[The following are some more of Mrs. Grote's interesting notes. She
preceded Mr. Senior at St. Cyr.--ED.]
The notes relating to St. Cyr are memoranda of various conversations
which I enjoyed during a stay of some ten days or so at Tours, in
February 1854, with Monsieur Alexis de Tocqueville. I occupied an
apartment in the hotel at Tours, and on almost every day passed some
hours in the company of this interesting friend, who at this time lived
at St. Cyr, in a commodious country-house having its garden, &c, which he
rented. I drove out to dine there frequently, and M. de Tocqueville
walked over on the intervening days and stayed an hour or two at the
hotel with me talking incessantly.--H.G.
_St. Cyr, February_ 13, 1854,--The French allow no author to have a claim
to the highest rank unless he joins the perfection of style with the
instructiveness of his matter. Only four first-rate writers in the
eighteenth century--_grands écrivains, comme grands penseurs originaux;_
these being Montesquieu, Voltaire, J.J. Rousseau, and Buffon. Helvetius
not _en première ligne_, because his _forme_ was not up to the mark.
Alexis himself is often hung up for days together, having the thoughts,
yet not hitting off the 'phrases' in a way to satisfy his critical ear as
to style.
Thinks that when a man is capable of originating a _belle pensée_, he
ought to be also capable of clothing that thought in felicitous language.
Thinks that a torpid state of political life is unfavourable to
intellectual product in general.
I instanced the case of Louis XIV. as contradicting this. Not admitted by
Tocqueville. The civil wars of Louis XIV.'s reign had engendered
considerable activity in the minds of the educated class. This activity
generated speculation and scientific inquiry in all the departments of
human thoughts. Abstract ideas became the field on which thinkers
occupied themselves. No _practical_ outlet under despotism, but a certain
social fermentation nevertheless existing, and the want of making itself
a vent impelled intellectual life and writings. I instanced Louis XV. 'At
least,' I said, 'the torpor of political life was become yet more a
habit,' 'Yes,' said Alexis, 'but then there was the principle of
discontent very widely diffused, which was the germ of the revolution of
1789. This restless, disaffected state of the national mind gave birth to
some new forms of intellectual product, tending to rather more distinct
practical results, which filtered down among the middle classes, and
became the objects of their desires and projects.' Rousseau and Voltaire
eminently serviceable in leading the public sentiment towards the middle
of the eighteenth century.
English writers and statesmen having always enjoyed the power of applying
their minds to actual circumstances, and of appealing through a free
press and free speech also to the public of their day, have never
addressed themselves, as French philosophers did, to the cultivation of
abstract speculations and general theories. Here and there a writer has
been thrown, by his individual tastes and turn of thought, upon the study
of political philosophy; but the Englishman, taken as a public writer,
commonly addresses himself to practical legislation rather than to
recondite studies or logical analysis and investigation of the relations
between mankind and their regulations under authorised powers. Since Lord
Bacon there have been few, excepting in our later times Mill, Bentham,
and his disciples, who have explored the metaphysics of jurisprudence and
moral science in England. Hume dealt in the philosophic treatment of
political subjects, but did not work them up into anything like a
coherent system. English are not fond of generalities, but get on by
their instincts, bit by bit, as need arises.
Alexis thinks that the writers of the period antecedent to the revolution
of 1789 were quite as much _thrown up by_ the condition of public
sentiment as they were the exciters of it. Nothing _comprehensive_, in
matters of social arrangement, can be effected under a state of things
like that of England; so easy there for a peculiar grievance to get
heard, so easy for a local or class interest to obtain redress against
any form of injustice, that legislation _must_ be 'patching.' Next to
impossible to reorganise a community without a revolution.
