Notes

Epigraph

1. Bagehot, Works, VIII, p. 177; Maurras 1928, pp. 8–9.

1 Introduction: Victorian ‘Public Moralists’, Ethnocentrism and the View of France

1. Martineau 1990, p. 97; Mill, CW, I, p. 63.2. Quoted in Collini 1999, p. 76.3. The question of ‘English’ as opposed to ‘British’ always bedevils studies of

the period which wish to convey what the authors were saying, while tryingto not adopt their identification of ‘Britain’ and ‘British’ with ‘England’ and‘English’ as much as possible (cf. Collini 1991, pp. 6–7). Here ‘England’ and‘English’ will feature more prominently than ‘Britain’ and ‘British’, because‘England’ is what the thinkers discussed were talking about most of the time.In an attempt to define his terms (uncharacteristic for the time) NassauSenior clarified that he would go on in the pages to follow to speak of‘England – using the word England as a concise appellation for the nationinhabiting the British islands.’: Senior 1842, p. 17.

4. Cf. Jones 2000, pp. ix–x.5. Collini 1991, pp. 1–3.6. Arnold, Letters, III, p. 222 (18 January 1868). Cf. Watson 1973, pp. 254–6 and

passim.7. Bagehot, ‘Senior’s Journals’ (1871), Works, II, pp. 374–86. Cf. what James

Stephen wrote to the editor of the Edinburgh Review on Senior’s style: Napier1877, p. 363.

8. Burrow 2000, p. 84; G.M. Young, ‘The Greatest Victorian’, reprinted in:Bagehot, Works, XV, pp. 207–13.

9. Collini 1991, p. 13.10. Hamer 1968, p. 384.11. Bagehot, ‘Senior’s Journals’, Works, II, pp. 374–86.12. Cf. Arnold, in a letter to his mother: ‘Fitzjames Stephen is evidently more

vexed than I expected … ’: Letters, III, p. 11.13. Collected Letters, VI, p. 242.14. Mill complained in a letter to Comte (22 March 1842): ‘Il est … fort à regretter

que les penseurs de nos deux pays soient loin d’avoir les uns pour les autres l’estimequ’ils méritent. … Les Anglais cherchent plus volontiers des idées nouvelles chez lesallemands que chez les français.’ (‘It is highly regrettable that the thinkers ofour two countries are far from having for each other the regard which theydeserve. … The English look more willingly for new ideas among the Germansthan among the French.’): CW, XIII, pp. 508–9. Cf. Brandes 1924, p. 199.

171

15. Jones 2000, p. 63.16. See Himmelfarb 1952, pp. 185–7.17. Collini et al. 1983, p. 194.18. Hirst 1927, I, p. 269. For Morley and Mill see Collini 1991, p. 103 (and passim).19. See Finn 1993, pp. 275–6.20. Frederic’s son, Austin Harrison, has reported that his father once hit him on

the jaw for making fun of the French army: Kent 1978, p. 96. Cf. Harrison1884; Congreve 1884; Harrison (Royden) 1971; Vogeler 1984, pp. 95,97–105, 127–31; Kent 1978, pp. 96–9; Finn 1993, pp. 273–92.

21. Campos 1965, pp. 15–16.22. It is a matter of notoriety that Mill’s maid burnt the first manuscript of

Carlyle’s French Revolution.23. For books fully dedicated to British intellectuals’ views of France covering

roughly the period discussed in this book see: Campos 1965; Marandon1967. For other works covering Franco-British intellectual relations ormutual perceptions see: Gibson 1995; Cornick 1994, 1996, 1997; Bédarida et al. 1980; Connoly 1985. For a former period see: Eagles 2000; Newman1975, 1987; Colley 1992. Among a huge literature on the French Revolutionand Britain see: Crossley and Small 1989; Dickinson 1989; Schofield 1986,2000. For parts of the other side of the story, French views of Britain, cf.:Jennings 1986; Aron 1965; Cornick 1995, 2000; Reboul 1962; Taine 1864,1872; Boutmy 1904; Ratcliffe 1977; Cottret 1991.

24. On aspects of Arnold’s relationship with France see: Harding 1964; Sells1935; Brown 1931; Campos 1965, pp. 13–48.

25. ‘Numbers’, Prose Works, X, p. 154.26. O’Grady 1991, p. xxix. On Mill’s relationship with France or French thought

see: Mueller 1956; Filipiuk 1991; Cairns 1985; Apchié 1931; Chass 1928;Vaysset-Boutbien 1941.

27. CW, XIII, p. 536; CW, I, pp. 57–63. Mill had spent a year in France at the ageof 14 with the family of Samuel Bentham, Jeremy’s brother. Cf. CharlesJames Fox’s earlier exclamations about being ‘French at heart’: Eagles 2000.

28. See, for some examples: Stephen (Leslie) 1900, III, pp. 12–13; Bain 1882, pp. 78, 93, 161; Forcade 1859, p. 989; Palgrave 1874, pp. 166–7; Brandes 1924,p. 199; Morley 1873, pp. 670–1; Bagehot, ‘The Late Mr. Mill’, Works, III, p. 557.

29. See, for instance: CW, XII, p. 78; XIII, p. 431.30. CW, I, p. 63 (the fuller statement is quoted in the epigraph of this

Introduction). Cf. A System of Logic, where Mill referred to the tendency of‘English thinkers’ to tacitly assume ‘empirical laws of human nature’ whichwere ‘calculated only for Great Britain and the United States’. ‘Yet, those whoknow the habits of the Continent of Europe … ’ knew better than do that:CW, VIII, pp. 905–6.

31. From his 1852 poem ‘To Marguerite – Continued’: Arnold 1950, p. 182.32. Cf. Guizot 1972, pp. 271–3.33. Emphasis added: Letters, I, pp. 107–8 (11 May 1848). Frenchmen were duly

appreciative. Arnold’s first foray into political matters, his pamphlet Englandand the Italian Question earned him a lot of gratitude in France and no lessera figure than Villemain spoke of Dr Arnold’s son as one ‘who judges us perfectly’ (Arnold, Letters, I, p. 493; Honan 1981, p. 304). And as Arnold was

172 Notes

proud to tell his audiences in America, Sainte-Beuve had written to him inthe same flattering vein (‘Numbers’, Prose Works, X, p. 154. Cf. Brown 1931).Mill’s ‘curiosité sympathique’ about things French was no less noticed. (Cf. Forcade 1859, pp. 988–9; Chass 1928).

34. Works, IV, p. 31, 131, 137. Bagehot sometimes quoted or referred to Mill asan authority on France: see, for instance, Works, VIII, p. 180; XII, p. 328.

35. On the anti-French stereotypes and their uses see: Newman (Gerald) 1975;Newman (Gerald) 1987, pp. 139–53, 237–44, and passim.

36. ‘French Thought’, Saturday Review, 14 February 1863, pp. 196–7. See, forArnold’s evident satisfaction with this article: Letters, II, p. 190.

37. Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St. Andrews (1867), CW, XXI, p. 226.

38. ‘State of Society in America’ (1836), CW, XVIII, p. 94.39. CW, XXIII, p. 443 (this article was first published in Le Globe in French, on

18 April 1832).40. ‘Democracy’, Prose Works, II, p. 16. Cf. ‘A Courteous Explanation’, Prose Works,

V, pp. 33–4; On the Study of Celtic Literature, Prose Works, III, pp. 291–395.41. ‘The “Monroe Doctrine” in 1823 and 1863’, Works, IV, pp. 98–9.42. Chateaubriand 1850, II, p. 965.43. Guizot 1997 [first published in French in 1828; first published in two English

editions in 1837]. Cf. Mill, CW, XIII, p. 427. On Guizot’s influence on Mill’sadvocacy of diversity and ‘systematic antagonism’ see: Varouxakis 1999.

44. Cf. Burrow 1988, pp. 115–24; Collini et al. 1983, pp. 157–8, 204.45. Maine 1861. Mill had also commended Maine’s work repeatedly.46. Bagehot, Works, IV, pp. 98–9.47. Works, VII, pp. 56–7; VIII, pp. 187–91.48. Faverty 1951, p. 120 (the author gives reference to (a) Celtic Literature, and

(b) Letters, ed. by Russell, I, p. 130).49. Cf. Jones 2000, pp. 63–8. Jones entitles this section of the book: ‘Culture and

Democracy: Matthew Arnold versus Bagehot’ and offers an excellent analysisof a fundamental difference between the two thinkers in their respectiveapproaches to cultural authority versus diversity and ‘discussion’ within apolity. (Cf. Kent 1978, pp. 94–5.) However, I am arguing here that they wereat one when it came to the usefulness of ethnic or racial diversity.

50. Letters, II, p. 49 (28 January 1861). That Arnold went on immediately follow-ing the statements quoted to recommend to his sister something (related toAmerica) from the latest volume of Guizot’s memoirs may not be a com-pletely accidental association, given how forcibly Guizot had argued exactlyto the effect ‘what should we all be [in Europe] if we had not one another tocheck us … ’ and given also how well-versed in Guizot Arnold was (see alsoinfra, Chapter 2).

51. Emphasis added: Arnold, Letters, II, p. 370. The over-preponderance of singleelements was exactly what Guizot had blamed for the rapid extinction ofancient civilizations such as that of Greece or the stunted growth and subse-quent stationariness of oriental civilizations, in the Second Lecture of hisHistoire de la Civilisation en Europe (Guizot 1997, pp. 28–32). And Mill, whohad ‘dinned into people’s ears that Guizot is a great thinker and writer, till they are, though slowly, beginning to read him’ (CW, XIII, p. 427–16April 1840), also dinned into their ears his ‘profound’ historical lesson;

Notes 173

see, for some examples: CW, XX, pp. 267–70, 306–7, 380–2; XVIII, pp. 196–7, 273–4; XIX, pp. 397, 458–9; XIII, pp. 502–3. Cf. Varouxakis 1999,pp. 296–305.

52. See ‘Nationality’, Selected Writings, I, pp. 409–33 (especially pp. 424–6, 432).53. Victorian thinkers were far from clear or consistent in defining and distin-

guishing between these different kinds of groups. See more on these issues inChapter 4.

54. Chapter XVI, Considerations on Representative Government (1861).55. For an example, see: CW, XX, p. 235 (‘Michelet’s History of France’, 1844).56. CW, XIII, pp. 508–9. Cf. Newman (Gerald) 1987, pp. 1–2: ‘Voltaire … charac-

teristically observed that “when a Frenchman and an Englishman think thesame, they must certainly be right.” The remark captured both the dissimi-larity of the two national patterns of thought, and the conviction that truthwas a province specially shared between them.’

57. CW, XIII, p. 457.58. Cf. Mill, CW, I, pp. 169–71; XII, p. 42; Arnold, Prose Works, II, p. 11; V,

pp. 33–4; VIII, p. 8; Arnold, Letters, IV, pp. 442–3; Bagehot, Works, IV, p. 113(‘People [in England] are so deafened with the loud reiteration of many half-truths … ’); Stephen 1867, pp. 78–9 (‘Mr. Arnold has a strong grasp of oneaspect of the truth, and it is a very important one, but he falls into a verycommon kind of mistake when he puts it forward as the whole truth.’).

59. CW, I, p. 171.60. Cf. Alexandrian poet Constantine Cavafy’s masterpiece under that title.

A couple of Joachim du Bellay’s poems would do as well.61. Bagehot, ‘William Cowper’, Works, I, pp. 263–306, 263–4.62. Collini 1999, p. 143.63. According to Peter Mandler, ‘Mill never developed his theory of national

character, or applied it specifically to the English’ (Mandler 2000, p. 238). Thelatter part of this statement, which is an assertion made also by Janice Carlislein a different context (Carlisle 1991, pp. 144–5), has to be qualified. TheEnglish character – the character of the whole nation, not just of ‘the dispos-sessed’, as Carlisle argues (and here Carlisle is wrong, whereas Mandler is rightin asserting that Mill did talk of the character of the whole nation) – and itsimprovement was Mill’s main preoccupation throughout his reflection anddiscussions on national characters. There are texts which go some waytowards indicating that it was the study of the peculiarities of the Englishcharacter that was in the centre of his ‘ethological’ concerns. Besides his gen-eral theoretical assertion that one can never get to know a foreign country aswell as one’s own (CW, XVIII, p. 93), there is also his emphatic statement in aletter to Comte that since his early youth he had been occupied in the studyof the English character, accompanied by the complaint that Continentalobservers were falling into gross misunderstandings of the character of theirinsular neighbour: CW, XIII, pp. 696–7 (26 March 1846). Cf. CW, XV, p. 656.

64. Letters, III, p. 22 (24 March 1866).65. Prose Works, V, pp. 32–6.66. Prose Works, X, p. 154; Letters, III, p. 7. For attacks on Arnold’s ‘anti-patriot-

ism’ see: Spencer 1873, pp. 475–502; Wingfield–Stratford 1913, II, pp. 390–9.Cf. Collini 1993(a), pp. 276–7; Faverty 1951, pp. 5–6, 188.

174 Notes

67. Collini 1993(a), pp. 276–7.68. Stephen 1864(b), p. 683. Cf. Stephen 1866(a), p. 163: ‘Mr. Arnold may rest

his reputation on this. Noble disdain for all shopkeepers, past, present, andfuture … cannot well go much further. … and, in order to do so more effectu-ally, he puts his curses into the mouths of a gang of foreign Balaams, whocertainly do the work for which they were fetched more efficiently than theirprototype.’

69. Watson 1973, 254–6.70. Collini 1999, pp. 131–2, 134, 136.71. Collini 1999, p. 139.72. Bain 1882, pp. 78, 161; Palgrave 1874, pp. 166–7; cf. ibid., p. 155.73. Collini 1991, pp. 312–14, 319–23.74. Emphasis added: Forcade 1859, pp. 988–9. When Michelet published the

fifth volume of his Histoire de France, which he spoke of as ‘ce volume si peufavorable aux Anglais’ (‘this volume [which is] so little favourable to theEnglish’), he asked Gustave d’Eichthal if he could help him to enlist for itsdefence ‘la haute impartialité d’un Anglais, de M. Mill’ (‘the high impartialityof an Englishman, M. Mill’) (quoted – from a letter by Michelet to Gustaved’Eichthal – in Mill, CW, XIII, 432–3n). (On Michelet’s difficult relation withEngland cf. Crossley 1997.) So did Tocqueville when he was accused of belli-cosity by Lord Brougham in 1843 (see infra, Chapter 5).

75. Cf. Dawson and Pfordresher 1979, p. 198.76. Stapleton 1998(a), p. 243.77. Emphasis added: Stephen 1859(c), pp. 76–7. Stephen did not allow this qual-

ification to influence him too much though: ‘Still, after making allowancesfor these and other similar causes which may have accidentally heightenedthe contrast which he has drawn between this country and France, enoughremains to make us feel that England is treated with scanty justice, whilstFrance receives much more than its due’ (ibid., p. 77).

78. CW, XII, p. 42. Cf. Autobiography, CW, I, pp. 169–71, where Mill spoke ofhalf-truths, and of ‘the battle about the shield, one side of which was whiteand the other black’. Cf. also his comments on half-truths in ‘Coleridge’,CW, X, p. 123. Cf. Turk 1988, pp. 213–32.

79. We will come across examples of Mill’s attempts to combat half-truths andbring the British and the French together (most notably in times of interna-tional crises) in Chapter 5. To mention just one possible example here, it isarguable that Mill’s stubborn refusal to make any public statements con-cerning the Franco-Prussian War, while he had, at the same time, strong feel-ings and urgent recommendations to make to the British public (which hemade, as it were, by proxy), was part of his determination to not put any oilin what he always saw as the fully flamed fire of British anti-Gallicanism.While he was speaking to Frenchmen all his mind in letters about what hesaw as their responsibility for the war, the punishment they deserved, thelessons they should learn from that just punishment, and the ‘très granddefaults’ of their ‘caractère national’, he replied to British friends who wereasking him to join them in public demonstrations against the French that,while he agreed with them, yet: ‘But, while I do all I can in private, I think it best for the present, both for public and for private reasons, that my

Notes 175

name should not appear. This letter therefore is confidential’ (CW, XVII, p. 1795. Cf. ibid., p. 1767). For a man who was living half of the year inAvignon, the ‘private reasons’ may be easy to guess. The ‘public’, though,may be connected with what I am discussing in this Introduction.

80. ‘England and Ireland’, CW, XXV, p. 1096. On the occasion where he saidthis in 1848 he meant Carlyle.

81. He had used this phrase while speaking of Lytton-Bulwer, but there can belittle doubt that he regarded himself as one of ‘the moral teachers ofEngland’, ‘labouring for the regeneration of England’s national character’.

82. ‘The English National Character’ (June 1834): CW, XXIII, 717–27.83. Emphasis added.84. Faverty 1951, p. 68.85. Cf. Arnold’s (mis-)quotation of Goethe as having written that ‘Der

Engländer ist eigentlich ohne Intelligenz’: Letters, IV, p. 442. Cf. Coulling1974, p. 20. For Arnold’s attitude towards Renan see, for instance, Letters,IV, p. 14; and: Faverty 1951, p. 54.

86. Bagehot was referring on this occasion to Arnold’s recommendation of therole of Academies like the Académie Française: Physics and Politics, Works,VII, pp. 50–2.

87. Letters, IV, pp. 443–3; ‘Democracy’, Prose Works, II, pp. 3–29 (Introductionto: The Popular Education of France, 1861).

88. See Stapleton 2000, p. 248.89. In original: ‘politeia’; some translate it as ‘constitution’. In either case, the

message is the same. The translation is mine.90. The former emphasis (‘absence’) is in the original, the latter is mine.91. Stapleton 2000, p. 247.92. CW, XIV, pp. 15–16.93. CW, XIV, p. 16, fn. 11. Emerson’s speech had been reported in The Times of

14 March 1849 (for more see: Hayek 1951, p. 142).94. Stapleton 2000, p. 249. Cf. the remark of his brother, Leslie Stephen, that

what J.F. Stephen desiderated in Mill’s theory of liberty was ‘the great patri-otic passions which are the mainsprings of history’: see Stapleton 1998(a),p. 247.

95. Stephen (Leslie) 1900, III, pp. 12–13. See supra, on strictures on Mill’s un-Englishness.

96. CW, XVIII, pp. 86–9, 182–3; XVII, p. 1769.97. CW, VIII, p. 923.98. Newman (Gerald) 1987, pp. 243–4. The issue of what has been said of Mill’s

attitude to nationality/nationalism more generally is huge, and I will try tolimit myself here to what applies directly to his relation to France and whathe had in common with Arnold. For more on the broader questions, see myforthcoming book on Mill on Nationality (London: Routledge).

99. Cf. Varouxakis 2001; Varouxakis 2002.100. This phrase occurs in the oft-quoted (not least as the epigraph in Maurizio

Viroli’s book trying – unconvincingly, in my opinion – to distinguishbetween a bad ‘nationalism’ and a good ‘patriotism’ (see Viroli 1995)) pas-sage where Mill outlined the three conditions of stability in political soci-ety, including as one of these conditions ‘a strong and active principle of

176 Notes

cohesion among the members of the same community or state’: CW, VIII,p. 923 (A System of Logic, Book VI, chapter X).

101. Letters, III, pp. 17–18.102. See Stapleton 1998(a), p. 251.103. Stapleton 1998(a), p. 244.104. Stephen 1866(b), p. 208.105. CW, XIV, p. 6.106. Morley, ‘Macaulay’, in: Morley 1970, pp. 73–97.107. CW, I, pp. 307–11; XX, 17, p. 60.108. Emphasis added.109. Emphasis added.110. CW, XX, pp. 17, 21–2. Cf. what Mill wrote to Macvey Napier on 20 October

1845: CW, XIII, p. 683.111. Spencer 1873; cf. Wingfield-Stratford 1913.112. Collini 1993(a), p. 276.113. See Prose Works, V, p. 370, editor’s ‘Critical and Explanatory Notes’.114. ‘My Countrymen’, Prose Works, V, p. 27.115. Cf. Senior 1842, pp. 18–20; Stephen 1866(a), p. 162; Mill, CW, XXI, p. 112.116. Emphasis added. Letters, II, p. 367 (6 January 1865). Cf. Coulling 1974,

pp. 21–2.117. ‘My Countrymen’, Prose Works, V, p. 27.118. ’My Countrymen’, Prose Works, V, pp. 29–31.119. Cf: ‘The Incompatibles’ (1881), Prose Works, IX, pp. 238–85 (especially

pp. 242, 270–1). For more on this see infra, Chapter 2.120. Prose Works, II, pp. 131–2, 392.121. See ‘Dedicatory Letter’ (1871), Friendship’s Garland, Prose Works, V, p. 355.122. Prose Works, V, pp. 96–7.123. Emphasis added: Letters, III, pp. 17–18.124. CW, XXI, pp. 109–24.125. See his letter to J.W. Parker: CW, XV, p. 652. It was duly reviewed, very

favourably, in the Revue des Deux Mondes (Forcade 1859).126. CW, XXI, p. 112. Cf. Senior 1842.127. Dawson and Pfordresher 1979, p. 198.128. Stephen 1866(a), p. 163.129. Emphasis added: Stephen 1866(a), p. 162. Senior believed that England did

not care at all about what foreigners thought of her, and contributed aninteresting analysis of the reasons for English disregard for the opinion offoreigners (Senior 1842, pp. 18–20, 31, 32–3, 42, and passim).

