¹ Siedentop, Larry, “Two Liberal Traditions,” in Geenens, Raf and Rosenblatt, Helena, eds., French Liberalism from Montesquieu to the Present Day (Cambridge, 2012), 15–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

² Rosenblatt, Helena, The Lost History of Liberalism: From Ancient Rome to the Twenty-First Century (Princeton, 2018)Google Scholar.

³ For just a glimpse into how generative this scholarship has been since the 1970s see Girard, Louis, Les libéraux français, 1814–1875 (Paris, 1985)Google Scholar; Jardin, André, Histoire du libéralisme politique: De la crise de l'absolutisme à la constitution de 1875 (Paris, 1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Manent, Pierre, Histoire intellectuelle du libéralisme: dix leçons (Paris, 1997)Google Scholar; Dijn, Annelien de, French Political Thought from Montesquieu to Tocqueville: Liberty in a Levelled Society? (Cambridge, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jaume, Lucien, L'individu effacé ou le paradoxe du libéralisme français (Paris, 1997)Google Scholar; Geenens and Rosenblatt, French Liberalism from Montesquieu to the Present Day; Craiutu, Aurelian, Liberalism under Siege: The Political Thought of the French Doctrinaires (Lanham, 2003)Google Scholar; Kahan, Alan S., Aristocratic Liberalism: The Social and Political Thought of Jacob Burckhardt, John Stuart Mill, and Alexis de Tocqueville (New York, 1992)Google Scholar; Welch, Cheryl, Liberty and Utility: The French Idéologues and the Transformation of Liberalism (New York, 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Vincent, K. Steven, Benjamin Constant and the Birth of French Liberalism (New York, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Holmes, Stephen, Benjamin Constant and the Making of Modern Liberalism (New Haven, 1984)Google Scholar. For a summary of some of this important work see Behrent, Michael, “Liberal Dispositions: Recent Scholarship on French Liberalism,” Modern Intellectual History 13/2 (2016), 447–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴ Baker, Keith Michael, “Transformations of Classical Republicanism in Eighteenth-Century France,” Journal of Modern History 73/1 (2001), 32–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵ Since the groundbreaking works of Bernard Bailyn, Gordon Wood and J. G. A. Pocock, classical or civic republicanism has played an outsized role in political historiography of the Renaissance, Britain and the Americas. In French historiography, it has opened the path toward equally important studies, especially for the final years of the Old Regime and the French Revolution. See in particular Baker, Keith, “A Classical Republican in Eighteenth-Century Bordeaux: Guillaume-Joseph Saige,” in Baker, Inventing the French Revolution (Cambridge, 1990), 128–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Baker, “Transformations of Classical Republicanism”; Edelstein, Dan, The Terror of Natural Right: Republicanism, the Cult of Nature, and the French Revolution (Chicago, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jainchill, Andrew, Reimagining Politics after the Terror: The Republican Origins of French Liberalism (Ithaca, 2008)Google Scholar; Wright, John Kent, A Classical Republican in Eighteenth-Century France: The Political Thought of Mably (Palo Alto, 1997)Google Scholar. See also Edelstein, Dan, Jainchill, Andrew, Régent, Frédéric, Serna, Pierre and Simonin, Anne, “Si l'on parlait de la république?” Annales historiques de la Révolution française 364 (2011), 211–38Google Scholar.

⁶ Aulard, Alphonse, Histoire politique de la Révolution française: Origines et développement de la démocratie et de la république (1789–1804) (Paris, 1901)Google Scholar.

⁷ Palmer, R. R., The Age of the Democratic Revolution: A Political History of Europe and America, 1760–1800 (Princeton, 1959), 18Google Scholar.

⁸ Published in three volumes as Reinhard, Marcel, La révolution démocratique (Paris, 1959)Google Scholar.

⁹ Hunt, Lynn, “Penser la révolution française by François Furet,” History and Theory 20/3 (1981), 313–23, at 321Google Scholar.

