Ancien Régime III, 1-3
Ancien Regime III b
In his first and vitally important chapter, Tocqueville says that true aristocracies impose their system of values on a nation, but in France the nobles permitted the philosophes to impose their ideology not only on the education of the young but also even onto the edicts of the regime which began to speak of human rights.
The intellectual conflict in the 18th century was between the Church, whose traditions upheld the faith, and a superficial philosophy that disdained both faith and tradition. Fortunately, the ghastly revolution, he argues, had sobered up the French. What AT failed to understand is that the progress of revolution often takes a step backward before taking two steps forward. While public atheism was no longer fashionable in his day, Catholic piety remained on the fringe in French life, and it stayed there throughout the 20th century down to today.
While the philosophes often prated about liberty, their real dream was of equality and unity. "Not only did they loathe certain privileges, diversity itself was odious." By diversity, obviously, AT did not mean multi-culturalism and pandering to racial minorities, but the existence of social and cultural distinctions. These distinctions, which were the cause of the inefficiencies and ineffectiveness of the regime, were part of the odious legacy of feudalism, which the philosophes and the economists (early classical liberals) wanted to eliminate. (By the way, from the beginning the economists/liberals/libertarians showed themselves the enemies of society and civilization.)
The past was wrong, they said, and even such things as inherited land boundaries were objects of suspicion. The task of the economists, as they saw it, was to seize power in the state and use it to reshape society and human nature itself. This power did not derive from God or the king. "It did not have ties to tradition; it was impersonal; no longer called the king but the state, no longer the inheritance of one family but the result of and representative of all. The rights of each citizen had to yield to the will of all."
AT dwells at some length on The Code of Nature written, supposedly, by one Morelly, which may well have been a pseudonym. The Code anticipates Proudhon and Marx in its treatment of property. Combined with the economists's theories, Morelly's fantasy is a recipe for the total state. But the philosophes, as critical as they were of the Ancien Regime, were enthusiastic about state power, and Voltaire rejoiced when the parlements were eliminated, precisely because they served as a barrier to total power.
Laws, customs, traditions, religion, and social distinction—all were to be dissolved by the unitary power of the state, acting on rational principles for the good of all.
AT argues quite persuasively (in chapter 4) that the reign of Louis XVI was a time of rapidly increasing prosperity. While taxes and laws were often quite unequitable, they were ameliorated in their application. The rising public debt, partly the result of France's support for the American Revolution, affected only a few people, the rich who held government bonds or whose business depended upon government support. They, the members of the upper business class, can usually be counted on to resist change and prop up the regime on whose stability they so much depend. In this case, however, it was the business classes who demanded immediate reforms that amounted to revolution.
To be continued
Entries(RSS)
Dr. Fleming:
Your quote:
"The past was wrong, they said, and even such things as inherited land boundaries were objects of suspicion."
What "they" advocate is contrary to the biblical principle articulated in Deuteronomy 19:14
"Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's landmark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it."
Was Morelly a Platonist?
"While public atheism was no longer fashionable in his day, Catholic piety remained on the fringe in French life, and it stayed there throughout the 20th century down to today."
It is interesting to me that of the hundreds of novenas approved and in circulation today, the only one officialy prescribed by the Church is the one to The Holy Ghost. A hundred years after the fruits of the Revolution were more fimrly established Leo XIII wrote:
"We ought to pray to and invoke the Holy Spirit, for each one of us greatly needs His protection and His help. The more a man is deficient in wisdom, weak in strength, borne down with trouble, prone to sin, so ought he the more to fly to Him who is the never-ceasing fount of light, strength, consolation, and holiness."
The problem with Morelly is that no one knows who he was. The name is probably a pseudonym--some think it is actually Diderot. In any event, he is a kind of reductio ad absurdum of the philosophes who was quite big in his day, rather like William Godwin. Today, liberals won't talk much about Godwin, though he was their god in the early 19th century, and his novel took the world by storm. The trouble is Godwin is too clear and explicit and in his hands liberalism is obviously a force to resist. Similarly, Morelly is useful for AT, not just because of his popularity but because of his extremism.
Dr.Fleming,
How corrupt was the Chuch's clergy in the popular imagination before these ideas of " loathing certain privileges, diversity itself being odious..., The past was wrong.." began to take hold in the populace.
