolutions1 and       
altogether the very best man could      

experience2 so that he can have departed
 from it only through some  fatal       
accident1 which1 for the public good1   
should never have happened4  ,the       
example of savages1 most of whom have   
been found in this state1  seems to     
prove that men were meant to remain in  
it1 that it is the  real youth of the   
world1 and that all subsequent advances 
have been  apparently so many steps     
towards the perfection of the           
individual1 but  in reality towards the 
decrepitude of the species4    ,so long 
as men remained content with their      
rustic huts1 so long as  they were      
satisfied with clothes made of the skins
 of animals and sewn  together with     
thorns and fish-bones1 adorned          
themselves only with  feathers and      
shells1 and continued to paint their    
bodies different  colours1 to improve   
and beautify their bows and arrows and  
to make  with sharp-edged stones fishing
 boats or clumsy musical instruments2   
in a word1 so long as they undertook    

only what a single person could         
accomplish1 and confined themselves to  
such arts as did not require the  joint 
labour of several hands1 they lived     
free1 healthy1 honest and  happy lives1 
so long as their nature allowed1 and as 
they continued to  enjoy the pleasures  
of mutual and independent intercourse4  
,but from  the moment one man began to  
stand in need of the help of another2   
from  the moment it appeared            
advantageous to any one man to have     
enough  provisions for two1 equality    
disappeared1 property was introduced1   
work  became indispensable1 and vast    
forests became smiling fields1 which man
  had to water with the sweat of his    
brow1 and where slavery and misery  were
 soon seen to germinate and grow up with
 the crops4    ,metallurgy and          
agriculture were the two arts which     
produced this great  revolution4 ,the   
poets tell us it was gold and silver1   
but1 for the  philosophers1 it was iron 
and corn1 which first civilised men1 and

  ruined humanity4 ,thus both were      
unknown to the savages of ,america1 who 
for that reason are still savage2 the   
other nations also seem to have         
continued in a state of barbarism while 
they practised only one of  these arts4 
,one of the best reasons1 perhaps1 why  
,europe has been1 if  not longer1 at    
least more constantly and highly        
civilised than the rest  of the world1  
is that it is at once the most abundant 
in iron and the  most fertile in corn4  
,it is difficult to conjecture how men  
first came to know and use iron2  for it
 is impossible to suppose they would of 
themselves think of  digging the ore out
 of the mine1 and preparing it for      
smelting1 before  they knew what would  
be the result4 ,on the other hand1 we   
have the less  reason to suppose this   
discovery the effect of any accidental  
fire1 as  mines are only formed in      
barren places1 bare of trees and plants2
 so  that it looks as if nature had     
taken pains to keep the fatal secret    

from us4 ,there remains1 therefore1 only
 the extraordinary accident  of some    
volcano which1 by ejecting metallic     
substances already in  fusion1 suggested
 to the spectators the idea of imitating
 the natural  operation4 ,and we must   
further conceive them as possessed of   
uncommon  courage and foresight1 to     
undertake so laborious a work1 with so  
distant a prospect of drawing advantage 
from it2 yet these qualities  are united
 only in minds more advanced than we can
 suppose those of  these first          
discoverers to have been4    ,with      
regard to agriculture1 the principles of
 it were known long before  they were   
put in practice2 and it is indeed hardly
 possible that men1  constantly employed
 in drawing their subsistence from      
plants and trees1  should not readily   
acquire a knowledge of the means made   
use of by  nature for the propagation of
 vegetables4 ,it was in all probability 
very fang1 however1 before their        
industry took that turn1 either  because

 trees1 which together with hunting and 
fishing afforded them  food1 did not    
require their attention2 or because they
 were ignorant of  the use of corn1 or  
without instruments to cultivate it2 or 
because  they lacked foresight to future
 needs2 or lastly1 because they were    
without means of preventing others from 
robbing them of the fruit of  their     
labour4    ,when they grew more         
industrious1 it is natural to believe   
that they  began1 with the help of sharp
 stones and pointed sticks1 to cultivate
  a few vegetables or roots around their
 huts2 though it was long before  they  
knew how to prepare corn1 or were       
provided with the implements  necessary 
for raising it in any large quantity2   
not to mention how  essential it is1 for
 husbandry1 to consent to immediate     
loss1 in order  to reap a future gain--a
 precaution very foreign to the turn of 
a  savage's mind2 for1 as ,i have said1 
he hardly foresees in the morning  what 
he will need at night4    ,the invention

 of the other arts must therefore have  
been necessary  to compel mankind to    
apply themselves to agriculture4 ,no    
sooner were  artificers wanted to smelt 
and forge iron1 than others were        
required  to maintain them2 the more    
hands that were employed in             
manufactures1  the fewer were left to   
provide for the common subsistence1     
though  the number of mouths to be      
furnished with food remained the same3  
and as some required commodities in     
exchange for their iron1 the  rest at   
length discovered the method of making  
iron serve for the  multiplication of   
commodities4 ,by this means the arts of 
husbandry and  agriculture were         
established on the one hand1 and the art
 of working  metals and multiplying     
their uses on the other4    ,the        
cultivation of the earth necessarily    
brought about its  distribution2 and    
property1 once recognised1 gave rise to 
the first  rules of justice2 for1 to    
secure each man his own1 it had to be   

possible for each to have something4    
,besides1 as men began to look  forward 
to the future1 and all had something to 
lose1 every one  had reason to apprehend
 that reprisals would follow any injury 
he  might do to another4 ,this origin is
 so much the more natural1 as it  is    
impossible to conceive how property can 
come from anything but  manual labour3  
for what else can a man add to things   
which he does  not originally create1 so
 as to make them his own property8 ,it  
is the  husbandman's labour alone that1 
giving him a title to the produce of    
the ground he has tilled1 gives him a   
claim also to the land itself1  at least
 till harvest2 and so1 from year to     
year1 a constant possession  which is   
easily transformed into property4 ,when 
the ancients1 says  ,grotius1 gave to   
,ceres the title of ,legislatrix1 and to
 a festival  celebrated in her honour   
the name of ,thesmophoria1 they meant by
 that  that the distribution of lands   
had produced a new kind of right3 that  

is to say1 the right of property1 which 
is different from the right  deducible  
from the law of nature4    ,in this     
state of affairs1 equality might have   
been sustained1 had the  talents of     
individuals been equal1 and had1 for    
example1 the use of  iron and the       
consumption of commodities always       
exactly balanced each  other2 but1 as   
there was nothing to preserve this      
balance1 it was  soon disturbed2 the    
strongest did most work2 the most       
skilful turned  his labour to best      
account2 the most ingenious devised     
methods of  diminishing his labour3 the 
husbandman wanted more iron1 or the     
smith  more corn1 and1 while both       
laboured equally1 the one gained a great
  deal by his work1 while the other     
could hardly support himself4 ,thus     
natural inequality unfolds itself       
insensibly with that of combination1    
and the difference between men1         
developed by their different            
circumstances1 becomes more sensible and

 permanent in its effects1 and  begins  
to have an influence1 in the same       
proportion1 over the lot of             
individuals4    ,matters once at this   
pitch1 it is easy to imagine the rest4  
,i shall not  detain the reader with a  
description of the successive invention 
of  other arts1 the development of      
language1 the trial and utilisation of  
talents1 the inequality of fortunes1 the
 use and abuse of riches1 and  all the  
details connected with them which the   
reader can easily supply  for himself4  
,i shall confine myself to a glance at  
mankind in this new  situation4         
,behold then all human faculties        
developed1 memory and imagination in    
full play1 egoism interested1 reason    
active1 and the mind almost at the      
highest point of its perfection4 ,behold
 all the natural qualities in  action1  
the rank and condition of every man     
assigned him2 not merely  his share of  
property and his power to serve or      
injure others1 but  also his wit1       

beauty1 strength or skill1 merit or     
talents3 and these  being the only      
qualities capable of commanding respect1
 it soon became  necessary to possess or
 to affect them4    ,it now became the  
interest of men to appear what they     
really were  not4 ,to be and to seem    
became two totally different things2 and
 from  this distinction sprang insolent 
pomp and cheating trickery1 with all    
the numerous vices that go in their     
train4 ,on the other hand1 free  and    
independent as men were before1 they    
were now1 in consequence of  a          
multiplicity of new wants1 brought into 
subjection1 as it were1  to all nature1 
and particularly to one another2 and    
each became in  some degree a slave even
 in becoming the master of other men3 if
  rich1 they stood in need of the       
services of others2 if poor1 of their   
assistance2 and even a middle condition 
did not enable them to do  without one  
another4 ,man must now1 therefore1 have 
been perpetually  employed in getting   

others to interest themselves in his    
lot1 and in  making them1 apparently at 
least1 if not really1 find their        
advantage  in promoting his own4 ,thus  
he must have been sly and artful in his 
behaviour to some1 and imperious and    
cruel to others2 being under a  kind of 
necessity to ill-use all the persons of 
whom he stood in need1  when he could   
not frighten them into compliance1 and  
did not judge it  his interest to be    
useful to them4 ,insatiable ambition1   
the thirst of  raising their respective 
fortunes1 not so much from real want as 
from  the desire to surpass others1     
inspired all men with a vile propensity 
to injure one another1 and with a secret
 jealousy1 which is the more  dangerous1
 as it puts on the mask of benevolence1 
to carry its point  with greater        
security4 ,in a word1 there arose       
rivalry and competition  on the one     
hand1 and conflicting interests on the  
other1 together with  a secret desire on
 both of profiting at the expense of    

others4 ,all  these evils were the first
 effects of property1 and the           
inseparable  attendants of growing      
inequality4    ,before the invention of 
signs to represent riches1 wealth could 
hardly  consist in anything but lands   
and cattle1 the only real possessions   
men can have4 ,but1 when inheritances so
 increased in number and extent  as to  
occupy the whole of the land1 and to    
border on one another1 one  man could   
aggrandise himself only at the expense  
of another2 at the  same time the       
supernumeraries1 who had been too weak  
or too indolent to  make such           
acquisitions1 and had grown poor without
 sustaining any loss1  because1 while   
they saw everything change around them1 
they remained  still the same1 were     
obliged to receive their subsistence1 or
 steal  it1 from the rich2 and this soon
 bred1 according to their different     
characters1 dominion and slavery1 or    
violence and rapine4 ,the wealthy1  on  
their part1 had no sooner begun to taste

 the pleasure of command1  than they    
disdained all others1 and1 using their  
old slaves to acquire  new1 thought of  
nothing but subduing and enslaving their
 neighbours2  like ravenous wolves1     
which1 having once tasted human flesh1  
despise  every other food and           
thenceforth seek only men to devour4    
,thus1 as the most powerful or the most 
miserable considered their might  or    
misery as a kind of right to the        
possessions of others1 equivalent1  in  
their opinion1 to that of property1 the 
destruction of equality  was attended by
 the most terrible disorders4           
,usurpations by the rich1  robbery by   
the poor1 and the unbridled passions of 
both1 suppressed  the cries of natural  
compassion and the still feeble voice of
 justice1  and filled men with avarice1 
ambition and vice4 ,between the title of
  the strongest and that of the first   
occupier1 there arose perpetual         
conflicts1 which never ended but in     
battles and bloodshed4 ,the new-born    

state of society thus gave rise to a    
horrible state of war2 men thus         
harassed and depraved were no longer    
capable of retracing their steps  or    
renouncing the fatal acquisitions they  
had made1 but1 labouring by  the abuse  
of the faculties which do them honour1  
merely to their own  confusion1 brought 
themselves to the brink of ruin4        
,attonitus novitate mali1 divesque      
miserque1  ,effugere optat opes2 et qu  
mod voverat odit4#e    ,it is impossible
 that men should not at length have     
reflected on so  wretched a situation1  
and on the calamities that overwhelmed  
them4  ,the rich1 in particular1 must   
have felt how much they suffered by a   
constant state of war1 of which they    
bore all the expense2 and in  which1    
though all risked their lives1 they     
alone risked their property4  ,besides1 
however speciously they might disguise  
their usurpations1  they knew that they 
were founded on precarious and false    
titles2 so  that1 if others took from   

them by force what they themselves had  
gained by force1 they would have no     
reason to complain4 ,even those  who had
 been enriched by their own industry1   
could hardly base their  proprietorship 
on better claims4 ,it was in vain to    
repeat1 ,i built  this well2 ,i gained  
this spot by my industry4 ,who gave you 
your  standing1 it might be answered1   
and what right have you to demand       
payment of us for doing what we never   
asked you to do8 ,do you not  know that 
numbers of your fellow-creatures are    
starving1 for want  of what you have too
 much of8 ,you ought to have had the    
express and  universal consent of       
mankind1 before appropriating more of   
the common  subsistence than you needed 
for your own maintenance4 ,destitute of 
valid reasons to justify and sufficient 
strength to defend himself1  able to    
crush individuals with ease1 but easily 
crushed himself by a  troop of bandits1 
one against all1 and incapable1 on      
account of mutual  jealousy1 of joining 

with his equals against numerous enemies
 united  by the common hope of plunder1 
the rich man1 thus urged by necessity1  
conceived at length the profoundest plan
 that ever entered the mind of  man3    
this was to employ in his favour the    
forces of those who attacked  him1 to   
make allies of his adversaries1 to      
inspire them with different  maxims1 and
 to give them other institutions as     
favourable to himself as  the law of    
nature was unfavourable4    ,with this  
view1 after having represented to his   
neighbours the horror  of a situation   
which armed every man against the rest1 
and made their  possessions as          
burdensome to them as their wants1 and  
in which no  safety could be expected   
either in riches or in poverty1 he      
readily  devised plausible arguments to 
make them close with his design4 ,let   
us join1 said he1 to guard the weak from
 oppression1 to restrain the  ambitious1
 and secure to every man the possession 
of what belongs to  him3 let us         

institute rules of justice and peace1 to
 which all without  exception may be    
obliged to conform2 rules that may in   
some measure  make amends for the       
caprices of fortune1 by subjecting      
equally the  powerful and the weak to   
the observance of reciprocal            
obligations4  ,let us1 in a word1       
instead of turning our forces against   
ourselves1  collect them in a supreme   
power which may govern us by wise laws1 
protect and defend all the members of   
the association1 repulse their  common  
enemies1 and maintain eternal harmony   
among us4    ,far fewer words to this   
purpose would have been enough to impose
 on  men so barbarous and easily        
seduced2 especially as they had too many
  disputes among themselves to do       
without arbitrators1 and too much       
ambition and avarice to go long without 
masters4 ,all ran headlong to  their    
chains1 in hopes of securing their      
liberty2 for they had just wit  enough  
to perceive the advantages of political 

institutions1 without  experience enough
 to enable them to foresee the dangers4 
,the most  capable of fore-seeing the   
dangers were the very persons who       
expected  to benefit by them2 and even  
the most prudent judged it not          
inexpedient  to sacrifice one part of   
their freedom to ensure the rest2 as a  
wounded  man has his arm cut off to save
 the rest of his body4    ,such was1 or 
may well have been1 the origin of       
society and law1 which  bound new       
fetters on the poor1 and gave new powers
 to the rich2 which  irretrievably      
destroyed natural liberty1 eternally    
fixed the law of  property and          
inequality1 converted clever usurpation 
into unalterable  right1 and1 for the   
advantage of a few ambitious            
individuals1 subjected  all mankind to  
perpetual labour1 slavery and           
wretchedness4 ,it is easy  to see how   
the establishment of one community made 
that of all the  rest necessary1 and    
how1 in order to make head against      

united forces1  the rest of mankind had 
to unite in turn4 ,societies soon       
multiplied  and spread over the face of 
the earth1 till hardly a corner of the  
world was left in which a man could     
escape the yoke1 and withdraw  his head 
from beneath the sword which he saw     
perpetually hanging  over him by a      
thread4 ,civil right having thus become 
the common rule  among the members of   
each community1 the law of nature       
maintained its  place only between      
different communities1 where1 under the 
name of  the right of nations1 it was   
qualified by certain tacit conventions1 
in order to make commerce practicable1  
and serve as a substitute for  natural  
compassion1 which lost1 when applied to 
societies1 almost  all the influence it 
had over individuals1 and survived no   
longer  except in some great            
cosmopolitan spirits1 who1 breaking down
 the  imaginary barriers that separate  
different peoples1 follow the example   
of our ,sovereign ,creator1 and include 

the whole human race in their           
benevolence4    ,but bodies politic1    
remaining thus in a state of nature     
among  themselves1 presently experienced
 the inconveniences which had obliged   
individuals to forsake it2 for this     
state became still more fatal  to these 
great bodies than it had been to the    
individuals of whom  they were composed4
 ,hence arose national wars1 battles1   
murders1 and  reprisals1 which shock    
nature and outrage reason2 together with
 all  those horrible prejudices which   
class among the virtues the honour  of  
shedding human blood4 ,the most         
distinguished men hence learned to      
consider cutting each other's throats a 
duty2 at length men massacred  their    
fellow-creatures by thousands without so
 much as knowing why1 and  committed    
more murders in a single day's fighting1
 and more violent  outrages in the sack 
of a single town1 than were committed in
 the state  of nature during whole ages 
over the whole earth4 ,such were the    

first  effects which we can see to have 
followed the division of mankind into   
different communities4 ,but let us      
return to their institutions4    ,i know
 that some writers have given other     
explanations of the origin  of political
 societies1 such as the conquest of the 
powerful1 or the  association of the    
weak4 ,it is1 indeed1 indifferent to my 
argument  which of these causes we      
choose4 ,that which ,i have just laid   
down1  however1 appears to me the most  
natural for the following reasons4      
,first3 because1 in the first case1 the 
right of conquest1 being no  right1 in  
itself1 could not serve as a foundation 
on which to build any  other2 the victor
 and the vanquished people still        
remained with respect  to each other in 
the state of war1 unless the vanquished1
 restored to  the full possession of    
their liberty1 voluntarily made choice  
of the  victor for their chief4 ,for    
till then1 whatever capitulation may    
have  been made being founded on        

violence1 and therefore ipso facto void1
  there could not have been on this     
hypothesis either a real society or     
body politic1 or any law other than that
 of the strongest4 ,secondly3  because  
the words strong and weak are1 in the   
second case1  ambiguous2 for during the 
interval between the establishment of a 
right  of property1 or prior occupancy1 
and that of political government1  the  
meaning of these words is better        
expressed by the terms rich and  poor3  
because1 in fact1 before the institution
 of laws1 men had no  other way of      
reducing their equals to submission1    
than by attacking  their goods1 or      
making some of their own over to them4  
,thirdly3  because1 as the poor had     
nothing but their freedom to lose1 it   
would  have been in the highest degree  
absurd for them to resign voluntarily   
the only good they still enjoyed1       
without getting anything in exchange3   
whereas the rich having feelings1 if ,i 
may so express myself1 in  every part of

