ON DEMOCRACY.
Such was the situation of Europe during the centuries preceding
the sixteenth, that it appears difficult to find for democracy a
well-defined place in political theories. Stifled by the established
powers, deprived as yet of the resources which, in time, gave it
the ascendency, it was natural it should be almost unobserved by
politicians. It was in reality very feeble; and it was not, therefore,
surprising that, owing to the influence of reality over ideas,
theorists should regard the people merely as an abject portion of
society, unworthy of honors or happiness, and fit only to labor and
to serve. It is, however, worthy of remark, that ideas from that time
took a new direction; it may even be affirmed that they were infinitely
more elevated and more generous than facts. This is one of the most
convincing proofs of the intellectual development that Christianity
had operated amongst men--one of the most unexceptionable testimonies
in favor of that profound sentiment of reason and justice which it
had deposited in the heart of society. Now these elements were not to
be stifled by events the most unfavorable, nor by the rudest shocks;
for they were supported upon the very dogmas of religion, which still
remain firm, in spite of all commotion, as an immovable axis remains
fixed in the midst of broken machinery.
In perusing the writings of this epoch, we find established, as an
indubitable fact, the right of the people to the administration of
justice; they were not to be irritated by any vexatious regulations;
the public imposts were to be equally divided; no one was to be forced
to do any thing contrary to reason or the well-being of society:
that is to say, these writers acknowledged and established all those
principles upon which were to be based the laws and customs destined
one day to produce civil liberty. This is so true, that, in proportion
as circumstances permitted, these principles were rapidly and
extensively developed; vast and numerous applications were immediately
made of them; and civil liberty took such deep root among the people
of modern Europe, that it has never been erased from their bosoms; and
we see it preserved in forms of absolute government as well as in the
mixed forms.
To complete my demonstration, that the ideas in favor of the people
proceeded from Christianity, I will adduce a reason which appears to me
decisive. The philosophy adopted by the schools of that period was that
of Aristotle. Aristotle's authority was of great weight; he was called
by an autonomasia, _the Philosopher_; a good commentary of his works
was considered the highest point to be attained in these matters. And
yet, so far as the relations of society were concerned, the doctrines
of the Stagyrite were not adopted; Christian writers took a higher and
more generous view of mankind. Aristotle's degrading doctrines upon man
born to servitude, destined to this end even by nature, anterior to all
legislation; his horrible doctrines upon infanticide; his theories,
which at one blow deprived all those who professed the mechanical arts
of the title of citizen; in a word, those monstrous systems, which
the ancient philosophers unconsciously learned from the society which
surrounded them, were utterly rejected by Christian philosophers. The
man who had just perused Aristotle's work on Politics took up his
Bible, or the works of the Fathers: the authority of Aristotle was
great, but that of the Church was still greater; the works of the
pagan philosopher must be interpreted piously, or abandoned; in either
case the rights of humanity were saved, and this was an effect of the
preponderating force of the Catholic faith.
