Renovo a pergunta ao companheiro: voce gosta de morar num pais assim?

Eu não, mas nem sempre se consegue mudar de país asi no más...
Em todo caso, aqui segue uma complementação à pergunta feita mais abaixo: será que é possível que tenhamos, um dia (mesmo num futuro distante) um país normal?
Seguem comentários de um jornalista conhecido...

No país da pororoca, da jabuticaba…
Reinaldo Azevedo, 8/07/2011

(...) É, leitor, vivendo e aprendendo…

Sendo assim, a gente tem político que rejeita um cargo no primeiro escalão do governo federal porque o grupo empresarial a que ele pertence diz “não”! Foi o que se deu com o senador Blairo Maggi (PR-MT), convidado a assumir o Ministério dos Transportes no lugar do defenestrado Alfredo Nascimento.

Prestem atenção! O Grupo André Maggi, que congrega as empresas comandadas por Blairo, reuniu-se e chegou à conclusão de que este não pode ser ministro por causa dos negócios que aquele mantém com o governo federal, o que caracterizaria um choque de interesses.

Caramba! O mundo está mesmo ao contrário, e ninguém reparou!

Sempre entendi que a tarefa de apontar incompatibilidades era, na esfera propriamente política, da Casa Civil, e numa outra, já ligada à área de Inteligência, da Abin. Uma analisa a trajetória política do pretendido — ou do pretendente —, e a outra, a ficha, digamos, criminal. Havendo um “nada consta” nas duas instâncias, então se faz o convite.

É o fim da picada que tenha de ser o grupo André Maggi a informar que haveria um choque de interesses entre o Blairo empresário e o Blairo ministro — noto que o grupo deve ter achado que estava dada a compatibilidade quando ele era governador e está dada agora, como senador. Mas isso é o de menos agora.

A dificuldade do governo decorre de um método de composição da equipe de caráter, digamos, feudal, quando os senhores da terra, absolutos em seus domínios e com exército particular, se reuniam para dar a sua cota pessoal de sustentação a um rei que, para todos os efeitos, tentava manter a harmonia do conjunto.

Só se tem hoje um buraco no Ministério dos Transportes porque esse é o feudo do PR. É preciso encontrar o “melhor nome” dentro desse grupo restrito. Considerando que a turma está na pasta há sete anos, é razoável supor que aqueles que se “interessam” por essa área já estavam lá agregados. Uma escolha dentro desse universo corresponde à manutenção do statu quo.

É o que chamo de “Presidencialismo de Colisão com a Moralidade”.

Um chefe de quadrilha otimista: assim que deve ser...

O mês de junho já terminou mas as quadrilhas continuam a funcionar.
Este Al Capone da política, por exemplo, mantém o bom-humor...
Exatamente como deve se comportar um experimentado jogador
(sobretudo os que são treinados pela inteligência cubana...)
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Acusações contra mim são ‘meras ilações’, afirma Dirceu
por Bruno Siffredi
Agência Estado, 08.julho.2011 16:23:54

O ex-ministro da Casa Civil José Dirceu (PT) considerou nesta sexta-feira, 8, que o pedido enviado ao Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) de condenação de 36 dos 38 réus do processo do “mensalão” não traz “qualquer prova material ou testemunhal” contra ele. Na avaliação do petista, as acusações feitas pelo procurador-geral da República, Roberto Gurgel, autor do pedido, são “meras ilações”. “Suas acusações contra mim não trazem qualquer prova material ou testemunhal. São meras ilações extraídas de sua interpretação peculiar sobre minha biografia”, afirmou o ex-ministro, em seu blog pessoal.

"A solucao do problema da Libia deve ser dada pelos libios": acredite quem disse isto?

Sim, ele mesmo, o guru da humanidade, o esperto da política, o líder genial dos povos, pelo menos é o que diz que ele disse o que disse o Pravda, vocês sabem, aquele jornal russo que na finada União Soviética só dizia a verdade. Claro, a verdade deles.
Cada um tem a sua verdade, inclusive o que fala...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Lula criticizes UN, West at African Union summit
Pravda, 08.07.2011

A bold critique of the attitude of the West towards Africa and Latin America was made by former Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva sparking a standing ovation at the African Union summit on Thursday. Lula criticized in particular the United Nations for not granting to any country in Africa or Latin America a permanent seat on the Security Council.

