The Research Agenda of Nineteenth Century French Liberal Historiography: The Political, Sociological, Economic and Cultural Dimension (1989)

“The Research Agenda of Nineteenth Century French Liberal Historiography: The Political, Sociological, Economic and Cultural Dimension (1989)”

By David M. Hart

[Created: 8 August, 1989]
[Revised: 25 October, 2024]

This is part of a collection of Papers by David M. Hart

Introduction

A Paper given at the Institute for Human Studies Advanced History Seminar, College of Notre Dame, San Mateo, California (8-15 August, 1989).

Introduction

When some commentators look back on 19thC social theory and historiography the picture they give is a worldview dominated by socialism and Marxism:

the condemnation of conditions in the factories
the immorality of the capitalist system generally (profit, money, private ownership)
the political and economic power of the bourgeoisie
the rise of the working class and labour/social democratic/socialist parties
the rivalries between the imperial powers and the inevitability of war.

This is grave mistake. To transfer intellectual dominance/hegemony of statism (particulary socialism and Marxism) in the first 75 years of 20th C back into the past. Although socialism emerged in early 19thC (Robert Owen, utopian socialists Fourier, Auguste Comte) and Marxism in mid 19thC (Marx's Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts,(1844); The German Ideology (1846); Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy (1858); volume 1 of Capital (1867)) not until late 19thC did socialism become powerful intellectual and political force. 1880s 1890s beginning of development of serious Marxist intellectual movement and political parties in Central and Eastern Europe. Hightide of socialism 50 years from 1890s to 1940s. Stimulated by WW1 and collapse of ancien regime monarchies, Russian revolutions, economic chaos of interwar period, rise of fascism, and WW2.

Truer picture of 19thC worldview (at least for 3/4 century) is hegemony/dominance of liberal social theory and historiography. Origins in Enlightenment in mid 18thC. Political victories in American Revolution, early stages of Fr Rev. Height reached during period of economic deregulation and political reform in 1830s, 1840s, 1850s. Declined in 1870s and 1880s with rise of nationalism, imperialism, socialism, welfare state. Near total collapse in 1914 with total war and "war socialism."

My lecture deals with liberal social theory and historiography when it was at its height: 1800 to 1850s. Deal with French contribution because unjustly neglected. If leading works of classical political economy written in English by Anglo and Scots, if classics of Marxism in German by central and eastern Europeans, liberal social theory and historiography in French.

Why were French (and French speakers - inlcuding many Swiss, Italians, Russians) particularly interested in social theory and history? Direct result of 2 factors:

1. strength of Enlightenment in 18thC France. E reaction against power and corruption of ancien régime (absolute monarchy, landed nobility). Gave rise to theories of

constitutionalism
separation of powers
civic rights
religious toleration
opposition to war
free markets (Physiocrats)

2. French Revolutions and rise of Napoleon Bonaparte. Need to explain sequence of revolutions from liberal constitutional to totalitarian Jacobin terror culminating in "usurper and conqueror" (Constant's expression) of NB and restoration of monarchy. Need to explain continuing social instability throughout 19thC France (until 3rd Republic constitution of 1875). Developed theories of

the problem of Revolution
representative government and democracy
class and class exploitation
the historical rise of middle class/Third Estate
origin of representative institutions
contrast between industry (productive) and the state (parasitic),
militarism
culture/civilisaton

The Liberal Research Agenda for Social Theory and History 1800-1850

Agenda of French liberal historiography in early 19thC 4 dimension:

1. Political dimension - the problem of revolution in England in 17thC and France in 18thC. Struggle for consitutional and representative government. Rise of democracy, especially in America (limited by constitution and Bill of Rights) and France (often unlimited).
2. Sociological dimension - history as class conflict. Rise of middle class or Tiers État, origin of class structure in conquest, analysis of ancien régime, "place-seeking" in 18th and 19th C, class structure of slavery. Problem of militarism/Bonapartism.
3. Economic dimension - idea of stage theory of economic development culminating in new era of industry, mode of production influences social, political structures and belief.
4. Cultural dimension - individual political and economic freedom has cultural repercussions, literary history, historical novels, and idea of "civilisation".

1. The Political Dimension

The Problem of Revolution - England in the 17th Century and France

Not surprising that revolution topic of much interest in 19thC. Great hope of creating a liberal constitutional republic with abolition of absolute monarchy, serfdom, slavery, and protection of civic rights (freedom speech, security of person and property) dashed by succession of setbacks: interventions in economy to continue war against conservative alliance (requisitions, paper money inflation, taxation, price controls), persecution and execution of suspected internal enemies (Terror), suspension of civic rights (free speech). War against external enemies of the revolution led to imperialist war of conquest to impose revolutionary regimes on rest of Europe. Rise of military dictator out of chaos of war. Counter-revolution of NB: end of representative parliamentary government, end of divorce, reimposition of slavery and return of new aristocracy.

