Chapter XV

MONTESQUIEU: 1689-1755; DE TOCQUEVILLE: 1805-1859.

To Montesquieu belongs the glory of being the founder, or inventor, of the philosophy of history. Bossuet might dispute this palm with him; but Bossuet, in his "Discourse on Universal History," only exemplified the principle which it was left to Montesquieu afterward more consciously to develop.

Three books, still living, are associated with the name of Montesquieu--"The Persian Letters," "The Greatness and the Decline of the Romans," and "The Spirit of Laws." "The Persian Letters" are a series of epistles purporting to be written by a Persian sojourning in Paris and observing the manners and morals of the people around him. The idea is ingenious; though the ingenuity, we suppose, was not original with Montesquieu. Such letters afford the writer of them an admirable advantage for telling satire on contemporary follies. This production of Montesquieu became the suggestive example to Goldsmith for his "Citizen of the World; or, Letters of a Chinese Philosopher." We shall have here no room for illustrative citations from Montesquieu's "Persian Letters."

The second work, that on the "Greatness and the Decline of the Romans," is less a history than a series of essays on the history of Rome. It is brilliant, striking, suggestive. It aims to be philosophical rather than historical. It deals in bold generalizations. The spirit of it is, perhaps, too constantly and too profoundly hostile to the Romans. Something of the ancient Gallic enmity--as if a derivation from that last and noblest of the Gauls, Vercingetorix--seems to animate the Frenchman in discussing the character and the career of the great conquering nation of antiquity. The critical element is the element chiefly wanting to make Montesquieu's work equal to the demands of modern historical scholarship. Montesquieu was, however, a full worthy forerunner of the philosophical historians of to-day. We give a single extract in illustration--an extract condensed from the chapter in which the author analyzes and expounds the foreign policy of the Romans. The generalizations are bold and brilliant,--too bold, probably, for strict critical truth. (We use, for our extract, the recent translation by Mr. Jehu Baker, who enriches his volume with original notes of no little interest and value.) Montesquieu:

This body [the Roman Senate] erected itself into a tribunal for the
judgment of all peoples, and at the end of every war it decided upon
the punishment and the recompenses which it conceived each to be
entitled to. It took away parts of the lands of the conquered states,
in order to bestow them upon the allies of Rome, thus accomplishing
two objects at once--attaching to Rome those kings of whom she had
little to fear and much to hope, and weakening those of whom she had
little to hope and all to fear.

Allies were employed to make war upon an enemy, but the destroyers
were at once destroyed in their turn. Philip was beaten with the half
of the AEtolians, who were immediately afterward annihilated for having
joined themselves to Antiochus. Antiochus was beaten with the help of
the Rhodians, who, after having received signal rewards, were
humiliated forever, under the pretext that they had requested that
peace might be made with Perseus.

When they had many enemies on hand at the same time, they accorded a
truce to the weakest, which considered itself happy in obtaining such
a respite, counting it for much to be able to secure a postponement of
its ruin.

When they were engaged in a great war, the Senate affected to ignore
all sorts of injuries, and silently awaited the arrival of the proper
time for punishment; when, if it saw that only some individuals were
culpable, it refused to punish them, choosing rather to hold the
entire nation as criminal, and thus reserve to itself a useful
vengeance.

As they inflicted inconceivable evils upon their enemies, there were
not many leagues formed against them; for those who were most distant
from danger were not willing to draw nearer to it. The consequence of
this was, that they were rarely attacked; whilst, on the other hand,
they constantly made war at such time, in such manner, and against
such peoples, as suited their convenience; and, among the many nations
which they assailed, there were very few that would not have submitted
to every species of injury at their hands if they had been willing to
leave them in peace.

It being their custom to speak always as masters, the ambassadors whom
they sent to nations which had not yet felt their power were certain
to be insulted; and this was an infallible pretext for a new war.

