Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T19:23:47.821Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Opinion in Eighteenth-Century Thought: What did the Concept Purport to Explain?’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2009

J. A. W. Gunn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

We all ‘know’ that public opinion came to prominence in the political vocabulary of the late eighteenth century. It may be that this dates its rise a bit late, but it is not relevant to argue the matter here. My concern is rather that we be equally aware of the purposes for which people made use of the concept. Here I wish to consider various possible contexts for speaking or writing of public opinion, or ‘opinion’, as it was usually called prior to the mid-eighteenth century. It may be possible to define, more fully than heretofore, the work that the expression did in eighteenth-century thought. As contemporary students of public opinion have been learning, an answer to this question may not even be wholly irrelevant to the task of specifying the nature of public opinion in our own time.

Type
Research Article
Information
Utilitas , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , May 1993 , pp. 17 - 33
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

A paper presented at the International Congress of ISUS at University of Western Ontario, 3–5 April 1992.

References

1 See Gunn, , ‘Public Opinion in Modern Political Science’Google Scholar, due to appear in a collection on the state of the discipline of political science, edited by James Farr and John S. Dryzek.

2 Here I refer to a MS. of some 500 pages, provisionally entitled ‘Queen of the World: Opinion in the Public Life of France from the Renaissance to the Reformation’.

3 As in his The Passions and the Interests: Political Arguments for Capitalism Before its Triumph, Princeton, 1977.Google Scholar

4 Hirschman, , The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy, Cambridge, Mass., 1991, p. 155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 See, for instance, Louis, , de Sade, chevalier, Lexicon politique, ou définition des mots techniques de la science, Paris, 1837Google Scholar, s.v. ‘Opinion, Reine du monde’, pp. 293–305Google Scholar, where the separate entry, following on that for public opinion, may suggest some distancing of the ancient maxim from the modern concept.

6 Silbon, , De la certitude des connaissances humaines, Paris, 1661, p. 104Google Scholar. For later use of the expression, see the reference, in a legal document from about 1706, to ‘un intérest d'honneur’ in de Sacy, Louis, Recueil de mémories, factums et harangues, 2 vols., Paris, 1724, i. 685.Google Scholar

7 [Bernard, ], Réflexions morales, satiriques et comiques sur les moeurs de nôtre siècle, Cologne, 1711, pp. 8–9Google Scholar. See too [Rousseau, A.], Nouvelles maximes, ou réflexions morales, Paris, 1679, pp. 93–4, 98Google Scholar and [d'Argonne, Bonaventure], L'Education, maximes et réflexions de Monsieur Moncade, Rouen, 1691, pp. cclxxx, cccxxxiii.Google Scholar

8 As noted by Bouhours, Dominique, Doutes sur la langue française, Paris, 1674, p. 109.Google Scholar

9 Key, , Public Opinion and American Democracy, New York, 1961, pp. 127, 223–4.Google Scholar

10 See Sears, David O. and Funk, Carolyn L., ‘Self-Interest in Americans' Political Opinions’ in Mansbridge, Jane J., ed., Beyond Self-Interest, Chicago, 1990, pp. 147–70.Google Scholar

11 Minar, David W., ‘Public Opinion in the Perspective of Political Theory’, Western Political Quarterly, xiii (1960), 31–44.Google Scholar

12 See passages quoted in Holmes, Stephen, ‘The Secret History of Self-Interest’ in Mansbridge, pp. 267–86 at p. 274Google Scholar and Watkins, Frederick, ed., Hume: Theory of Politics, London, 1951, p. 148Google Scholar. The comment occurs in ‘Of the First Principles of Government’.

13 See Fiévée, Joseph, Des opinions et des intérêts pendant la Révolution, Paris, 1809, pp. 9–10, 13, 183–4Google Scholar for a strong statement of politics as being properly the conciliation of interests.

14 See, for example, Riqueti, Victor, de Mirabeau, marquis, L'Ami des hommes, 3 vols., Avignon, 1758, iii. 467Google Scholar; Théorie de l'impôt, Amsterdam, 1761, p. 2Google Scholar and Entretiens d'un jeune prince, London, 1785, iii. 103, 282.Google Scholar

15 d'Holbach, , La politique naturelle, 2 vols., London, 1773, i. 90Google Scholar and Système social, 3 vols., London, 1773, iii. 3.Google Scholar

16 Annales patriotiques, cciv (21 07, 1793), 941.Google Scholar

17 See Thouret, Jacques-Guillaume in Archives parlementaires, xii (6 04, 1790), p. 555Google Scholar; Lenglet, Étienne-Géry in Corps législatif, Procès-verbal des sceances du Conseil des Anciens (3 thermidor, l'an VII), p. 9Google Scholar and de Fonvielle, B. -F. -A., Essais historiques, critiques … sur l'état de France, Paris, 1804, p. 291.Google Scholar

