Papers of John Adams, volume 20
Editorial Note
Following the favorable reception of his 1787–1788 work, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States
of America, Vice President John Adams ventured deeper into the lessons of
Europe’s republican past. Encouraged by Thomas Jefferson and others to pursue the
subject of hereditary aristocracy as “a proper sequel,” Adams mulled the skills needed
for such a task, namely, greater foreign-language fluency and access to more research
materials (vol. 19:5). Over the
course of two years, he produced his Discourses on Davila: A
Series of Papers on Political History. Ardent Federalist John Fenno serialized
Adams’ Discourses in the Gazette of
the United States between 28 April 1790 and 27 April 1791. The first 22 essays
appeared in the Gazette’s New York City edition, and the
next ten were published in Philadelphia, after Fenno moved his business to the federal
seat. The essays were printed anonymously but Adams’ authorship was an open secret; he
confirmed it to son Charles in mid-February 1792. Originally intended as an English
translation of French history, John Adams’ 32 essays morphed into an extensive and
influential commentary on social class, religion, and revolution.
Adams embarked on the project in the fall of 1789, inspired by his
reading of Histoire des guerres civiles de France, 3 vols.,
Amsterdam, 1757, which was a popular French translation of Italian author Enrico
Caterino Davila’s Historia delle guerre civili di Francia,
Venice, 1630. Davila (1576–1631), a former soldier and diplomat who was a native of
Padua, offered a rich chronicle of the French Wars of Religion that stretched from 1560
to 1598. According to Adams, Davila’s account of the sixteenth-century struggles between
the monarchy and the nobility, along with the internecine conflicts of the aristocracy,
supplied a resonant history lesson for eighteenth-century events in America and France.
The June 1790 catalog of Adams’ library lists an English translation of Davila’s text as
well, but he relied on the French translation, which bears significant annotations in
his hand.
In terms of structure, Adams’ Discourses may be read in two parts. He spent the initial eighteen essays
translating the first five books of Davila’s history, weaving in a few brief comments.
The next fourteen essays featured Adams’ reflections on British economist Adam Smith’s
ideas of social rank 338 and ambition as discussed in his Theory of Moral Sentiments. When he reached No. 31, Adams
announced that he was concluding his analysis of France’s “melancholy history.” The
final printed installment of Adams’ series showcased French jurist Étienne de La Boétie
(1530–1563), whose essay Discours sur la servitude volontaire ou
Contr’un attacked both the tyranny of absolute monarchy and the modes of popular
surrender to it. Though his Discourses fell silent in the
Gazette of the United States, Adams found he had more to
say. An incomplete draft of a 33d essay intended for his Discourses is in the Adams Papers. It has never previously been published and is
printed below. There, Adams criticized the unicameral legislature and weak executive
branch espoused by the Marquis de Condorcet in his 1788 treatise, Quattre lettres d’un bourgeois de New Haven sur l’unité de la
législation.
To his pride and provocation, Adams found an American audience that
was still eager to hear and to war over his political philosophy. Throughout the 1790s,
Adams’ Discourses repeatedly rekindled the dissent
already aflame between factions of staunch Federalists and emergent
Democratic-Republicans. The historical essays became a partisan lightning rod, as
Congress battled through regional interests and as the French Revolution’s violence
rippled onto American shores. Adams’ new and increasingly vocal rival Jefferson, for
example, seized the opportunity to praise Thomas Paine’s Rights
of Man while denouncing Adams’ “political heresies” at play in the Discourses.
This view, coupled with sharp criticism from several “Jacobinical journals,” led Adams
to cease writing the Discourses (Jefferson, Papers
,
20:293;
AFC
, 9:263).
Characteristically, he did not wholly give up on the topic. From 30 April to 9 July
1791, Adams published a serialized translation of La Boétie’s scholarship in the Gazette.
As with his Defence and other
writings, John Adams had a personal perspective on how to interpret the Discourses’ significance and scope (vols. 18:539, 544, 546–550; 19:130–132). Addressing his son Thomas Boylston on 19 September
1795, the vice president wrote: “I wish The Discourses on Davila were collected and
printed as a fourth Volume, for they are in reality a Key to the whole. That Emulation
in the human heart which is universal, and is not a Love of Equality but a desire of
Superiority, is there develloped as the eternal & universal Cause of Parties and
Factions, which renders the double Ballance indispensible in every free Republican
Government” (Adams Papers).