Alexis has been at work for about a year in _rummaging_ amid archives,
partly in those of the capital, partly in those of the Touraine. In this
last town a complete collection is contained of the records of the old
'Intendance,' under which several provinces were governed. Nothing short
of a continuous and laborious poring over the details of Government
furnished by these invaluable _paperasses_ could possibly enable a
student of the past century to frame to himself any clear conception of
the working of the social relations and authorities in old France. There
exists no such tableau. The manners of the higher classes and their daily
life and habits are well portrayed in heaps of memoirs, and even pretty
well understood by our contemporaries. But the whole structure of
society, in its relations with the authorised agents of supreme power,
including the pressure of those secondary obligations arising out of
_coutumes du pays_, is so little understood as to be scarcely available
to a general comprehension of the old French world before 1789.
Alexis says that the reason why the great upheaving of that period has
never been to this day sufficiently appreciated, never sufficiently
explained, is because the actual living hideousness of the social details
and relations of that period, seen from the points of view of a
penetrating contemporary looker-on, has never yet been depicted in
true colours and with minute particulars. After having dived into the
social history of that century, as I have stated, his conviction is that
it was impossible that the revolution of 1789 should _not_ burst out.
Cause and effect were never more irrevocably associated than in this
terrible case. Nothing but the compulsory idleness and obscurity into
which Alexis has been thrown since December 1851 would have put even him
upon the researches in question. Few perhaps could have addressed
themselves to the task with such remarkable powers of interpretation, and
with such talents for exploring the connection between thought and action
as he is endowed with. Also he is singularly exempt from aristocratical
prejudices, and quite capable of sympathising with popular feeling,
though naturally not partial to democracy.
_February_ 15.--De Tocqueville came down in close carriage and sat an
hour and a half by fireside. Weather horrible. Talked of La Marck's book
on Mirabeau;[2] said that the line Mirabeau pursued was perfectly well
known to Frenchmen prior to the appearance of La Marck's book; but that
the actual details were of course a new revelation, and highly valued
accordingly. Asked what we thought of it in England. I told him the
leading impression made by the book was the clear perception of the
impossibility of effecting any good or coming to terms in any manner of
way of the revolutionary leaders with such a Court. That we also had long
suspected Mirabeau of being what he was now proved to have been--a man
who, imbued though he was with the spirit of revolutionary action and the
conviction of the rightfulness of demanding prodigious changes, yet who
would willingly have directed the monarch in a method of warding off the
terrible consequences of the storm, and who would, if the Court had
confided to his hands the task of conciliating the popular feelings, have
perhaps preserved the forms of monarchy while affording the requisite
concessions to the national demands. But the Court was so steeped in the
old sentiment of divine right, and moreover so distrustful of Mirabeau's
honour and sagacity (the more so as he was insatiable in his pecuniary
requisitions), that they would never place their cause frankly in his
hands, nor indeed in anyone else's who was capable of discerning their
best interests. Lafayette was regarded as an enemy almost (and was
'jaloused' by Mirabeau as being so popular) on account of his popular
sympathies. De Tocqueville said that so diffused was the spirit of
revolution at the period preceding the convocation of the États-généraux,
that the elder Mirabeau, who was a very clever and original-minded man,
though strongly tinctured with the old feudal prejudices, nevertheless
let the fact be seen in the clearest manner in his own writings. He wrote
many tracts on public topics, and De Tocqueville says that the tone in
which Mirabeau (_père_) handles these proves that he was perfectly
cognisant of the universal spread of revolutionary opinions, and even in
some degree influenced by them in his own person. Mirabeau (the son) was
so aware of the absolute necessity of proclaiming himself emancipated
from the old feudalities, that, among other extravagances of his conduct,
he started as a shopkeeper at Marseilles for some time, by way of
fraternizing with the _bourgeoisie; affichéing_ his liberalism. De
Tocqueville quoted Napoleon as saying in one of his conversations at St.
Helena that he had been a spectator _from a window_ of the scene at the
Tuileries, on the famous August 10, 1792, and that it was his conviction
(Napoleon's) that, even at that stage, the revolution might have been
averted--at least, the furious character of it might have been turned
aside--by judicious modes of negotiation on the part of the King's
advisers. De Tocqueville does not concur in Napoleon's opinion.
