The Ancient Regime by Hippolyte A. Taine

The Origins of Contemporary France, Volume 1


PREFACE.

BOOK FIRST.   The Structure of the Ancient Society.

CHAPTER I.  The Origin of Privileges.

CHAPTER II.  The Privileged Classes.

CHAPTER III.  Local Services Due by the Privileged Classes.

CHAPTER IV.  Public services due by the privileged classes.


BOOK SECOND.   Habits and Characters.

CHAPTER I.  Social Habits.

CHAPTER II.  Drawing room Life .

CHAPTER III.  Disadvantages of this Drawing room Life.


BOOK THIRD.   The Spirit and the Doctrine.

CHAPTER I.  Scientific Acquisition.

CHAPTER II.  The Classic Spirit, the Second Element.

CHAPTER III.  Combination of the two elements.

CHAPTER IV.  Organizing the Future Society.


BOOK FOURTH.  The Propagation of the Doctrine.

CHAPTER I.  Success in France.

CHAPTER II.  The French Public.

CHAPTER III.  The Middle Class.


BOOK FIFTH.  The People

CHAPTER I.  Hardships.

CHAPTER II.  Taxation the principal cause of misery.

CHAPTER III.  Intellectual state of the people.

CHAPTER IV.  The Armed Forces.

CHAPTER V.  Summary.





INTRODUCTION

Why should we fetch Taine's work up from its dusty box in the
basement of the national library? First of all because his realistic
views of our human nature, of our civilization and of socialism as
well as his dark premonitions of the 20th century were proven correct.
Secondly because we may today with more accuracy call his work:

"The Origins of Popular Democracy and of Communism."

His lucid analysis of the current ideology remains as interesting
or perhaps even more interesting than when it was written especially
because we cannot accuse him of being part in our current political
and ideological struggle.

Even though I found him wise, even though he confirmed my own
impressions from a rich and varied life, even though I considered that
our children and the people at large should benefit from his insights
into the innermost recesses of the political Man, I still felt it
would be best to find out why his work had been put on the index by
the French and largely forgotten by the Anglo-Saxon world.  So I
consulted a contemporary French authority, Jean-Fran�ois Revel who
mentions Taine works in his book, "La Connaissance Inutile." (Paris
1988).  Revel notes that a socialist historian, Alphonse Aulard
methodically and dishonestly attacked "Les Origines..", and that
Aulard was specially recruited by the University of Sorbonne for this
purpose.  Aulard pretended that Taine was a poor historian by finding a
number of errors in Taine's work.  This was done, says Revel, because
the 'Left' came to see Taine's work as "a vile counter-revolutionary
weapon." The French historian Augustin Cochin proved, however, that
Aulard and not Taine had made the errors but by that time Taine had
been defamed and his works removed from the shelves of the French
universities.

Now Taine was not a professional historian.  Perhaps this was as
well since most professional historians, even when conscientious and
accurate, rarely are in a position to be independent.  They generally
work for a university, for a national public or for the ministry of
education and their books, once approved, may gain a considerable
income once millions of pupils are compelled to acquire these.

Taine initially became famous, not as a professional historian but
as a literary critic and journalist.  His fame allowed him to sell his
books and articles and make a comfortable living without cow-towing to
any government or university.  He wrote as he saw fit, truthfully, even
though it might displease a number of powerful persons.

Taine did not pretend to be a regular historian, but rather someone
enquiring into the history of Public Authorities and their supporters.
Through his comments he appears not only as a decent person but also
as a psychologist and seer.  He describes mankind, as I know it from my
life in institutions, at sea and abroad in a large international
organization.  He describes mankind as it was, as it was seen by Darwin
in 'THE EXPRESSIONS OF EMOTIONS IN MAN AND ANIMALS.  Taine described
the human being as he was and is and had the courage to tell the
French about themselves, their ancient rulers, and the men of the
Revolution, even if it went against the favorable opinion so many of
his countrymen had of this terrible period.  His understanding of our
evolution, of mankind and of the evolution of society did not find
favor with men who believed that they in the socialist ideology had
found the solution to all social ills.  Only recently has science begun
to return to Darwin in order to rediscover the human being as Taine
knew him.  You can find Taine's views of humanity confirmed in Robert
Wright's book 'THE MORAL ANIMAL.' (Why we are the way we are.)

