Abstract
Before tracing the substantial influence of the sixth part of Considerations, this chapter analyzes how people reacted to the central theme of Considerations, which was the political legitimacy of hereditary peerage in 1818–1819. This reflects that institutionalized hereditary peerage in Restoration France was a controversial issue. I maintain that the protagonists of the two political extremes (left- and right-wingers) perceived hereditary peerage in light of the changing social conditions of modernity and the state of land distribution in particular. A large majority found Staël’s praise of the British House of Lords unsuitable in post-revolutionary France, given Britain’s monopoly of land by the aristocracy and France’s relatively more equalizing social conditions, although former nobles still owned 20 percent of the land in early nineteenth-century France.
Beyond political differences, there emerged, from this widely shared view, an “ideological” tendency to make comparisons between British aristocratic and French democratic society. In reaction to Considerations, Benjamin Constant conceived what I would call democratic liberalism. His theory is founded principally on the subdivision of land and universal suffrage, as opposed to Staël’s aristocratic liberalism based on extensive landed properties owned by a few and a restrictive suffrage. Tocqueville would eventually synthesize Constant’s democratic and Staël’s aristocratic liberalisms in his view of American democracy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
On moderate left- and right-wingers’ viewpoints on hereditary peerage, see the following chapters of this book.
- 2.
Godechot stresses that, in the history of books, books of refutation emerged for the first time in reaction to Considerations. Jacques Godechot, “Introduction”; Staël, Considérations, 35.
- 3.
Due to the relaxation of censorship, semi-periodicals were allowed to be published on an irregular basis without the government’s permission. They include la Minerve, le Conservateur and les Lettres normandes. Tribouillard, Tombeau, 186. Press freedom was largely restricted after the assassination of the duc de Berry in 1820. Albert Crémieux, La censure en 1820 et 1821: Etudes sur la presse politique et la résistance libérale, (Paris: E. Cornély et cie, 1912).
- 4.
Considérations led to three books of refutation: Louis de Bonald’s Observations sur l’ouvrage de Madame de Staël (1818), Jacques Bailleul’s L’examen critique de l’ouvrage posthume de Madame de Staël (1818), and the comte de Maleyssie’s Observations sur l’ouvrage de Madame de Staël (1822). La quotidienne (May 22, 28), La Gazette de France (May 18, 20, 22), and le Conservateur (October 30) mainly represented ultraconservatives. In addition, independent pamphleteers of a ultraconservative inspiration included Louis-Charles Auguste de Laroche, marquis de la Groye, Sur l’ouvrage posthume de madame la baronne de Staël (Paris, 1818) and De Regnault de Warin, L’esprit de Madame la baronne de Staël. Analyse philosophique du génie, du caractère, de la doctrine et du temps et l’influence de ses ouvrages (Paris: 1818). Le moniteur universel (June 8, 699–700, June 17, 735–736, June 30, 787–788) and les archives philosophiques, politiques et littéraires are moderates of left- and right-wingers. Among left-wingers, Mercure (May–July), Jay’s article in Minerve (May 6), Sismondi’s anonymous articles in Journal général de France (May 18, 20, 22), Lettres normandes (January, May, June, and July 1819), Le censeur européen, Journal de Paris (May 28), Annales politiques, morales et littéraires (June 3), Le Globe (1825), Le publiciste moderne (May 30), and La revue encyclopédique (523–537). Liberal political pamphlets included Madame Louis Dauriat, Lettres à messieurs les auteurs qui ont critiqué l’ouvrage posthume de Madame de Staël intitulé: Considérations sur les principaux événements de la Révolution française (Paris: 1818) and G.G. Masuyer , Considérations sur l’état actuel des sociétés en Europe avec des observations sur la note secrète, sur le dernier ouvrage de Madame de Staël et celui de M. de Montlosier, (Paris: 1818). In Restoration politics, a majority of right-wingers were ultraconservatives. Hereafter, I call ultraconservatives ultras, as they were generally called under Restoration France. By contrast, I call moderates center-rightists and center-leftists, as opposed to, respectively, right- and left-wingers. Left-wingers include the extreme left, also known as the ultraliberals, the indépendants , the Jacobins, the Revolutionaries, and the Bonapartists . Finally, I define libéraux to comprise both center-leftists and leftists, including extreme left. As mentioned earlier, I discuss the moderates’ reactions later (Chaps. 8, 9, and 13).
