^{page 183 note 1} Mazzei was, of course, well placed to discuss American topics on his own account. He had arrived in Virginia in November 1773 and was to compose some years later his Recherches historiques et politiques sur les Etats-Unis de l'Amérique septentrionale … (Colle et Paris, Froullé, 1788, 4 vols.). The manuscript may therefore have some connexion with his own work or his own interest in perfecting the Virginian constitution, (which is probably safer as a hypothesis). Again, it may even be that Mazzei, who possibly had first-hand knowledge of Jefferson's own manuscript, was merely using the same exposition and theories and reservations in his own name and for his own account. See the marginal comments in Italian which are reproduced in our notes, and especially the second comment, which is in note 6, p. 185.

^{page 184 note 1} Autograph copy of 10 pages reproduced exactly as it stands. According to M. Paul Jolas, who kindly gave the information, it was originally in the private collection of Clerc de Lanchesse, Librarian of the Institut. It was donated to the Bibliothèque Municipale de Mantes-la-Jolie (Yvelines), c. 1870, by the owner's daughter.

^{page 184 note 2} The phrasing of the document would make it appear that Marmontel did not know Mazzei to any degree in May 1783; his language suggests either an intermediary or polite reserve (third person singular standing in place of second plural). The document possibly marks, however, the very beginning of Marmontel's friendship with Mazzei. A year later, in 1784, Mazzei (now obviously on good terms with the former) wrote to Jefferson and quoted Marmontel as being: ‘one of our great Friends, and admirers of our Cause’. Cf. Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. vii (Princeton U.P.), p. 387Google Scholar.

^{page 184 note 3} Throughout the eighteenth century French opinion on the English constitution varied considerably, usually according to whether France was at war with England or not. But it was during and after the War of Independence that the French thinkers and political theorists, confronted with a new system of government in America which reflected the vast majority of their ideas and which was therefore infinitely more attractive, became resolutely hostile to the English political institutions. Cf. Mornet, Daniel, Les Origines intellectuelles de la Révolution française, 4^e édition, (Paris: Armand Colin, 1947), P. 399Google Scholar. Previously, like so many of his contemporaries, Marmontel also had admired the English political system. Cf. L'Amitié à l'épreuve, in his Contes moraux, vol. iii (Paris: Merlin, 1765), pp. 167–244Google Scholar.

^{page 184 note 4} In keeping with his contemporaries who pronounced on American affairs, Marmontel, here overtly speaking of English practice, is also giving oblique expression, like them, to a well-worn view on French politics. Cf. his own Bélisaire (Paris: Merlin, 1767)Google Scholar.

^{page 184 note 5} It is not clear what Mazzei said on this point, but his comment was very probably unfavourable. Jefferson, in particular, had serious reservations about the actual state of Virginian government where all the legislative, executive and judiciary powers resulted to the legislative body. Cf. Notes on the State of Virginia (1787), p. 195Google Scholar; and the Papers, vol. VI, p. 295.

^{page 185 note 1} Cf. Notes, pp. 191, 195.

^{page 185 note 2} The same view is also to be found, in equally abbreviated form, with Jefferson, , Notes, pp. 196–7Google Scholar. (It is, however, an eighteenth-century commonplace.)

^{page 185 note 3} Notes, p. 196.

^{page 185 note 4} Here is to be found, in the broad left-hand margin, the first of a series of comments penned in Italian: ‘Questa giusta, ed ollima legge è già fatta; ed il Mazzei si consola di aversi [sic] contribuito tanto quanto è stato in poter suo, porchè nelle Istruzioni cheegli serisse a nome degli abitanti della sua contea, la prime-vera del 76, fù [sic] raccomandato caldamente “che nella nuova costituzione si abolissero per sempre i Fidecommissi, le Primogeniture, e le Sostituzioni di ogni specie, come cose crudeli per gl'individui che ne soffrono, sommamente nocive al ben pubblico, ed il principal Sostegno dell'orgoglioza [sic] intollerante Aristocrazia”.’ Lit. trans.: ‘This just and excellent law is already made; and Mazzei is happy to have contributed to it as much as was in his power, since in the instructions that he wrote in the name of the inhabitants of his country in the spring of 76 it was warmly recommended “that in the new constitution Fideicommissa, Primogenitures and Substitutions of all sorts should be abolished as such things are cruel for the individuals who suffer from them, harmful in the highest degree to the common good and as being the principal support of the proud and intolerant Aristocracy”.’