Taine had full access to the files of the French National archives
and these and other original documents.  Taine had received a French
classical education and, being foremost among many brilliant men, had
a capacity for study and work which we no longer demand from our
young.  He accepted Man and society, as they appeared to him, he
described his findings without compassion for the hang-ups of his
prejudiced countrymen.  He described Man as a gregarious animal living
for a brief spell in a remote corner of space, whose different
cultures and nations had evolved haphazardly in time, carried along by
forces and events exceeding our comprehension, blindly following their
innate drives.  These drives were followed with cunning but rarely with
far-sighted wisdom.  Taine, the prophet, has more than ever something
to tell us.  He warned his countrymen against themselves, their
humanity, and hence against their fears, anxieties, greed, ambitions,
conceit and excessive imagination.  His remarks and judgments exhort us
to be responsible, modest and kind and to select wise and modest
leaders.  He warns us against young hungry men's natural desire to mass
behind a tribune and follow him onwards, they hope, along the high
road to excitement, fame, power and riches.  He warns us against our
readiness to believe in myth and metaphysics, demonstrating how Man
will believe anything, even the most mystical or incomprehensible
religion or ideology, provided it is preached by his leaders.  History,
as seen by Taine, is one long series of such adventures and horrors
and nowhere was this more evident than in France before, during and
after the Revolution in 1789.

Taine became, upon reading 'On the Origins of the Species' a
convinced Darwinian and was, the year after Darwin, honored by the
University of Oxford with the title of doctor honoris causa in jure
civili for his 'History of English Literature'.  Taine was not a
methodical ideologist creating a system.  He did not defend any
particular creed or current.  He was considered some kind of positivist
but he did not consider himself as belonging to any particular school.

The 6 volumes of "Les Origines de la France Contemporaine" appeared
one after the other in Paris between 1875 and 1893.  They were
translated into English and published in New York soon afterwards.
They were also translated into German.  Taine's direct views displeased
many in France, as the Royalists, the bonapartist and the Socialists
felt hurt.  Still, the first edition of Volume II of "LE R�GIME
MODERNE" published by Hachette in 1894 indicated that "L'ANCIEN
REGIME" at that time had been printed in 18 editions, "LA R�VOLUTION"
volume I in 17 editions, volume II in 16 editions and volume III in 13
editions.  "LE R�GIME MODERNE" volume I had been printed in only 8
editions.  Photographic reprints appeared in the US in 1932 and 1962.

Taine's description and analysis of events in France between 1750
and 1870 are, as you will see colorful, lucid, and sometimes intense.
His style might today appear dated since he writes in rather long
sentences, using parables to drive his points firmly home.  His books
were widely read in academic circles and therefore influenced a great
many political students in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Lenin, who came to Paris around 1906, might well have profited by
Taine's analysis.  Hitler is also likely to have profited by his
insights.  Lenin was like so many other socialists of his day a great
admirer of Robespierre and his party and would undoubtedly have tried
to find out how Robespierre got into power and why he lost his hold on
France the way he did.  Part of Taine's art was to place himself into
the place of the different people and parties who took part in the
great events.  When pretends to speak for the Jacobins, it so
convincingly done, that it is hard to know whether he speaks on
'their' behalf or whether he is, in fact, quoting one of them.

Taine, like the Napoleon he described, believed that in order to
understand people you are aided if you try to imagine yourself in
their place.  This procedure, as well as his painstaking research, make
his descriptions of the violent events of the past ring true.

Taine knew and described the evil inherent in human nature and in
the crowd.  His warnings and explanations did not prevent Europe from
repeating the mistakes of the past.  The 20th century saw a replay of
the French Revolution repeated in all its horror when Lenin, Mao,
Hoxa, and Pol Pot followed the its script and when Stalin and Hitler
made good use of Napoleon's example.

