Accounts of early Christian history in the thought of François Guizot,Benjamin Constant and Madame de Staël 1800–c.1833

This article compares different historical accounts of early Christianity written by François Guizot, Benjamin Constant and Madame de Staël and shows that they played a significant role in the construction of their ideas about religious tolerance and political liberty in ancient and modern states. In his 1812 translation of Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Guizot used his editorial footnotes to oppose Gibbon’s sceptical representation of the early Church and to assert that the development of Christianity had been crucial in condemning slavery, establishing religious toleration and fostering individual liberty. Benjamin Constant also opposed Gibbon’s representation of early Church history but he argued in his posthumously published Du polythéisme romain (1833) that the key achievement of the early Christians had been to revive the idea of individual religious sentiment against the anti-individualist Roman state. As Guizot developed his historical research in the 1820s he rejected this view and came to see the early Christians as demonstrating the inherently social nature of all religious practice. Some of these ideas were anticipated by Madame de Staël in De la littérature (1800), but all three thinkers sought to reintegrate religion into their ideas of modern liberty in ways that merit greater attention.     

'Liberty and truth' or 'the sovereignty of reason': Carlo Cattaneo and the place of politics in the modern world

My purpose here is to place the thought of Carlo Cattaneo in relation to French Restoration liberalism, and I therefore consider the doctrinaire school (among others, Guizot and Cousin) and the Coppet Circle (notably, Constant, StaËl and Sismondi). A concern to render reason sovereign was perhaps shared by all in post-revolutionary Europe who were cultivating human or social science, yet there was in Guizot's concept of 'the sovereignty of reason' a spiritualist, authoritarian and anti-individualist implication. By contrast, Cattaneo wished to honour 'the truth of local facts', that is the specific attributes of all the parts of which a state consisted, and in this regard his thought is descended not from the doctrinaires but from the individualist liberalism of Constant. I also remark upon Cattaneo's debt, openly declared, to the earlier historical writings of Thierry,and therefore to the political precepts of the late id é ologue tradition. Il mio scopo è quello di porre il pensiero di Carlo Cattaneo in relazione al liberalismo francese durante il periodo della Restaurazione, e confrontarlo in particolare con l'Ecole Doctrinaire (tra gli altri, Guizot e Cousin) ed il Circolo Coppet (principalmente, Constant, StaËl e Sismondi). L'idea di rendere la ragione sovrana era forse un sentimento condiviso da molti intellettuali nell'Europa post-rivoluzionaria, specialmente in coloro che dedicavano attenzione ed interesse alle scienze umane e sociali; tuttavia, nel concetto di Guizot sulla 'sovranitÀ della ragione' era insita una componente spiritualista, autoritaria ed antindividualista. Cattaneo, diversamente, tendeva ad onorare 'la veritÀ delle realtÀ locali', ossia di tutte le caratteristiche insite negli innumerevoli elementi di cui lo stato è composto; ed in questo aspetto, il suo pensiero traeva ispirazione dal liberalismo individualista di Constant piuttosto che dai doctrinaires. Credo anche che il liberalismo di Cattaneo sia dichiaratamente debitore verso gli scritti di Thierry ed inoltre nei confronti della filosofia politica appartenente alla tradizione degli idéologues.     

British hospitality for an unfortunate prince: the Duc de Bordeaux's visit to Britain as an early test of the entente cordiale, 1843–4

In the summer of 1843, Anglo-French relations thawed in the wake of the British and French royal families' meeting at the Château d'Eu in Normandy. Members of both governments began to speak of the good understanding, or entente cordiale, between them, and much of the existing historiography points out that by 1844, what proved to be a fragile arrangement was under some pressure. However, mere months after the Eu visit, another royal visit threatened the entente, that of King Louis Philippe's exiled great-nephew, the Bourbon pretender Henri, Duc de Bordeaux (later known as the Comte de Chambord), to Britain. Owing to Britain's tradition of allowing entry to foreigners, Bordeaux was able to enter Britain freely, whilst the British Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel, and the Foreign Secretary, Lord Aberdeen, argued that his visit would have little political consequence. Rather, Bordeaux and his suite intended to make political demonstrations. These activities and Aberdeen's willingness to believe professions to the contrary deeply offended the French government. Aberdeen was eventually forced to admonish Bordeaux and his suite. Although the dispute was amicably resolved, it almost fatally undermined the entente soon after its inception.     

Mill and Tocqueville: a friendship bruised

Having first met in 1835, John Stuart Mill and Alexis de Tocqueville began ‘an extremely interesting and mutually laudatory correspondence'; but their splendid friendship did not last. A popular thesis focuses on letters exchanged in 1840 to 1842 that reflect conflicting views on the Eastern Question and argues that Mill initiated the ‘strange interruption’. Given Mill's commitment to the ‘agreement of conviction and feeling on the few cardinal points of human opinion’ as a prerequisite of genuine friendship, such interpretation sounds plausible. However, circumstantial evidence, most notably Mill's willingness to have a frank discussion with Tocqueville on pending issues, contradicts the assertion that Mill was enraged by Tocqueville's 1841 letter. This essay suggests focusing attention on two additional cardinal differences between them—their contrasting views of François Guizot and confrontation vis-à-vis benevolent imperialism. Moreover, personal matters such as Harriet Taylor's dislike of Tocqueville and Mill's departure from the London and Westminster Review are also believed to have largely led to Mill discontinuing correspondence with Tocqueville.     

Democracy and political economy: Tocqueville's thoughts on J.-B. Say and T.R. Malthus

This essay examines the intellectual origins of Tocqueville's thoughts on political economy. It argues that Tocqueville believed political economy was crucial to what he called the ‘new science of politics’, and it explores his first forays into the discipline by examining his studies of J.-B. Say and T.R. Malthus. The essay shows how Tocqueville was initially attracted to Say's approach as it provided him with a rigorous analytical framework with which to examine American democracy. Though he incorporated important aspects of Say's work in Democracy in America (1835), he was troubled by elements of it. He was unable to articulate clearly these doubts until he began studying Malthus. What he learned from Malthus caused him to move away from the more formalised approach to political economy advocated by Say and his disciples and move towards an approach advocated by Christian political economists, such as Alban Villeneuve-Bargemont. This shift would have important consequences for the composition of Democracy in America (1840).     

Reseau urbain et diffusion de l'innovation dans la France pre-industrielle: La creation des caisses d'epargne (1818–1848)

This paper discusses the paradigms of European history and of European civilisation defined in the main histories of Europe written from the Enlightenment to Guizot.

Voltaire, Robertson, Gibbon, and Guizot consolidated a model of the history of Europe which has its origins in the fall of the western Roman Empire and the invasions of the Barbarians. The other main steps of this history were the Christianisation, the creation of a vital economic centre in western and northern Europe, the development of the cities, the rediscovery of Roman law, the creation of a complex system of states, the colonial expansion and again the birth of a society of “good manners”.

A common civilisation which did not ignore the differences which existed between one country and another – the “national characters”, discussed by David Hume in 1748. Instead the different national characters – the variety of Europe as Guizot wrote – represented an important element of the European civilisation.     

基佐文明进步史观述论

文明进步史观是基佐史学思想的主要组成部分。他从文明一词的多层面分析入手,强调了文明进步的持续性,并进而提出多种势力的矛盾斗争、多种要素的协调发展共同推动了欧洲文明的逐渐进步。这种从长时段出发,关注文明进程中的各种事件的因果性、规律性等特点,体现出基佐文明史观与伏尔泰文明史观的相异性及对伏尔泰文明史观的发展性。