As they never made peace in good faith, and as, with the design of
universal conquest, their treaties were, properly speaking, only
suspensions of war, they always put conditions in them which began the
ruin of the states which accepted them. They either provided that the
garrisons of strong places should be withdrawn, or that the number of
troops should be limited, or that the horses or the elephants of the
vanquished party should be delivered over to themselves; and if the
defeated people was powerful on sea, they compelled it to burn its
vessels, and sometimes to remove, and occupy a place of habitation
farther inland.

After having destroyed the armies of a prince, they ruined his
finances by excessive taxes, or by the imposition of a tribute under
the pretext of requiring him to pay the expenses of the war--a new
species of tyranny, which forced the vanquished sovereign to oppress
his own subjects, and thus to alienate their affection.

When they granted peace to a king, they took some of his brothers or
children as hostages. This gave them the means of troubling his
kingdom at their pleasure. If they held the nearest heir, they
intimidated the possessor; if only a prince of a remote degree, they
used him to stir up revolts against the legitimate ruler.

Whenever any people or prince withdrew their obedience from their
sovereign, they immediately accorded to them the title of allies of
the Roman people, and thus rendered them sacred and inviolable; so
that there was no king, however great he might be, who would for a
moment be sure of his subjects, or even of his family.

Although the title of Roman ally was a species of servitude, it was,
nevertheless, very much sought after; for the possession of this title
made it certain that the recipients of it would receive injuries from
the Romans only, and there was ground for the hope that this class of
injuries would be rendered less grievous than they would otherwise be.

Thus, there was no service which nations and kings were not ready to
perform, nor any humiliation which they did not submit to, in order to
obtain this distinction....

These customs were not merely some particular facts which happened at
hazard. They were permanently established principles, as may be
readily seen; for the maxims which the Romans acted upon against the
greatest powers were precisely those which they had employed in the
beginning of their career against the small cities which surrounded
them....

But nothing served Rome more effectually than the respect which she
inspired among all nations. She immediately reduced kings to silence,
and rendered them as dumb. With the latter, it was not a mere question
of the degree of their power; their very persons were attacked. To
risk a war with Rome was to expose themselves to captivity, to death,
and to the infamy of a triumph. Thus it was that kings, who lived in
pomp and luxury, did not dare to look with steady eyes upon the Roman
people, and, losing courage, they hoped, by their patience and their
obsequiousness, to obtain some postponement of the calamities with
which they were menaced.

The "Spirit of Laws" is probably to be considered the masterpiece of Montesquieu. It is our duty, however, to say that this work is quite differently estimated by different authorities. By some, it is praised in terms of the highest admiration, as a great achievement in wide and wise political or juridical philosophy. By others, it is dismissed very lightly, as the ambitious, or, rather, pretentious, effort of a superficial man, a showy mere sciolist.

The philosophical aim and ambition of the author at once appear in the inquiry which he institutes for the three several animating _principles_ of the several forms of government respectively distinguished by him; namely, democracy (or republicanism), monarchy, and despotism. What these three principles are will be seen from the following statement: "As _virtue_ is necessary in a republic, and in a monarchy _honor_, so _fear_ is necessary in a despotic government." The meaning is that in republics virtue possessed by the citizens is the spring of national prosperity; that under a monarchy the desire of preferment at the hands of the sovereign is what quickens men to perform services to the State; that despotism thrives by fear inspired in the breasts of those subject to its sway.

To illustrate the freely discursive character of the work, we give the whole of chapter sixteen--there are chapters still shorter--in Book VII.:

AN EXCELLENT CUSTOM OF THE SAMNITES.

The Samnites had a custom which in so small a republic, and especially
in their situation, must have been productive of admirable effects.
The young people were all convened in one place and their conduct was
examined. He that was declared the best of the whole assembly had
leave given him to take which girl he pleased for his wife; the second
best chose after him, and so on. Admirable institution! The only
recommendation that young men could have on this occasion was their
virtue and the service done their country. He who had the greatest
share of these endowments chose which girl he liked out of the whole
nation. Love, beauty, chastity, virtue, birth, and even wealth itself,
were all, in some measure, the dowry of virtue. A nobler and grander
recompense, less chargeable to a petty state and more capable of
influencing both sexes, could scarce be imagined.

