had learned the wrong lesson ?-what if the conclusions, which he has drawn from former events, be false?—what, if his political principles rest on an imaginary basis? The consequences would be dreadful. A flaw in his logic would convulse Europe: an erroneous presumption might suffice to deluge the world with blood and tears! For M. Blanc's views are not his views alone; he is but the expounder of a new Social Doctrine, which counts already many millions of adherents in all countries. The political society, which they aim at, has no precedent in history: their opinions are as yet mere hypotheses; they may be practical, but they have not been in practice. It is not our intention to contradict, we do not mean to refute them; for History herself, the history of our own time has taken that office into her hands. The theories of the French Communists are on the point of being submitted to a practical trial: they will stand and fall according to their worth. We take a humbler office, and content ourselves with reporting the principal matter of that extraordinary book, M. Blanc's History of the French Revolution.

66

M. Blanc thinks that the Catholic Church stood formerly in the place of the State of our day, and that what we call revolt, was at one time branded by the name of heresy. The Revolution, prepared by the philosophers, and continued by the politicians, can only be accomplished by Socialism, and must naturally have commenced in Theology. The Council of Constance condemned in Huss the principle of modern revolutions, which it unfettered by that very act, by establishing the doctrine of the supremacy of Councils over the Pope. This was a deathblow to ideal Monarchy, for it paved the way to the stormy government of Assemblies. The execution of John Huss was the signal for violent convulsions of the old world, and the birth of a new one. The cruel wars, the hardships, the miseries which people suffered in those times in order to obtain the right of taking the Communion in a double form, need not astonish us, for that ceremony is an act of equality, a pledge of fraternity, if all take it in the same manner. there must be no exceptions. By claiming an exclusive privilege on this head, the clergy destroyed the loftiest form of social equality. The question turns up again at the end of the eighteenth century. Its form is altered, but it is intrinsically the same. The political formula has taken the place of the theological. The same idea which inflamed the dark enthusiasm of Ziska and his Taborites, animated Robespierre and the Convention.

But

The revolutionary tendencies of the sixteenth century found a voice in Martinus Luther. Papal power was in its decline: a Bull of excommunication was publicly burned at Wittenberg. Laymen went about the country, preaching the gospel. This was certainly one of the precursors of the Revolution. To teach people to dispute the authority of Popes, taught them to dispute that of Kings likewise. The blow was directed against Rome, but it

struck others too.

M. Blanc speaks with great eloquence of Luther the German Reformer, whose career he follows with minute criticism, and greater candour, than the bulk of historians. Very great things are often done by very little men. Luther's inconsistency, pusillanimity, superstition, and many other traits of his character, such as they appear in his Table-talk (Tischgespräche), are justly appreciated by Louis Blanc, who designates Luther as "the tool of his time." Luther's insurrection were an "incomprehensible audacity," if the revolt of this man had not been that of his country, which rose indignant against Rome, where everything was sold, cardinalships, bishoprics, and the entry to heaven. For the Church was a market; religion a system of taxation; popedom the model of a fiscal government, the Christian world a prey.

66

The starting points of Protestantism are defined with astonishing precision, and at once applied to the subject. The Pope, against whom these principles were directed, was a spiritual King. His overthrow preceded the fall of others, for the principle of authority, (which up to that time had ruled the world) could not stand, after it had been struck in its most respected form, in its loftiest representative; a Luther in religion must be followed by a Luther in politics. The very reformation roused the peasantry to a war of extermination against their oppressors, and the Bavernkrieg" was a legitimate offspring of the demonstration at Wittenberg. Nor is this an isolated fact. Charles V. at Mühlberg, the Duke of Alba in the Netherlands, French Calvinism armed against the League, Gustavus Adolphus, Wallenstein and Tilly on the plains of Leipsig and Lützen, England under Cromwell's Ironsides, and the tragedy of Whitehall, belong all to the same family. The principle of Authority ended with the Reformation, and the reign of Individuality began. Calvinus represented it in religion; Bodin, Hoffman, and La Boëtie in politics; Montaigne in philosophy. Blanc remarks of the latter that Individualism was never preached with so much depth, excess, and brilliancy.

The European nations have been, according to him, subjected to two leading ideas, or principles: Authority or Despotism, and Individuality or Egotism. We are actually under the influence of the latter, but the reign of the third principle, of Fraternity, is fast approaching.

The principle of Authority was represented by the Roman Church that of Individualism is embodied in the Bourgeoisie. But here we must beg leave to insert the interpretation M. Blanc gives of some of his technical terms, without which the following pages would be incomprehensible. He says:

"By Bourgeoisie I mean the mass of the citizens who, possessing either the instruments of labour or a capital, can exert their faculties, and are, to a certain degree, independent of others. They are more or less free.

"The People is the mass of citizens, who do not possess any capital, and cannot be 'independent.' Their liberty is merely nominal."