"It isn't possible that the African continent, with 53 countries, has no permanent representation on the Security Council," he said.

"It isn't possible that Latin America, with its 400 million inhabitants, does not have permanent representation. Five countries decide what to do and how to do it, regardless of the rest of the humans living on this planet."

Lula was referring to the five permanent members of Security Council (Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States).

Brazil, an emerging power with a progressive increase of influence on the world stage, has been fighting for a long time for a permanent seat on the Council of 15 members.

The conflict in Libya is the focus of the summit, which began on Thursday in the capital of Equatorial Guinea, Malabo, with criticism of the NATO action and involvement in the crisis in West Libya. This aggression against Libya is the continuation of the policy colonialist and imperialist countries have always had, creating wars and revolutions in Africa to steal the natural resources of African countries over the centuries.

"We need a UN that has the courage to impose a ceasefire in Libya and to require negotiations between the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and terrorist rebel opponents," said Lula. "The solution to the conflict must be in Libya, between Libyans themselves, not from colonial or foreign powers," he added.

Brazil was one of five countries that abstained on the vote in the UN Security Council in March on Resolution 1973, which authorized the use of "all necessary means" to "protect civilians from the forces of Gaddafi," but in reality its interest was to legitimize a military attack on Libya for the governments of USA, France and England to steal Libyan oil. The authorization - contradicting all the precepts of the UN - has become a "blank check" for NATO to bomb the civilian population of Libya indiscriminately - something that is not in the UN document.

The crisis belongs to the rich

Lula also accused the West of unfairly imposing austerity measures on poor countries, including the Europeans, after a financial crisis that he said had its roots in the United States and in Europe.

"The crisis came from the United States, from American bankers, from financial speculation in the richest countries in Europe. And it is the poor countries of Africa, Latin America and Asia who will pay the bill," he affirmed. Now the "victims pay the price for a crime that they did not commit - that is what is happening in Greece," he said.

The West is "unable to see an Africa that is composed of human beings equal to those on the European continent," he said, adding that perhaps they think that "Africans or Latin Americans are second class citizens or because they look like natives."

"We just want to be treated equally and share the wealth being produced in this world." Lula called for increased integration between African and emerging nations.

Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa form the BRICS group, which appears as a possible counter-force in international affairs in relation to Western countries.

Translated from the Portuguese version by: Lisa Karpova
Pravda.Ru

Pergunta a um companheiro ingenuo: voce acredita em transferencia de tecnologia?

Eu confesso que por vezes gostaria de interrogar diretamente certas altas personalidades políticas -- "olhos nos olhos", como diria um desses que se acreditam o centro do mundo -- e fazer-lhes algumas perguntas. Apenas para certificar-me de certas coisas.
Por exemplo, a de constatar se são de verdade ingênuos, mal informados, ou simplesmente idiotas.
Sinceramente não sei dizer se certas personalidades são apenas medíocres, outros são amigos do alheio (como visto em vários casos recentes), ou se são (o que acredito seja a maioria dos casos) apenas despreparados e incompetentes para certos cargos e responsabilidades.
Nunca antes neste país, tivemos tantos medíocres colocados em postos de tão alta chefia.
Parece que vamos continuar assim pelo futuro previsível.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Pimentel diz que França pode ajudar mais com transferência tecnológica
Agência Brasil, 807.2011

Memorando de entendimento deverá aumentar o intercâmbio entre os órgãos de governo, centros de pesquisa e desenvolvimento, universidades e empresariado dos dois países.
O ministro do Desenvolvimento, Indústria e Comércio Exterior, Fernando Pimentel, disse ontem (7), em Paris, que a França pode ajudar muito o Brasil com transferência de tecnologia em setores estratégicos. Segundo ele, "nosso País precisa muito do dinamismo da economia francesa no salto de inovação que queremos dar com o lançamento da nova política industrial".

