Читать книгу Democracy in America - Alexis de Tocqueville - Страница 9
Оглавление[print edition page xxviii]
Foreword
“In this regard, you will pardon me, I hope, if I express a regret that I believe is general. You have pushed too far a scruple, otherwise very laudable, of not wanting to publish anything that had not absolutely received the final touch of the author. I know well the conscientiousness that caused our friend to present the expression of his thought to the public only after he had brought it to the highest perfection that he felt capable of giving it; but it is one thing to put a piece of writing aside in order to make it more perfect and something else to want it suppressed when fate has decreed that the process of perfecting it cannot take place. Even the rough drafts of a thinker and observer like Tocqueville would be of inestimable value for thinkers to come; and unless he opposed it while alive, it seems to me that there would be no disadvantage in publishing his imperfect manuscripts while presenting them only for what they are and scrupulously retaining all the indications of an intention to go back to some piece and to submit its ideas to a later verification.”1
In these words, following the publication of the complete works, John Stuart Mill expressed his regret to the editor, Gustave de Beaumont, for not having been able to read the whole body of Tocqueville’s unpublished papers.
Within the framework of this edition, I wanted to revisit Beaumont’s decision and in part to satisfy Mill’s desire. I have resolved not only to offer to the reader the text of Democracy in America revised and corrected, but also to give an important place to the notes, drafts, and materials of all kinds that accompanied the period of its writing.
I have therefore chosen to present to the reader at the same time a new
[print edition page xxix]
edition of the Democracy and a different edition. This new Democracy is not only the one that Tocqueville presented to the reader of 1835 and then to the reader of 1840. It is enlarged, amplified by a body of texts that has never existed in the form that I give it today. If the added pages that follow are indeed from Tocqueville’s pen, most of them existed only as support, as necessary scaffolding for the construction of the work. As such, they were naturally meant to disappear from the final version.
Drawn out of obscurity, they are going to reappear in the middle of the known text. These fragments, revived by the choice of the editor, appear between brackets in the main text and in notes. They must be treated with caution. Although they have been brought back to life here, it is advisable not to forget that Tocqueville had condemned them to disappearance. If they often lead to some interesting site, they also lead many times to a labyrinth or to an impenetrable wall. Then we will be forced to agree with the judgment that once relegated them to oblivion.
What interest does their presence have then? Above all that of vividly highlighting the extraordinary complexity of the writing of the Democracy and aiding in its comprehension by presenting a portion of the erasures and over-writings, the prodigious “layering” of Tocqueville’s great work. The reader will discover, for example, how Tocqueville, often hesitant, uncertain about the direction to follow, asks for advice from his family and friends, and how the latter guide his thought when writing some paragraphs and sentences. He will better understand the reasons for certain additions and deletions. He will also be able to note certain changes due to the criticisms made by the first readers of the manuscript. Finally and above all, he will see how Tocqueville proceeded with the elaboration of the main ideas of his book.
Every text is unstable for a long time. When it has acquired a certain coherence and the author judges it complete, it is printed. Every typographic reproduction leads, however, to adulteration, an adulteration as necessary as it is inevitable. The printed book cannot convey either the handwriting or the look of the manuscript. Only a facsimile, a perfect reproduction of the original, made on the same paper, damaged by time and humidity, would manage to show to the reader Democracy in America in all its complexity and liveliness. But it would be an illusory Democracy,
[print edition page xxx]
entirely as hard to read and grasp as the original, and one whose intrinsic value would be lost.
If the edition that is being presented today is careful to restore to the Democracy part of its difficulties of composition, of its mistaken ideas, and of its faltering efforts, it is not trying to and cannot in any way take the place of the manuscript, any more than it can come close to being a facsimile. A good number of research projects will still have to return to the unique object that the manuscript represents.2
The Manuscripts of Tocqueville
The preparation of the first edition of the complete works goes back to 1859, and comes just after the death of Tocqueville. The work of Gustave de Beaumont, who held Tocqueville’s manuscripts from his widow, Mary Mottley, was done with the aid of Louis de Kergorlay.