Germaine de Staël

Of one the first to analyse turbulent period of Fr Rev and to draw lessons from it was Germaine de Staël, Considérations sur la Révolution française (began work 1812, died 1817, published 1818). Germaine Necker (married name Staël) (1774-1817) daughter of banker Jacques Necker, who as Director General of Finance attempted (but ultimately failed) to introduce much needed economic reforms in ancien régime. GS was a leading liberal during dark years of liberalism after defeat of Girondin faction in 1793 to overthrow of Napoleon 1814-15. Outspoken critic of Napoleon's military dictatorship. Works on literature censored. Sought refuge in Switzerland where she established famous liberal salon at chateau Coppet. Attended by B Constant, Simonde de Sismondi.

Considerations first attempt to see rev in totality as great social movement with roots going back centuries. Not just accident or momentary event. GS's view of rev:

1. Compared to English Revolution 1640-1689. English Rev otherthrew absolute monarchy and created monarchy limited by constitution. Established so-called "English Liberties". Model for many Fr liberals in 18th and 19th C.
2. Defended father's attempts to reform finances of ancien régime. Rev not inevitable but could have been prevented if decadent and bankrupt ancien régime had been willing to accept reforms. Rigidity and stupidity of nobility and crown.
3. To secure liberties Fr needed a constitution modelled on British. Attempts to go beyond individual freedom (i.e. social justice, redistribution, control of economy) led to tyranny. Freedom of speech essential.
4. Horror of dictatorship of Terror and Napoleon. Violation of most basic freedoms. Enormous social and economic costs.
5. War led to military dictatorship. The military successes of the Directory led to the seizing of power of the most prestigious general. NB's empire a "counter-revolution" which undid many of liberal gains of first stage of Fr Rev.

Themes which liberals returned to throughout 19thC:

1. liberties in England, America, France achieved through revolution
2. importance of consitution to limit state power
3. condemnation of fanaticism and political theories of interventionism which lead to Terror
4. condemnation of war - leads to social and economic chaos and to dictatorship

Augustin Thierry

Another liberal who made much of the comparative study of revolutions was Augustin Thierry (1795-1856). private secretary to Saint-Simon 1813 and collaborated in writing some important works on the state of European society Eventually broke with SS and joined liberal journal Le censeur européen edited by CC and CD. Wrote series of articles 330 pp long on Fr and English Revs for Le Censeur européen 1817-19, "Vues des révolutions d'Angleterre". Cromwell's rebellion and Restoration of Stuart Monarchy seen as achetype of Fr Rev. major difference was that English rev entered fianl stage denied to Fr: 1688 end of Stuarts and new limited monarchy Fr Rev in 1819 stuck at earlier stage of revolutionary cycle: restoration of old monarchy and attempt to reintroduce privileges of old nobility and church.

Thierry idea that revolutions go through a cycle of liberation, tyranny and restoration. Sociology of revolutions. Britain had been able to break free of cycle. France had not.

Alexis de Tocqueville

Probably the most famous liberal interpretation of the Rev is that by Alexis de Tocqueville. He planned to write a full history but lived only long enough to finish the first volume The Old Regime and the Revolution (1856) and some incomplete fragments. AT from Normandy of aristocratic parents. Trained as a magistrate, independent liberal member of Chamber of Deputies, served on important government inquiries into prison reform (reason for his trip to US), wrote on American democracy, poverty, abolition of slavery.

Important aim of book ORR was to examine peculiar nature of Fr interventionist state (expression AT used was "political and administrative centralisation"). Although early stages of Fr Rev attempted to reduce interventionism, later stages accelerated process. AT believed that revolution was not a complete break with past. Stressed continuities across revolution, e.g. political centralisation was not product of Rev and Napoleonic Empire but had deep roots in French history.

It is incorrect to assert that centralisation was produced by the French revolution: the revolution brought it to perfection, but did not create it. The mania for centralisation and government regulations dates from the time when jurists began to take a share in the government of Philippe-le-Bel.... The fact is that for several centuries past the central power of France has done everything it could to extend central administration; it has acknowledged no other limits than its own strength. The central power to which the revolution gave birth made more rapid advances than any of its predecessors, because it was stronger and wiser than they had been; Louis XIV committed the welfare of such communities to the caprice of an intendant; Napoleon left them to that of the minister. The same principle governed both...(J.P. Mayer, Alexis de Tocqueville, p.68. From noer in vol. 1 of Democracy in America.)