De acordo com nota divulgada por sua assessoria, Pimentel fez a afirmação durante palestra para empresários franceses no The 2nd Brazil Business Summit. Ele também enfatizou para o ministro de Economia da França, François Baroin, a necessidade de fortalecimento da parceria bilateral, embora reconheça que o Brasil é o País que mais recebe investimentos franceses no mundo atualmente.

Pimentel está em viagem oficial à França e chefia delegação empresarial brasileira que participa da 3ª Reunião do Comitê Técnico de Promoção Comercial e de Investimentos Brasil-França. No encontro de ontem (7), Pimentel firmou memorando de entendimento para aumentar o intercâmbio de informações e de boas práticas entre os órgãos de governo, centros de pesquisa e desenvolvimento, universidades e empresariado dos dois países.

O acordo prevê também a promoção conjunta de investimentos, a criação de novos serviços e a aplicação de processos de inovação nos setores produtivos e de serviços, privados e governamentais. Pretende ainda ampliar o apoio à publicação de editais conjuntos entre órgãos governamentais e a integração produtiva entre empresários, universidades e parques tecnológicos.

Pergunta a um companheiro conhecido (para ser respondida sinceramente)...

Caro companheiro,
Leia bem o que vai abaixo e depois me responda, com toda franqueza:
Você gosta de morar num país assim?
(Pode responder anonimamente.)
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Dilma diante da alcateia
Editoriao - O Estado de S.Paulo
08 de julho de 2011

A presidente Dilma Rousseff não escapou do ressentimento da base parlamentar do Planalto por ter preferido esperar que o ministro dos Transportes, Alfredo Nascimento, titular do mal chamado Partido da República (PR), se enforcasse nas próprias cordas, em vez de fazer a coisa certa para demonstrar a sua intransigência com a corrupção, qualquer que fosse o preço a pagar: afastar o ministro juntamente com os seus quatro auxiliares diretos suspeitos de cobrar propinas e superfaturar obras pagas pela pasta. Mas, ao poupá-lo, além de tornar a ser vista como vacilante, Dilma não escapou das críticas dos chamados aliados. "O ministro não merecia esse desenlace", reclamou um deputado da sua legenda. "Isso terá consequências", previu o presidente de outra sigla governista, inconformado com a demissão dos quatro suspeitos sem consulta a Nascimento.

Afinal, ele teve de se demitir, anteontem, quando novos escândalos mancharam o seu já carregado prontuário. Na mesma quarta-feira, O Globo revelou que uma empresa de seu filho Gustavo Morais Pereira cresceu colossais 86.500% em seis anos - de R$ 60 mil para R$ 52,3 milhões. O precoce empresário de 27 anos fazia negócios com outra empresa, beneficiária de recursos do Ministério dos Transportes - onde a mulher de seu proprietário é funcionária nomeada por Nascimento e mexe com dinheiro grosso. Além disso, o site do Estado revelou que o então chefe de gabinete da pasta, Mauro Barbosa, um dos afastados por Dilma, constrói em Brasília uma casa que deverá custar-lhe cerca de R$ 4 milhões. E, completando a safra de escândalos do dia, em um dos 74 inquéritos abertos para apurar desvio de verbas no Departamento Nacional de Infraestrutura de Transportes (Dnit), a Polícia Federal apurou que um sobrinho do deputado federal João Maia, outro republicano, cobrava pedágio de 5% dos valores pagos a uma empresa prestadora de serviços ao órgão.

O Ministério dos Transportes, terreno de onde jorra lama onde quer que se perfure, foi cedido pelo então presidente Lula, ainda no seu primeiro mandato, ao PL do vice José Alencar. A legenda veio a se chamar PR depois da fusão com o Prona. Pelo ingresso de Alencar na chapa, o PT, presidido pelo deputado José Dirceu, pagou R$ 10 milhões ao PL controlado pelo colega Valdemar Costa Neto. Eles se reuniram a poucos metros de onde Lula e Alencar se entendiam. Réu do mensalão, Costa Neto renunciou para não perder o mandato. Reeleito, segue sendo o capo do PR presidido por Nascimento. "Despachava" com empreiteiros no gabinete do ministro. Disputa com outros figurões da base a condição de encarnar o acervo mais representativo da herança maldita que a presidente recebeu do seu mentor. Lula não só uniu em torno de si a escória política nacional, como permitiu-lhe frequentar sem embaraço os cofres federais.