130. Letters, III, p. 17; Prose Works, V, pp. 32–6.131. An analogy one can think of is Mill’s rationale for his rejection of the secret

ballot. He wanted people to vote openly in order for them to feel con-strained to make electoral choices which they would be able to justify pub-licly in front of their fellow-constituents, choices therefore for which theycould invoke reasons based on common interests and shared principles. Ifone applies this idea to the international arena, nations would have to‘prove’ their greatness by invoking what they were contributing to the com-mon fund of humanity, to civilization, and what they were excelling inaccording to commonly accepted criteria.

Notes 177

2 Was France ‘the Most Civilised of Nations’?

1. Arnold, ‘Equality’ (1878), Prose Works, VIII, p. 279; Guizot, The History ofCivilization in France, in: Guizot 1972, p. 279; Macaulay, ‘Sir JamesMackintosh’ (1835), in: Macaulay 1874, p. 325.

2. Tocqueville, OC, VI, 1, p. 291.3. Senior 1842, p. 6. Senior also wrote of England that she over-estimated her

civilization (ibid., p. 18).4. Febvre 1973. Cf. Gusdorf 1971; Lochore 1935.5. He continues: ‘ – then, as now, the French were thought to have a monopoly

on being civilized – ’: Eagleton 2000(a), p. 9.6. Eagleton 2000 (a), p. 9. Cf. ibid.: ‘ … civilization is part-descriptive, part-

normative: it can either neutrally designate a form of life (“Inca civiliza-tion”), or implicitly commend a life-form for its humanity, enlightenmentand refinement. The adjective form “civilized” does this most obviouslytoday’.

7. In fact, ‘[o]ne reason for the emergence of “culture”, then, is the fact that“civilization” was beginning to ring less and less plausible as a value-term’:Eagleton 2000(a), pp. 10–11.

8. Coleridge 1972, pp. 33–4, 37–8. See also: Morrow 1990, p. 145; Williams(Raymond) 1961, pp. 74–8; Holmes 1982, pp. 60–1.

9. That Arnold included Mill as one of these enemies caused the latter toprotest and is obviously unfair, as the rest of this chapter should make clear.Cf. Robson (John M.) 1968, pp. 125–6.

10. Yet cf., on Macaulay: Clive 1973, pp. 77–9.11. The phrase is Arnold’s: ‘My Countrymen’, Prose Works, V, p. 27.12. Arnold, ‘Joubert’ (1864), Prose Works, III, p. 210. For examples of Arnold

attacking Macaulay for his complacent statements about England’s progressand civilization see: Prose Works, V, pp. 17, 51; III, 257. Cf. ibid., pp. 316–17.

13. Morley, ‘Macaulay’, in: Morley 1970, pp. 73–97. The evidence that Arnoldmust have read Morley’s essay on Macaulay in the Fortnightly Review (1876),is in Arnold’s ‘A French Critic on Milton’ (1877), Prose Works, VIII, p. 170(adducing evidence to be found in: Morley 1970, p. 74).

14. Acton, ‘Review of Philp’s History of Progress in Great Britain’, Selected Writings,II, pp. 31–3.

15. Arnold, ‘The Incompatibles’, Prose Works, IX, p. 271. Cobden’s statement isquoted in: Thomson 1950, p. 32; on Macaulay’s complacency over civiliza-tion see also: Houghton 1957, pp. 39–40, 44, 123, 269; Forbes 1951–52, p. 21. More generally, on the concept of civilization in Britain at the time,cf.: Lochore 1935, pp. 2–3; cf. also Burrow 1985, pp. 80–93.

16. Acton, ‘Mr. Goldwin Smith’s Irish History’, Selected Writings, II, pp. 67–97, pp. 73–7.

17. On Buckle and his History see: Semmel 1976, pp. 370–86. I am mentioningGuizot here because both the title and the whole conception of the project(studying the history of civilisation in England by comparing it with the his-tories of the countries around it) are clearly reminiscent of Guizot’s Histoirede la Civilisation en France (1829–32). For a very casual and all-embracing useof ‘civilisation’ cf. Senior 1842, pp. 5–6.

18. See Turk 1988, pp. 172, 178–9.

178 Notes

19. In London and Westminster Review, 3 (April 1836); reprinted in Dissertationsand Discussions, I, pp. 160–205; now in: CW, XVIII, pp. 117–47.

20. CW, XVIII, pp. 119–20.21. Cf., on Guizot’s account of these elements of civilization: Mancini 1994,

pp. 88–9.22. Emphasis added. Cf. CW, XXIII, pp. 589, 721; XII, p. 37; XIII, p. 622.23. CW, XVIII, pp. 120–1.24. Bain 1882, p. 48.25. CW, XIII, p. 427. Now, it may or may not be a simple coincidence that Mill’s

(and Blanco-White’s) first review recommending Guizot to the British publicappeared in January 1836, and two English translations of the Histoire de laCivilisation en Europe (1828) appeared the next year, in 1837: General Historyof Civilisation in Europe, from the Fall of the Roman Empire to the FrenchRevolution, trans. D.A. Talboys (Oxford: Talboys, 1837); and Lectures onEuropean Civilization, trans. P.M. Beckwith (London: Macrone, 1837).

26. Lochore 1935, p. 9 (characteristically, chapter I of the book is entitled ‘Beforeand after Guizot’, pp. 9–17); Febvre, 1973, pp. 240–7; Gusdorf 1971. Cf.Crossley 1993, pp. 82–8; Rosanvallon 1985, pp. 191–3.

27. The first: London Review, 2 (January 1836); now in: CW, XX, pp. 367–93; thesecond: Edinburgh Review, 82 (October, 1845); reprinted in Dissertations andDiscussions, II, pp. 218–82; now in: CW, XX, pp. 257–94. The works reviewedby Mill were: François P.G. Guizot, (I) Essais sur l’Histoire de France (1823); (II)Cours d’Histoire Moderne; containing: Histoire Générale de la Civilisation enEurope (1828); and Histoire Générale de la Civilisation en France, 5 vols(1829–32). That Mill regarded the review article of 1836 as basically his ownis evident by his letter to Henry S. Chapman: CW, XII, p. 284. The extent ofhis own contribution can be surmised from his letters to Blanco White of 21October 1835 (ibid., p. 280) and 24 November 1835 (ibid., p. 285). Cf. CW,XIII, p. 427.

28. Emphasis added: CW, XX, p. 374. For this definition in its author’s text see:Guizot, 1972, pp. 140–59.

29. CW, XX, p. 374. Cf. CW, XX, p. 266 (Mill’s second review of Guizot, in1845).

30. Principles of Political Economy with Some of Their Applications to SocialPhilosophy (hereafter: Political Economy): CW, III, pp. 707–8.

31. ‘Civilization’: CW, XVIII, p. 143; see also ibid., pp. 138–46; and ‘Sedgwick’sDiscourse’: CW, X, pp. 31–74 (especially pp. 33–5).

32. See ‘Tocqueville on Democracy in America [II]’, CW, XVIII, pp. 197–200.33. On Coleridge’s views on the ‘overbalance of the commercial spirit in conse-

quence of the absence or weakness of the counter-weights’, see: Morrow1990, pp. 115–21.

34. See Varouxakis 1999 (especially pp. 296–305). A question that is bound toarise in this context is: If Guizot’s historical works were so significant inBritain, why have there not been more acknowledgments of his importanceand influence on their thinking by individual thinkers? Besides the murki-ness of ‘influence’ in general, there are at least two other, more concreteanswers, one general and one specific to Britain. To start with the general,one reason why Guizot has received less attention than he deserves, and, inour specific example, why Mill’s indebtedness to Guizot had not received its

Notes 179

due by students of Mill’s thought, must be the similarity of many of Guizot’sviews to those of Tocqueville. This similarity has led scholars to attribute toTocqueville’s influence a number of ideas that both Mill and Tocqueville,and many others all over Europe, found in Guizot. The similarity in many ofthe pronouncements of the two French thinkers is due to the fact thatTocqueville was profoundly influenced by Guizot, whose pupil he was, liter-ally. There is ample evidence that he regularly attended Guizot’s lectures(that were later published as Cours d’Histoire Moderne) in the years 1828–30,kept notes, and read – more than once – the published version. The notesTocqueville kept have been published in his Oeuvres Complètes, XVI(Mélanges), pp. 439–534 (for the evidence to this effect see: Varouxakis 1999,p. 294 and particularly note 9). Now, as regards Guizot’s influence and recog-nition in Britain, there is one more reason. Guizot had become very unpop-ular in Britain because of the Spanish marriages affair (1847) and hispopularity received a final blow when the regime under which he was thedominant minister was toppled as well as disgraced in February 1848. Here iswhat Macaulay wrote in a letter of Guizot, when the latter was in exile inEngland, in March 1848: ‘I left a card with Guizot, but did not ask to seehim. I purposely avoided meeting him on Friday at Lord Holland’s. The truthis that I like and esteem the man. But I think the policy of the minister bothat home and abroad detestable. At home it was all corruption, and abroad alltreachery’ (Macaulay, The Letters, IV, p. 362 – 13 March 1848). On Mill’s see-saw attitude towards Guizot as a statesman see infra, Chapter 5.

35. CW, XVIII, pp. 191–2.36. Emphasis added: CW, XVIII, pp. 196–7. On China as a cautionary tale with

regard to stagnation see: Burrow 1988, pp. 115–24.37. J.S. Mill, Autobiography, CW, I, p. 11 (first draft: p. 10); cf. Thomas 1979,

pp. 105–6.38. Emphasis (both times) added: Mill (James) 1975, pp. 224, 228–9.39. See, for instance, Bagehot, Works, IV, p. 108; also references specifying ‘com-

mercial civilization’ or ‘material civilisation’: ibid., pp. 35, 88. For Bagehot’scomments on Guizot and his writings, see ibid., pp. 55–6, 440–4.

40. Emphasis (both times) added: Semmel 1984, pp. 90–1 (reference is given to:Mill, ‘Coleridge’, (1840), CW, X, pp. 123–5).

41. Emphasis added.42. Emphasis added: CW, X, p. 123. Mill had made remarks to the same effect on

Rousseau’s critique of ‘what is called civilization’ in On Liberty: see CW, XVIII,p. 253. Cf. CW, XXI, p. 187 (on ‘the calamitous influence of Rousseau’).

43. CW, I, p. 171.44. CW, X, p. 123.45. Raymond Williams, commenting on the part of the text from Mill’s

‘Coleridge’ where Mill had presented the arguments of those who fixed theirattention ‘upon the high price which is paid for’ the advantages of ‘civiliza-tion’, and apparently not being attentive to Mill’s two uses of ‘civilization’ inthe other texts discussed here, opined: ‘This is an aggregation of a number ofkinds of criticism of what Mill calls “Civilization”, but which, from thedetails of certain of its points, might better be called Industrialism’ (Williams(Raymond) 1961, p. 67). It would have been closer to Mill’s terminology tosay ‘civilization in the narrow sense’.

180 Notes

46. Cf. CW, XVIII, p. 119.47. Bain 1882, p. 48; Himmelfarb, 1973, p. xvi; Semmel 1984, pp. 90–1. Cf. the

short treatment of Mill on ‘civilization’ in Francis and Morrow 1994, pp. 148–50. Cf. Professor Semmel’s more recent attempt to present Mill asmuch closer to the ‘conservatives’ than he ever was, in Semmel’s contribu-tion in: Eisenach 1998, pp. 49–76.

48. See: Political Economy, CW, III, pp. 754–5 (note the changes in later editions);Representative Government, CW, XIX, pp. 409–10; ‘A Few Words on Non-Intervention’ (1859), CW, XXI, p. 116. Cf. CW, XV, p. 778.

49. CW, XII, p. 37 (8 October 1929 – emphasis in original).50. Guizot, Histoire de la Civilisation en France (First Lecture): see Guizot 1972,

pp. 266–80. Mill, CW, XX, pp. 374–7.51. Emphasis added. These views of England and its ‘narrow’, ‘social civilization’

had also been inculcated from a very early age in another of our Victorians,the young Matthew Arnold whilst he was a Sixth-Former at Rugby: ‘He alsodigested, at least in part, [Guizot’s] Histoire de la Révolution d’Angleterre, en1640, for Sixth-Form French, along with Guizot’s choleric view of the British aspractical and sound in action, but lost and indignant in the realm of ideas’(emphasis added: Honan 1981, p. 42). And, long later, he still appreciatedGuizot’s historical works. We find Arnold in 1875 writing in a letter his rec-ommendation for the improvement of the Oxford curriculum: ‘If theymerely put in these works in other languages into their History curriculum –Thucydides, Tacitus, and, either Montesquieu’s Esprit des Lois, or Guizot’s[History of] Civilisation in France, the Tripos would be incalculablyimproved, and would be a real training’ (Letters, IV, p. 292). In the latter workArnold must have found terms which he used very often in his frequentdenunciations of the civilization of England and of its middle class, their‘social civilisation’, or their ‘narrow civilisation’.

52. CW, XX, pp. 374–7. Cf., again, what young Matthew Arnold had to say on theGermans in a letter, in 1848, some of which seems almost verbatim taken fromthese pages of Guizot’s Histoire de la Civilisation en France: Letters, I, p. 114.

53. CW, XX, p. 378.54. Guizot 1972, pp. 269, 279.55. See CW, XX, pp. 290–4.56. CW, X, pp. 31–74.57. Cf. Stephen 1866a, p. 163.58. Cf. Guizot 1972, pp. 271–3; also Mill, CW, XX, pp. 374–5.59. CW, X, pp. 34–5.60. See, for instance, ‘The English National Character’ (1834): CW, XXIII,

pp. 717–27; also: CW, XII, pp. 38–9, 192; XIV, p. 95; XXIII, pp. 443–7, 527–8.Cf. Bagehot, Works, IV, pp. 113–14: ‘Intellect still gives there [in Paris], andhas always given, a distinctive position. To be a membre de l’Institut is a recog-nised place in France; but in London, it is an ambiguous distinction to be a“clever fellow”.’

61. See CW, XXIII, p. 721. Cf. ibid., 375. And in a letter to Sarah Austin (26February 1844) Mill had written about Samuel Laing’s latest book on the conti-nental countries: ‘It is strange to find a man recognizing as he does that theNorwegian, and German, and French state of society are much better for thehappiness of all concerned than the struggling, go-ahead English and American

Notes 181

state, and yet always measuring the merit of all things by their tendencyto increase the number of steam engines, and to make human beings as goodmachines and therefore as mere machines as those’ (CW, XIII, p. 622). Cf.Laing 1842. Laing has been called ‘one of the few overt defenders of philistin-ism in Victorian times’, who rejected ‘culture and learning entirely’ and hadconcluded ‘that there is a fundamental antagonism, no less, between capital-ism and culture’: Porter 1991, p. 355.

62. ‘One Difference Between France and England’, Works, VIII, p. 180.63. Cf. A System of Logic (1843), CW, VIII, pp. 946–7.64. Cf. CW, XIII, pp. 508–9.65. Cf. CW, XVIII, pp. 93–4; Arnold, Letters, I, pp. 107–8.66. Forcade 1859, p. 989 (cf. supra, Chapter 1).67. Harding 1964, pp. 15–16. On references to Dr Arnold as ‘Celt-hating’ see

Poliakov 1971, p. 64; cf. Faverty 1951, pp. 76–7.68. See, on the first point: Honan 1981, p. 42; and, on the second: Letters, IV,

p. 292.69. Cf. Crossley 1993, p. 84: ‘There is in fact an Arnoldian ring to many of

Guizot’s pronouncements for, like the author of Culture and Anarchy, heunderstands civilisation in the broad sense as a moral force, as a humanisingpower which brings the inward moral and spiritual development of the indi-vidual into harmony with the forms of social and collective life.’

70. Emphasis added: Prose Works, V, pp. 3–31, p. 20.71. ‘Irish Catholicism and British Liberalism’ (1878), Prose Works, VIII,

pp. 321–47, p. 327; ‘My Countrymen’, Prose Works, III, pp. 3–31, pp. 27–8;‘Equality’ (1878), Prose Writings, VIII, pp. 277–305, p. 284.

72. He went on: ‘The idea of perfection as a general expansion of the human fam-ily is at variance with our strong individualism. … Above all, the idea of per-fection as a harmonious expansion of human nature is at variance with ourwant of flexibility, with our inaptitude for seeing more than one side of athing. … ’: Culture and Anarchy: An Essay in Political and Social Criticism, ProseWorks, V, pp. 85–229, particularly pp. 94–5.

73. Prose Works, V, pp. 96–9. Arnold often spoke of ‘civilisation’ and ‘humanisa-tion’ as being interchangeable: ‘And man is not to be civilised or humanised,call it which you will, by thwarting his vital instincts.’: emphasis added:‘Preface to Mixed Essays’ (1879), Prose Works, VIII, p. 371.

74. Coulling 1974, pp. 190–2; cf. Eagleton 2000b, p. 14; Vogeler 1962. Moreover,on Arnold’s attitude towards definitions, cf. Holloway 1953, pp. 221–2.

75. See, for example: ‘Equality’, Prose Works, VIII, p. 286.76. ‘Civilisation in the United States’ (1888), Prose Works, XI, pp. 352–3, 356–7.

Cf. ‘My Countrymen’ (1866), Prose Works, V, pp. 21–2.77. Emphasis added: ‘The Incompatibles’ (1881), Prose Works, IX, p. 271.78. Cf. ‘Civilisation in the United States’ (1888), Prose Works, XI, p. 352. Cf. ibid.,

p. 356.79. Cf. Mill, Autobiography, CW, I, p. 177.80. Cf. Mill’s explicit acceptance, in his later writings and correspondence, that

‘civilization in the narrow sense’ was probably a necessary stage on the roadto a fuller improvement of mankind (see supra).

81. ‘Preface to Mixed Essays’ (1879), Prose Works, VIII, pp. 370–2.82. ‘Preface to Mixed Essays’ (1879), Prose Works, VIII, p. 372.

182 Notes

83. ‘Equality’, Prose Works, VIII, pp. 277–305.84. Prose Works, VIII, pp. 286–8.85. Emphasis added.86. Cf. Hamerton 1876. For very interesting remarks on Hamerton’s writings

and impact see: Marandon 1967, passim.87. He repeated this even more emphatically and expanded on the issue in:

‘The Incompatibles’ (1881), Prose Works, IX, pp. 242, 270–1.88. Arnold was discussing extensively in ‘Equality’ Sir Erskine May’s Democracy

in Europe: A History, London, 1877.89. Cf. Letters, IV, p. 163.90. Prose Works, VIII, pp. 285–93.91. Emphasis added.92. ‘Equality’, Prose Works, VIII, pp. 293–9.93. We may note here that this insistence was a major difference in emphasis

between Arnold’s definition of civilization and that of Guizot, who hademphasised the intellectual and moral development of individuals, of greatexamples of individual excellence, without insisting on the spread of thesequalities throughout society as a prerequisite of true civilization.

94. Emphasis added: Letters, I, p. 91.95. In a letter of 3 August 1859 Arnold had again referred to ‘what Sainte-Beuve

calls an “intelligence ouverte et traversée”’: Letters, I, p. 481.96. Letters, I, pp. 89–90 (6 March 1848). Cf. ibid., pp. 107–8.97. Emphasis added: Letters, I, p. 84 (28 February 1848). Cf. ibid., p. 95

(10 March 1848).98. Prose Works, I, pp. 65–96, pp. 78–9.99. ‘Democracy’ (Introduction to: The Popular Education of France), (1861), Prose

Works, II, pp. 3–29, p. 11. Cf. ‘Edoardo Fusco’ (1876), Prose Works, VIII, p. 8.100. ‘The Incompatibles’ (1881), Prose Works, IX, pp. 238–85, p. 270. Cf. ibid.,

p. 242.101. Letters, I, p. 95 (10 March 1848).

3 French Politics Through British ‘Glasses’

1. Collini et al. 1983, p. 196; Bagehot, ‘The Gains of the World by the Two LastWars in Europe’ (1866) Works, VIII, p. 158.

2. Arnold, Letters, I, pp. 94–5 (10 March 1848); Carlyle, Collected Letters, XXII, p. 256 (27 February 1848).

3. Emphasis added: Trevelyan 1908, p. 117.4. Trevelyan 1908, p. 654. Cf. on Macaulay’s attitude towards the Revolution

of 1789 and the lessons (in favour of reform) he wished the BritishParliament to draw from it in 1832: Collini et al. 1983, pp. 196–7. Bagehotwrote in 1869: ‘A defeat of French Liberals is not their defeat only; it is adefeat of all Liberals. Throughout Europe for years free action and freethought were beaten and helpless because of the calamities of 1793 and thecalamities of 1848.’: Works, IV, p. 134.

5. The Letters, I, p. 282.6. Autobiography: CW, I, p. 179; ‘Armand Carrel’, CW, XX, p. 192.7. CW, XII, pp. 55–6, 60. Cf. Bain 1882 p. 42.

Notes 183

8. CW, XII, p. 55. For what the crowd seems to have asked for in July 1830 see:Newman (Edgar Leon) 1975, pp. 17–40. For a survey of historians’ divergentviews on what happened in 1830 see Pilbeam 1991, pp. 1–12.