Taine irritated the elite of the 3rd French republic as well as
everyone who believed in the popular democracy based on one person one
vote.  You can understand when you read the following preface which was
actually placed in front of "The Revolution" volume II.  Since it
clarifies Taine's aims and justifications, I have moved and placed it
below.

Not long before his death Taine, sensing that his wisdom and deep
insights into human nature and events, no longer interested the �lite,
remarked to a friend that "the scientific truth about the human animal
is perhaps unacceptable except for a very few".[1] Now, 100 years
later, after a century of ideological wars between ambitious men, I am
afraid that the situation remains unchanged.  Mankind remains reluctant
to face the realities of our uncontrolled existence! A few men begin,
however, to share my misgivings about the future of a system which has
completely given up the respect for wisdom and experience preferring a
system of elaborate human rights and new morals.  There is reason to
recall Macchiavelli's words:

"In times of difficulty men of merit are sought after, but in easy
times it is not men of merit,  but such as have riches and powerful
relations, that are most in favor."

And let me to quote the Greek historian Polybius' observations[2]
about the cyclic evolution of the Greek city states:

".  .  .  What then are the beginnings I speak of and what is the
first origin of political societies? When owing to floods, famines,
failure of crops or other such causes there occurs such a destruction
of the human race as tradition tells us has more than once happened,
and as we must believe will often happen again, all arts and crafts
perishing at the same time, when in the course of time, when springing
from the survivors as from seeds men have again increased in numbers
and just like other animals form herds  -  it being a matter of course
that they too should herd together with those of their kind owing to
their natural weakness  -  it is a necessary consequence that the man
who excels in bodily strength and in courage will lead and rule over
the rest.  We observe and should regard as a most genuine work of
nature this very phenomenon in the case of the other animals which act
purely by instinct and among who the strongest are always indisputable
the masters  -  I speak of bulls, boars, cocks, and the like.  It is
probable then that at the beginning men lived thus, herding together
like animals and following the lead of the strongest and bravest, the
ruler's strength being here the sole limit to his power and the name
we should give his rule being monarchy.

But when in time feelings of sociability and companionship begin to
grow in such gatherings of men, then kingship has truck root; and the
notions of goodness, justice, and their opposites begin to arise in
men.

6.  The manner in which these notions come into being is as follows.
Men being all naturally inclined to sexual intercourse, and the
consequence this being the birth of children, whenever one of those
who have been reared does not on growing up show gratitude to those
who reared him or defend them, but on the contrary takes to speaking
ill of them or ill-treating them, it is evident that he will displease
and offend those who have been familiar with his parents and have
witnessed the care and pains they spent on attending to and feeding
their children.  For seeing that men are distinguished from the other
animals possessing the faculty of reason, it is obviously improbable
that such a difference of conduct should escape them, as it escapes
the other animals: they will notice the thing and be displeased at
what is going on, looking to the future and reflecting that they may
all meet with the same treatment.  Again when a man who has been helped
or succored when in danger by another does not show gratitude to his
preserver, but even goes to the length of attempting to do him injury,
it is clear that those who become aware of it will naturally be
displeased and offended by such conduct, sharing the resentment of
their injured neighbor and imagining themselves in the same situation.
From all this there arises in everyone a notion of the meaning and
theory of duty, which is the beginning and end of justice.  Similarly,
again, when any man is foremost in defending his fellows from danger,
and braves and awaits the onslaught of the most powerful beasts, it is
natural that he should receive marks of favor and honor from the
people, while the man who acts in the opposite manner will meet with
reprobation and dislike.  From this again some idea of what is base and
what is noble and of what constitutes the difference is likely to
arise among the people; and noble conduct will be admired and imitated
because advantageous, while base conduct will be avoided.  Now when the
leading and most powerful man among people always throws the weight of
his authority the side of the notions on such matters which generally
prevail, and when in the opinion of his subjects he apportions rewards
and penalties according to desert, they yield obedience to him no
longer because they fear his force, but rather because their judgment
approves him; and they join in maintaining his rule even if he is
quite enfeebled by age, defending him with one consent and battling
against those who conspire to overthrow his rule.  Thus by insensible
degrees the monarch becomes a king, ferocity and force having yielded
the supremacy to reason.



