The Press. — London, England, 1858-04-10 00:00:00

fittraturt. Memoirs to Illustrate the History of My Time. By F. Guizot. Vol. I. London : Bentley. WE have read with great interest this first volume of the political autobiography of one of the most remarkable men of our time. Unlike the memoirs of Chateaubriand and Lamartine, this work has few• social anecdotes, and not much of personal portraiture. Its tone is gravely judicial, like the style of a retrospective reviewer. Its composition dis plays an austere calmness of mind, without the cynical moroseness of too harsh a censor. In other works that have in recent years come from M. Guizot's incessant pen we saw the style and objects of a pamphleteer, but such is not the case with this work, which, apparently, is as impartial as one of its famous writer's in comparable lectures. The great merits and the characteristic mannerism of the author are visible nearly in every page. Luminous con densation of causes, a logical, as opposed to a rhetorical, treatment of his matter, the coup (hell of a philosophic historian, and something of the dogmatism of the Professor's chair, can all be observed in this able retrospect of the earlier portions of the author's public life. We coal] have wished for more detail, more sketching of the domestic entourage of his do mestic life (which he al most studiously avoids), and more display of social sympathy. But M. Guizot possesses one of those natures that cannot easily unbend. Though excelling in prompt command of his faculties, we never could expect him to display polished raillery, to trifle with elegance, or to gossip with the garrulous grace of other Frenchmen. He is superior to the peculiar sort of qualities re quisite for a good anecdotical biographer, and hence there are some who will find this volume rather heavy. We have not thought it so, but we took it up with the anticipation that an autobiography by Guizot would display all the chief features of his other writings, and our surmises proved right. The volume opens with a description of France before the Restoration, and then, in the style of a masterly reviewer, lie passes rapidly over " The Hundred Days," and the various changes in French Government, until the famous " address of the two hundred and twenty-one" (1830), the author in all cases deciding more suo in a peremptory manner upon the results of every struggle With all our just admiration for the high intellectuality of Guizot. we cannot help feeling that he was a very difficult man to satisfy, and that he exhibits a good deal of that metaphysical casuistry in his politics which made the name of "ideologue" an abomination to the First Napoleon. " Was Guizot, after all, a practical man ?" might fairly be asked by a keen thinker, on reading this account of his political life. It might be urged against him that it was scarcely possible to decipher his political system. He was not a Napoleouist ; he was by conviction► opposed to the sway of the Romish clerg3 claimed by the ultra-Royalists, and he dreaded the Tribune of the popular party. He chose his politics, not from a pas sionate bias, but iu obedience to the intellectual law of his nature. He carried this so far that we have heard him called (with injustice) "a man without sympathies." This volume, like all his productions (and none of them are weak) shows that Guizot, out of literature, can scarcely be accepted as a great representative nature, in whose embodiment one could dis cern the passions and aspirations of large masses of men He exhibited much of that many-sided antagonism which was visible in the character of the late Dr. Arnold; and some points of M. Guizot's character are not unlike certain tendencies of Mr. Gladstone's peculiar intellect. The defence M. of Guizot against those who urge the apparent inconsistency of his career is to he found in this volume, but it is rather skilfully implied than positively stated in any particular passage. He maintains, truly, that the French Revolution had not ceased to act in 1817), and that its force was not spent ; and we think that be pushes this view too far. He argues that ;the Royalists of the Restora tion made blunders because they supposed THE PRESS, APRIL 10, 1858. that the Revolution was at an end ; but he does not dwell enough on the extreme diffi culty of erecting institutions in a country like France, where society out of Paris is almost on a complete dead level. The utter destruc tion of provincial life in France, resulting from the policy of Richelieu, has for the last two centuries given France a dangerous habit of centralization, and thereby placed all power within the sphere of the angry passions of Paris. This truth, clearly understood by many other French writers, we do not think is sufficiently appreciated by M. Guizot. We must remark, also, that there is a singu lar absence in this volume of references to the position of England with regard to French politics in the eventful period from 1815 to 1830. Whether this reticence about England be intentional or fortuitous, we shall not hero conjecture. There are eight long chapters in this volume, and in the six pages of contents prefixed to its 330 pages we find England's influence only alluded to thus,—" M. de Chateaubriand, Ambassador at London ; " there is a contrast elsewhere between the historical characters of France and England which is purely philosophic, but all the delicate questions dependent on the vast influence which England had in contributing to the downfall of the First Napoleon, and to the restoration of the elder Bourbons, are carefully avoided. The history of the period, undoubtedly, would justify more special re ferences to England, but in the future volumes this absence may be remedied. As a defence of Guizot, we cannot say that, as far as he has gone yet, he can be said to be highly successful. He has left his public career just where it was, and many of his admissions may be skilfully used against hint by his personal antagonists and depreciators. A political reader who peruses these pages to see their bearing on the character of the author will on the whole be disappointed ; but the general reader cannot but be struck with the admirable literary faculty displayed in the reflections, weighty in thought and terse in language. We shall give some examples of the best passages of the volume. Here is a judicial opinion on the character of Napo leon I.:— Since I have had some share in the government of men,. I have learned to do justice to the Emperor Napoleon. He was endowed with a genius incomparably active and powerful, much to be admired for his antipathy to disorder, for his profound instincts in ruling, and for his energetic rapidity in reconstructing the social framework. But this genius had no cheek, acknowledged no limit to its desires or will,either emanating from Heaven or man, and thus remained revolutionary while combating revolution : tho roughly acquainted with the general conditions of society, but imperfectly, or rather coarsely, understanding the moral necessities of human nature; sometimes satisfying them with the soundest judgment, and at others depre ciating and insulting them with impious ➢ride. Who could have believed that the same man who ha ,1 established the Concordat, and re opened the churckes in France, would have carried off the Pope from Rome, and kept him a prisoner at Fontainebleau ? The vigorous and precise thinker is visible in the sentence " remained revolutionary while " combating revolution "—a remark perfectly true. There are those in Parisian circles who will cavil at the admission, " Since I have had " some share in the government of men, I have " learned," &c. Writers and talkers in various salons will sneer at this retrospective candour in Guizot. The passage is in the style of his best essays, in which every line has thought. On the next page we have another passage equally good. He is writing of France before the Restoration (1807-181.0: I associated myself with the Opposition, but it was an Opposition bearing little resemblance to that which we have seen and created daring the last thirty years. It was formed from the relics of the philosophic world and liberal aristocracy or the eighteenth century, the last repre sentatives of the saloons in which all subjects whatever had been freely proposed and discussed, through the impulse of inclination, and the gratification of mental in• dulgence, rather than from any distinct object of interest or ambition. The errors and disasters of the Revolution had not led the survivors of that active generation to renounce their convictions or desires ; they remained sincerely liberal, but without practical or urvent pretension, and with the reserve of men who had suffered much and suc ceeded little in their attempts at legislative reform. They still held to freedom of thought and speech, but had no as pirations after power. They detested and warmly criticized despotism, but without any open attempt to repress or overthrow existing authority. It was the opposition of enlightened and independent lookers-on, who had neither the opportunity nor inclination to interfere as actors. After a long life of fierce contention, I recur with pleasure to the remembrance of this enchanting society. hi. de Talleyrand once said to me, " Those who were not living in and about the year 1789, know little of the enjoy ments of life." In feet, nothing could exceed the pleasure of a great intellectual and social movement, which, at that epoch, far from suspending or disturbing the arrangements of the world, animated and ennobled them by mingling serious thoughts with frivolous recreations, and as yet called for no suffering, or no sacrifice, while it opened to the eyes of men a dazzling and delightful perspective. The eighteenth century was, beycnd all question, the most tempting and seductive of ages, for it promised to satisfy at once the strength and weakness of human nature ; ele vating and enervating the mind at the same time; flatters ing alternately the noblest sentiments and the most grovelling propensities; intoxicating with exalted hopes, and nursing with effeminate concessions. Thus it has produced, in peilmell confusion, utopians and egotists, scep:ics and fanatics, enthusiasts and incredulous scoffers, different offspring of the same period, but all enraptured with the age and with themselves, indulging together in one common drunkenness on the eve of the approaching chaos. The concluding characterization of the eigh teenth century is extremely happy, and rises to the highest moral tone of an historian, while there is something of the charm of a reminis cent in the early portion of the passage. We must not forget that the eighteenth century had a very different aspect in France and F. rig land. Society with us was not so relaxed or so dissolute as with our neighbours. We con quered the East Indies and extended our colonial system, while under the influence of Wesley and others religion became popular amongst a large portion of those classes dan gereuses which in France were debauched by corrupting writers and speakers. Of Talleyrand hitnsell, quoted in the fore going extract, Guizot draws the following che meter, which is one of the severest ever penned on the arch-intriguer : At the crisis of the Restoration, M. de Talleyrand dis played, in a very superior manner, the qualities of sagacity, cool determination, and preponderating influence. Not long after, at Vienna, he manifested the same endowments, and others even more rare and apposite, when represent ing the House of Bourbon and the European interests of France. But except in a crisis or a congress, he was neither able nor powerful. A courtier and a politician, no advocate upon conviction for any particular form of go vernment, and less for representative government than for any other, be excelled in negotiating with insulated indi viduals, by the power of conversation, by the charm and skiltul employment of social relations ; but in authority of character, in fertility of mental resources, in promptitude of resolution, in command of language, in the sympathetic association of general ideas with public passions—in all these great sources of influence upon collected assemblies, he was absolutely deficient. Besides which, he had neither the inclination nor habit of sustained, systematic labour, another important condition of internal government. He was at once ambitious and indolent, a flatterer and a scoffer, a consummate courtier in the art of pleasing and of serving without the appearance of servility; ready for everything, and capable of any pliability that might assist his fortune, preserving always the mien, and recurring at need to the attractions of independence ; a diplomatist without scruples, indifferent as to means, and almost, equally careless as to the end, provided only that the end advanced his personal interest More bold than profound in his views, calmly courageous in danger, well suited to the great enterprises of absolute government, but insensible to the true atmosphere and light of lib erty, in which be felt himself lost and incapable of action. He was too glad to escape from the Chambers and from France, to find once more at Vienna a congenial sphere and associations. Talleyrand has been rather exaggerated by the world, for after all he did nothing positive, but M. Guizot is rather too deprecatory of his abilities. The words, "by the charm and " skilful employment of social relations," do not adequately describe the fascinations of that strange being. 1% horn George Sand has so brilliantly depicted under the name of " The Prince." We should have liked, en revanche, a character of Guizot by Talleyrand. The question whether Ney should have been executed was one of the most difficult that was brought before the Royalists in 1315. Our philosophic autobiographer first gives one side of the case : A great act, resolutely conceived and accomplished, on a great occasion, was necessary to raise the executive authority from the reputation as well as the actual mischief of this weakness, and to emancipate it from the party under which it succumbed while resisting. To-day, so long removed as we are from that time, the more I reflect on it in the calm freedom of my judgment, the more I am convinced that the trial of Marshal Noy afforded a most propitious opportunity for such an act as that to which I now allude. There were undoubtedly weighty reasons fur leaving justice to its unfettered course. Society and the royal power both required that respect for, and a salutary dread of, the law should repossess men's minds. It was important that generations formed during the vicissitudes of the Revolution and the triumphs of the Empire, should learn, bj startling examples, that all does