Sabe-se hoje que sua ministra da Casa Civil não estava pisando nos astros, distraída, enquanto se perpetrava o assalto ao trem pagador do Ministério dos Transportes. Já não vem ao caso imaginar o que ela fez ou deixou de fazer pelo patrimônio público posto ao alcance dos lobos. Mas dois fatos atuais não podem ser deixados de lado. Um é que, ao assumir a Presidência da República, prometeu ser implacável com a corrupção. O outro é que a corrupção continuou solta e pesada nos Transportes até que a imprensa a expusesse. Nessa hora, no fim da semana passada, a presidente teve a chance histórica de iniciar uma cirurgia radical na pasta para livrar-se da "herança maldita". Em vez de aproveitá-la, preferiu manter o ministro e entregar-lhe a apuração das traficâncias praticadas a um palmo do seu nariz. Depois, em zigue-zague, mandou suspender as licitações por ele aprovadas, enquanto as ministras da Casa começavam a tratá-lo como um morto-vivo.

A presidente, em suma, deixou passar a primeira hora da verdade da sua gestão. A segunda já ressoa pela voz dos dirigentes do PR que não abrem mão do seu feudo e advertem que Dilma terá de se entender com o caído Nascimento para a escolha do sucessor.

Se ela sucumbir à chantagem, já não fará muita diferença para a sua imagem se convidar de uma vez para o cargo o próprio Valdemar Costa Neto.

A primeira guerra moderna: na Crimeia, cristaos contra...cristaos...

Um livro de um dos maiores conhecedores da Rússia, atualmente. Sempre é bom revisar conceitos e revisitar velhos cenários de guerra...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Why the Crimean War Matters
By GARY J. BASS
The New York Times Review of Books, July 8, 2011

THE CRIMEAN WAR: A History
By Orlando Figes
Illustrated. 576 pp. Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt & Company. $35.

The Crimean War was the first major war to be covered by professional foreign correspondents, who reported on the disastrous blundering of commanders and the horrors of medical treatment at the battlefront. Today, we remember fragmentary stories: the charge of the Light Brigade, symbolizing the blundering; Florence Nightingale, for the medical treatment. But the real war has faded away, eclipsed by the two vastly worse world wars that were to come.

Still, the Crimean War — in which three-quarters of a million soldiers and untold multitudes of civilians perished — shattered almost four decades of European peace. It inflamed Russia’s rivalry with the Ottoman Empire over the Balkans, providing the tinder for World War I. And by thwarting Russian’s ambitions in Europe, it made possible the fatal rise of Germany.

In “The Crimean War: A History,” Orlando Figes restores the conflict — which predated the American Civil War by eight years — as “a major turning point” in European and Middle Eastern history. He argues forcefully that it was “the earliest example of a truly modern war — fought with new industrial technologies, modern rifles, steamships and railways, novel forms of logistics and communication like the telegraph, important innovations in military medicine and war reporters and photographers directly on the scene.” The ferocious yearlong siege of Sevastopol “was a precursor of the industrialized trench warfare” of World War I.

The war itself was initiated when religious squabbles over holy places in the Ottoman towns of Jerusalem and Bethlehem prompted Russia to march troops into present-day Romania, threatening the partition of Ottoman lands. In response, the Ottoman Empire declared war, and Britain and France rallied to its defense. The devastating combat around the Black Sea proved unbearable for Russia: two-thirds of the soldiers killed in the war were Russian. After losing Sevastopol, Russia accepted a humiliating peace.