ORR develops this theme at some length. AT provides a brilliant and original account of the administrative and political structure of Fr under the old regime

1. process by which centralisation destroyed independence of provinces. End of power of "intermediate authorities" between citizen and the state.
2. remnants of independence remained with corporations and judiciary
3. impoverishment of nobility (unlike British nobility unable or unwilling to use capitalistic practices to make land productive)
4. rise of bourgeoisie
5. unjust and unequal tax structure and state debts were most immediate cause of outbreak of revolution
6. sociology of 18th century men of letters

AT is marvellous sociologist and historian of Revolutions in general. His analysis of the reason for the initially liberal Fr Rev turning into a tyranny is useful and applicable in analysing 20th century Marxist and socialist revolutions. In a statist society in which little remains for private initiative all reform is seen to come from the state. Competition to seize state and apply one's pet scheme for reform.

During the 18th century the central power had not as yet developed the health, robust constitution which it has today. All the same, since by then it had succeeded in eliminating all intermediate authorities and since there was a vast gulf between the government and the private citizen, it was accepted as being the only source of energy for the maintenance of the social system, and as such, indespensable to the life of the nation.

This is borne out even in the writings of its bitterest adversaries. In the long period of rankling unrest and rising discontent preceding the Revolution all sorts of schemes were worked up for the establishment of a new social order and a new method of government. The ends proposed by the reformers varied greatly, but the means were always the same. They wished to make use of the central power, as it stood, for shattering the whole social structure and rebuilding it on lines that to them seemed desirable. For, to their thinking, only the central authority could bring this "ideal State" into being and ther should be no limit to its might, as there was none to its right....

Such notions were not confined to books; they had taken root in people's minds and were implicit in their ways of living; in fact, they entered into the very texture of everyday life throughout the country. (AT, On Democracy, Revolution, and Society, ed. John Stone et al, pp. 185-6.)

AT concludes that the Rev, far from dramatically changing the relationship between the individual and the state, reinforced tendancies of poltical and administrative centralisation which had existed in Fr society for centuries. In these circumstances not surprising that true political and individual freedom not achieved. Unfortunately AT never finished his history of the Fr Rev. We can only speculate what he might have written about other aspects.

The Emergence of Representative Government and Democracy

Fr liberals interested in limiting power of state and removing political and economic privileges of landed elite. Saw constitutions, representative government, and democracy as method by which this could occur. Thus considerable interest in origin of representative government from Middle Ages to present (Thierry and Sismondi), and operation of democracy in that other model of a liberal state the USA (Alexis de Tocqueville).

Augustin Thierry

Thierry believed struggle for individual liberty was not recent phenomenon but had been going on for centuries. Perhaps as old as struggle for independence of French municipalities ("communes") from crown since 12thC. Always ups and downs in struggle against state. Suggested that the French of 1820s not lose heart at recent setbacks. Get insight and strength from study of historical struggles. Need to realise that contemporary liberties result of past struggles or "the great work" to use Th's expression.

What were these small bourgeois societies scattered here and there like oases of the desert, in the midst of a population of peasants, too ignorant yet to sympathise with those who abjured slavery? Rather than thoughtlessly blame those who had gone on before us in the great work that we pursue with more fruit than our ancestors, and which nevertheless we will not finish, we consider over what obstacles the idea of liberty has triumphed in order to reach us; we realise that it has never ceased to give birth to, as in our own time, great joys and deepest regrets and this conviction helps us as courageous men to bear up under the ordeals that are in store for us. (Récits des Temps Mérovingiens (1840), I, pp. 444-5; quoted in Carroll, p. 58).

In a series of works Th studied history of the origin of the communes and the source of their independence. "Sur l'Affranchisement des Communes" written for Courrier Français, October 1820 and essays in Dix ans d'études historiques (1835).Argued freedom for towns achieved by challenging weak kings.and local feudal lords. Umilaterally declared themsevles free of feudal obligations, instigation of town bourgeoisie and artisans, insurrection, war often fought, after which payment to lord resulted in charter of freedom to come and go as they please, to buy and sell, bequeath property.

Th explicit about political purpose of his history of communes: to put present struggle for constitutional freedom in historical context:

Perhaps history has nothing to do with the modern conflict of ideas and interests, but if one persists in seeing these conflicts in an historical light, as is often done now, one can learn a great lesson. It is that no one is completely free from any one else; that there is not a single freedom that we have that is of a recent date; and that the present generation owes all that it has to the courage of the generations which have come before. (Lettres sur l'historie de France (1827), pp. xi-xii, quoted in Smithson, pp. 138-9).

Simonde de Sismondi

Th not alone in seeing political importance of history of muincipalites for modern conflicts. Shared by Swiss liberal historian SS who wrote on Italian republics during middle ages. Histoire des républiques italiennes au moyen âge (1807-1818), 16 vols. Participated in Madamde de Staël's salon at Coppet. Popularised Adam Smith's economic ideas in De la richesse commerciale (1803) and pioneering work on history of literature in southern Europe, De la littérature du midi de l'europe (1813). Wrote much on slavery and sefdom and leading abolitionist.