The clergy has always been corrupt. Think Judas, Simon Magus, Ananias. Corruption comes iin many forms. In the late 17th century, rogue priests took part in black masses, amatory masses, etc, and used their powers to strengthen magic spells, talismans, poisons, etc. Bishops often held their position because of wealth and family connections--that was one of the special sins of the Gallican Church. Overall, though it is hard to make comparisons, the French lower clergy appear to have been far better on average than the 20th century American clergy. The uprisings in Brittany and the Vendee can only be explained as an outpouring of affection and loyalty to priests and nuns. This is where--and I want to underscore this point--too many traditionalist writers are guilty, seriously guilty of undermining loyalty and reverence by dwelling too much upon the sins of Novus Ordo priests and then exaggerating them. In some cases, e.g. Mr. Rose's attacks, malevolence is the only explanation for stuff written without proper research or verification. When I asked a friend of mine who engages in this sort of stuff if he had asked his victim for an explanation, he told me he didn't have to because he knew the man was guilty. I think if one is going to run an inquisition, one needs more authority than the editor of the New Oxford Review or Culture wars can grant. I do not wish to detract from the good work done by these people, but I do believe that in going after bad priests they have done more harm than good.
AT argues quite persuasively (in chapter 4) that the reign of Louis XVI was a time of rapidly increasing prosperity. While taxes and laws were often quite unequitable, they were ameliorated in their application. The rising public debt, partly the result of France's support for the American Revolution, affected only a few people, the rich who held government bonds or whose business depended upon government support. They, the members of the upper business class, can usually be counted on to resist change and prop up the regime on whose stability they so much depend. In this case, however, it was the business classes who demanded immediate reforms that amounted to revolution.
" dwelling too much upon the sins ... "
Yes, this is true and now very much a part of the American political fabric. It must have perhaps been the reaction against the hersies of Puritanism and idealism. Character assasination, calumny, and detraction have long been the prefered weapons of the left (and now the right) for as long as I can remember. It was not always so,however, and I doubt that it can be overcome at this point. So much of this method deals with truth of course, but also ugliness, whereas the fullness of truth has more splendor.
Having worked with criminals and around the edges of our culture for over twenty years, I have grown to despise this type of half truth, but sometimes I must say it is the only form of violence available to a man to keep the crowd at the door. Humanly speaking it would be immpossible to halt at this late stage.
Bonnie and Clyde once committed a murder here in my county. They shot one officer and took the other hostage. Reading the old news accounts and the kidnapped officers own words about how fairly he was treated by the outlaws and how saddened he was at the loss of his friend and fellow officer, was truly from a differnt age. A simpler, more truthful and honest age.
Dr. Fleming, would it be fair to say that in being corrupt, such clergymen were merely behaving like the rest of us people, who are also imperfect and full of vices?
Perhaps those writers, who go after bad priests, can try to accept that clergymen don't have to be held to higher standards than any other being made of flesh and blood.
You are right about the hypocrisy of imperfect people demanding perfection from the clergy. Nonetheless, priests do have to be held to higher standards because it is the standards they accept and advocate. Every profession has its own set of particular standards: soldiers should not be cowards, scholars are supposed to pursue truth rather than fashion, parents have to take care of their children, and priests must do their best to maintain and exemplify the teachings of Christ and his Church. Naturally, every group has its failures, but failure is nowhere near so bad as treason against one's order, e.g., military officers pursuing irrelevant social agendas that weaken the defense of their country, mothers who kill or neglect their babies, scholars who lie in what they believe to be a good cause, and priests who use their authority to "sanctify" voodoo or Marxism.
By the way, I liked this part from the book.
"On a souvent attribue notre revolution a celle d'Amerique: celle ci eut en effet beaucoup d'influence sur la revolution francaise, mais elle la dut moins a ce qu'on fit alors aux Etats Unis qu'a ce qu'on pensait au meme moment en France. Tandis que dans le reste de l'Europe la revolution d'Amerique n'etait encore qu'un fait nouveau et singulier, chez nous elle rendait seulement plus sensible et plus frappant ce qu'on croyait connaitre deja. La elle etonnait, ice elle achevait de convaincre. Les Americains semblaient ne faire qu'executer ce que nos ecrivains avaient concu; ils donnaient la substance de la realite a ce que nous etions en train de rever."