The system of castes most forcibly contributes to arrest the
development of the popular element, by condemning the majority of the
people of a country to a state of perpetual abjection and slavery. In
this system, honors, riches, and command are confined and transferred
from father to son; a barrier separates men from each other, and
ends in causing the most powerful to be considered as belonging to a
superior class of beings. The Church has ever opposed the introduction
of so fatal a system, and to apply the word _caste_ to the clergy
would betray an ignorance of its meaning. On this subject M. Guizot
has done ample justice to the cause of truth. He expresses himself in
the following manner in the fifth lecture of his _Histoire générale
de la Civilisation en Europe_: "With regard to the mode of formation
and transmission of power in the Church, there is a word," says
he, "much used in speaking of the Christian clergy, and which I am
under the obligation of discarding; it is the word _caste_. The body
of ecclesiastical magistrates has often been called a caste. This
expression is not correct; the idea of heirship is inherent in that
of _caste_. Travel over the world; take all those countries in which
the system of _castes_ exists, in India, in Egypt, you will find
everywhere the _caste_ essentially hereditary; it is the transmission
of the same situation, of the same power, from father to son. Where
heirship does not exist, there is no caste, there is a corporation;
the spirit of corporate bodies has its inconveniences, but it is very
different from that of castes. The word caste cannot be applied to
the Christian Church. The celibacy of the clergy has prevented them
from becoming a caste. You perceive already the consequences of this
difference. A system of _caste_, and the existence of hereditary
succession, inevitably involve the idea of privileges. The very
definition of a _caste_ implies privileges. When the same functions,
the same powers, become hereditary in the same families, it is evident
that privileges follow, and that no one can acquire such functions and
powers unless he is born to them. This, in fact, is what has taken
place: wherever religious government has fallen into the hands of a
caste, it has become a privilege; no one has been permitted to enter
it but the members of families belonging to the caste. Nothing of this
has ever occurred in the Christian Church; on the contrary, she has
ever maintained the equal admissibility of all men, whatever their
origin, to all her functions, to all her dignities. The ecclesiastical
state, particularly from the fifth to the twelfth century, was open
to all. The Church was recruited from all ranks, from the inferior as
well as from the superior,--more commonly even from the inferior. She
alone resisted the system of castes; she alone maintained the principle
of equality of competition; she alone called all legitimate superiors
to the possession of power. This is the first grand result naturally
produced by the fact that she was a corporation, and not a caste."
This splendid passage of the French writer completely vindicates
the Catholic Church from the reproach of exclusiveness with which
it had been attempted to stain her; it presents to me also the
opportunity of making some reflections upon the beneficial effects
of Catholicity upon the development of civilization in favor of the
plebeian classes. We are not ignorant of the numerous declamations
against religious celibacy which have proceeded from the mouths of
the pretended defenders of the rights of humanity; but is it not
strange that they forget, as M. Guizot justly observes, that celibacy
is exactly what has prevented the Christian clergy from becoming a
caste? Let us examine, in fact, what would have been the case on the
contrary supposition. At the time to which we refer, the ascendency
of religious power was unlimited, and the wealth of the Church
considerable; that is to say, she possessed every thing necessary
for enabling a caste to establish its preponderance and stability.
What further was needful, therefore? Hereditary succession, nothing
more; and this would have been established by the marriage of the
clergy. What I here affirm is no vain conjecture, it is a positive
fact, which I can render evident by bringing forward historical proof.
From certain remarkable regulations in ecclesiastical legislation,
we learn that it required all the energy of pontifical authority to
prevent this succession from being introduced. Every thing, in fine,
tended to such an end; and if the Church preserved itself from such
a calamity, it was owing to the horror which she always entertained
of this fatal custom. Read the 17th chapter of the first book of the
Decretals of Gregory IX.; the pontifical regulations therein contained
prove that the evil here spoken of presented alarming symptoms. The
pope makes use of the strongest terms possible to be found: "_Ad
enormitatem istam eradicandam_," "observato Apostolici rescripti
decreto _quod successionem in Ecclesia Dei hereditariam detestatur_."
"_Ad extirpandas successiones a sanctis Dei Ecclesiis studio totius
sollicitudinis debemus intendere._" "Quia igitur in Ecclesia
successiones, et in prælaturis et dignitatibus ecclesiasticis _statutis
canonicis damnantur_." These expressions, and others of a like
nature, clearly show that the danger was already considered serious,
and justify the prudence of the Holy See in reserving to itself the
exclusive right of granting dispensations on this point.