Beaumont knew Tocqueville’s obsession to publish nothing that had not been read and reread a hundred times. Since the author was no longer there to ensure the correction of his texts, Beaumont took charge of it. In so doing, he doctored certain passages; he deleted certain others without indication; and finally he destroyed an indeterminate number of documents (perhaps in response to the demands of Tocqueville’s wife).
That first edition, which elicited considerable criticism, possesses almost as many good qualities as failings. We know that the editorial practices of the period differed markedly from ours, that mutilations and corrections of all sorts did not as clearly give rise to condemnation. Some of the people cited in the correspondence were still alive at the time of publication. Finally,
[print edition page xxxi]
the political situation of the Second Empire weighed on the decision of the editor to make a certain number of modifications.
It is no less true that Beaumont provided an impressive work in a relatively short time. Nine volumes appeared in the space of seven years.
Mary Mottley died in 1865. Since her relations with the Tocqueville family were never good, she bequeathed all of her husband’s papers to Gustave de Beaumont. The family of the latter possessed them until 1891. At that time Christian de Tocqueville acquired them.
Not long after the end of the First World War, Paul Lambert White, professor at Yale University, became interested in Tocqueville’s manuscripts. He went to France, where he consulted and catalogued all of the manuscripts in the possession of the Tocqueville family. Moreover, he obtained the authorization to have the manuscripts that concerned America copied. M. Bonnel, the schoolteacher at Tocqueville, was charged with this work.3
At the death of Paul White, George W. Pierson, then a doctoral student at Yale, went in turn to France with the encouragement of John M. S. Allison. He proceeded to do a new catalogue of the manuscripts4 and obtained the money necessary for the continuation of the work of copying. In this way Bonnel continued to work and to send copies regularly to the United States.
Several years after World War II, a new inventory revealed the disappearance of most of the manuscripts copied for the American university by Bonnel. Yale found itself from that time on in possession of invaluable documents.
Little by little, the collection grew, augmented over the years by new acquisitions and bequests. One of the most important contributions was the purchase, over a period of about twenty years (from 1953 to 1973), of the quasi-totality of the manuscripts of Gustave de Beaumont. In 1954, Yale acquired the manuscript and the final drafts of Democracy in America.
[print edition page xxxii]
At that time, the American university became the sole depository of the vast majority of the texts, notes, and correspondence relating to Tocqueville’s principal work.5
The collection holds original manuscripts as well as copies of lost originals. In the work of this edition, the drafts and the manuscript called the “working manuscript” of the Democracy have received particular attention.
The greater part of the drafts of the second part of the Democracy, to which the author gave the name “rubish”6 and which constitutes perhaps the most interesting portion of the Yale collection, is unfortunately in very bad condition. Insects and moisture have led to its deterioration, the handwriting is particularly hard to read, and the paper is crumbling into pieces. A quantity of minuscule bits of paper remains at the bottom of the two boxes that protect the Rubish.7
Other drafts of the second part of the book, and all those belonging to the first part, exist only as copies (that all together number about 1,500 pages divided into sixteen notebooks); they can be relatively trusted.8
To all of that, the notes written by Tocqueville during his journey to America9 must be added, and a group of more than three hundred letters,
[print edition page xxxiii]
some still unpublished. This involves Tocqueville’s and Beaumont’s correspondence with Americans and the English during and after their visit to the United States, and letters written to their families and to various French correspondents.10
Other documents that are of interest for understanding the Democracy include bibliographies, lists of questions posed by Tocqueville and Beaumont to the Americans they spoke to, and above all, numerous documents in Beaumont’s hand for the writing of his novel, Marie, ou l’esclavage aux États-Unis, and for that of his essay on Ireland.
Some Details Concerning the Present Edition
Theodore Sedgwick, a correspondent of Tocqueville, said jokingly that the handwriting of the latter oscillated between hieroglyphics and cuneiform.11 The condition of notes meant by Tocqueville to be read only by himself can be imagined.
Following a system frequently used at the time, the draft occupies the right side of the folio and leaves the left side free for notes and variants.12 The text, nonetheless, often extends beyond the right side and successively invades the left side, the margins, and the space between the lines.