- 5.
On the bicameral legislature of Restoration France, see, Annelien de Dijn, “Balancing the Constitution: Bicameralism in Post-revolutionary France, 1814–1831,” European Review of History, 12-2, July 2005, 249–268.
- 6.
Louis XVIII nominated l’abbé de Montesquiou, comte Ferrand, and comte Beugnot to draft a constitutional charter. They were in the right of center. E. Spuller, Royer-Collard, (Paris: 1895), 86–87.
- 7.
Bonald, Observation, 147.
- 8.
Ibid., 118.
- 9.
Ibid., 121.
- 10.
La quotidienne, June 3, 1818.
- 11.
For example, it wrote: “One cannot help but love Mme de Staël when she spoke with such dignity of King Louis XVI, the Queen and Mrs. Elizabeth.” La quotidienne, June 3, 1818.
- 12.
Staël, Considerations, II-XXIII, 284.
- 13.
La quotidienne, May 28, 1818.
- 14.
Emmanuel de Waresquiel and Renoît Yvert, Histoire de la Restauration, 164–196; Jean-Jacques Oechslin, le Mouvement ultra-royaliste sous la Restauration, (Paris: librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence, 1960); Charlotte Touzalin Muret, French Royalist Doctrines Since the Revolution, (New York: Columbia U.P., 1933).
- 15.
Comte de Maleyssie, Observations sur l’ouvrage de Madame de Staël intitulé Considérations sur la Révolution, (Paris: Pichard, 1822).
- 16.
Maleyssie , Observations, 21, 38, 298–299.
- 17.
Dijn, “Balancing the Constitution,” 256.
- 18.
Masuyer , Considérations sur l’état actuel, 10.
- 19.
Ibid., 12.
- 20.
Ibid., 12.
- 21.
Ibid., 12.
- 22.
Ibid., 32.
- 23.
Ibid., 12.
- 24.
Dauriat, Lettres à messieurs, 10.
- 25.
Sainte-Beuve , Mme de Staël.
- 26.
M. Mignet , “Historical Notice of the Life and Works of M. de Sismondi,” Jean-Charles-Léonard Simon de Sismondi, Political Economy, and the Philosophy of Government: A Series of Essays Selected From the Works of M. de Sismondi, (London: John Champman, 1847), 13; Jean-Charles-Léonard Simon de Sismondi, Examen de la constitution française, (Paris: Treuttel et Würtz, 1815).
- 27.
Achille Jubinal., Napoléon et Sismondi en 1815, (Paris: Chez tous les libraires, 1865), 52–53.
- 28.
Bailleul , Examen, vol. 2, 1818, 31.
- 29.
Ibid., 34, 37.
- 30.
In his follow-up to the Critical review titled Du projet de loi sur les successions et sur les substitutions, pour comparaison, quelques idées sur des institutions appropriées à l’ordre de choses qui nous régit, et qui en seraient les garanties et les appuis (Paris: Renard, 1826). Dijn, French Political, 114–115.
- 31.
B. Constant, Recueil d’articles: Le Mercure, La Minerve et La Renommée, (Geneva: 1977); La Minerve: Mai 20, 1818, 497–412, June 15, 1818, 450–459, the end of July, 1818, 469–478; Guy H. Dodge, Benjamin Constant’s Philosophy of Liberalism, (Chapel Hill, NC: North Carolina U.P., 2012), 103–105.
- 32.