 their possessions1 it was much easier  
to harm them1 and  therefore more       
necessary for them to take precautions  
against it2 and1  in short1 because it  
is more reasonable to suppose a thing to
 have been  invented by those to whom it
 would be of service1 than by those whom
 it  must have harmed4    ,government   
had1 in its infancy1 no regular and     
constant form4 ,the want  of experience 
and philosophy prevented men from seeing
 any but present  inconveniences1 and   
they thought of providing against others
 only as  they presented themselves4 ,in
 spite of the endeavours of the wisest  
legislators1 the political state        
remained imperfect1 because it was      
little more than the work of chance2    
and1 as it had begun ill1 though  time  
revealed its defects and suggested      
remedies1 the original faults  were     
never repaired4 ,it was continually     
being patched up1 when the  first task  
should have been to get the site cleared
 and all the old  materials removed1 as 

was done by ,lycurgus at ,sparta1 if a  
stable and  lasting edifice was to be   
erected4 ,society consisted at first    
merely of  a few general conventions1   
which every member bound himself to     
observe2  and for the performance of    
covenants the whole body went security  
to  each individual4 ,experience only   
could show the weakness of such a       
constitution1 and how easily it might be
 infringed with impunity1 from  the     
difficulty of convicting men of faults1 
where the public alone  was to be       
witness and judge3 the laws could not   
but be eluded in many  ways2 disorders  
and inconveniences could not but        
multiply continually1  till it became   
necessary to commit the dangerous trust 
of public  authority to private persons1
 and the care of enforcing obedience to 
the deliberations of the people to the  
magistrate4 ,for to say that  chiefs    
were chosen before the confederacy was  
formed1 and that the  administrators of 
the laws were there before the laws     

themselves1 is  too absurd a supposition
 to consider seriously4    ,it would be 
as unreasonable to suppose that men at  
first threw  themselves irretrievably   
and unconditionally into the arms of an 
absolute master1 and that the first     
expedient which proud and  unsubdued men
 hit upon for their common security was 
to run headlong  into slavery4 ,for what
 reason1 in fact1 did they take to      
themselves  superiors1 if it was not in 
order that they might be defended from  
oppression1 and have protection for     
their lives1 liberties and  properties1 
which are1 so to speak1 the constituent 
elements of their  being8 ,now1 in the  
relations between man and man1 the worst
 that can  happen is for one to find    
himself at the mercy of another1 and it 
would  have been inconsistent with      
common-sense to begin by bestowing on a 
chief the only things they wanted his   
help to preserve4 ,what equivalent      
could he offer them for so great a      
right8 ,and if he had presumed to  exact

 it under pretext of defending them1    
would he not have received  the answer  
recorded in the fable3 ,what more can   
the enemy do to us8  ,it is therefore   
beyond dispute1 and indeed the          
fundamental maxim of  all political     
right1 that people have set up chiefs to
 protect their  liberty1 and not to     
enslave them4 ,if we have a prince1 said
 ,pliny to  ,trajan1 it is to save      
ourselves from having a master4         
,politicians indulge in the same        
sophistry about the love of liberty  as 
philosophers about the state of nature4 
,they judge1 by what they  see1 of very 
different things1 which they have not   
seen2 and attribute  to man a natural   
propensity to servitude1 because the    
slaves within  their observation are    
seen to bear the yoke with patience2    
they fail  to reflect that it is with   
liberty as with innocence and virtue2   
the  value is known only to those who   
possess them1 and the taste for them  is
 forfeited when they are forfeited      

themselves4 ,i know the charms of  your 
country1 said ,brasidas to a ,satrap1   
who was comparing the life at  ,sparta  
with that at ,persepolis1 but you cannot
 know the pleasures of  mine4    ,an    
unbroken horse erects his mane1 paws the
 ground and starts back  impetuously at 
the sight of the bridle2 while one which
 is properly  trained suffers patiently 
even whip and spur3 so savage man will  
not  bend his neck to the yoke to which 
civilised man submits without a  murmur1
 but prefers the most turbulent state of
 liberty to the most  peaceful slavery4 
,we cannot therefore1 from the servility
 of nations  already enslaved1 judge of 
the natural disposition of mankind for  
or against slavery2 we should go by the 
prodigious efforts of every  free people
 to save itself from oppression4 ,i know
 that the former  are for ever holding  
forth in praise of the tranquillity they
 enjoy  in their chains1 and that they  
call a state of wretched servitude a    
state of peace3 miserrimam servitutem   

pacem appellant4#f ,but when  ,i observe
 the latter sacrificing pleasure1 peace1
 wealth1 power and  life itself to the  
preservation of that one treasure1 which
 is so  disdained by those who have lost
 it2 when ,i see free-born animals  dash
 their brains out against the bars of   
their cage1 from an innate  impatience  
of captivity2 when ,i behold numbers of 
naked savages1 that  despise ,european  
pleasures1 braving hunger1 fire1 the    
sword and death1  to preserve nothing   
but their independence1 ,i feel that it 
is not for  slaves to argue about       
liberty4    ,with regard to paternal    
authority1 from which some writers have 
derived  absolute government and all    
society1 it is enough1 without going    
back  to the contrary arguments of      
,locke and ,sidney1 to remark that      
nothing  on earth can be further from   
the ferocious spirit of despotism than  
the  mildness of that authority which   
looks more to the advantage of him who  
obeys than to that of him who commands2 

that1 by the law of nature1 the  father 
is the child's master no longer than his
 help is necessary2 that  from that time
 they are both equal1 the son being     
perfectly independent  of the father1   
and owing him only respect and not      
obedience4 ,for  gratitude is a duty    
which ought to be paid1 but not a right 
to be  exacted3 instead of saying that  
civil society is derived from paternal  
authority1 we ought to say rather that  
the latter derives its principal  force 
from the former4 ,no individual was ever
 acknowledged as the  father of many1   
till his sons and daughters remained    
settled around  him4 ,the goods of the  
father1 of which he is really the       
master1 are  the ties which keep his    
children in dependence1 and he may      
bestow on  them1 if he pleases1 no share
 of his property1 unless they merit it  
by  constant deference to his will4 ,but
 the subjects of an arbitrary despot    
are so far from having the like favour  
to expect from their chief1  that they  

themselves and everything they possess  
are his property1 or  at least are      
considered by him as such2 so that they 
are forced to  receive1 as a favour1 the
 little of their own he is pleased to   
leave  them4 ,when he despoils them1 he 
does but justice1 and mercy in that he  
permits them to live4    ,by proceeding 
thus to test fact by right1 we should   
discover as little  reason as truth in  
the voluntary establishment of tyranny4 
,it would  also be no easy matter to    
prove the validity of a contract binding
 on  only one of the parties1 where all 
the risk is on one side1 and none on    
the other2 so that no one could suffer  
but he who bound himself4 ,this  hateful
 system is indeed1 even in modern times1
 very far from being  that of wise and  
good monarchs1 and especially of the    
kings of ,france2  as may be seen from  
several passages in their edicts2       
particularly from  the following passage
 in a celebrated edict published in     
#affg in the  name and by order of      

,louis ,,xiv4    ,let it not1 therefore1
 be said that the ,sovereign is not     
subject  to the laws of his ,state2     
since the contrary is a true proposition
  of the right of nations1 which        
flattery has sometimes attacked but     
good princes have always defended as the
 tutelary divinity of their  dominions4 
,how much more legitimate is it to say  
with the wise ,plato1  that the perfect 
felicity of a kingdom consists in the   
obedience of  subjects to their prince1 
and of the prince to the laws1 and in   
the  laws being just and constantly     
directed to the public good6#g    ,i    
shall not stay here to inquire whether1 
as liberty is the noblest  faculty of   
man1 it is not degrading our very       
nature1 reducing ourselves  to the level
 of the brutes1 which are mere slaves of
 instinct1 and even  an affront to the  
,author of our being1 to renounce       
without reserve  the most precious of   
all ,his gifts1 and to bow to the       
necessity  of committing all the crimes 

,he has forbidden1 merely to gratify a  
mad or a cruel master2 or if this       
sublime craftsman ought not to be  less 
angered at seeing ,his workmanship      
entirely destroyed than thus            
dishonoured4 ,i will waive 7if my       
opponents please7 the authority of      
,barbeyrac1 who1 following ,locke1      
roundly declares that no man can so  far
 sell his liberty as to submit to an    
arbitrary power which may  use him as it
 likes4 ,for1 he adds1 this would be to 
sell his own  life1 of which he is not  
master4 ,i shall ask only what right    
those  who were not afraid thus to      
debase themselves could have to subject 
their posterity to the same ignominy1   
and to renounce for them those          
blessings which they do not owe to the  
liberality of their progenitors1  and   
without which life itself must be a     
burden to all who are worthy of  it4    
,puffendorf says that we may divest     
ourselves of our liberty in favour  of  
other men1 just as we transfer our      

property from one to another by         
contracts and agreements4 ,but this     
seems a very weak argument4 ,for in  the
 first place1 the property ,i alienate  
becomes quite foreign to me1  nor can ,i
 suffer from the abuse of it2 but it    
very nearly concerns me  that my liberty
 should not be abused1 and ,i cannot    
without incurring  the guilt of the     
crimes ,i may be compelled to commit1   
expose myself  to become an instrument  
of crime4 ,besides1 the right of        
property  being only a convention of    
human institution1 men may dispose of   
what they possess as they please3 but   
this is not the case with the  essential
 gifts of nature1 such as life and      
liberty1 which every man is  permitted  
to enjoy1 and of which it is at least   
doubtful whether any  have a right to   
divest themselves4 ,by giving up the    
one1 we degrade  our being2 by giving up
 the other1 we do our best to annul it2 
and1  as no temporal good can indemnify 
us for the loss of either1 it would  be 

an offence against both reason and      
nature to renounce them at any  price   
whatsoever4 ,but1 even if we could      
transfer our liberty1 as we  do our     
property1 there would be a great        
difference with regard to the  children1
 who enjoy the father's substance only  
by the transmission of  his right2      
whereas1 liberty being a gift which they
 hold from nature  as being men1 their  
parents have no right whatever to       
deprive them of  it4 ,as then1 to       
establish slavery1 it was necessary to  
do violence to  nature1 so1 in order to 
perpetuate such a right1 nature would   
have to  be changed4 ,jurists1 who have 
gravely determined that the child of a  
slave comes into the world a slave1 have
 decided1 in other words1 that  a man   
shall come into the world not a man4    
,i regard it then as certain1 that      
government did not begin with  arbitrary
 power1 but that this is the            
depravation1 the extreme term1  of      
government1 and brings it back1 finally1

 to just the law of the  strongest1     
which it was originally designed to     
remedy4 ,supposing1  however1 it had    
begun in this manner1 such power1 being 
in itself  illegitimate1 could not have 
served as a basis for the laws of       
society1  nor1 consequently1 for the    
inequality they instituted4    ,without 
entering at present upon the            
investigations which still remain  to be
 made into the nature of the fundamental
 compact underlying  all government1 ,i 
content myself with adopting the common 
opinion  concerning it1 and regard the  
establishment of the political body as  
a real contract between the people and  
the chiefs chosen by them3 a  contract  
by which both parties bind themselves to
 observe the laws  therein expressed1   
which form the ties of their union4 ,the
 people  having in respect of their     
social relations concentrated all their 
wills in one1 the several articles1     
concerning which this will is           
explained1 become so many fundamental   

laws1 obligatory on all the  members of 
the ,state without exception1 and one of
 these articles  regulates the choice   
and power of the magistrates appointed  
to watch  over the execution of the     
rest4 ,this power extends to everything 
which  may maintain the constitution1   
without going so far as to alter it4    
,it is accompanied by honours1 in order 
to bring the laws and their             
administrators into respect4 ,the       
ministers are also distinguished by     
personal prerogatives1 in order to      
recompense them for the cares and       
labour which good administration        
involves4 ,the magistrate1 on his side1 
binds himself to use the power he is    
entrusted with only in conformity  with 
the intention of his constituents1 to   
maintain them all in the  peaceable     
possession of what belongs to them1 and 
to prefer on every  occasion the public 
interest to his own4    ,before         
experience had shown1 or knowledge of   
the human heart enabled  men to foresee1

 the unavoidable abuses of such a       
constitution1 it must  have appeared so 
much the more excellent1 as those who   
were charged  with the care of its      
preservation had themselves most        
interest in it2  for magistracy and the 
rights attaching to it being based      
solely on  the fundamental laws1 the    
magistrates would cease to be legitimate
 as  soon as these ceased to exist2 the 
people would no longer owe them         
obedience2 and as not the magistrates1  
but the laws1 are essential to  the     
being of a ,state1 the members of it    
would regain the right to their  natural
 liberty4    ,if we reflect with ever so
 little attention on this subject1 we   
shall  find new arguments to confirm    
this truth1 and be convinced from the   
very nature of the contract that it     
cannot be irrevocable3 for1 if  there   
were no superior power capable of       
ensuring the fidelity of the            
contracting parties1 or compelling them 
to perform their reciprocal             

engagements1 the parties would be sole  
judges in their own cause1 and  each    
would always have a right to renounce   
the contract1 as soon as he  found that 
the other had violated its terms1 or    
that they no longer  suited his         
convenience4 ,it is upon this principle 
that the right of  abdication may       
possibly be founded4 ,now1 if1 as here1 
we consider  only what is human in this 
institution1 it is certain that1 if the 
magistrate1 who has all the power in his
 own hands1 and appropriates  to himself
 all the advantages of the contract1 has
 none the less a  right to renounce his 
authority1 the people1 who suffer for   
all the  faults of their chief1 must    
have a much better right to renounce    
their  dependence4 ,but the terrible and
 innumerable quarrels and disorders     
that would necessarily arise from so    
dangerous a privilege1 show1  more than 
anything else1 how much human           
governments stood in need of  a more    
solid basis than mere reason1 and how   

expedient it was for the  public        
tranquillity that the divine will should
 interpose to invest the  sovereign     
authority with a sacred and inviolable  
character1 which might  deprive subjects
 of the fatal right of disposing of it4 
,if the world  had received no other    
advantages from religion1 this would be 
enough to  impose on men the duty of    
adopting and cultivating it1 abuses and 
all1  since it has been the means of    
saving more blood than fanaticism has   
ever spilt4 ,but let us follow the      
thread of our hypothesis4    ,the       
different forms of government owe their 
origin to the differing  degrees of     
inequality which existed between        
individuals at the time  of their       
institution4 ,if there happened to be   
any one man among them  pre-eminent in  
power1 virtue1 riches or personal       
influence1 he became  sole magistrate1  
and the ,state assumed the form of      
monarchy4 ,if  several1 nearly equal in 
point of eminence1 stood above the rest1

 they  were elected jointly1 and formed 
an aristocracy4 ,again1 among a people  
who had deviated less from a state of   
nature1 and between whose fortune  or   
talents there was less disproportion1   
the supreme administration was  retained
 in common1 and a democracy was formed4 
,it was discovered in  process of time  
which of these forms suited men the     
best4 ,some peoples  remained altogether
 subject to the laws2 others soon came  
to obey their  magistrates4 ,the        
citizens laboured to preserve their     
liberty2 the  subjects1 irritated at    
seeing others enjoying a blessing they  
had lost1  thought only of making slaves
 of their neighbours4 ,in a word1 on the
  one side arose riches and conquests1  
and on the other happiness and ,i       
virtue4    ,in these different          
governments1 all the offices were at    
first elective2  and when the influence 
of wealth was out of the question1 the  
preference was given to merit1 which    
gives a natural ascendancy1 and  to age1

 which is experienced in business and   
deliberate in council4  ,the ,elders of 
the ,hebrews1 the ,gerontes at ,sparta1 
the ,senate at ,rome1  and the very     
etymology of our word ,seigneur1 show   
how old age was once  held in           
veneration4 ,but the more often the     
choice fell upon old men1  the more     
often elections had to be repeated1 and 
the more they became  a nuisance2       
intrigues set in1 factions were formed1 
party feeling  grew--bitter1 civil wars 
broke out2 the lives of individuals were
  sacrificed to the pretended happiness 
of the ,state2 and at length men  were  
on the point of relapsing into their    
primitive anarchy4 ,ambitious  chiefs   
profited by these circumstances to      
perpetuate their offices  in their own  
families3 at the same time the people1  
already used to  dependence1 ease1 and  
the conveniences of life1 and already   
incapable  of breaking its fetters1     
agreed to an increase of its slavery1 in
 order  to secure its tranquillity4     

,thus magistrates1 having become        
hereditary1  contracted the habit of    
considering their offices as a family   
estate1  and themselves as proprietors  
of the communities of which they were at
  first only the officers1 of regarding 
their fellow-citizens as their  slaves1 
and numbering them1 like cattle1 among  
their belongings1 and of  calling       
themselves the equals of the gods and   
longs of kings4    ,if we follow the    
progress of inequality in these various 
revolutions1  we shall find that the    
establishment of laws and of the right  
of  property was its first term1 the    
institution of magistracy the second1   
and the conversion of legitimate into   
arbitrary power the third and  last2 so 
that the condition of rich and poor was 
authorised by the  first period2 that of
 powerful and weak by the second2 and   
only by the  third that of master and   
slave1 which is the last degree of      
inequality1  and the term at which all  
the rest remain1 when they have got so  

far1  till the government is either     
entirely dissolved by new revolutions1  
or  brought back again to legitimacy4   
,to understand this progress as         
necessary we must consider not so much  
the motives for the establishment of the
 body politic1 as the forms  it assumes 
in actuality1 and the faults that       
necessarily attend it3  for the flaws   
which make social institutions necessary
 are the same  as make the abuse of them
 unavoidable4 ,if we except ,sparta1    
where  the laws were mainly concerned   
with the education of children1 and     
where ,lycurgus established such        
morality as practically made laws       
needless--for laws as a rule1 being     
weaker than the passions1 restrain  men 
without altering them--it would not be  
difficult to prove that  every          
government1 which scrupulously complied 
with the ends for which  it was         
instituted1 and guarded carefully       
against change and corruption1  was set 
up unnecessarily4 ,for a country1 in    

which no one either evaded  the laws or 
made a bad use of magisterial power1    
could require neither  laws nor         
magistrates4    ,political distinctions 
necessarily produce civil distinctions4 
,the  growing equality between the      
chiefs and the people is soon felt by   
individuals1 and modified in a thousand 
ways according to passions1  talents and
 circumstances4 ,the magistrate could   
not usurp any  illegitimate power1      
without giving distinction to the       
creatures with  whom he must share it4  
,besides1 individuals only allow        
themselves  to be oppressed so far as   
they are hurried on by blind ambition1  
and1 looking rather below than above    
them1 come to love authority  more than 
independence1 and submit to slavery1    
that they may in turn  enslave others4  
,it is no easy matter to reduce to      
obedience a man  who has no ambition to 
command2 nor would the most adroit      
politician  find it possible to enslave 
a people whose only desire was to be    

independent4 ,but inequality easily     
makes its way among cowardly and        
ambitious minds1 which are ever ready to
 run the risks of fortune1 and  almost  
indifferent whether they command or     
obey1 as it is favourable  or adverse4  
,thus1 there must have been2 a time1    
when the eyes of the  people were so    
fascinated1 that their rulers had only  
to say to the  least of men1 ,be great1 
you and all your posterity1 to make him 
immediately appear great in the eyes of 
every one as well as in his  own4 ,his  
descendants took still more upon them1  
in proportion to their  distance from   
him2 the more obscure2 and uncertain the
 cause1 the  greater the effect3 the    
greater--the number of idlers one could 
count  in a family1 the more illustrious
 it was held to be4    ,if this were the
 place to go into details1 ,i could     
readily explain  how1 even without the  
intervention of government1 inequality  
of  credit and authority became         
unavoidable among private persons1 as   