It required the continual vigilance of the pontifical authority to
prevent this abuse from making daily progress, for it was urged on
by the most powerful feelings of nature. Four centuries had elapsed
since these measures had been taken, and yet we find that, in 1533,
Pope Clement VII. was obliged to restrict a canon of Alexander III.
in order to prevent grave scandals, grievously lamented by the pious
Pontiff. Suppose that the Church had not opposed such an abuse with all
her force, and that the custom had become general; bear in mind also,
that in those ages of the grossest ignorance, the privileged classes
were every thing, and the people had scarcely a civil existence; and
see whether there would not have been formed an ecclesiastical caste
along with that of the nobility, and whether both, united by the bonds
of family and common interest, would not have opposed an invincible
obstacle to the ulterior development of the plebeian class, plunging
European society into that degradation in which Asiatic society now
exists. Such would have been the consequence of the marriage of the
clergy, if the pretended reform had been realized a few centuries
sooner. When it came, at the beginning of the sixteenth century, it
found European society in a great measure formed; it had to contend
against an adult, who could not easily be made to forget his ideas and
change his habits. What has actually taken place may lead us to infer
what would have taken place. In England, a close alliance was formed
between the lay aristocracy and the Protestant clergy; and what is very
remarkable, we have seen, and we still see, in that country, something
resembling castes, with the modifications which must necessarily ensue
from the great development of a certain kind of civilization and
liberty at which Great Britain has arrived.
If the clergy in the middle age, establishing their perpetuity by
hereditary succession, had constituted themselves an exclusive class,
would not the aristocratic alliance of which we are speaking have
been a natural consequence? And who would thenceforth have been able
to break this alliance? The enemies of the Church interpret all her
discipline, and even some of her dogmas, by imputing to her ulterior
designs; and hence they consider the law of celibacy as the result
of an interested design. It was easy to see, however, that if the
Church had entertained worldly views, she might have selected as a
model those priests of other religions who have formed a separate,
preponderating, and exclusive class, for which the severity of duty
did not form a brazen wall against the enjoyments of nature. Europe,
it will be objected, is not Asia. This is true; but the Europe of our
days, and even that of the sixteenth century, is no longer the Europe
of the middle ages. In those centuries, in which none but the clergy
could read and write, and in which knowledge was exclusively in their
possession, had they wished to plunge the world into darkness, they
had only to extinguish the torch with which they were enlightening it.
It is also very certain, that celibacy has given to the clergy a moral
force and ascendency which they could not have attained by any other
means. But this only proves that the Church has preferred moral to
physical power, and that the spirit of her institutions is to act by
exercising a direct influence upon the intelligence and heart of man.
Now, is it not eminently praiseworthy to use all possible moral means
for the direction of mankind? Is it not an honor to the Catholic clergy
to have accomplished, by institutions severe against themselves, what
they might have realized in part by systems indulgent to their own
passions and degrading to others? Oh, we see here the work of Him who
will remain with His Church till the end of the world.
Whatever may be the value of these reflections, it cannot be contested,
that where Christianity has not existed, the people have been the
victims of a small number, whose contempt and insults have been the
only recompense of their labors. Consult history and experience;
the fact is general and constant; there is not an exception even in
those ancient republics so vaunted for their liberty. Under liberal
forms, slavery existed; a slavery properly so called for some men;
a slavery glossed over with fine appearances for that turbulent
multitude who served the caprice of the Tribunes, and believed they
were exercising their sublime rights by condemning to ostracism or
to death the most virtuous citizens. It has sometimes happened that,
among the Christians, appearances were not in favor of liberty, but
things were so in reality, if we understand by the word liberty the
empire of just laws, aiming at the well-being of the multitude, and
founded upon the consideration and profound respect due to the rights
of mankind. Observe the grand phases of European society at the time
when Catholicity exclusively predominated. With various forms, distinct
origins, different inclinations, they all follow the same course; all
tend to favor the cause of the multitude; whatever has this for its
aim, endures; whatever has not, perishes. Whence comes it that this was
not the case in other countries? If evident reasons and palpable facts,
moreover, did not manifest the salutary influence of the religion of
Jesus Christ, so remarkable a coincidence would suffice to suggest
grave reflections to those, who meditate upon the cause and character
of the events which change or modify the destiny of mankind. Let those
who represent Catholicity as the enemy of the people, point out to us
a single doctrine of the Church sanctioning the abuses under which the
people were suffering, or the injustice which oppressed them. Let them
show us whether, at the commencement of the sixteenth century, when
Europe was under the exclusive domination of the Catholic religion,
the people were not as far advanced as they could be, considering the
ordinary course of things. They certainly did not possess so much
wealth as they have since acquired, and their knowledge was not so
extensive as in modern times; but is the progress which has been made
in this respect attributable to Protestantism? Was not the sixteenth
century commenced under more favorable auspices than the fifteenth, and
the latter under better auspices than the fourteenth? This proves that
Europe, under the shield of Catholicity, continued in a progressive
march; that the cause of the multitude suffered no prejudice from the
influence of Catholicity; and that if great ameliorations have since
been effected, they have not been a consequence of what is called the
Reformation.