Whereas Th focused on history of French municipalities, SS dealt with Italy. Believed fluctuations in fortunes of Italian states due to relationship between government and individual freedom. Decline of liberty under Emporers led to end of ancient civilisation. Recovery of liberty by communes in middle ages led to renaissance of 12 and 13th centuries with economic prosperity, flowering of literature and culture. Decline of Italian civilisation as liberty eroded in 14th and 15th centuries.

S linked political liberty with economic prosperity and culture.

François Guizot

French conservative liberal politician in July Monarchy. Prime Minister, Minister for Foreign Affairs during 1840s. Also one of Fr's greatest historians of the 19th C. Pioneer in collection and publication of primary sources dealing with English Revolution and Fr Rev. Wrote histories of the origin of representative government in Europe, the History of the English Revolution, The History of Civilisation in Europe, The History of Civilisation in France.

In the Histoire des origines du gouvernement représentatif en Europe, which began as series of lectures given in 1820-22 (at the Sorbonne for which FG lost his post), believes struggle for individual liberty and rep. govt was a European-wide phenomenon which began in 5thC, but which reached apogee in Britain after 1688. In 1st lecture FG asserts search for rep govt one of the things which defines a specifically European political culture or civilisation. Purpose is to counter arguments of conservatives who opposed rep. govt because it was a product of the Fr Rev. FG attempts to show it is not tainted by the Rev but has long and honourable history going back centuries.

Almost everywhere (throughout the whole of Europe) the representative form of government is demanded, allowed, or established. This fact is, assuredly, neither an accident, nor the symptom of a transient madness. It has certtainly its roots in the past ...and...we shall everywhere meet with attempts, more or less successful, either made with a conscious regard to this system so as to produce it naturally, or striving to attain it by the subjugation of contrary forces. England, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany and Sweden, supply us with numerous illustrations of this....

...it is evident, both from ancient facts and from those we ourselves have witnessed, that the representative form of government has, so to speak, constantly hovered over Europe, ever since the founding of modern states. Its reappearance at so many times and in so many places, is not to be accounted for by the charm of any theory, or the power of any conspiracy... it has existed in European society as the basis of all its deepest wants and most enduring tendancies... Indeed, ever since the birth of modern societies,... the representative form of government... has constantly loomed more or less distincly in the distance, as the port at which they must at length arrive, in spite of the storms that scatter them, and the obstacles which confront and oppose their entrance. (in Mellon collectiion, pp. 28-9).

If rep govt "hovers over" European history it took root in Britain, which serves as a model for 19thC European society. In second part of lectures FG discusses British govt.

Here, in effect, history... presents itself with the greatest simplicty and richness. ..Here, in fine, representative government, the special object of our study, developed without interruption, received into its bosom and fertilised its alliance with the religious movement imparted to the Europe in the 16thC, and thus become the starting point of the political reformation which is now beginning on the Continent. (Mellon, 84).

Alexis de Tocqueville

While some liberals saw England as pinnacle towards which Europe should strive others thought America was a picture of the future. EG AT's Democarcy in America (1835-1840) brilliant piece of historical sociology.

I confess that in America I saw more than America; I sought an image of democracy itself, of its inclinations, character, prejudices and passions, in order to learn what we have to fear or to hope from its progress. (quoted in Lively, p. 71)

Feared excessive individualism and democracy would lead to isolation of individual, neglect of civic duties, decline of "intermediate authorities" such as church, aristocracy, communities; possiblity of oppressive govt being unchecked or new "tryanny of democratic majorities". Observations of American led him to drastically lessen his fears of democracy. When combined with social mores of post-revolutionary America democracy and individualism not so threatening. Majorities limited by constitution and bill of rights.

Political and administrative decentralisation in US led to very samll govt accountable to people. Virtual absence of public authority meant there was not scramble for power and political favours. Lack of standing army meant taxes were low, little need for central govt, and no enemies. Free press exposed error of govt. Citizens used to doing things for themselves, eg. raise money and build own church instead of petitioning govt bureaucracy as in France. Concluded nation was made up entirely of merchants buying and selling.

Aim of book was to show how democracy and liberty had been combined in America. Countered radical Jacobin and socialist democrats that democracy only functionined in America because individual liberties protected by constitution. Countered arguments of anti-democratic conservatives with idea that democracy did not lead to chaos and anarchy, that individualsim created own spontaneous order, that it was inevitable and had to be accepted.