soon as their union in a single society 
made them compare themselves  one with  
another1 and take into account the      
differences which they  found out from  
the continual intercourse every man had 
to have with  his neighbours4#h ,these  
differences are of several kinds2 but   
riches1 nobility or rank1 power and     
personal merit being the principal      
distinctions by which men form an       
estimate of each other in society1  ,i  
could prove that the harmony or conflict
 of these different forces  is the      
surest indication of the good or bad    
constitution of a ,state4  ,i could show
 that among these four kinds of         
inequality1 personal  qualities being   
the origin of all the others1 wealth is 
the one to  which they are all reduced  
in the end2 for1 as riches tend most    
immediately to the prosperity of        
individuals1 and are easiest to         
communicate1 they are used to purchase  
every other distinction4 ,by this       
observation we are enabled to judge     

pretty exactly how far a people  has    
departed from its primitive             
constitution1 and of its progress       
towards the extreme term of corruption4 
,i could explain how much  this         
universal desire for reputation1 honours
 and advancement1 which  inflames us    
all1 exercises and holds up to          
comparison our faculties and  powers2   
how it excites and multiplies our       
passions1 and1 by creating  universal   
competition and rivalry1 or rather      
enmity1 among men1  occasions numberless
 failures1 successes and disturbances of
 all kinds  by making so many aspirants 
run the same course4 ,i could show that 
it  is to this desire of being talked   
about1 and this unremitting rage of     
distinguishing ourselves1 that we owe   
the best and the worst things we        
possess1 both our virtues and our vices1
 our science and our errors1  our       
conquerors and our philosophers2 that is
 to say1 a great many bad  things1 and a
 very few good ones4 ,in a word1 ,i     

could prove that1 if  we have a few rich
 and powerful men on the pinnacle of    
fortune and  grandeur1 while the crowd  
grovels in want and obscurity1 it is    
because  the former prize what they     
enjoy only in so far as others are      
destitute  of it2 and because1 without  
changing their condition1 they would    
cease  to be happy the moment the people
 ceased to be wretched4    ,these       
details alone1 however1 would furnish   
matter for a considerable  work1 in     
which the advantages and disadvantages  
of every kind of  government might be   
weighed1 as they are related to man in  
the state  of nature1 and at the same   
time all the different aspects1 under   
which  inequality has up to the present 
appeared1 or may appear in ages yet  to 
come1 according to the nature of the    
several governments1 and the            
alterations which time must unavoidably 
occasion in them1 might be              
demonstrated4 ,we should then see the   
multitude oppressed from within1  in    

consequence of the very precautions it  
had taken to guard against  foreign     
tyranny4 ,we should see oppression      
continually gain ground  without it     
being possible for the oppressed to know
 where it would  stop1 or what          
legitimate means was left them of       
checking its progress4  ,we should see  
the rights of citizens1 and the freedom 
of nations  slowly extinguished1 and the
 complaints1 protests and appeals of the
  weak treated as seditious murmurings4 
,we should see the honour of  defending 
the common cause confined by statecraft 
to a mercenary part  of the people4 ,we 
should see taxes made necessary by such 
means1 and  the disheartened husbandman 
deserting his fields even in the midst  
of  peace1 and leaving the plough to    
gird on the sword4 ,we should see fatal 
and capricious codes of honour          
established2 and the champions of their 
country sooner or later becoming its    
enemies1 and for ever holding  their    
daggers to the breasts of their         

fellow-citizens4 ,the time would  come  
when they would be heard saying to the  
oppressor of their country--            
,pectore si fratris gladium juguloque   
parentis      ,condere me jubeas1       
gravidque in viscera partu              
,conjugis1 invit peragam tamen omnia    
dextr4                                  
,lucan4 i1 #cgf4    ,from great         
inequality of fortunes and conditions1  
from the vast variety  of passions and  
of talents1 of useless and pernicious   
arts1 of vain  sciences1 would arise a  
multitude of prejudices equally contrary
 to  reason1 happiness and virtue4 ,we  
should see the magistrates fomenting    
everything that might weaken men united 
in society1 by promoting  dissension    
among them2 everything that might sow in
 it the seeds of  actual division1 while
 it gave society the air of harmony2    
everything  that might inspire the      
different ranks of people with mutual   
hatred and  distrust1 by setting the    
rights and interests of one against     

those of  another1 and so strengthen the
 power which comprehended them all4     
,it is from the midst of this disorder  
and these revolutions1 that  despotism1 
gradually raising up its hideous head   
and devouring  everything that remained 
sound and untainted in any part of the  
,state1  would at length trample on both
 the laws and the people1 and establish 
itself on the ruins of the republic4    
,the times which immediately  preceded  
this last change would be times of      
trouble and calamity2 but  at length the
 monster would swallow up everything1   
and the people would  no longer have    
either chiefs or laws1 but only tyrants4
 ,from this  moment there would be no   
question of virtue or morality2 for     
despotism  cui ex honesto nulla est     
spes1 wherever it prevails1 admits no   
other  master2 it no sooner speaks than 
probity and duty lose their weight and  
blind obedience is the only virtue which
 slaves can still practise4    ,this is 
the last term of inequality1 the extreme

 points that closes  the circle1 and    
meets that from which we set out4 ,here 
all private  persons return to their    
first equality1 because they are        
nothing2 and1  subjects having no law   
but the will of their master1 and their 
master  no restraint but his passions1  
all notions of good and all principles  
of equity again vanish4 ,there is here a
 complete return to the law of  the     
strongest1 and so to a new state of     
nature1 differing from that we  set out 
from2 for the one was a state of nature 
in its first purity1  while this is the 
consequence of excessive corruption4    
,there is so  little difference between 
the two states in other respects1 and   
the  contract of government is so       
completely dissolved by despotism1 that 
the despot is master only so long as he 
remains the strongest2 as soon  as he   
can be expelled1 he has no right to     
complain of violence4 ,the  popular     
insurrection that ends in the death or  
deposition of a ,sultan  is as lawful an

 act as those by which he disposed1 the 
day before1 of  the lives and fortunes  
of his subjects4 ,as he was maintained  
by force  alone1 it is force alone that 
overthrows him4 ,thus everything takes  
place according to the natural order2   
and1 whatever may be the result  of such
 frequent and precipitate revolutions1  
no one man has reason to  complain of   
the injustice of another1 but only of   
his own ill-fortune  or indiscretion4   
,if the reader thus discovers and       
retraces the lost and forgotten road1   
by which man must have passed from the  
state of nature to the state  of        
society2 if he carefully restores1 along
 with the intermediate  situations which
 ,i have just described1 those which    
want of time has  compelled me to       
suppress1 or my imagination has failed  
to suggest1  he cannot fail to be struck
 by the vast distance which separates   
the  two states4 ,it is in tracing this 
slow succession that he will find  the  
solution of a number of problems of     

politics and morals1 which  philosophers
 cannot settle4 ,he will feel that1 men 
being different in  different ages1 the 
reason why ,diogenes could not find a   
man was that  he sought among his       
contemporaries a man of an earlier      
period4 ,he will  see that ,cato died   
with ,rome and liberty1 because he did  
not fit the  age in which he lived2 the 
greatest of men served only to astonish 
a  world which he would certainly have  
ruled1 had he lived five hundred  years 
sooner4 ,in a word1 he will explain how 
the soul and the passions  of men       
insensibly change their very nature2 why
 our wants and pleasures  in the end    
seek new objects2 and why1 the original 
man having vanished  by degrees1 society
 offers to us only an assembly of       
artificial men and  factitious passions1
 which are the work of all these new    
relations1 and  without any real        
foundation in nature4 ,we are taught    
nothing on this  subject1 by reflection1
 that is not entirely confirmed by      

observation4  ,the savage and the       
civilised man differ so much in the     
bottom of  their hearts and in their    
inclinations1 that what constitutes the 
supreme happiness of one would reduce   
the other to despair4 ,the former       
breathes only peace and liberty2 he     
desires only to live and be free  from  
labour2 even the ataraxia of the ,stoic 
falls far short of his  profound        
indifference to every other object4     
,civilised man1 on the  other hand1 is  
always moving1 sweating1 toiling and    
racking his brains  to find still more  
laborious occupations3 he goes on in    
drudgery to his  last moment1 and even  
seeks death to put himself in a position
 to live1  or renounces life to acquire 
immortality4 ,he pays his court to men  
in  power1 whom he hates1 and to the    
wealthy1 whom he despises2 he stops at  
nothing to have the honour of serving   
them2 he is not ashamed to value        
himself on his own meanness and their   
protection2 and1 proud of his  slavery1 

he speaks with disdain of those1 who    
have not the honour of  sharing it4     
,what a sight would the perplexing and  
envied labours of a  ,european minister 
of ,state present to the eyes of a      
,caribean6 ,how many  cruel deaths would
 not this indolent savage prefer to the 
horrors of  such a life1 which is seldom
 even sweetened by the pleasure of doing
  good6 ,but1 for him to see into the   
motives of all this solicitude1 the     
words power and reputation1 would have  
to bear some meaning in his  mind2 he   
would have to know that there are men   
who set a value on the  opinion of the  
rest of the world2 who can be made happy
 and satisfied  with themselves rather  
on the testimony of other people than on
 their  own4 ,in reality1 the source1 of
 all these differences is1 that the     
savage lives within himself1 while      
social man lives constantly outside     
himself1 and only knows how to live in  
the opinion of others1 so that  he seems
 to receive the consciousness of his own

 existence merely  from the judgment of 
others concerning him4 ,it is not to my 
present  purpose to insist on the       
indifference to good and evil which     
arises  from this disposition1 in spite 
of our many fine works on morality1  or 
to show how1 everything being reduced to
 appearances1 there is but  art and     
mummery in even honour1 friendship1     
virtue1 and often vice  itself1 of which
 we at length learn the secret of       
boasting2 to show1  in short1 how1      
always asking others what1 we are1 and  
never daring  to ask ourselves1 in the  
midst of so much philosophy1 humanity   
and  civilisation1 and of such sublime  
codes of morality1 we have nothing  to  
show for ourselves but a frivolous and  
deceitful appearance1 honour  without   
virtue1 reason without wisdom1 and      
pleasure without happiness4  ,it is     
sufficient that ,i have proved that this
 is not by any means the  original state
 of man1 but that it is merely the      
spirit of society1 and  the inequality  

which society produces1 that thus       
transform and alter  all our natural    
inclinations4    ,i have endeavoured to 
trace the origin and progress of        
inequality1 and  the institution and    
abuse of political societies1 as far as 
these are  capable of being deduced from
 the nature of man merely by the light  
of reason1 and independently of those   
sacred dogmas which give the  sanction  
of divine right to sovereign authority4 
,it follows from this  survey that1 as  
there is hardly any inequality in the   
state of nature1  all the inequality    
which now prevails owes its strength and
 growth to  the development of our      
faculties and the advance of the human  
mind1  and becomes at last permanent and
 legitimate by the establishment  of    
property and laws4 ,secondly1 it follows
 that moral inequality  authorised by   
positive right alone1 clashes with      
natural right1  whenever it is not      
proportionate to physical inequality2 a 
distinction  which sufficiently         

determines what we ought to think of    
that species  of inequality which       
prevails in all civilised countries2    
since it is  plainly contrary to the law
 of nature1 however defined1 that       
children  should command old men1 fools 
wise men1 and that the privileged  few  
should gorge themselves with            
superfluities1 while the starving       
multitude are in want of the bare       
necessities of life4      #e ,ovid1     
,metamorphoses xi1 #abg4    ,both rich  
and poor1 shocked at their new-found    
ills1 ,would fly from  wealth1 and lose 
what they had sought4      #f ,tacitus1 
,hist4 iv1 #ag4 ,the most wretched      
slavery they call peace4    #g ,of the  
,rights of the ,most ,christian ,queen  
over various ,states of  the ,monarchy  
of ,spain1 #affg4    #h ,distributive   
justice would oppose this rigorous      
equality of the  state of nature1 even  
were it practicable in civil society2 as
 all  the members of the ,state owe it  
their services in proportion to their   

talents and abilities1 they ought1 on   
their side1 to be distinguished  and    
favoured in proportion to the services  
they have actually rendered4  ,it is in 
this sense we must understand that      
passage of ,isocrates1 in  which he     
extols the primitive ,athenians1 for    
having determined which  of the two     
kinds of equality was the most useful1  
viz4 that which  consists in dividing   
the same advantages indiscriminately    
among all the  citizens1 or that which  
consists in distributing them to each   
according  to his deserts4 ,these able  
politicians1 adds the orator1 banishing 
that unjust inequality which makes no   
distinction between good and bad  men1  
adhered inviolably to that which rewards
 and punishes every man  according to   
his deserts4    ,but in the first place1
 there never existed a society1 however 
corrupt  some may have become1 where no 
difference was made between the good    
and the bad2 and with regard to         
morality1 where no measures can be      

prescribed by law exact enough to serve 
as a practical rule for a  magistrate1  
it is with great prudence that1 in order
 not to leave the  fortune or quality of
 the citizens to his discretion1 it     
prohibits him  from passing judgment on 
persons and confines his judgment to    
actions4  ,only morals such as those of 
the ancient ,romans can bear censors1   
and  such a tribunal among us would     
throw everything into confusion4 ,the   
difference between good and bad men is  
determined by public esteem2 the        
magistrate being strictly a judge of    
right alone2 whereas the public is  the 
truest judge of morals1 and is of such  
integrity and penetration on  this head1
 that although it may be sometimes      
deceived1 it can never be  corrupted4   
,the rank of citizens ought1 therefore1 
to be regulated1 not  according to their
 personal merit--for this would put it  
in the power  of the magistrate to apply
 the law almost arbitrarily--but        
according to  the actual services done  

to the ,state1 which are capable of     
being more  exactly estimated4          
,,appendix#a      ,a famous author1     
reckoning up the good and evil of human 
life1 and  comparing the aggregates1    
finds that our pains greatly exceed our 
pleasures3 so that1 all things          
considered1 human life is not at all a  
valuable gift4 ,this conclusion does not
 surprise me2 for the writer  drew all  
his arguments from man in civilisation4 
,had he gone back to  the state of      
nature1 his inquiries would clearly have
 had a different  result1 and man would 
have been seen to be subject to very few
 evils  not of his own creation4 ,it has
 indeed cost us not a little trouble  to
 make ourselves as wretched as we are4  
,when we consider1 on the one  hand1 the
 immense labours of mankind1 the many   
sciences brought to  perfection1 the    
arts invented1 the powers employed1 the 
deeps filled  up1 the mountains         
levelled1 the rocks shattered1 the      
rivers made  navigable1 the tracts of   

land cleared1 the lakes emptied1 the    
marshes  drained1 the enormous          
structures erected on land1 and the     
teeming  vessels that cover the sea2    
and1 on the other hand1 estimate with   
ever  so little thought1 the real       
advantages that have accrued from all   
these  works to mankind1 we cannot help 
being amazed at the vast disproportion  
there is between these things1 and      
deploring the infatuation of man1       
which1 to gratify his silly pride and   
vain self-admiration1 induces him       
eagerly to pursue all the miseries he is
 capable of feeling1 though  beneficent 
nature had kindly placed them out of his
 way4    ,that men are actually wicked1 
a sad and continual experience of them  
proves beyond doubt3 but all the same1  
,i think ,i've shown that man is        
naturally good4 ,what then can have     
depraved him to such an extent1  except 
the changes that have happened in his   
constitution1 the advances  he has made1
 and the knowledge he has acquired8 ,we 

may admire human  society as much as we 
please2 it will be none the less true   
that it  necessarily leads men to hate  
each other in proportion as their       
interests clash1 and to do one another  
apparent services1 while they  are      
really doing every imaginable mischief4 
,what can be thought of a  relation1 in 
which the interest of every individual  
dictates rules  directly opposite to    
those the public reason dictates to the 
community  in general--in which every   
man finds his profit in the misfortunes 
of  his neighbour8 ,there is not perhaps
 any man in a comfortable position  who 
has not greedy heirs1 and perhaps even  
children1 secretly wishing  for his     
death2 not a ship at sea1 of which the  
loss would not be good  news to some    
merchant or other2 not a house1 which   
some debtor of bad  faith would not be  
glad to see reduced to ashes with all   
the papers  it contains2 not a nation   
which does not rejoice at the disasters 
that befall its neighbours4 ,thus it is 

that we find our advantage in  the      
misfortunes of our fellow-creatures1 and
 that the loss of one man  almost always
 constitutes the prosperity of another4 
,but it is still  more pernicious that  
public calamities are the objects of the
 hopes and  expectations of innumerable 
individuals4 ,some desire sickness1 some
  mortality1 some war1 and some famine4 
,i have seen men wicked enough to  weep 
for sorrow at the prospect of a         
plentiful season2 and the great  and    
fatal fire of ,london1 which cost so    
many unhappy persons their  lives or    
their fortunes1 made the fortunes of    
perhaps ten thousand  others4 ,i know   
that ,montaigne2 censures ,demades the  
,athenian for having  caused to be ,i   
punished a workman who1 by selling his  
coffins very  dear1 was a great gainer  
by the deaths of his fellow-citizens2   
but1 the  reason alleged by ,montaigne  
being that everybody ought to be        
punished1  my point is clearly confirmed
 by it4 ,let us penetrate1 therefore1   

the  superficial appearances of         
benevolence1 and survey what passes in  
the  inmost recesses of the heart4 ,let 
us reflect what must be the state of    
things1 when men are forced to caress   
and destroy one another at the  same    
time2 when they are born enemies by     
duty1 and knaves by interest4  ,it will 
perhaps be said that society is so      
formed that every man gains  by serving 
the rest4 ,that would be all very well1 
if he did not gain  still more by       
injuring them4 ,there is no legitimate  
profit so great1  that it cannot be     
greatly exceeded by what may be made    
illegitimately2  we always gain more by 
hurting our neighbours than by doing    
them good4  ,nothing is required but to 
know how to act with impunity2 and to   
this  end the powerful employ all their 
strength1 and the weak all their        
cunning4    ,savage man1 when he has    
dined1 is at peace with all nature1 and 
the  friend of all his fellow-creatures4
 ,if a dispute arises about a meal1  he 

rarely comes to blows1 without having   
first compared the difficulty  of       
conquering his antagonist with the      
trouble of finding subsistence          
elsewhere3 and1 as pride does not come  
in1 it all ends in a few blows2  the    
victor eats1 and the vanquished seeks   
provision somewhere else1  and all is at
 peace4 ,the case is quite different    
with man in the  state of society1 for  
whom first necessaries have to be       
provided1 and  then superfluities2      
delicacies follow next1 then immense    
wealth1 then  subjects1 and then slaves4
 ,he enjoys not a moments relaxation2   
and what  is yet stranger1 the less     
natural and pressing his wants1 the more
  headstrong are his passions1 and1     
still worse1 the more he has it in  his 
power to gratify them2 so that after a  
long course of prosperity1  after having
 swallowed up treasures and ruined      
multitudes1 the hero  ends up by cutting
 every throat till he finds himself1 at 
last1 sole  master of the world4 ,such  

