HISTOIRE DES DEUX INDES & STRUENSEE: A HYPOTHESIS
"...les Danois furent devenus la propriété d'un chef unique" — Raynal

AM | @HDI1780

Voltaire, writes Jonathan Israel, "was among those who responded enthusiastically [to the 1771 events in Denmark] penning an Épître à sa majesté le Roi de Danemarc, sur la Liberté de la Presse accordée dans ses États, which was immediately printed in both French and Danish versions in Copenhagen" (*). The authors of Histoire des deux Indes did not appear to share that enthusiasm. In his Tableau de l'Europe (1774), Alexandre Deleyre —who does write about Gustav III's coup d'État in Sweden— fails to mention the events in Denmark. In fact, he writes, "Les Russes & les Danois n’ont pas les mêmes préjugés, quoique soumis à un pouvoir également arbitraire" (p. 11).

& & &

In his large-scale revision of the Tableau for the third edition of HDI, Diderot remains largely silent on this issue. He does add some important fragments on Russia, and he decides to tone down Deleyre's celebration of mixed government — clearly reflecting the impact of events in North America (1, 2, 3). Here's my hypothesis: while Diderot may have supported the substance of Struensee's reforms, he disliked the manner in which they were carried out. In fact, he warns readers about the dangers of enlightened despotism in a passage added to the discussion of Denmark:

Un premier despote juste, ferme, éclairé, est un grand mal; un second despote juste, ferme, éclairé, seroit un plus grand mal; un troisième qui leur succéderoit avec ces grandes qualités seroit le plus terrible fléau dont une nation pourroit être frappée. On sort de l’esclavage où l’on est précipité par la violence; on ne sort point de celui où l’on a été conduit par le tems & par la justice. Si le sommeil d’un peuple est l’avant-coureur de la perte de sa liberté; quel sommeil plus doux, plus profond & plus perfide que celui qui a duré trois règnes, pendant lesquels on a été bercé par les mains de la bonté? (HDI 1780, xix.2, p. 41).

Can we conclude that Struensee's efforts were supported mostly by the moderates, while receiving only scant support from the radicals? Things were more complicated than that. Diderot was still reeling from the shock provoked by Maupeou's coup in early 1771. Again, Voltaire supported the move against Parlements, while Diderot pointed to the damage done to the balanced constitution and to the notion of judicial independence (see his letter to princess Dashkoff). And we must not forget how warmly he praised the notion of forme judiciaire, which he deemed as important as the substance of the law:

Regina mundi forma.

Was not Struensee's government by decree a blatant violation of forme judiciaire? Was it not on that account similar to Maupeou's gouvernement arbitraire? These are all important questions that remain unanswered. But sometimes silence speaks volumes.

(*) Jonathan Israel: "Libertas Philosophandi in the Eigthteenth Century: Radical Enlightenment versus Moderate Enlightenment (1750-1776)", in Elizabeth Powers (ed.) Freedom of Speech.The History of An Idea. Bucknell University Press, 2011, pp. 1-19.
_______________