9. CW, XXII, p. 143. Cf. ibid., pp. 134–40.10. CW, XXII, pp. 130–3. Cf. CW, XII, p. 59; XXII, pp. 144–6.11. CW, XXII, p. 288.12. For Carrel’s – quite similar – stance, see: McLaren 1971, pp. 154–5.13. CW, XXII, pp. 485–6. Cf. ‘Armand Carrel’: CW, XX, pp. 200–1.14. See letters to Carlyle: CW, XII, pp. 194–7, 218–9; cf. ibid., pp. 191–4.15. CW, XXIII, pp. 692–5 (30 March 1834). Cf. ibid., pp. 662–3 (12 January

1834). Cf. Robson (Ann) 1986, p. lxix.16. CW, XX, pp. 167–215. For an account that connects adeptly Mill’s journalis-

tic coverage of French affairs in the early 1830s with the reform agitation athome see Robson (Ann) 1986, pp. xliv–lxxi.

17. It must have been the events that took place a month after he wrote his mostoptimistic article (of 30 March 1834: CW, XXIII, pp. 692–5), the April 1834insurrections and their aftermath, that shuttered any hopes Mill might stillhave retained for progress in France as a result of the July Revolution.

18. Cf. Williams (Geraint) 1989.19. Cf. Girard 1985, pp. 104–6. Interestingly, Girard entitles the part of his

account which covers the period Mill referred to ‘Le ministère Martignac: uneoccasion manquée?’ (‘The Martignac ministry: a missed opportunity?’).

20. CW, XX, pp. 190–1. Cf. ‘Centralisation’, CW, XIX, p. 582.21. See CW, XIX, p. 420.22. ‘Armand Carrel’: CW, XX, p. 191. Cf. ‘Centralisation’: CW, XIX, p. 582. Cf.

also Tocqueville’s remark on French attitudes to centralisation quoted inMayer 1939, p. 20.

23. Emphasis added. Cf. Bagehot’s later remark (in September 1870) that ‘Bylong and painful experience, France has attained what may be called a rou-tine in revolutions.’: Works, VIII, p. 182.

24. Cf. CW, XXII, p. 146.25. Emphasis added: CW, XX, p. 191.26. Selected Writings, I, p. 422.27. Emphasis added: CW, XX, pp. 191–2.28. Emphasis added: CW, XIX, p. 583. Bagehot was to speak similarly of govern-

mental change by ‘spasms of revolutionary ardour’ (see infra, Part III).29. CW, XVII, pp. 1977–8. The article was published in London and Westminster

Review in October 1837.30. In particular with regard to Carrel’s impact on Mill’s editorial ventures and

ambitions, see Robson and Robson 1985, pp. 235–8, 240–1, 248. Mill seemsto have given Carrel no less credit for his qualities as a commentator of theFrench political scene. As he wrote, in September 1835, to no less a com-mentator of that scene than Tocqueville, about Carrel, ‘him I conceive to be,next to you [the] best authority I know on the state of France’: CW, XII, p. 272. Cf. ibid., p. 309.

31. Emphasis added: CW, XX, p. 206.32. See, in particular on the dimension referred to here, CW, XX, 209–10, where

Mill quotes from Nisard’s article on ‘Armand Carrel’ in the Revue des DeuxMondes of October 1837 (see: Nisard 1837, pp. 14–15, 16).

184 Notes

33. CW, XX, p. 209.34. Emphasis added: CW, XX, pp. 209–11.35. Jennings 1991, p. 513; Collingham 1988, p. 181; Jardin and Tudesq 1983,

p. 113; McLaren 1971, pp. 324–5.36. Broglie 1859, pp. 24–5. Cf. Zeldin 1973, p. 500.37. Kelly 1992, pp. 2–6.38. See, for instance, CW, XXIII, pp. 694–5.39. The conclusions presented here are based on the examination of a bewilder-

ing number of newspaper writings and letters; but a useful text that some-how epitomises his attitude can be found in: CW, XXIII, pp. 661–3.

40. Cf. CW, XII, pp. 193–4. On the divisions among the republicans see:Collingham 1988, pp. 137–9; Plamenatz 1952, pp. 38–48.

41. Cf. CW, XX, pp. 203–7.42. See, for instance: CW, XXIII, pp. 340–1, 530, 661–3.43. CW, XXIII, p. 662. Cf. CW, XXIII, pp. 589–90; I, p. 203; XII, pp. 256, 281–2.44. CW, XX, pp. 200–1.45. CW, XIII, p. 731.46. The Letters, V, p. 210.47. The Letters, IV, p. 362.48. Prochaska 2000, p. 81. On the Chartist agitation of this year see also: Halévy

1951, pp. 236–72; Finn 1993, pp. 60–106.49. Collected Letters, XXII, p. 256 (27 February 1848).50. Collected Letters, XXII, p. 257 (28 February 1848). Some weeks later, when the

Chartist agitation was reaching its peak, Emerson reported to MatthewArnold that ‘Carlyle was much agitated by the course of things: … He givesour institutions as they are called – aristocracy – Church – etc. five years, Iheard last night’: Arnold, Letters, I, p. 101 (12 April 1848).

51. Carlyle 1892, pp. 1–13.52. Cf. Arnold’s comments to that effect: Letters, I, pp. 91, 93.53. Cf. Bagehot, Works, IV, pp. 67–8; Acton, The History of Freedom and Other

Essays, quoted in Fasnacht 1952, p. 183; Mill, CW, XX, pp. 325–6; cf.Tocqueville 1985, pp. 142–6, 149–52.

54. Collected Letters, XXII, pp. 274–5 (22 March 1848); cf. ibid., pp. 260–1 (letterto John Forster, 5 March 1848).

55. Collected Letters, XXII, pp. 264–5. Cf. ibid., p. 274 (22 March 1848).56. Cf. Collected Letters, XXII, pp. 278–9.57. Emphasis added.58. Collected Letters, XXII, pp. 276–8 (24 March 1848).59. Carlyle 1892, pp. 15–52.60. Carlyle 1892, pp. 19–20.61. ‘England and Ireland’, CW, XXV, pp. 1095–1100 (The Examiner, 13 May

1848). For Arnold’s comment see: Letters, I, p. 109.62. CW, XXV, pp. 1099–1100.63. Collected Letters, XXIII, p. 176 (letter to Geraldine E. Jewsbury, 13 December

1848). On ‘George Sandism’ in Britain at the time see: Thomson 1977.64. Letters, I, p. 101.65. Hansard, 3rd series, XCVIII 1848, pp. 712–13.66. In this Greg differed from Lord Brougham or Senior, who both defended

Louis Philippe (the former incomparably more than the latter).

Notes 185

67. Emphasis added: Greg 1848, pp. 365–6.68. Cf. Acton, Selected Writings, II, p. 73: ‘ … there is something in the French

nation which incapacitates it for liberty; … what they have always sought,and sometimes enjoyed, is not freedom; … their liberty must diminish inproportion as their ideal is attained’. Cf. also: Acton, Selected Writings, III, p. 15; Mill, CW, XIX, pp. 420–1.

69. Cf. Acton, Lectures on the French Revolution, quoted in Fasnacht 1952, p. 111;Mill, CW, XX, pp. 210–11; XIX, p. 420.

70. Emphasis added: Greg 1848, p. 366.71. Emphasis added.72. And like most observers, Greg thought that another discouraging feature of

the situation was ‘the singular absence of all great men’, with the partialexception of Lamartine (again typical). For the extent to which Lamartinewas the darling of the ruling elites in Britain, even of those most apprehen-sive about the new republic, see: Bensimon 1999.

73. Cf. Acton, Selected Writings, III, p. 600.74. Cf. Hazareesingh 1997a.75. Cf. Acton, ‘Nationality’ (1862), Selected Writings, I, pp. 414–5; ‘“Bureaucracy”

by Richard Simpson’, Selected Writings, I, pp. 518–30.76. Cf. Bagehot, Works, XII, pp. 271–2; IV, p. 112. Even while in his most exu-

berantly Francophile phase, Mill agreed also: see CW, XXIII, p. 402.77. Greg 1848, p. 368.78. See: The Examiner, 1848, p. 243.79. Brougham 1848, pp. 14, 24.80. For this parallel between Burke-Paine and Brougham-Mill see Levin 1998.81. The previous occasion was when he came to the defence of Tocqueville in

1843.82. CW, XIII, p. 731 (29 February 1848).83. For Mill’s first comment on the form of government see, in particular: CW,

XX, pp. 330–1. However, as he was to argue in 1849 (in the ‘Vindication ofthe French Revolution of February 1848’), though a republic was ‘the mostnatural and congenial of all forms of free government’ for France (because ofthe traits of the French national character), ‘it had two great hindrances tocontend with’, namely ‘the political indifference of the majority’ and ‘thedread inspired by the remembrance of 1793 and 1794’. These two causes‘will render its existence, even now when it is established, more or less pre-carious’: CW, XX, p. 332.

84. CW, XIII, 731–2 (29 February 1848)); cf. Bain 1882, p. 94. Mill was express-ing a view shared by many in France in 1848: see McLaren 1971, pp. 57–8;and Robson (John M.) 1985, p. cviii (n. 40).

85. CW, XIII, pp. 731–2. Cf. ibid., pp. 733–4.86. Autobiography: CW, I, p. 67; cf. CW, XX, p. 12.87. CW, XIII, pp. 735–6.88. See: Plamenatz 1952, pp. 58–9; Agulhon 1983, pp. 16–18.89. Cf. CW, XX, pp. 355–6. On the composition of camps within the French

government, cf. Matthew Arnold in a letter to A.H. Clough: ‘TheProv[isional] Gov[ernment] is said to be divided – Garnier Pages [sic]Cremieux [sic] and Marie versus Ledru Rollin, Flocon – and Louis Blanc.Lamartine neutral – inclining to the first set.’ (Letters, I, p. 92–8 March

186 Notes

1848). Cf. Agulhon 1983, pp. 32–3; Zeldin 1973, pp. 484–94; Plamenatz1952, pp. 40–1, 85 (n.1). On the fate of what Mill called Lamartine’s ‘beau-tiful’ book, cf. Fortesque 1987.

90. Mill, CW, XIII, pp. 739–40. Carlyle, Collected Letters, XXII, pp. 274–5 (22March 1848). Cf. Bagehot, Works, XII, p. 326.

91. Unlike his deceased brother, Godefroy (whose intimacy with Jane WelshCarlyle while in exile in London had given rise to a lot of gossip), EugèneCavaignac was not one of the radical republicans, but rather a moderate.

92. CW, XIV, p. 12.93. Cf. Plamenatz 1952, p. 84–5.94. He gave an example of what he meant by the last phrase: ‘As an example I

may mention the grand idea of the Provisional Government, that of mak-ing all education, even professional, gratuitous … ’.

95. Cf. ‘England and Ireland’ (13 May 1848), CW, XXV, pp. 1099–1100.96. CW, XIV, pp. 32–4. Cf. what Mill had written to Harriet Taylor on Proudhon

(ca. 31 March 1849): ibid., p. 21 (starting with the statement: ‘I heartilywish Proudhon dead’). For the importance of the revolution of 1848 and itsaftermath, and of France more generally, for the development of Mill’sviews on socialism see Mueller 1956 pp. 170–259 (though somewhat dated).On the development of Mill’s views on socialism and their connection withhis theory of freedom see: Claeys 1987, pp. 122–47.

97. Works, IV, p. 32; cf. Works, XII, p. 326.98. Mill conveniently presented the divisions among the republicans and

among the members of the Provisional Government itself as having startedafter the June insurrection. Senior’s account which speaks of serious divi-sions and enmities long before seems to be much more accurate in thisrespect (Senior 1973a).

99. CW, XX, pp. 353–4.100. Letters, I, p. 94.101. Letters, I, pp. 94–5 (10 March 1848).102. And ‘thus, quite suddenly, he became a political oracle’: Honan 1981, p. 134.103. Letters, I, p. 92 (8 March 1848).104. Letters, I, p. 94 (10 March 1848).105. The phrase ‘vis a vis of’ is one of many examples of what the overzealous

defender of John Bull at the time meant, when he wrote of Arnold: ‘He is sowarm upon this subject [of French intellectual superiority] that he hastaught himself to write a dialect as like French as pure English can be.’:Stephen 1864b, p. 683.

106. Letters, I, p. 98 (28 March 1848).107. Arnold, Letters, I, p. 112. The statement from Clough’s letter is quoted in

Murray 1996, p. 74. On Clough’s exchanges with Arnold on France in 1848see also: ibid., pp. 73–4, 77–8; and: Honan 1981, pp. 134–7, 141. Cf. Murray1996, pp. 72, 74, 78.

108. Works, XII, pp. 271–2. Cf. Greg 1848, p. 367; Mill, CW, XXIII, p. 402.109. Works, IV, pp. 67–8.110. Works, XII, pp. 274–5 (8 April 1848).111. Senior 1973(a). This was a review article on Lamartine’s Histoire de la

Révolution de 1848. He had already commented on the revolution earlier,with the review article ‘The French Republicans’ (Senior 1848).

Notes 187

112. Senior 1973(a), pp. 1–4.113. Senior 1973(a), pp. 7–8.114. Cf. Bensimon 1999.115. Senior 1973a, pp. 28–32.116. Emphasis (both times) added: Acton, ‘Sir Erskine May’s Democracy in Europe’

(1978), Selected Writings, I, p. 79 (the ‘saviour of society’ alluded to was, ofcourse, Louis Napoleon).

117. Emphasis added: Morley 1997, pp. 60–1.118. Mill, CW, VIII, pp. 946–7; Morley 1997, p. 61. In Morley’s On Compromise

reference is given to: Mill, A System of Logic, Book VI, Chapter XI; in fact, thetext quoted by Morley is from Book VI, Chapter XII.

119. Emphasis added: Morley 1997, p. 62. On Morley’s intentions in OnCompromise see: Kent 1978, pp. 124–35.

120. Emphasis (both times) added: Trevelyan 1908, p. 654.121. Acton, ‘The Count de Montalembert’ (1858), Selected Writings, III, p. 15. Cf.,

ibid., p. 12.122. Which makes Christopher Harvie’s comments on him in this respect quite

unfair. In fact Mill’s attitude was exactly like that of Harvie’s academics‘who loathed the Emperor with almost irrational intensity’: see Harvie1976, p. 154.

123. See CW, XV, p. 534 (30 June 1857).124. CW, XIX, pp. 581–613.125. CW, XIX, p. 584. (For Dupont-White’s special and complex case see:

Hazareesingh 1997(b)). And on 17 September 1862, Mill wrote to T. Gomperz: ‘In Europe things appear to be going on well, as far at least, asmental progress is concerned. This is very visible in the higher order of writ-ers in France’: CW, XV, p. 795. Cf. ibid., p. 952. Cf. Girard 1985, pp. 188–9.

126. CW, XV, p. 929 (18 March 1864). Arnold received a couple of such invita-tions as well: Letters, III, pp. 13, 51 (his reasons for rejecting them weremore practical).

127. In May 1863 the Republicans had won eight of the nine seats in the capital:see Plamenatz 1952, p. 124. For Mill’s comments see: CW, XXXII, p. 141;CW, XV, p. 917.

128. CW, XVII, p. 1597. Cf. letter of 18 May 1869: ibid., p. 1604.129. Plessis 1985, pp. 164–5; Plamenatz 1952, p. 132.130. Pilbeam 1995, p. 247.131. CW, XVII, p. 1609; ibid., 1611.132. Plamenatz 1952, pp. 130–1; Plessis 1985, pp. 164, 169; Girard 1985, p. 201.

Girard was referring to Jules Favre, Hippolyte Carnot and Garnier-Pagès. Cf.Plamenatz 1952, p. 115, where Jules Favre and Jules Simon are referred to asbeing among the leaders of the ‘moderate republicans’.

133. Plessis refers, as an example, to Carnot’s defeat by a fellow republican:Plessis 1985, pp. 164–5.

134. Mill was referring to ‘the Temps newspaper’ and to ‘Jules Favre, Jules Simon,Carnot, Garnier Pagès, Lanjuinais’: CW, XVI, pp. 1224–5 (29 December 1866).

135. Plamenatz 1952, p. 132. Cf. Nicolet 1982, pp. 148–9; Mill, CW, XVII, pp. 1683, 1718, 1726, 1730.

136. CW, XVII, p. 1769 (letter to F.B. Arlès-Dufour, 29 October 1870). Cf. ibid.,1774–5.

188 Notes

137. Emphasis added: CW, XVII, p. 1795. Cf. Plessis 1985, pp. 169–70.138. ‘Duveyrier’s Political Views of French Affairs’ (1846), CW, XX, p. 297.139. Cf. Claeys 1987, pp. 143–4, on Mill’s worries about the popularity of ‘the

essentially “Continental” doctrine of revolution’ during these years.140. Emphasis added: CW, XVII, p. 1911. Cf. CW, XXII, p. 150; XX, p. 255; XIX,

p. 595. Cf. also what Bagehot had to say in September 1872: Works, VIII, pp. 214–15.

141. ‘Prospects of France, IV’, Examiner, 10 October 1830: CW, XXII, pp. 149–50.142. See, for example, CW, XVI, p. 1304, where he spoke of ‘the superiority of

England over France in the love and practice of personal and political free-dom’. Cf. CW, XIX, p. 565.

143. CW, XIX, pp. 420–1; ‘Centralisation’, CW, XIX, p. 610 (the emphasis ismine). Mill wrote in The Subjection of Women that ‘[t]he love of power andthe love of liberty are in eternal antagonism. Where there is least liberty, thepassion for power is the most ardent and unscrupulous’. ‘The desire of powerover others’ was ‘a depraving agency among mankind’: CW, XXI, p. 338.

144. Acton wrote that the purpose of all the Continental governments, framedon the pattern of ‘the ideas of 1789, incorporated in that [French]Constitution of 1791’ was ‘not that the people should obtain security forfreedom, but participation of power. The increase in the number of thosewho share the authority renders the authority still more irresistible’:‘Cavour’ (July 1861), Selected Writings, I, p. 441.

145. ‘Chateaubriand had grumbled that the French do not like liberty, but goinstinctively to power’: Weber 1990, p. 186.

146. In a review article that same year Lord Acton described ‘the attempt ofFrance to establish a durable edifice on the ruins of 1789’ as ‘the vicious cir-cle of the last seventy years’: Acton, Selected Writings, II, p. 76.

147. Emphasis added: CW, XIX, p. 583.148. Works, XII, pp. 321–2. Reports on the disillusionment with the Republic

were coming long before 1851. As Macaulay wrote from Paris on 11September 1849: ‘No private person shows, as far as I have seen, the leastlove or respect for the present form of government. The word republic ishardly uttered without a sneer’: The Letters, V, p. 72. Cf. ibid., p. 75. AndRuskin reported in October 1848 that the bourgeoisie were, ‘as well as thesoldiery, thoroughly sick of the republic’: quoted in Batchelor 2000, p. 75.

149. Works, XII, pp. 323–4. Cf. Works, IV, pp. 32–3.150. Macaulay too was for the President. He wrote in a letter on 3 December

1851: ‘I am, on the whole, for the President and the army. … It is idle tocomplain that an army domineers over a society in which whatever is notarmy is Chaos.’: The Letters, V, p. 210.

151. The phrase from Mill is to be found in A System of Logic, Book VI, ChapterXII (CW, VIII, p. 946), and is immediately followed by the text where Millcriticised severely the results of French ‘geometrical’ reasoning, in the pas-sage quoted by Morley in On Compromise (see supra, Part II).

152. Works, XII, pp. 326, 327, 327–8. See also ibid., pp. 329–30.153. See: St John-Stevas 1965, pp. 51–2. It may also need to be remembered that

Bagehot was just recovering from some kind of depression, which was thereal reason for his sojourn in Paris (see ibid., pp. 49–52). Like with so manyother Englishmen before and since, it worked: Paris did wonders for his

Notes 189

spirits, as his (highly recommended) letters to his mother and friends testify(Works, XII, pp. 320, 324, 330–1, 331–2).

154. Works, IV, p. 30. The President’s term was non-renewable, according to theSecond Republic’s Constitution. Louis Napoleon had failed to assemble thenecessary three fourths majority in the National Assembly that would allowa constitutional amendment to go through, which would give him a secondterm in office, which he ardently desired. It was a constitutional deadlock,and no solution in sight, except a violent or revolutionary one. This isexactly what Mill had warned against in the ‘Vindication’, in April 1849.

155. Cf. Bagehot, Works, IV, p. 40; Mill, CW, XIV, pp. 21, 34.156. Works, IV, pp. 29–34.157. Works, IV, pp. 35–44.158. Works, IV, pp. 36–7.159. Works, IV, pp. 40–1. Cf. Works, XII, pp. 32, 326, 328; Mill CW, XIV, pp. 32–4,

21.160. Works, IV, pp. 45–53. The fourth letter (‘On the Aptitude of the French

Character for National Self-Government’) continued the same topic: Works,IV, pp. 54–62.

161. ‘On the Constitution of the Prince-President’, Works, IV, pp. 63–70.162. Emphasis added: Works, IV, pp. 63–4.163. Works, IV, pp. 63–9.164. Works, IV, pp. 77–84.165. Apparently such ‘stealthy, secret, unknown, excellent, forces’ were soon to

be at work, especially in the 1860s, preparing the French for democratic cit-izenship to an extent Bagehot could not guess. Major among them were, asSudhir Hazareesingh has recently shown, exactly forces related to themunicipalism which Bagehot discarded as insufficient to change the habitsof the French ‘character’. See Hazareesingh 1997a; 1998, pp. 233–305, andpassim. Cf. Greg 1848, p. 367.