The Discourses enjoyed yet other
public reincarnations after John Adams was elected president in 1797. John Russell began
reprinting the Discourses in the Boston Gazette from 2 September 1799 to 30 June 1800, emphasizing Adams’
foresight regarding the French Revolution’s descent into terror. In the 15 May issue,
Russell solicited subscriptions for a book-length collection of the Discourses, thereby ensuring “a more durable publicity” for
Adams’ work. Five years later, Russell and James Cutler printed a Boston edition titled
Discourses on Davila. A Series of Papers, on Political
History. Written in the Year 1790, and then Published in the Gazette of the United
States. By an American Citizen. They omitted Adams’ No. 32 and set the 339 price at one dollar. Russell and Cutler added a
postscript echoing Adams’ call for a balanced constitutional government. They advertised
the book as “the offspring” of the author of the Defence,
and “as correlative parts, or an additional volume to the
above work.” Savoring his copy of the 1805 edition, a retired John Adams wrote the
following in the margin: “Napoleon! Mutato nomine, de te fabula narrabatur! This book is
a prophecy of your empire before your name was heard” (JA, D&A
, 3:225;
AFC
, 9:262–264, 335; Hoefer, Nouv. biog.
générale
;
Catalogue of JA’s Library
; Descriptive List of Illustrations, No. 2, above; C.
Bradley Thompson, John Adams and the Spirit of Liberty,
Lawrence, Kans., 1998, p. 270–274; Boston Gazette, 22 April
1805, 6 June).
Drafts of 17 of the 32 published essays, as well as the manuscript
of No. 33, are filmed at Adams Papers Microfilms, Reel 374. For editorial arrangements
of the Discourses that draw on John Adams’ related
marginalia, see JA, Works
, 6:221–403, and Haraszti, Prophets
, p.
39, 165–179, 334–335. A modern reprint of the 1805 Discourses was issued by Da Capo Press in 1973.
Discourses on Davila, No. 33
ca. 16 March 1791
Discourses on Davila. N. 33.
It seems by the Discourse of Boetius, that there was a strong
Inclination, in some to destroy Monarchy and Aristocracy in France, as long ago as
the rign of Charles the ninth and some of his Predecessors. had this been done, they
must either have had no Government at all,
would probably have adopted, a Government in one Center like the present national
Assembly. In some former discourse an Idea was hinted at, of throwing together a few
Thoughts upon the Question whether a Sovereignty in a single Assembly, could have
answered the Ends of Government in the sixteenth Century or whether it will do
better now in the Eighteenth, for such a nation as France. This question may be
answered by a few Remarks upon a Work, which has not been much read in America, as
yet but as it is a part of American Literature and will be preserved in the Cabinets
of the Curious, it will not misbecome Us to look into it.
In 1788 were published in Paris four Volumes under the Title of
Researches historical and political, concerning the United States of America North America, in which is are treated their Relations and Contentions
with Great Britain and of their Governments before and after the Revolution, by a
Citizen of Virginia; with four Letters from a Burgher of New Heaven concerning the
Unity of Legislation. As these Letters from a Citizen of New Heaven to a Citizen of
340 Virginia, are become a Part both of French and
American Literature, they will descend to Posterity, as one monument of the
Principles and Opinions of this important Period. Posterity therefore will be, as
the present Generation both in france and America are interested in a candid
investigation of the Truths or Errors they contain: and especially as the Author of
them is announced to be one of the greatest Men of this Century. When the Work first
appeared in public It was conjectured that the Word “Heaven” was an Error of the
Press and that New Haven was meant, and Mr Trumbull the
satiric Poet of humble Virtue but independent Spirit and, immortal Fame, who was Supposed imagined, by some who knowing he belonged to connecticut knew not
that he was a Citizen of Hartford, to have attempted in prose to ridicule of a Government in one Assembly. But upon
considering the concluding part of the dedication, and after reading the four
Letters themselves it was conjectured that the New Jerusalem was meant, and the Plan
of Government imagined for the Millennium only.2 It now appears however that this Work
has been followed by several others published with the Names of the Duke de la
Rochefaucault and the Marquis of Condercet, referred to as serious Argument in the
national Assembly, and that that assembly has itself adopted the Idea of Mr Turgot it must therefore now be given Up,
that this Work was designed to delineate a Government for Men, before the coming of
the New Heavens and the New Earth.