2. The Sociological Dimension

Class Analysis in History

As Marx frankly acknowledged the Fr liberal historians were pioneers in the development of class analysis. Idea that history invloves the conflict between different social classes over access to the political and economic privileges disbursed by the state. Examples:

1. Augustin Thierry believed origin of class was racial. e.g conquest of Gauls (serfs) by Franks (nobles)
2. Thierry one of most important events in history was emergence of Tiers État or middle class.
3. Charles Comte and Charles Dunoyer's historical analysis of slavery as method of economic exploitation of productive class by unproductive.
4. Charles Dunoyer's analysis of contemporary France since Rev as struggle of political "place-seekers" for access to state power

Augustin Thierry

The source of Th's class analysis was belief that France was made up of 2 nations: the Franks from whom the nobility traced their roots, and the people (Gauls those conquered by Franks, who later became the serfs, then third estate, and last modern bourgeoisie). Th came to conclusion that wherever servitude existed it was result of conquest and class domination by conquerors. Applied theory to France and England, Histoire de la conqête de l'Angleterre par les Normands (1st ed. 1825; 10th ed. 1856). All great modern states founded on force/conquest and exploitation of one class by another. Although the racial aspect of his class analysis is no longer tenable Th stimulated liberal discussion of class analysis of history.

Since Th interested in the lives and welfare of those conquered rather than the elite conquerers emphasis of his history is on the common people, "everyman and everywoman". In introduction to Hist ConquAnglNorm:

The essential purpose of this history is to examine the collective destiny of peoples, and not that of certain famous or infamous individuals. It is to relate the adventures of social life rather than of individual life. Our sympathy can be extended to entire populations as well as to those special individuals endowed with particular talents....Considered from this point of view the history of the past assumes some of the interest which we reserve for the present time. The collective beings which history reveals to us have not ceassed to live and to feel. They are the same as as those who presently suffer and hope under our very eyes.(quoted in Smithson, 101)

Another task was to preserve the record of those who had been destroyed by class exploitation, sometimes entire races, and to document crimes committed against them.

I propose therefore to expose in the greatest detail the national struggle which followed the coquest of England by the Normans who had been established in Gaul; to show in everything which can be traced in history, the hostile relations of these two people violently united on the same soil. (Smithson, p. 102).

The Rise of the Third Estate

Th continued class analysis in Essai sur l'histoire de la formation et des progrès du tiers état (1851-56). Commissioned by Guizot to collect documents about Third Estate. Believed TE was motivating force behind rise and liberatioon of communes in middle ages, the Fr Rev of 1789 and 1830. Defines TE as "the whole nation with the exception of the nobility and the clergy" (Carroll, p. 61), means all those who work productively and buy and sell the products of their own labour, i.e. bourgeoisie, artisans, and commercially-minded peasants who sell on market. TE served to weld nation of two races (conquerors and conquered) into unity. TE become a new nation seeking civil rights and unfettered econmic freedom in the towns, seeking to destroy class structure of nobility and serfdom.

The bourgeoisie, a new nation, whose usages are civil authority and unfettered industry, raises itself up between the nobility and serfdom, and forever destroys the social duality of the early feadual times. Its innovating instincts, its activity, the capital which it accumulates, are forces which react in a thousand ways against the power of the possessors of the soil; and, as in the beginnings of all civilisations, the movement commences with urban life. (Carroll, p. 62)

Th traces the rise of the TE to the 11th and 12thC. Political consequence was independence of the communes. Legal manifestation was growth of courts staffed with bourgeois lawyers, the Parlements (especially of Paris). Estates General dominated by TE and ultimately played crucial role in Fr Rev of 1789. Th calls it "the instrument of the revolution of 1789" (Carroll, p. 72).

The Class Structure of Slavery

CC (1782-1837) and CD (1786-1862) liberal journalists, academics, politicians and magistrates famous for opposition to press censorship and writings on law, property, and class analysis. In a series of works in 1820s developed theory of the evolution of society in which class exploitation played a major role. Particularly interested in class structure of slavery because slavery most dramatic form of exploitation of labour of others, common feature of European society for 2,000 years, France involved in political movement to abolish slavery in colonies in 1820s.

CC in Traité de législation (1827) concentrated on how slavery evolved in ancient Greek and Roman world. Argued that slavery crippled Roman economic development, lack of incentives for slaves to learn skills, be productive. Masters disdained work and did not innovate. Believed slavery had profound impact on political, legal and "moral" development. Politically slavery created a ruling class with immense wealth which dominated ancient society. Wars fought to maintain supply of cheap slave labour. Legally sullied Roman law because property law corrupted with onership of other people. France and other European nations inhereited this corrupted Roman law: no concept of equality of rights, no protection for individual or products of his labour. Morally slavery brutalised society, broke up families, power of master to punish, mutilate or kill slaves, destroyed fabric of slave families and work ethic.

CC and CD deveolped ideas on slavery to include historical analysis of slave and serf societies from Romans, through middle ages to modern slavery in Americas. Assisted development of contrast between productive and unproductive labour. Idea of unproductive ruling elite living off labour of slave/serf/taxpayer. Constant tension between two classes. Potential for violent conflict always present until exploitation ended. European society could not be reformed until all vestiges of slavery (in law, politics and public attitudes) eliminated.