166. Works, IV, pp. 81–3.167. Works, IV, p. 117.168. Works, VII, p. 50.169. Works, IV, pp. 89–94.170. A year earlier, Mill had expressed a similar concern, with regard to whether

Italy ‘would form its character as a selfgoverning nation on French ideas oron English’ (CW, XV, p. 798 – 24 September 1862). And, during the two previous years (in 1861 and in 1862), Acton spoke similarly of an Englishand a French political model which other Continental nations had to chosebetween, in his articles ‘Cavour’ (Selected Writings, I, pp. 441–2), and‘Nationality’ (ibid., pp. 414–15, 424).

171. Works, V, pp. 165–396; VII, pp. 17–144 (see especially: ibid., p. 143).172. Works, IV, pp. 89–94.173. Works, IV, pp. 101–4 (The Economist, 28 November 1863); Works, IV,

pp. 105–9 (The Economist, 5 December 1863).174. Works, IV, pp. 101–4. Cf. Arnold, Prose Works, I, p. 81.175. Works, IV, pp. 105–7. Cf. Arnold, Prose Works, I, p. 77.176. Arnold would agree: cf. Prose Works, I, pp. 81–2.177. Works, IV, pp. 107–8.178. ‘Cæsareanism as it now exists’, Works, IV, pp. 111–19 (The Economist, 4

March 1865).

190 Notes

179. Emphasis added: Works, IV, p. 111.180. Works, IV, pp. 111–14. Cf. Works, IV, p. 129.181. See, particularly, CW, X, pp. 9, 105.182. Works, IV, pp. 114–16. Bagehot launched one more attack on Napoleon III’s

system in August 1867 in ‘The Mercantile Evils of Imperialism’, Works, IV,pp. 117–19.

183. Works, IV, pp. 155–9 (The Economist, 20 August 1870).184. Works, IV, p. 159.185. ‘The Emperor Napoleon’, Works, IV, pp. 161–4 (The Economist, 11 January

1873). For the work that made the idea of Louis Napoleon as a ‘small man’popular see Hugo 1852; cf. Robb 1997, pp. 308–9, 320–2.

186. ‘The Liberals and the Emperor’, Works, IV, pp. 147–50 (The Economist,21 May 1870).

187. Cf. Works, IV, pp. 148–50.188. Cf. what Bagehot wrote of the Orleans Monarchy in June 1871: Works, VIII,

pp. 201–2.189. ‘Do the Conditions Requisite for a Stable Government Exist in France?’,

Works, VIII, pp. 182–6 (The Economist, 10 September 1870).190. Works, VIII, pp. 197–9. Cf. Harrison (Royden) 1971; Kent 1978, pp. 96–7.191. ‘Constitutional Tendencies in France’, Works, VIII, pp. 213–16 (The

Economist, 14 September 1872).192. Works, VIII, pp. 217–21 (The Economist, 31 May 1873).193. See, for one more expression of Bagehot’s wholehearted support for the new

republic and for his hopes arising from ‘M. Thiers’ astute policy of graduallyaccustoming France to associate order and strength, and a certain limitedamount of liberty, with the name and form of a republic.’: ‘The ImperialistManifesto’ (25 January 1873), Works, IV, pp. 167–8.

194. Cf. Bagehot, Works, VIII, pp. 236–7; Mill, CW, XX, pp. 331–2.195. Works, VIII, pp. 220–1. Cf. Mill’s comments at the time of the Franco-

Prussian war, concerning the political indifference of the mass of theFrench people and its disastrous consequences (CW, XVII, p. 1769) and hisconclusion that ‘[t]he peasantry of France like to women of England havestill to learn that politics concern themselves.’ (ibid., pp. 1774–5).

196. Works, IV, pp. 169–72 (The Economist, 30 May 1874).197. Works, IV, pp. 171–2.198. Works, IV, p. 172.199. Emphasis added: ‘Why an English Liberal may look without disapproval on

the progress of Imperialism in France’, Works, IV, pp. 173–7 (The Economist,6 June 1874).

200. Works, VIII, pp. 236–41 (The Economist, 15 August 1874). The first articlewhere he offered such advice was: ‘French Politics’, Works, VIII, pp. 231–5(The Economist, 20 June 1874).

201. For Mill’s assertion that ‘constitutional royalty is in itself a thing as uncon-genial to the character and habits of the French … as it is suited to the toneof thought and feeling characteristic of England’ and his elaborate argu-mentation supporting it see: CW, XX, pp. 331–2.

202. Cf. Works, VIII, p. 230.203. Works, VIII, p. 238. These had been the arguments used by Mill already in the

early 1830s to explain to the British readers (in the Examiner in particular)why Guizot’s and the other Doctrinaires’ endeavours to create an upper house

Notes 191

in France in imitation of their beloved British experience were misplacedand doomed (see CW, XXII, pp. 200–01, 343; XXIII, p. 682).

204. Works, VIII, pp. 242–5 (The Economist, 6 March 1875).205. Works, VIII, pp. 242–5.206. See: ‘The Results of the French Elections’, Works, VIII, pp. 246–9 (The

Economist, 26 February 1876).207. Cf. Kent 1978, pp. 144–6. Cf. Bagehot, Physics and Politics, Works, VII,

pp. 50–1 (then Bagehot was accusing them of wishing ‘to introduce here animitation of the Napoleonic system, a dictatorship founded on the prole-tariat’; but in the 1870s Harrison was completely disillusioned withBonapartism and a staunch republican: cf. Prochaska 2000, pp. 123–6).

208. See, on this last point: Harrison 1879; cf. also Harrison 1874; 1877. For anexcellent brief account see Vogeler 1984, pp. 127–31.

209. Vogeler 1984, p. 131.210. Spencer, The Man versus the State (1884), in: Spencer 1982, pp. 1–177, p. 67.

Cf. also: Spencer, ‘Over-legislation’ (1853), in: Spencer 1982, p. 322.

4 French National Character and French Politics

1. Hazlitt 1970, pp. 103–4; Bagehot, Works, VIII, p. 158.2. Cf. Noiriel 1995, pp. 9–10. For an account of uses of ‘national character’,

‘political culture’, and related categories in the social sciences especiallysince the 1940s see: Claret 1998.

3. Cf. Bagehot’s statement: ‘“Motley was the wear” of the world whenHerodotus first looked on it and described it to us … ’: Works, VII, p. 80.

4. Hume 1994, pp. 78–92. Cf. Ferguson 1995.5. On the ‘Idea of Character’ in Victorian Britain see Collini 1991, pp. 91–118.6. Barker 1927, 1950; cf. Claret 1998. In some quarters, it is still used today

even among political philosophers: see Scruton 2000, pp. 43–67 (chapter 3:‘English Character’).

7. See, for instance, George Stocking’s remarks on Leslie Stephen’s use of ‘race’(Stocking 1987, pp. 138–9). For the confusion and imprecision characterizingthe use of the type of race not just in common discourse, but also among spe-cialists, see Banton 1987, pp. xii–xv, 29–32. On race in Victorian though moregenerally see: Watson 1973, pp. 198–212; Rich 1994, p. 779; Bolt 1971. Evenmore attention was attached to the role of race in France at the same time. SeeBarzun 1965, p. 6, and passim; Seliger 1958, pp. 273–82. On the question ofrace in French historiography at this time see Barzun 1932; Crossley 1993, pp.56–7, 90–2. On Tocqueville’s reflections see: Schleifer 1980, pp. 62–72;Drescher 1968, pp. 274–6. On Hippolyte Taine see R.A. Jones’s contributionin: Hearnshaw 1933, pp. 222–50; and Burrow 2000, pp. 85–6, and passim.

8. Carlyle, Critical and Miscellaneous Essays, IV, pp. 348–83. Cf. Le Quesne1993, pp. 83–4; Houghton 1957, pp. 212–13. On the Governor EyreControversy see: Semmel 1962.

9. Carlyle compared (favourably, of course) to the talkative French theEnglish, who were ‘a dumb people’, and expressed themselves not in speechbut in deeds: ‘their Epic Poem is written on the Earth’s surface’: Carlyle, ‘TheEnglish’, Past and Present, in: The Works, V, pp. 157–8.

192 Notes

10. Heffer 1995, p. 78; Kaplan 1983, pp. 104, 331–3.11. Faverty 1951, p. 27. Carlyle did write in a letter predicting disaster for France

(in late 1848) that he and his wife ‘hope[d] better things; having a kind oflove for these beautiful unhappy little fools, after all.’ But the compliment isat best mixed even in that statement! (Collected Letters, XXIII, pp. 176–7).

12. Faverty 1951, pp. 25–6, and more generally on the ‘Teutomaniacs’, pp. 13–40.13. Faverty 1951, p. 76. Cf. ibid., pp. 97, 98; Poliakov 1971, p. 64.14. M. Arnold, Letters, III, p. 18 (10 March 1866).15. Faverty 1951, pp. 3, 78.16. [Hereafter: Celtic Literature]: Prose Works, III, pp. 291–395 [first published as a

series of articles (based on lectures delivered in Jesus College, Oxford) in TheCornhill Magazine in March, April, May, and July 1866].

17. Cf. Pecora 1997–98; Faverty 1951, p. 191 and passim; Trilling 1974, pp. 232–43. The 1860s was an important decade in terms of the flourishingof such ‘scientific’ disciplines. Shortly before Arnold came to write the lec-tures that became his On the Study of Celtic Literature, James Hunt had left theEthnological Society of London and had founded (1863) the breakawayAnthropological Society, in order to promote more directly the relevance ofthe study of racial traits for political and social issues (for more see: Rainger1978; Burrow 1968, pp. 121, 130).

18. Prose Works, III, p. 353.19. Trilling 1974, p. 235. Cf. Pecora 1997–98, p. 361. After the publication of his

History of Civilization in England (1857–61), the historian Henry ThomasBuckle emerged, next to his mentor J.S. Mill, as the favourite target of thosewho asserted the importance of racial inheritance in the formation ofnational character – that is, the vast majority of Victorian thinkers, historians,and anthropologists. Usually the attacks on Buckle were accompanied bysimultaneous onslaughts on the main culprit, Mill (and sometimes Benthamalong with him). Cf. Acton, ‘Buckle’s Philosophy of History’ (1857), SelectedWritings, III, pp. 457–8. For Huxley’s contributions see: Huxley 1865, 1870;Rainger 1978, pp. 64–5; Mandelbaum 1971, pp. 207, 455 (n. 69); Varouxakis1998(a). Besides Mill and Buckle, another luminary of the anti-racialist campin the mid-Victorian period was – significantly – a scientist, T.H. Huxley.

20. Faverty 1951, p. 78. Cf. Trilling 1974, p. 233: ‘Arnold embraced the whole ofthe racial assumption’.

21. On Knox see: Sternhell 1987, p. 414; Burrow 1968, p. 130; Faverty 1951, p. 73.22. Faverty 1951, pp. 74–5. Cf. for similar remarks: Trilling 1974, pp. 236, 239 (fn).23. Faverty 1951, pp. 76–7 (and more generally pp. 76–110). The Englishman’s

prime defect was lack of intelligence or critical thought, what Arnold called(following, once more, his French mentors) their ‘unintelligence’. At thesame time, ‘energy’ was the ‘strong point and favourable characteristic’ ofthe English. Such views were common-place at the time and by no meansoriginal with Arnold (cf. Langford 2000, pp. 29–82, and passim). WithEnglish ‘energy’ and its twin in the German (fellow-Teutonic) nation, ‘steadi-ness’, Arnold associated ‘honesty’, regarding it as a Teutonic trait. Last but farfrom least, as we saw earlier, the English had morality, they possessed the‘power of conduct’, like the rest of the Teutons.

24. La Poésie des Races Celtiques (published as part of Renan’s Essais de Morale et deCritique, 1859).

Notes 193

25. Cf. Leoussi 1998; Citron 1987.26. Faverty 1951, pp. 121–3. Cf. Pecora 1997–98, p. 363.27. Faverty 1951, pp. 95, 124.28. ‘Numbers’, Prose Works, X, pp. 155–9; ‘A French Worthy’, Prose Works, X,

pp. 89–93. Cf. ‘Renan’s “La Réforme intellectuelle et morale de la France”’(1872), Prose Works, VII, P. 45. Arnold’s explanation of the decline of Franceas the result of the dying out of the Teutonic element in the population wasnot so idiosyncratic, although he put his own stamp on the way he formu-lated it of course. It was widely held in the nineteenth century that the most‘virile’, ‘solid’ and ‘serious’ element in modern western civilization was theTeutonic. E.A. Freeman, Thomas Carlyle or Thomas Arnold were in good com-pany in strenuously asserting this. For all sorts of imaginative or hair-raisingexplanations of the defeat of France in 1870 in racial terms and particularlyin terms of the French Celts’ defects see Cornick 1996 (particularly pp. 150,155 (n.43)).

29. For an instance where the author could have raised the issue that somethinghappened between 1867 and 1872 which may have affected Arnold’s viewsor at the very least his emphasis, see Faverty 1951, p. 137.

30. That there is a contradiction when the proposition that racial extractiondetermines character and intellectual and moral traits, is accompanied,within the same breath, by the assertion that in the case of the French, it isnot their overwhelmingly Celtic blood but rather their Latin civilization thatgives the nation its character is one of the ‘confusions’ alluded to earlier. Cf.Trilling 1974, p. 239 (fn) – Trilling was referring to Arnold’s assertion regard-ing the English admixture; yet, the argument applies to both cases.

31. Prose Works, III, pp. 349–50.32. Emphasis added. Arnold continued here: ‘and it may be remarked in passing

that this distinction makes the conditions of the future for Latin Italy quitedifferent from those of Celtic France.’ Cf. Greg 1848, p. 368.

33. Emphasis added: Prose Works, VII, p. 48.34. For more see Pittock 1999, pp. 1–20 and passim; Romani 1997; Rich 1994;

Chapman 1992; Kruta 2000.35. ‘Monsieur Henri Martin, whose chapters on the Celts in his Histoire de France

are full of information and interest.’36. Emphasis in the original: Prose Works, III, p. 344. Cf. Mill, CW, XVII, p. 1769.37. Prose Works, III, p. 343.38. In the detailed exposition that follows Arnold referred to ‘the Latinised

Frenchman’ as one of the successfully sensuous races, successful becausethey had also ‘the talent’ to make the bent they shared with ‘the Celt proper’(‘sensuousness’) serve to a practical embellishment of their mode of living.This made them successful in material civilization to an extent the Celtproper was not. In other words, he did not identify the French with theCeltic trait he was describing, but rather grouped ‘the Latinised French’ nextto the Greek and Latin races in contradistinction to ‘the Celt proper’ – suchas the Irishman. (Cf. what I argued earlier about the difference between CelticLiterature and works written after the Franco-Prussian War.)

39. Letters, II, p. 370; III, pp. 14, 18, 44, 46, 48. Cf. Orr 1988; Dudley Edwards 1986.40. Emphasis added: Prose Works, III, pp. 344–8.41. CW, XX, p. 238.

194 Notes

42. For some examples (among many) see: Pecora 1997–98, p. 372; Steele 1970;Mazlish 1975, p. 407.

43. CW, XVIII, p. 145. Cf. Bain 1882, pp. 78–9.44. For more on Mill on race see: Varouxakis 1998(a).45. Mandler 2000, p. 232.46. Stephen 1858, pp. 495–6. Cf. Stephen 1862, p. 82.47. See, for instance: ‘The Count de Montalembert’ (1858), Selected Writings, III,

pp. 9–16 (particularly p. 12).48. Cf., for other similar attacks on Buckle and Mill jointly: Varouxakis 1998a,

pp. 26–8.49. Acton, ‘Buckle’s Philosophy of History’ (1858), Selected Writings, III,

pp. 457–8, 449. Cf. Carlyle’s remarks on the persistence of the qualities of the Gauls described by Julius Caesar and on the French retaining this ‘old Gaulish and Gaelic Celthood’: Carlyle, The Works, III, pp. 109–110; cf. ibid., pp. 42, 101. Such continuities in stereotypes on the French runningback to Julius Caesar or Tacitus were rather common-place. Cf. Weber 1990.

50. It seems, however, that Acton did not remain all his life as convinced of theimportance of the racial factor as he seems to be in this review, given what hecame to write in some of his extant manuscripts (see Himmelfarb 1952, pp. 182–3).

51. Emphasis added: Acton, ‘Mr. Goldwin Smith’s Irish History’, Selected Writings,II, pp. 73–7.

52. On Dr Arnold’s view see: Stanley 1860, I, p. 77. On Freeman’s see: Faverty1951, p. 30; Burrow 1981, passim.

53. See, for an instance, ‘Equality’, where he made such a distinction, explainingthat what he had written ‘so far’ applied to ‘the English people as a whole’,and then going on to identify the specific character traits of the differentclasses: Prose Works, VIII, p. 293.

54. A French Eton or Middle-Class Education and the State, Prose Works, II, pp. 306–7. Cf. Faverty 1951, pp. 43–4.

55. See Jones 2000, p. 67. Cf. Collini et al. 1983, p. 164. Physics and Politicscame out as a book in 1872 [first published in a series of five essays in theFortnightly Review between 1867 and 1872]. The full text is in: Works, VII, pp. 15–144.

56. Mandler 2000, p. 234.57. Works, VII, p. 65.58. Works, VII, p. 67.59. Works, VII, pp. 37–8.60. Works, VII, p. 80. Cf. ibid., p. 121.61. Works, IV, pp. 45–53.62. Works, IV, p. 48.63. Works, IV, pp. 48–50.64. On Maine cf. Burrow 1966, pp. 137–78.65. Nuances are significant and it should be noted that the way Bagehot’s view

of the importance of variety is expressed in Physics and Politics (as well as his insistence in other works on the need for the existence and contributionsof men of different characters in each parliament and in each cabinet), isreminiscent of Machiavelli’s arguments in the Discourses.

Notes 195

66. Works, VII, p. 57. On views concerning the racial mix that made up Franceamong French historians in the nineteenth century see: Crossley 1993, pp. 200–1, 204–7; Citron 1987; Barzun 1941.

67. Works, VIII, pp. 187–91 (The Economist, 24 September 1870).68. Works, VII, pp 104–5.69. Works, IV, pp. 50–51.70. Works, IV, pp. 50–53.71. Works, IV, pp. 54–62.72. Works, IV, pp. 54–5.73. Cf. Faverty 1951, p. 56, for an instance of what Arnold had to say on similar

issues (the examples from Arnold could be multiplied easily).74. Works, IV, pp. 56–7.75. Cf. Morley 1997, p. 61; Mill, CW, VIII, pp. 946–7; Stephen 1859(d).76. Cf. Macaulay, ‘Lord Bacon’ (1837), in: Macaulay 1874, pp. 349–418. See also:

Houghton 1957, pp. 39–40, 123. According to Houghton (p. 123), Macaulay’s‘essay on Bacon is the locus classicus of Victorian anti-intellectualism’.

77. Works, IV, pp. 54–62.78. Works, IV, pp. 67, 66.79. Works, IV, p. 78. Three years later Bagehot found an opportunity to strike

again: ‘If France had more men of firm will, quiet composure, with a suspi-cion of enormous principle and a taste for moderate improvement: if a Whigparty, in a word, were possible in France, France would be free.’: Bagehot,‘The First Edinburgh Reviewers’ (October 1855), Works, I, pp. 309–41, p. 321.Cf. Collini et al. 1983, pp. 168–9.

80. Cf. Mill, on the French as ‘a people of place-hunters’, CW, XIX, p. 420; CW,XXII, p. 159; CW, XX, p. 193. Also: Senior 1973, pp. 1–4, 28–9.

81. Cf. Stephen 1859(d), 1864(b).82. Acton, ‘“Bureaucracy” by Richard Simpson’ (1859), Selected Writings, I,

pp. 525–7.83. Hamer 1968, p. 28. Cf. supra, chapter 3, Part II.84. Hamer 1968, pp. 361–2.85. Emphasis added: Hamer 1968, p. 362.86. CW, VIII, pp. 900–7.87. For more see Varouxakis 1998(b). This claim is not meant to ignore or play

down the importance of Mill’s interest in, and conversance with, othernational or cultural groups, such as the inhabitants of the Indian subconti-nent and Ireland. For their significance in this context, see, for instance,Robson (John M.) 1998, pp. 338–71.

88. ‘Comparison of the Tendencies of French and English Intellect’: CW, XXIII,pp. 442–3. On the proportion of Mill’s articles on France to his overall out-put see: Robson and Robson 1982, pp. 76–7 (n.12).

89. CW, XXII, pp. 308–9. Cf. CW, XII, pp. 63–5.90. CW, XXII, pp. 154–6. Mill was by no means alone in attributing importance

to the generation factor in France at the period in question: See Spitzer 1987,pp. 3, 4, 270(n.3) and passim.

91. Cf. Spitzer 1987, p. 10, and passim; McLaren 1971, pp. 59–60. Cf. Mill, CW,XXII, pp. 214–5.

92. CW, XXIII, pp. 485–6 (24 June 1832).93. Emphasis added: CW, XXIII, p. 683.

196 Notes

94. CW, XX, pp. 190–2.95. For more on this issue see Varouxakis 1998(b).96. CW, XIX, p. 418. He noted that in regard to the ‘infirmities’ he was about to

refer to it was ‘not … obvious that the government of One or a Few wouldhave any tendency to cure or alleviate the evil.’: ibid.