7.  Thus is formed naturally among men the first notion of goodness
and justice, and their opposites; this is the beginning and birth of
true kingship.  For the people maintain the supreme power not only in
the hands of these men themselves, but in those of their descendants,
from the conviction that those born from and reared by such men will
also have principles like to theirs.  And if they ever are displeased
with the descendants, they now choose their kings and rulers no longer
for their bodily strength and brute courage, but for the excellency of
their judgment and reasoning powers, as they have gained experience
from actual facts of the difference between the one class of qualities
and the other.  In old times, then, those who had once been chosen to
the royal office continued to hold it until they grew old, fortifying
and enclosing fine strongholds with walls and acquiring lands, in the
one case for the sake of the security of their subjects and in the
other to provide them with abundance of the necessities of life.  And
while pursuing these aims, they were exempt from all vituperation or
jealousy, as neither in their dress nor in their food and drink did
they make any great distinction, but lived very much like everyone
else, not keeping apart from the people.  But when they received the
office by hereditary succession and found their safety now provided
for, and more than sufficient provision of food, they gave way to
their appetites owing to this superabundance, and came to think that
the rulers must be distinguished from their subjects by a peculiar
dress, that there should be a peculiar luxury and variety in the
dressing and serving of their viands, and that they should meet with
no denial in the pursuit of their amours, however lawless.  These
habits having given rise in the one case to envy and offence and in
the other to an outburst of hatred and passionate resentment, the
kingship changed into a tyranny; the first steps towards its overthrow
were taken by the subjects, and conspiracies began to be formed.  These
conspiracies were not the work of the worst men, but of the noblest,
most high-spirited, and most courageous, because such men are least
able to brook the insolence of princes.

8.  The people now having got leaders, would combine with them
against the ruling powers for the reasons I stated above; king-ship
and monarchy would be utterly abolished, and in their place
aristocracy would begin to grow.  For the commons, as if bound to pay
at once their debt of gratitude to the abolishers of monarchy, would
make them their leaders and entrust their destinies to them.  At first
these chiefs gladly assumed this charge and regarded nothing as of
greater importance than the common interest, administering the private
and public affairs of the people with paternal solicitude.  But here
again when children inherited this position of authority from their
fathers, having no experience of misfortune and none at all of civil
equality and liberty of speech, and having been brought up from the
cradle amid the evidences of the power and high position of their
fathers, they abandoned themselves some to greed of gain and
unscrupulous money-making, others to indulgence in wine and the
convivial excess which accompanies it, and others again to the
violation of women and the rape of boys; and thus converting the
aristocracy info an oligarchy aroused in the people feelings similar
to those of which I just spoke, and in consequence met with the same
disastrous end as the tyrant.

9.  For whenever anyone who has noticed the jealousy and hatred with
which they are regarded by the citizens, has the courage to speak or
act against the chiefs of the state he has the whole mass of the
people ready to back him.  Next, when they have either killed or
banished the oligarchs, they no longer venture to set a king over
them, as they still remember with terror the injustice they suffered
from the former ones, nor can they entrust the government with
confidence to a select few, with the evidence before them of their
recent error in doing so.  Thus the only hope still surviving
unimpaired is in themselves, and to this they resort, making the state
a democracy instead of an oligarchy and assuming the responsibility
for the conduct of affairs.  Then as long as some of those survive who
experienced the evils of oligarchical dominion, they are well pleased
with the present form of government, and set a high value on equality
and freedom of speech.  But when a new generation arises and the
democracy falls into the hands of the grandchildren of its founders,
they have become so accustomed to freedom and equality that they no
longer value them, and begin to aim at pre-eminence; and it is chiefly
those of ample fortune who fall into this error.  So when they begin to
lust for power and cannot attain it through themselves or their own
good qualities, they ruin their estates, tempting and corrupting the
people in every possible way.  And hence when by their foolish thirst
for reputation they have created among the masses an appetite for
gifts and the habit of receiving them, democracy in its turn is
abolished and changes into a rule of force and violence.  For the
people, having grown accustomed feed at the expense of others and to
depend for their livelihood on the property of others, as soon as they
find a leader who is enterprising but is excluded from the honors of
office by his poverty, institute the rule of violence; and now uniting
their forces massacre, banish, and plunder, until they degenerate
again into perfect savages and find once more a master and monarch.