Takeda, Mme de Staël’s Contribution, 166–185.
- 33.
This clause was never implemented during the Restoration period.
- 34.
Emmanuel de Waresquiel, Un groupe d’hommes considérable: Les pairs de France et la Chambre des pairs héréditaire de la Restauration 1814–1831, (Paris: Fayard, 2006), 79–117; Holmes, Benjamin Constant et la genèse du libéralisme modern, (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1994), 29.
- 35.
Alain Laquièze, “Benjamin Constant et les lectures à l’assemblée royale consacrées à la Constitution anglaise,” Annales Benjamin Constant, no. 23–24, 2000, 155–171; Benjamin Constant, “De l’Angleterre,” Recueil d’articles, ed. Ephraïm Harpaz, vol. II, 394.
- 36.
“Lettres de Benjamin Constant à Prosper de Barant (1809–1830),” Revue des deux mondes, vol. 34-III, 1906, 528–567.
- 37.
Ezio Cappadogia, “The Liberals and Madame de Staël in 1818,” Ideas in History, ed., Richard Herr and Harold T. Parker, (Durham, NC: Duke U.P., 1965), 197.
- 38.
Elizabeth W. Schermerhorn, Benjamin Constant: his private life and his contribution to liberal government: 1767–1830, (New York: Haskell House Publisher, 284).
- 39.
Ibid., 197.
- 40.
Constant did this in “De l’Angleterre.” La Minerve 2 (May 6, 1818), 42–50. Holmes calls this period “anomalous years of 1813–1815”; Holmes, Benjamin, 16.
- 41.
Ibid.
- 42.
Constant, “De l’Angleterre,” Recueil d’articles, vol. II, 394.
- 43.
Ibid., 394–395.
- 44.
Ibid., 395.
- 45.
Ibid., 395.
- 46.
Ibid., 395.
- 47.
Ibid., 395. Fontana, Biancamalia, “The Shaping of Modern Liberty: Commerce and Civilisation in the Writings of Benjamin Constant,” La critique anglo-saxone autour de B. Constant, Annales Benjamin Constant, 1985, no. 5, 10.
- 48.
Constant, “De l’Angleterre,” 398–399.
- 49.
Ibid., 394.
- 50.
Ibid., 395.
- 51.
B. Constant, Mémoires sur les cent jours en forme de lettres, (Paris and Rouen: Chez Béchet ainé, 1822), 120.
- 52.
Constant, “De l’Angleterre,” 408–409.
- 53.
Ibid., 408–410.
- 54.
Constant, Ecrits politiques, ed. Marcel Gauchet, (Paris: Gallimard, 1997), 533. Constant also wrote “note H,” added on the occasion of the re-edition of Le cours de politique constitutionnelle. Ibid., 531–537. He also referred to hereditary peerage in La Minerve française of January 9, 1820, included in Recueil d’articles, vol. II, 1114–1119.
- 55.
Constant, Ecrits politique, 530. In this regard, Constant was strongly aware of the contradiction of institutionalizing hereditary peerage in France’s so-called democratic social conditions during the Hundred Days.
- 56.
Constant, “Considérations,” Recueil d’article, vol. II, 456–457.
- 57.
Ibid., 456–457.
- 58.
Benjamin Constant, Portraits Mémoires Souvenirs, ed. Ephraïm Harpaz, (Paris: Honoré Champion, 1992), 232.
- 59.
Constant and Staël’s discussions on hereditary peerage originated in 1812, when he decided to collaborate with her to bring Bernadot to power. Constant wrote in his intimate journal, “The traveller arrived at her place of a temporary station. Stockholm. May God be blessed a thousand times. The person from Béarn (Bernadotte) You must think about it seriously. Eventually everything is a gain. What remains is the form.” Constant, “Journaux,” Œuvres, (Paris: Gallimard, 1979), 698.
- 60.
For a different opinion on the hereditary second chamber from mine, see Dijn, “Balancing,” 251.