Militarism

Failure of liberal revolution and rise of military dictator Napoleon led liberals to examine nature of militarism. Important early work by Benjamin Constant, The Spirit of Conquest and Usurpation and their Relation to European Civilization (1814). BC liberal opponent of Napoleon, attended Madame de Staël's salon at Coppet, lover of MdS, drafted constituion of 1814, member of chamber of deputies in Restoration, prominent journalist.

Spirit of Conquest prophetic work analsysing new form of statism known as "Bonapartism" with charismatic ruler apparently using revolutionary reforms to create unfree society by appealing to popular support. Applicable to Bismarck's German Empire, Europe conquered by Hitler, Stalin, and many other 20th century rulers. Contrasted rule of usurper (modern) with that of a despot (traditional). Napoleon as usurper new phenomenon quite unlike older forms of despotism.

Despotism does away with all forms of liberty; usurpation in order to bring about the overthrow of what it seeks to replace, has need of these forms, but in securing them it profanes them. The existence of public sentiment being dangerous to it, and the appearance of public sentiment being necessary to it, it strikes the people with one hand to stifle any real sentiment, and it strikes them again with the other to compel them to the similacrum of a pretended sentiment.

When a great Sovereign sends one of his ministers in disgrace to the scaffold, the executioner, like the victims, does his part in silence. When a usurper condemns innocence, he orders calumny so that, repeated, it will appear to be the judgement of the nation.

The despot forbids discussion and exacts only obedience; the usurper decrees a ridiculous investigation as the prelude to approval. This counterfeit of liberty combines all the evils of anarchy and slavery. There is no end of slavery which wants to drag forth tokens of consent. Peaceable men are persecuted for indifference, energetic men for being dangerous.

It is usurpation that has invented the pretended sanction of the people, those speeches of adherence, a monotonous tribute that in every age the same men lavish on the most contradictory causes. Who does not feel that the more a government is oppressive the more quickly the terrified citizens will hasten to pay it homage in their enthusiasm for command? Do you not see beside the registers that each signs with a trembling hand the informers and soldiers? Do you not hear the proclamations declaring those whose voting would be negative, seditious or rebellious? What is this questioning of a people, surrounded by dungeons and under the sway of the arbitrary, but an effort to obtain a list from the adversaries of the government so as to recognize and strike them at leisure?

Despotism stifles freedom of the press, usurpation parodies it. Now when the freedom of the press is altogether suppressed public opinion may slumber, but nothing leads it astray. On the other hand, when bribed writers take possession of it, they argue, as though it were a question of convincing, they fly into a passion, as though there were any chance of replying. Their absurd defamations presage savage condemnations; their fierce jestings announce illegal condemnations. Their exhibitions would have us believe that their victims are resisting...

In a word, despotism reigns by silence and allows man the right to remain still. Usurpation condemns him to speak, it pursues him into the sanctuary of his thought, and by forcing him to lie to his conscience, deprives him of the only consolation that remains to the oppressed. When a people have only been enslaved without also having been degraded, there is still the possibility that they may attain a better state of things. If some happy circumstances should reveal it, they show themselves worthy of it. Despotism leaves man that chance... But usurpation debases a people at the time that it oppresses them. (quoted in Dodge, pp. 24-5).

Besides offering this remarkable analysis of modern totalitarian regimes BC also develops a theory of liberty to make sense of the profound differences between ancient military societies (such as Periclean Athens and ancient Rome) and modern commercial society. War and commerce only two different ways of achieving the same thing - wealth. Military means of acquiring wealth suited to savage societies. Commerce suited to more civilised nations. This distinction also is a theory of history which was common to many French liberals and a theory of liberty (ancient vs modern liberty - Isaiah Berlin's essay on the two concepts of liberty - positive and negative).

Ancient societies based on slave labour, supported an elite of citizens who disdained commerce and industry and sought glory and wealth through military conquest. Ancient concept of liberty - non citizens excluded from decision making, freedom consisted in participation (voting) in decision making. No limit on what polis could vote to do. Exile, kill, confiscate property.

Modern commercial society culitivates peaceful values, requires peace to trade and produce, values all productive members of society. War is greatest calamity. Modern liberty is freedom to enjoy one's property and to trade and produce in whatever way one chooses. Right to participate less important than being left alone by state.

BC criticised Rousseauean democrats for advocating ancient form of liberty no longer appropriate to modern commercial society. BC advocated representative govt with strict constitution to limited power of state and protect individual.

3. The Economic Dimension

BC's idea that society had entered new stage was common to liberal historians. Variously described as era of commerce, of industry, industrialism. Contrasted with earlier stages: era of monopoly, slavery.