Supplementary sheets are added at the end of each chapter, small pieces of paper are glued over the original, and sometimes other papers are even
[print edition page xxxiv]
stuck to the first ones. Crosses, x’s, ovals, circles, letters, and diacritical signs are multiplied to indicate transfers and additions. It is clear that an exact reproduction of the many minor changes in the text of the manuscript is as unnecessary as it would be boring, and I have not bothered with it.
Notes in the margin testify to Tocqueville’s doubts about certain passages, his desire to review them, and sometimes his intention to ask for the opinion of his friends or their criticisms. The fragments that he intended to eliminate are generally circled.
At the point of finishing the composition of Democracy in America, Tocqueville wanted his family and certain of his friends to be able to read the manuscript, comment on it, and critique it. With this intention, in 1834, he hired the services of a copyist.13 This copy of the manuscript, which could have been sent to the publisher once definitively corrected, has been lost except for a few loose sheets that are found with the manuscript. The reading of these pages reveals the difficulties experienced by the copyist; it is probable, from several notes in the manuscript, that Tocqueville himself dictated a good part of the book.14
References made elsewhere give an idea15 of this copy, which contained a certain number of errors, as did, we can assume, the copy that constituted
[print edition page xxxv]
the final version sent to the publisher. The printing process inevitably introduced others.16
The editions that followed worked to correct the errors of the first edition, but added new ones. For his part, Tocqueville also made certain deletions and several additions.17
At the time of the preparation of this edition, I began by comparing the most important French editions (those of 1835, 1838, 1840, and 1850). I discovered a certain number of differences from one edition to another: corrections by the author, modifications of punctuation, omissions, etc. After recovering the missing passages, I then compared the whole text with the manuscript and identified more than a hundred diverse errors. To those, some errors made by Tocqueville had to be added. For the latter, I have merely pointed out the error; I tried to correct it if possible, but I have not in any way modified the text.
I then incorporated the fragments that I chose into the known text.18 To do this, a meticulous selection of texts was made among the multiple variants
[print edition page xxxvi]
and versions present in the manuscript; the selection was made for obvious reasons of interest as well as placement. I have deliberately chosen to concentrate the greatest portion of the additions in the chapters that seem to me to have the most interest, and in particular in the second part of the book. The additions to the main text appear between brackets; they may be preceded and followed by various diacritical signs whose meaning is set forth below.19
The notes consist of marginalia, of variants or versions predating the final version, which belong to the drafts, travel notes, fragments of correspondence, and criticisms put forth by friends and family. Their sources have been carefully and systematically indicated. To these notes is added the critical apparatus that I wanted to be useful as well as succinct.
Finally, at the end of the fourth volume, I have included in the form of appendixes six texts of different types.20 The first two, Journey to Lake
[print edition page xxxvii]
Oneida and A Fortnight in the Wilderness, had been written by Tocqueville during his journey in the United States. Everything suggests that they would have constituted appendices to the Democracy if Beaumont had not written Marie. We know in fact from the latter that Tocqueville had judged the two narratives to be too close to his travel companion’s fictional venture to consider publishing them.21
The two texts that follow are part of the drafts. Without the polish and the quality of the two preceding ones, they still have a certain documentary interest.
To include a certain number of ideas that will constitute the keystones of Tocqueville’s political thought, I have added an unpublished letter from the author, dating from 1830 and addressed to Charles Stoffels.
Finally, I believed it was good to recapitulate in appendixes the foreword to the twelfth edition and all of the works cited by Tocqueville in his book as well as in the drafts, in order to aid in the reconstruction of the “Tocqueville library.”