97. CW, XIX, p. 420.98. Emphasis added. Cf. ‘Centralisation’ (1862), CW, XIX, pp. 610–11. Cf.

Montesquieu 1989, p. 155.99. Cf. Benjamin Constant, ‘The Liberty of the Ancients compared with that of

the Moderns’, in: Constant 1988, p. 316.100. Cf. CW, XXII, p. 159; and CW, XX, p. 193. For the same view on the French

cf. also: Senior 1973, pp. 1–4, 28–9; Acton, Selected Writings, I, pp. 525–6.101. Cf. ‘Centralisation’: CW, XIX, p. 583.102. CW, XIX, pp. 420–1. The ‘representative government by a limited class’

which ‘[broke] down by excess of corruption’ was, obviously, the JulyMonarchy; ‘the attempt at representative government by the whole malepopulation’ was that made with the installation of the Second Republic.

103. CW, XIX, p. 421.104. CW, XXII, p. 134.105. ‘[T]he events of 1848 have taught thinking persons … that of all … circum-

stances … affecting political problems, by far and out of all question themost important is national character ’ (Bagehot, Works, IV, pp. 48–9.).

106. Miles Taylor uses the phrase ‘Liberalism in one country’: Taylor 1995.107. As he put it himself in a letter to his mother (24 March 1866) explaining

what he had tried to do in his letter to the Pall Mall Gazette, in response tothe criticisms of ‘Horace’ (see supra, chapter 1): ‘I was glad to have an oppor-tunity to disclaim that positive admiration of things foreign, and that indif-ference to English freedom, which have often been imputed to me – and toexplain that I do not disparage freedom, but take it for granted as our con-dition, and go on to consider other things.’: Letters, III, p. 22. See alsoArnold’s letter to the Pall Mall: ‘A Courteous Explanation’, Prose Works, V,pp. 25–6.

108. Quoted in: Trilling 1974, p. 345. As Trilling goes on to comment: ‘TheFrench defeat in the Prussian war was retribution for a personal lubricityresulting in political confusion.’: ibid.

109. Prose Works, VII, p. 44.110. Cf. Judt 1992, p. 308: ‘It is a long-standing particularity … of the French

that they are, in the words of Caesar describing his Gallic subjects, rerumnovarum cupidi’ [avid for novelties].

111. Prose Works, III, p. 344.112. CW, XVII, p. 1769.

5 Grandeur and Frenchness: Nationalism, InternationalRelations and French National Character

1. Mill, CW, XIII, p. 571; Senior 1843, p. 366.2. Weber 1990, pp. 169, 170.3. See Hampson 1998, pp. 120–44.

Notes 197

4. Schmidt 1953, pp. 607–11; on the significance of the crisis of 1840–41 seeibid., pp. 613–14. For more on the period of the French Revolution see Hampson 1998. On Larousse’s Dictionnaire see Cornick 1995. To mentionbut one example among many, in what constituted ‘[t]he most sustainedand bitter commentary upon England’ ( Jennings 1986, p. 81), AlexandreLedru-Rollin’s De la décadence de l’Angleterre (1850), ‘[s]ubject to particularvenom was English foreign policy’: ibid., p. 82. Cf. Buruma 1999, p. 129.

5. Thus, Montalembert, who, according to Jeremy Jennings, ‘wrote De l’Avenirpolitique de l’Angleterre [1856] as a riposte to what he saw as the mountingunfair criticism of England’, nevertheless ‘made no attempt whatsoever todefend England’s colonial and foreign policy which, under Palmerston’sguidance, seemed to embody a contempt for liberty and the rights of theweak.’: Jennings 1986, p. 75. Cf. Aron 1965, p. 20 (on Tocqueville). For someBritish comments on Continental perceptions of the selfishness of Britishforeign policy see: Mill, CW, I, p. 263; Arnold, ‘My Countrymen’, ProseWorks, V, pp. 3–32 (particularly p. 8); Senior 1865, pp. 135–7; Bagehot,Works, VII, p. 131.

6. Emphasis added.7. Senior 1842, pp. 1–2.8. Napier 1877, pp. 372–3, 375.9. Levy 1970, p. 127.

10. CW, XIII, p. 701 (1 May 1846). Cf. Mill’s statement in 1831: CW, XXII, p. 259.11. Cf. CW, XXII, pp. 214–15.12. Emphasis added: Senior 1842, pp. 4–5. Machiavelli would have disagreed, if

he could read the article from the grave. He would have told Senior ‘that theFrench have always behaved in the same way’, ‘full of avarice, pride, ferocity,and untrustworthiness’. This was what he wrote of them in Chapter Forty-Three of The Discourses, where the Florentine insisted ‘that nations retain thesame habits of life over long periods’ (Machiavelli 1994, pp. 216–17).

13. See Tocqueville’s speech in: OC, III, 2, pp. 288–301. The speech had beenreported at length in The Times on 2, 3 December 1840. See also: Lawlor1959, pp. 43–66; Drescher 1964, pp. 152–61; Aron 1965, pp. 17–20; Boesche1987, pp. 62–5, 212.

14. Cf. Mill, CW, XIII, pp. 536–7.15. Cf. Mill, CW, XXII, p. 259.16. Cf. Mill, CW, XXII, p. 214 (Examiner, 19 December 1830).17. Emphasis added.18. Emphasis added.19. CW, XXII, p. 303; cf. CW, XXIII, p. 644; XX, p. 125.20. CW, XXII, pp. 214–15.21. Emphasis added: CW, XXII, pp. 299–300 (10 April 1831).22. CW, XXII, p. 259 (6 February 1831). Cf. CW, XIII, p. 701; XXII, p. 284; XXIII,

p. 665.23. See Varouxakis 1997.24. See CW, XXII, pp. 182–4; cf. CW, XII, p. 115.25. Cf. McLaren 1971, p. 265.26. See, among many examples: CW, XXIII, pp. 466–7.27. CW, XII, pp. 121–2. Cf. CW, XII, p. 115; XXIII, pp. 643–6; XXII, pp. 182–3.28. Harding 1964, p. 16.

198 Notes

29. See: Collingham 1988, pp. 221–39; Johnson 1963, pp. 268–72; Bullen 1974,pp. 17–24.

30. Cairns 1985, pp. xx, xviii. Raymond Aron has also paid some attention tothe exchanges between Mill and Tocqueville on this crisis, regarding them ascharacteristic of broader and recurring attitudes in the two countries withregard to their relationship with each other. Aron appears to side, thoughtacitly, with Mill against Tocqueville (Aron 1965, pp. 17–20). See alsoTodorov 1993, pp. 191–207, especially 195–7. Todorov is more overtly critical of Tocqueville’s stance.

31. CW, XIII, pp. 445–6 (letter to John Sterling, 1 October 1840).32. Emphasis added: CW, XIII, p. 448 (letter to R.B. Fox, 25 November 1840).33. Drescher 1964, pp. 155–6. See Tocqueville’s speech in: OC, III, 2,

pp. 288–301.34. OC, VI, 1, pp. 330–1.35. CW, XIII, pp. 457–60.36. Cf., on the Liberal party’s Francophiles or ‘Foxites’: Bullen 1974, pp. 2–4, 20–4.37. Emphasis added: CW, XIII, pp. 459–60. Two years later, Mill wrote to

Tocqueville again, referring to the same affair and the same man: ‘Je voudraisqu’on crucifiât le premier homme qui osât dire à la tribune d’un peuple desinjures contre un autre peuple. Il faut des générations entières pour guérir lemal que cela peut faire dans un jour.’: CW, XIII, p. 571 (20 February 1843).

38. Tocqueville 1985, pp. 149–52 (the original: OC, VI, 1, pp. 334–6).39. Tocqueville 1985, pp. 150–1.40. Cf. Bentham: ‘national honour consists in justice’; and: ‘the glory of being

able to hit the hardest blow ought to be left to schoolboys’: quoted in:Conway 1989, p. 93.

41. Cf. Senior’s statement (in his article of that same year) that the way theFrench were influenced by their resentment against England resembled thatof ‘a child, and an ill-educated child’.

42. CW, XIII, pp. 536–7.43. CW, XIII, pp. 456–7.44. This is exactly what Senior asserted in ‘France, America, and Britain’ in 1842.45. Emphasis added: CW, XIII, p. 465. Cf. CW, XIII, pp. 467–8, 472.46. See Lawlor 1959, pp. 67–8. Cf. the explanation of the reasons that must have

forced Guizot to pursue such a policy on that instance given to Senior by aFrenchman and reported by him in: Senior 1973(b), p. 139.

47. Though there were some hints at Tocqueville’s themes from 1840, the speechwas not bellicose: see OC, III, 2, pp. 338–52, p. 341. Rather, this speechshould be seen as the first step in the process suggested by Drescher, ofTocqueville’s imperceptibly moving from calls for great acts in foreign affairstowards ‘vehement pleas for the salvation of political action at home’: seeDrescher 1964, pp. 161–2. Though Tocqueville was to attack once more thenotion of the Anglo-French alliance in the future (in 1845: see ibid., pp. 162–6), he had by no means done so on the occasion in question, in 1843.

48. See Lawlor 1959, pp. 83–4, 89.49. OC, VI, 1, pp. 339–40 (9 February 1843).50. ‘Lord Brougham and M. de Tocqueville’: CW, XXIV, pp. 841–4.51. CW, XIII, p. 570. For Tocqueville’s statement alluded to by Mill, see: OC, III,

2, p. 346. Cf. Mill, ‘A Few Words on Non-Intervention’, CW, XXI, pp. 114–5.

Notes 199

52. Emphasis added: CW, XIII, p. 571.53. CW, XIII, pp. 451–2 (19 December 1840). Mill did not exaggerate the impor-

tance of Guizot’s role, given the difficulties of the task he had set himself intrying to avert war and revitalize the (extremely unpopular) Anglo-Frenchalliance (see: Bullen 1974, pp. 23, 26–8 and passim; Bullen 1991, pp. 187–201; Johnson 1963, pp. 268–73). The significance of the crisis of1840 can hardly be exaggerated either. Senior reported (with apparent agree-ment) that in 1849 a French interlocutor explained to him that it was thehumiliation felt by the French then, and the powerlessness of Guizot’s andLouis Philippe’s governments to gratify French susceptibilities that led to thefatal increase in the regime’s unpopularity and consequently to theRevolution of 1848 (Senior 1973(b), p. 139).

54. CW, XIII, pp. 454–5 (23 December 1840). Cf. CW, XIII, pp. 456–7; XX, pp. 185–6; 259; XII, p. 61; XIII, pp. 654, 714. Significantly, it was again aquestion of foreign policy and Franco-British relations, the Spanish Marriages,that modified, to an extent, Mill’s favourable view of Guizot (CW, XIII, p. 714).

55. Emphasis added: Mill, ‘Vindication … ’, CW, XX, p. 325. Bagehot, Works, IV,p. 149.

56. Duveyrier 1843.57. Letter of 1 May 1846, CW, XIII, p. 701. See Nassau Senior, ‘France, America,

and Britain’, in the Edinburgh Review, 75, for April 1842, pp. 1–48; the partic-ular reference to France is in pp. 4–10 (reprinted in Senior 1865, pp. 1–90; onFrance see pp. 6–17). Cf. Senior 1843, pp. 303–73 (especially p. 366). Cf. also‘Parisian Morals and Manners’, Edinburgh Review, 78 (July 1843), p. 156 (thisarticle – also very critical of the French – was not written by Senior).

58. CW, XX, pp. 313–14 (from Duveyrier 1843, I, pp. 127, 129).59. CW, XX, p. 314. (The French were perceived, as Bagehot was to put it two

decades later, as ‘the … interfering French nation’: Works, IV, pp. 128–9.)60. Senior 1842.61. Mill, ‘The Quarterly Review on French Agriculture [2]’, CW, XXIV,

pp. 1050–1 (Morning Chronicle, 11 January 1847). See also Mill’s commentson A. de Vigny’s Souvenirs de Servitude et de Grandeur Militaires in: ‘Writings ofAlfred de Vigny’ (1838): CW, I, pp. 488–93. Cf. Rosenblum 1982, pp. 263–8.

62. See: Macaulay, The Letters, IV, p. 362 (13 March 1848); Mill, CW, XIII, p. 714;Arnold, Letters, I, p. 95 (Arnold believed that it was the King who had lied,not Guizot); Acton, ‘Review of Bright’s History of England’ (1888), SelectedWritings, I, p. 166. Cf. Senior 1973(b), pp. 139–40.

63. See Chastain 1988; Bensimon 1999.64. Senior 1873(a), pp. 60–1.65. Senior 1973(a), p. 62.66. Emphasis added: Senior 1973(a), pp. 64–5. Cf. Senior 1973(b), I, p. 262: ‘This

barbarous feeling of nationality … has become the curse of Europe.’67. Senior 1973(a), pp. 60–6.68. Brougham 1848, pp. 120–2, 126.69. CW, XX, pp. 317–63 (on foreign policy: pp. 340–8).70. See more on this: Varouxakis 1997, pp. 70–5.71. Cf. Arnold, ‘England and the Italian Question’ (1859), Prose Works, I,

pp. 85–6.72. For more on Lamartine’s predicament at the time and on how he acquitted

himself see: Chastain 1988.

200 Notes

73. For more see Bensimon 1999.74. Kent 1978, pp. 23–5. Cf. Harvie 1976, pp. 97–115.75. Bagehot, Works, IV, p. 36. Cf. Bagehot, ‘Continental Alarms’, Works, IV,

pp. 121–5 (5 October 1867).76. Martineau 1990, pp. 156–7 (letter to Henry Reeve, 24 June 1858).77. Senior 1865, pp. 123–7.78. Bain 1882, p. 93.79. See Drescher 1964, pp. 170–92.80. Cf. Bagehot, Works, IV, p. 108.81. Cf. Arnold, ‘England and the Italian Question’ (1859), Prose Works, I, p. 92.82. Emphasis (both times) added.83. CW, XV, pp. 610–11.84. Arnold, ‘England and the Italian Question’, Prose Works, I, p. 95.85. Cf. Arnold, Prose Works, I, p. 92.86. Emphasis added: CW, XV, p. 798.87. Cf. Bagehot, ‘France or England’ (1863), Works, IV, pp. 89–94; Acton,

‘Cavour’ (1861), Selected Writings, I, pp. 441–2; Acton, ‘Nationality’ (1862),ibid., pp. 414–15, 424.

88. CW, XV, p. 917.89. Cf. CW, XVI, p. 1288 (4 July 1867).90. CW, XVII, p. 1864.91. Emphasis added.92. Cf. Arnold, Prose Works, I, pp. 78–9.93. Emphasis added. Something similar was noticed also by a German observer

who knew the French well: ‘Whoever in France possesses and understandsnational feeling, exercises an irresistible magic charm on the masses, andmay lead or drive them at will’: Heine 1893, VIII, pp. 219–20. Cf. Marx1991; Senior 1865, pp. 120–2.

94. Cf. Senior 1865, pp. 123–4. This far, Arnold also would agree with every-thing Bagehot argued. See: ‘England and the Italian Question’ (1859), ProseWorks, I, pp. 75–96, especially pp. 75–8.

95. Arnold had a different view on this point in 1859.96. Arnold would agree fully on this point: cf. Prose Works, I, p. 78.97. Cf. Henri Martin’s characterisation of their supposed ancestors: ‘Eblouir ses

amis et faire trembler ses ennemis est la grande ambition du Gaulois’ (‘To astoundhis friends and to make his enemies tremble is the great ambition of theGaul’). (quoted in Faverty 1951, p. 130). Cf. also Mill, CW, XV, p. 917.

98. Emphasis (latter) added: Works, IV, pp. 105–7.99. Emphasis added: Works, IV, p. 109. Arnold had another explanation (shared

by many later historians), that the Emperor, over-estimating the influenceof the Catholic clergy in France, was trying to placate them: Prose Works, I,pp. 88–91.

100. Works, IV, pp. 127–30 (The Economist (14 December 1867).101. ‘Continental Alarms’, Works, IV, pp. 121–5, The Economist, 5 October 1867.

His first reason for optimism was ‘the vagueness of the subject matter of thequarrel. It is difficult even for the French [emphasis added] to go to war frommere jealousy of the increasing power and prosperity of a rival nation,which has done them no wrong, … which is simply endeavouring … tocarry out those doctrines of nationality which France has always pro-claimed as sacred’ (p. 122).

Notes 201

102. Works, IV, pp. 151–3.103. Harrison 1911, II, pp. 2–3: ‘Like nearly all English politicians, certainly all

Liberals to a man, I had been a hearty opponent of the French pretext forcommencing war’. And ‘all through the summer and autumn … I hadwarmly hoped for German victories, with the final extinction of theImperial dynasty and the Napoleonic Legend’.

104. See: Raymond 1967; Cornick 1996.105. But then, probably they saw the matter in the way Carlyle put it, in

November 1870: ‘If, among this multitude of sympathetic bystanders,France have any true friend, his advice to France would be, To abandon allthat, and never to resume it more.’: Critical and Miscellaneous Essays, V, pp. 49–59, p. 55.

106. See Vogeler 1984, pp. 97–105 (cf. ibid., pp. 94–5); Kent 1978, pp. 96–7;Harrison 1971.

107. Vogeler 1984, pp. 98–105. As Vogeler has put it very succinctly, Harrison’sessays and letters ‘convey his sense of a civilization betrayed by a ruthlessEuropean power and the influential classes in England, and of France atonce the scapegoat and potential saviour of the West’ (ibid., p. 100). Cf.Finn 1993, pp. 273–92.

108. Acton 1907(a), (b); Himmelfarb 1952, pp. 183–4; Mathew 1968, pp. 204–10,356; Hill 2000, pp. 464–5(n.38).

109. See Batchelor 2000, pp. 227, 250. Cf. ibid., p. 257.110. Critical and Miscellaneous Essays, V, pp. 49–59.111. Emphasis added.112. Cf. Mill, CW, XVII, p. 1769.113. Emphasis added: Critical and Miscellaneous Essays, V, pp. 56–7, 59.114. Critical and Miscellaneous Essays, V, p. 52. Arch-Teutomaniac E.A. Freeman

was among those who wrote also in support of the German claim to Alsace-Lorraine (The Times, 18 February 1871).

115. ‘Are Alsace and Lorraine Worth Most to Germany or France?’, Works, VIII,pp. 187–91 (The Economist, 24 September 1870).

116. Hamer 1968, pp. 360–1, 363–4. Cf., on Marx’s predictions, Wheen 1999, pp. 323–4.

117. Hamer 1968, pp. 363–8.118. Emphasis added: CW, XVII, 1795 (6 January 1871). Cf. CW, XVII, p. 1767.119. Cf. my remarks in Chapter 1, note 79.120. Letter to H. Fawcett (26 July 1870): CW, XVII, pp. 1753–4. Cf. CW, XVII,

p. 1761.121. CW, XVII, pp. 1764–5; cf. ibid., pp. 1767, 1769.122. CW, XVII, p. 1799.123. See: CW, XVII, pp. 1760–1, 1795–6, 1805–6. Italy also should prepare for

war, he wrote to Villari: CW, XVII, p. 1807 (16 February 1871).124. CW, XVII, pp. 1774, 1795; cf. ibid., pp. 1798, 1806.125. Emphasis added: CW, XVII, p. 1767; cf. ibid., p. 1795, 1807, 1777.126. Cf. Collini 1991, pp. 132–3, 144–9.127. CW, XVII, pp. 1799–1800.128. CW, XVII, pp. 1769, 1774–5.129. CW, XVII, pp. 1761–2.130. See CW, XVII, pp. 1764–5, 1767, 1769, 1795; cf. ibid., p. 1807.

202 Notes

131. Letters, III, p. 437 (29 September 1870).132. See Leoussi 1998, pp. 139–40, 193–4 and passim. Cf. Swart 1964.133. Emphasis added: Letters, III, p. 434 (14 September 1870).

Epilogue: La France Éternelle? Comparing with other ‘Glasses’

1. Bagehot, ‘The Prospects of Bonapartism in France’, Works, IV, p. 170 (TheEconomist, 30 May 1874).

2. De Gaulle himself argued that his constitution was ‘consistent with … thetraits of our national character’ (quoted in: Cerny 1980, p. 44).

3. Emphasis added: St John-Stevas 1968, p. 24.4. St John-Stevas 1968, p. 20.5. See Tombs 1994, pp. 175–6.6. Rosanvallon 2000, pp. 183–221.7. Rosanvallon 2000, p. 219. For Bagehot’s article referred to see: Works, IV,

pp. 11–16.8. Cf. Furet et al. 1988.9. In this Rosanvallon echoes somehow Guizot (on whom he wrote a seminal

book in 1985: Rosanvallon 1985): See Guizot 1997, pp. 228–9. Cf. Mill, CW,XX, pp. 290–4.

10. For more on what he means by this see: Rosanvallon 2000, pp. 183–221.11. Rosanvallon 2001.12. Jennings 1996, p. 86 (referring to: Rosanvallon 1994).13. Cf. Tombs 1994, p. 173: ‘Because of this centrality of the State in the life of

society, all … political struggles focus, in the last analysis, on influencing orsecuring control of the apparatus of the State.’