Figes, a renowned professor of history at the University of London, might be thought the loneliest of creatures, the Crimean War buff. But his history is a huge success. His harrowing recounting of Sevastopol presents an inferno of military absurdities and gruesome deaths, with people hit by rocks, gored with lances, hacked by swords, decapitated by shells and disemboweled. Figes artfully uses painstaking archival work — disturbing dust in London, Paris, Istanbul, Moscow and St. Petersburg — to expose the secret machinations of statesmen, but he never overlooks the awful human costs, like the nonchalant willingness of aristocratic Russian officers to sacrifice their peasant soldiers. And the book traces the roots of many modern crises: Britain, trying to create buffer zones against Russia, occupies Afghanistan and considers seizing Baghdad, where a British diplomat blithely proclaims that Sunnis and Shiites “could always be played off against each other.”

This is history with an argument. Figes maintains that the conflict was essentially a religious war, and he is frustrated that most writers have neglected that theme: “If the Balkan wars of the 1990s and the rise of militant Islam have taught us anything, it is surely that religion plays a vital role in fueling wars.” Figes writes of Russians and Turks clashing over “religious battlegrounds, the fault line between Orthodoxy and Islam,” and explains that “every nation, none more so than Russia, went to war in the belief that God was on its side.” The Crimean War “opened up the Muslim world of the Ottoman Empire to Western armies,” and “sparked an Islamic reaction against the West which continues to this day.” The title of the British edition of the book is “Crimea: The Last Crusade.”

Figes presents czarist Russia as a deeply religious state, on a “divine mission” to recapture Constantinople and deliver millions of Orthodox Christians from Ottoman rule. More than anyone, he blames the war on Czar Nicholas I: a militaristic reactionary, a pioneer in the use of secret police and censorship, who Figes also suggests was mentally ill. In the decisive hours of 1854, as Britain and France threatened war against him, Nicholas failed to make “any calculation” about his military strength or give “any careful thought” to British and French military superiority; he chose war in a “purely emotional reaction,” based “perhaps above all on his deeply held belief that he was engaged in a religious war to complete Russia’s providential mission in the world.”

Figes makes a powerful, if not entirely convincing, case. Russia could be a fickle friend to the Orthodox peoples. It blew hot and cold in its support for an earlier Greek revolt against Ottoman rule. And it had some pragmatic reasons to try to dominate the Ottoman Empire. As Figes notes, Russia needed Black Sea ports for its trade and to project naval power.

As Figes himself emphasizes, ideologues, whether Islamist or Christianist, who seek historical evidence of a permanent war between Islam and Christianity will have to look elsewhere. Britain and France fought for the Ottoman Empire. And Western and Eastern Christians despised each other, sometimes more than they loathed Muslims. Nicholas, declaring himself the champion of Slavs throughout the Balkans, hoped that Britain would not dare “continue to ally with the Turks and fight with them against Christians.” He was dead wrong. If Britain was on a crusade, it was against Russia, not the Ottoman Empire. Britain spent most of the 19th century trying to thwart Russian expansion, with some Britons feverishly dreading Russia as the only land power that might be able to threaten India; Disraeli once claimed, “Constantinople is the key of India.” Figes depicts Britain as obsessed with the Russian menace to liberty and civilization — an obsession, he adds, that partly shaped cold war attitudes about the Soviet threat.

To resist Russia, Figes observes, Britain had spent decades trying to revitalize the Ottoman Empire. Many Britons developed a soft spot for the Ottoman Empire, hoping that it could successfully reform itself under British tutelage. Some Anglicans admired Islam, and some influential Britons praised Ottoman religious toleration. These pro-Turkish Britons held “a romantic sympathy for Islam as a basically benign and progressive force,” which was “preferable to the deeply superstitious and only ‘semi-Christian’ Orthodoxy of the Russians.” Figes wryly quotes a British speaker: “The Turk was not infidel. He was Unitarian.”

The war was also a clash between political systems: British liberalism against Russian absolutism. The freedom-minded British (as well as many French people, despite Napoleon III’s stifling rule) were horrified by Russia’s despotism, and by its bloody military suppression of liberal revolutionaries in Poland and Hungary. When the Crimean War came, Figes writes, the British public saw it as a defense of “British principles” like “liberty, civilization and free trade.”