18 La société des Jacobins. Recueil des documents, ed. Aulard, F. A., 6 vols., Paris, 1889–1897, ii. 482.Google Scholar

19 Constant, , Commentaire sur l'ouvrage de Filangieri, 2 vols., Paris, 1822–1884, ii. 290Google Scholar. The passage in which Filangieri had offered his views on public opinion had no apparent role in provoking Constant's comment. See Filangieri, Gaetano, La science de la législation, trans. Gallois, J. -A. Gauvin, 7 vols., Paris, 1786–1791 i. 99.Google Scholar

20 In this portion of the paper I am drawing upon the manuscript mentioned in note 2 above and upon Gunn, , ‘Public Opinion’ in Ball, T., Farr, J. & Hanson, R., ed., Political Innovation and Conceptual Change, Cambridge, 1989, pp. 247–65.Google Scholar

21 [de Gournay, Marie], L'Ombre de la demoiselle de Gournay, Paris, 1626, p. 397Google Scholar and Les avis, ou, les preseras de la demoiselle de Gournay, Paris, 1641, p. 249.Google Scholar

22 de, Monsieur C*** [Champdeveaux], L'Honneur considéré en lui-même, et relativement au duel, Paris, 1752, pp. 125–8, 266–7.Google Scholar

23 Coyer, Gabriel-François, La noblesse commerçante, London, 1756, p. 209.Google Scholar

24 [Garnier, J. -J.], Le commerce remis à sa place, n. p., 1756, pp. 14–15.Google Scholar

25 d'Arcq, , La noblesse militaire …, n.p., 1756, pp. 60, 153.Google Scholar

26 [de Forbonnais, François Véron], Lettre à M.F., ou examen politique des prétendus inconvéniens de la faculté de commercer en gros, sans déroger la noblesse, n. p., [1756], pp. 21, 23, 78.Google Scholar

27 [Pierre-Alexandre, , de Corbet, viscomte d'Alès], Origine de la noblesse française, depuis l'établissement de la monarchie, Paris, 1766, pp. 321, 331.Google Scholar

28 Useful guides to a vast literature include Carré, Henri, La noblesse de France et l'opinion publique au xviie siècle, Paris, 1920Google Scholar; Hayden, H., A Check-list of the Talleyrand and other Collections, [in the New York Public Library] New York, 1945Google Scholar; Decouflé, André, ‘L'aristocratie française devant l'opinion publique à la veille de la Révolution (1787–89)’ in Boulanger, Decouflé F. & Pierrelle, B. -A., ed., Études d'histoire économique et sociale du xviie siècle, Paris, 1966, pp. 1–52Google Scholar; Higonnet, Patrice, Class, Ideology, and the Rights of Nobles during the French Revolution, Oxford, 1981Google Scholar and The French Revolution on Microfiche: 1788–1793, Bibliothèque Nationale and Norman Ross Publishing, New York, 1989—Google Scholar, series III: ‘The Nobility’. All items cited in the paper have, in fact, been consulted in the original.

29 Anon., Essais politiques et philosophiques sur ce qu'on appelle les trois ordres de la France, Paris, 1789, p. 130Google Scholar. Consulted in the Seligman Collection, Butler Library, Columbia University.

30 Anon., Sur l'ascendent aristocratique de la noblesse dans le clergé, n. p., [1789], pp. 36–7.Google Scholar

31 [Barthez, Paul-Joseph], Libre discours sur la prérogative que doit avoir la noblesse, Paris, 1789, pp. 14–21.Google Scholar

32 Anon., De la féodalité et de l'aristocratie française, ii. n. p., 1789, pp. 23, 30, 40Google Scholar. See too Honoré-Gabriel, , de Mirabeau, comte, Considerations sur l'ordre de Cincinnatus … London, 1784, p. 74.Google Scholar

33 The point was subject to much comment among revolutionaries who sought the end of noble status, even in the realm of opinion. See Dulaure, Jacques-Antoine, Histoire critique de la noblesse, Paris, 1790, p. viiGoogle Scholar; [Lambert, Charles], Abolition de la noblesse héréditaire en France, [Paris], 1790, pp. 30, 40–1Google Scholar; Oeuvres de Rabaut Saint-Étienne ed. de Plancy, J. Collin, i, Paris, 1826, p. 238Google Scholar and Anon., L'Anéantissement total de la noblesse héréditaire, Paris, 1789Google Scholar, passim. For some nobles, the locus in opinion was, of course, a comfort, suggesting that legal abolition would serve no purpose. See Charles-Élie, , marquis de Fernères, Correspondance inédite (1789, 1790, 1791), ed. Carré, Henri, Paris, 1932, pp. 207, 215.Google Scholar

34 ‘Encore un mot sur la noblesse’, La Feuille villageoise, ii, no. 24 (8 03, 1792), 557Google Scholar. The writer may have been Nicolas François de Neufchâteau.

35 Chronique du mois, lxxi (29 04, 1792), 477Google Scholar. For Condorcet's authorship see Bouissounouse, Janine, Condorcet. Le philosophe dans la Révolution, Paris, 1962, p. 228.Google Scholar

36 d'Antraigues, , Adresse à l'ordre de la noblesse de France, 2nd ed. Paris, 1792, pp. 80–6.Google Scholar

37 [Gallais, Jean-Pierre], Le législateur de l'an cinquième, n. p., [1797], p. 32.Google Scholar