These Letters in 1788 were probably written in Answer to the
Defence of the American Constitutions the three Volumes of which were all printed
and some of them dispersed in France before the End of 1787. This would be probable
enough, from the known Friendship of the Writer for Mr
Turgot, which induced him formerly to write his Life and his Panegyrick: but it is
certain, from many passages in the Letters themselves, in which the Defence, tho not
named is so clearly alluded to that it cannot be mistaken. The Writer is a Man of
science, but no Experience; of Letters of some kinds, but unacquainted with History
as well as the Writings on Government; little acquainted with skilled in the human heart, not at all conversant with the
World. This is all demonstrated by his Letters: and what is more whimsical Still, it
appears manifest enough that he has undertaken to answer a Book Work without reading it.
A Desire of Reformation in Government, as well as in morals, and Religion, is a proof of an amiable disposition, and benevolent Wisdom. a Passion, for improvements in Arts and discoveries in science, is always laudable and where it is accompanied with Talents, merits 341 and Seldom fails to obtain the Admiration of mankind. But it should be remembered that many a Man feigns a passion which he never felt: others pretend to Talents they never possessed.
There is an Italian proverb of sterling Sense, Se Sta bene non
se move. If you Stand well, dont move. A maxim of Wisdom generally just and
universally so with this Addition, Unless you have good
reason to believe you can Stand better. Before We attempt Reformation We
Should be Sure of two Points. 1. That there are Errors, and Abuses, or at least
imperfections, which can be corrected. 2. What those Errors, abuses or imperfections
are. Before We attempt Discoveries and improvements, We should consider, whether the
whole of a Subject is not already known: and whether it is not already as perfect as
We can make it: and better than it would be with Such Innovations and alterations as
are projected.
As all Things are best illustrated by Examples, it may not be amiss to alledge one or two.
Suppose an Architect should arise and sett up Pretentions to
matchless Genius, intuitive Knowledge, and exalted Invention beyond all others who
had ever lived in any part of the World. He tells us gravely “Mankind have as yet
discovered nothing in the Art of Building. Corinthian Pillars and all the other
orders are aukward and clumsy Incumbranes. Dividing an house into various
Appartements and Offices, according to the old Architecture, is all Ignorance and
Empiricism. I, will teach you a new method; A method of perfect Unity and Simplicity. Pull down to the
foundation, all your houses, cutt to pieces all your Pillars and orders, and I will
build you new houses habitations, but at your
expence however, all in one Center. Houses in which the Garrett and the Cellar, the
Kitchen and the Parlour Dining Room, Dressing Room and Lodging Rooms shall all be
but one Apartment. This will be Simple: all the Complications and Quackeries of the
Old Architecture will be avoided by this device.”
Proud as the World is there is more superiority in it, given than assumed, and a bold Pretender generally gains Attention and Obtains disciples. It is probable that our Architect would make impressions on some, for We have good Authority to say that there is no Opinion so absurd but some Philosopher has been found to mantain it. But would Mankind in General, especially the more judicious and thinking part and those who have already comfortable Dwellings, consent to destroy so much Property, waste so much labour, and turn themselves out into the open air, for the sake of Improvements So precarious and problematical.?
342Another Example, equally apposite may be taken from Musick. Suppose a Person should appear and tell Us with an Air of solemnity, “that Gluck and Picini, Haydn and Handel were all quacks. Their Complications of Tenor Treble and Base were all ridiculous. But I have discovered a new Science of Musick and invented a new method of practice. a Theory and Practice of mere simplicity. reduce all your Fiddles to one String and your Organs to one Pipe. It is now discovered and made certain that Monotony Is the Perfection of the musical Art. And this is the new Musick and at present all the Tone.” Would all the World, the Performers and Composers as well as Lovers And Hearers at once agree to this.? Would not some be found to say that all the great Masters of Antiquity, as well as of modern times and the present Age, before You, have thought differently. All the Examples are against you. But suppose He should reply. “Dont tell me of Examples. Examples have nothing to do in this matter. Improvement and Discovery must and shall be made. The old Musick was execrable. A better We must and will have. Away with all your Symphonies and Harmonies, your Compositions your Concords and Discords; your flatts and sharps: One simple, unique thorough bass shall bellow in your Ears forever: And then you will have no discords.” “Musicians by Profession are interested to make their Science intricate and their practice complex.” Must Mankind at once resign their Pleasures and Amusements to Such a decisive Pretender, without consulting their own Ears and Taste?