The People, in the sense as it stands here, are not, as has been supposed, a creation of modern times. They are not a production of our civilisation. The most ancient records in France, speak of "bourgeois et manants," thus distinguishing another class. And here M. Blanc brings us at last on French ground, for the Revolution, begun in Germany, was consummated in France. It was the last battle of that long war, which the Bourgeoisie had made against Feudalism. The People in their turn overthrew the Bourgeoisie in the Revolution of 1793, but the superior genius of Napoleon robbed them of the fruits of their victory.

This view of two different Revolutions, one in 1789, and the other five years later, is, to the best of our knowledge, peculiar to M. Blanc, who is, besides, an advocate of historical necessity. Nothing furnishes a more convincing proof of it than his account of the struggles and ultimate triumph of the Bourgeoisie, over Feudalism. He is deeply read in the chronicles, documents, and memoirs of the time he treats of, but he has read with a prejudice. He has less studied, but rather made researches. All his discoveries go to strengthen his doctrine, and we know no better way to acquaint our readers with that doctrine, than by following him step by step as he approaches the grand catastrophe of his work.

Feudalism, the remnant of Authority, was overthrown by the power of Associations-by the Bourgeoisie, organised in communities, a community being a confederation of Bourgeois, who took the

engagement, and confirmed it with an oath, to assist one another.* Gibbon traces the fall of the Roman Empire from the fact of so many towns and nations being admitted to the freedom of the city. The kings of France were blinded by that fate, which turns the remaining strength of a falling system against itself. One of the causes of the decline of monarchy in France, and a comparative gain on the popular side, was the manner in which the French kings abused their power of conferring nobility. The magistrates of the towns of Poitiers, La Rochelle, and Tours, were made nobles. During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries there was an unlimited sale of patents. Batches of them were sold in blanks. The wisdom of kings had little to do with the fall of Feudalismtheir cupidity was the real cause, and the Bourgeoisie gained each step of ground which the opposite party lost. Their seeming defeats were real victories. The French Bourgeoisie shelved the religion, but kept the principle of the Reformation. Their Calvinism was drowned in its own blood, and from it sprung the party of the Politicians.

It was a party neither of faith, nor of devotion, nor of strong virtues it was the party of moderation, of common sense, of a quiet, demure egotism. It began with Erasmus, and found its acmè in Voltaire. Its doctrine, which the eighteenth century completed, and asserted for the profit of the Bourgeoisie, was called by turns :-in philosophy, Rationalism; in politics, Balance of Power; in trade, Illimited Concurrence. In the sixteenth century it bore the name of Toleration.

It was opposed by the League of Peronne, where, in 1576, a party of noblemen swore to uphold the Catholic and Roman religion, the privileges of Royalty, and their own. Authority rose against Individualism. But even they could not escape the revolutionary tendencies of the time. Their acknowledgment of the supreme authority of the Pope was a virtual protest against any imprescriptible and inviolable right of kings, who, if they overstepped certain religious limits, became unworthy to hold office under the Church, and it was in the power,-nay ! it was the duty-of the People to dethrone them. Papal sovereignty merged into the supreme power of the People. Then came the wars of

*"Omnes communiam jurabunt." "Juraverunt quod alter alteri secundum opinionem suam auxiliabitur." "Unusquisque jurato suo fidem, vim, auxilium, consiliumque præbebit."—Extracts from the Charters of French Communities.

the League, where the People won the field and asserted their power, and the last act of this great drama was the Convocation of the States to elect a king.

The progress of the Bourgeoisie became more rapid. They received a military organisation in their communities and wrestled with Feudalism. Trade made them wealthy; they opened their purses to the kings and deprived nobility of one half of its splendour, by buying titles. The kings, it is true, had the first spoils of Feudalism, but the Bourgeoisie bided their time: la logique de l'histoire finira par avoir raison!

The States-General were a great step in the right direction. They sprung from the decline of feudal power. Their importance in right was very great, but up to 1789 their importance in fact was very small. But they were, nevertheless, pregnant with an immense Revolution on account of the principle which they contained. This principle was the supreme power of Assemblies.*

Next came Richelieu with his sweeping despotism. He prepared the aristocracy of France for civil equality, by equality on the scaffold, by crushing the nobility by the Code Michau, and the creation of Intendancies, and by establishing the royalty of the mind. He was the friend of literary men; the protector of Poussin, the rival of Corneille, and the founder of the French Academy. Under his patronage appeared the first newspaper in France. The press was then intended for another instrument in the hands of despotism. It has not answered the purpose.

Richelieu's successor, Mazarin, the Fronde, and the schism of Jansenism-they all contributed to raise the Bourgeoisie. The financial measures of Colbert tended to the same end, and Louis XIV. did his utmost to undermine the nobility and clergy by absorbing the former and exciting the latter to persecution and fanaticism. He caused the assembled clergy to deny the temporal authority of the Pope over kings; by thus making an appeal from Royal power impossible, he left the People nothing but to appeal to the People, and by the declaration, that the General Council was above the Pope, the sovereignty of the National Assembly over kings was inferred. The burial of the "grand monarch was a sign of the times. It was the burial of royalty in France. The people of Paris had long wished for some merry-making, and thought this a fit opportunity. The fields, surrounding the Abbey of St. Denis, were covered with a joyous crowd. There was meat and drink in stalls-there was