The Samnites were descended from the Lacedemonians; and Plato, whose
institutes are only an improvement of those of Lycurgus, enacted
nearly the same law.

The relation of the foregoing chapter to the subject indicated in the title of the book is sufficiently obscure and remote for a work like this, purporting to be philosophical. What relation exists seems to be found in the fact that the custom described tends to produce that popular virtue by which republics flourish. But the information, at all events, is curious and interesting.

The following paragraphs, taken from the second chapter of Book XIV., contain in germ a large part of the philosophy underlying M. Taine's essays on the history of literature:

OF THE DIFFERENCE OF MEN IN DIFFERENT CLIMATES.

A cold air constringes the extremities of the external fibers of the
body; this increases their elasticity, and favors the return of the
blood from the extreme parts to the heart. It contracts those very
fibers; consequently it increases also their force. On the contrary, a
warm air relaxes and lengthens the extremes of the fibers; of course
it diminishes their force and elasticity.

People are therefore more vigorous in cold climates. Here the action
of the heart and the reaction of the extremities of the fibers are
better performed, the temperature of the humors is greater, the blood
moves freer toward the heart, and reciprocally the heart has more
power. This superiority of strength must produce various effects; for
instance, a greater boldness--that is, more courage; a greater sense
of superiority--that is, less desire of revenge; a greater opinion of
security--that is, more frankness, less suspicion, policy, and
cunning. In short, this must be productive of very different tempers.
Put a man into a close, warm place, and for the reasons above given he
will feel a great faintness. If under this circumstance you propose a
bold enterprise to him, I believe you will find him very little
disposed towards it; his present weakness will throw him into a
despondency; he will be afraid of every thing, being in a state of
total incapacity. The inhabitants of warm countries are, like old men,
timorous; the people in cold countries are, like young men, brave.

In the following extract, from chapter five, Book XXIV., the climatic theory is again applied, this time to the matter of religion, in a style that makes one think of Buckle's "History of Civilization":

When the Christian religion, two centuries ago, became unhappily
divided into Catholic and Protestant, the people of the north embraced
the Protestant, and those south adhered still to the Catholic.

The reason is plain: the people of the north have, and will forever
have, a spirit of liberty and independence, which the people of the
south have not; and therefore a religion which has no visible head is
more agreeable to the independency of the climate than that which has
one.

Climate is a "great matter" with Montesquieu. In treating of the subject of a State changing its religion, he says:

The ancient religion is connected with the constitution of the
kingdom, and the new one is not; the former _agrees with the climate_,
and very often the new one is opposite to it.

For the Christian religion, Montesquieu professes profound respect--rather as a pagan political philosopher might do, than as one intimately acquainted with it by a personal experience of his own. His spirit, however, is humane and liberal. It is the spirit of Montaigne, it is the spirit of Voltaire, speaking in the idiom of this different man, and of this different man as influenced by his different circumstances. Montesquieu had had practical proof of the importance to himself of not offending the dominant hierarchy.

On the whole, concerning Montesquieu it may justly be said, that of all political philosophers, he, if not the profoundest, is at least one of the most interesting; if not the most accurate and critical, at least one of the most brilliant and suggestive.

As to Montesquieu the man, it is perhaps sufficient to say that he seems to have been a very good type of the French gentleman of quality. An interesting story told by Sainte-Beuve reveals, if true, a side at once attractive and repellent of his personal character. Montesquieu at Marseilles employed a young boatman, whose manner and speech indicated more cultivation than was to have been looked for in one plying his vocation. The philosopher learned his history. The youth's father was at the time a captive in one of the Barbary States, and this son of his was now working to earn money for his ransom. The stranger listened apparently unmoved, and went his way. Some months later, home came the father, released he knew not how, to his surprised and overjoyed family. The son guessed the secret, and, meeting Montesquieu a year or so after in Marseilles, threw himself in grateful tears at his feet, begged the generous benefactor to reveal his name and to come and see the family he had blessed. Montesquieu, calmly expressing himself ignorant of the whole business, actually shook the young fellow off, and turned away without betraying the least emotion. It was not till after the cold-blooded philanthropist's death that the fact came out.