¹⁰ These authors have all contributed impressive and some cases multiple volumes to exploring a history of democracy: Dunn, John, Democracy: A History (New York, 2005)Google Scholar; Dunn, , Setting the People Free: The Story of Democracy (New York, 2005)Google Scholar; Dunn, , Democracy: The Unfinished Journey, 508 BC to AD 1993 (Oxford, 1993)Google Scholar; and Dunn, , Breaking Democracy's Spell (New Haven, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kloppenberg, James T., Toward Democracy: The Struggle for Self-Rule in Europe and American Thought (New York, 2016)Google Scholar; Gauchet, Marcel, L'avènement de la démocratie, vols. 1–4 (Paris, 2007–16)Google Scholar; Innes, Joanna and Philp, Mark, Re-imagining Democracy in the Age of Revolutions: America, France, Britain and Ireland, 1750–1850 (Oxford, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Innes, and Philp, , Re-imagining Democracy in the Mediterranean, 1780–1860 (Oxford, 2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rosenfeld, Sophia, Democracy and Truth: A Short History (Philadelphia, 2018)Google Scholar; Livesey, James, Making Democracy in the French Revolution (Cambridge, 2001)Google Scholar.

¹¹ Palmer, R. R., “Notes on the Use of the Word ‘Democracy’ 1789–1799,” Political Science Quarterly 68/2 (1953), 203–26, at 204–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹² Kurunmäki, Jussi, Nevers, Jeppe and Velde, Henk te, “Introduction,” in Nevers, Kurunmäki and Velde, Te, Democracy in Modern Europe: A Conceptual History (New York, 2018), 16–41, at 41CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³ Rosanvallon, Pierre, “The History of the Word ‘Democracy’ in France,” Journal of Democracy 6/4 (1995), 140–54, at 140Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Innes, Joanna and Philp, Mark, “‘Democracy’ from Book to Life,” in Innes and Philp, Democracy in Modern Europe: A Conceptual History (New York, 2018), 16–41, at 18Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Hidalgo, Oliver, “Conceptual History and Politics: Is the Concept of Democracy Essentially Contested?”, Contributions to the History of Concepts 4 (2008), 176–201, at 176CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁶ Kloppenberg, Toward Democracy, 5.

¹⁷ Palmer, “Notes on the Use of the Word ‘Democracy’,” 205.

¹⁸ Rosanvallon, “History of the Word ‘Democracy’,” 141–2.

¹⁹ Innes and Philp, “‘Democracy’ from Book to Life,” 18.

²⁰ Jainchill, Andrew, “Introduction,” in D'Argenson, Considérations sur le gouvernement (Oxford, 2019), 1–66Google Scholar.

²¹ On d'Argenson's contributions to the history of public administration see Thuillier, Guy, “La réforme de l'administration selon le marquis d'Argenson,” La revue administrative 44/261 (1991), 213–23Google Scholar.

²² On this tradition of reform see Keohane, Nannerl O., Philosophy and the State in France: The Renaissance to the Enlightenment (Princeton, 1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, in particular chap. 12, “The Conduct of a Prince and a Program for Reform”; and Collins, James B., The State in Early Modern France (Cambridge, 1995), chap. 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar, “Reform, Renewal, Collapse.

²³ “Tout l'art du gouvernement ne consista jamais qu'en cette parfait imitation de Dieu” (84). And later, “Et c'est peut-être dans l’étude de ce juste mélange d'attention et d'abandon que consiste tout l'art du gouvernement.” D'Argenson, Considérations, 85.

²⁴ Ibid., 141.

²⁵ “La démocratie n'a été florissante que dans les Républiques de Rome, et d'Athènes. On y consultait le peuple assemblé par Comices, ou par Tribus, il n'y a presqu'aucune Démocratie aujourd'huy.” Antoine Furetière, Dictionnaire universel, contenant généralement tous les mots François, vol. 1, A–D (The Hague, 1727).

²⁶ D'Argenson, Considérations, 264.

²⁷ A first version of the manuscript was only published posthumously in Amsterdam in 1764. A second version was later published by his son in 1784, supposedly with the help of the integration of original manuscripts. This version was popular enough that the Assembly of Notables asked that it be reprinted in 1787, and it clearly influenced a number of figures of the Revolution. On this influence, see Jainchill, “Introduction”; D'Argenson, Considérations; and Thuillier, “La réforme de l'administration.”