is in miniature the moral picture1 if   
not  of human life1 at least of the     
secret pretensions of the heart of      
civilised man4    ,compare without      
partiality the state of the citizen with
 that of the  savage1 and trace out1 if 
you can1 how many inlets the former has 
opened to pain and death1 besides those 
of his vices1 his wants and his         
misfortunes4 ,if you reflect on the     
mental afflictions that prey on us1  the
 violent passions that waste and exhaust
 us1 the excessive labour  with which   
the poor are burdened1 the still more   
dangerous indolence  to which the       
wealthy give themselves up1 so that the 
poor perish of  want1 and the rich of   
surfeit2 if you reflect but a moment on 
the  heterogeneous mixtures and         
pernicious seasonings of foods2 the     
corrupt  state in which they are        
frequently eaten2 on the adulteration of
  medicines1 the wiles of those who sell
 them1 the mistakes of those who        
administer them1 and the poisonous      

vessels in which they are prepared2  on 
the epidemics bred by foul air in       
consequence of great numbers of  men    
being crowded together1 or those which  
are caused by our delicate  way of      
living1 by our passing from our houses  
into the open air and  back again1 by   
the putting on or throwing off our      
clothes with too  little care1 and by   
all the precautions which sensuality has
 converted  into necessary habits1 and  
the neglect of which sometimes costs us 
our life or health2 if you take into    
account the conflagrations and          
earthquakes1 which1 devouring or        
overwhelming whole cities1 destroy  the 
inhabitants by thousands2 in a word1 if 
you add together all the  dangers with  
which these causes are always           
threatening us1 you will  see how dearly
 nature makes us pay for the contempt   
with which we have  treated her lessons4
    ,i shall not here repeat1 what ,i   
have elsewhere said of the calamities   
of war2 but wish that those1 who have   

sufficient knowledge1 were  willing or  
bold enough to make public the details  
of the villainies  committed in armies  
by the contractors for commissariat1 and
 hospitals3  we should see plainly that 
their monstrous frauds1 already none too
  well concealed1 which cripple the     
finest armies in less than no time1     
occasion greater destruction among the  
soldiers than the swords of the  enemy4 
,the number of people who perish        
annually at sea1 by famine1 the scurvy1 
pirates1 fire and shipwrecks1 affords   
matter for another shocking             
calculation4 ,we must also place to the 
credit of the establishment  of         
property1 and consequently to the       
institution of society1  assassinations1
 poisonings1 highway robberies1 and even
 the punishments  inflicted on the      
wretches guilty of these crimes2 which1 
though  expedient to prevent greater    
evils1 yet by making the murder of one  
man  cost the lives of two or more1     
double the loss to the human race4      

,what shameful methods are sometimes    
practised to prevent the birth of  men1 
and cheat nature2 either by brutal and  
depraved appetites which  insult her    
most beautiful work--appetites unknown  
to savages or mere  animals1 which can  
spring only from the corrupt imagination
 of mankind  in civilised countries2 or 
by secret abortions1 the fitting effects
  of debauchery and vitiated notions of 
honour2 or by the exposure or  murder of
 multitudes of infants1 who fall victims
 to the poverty of  their parents1 or   
the cruel shame of their mothers2 or1   
finally1 by  the mutilation of unhappy  
wretches1 part of whose life1 with their
  hope of posterity1 is given up to vain
 singing1 or1 still worse1 the  brutal  
jealousy of other men3 a mutilation     
which1 in the last case1  becomes a     
double outrage against nature from the  
treatment of those  who suffer it1 and  
from the use to which they are destined4
 ,but is  it not a thousand times more  
common and more dangerous for paternal  

rights openly to offend against         
humanity8 ,how many talents have not    
been thrown away1 and inclinations      
forced1 by the unwise constraint of     
fathers8 ,how many men1 who would have  
distinguished themselves in a  fitting  
estate1 have died dishonoured and       
wretched in another for which  they had 
no taste6 ,how many happy1 but unequal1 
marriages have been  broken or          
disturbed1 and how many chaste wives    
have been dishonoured1  by an order of  
things continually in contradiction with
 that of nature6  ,how many good and    
virtuous husbands and wives are         
reciprocally punished  for having been  
ill-assorted6 ,how many young and       
unhappy victims of  their parents'      
avarice plunge into vice1 or pass their 
melancholy  days in tears1 groaning in  
the indissoluble bonds which their      
hearts  repudiate and gold alone has    
formed6 ,fortunate sometimes are those  
whose courage and virtue remove them    
from life before inhuman violence  makes

 them spend it in crime or in despair4  
,forgive me1 father and  mother1 whom ,i
 shall ever regret3 my complaint        
embitters your griefs2  but would they  
might be an eternal and terrible example
 to every one  who dares1 in the name of
 nature1 to violate her most sacred     
right4    ,if ,i have spoken only of    
those ill-starred unions which are the  
result of our system1 is it to be       
thought that those over which love  and 
sympathy preside are free from          
disadvantages8 ,what if ,i should       
undertake to show humanity attacked in  
its very source1 and even in  the most  
sacred of all ties1 in which fortune is 
consulted before  nature1 and1 the      
disorders of society confounding all    
virtue and vice1  continence becomes a  
criminal precaution1 and a refusal to   
give life  to a fellow-creature1 an act 
of humanity8 ,but1 without drawing aside
  the veil which hides all these        
horrors1 let us content ourselves with  
pointing out the evil which others will 

have to remedy4    ,to all this add the 
multiplicity of unhealthy trades1 which 
shorten  men's lives or destroy their   
bodies1 such as working in the mines1   
and the preparing of metals and         
minerals1 particularly lead1 copper1    
mercury1 cobalt1 and arsenic3 add those 
other dangerous trades which  are daily 
fatal to many tilers1 carpenters1 masons
 and miners3 put all  these together and
 we can see1 in the establishment and   
perfection of  societies1 the reasons   
for that diminution of our species1     
which has  been noticed by many         
philosophers4    ,luxury1 which cannot  
be prevented among men who are tenacious
 of their  own convenience and of the   
respect paid them by others1 soon       
completes  the evil society had begun1  
and1 under the pretence of giving bread 
to  the poor1 whom it should never have 
made such1 impoverishes all the  rest1  
and sooner or later depopulates the     
,state4 ,luxury is a remedy  much worse 
than the disease it sets up to cure2 or 

rather it is in  itself the greatest of 
all evils1 for every ,state1 great or   
small3  for1 in order to maintain all   
the servants and vagabonds it creates1  
it brings oppression and ruin on the    
citizen and the labourer2 it is  like   
those scorching winds1 which1 covering  
the trees and plants with  devouring    
insects1 deprive useful animals of their
 subsistence and  spread famine and     
death wherever they blow4    ,from      
society and the luxury to which it gives
 birth arise the liberal  and mechanical
 arts1 commerce1 letters1 and all those 
superfluities  which make industry      
flourish1 and enrich and ruin nations4  
,the reason  for such destruction is    
plain4 ,it is easy to see1 from the very
 nature  of agriculture1 that it must be
 the least lucrative of all the arts2   
for1 its produce being the most         
universally necessary1 the price must   
be proportionate to the abilities of the
 very poorest of mankind4    ,from the  
same principle may be deduced this rule1

 that the arts in  general are more     
lucrative in proportion as they are less
 useful2 and  that1 in the end1 the most
 useful becomes the most neglected4     
,from this  we may learn what to think  
of the real advantages of industry and  
the  actual effects of its progress4    
,such are the sensible causes of all the
 miseries1 into which opulence  at      
length plunges the most celebrated      
nations4 ,in proportion as arts  and    
industry flourish1 the despised         
husbandman1 burdened with the  taxes    
necessary for the support of luxury1 and
 condemned to pass his  days between    
labour and hunger1 forsakes his native  
field1 to seek in  towns the bread he   
ought to carry thither4 ,the more our   
capital cities  strike the vulgar eye   
with admiration1 the greater reason is  
there to  lament the sight of the       
abandoned countryside1 the large tracts 
of land  that lie uncultivated1 the     
roads crowded with unfortunate citizens 
turned beggars or highwaymen1 and doomed

 to end their wretched lives  either on 
a dunghill or on the gallows4 ,thus the 
,state grows rich on  the one hand1 and 
feeble and depopulated on the other2 the
 mightiest  monarchies1 after having    
taken immense pains to enrich and       
depopulate  themselves1 fall at last a  
prey to some poor nation1 which has     
yielded  to the fatal temptation of     
invading them1 and then1 growing opulent
 and  weak in its turn1 is itself       
invaded and ruined by some other4       
,let any one inform us what produced the
 swarms of barbarians1 who  overran     
,europe1 ,asia and ,africa for so many  
ages4 ,was their prodigious  increase   
due to their industry and arts1 to the  
wisdom of their laws1  or to the        
excellence of their political system8   
,let the learned tell us  why1 instead  
of multiplying to such a degree1 these  
fierce and brutal  men1 without sense or
 science1 without education1 without    
restraint1  did not destroy each other  
hourly in quarrelling over the          

productions  of their fields and woods4 
,let them tell us how these wretches    
could  have the presumption to oppose   
such clever people as we were1 so well  
trained in military discipline1 and     
possessed of such excellent laws  and   
institutions3 and why1 since society has
 been brought to perfection  in northern
 countries1 and so much pains taken to  
instruct their  inhabitants in their    
social duties and in the art of living  
happily  and peaceably together1 we see 
them no longer produce such numberless  
hosts as they used once to send forth to
 be the plague and terror of  other     
nations4 ,i fear some one may at last   
answer me by saying1 that  all these    
fine things1 arts1 sciences and laws1   
were wisely invented by  men1 as a      
salutary plague1 to prevent the too     
great multiplication of  mankind1 lest  
the world1 which was given us for a     
habitation1 should in  time be too small
 for its inhabitants4    ,what1 then1 is
 to be done8 ,must societies be totally 

abolished8 ,must  meum and tuum be      
annihilated1 and must we return again to
 the  forests to live among beasts8     
,this is a deduction in the manner of   
my adversaries1 which ,i would as soon  
anticipate as let them have the  shame  
of drawing4 ,o you1 who have never heard
 the voice of heaven1  who think man    
destined only to live this little life  
and die in  peace2 you1 who can resign  
in the midst of populous cities your    
fatal  acquisitions1 your restless      
spirits1 your corrupt hearts and endless
  desires2 resume1 since it depends     
entirely on yourselves1 your ancient    
and primitive innocence3 retire to the  
woods1 there to lose the sight  and     
remembrance of the crimes of your       
contemporaries2 and be not  apprehensive
 of degrading your species1 by          
renouncing its advances in  order to    
renounce its vices4 ,as for men like me 
whose passions have  destroyed their    
original simplicity1 who can no longer  
subsist on  plants or acorns1 or live   

without laws and magistrates those who  
were  honoured in their first father    
with supernatural instructions2 those   
who discover1 in the design of giving   
human actions at the start a  morality  
which they must otherwise have been so  
long in acquiring1 the  reason for a    
precept in itself indifferent and       
inexplicable on every  other system2    
those1 in short1 who are persuaded that 
the ,divine ,being  has called all      
mankind to be partakers in the happiness
 and perfection  of celestial           
intelligences1 all these will endeavour 
to merit the  eternal prize they are to 
expect from the practice of those       
virtues1  which they make themselves    
follow in learning to know them4 ,they  
will  respect the sacred bonds of their 
respective communities2 they will  love 
theft fellow-citizens1 and serve them   
with all their might3 they  will        
scrupulously obey the laws1 and all     
those who make or administer  them2 they
 will particularly honour those wise and

 good princes1 who  find means of       
preventing1 curing or even palliating   
all these evils and  abuses1 by which we
 are constantly threatened2 they will   
animate the  zeal of their deserving    
rulers1 by showing them1 without        
flattery or  fear1 the importance of    
their office and the severity of their  
duty4  ,but they will not therefore have
 less contempt for a constitution that  
cannot support itself without the aid of
 so many splendid characters1  much     
oftener wished for than found2 and from 
which1 notwithstanding all  their pains 
and solicitude1 there always arise more 
real calamities  than even apparent     
advantages4      #a ,see the faculty of 
self-improvement4          ,a           
,,discourse ,,on ,,political ,,economy  
,the word ,economy1 or conomy1 is       
derived from 1 a house1  and 1 law1 and 
meant originally only the wise and      
legitimate  government of the house for 
the common good of the whole family4    
,the  meaning of the term was then      

extended to the government of that great
  family1 the ,state4 ,to distinguish   
these two senses of the word1 the       
latter is called general or political   
economy1 and the former  domestic or    
particular economy4 ,the first only is  
discussed in the  present discourse4    
,even if there were as close an analogy 
as many authors maintain between  the   
,state and the family1 it would not     
follow that the rules of conduct  proper
 for one of these societies would be    
also proper for the other4  ,they differ
 too much in extent to be regulated in  
the same manner2 and  there will always 
be a great difference between domestic  
government1 in  which a father can see  
everything for himself1 and civil       
government1  where the chief sees hardly
 anything save through the eyes of      
others4  ,to put both on an equality in 
this respect1 the talents1 strength1 and
  all the faculties of the father would 
have to increase in proportion to  the  
size of his family1 and the soul of a   

powerful monarch would have  to be1 to  
that of an ordinary man1 as the extent  
of his empire is to  that of a private  
person's estate4    ,but how could the  
government of the ,state be like that of
 the family1  when the basis on which   
they rest is so different8 ,the father  
being  physically stronger than his     
children1 his paternal authority1 as    
long  as they need his protection1 may  
be reasonably said to be established  by
 nature4 ,but in the great family1 all  
the members of which are  naturally     
equal1 the political authority1 being   
purely arbitrary as far  as its         
institution is concerned1 can be founded
 only on conventions1  and the          
,magistrate can have no authority over  
the rest1 except by  virtue of the laws4
 ,the duties of a father are dictated to
 him by  natural feelings1 and in a     
manner that seldom allows him to neglect
  them4 ,for rulers there is no such    
principle1 and they are really  obliged 
to the people only by what they         

themselves have promised to  do1 and the
 people have therefore a right to       
require of them4 ,another  more         
important difference is that since the  
children have nothing but  what they    
receive from their father1 it is plain  
that all the rights  of property belong 
to him1 or emanate from him2 but quite  
the opposite  is the case in the great  
family1 where the general administration
 is  established only to secure         
individual property1 which is antecedent
 to  it4 ,the principal object of the   
work of the whole house is to preserve  
and increase the patrimony of the       
father1 in order that he may be able    
some day to distribute it among his     
children without impoverishing  them2   
whereas the wealth of the exchequer is  
only a means1 often ill  understood1 of 
keeping the individuals in peace and    
plenty4 ,in a word1  the little family  
is destined to be extinguished1 and to  
resolve itself  some day into several   
families of a similar nature2 but the   

great  family1 being constituted to     
endure for ever in the same condition1  
need not1 like the small one1 increase  
for the purpose of multiplying1  but    
need only maintain itself2 and it can   
easily be proved that any  increase does
 it more harm than good4    ,in the     
family1 it is clear1 for several reasons
 which lie in its very  nature1 that the
 father ought to command4 ,in the first 
place1 the  authority ought not to be   
equally divided between father and      
mother2  the government must be single1 
and in every division of opinion there  
must be one preponderant voice to       
decide4 ,secondly1 however lightly  we  
may regard the disadvantages peculiar to
 women1 yet1 as they  necessarily       
occasion intervals of inaction1 this is 
a sufficient reason  for excluding them 
from this supreme authority3 for when   
the balance  is perfectly even1 a straw 
is enough to turn the scale4 ,besides1  
the  husband ought to be able to        
superintend his wife's conduct1 because 

it is of importance for him to be       
assured that the children1 whom he  is  
obliged to acknowledge and maintain1    
belong to no-one but himself4  ,thirdly1
 children should be obedient to their   
father1 at first of  necessity1 and     
afterwards from gratitude3 after having 
had their  wants satisfied by him during
 one half of their lives1 they ought to 
consecrate the other half to providing  
for his4 ,fourthly1 servants owe  him   
their services in exchange for the      
provision he makes for them1  though    
they may break off the bargain as soon  
as it ceases to suit  them4 ,i say      
nothing here of slavery1 because it is  
contrary to nature1  and cannot be      
authorised by any right or law4         
,there is nothing of all this in        
political society1 in which the chief   
is so far from having any natural       
interest in the happiness of the        
individuals1 that it is not uncommon for
 him to seek his own in their  misery4  
,if the magistracy is hereditary1 a     

community of men is often  governed by a
 child4 ,if it be elective1 innumerable 
inconveniences  arise from such         
election2 while in both cases all the   
advantages of  paternity are lost4 ,if  
you have but a single ruler1 you lie at 
the  discretion of a master who has no  
reason to love you3 and if you have     
several1 you must bear at once their    
tyranny and their divisions4 ,in  a     
word1 abuses are inevitable and their   
consequences fatal in every  society    
where the public interest and the laws  
have no natural force1  and are         
perpetually attacked by personal        
interest and the passions of  the ruler 
and the members4    ,although the       
functions of the father of a family and 
those of the  chief magistrate ought to 
make for the same object1 they must do  
so  in such different ways1 and their   
duty and rights are so essentially      
distinct1 that we cannot confound them  
without forming very false ideas  about 
the fundamental laws of society1 and    

falling into errors which  are fatal to 
mankind4 ,in fact1 if the voice of      
nature is the best  counsellor to which 
a father can listen in the discharge of 
his duty1  for the ,magistrate it is a  
false guide1 which continually prevents 
him  from performing his1 and leads him 
on sooner or later to the ruin of       
himself and of the ,state1 if he is not 
restrained by the most sublime  virtue4 
,the only precaution necessary for the  
father of a family is to  guard himself 
against depravity1 and prevent his      
natural inclinations  from being        
corrupted2 whereas it is these          
themselves which corrupt the            
,magistrate4 ,in order to act aright1   
the first has only to consult his       
heart2 the other becomes a traitor the  
moment he listens to his4 ,even  his own
 reason should be suspect to him1 nor   
should he follow any rule  other than   
the public reason1 which is the law4    
,thus nature has made  a multitude of   
good fathers of families2 but it is     

doubtful whether1  from the very        
beginning of the world1 human wisdom has
 made ten men  capable of governing     
their peers4    ,from all that has just 
been said1 it follows that public       
economy1  which is my subject1 has been 
rightly distinguished from private      
economy1 and that1 the ,state having    
nothing in common with the family       
except the obligations which their heads
 lie under of making both  of them      
happy1 the same rules of conduct cannot 
apply to both4 ,i  have considered these
 few lines enough to overthrow the      
detestable  system which ,sir ,robert   
,filmer has endeavoured to establish in 
his  ,patriarcha2 a work to which two   
celebrated writers have done too much   
honour in writing books to refute it4   
,moreover1 this error is of very  long  
standing2 for ,aristotle himself thought
 proper to combat it with  arguments    
which may be found in the first book of 
his ,politics4    ,i must here ask my   
readers to distinguish also between     

