OR TO RECORD ALL THEIR CAUSES. 571 a scene, all that is minute and detached, however interesting or important to those who are at hand, must therefore be omitted - while the general effect is entrusted to masses in which nothing but the great outlines of great objects are preserved, and the details left to be inferred from the character of their results, or the larger features of their usual accompaniments. It is needless to apply this to the case of history; in which, when it records events of permanent interest, it is equally impossible to retain those particular details which engrossed the attention of contemporaries - both because the memory of them is necessarily lost in the course of that period which must elapse before the just value of the whole can be known- and because, even if it were otherwise, no human memory could retain, or human judgment discriminate, the infinite number of particulars which must have been presented in such an interval. We shall only observe, further, that though that which is preserved is generally the most material and truly important part of the story, it not unfrequently happens, that too little is preserved to afford materials for a satisfactory narrative, or to justify any general conclusion; and that, in such cases, the historian often yields to the temptation of connecting the scanty materials that have reached him by a sort of general and theoretical reasoning, which naturally takes its colour from the prevailing views and opinions of the individual writer, or of the age to which he belongs. If an author of consummate judgment, and with a thorough knowledge of the unchangeable principles of human nature, undertake this task, it is wonderful indeed to see how much he may make of a subject that appears so unpromising and it is almost certain that the view he will give to his readers, of such an obscure period, will, at all events, be at least as instructive and interesting as if he had had its entire annals before him. In other hands, however, the result is very different; and, instead of a masterly picture of rude or remote ages, true at least to the general features of such periods, we have nothing but a transcript of the author's own most recent 572 RISKS OF THEORETICAL HISTORY. fantasies and follies, ill disguised under the masquerade character of a few traditional names. It is only necessary to call to mind such books as Zouche's Life of Sir Philip Sydney, or Godwin's Life of Chaucer, to feel this much more strongly than we can now express it. These, no doubt, are extreme cases; - but we suspect that our impressions of almost all remote characters and events, and the general notions we have of the times or societies which produced them, are much more dependent on the peculiar temper and habits of the popular writers in whom the memory of them is chiefly preserved, than it is very pleasant to think of. If we ever take the trouble of looking for ourselves into the documents and materials out of which those histories are made, we feel at once how much room there is for a very different representation of all those things from that which is current in the world: And accordingly we occasionally have very opposite representations. Compare Bossuet's Universal History with Voltaire's - Rollin with Mitford - Hume or Clarendon with Ralph or Mrs. M'Aulay; and it will be difficult to believe that these different writers are speaking of the same persons and things. The work before us, we have already said, is singularly free from faults of this description. It is written, we do think, in the true spirit and temper of historical impartiality. But it has faults of a different character; and, with many of the merits, combines some of the appropriate defects, both of a contemporary and philosophical history. Its details are too few and too succinct for the former they are too numerous and too rashly selected for the latter;- while the reasonings and speculations in which perhaps its chief value consists, seem already to be too often thrown away upon matters that cannot long be had in remembrance. We must take care not to get entangled too far among the anecdotes - but the general reasoning cannot detain us very long. - It is the scope of the book to show that France must have a free government - a limited monarchy - in express words, a constitution like that of England. This, Madame de Staël says, was all that the body of the nation LEADING OBJECTS OF MADAME DE STAËL. 573 aimed at in 1789-and this she says the great majority of the nation are resolved to have still-undeterred by the fatal miscarriage of the last experiment, and undisgusted by the revival of antient pretensions which has signalised its close. Still, though she maintains this to be the prevailing sentiment of the French people, she thinks it not altogether unnecessary to combat this discouragement and this disgust;-and the great object of all that is argumentative in her book, is to show that there is nothing in the character or condition, or late or early history of her countrymen, to render this regulated freedom unattainable by them, or to disqualify them from the enjoyment of a representative government, or the functions of free citizens. For this purpose she takes a rapid and masterly view of the progress of the different European kingdoms, from their primitive condition of feudal aristocracies, to their present state of monarchies limited by law, or mitigated by the force of public opinion; and endeavours to show, that the course has been