individual study. The result of which was, that political liberty was developed more tardily in France, because it did not so soon attain sufficient vigor to contend successfully with absolute power; and yet, at the same time, general principles, large and comprehensive views of subjects, became more characteristic of the judicial and political philosophy of France. Another thing is to be observed. On the Continent, it is peculiarly the influence of France, which acts upon the progress of European society,— upon its manners, social refinement, and civilization; as any one may be satisfied by carefully studying the times of the Barbaric Invasion, Charlemagne, the Crusades, Francis Į, Louis XIV, and the Revolution. It would be a very simple explanation of this fact, to ascribe it to the prevalence of the French as the universally received diplomatic language of Europe. But why is the French language of thus universal application? Is not this universality the effect, rather than the prime cause? Is not the social influence of France, during the last three centuries especially, rather to be attributed to the peculiar genius of her people, to their characteristic socialness of temper, to their geographical position, to the combined authority of such a power and such a people placed as it were on the central vantage-ground of Europe? At any rate such is the fact, admitted by all reasoners, of whatever class or nation, who have had occasion to speculate on the history of the eighteenth century. Now, in the reign of Louis XIV, it is evidently the court and government of France, which act upon the social condition of Europe: in that of Louis XV, it is the people and society of France. The foreign enterprises, the statesmanship aud diplomacy of France, in the reign of Louis XIV, gave the tone to Europe. It was the great central power, which jed in European affairs, by whose movements other nations shaped their policy, in reference to which they formed alliances; and it was the preponderance of France in Europe, the political interest of the Kingdom, which Louis XIV aimed to promote in all his great enterprises, whether contending with Holland, Spain, Germany, or England. A similar spectacle presents itself within the Kingdom. Louis XIV was a codifying king, one of those princes, who methodize the laws of the land; and this trait is characteristic of governments, which of their own motion act upon civilization. Under him, also, the administration of affairs became thoroughly systematized by the agency of Colbert and Louvois; that is, the government was so organized that, on the one hand, its impulse could the most thoroughly circulate down through all the subdivisions of society, and on the other hand all the collective forces of the society be gathered up and most efficaciously exerted through the instrumentality of the government. Is it not, therefore, the court of Louis XIV, which acts upon France and upon Europe? But what is the dominant influence in the reign of Louis XV? On his accession, France presented to the world the spectacle of a society greatly advanced in riches, force, and especially intellectual activity; the people were moving on with the impetus they had acquired from the government of his predecessor; but the energies of the government itself as such were utterly demoralized and exhausted. This, indubitably, is the fact: the causes of it are matter of question. It is common enough to ascribe it to the misfortunes and reverses of the closing years of the reign of Louis XIV: -the war of the Succession, the revocation of the edict of Nantes, the lavish profusion of the court, and the lamentable dissolution of manners, which sullied the splendors of Paris and Versailles. These particulars by no means explain the change. Was not France in a worse condition of utter prostration at the beginning of the same reign?Clearly so. But the government of France fell into decrepitude in the old age of Louis XIV, and lingered along in halting debility under his successor, because its vigor had been derived from the individuals who administered it, and was unsustained by popular institutions or habitudes. — Neither the industry nor the mind of the nation partook of the feebleness of the government. Mind, especially, was in the full career of victory, although, it is true, engaged only in speculative pursuits, not mixing itself up with practical politics, and for that very reason, unchecked by difficulties, headstrong, and intoxicated with its own easy triumphs in the boundless realms of thought. Reflect, now, upon the representations we have repeatedly suggested of the relative attitudes of the government and the people, as characterizing the political condition of Europe at this epoch. The two divisions of society, the governors and the governed, are stationed face to face; they are antagonist in their interests; they measure each others force; clearly, if one does not take the initiative, and give the lead to affairs, the other will do it. But the government of Louis XV was inert, inefficient, waiting to be acted upon, not stepping forth to act; and of course Society took up that ascendency in the movement of civilization, which seemed to be abandoned as a waif by Government, and by means of it impressed upon France and upon Europe that boldness and universality of inquiry, and that pervading sense of popular rights, which produced the French Revolution.* *The views, contained in this Section, are mainly derived from the Cours d'Histoire' of M. Guizot. His discourses constitute a resumé of the whole mass of modern history bearing upon the subject; and it would be mere affectation to seek, upon such an occasion, to steer clear of his comprehensive and luminous deduction of the progress of political systems in modern Europe. M. Guizot cites no authorities; but many works will occur to the learned reader, as fitted to elucidate the obscurer parts of the subject; among which it may suffice to indicate the historical writings of Gibbon, Robertson, Hume, Hallam, Mills, Roscoe, Mably, Voltaire, Sismondi, James, and Michaud, as particularly pertinent and useful. SECTION II. Means of Knowledge and Opinion.-Political Organization lation. WHOEVER proposes to communicate a distinct idea of the philosophy of a complex body of events, must have a theory of his own for combining and explaining them,—a clue for his guidance through what otherwise would be but a labyrinth of doubt and confusion. His estimation of individuals, his judgment of things, will be, and indeed they ought to be, regulated by the principles of moral and poliscal right, which form his creed. As he learns, so must he teach. Of mere necessity, he assumes a particular position, from which to regard events,as they rise up before him at the summons of memory. If he take that position without due inspection of the premises, he acts from prejudice: if it be the result of a full and conscientious examination of all the accessible elements of sound opinion, it is conviction. He ponders the constitution, capacity, and destinies of the human race,-scrutinizes men and studies events,the conclusions, which he reaches thereon, are, to him, -and facts, the decisions of reason applied to the investigation of truth. His troth is his truth. Nearly all the critical events of the French Revolution, civil or military, are ascertained with reasonable certainty, and the great mass of them so thoroughly, as to stand out of the scope of question. In such an age as this, and such a country as France, events, which shook the world to its centre, could not fail to call a thousand pens into activity, to transmit the knowledge of them to future times. Broad streams of light have been thrown over the great or guilty beings, who, during the last half century, stalked in splendor and blood along the history of France. Observers of every degree of intelligence, from princes, statesmen, and generals down through each rank of society, even to menial servants, have given us their memoirs and speculations; and the most philosophic minds and brilliant geniuses have reared, out of the authentic records of the times, monuments of their political science and historical skill. -No opinion has wanted its representative, no party has failed of its advocate, no event is without its memorialist. - Would we enter the councils of the constitutional reformers of France, the men of eighty nine, who, with mixed motives undoubtedly, but purposes mainly good, sought for the regeneration of their country? We may do so, in the writings of Bailly, Barbaroux, Buzot, Condorcet, Carnot, Roland, Dumouriez, Dumont, Lameth, De Stael.- Would we follow the wanderings and sympathize in the sufferings of the proscribed aristocracy? We have but to open the volumes of Campan, Larochejaquelein, Cléry, Châteaubriand, or Bertrand de Molleville.. Would we assist at the foundations of the Empire ? Thibaudeau, Bourrienne, Savary, Fouché, Junot, De Bausset, show to us the whole interior of Napoleon's palace, the sublime conceptions which raised him above, and the manifold littlenesses which depressed him below, the dignity of his mission. — Leaving the senate and the court, would we contemplate France in that extraordinary series of military efforts, which changed the face of Europe? We have the great works of Dumas and Jomini, the thrilling narrations of Ségur, La Baume, and Rocca, the lucid essays of Gouvion Saint-Cyr, Foy, and |