public  economy1 which is my subject and
 which ,i call government1 and the      
supreme authority1 which ,i call        
,sovereignty2 a distinction which       
consists in the fact that the latter has
 the right of legislation1 and  in      
certain cases binds the body of the     
nation itself1 while the former  has    
only the right of execution1 and is     
binding only on individuals4    ,i shall
 take the liberty of making use of a    
very common1 and in some  respects      
inaccurate1 comparison1 which will serve
 to illustrate my  meaning4    ,the body
 politic1 taken individually1 may be    
considered as an  organised1 living     
body1 resembling that of man4 ,the      
sovereign power  represents the head2   
the laws and customs are the brain1 the 
source  of the nerves and seat of the   
understanding1 will and senses1 of      
which the ,judges and ,magistrates are  
the organs3 commerce1 industry1  and    
agriculture are the mouth and stomach   
which prepare the common  subsistence2  

the public income is the blood1 which a 
prudent economy1  in performing the     
functions of the heart1 causes to       
distribute through  the whole body      
nutriment and life3 the citizens are the
 body and the  members1 which make the  
machine live1 move and work2 and no part
 of  this machine can be damaged without
 the painful impression being at  once  
conveyed to the brain1 if the animal is 
in a state of health4    ,the life of   
both bodies is the self common to the   
whole1 the reciprocal  sensibility and  
internal correspondence of all the      
parts4 ,where this  communication       
ceases1 where the formal unity          
disappears1 and the  contiguous parts   
belong to one another only by           
juxtaposition1 the man  is dead1 or the 
,state is dissolved4    ,the body       
politic1 therefore1 is also a moral     
being possessed of a will2  and this    
general will1 which tends always to the 
preservation and  welfare of the whole  
and of every part1 and is the source of 

the laws1  constitutes for all the      
members of the ,state1 in their         
relations to one  another and to it1 the
 rule of what is just or unjust3 a truth
 which  shows1 by the way1 how idly some
 writers have treated as theft the      
subtlety prescribed to children at      
,sparta for obtaining their frugal      
repasts1 as if everything ordained by   
the law were not lawful4    ,it is      
important to observe that this rule of  
justice1 though certain  with regard to 
all citizens1 may be defective with     
regard to  foreigners4 ,the reason is   
clear4 ,the will of the ,state1 though  
general  in relation to its own members1
 is no longer so in relation to other   
,states and their members1 but becomes1 
for them1 a particular and  individual  
will1 which has its rule of justice in  
the law of nature4  ,this1 however1     
enters equally into the principle here  
laid down2  for in such a case1 the     
great city of the world becomes the body
  politic1 whose general will is always 

the law of nature1 and of which  the    
different ,states and peoples are       
individual members4 ,from these         
distinctions1 applied to each political 
society and its members1 are  derived   
the most certain and universal rules1 by
 which we can judge  whether a          
government is good or bad1 and in       
general of the morality of  all human   
actions4    ,every political society is 
composed of other smaller societies of  
different kinds1 each of which has its  
interests and its rules of  conduct3 but
 those societies which everybody        
perceives1 because they  have an        
external and authorised form1 are not   
the only ones that  actually exist in   
the ,state3 all individuals who are     
united by a common  interest compose as 
many others1 either transitory or       
permanent1 whose  influence is none the 
less real because it is less apparent1  
and the  proper observation of whose    
various relations is the true knowledge 
of  public morals and manners4 ,the     

influence of all these tacit or formal  
associations causes1 by the influence of
 their will1 as many different          
modifications of the public will4 ,the  
will of these particular  societies has 
always two relations2 for the members of
 the association1  it is a general will2
 for the great society1 it is a         
particular will2  and it is often right 
with regard to the first object1 and    
wrong as to  the second4 ,an individual 
may be a devout priest1 a brave soldier1
 or a  zealous senator1 and yet a bad   
citizen4 ,a particular resolution may be
  advantageous to the smaller community1
 but pernicious to the greater4  ,it is 
true that particular societies being    
always subordinate to the  general      
society in preference to others1 the    
duty of a citizen takes  precedence of  
that of a senator1 and a man's duty of  
that of a citizen3  but unhappily       
personal interest is always found in    
inverse ratio to  duty1 and increases in
 proportion as the association grows    

narrower1  and the engagement less      
sacred2 which irrefragably proves that  
the most  general will is always the    
must just also1 and that the voice of   
the  people is in fact the voice of     
,god4    ,it does not follow that the   
public decisions are always equitable2  
they may possibly1 for reasons which ,i 
have given1 not be so when they  have to
 do with foreigners4 ,thus it is not    
impossible that a ,republic1  though in 
itself well governed1 should enter upon 
an unjust war4 ,nor  is it less possible
 for the ,council of a ,democracy to    
pass unjust  decrees1 and condemn the   
innocent2 but this never happens unless 
the  people is seduced by private       
interests1 which the credit or eloquence
  of some clever persons substitutes for
 those of the ,state2 in which  case the
 general will will be one thing1 and the
 result of the public  deliberation     
another4 ,this is not contradicted by   
the case of the  ,athenian ,democracy2  
for ,athens was in fact not a           

,democracy1 but a  very tyrannical      
,aristocracy1 governed by philosophers  
and orators4  ,carefully determine what 
happens in every public deliberation1   
and it  will be seen that the general   
will is always for the common good2 but 
very often there is a secret division1 a
 tacit confederacy1 which1 for          
particular ends1 causes the natural     
disposition of the assembly to be  set  
at nought4 ,in such a case the body of  
society is really divided  into other   
bodies1 the members of which acquire a  
general will1 which  is good and just   
with respect to these new bodies1 but   
unjust and bad  with regard to the      
whole1 from which each is thus          
dismembered4    ,we see then how easy it
 is1 by the help of these principles1 to
 explain  those apparent contradictions1
 which are noticed in the conduct of    
many persons who are scrupulously honest
 in some respects1 and cheats  and      
scoundrels in others1 who trample under 
foot the most sacred  duties1 and yet   

are faithful to the death to engagements
 that are often  illegitimate4 ,thus the
 most depraved of men always pay some   
sort of  homage to public faith2 and    
even robbers1 who are the enemies of    
virtue  in the great society1 pay some  
respect to the shadow of it in their    
secret caves4    ,in establishing the   
general will as the first principle of  
public  economy1 and the fundamental    
rule of government1 ,i have not thought 
it necessary to inquire seriously       
whether the ,magistrates belong to the  
people1 or the people to the            
,magistrates2 or whether in public      
affairs  the good of the ,state should  
be taken into account1 or only that of  
its rulers4 ,that question indeed has   
long been decided one way in  theory1   
and another in practice2 and in general 
it would be ridiculous  to expect that  
those who are in fact masters will      
prefer any other  interest to their own4
 ,it would not be improper1 therefore1  
further to  distinguish public economy  

as popular or tyrannical4 ,the former is
  that of every ,state1 in which there  
reigns between the people and the       
rulers unity of interest and will3 the  
latter will necessarily exist  wherever 
the government and the people have      
different interests1 and1  consequently1
 opposing wills4 ,the rules of the      
latter are written at  length in the    
archives of history1 and in the satires 
of ,macchiavelli4  ,the rules of the    
former are found only in the writings of
 those  philosophers who venture to     
proclaim the rights of humanity4    ,i4 
,the first and most important rule of   
legitimate or popular  government1 that 
is to say1 of government whose object is
 the good of  the people1 is therefore1 
as ,i have observed1 to follow in       
everything  the general will4 ,but to   
follow this will it is necessary to know
 it1  and above all to distinguish it   
from the particular will1 beginning     
with one's self3 this distinction is    
always very difficult to make1  and only

 the most sublime virtue can afford     
sufficient illumination  for it4 ,as1 in
 order to will1 it is necessary to be   
free1 a difficulty  no less great than  
the former arises--that of preserving at
 once the  public liberty and the       
authority of government4 ,look into the 
motives  which have induced men1 once   
united by their common needs in a       
general  society1 to unite themselves   
still more intimately by means of civil 
societies3 you will find no other motive
 than that of assuring the  property1   
life and liberty of each member by the  
protection of all4  ,but can men be     
forced to defend the liberty of any one 
among them1  without trespassing on that
 of others8 ,and how can they provide   
for  the public needs1 without          
alienating the individual property of   
those  who are forced to contribute to  
them8 ,with whatever sophistry all this 
may be covered over1 it is certain that 
if any constraint can be laid  on my    
will1 ,i am no longer free1 and that ,i 

am no longer master of my  own property1
 if any one else can lay a hand on it4  
,this difficulty1  which would have     
seemed insurmountable1 has been removed1
 like the  first1 by the most sublime of
 all human institutions1 or rather by a 
divine inspiration1 which teaches       
mankind to imitate here below the       
unchangeable decrees of the ,deity4 ,by 
what inconceivable art has a  means been
 found of making men free by making them
 subject2 of using in  the service of   
the ,state the properties1 the persons  
and even the lives  of all its members1 
without constraining and without        
consulting them2  of confining their    
will by their own admission2 of         
overcoming their  refusal by that       
consent1 and forcing them to punish     
themselves1 when  they act against their
 own will8 ,how can it be that all      
should obey1  yet nobody take upon him  
to command1 and that all should serve1  
and  yet have no masters1 but be the    
more free1 as1 in apparent subjection1  

each loses no part of his liberty but   
what might be hurtful2 to that of       
another8 ,these wonders are the work of 
law4 ,it is to law alone that men  owe  
justice and liberty4 ,it is this        
salutary organ of the will of all  which
 establishes1 in civil right1 the       
natural equality between men4  ,it is   
this celestial voice which dictates to  
each citizen the precepts  of public    
reason1 and teaches him to act according
 to the rules of his  own judgment1 and 
not to behave inconsistently with       
himself4 ,it is with  this voice alone  
that political rulers should speak when 
they command2  for no sooner does one   
man1 setting aside the law1 claim to    
subject  another to his private will1   
than he departs from the state of civil 
society1 and confronts him face to face 
in the pure state of nature1 in  which  
obedience is prescribed solely by       
necessity4    ,the most pressing        
interest of the ruler1 and even his most
  indispensable duty1 therefore1 is to  

watch over the observation of the  laws 
of which he is the minister1 and on     
which his whole authority is  founded4  
,at the same time1 if he exacts the     
observance of them from  others1 he is  
the more strongly bound to observe them 
himself1 since he  enjoys all their     
favour4 ,for his example is of such     
force1 that even if  the people were    
willing to permit him to release himself
 from the yoke  of the law1 he ought to 
be cautious in availing himself of so   
dangerous  a prerogative1 which others  
might soon claim to usurp in their turn1
  and often use to his prejudice4 ,at   
bottom1 as all social engagements  are  
mutual in nature1 it is impossible for  
any one to set himself above  the law1  
without renouncing its advantages2 for  
nobody is bound by any  obligation to   
one who claims that he is under no      
obligations to others4  ,for this reason
 no exemption from the law will ever be 
granted1 on any  ground whatsoever1 in a
 well-regulated government4 ,those      

citizens who  have deserved well of     
their country ought to be rewarded with 
honours1  but never with privileges3 for
 the ,republic is at the eve of its     
fall1  when any one can think it fine   
not to obey the laws4 ,if the nobility  
or  the soldiery should ever adopt such 
a maxim1 all would be lost beyond       
redemption4    ,the power of the laws   
depends still more on their own wisdom  
than on  the severity of their          
administrators1 and the public will     
derives its  greatest weight from the   
reason which has dictated it4 ,hence    
,plato  looked upon it as a very        
necessary precaution to place at the    
head of  all edicts a preamble1 setting 
forth their justice and utility4 ,in    
fact1 the first of all laws is to       
respect the laws3 the severity of       
penalties is only a vain resource1      
invented by little minds in order  to   
substitute terror for that respect which
 they have no means of  obtaining4 ,it  
has constantly been observed that in    

those countries  where legal punishments
 are most severe1 they are also most    
frequent2  so that the cruelty of such  
punishments is a proof only of the      
multitude of criminals1 and1 punishing  
everything with equal severity1  induces
 those who are guilty to commit crimes1 
in order to escape being  punished for  
their faults4    ,but though the        
government be not master of the law1 it 
is much to be  its guarantor1 and to    
possess a thousand means of inspiring   
the love  of it4 ,in this alone the     
talent of reigning consists4 ,with force
 in  one's hands1 there is no art       
required to make the whole world        
tremble1  nor indeed much to gain men's 
hearts2 for experience has long since   
taught the people to give its rulers    
great credit for all the evil they      
abstain from doing it1 and to adore them
 if they do not absolutely hate  it4 ,a 
fool1 if he be obeyed1 may punish crimes
 as well as another3 but  the true      
statesman is he who knows how to prevent

 them3 it is over the  wills1 even more 
than the actions1 of his subjects that  
his honourable  rule is extended4 ,if he
 could secure that every one should act 
aright1  he would no longer have        
anything to do2 and the masterpiece of  
his  labours would be to be able to     
remain unemployed4 ,it is certain1 at   
least1 that the greatest talent a ruler 
can possess is to disguise his  power1  
in order to render it less odious1 and  
to conduct the ,state so  peaceably as  
to make it seem to have no need of      
conductors4    ,i conclude1 therefore1  
that1 as the first duty of the          
legislator is to  make the laws         
conformable to the general will1 the    
first rule of public  economy is that   
the administration of justice should be 
conformable  to the laws4 ,it will even 
be enough to prevent the ,state from    
being ill  governed1 that the           
,legislator shall have provided1 as he  
should1 for  every need of place1       
climate1 soil1 custom1 neighbourhood1   

and all the  rest of the relations      
peculiar to the people he had to        
institute4 ,not  but what there still   
remains an infinity of details of       
administration  and economy1 which are  
left to the wisdom of the government3   
but there  are two infallible rules for 
its good conduct on these occasions2 one
  is1 that the spirit of the law ought  
to decide in every particular  case that
 could not be foreseen2 the other is    
that the general will1  the source and  
supplement of all laws1 should be       
consulted wherever  they fail4 ,but how1
 ,i shall be asked1 can the general will
 be known  in cases in which it has not 
expressed itself8 ,must the whole nation
  be assembled together at every        
unforeseen event8 ,certainly not4 ,it   
ought the less to be assembled1 because 
it is by no means certain that  its     
decision would be the expression of the 
general will2 besides1 the  method would
 be impracticable in a great people1 and
 is hardly ever  necessary where the    

government is well-intentioned3 for the 
rulers  well know that the general will 
is always on the side which is most     
favourable to the public interest1 that 
is to say1 most equitable2 so  that it  
is needful only to act justly1 to be    
certain of following the  general will4 
,when this is flouted too openly1 it    
makes itself felt1 in  spite of the     
formidable restraint of the public      
authority4 ,i shall cite  the nearest   
possible examples that may be followed  
in such cases4    ,in ,china1 it is the 
constant maxim of the ,prince to decide 
against his  officers1 in every dispute 
that arises between them and the people4
  ,if bread be too dear in any province1
 the ,intendant of that province  is    
thrown into prison4 ,if there be an     
insurrection in another1 the  ,governor 
is dismissed1 and every ,mandarin       
answers with his head for all  the      
mischief that happens in his department4
 ,not that these affairs do  not        
subsequently undergo a regular          

examination2 but long experience  has   
caused the judgment to be thus          
anticipated4 ,there is seldom any       
injustice to be repaired2 in the        
meantime1 the ,emperor1 being satisfied 
that public outcry does not arise       
without cause1 always discovers1        
through the seditious clamours which he 
punishes1 just grievances to  redress4  
,it is a great thing to preserve the    
rule of peace and order through all  the
 parts of the ,republic2 it is a great  
thing that the ,state should  be        
tranquil1 and the law respected3 but if 
nothing more is done1 there  will be in 
all this more appearance than reality2  
for that government  which confines     
itself to mere obedience will find      
difficulty in getting  itself obeyed4   
,if it is good to know how to deal with 
men as they are1  it is much better to  
make them what there is need that they  
should  be4 ,the most absolute authority
 is that which penetrates into a man's  
inmost being1 and concerns itself no    

less with his will than with  his       
actions4 ,it is certain that all peoples
 become in the long run  what the       
government makes them2 warriors1        
citizens1 men1 when it so  pleases2 or  
merely populace and rabble1 when it     
chooses to make them  so4 ,hence every  
prince who despises his subjects1       
dishonours himself1  in confessing that 
he does not know how to make them worthy
 of respect4  ,make men1 therefore1 if  
you would command men3 if you would have
 them  obedient to the laws1 make them  
love the laws1 and then they will need  
only to know what is their duty to do   
it4 ,this was the great art of  ancient 
governments1 in those distant times when
 philosophers gave laws  to men1 and    
made use of their authority only to     
render them wise and  happy4 ,thence    
arose the numerous sumptuary laws1 the  
many regulations  of morals1 and all the
 public rules of conduct which were     
admitted  or rejected with the greatest 
care4 ,even tyrants did not forget this 

important part of administration1 but   
took as great pains to corrupt  the     
morals of their slaves1 as ,magistrates 
took to correct those of  their         
fellow-citizens4 ,but our modern        
governments1 which imagine they  have   
done everything when they have raised   
money1 conceive that it is  unnecessary 
and even impossible to go a step        
further4    ,,ii4 ,the second essential 
rule of public economy is no less       
important  than the first4 ,if you would
 have the general will accomplished1    
bring  all the particular wills into    
conformity with it2 in other words1 as  
virtue is nothing more than this        
conformity of the particular wills  with
 the general will1 establish the reign  
of virtue4    ,if our politicians were  
less blinded by their ambition1 they    
would  see how impossible it is for any 
establishment whatever to act in  the   
spirit of its institution1 unless it is 
guided in accordance  with the law of   
duty2 they would feel that the greatest 

support of  public authority lies in the
 hearts of the citizens1 and that       
nothing  can take the place of morality 
in the maintenance of government4 ,it   
is not only upright men who know how to 
administer the laws2 but at  bottom only
 good men know how to obey them4 ,the   
man who once gets the  better of        
remorse1 will not shrink before         
punishments which are less  severe1 and 
less lasting1 and from which there is at
 least the hope  of escaping3 whatever  
precautions are taken1 those who only   
require  impunity in order to do wrong  
will not fail to find means of eluding  
the law1 and avoiding its penalties4 ,in
 this case1 as all particular  interests
 unite against the general interest1    
which is no longer that  of any         
individual1 public vices have a greater 
effect in enervating  the laws than the 
laws in the repression of such vices3 so
 that the  corruption of the people and 
of their rulers will at length extend to
  the government1 however wise it may   