'Cahiers,' published 1789, contain the whole body of instructions
supplied to their respective delegates by the _trois états (clergé,
noblesse, et Tiers État_), on assembling in convocation. Of this entire
and voluminous collection (which is deposited in the archives of France)
three volumes of extracts are to be bought which were a kind of _rédigé_
of the larger body of documents. In these three volumes De Tocqueville
mentioned, one may trace the course of the public sentiment with perfect
clearness. Each class demanded a large instalment of constitutional
securities; the nobles perhaps demanded the largest amount of all the
three. Nothing could be more thoroughgoing than the requisitions which
the body of the _noblesse_ charged their delegates to enforce in the
Assembly of the États-généraux--'égalisations des charges (taxation),
responsabilité des ministres, indépendance des tribunaux, liberté de la
personne, garantie de la propriété contre la couronne,' a balance-sheet
annually of the public expenses and public revenue, and, in fact, all the
salient privileges necessary in order to enfranchise a community weary of
despotism. The clergy asked for what they wanted with equal resolution,
and the _bourgeoisie_ likewise; but what the nobles were instructed to
demand was the boldest of all. We talked of the letters of the writers of
the eighteenth century, and of the correspondence of various eminent men
and women with David Hume, which Mr. Hill Burton has published in a
supplementary volume in addition to those comprised in his life of David
Hume, and which I have with me. I said that the works of Hume being
freely printed and circulated caused great pleasure to the French men of
letters, mingled with envy at the facility enjoyed by the Englishman of
publishing anything he chose; the French writers being debarred, owing to
the importunity of the clergy with Louis XV., from publishing freely
their works in France, and only managing to get themselves printed by
employing printers at the Hague, Amsterdam, and other towns beyond the
limits of the kingdom. To my surprise, De Tocqueville replied that this
disability, so far from proving disadvantageous to the _esprits forts_ of
the period, and the encyclopaedic school, was a source of gain to them in
every respect. Every book or tract which bore the stamp of being printed
at the Hague or elsewhere, _out of France_, was speedily caught up and
devoured. It was a passport to success. Everyone knowing that, since it
was printed there, it must be of a nature to give offence to the ruling
powers, and especially to the priesthood, and as such, all who were
imbued with the new opinions were sure to run after books bearing this
certificate of merit. De Tocqueville said that the _savans_ of 1760-1789
would not have printed in France, had they been free to do so, at the
period immediately preceding the accession of Louis XVI.
Talked of Lafayette: said he was as great as pure, good intentions and
noble instincts could make a man; but that he was _d'un esprit médiocre_,
and utterly at a loss how to turn affairs to profit at critical
junctures--never knew what was coming, no political foresight. Mistake in
putting Louis Philippe on the throne _sans garantie_ in 1830; misled by
his own disinterested character to think better of public men than he
ought to have done. Great personal integrity shown by Lafayette during
the Empire, and under the Restoration: not to be cajoled by any monarch.
_February_ 16.--The current fallacy of Napoleon having made the important
alterations in the laws of France. All the eminent new enactments
originated in the Constituent Assembly, only that they set to work in
such sledgehammer fashion, that the carrying out their work became
extremely troublesome and difficult. Too abstract in their notions to
estimate difficulties of detail in changing the framework of
jurisprudence. De Tocqueville said philosophers must always originate
laws, but men used to active practical life ought to undertake to direct
the transition from old to new arrangements. The Constituent Assembly did
prodigious things in the way of clearing the ground of past abominations.
Napoleon had the talent of making their work take effect; understood
administrative science, but rendered the centralising principle far too
predominant, in the view to consolidate his own power afterwards. France
has felt this, to her cost, ever since.
Habit formerly (i.e. 300 years back) as prevalent in France as it is in
England of gentlemen of moderate fortune residing wholly or by far the
greater part of the year on their estates. They ceased to do so from
the time when the sovereign took from them all local authority, from the
fifteenth century or so. The French country-houses were excessively
thickly dotted over the land even up to the year 1600; quantities pulled
down after that period. Country life becoming flat after the gentlemen
ceased to be of importance in their political relations with their
districts, they gave up rural habits and took to living in the provincial
towns.