[print edition page xxxviii]
[print edition page xxxix]
Abbreviations and Symbols Used in This Edition
| […] | Text not crossed out in the manuscript. | |
| <…> | Text circled or surrounded in pen (this generally concerns fragments that Tocqueville wanted to delete, but the presence of a circle around a word sometimes served solely to draw the author’s attention: Is the use pertinent? Does the word conflict phonetically with the one following?). | |
| ≠…≠ | Word or text crossed out by one or several vertical or diagonal lines. | |
| {…} | Word or text crossed out horizontally. | |
| / | Sign placed at the end of the sentence to indicate that a horizontal line separates it in the manuscript from the one that follows. | |
| .-.-.-.- | Illegible for physical reasons. Generally due to the very poor condition of the original. | |
| [*] | Note of Tocqueville, present in the manuscript but absent from the published version. | |
| * | Note of Tocqueville, omitted in certain editions. | |
| [… (ed.)] | Information given by the editor. | |
| a, b, c,… | Notes of the editor. | |
| (A), (B),… | Notes of Tocqueville that refer to the end of the volume. | |
| 1, 2, 3,… | Notes of Tocqueville placed at the bottom of the page. | |
| OC | Edition of complete works published by Gallimard under the direction of J. P. Mayer at first, and François Furet and Jean-Claude Casanova afterward. | |
| Œuvres complètes. Paris: Gallimard, 1951-: | ||
| t. I: | De la démocratie en Amérique. 2 vols. (1951) | |
| t. II: | L’Ancien Régime et la Révolution. 2 vols. (1952, 1953) | |
| t. III: | Écrits et discours politiques. | |
| vol. 1. (1962) | ||
| vol. 2 . (1985) | ||
| vol. 2 . (1990) | ||
| t. IV: | Écrits sur le système pénitentiaire en France et à l’étranger. 2 vols. (1985) | |
| t. V: | Voyages. | |
| vol. 1: En Sicile et aux États-Unis. (1957) | ||
| vol. 2: En Angleterre, Irlande, Suisse et Algérie. (1958) |
[print edition page xl]
| t. VI: | Correspondances anglaises. | |
| vol. 1: Avec Henry Reeve et John Stuart Mill. (1954) [cité comme Correspondance anglaise.] | ||
| vol. 2: Correspondance et conversations d’Alexis de Tocqueville et Nassau William Senior. (1991) | ||
| vol. 3: Correspondance anglaise. (2003) | ||
| t. VII: | Correspondance étrangère d’Alexis de Tocqueville. 1 vol. (1986) | |
| t. VIII: | Correspondance d’Alexis de Tocqueville et de Gustave de Beaumont. 3 vols. (1967) | |
| t. IX: | Correspondance d’Alexis de Tocqueville et d’Arthur de Gobineau. 1 vol. (1959) | |
| t. X: | Correspondance et écrits locaux. (1995) | |
| t. XI: | Correspondance d’Alexis de Tocqueville et de Pierre-Paul Royer-Collard. Correspondance d’Alexis de Tocqueville et de Jean-Jacques Ampère. 1 vol. (1970) | |
| t. XII: | Souvenirs. 1 vol. (1964) | |
| t. XIII: | Correspondance d’Alexis de Tocqueville et de Louis de Kergorlay. 2 vols. (1977) | |
| t. XIV: | Correspondance familiale. (1998) | |
| t. XV: | Correspondance d’Alexis de Tocqueville et de Francisque de Corcelle. Correspondance d’Alexis de Tocqueville et de Madame Swetchine. 2 vols. (1983) | |
| t. XVI: | Mélanges. (1989) | |
| t. XVII: | Correspondance à divers. Not yet published. | |
| t. XVIII: | Correspondance d’Alexis de Tocqueville avec Adolphe de Circourt et Madame de Circourt. 1 vol. (1984) | |
| OCB | Edition of complete works directed by Gustave de Beaumont. | |
| Œuvres complètes publiées par Madame de Tocqueville. Paris: | ||
| Michel Lévy Frères, 1864–1878: | ||
| t. I-III: | De la démocratie en Amérique. | |
| t. IV: | L’Ancien Régime et la Révolution. | |
| t. V: | Correspondance et œuvres posthumes. | |
| t. VI: | Correspondance d’Alexis de Tocqueville. | |
| t. VII: | Nouvelle correspondance. | |
| t. VIII: | Mélanges, fragments historiques et notes sur l’Ancien Régime et la Révolution. | |
| t. IX: | Études économiques, politiques et littéraires. | |
| manuscript | In the notes of the editor, the working manuscript of the Democracy in America (YTC, CVIa, four boxes). | |
| v: | variant |
[print edition page xli]
| YTC | Yale Tocqueville Collection. Collection of manuscripts of Yale University, belonging to the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Sterling Library owns several supplementary manuscripts. | |