be4 ,the worst of all abuses is  to pay 
an apparent obedience to the laws1 only 
in order actually to  break them with   
security4 ,for in this case the best    
laws soon become  the most pernicious2  
and it would be a hundred times better  
that  they should not exist4 ,in such a 
situation1 it is vain to add edicts  to 
edicts and regulations to regulations4  
,everything serves only to  introduce   
new abuses1 without correcting the old4 
,the more laws are  multiplied1 the more
 they are despised1 and all the new     
officials  appointed to supervise them  
are only so many more people to break   
them1 and either to share the plunder   
with their predecessors1 or to  plunder 
apart on their own4 ,the reward of      
virtue soon becomes that of  robbery2   
the vilest of men rise to the greatest  
credit2 the greater  they are the more  
despicable they become2 their infamy    
appears even in  their dignities1 and   
their very honours dishonour them4 ,if  
they buy  the influence of the leaders  

or the protection of women1 it is only  
that they may sell justice1 duty1 and   
the ,state in their turn3 in the        
meantime1 the people1 feeling that its  
vices are not the first cause of  its   
misfortunes1 murmurs and complains that 
all its misfortunes come  solely from   
those whom it pays to protect it from   
such things4    ,it is under these      
circumstances that the voice of duty no 
longer speaks  in men's hearts1 and     
their rulers are obliged to substitute  
the cry of  terror1 or the lure of an   
apparent interest1 of which they        
subsequently  trick their creatures4 ,in
 this situation they are compelled to   
have  recourse to all the petty and     
despicable shifts which they call rules 
of ,state and mysteries of the cabinet4 
,all the vigour that is left  in the    
government is used by its members in    
ruining and supplanting one  another1   
while the public business is neglected1 
or is transacted only  as personal      
interest requires and directs4 ,in      

short1 the whole art of  those great    
politicians lies in so mesmerising those
 they stand in need  of1 that each may  
think he is labouring for his own       
interest in working  for theirs3 ,i say 
theirs on the false supposition that it 
is the real  interest of rulers to      
annihilate a people in order to make it 
subject1  and to2 ruin their own        
property in order to secure their       
possession of  it4    ,but when the     
citizens love their duty1 and the       
guardians of the public  authority      
sincerely apply themselves to the       
fostering of that love  by their own    
example and assiduity1 every difficulty 
vanishes2 and  government becomes so    
easy that it needs none of that art of  
darkness1  whose blackness is its only  
mystery4 ,those enterprising spirits1   
so dangerous and so much admired1 all   
those great ministers1 whose  glory is  
inseparable from the miseries of the    
people1 are no longer  regretted3 public
 morality supplies what is wanting in   

the genius of  the rulers2 and the more 
virtue reigns1 the less need there is   
for  talent4 ,even ambition is better   
served by duty than by usurpation3  when
 the people is convinced that its rulers
 are labouring only for  its happiness1 
its deference saves them the trouble of 
labouring to  strengthen their power3   
and history shows us1 in a thousand     
cases1  that the authority of one who is
 beloved over those whom he loves is  a 
hundred times more absolute than all the
 tyranny of usurpers4 ,this  does not   
mean that the government ought to be    
afraid to make use of its  power1 but   
that it ought to make use of it only in 
a lawful manner4  ,we find in history a 
thousand examples of pusillanimous or   
ambitious  rulers1 who were ruined by   
their slackness or their pride2 not one 
who  suffered for having been strictly  
just4 ,but we ought not to confound     
negligence with moderation1 or clemency 
with weakness4 ,to be just1 it  is      
necessary to be severe2 to permit vice1 

when one has the right and  the power to
 suppress it1 is to be oneself vicious4 
,it is not enough to say to the         
citizens1 be good2 they must be  taught 
to be so2 and even example1 which is in 
this respect the first  lesson1 is not  
the sole means to be employed2          
patriotism is the most  efficacious3    
for1 as ,i have said already1 every man 
is virtuous when  his particular will is
 in all things conformable to the       
general will1  and we voluntarily will  
what is willed by those whom we love4   
,it  appears that the feeling of        
humanity evaporates and grows feeble in 
embracing all mankind1 and that we      
cannot be affected by the calamities  of
 ,tartary or ,japan1 in the same manner 
as we are by those of ,european         
nations4 ,it is necessary in some degree
 to confine and limit our  interest and 
compassion in order to make it active4  
,now1 as this  sentiment can be useful  
only to those with whom we have to live1
 it is  proper that our humanity should 

confine itself to our fellow-citizens1  
and should receive a new force because  
we are in the habit of seeing  them1 and
 by reason of the common interest which 
unites them4 ,it is  certain that the   
greatest miracles of virtue have been   
produced by  patriotism3 this fine and  
lively feeling1 which gives to the force
 of  self-love all the beauty of virtue1
 lends it an energy which1 without      
disfiguring it1 makes it the most heroic
 of all passions4 ,this it is  that     
produces so many immortal actions1 the  
glory of which dazzles our  feeble eyes2
 and so many great men1 whose old-world 
virtues pass for  fables now that       
patriotism is made mock of4 ,this is not
 surprising2  the transports of         
susceptible hearts appear altogether    
fanciful to any  one who has never felt 
them2 and the love of one's country1    
which is a  hundred times more lively   
and delightful than the love of a       
mistress1  cannot be conceived except by
 experiencing it4 ,but it is easy to    

perceive in every heart that is warmed  
by it1 in all the actions it  inspires1 
a glowing and sublime ardour which does 
not attend the purest  virtue1 when     
separated from it4 ,contrast ,socrates  
even with ,cato2 the  one was the       
greater philosopher1 the other more of  
the citizen4 ,athens  was already ruined
 in the time of ,socrates1 and he had no
 other country  than the world at large4
 ,cato had the cause of his country     
always at  heart2 he lived for it alone1
 and could not bear to outlive it4 ,the 
virtue of ,socrates was that of the     
wisest of men2 but1 compared with  ,csar
 and ,pompey1 ,cato seems a ,god among  
mortals4 ,socrates instructed  a few    
individuals1 opposed the ,sophists1 and 
died for truth3 but ,cato  defended his 
country1 its liberty and its laws1      
against the conquerors  of the world1   
and at length departed from the earth1  
when he had no  longer a country to     
serve4 ,a worthy pupil of ,socrates     
would be the most  virtuous of his      

contemporaries2 but a worthy follower of
 ,cato would be  one of the greatest4   
,the virtue of the former would be his  
happiness2  the latter would seek his   
happiness in that of all4 ,we should be 
taught  by the one1 and led by the      
other2 and this alone is enough to      
determine  which to prefer3 for no      
people has ever been made into a nation 
of  philosophers1 but it is not         
impossible to make a people happy4      
,do we wish men to be virtuous8 ,then   
let us begin by making them love  their 
country3 but how can they love it1 if   
their country be nothing  more to them  
than to strangers1 and afford them      
nothing but what it  can refuse nobody8 
,it would be still worse1 if they did   
not enjoy even  the privilege of social 
security1 and if their lives1 liberties 
and  property lay at the mercy of       
persons in power1 without their being   
permitted1 or it being possible for     
them1 to get relief from the laws4  ,for
 in that case1 being subjected to the   

duties of the state of civil  society1  
without enjoying even the common        
privileges of the state of  nature1 and 
without being able to use their strength
 in their own  defence1 they would be in
 the worst1 condition in which freemen  
could  possibly find themselves1 and the
 word country would mean for them       
something merely odious and ridiculous4 
,it must not be imagined that a  man can
 break or lose an arm1 without the pain 
being conveyed to his  head3 nor is it  
any more credible that the general will 
should consent  that any one member of  
the ,state1 whoever he might be1 should 
wound or  destroy another1 than it is   
that the fingers of a man in his senses 
should wilfully scratch his eyes out4   
,the security of individuals is so      
intimately connected with the public    
confederation that1 apart from the      
regard that must be paid to human       
weakness1 that convention would in      
point of right be dissolved1 if in the  
,state a single citizen who might  have 

been relieved were allowed to perish1 or
 if one were wrongfully  confined in    
prison1 or if in one case an obviously  
unjust sentence were  given4 ,for the   
fundamental conventions being broken1 it
 is impossible  to conceive of any right
 or interest that could retain the      
people in  the social union2 unless they
 were restrained by force1 which alone  
causes the dissolution of the state of  
civil society4    ,in fact1 does not the
 undertaking entered into by the whole  
body of the  nation bind it to provide  
for the security of the least of its    
members  with as much care as for that  
of all the rest8 ,is the welfare of a   
single citizen any less the common cause
 than that of the whole ,state8  ,it may
 be said that it is good that one should
 perish for all4 ,i am  ready to admire 
such a saying when it comes from the    
lips of a virtuous  and worthy patriot1 
voluntarily and dutifully sacrificing   
himself for  the good of his country3   
but if we are to understand by it1 that 

it  is lawful for the government to     
sacrifice an innocent man for the good  
of the multitude1 ,i look upon it as one
 of the most execrable rules  tyranny   
ever invented1 the greatest falsehood   
that can be advanced1 the  most         
dangerous admission that can be made1   
and a direct contradiction  of the      
fundamental laws of society4 ,so little 
is it the case that any  one person     
ought to perish for all1 that all have  
pledged their lives  and properties for 
the defence of each1 in order that the  
weakness of  individuals may always be  
protected by the strength of the public1
 and  each member by the whole ,state4  
,suppose we take from the whole people  
one individual after another1 and then  
press the advocates of this rule  to    
explain more exactly what they mean by  
the body of the ,state1 and  we shall   
see that it will at length be reduced to
 a small number of  persons1 who are not
 the people1 but the officers of the    
people1 and  who1 having bound          

themselves by personal oath to perish   
for the welfare  of the people1 would   
thence infer that the people is to      
perish for  their own4    ,need we look 
for examples of the protection which the
 ,state owes to its  members1 and the   
respect it owes to their persons8 ,it is
 only among  the most illustrious and   
courageous nations that they are to be  
found2  it is only among free peoples   
that the dignity of man is realised4 ,it
  is well known into what perplexity the
 whole republic of ,sparta was  thrown1 
when the question of punishing a guilty 
citizen arose4    ,in ,macedon1 the life
 of a man was a matter of such          
importance1 that  ,alexander the ,great1
 at the height of his glory1 would not  
have dared  to put a ,macedonian        
criminal to death in cold blood1 till   
the accused  had appeared to make his   
defence before his fellow-citizens1 and 
had  been condemned by them4 ,but the   
,romans distinguished themselves above  
all other peoples by the regard which   

their government paid to the            
individual1 and by its scrupulous       
attention to the preservation of  the   
inviolable rights of all the members of 
the ,state4 ,nothing was  so sacred     
among them as the life of a citizen2 and
 no less than an  assembly of the whole 
people was needed to condemn one4 ,not  
even the  ,senate1 nor the ,consuls1 in 
all their majesty1 possessed the right2 
but the crime and punishment of a       
citizen were regarded as a public       
calamity among the most powerful people 
in the world4 ,so hard indeed  did it   
seem to shed blood for any crime        
whatsoever1 that by the ,lex  ,porcia1  
the penalty of death was commuted into  
that of banishment for  all those who   
were willing to survive the loss of so  
great a country4  ,everything both at   
,rome1 and in the ,roman armies1        
breathed that love of  fellow-citizens  
one for another1 and that respect for   
the ,roman name1  which raised the      
courage and inspired the virtue of every

 one who had  the honour to bear it4    
,the cap of a citizen delivered from    
slavery1  the civic crown of him who had
 saved the life of another1 were looked 
upon with the greatest pleasure amid the
 pomp of their triumphs2 and  it is     
remarkable that among the crowns which  
were bestowed in honour  of splendid    
actions in war1 the civic crown and that
 of the triumphant  general alone were  
of laurel1 all the others being merely  
of gold4 ,it  was thus that ,rome was   
virtuous and became the mistress of the 
world4  ,ambitious rulers6 ,a herdsman  
governs his dogs and cattle1 and yet is 
only the meanest of mankind4 ,if it be a
 fine thing to command1 it is  when     
those who obey us are capable of doing  
us honour4 ,show respect1  therefore1 to
 your fellow-citizens1 and you will     
render yourselves  worthy of respect2   
show respect to liberty1 and your power 
will  increase daily4 ,never exceed your
 rights1 and they will soon become      
unlimited4    ,let our country then show

 itself the common mother of her        
citizens2 let  the advantages they enjoy
 in their country endear it to them2 let
 the  government leave them enough share
 in the public administration to make   
them feel that they are at home2 and let
 the laws be in their eyes only  the    
guarantees of the common liberty4 ,these
 rights1 great as they are1  belong to  
all men3 but without seeming to attack  
them directly1 the  ill-will of rulers  
may in fact easily reduce their effect  
to nothing4  ,the law1 which they thus  
abuse1 serves the powerful at once as a 
weapon  of offence1 and as a shield     
against the weak2 and the pretext of the
  public good is always the most        
dangerous scourge of the people4 ,what  
is most necessary1 and perhaps most     
difficult1 in government1 is rigid      
integrity in doing strict justice to    
all1 and above all in protecting  the   
poor against the tyranny of the rich4   
,the greatest evil has  already come    
about1 when there are poor men to be    

defended1 and rich  men to be           
restrained4 ,it is on the middle classes
 alone that the whole  force of the law 
is exerted2 they are equally powerless  
against the  treasures of the rich and  
the penury of the poor4 ,the first mocks
 them1  the second escapes them4 ,the   
one breaks the meshes1 the other passes 
through them4    ,it is therefore one of
 the most important functions of        
government to  prevent extreme          
inequality of fortunes2 not by taking   
away wealth from  its possessors1 but by
 depriving all men of means to          
accumulate it2  not by building         
hospitals for the poor1 but by securing 
the citizens  from becoming poor4 ,the  
unequal distribution of inhabitants over
 the  territory1 when men are crowded   
together in one place1 while other      
places are depopulated2 the             
encouragement of the arts that minister 
to luxury and of purely industrial arts 
at the expense of useful  and laborious 
crafts2 the sacrifice of agriculture to 

commerce2 the  necessitation of the     
tax-farmer by the mal-administration of 
the funds  of the ,state2 and in short1 
venality pushed to such an extreme that 
even public esteem is reckoned at a cash
 value1 and virtue rated at  a market   
price3 these are the most obvious causes
 of opulence and  of poverty1 of public 
interest1 of mutual hatred among        
citizens1 of  indifference to the common
 cause1 of the corruption of the people1
 and  of the weakening of all the       
springs of government4 ,such are the    
evils1  which are with difficulty cured 
when they make themselves felt1 but     
which a wise administration ought to    
prevent1 if it is to maintain1  along   
with good morals1 respect for the laws1 
patriotism1 and the  influence of the   
general will4    ,but all these         
precautions will be inadequate1 unless  
rulers go still  more to the root of the
 matter4 ,i conclude this part of public
 economy  where ,i ought to have begun  
it4 ,there can be no patriotism without 

liberty1 no liberty without virtue1 no  
virtue without citizens2 create         
citizens1 and you have everything you   
need2 without them1 you will have       
nothing but debased slaves1 from the    
rulers of the ,state downwards4 ,to     
form citizens is not the work of a day2 
and in order to have men it  is         
necessary to educate them when they are 
children4 ,it will be said1  perhaps1   
that whoever has men to govern1 ought   
not to seek1 beyond  their nature1 a    
perfection of which they are incapable2 
that he ought  not to desire to destroy 
their passions2 and that the execution  
of such  an attempt is no more desirable
 than it is possible4 ,i will agree1    
further1 that a man without passions    
would certainly be a bad citizen2  but  
it must be agreed also that1 if men are 
not taught not to love  some things1 it 
is impossible to teach them to love one 
object more  than another--to prefer    
that which is truly beautiful to that   
which is  deformed4 ,if1 for example1   

they were early accustomed to regard    
their  individuality only in its        
relation to the body of the ,state1 and 
to be  aware1 so to speak1 of their own 
existence merely as a part of that of   
the ,state1 they might at length come to
 identify themselves in some  degree    
with this greater whole1 to feel        
themselves members of their  country1   
and to love it with that exquisite      
feeling which no isolated  person has   
save for himself2 to lift up their      
spirits perpetually to  this great      
object1 and thus to transform into a    
sublime virtue that  dangerous          
disposition which gives rise to all our 
vices4 ,not only does  philosophy       
demonstrate the possibility of giving   
feeling these new  directions2 history  
furnishes us with a thousand striking   
examples4  ,if they are so rare among us
 moderns1 it is because nobody troubles 
himself whether citizens exist or not1  
and still less does anybody  think of   
attending to the matter soon enough to  

make them4 ,it is too  late to change   
our natural inclinations1 when they have
 taken their  course1 and egoism is     
confirmed by habit3 it is too late to   
lead us  out of ourselves when once the 
human ,ego1 concentrated in our hearts1 
has acquired that contemptible activity 
which absorbs all virtue and            
constitutes the life and being of little
 minds4 ,how can1 patriotism  germinate 
in the midst of so many other passions  
which smother it8  ,and what can remain1
 for fellow-citizens1 of a heart already
 divided  between avarice1 a mistress1  
and vanity8    ,from the first moment of
 life1 men ought to begin learning to   
deserve  to live2 and1 as at the instant
 of birth we partake of the rights of   
citizenship1 that instant ought to be   
the beginning of the exercise of  our   
duty4 ,if there are laws for the age of 
maturity1 there ought to be  laws for   
infancy1 teaching obedience to others3  
and as the reason of  each man is not   
left to be the sole arbiter of his      

duties1 government  ought the less      
indiscriminately to abandon to the      
intelligence and  prejudices of fathers 
the education of their children1 as that
  education is of still greater         
importance to the ,state than to the    
fathers3 for1 according to the course of
 nature1 the death of the  father often 
deprives him of the final fruits of     
education2 but his  country sooner or   
later perceives its effects4 ,families  
dissolve1 but  the ,state remains4      
,should the public authority1 by taking 
the place of the father1 and  charging  
itself with that important function1    
acquire his rights by  discharging his  
duties1 he would have the less cause to 
complain1 as  he would only be changing 
his title1 and would have in common1    
under  the name of citizen1 the same    
authority over his children1 as he was  
exercising separately under the name of 
father1 and would not be less  obeyed   
when speaking in the name of the law1   
than when he spoke in that  of nature4  