²⁸ D'Argenson, Considérations, 78.

²⁹ “Il faudrait donc essayer, comme je le propose, d'admettre davantage le public dans le gouvernement public.” Ibid., 178.

³⁰ Ibid., 165.

³¹ Ibid., 160.

³² Loughlin, Martin, Foundations of Public Law (Oxford, 2012), 422Google Scholar.

³³ Napoli, Paolo, Naissance de la police moderne: Pouvoir, normes, société (Paris, 2003), 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Vincent Denis refers to this dual function as a “technique de gouvernment et comme institution.” See Denis, Vincent, “Police et société en France, de l'ancien régime à la révolution”, Annales historiques de la Révolution française 393/3 (2018), 207–15, at 209Google Scholar.

³⁴ D'Argenson, Considérations, 119.

³⁵ Ibid., 76.

³⁶ Oestreich, Gerhard, “‘Police’ and Prudentia Civilis in the Seventeenth Century,” in Oestreich, Neostoicism and the Early Modern State (Cambridge, 1982), 155–65, at 157CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁷ As forceful as d'Argenson's language on equality was, it consistently traffics in relative terms. D'Argenson does argue for a redistribution of land among peasants according to this principle, though. Lough, J., “D'Argenson and Socialist Thought in Eighteenth Century France,” Modern Language Review 37/4 (1942), 455–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar. His treatise is filled with emphases on “maintain[ing] equality among citizens as much as possible.” D'Argenson, Considérations, 124–5. There is the problem of “citizens who are too rich,” and the idea that “reasonable people are drawn to democracy which tends toward equality of fortunes.” And finally he states in no uncertain terms, “Are we attempting to establish an absolute platonic equality?” “Certainly not,” he responds, insisting on the importance of “efforts towards equality.” D'Argenson, Considérations, 196.

³⁸ D'Argenson, Considérations, 130.

³⁹ Ibid., 153.

⁴⁰ Ibid., 135–8.

⁴¹ Ibid., 87.

⁴² Ibid., 88.

⁴³ Kaplan, Steven L., Bread, Politics and Political Economy in the Reign of Louis XV (The Hague, 1976,), 13CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁴ Sonenscher, Michael, “The Nation's Debt and the Birth of the Modern Republic: The French Fiscal Deficit and the Politics of the Revolution of 1789, Part 1,” History of Political Thought 18/1 (1997), 64–103, at 78Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ D'Argenson, Considérations, 136.

⁴⁶ Ibid., 162.

⁴⁷ This conception revises the distinction proposed by Richard Tuck as the foundation for modern democracy, in which the people are sovereign and figuratively “sleep” while a government acts on their behalf. See Tuck, Richard, The Sleeping Sovereign: The Invention of Modern Democracy (Cambridge, 2016)Google Scholar. While d'Argenson does elaborate a distinction between a metaphorically “sleeping sovereign” and an active government, it is the sovereign monarch who should “sleep” while democracy resides in a popular administration, government and magistrature. In many ways this confirms the importance of Tuck's distinction, while at the same time qualifying his subtitle “The Invention of Modern Democracy.” To be a democracy in this tradition, it was not sufficient to have a sleeping sovereign, popular or otherwise. Instead, in order to be a democracy, it was necessary to govern oneself democratically.

⁴⁸ D'Argenson, Considérations, 193.

⁴⁹ Ibid., 87.

⁵⁰ Ibid., 73.

⁵¹ Napoli, Naissance de la police moderne, 62. Napoli does not make reference to d'Argenson's notion of “democratic police” in his work.

⁵² D'Argenson, Considérations, 78.

⁵³ Ibid., 99.

⁵⁴ Loughlin, Martin, Foundations of Public Law (Oxford, 2012), 408Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ The classic text here is Starobinski, Jean, Jean-Jacques Rousseau: La transparence et l'obstacle (Paris, 1957)Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ See Andrew Jainchill's Introduction to D'Argenson, Considérations, 1–56, at 1. Jainchill further notes, “‘M.L.M.D.A. dont vous me demandez le nom,’ Rousseau wrote the next year to Leonhard Usteri, ‘est feu M. le marquis d'Argenson, qui avait été ministre des Affaires étrangères, et qui, quoique ministre, ne lassait pas d’être honnête homme et bien intentionné.’”