| YTC, BIIb | In this classification: lists of questions meant for American interlocutors. | |
| YTC, CIIc | In this classification: “Sources manuscrites,” alphabetic list, drawn up by Tocqueville, of travel notes. | |
| YTC, CVa-CVk | In this classification: drafts of Democracy. | |
| CVa | “Bundle no. 8” “Notes that very probably have no place to be used” (59 pp.) | |
| CVb | “Bundle no. 13” “Various documents on the system of administration in America from which a note can be done for the chapter titled Of Government and Administration in the United States;” (34 pp.) | |
| CVc | “Bundle no. 6” “That equality of conditions is an accomplished, irresistible fact, that breaks all those who will want to struggle against it. Consequence of this fact” (9 pp.) | |
| CVd | “Bundle no. 5” “Ideas and fragments that all relate more or less to the great chapter titled: how the ideas and sentiments that equality suggests influence the political constitution” (53 pp.) | |
| CVe | “Bundle no. 17” (two copies of 13 and 17 pp.) | |
| CVf | “Bundle no. 4” “Notes, detached ideas, fragments, criticisms, relative to my two last volumes of the Democracy” (52 pp.) | |
| CVg | “Bundle no. 9” “Drafts of the chapters of the second part of the Democracy” (partial copy in Bonnel’s hand, three notebooks numbering a total of 416 pp. and two boxes with the original manuscript). This is the so-called “Rubish.” | |
| CVh | “Bundle no. 3, 1–5” “Notes, documents, ideas relative to America. Good to consult if I again want to write something on this subject” (five notebooks, 484 pp.) | |
| CVj | “Bundle no. 2, 1–2” “… detached … on the philosophic method of the Americans, general ideas, the sources of belief … to be put in the … and that cannot be placed in the chapter” (two notebooks, 138 pp.) | |
| CVk | “Bundle no. 7, 1–2” “Fragments, ideas that I cannot place in the work (March 1840) (insignificant collection)” (two notebooks, 148 pp.) |
[print edition page xlii]
Note on the Manuscripts
In addition to the documents of Yale University, the editor quotes or reproduces, with the kind permission of the libraries mentioned, the following documents:
— Letter of Hervé de Tocqueville, 15 January 1827, Bibliothèque de Versailles.
— List of questions on the situation of Blacks in the United States, library of Haverford College, Pennsylvania (E. W. Smith, no. 955).
— Letter to Edward Everett, 6 February 1833 (Tocqueville, Alexis de. Letter to Edward Everett, 6 February 1833. Edward Everett papers); letter to Edward Everett, 15 February 1850 (Tocqueville, Alexis de. Letter to Edward Everett, 15 February 1850. Edward Everett papers); passages drawn from the journal of Theodore Sedgwick (Sedgwick, Theodore III. Paris journal, volume 3, November 1833-July 1834, pages 80–81, 85. Sedgwick family papers), Massachusetts Historical Society.
— Review project (General Manuscripts, Miscellaneous, TI-TO); letter to Basil Hall, 19 June 1836 (General Manuscripts [MISC] Collection, Manuscripts Division, Department of Rare Books and Special Collections), library of Princeton University.
— Documents relating to the question of the indemnities (Dreer Collection), Historical Society of Pennsylvania.
— Letter to Sainte-Beuve, [8 April 1835]; letter of Sainte-Beuve to Beaumont, 26 November 1865, bibliothèque de l’Institut, Spoelberch de Lovenjoul collection.
— Letter to Richard M. Milnes, 29 May 1844; letter to Richard M. Milnes, 14 April 1845; and letter to Richard M. Milnes, 9 February 1852, Trinity College, Cambridge (Houghton papers, 25/200, 201 and 209).
[print edition page xliii]
— Letter to the prefect, 3 December 1851 (Ms. 1070), bibliothèque historique de la ville de Paris.
— Letter to Charles Monnard, 15 October 1856, library of the canton and university of Lausanne.
Acknowledgments
I very much want to extend my deep thanks to the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library of Yale University, which continually put at my disposal the innumerable manuscripts that I was able to consult. My thanks go to the entire staff, and very particularly to two curators, Marjorie G. Wynne and Vincent Giroud. I also thank the Beinecke Library for its kind permission to quote and to reproduce the manuscripts and documents of the Tocqueville collection.