,public education1 therefore1 under     
regulations prescribed  by the          
government1 and under magistrates       
established by the ,sovereign1  is one  
of the fundamental rules of popular or  
legitimate government4  ,if children are
 brought up in common in the bosom of   
equality2 if they  are imbued with the  
laws of the ,state and the precepts of  
the general  will2 if they are taught to
 respect these above all things2 if they
  are surrounded by examples and objects
 which constantly remind them of  the   
tender mother who nourishes them1 of the
 love she bears them1 of  the           
inestimable benefits they receive from  
her1 and of the return they  owe her1 we
 cannot doubt that they will learn to   
cherish one another  mutually as        
brothers1 to will nothing contrary to   
the will of society1  to substitute the 
actions of men and citizens for the     
futile and vain  babbling of sophists1  
and to become in time defenders and     
fathers of  the country of which they   

will have been so long the children4    
,i shall say nothing of the ,magistrates
 destined to preside over such  an      
education1 which is certainly the most  
important business of the  ,state4 ,it  
is easy to see that if such marks of    
public confidence  were conferred on    
slight grounds1 if this sublime function
 were not1  for those who have worthily 
discharged all other offices1 the reward
  of labour1 the pleasant and honourable
 repose of old age1 and the  crown of   
all honours1 the whole enterprise would 
be useless and the  education void of   
success4 ,for where-ever the lesson is  
not supported  by authority1 and the    
precept by example1 all instruction is  
fruitless2  and virtue itself loses its 
credit in the mouth of one who does not 
practise it4 ,but let illustrious       
warriors1 bent under the weight of      
their laurels1 preach courage3 let      
upright ,magistrates1 grown white  in   
the purple and on the bench teach       
justice4 ,such teachers as these  would 

thus get themselves virtuous successors1
 and transmit from age to  age1 to      
generations to come1 the experience and 
talents of rulers1 the  courage and     
virtue of citizens1 and common emulation
 in all to live and  die for their      
country4    ,i know of but three peoples
 which once practised public education1 
the  ,cretans1 the ,lacedmonians1 and   
the ancient ,persians3 among all these  
it was attended with the greatest       
success1 and indeed it did wonders      
among the two last4 ,since the world has
 been divided into nations too  great to
 admit of being well governed1 this     
method has been no longer  practicable1 
and the reader will readily perceive    
other reasons why  such a thing has     
never been attempted by any modern      
people4 ,it is very  remarkable that the
 ,romans were able to dispense with it2 
but ,rome was  for five hundred years   
one continued miracle which the world   
cannot  hope to see again4 ,the virtue  
of the ,romans1 engendered by their     

horror  of tyranny and the crimes of    
tyrants1 and by an innate patriotism1   
made  all their houses so many schools  
of citizenship2 while the unlimited     
power of fathers over their children    
made the individual authority so  rigid 
that the father was more feared than the
 ,magistrate1 and was in  his family    
tribunal both censor of morals and      
avenger of the laws4    ,thus a careful 
and well-intentioned government1        
vigilant incessantly to  maintain or    
restore patriotism and morality among   
the people1 provides  beforehand against
 the evils which sooner or later result 
from the  indifference of the citizens  
to the fate of the ,republic1 keeping   
within narrow bounds that personal      
interest which so isolates the          
individual that the ,state is enfeebled 
by his power1 and has nothing  to hope  
from his good-will4 ,wherever men love  
their country1 respect  the laws1 and   
live simply1 little remains to be done  
in order to make  them happy2 and in    

public administration1 where chance has 
less  influence than in the lot of      
individuals1 wisdom is so nearly allied 
to  happiness1 that the two objects are 
confounded4    ,,iii4 ,it is not enough 
to have citizens and to protect them1 it
 is also  necessary to consider their   
subsistence4 ,provision for the public  
wants  is an obvious inference from the 
general will1 and the third essential   
duty of government4 ,this duty is not1  
we should feel1 to fill the  granaries  
of individuals and thereby to grant them
 a dispensation from  labour1 but to    
keep plenty so within their reach that  
labour is always  necessary and never   
useless for its acquisition4 ,it extends
 also to  everything regarding the      
management of the exchequer1 and the    
expenses  of public administration4     
,having thus treated of general economy 
with  reference to the government of    
persons1 we must now consider it with   
reference to the administration of      
property4    ,this part presents no     

fewer difficulties to solve1 and        
contradictions  to remove1 than the     
preceding4 ,it is certain that the right
 of property  is the most sacred of all 
the rights of citizenship1 and even more
  important in some respects than       
liberty itself2 either because it more  
nearly affects the preservation of life1
 or because1 property being  more easily
 usurped and more difficult to defend   
than life1 the law  ought to pay a      
greater attention to what is most easily
 taken away2 or  finally1 because       
property is the true foundation of civil
 society1 and  the real guarantee of the
 undertakings of citizens3 for if       
property  were not answerable for       
personal actions1 nothing would be      
easier  than to evade duties and laugh  
at the laws4 ,on the other hand1 it is  
no less certain that the maintenance of 
the ,state and the government  involves 
costs and out-goings2 and as every one  
who agrees to the end  must acquiesce in
 the means1 it follows that the members 

of a society  ought to contribute from  
their property to its support4 ,besides1
 it is  difficult to secure the property
 of individuals on one side1 without    
attacking it on another2 and it is      
impossible that all the regulations     
which govern the order of succession1   
will1 contracts1 c4 should not  lay     
individuals under some constraint as to 
the disposition of their  goods1 and    
should not consequently restrict the    
right of property4    ,but besides what 
,i have said above of the agreement     
between the  authority of law and the   
liberty of the citizen1 there remains to
  be made1 with respect to the          
disposition of goods1 an important      
observation which removes many          
difficulties4 ,as ,puffendorf has shown1
  the right of property1 by its very    
nature1 does not extend beyond the  life
 of the proprietor1 and the moment a man
 is dead his goods cease  to belong to  
him4 ,thus1 to prescribe the conditions 
according to which  he can dispose of   

them1 is in reality less to alter his   
right as it  appears1 than to extend it 
in fact4    ,in general1 although the   
institution of the laws which regulate  
the  power of individuals in the        
disposition of their own goods belongs  
only  to the ,sovereign1 the spirit of  
these laws1 which the government ought  
to follow in their application1 is that1
 from father to son1 and from  relation 
to relation1 the goods of a family      
should go as little out of  it and be as
 little alienated as possible4 ,there is
 a sensible reason  for this in favour  
of children1 to whom the right of       
property would be  quite useless1 if the
 father left them nothing1 and who      
besides1 having  often contributed by   
their labour to the acquisition of their
 father's  wealth1 are in their own     
right associates with him in his right  
of  property4 ,but another reason1 more 
distant1 though not less important1  is 
that nothing is more fatal to morality  
and to the ,republic than the  continual

 shifting of rank and fortune among the 
citizens3 such changes  are both the    
proof and the source of a thousand      
disorders1 and overturn  and confound   
everything2 for those who were brought  
up to one thing  find themselves        
destined for another2 and neither those 
who rise nor  those who fall are able to
 assume the rules of conduct1 or to     
possess  themselves of the              
qualifications requisite for their new  
condition1  still less to discharge the 
duties it entails4 ,i proceed to the    
object  of public finance4    ,if the   
people governed itself and there were no
 intermediary between  the              
administration of the ,state and the    
citizens1 they would have no  more to do
 than to assess themselves occasionally1
 in proportion to  the public needs and 
the abilities of individuals3 and as    
they would  all keep in sight the       
recovery and employment of such         
assessments1 no  fraud or abuse could   
slip into the management of them2 the   

,state would  never be involved in debt1
 or the people over-burdened with taxes2
  or at least the knowledge of how the  
money would be used would be a          
consolation ,for the severity of the    
tax4 ,but things cannot be carried  an  
in this manner3 on the contrary1 however
 small any ,state may be1  civil        
societies are always too populous to be 
under the immediate  government of all  
their members4 ,it is necessary that the
 public money  should go through the    
hands of the rulers1 all of whom have1  
besides  the interests of the ,state1   
their own individual interests1 which   
are  not the last to be listened to4    
,the people1 on its side1 perceiving    
rather the cupidity and ridiculous      
expenditure of its rulers than the      
public needs1 murmurs at seeing itself  
stripped of necessaries to  furnish     
others with superfluities2 and when once
 these complaints have  reached a       
certain degree of bitterness1 the most  
upright administration  will find it    

impossible to restore confidence4 ,in   
such a case1  voluntary contributions   
bring in nothing1 and forced            
contributions  are illegitimate4 ,this  
cruel alternative of letting the ,state 
perish1  or of violating the sacred     
right of property1 which is its support1
  constitutes the great difficulty of   
just and prudent economy4    ,the first 
step which the founder of a republic    
ought to take after  the establishment  
of laws1 is to settle a sufficient fund 
for the  maintenance of the ,magistrates
 and other ,officials1 and for other    
public expenses4 ,this fund1 if it      
consist of money1 is called  rarium or  
fisc1 and public demesne if it consist  
of lands4  ,this1 for obvious reasons1  
is much to be preferred4 ,whoever has   
reflected on this matter must be of the 
opinion of ,bodin1 who looks  upon the  
public demesne as the most reputable and
 certain means of  providing for the    
needs of the ,state4 ,it is remarkable  
also that  ,romulus1 in his division of 

lands1 made it his first care to set    
apart  a third for the use of the       
,state4 ,i confess it is not impossible 
for  the produce of the demesne1 if it  
be badly managed1 to be reduced to      
nothing2 but it is not of the essence of
 public demesnes to be badly            
administered4    ,before any use is made
 of this fund1 it should be assigned or 
accepted  by an assembly of the people1 
or of the estates of the country1 which 
should determine its future use4 ,after 
this solemnity1 which makes such  funds 
inalienable1 their very nature is1 in a 
manner1 changed1 and  the revenues      
become so sacred1 that it is not only   
the most infamous  theft1 but actual    
treason1 to misapply them or pervert    
them from the  purpose for which they   
were destined4 ,it reflects great       
dishonour  on ,rome that the integrity  
of ,cato the censor was something so    
very  remarkable1 and that an ,emperor1 
on rewarding the talents of a singer    
with a few crowns1 thought it necessary 

to observe that the money came  from his
 own private purse1 and not from that of
 the ,state4 ,but if we  find few       
,galbas1 where are we to look for a     
,cato8 ,for when vice is no  longer     
dishonourable1 what chiefs will be so   
scrupulous as to abstain  from touching 
the public revenues that are left to    
their discretion1  and even not in time 
to impose on themselves1 by pretending  
to confound  their own expensive and    
scandalous dissipations with the glory  
of the  ,state1 and the means of        
extending their own authority with the  
means  of augmenting its power8 ,it is  
particularly in this delicate part of   
the administration that virtue is the   
only effective instrument1 and  that the
 integrity of the ,magistrate is the    
only real check upon his  avarice4      
,books and auditing of accounts1 instead
 of exposing frauds1  only conceal them2
 for prudence is never so ready to      
conceive new  precautions as knavery is 
to elude them4 ,never mind1 then1 about 

account books and papers2 place the     
management of finance in honest  hands3 
that is the only way to get it          
faithfully conducted4    ,when public   
funds are once established1 the rulers  
of the ,state  become of right the      
administrators of them3 for this        
administration  constitutes a part of   
government which is always essential1   
though  not always equally so4 ,its     
influence increases in proportion as    
that  of other resources is diminished2 
and it may justly be said that a        
government has reached the last stage of
 corruption1 when it has ceased  to have
 sinews other than money4 ,now as every 
government constantly  tends to become  
lax1 this is enough to show why no      
,state can subsist  unless its revenues 
constantly increase4    ,the first sense
 of the necessity of this increase is   
also the  first sign of the internal    
disorder of the ,state2 and the prudent 
administrator1 in his endeavours to find
 means to provide for the  present      

necessity1 will neglect nothing to find 
out the distant cause  of the new need2 
just as a mariner when he finds the     
water gaining  on his vessel1 does not  
neglect1 while he is working the pumps1 
to  discover and stop the leak4    ,from
 this rule is deduced the most important
 rule in the administration  of finance1
 which is1 to take more pains to guard  
against needs than  to increase         
revenues4 ,for1 whatever diligence be   
employed1 the relief  which only comes  
after1 and more slowly than1 the evil1  
always leaves  some injury behind4      
,while a remedy is being found for one  
evil1 another  is beginning to make     
itself felt1 and even the remedies      
themselves  produce new difficulties3 so
 that at length the nation is involved  
in  debt and the people oppressed1 while
 the government loses its influence  and
 can do very little with a great deal of
 money4 ,i imagine it was  owing to the 
recognition of this rule that such      
wonders were done by  ancient           

governments1 which did more with their  
parsimony than ours do  with all their  
treasures2 and perhaps from this comes  
the common use of  the word economy1    
which means rather the prudent          
management of what  one has than ways of
 getting what one has not4    ,but apart
 from the public demesne1 which is of   
service to the ,state in  proportion to 
the uprightness of those who govern1 any
 one sufficiently  acquainted with the  
whole force of the general              
administration1  especially when it     
confines itself to legitimate methods1  
would be  astonished at the resources   
the rulers can make use of for guarding 
against public needs1 without           
trespassing on the goods of individuals4
  ,as they are masters of the whole     
commerce of the ,state1 nothing is      
easier for them than to direct it into  
such channels as to provide  for every  
need1 without appearing to interfere4   
,the distribution of  provisions1 money1
 and merchandise in just proportions1   

according to  times and places1 is the  
true secret of finance and the source of
  wealth1 provided those who administer 
it have foresight enough to  suffer a   
present apparent loss1 in order really  
to obtain immense  profits in the       
future4 ,when we see a government paying
 bounties1  instead of receiving duties1
 on the exportation of corn in time of  
plenty1 and on its importation in time  
of scarcity1 we must have such  facts   
before our eyes if we are to be         
persuaded of their reality4  ,we should 
hold such facts to be idle tales1 if    
they had happened in  ancient times4    
,let us suppose that1 in order to       
prevent a scarcity in  bad years1 a     
proposal were made to establish public  
granaries2 would  not the maintenance of
 so useful an institution serve in most 
countries  as an excuse for new taxes8  
,at ,geneva1 such granaries1 established
  and kept up by a prudent              
administration1 are a public resource in
 bad  years1 and the principal revenue  

of the ,state at all times4 ,alit et    
ditat is the inscription which stands1  
rightly and properly1 on the  front of  
the building4 ,to set forth in this     
place the economic system  of a good    
government1 ,i have often turned my eyes
 to that of this  ,republic1 rejoicing  
to find in my own country an example of 
that wisdom  and happiness which ,i     
should be glad to see prevail in every  
other4    ,if we ask how the needs of a 
,state grow1 we shall find they         
generally  arise1 like the wants of     
individuals1 less from any real         
necessity  than from the increase of    
useless desires1 and that expenses are  
often  augmented only to give a pretext 
for raising receipts3 so that the       
,state would sometimes gain by not being
 rich1 and apparent wealth is in        
reality more burdensome than poverty    
itself would be4 ,rulers may indeed     
hope to keep the peoples in stricter    
dependence1 by thus giving them  with   
one hand what they take from them with  

the other2 and this was in  fact the    
policy of ,joseph towards the           
,egyptians3 but this political          
sophistry is the more fatal to the      
,state1 as the money never returns  into
 the hands it went out of4 ,such        
principles only enrich the idle at  the 
expense of the industrious4    ,a desire
 for conquest is one of the most evident
 and dangerous causes  of this increase4
 ,this desire1 occasioned often by a    
different species  of ambition from that
 which1 it seems to proclaim1 is not    
always  what it appears to be1 and has  
not so much1 for its real motive1 the   
apparent desire to aggrandise the       
,nation as a secret desire to increase  
the authority of the rulers at home1 by 
increasing the number of  troops1 and by
 the diversion which the objects of war 
occasion in the  minds of the citizens4 
,it is at least certain1 that no peoples
 are so oppressed and wretched  as      
conquering nations1 and that their      
successes only increase their  misery4  

,did not history inform us of the fact1 
reason would suffice  to tell us that1  
the greater a ,state grows1 the heavier 
and more  burdensome in proportion its  
expenses become3 for every province has 
to furnish its share to the general     
expense of government1 and besides  has 
to be at the expense of its own         
administration1 which is as great  as if
 it were really independent4 ,add to    
this that great fortunes are  always    
acquired in one place and spent in      
another4 ,production therefore  soon    
ceases to balance consumption1 and a    
whole country is impoverished  merely to
 enrich a single town4    ,another      
source of the increase of public wants1 
which depends on the  foregoing1 is     
this4 ,there may come a time when the   
citizens1 no longer  looking upon       
themselves as interested in the common  
cause1 will cease  to be the defenders  
of their country1 and the ,magistrates  
will prefer  the command of mercenaries 
to that of free-men2 if for no other    

reason  than that1 when the time comes1 
they may use them to reduce free-men to 
submission4 ,such was the state of ,rome
 towards the end of the ,republic  and  
under the ,emperors3 for all the        
victories of the early ,romans1  like   
those of ,alexander1 had been won by    
brave citizens1 who were  ready1 at     
need1 to give their blood in the service
 of their country1  but would never sell
 it4 ,only at the siege of ,veii did the
 practice  of paying the ,roman infantry
 begin4 ,marius1 in the ,jugurthine war1
  dishonoured the legions by introducing
 freedmen1 vagabonds and other          
mercenaries4 ,tyrants1 the enemies of   
the very people it was their duty  to   
make happy1 maintained regular troops1  
apparently to withstand  the foreigner1 
but really to enslave their countrymen4 
,to form such  troops1 it was necessary 
to take men from the land2 the lack of  
their  labour then diminished the amount
 of provisions1 and their maintenance   
introduced those taxes which increased  

prices4 ,this first disorder  gave rise 
to murmurs among the people2 in order to
 suppress them1 the  number of troops   
had to be increased1 and consequently   
the misery  of the people also got      
worse2 and the growing despair led to   
still  further increases in the cause in
 order to guard against its effects4    
,on the other hand1 the mercenaries1    
whose merit we may judge of by the      
price at which they sold themselves1    
proud of their own meanness1 and        
despising the laws that protected them1 
as well as their fellows whose  bread   
they ate1 imagined themselves more      
honoured in being ,csar's  satellites   
than in being defenders of ,rome4 ,as   
they were given over  to blind          
obedience1 their swords were always at  
the throats of their  fellow-citizens1  
and they were prepared for general      
butchery at the  first sign4 ,it would  
not be difficult to show that this was  
one of the  principal causes of the ruin
 of the ,roman ,empire4    ,the         

invention of artillery and              
fortifications has forced the princes   
of ,europe1 in modern times1 to return  
to the use of regular troops1 in  order 
to garrison their towns2 but however    
lawful their motives1 it is  to be      
feared the effect may be no less fatal4 
,there is no better reason  now than    
formerly for depopulating the country to
 form armies and  garrisons1 nor should 
the people be oppressed to support1     
them2 in a  word1 these dangerous       
establishments have increased of late   
years with  such rapidity in this part  
of the world1 that they evidently       
threaten  to depopulate ,europe1 and    
sooner or later to ruin its inhabitants4
    ,be this as it may1 it ought to be  
seen that such institutions  necessarily
 subvert the true economic system1 which
 draws the principal  revenue of the    
,state from the public demesne1 and     
leave only the  troublesome resource of 
subsidies and imposts2 with which it    
remains to  deal4    ,it should be      

remembered that the foundation of the   
social compact is  property2 and its    
first condition1 that every one should  
be maintained  in the peaceful          
possession of what belongs to him4 ,it  
is true that1  by the same treaty1 every
 one binds himself1 at least tacitly1 to
  be assessed toward the public wants3  
but as this undertaking cannot          
prejudice the fundamental law1 and      
presupposes that the need is  clearly   
recognised by all who contribute to it1 
it is plain that such  assessment1 in   
order to be lawful1 must be voluntary2  
it must depend1  not indeed on a        
particular will1 as if it were necessary
 to have the  consent of each           
individual1 and that he should give no  
more than just  what he pleased1 but on 
a general will1 decided by vote of a    
majority1  and on the basis of a        
proportional rating which leaves nothing
  arbitrary in the imposition of the    
tax4    ,that taxes cannot be           
legitimately established except by the  