14. Furet et al. 1988, pp. 175–7; Mill, CW, XVIII, pp. 218–19.15. Jaume 1997.16. Bagehot, ‘The Liberals and the Emperor’, Works, IV, p. 149 (The Economist,

21 May 1870). Cf. quotation in the epigraph of this Epilogue.17. Works, VIII, p. 202 (3 June 1871).18. Works, VIII, p. 184. On Prévost-Paradol as belonging to the minority current

of French liberalism, the ‘libéralisme du sujet, de la conscience ou de l’individu’(‘liberalism of the subject, of the conscience or of the individual’) see Jaume1997, p. 19.

19. Works, IV, p. 150.20. Hazareesingh 1999, p. 26.21. Hazareesingh 1999, p. 26; cf. Hazareesingh 1994, pp. 207–30. In this same

context, de Gaulle made no secret of his hope, ‘in Chateaubriand’s phrase,“to lead them [the French] there by means of dreams”’ (Cerny 1980, p. 80).

22. Works, IV, p. 175 (The Economist, 6 June 1874).23. Works, IV, p. 135.24. It is at least arguable that Mill did not attempt anything like a thorough

assessment, in book or article form, of the prospects of French politics in the last years of his life because he did not like what he would have come up with.

Notes 203

Bibliography

Acton, [First Baron], John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton (1907a) [1871] ‘TheWar of 1870’, Historical Essays and Studies, eds John Neville Figgis and ReginaldVere Laurence, London, pp. 226–72.

Acton, [First Baron], John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton (1907b) [1899] ‘TheCauses of the Franco-Prussian War’, Historical Essays and Studies, eds JohnNeville Figgis and Reginald Vere Laurence, London, pp. 204–25.

Acton, [First Baron], John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton (1985–8) [referred to asSelected Writings] Selected Writings of Lord Acton, ed. J. Rufus Fears, 3 vols,Indianapolis (Vol. I: Essays in the History of Liberty, 1985; Vol. II: Essays in theStudy and Writing of History, 1986; Vol. III: Essays in Religion, Politics, andMorality, 1988).

Agulhon, Maurice (1983) The Republican Experiment 1848–1852 (trans. from theFrench), Cambridge.

Apchié, M. (1931) Les Sources Françaises de Certains Aspects de la Pensée Economiquede John Stuart Mill, Paris.

Arnold, Matthew (1950) The Poetical Works of Matthew Arnold, eds C.B. Tinker andH.F. Lowry, London.

Arnold, Matthew (1960–77) [referred to as Prose Works] The Complete Prose Worksof Matthew Arnold, ed. R.H. Super, 11 vols, Ann Arbor. Volumes are as follows: I: On the Classical Tradition (1960); II: Democratic Education (1962); III: Lecturesand Essays in Criticism (1962); IV: Schools and Universities on the Continent(1964); V: Culture and Anarchy with Friendship’s Garland and Some Literary Essays(1965); VI: Dissent and Dogma (1968); VII: God and the Bible (1970); VIII: EssaysReligious and Mixed (1972); IX: English Literature and Irish Politics (1973);X: Philistinism in England and America (1974); XI: The Last Word (1977).

Arnold, Matthew (1996–2000) [referred to as: Letters] The Letters of MatthewArnold, ed. Cecil Y. Lang, 4 vols, Charlottesville and London. Volumes are asfollows: I: 1829–59 (1996); II: 1860–5 (1997); III: 1866–70 (1998); IV: 1871–8(2000).

Aron, Raymond (1965) Auguste Comte et Alexis de Tocqueville Juges de l’Angleterre(The Zaharoff Lecture for 1965), Oxford.

Bagehot, Walter (1965–86) [referred to as: Works] The Collected Works of WalterBagehot, ed. Norman St John-Stevas, 15 vols, London. Volumes used here are asfollows: I, II: The Literary Essays (1965); III, IV: The Historical Essays (1968);V, VI, VII, VIII: The Political Essays (1974); XII, XIII: The Letters (1986); XIV, XV:Miscellany (1986).

Bain, Alexander (1882) John Stuart Mill: a Criticism with Personal Recollections,London.

Banton, Michael (1987) Racial Theories, Cambridge.Barker, Ernest (1927) National Character and the Factors in Its Formation, London.Barker, Ernest (ed.) (1950) The Character of England, London.Barzun, Jacques (1932) The French Race: Theories of Its Origins and Their Social and

Political Implications, New York.

204

Bibliography 205

Barzun, Jacques (1941) ‘Romantic Historiography as a Political Force in France’,Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 2, pp. 318–29.

Barzun, Jacques (1965) Race: a Study in Superstition, New York.Batchelor, John (2000) John Ruskin: No Wealth But Life, London.Bédarida, François, François Crouzet and Douglas Johnson (eds) (1980) Britain

and France: Ten Centuries, Folkestone.Beloff, Max (1992) An Historian in the Twentieth Century: Chapters in Intellectual

Autobiography, New Haven and London.Bensimon, Fabrice (1999) ‘Lamartine pendant la révolution de 1848, vu de

Grande-Bretagne’, Franco-British Studies, No. 27, pp. 1–17.Boesche, Roger (1987) The Strange Liberalism of Alexis de Tocqueville, Ithaca and

London.Bolt, Christine (1971) Victorian Attitudes to Race, London and Toronto.Boutmy, Emile (1904) The English People: a Study of Their Political Psychology

(trans. from the French), London.Brandes, Georg (1924) ‘John Stuart Mill’, in: G. Brandes, Creative Spirits of the

Nineteenth Century (trans. from the Danish), London, pp. 184–204.Brinton, Crane (1926) The Political Ideas of the English Romantics, Oxford.Brinton, Crane (1949) English Political Thought in the Nineteenth Century, 2nd edn,

London.Broglie, Albert de (1859) ‘Armand Carrel et les Controverses Politiques avant et

après 1848’, Revue des Deux Mondes, Vol. 21, pp. 5–44.Brougham, Henry Peter, Lord (1848) Letter to the Marquess of Lansdowne, K.G.,

Lord President of the Council, on the late Revolution in France, London.Brown, E.K. (1931) ‘The French Reputation of Matthew Arnold’, Studies in English

by Members of University College Toronto, Toronto, pp. 232–9.Buckle, Henry Thomas (1869) [1857–61] History of Civilization in England, 3 vols,

London.Bullen, Roger (1974) Palmerston, Guizot and the Collapse of the Entente Cordiale,

London.Bullen, Roger (1991) ‘La politique étrangère de Guizot’, in Marina Valensise

(ed.), François Guizot et la Culture Politique de son Temps (Colloque de laFondation Guizot-Val Richer), Paris, pp. 187–201.

Burns, J.H. (1968) ‘J.S. Mill and Democracy, 1829–61’, in: J.B. Schneewind (ed.), Mill: a Collection of Critical Essays, Garden City, New York, pp. 280–328.

Burrow, John W. (1968): Evolution and Society: a Study in Victorian Social Theory,Cambridge.

Burrow, John W. (1981) A Liberal Descent: Victorian Historians and the English Past,Cambridge.

Burrow, John W., vide Collini.Burrow, John W. (1985) Gibbon, Oxford.Burrow, John W. (1988) Whigs and Liberals: Continuity and Change in English

Political Thought, Oxford.Burrow, John W. (2000) The Crisis of Reason: European Thought, 1848–1914, New

Haven and London.Buruma, Ian (1999) Voltaire’s Coconuts: or Anglomania in Europe, London.Cairns, John C. (1985) ‘Introduction’, in: John Stuart Mill, Essays on French

History and Historians, CW, XX, pp. vii–xcii.Campos, Christophe (1965) The View of France: from Arnold to Bloomsbury, London.

206 Bibliography

Carlisle, Janice (1991) John Stuart Mill and the Writing of Character, Athens,Georgia.

Carlyle, Thomas (1892) Rescued Essays of Thomas Carlyle, ed. Percy Newberry,London and New York.

Carlyle, Thomas (1897–1904) [referred to as The Works] The Works of ThomasCarlyle, centenary edition, edited with an introduction by H.D. Traill, 30 vols,London.

Carlyle, Thomas (1899) [referred to as Critical and Miscellaneous Essays] Criticaland Miscellaneous Essays, 5 vols, London.

Carlyle, Thomas (1970–85) [referred to as Collected Letters] The Collected Letters ofThomas and Jane Welsh Carlyle (Duke-Edinburgh Edition), general ed. CharlesRichard Sanders, co-ed. Kenneth J. Fielding, 12 vols, Durham, NC.

Carlyle, Thomas (1987–) [referred to as Collected Letters] The Collected Letters ofThomas and Jane Welsh Carlyle (Duke-Edinburgh Edition), senior eds Clyde deL. Ryals and Kenneth J. Fielding, Durham, NC, and London.

Carrel, Armand (1857–9) Oeuvres Politiques et Littéraires d’Armand Carrel, eds E. Littré and A. Paulin, 5 vols, Paris.

Cerny, Philip G. (1980) The Politics of Grandeur: Ideological Aspects of De Gaulle’sForeign Policy, Cambridge.

Chapman, Malcolm (1992) The Celts: the Construction of a Myth, Basingstoke.Chass, Charles (1928) ‘Stuart Mill et la France’, Bulletin de l’Association

France–Grande Bretagne, Vol. 76, pp. 2–13.Chastain, James (1988) The Liberation of Sovereign Peoples: the French Foreign Policy

of 1848, Athens, Ohio.Chateaubriand, François-René, de (1850) Mémoirs d’outre-tombe, 2 vols, Paris.Citron, Suzanne (1987) Le Mythe National: L’Histoire de France en Question, Paris.Claeys, Gregory (1987) ‘Justice, Independence, and Industrial Democracy: the

Development of John Stuart Mill’s Views on Socialism’, The Journal of Politics,Vol. 49, pp. 122–47.

Claret, Philippe (1998) La Personnalité collective des Nations: Théories anglo-saxonnes et conceptions françaises du caractère national, Brussels.

Clive, John (1973) Thomas Babington Macaulay: The shaping of the Historian,London.

Cobban, Alfred (1961) A History of Modern France, 3 vols, Harmondsworth.Cobden, Richard (1903) The Political Writings of Richard Cobden, 4th edn, 2 vols,

London.Coleman J. (1987) ‘John Stuart Mill on the French Revolution’, in John

Cunningham Wood (ed.), John Stuart Mill: Critical Assessments, London, Vol. IV,pp. 335–53.

Coleridge, Samuel Taylor (1972) [1830] On the Constitution of Church and StateAccording to the Idea of Each, ed. John Barrell, London.

Collingham, H.A.C. (1988) The July Monarchy: a Political History of France1830–1848, London and New York.

Colley, Linda (1992) Britons: Forging the Nation 1707–1837, New Haven and London.Collini, Stefan (1991) Public Moralists: Political Thought and Intellectual Life in

Britain, 1850–1930, Cambridge.Collini, Stefan (1993a) [1988] ‘Arnold’, in: Keith Thomas (series editor, Past

Masters series), Victorian Thinkers, Oxford, pp. 195–326 [first published as anindependent volume, 1988].

Bibliography 207

Collini, Stefan (1993b) ‘Introduction’, in Matthew Arnold, Culture and Anarchyand Other Writings, ed. S. Collini, Cambridge, pp. ix–xxvi.

Collini, Stefan (1999) English Pasts: Essays in History and Culture, Oxford.Collini, Stefan, Donald Winch and John W. Burrow (1983) That Noble Science of

Politics: a Study in Nineteenth-Century Intellectual History, Cambridge.Congreve, Richard (ed.) (1884) [1866]: International Policy: Essays on the Foreign

Relations of England, 2nd edn, London.Connoly, Cyril (1985) [1943] ‘French and English Cultural Relations’, in The

Condemned Playground, London.Constant, Benjamin (1988) Political Writings, trans. and ed. Biancamaria Fontana,

Cambridge.Conway, Stephen (1989) ‘Bentham on Peace and War’, Utilitas, Vol. 1,

pp. 82–101.Cornick, Martyn (1994) ‘Les grandes revues victoriennes et l’affaire Dreyfus’, La

Revue des Revues, No. 17, pp. 53–74.Cornick, Martyn (1995) ‘The myth of “perfidious Albion” and French national

identity’, in David Dutton (ed.), Statecraft and Diplomacy, Essays in the TwentiethCentury: Essays Presented to P.M.H. Bell, Liverpool.

Cornick, Martyn (1996): ‘La vue Britannique de Paris à l’époque de la Commune’,in Marie-Christine Kok-Escalle (ed.), Paris: De l’image à la mémoire.Représentations artistiques, littéraires, socio-politiques, Amsterdam, pp. 135–56.

Cornick, Martyn (1997) ‘The Impact of the Dreyfus Affair in Late-VictorianBritain’, Franco-British Studies.

Cornick, Martyn (2000) ‘Distorting Mirrors: Problems of Franco-BritishPerception in the fin de siècle’, in Martyn Cornick and Ceri Crossley (eds),Problems in French History, Basingstoke, pp. 125–48.

Cottret, Bernard (1991) ‘L’Angleterre au mirroir de la Révolution’, in Antoine deBaecque (ed.), Une Histoire de la Démocratie en Europe, Paris, pp. 93–104.

Coulling, Sidney (1974) Matthew Arnold and His Critics: a Study of Arnold’sControversies, Athens, Ohio.

Crossley, Ceri and Ian Small (eds) (1989) The French Revolution and British Culture,Oxford.

Crossley, Ceri (1993) French Historians and Romanticism: Thierry, Guizot, the Saint-Simonians, Quinet, Michelet, London and New York.

Crossley, Ceri (1997) ‘Michelet et l’Angleterre: l’antipeuple?’, Littérature et Nation,Vol. 18, pp. 137–52.

Dawson, Carl and John Pfordresher (eds) (1979) Matthew Arnold: Prose Writings,the Critical Heritage, London.

DeLaura, David J. (1988) ‘Matthew Arnold and Culture: the History and thePrehistory’, in Clinton Machann and Forrest D. Burt (eds), Matthew Arnold inHis Time and Ours: Centenary Essays, Charlottesville, pp. 1–16.

Dickinson, H.T. (ed.) (1989) Britain and the French Revolution 1789–1815,Basingstoke and London.

Drescher, Seymour (1964) Tocqueville and England, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Drescher, Seymour (1968) Dilemmas of Democracy: Tocqueville and Modernization,

Pittsburgh.Dudley Edwards, Owen (1986) ‘Matthew Arnold’s Fight for Ireland’, in Robert

Giddings (ed.), Matthew Arnold: Between Two Worlds, London and Totowa, NJ,pp. 148–201.

208 Bibliography

Duveyrier, Charles (1843) Lettres Politiques, 2 vols, Paris.Eagles, Robin (1997) ‘Beguiled by France? the English Aristocracy, 1748–1848’,

in: Laurence Brockliss and David Eastwood (eds), A Union of Multiple Identities:the British Isles, c.1750–c.1850, Manchester, pp. 60–77.

Eagles, Robin (2000) Francophilia in English Society 1748–1815, Basingstoke.Eagleton, Terry (2000a) The Idea of Culture, Oxford.Eagleton, Terry (2000b) ‘Sweetness and light for all’ (Giants Refreshed – III), TLS,

21 January 2000, pp. 14–15.Eisenach, Eldon J. (ed.) (1998) Mill and the Moral Character of Liberalism,

University Park, Pennsylvania.Fasnacht, G.E. (1952) Acton’s Political Philosophy: an Analysis, London.Faverty, Frederic E. (1951) Matthew Arnold the Ethnologist, Evanston, Illinois.Febvre, Lucien (1973) ‘Civilization: evolution of a word and a group of ideas’, in

A New Kind of History: from the Writings of Lucien Febvre, ed. Peter Burke,London, pp. 219–57.

Ferguson, Adam (1995) An Essay on the History of Civil Society, ed. Fania Oz-Salzberger, Cambridge.

Filipiuk, Marion (1991) ‘John Stuart Mill and France’, in Michael Laine (ed.), A Cultivated Mind: Essays on J.S. Mill Presented to John Robson, Toronto, pp. 80–120.

Finn, Margot C. (1993) After Chartism: Class and Nation in English Radical Politics,1848–1874, Cambridge.

Forbes, Duncan (1951–52) ‘James Mill and India’, The Cambridge Journal, Vol. 5(October 1951–September 1952), pp. 19–33.

Forcade, E. (1859) ‘Chronique de la quinzaine’, Revue des Deux Mondes, Vol. 24(seconde période), pp. 984–97.

Fortescue, William (1983) Alphonse de Lamartine: a Political Biography, Londonand New York.

Fortescue, William (1987) ‘Poetry, Politics and Publicity, and the Writing ofHistory: Lamartine’s Histoire des Girondins (1847)’, European History Quarterly,Vol. 17, pp. 259–84.

Francis, Mark and John Morrow (1994) A History of English Political Thought in theNineteenth Century, London.

Furet, François, Jacques Julliard and Pierre Rosanvallon (1988) La République duCentre: La Fin de l’Exception Française (édition augmentée d’une revue de presseet d’une postface de Pierre Rosanvallon), Paris.

Gibson, Robert (1995) Best of Enemies: Anglo-French Relations Since the NormanConquest, London.

Gilmour, Robin (1993) The Victorian Period: the Intellectual and Cultural Context ofEnglish Literature, 1830–1890, London.

Girard, Louis (1985): Les Libéraux Français 1814–1875, Paris.Greg, William Rathbone (1848) ‘The Fermentation of Europe’, The Economist,

Vol. VI, No. 240 (1 April 1848), pp. 365–8.Guizot, François P.G. (1972) Historical Essays and Lectures, ed. Stanley Mellon,

Chicago.Guizot, François P.G. (1997) [1828] The History of Civilization in Europe, trans.

William Hazlitt, ed. Larry Siedentop, London.Gusdorf, Georges (1971) ‘Civilisation’, in Les Principes de la Pensée au Siècle des

Lumières, Paris, pp. 333–48.

Bibliography 209

Halévy, Elie (1951) A History of the English People in the Nineteenth Century – IV:Victorian Years 1841–1895, ed. Paul Vaucher, London.

Hamer, D.A. (1968) John Morley: Liberal Intellectual in Politics, Oxford.Hamerton, Philip Gilbert (1876) Round My House: Notes of Rural Life in France in

Peace and War, London.Hampson, Norman (1998) The Perfidy of Albion: French Perceptions of England

During the French Revolution, Basingstoke.Harding, F.J.W. (1964) Matthew Arnold the Critic and France, Geneva.Harrison, Frederic (1874) ‘France After the War’, Fortnightly Review, 21 (1874),

pp. 841–56.Harrison, Frederic (1877) ‘The Republic and the Marshal’, Fortnightly Review, 28,

pp. 742–72.Harrison, Frederic (1879) ‘First Impressions of the New Republic’, Fortnightly

Review, 31 (1879), pp. 353–72.Harrison, Frederic (1884) [1866] ‘England and France’, in Richard Congreve (ed.),

International Policy: Essays on the Foreign Relations of England, 2nd edn, London,pp. 37–101.

Harrison, Frederic (1899) Tennyson, Ruskin, Mill and Other Literary Estimates, London.Harrison, Frederic (1908) National and Social Problems, London.Harrison, Frederic (1911) Autobiographic Memoirs, 2 vols, London.Harrison, Frederic (1975) [1875] Order and Progress: Thoughts on Government,

Studies of Political Crises, ed. Martha S. Vogeler, Hassocks, Brighton, Sussex.Harrison, Royden (ed.) (1971) The English Defence of the Commune 1871, London.Harvie, Christopher (1976) The Lights of Liberalism: University Liberals and the

Challenge of Democracy 1860–86, London.Hayek, F.A. (1951) John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor: Their Correspondence and

Subsequent Marriage, London.Hazareesingh, Sudhir (1994) Political Traditions in Modern France, Oxford.Hazareesingh, Sudhir (1997a) ‘Defining the Republican Good Life: Second

Empire Municipalism and the Emergence of the Third Republic’, French History,Vol. 11, pp. 310–37.

Hazareesingh, Sudhir (1997b) ‘A Jacobin, Liberal, Socialist and RepublicanSynthesis: the Original Political Thought of Charles Dupon-White (1807–1878)’,History of European Ideas, Vol. 23, pp. 145–71.

Hazareesingh, Sudhir (1998) From Subject to Citizen: the Second Empire and theEmergence of Modern French Democracy, Princeton, NJ.

Hazareesingh, Sudhir (1999) ‘Theory Without Heroes’ (review of Lucien Jaume’sL’Individu Effacé, ou le Paradoxe du Libéralisme Français), TLS, 29 October 1999,p. 26.

Hazlitt, William (1970) Selected Writings, Harmondsworth.Hearnshaw, F.J.C. (ed.) (1933) The Social and Political Ideas of Some Representative

Thinkers of the Victorian Age, London.Heffer, Simon (1995) Moral Desperado: a Life of Thomas Carlyle, London.Heine, Heinrich (1893) The Works of Heinrich Heine, London.Hill, Roland (2000) Lord Acton, New Haven and London.Himmelfarb, Gertrude (1952) Lord Acton: a Study in Conscience and Politics,

London.Himmelfarb, Gertrude (1973) Introduction to John Stuart Mill, Essays on Politics

and Society, ed. G. Himmelfarb, Gloucester, Mass.

