The Eve of the French Revolution | Page 2

To the great names of de
Tocqueville and of Taine I can but render a passing homage. The
former may be said to have opened the modern mind to the proper
method of studying the eighteenth century in France, the latter is,
perhaps, the most brilliant of writers on the subject; and no one has
recently written, or will soon write, about the time when the Revolution

was approaching without using the books of both of them. And I must
not forget the works of the Vicomte de Broc, of M. Boiteau, and of M.
Rambaud, to which I have sometimes turned for suggestion or
confirmation.
Passing to another branch of the subject, I gladly acknowledge my debt
to the Right Honorable John Morley. Differing from him in opinion
almost wherever it is possible to have an opinion, I have yet found him
thoroughly fair and accurate in matters of fact. His books on Voltaire,
Rousseau, and the Encyclopaedists, taken together, form the most
satisfactory history of French philosophy in the eighteenth century with
which I am acquainted.
Of the writers of monographs, and of the biographers, I will not speak
here in detail, although some of their books have been of very great
service to me. Such are those of M. Bailly, M. de Lavergne, M. Horn,
M. Stourm, and M. Charles Gomel, on the financial history of France;
M. de Poncins and M. Desjardins, on the cahiers; M. Rocquain on the
revolutionary spirit before the revolution, the Comte de Luçay and M.
de Lavergne, on the ministerial power and on the provincial assemblies
and estates; M. Desnoiresterres, on Voltaire; M. Scherer, on Diderot; M.
de Loménie, on Beaumarchais; and many others; and if, after all, it is
the old writers, the contemporaries, on whom I have most relied,
without the assistance of these modern writers I certainly could not
have found them all.
In treating of the Philosophers and other writers of the eighteenth
century I have not endeavored to give an abridgment of their books, but
to explain such of their doctrines as seemed to me most important and
influential. This I have done, where it was possible, in their own
language. I have quoted where I could; and in many cases where
quotation marks will not be found, the only changes from the actual
expression of the author, beyond those inevitable in translation, have
been the transference from direct to oblique speech, or some other
trifling alterations rendered necessary in my judgment by the
exigencies of grammar. On the other hand, I have tried to translate
ideas and phrases rather than words.
EDWARD J. LOWELL.
June 24, 1892.

CONTENTS.
INTRODUCTION
I. THE KING AND THE ADMINISTRATION
II. LOUIS XVI. AND HIS COURT
III. THE CLERGY
IV. THE CHURCH AND HER ADVERSARIES
V. THE CHURCH AND VOLTAIRE
VI. THE NOBILITY
VII. THE ARMY
VIII. THE COURTS OF LAW
IX. EQUALITY AND LIBERTY
X. MONTESQUIEU
XI. PARIS
XII. THE PROVINCIAL TOWNS
XIII. THE COUNTRY
XIV. TAXATION
XV. FINANCE
XVI. "THE ENCYCLOPAEDIA"
XVII. HELVETIUS, HOLBACH, AND CHASTELLUX
XVIII. ROUSSEAU'S POLITICAL WRITINGS
XIX. "LA NOUVELLE HÉLOÏSE" AND "ÉMILE"
XX. THE PAMPHLETS
XXI. THE CAHIERS
XXII. SOCIAL AND ECONOMICAL MATTERS IN THE CAHIERS
XXIII CONCLUSION
INDEX OF EDITIONS CITED

THE EVE OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.

INTRODUCTION.
It is characteristic of the European family of nations, as distinguished
from the other great divisions of mankind, that among them different
ideals of government and of life arise from time to time, and that before
the whole of a community has entirely adopted one set of principles,
the more advanced thinkers are already passing on to another.
Throughout the western part of continental Europe, from the sixteenth
to the eighteenth century, absolute monarchy was superseding

feudalism; and in France the victory of the newer over the older system
was especially thorough. Then, suddenly, although not quite without
warning, a third system was brought face to face with the two others.
Democracy was born full-grown and defiant. It appealed at once to two
sides of men's minds, to pure reason and to humanity. Why should a
few men be allowed to rule a great multitude as deserving as
themselves? Why should the mass of mankind lead lives full of labor
and sorrow? These questions are difficult to answer. The Philosophers
of the eighteenth century pronounced them unanswerable. They did not
in all cases advise the establishment of democratic government as a
cure for the wrongs which they saw in the world. But they attacked the
things that were, proposing other things, more or less practicable, in
their places. It seemed to these men no very difficult task to
reconstitute society and civilization, if only the faulty arrangements of
the past could be done away. They believed that men and things might
be governed by a few