It is the development of industry and commerce that has most
powerfully contributed to elevate modern democracy, by diminishing
the preponderance of the aristocratic classes. I do not touch upon
the events which took place in Europe before the appearance of
Protestantism; but I see at a glance that, far from impeding such
a movement, Catholic doctrines and institutions must have favored
it, since, under their shield and protection, the manufacturing and
mercantile interests were surprisingly developed. No one is ignorant
of their astonishing success in Spain: and we cannot attribute this
progress to the Moors; for Catalonia, subject exclusively to the
Catholic influence, evinced such activity, prosperity, and intelligence
in industry and commerce, that we could scarcely believe to what a
state of perfection they had arrived, did not unexceptionable documents
bear ample testimony to the fact. Read the _Historical Memoirs of
the Marine, Commerce, and Arts of the ancient City of Barcelona_, by
our celebrated Capmany. May we not account it an honor to belong to
this Catalonian nation, whose ancestors displayed such zeal in all
things, never allowing other nations to surpass them in the march of
civilization and improvement? Whilst this phenomenon was advancing in
the south of Europe, the association of the Hanseatic towns, the origin
of which is lost in the centuries of the middle ages, was created in
the north. It obtained in time such an amount of power as to measure
its force with that of kings. Its rich factories, established all over
Europe, and favored with many advantageous privileges, elevated it to
the rank of a real power. Not satisfied with the power which it enjoyed
in its own country, and in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, it extended
it to England and Russia. London and Novogorod admired the splendid
establishments of those intrepid merchants, who, by means of their
wealth, obtained exorbitant privileges; who had their own magistrates,
and formed an independent state in the centre of foreign countries.
It is very remarkable that the Hanseatic league selected religious
communities as their model, in all that concerned the system of life
of the clerks in their counting-houses. Their clerks ate in common,
had common dormitories, and none of them were allowed to marry. Any
one of them transgressing this law, forfeited his rights to remain a
member or a citizen of the Hanseatic Confederation. In France, the
manufacturing classes were also organized, the better to resist the
elements of dissolution existing in their bosom; and this change, so
fruitful in results, is entirely due to a king venerated upon the
altars of the Catholic Church. _The Establishment for the Trades of
Paris_ gave a powerful impetus to the industrial classes, by augmenting
their intelligence and improving their morals; and whatever were the
abuses that crept into that organization, it cannot be denied that
St. Louis satisfactorily supplied a great want, by organizing the
trades in the best manner possible, considering how little progress
had at that time been made. What shall we say of Italy, containing
within its bosom the powerful republics of Venice, Florence, Genoa,
and Pisa? It is difficult to conceive what progress industry had made
in this peninsula, and, as a natural consequence, what a development
the democratical element received. Had the influence in itself been
so oppressive, had the breath of the Roman court been fatal to the
progress of the people, is it not evident that its effects would have
been particularly felt in those countries which were the scene of its
actions? Whence comes it, then, that whilst a great part of Europe was
groaning under feudal oppression, the middle class, whose only title
to nobility was the fruit of their intelligence and labor, appeared in
Italy so powerful, so brilliant and flourishing? I will not contend
that this development was attributable to the Popes; but, at least, we
must grant that they never opposed it.