- 61.
Sauvigny, “Le libéralisme,” Commentaire, 420–424.
- 62.
Jean-Baptist, Say , De l’Angleterre et des Anglais, (Paris: A. Bertrand, 1815); Sismondi , “Preface,” “New principles of Political Economy,” Political Economy, and the Philosophy of Government: A series of Essays selected from the works of M. de Sismondi, (London: John Champman, 1847), 116–117.
- 63.
Benjamin Constant, Commentaire sur l’ouvrage de Filangieri, (Paris: les Belles Lettres, 2004)b, 92.
- 64.
Ibid., 109.
- 65.
Charles Cottu, De l’administration de la justice criminelle en Angleterre et de l’esprit du gouvernement anglais, (Paris: H. Nicolle, 1820).
- 66.
François Réné de Chateaubriand, Mémoires d’outre-tombe, ed. Maurice Levaillant, 1969b, vol. 1, 561. Chateaubriand lived in London between 1793 and 1800.
- 67.
The book published courses Guizot had taught in 1820–1822. François Guizot, Histoire des origins du gouvernement représentaitf en Europe, vol. II, (Bruxelles: Meline, Cans et cie, 1851)a.
- 68.
Ibid., 235, 238.
- 69.
Ibid., 223.
- 70.
Ibid., 223, 238; Guizot , The History of the Origins of Representative Government in Europe, ed. Aurelian Craiutu, trans. Andrew R. Scoble, (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2002), 375–376.
- 71.
Mackintosh accompanied Staël in London in 1813–1814. Their social closeness is attested to in her letters to Constant during this period. Staël, Lettres de Madame de Staël à Benjamin Constant, ed. Madame la Baronne de Nolde, (Paris: KRA, 1928), 56–57.
- 72.
Mackintosh, Vindiciae Gallicae: Defense of the French Revolution and its English admirers, against the accusations of the right hon. Edmund Burke, including some strictures on the late production of Mons. de Calonne, (London: G.G.J. and J. Robinson, 1791), 443.
- 73.
Ibid., 415.
- 74.
Ibid., 415.
- 75.
Ibid., 426.
- 76.
Ibid., 426.
- 77.
Ibid., 426.
- 78.
Ibid., 425–426.
- 79.
Burke, Reflections, 36–37.
- 80.
Mackintosh, Vindiciae, 425.
- 81.
Ibid., 425.
- 82.
Ibid., 129, 269.
- 83.
Dror Wahrman, Imagining the Middle Class: The Political Representation of Class in Britain, 1780–1840, (Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 2003), 29.
- 84.
Wahrman, Imagining, 273–297.
- 85.
Constant, “Loi sur les élections,” January 1817, Recueil d’article, 44. The article was taken up in Benjamin Constant, Cours de politique constitutionnelle ou collection des ouvrages, avec une introduction et des notes par Edouard Laboulaye, (Bruxelles: Nauman, Cattoir et comp., 1837)a, 247–248, 453. Quotation from Wahrman, Imagining the Middle Class, 277. On Royer-Collard’s vision of the middle-class, Pierre-Paul Royer-Collard, La vie politique de M. Royer-Collard, ed. Prosper de Barante (Paris: Didier et cie, 1861), vol. 1, 290.
- 86.
Siedentop, “Two Liberal Traditions,” 20.
- 87.
Jaume , “La nécessaire individualisation de la liberté politique,” L’individu, 63–117.
- 88.
Benjamin Constant, De la force du gouvernement actuel de la France et de la nécessité de s’y rallier, (Paris: Belin, 1988), 80, 22.
- 89.
Constant, Ecrits politiques, 536.
- 90.
Constant, Commentaire(b), 154. See also 151–167, 155.
- 91.
Ibid., 151–167.
- 92.
Ibid., 155.
- 93.