Figes, like other scholars, chillingly shows how British freedoms and open institutions helped drive the country into catastrophe: “This was a war — the first war in history — to be brought about by the pressure of the press and by public opinion.” Lord Palmerston, a wartime prime minister whom Figes calls “the first really modern politician,” had stoked the xenophobic indignation of the British people, while the rabble-rousing press smeared those who questioned the wisdom of the war. Palmerston once said he wanted Britain to be “the champion of justice and right” while “not becoming the Quixote of the world.” In this, as in much else, the Crimean War remains alarmingly relevant.

Gary J. Bass is a professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton and the author, most recently, of “Freedom’s Battle: The Origins of Humanitarian Intervention.”

Ah!, la decadence... c'est mieux dit en Francais - Marc Fumaroli

Marc Fumaroli é um típico intelectual francês, o que não quer dizer que ele não seja bom, e só se dedique a "épater le bourgeois".
Loin de ça!.
Ele não só é um grande intelectual, como um homem fino, e eu garanto pelo menos o fino...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

WHEN THE WORLD SPOKE FRENCH
By Marc Fumaroli
Translated by Richard Howard
519 pp. New York Review Books. Paper, $18.95.

Excerpt: ‘When the World Spoke French’ (pdf) (nybooks.com)

When French Was the Language of Enlightenment
By CAROLINE WEBER
The New York Times Review of Books, July 8, 2011

A few months ago, WikiLeaks’ publication of confidential cables from American embassies around the world inspired a mock news item headlined “Sarkozy Admits French Language a Hoax.” According to this report, France’s diplomatic missives were revealed to have been written in English, leading the French president to confess that “the French really speak English, except in the presence of the British.” He went on to explain that the French language “was in fact complete gibberish,” invented by William the Conqueror’s troops during their invasion of England in order to “seem a bit more exotic” to the locals.

Whatever its humor value, this absurdist scenario underscores the degree to which English has eclipsed French as the international idiom of choice. With his magisterial study, “When the World Spoke French,” Marc Fumaroli harks back to a time when the situation was exactly the reverse. In the 18th century, he shows, “the international community of the learned” tended “to speak, write and publish mostly in French.” Whether they hailed from Russia or Prussia, Sweden or Spain, Austria or America, the Enlightenment’s best minds gravitated to French out of their shared reverence for both the matchless sophistication of the French art de vivre and the spirited intellectual exchanges of the Parisian salon.

To Fumaroli, an eminent scholar of French classical rhetoric and a member of the Académie Française, the adoption of the French language necessarily entailed the absorption of a whole system of cultural values. Like the Ciceronian Latin favored by the intellectuals of the Renaissance, 18th-century French “was a language in itself inconvenient, difficult, aristocratic and literary,” inseparable from “a bon ton in manners, from a certain bearing in society, and from a quality of wit, nourished on literature, in conversation.” Notwithstanding the radical role it would eventually play in the French and American Revolutions, the language of Enlightenment liberalism and universalism paradoxically evinced the finest qualities of the French nobility: cleverness, leisure, cultivation and charm.

Duly associating Frenchness with class privilege, the Francophile king Frederick the Great of Prussia pointedly spoke his native German only to stable-boys and horses. In a similar vein, Fumaroli notes approvingly that “the French of the Enlightenment” remained “precise and lively” even in the speeches of the militant regicide Maximilien Robespierre, “whose bearing was impeccable, whose hair was always freshly powdered, whose diction and manners were those of a courtier.” Unabashed about the elitism of this view, Fumaroli explains that speaking French was “an initiation into an exceptional fashion of being free and natural with others and with oneself. It was altogether different from communicating. It was entering ‘into company.’ ”

And what a company! Conceived as “a portrait gallery of foreigners conquered by Enlightenment France,” Fumaroli’s book provides biographical essays about a diverse and fascinating cast of characters. Some, like Catherine the Great and Benjamin Franklin, are already renowned as political leaders and Francophiles. Others, like Francisco de Goya and Lord Chesterfield, are famous but not especially for their French connections. Still others are more or less unknown on every count. This book, however, depicts them all as wonderfully distinct individuals — real people whose eclectic interests, messy love lives and oddball personalities square ill with the lofty philosophical abstractions “the Enlightenment” so often calls to mind. Fumaroli’s Enlightenment is, first and foremost, a wild and woolly human drama, its players every bit as multifaceted (and flawed) as those making headlines today.