⁵⁷ Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, The Social Contract, in Rousseau, The Social Contract and Other Later Political Writings, trans. Gourevitch, Victor (Cambridge, 1997), 150Google Scholar. When the French quotations are provided they are from Rousseau, Du contrat social, ou principes du droit politique, in Rousseau, Collection complète des oeuvres (Geneva, 1780–89), vol. 1.

⁵⁸ On the tension between Rousseau's image of himself and the public image he portrayed see Lilti, Antoine, “The Writing of Paranoia: Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the Paradoxes of Celebrity,” Representations 103 (2008), 53–83, at 54–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁹ Rousseau, The Social Contract, 41.

⁶⁰ Rousseau seems to use administration and government interchangeably in this passage. In another section of The Social Contract, Rousseau also uses them as synonyms: “J'appelle donc Gouvernement ou suprême administration l'exercice légitime de la puissance exécutive et prince ou magistrat l'homme ou le Corps chargé de cette administration.” Ibid., 254. Victor Gourevitch, translator of the Cambridge edition, concurs: “At times it suits him to use ‘government’ to refer to what most of us would most of the time call either ‘government’ or ‘the state’—as he does in the title of his work on Poland—although for precise, technical purposes, he restricts ‘government” to strictly subordinate administrative and executive functions … ‘Government,’ as he defines it, is not sovereign, the people is.” Ibid., note on the translations, L. Finally, it is worth noting that I have been unable to locate any article focused specifically on Rousseau and administration to help clarify this distinction. So in what follows, I will use both terms “government” and “administration” interchangeably in my analysis, except those places where Rousseau is explicitly speaking of one or the other.

⁶¹ Rousseau, Du contrat social, 230.

⁶² Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Political Economy, in Rousseau, The Social Contract, in Rousseau, The Social Contract and Other Later Political Writings, 3–153, at 11.

⁶³ Rousseau, Lettres de la montagne, in Collection complète des oeuvres (Geneva, 1780–89), 6: 239. “Surtout dans les démocraties, où le Souverain, n'agit jamais immédiatement par lui-même … le Gouvernement n'est alors que la puissance executive, et il est absolument distinct de la souveraineté.”

⁶⁴ Considering this statement in the Letters from the Mountain, it is difficult to confirm James Miller's claim that democracy is considered a form of government in The Social Contract and a form of sovereignty elsewhere in his writings. Miller cites, for example, Rousseau's Letter to d'Alembert as proof that democracy is a form of sovereignty: “‘in a democracy … the subjects and the sovereign are only the same men considered in different relations.’” The French reads, “Mais dans une Démocratie où les sujets et le souverain ne sont que les mêmes hommes considères sous différentes rapports.” Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, “Lettre d'Alembert,” in Oeuvres de J. J. Rousseau, vol. 11 (Paris, 1822), 155Google Scholar. This statement does not show that Rousseau understood democracy to be a form of sovereignty. Rather, he is arguing that in a democracy, when sovereign power is exercised by citizen–magistrates, those who are subject to the sovereign will executed by these magistrates and the sovereign itself are one and the same people. No more conclusive is Miller's other quotation, which he suggests confirms that democracy is a form of sovereignty, from Letters from the Mountain: “‘Now in a Democracy where the People is Sovereign’.” This passage must be read in light of d'Argenson's understanding of democracy previously discussed—which Rousseau knew very well—that argues for a democracy in which the king is sovereign. Rousseau is therefore discussing the particular case in which there is “a democracy where the people are sovereign” as opposed to a democracy in which the people are not sovereign, which was a possibility for one of his most important influences, d'Argenson. It is precisely because both are possible that he must be explicit. For Miller's argument see Miller, James, Rousseau: Dreamer of Democracy (New Haven, 1984), chap. 5Google Scholar, “The Idea of Democracy.”

⁶⁵ For a further discussion of this point see Pedro Artacho, Abellan, “Rousseau, democracia y sus intenciones ideológicas: arreglos conceptuales como instrumentos políticos,” Revista de Estudios Políticos 186 (2019), 45–71Google Scholar.

