doctrine capable of supplying all the wants and guiding all the activities of man in a more satisfactory way than any religion. The aim of M. Jouffroy's argument required him to prove such hope an illusion, and to convict those who indulge in it of turning away from the highest and most comprehensive truth to one lower and narrower, from the ultimate and complete to a derivative and partial good. This requirement he has failed to fulfil,—has failed even to see that it existed.

Dissent must further be expressed from that portion of M. Jouffroy's speculations which concern the relation of England, France, and Germany to humanity and its future. Although his views on this subject are the reflections of a just and generous nature, include some important truths, and are very generally entertained, they are, as a whole, not true; and it is most undesirable that they should longer continue to be received so implicitly and widely as they are. That England, France, and Germany are, if all things be taken into account, at the head of European civilisation, is doubtless true; and that each excels the other two in some respects, and is inferior in others, is likewise true: but there is a wide interval between the first of these truths and the assumption that the nations mentioned will retain in the future the same rank relatively either to each other or to other nations which they occupy at present; and a wide interval also between the second truth and the assumption that their excellences and defects are due to the presence or absence of special faculties which mark out for them their proper and peculiar employment in the work of human progress.

What guarantee is there that England, France, and Germany will long retain their present relative positions? What certainty is there for any one of them, that a hundred years hence it will be in the first rank of nations? What probability is there that no other nation will have reached an equal height? Italy, so far behind them when M. Jouffroy wrote, is already nearly on a line with them, being probably, of all the nations of Europe, that which has made, in the present generation, the greatest progress of a truly satisfactory kind; and this in the main, not through following or imitating any foreign state, but by advancing along a path of her own, by the development of her own proper life. We have but to recall the names of Manzoni, Pellico, Niccolini, Giusti, and Balbo, of Rosmini, Gioberti, and Mamiani, of Cavour and D'Azeglio, of Manin, Mazzini, and Garibaldi, and of the other noble men whom Italy has produced during the present century with such wonderful profusion, to convince ourselves that she has been for more than a generation, in one respect at least, first among the nations-viz., in the intensity of her desire to impress the image of her own national individuality alike on her philosophical speculations, her works of art and literature, and her political action. And why should Italy not advance as far on

her way as England, France, or Germany on theirs? For peace and war, for adventure by land and sea, for science and art, prose and poetry, political subtlety, religious fervour, and heroic self-sacrifice, the Italian genius is inferior to no other in Europe. Further, there are two nations which in strength are perhaps even at present equal to those which M. Jouffroy described as bearing with them the whole race of mankind; which are growing more rapidly than they; which are so situated as to be safer than the safest of them from permanent conquest; and which appear to be far more distant from their natural limits of increase. The possibilities before the United States and Russia are so grand that no mortal has a right to deny that the time may come when the mightiest power by sea at present will be doomed to stand before the one, and the mightiest on land before the other, like Hector before Achilles, able only in presence of the stronger and more heaven-favoured foe to resolve, "not inglorious at least shall I perish, but after doing some great thing that may be spoken of in ages to come."

“ Μὴ μὲν ἀσπουδέι γε καὶ ἀκλειῶς ἀπολοίμην,

Αλλα μέγα ρέξας τι καὶ ἐσσομένοισι πυθέσθαι.”

To speak of the distinctive merits of nations as due to the operation of special faculties, also appears erroneous and misleading. Literally and strictly understood, indeed, it is so obviously absurd as to be indefensible, since every man of sane mind has the same faculties as every other. In order to get from it a credible meaning, we must understand by faculty merely an aptitude resulting from the circumstances in which a people has been placed, a facility of thought or action which has required time, long or short, to form. To affirm that a nation has a special faculty in this sense, is not only to make a loose and confused application of language, but to state what, if true, obviously both demands and admits of explanation instead of being itself the sufficient explanation of anything, since such a faculty is an effect, may be even of recent origin, or capable of being easily acquired. To attribute to a nation a special faculty in any other sense, has no warrant either in reason or facts. Undoubtedly there is more learning in Germany than in France or England but the causes plainly are not special faculties for learning granted to Germans and denied to Frenchmen and Englishmen, or even the same faculties in any exceptional measure, quicker apprehensions, more capacious memories, greater love of knowledge for its own sake, more patience of intellect or more energy of will; but the superiority of the arrangements and institutions in that country for the promotion of secondary and higher education, the monopoly of all military and political power by the nobility, the comparatively small dimensions of German trade until quite recently, and other general social circumstances which concur either in drawing or

driving the élite of the middle and lower classes in Germany into some department of learning as the most accessible and promising sphere of ambition, whereas in France and England the most varied and powerful influences combine to attract them elsewhere. While the best minds among the youth of Germany are permanently gained to the service of science by being drawn into the professoriate of its numerous local and rival universities, similar minds are in France drawn, as by the suction of a maelstrom, into the vortex of Parisian society, and there lost to learning through absorption in financial speculation, political intrigue, journalistic ambitions, and all the caprices, aims, disappointments, and successes of a fleeting and feverish day. But the juristical school of Cujas, the philosophical school of Descartes, the French Benedictines, the French mathematicians and physicists who adorned with such profusion the earlier part of the present century; and, in a word, persons and works without number, have conclusively proved that Frenchmen are not necessarily, or in virtue of any essential characteristics of their nature, either less profound or less industrious, less original or less persevering, than Germans. Similarly, there is no conclusive evidence that the English genius is in itself either less scientific and philosophical or more worldly-wise and practical than the German.