Constant wrote, “The danger of modern liberty is that, absorbed in the enjoyment of our private independence, and in the pursuit of our particular intersts, we would relinquish too easily our right to share in political power.” Constant, “The Liberty of the Ancients Compared with That of the Moderns,” Benjamin Constant: Political Writings ed. Biancamaria Fontana, (Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 1988), 324–328.
- 94.
Gareth Stedman-Jones, “Saint Simone and the Liberal Origins of the Socialist Critique of Political Economy,” Papers from the Gimon Conference on French Political Economy, 2004, April, 7.
- 95.
Constant wrote: “commerce inspires in men a vivid love of individual independence.” For Constant’s brief discussion on liberty and commerce, see Benjamin Constant, “The Liberty of the Ancients Compared with That of the Moderns,” Constant, Political Writings, 315. On this aspect of Constant’s political thought, Holmes, Benjamin, especially 53–78.
- 96.
Constant, Political Writings, 104.
- 97.
Holmes, Benjamin, 67.
- 98.
Ibid., 67.
- 99.
Constant, Political Writings, 326–327.
- 100.
In Germany, Staël placed a moral improvement of individuals (perfectionnement) rather than the perfectibility of the human species at the heart of her ethical reflections, adding that satisfactions deriving from the accomplishment of moral duties was a subsidiary and not primary object of life. Staël, De l’Allemagne (b), 89–92.
- 101.
Holmes, Benjamin, 36.
- 102.
Constant, Political Writings, 326.
- 103.
Constant, Ecrits politiques, 533.
- 104.
Benjamin Constant, Cours de politique constitutionnelle ou collection des ouvrages publiés sur le gouvernement représentatif, ed. Edouard Laboulaye, (Paris: Guillaumin et cie, 1872)b, vol. I, 83.
- 105.
Constant, Ecrits politiques, 404.
- 106.
Constant, “Chapter X: Des remarques sur la décadence de l’Espagne,” Commentaire sur l’ouvrage de Filiangieri, (Paris: P. Dufart, 1822)a, 73.
- 107.
Jainchill stresses this aspect of Constant’s thought in relation to the early modern discourse on republicanism. Jainchill, “The Importance of Republican Liberty in French Liberalism,” ed. Raf Geenens and Helena Rosenblatt, French Liberalism from Montesquieu to the Present Day, (Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 2012), 73–89.
- 108.
Constant, Frgaments, 300–301; Jainchill, “The Importance,” 80.
- 109.
Constant expressed this theory in Commentaire in 1822.
- 110.
Constant, Fragments d’un ouvrage abandonné sur la possibilité d’une constitution républicaine dans un grand pays, ed. Henri Grange, (Paris: Honoré Champion, 1992); M.E. Brint, “Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Bnjamin Constant: A Dialogue on Freedom and Tyranny,” The Review of Politics, vol. 47, no. 3, 1985, 323–346.
- 111.
Constant, Commentaire(b), 152.
- 112.
Prosper de Barante, Des communes et de l’aristocratie, (Paris: Ladvocat, 1821)a, 113.
- 113.
Constant, Political Writings, 313.
- 114.
Constant, Ibid., 311–312(a).
- 115.
Ibid., 540.
- 116.
Jean-Claude Lamberti, trans. Arthur Goldhammer, Tocqueville and the Two Democracies, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard U.P., 1989), 78–80.
- 117.
Constant, Ecrits politiques, 428.
- 118.
Ibid., 428.
- 119.
Constant, “souvenirs historiques,” Portraits, 113, 237.
- 120.
The interpretation of this issue is controversial. Helena Rosenblatt, “Re-evaluating Benjamin Constant’s Liberalism: Industrialism, Saint-Simonianism and the Restoration years,” History of European Ideas, 30 (2004), 35–37.
- 121.