210 Bibliography

Hirst, F.W. (1927) Early Life and Letters of John Morley, 2 vols, London.Hoffman, Mark, vide Forbes, Ian.Hoffmann, Stanley (1967) ‘Heroic Leadership: The Case of Modern France’, in

Lewis J. Erdinger (ed.), Political Leadership in Industrial Societies, New York.Holloway, John (1953) The Victorian Sage: Studies in Argument, London.Holmes, Richard (1982) Coleridge, Oxford.Honan, Park (1981) Matthew Arnold: a Life, London.Houghton, Walter E. (1957) The Victorian Frame of Mind 1830–1870, New Haven

and London.Huard, Raymond (1996) La Naissance du Parti politique en France, Paris.Hugo, Victor (1852) Napoléon-le-Petit, London and Brussels.Hume, David (1994) ‘Of National Characters’, in Political Essays, ed. Knud

Haakonssen, Cambridge, pp. 78–92.Hunt, James [anon.] (1866) ‘Race in Legislation and Political Economy’, The

Anthropological Review, Vol. 4, pp. 113–35.Huxley, T.H. (1865) ‘Emancipation – Black and White’, Reader, Vol. 5, pp. 561–2.Huxley, T.H. (1870) ‘The Forefathers and Forerunners of the English People’,

Anthropological Review and Journal, Vol. 8 (1870), pp. 197–215.Jardin, André and Tudesq, André-Jean (1983) Restoration and Reaction, 1815–1848

(trans. from the French), Cambridge.Jardin, André (1988) Tocqueville: a Biography (trans. from the French), London.Jaume, Lucien (1997) L’Individu Effacé, ou le Paradoxe du Libéralisme Français, Paris.Jennings, Jeremy (1986) ‘Conceptions of England and Its Constitution in

Nineteenth-Century French Political Thought’, The Historical Journal, Vol. 29,pp. 65–85.

Jennings, Jeremy (1991) ‘Nationalist Ideas in the Early Years of the July Monarchy:Armand Carrel and Le National’, History of Political Thought, Vol. 12, pp. 497–514.

Jennings, Jeremy (1995) ‘The French Constitutional Tradition’, in RichardBellamy, Vittorio Bufacchi and Dario Castiglione (eds), Democracy andConstitutional Culture in the Union of Europe, London, pp. 21–36.

Jennings, Jeremy (1996) ‘From “Imperial State” to “l’Etat de Droit”: BenjaminConstant, Blandine Kriegel and the Reform of the French Constitution’, inRichard Bellamy and Dario Castiglione (eds), Constitutionalism in Transformation:European and Theoretical Perspectives, Oxford, pp. 76–92.

Johnson, Douglas (1963) Guizot: Aspects of French History 1787–1874, London.Jones, H.S. (2000) Victorian Political Thought, Basingstoke.Judt, Tony (1992) Past Imperfect: French Intellectuals, 1944–1956, Berkeley.Kaplan, Fred (1983) Thomas Carlyle: a Biography, Cambridge.Kelly, George Armstrong (1992) The Humane Comedy: Constant, Tocqueville and

French Liberalism, Cambridge.Kent, Christopher (1978) Brains and Numbers: Elitism, Comtism, and Democracy in

Mid-Victorian England, Toronto.Kruta, Venceslas (2000) Les Celtes: Histoire et dictionnaire des origines à la romanisa-

tion et au christianisme, Paris.Laborde, Cécile (2000) Pluralist Thought and the State in Britain and France,

1900–25, Basingstoke.Laing, Samuel (1842) Notes of a Traveller on the Social and Political State of

France, Prussia, Switzerland, Italy, and Other Parts of Europe, During the PresentCentury, London.

Bibliography 211

Langford, Paul (2000) Englishness Identified: Manners and Character 1650–1850,Oxford.

Lawlor, Mary (1959) Alexis de Tocqueville in the Chamber of Deputies: His Views onForeign and Colonial Policy, Washington, DC.

Leoussi, Athena S. (1998) Nationalism and Classicism: the Classical Body asNational Symbol in Nineteenth-Century England and France, Basingstoke.

Le Quesne, A.L. (1993) ‘Carlyle’, in Keith Thomas (series ed.), Victorian Thinkers,Oxford, pp. 1–101.

Levin, Michael (1998) The Condition of England Question: Carlyle, Mill, Engels,London.

Levy, S. Leon (1970) Nassau W. Senior 1790–1864: Critical Essayist, ClassicalEconomist and Adviser of Governments, Newton Abbot.

Lochore, R.A. (1935) History of the Idea of Civilization in France (1830–1870), Bonn.Lytton, Edward Bulwer, Lord (1874) [1833] England and the English, New York.Macaulay, Thomas Babington (1874) Critical and Historical Essays Contributed to

the Edinburgh Review, London.Macaulay, Thomas Babington (1974–81) [referred to as The Letters] The Letters of

Thomas Babington Macaulay, 6 vols ed. by Thomas Pinney, Cambridge.Machiavelli, Niccolò (1994) Selected Political Writings, ed. and trans. David

Wootton, Indianapolis.Maine, Henry J. Sumner (1861) Ancient Law: Its Connection with the Early History of

Society, and Its Relation to Modern Ideas, London.Mancini, Matthew (1994) Alexis de Tocqueville, New York.Mandelbaum, Maurice (1971) History, Man, and Reason: a Study in Nineteenth-

Century Thought, Baltimore.Mandler, Peter (2000) ‘“Race” and “nation” in mid-Victorian thought’, in Stefan

Collini, Richard Whatmore and Brian Young (eds), History, Religion, and Culture:British Intellectual History 1750–1950, Cambridge, pp. 224–44.

Marandon, Sylvaine (1960) ‘Frederic Harrison (1831–1923)’, Etudes Anglaises,XIIIe année, No. 4 (Oct.–Dec. 1960), pp. 415–26.

Marandon, Sylvaine (1967) L’Image de la France dans l’Angleterre victorienne1848–1900, Paris.

Martineau, Harriet (1990) Selected Letters, ed. Valerie Sanders, Oxford.Marx, Karl (1977) [1850] ‘The Class Struggles in France’, in Karl Marx, Selected

Writings, ed. David McLellan, Oxford, pp. 286–97.Marx, Karl (1991) [1852] ‘The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte’, in Karl

Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works in One Volume, London, pp. 93–171.Mathew, David (1968) Lord Acton and His Times, London.Maurras, Charles (1928) L’Anglais qui a connu la France, Paris.Mayer, J.P. (1939) Prophet of the Mass Age: a Study of Alexis de Tocqueville, London.Mazlish, Bruce (1975) James and John Stuart Mill: Father and Son in the Nineteenth

Century, London.McLaren, Angus G. (1971) ‘The National under the editorship of Armand Carrel’

(unpublished PhD thesis), Harvard University.Michelet, Jules (1974) [1846] Le Peuple, ed. Paul Viallaneix, Paris.Mill, James (1975) The History of British India, ed. William Thomas, Chicago.Mill, John Stuart (1963–91) [referred to as: CW] The Collected Works of John Stuart

Mill, general ed. F.E.L. Priestley and subsequently John M. Robson, Toronto andLondon, 33 vols. Volumes referred to in this book are: I: Autobiography and

212 Bibliography

Literary Essays (1981); II, III: Principles of Political Economy (1965); VI: Essays onEngland, Ireland and the Empire (1982); VII, VIII: A System of Logic: Ratiocinativeand Inductive (1973); X: Essays on Ethics, Religion and Society (1969); XII, XIII:Earlier Letters, 1812–1848 (1962); XIV, XV, XVI, XVII: Later Letters, 1848–1873(1972); XVIII, XIX: Essays on Politics and Society (1977); XX: Essays on FrenchHistory and Historians (1985); XXI: Essays on Equality, Law and Education (1984);XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV: Newspaper Writings (1986); XXVIII, XXIX: Public andParliamentary Speeches (1988); XXX: Writings on India (1990); XXXI:Miscellaneous Writings (1989); XXXII: Additional Letters (1991); XXXIII: Indexesto the Collected Works of John Stuart Mill (1991).

Montesquieu, Charles-Louis de Secondat (1989) [1748] The Spirit of the Laws, edsAnne Cohler, Basia Miller and Harold Stone, Cambridge.

Morley, John (1870) ‘England and the War’, Fortnightly Review, Vol. 8 (October1870), pp. 479–88.

Morley, John (1873) ‘The Death of Mr. Mill’, Fortnightly Review (June 1873), Vol. 13,pp. 670–1.

Morley, John (1970) Nineteenth-Century Essays, selected and with an introductionby Peter Stansky, Chicago.

Morley, John (1997) [1874] On Compromise, with ‘Mr. Swinburne’s New Poems’, ed.by John Powell, Edinburgh.

Morrow, John (1990) Coleridge’s Political Thought: Property, Morality and the Limitsof Traditional Discourse, London.

Morrow, John vide: Francis.Mueller, Iris Wessel (1956) John Stuart Mill and French Thought, Urbana.Murray, Nicholas (1996) A Life of Matthew Arnold, London.Napier, Macvey (1877) Selections from the Correspondence of the Late Macvey Napier,

Esq., edited by his son, Macvey Napier, London.Newman, Edgar Leon (1975) ‘What the Crowd Wanted in the French Revolution

of 1830’, in John M. Merriman (ed.), 1830 in France, New York, pp. 17–40.Newman, Gerald (1975) ‘Anti-French Propaganda and British Liberal

Nationalism in the Early Nineteenth Century: Suggestions towards a GeneralInterpretation’, Victorian Studies, Vol. 18, pp. 385–418.

Newman, Gerald (1987) The Rise of English Nationalism: a Cultural History1740–1830, London.

Newsome, David (1997) The Victorian World Picture: Perceptions and Introspectionsin an Age of Change, London.

Nicolet, Claude (1982) L’Idée Républicaine en France (1789–1924): Essai d’HistoireCritique, Paris.

Nisard, J.M.N. Désiré (1837) ‘Armand Carrel’, Revue des Deux Mondes, Vol. 12(October 1837), pp. 5–54.

Noiriel, Gérard (1995) ‘Socio-histoire d’un concept: Les usages du mot “national-ité” an XIXe siècle’, Genèses: Sciences Sociales et Histoire, Vol. 20, pp. 4–23.

Oergel, Maike (1998) ‘The redeeming Teuton: nineteenth-century notions of the“Germanic” in England and Germany’, in: Geoffrey Cubitt (ed.), ImaginingNations, Manchester and New York, pp. 75–91.

O’Grady, Jean (1991) Introduction to: Indexes of the Collected Works of John StuartMill, CW, XXXIII, pp. vii–xxx.

Orr, Leonard (1988) ‘The Mid-Nineteenth-Century Irish Context of Arnold’sEssay on Celtic Literature’, in Clinton Machann and Forrest D. Burt (eds),

Bibliography 213

Matthew Arnold in Hist Time and Ours: Centenary Essays, Charlottesville, pp. 135–56.

Packe, Michael St. John (1954) The Life of John Stuart Mill, London.Palgrave, Francis Turner [anon.] (1874) ‘Autobiography. By John Stuart Mill’,

Quarterly Review, Vol. 136, pp. 150–79.Paul, Diane (1981) ‘“In the Interests of Civilization”: Marxist Views of Race and

Culture in the Nineteenth Century’, Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 42, pp. 115–38.

Pecora, Vincent P. (1997–98) ‘Arnoldian Ethnology’, Victorian Studies, Vol. 41, pp. 355–79.

Pilbeam, Pamela M. (1991) The 1830 Revolution in France, London.Pilbeam, Pamela M. (1995) Republicanism in Nineteenth-Century France, 1814–1871,

Basingstoke.Pittock, Murray G.H. (1999) Celtic Identity and the British Image, Manchester.Plamenatz, John (1952) The Revolutionary Movement in France 1815–1871, London.Plessis, Alain (1985) The Rise and Fall of the Second Empire 1852–1871 (trans. from

the French), Cambridge.Poliakov, Léon (1971) Le Mythe Aryen: Essai sur les Sources du Racisme et des

Nationalismes, Paris.Porter, Bernard (1991) ‘“Monstrous Vandalism”: Capitalism and Philistinism in

the Works of Samuel Laing (1780–1868)’, Albion, Vol. 23, pp. 353–68.Prochaska, Frank (2000) The Republic of Britain 1760–2000, London.Rainger, Ronald (1978) ‘Race, Politics, and Science: the Anthropological Society

of London in the 1860s’, Victorian Studies, Vol. 22, pp. 51–70.Ratcliffe, Barrie M. (1977) ‘Gustave d’Eichthal (1802–1886): an Intellectual

Portrait’, in Gustave d’Eichthal, A French Sociologist Looks at Britain: Gustaved’Eichthal and British Society in 1828, trans. and eds Barrie M. Ratcliffe and W.H. Chaloner, Manchester, pp. 109–61.

Raymond, Dora Neill (1967) [1921] British Policy and Opinion during the Franco-Prussian War, New York.

Reboul, Pierre (1962) Le mythe anglais dans la littérature française, Paris.Rich, Paul B. (1990) Race and Empire in British Politics, 2nd edn, Cambridge.Rich, Paul B. (1994) ‘Social Darwinism, Anthropology and English Perspectives of

the Irish, 1867–1900’, History of European Ideas, Vol. 19, pp. 777–85.Robb, Graham (1997) Victor Hugo, London and Basingstoke.Robson, Ann P. (1986) Introduction to: John Stuart Mill, Newspaper Writings, CW,

XXII, pp. xix–ciii.Robson, Ann P. and John M. Robson (1982) ‘“Impetuous eagerness”: the young

Mill’s radical journalism’, in Joanne Shattock and Michael Wolff (eds), TheVictorian Periodical Press: Samplings and Soundings, Leicester, pp. 59–77.

Robson, Ann P. and John M. Robson (1985) ‘Private and Public Goals: John StuartMill and the London and Westminster’, in Joel H. Wiener (ed.), Innovators andPreachers: the Role of the Editor in Victorian England, Westport, Connecticut, pp. 231–57.

Robson, John M. (1968) ‘Mill and Arnold: Liberty and Culture – Friends orEnemies?’, in G.S. McCaughey (ed.), Of Several Branches: Studies from theHumanities Association Bulletin 1954–65, Toronto, pp. 125–42.

Robson, John M. (1985) Textual Introduction to: John Stuart Mill, Essays onFrench History and Historians, CW, XX, pp. xciii–cxix.

214 Bibliography

Robson, John M. (1998) ‘Civilization and Culture as Moral Concepts’, in JohnSkorupski (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Mill, Cambridge.

Romani, Roberto (1997) ‘British Views on Irish National Character, 1800–1846.An Intellectual History’, History of European Ideas, Vol. 23, pp. 193–219.

Rosanvallon, Pierre (1985) Le Moment Guizot, Paris.Rosanvallon, Pierre (1990) L’Etat en France de 1789 à nos Jours, Paris.Rosanvallon, Pierre (1994) La Monarchie impossible: Les Chartes de 1814 et de 1830,

Paris.Rosanvallon, Pierre (2000) La Démocratie inachevée: Histoire de la Souveraineté du

Peuple en France, Paris.Rosanvallon, Pierre (2001) ‘Fondements et problèmes de l’illibéralisme français’

[lecture delivered to the Académie des sciences morales et politiques (15 January2001), published in] Le Figaro, 17 January 2001, pp. 1, 14.

Rosenblum, Nancy L. (1982) ‘Romantic Militarism’, Journal of the History of Ideas,Vol. 43, pp. 249–68.

Rudelle, Odile (1997) ‘Charles de Gaulle et son idée de la politique’, Revuefrançaise d’Histoire des Idées politiques, Vol. 5, pp. 89–125.

Schmidt, H.D. (1953) ‘The Idea and Slogan of “Perfidious Albion”’, Journal of theHistory of Ideas, Vol. 14, pp. 604–16.

Schleifer, James (1980) The Making of Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America”, ChapelHill.

Schofield, T. Philip (1986) ‘Conservative Political Thought in Britain in Responseto the French Revolution’, The Historical Journal, Vol. 29, pp. 601–22.

Schofield, T. Philip (2000) ‘Jeremy Bentham, the French Revolution, andElectoral Reform’, unpublished paper presented to the 8th Conference of theInternational Society for Utilitarian Studies [ISUS] (‘Utilitarianism 2000’), WakeForest University, 24–26 March 2000.

Scruton, Roger (2000) England: an Elegy, London.Seliger, M. (1958) ‘Race-thinking during the Restoration’, Journal of the History of

Ideas, Vol. 19, pp. 273–83.Sells, Iris Esther (1935) Matthew Arnold and France: the Poet, Cambridge.Semmel, Bernard (1962) The Governor Eyre Controversy, London.Semmel, Bernard (1976) ‘H.T. Buckle: the Liberal Faith and the Science of

History’, British Journal of Sociology, 27, pp. 370–86.Semmel, Bernard (1984) John Stuart Mill and the Pursuit of Virtue, New Haven and

London.Senior, Nassau W. (1842) ‘France, America, and Britain’, Edinburgh Review, Vol. 75

(April 1842), pp. 1–48.Senior, Nassau W. (April 1843) ‘The Law of Nations’, Edinburgh Review, Vol. 77,

pp. 303–73.Senior, Nassau W. (1848) ‘The French Republicans’, Edinburgh Review, Vol. 87

(April 1848), pp. 565–600.Senior, Nassau W. (1865) ‘France, America, and Britain’, Historical and

Philosophical Essays, 2 vols, London, I, pp. 1–137 [first part of it (pp. 1–118) firstpublished in Edinburgh Review, 75 (April 1842); pp. 118–37 added in 1865 – ref-erences to the first part will be given as: ‘Senior 1842’ (see above)].

Senior, Nassau W. (1973a) [1850] ‘Sketch of the Revolution of 1848’, in N.W. Senior, Journals Kept in France and Italy from 1848 to 1852, with a Sketch ofthe Revolution of 1848, ed. M.C.M. Simpson, 2 vols, New York, I, pp. 1–89 [firstpublished in Edinburgh Review, January 1850].

Bibliography 215

Senior, Nassau W. (1973b) [1871] Journals Kept in France and Italy from 1848 to 1852,with a Sketch of the Revolution of 1848, ed. M.C.M. Simpson, 2 vols, New York.

Smith K.J.M (1998) James Fitzjames Stephen: Portrait of a Victorian Rationalist,Cambridge.

Spencer, Herbert (1873) ‘The study of Sociology. IX – The Bias of Patriotism’,Contemporary Review, 21 (March 1873), pp. 475–502.

Spencer, Herbert (1982) The Man versus the State with Six Essays on Government,Society, and Freedom, Indianapolis.

Spitzer, Alan B. (1987) The French Generation of 1820, Princeton.Stanley, Arthur Penrhyn (1860) The Life and Correspondence of Thomas Arnold,

2 vols, Boston.St John-Stevas (1965) ‘Introduction’ in Walter Bagehot, The Literary Essays, Vol. 1:

The Collected Works of Walter Bagehot, London.St John-Stevas Norman (1968) ‘Walter Bagehot and Napoleon III’, introduction

to Walter Bagehot, The Collected Works of Walter Bagehot, Vol. IV (The HistoricalEssays, 2 vols), pp. 15–24.

St John-Stevas, Norman (1974) ‘The Political Genious of Walter Bagehot’, intro-duction to Walter Bagehot, The Political Essays (4 vols), The Collected Works ofWalter Bagehot, V, pp. 35–159.

Stapleton, Julia (1998a) ‘James Fitzjames Stephen: Liberalism, Patriotism, andEnglish Liberty’, Victorian Studies, Vol. 41, pp. 243–63.

Stapleton, Julia (1998b) ‘Nationalism and Patriotism in British Political Thoughtsince 1850’, Contemporary Political Studies 1998 [Proceedings of the AnnualConference of the Political Studies Association of the UK, edited by AndrewDobson and Jeffrey Stanyer], Exeter, pp. 859–66.

Stapleton, Julia (2000) ‘Political Thought and National Identity in Britain,1850–1950’, in: Stefan Collini, Richard Whatmore, and Brian Young (eds), History, Religion, and Culture: British Intellectual History 1750–1950,Cambridge, pp. 245–69.

Steele, E.D. (1970) ‘IV. J.S. Mill and the Irish Question: Reform, and the Integrityof the Empire, 1865–1870’, The Historical Journal, Vol. 13, pp. 419–50.

Stephen, James Fitzjames (1858) ‘History of Civilization in England. By Henrry Thomas Buckle. Vol. I. London: 1857’, Edinburgh Review, 107 (1858),pp. 465–512.

Stephen, James Fitzjames (1859a) ‘Mr. Mill on Political Liberty (Second Notice)’,Saturday Review, 7 (19 February 1859), pp. 213–15.

Stephen, James Fitzjames (1859b) ‘Mr. Mill’s Essays’, Saturday Review, 7 (1859),pp. 45–6.

Stephen, James Fitzjames (1859c) ‘Mr. Mill’s Essays (Second Notice)’, SaturdayReview, 7 (16 July 1859), pp. 76–8.

Stephen, James Fitzjames (1859d) ‘French and English Logic’, Saturday Review, VII(1859), pp. 460–1.

Stephen, James Fitzjames (1861) ‘History of Civilization in England. By HenrryThomas Buckle. Volume the Second. London: 1861’, Edinburgh Review, 114(1861), pp. 183–211.