De Tocqueville had many conversations with M. Royer Collard respecting
the events of 1789. Difficult to get much out of men of our period
relative to their own early manhood. His own father (now 82) much less
capable of communicating details of former _régime_ than might have been
supposed. Because, says De Tocqueville, youths of eighteen to twenty
hardly ever possess the faculty or the inclination to note social
peculiarities. They accept what they find going, and scarcely give a
thought to the contemplation of what is familiar to them and of every
day's experience. Royer Collard was a man of superior mind: had a great
deal to relate. De Tocqueville used to pump him whenever an opportunity
occurred. Knew Danton well, used to discuss political affairs with him.
When revolution was fairly launched, saw him occasionally. Danton was
venal to the last degree; received money from the Court over and over
again; 'agitated,' and was again sopped by the agents of Marie
Antoinette. When matters grew formidable (in 1791) Royer Collard was
himself induced to become an agent or go-between of the Court for buying
up Danton. He sought an opportunity, and after some prefatory
conversations Royer Collard led Danton to the point. 'No,' said Danton,
'I cannot listen to any such suggestions now. Times are altered. It is
too late. 'Nous le détrônerons et puis nous le tuerons,' added he in an
emphatic tone. Royer Collard of course gave up the hope of succeeding.
Danton's passion for a young girl, whom he married, became his ruin.
While he was honeymooning it by some river's margin, Robespierre got the
upper hand in the Assembly, and caused him to be seized--_mis en
jugement_--and soon afterwards guillotined. The woman did not know, it is
affirmed, that it was Danton who set the massacres of 1792 agoing; she
thought him a good-hearted man. He set all his personal enemies free out
of their prisons prior to the commencement of the massacres; wishing to
be able to boast of having spared his enemies, as a proof that he was
actuated by no ignoble vengeance, but only by a patriotic impulse. He
was a low, mean-souled fanatic, who had no clear conception of what he
was aiming at, but who delighted in the horrid excitement prevailing
around him. It was Tallien who had the chief share in the deposition of
Robespierre and the transactions of the 9th thermidor. Madame Tallien was
then in prison, and going to be executed in a few days (she was not yet
married to Tallien then). She wrote, by stealth of course, a few emphatic
words, with a toothpick and soot wetted, to Tallien which nerved him to
the conflict, and she was saved. Talleyrand told De Tocqueville she was
beyond everything captivating, beautiful, and interesting. She afterwards
became the mistress of Barras, and finally married the Prince de Chimay.
De Tocqueville has been at Voré, Helvetius' château in La Perche--a fine
place, and Helvetius lived _en seigneur_ there. A grand-daughter of
Helvetius married M. de Rochambeau, uncle, by mother's side, of Alexis:
so that the great-grandchildren are De Tocqueville's first cousins.
In the 'Souvenirs' of M. Berryer (_père_) he describes the scene of the
9th thermidor, in which he was actively concerned in the interest of the
Convention, and saw Robespierre borne past him with his shattered jaw
along the Quai Pelletier. Also went to the terrace of the Tuileries
gardens to assure himself that Robespierre was really executed the next
day; heard the execrations and shouts which attended his last moments,
but did not stay to witness them. Release of the Duchess of St. Aignan,
under sentence of death, by his father.
