چکیده:
Penser la relation entre l’État et les pauvres ne consiste pas seulement pour les romanciers des Lumières à s’intéresser à la législation et à la politique publique adoptée pour traiter le problème de la pauvreté, mais passe aussi par d’autres filtres, tels que les utopies ou les nations étrangères, qui offrent d’autres cadres de pensée, moins contraignants et autorisant un certain nombre d’audaces chez les auteurs. Il s’agira pour nous de déterminer les apports de ce détour par des créations romanesques et de se demander si ce détour est une étape nécessaire pour penser les nations pauvres. Les romanciers les plus brillants, tels Montesquieu, Prévost ou Rousseau, livrent des récits où la réflexion portant sur le rapport entre État et pauvreté n’est pas un simple matériau d’assemblage, plus ou moins adroitement agencé. Les romans, en ce cas, ne sont pas uniquement un écho aux débats du temps ou un miroir de la société à un instant T, mais développent la question, amènent le lecteur pour son plus grand plaisir là où il ne s’y attendait pas.
— تفکر در مورد رابطه بین دولت و فقرا تنها مختص رمان نویسان عصر روشنگری نیست که به قانون و سیاست عمومی اتخاذ شده
برای پرداختن به مساله فقر علاقهمند هستند، بلکه از فیلترهای دیگری مانند ارمان شهرها یا ملتهای خارجی نیز میگذرد که چارچوبهای
فکری دیگری را ارايه می دهند، کمتر محدود کننده هستند و اجازهی نواوری یا جسارت به نویسندگان میدهند. در این مقاله قصد داریم
دستاوردهای این مسیرخیالی را از طریق اثار داستانی مشخص نماییم و از خود بپرسیم که ایا این مسیر گامی ضروری برای اندیشیدن در
مورد ملل فقیر است.
Assistance to the poor falls under the Old Regime of the duties of the Church,
which explains the omnipresence of Christian charity in French novels of the 18th century. But a social
evolution occurs over the century which tends to make the problem of misery, of an essentially moral
nature, a question of public order. In the second half of the century, the thinkers of the Enlightenment,
separate poverty from charity in a movement of secularization. We find traces of this shift from the care
of the indigent by religious institutions to the public sphere even before the end of the century in the
novels. The taking charge of the State irrigates all the French novels of the 18th century, with some
minor mentions in the 1730s (Prevost, Montesquieu, d'Argens), a large majority of political and social
analyzes during the decades 1760-1770 (mainly written by Rousseau and Diderot) and a few rare
allusions to the end of the century (by minors like Genlis or Lesuire).
For the Enlightenment novelists, analyzing the relationship between the State and the poor does not
simply consist in studying the legislation and public policies adopted to deal with the issue of poverty,
but also passes through other mediums. These include utopias, which offer a different framework for
thought, less restrictive and allowing the author to introduce a certain amount of creativity in their
writing. Indeed, the political thought of novelists is not confined to the Enlightenment novel to the
historical states as one might expect. Some free themselves from the weight of reality to conduct their
thinking in an imaginary framework, more conducive to their purposes. Utopias, whatever their type
(anticipation, uchronia, dystopia, etc.), have a close, albeit indirect, relationship with poverty: they all
have in common the establishment of another form of economy in which money remains in use or not
but where goods are pooled, which theoretically eradicates poverty. This community of goods often
goes hand in hand with a holistic vision of the family, according to which in the most extreme utopias
children are shared. In utopian novels, we observe against all expectations the failure of this new form
of economy: the detour through fiction makes it possible to think about poverty but not to provide a
lasting solution to it. This inventive economy has no future due to non-economic parameters, such as
freedom or virtue, which shows us how difficult it is to study poverty, even in a framework as free as
that of a utopia. Therefore, it might be easier to analyze poverty by basing it on existing models of
society. Some novelists choose an in-between solution by creating an imaginary economic model based on an actual one and we can then observe a collision between fiction and reality.
Outside the literary framework of utopia, we find real states that have all the appearances of utopia. In Genlis’ eyes, the ideal communities are not those which prosper the most in the economic sphere, but those which know how to adorn themselves with other virtues such as cleanliness or beauty, and even uniqueness to arouse interest. The town of Broek thus paints a model of what could be achieved in France. This village offers a considerable advantage as its operation is proven to be viable. The novel, Adele et Theodore, then serves as a support for the author's didactic aims, while solving the problem of poverty by generalizing wealth. It is different in the country of Valais, represented by Rousseau in La Nouvelle Heloise, where money no longer even runs, unlike in Broek. A true earthly paradise is emerging, which is not Eldorado, but where one lives peacefully, according to the seasons and in harmony with nature. Censor of luxury, as a source of misery, Rousseau infuses the novel with his rejection of the reign of money and imputes to the inhabitants of Valais ideas that he acquired through reasoning but which they have achieved through feeling.
Whether completely utopian or in-between, there is a similarity in the representation of poverty in the Enlightenment literature, in the fact that it breaks from the reality of the one dominating in Europe at the time. The novelists who try this exercise do not all pursue the same objective: when Bougeant laughs, Genlis offers models; where Montesquieu and Prevost concentrate on philosophical and moral reflection, Lesuire pleasantly exploits the resources of the novel. Flagrant differences therefore separate these various state models, but they are not so much a historical development or a generic affiliation (utopia) as of auctorial motivations. Perhaps with utopia we touch this intimate area where the imagination of the novelist is revealed, even more than his deep thought ...
Unlike utopian states, whose outcome is more or less favorable but where misery has been eradicated, the poor nations in our corpus are not affected by economic failure in a specific category (workers, peasants, beggars, etc.) but in their entire population. Depending on the author's aims, the states are different, just as the national causes of poverty differ. Thus, within any state, poverty obviously affects some regions rather than others; it is mentioned throughout the century, without much variation, and in all genres, as well in moral tales, edifying novels as in picaresque novels. However, whether these descriptions of desolate lands involve an explicit evocation of misery or simple allusions, the intention is certainly not the same among the different novelists, depending on whether they seek to provoke the emotion of the reader (pathos in Marmontel, indignation and incitement to action in Genlis) or use the geography of poverty as a simple narrative datum that triggers action (Les Gascons in Holland) or perpetuates it (L'Aveugle parvenu).
Poverty, neglected by critics, therefore turns out to be a remarkable springboard for romance, offering a whole range of possibilities to the novelist to entertain, touch, and edify a reader eager for sensations, contrasting with the scholarly dissertations of academics on the misery of the popular peoples in that time. And conversely, the literary resources offered by the novel are put, in various ways, at the service of thinking.
The most brilliant novelists, such as Montesquieu, Prevost or Rousseau, thus deliver novels in which the relationship between the State and poverty is not simply a supporting pillar to the story. Their works are based on a real entanglement of this material and the most diverse genres can lend themselves to this task according to the talent of the writers. The theme of poverty is not a motif in the decorative sense of the term but the very object of the discourse in the passages concerned. Therefore, among the great
minds of the century, one should not expect a transfer from their political theoretical writings; we are dealing properly with another point of view, heuristic for them and enlightening for the reader, even if they do not always push their thinking as far as in their essays. These novels do not merely present a reflection of the society but they allow the reader to really think about the issue and lead them, for their greatest pleasure, where they did not expect it. Can we say, however, that the novel of this time is thereby made the spokesperson for the thought of the Enlightenment? Our investigation shows that, while this is not expressed directly through long developments, it is not overused but deeply active by the formulations and reasoning that it induces, accompanies and promotes.