On Alexis de Tocqueville, Larry Siedentop, Tocqueville, (Oxford: Oxford U.P., 1994); J.P. Mayer, N.M. Bozman, and C. Hahn, Alexis de Tocqueville: A Biographical Essay in Political Science, (New York: Viking Press, 1940); The Cambridge Companion to Tocqueville, ed. Welch, (Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 2006); John Elster, Alexis de Tocqueville: The First Social Scientist, (Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 2009); Lambert, Tocqueville and the Two Democracies, Sigeki Uno, Tocqueville: A Political Thinker of Equality and Inequality, (Tokyo: Kodansha, 2007); Richard Swedberg, Tocqueville and Political Economy, (Princeton: Princeton U.P., 2009).
- 122.
Hereafter referred to as D.A. As far as footnotes of D.A. are concerned, I refer to Arthur Goldhammer’s translated version unless otherwise indicated. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, trans. Arthur Goldhammer, ed. Olivier Zunz, (New York: Library of America, 2004).
- 123.
Siedentop, Tocqueville, 23. Aurelian Craitu, “Tocqueville and the Political Thought of the French Doctrinaires (Guizot, Royer-Collard, Rémuat),” History of Political Thought. Vol. XX. no. 3 Autumn, 1999, 456–493, especially 469–477. Aurelian Craitu, Le centre introuvable: La pensée politique des doctrinaires sous la Retauration, (Paris: Plon, 2003), 88–121; Melvin Richter, “Tocqueville and Guizot on democracy: from a type of society to a political regime,” History of European Ideas, 30 (2004), 61–82; Jean-Claude Lamberti, “Introduction,” Tocqueville, Démocratie, ix–xxvi.
- 124.
Aurelian Craiutu, “Tocqueville’s Paradoxical Moderation,” The Review of Politics, vol. 67, no. 4 (Autumn 2005), 602. James Schleifer, The Making of Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2003), see also Chap. 19.
- 125.
Richter, “Tocqueville,” 63.
- 126.
Siedentop, Tocqueville, 21; John Elster, “Tocqueville on 1789.” Lamberti remarks that Tocqueville read and was inspired by Considerations. Lamberti, Tocqueville and the Two Democracies, 242.
- 127.
On Tocqueville’s biography, André Jardin, Tocqueville: A biography, (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1989); Hugh Brogan, Alexis de Tocqueville: A Life, (New Haven and London: Yale U.P., 2008).
- 128.
Brogan, Alexis de Tocqueville, 48–56.
- 129.
Mayer, Alexis de Toqueville, a biographical essay in Political science, 25; Pierrre Gouirand, Tocqueville: Une certaine vision de la démocratie, (Paris: Harmattan, 2006), 144.
- 130.
Alexis de Tocqueville, Œuvres, vol. 1, (Paris: Gallimard, 1991), 14.
- 131.
“I understand that in a very enlightened country where the climate encourages people to be active, where all the classes want to enrich themselves, as in France and especially in Britain, for example, the extreme fragmentation of the property can harm agriculture and therefore domestic prosperity, because it removes means of improvement and even action to people who would have the will and the ability to use them.” Ibid., 14.
Tocqueville’s opinion matches Constant’s: “In a hundred years, the social classes outside agriculture will see land properties only as a luxury enjoyment, and land ownership, divided and sub-divided, will be almost exclusively in the hands of the laborious class. Large properties are just about the last link of a chain of which at each century one link was broken.” Constant, Ecrits politiques, 725.
- 132.
Tocqueville, D.A., I-I-3, 54–55; Siedentop, Tocqueville, 41–68.
- 133.
Tocqueville , Démocratie en Amérique, Oeuvres, (Paris: Gallimard, 1991), vol. I, 53. See also “Etat social des Anglo-Américains” in Ibid., I-I-3, 50–59. Constant perceived nobility as large landowners and the enemies of the Revolution simultaneously and recommended a subdivision of land. Constant, Ecrits politiques, 723. For the English version, Tocqueville, 54–55.
- 134.
Tocqueville , D.A., I-I-3, 52–61.