Such is the cycle of political revolution, the course pointed by
nature in which constitutions change, disappear, and finally return to
the point from which they started.  Anyone who clearly perceives this
may indeed in speaking of the future of any state be wrong in his
estimate of the time the process will take, but if his judgment is not
tainted by animosity or jealousy, he will very seldom be mistaken to
the stage of growth or decline it has reached, and as to the form into
which it will change.  And especially in the case of the Roman state
will this method enable us to arrive at a knowledge of its formation,
growth, and greatest perfection, and likewise of the change for the
worse which is sure follow some day.  For, as I said, this state, more
than any other, has been formed and has grown naturally, and will
undergo a natural decline and change to its contrary.  The reader will
be able to judge of the truth of this from the subsequent parts this
work."

The modern reader may think that all this is irrelevant to him,
that the natural sciences will solve all his problems.  He would be
wise to recall that the great Roman republic in which Polybius lived
more than [22]00 years ago, did indeed become transformed into tyranny
and, in the end, into anarchy and oblivion.  No wonder that the makers
of the American constitution keenly studied Polybius.  Not only has
Taine's comments and factual description of the cyclic French
political history much to teach us about ourselves and the dangers
which lie ahead, but it also shows us the origins and weakness of our
political theories.  It is obvious that should ask ourselves the
question of where, in the political evolution we are now? Are we still
ruled by the corrupt oligarchs or have we reached the stage where the
people has become used to be fed on the property of others? If so
dissolution and anarchy is just around the corner.

"The Revolution, Vol.  II, 8th ed.

Svend Rom.  Hendaye, France.  February 2000.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Preface:

In this volume, as in those preceding it and in those to come,
there will be found only the history of Public Authorities.  Others
will write that of diplomacy, of war, of the finances, of the Church;
my subject is a limited one.  To my great regret, however, this new
part fills an entire volume; and the last part, on the revolutionary
government, will be as long.

I have again to regret the dissatisfaction I foresee this work will
cause to many of my countrymen.  My excuse is, that almost all of them,
more fortunate than myself, have political principles which serve them
in forming their judgments of the past.  I had none; if indeed, I had
any motive in undertaking this work, it was to seek for political
principles.  Thus far I have attained to scarcely more than one; and
this is so simple that will seem puerile, and that I hardly dare
express it.  Nevertheless I have adhered to it, and in what the reader
is about to peruse my judgments are all derived from that; its truth
is the measure of theirs.  It consists wholly in this observation: that


HUMAN SOCIETY, ESPECIALLY A MODERN SOCIETY, IS A VAST AND
COMPLICATED THING.


Hence the difficulty in knowing and comprehending it.  For the same
reason it is not easy to handle the subject well.  It follows that a
cultivated mind is much better able to do this than an uncultivated
mind, and a man specially qualified than one who is not.  From these
two last truths flow many other consequences, which, if the reader
deigns to reflect on them, he will have no trouble in defining.

Paris 1881.



Notes:


[1] Page XLVI of the Introduction to the Edition by Robert Lafont
in 1986 by "Les Origines de la France Contemporaine".

[2] From "HISTORIES", BOOK VI.  3.  3-4.  1  FROM LOEB'S CLASSICAL
LIBRARY, HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS.


THE ANCIENT REGIME

PREFACE BY THE AUTHOR:

ON POLITICAL IGNORANCE AND WISDOM.