Economic perspective developed in variety of forms. Many works of liberal political economy had substantial historical sections dealing with the origins of protectionism, taxation, money, colonialism, slavery. EG leading French pol economist Jean-Baptiste Say in Traité d'économie politique (1st ed. 1803); Cours complet d'économie politique pratique (1828). Simonde de Sismondi, De la richesse commerciale. Also in works such as CC's Traité de législation (1837), Triaté de la propriété (1834) and CD's L'Industrie et la morale considérées dans leurs rapports avec la liberté (1825) and De la liberté du travail (1845). Could be described as political and economic sociology with a strong historical emphasis.

CD developed a theory of economic development of society through stages. Common interpretation in 18thC. Turgot and physiocrats had a 4 stage model of social evolution:

1. hunting and gathering
2. shepherding
3. agriculture
4.commerce.

CD refined 4 stage theory in several ways. Stronger emphasis on idea that particular mode of production in each stage influenced social, political and intellectual structure. Believed that a new, qualitatively different mode of production had emerged in late 18th early 19th C, viz. manufacturing or "industry." Identified following economic stages with corresponding class structure through which European society had developed:

1. state of savagery, i.e. hunting and gathering. Warrior class of males
2. nomadism, i.e. shepherding. Warrior and priestly class
3. agriculture based on slavery. Slave-owning class.
4. agriculture based on serfdom. Feudal lords.
5 Agriculture and commerce with "place-seeking" or purchase of office in state bureaucracy under ancien régime.
6. industrialism with withering away of the state, possibly anarchism

The Theory of Industrialism

After having analysed the historical development of economic stages from the earliest period in human history to the present, CD attempted to predict the future course of economic development by extrapolating into the near future. Believed history showed way to future and gave some clues as to what it would look like. Basically laissez-faire, voluntary associations, no govt or next to none.

Final stage was "industrialism" in which fully free market would operate. End of protection and subsidies to industry. Drastic cut in size and function of state. No class of political appointees and public servants. No reason to lobby or bribe state since no longer had power to interfere in economy. Individuals all would pursue productive activities and exchange with others. Comprise class of "industrials." All associations between individuals would be voluntary. Legally property fully protected. Socially productive labour highly regarded. State activity shunned. Property of others full respected. War despised as completely immoral activity and no longer suited to higher stage of social development. "Industrials" would have a veritable "passion" for peace. An industrial society would have no class conflict and no need for war. Potential for unlimitied economic and intellectual development.

The range of destructive activities is by its nature limited. That of inoffensive labour and useful activities is in a sense unlimited. In a system of domination there needs to be a few skilled individuals and a multitude of mere intsruments. The industrial system has no need for men of limited abilities ("blind"). Instruction is not incompatable with any of its tasks which are best executed by men who are intelligent and enlightened. The ruler (dominateur) and his satellites live off a nation of victims which they keep in a state of misery and brutality.. Industry has no wish for victims. It reaches its greatest development (flower) when all men are as rich and as enlightened as possible. The ruler lives by pillaging and if all men wished to support themselves by the same means the human race would be condemned to extinction. Industry is essentially productive and lives off its own produce. Far from worrying whether industrous men will overpopulate the world we should reassure ourselves that, if all the world is allowed to work at useful tasks, we will see prosper as many men as there are men usefully occupied. (CD, Industrie et la morale, p. 332)

Believed America closest to ideal of "industrial"society. US had not gone whole way to becoming industrial society because of continuing threat of militaristic and imperialistic European nations. As industrialism is allowed to develop it will gradually force large political entities to break up into communities governed soley at the local level. Predicts that eventually break up of national states, end to national borders restricting flow of people, ideas and goods; no powerful central federal government, no state governments. Only small communities controlled directly by local people. Predicts industrialism will lead to "municipalisation of the world"

There is nothing in industry itself which requires such large political agglomerations (such as nation states). There is no business enterprise which requires the political union of 10, 20, or 30 million people. It is the spirit of domination which has formed these monstrous aggregations or at least made them necessary. It will be the spirit of industry which will dissolve them. One of industy's last, greatest, and most salutary effects will be to municipalise the world. (CD, IM, p. 366-7)

4. The Cultural Dimension

Liberal History and Literature

Liberal history also had profound effect on culture in early 19thC. Liberal history inspired flood of historical novels, drama and poetry. In particular interest in past oppression by ruling class of the common people, the class structure of prerevolutionary societies, the day-to-day lives of the common people.

Sismondi pioneer historian of the vernacular languages and literature of southern Europe (1813). Both he and Thierry believed literature an important source of information about earlier societies. Snobbery attached to study of classical languages (language of ruling elite), most historians ignored langauage and literature of common people. SS studied dialects of southern Spain, France and Italy and saw in their literature a mirror of their struggles for freedom and independence out of the chaos of the collapse of the Roman Empire and the oppression of feudalism.