Now, if we observe a similar phenomenon in Spain, and particularly in
Aragon, where the Pontifical influence was great; if the same thing is
observable in the north of Europe, inhabited by people whom Catholicity
alone has civilized; if, in fine, the same phenomenon is realized, with
greater or less rapidity, in all countries exclusively subject to the
belief and authority of the Church, we may conclude that Catholicity
contains nothing opposed to the movement of civilization, and that it
is not opposed to a just and legitimate development of the popular
element.
I cannot think how it is possible for any one who has read history to
accord to Protestantism the honor of being favorable to the interests
of the multitude. Its origin was essentially aristocratic; and in those
countries in which it has succeeded in taking root, it has established
aristocracy upon such firm foundations, that the revolutions of three
centuries have not been able to overturn it. Witness, for a proof of
this, what has taken place in Germany, England, and all the north
of Europe. It has been said that Calvinism is more favorable to the
democratical element; and that if it had prevailed in France it would
have established a system of federative republic in place of monarchy.
Whatever may be the value of this conjecture upon a change which
would certainly not have been very beneficial to the future prospects
of that nation, it is perfectly certain that no other system than
that of aristocracy would have been found practicable in France; for
circumstances at that period would admit of nothing else; and the
aristocrats who were at the head of religious innovation, would admit
of no other organization. Had Protestantism triumphed in France, it is
probable that the poor of that country, in imitation of their brethren
in Germany, would have claimed a share in the rich booty; but they
certainly would not have found Calvin's proverbial harshness more
advantageous to them than the furious rashness of Luther was to the
Germans. It is probable that these wretched villagers, who, according
to contemporary writers, had nothing to eat but rye-bread, with no
animal food, and slept upon a bundle of straw, with a board for their
pillow, would not have felt themselves more comfortable than their
brethren in Germany, had they thought proper to participate in the
effects of the new doctrines. In this case, they would not have been
punished, but exterminated, like their brethren beyond the Rhine.
In England, the sudden disappearance of the monasteries produced
pauperism. Their property having fallen into the hands of laymen,
the religious being driven from their abodes, the poor who subsisted
upon the alms of these holy establishments were left without the
means of subsistence. And observe, that the evil was not temporary;
it has continued to our own days, and is now one of the greatest
evils afflicting Great Britain. I am aware that almsgiving is said
to encourage indolence; but it is very certain that England, with
her poor-laws and her legal charity, contains a far greater number
of destitute poor than Catholic countries. It will be difficult to
convince me, that to let people die of hunger is a good means of
developing the popular element. Protestantism must have contained
something very repulsive to the democrats of that period, since we
find it rejected in Spain and Italy, the two countries in which the
people enjoyed the greatest share of prosperity and rights. And this
becomes still more worthy of attention, when we remark that religious
innovation took root wherever the feudal aristocracy predominated.
Look, it will be said, at the United Provinces; but this example only
proves that Protestantism, determined to find supporters, willingly
took part with the mal-contents. If Philip II. had been a zealous
Protestant, the United Provinces would probably have alleged that they
were unwilling to remain any longer subject to an heretical prince.
These provinces were for a long time under the exclusive influence of
Catholicity, and yet they were prosperous; the popular element was
developed in their bosom, without meeting any obstacle on the part of
religion. Exactly at the beginning of the sixteenth century they made
the discovery, that they could no longer prosper without abjuring the
faith of their ancestors. Observe the geographical position of the
United Provinces; see them surrounded by reformists offering to assist
them; and you will find in political considerations the reason which
you may seek in vain in imaginary affinity between the Protestant
system and the interests of the people.[35]