Sorry for not putting in the accents and other signs, since I don't know how to do it on the keyboard, but he is again re-emphasising something he stated from the beginning of the book. The French Revolution truly had no precedent and was much more unique than anything before and after. Perhaps that shall forever be the case. And it also reminds me of how many things exported from Europe to America end up exported back to Europe. (Sometimes also the other way round.)
For those who like me do not read French, I believe the English version of Mr. Sanjay's quote @11 can be found on page 147 of the Penguin translation. (Almost at the end of Chapter One of Book Three.) ("Our revolution has often been attributed to that in America. . .")
Oh yes, I wanted to mention this in earlier Ancien Regime article comments.
The frequent use of "us", "our", or "we" (or rather nous and notre) implies that this book was written for the French only.
He probably had not expected foreigners to take an interest in his book back in his days? Strange, since I expect the French generation with their grandparents and parents who lived through those days in the 1800s would themselves have a variety of good interpreters and commentators on those days, from among their own general company. Should it not be foreigners who want to understand the motivations, agendas, and interests behind the French Revolution? Would the French not know themselves well enough?
As a person without degree but a reader, the term theme is understood
for study in literature fields. However, for revised books of
Scripture replacing theme for message is like watering down and
for some readers taken as art for art's sake. Any comment would
be appreciated.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the question. Is it on the meaning of the word "theme"?
To Mr. Sanjay, you pose a shrewd question. In fact Tocqueville did hope to be read by his many friends in England. A writer has to address a specific audience, though. Otherwise he will have to explain all sorts of things. A friend of mine who is boning up on the FR has been asking me many basic questions on topics that historians take for granted, e.g. the parlements, the Estates General, Turgot's economic policies, etc. AT assumes an educated French audience, though anyone else is welcome to listen in to the conversation. And, to answer your final query, not, he did not think that his father's generation or his own actually understood what had happened, any more than people of my generation understand that since 1932 the USA have been undergoing a perpetual revolution against not just the Constitution but against civilization and human nature. Most Frenchmen seem to have thought the FR was a good thing that got out of hand, while others thought it had not gone anywhere far enough. Reactionaries thought it was a Masonic plot against a divinely constituted order. AT thought they were all wrong.
@ 15 Dr. Fleming
Your comment on the word theme would be appreciated and the word
message.
Mr. Sanjay's comments @13 highlight the value of being able to read a work in its original language. A translator would have to use footnotes or annotations to convey the meaning that Mr. Sanjay suspected from the specific words that AT used, words that cannot be accurately reflected in English. Thanks for raising the issue, Mr. Sanjay.
Um, er, no problem.
I had to compulsorily do French in the local high school, and the subject always had the strictest and most unforgiving teachers.
To be honest, I don't even like hearing this language (too effeminate and associated with pretentious people!), and my grasp of it is quite rough, but it's fun to read a foreign language work now and then. Just to think in that language. More luckily, my father knows French well from the seven years when he worked as a grunt-level telecom lobbyist for the New Delhi branch of France Telecom.
I normally take my high school French for granted, but in some occasions, such as when I see the superhuman scholars who write for Chronicles and who speak fluent Italian, German,.etc (like Chilton Williamson Jr.), I decide to up my game and try to keep up.
With one year of CPS H.S. education in Spanish I realize I am not in the same league as many of the many Chronicles' commentators regarding knowing and speaking fluently in many languages. Mr. Van Sant and Mr. Sanjay have clarified questions regarding literature and
translating words in #17 and #18. Thank you.
Alas, my high school Latin and college Italian are mostly forgotten. I have a hard enough time thinking in English, much less a foreign language. I considered diving back into Latin, but I think my "amo, amas, amat" days are long gone. Maybe when I retire in a few years and need a challenge. Or perhaps I'll attend the Greek classes at my church as Dr. Fleming recommends elsewhere on this site.
Dr. Fleming @32: "[S]ince 1932 the USA have been undergoing a perpetual revolution against not just the Constitution but against civilization and human nature."
I believe that it is natural for man to revolt against human nature when detached from the true faith or, even worse, when led astray by the new false faiths that are trying to establish heaven on earth. This trait is inherent in our fallen human nature. It is a form of the pride that led to Lucifer's fall.
Of course, Dr. Fleming is quoted from 15, not 32 as I mmistakenly indicated above.