the same in all; and that its unavoidable termination is in a balanced constitution like that of England. The first change was the reduction of the Nobles-chiefly by the aid which the Commons, then first pretending to wealth or intelligence, afforded to the Crown-and, on this basis, some small states, in Italy and Germany especially, erected a permanent system of freedom. But the necessities of war, and the substitution of hired forces for the feudal militia, led much more generally to the establishment of an arbitrary or despotical authority; which was accomplished in France, Spain, and England, under Louis XI., Philip II., and Henry VIII. Then came the age of commerce, luxury, and taxes—which necessarily ripened into the age of general intelligence, individual wealth, and a sense both of right and of power in the people ;and those led irresistibly to a limitation on the powers of the Crown, by a representative assembly. England having less occasion for a land army-and having been the first in the career of commercial prosperity, led the way in this great amelioration. But the 574 MADAME DE STAËL HER THEORY OF GOVERNMENTS. ; same general principles have been operating in all the Continental kingdoms, and must ultimately produce the same effects. The peculiar advantages which she enjoyed did not prevent England from being enslaved by the tyranny of Henry VIII., and Mary; and she also experienced the hazards, and paid the penalties which are perhaps inseparable from the assertion of popular rights. She also overthrew the monarchy, and sacrificed the monarch in her first attempt to set limits to his power. The English Commonwealth of 1648, originated in as wild speculations as the French of 1792— and ended, like it, in the estabishment of a military tyranny, and a restoration which seemed to confound all the asserters of liberty in the general guilt of rebellion: Yet all the world is now agreed that this was but the first explosion of a flame that could neither be extinguished nor permanently repressed; and that what took place in 1688, was but the sequel and necessary consummation of what had been begun forty years beforeand which might and would have been accomplished without even the slight shock and disturbance that was then experienced, if the Court had profited as much as the leaders of the people by the lessons of that first experience. Such too, Madame de Staël assures us, is the unalterable destiny of France;—and it is the great purpose of her book to show, that but for circumstances which cannot recur-mistakes that cannot be repeated, and accidents which never happened twice-even the last attempt would have led to that blessed consummation ; and that every thing is now in the fairest train to secure it, without any great effort or hazard of disturbance. That these views are supported with infinite talent, spirit, and eloquence, no one who has read the book will probably dispute; and we should be sorry indeed to think that they were not substantially just. Yet we are not, we confess, quite so sanguine as the distinguished writer before us; and though we do not doubt either that her principles are true, or that her predictions will be ultimately accomplished, we fear that the period of their triumph is not yet at hand; and that it is far more MISLED BY SPECIAL CASE OF ENGLAND. 575 doubtful than she will allow it to be, whether that triumph will be easy, peaceful, and secure. The example of England is her great, indeed her only authority; but we are afraid that she has run the parallel with more boldness than circumspection, and overlooked a variety of particulars in our case, to which she could not easily find any thing equivalent in that of her country. It might be invidious to dwell much on the opposite character and temper of the two nations; though it is no answer to say, that this character is the work of the government. But can Madame de Staël have forgotten, that England had a parliament and a representative legislature for 500 years before 1648; and that it was by that organ, and the widely spread and deeply founded machinery of the elections on which it rested, that the struggle was made, and the victory won, which ultimately secured to us the blessings of political freedom? The least reflection upon the nature of government, and the true foundations of all liberty, will show what an immense advantage this was in the contest; and with what formidable obstacles those must have to struggle, who are obliged to engage in a similar conflict without it. All political power, even the most despotic, rests at last, as was profoundly observed by Hume, upon Opinion. A government is Just, or otherwise, according as it promotes, more or less, the true interests of the people who live under it. But it is Stable and secure, exactly as it is directed by the opinion of those who really possess, and know that they possess, the power of enforcing it, and upon whose opinion, therefore, it constantly depends; that is, in a military despotism, on the opinion of the soldiery;-in all rude and ignorant communities, on the opinion of those who monopolise the intelligence, the wealth, or the discipline which constitute power. the priesthood—the landed proprietors - the armed and inured to war;—and, in civilised societies, on the opinion of that larger proportion of the people who can bring their joint talents, wealth, and strength, to act in concert when occasion requires. A government may indeed subsist for a time, although opposed to the opinion |