consent of  the people or its           
representatives1 is a truth generally   
admitted by all  philosophers and       
jurists of any repute on questions of   
public right1  not even excepting       
,bodin4 ,if any of them have laid down  
rules which  seem to contradict this1   
their particular motives for doing so   
may  easily be seen2 and they introduce 
so many conditions and restrictions     
that the argument comes at bottom to the
 same thing3 for whether the  people has
 it in its power to refuse1 or the      
,sovereign ought not to  exact1 is a    
matter of indifference with regard to   
right2 and if the  point in question    
concerns only power1 it is useless to   
inquire whether  it is legitimate or    
not4 ,contributions levied on the people
 are two  kinds2 real1 levied on        
commodities1 and personal1 paid by the  
head4  ,both are called taxes or        
subsidies3 when the people fixes the sum
  to be paid1 it is called subsidy2 but 
when it grants the product of  an       

imposition1 it is called a tax4 ,we are 
told in the ,spirit of the  ,laws that a
 capitation tax is most suited to       
slavery1 and a real tax  most in        
accordance with liberty4 ,this would be 
incontestable1 if the  circumstances of 
every person were equal2 for otherwise  
nothing can be  more disproportionate   
than such a tax2 and it is in the       
observations of  exact proportions that 
the spirit of liberty consists4 ,but if 
a tax by  heads were exactly            
proportioned to the circumstances of    
individuals1 as  what is called the     
capitation tax in ,france might be1 is  
would be the  most equitable and        
consequently the most proper for        
free-men4    ,these proportions appear  
at first very easy to note1 because1    
being  relative to each man's position  
in the world1 their incidence is always 
public3 but proper regard is seldom paid
 to all the elements that  should enter 
into such a calculation1 even apart from
 deception arising  from avarice1 fraud 

and self-interest4 ,in the first place1 
we have  to consider the relation of    
quantities1 according to which1 ceteris 
paribus1 the person who has ten times   
the property of another man  ought to   
pay ten times as much to the ,state4    
,secondly1 the relation of  the use     
made1 that is to say1 the distinction   
between necessaries and  superfluities4 
,he who possesses only the common       
necessaries of life  should pay nothing 
at all1 while the tax on him who is in  
possession  of superfluities may justly 
be extended to everything he has over   
and  above mere necessaries4 ,to this he
 will possibly object that1 when  his   
rank is taken into account1 what may be 
superfluous to a man of  inferior       
station is necessary for him4 ,but this 
is false3 for a grandee  has two legs   
just like a cow-herd1 and1 like him     
again1 but one belly4  ,besides1 these  
pretended necessaries are really so     
little necessary  to his rank1 that if  
he should renounce them on any worthy   

occasion1  he would only be the more    
honoured4 ,the populace would be ready  
to  adore a ,minister who went to       
,council on foot1 because he had sold   
off  his carriages to supply a pressing 
need of the ,state4 ,lastly1 to no  man 
does the law prescribe magnificence2 and
 propriety is no argument  against      
right4    ,a third relation1 which is   
never taken into account1 though it     
ought to  be the chief consideration1 is
 the advantage that every person derives
  from the social confederacy2 for this 
provides a powerful protection  for the 
immense possessions of the rich1 and    
hardly leaves the poor  man in quiet    
possession of the cottage he builds with
 his own hands4  ,are not all the       
advantages of society for the rich and  
powerful8  ,are not all lucrative posts 
in their hands8 ,are not all privileges 
and exemptions reserved for them alone8 
,is not the public authority  always on 
their side8 ,if a man of eminence robs  
his creditors1 or is  guilty of other   

knaveries1 is he not always assured of  
impunity8 ,are  not the assaults1 acts  
of violence1 assassinations1 and even   
murders  committed by the great1 matters
 that are hushed up in a few months1    
and of which nothing more is thought8   
,but if a great man himself is  robbed  
or insulted1 the whole police force is  
immediately in motion1  and woe even to 
innocent persons who chance to be       
suspected4 ,if he has  to pass through  
any dangerous road1 the country is up in
 arms to escort  him4 ,if the axle-tree 
of his chaise breaks1 everybody flies to
 his  assistance4 ,if there is a noise  
at his door1 he speaks but a word1 and  
all is silent4 ,if he is incommoded by  
the crowd1 he waves his hand and  every 
one makes way4 ,if his coach is met on  
the road by a wagon1 his  servants are  
ready to beat the driver's brains out1  
and fifty honest  pedestrians going     
quietly about their business had better 
be knocked on  the head than an idle    
jackanapes be delayed in his coach4 ,yet

 all this  respect costs him not a      
farthing3 it is the rich man's right1   
and not  what he buys with his wealth4  
,how different the case of the poor man6
  the more humanity owes him1 the more  
society denies him4 ,every door is  shut
 against him1 even when he has a right  
to its being opened3 and  if ever he    
obtains justice1 it is with much greater
 difficulty than  others obtain favours4
 ,if the militia is to be raised or the 
highway  to be mended1 he is always     
given the preference2 he always bears   
the  burden which his richer neighbour  
has influence enough to get exempted    
from4 ,on the least accident that       
happens to him1 everybody avoids him3   
if his cart be overturned in the road1  
so far is he from receiving  any        
assistance1 that he is lucky if he does 
not get horse-whipped by  the impudent  
lackeys of some young ,duke2 in a word1 
all gratuitous  assistance is denied to 
the poor when they need it1 just because
 they  cannot pay for it4 ,i look upon  

any poor man as totally undone1 if he   
has the misfortune to have an honest    
heart1 a fine daughter1 and a  powerful 
neighbour4    ,another no less important
 fact is that the losses of the poor are
 much  harder to repair than those of   
the rich1 and that the difficulty of    
acquisition is always greater in        
proportion as there is more need for    
it4 ,nothing comes out of nothing1 is as
 true of life as in physics3  money is  
the seed of money1 and the first guinea 
is sometimes more  difficult to acquire 
than the second million4 ,add to this   
that what  the poor pay is lost to them 
for ever1 and remains in1 or returns to1
  the hands of the rich3 and as1 to     
those who share in the government  or to
 their dependents1 the whole produce of 
the taxes must sooner or  later pass1   
although they pay their share1 these    
persons have always a  sensible interest
 in increasing them4    ,the terms of   
the social compact between these two    
estates of men may  be summed up in a   

few words4 ,you have need of me1 because
 ,i am rich  and you are poor4 ,we will 
therefore come to an agreement4 ,i will 
permit  you to have the honour of       
serving me1 on condition that you bestow
 on  me the little you have left1 in    
return for the pains ,i shall take to   
command you4    ,putting all these      
considerations carefully together1 we   
shall find  that1 in order to levy taxes
 in a truly equitable and proportionate 
manner1 the imposition ought not to be  
in simple ratio to the property  of the 
contributors1 but in compound ratio to  
the difference of  their conditions and 
the superfluity of their possessions4   
,this very  important and difficult     
operation is daily made by numbers of   
honest  clerks1 who know their          
arithmetic2 but a ,plato or a           
,montesquieu would  not venture to      
undertake it without the greatest       
diffidence1 or  without praying to      
,heaven for understanding and integrity4
    ,another disadvantage of personal   

taxes is that they may be too much  felt
 or raised with too great severity4     
,this1 however1 does not prevent  them  
from being frequently evaded2 for it is 
much easier for persons to  escape a tax
 than for their possessions4    ,of all 
impositions1 that on land1 or real      
taxation1 has always been  regarded as  
most advantageous in countries where    
more attention is  paid to what the tax 
will produce1 and to the certainty of   
recovering  the product1 than to        
securing the least discomfort for the   
people4 ,it  has been even maintained   
that it is necessary to burden the      
peasant  in order to rouse him from     
indolence1 and that he would never work 
if he had no taxes to pay4 ,but in all  
countries experience confutes  this     
ridiculous notion4 ,in ,england and     
,holland the farmer pays very  little1  
and in ,china nothing3 yet these are the
 countries in which the  land is best   
cultivated4 ,on the other hand1 in those
 countries where  the husbandman is     

taxed in proportion to the produce of   
his lands1 he  leaves them uncultivated1
 or reaps just as much from them as     
suffices  for bare subsistence4 ,for to 
him who loses the fruit of his labour1  
it  is some gain to do nothing4 ,to lay 
a tax on industry is a very singular    
expedient for banishing idleness4       
,taxes on land or corn1 especially when 
they are excessive1 lead to two  results
 so fatal in their effect that they     
cannot but depopulate and  ruin1 in the 
long run1 all countries in which they   
are established4    ,the first of these 
arises from the defective circulation of
 specie2  for industry and commerce draw
 all the money from the country into the
  capitals3 and as the tax destroys the 
proportion there might otherwise  be    
between the needs of the husbandman and 
the price of his corn1 money  is always 
leaving and never returning4 ,thus the  
richer the city the  poorer the country4
 ,the product of the taxes passes from  
the hands of  the ,prince or his        

financial officers into those of artists
 and traders2  and the husbandman1 who  
receives1 only the smallest part of it1 
is at  length exhausted by paying always
 the same1 and receiving constantly     
less4 ,how could a human body subsist if
 it had veins and no arteries1  or if   
its arteries conveyed the blood only    
within four inches of the  heart8       
,chardin tells us that in ,persia the   
royal dues on commodities  are paid in  
kind3 this custom1 which1 ,herodotus    
informs us1 prevailed  long ago in the  
same country down to the time of        
,darius1 might prevent  the evil of     
which ,i have been speaking4 ,but unless
 ,intendants1  ,directors1              
,commissioners and ,warehousemen in     
,persia are a different  kind of people 
from what they are elsewhere1 ,i can    
hardly believe  that the smallest part  
of this produce ever reaches the king1  
or that  the corn is not spoilt in every
 granary1 and the greater part of the   
warehouses not consumed by fire4    ,the

 second evil effect arises from an      
apparent advantage1 which  aggravates   
the evil before it can be perceived4    
,that is that corn is a  commodity whose
 price is not enhanced by taxes in the  
country producing  it1 and which1 in    
spite of its absolute necessity1 may be 
diminished  in quantity without the     
price being increased4 ,hence1 many     
people die  of hunger1 although corn    
remains cheap1 and the husbandman bears 
the  whole charge of a tax1 for which he
 cannot indemnify himself by the  price 
of his corn4 ,it must be observed that  
we ought not to reason  about a land-tax
 in the same manner as about duties laid
 on various  kinds of merchandise2 for  
the effect of such duties is to raise   
the  price1 and they are paid by the    
buyers rather than the sellers4 ,for    
these duties1 however heavy1 are still  
voluntary1 and are paid by the  merchant
 only in proportion to the quantity he  
buys2 and as he buys  only in proportion
 to his sale1 he himself gives the law  

its particular  application2 but the    
farmer who is obliged to pay his rent at
 stated  times1 whether he sells or not1
 cannot wait till he can get his own    
price for his commodity3 even if he is  
not forced to sell for mere             
subsistence1 he must sell to pay the    
taxes2 so that it is frequently  the    
heaviness of the tax that keeps the     
price of corn low4    ,it is further to 
be noticed that the resources of        
commerce and industry  are so far from  
rendering the tax more supportable      
through abundance  of money1 that they  
only render it more burdensome4 ,i shall
 not insist  on what is very evident2   
i4e4 that1 although a greater or less   
quantity of money in a ,state may give  
it the greater or less credit in  the   
eye of the foreigner1 it makes not the  
least difference to the  real fortune of
 the citizens1 and does not make their  
condition any  more or less comfortable4
 ,but ,i must make these two important  
remarks3  first1 unless a ,state        

possesses superfluous commodities1 and  
abundance  of money results from foreign
 trade1 only trading cities are sensible
  of the abundance2 while the peasant   
only becomes relatively poorer4         
,secondly1 as the price of everything is
 enhanced by the increase of  money1    
taxes also must be proportionately      
increased2 so that the farmer  will find
 himself still more burdened without    
having more resources4    ,it ought to  
be observed that the tax on land is a   
real duty on the  produce4 ,it is       
universally agreed1 however1 that       
nothing is so  dangerous as a tax on    
corn paid by the purchaser3 but how     
comes it we  do not see that it is a    
hundred times worse when the duty is    
paid by  the cultivator himself8 ,is not
 this an attack on the substance of the 
,state at its very source8 ,is it not   
the directest possible method of        
depopulating a country1 and therefore in
 the end ruining it8 ,for the  worst    
kind of scarcity a nation can suffer    

from is lack of inhabitants4    ,only   
the real statesman can rise1 in imposing
 taxes1 above the  mere financial       
object3 he alone can transform heavy    
burdens into  useful regulations1 and   
make the people even doubtful whether   
such  establishments were not calculated
 rather for the good of the nation in   
general1 than merely for the raising of 
money4    ,duties on the importation of 
foreign commodities1 of which the       
natives  are fond1 without the country  
standing in need of them2 on the        
exportation of those of the growth of   
the country which are not too           
plentiful1 and which foreigners cannot  
do without2 on the productions  of      
frivolous and all too lucrative arts2 on
 the importation of all pure  luxuries2 
and in general on all objects of luxury2
 will answer the  two-fold end in view4 
,it is by such taxes1 indeed1 by which  
the poor  are eased1 and the burdens    
thrown on the rich1 that it is possible 
to  prevent the continual increase of   

inequality of fortune2 the subjection   
of such a multitude of artisans and     
useless servants to the rich1 the       
multiplication of idle persons in our   
cities1 and the depopulation of  the    
country-side4    ,it is important that  
the value of any commodity and the      
duties laid  on it should be so         
proportioned that the avarice of        
individuals may  not be too strongly    
tempted to fraud by the greatness of the
 possible  profit4 ,to make smuggling   
difficult1 those commodities should be  
singled out which are hardest to        
conceal4 ,all duties should be rather   
paid by the consumer of the commodity   
taxed than by him who sells it3  as the 
quantity of duty he would be obliged to 
pay would lay him open  to greater      
temptations1 and afford him more        
opportunities for fraud4    ,this is the
 constant custom in ,china1 a country   
where the taxes are  greater and yet    
better paid than in any other part of   
the world4  ,the merchant himself there 

pays no duty2 the buyer alone1 without  
murmuring or sedition1 meets the whole  
charge2 for as the necessaries  of life1
 such as rice and corn1 are absolutely  
exempt from taxation1  the common people
 is not oppressed1 and the duty falls   
only on those  who are well-to-do4      
,precautions against smuggling ought not
 to be  dictated so much by the fear of 
it occurring1 as by the attention which 
the government should pay to securing   
individuals from being seduced  by      
illegitimate profits1 which first make  
them bad citizens1 and  afterwards soon 
turn them into dishonest men4    ,heavy 
taxes should be laid on servants in     
livery1 on equipages1 rich  furniture1  
fine clothes1 on spacious courts and    
gardens1 on public  entertainments of   
all kinds1 on useless professions1 such 
as dancers1  singers1 players1 and in a 
word1 on all that multiplicity of       
objects  of luxury1 amusement and       
idleness1 which strike the eyes of all1 
and  can the less be hidden1 as their   

whole purpose is to be seen1 without    
which they would be useless4 ,we need be
 under no apprehension of the  produce  
of these taxes being arbitrary1 because 
they are laid on things  not absolutely 
necessary4 ,they must know but little of
 mankind who  imagine that1 after they  
have been once seduced by luxury1 they  
can  ever renounce it3 they would a     
hundred times sooner renounce common    
necessaries1 and had much rather die of 
hunger than of shame4 ,the  increase in 
their expense is only an additional     
reason for supporting  them1 when the   
vanity of appearing wealthy reaps its   
profit from the  price of the thing and 
the charge of the tax4 ,as long as there
 are rich  people in the world1 they    
will be desirous of distinguishing      
themselves  from the poor1 nor can the  
,state devise a revenue less burdensome 
or  more certain than what arises from  
this distinction4    ,for the same      
reason1 industry would have nothing to  
suffer from an  economic system which   

increased the revenue1 encouraged       
agriculture by  relieving the           
husbandman1 and insensibly tended to    
bring all fortunes  nearer to that      
middle condition which constitutes the  
genuine strength  of the ,state4 ,these 
taxes might1 ,i admit1 bring certain    
fashionable  articles of dress and      
amusement to an untimely end2 but it    
would be  only to substitute others1 by 
which the artificer would gain1 and the 
exchequer suffer no loss4 ,in a word1   
suppose the spirit of government  was   
constantly to tax only the superfluities
 of the rich1 one of two  things must   
happen3 either the rich would convert   
their superfluous  expenses into useful 
ones1 which would redound to the profit 
of the  ,state1 and thus the imposition 
of taxes would have the effect of the   
best sumptuary laws1 the expenses of the
 ,state would necessarily  diminish with
 those of individuals1 and the treasury 
would not receive  so much less as it   
would gain by having less to pay2 or1 if

 the  rich did not become less          
extravagant1 the exchequer would have   
such  resources in the product of taxes 
on their expenditure as would provide   
for the needs of the ,state4 ,in the    
first case the treasury would be  the   
richer by what it would save1 from      
having the less to do with its  money2  
and in the second1 it would be enriched 
by the useless expenses  of individuals4
    ,we may add to all this a very      
important distinction in matters of     
political right1 to which governments1  
constantly tenacious of doing           
everything for themselves1 ought to pay 
great attention4 ,it has been  observed 
that personal taxes and duties on the   
necessaries of life1 as  they directly  
trespass on the right of property1 and  
consequently on  the true foundation of 
political society1 are always liable to 
have  dangerous results1 if they are not
 established with the express consent   
of the people or its representatives4   
,it is not the same with articles  the  

use of which we can deny ourselves2 for 
as the individual is under  no absolute 
necessity to pay1 his contribution may  
count as voluntary4  ,the particular    
consent of each contributor then takes  
the place of the  general consent of the
 whole people3 for why should a people  
oppose the  imposition of a tax which   
falls only on those who desire to pay   
it8 ,it  appears to me certain that     
everything1 which is not proscribed by  
law1  or contrary to morality1 and yet  
may be prohibited by the government1    
may also be permitted on payment of a   
certain duty4 ,thus1 for example1  if   
the government may prohibit the use of  
coaches1 it may certainly  impose a tax 
on them2 and this is a prudent and      
useful method of  censuring their use   
without absolutely forbidding it4 ,in   
this case1 the  tax may be regarded as a
 sort of fine1 the product of which     
compensates  for the abuse it punishes4 
,it may perhaps be objected that those1 
whom ,bodin calls impostors1  i4e4 those

 who impose or contrive the taxes1 being
 in the class of  the rich1 will be far 
from sparing themselves to relieve the  
poor4 ,but  this is quite beside the    
point4 ,if1 in every nation1 those to   
whom  the ,sovereign commits the        
government of the people1 were1 from    
their  position1 its enemies1 it would  
not be worth while to inquire what they 
ought to do to make the people happy4