A tranquil, happy temperament was Montesquieu's. He would seem to have come as near as any one ever did to being the natural master of his part in life. But the world was too much for him; as it is for all--at last. Witness the contrast of these two different sets of expressions from his pen. In earlier manhood he says:

Study has been for me the sovereign remedy for all the
dissatisfactions of life, having never had a sense of chagrin that an
hour's reading would not dissipate. I wake in the morning with a
secret joy to behold the light. I behold the light with a kind of
ravishment, and all the rest of the day I am happy.

In late life, the brave, cheerful tone had declined to this:

I am broken down with fatigue; I must repose for the rest of my life

Then it took a further fall to this:

I have expected to kill myself for the last three months, finishing an
addition to my work on the origin and changes of the French civil law.
It will take only three hours to read it; but, I assure you, it has
been such a labor to me, that my hair has turned white under it all.

Finally it touches nadir:

It [his work] has almost cost me my life; I must rest; I can work no
more.

My candles are all burned out; I have set off all my cartridges.

When Montesquieu died, only Diderot, among Parisian men of letters, followed him to his tomb.

Belonging to an entirely different world, literary, social, political, from that in which Montesquieu flourished--more than one full century, and that a French century, had intervened--was a man kindred in genius with him, to whom, for the double reason that his intellectual rank deserves it, and that the subject of his principal work is one to command especially the interest of Americans, we feel compelled to devote serious, though it must be hastening, attention. We refer to Alexis de TOCQUEVILLE, the author of that famous book, "Democracy in America." We can most conveniently discharge our duty by letting their likeness in intellectual character and achievement bridge for us the chasm of time between the two men, and thus considering the later in conjunction here with the earlier author.

"Democracy in America" is a most remarkable book to have been, as in fact it was, the production of a young man of thirty. It was the fruit of a tour in the United States undertaken by the writer ostensibly to visit in an official capacity the prisons of the new nation that France had helped create, in a kind of counterpoise to England, on this side of the Atlantic. The inquisitive young French inspector inspected much more than the prison system of the lusty infant republic. He observed and studied American institutions and manners at large, in order to lay a base line for the boldest speculative triangulation into the probable political future of the world.

Tocqueville held the belief that democracy, as a system of government, was destined to prevail universally. He wrote his observations and reflections, and he made his guesses, primarily for the instruction of France. So confident was his conviction on the subject of democratic destiny for his own country at least, that, while as yet the apparently profound peace was undisturbed of the monarchical reaction under Louis Philippe, he predicted an impending revolution; predicted in fact the revolution which actually occurred in 1848. France, after that date, both during the prophet's life, and subsequently to his death, experienced her vibrations from, one form of government to another; but no one can now deny that thus far the resultant tendency is in favor of Tocqueville's bold speculative forecast of the political future of his nation. The same thing is true, we think, more broadly, of the world in general; and of this Brazil apparently furnishes a striking late instance in confirmation.

"Democracy in America" is a classic in literature. Its credit is highest with those best qualified to form a judgment. But its fame is universal. It associates its author in rank of genius with the foremost political philosophers of the world--with Machiavelli, with Montesquieu, with Burke. Every American aiming at a political career, every American journalist having to discuss political subjects should be familiar with this book. Mr. Bryce's more recent work on the United States, which has sprung so suddenly into such commanding fame, by no means supersedes, though it does most usefully supplement, the monumental treatise of Tocqueville--a name generally miscalled "De Tocqueville."

Of Alexis de Tocqueville's life it need only be said that, sprung of a noble French family, he ran a respectable, though neither a brilliant, nor a very influential, career in the politics of his country; until, discontented with the second empire, that of the usurper, Louis Napoleon, he retired, about 1851, from public service and devoted himself to labor with the pen. His second chief work was "The Ancient Regime," published in 1856, three years before his death.

