Letters on England (1733 English edition, ed. Henry Morley, 1894)

The book opens with

In England, one allowed religion would very possibly make government arbitrary, two would set people at each other's throats; with many, all live in peace

Their wordsIf one religion only were allowed in England, the Government would very possibly become arbitrary; if there were but two, the people would cut one another’s throats; but as there are such a multitude, they all live happy and in peace.

Read the book on gutenberg.org ↗

7 korrents from this book ↓

Voltaire did not write this page.

Every claim below was made in this book, quoted word for word and numbered in the order the piece makes them, so you can read it there rather than take our word for it. The book prints chapter headings its extracted text does not preserve, so the claims below are in the book's order but not grouped. The sentence above each quote is our reading of the claim, not their wording. Each quote was checked against a stored copy of the page at build time; where the two differ, the quote is the fact.

Our reading
In England, one allowed religion would very possibly make government arbitrary, two would set people at each other's throats; with many, all live in peace

Their wordsIf one religion only were allowed in England, the Government would very possibly become arbitrary; if there were but two, the people would cut one another’s throats; but as there are such a multitude, they all live happy and in peace.
Our reading
Religious wars are a dreadful folly, an abomination reserved for devout preachers of patience and humility

Their wordsThe Romans never knew the dreadful folly of religious wars, an abomination reserved for devout preachers of patience and humility.
Our reading
By resisting their kings, the English alone have limited royal power and built a government that can do good but is restrained from evil

Their wordsThe English are the only people upon earth who have been able to prescribe limits to the power of kings by resisting them; and who, by a series of struggles, have at last established that wise Government where the Prince is all-powerful to do good, and, at the same time, is restrained from committing evil; where the nobles are great without insolence, though there are no vassals; and where the people share in the Government without confusion.
Our reading
In England trade enriched citizens and made them freer, and that freedom in turn extended commerce and the state's greatness

Their wordsAs trade enriched the citizens in England, so it contributed to their freedom, and this freedom on the other side extended their commerce, whence arose the grandeur of the State.
Our reading
A merchant who enriches the country is more useful to a nation than a fashionable lord who fawns at court

Their wordsHowever, I need not say which is most useful to a nation; a lord, powdered in the tip of the mode, who knows exactly at what o’clock the king rises and goes to bed, and who gives himself airs of grandeur and state, at the same time that he is acting the slave in the ante-chamber of a prime minister; or a merchant, who enriches his country, despatches orders from his counting-house to Surat and Grand Cairo, and contributes to the well-being of the world.
Our reading
Had smallpox inoculation been practised in France, it would have saved thousands of lives

Their wordsThe Chinese, indeed, do not communicate this distemper by inoculation, but at the nose, in the same manner as we take snuff. This is a more agreeable way, but then it produces the like effects; and proves at the same time that had inoculation been practised in France it would have saved the lives of thousands.
Our reading
Respect is owed to those who lead minds by the force of truth, not to conquerors who enslave their fellow creatures

Their wordsThat man claims our respect who commands over the minds of the rest of the world by the force of truth, not those who enslave their fellow-creatures: he who is acquainted with the universe, not they who deface it.

Keep reading

The other pieces are the ones whose claims are worded most like this one's. That measures language, not agreement: they may argue the opposite.