Stephen, James Fitzjames (1862) ‘Liberalism’, Cornhill Magazine, 5 (1862), pp. 70–83.Stephen, James Fitzjames (1864a) ‘The Bars of France and England’, Cornhill

Magazine, 10 (1864), pp. 672–82.Stephen, James Fitzjames (1864b) ‘Mr. Matthew Arnold and his Countrymen’,

Saturday Review, 18 (3 December 1864), pp. 683–5.

216 Bibliography

Stephen, James Fitzjames (1865) ‘Mr. Matthew Arnold amongst the Philistines’,Saturday Review, 19 (25 February 1865), pp. 235–6.

Stephen, James Fitzjames (1866a) ‘Mr. Arnold on the Middle Classes’, SaturdayReview, 21 (10 February 1866), pp. 161–3.

Stephen, James Fitzjames (1866b) ‘Lord Macaulay’s Works’, Saturday Review, 22(18 August 1866), pp. 207–9.

Stephen, James Fitzjames (1867) ‘Mr Matthew Arnold on Culture’, SaturdayReview, 24 (20 July 1867), pp. 78–9.

Stephen, Leslie (1900) The English Utilitarians, 3 vols, London.Stocking, George W., Jr. (1968) Race, Culture, and Evolution: Essays in the History of

Anthropology, New York.Stocking, George W., Jr (1987) Victorian Anthropology, New York.Sutton, Michael (1982) Nationalism, Positivism and Catholicism: the Politics of

Charles Maurras and French Catholics 1890–1914, Cambridge.Swart, Koenraad W. (1964) The Sense of Decadence in Nineteenth-Century France,

The Hague.Taine, Hippolyte (1864) Histoire de la littérature anglaise, Paris.Taine, Hippolyte (1872) Notes sur l’Angleterre, Paris.Taylor, A.J.P. (1993) The Trouble Makers: Dissent over Foreign Policy 1792–1939,

London.Taylor, Miles (1995) The Decline of British Radicalism, Oxford.Thomas, William (1979) The Philosophic Radicals: Nine Studies in Theory and

Practice 1817–1841, Oxford.Thomson, David (1950) England in the Nineteenth Century (1815–1914), London.Thomson, Patricia (1977) George Sand and the Victorians: Her Influence and

Reputation in Nineteenth-century England, London and Basingstoke.Tocqueville, Alexis de (1872) Correspondence and Conversations with Nassau

William Senior from 1834 to 1859, ed. by M.C.M. Simpson, 2 vols, London.Tocqueville, Alexis de (1951– ) [referred to as OC]: Oeuvres, Papiers et Correspondances

d’Alexis de Tocqueville, édition definitive sous la direction de J.-P. Mayer, Paris.Volumes referred to here are: Vol. VI, 1: Correspondance Anglaise: Correspondanced’Alexis de Tocqueville avec Henry Reeve et John Stuart Mill; Vol. VI, 2: CorrespondanceAnglaise: Correspondance et Conversations d’Alexis de Tocqueville et Nassau WilliamSenior; Vol. IX: Correspondance d’Alexis de Tocqueville et d’Arthur de Gobineau; Vol. III,2 Ecrits et Discours Politiques; Vol. XVI: Mélanges.

Tocqueville, Alexis de (1957) Voyages en Angleterre et en Irlande, ed. J.P. Mayer,Paris.

Tocqueville, Alexis de (1985) Selected Letters on Politics and Society, ed. RogerBoesche, Berkeley.

Tocqueville, Alexis de (1988) [1856] The Ancien Régime, with an Introduction byNorman Hampson, London.

Tocqueville, Alexis de (1994) [1835, 1840] Democracy in America, trans. GeorgeLawrence, ed. J.P. Mayer, Hammersmith, London.

Todorov, Tzvetan (1993) [1989] On Human Diversity: Nationalism, Racism andExoticism in French Thought (trans. from the French), Cambridge, Mass., andLondon.

Tombs, Robert (1994) ‘Was there a French Sonderweg?’, European Review of History-Revue Européenne d’Histoire, Vol. 1, 169–77.

Tombs, Robert (1996) France 1814–1914, Harlow, Essex.

Bibliography 217

Trevelyan, Sir George Otto (1908) [1876] The Life and Letters of Lord Macaulay,London.

Trilling, Lionel (1974) [1939] Matthew Arnold, London.Tudesq André-Jean vide Jardin.Tuell, Anne Kimball (1941) John Sterling: a Representative Victorian, New York.Turk, Christopher (1988) Coleridge and Mill: a Study of Influence, Aldershot.Varouxakis, Georgios (1997) ‘John Stuart Mill on Intervention and Non-

Intervention’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 26, pp. 57–76.Varouxakis, Georgios (1998a) ‘John Stuart Mill on Race’, Utilitas, Vol. 10, pp. 17–32.Varouxakis, Georgios (1998b) ‘National Character in John Stuart Mill’s Thought’,

History of European Ideas, Vol. 24, pp. 375–91.Varouxakis, Georgios (1999) ‘Guizot’s Historical Works and J.S. Mill’s Reception

of Tocqueville’, History of Political Thought, Vol. 20, pp. 292–312.Varouxakis, Georgios (2001) ‘Patriotism’, in: Athena S. Leoussi and Anthony

D. Smith (eds), Encyclopaedia of Nationalism, New Brunswick, 2001, pp. 239–42.Varouxakis, Georgios (2000) Mill on Nationality, London and New York.Vaysset-Boutbien, Raymonde (1941) Stuart Mill et la Sociologie Française

Contemporaine, Paris.Viroli, Maurizio (1995) For Love of Country: an Essay on Patriotism and Nationalism,

Oxford.Vogeler, Martha S. (1962) ‘Matthew Arnold and Frederic Harrison: the Prophet of

Culture and the Prophet of Positivism’, Studies in English Literature, Vol. 2(1962), pp. 441–62.

Vogeler, Martha S. (1984) Frederic Harrison: the Vocations of a Positivist, Oxford.Watson, George (1973) The English Ideology: Studies in the Language of Victorian

Politics, London.Weber, Eugen (1990) ‘Of Stereotypes and of the French’, Journal of Contemporary

History, Vol. 25, pp. 169–203.Wheeler, Saundra Segan (1988) ‘On the Study of Celtic Literature and the Young

Writer: A Place in Arnold’s Poetics’, in: Clinton Machann and Forrest D. Burt(eds), Matthew Arnold in Hist Time and Ours: Centenary Essays, Charlottesville,pp. 157–70.

Wheen, Francis (1999) Karl Marx, London.Williams, Geraint (1989) ‘J.S. Mill and Political Violence’, Utilitas, Vol. 1,

pp. 102–11.Williams, Raymond 1961 Culture and Society 1780–1950, Harmondsworth.Wingfield-Stratford, Esmé (1913) The History of English Patriotism, 2 vols, New York.Young, G.M. (1960) [1936] Victorian England: Portrait of an Age, London.Young, Robert J.C. (1995) Colonial Desire: Hybridity in Theory, Culture and Race,

London.Zeldin, Theodore (1973) Ambition, Love and Politics (Volume I of: France

1848–1945), Oxford.

Index

218

Acton, Lord, 3, 5, 34, 61–2, 81on the Franco-Prussian war, 158on the French national character,

122–3on the French revolution of 1848,

79on national character, 113–14

ambition, France, 135Ancient Law, 11Aristotle, The Politics, 21Arnold, Matthew, 3, 6–7, 10, 20–1, 26,

29, 31, 106–10, 140‘A Courteous Explanation’, 15–16on civilization, 33, 47–50; in France

and England, 51–6Culture and Anarchy, 27–8, 48‘Democracy’, 21, 55England and the Italian Question, 54‘Equality’, 50, 51, 53, 56on the Franco-Prussian war, 153on the French national character,

128on the French revolution of 1848,

76–7Mixed Essays, 50, 51On the Study of Celtic Literature, 11,

106, 108, 109, 110–11, 130Arnold, Thomas (Dr), 32, 47, 106, 140Arnold, Tom, 77Aron, Raymond, 198–9(n30)Austria, 153, 154

Bagehot, Walter, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 46,57, 152, 164–5

on Caesarism, 93, 94, 165–6on civilization, 41‘The Conservative Republic’, 100–1The English Constitution, 92, 96, 100,

170on the Franco-Prussian war, 159–60on French foreign affairs, 155–6on the French national character, 15,

88, 90, 103, 117–22, 129, 169

on French politics, 86–101on French racial origins, 118–22on the French revolution of

1848, 77‘Letters on the French Coup d’Etat of

1851’, 74, 87on Napoleon III, 92–5on national characteristics,

115–17Physics and Politics, 11, 91, 92, 115,

116, 117, 118–19Bain, Alexander, 17, 29, 42, 81, 153Barrot, Odilon, 82Bentham, Jeremy, 22, 26, 94,

172(n27), 199(n40)Blanco-White, J.B., 37Bonapartism, 98–9, 164–5, 165–7Bright, John, 22Broglie, Albert Duc de, 102Brougham, Lord Henry Peter, 71–2,

145, 151Buckle, Henry Thomas, 106

History of Civilization in England, 34,112–13, 178(n17), 193(n19)

Burke, Edmund, 2, 116Burrow, John W., 5, 57

Caesarism, 93, 94, 165–6Carlyle, Thomas, 3, 6, 20

and the Franco-Prussian war, 158–9

The French Revolution, 4, 66History of Frederick the Great, 158‘Occasional Discourse on the Nigger

Question’, 105on race, 105–6on the revolution of 1848, 66–8Signs of the Times, 49

Carrel, Armand, 62–5, 72, 111,184(n30)

Cavaignac, Eugène, 73, 74Celtic race, 13, 34, 106–11, 114,

129–30

Index 219

Chartism, 66Chasles, Philarète, 20Chateaubriand, François René, 135

Mémoires d’outre-tombe, 10civilization, 31–3

Arnold on, 51–6Bagehot on, 41definitions, 35, 36–7in England and France, 43–7meanings of, 32–4Mill on, 35–47

Clough, Arthur Hugh, 77Cobden, Richard, 22, 32, 34, 49Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, 39

Mill on, 41–2On the Constitution of Church and

State, 32–3Collini, Stefan, 2, 3, 16–17, 25–6commerce, 35, 39, 41, 49communism, 72comparison, 9Comte, Auguste, 14, 15

Système de Politique Positive, 43Comtists, 91, 97, 123, 157Constant, Benjamin, 64, 197(n99)Cornick, Martyn, 132Le Coup d’état Permanent, 165Crossley, Ceri, 175(n74), 182(n69)culture, 33, 35, 48, 49Culture and Anarchy, 27–8, 48

Dalberg-Acton, John Emerich Edward,see Acton, Lord

Darwinism, 115d’Aumale, Duc, 82de Broglie, Albert, 64de Gaulle, Charles, 101, 164, 165, 167,

170, 203(n2), 203(n21)d’Eichthal, Gustave, 43, 142, 144democracy, 112, 114, 128Democracy in America, 39, 79, 133Dissertations and Discussions, 18, 75diversity, 11–12Dulaure, J.P., 24Dunoyer, Barthélemy Charles Pierre

Joseph, La Révolution du 24 Février, 78

Dupont-White, Charles, 82Duveyrier, Charles, 148

Eagleton, Terry, 32The Economist, 4, 68, 90, 91Edinburgh Review, 24, 78, 133, 148,

150Edwards, W.F., 107–8Emerson, Ralph Waldo, 22England

definition, 171(n3)foreign policy, 29national character, 115perfidy, 131–2, 153refugees in, 152social arrangements, 43–4, 46uniformization of society, 21universities, 45

England and the English, 20England and France, civilization

compared, 43–7England and the Italian Question, 54The English Constitution, 92, 96, 100,

170Essays on French History and Historians,

141ethnic groups, complementarity,

12–14Examiner, 58, 59, 66, 67, 72, 85, 138,

140expansion, 50

Faverty, Frederic E., 11, 106, 107Favre, Jules, 82, 83Fawcett, Henry, 160Febvre, Lucien, 32, 37foreign countries, comparisons

with, 2foreign literature, 15Fortnightly Review, 102, 158, 160France

ambition, 135attitude to war, 139character, 19education system, 56elections (1869), 82–3foreign policy, 138–40, 148, 152–6and the Irish, 14liberalism, 64logical thinking, 122–3politics, 57–8, 114, 128–9pride, 135

220 Index

France – continuedProvisional Government, 70, 71, 72,

73, 75racial origins, 108–10, 118–22republicans, 63, 65–6revolution of 1830, 58–60revolution of 1848, 2, 66–80,

149–52Acton on, 79Arnold on, 76–7Bagehot on, 77Carlyle on, 66–8Morley on, 79–80Senior on, 78Tocqueville on, 79

sexual promiscuity, 163Third Republic, 84uprising of 5–6 June 1832, 60see also French national character;

revolution of 1848France and England, civilization

compared, 43–7Franco-Prussian war, 52, 83–4, 96,

123, 156–63Arnold on, 153Mill on, 160–3Morley on, 160

Fraser’s Magazine, 28freedom, 117–18Freeman, E.A., 106, 114French national character, 85, 97, 98,

103–30, 132–3, 134Acton on, 122–3Arnold on, 128Bagehot on, 88, 90, 117–22, 129,

169and international politics

(1830–48), 133–49Mill on, 123–7and politics, 117–30

The French Revolution, 4, 66

Gambetta, Léon Michel, 102Gauls, 113Germany, 105–6, 123

see also Franco-Prussian warGirard, Louis, 83Gironde, 73Le Globe, 10

Gobineau, Joseph Arthur, Comte de,113

Goldwin Smith, Irish History, 114government of law – rule of law, 60–5greatness, national, 25–8, 143–4Greg, William Rathbone, 5, 68–70Guizot, François P.G., 11, 31, 32, 35,

36–8, 40, 43–4, 45, 145, 146, 149,179–80(n34)

Histoire de la Civilisation en Europe,36, 39, 41, 47

Histoire de la Civilisation en France,36, 43–4

Gusdorf, G., 37

Halévy, Elie, 1half-truths, 14, 42, 148, 175–6(n79)Hamerton, Philip Gilbert, 52happiness, 46Harrison, Frederic, 6, 32, 49, 101–2,

157–158Hazareesingh, Sudhir, 169, 186(n74),

190(n165), 203(n20), 203(n21)Hazlitt, William, 103Heine, Heinrich, 201(n93)Himmelfarb, Gertrude, 42Histoire de la Civilisation en Europe, 36,

39, 41, 47Histoire de la Civilisation en France, 36,

43–4, 181(n51)History of British India, 40–1History of Civilization in England,

34, 112–13, 178(n17), 193(n19)

History of England, 23–4History of Frederick the Great, 158Hoffmann, Stanley, 165human improvement, 35–6, 37, 39Hume, David, 104Hutton, R.H., 21, 86, 87

Inquirer, 87, 88, 117, 119, 122, 152intellect, 46intelligence, 20, 56, 76

of French peasants, 52Ireland, 34, 67–8, 111, 122

and the French, 14Irish question, 12–13see also Celtic race

Index 221

Irish History, 114Italy, 54, 153, 154

Jaume, Lucien, 168Jennings, Jeremy, 185(n35), 197(n4),

198(n5)Jones, H.S., 172(n15), 173(n49)Judt, Tony, 197(n110)

Kelly, George Armstrong, 64Kingsley, Charles, 32, 106Kipling, Rudyard, 15Knox, Robert, 106

Lamartine, Alphonse Marie Louis de,73, 74, 78, 150, 151–2

The Law of the Revolution, 84liberalism, 168–9

France, 64liberty, 2, 86, 129, 153, 166Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, 23Lochore, R.A., 37London and Westminster Review, 37Louis Philippe, 66, 71, 72, 147Lowe, Robert, 32Lytton-Bulwer, Edward, England and

the English, 20

Macaulay, Thomas Babington, 3, 5,31, 32, 33–4, 58–9, 66, 134

History of England, 23–4on Napoleon III, 81

Machiavelli, Niccolò, 195(n65),198(n12)

Macmahon, Marshal, 97, 100, 101–2Maine, Henry, 118

Ancient Law, 11Mandler, Peter, 115, 174(n63)

on national character, 112Martignac Ministry, 60, 61, 62Martineau, Harriet, 1, 152Martin, Henri, 107Marx, Karl, 201(n93), 202(n116)‘Mechanical Age’, 48–9Mémoires d’outre-tombe, 10Michelet, Jules, 2middle classes, 16, 29, 48, 54, 76, 155Middle East crisis (1840), 136, 140,

141

Mill and Tocqueville on, 142–7Millar, John, 40Mill, James

History of British India, 22, 40–1Mill, John Stuart, 1, 4, 9–10, 11, 14,

16–17, 19–20, 22, 23, 24–5, 111,131, 145

on Anglo-French affairs, 141, 146‘Armand Carrel’, 58, 59, 60, 62–3,

65, 125Autobiography, 7, 17, 42‘Centralisation’, 82, 85on civilization, 35–47‘Coleridge’, 41–2Collected Works, 7dislike of Napoleon III, 153–4Dissertations and Discussions,

18, 75Essays on French History and

Historians, 141‘A few words on non-intervention’,

28, 139on the Franco-Prussian war, 160–3on the French elections (1869),

81–3on French foreign policy, 138–40on the French national character,

123–7on Ireland, 68Later Letters, 22on the Middle East crisis (1840),

142–4on national character, 111–12,

123–6Principles of Political Economy,

38–9‘Prospects of France’, 59Representative Government, 61, 85,

127, 128on the revolution of 1848, 72–3,

75–6‘Sedgwick’s Discourse’, 45System of Logic, 80, 123–4on the Third Republic, 84–5on works of Duveyrier, 148–9

Mitterrand, François, Le Coup d’étatPermanent, 165

Montalembert, Charles Rene Forbes,81, 198(n5)

222 Index

Montesquieu, Charles-Louis, 104Morley, John, 2, 5, 34, 79–80, 123

and the Franco-Prussian war, 160On Compromise, 79–80on the revolution of 1848, 79–80

Morning Chronicle, 145

Napoleon III, 8, 17, 71, 73, 80–102,152, 153–4, 156, 161–2

Bagehot on, 92–5declared Emperor, 80–1Macaulay on, 81Senior on, 135

Le National, 73, 77national character, 2, 8–10, 15

Acton on, 113–14Bagehot on, 115–17concept, 103–4English, 115Mandler on, 112Mill on, 110–11see also French national character

national greatness, 25–8, 143–4National Review, 15Newman, Gerald, 23Nisard, J.M.N.D., 63–4Northern Star, 66

Ollivier, Emile, 83On Compromise, 79–80On the Constitution of Church and State,

32–3On the Study of Celtic Literature, 11,

106, 108, 109, 110–11, 130openness, 47–8Ossian, 110

Palgrave, F.T., 17Pall Mall Gazette, 15, 109Palmerston, Henry John Temple, 141,

142, 146, 147patriotism, 21–8perfidy, of England, 131–2, 153Persigny, Jean Gilbert, Duc de, 91Physics and Politics, 11, 91, 92, 115,

116, 117, 118–19Plamenatz, John, 82The Politics, 21pride, in France, 135

Principles of Political Economy,38–9

Proudhon, Pierre Joseph, 74, 87

Quarterly Review, 17, 24

race, 104–10, 134, 192(n7)Carlyle on, 105–6

races, complementarity, 12–14La Réforme, 73refugees, in England, 152Renan, Ernest, 20, 107, 109Representative Government, 61, 85, 127,

128republicans, France, 63, 65–6revolution of 1848, Senior on, 150La Révolution du 24 Février, 78Revue de Deux Mondes, 47Right of Search, 145Rochefort, Henri, 82, 83Robson, John M., 178(n9)Roebuck, John, 32Rosanvallon, Pierre

on Bagehot, 165–6on French ‘illiberalism’, 165–8

Rousseau, Jean Jacques, 42

Saturday Review, 9, 106Schmidt, H.D., 132Scott, Walter, 24Second Republic, 149–52Semmel, Bernard, 41–2Senior, Nassau W., 3, 32, 131, 133

‘France, America and Britain’, 133–4on the French revolution of 1848,

78on international politics, 133–8on Napoleon III, 135on the revolution of 1848, 150‘The Law of Nations’, 148

Signs of the Times, 49Smith, Thomas, The Law of the

Revolution, 84socialism, 75social spirit, 55Spain, 146‘Spanish marriages’ crisis, 149Spencer, Herbert, 25, 102, 174(n66)Stapleton, Julia, 21–3

Index 223

Stephen, James Fitzjames, 3, 7, 16, 18,19, 21, 22, 25, 29, 112–13

Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, 23Stephen, Leslie, 22St John-Stevas, Norman, 165,

189(n153)stupidity, 119–22Système de Politique Positive, 43System of Logic, 80, 123–4

Taylor, Harriet, 24Teutonic race, 13, 105–6, 107Thierry, Amédée, 107, 115Thiers, Louis Adolphe, 97, 98, 141,

169Third Republic, 96, 101The Times, 59, 102, 140Tocqueville, Alexis de, 31, 38, 39–40,

135, 141, 145–6, 153

Democracy in America, 39, 79, 133on the Middle East crisis (1840),

142–4on the revolution of 1848, 79

Todorov, Tzvetan, 199(n30)Tombs, Robert, 164, 165Trilling, Lionel, 106

uniformization of English society, 21Urquhart, David, 68USA, 11–12, 39–40

Villari, Pasquale, 153Voltaire, 14, 104

Watson, George, 16Weber, Eugen, 131Westminster Review, 72, 75Wordsworth, William, 23