We cannot probably make a better brief selection, at once more characteristic and more interesting, from Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" than by presenting in large part the chapter entitled: "Causes which render democratic armies weaker than other armies at the outset of a campaign, and more formidable in a protracted warfare."

A striking illustrative light was destined to be thrown by momentous subsequent history in our own land on the sagacity and justness of the speculations hazarded here by the author on his particular topic.

It would not be far wrong to consider that Americans, by the great civil war, furnished, in a single historical case, the double example required for complete illustration of Tocqueville's point: an example of the democratic, together with an example of the aristocratic, community engaging in war after a long peace. Readers may make each his own comparison of the Frenchman's philosophical speculations with the actual facts that emerged in the course of our national strife:

Any army is in danger of being conquered at the outset of a campaign,
after a long peace; any army which has long been engaged in warfare
has strong chances of victory: this truth is peculiarly applicable to
democratic armies. In aristocracies the military profession, being a
privileged career, is held in honor even in time of peace. Men of
great talents, great attainments, and great ambition embrace it; the
army is in all respects on a level with the nation, and frequently
above it.

We have seen, on the contrary, that among a democratic people the
choicer minds of the nation are gradually drawn away from the
military profession to seek, by other paths, distinction, power, and
especially wealth. After a long peace--and in democratic ages the
periods of peace are long--the army is always inferior to the country
itself. In this state it is called into active service: and until war
has altered it, there is danger for the country as well as for the
army.

I have shown that in democratic armies, and in time of peace, the rule
of seniority is the supreme and inflexible law of advancement. This is
not only a consequence, as I have before observed, of the constitution
of these armies, but of the constitution of the people, _and it will
always occur_.

The words italicized by us above illustrate the intrepid firmness of our author in staking the fortune of an opinion of his upon the risk of confutation by future fact. He affirms, it will be seen, absolutely, and does not seek to save himself by a clause.

Again, as among these nations the officer derives his position in the
country solely from his position in the army, and as he draws all the
distinction and the competency he enjoys from the same source, he does
not retire from his profession or is not superannuated till toward the
extreme close of life. The consequence of these two causes is that
when a democratic people goes to war after a long interval of peace
all the leading officers of the army are old men. I speak not only of
the generals, but of the non-commissioned officers, who have most of
them been stationary, or have only advanced step by step. It may be
remarked with surprise that in a democratic army after a long peace
all the soldiers are mere boys, and all the superior officers in
declining years; so that the former are wanting in experience, the
latter in vigor. This is a strong element of defeat, _for the first
condition of successful generalship is youth_. I should not have
ventured to say so if the greatest captain of modern times had not
made the observation. [The unequaled success of the aged Von Moltke in
the conduct of the Prussian war against France in 1870 is here a
curious comment on the text.]

* * * * *

I am therefore of opinion that when a democratic people engages in a
war after a long peace, it incurs much more risk of defeat than any
other nation; but it ought not easily to be cast down by its reverses,
for the chances of success for such an army are increased by the
duration of the war. When a war has at length by its long continuance
roused the whole community from their peaceful occupations and ruined
their minor undertakings the same passions which made them attach so
much importance to the maintenance of peace will be turned to arms.
War, after it has destroyed all modes of speculation, becomes itself
the great and sole speculation, to which all the ardent and ambitious
desires which equality engenders are exclusively directed. Hence it is
that the self-same democratic nations which are so reluctant to engage
in hostilities sometimes perform prodigious achievements when once
they have taken the field.

As the war attracts more and more of public attention, and is seen to
create high reputations and great fortunes in a short space of time,
the choicest spirits of the nation enter the military profession. All
the enterprising, proud, and martial minds, no longer of the
aristocracy solely, but of the whole country, are drawn in this
direction. As the number of competitors for military honors is
immense, and war drives every man to his proper level, great generals
are always sure to spring up. A long war produces upon a democratic
army the same effects that a revolution produces upon a people; it
breaks through regulations, and allows extraordinary men to rise above
the common level. Those officers whose bodies and minds have grown old
in peace are removed, or superannuated, or they die. In their stead a
host of young men are pressing on whose frames are already hardened,
whose desires are extended and inflamed by active service. They are
bent on advancement at all hazards, and perpetual advancement. They
are followed by others with the same passions and desires, and after
these are others yet, unlimited by aught but the size of the army. The
principle of equality opens the door of ambition to all, and death
provides chances for ambition. Death is constantly thinning the ranks,
making vacancies, closing and opening the career of arms.