Thierry much impressed by Sir Walter Scott's (1771-1832) novel Ivanhoe (1820) in its depiction of the everyday life in the middle ages and the class structure of English society. Both Scott and the historical dramas of Shakespeare influenced French literature in the restoration and July Monarchy. Revolution in literary taste (escaping restrictions of aristocratic tastes of 18thC society). Defending Shakespeare against traditionalists who viewed his writing as vulgar and coarse, was a revolutionary act.

Scott , Shakespeare, Thierry and liberal history in general inspired historical novels. EG

Victor Hugo (1802-85), although political views over his lifetime ranged from conservative, to liberal republican, to social democrat, liberal and humanitarian sentiments throughout his work. Historical tragedy Cromwell (1827) and novels: The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1831) realism presenting achitecture, atmosphere and social life of 15thC Paris, criticism of superstition. Les Misérables (conceived 1830s, published 1862) injustice of legal sytsem, crushes horourable liberal man Jean Valjean.

Alessandro Manzoni (1785-1873), although Italian much influenced by French history, politics, literature. The Betrothed (began 1821) set in 17thC in Spanish controlled Lombardy in 30 Years War. Story of two common people whose love is thwarted by unjust class system dominated by corrupt clergy and tyrannical landed nobles.

Stendhal (Marie Henri Beyle, 1783-1842) liberal Bonapartist. The Red and the Black (1830) brilliant analysis of class structure of France in 1820s, attempt by reactionary royalists to try to undo the benefits of the Rev (freedom of speech) and prevent rise of new talented and ambitious men. No avenue in army after fall of Napoleon, industry despised and severely restricted. So ambition directed within corrupt church or in service of venal aristocracy.

History of Civilisation

Probably the most ambitious attempt to understand what we would call "political culture" of Europe from the fall of the Roman empire to the present was F. Guizot lectures at the Sorbonne in 1828-30 attended by large numbers of liberal students. The History of Civilisation in Europe (1828-30) and The Hiotory of Civilisation in France (1828-30) combines most of the liberal ideas I have discussed today as tour de force of interpretation. FG aimed to cover the origin, progress, aim and character of the history of European civilisation.

Three points to note:

1. "civilisation" was European-wide phenomenon.
2. France now the focus and centre of European civilisation (typical Frenchman)
3. civilsation evolving towards final point of rep. govt, individual liberty, economic freedom, a culture rich and diverse in which individuals tolerate each other's differences.

European-wide phenomenon of "civilisation" exists and it is essentially liberal in nature:

I have used the term European civilisation, because it is evident that there is an European civilisation, that a certain unity pervades the civilisation of the various European states; that, notwithstanding infinite diversities of time, place and circumstance, this civilisation takes its first rise in facts almost wholly similar, proceeds everywhere upon the same principles, and tends to produce well nigh everywhere analogous results. There is, then, an European civilisation... (Mellon collection, pp. 141-2).

FG stresses importance of ideas. Ideas always preceded changes in institutions and social behaviour. History of civilisation is how ideas have altered European society since fall of Roman empire. Particularly true of 18th and 19thC. In HCF

By the side of great events, revolutions, and public ameliorations, we always find in this country universal ideas and corresponding doctrines. Nothing has passed in the real world, but the understanding has immediatley seized it, and thence derived new riches; nothing within the dominion of understanding, which has not had in the real world, and that almost always immediatley, its echo and result. Indeed, as a general thing, in France, ideas have preceded and impelled the progress of the social order; they have been prepared in doctrines, before being accomplished in things, and in the march of civilisation mind has always taken the lead. (Mellon, p. 276).

Naturally FG is aware that what he calls "this two-fold character of intellectual activity and practical activity, of meditation and application" (p. 276) is not just applicable to the past. His intention in giving the lectures at the Sorbonne in the 1820s and all his published history is to continue this liberal march of European ccivilisation, to take France and Europe to the next stage of the liberal revolution begun as Thierry observed in the 12th century with the emancipation of the communes and which nearly came aground in the Fr Rev.

Conclusion

I have argued that the agenda of French liberal historiography in early 19thC was a very full one and had 4 dimensions:

1. Political dimension - the problem of revolution in England in 17thC and France in 18thC. Struggle for consitutional and representative government. Rise of democracy, especially in America and France.
2. Sociological dimension - history as class conflict. Rise of middle class or Tiers État, origin of class structure in conquest, analysis of ancien régime, "place-seeking" in 18th and 19th C, class structure of slavery. Problem of militarism/Bonapartism.
3. Economic dimension - idea of stage theory of economic development culminating in new era of industry, mode of production influences social, political structures and belief.
4. Cultural dimension - individual political and economic freedom has cultural repercussions, literary history, historical novels, and idea of "civilisation".

I would suggest to you that the French liberal historians of the early 19thC were very perceptive, had a rich and stimulating worldview, and still merit close study and attention.