_February_ 18.--A. de Tocqueville came to see me, and we walked out for
half-an-hour. He said he had now spent over eight months in a seclusion
such as he had never experienced in his whole life. That, partly his
own debilitated health, partly the impaired state of his wife's general
powers (nervous system inclusive), partly the extreme aversion he felt
for public affairs and the topics of the day connected with politics; all
these considerations had determined him upon withdrawing himself from
society for a certain space, and _that_ to a considerable distance from
all his friends and relations. A physician, also of widely extended fame
(Dr. Brittonneau), happening to reside close to where they have lodged
themselves, formed an additional link in the chain of motives for
settling themselves at Tours. M. de Tocqueville had some misgivings at
first as to whether, after passing twenty years in active public life,
and in the frequent society of men who occupied the most distinguished
position in the political world, as well as of others not less eminent in
that of letters; whether, he said, the monotony and stillness of his new
mode of life would not be too much for his spirits and render his mind
indolent and depressed. 'But,' said he, 'I have been agreeably reassured.
I have come to regard society as a thing which I can perfectly well do
without. I desire nothing better than to occupy myself, as I have been
doing, with the composition of a work which I am in hopes will travel
over somewhat other than beaten ground. I have found many materials for
my purpose in this spot, and the pursuit has got hold of me to a degree
which renders intellectual labour a source of pleasure; and I prosecute
it steadily, unless when my health is out of order; which, happily, does
not occur so frequently since the last three or four months. My wife's
company serves to encourage me in my work, and to cheer me in every
respect, since an entire sympathy subsists between us, as you know; we
seem to require no addition, and our lives revolve in the most inflexible
routine possible. I rise at half-past five, and work seriously till
half-past nine; then dress for _déjeûner_ at ten. I commonly walk
half-an-hour afterwards, and then set to on some other study--usually of
late in the German language--till two P.M., when I go out again and walk
for two hours, if weather allows. In the evenings I read to amuse myself,
often reading aloud to Madame de Tocqueville, and go to bed at ten P.M.
regularly every night.'
'Sometimes,' said De Tocqueville, 'I reflect on the difference which may
be discerned between the amount of what a man can effect by even the most
strenuous and well-directed efforts, whether as a public servant or as a
leading man in political life, and what a writer of impressive books has
it in his power to effect. It is true that a man of talent and courage
may acquire a creditable position, may exercise great influence over
other individuals engaged in the same career, and may enjoy a certain
measure of triumphant success in cases where he can put out his strength.
At the same time it strikes me that the best of these exaggerates
immensely the amount of good which he has been able to effect. I look
back upon prodigiously vivid passages in various public men's lives, in
this century, with a melancholy reflection of how little influence their
magnificent efforts have really exercised over the march of human
affairs. A man is apt to believe he has done great things when his
hearers and contemporaries are strongly affected, either by a powerful
speech, or an animated address, or an act of opportune courage, or the
like. But, if we investigate the positive amount of what the individual
has effected in the way of bettering or advancing the general interests
of mankind, by personal exertion on the public stage, I regret to say I
can find hardly an instance of more than a transient, though beneficial,
flash of excitement produced on the public mind. I do not here speak of
men invested with great power--princes, prime ministers, popes, generals
and the like. Of course _they_ produce lasting traces of their _power_,
whether it be for good or evil; and, indeed, _individuals_ have on their
side considerable power to work _mischief_, though not often to work
good. I begin to think that a man not invested with a considerable amount
of political _power_ can do but little good by slaving at the oar of
independent political action. Now, on the contrary, what a vast effect a
_writer_ can produce, when he possesses the requisite knowledge and
endowments! In his cabinet, his thoughts collected, his ideas well
arranged, he may hope to imprint indelible traces on the line of human
progress. What orator, what brilliant patriot at the tribune, could ever
effect the extensive fermentation in a whole nation's sentiments achieved
by Voltaire and Jean Jacques?
'I have certainly seen reason to change some of my views on social facts,
as well as some reasonings founded on imperfect observation. But the
_fond_ of my opinions can never undergo a change--certain irrevocable
maxims and propositions _must_ constitute the basis of thinking minds.
How such changes can come about as I have lived to see in some men's
states of opinion is to me incomprehensible. Lafayette was foolish enough
to give his support to certain conspiracies--certainly to that of
Béfort's, in Alsace. What folly! to seek to upset a despotism by the
agency of the _soldiery_, in the nineteenth century!'