HISTORY

OF

CIVILIZATION IN FRANCE,

From the Fall of the Roman Empire.

LECTURE THE FIRST.

Object of the course-Two methods of studying in detail the history of European civilization-Reasons for preferring the study of the history of the civilization of a particular country-Reasons for studying that of France-Of the essential facts which constitute the perfection of civilization - Comparison of the great European nations under this point of view Of civilization in England-Germany-Italy-SpainFrance French civilization is the most complete, and offers the most faithful representation of civilization in general-That the student has other things to bear in mind besides the mere study-Of the present prevailing tendencies in the intellectual order Of the prevailing tendencies in the social order-Two problems resulting therefromTheir apparent contradiction-Our times are called upon to solve them -A third and purely moral problem, rendered equally important by the present state of civilization-The unjust reproaches of which it is the object-The necessity of meeting them-All science, in the present day, exerts a social influence-All power should tend to the moral per fection of the individual, as well as to the improvement of society in general

MANY of you will call to mind the nature and aim of a course of lectures which were brought to a close some months since. That course was cursory and of a general nature. I then attempted, in a very short period of time, to place before you an historical view of European civilization.

I hastened, as it were, from point to point, confining myself strictly to general facts and assertions, at the risk of being sometimes misunderstood and perhaps discredited.

Necessity, as you know, imposed this method upon me; but in spite of this necessity I should have been much pained by the inconveniences which arose from it, had I not foreseen that in a future course I should be enabled to remedy it; and had I not proposed to myself, at the time, to complete, at some future period, the outline which I then traced, and of leading you to the general results which I placed before you, by the same path which I myself had followed, an attentive and complete study of the facts. Such is the end at which I now aim.

Two methods offer themselves as tending to the attainment of the proposed end. I might either recommence the course of last summer, and review the general history of European civilization in its whole extent, by giving in detail that which it was impossible to give in mass, and by again passing over with more leisurely steps that ground which before was gone over in almost breathless haste. Or I might study the history of civilization in a single great country, in one of the principal European nations in which it has been developed, and thus, by confining the field of my researches, be the better enabled thoroughly to explore it.

The first method seemed to offer serious inconveniences. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to maintain any unity in a history with so extensive a range, and which, at the same time should be perfect in all its details. We discovered last summer, that there was a true unity running through European civilization; but this unity is only visible in general actions and grand results. We must ascend the highest mountain before the petty inequalities and diversities of the surface will become invisible, and before we can discover the general aspect, and the true and essential nature of the entire country. When we quit general facts and wish to look into particulars, the unity vanishes, the diversities again appear, and in the variety of occurrences one loses sight of both causes and effects; so that to give a detailed history, and still to preserve some harmony, it is absolutely necessary to narrow the field of inquiry.

There is also another great objection to this method, in the immense extent and diversity of knowledge which it presupposes and requires both in the speaker and his audience. Those who wish to trace with moderate accuracy the course of European civilization should have a sufficiently intimate acquaintance, not only with the events which have passed among each people, with their history, but likewise with their language, literature, and philosophy, in short, with all phases of their career; a work which is evidently almost impossible, and certainly so in the time which we could spend upon it.

It appears to me, that by studying the history of civilization in one great European nation, I shall arrive more quickly at the desired result. The unity of the narrative will then, indeed, be compatible with details; there is in every country a certain national harmony, which is the result of the community of manners, laws, language, and events, and this harmony is imprinted in the civilization. We may pass from fact to fact without losing sight of the whole picture. And lastly, though I will not say that it can easily be done, it is yet possible to combine the knowledge necessary for such a work.

I have therefore decided upon this second method, upon that of abandoning the general history of European civilization, in all the nations which have contributed thereto, and confining myself to the civilization of one country, which, if we note the differences between it and other countries, may become, for our purpose, an image of the whole destiny of Europe.

