their products, out of this chaos and turmoil. And the task which M. Guizot proposed to himself was to trace the progress of the work of the centuries.

Other labours-other duties-prevented the complete performance of what he intended; but he accomplished sufficient to show both the excellence of his method of operation and the superiority of his intellect. The history of Europe from the fall of the Roman Empire is divided into three periods; the period of confusion, the feudal period, and the modern period. The outlines of the development of civilisation during these three periods were twice drawn by M. Guizot, first in the 'Essais' and next in the Cours de 1828.' But he rightly felt that outlines were not enough-that what was above all needed was a thorough, a detailed, an exhaustive analysis of civilisation. In the Cours de 1829' he undertook and accomplished such an analysis of civilisation, so far as it was represented by the civilisation of France, for the period of confusion-for the five centuries between Clovis and the end of the Carlovingian dynasty. In the following year he entered on the analysis of the feudal period; and was carrying it forward on the same comprehensive scale, and with an ability and success no less remarkable, when his Course was abruptly terminated before it was half finished-before the speculative, religious, and literary characteristics of the period had been brought under review. Beyond that point the work, unfortunately, never got. The last or strictly modern period of European, or even French history, was never taken up at all. Thus the Course of 1829 is the only one in which the method of M. Guizot is seen fully exemplified; in which a period of civilisation is analysed with the thoroughness and exhaustiveness which he deemed essential. It is especially in it that his historical philosophy is to be seen in operation. Let us recall what he does there.

After the preliminary lecture to which I have already had occasion to refer, he describes the social and intellectual, the civil and religious, state of society in Gaul prior to the German invasion, at the end of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth century (L. 2-6); then the dispositions, the manners, and institutions of the Germans before they began to take possession of the lands of the Celt and the Roman (7); and next, the invasion

and conquest itself, its character, the changes it caused in the distribution of society, its various immediate consequences (8). These are, as it were, the three scenes of the first act of the drama. After having delineated them, our author turns to trace through the two following centuries the action and reaction of the Barbarian and Romanised societies, their progressive development and amalgamation, alike in the civil, the religious, and the intellectual order of things. As to the civil order, he shows how the Barbarian codes of law arose and how the Roman law was perpetuated (9-11). As to the religious order, he explains the internal organisation of the Church, the varieties of grade and function among its regular and secular clergy, its relations with civil society, its aims, its tendencies, its influence (12-15). And, as illustrative of the intellectual life of the period, he analyses and describes its scanty literature, both sacred and profane (16-18).

The fall of the Merovingian and the rise of the Carlovingian dynasty about the middle of the eighth century introduced a third epoch, a third act. After showing the nature and causes of that revolution (19), M. Guizot dwells upon the position and significance of the reign of Charlemagne-on the character and designs of that great monarch-on his influence, direct and indirect, on outward affairs, legislation, and the development of mind. Thence he proceeds to trace, step by step, the operation of the causes which decomposed his vast empire, and, at the same time, produced the feudal system (20-25). Nor does he forget to study either the history of the Church (26-27) or the movement and manifestations of reflective thought (28-29) during the same period.

In fact, he analyses the entire constitution and development of society during these five centuries; lays bare all its essential elements, all its chief forces; traces them all continuously from the beginning to the end of the period investigated; traces them separately, yet also in connection, never forgetting that they are the component parts or principles of a single selfdependent and active whole.

The originality of M. Guizot's work consists in the truly scientific spirit and character of his method. He was the first to dissect a society in the same comprehensive, impartial, and

thorough way in which an anatomist dissects the body of an animal, and the first to study the functions of the social organism in the same systematic and careful manner in which the physiologist studies the functions of the animal organism. Before him there had been a vast amount both of historical research and historical speculation; states, ages, classes, individuals, had had their histories, some of which were excellent; the development of laws, manners, sciences, arts, letters, had been traced, and in some cases not only learnedly but with considerable insight into causation; and there had even been systems not a few as to the course, and plan, and laws of history as a whole; yet he was fully entitled, I think, to speak of the work he accomplished as new. It was not conceived of before the eighteenth century. It was first truly commenced by himself. And what a noble commencement he made! course in a work so extensive, so difficult, every careful student must find something to criticise, something to dissent from; yet few will deny that it is a model of scientific skill, comprehensively treating of all the vast variety of facts included in civilisation, while never allowing to drop out of sight the unity of life that underlies the multiplied manifestations; that it is not only wonderfully true and satisfactory as an organic whole, but that it has illuminated a multitude of particular points and dispelled a multitude of serious errors; that it disclosed in every order of social phenomena a significance unnoticed before, by the manner in which it showed them in constant contact with the other orders of phenomena.