⁶⁶ Rousseau, Social Contract, 117.

⁶⁷ Ibid., 117–18.

⁶⁸ Again, this claim does not challenge Richard Tuck's general claim that Rousseau inherits the notion of a sleeping sovereign and the distinction between sovereignty and government from Hobbes. What it does qualify is that Rousseau understands this distinction as the operative principle for a modern democracy. In fact, Rousseau places democracy entirely on the side of government. The term that would seem to encapsulate the entire distinction between sovereignty and government in Rousseau is not “democracy” but rather “republic.”

⁶⁹ Rousseau, The Social Contract, 118.

⁷⁰ Ibid., 91.

⁷¹ Ibid., 89.

⁷² The actual size of that majority is flexible since it “can encompass the whole people or restrict itself to as few as half.” Ibid., 89–90.

⁷³ Ibid., 92.

⁷⁴ To be clear, the question discussed here is not so much whether or not Rousseau was ultimately an elitist, aristocratic republican or a democratic republican, but rather how he defines democracy and how he suggests it might work if it were successfully implemented. On Rousseau's antidemocratic tendencies see, for example, McCormick, John P., “Rousseau's Repudiation of Machiavelli's Democratic Roman Republic,” in McCormick, Reading Machiavelli: Scandalous Books, Suspect Engagements, and the Virtue of Populist Politics (Princeton, 2018), 109–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁵ Rousseau, The Social Contract, 91.

⁷⁶ Ibid., 100.

⁷⁷ Ibid., 115.

⁷⁸ Keohane, Philosophy and the State in France, 76.

⁷⁹ Guénard, Florent, “Puissance legislative et puissance exécutive: la marche vers le despotisme: Lettres de la montagne, VII,” in Guénard, Florent and Silvestrini, Gabriella, eds., La Religion, la liberté, la justice: Un commentaire des Lettres écrites de la montagne de Jean-Jacques Rousseau (Paris, 2005), 127–45, at 129Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ On this question see Sawyer, Stephen W., Novak, William J. and Sparrow, James T., “Beyond Stateless Democracy,” Tocqueville Review/La revue Tocqueville 36/1 (2015), 21–41Google Scholar.

⁸¹ “Les démocraties contemporaines sont issues d'une forme de gouvernement que ses fondateurs opposaient à la démocratie.” Manin, Bernard, Principes du gouvernement représentatif (Paris, 1995), 11Google Scholar.

⁸² Moniteur universel, 14 Dec. 1790. On this tension between the municipality and the sovereignty of the Parisian people in moments of revolution see Stephen W. Sawyer, “The Revolutionary Municipality,” in Sawyer, “Locating Paris: The Parisian Municipality in Revolutionary France, 1789–1852” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 2008).

⁸³ Encyclopédie méthodique, vol. 9, Jurisprudence (Paris, 1789), 63.

⁸⁴ On the profound importance of Peuchet for regulatory police and the invention of a modern notion of administration during the Revolution see Paolo Napoli, Naissance de la police, 174–82.

⁸⁵ On Peuchet's relation to key figures of the political Enlightenment and the originality of his conception of administration see Siam, Fanny, “Le dictionnaire de Police et Municipalités (1789–1791): la philosophie politico-juridique de Jacques Peuchet au service de l'administration,” in Claude Blanckaert et Michel Porret, eds. L'Encyclopédie méthodique (1782–1832): Des lumières au positivism (Geneva, 2006), 341–60Google Scholar.

⁸⁶ “Il est avant tout pragmatique.” Ethel, Groffier, Un encyclopédiste réformateur: Jacques Peuchet (1758–1830) (Quebec, 2009), 12Google Scholar. For a brief introduction to Peuchet's career and a discussion of his works on administration and regulatory police under the Restoration see Karila-Cohen, Pierre, “Du maintien de l'ordre à l'expertise du social: Jacques Peuchet et la crise de la police à l’âge libéral,” in Vincent Milliot, ed., Les mémoires policiers 1750–1850: Écritures et pratiques policières du siècle des lumières au Second empire (Rennes, 2006), 251–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸⁷ Peuchet's historical presentation is exceedingly similar to the historical developments in d'Argenson's Considérations. It is, however, much longer and more detailed, which suggests that he was also influenced by one of the most important authors on regulatory police, Nicolas Delamare, who also illustrated the foundational principles of police powers through a protracted history. See Diyonet, Nicole, Nicolas Delamare, théoricien de la police (Paris, 2018)Google Scholar.