- 135.
G. de Beaumont, ed., Memoir, Letters, and Remains of Alexis de Tocqueville, 2 vols. (London: Macmillan, 1862), I:230.
- 136.
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, trans. Henri Reeve, (London: Green, Longman and Roberts, 1862), vol. 1, 14 chapter, 281.
- 137.
Tocqueville , D.A., I-II-5, 244. David Spring, “An Outsider’s View: Alexis de Tocqueville on Aristocratic Society and Politics in 19th Century Britain,” Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies, Vol. 12-2, Summer, 1980, 123; European Landed Elites in the Nineteenth Century, ed. David Spring, (Baltimore: John Hopkins U.P., 1977).
- 138.
Tocqueville , D.A., I-II-6, 268.
- 139.
Ibid. , I-II-5, 244.
- 140.
Seymour Drescher, Tocqueville and England, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard U.P., 1964), 35–73.
- 141.
Tocqueville: “The prosperity of trade and industry will induce the small proprietor to sell; and this same cause will be constantly creating large masses of wealth, which will permit those who possess them to acquire immense domains.” Tocqueville , D.A., 123. Again, Tocqueville reiterated Constant’s viewpoint here.
- 142.
Tocqueville did not deny the existence of aristocratic principle in the agricultural South of America. Alexis de Tocqueville, D.A., 1-1-3, 53. In addition, he claims that industry would recreate an equally inegalitarian relationship between masters and workers, comparable to feudal Europe. Ibid., II-II-20, 652.
- 143.
Although Edouard Laboulaye deplored Tocqueville not having read Benjamin Constant, Lamberti identifies a parallel thought between the two representative French liberal political thinkers in terms of their common embrace of the liberty of the Ancients. Lamberti, Tocqueville and the Two Democracies, 54.
- 144.
Tocqueville , D.A., I-II-6, 273.
- 145.
“Why Great Revolutions will become Rare?” Ibid., II-III-11, 747–760.
- 146.
Ibid., I-II-6, 272.
- 147.
Ibid., I-II-6, 272.
- 148.
Ibid., II-II-4, 594.
- 149.
Jainchill, ‘The Importance,” 87–89.
- 150.
Tocqueville writes: “A defective English law … and there are many, is brought to America by the first immigrants. They modify it, appropriate it more or less to their social state, but still have a superstitious respect for it; they cannot do away with it altogether. The second (westward) movement takes place. This time the law is modified in such a way as to lose the mark of its origin…” Drescher, Tocqueville and England, 33.
- 151.
Tocqueville , D.A., I-II-8, 302–311; Leo Damrosch, Tocqueville’s Discovery of America, (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011), 60–61, 302–311.
- 152.
Tocqueville , D.A., I-II-8, 308.
- 153.
Ibid., I-II-8, 303.
- 154.
Ibid., I-II-8, 308.
- 155.
Ibid., I-II-8, 306–307.
- 156.
Ibid., I-II-8, 306.
- 157.
Alexis de Tocqueville, Memoir, 1: 230.
- 158.
Tocqueville , D.A., I-II-2, 33.
- 159.
Ibid., I-I-5, 69.
- 160.
Ibid., I-I-5, 76–77.
- 161.
Ibid., I-II-4, 271.
- 162.
Ibid., I-I-5, 106–107.
- 163.
Ibid., I-I-5, 76.
- 164.
Aurelian Craiutu and Jeremy Jennings, “The Third ‘Democracy’: Tocqueville’s Views of America after 1840,” The American Political Science Review, vol. 98, no. 3 (August, 2004), 391–404; Aurelian Craiutu and Jeremy Jennings, Tocqueville on America after 1840: Letters and Other Writings, (Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 2009).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Takeda, C. (2018). Reception of Considerations: The Hereditary Second Chamber. In: Mme de Staël and Political Liberalism in France. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8087-6_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8087-6_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-8086-9
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-8087-6
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)