Had M. Jouffroy lived to the present day, it is most improbable that he would repeat either that civil wars were ended, or that the wars of the peoples were about to cease. We, who have so recently seen civil war in America, France, and Spain, will not venture to say it may not be seen again even in England or Germany. And the peoples are arming and preparing for war in a way which can scarcely fail to be followed by an enormous effusion of human blood.

III.

The eclectic philosophy had its counterpart, or rather complement, in doctrinaire politics. What the one was in speculation, the other was in action. The former, regarding all antecedent philosophies, sensualistic, idealistic, sceptical, and mystical, as composed of truth and error, as never wholly false but only incomplete, sought to separate what was true in each from what was false, and so to combine the truths thus obtained as to produce a complete philosophy, a complete expression of consciousness and reality. The latter, in precisely the same way, treated all antecedent political theories, monarchical, aristocratical, and democratical, as right in themselves, but wrong in relation to

other theories, wrong in their exclusiveness; and attempted, by selection, by compromise, and by combination, to do justice to all the forces of society, and to secure their complete representation and their harmonious development. They may thus be almost considered as the two sides of one system, or as different applications of the same principles. But as philosophy and politics, however closely connected, remain always very distinct departments of activity, and require very distinct and special talents for their successful cultivation, it was only natural that the chief representatives even of the eclectic philosophy and doctrinaire politics which flourished in France forty years ago, should not have been the same persons; that MM. Cousin and Jouffroy should have attained eminence as philosophers, and M. Guizot and the Duc de Broglie as politicians.

Yet M. Guizot was drawn as directly and strongly to historical research and meditation by his political convictions and sentiments as M. Cousin by his philosophical principles and aims. He felt himself compelled to seek in the past a vindication of the legitimacy of the various forces which had ruled society, and a proof of the various articles of the political creed which he believed ought to regulate the conduct of statesmen in the present and future; just as M. Cousin felt himself compelled to seek in it the truths contained in previous philosophies, in order to compose a philosophy which would be final because complete. The result was in both cases most favourable to historical inquiry and speculation. Indeed, eclecticism did more for the history of philosophy than for philosophy itself, and doctrinairism more for political history than for political science. As the philosophical speculations of M. Cousin, although brilliant, are wanting in thoroughness and logical severity, so the political disquisitions of M. Guizot, notwithstanding their elevation of tone and breadth of thought, are almost always somewhat superficial. M. Cousin and M. Guizot both showed great skill in constructing a symmetrical and elegant system, the one of philosophy and the other of policy, and both failed to rest their systems firmly on sure foundations. Hence the eclecticism of the one and the doctrinairism of the other have suffered change and loss. The

impulse, however, which they gave to historical study still operates. In this connection no fair judge will deny them the heartiest gratitude and admiration.

It

The story of the life of Francis Guizot (1787-1874) is known to all educated men, for he lived long full in the world's eye, was not sparing of personal explanations and reminiscences, and had his character, words, and actions closely scrutinised from many points of view. His name recalls to us a most distinguished and influential career, a varied and indefatigable activity, important political services rendered when in opposition, great political ability displayed when in power, dignity and fortitude in the bearing of adversity, brilliant oratorical achievements, numerous literary works, some of which are of high intrinsic value, while all are admirable in aim, and the most rigid probity and propriety of personal conduct. recalls also, unfortunately, other things and qualities-lamentable mistakes, serious inconsistencies, faults which were almost crimes. He was a man of powerful intellect, imperious will, pure and noble sentiments, strong and austere character, but he was deficient in practical political wisdom and tact, inventiveness and resourcefulness. After a perusal of his 'Memoirs' the deepest impression left is one of regret that a man so largely endowed with many of the gifts of the statesman should have been so incapable of seeing how to apply the truths which he could expound so well, and to distinguish what was comparatively insignificant in affairs from what was vital. Here, however, we only require to treat of him in that capacity in which he won his purest and highest distinctions, -in his character of philosophical historian.1

All the best qualities of M. Guizot's mind are seen to their fullest advantage in his historical works,-accuracy in investigation, thoroughness of scholarship, a laboriousness which leaves nothing necessary undone, comprehensiveness of view and moderation of judgment, insight into political causation, elevation of moral sentiment, religious reverence and conviction. He is not, however, strictly speaking, a great historian. He wants

1 He has been studied in this aspect by Mr J. S. Mill, 'Discussions,' vol. i.; by Sir Archibald Alison, 'Essays,' vol. iii.; by M. Renouvier, 'La Critique Philosophique,' tom. i. and iii.; and by Ferraz.