Another Example may be drawn from Grammar. Why should We have
so complicated a system, for the ordinary conversation, and daily Intercourse of
Life? Why should our Alphabets consist of so many as four and twenty Letters? cannot
We do without Eight Parts of Speech? must our Pronouns have so many Cases, our nouns
so many declensions, and our Verbs so many Conjugations, Voices, Moods Tenses,
Numbers and Persons? Cannot a little Unity and Simplicity be introduced into this
Art. The old Grammar consumes a great deal of time.— And while I am writing the
federal Gazette is put into my hand with full proof that the Spirit of Unity and
Symplicity is becoming epidemical. A new and universal Language is announced,
invented by Professor Wolf of Petersbourg, destitute of
Words that immediately expresses Ideas and fills the Imagination with Images
and Perceptions.3 it does not
take up the fifth of the Space of any known Language. it has no Irregularities no
declensions, and only one extremely simple Conjugation. Proper Names of Persons and
Places may be accurately expressed by it, without the help of 343 Words or Letters and it may be commonly read
from left to right, or from right to left at pleasure. it is not unpleasant to the
Ear. And may be easily taught in any Country where there are Jews, Turks or
Christians, or where the Bible or Koran is read.
What Shall We say to this discovery? or Invention? It is a
Wonder, and therefore will attract Attention. But will Professor Wolf insist that We
should burn all our Grammars, and cease to teach our Children any Language, till We
shall be informed what his secret is? We need not contradict his Pretensions. Let
him publish his Art and We shall judge. Till then We shall Use what We have and
already know.— But his is a very different situation from that of our modern
Legislators. Their pretended Nostrum; their Sublime Invention is nothing new. it is
as old as nations and has been tried in almost every nation Country. There is Scarcely any nation which has not in some period
of its duration, made an Essay of a Government in a single Assembly: sometimes
larger and sometimes smaller in point of numbers: and they have been found to
operate alike: as uniformly as the Union of
fire Conjunction of fire and Gunpowder, has produced explosions. We need not
hesitate then to pronounce the Pretension to be an Imposition. The Discovery to be
nothing but a renovation of an old and very gross Error. The Invention to be nothing
new, any more than Savage Life.
Naval Architecture may furnish Us with another Example. Why should a ship have three Masts? Such a multitude of Ropes and rigging and such a Variety of Sails? Unity and Simplicity, would be more conspicuous in one Mast, and in one sail.
MS (Adams Papers); notation by CFA: “never published.”
The dating of this MS is based on
JA’s mention of the Philadelphia Federal
Gazette, 16 March 1791, for which see note 3, below.
As a supplement to later editions of his four-volume Recherches historiques et politiques, Paris, 1788, Philip
Mazzei inserted the Marquis de Condorcet’s Quattre lettres
d’un bourgeois de New Haven sur l’unité de la législation, which advocated a
unicameral form of government and outlined a complex electoral process. In his
preface, Mazzei lauded Condorcet but stood firmly alongside JA in
upholding bicameralism as the more democratic system (Mazzei, Writings
,
1:560).
JA likely referred to the classical philologist
Friedrich August Wolf (1759–1824), of Hainrode, Prussia, who taught philosophy at
the University of Halle rather than in St. Petersburg, Russia, and whose academic
interests reached the American press. Wolf advocated a holistic approach to
humanities scholarship that focused on recovering “the science of antiquity” (Joseph
Thomas, Universal Pronouncing Dictionary of Biography and
Mythology, 3d edn., 2 vols., Phila., 1908; James Turner, Philology: The Forgotten Origins of the Modern
Humanities, Princeton, N.J., 2014, p. 118–119; Philadelphia Federal Gazette, 16 March 1791).