^{page 185 note 5} According to Jefferson, , Notes, p. 227Google Scholar, this particular article had been projected when the old English monarchical laws were revised in Virginia. And in fact the laws on primogeniture and entail were repealed in Virginia under the impulse of the Revolution and largely on account of the legislative efforts of Jefferson and Madison.

^{page 185 note 6} Second comment in Italian in reply to Marmontel's second suggestion: ‘Una tanto umana, e giusta reflessione fa onore al cuore e alla mente del suo Autore; e il Mazzei si sbraccierà per procurare che sia santificata dalla legge.’ Lit. trans.: ‘Such a just and human observation does honour to the heart and mind of its author; and Mazzei will exert himself to see to its being ratified.’

^{page 186 note 1} Third comment: ‘All'età di 21 anno sono in piena libertà tanto le femmine che i maschi.’ Lit. trans.: ‘At the age of 21 women and men have full liberty.’

^{page 186 note 2} This was a major idea with Marmontel and can be traced back to 1757. It first appeared publicly in an article entitled De La Gloire, published in the Encyclopédie, vol. VII, p. 720, col. 2. The same view was to be repeated rather more forcibly in Bélisaire, pp. 196, 200, 206, 208, etc.

^{page 186 note 3} Cf. Papers, vol. VI, 297.

^{page 186 note 4} Marmontel would naturally applaud toleration, for he had spoken forcefully in its favour in the fifteenth chapter of Bélisaire. The chapter in question gave rise to an extremely bitter dispute between the Sorbonne and the Philosophes; it was used by Voltaire to further his own championing of Sirven and finally died down in December 1767 (ten months after the first shot) with the Government's discreet but firm disavowal of orthodox sentiments on intolerance.

^{page 187 note 1} Fourth comment: ‘Ogni contea à il diritto d'istruire i suoi Rappresentanti, conforme viene accennato nella prima annotazione; ma siccome una cosa tanto salutare è spesso transcurata, e potrebbe col tempo andare in oblivione. M. Jefferson ed il Mazzei anno pensato di proporre una legge che ne stabilisca l'obbligo, e dichiari che i Rappresentanti devono uniformarsi alle Istruzioni del [sic] loro costituenti [sic]. È vero che pochi saranno i casi nei quali potranno i constituenti dare ai loro Eletti ordini precisi, ma sebbene altro non dicessero, se non che “confidano entieramente nella loro Saviezza e integrità, non avendo alcuna istruzione particolare da dar loro,” sarà sempre ben fatto di rammemorare al Popolo, una volta l'anno almeno, che i Rappresentanti sono puri agenti, e che tutto il potere risiede nella massa degli Abitanti.’ Lit. trans.: ‘Every county has the right to instruct its representatives as was indicated in the first note, but since such a healthy practice is often neglected and might with time become forgotten Jefferson and Mazzei have decided to put forward a law which will establish the obligation to do so, and which will declare that the representatives must conform to the instructions of their constituents. It is true that there will be few cases in which the constituents will be able to give precise instructions to their members; but even if they say nothing else than that they “trust entirely in their wisdom and integrity, not having any particular instruction to give them”, it will always be well to remind the people, at least once a year, that the Representatives are merely agents and that all power resides in the mass of the inhabitants.’

^{page 187 note 2} Fifth comment: ‘Per ottener l'intento che la pluralità di una camera non possa impedire ciò che la pluralità di ambedue la camere approverebbe, se fossero riunite, si può stabilire che un certo numero di persone di qualunque delle 2 camere possa ottenere la rïunione, credendolo necessario. II concedere un tal diritto ad un solo potrebbe causare molti superflui incomodi, e ritardi; ed è molto facile che si uniscano 20 o 30 persone per chiedere quel che 90 o 100 desiderano.’ Lit. trans.: ‘In order that the majority in one chamber cannot obstruct a proposal which would be approved by a majority of both chambers met together, it can be laid down that a certain number of persons of either of the two chambers can obtain a plenary session if they believe it necessary. If one concedes such a right to an individual this might cause many unnecessary inconveniences and delays; and it is easy for 20 or 30 persons to get together to ask what 90 or 100 desire.

^{page 188 note 1} Cf. Notes, pp. 192–4.

^{page 189 note 1} Cf. Notes, p. 197.

^{page 189 note 2} Ibid. p. 192; Papers, vol. VI, p. 296.

^{page 189 note 3} The preparation of this paper finished, the author would like to acknowledge the help readily given by two colleagues: that of Dr J. Pole of Churchill College, who read the manuscript, suggested some changes and encouraged its publication; that of Dr P. Boyde of St John's College, who checked the manuscript comments in Italian and provided a literal translation of them. May they both find here the expression of our thanks.