In 1849, being twenty-one years of age, and an elector, I was very
much puzzled, for I had to nominate fifteen or twenty deputies, and,
moreover, according to French custom, I had not only to determine what
candidate I would vote for, but what theory I should adopt.  I had to
choose between a royalist or a republican, a democrat or a
conservative, a socialist or a bonapartist; as I was neither one nor
the other, nor even anything, I often envied those around me who were
so fortunate as to have arrived at definite conclusions.  After
listening to various doctrines, I acknowledged that there undoubtedly
was something wrong with my head.  The motives that influenced others
did not influence me; I could not comprehend how, in political
matters, a man could be governed by preferences.  My assertive
countrymen planned a constitution just like a house, according to the
latest, simplest, and most attractive plan; and there were several
under consideration - the mansion of a marquis, the house of a common
citizen, the tenement of a laborer, the barracks of a soldier, the
kibbutz of a socialist, and even the camp of savages.  Each claimed
that his was "the true habitation for Man, the only one in which a
sensible person could live." In my opinion, the argument was weak;
personal taste could not be valid for everyone.  It seemed to me that a
house should not be built for the architect alone, or for itself, but
for the owner who was to live in it.  Referring to the owner for his
advice, that is submitting to the French people the plans of its
future habitation, would evidently be either for show or just to
deceive them; since the question, obviously, was put in such a manner
that it provided the answer in advance.  Besides, had the people been
allowed to reply in all liberty, their response was in any case not of
much value since France was scarcely more competent than I was; the
combined ignorance of ten millions is not the equivalent of one man's
wisdom.  A people may be consulted and, in an extreme case, may declare
what form of government it would like best, but not that which it most
needs.  Nothing but experience can determine this; it must have time to
ascertain whether the political structure is convenient, substantial,
able to withstand inclemency, and adapted to customs, habits,
occupations, characters, peculiarities and caprices.  For example, the
one we have tried has never satisfied us; we have during eighty years
demolished it thirteen times, each time setting it up anew, and always
in vain, for never have we found one that suited us.  If other nations
have been more fortunate, or if various political structures abroad
have proved stable and enduring, it is because these have been erected
in a special way.  Founded on some primitive, massive pile, supported
by an old central edifice, often restored but always preserved,
gradually enlarged, and, after numerous trials and additions, they
have been adapted to the wants of its occupants.  It is well to admit,
perhaps, that there is no other way of erecting a permanent building.
Never has one been put up instantaneously, after an entirely new
design, and according to the measurements of pure Reason.  A sudden
contrivance of a new, suitable, and enduring constitution is an
enterprise beyond the forces of the human mind.

In any event, I came to the conclusion that if we should ever
discover the one we need it would not be through some fashionable
theory.  The point is, if it exists, to discover it, and not to put it
to a vote.  To do that would not only be pretentious it would be
useless; history and nature will do it for us; it is for us to adapt
ourselves to them, as it is certain they will accommodate themselves
to us.  The social and political mold, into which a nation may enter
and remain, is not subject to its will, but determined by its
character and its past.  It is essential that, even in its least
traits, it should be shaped on the living material to which it is
applied; otherwise it will burst and fall to pieces.  Hence, if we
should succeed in finding ours, it will only be through a study of
ourselves, while the more we understand exactly what we are, the more
certainly shall we distinguish what best suits us.  We ought,
therefore, to reverse the ordinary methods, and form some conception
of the nation before formulating its constitution.  Doubtless the first
operation is much more tedious and difficult than the second.  How much
time, how much study, how many observations rectified one by the
other, how many researches in the past and the present, over all the
domains of thought and of action, what manifold and age-long labors
before we can obtain an accurate and complete idea of a great people.
A people which has lived a people's age, and which still lives! But it
is the only way to avoid the unsound construction based on a
meaningless planning.  I promised myself that, for my own part, if I
should some day undertake to form a political opinion, it would be
only after having studied France.

What is contemporary France?

More -->