Take Charlotte-Sophie d’Aldenburg, Countess of Bentinck, born to a branch of the Danish royal family and educated entirely in French (though she never visited Paris). Until now, history has remembered her mainly as one of the many grandes dames who corresponded with Voltaire. In Fumaroli’s account, the countess emerges as a lovable sourpuss (“I have a contrary spirit, which makes me a disagreeable conversationalist. . . . I am tired of speaking ill of myself”); an incisive critic of Rousseau; a keen scientist who knew her way around a microscope and a telescope; a hopeless romantic who scandalized staid Protestant Northern Europe by cheating on her husband with one of her cousins; and an irrepressible thrill seeker who, as Catherine the Great wrote admiringly, “rode like a cavalryman, . . . danced whenever she chose, sang, laughed, capered about like a child, though she must have been well over 30.”

Like most of the tableaux in his gallery, Fumaroli’s portrayal of Aldenburg supports his claim about the “unique alliance of intelligent power and insolent joie de vivre” that earned the French language so many devotees. For this very reason, though, reading his subjects’ “French” texts, appended to each chapter, proves a somewhat unsatisfying exercise, despite Richard Howard’s characteristically able translation. (“When the World Spoke French” originally appeared in 2001 as “Quand l’Europe Parlait Français.”) For example, Fumaroli lauds the “polished” French style Frederick the Great honed in his correspondence with Voltaire. Yet almost by definition, the Gallic esprit of the Prussian’s prose is undetectable in such lines as: “I am deeply vexed to be the Saturn of the planetary heaven in which you are the sun. What is to be done?”

But Frederick’s own letter does not contain the clunky accidental rhyme (sun/done), and the awkwardness of “the planetary heaven in which you are the sun” obscures the alexandrine — the melodious 12-syllable metrical line proper to French poetry and drama — in the original. Quite literally, the poetry of Frederick’s French is lost in translation. So too is the significance of his Saturn/sun quip, a sly evocation of Voltaire’s “Micromégas” (1752) — a story in which the eponymous hero travels to Saturn and debates a local philosopher about the merits and properties of the sun.

Here, as in much of this densely erudite book, an explanatory note would have been helpful. Such references abound not only in Fumaroli’s protagonists’ writing but in his own, as when he says that Ben Franklin and a lady friend exchanged “innocent caresses, like Julie and Saint-Preux at Clarens.” Or when he writes that a friend acting as an intermediary between King Stanislaw II of Poland and an alluring duchess behaves “like Vautrin, arranging Lucien de Rubempré’s amours with the Duchesse de Maufrigneuse and his marriage with Clotilde de Grandlieu.”

These statements presume a level of familiarity with the French literary canon that I, as a professor of French literature, would be thrilled to find in my compatriots but seldom do. Fumaroli, bless his heart, remains hopeful: “An optimist, I am led to believe by experience that the number of people in the present-day world capable of a real conversation in French (who are necessarily also real readers and owners of a library) has actually increased” and diversified since the 18th century. English may now function as the go-to language in commerce, technology and geopolitics. But according to Fumaroli, the old-school sophistication of French still holds sway among a small, if obscure, international elite. “It is,” he concludes, “in this clandestine worldwide minority . . . that today resides, . . . unknown to the majority of the French, the life and future of their irreplaceable idiom, qualified as a literary language and the language of ‘good company.’” For those looking to join this latter-day “banquet of enlightened minds,” “When the World Spoke French” is an excellent place to start.

Caroline Weber, a frequent contributor to the Book Review, is the author of “Queen of Fashion: What Marie Antoinette Wore to the Revolution.”