There is, moreover, a secret connection between the military character
and the character of democracies which war brings to light. The men of
democracies are naturally passionately eager to acquire what they
covet, and to enjoy it on easy conditions. They, for the most part,
worship chance, and are much less afraid of death than of difficulty.
This is the spirit which they bring to commerce and manufactures; and
this same spirit, carried with them to the field of battle, induces
them willingly to expose their lives in order to secure in a moment
the rewards of victory. No kind of greatness is more pleasing to the
imagination of a democratic people than military greatness--a
greatness of vivid and sudden luster, obtained without toil, by
nothing but the risk of life.

Thus, while the interest and the tastes of the members of a democratic
community divert them from war, their habits of mind fit them for
carrying on war well; they soon make good soldiers when they are
roused from their business and their enjoyments.

If peace is peculiarly hurtful to democratic armies, war secures to
them advantages which no other armies ever possess; and these
advantages, however little felt at first, cannot fail in the end to
give them the victory. An aristocratic nation which, in a contest with
a democratic people, does not succeed in ruining the latter at the
outset of the war always runs a great risk of being conquered by it.

"Democracy in America" must be credited with a very important teaching influence on the political thought of mankind. This influence is more than the impulse of stimulating speculation. It is a practical force fruitful of solid political result. The present writer remembers hearing Tocqueville taught to eager audiences of French students in the College de France, at Paris, by M. Laboulaye, a popular professor in that national institution. This was while in France the second empire remained as yet apparently firm on its base, and while in this country the great duel between section and section remained as yet apparently doubtful. The applause with which the lecturer's praise of free institutions was greeted signified much. It signified that the leaven of Tocqueville's ideas was working in those youthful hearts. (M. Laboulaye's lectures, which possessed original merit of their own, were finally published in a volume.) Present republican France owes, in no despicable degree, its existence to the fact that Tocqueville had visited, and reported, and interpreted the United States to his countrymen. Perhaps, also, it is true that the American Union is standing to-day partly because the popular sentiment created by Tocqueville in France favorable to American democracy was too strong, too vivid, and too universal, for the emperor safely to disregard it, in imperial acts, long threatened, hostile to the integrity of the republic. If Tocqueville's guess is right, if democratic institutions are indeed ultimately to prevail throughout the world, certainly it cannot be denied that the prophet himself will have done his part toward fulfilling his prophecy.

We feel that we shall have done scant justice to the high and serious spirit who forms the subject of these concluding pages of the present chapter, if we do not go from the one work itself, by example out of which we have shown him, to expressions of his in his correspondence that may let us a little deeper into the personal secret of the man himself. Tocqueville, although, as we have intimated, a believer in the democratic destiny of the world, was not such in virtue of being a democrat by preference himself. On the contrary, his own aristocratic blood favoring it perhaps, his individual choice would apparently have gone, not for, but against, democracy. This seems to be indicated in what follows, written to a friend concerning the purpose of his work, "Democracy in America":

I wished to show what in our days a democratic people really was, and,
by a rigorously accurate picture, to produce a double effect on the
men of my day. To those who have fancied an ideal democracy, as a
brilliant and easily realized dream, I undertook to show that they had
clothed the picture in false colors; that the democratic government
which they desired, though it may procure real benefits to the people
who can bear it, has none of the elevated features with which their
imaginations would endow it; and moreover, that such a government can
only maintain itself under certain conditions of faith, enlightenment,
and private morality, which we have not yet reached, and which we must
labor to attain before grasping their political results.

