De l’importance des opinions religieuses
“A metaphysics book that must equally displease priests and philosophers, and which could be condemned on the same day in Geneva, Rome, and Constantinople” (Rivarol).
First edition of this important work in which Necker denounces social inequalities and promotes tolerance, one year before the outbreak of the French Revolution.
Copy printed on strong paper bound with the arms of Empress Maria Feodorovna.
Octavo, (2) ff., 544 pp.
Cherry red morocco, gilt roll-tooled frame on the boards stamped with the arms of Empress Maria Feodorovna (1759-1828), wife of Paul I of Russia, at the center; smooth spine, decorated and gilt, roll-tooled edges, gilt edges, small spot on the boards. Contemporary binding.
189 x 122 mm.
Necker. On the Importance of Religious Opinions.
London, and available in Paris, Hôtel de Thou, rue des Poitevins, 1788.
First edition on vellum paper published the same year as an edition by G. Regnault in London and Lyon of this work in which Necker denounces social inequalities and advocates tolerance.
Einaudi, 4091; Cioranescu, 47914; INED, 3361; Einaudi, 4098; G. de Staël-Holstein, Considerations on the French Revolution, I, p.86.
Violently criticized by Rivarol, “On the Importance of Religious Opinions” is a cry of alarm uttered by Necker, who is troubled to find among representatives of the elite what might be called a “snobbery of irreligion”; at this time it was fashionable for the privileged to scorn traditional beliefs and to consider them appropriate only for the common people.
Deprived of religious consolation, the masses would no longer be able to bear the miserable fate that is theirs, and Necker waves before the ruling classes the specter of a brutal revolt in which they have everything to lose if they continue to dechristianize those who sacrifice for them. (M. Grange, Annales de Bretagne).
In 1789, religion had become a matter of inner conviction, a belief in the subjective sense of the term, that is to say, an opinion. Therefore, it could be discussed.
Necker wrote this book to draw attention to the dangers that the excessive weakening of religious ideas could pose to a government: the help of religion is necessary for the sovereign to achieve his aim—namely, to maintain public order while promoting the happiness of individuals.
Necker devoted a chapter to intolerance in which he declared himself in favor of unity of worship while denouncing the futility of repression, as violence cannot change the sentiments of the mind.
Thus, he rebukes both those who preach intolerance and those who seek to destroy religious ties to free men from superstition, because “the attacks directed against religious opinions in general, lead sensitive souls to cling even more to all the practices that seem to them to be a form of respect or adoration,” a view not unlike the one that another Protestant, Boissy d’Anglas, would present to the Convention on February 21, 1795, when presenting the decree that truly initiates the first regime of separation of Church and State known in France. (Y. Fauchois, “The Difficulty of Being Free: Human Rights, the Catholic Church, and the Constituent Assembly, 1789-1791,” Revue d'hist. mod. et cont., 2001/1 no.48-1, p. 71-101).
In the Jean François Van de Velde catalog, this work—which would be excommunicated by the Pope—is classified under the category: “Incendiary writings that preceded and prepared the Revolution” (no.10700).
“This metaphysical book must equally displease priests and philosophers and may be condemned the same day in Geneva, Rome, and Constantinople” (Rivarol).
This was the first time a writer, enlightened enough to be called a philosopher, pointed out the dangers of the irreligious spirit of the eighteenth century; and this work filled the author's soul with thoughts higher than any that arise from earthly interests, even the noblest. (G. de Staël-Holstein).
Precious and beautiful copy printed on strong paper, bound at the time with the arms of Maria Feodorovna, née Princess of Württemberg (1759-1828), Palace of Pavlovsk.
After twenty years spent in the shadows, the death of Catherine the Great in 1796 allowed Marie to become Empress of Russia. She was then able to play a prominent role. Under the previous reign, Maria Feodorovna had had no opportunity to interfere in state affairs. Even her husband, the Tsarevich, was himself excluded. After her husband acceded to the throne, she became interested in politics, at first timidly, then increasingly resolutely. Her influence over her husband was considerable and, in general, proved positive. Nevertheless, it is possible that she occasionally abused it to help her friends or to harm her enemies. Maria Feodorovna had exceptional taste. Under her direction, the Palace of Gatchina, Catherine Palace, Alexander Palace in Tsarskoye Selo, the Winter Palace in St. Petersburg, and the Hermitage were decorated and furnished. She loved the arts and generously supported them. The most important of her legacies was the creation of the first schools for women in Russia and multiple charitable organizations throughout the Empire. These institutions lasted until the Russian Revolution of 1917. As Empress of All the Russias, she assisted many less fortunate relatives, some of whom, such as her brother Alexander of Württemberg (1771-1833), were invited to Russia. Empress Maria and her husband were no longer as close, but a good relationship remained within the couple. Relations deteriorated further toward the end of Paul Ist’s life. In 1798, the Empress gave birth to her tenth and last child. That same year, Paul Ist fell in love with Countess Anna Lopukhina, then 19 years old. The Tsar assured his wife of his irreproachable conduct, claiming his relationship with the countess was merely paternal. Then Paul Ist, Tsar of All the Russias for four years, was assassinated on March 12, 1801.