⁸⁸ Peuchet, Jacques, Jurisprudence: La police et les municipalités, Encyclopédie méthodique, vol. 10 (Paris, 1789), 637Google Scholar. On Jacques Peuchet's conception of police and civilization in the Enlightenment see Vidoni, Nicolas, “Une ‘police des lumières?’,” Rives méditerranéennes 40 (2011), 43–65, at 43CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who writes, “À la fin du XVIIIe siècle, une idée diffusée en Europe veut que vivre à Paris constitue le summum de la douceur de vivre, parce qu'on y trouve la plus grande tranquillité. Cette idée est défendue par Hume, Gibbon, et par Jacques Peuchet, qui fait paraître, en 1789, le tome IX de la série ‘Jurisprudence’ de l'Encyclopédie méthodique de Panckoucke; opus intitulé La Police et les Municipalités.”

⁸⁹ Encyclopédie méthodique, vol. 9, 58.

⁹⁰ Ibid., 59.

⁹¹ “The natural form of administration would appear to have been democratic under Charlemagne.” Encyclopédie méthodique, 9: 201. “Saint Louis followed the system of his predecessors and favored democracy.” Encyclopédie méthodique, 9: 205.

⁹² Encyclopédie méthodique, 9: 153.

⁹³ Encyclopédie méthodique, 9: 201.

⁹⁴ J. Peuchet, De l'appel au peuple, 1789.

⁹⁵ Rosanvallon, “History of the Word Democracy” (online, unpaginated version).

⁹⁶ La bouche de fer, 5 Nov. 1790.

⁹⁷ La bouche de fer, 11 June 1791, 5.

⁹⁸ La bouche de fer, 2 July 1791, 3–5.

⁹⁹ Brissot, J. P., Recueil de quelques écrits principalement extraits du Patriote François, Relatifs à la discussion du parti à prendre pour le Roi, et de la question sur le Républicanisme et la Monarchie (Paris, 1791)Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁰ Ibid., 7.

¹⁰¹ Ibid., 7.

¹⁰² Ibid., 12.

¹⁰³ Ibid., 13.

¹⁰⁴ Brissot, J. P., “Réponse à P. Choderlos, rédacteur du Journal intitulé: Des amis de la constitution,” Le patriote françois 609 (9 April 1791)Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁵ Maximilien Robespierre, Rapport sur les principes de morale politique qui doivent guider la Convention nationale dans l'administration intérieure de la République, fait au nom du Comité de salut public, le 18 pluviôse, l'an 2e de la République, imprimé par ordre de la Convention nationale (18 pluviôse an II [5 Feb. 1794]).

¹⁰⁶ Palmer, “Notes on the Use of the Word ‘Democracy’,” 216.

¹⁰⁷ Furet, François, Revolutionary France, 1770–1880, trans. Nevill, Antonia (Cambridge, 1992), 146Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁸ Keith Baker, “Transformations of Classical Republicanism,” 50–51, has most notably argued that this speech completes a final “mutation within Robespierre's classical republicanism.” Ibid., 51.

¹⁰⁹ Shepard, William Finley, Price Control and the Reign of Terror: France, 1793–1795 (Berkeley, 1953), 29Google Scholar.

¹¹⁰ See Soboul, Albert, “Robespierre et la formation du gouvernement révolutionnaire (27 juillet–10 octobre 1793),” Revue d'histoire moderne et contemporaine 5/4 (1958), 283–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹¹ Archives parlementaires, vol. LXVI, 578.

¹¹² Robespierre, Rapport, 5.

¹¹³ Ibid., 5.

¹¹⁴ Ibid., 4.

¹¹⁵ Ibid., 4.

¹¹⁶ Ibid., 5.

¹¹⁷ 14 June 1793, Archives parlementaires, vol. LXVI, 530.