To men for whom the word "democracy" is the synonym of overthrow,
spoliation, anarchy, and murder, I have endeavored to prove that it
was possible for democracy to govern society, and yet to respect
property, to recognize rights, to spare liberty, to honor religion;
that if democratic government is less fitted than other forms to
develop some of the finest faculties of the human soul, it has yet its
noble and its lovely features; and that perhaps, after all, it may be
the will of God to distribute a moderate degree of happiness to the
mass of men, and not to concentrate great felicity and great
perfection on a few. I have tried, moreover, to demonstrate that,
whatever might be their opinion upon these points, the time for
discussing them was past; that the world marched onward day by day
towards a condition of social equality, and dragged them and every one
along with it; that their only choice now lay between evils henceforth
inevitable; that the practical question of this day was not whether
you would have an aristocracy or a democracy, but whether you would
have a democratic society, without poetry and without grandeur, but
with morality and order; or a democratic society disorganized and
depraved, delivered over to a furious frenzy, or else bent beneath a
yoke heavier than any that have weighed upon mankind since the fall of
the Roman Empire.

The "Commune" in France, "Nihilism" in Russia, "Socialism" in Germany, "Nationalism" in the United States, are all of them, each in its own different way, remarkable historical commentaries on the prophetic political forecast contained in the foregoing letter.

Here is ripe practical wisdom occurring in a letter written by Tocqueville about two years before his death:

You know that my most settled principle is, that there is no period of
a man's life at which he is entitled to _rest_; and that effort out of
one's self, and still more above one's self, is as necessary in age as
in youth--nay, even more necessary. Man in this world is like a
traveler who is always walking towards a colder region, and who is
therefore obliged to be more active as he goes farther north. The
great malady of the soul is _cold_. And in order to counteract and
combat this formidable illness, he must keep up the activity of his
mind not only by work, but by contact with his fellow-men and with the
world. Retirement from the great conflicts of the world is desirable
no doubt for those whose strength is on the decline; but absolute
retirement, away from the stir of life, is not desirable for any man,
nor at any age.

His experience as practical politician made him write thus:

It is a sad side of humanity that politics uncovers. We may say,
without making any exception, that nothing there is either thoroughly
pure or thoroughly disinterested; nothing really generous, nothing
hearty or spontaneous. There is no _youth_, even among the youngest;
and something cold, selfish, and premeditated may be detected even in
the most apparently passionate proceedings.

There was so much wholesome reaction in Tocqueville's moral nature that, notwithstanding the disparaging views, on his part, thus revealed of human worth, he never became cynical. He could even write as follows to a friend of his who, he thought, went too far in decrying mankind:

You make humanity out worse than it is. I have seen many countries,
studied many men, mingled in many public transactions, and the result
of my observation is not what you suppose. Men in general are neither
very good nor very bad; they are simply _mediocre_. I have never
closely examined even the best without discovering faults and
frailties invisible at first. I have always in the end found among the
worst certain elements and _holding-points_ of honesty. There are two
men in every man: it is childish to see only one; it is sad and unjust
to look only at the other.... Man, with all his vices, his weaknesses,
and his virtues, this strange mixture of good and bad, of low and
lofty, of sincere and depraved, is, after all, the object most
deserving of study, interest, pity, affection, and admiration to be
found upon this earth; and since we have no angels, we cannot attach
ourselves to anything greater or worthier than our fellow-creatures.

On the whole, Alexis de Tocqueville's own practice in life showed that he wrote not only with sincerity, but with earnestness, when he wrote those words. It was not of such Frenchmen as was Tocqueville that the author of that heavy sentence on France could have been thinking--that the French character was made up without conscience. We, for our part, cannot but maintain that Tocqueville is as much more solid as he may be less brilliant than his predecessor and fellow, Montesquieu. They were both too theoretical; that is, too exclusively French as distinguished, for instance, from English, in political philosophy. They began to be deductive, when to be inductive yet longer would have been their wiser part. In a word--like Guizot, too, the author of the "History of Civilization," and the minister of Citizen-King Louis Philippe--both Montesquieu and Tocqueville failed of escaping what the French would call the defect of their quality.