The choice of method being once made, that of a nation casily follows; I have taken the history and civilization of France. I shall certainly not deny having experienced a sensation of pleasure while making this choice. No one will deny that the emotions of patriotism are legitimate, provided they be sanctioned by truth and reason. Some there are, in the present day, who seem to fear that patriotismı suffers much from the enlargement of ideas and sentiments, arising from the actual state of European civilization; they predict that it will become enervated, and lose itself in cosmopolitism. I cannot share such fears. In the present day, it will be with patriotism as with all human actions, feelings

and opinions. It is condemned, I admit, incessantly tc undergo the test of publicity, of inquiry and discussion; it is condemned no longer to remain a mere prejudice, habit, or a blind and exclusive passion; it must give a reason for itself. It will be oppressed by this necessity no more than any natural and legitimate feelings are; on the contrary, it will become refined and elevated. These are the tests to which it must submit, and it will soar above them. I can truly say, if any other history in Europe had appeared to me greater, more instructive, or better suited to represent the general course of civilization than that of France, I should have chosen it. But I have reasons for selecting France; independently of the special interest which its history has for us, France has long since been proclaimed by all Europe the most civilized of its nations. Whenever the opinion of the struggle has not been between the national all-love, when one seeks the true and disinterested opinion of people in the ideas and actions wherein it manifests itself indirectly, without taking the form of a controversy, we find that France is acknowledged to be the country in which civilization has appeared in its most complete form, where it has been most communicative, and where it has most forcibly struck the European imagination.

And we must not suppose, that the superiority of this country is solely attributable to the amenity of our social relations, to the gentleness of our manners, or to that easy and animated life which people so often come to seek among us. There can be no doubt that it partly arises from these attributes; but the fact of which I speak has more profound and universal causes: it is not a fashion, as might have been supposed when the question was concerning the civilization of the age of Louis XIV., neither is it a popular ebullition, as a view of our own times would lead us to suppose. The preference which the disinterested opinion of Europe accords to French civilization is philosophically just; it is the result of an instinctive judgment, doubtless in some measure confused, but well based, upon the essential elements and general nature of civilization.

You will call to mind the definition of civilization I attempted to give in the commencement of the former course of lectures. I there sought to discover what ideas attach

themselves to this word in the common sense of men. It appeared to me, on a reference to general opinion, that civilization essentially consists of two principles; the improvement of the exterior and general condition of man, and that of his inward and personal nature; in a word, in the improvement both of society and of humanity.

And it is not these two principles of themselves, which constitute civilization; to bring it to perfection, their intimate and rapid union, simultaneousness, and reciprocal action, are absolutely necessary. I showed that if they do not always arrive conjointly—that if, at one time, the improvement of society, and at another, that of individual man, progresses more quickly or extends further, they are not the less necessary the one to the other; they excite each other, and sooner or later will amalgamate. When one progresses for any length of time without the other, and when their union is long interrupted, a feeling of regret, and of a painful hiatus and incompleteness, seizes the spectators. If an important social improvement, a great progress in material well being is manifested among a people without being accompanied by intellectual improvement, or an analogous progression in mind; the social improvement seems precarious, inexplicable, and almost unjust. One asks what general ideas have produced and justified it, or to what principles it attaches itself. One wishes to assure oneself that it will not be limited to particular generations, to a single country; but that it will spread and communicate itself, and that it will fill every nation. And how can social improvement spread and communicate itself but by ideas, upon the wings of doctrines? Ideas alone mock at distance, pass over oceans, and everywhere make themselves received and comprehended. Besides, such is the noble nature of humanity, that it cannot see a great improvement in material strength, without aspiring to the moral strength which should be joined with it and direct it; something subordinate remains imprinted on social improvement, as long as it bears no fruit but mere physical prosperity, as long as it does not raise the mind of man to the level of his condition.

So, on the other hand, if any great intellectual improvement appears, unaccompanied by a social progress, one feels uneasy and surprised. It seems as if we saw a beautiful tree

T