Of

The application which M. Guizot made of his method to a portion of history was conclusive evidence that the same method could be applied to all history. It was, however, more. It was a practical, irrefragable proof of the existence of a science of history, not indeed in every sense of the word science, but in the most usual sense, the only sense in which there is a science of geology or of physiology. He applied the same sort of method, the same rules of method, which are employed in these sciences, and he obtained results as certain, as comprehensive, as important, as those which are reached through geological or physiological research. The term science may be so strictly defined that branches of knowledge like geology and physiology have no

right to be called sciences; the term law is very often so defined that no geological or physiological truth is entitled to the name; but if science and law be used so as to include such divisions of knowledge and to designate their highest truths, there can be no reasonable doubt of the existence of historical science and historical law. M. Guizot has proved their existence, as Columbus proved the existence of the New World when he sailed onwards until he reached it.

IV.

It is especially by their researches into the history of philosophy that those who are regarded as followers of Cousin have contributed to the philosophical study of history, and to a profounder and more enlarged conception of the development of humanity. They have not attempted to construct philosophies of history; but several of them have dealt with special aspects and problems of historical philosophy; and, in particular, with the idea of progress. I shall briefly notice some of the most interesting of the works which treat of this theme.

In 1851 M. Javary (1820-56) published his 'Idée de Progrès.' It was the first really good general treatment of its subject. It was at once an important contribution to the history of the idea of progress, a careful analysis of the nature of progress, and a judicious criticism of the chief erroneous views prevalent regarding progress.

Its author's independence, as well as soundness, of judgment is everywhere apparent. Although accepting the general principles of Cousin's philosophy, he does not hesitate to reject his particular conclusions. He vigorously opposes the historical optimism which Cousin derived from Hegel and endeavoured to propagate in France. He solidly refutes such dicta as that "whatever is is good," and that "evil necessarily produces good"; combats the fatalistic theory of history; and maintains that human progress is not the inevitable result of natural laws and forces, but that it largely depends on how individuals and societies employ the freedom with which they have been

endowed whether there will be progress or decadence. He indicates with special clearness the moral and religious conditions which are implied in healthy social development. The distinctive characteristic of true progress is represented by him as advance towards a complete realisation of human nature through its own spiritual energy; that is, through the victory of the rational and moral will over the passions which war against the higher life of the soul.

In M. Javary's work we may not find any absolutely original ideas; but we never fail to find important and carefully considered ideas. Like his 'De la Certitude,' it is a book which no one specially studying its subject can afford to neglect.

The question of progress has also been treated, and with characteristic ingenuity, by M. Bouillier, the eminent author of the History of Cartesianism.' In his 'Morale et Progrès,' he seeks to determine how far there has been progress, and how far there has not. The investigation is throughout conducted with reference to the positions regarding progress maintained by Mr Buckle in his 'History of Civilisation in England,' and the discussions to which they gave rise.

M. Bouillier describes progress as a legacy or inheritance which is transmitted from generation to generation, and which increases with the advance of the ages. Only what can be transmitted and accumulated is susceptible of progress. He draws a distinction between the elements or matter and the conditions or means of progress. Its elements are intellectual facts, the various kinds of knowledge. Its conditions are the qualities of the will,-character, virtue. The former are perfectible in the species; the latter are perfectible only in the individual. The acquisitions of intellect do not disappear with the death of those who make them. Truths once discovered inventions once found out, have only to be made known, and the knowledge of them "wakes to perish never." If a great physicist through his labours extends the limits and increases the treasures of science, advances the industrial arts, facilitates the production of wealth, and enriches civilisation, he does so for the good of the world in all time. Any young man with a turn for physical science may easily serve himself heir to the