¹¹⁸ Robespierre, Rapport, 6.

¹¹⁹ Ibid., 5.

¹²⁰ Ibid., 5.

¹²¹ Ibid., 17.

¹²² Archives parlementaires, vol. LXIII, 199.

¹²³ Robespierre, Rapport, 5.

¹²⁴ Ibid., 17.

¹²⁵ Rousseau writes in Book III, chap. 2, Du principe qui constitue les diverses formes de gouvernement: “le gouvernement se relâche à mesure que les magistrats se multiplient.”

¹²⁶ Robespierre, Rapport, 4.

¹²⁷ Ibid., 4.

¹²⁸ Palmer, Robert R., Twelve Who Ruled: The Year of Terror in the French Revolution (Princeton, 2005; first published 1969), 307Google Scholar.

¹²⁹ Robespierre, Rapport, 5.

¹³⁰ Manin, Principes du gouvernement représentatif, 14.

¹³¹ Robespierre, Rapport, 10.

¹³² The term is used by François Furet in Interpreting the French Revolution, trans. Elborg Forster (Cambridge, 1981), 57.

¹³³ Royer-Collard, Pierre-Paul, De la liberté de la presse: Discours (Paris, 1949)Google Scholar.

¹³⁴ Ibid., 47.

¹³⁵ Ibid., 49.

¹³⁶ All quotations from Democracy in America are from Tocqueville, Alexis de, Democracy in America, ed. Nolla, Eduardo, trans. Schleifer, James T. (Indianapolis, 2010), vol. 1, 75–6Google Scholar.

¹³⁷ Ibid., 91 n.

¹³⁸ Ibid., 91.

¹³⁹ Ibid., 360.

¹⁴⁰ Ibid., 58.

¹⁴¹ Ibid., 92.

¹⁴² Ibid., 92.

¹⁴³ Ibid., 92.

¹⁴⁴ Ibid., 93.

¹⁴⁵ Ibid., 93.

¹⁴⁶ Ibid., 93.

¹⁴⁷ Ibid., 108.

¹⁴⁸ Ibid., 104 n.

¹⁴⁹ Tocqueville clearly considered that he was in dialogue with Rousseau. In a letter to Kergorlay he wrote, “There are three men with whom I live a bit every day, Pascal, Montesquieu and Rousseau.” Letter of 10 Nov. 1836, in Tocqueville, Alexis de, Oeuvres complètes, vol. 13 (Paris, 1977), 1, 418Google Scholar.

¹⁵⁰ Tocqueville, Democracy, 108.

¹⁵¹ Ibid., 120.

¹⁵² Ibid., 13.

¹⁵³ Tocqueville, Alexis de, Old Regime and the French Revolution, trans. S., Alan Kahan (Chicago, 1998), 138Google Scholar. Kahan translates administrés as “governed.” I have restored Tocqueville's original term.

¹⁵⁴ Ibid., 138.

¹⁵⁵ See, for example, Robert T. Gannett Jr, Tocqueville Unveiled: The Historian and His Sources for The Old Regime and the French Revolution (Chicago, 2003); Keith Michael Baker, “The Problem of the Ideological Origins of the French Revolution,” in Baker, Inventing the French Revolution (Cambridge, 1990), 12–30, at 21–2.

¹⁵⁶ Tocqueville, Alexis de, L'Ancien Régime, Pléiade edn (Paris, 2004), 218Google Scholar.

¹⁵⁷ Ibid., 93.

¹⁵⁸ Tocqueville, L'Ancien Régime, 88.

¹⁵⁹ Ibid., 93.

¹⁶⁰ Tocqueville, The Old Regime and the French Revolution, 124.

¹⁶¹ Ibid., 130.

¹⁶² Tocqueville, Alexis de, “Définition de la démocratie,” in Tocqueville, Écrits et discours politiques, Oeuvres complètes, vol. 3 (Paris, 1990), 196Google Scholar.

¹⁶³ Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph, Solution du problème social (Paris, 1848), 54Google Scholar.

¹⁶⁴ Palmer, “Notes on the Use of the Word ‘Democracy’,” 205.