“Thus, the peace of the world was founded permanently, and the sword could be transformed into a plowshare. All the peoples disarmed almost completely, even more than they had done after the war that gave us the Rhineland; in that epoch, large-scale disarmament would have been possible because equilibrium had already been established between France, formed from ancient Gaul, Prussia, extending from the Baltic and the Slei to Mayn and Gleichberg, sovereign Austria, suzerain or federal directrice of the majority of territories watered by the Danube, and England, an island power; but the threat of Russian pretentions had imposed a limit on that relaxation of peoples. Once Russian dreams were ruined permanently, Europe could take off its armor.
“After the second Peace of Paris, the temple of war was closed, and politics became a dead science, like alchemy. Henceforth, there were only economic and social questions, and scarcely any but social and economic expenditures. All the strength and activity of peoples was redirected toward economic, intellectual and moral progress. Many institutions founded or projected during the preceding reign were able to attain their full flowering. The great future glimpsed, indicated, pursued, prepared and attained in its principal developments by Napoléon III was realized. Humankind was within sight of its apogee.
“That epoch bears in history the name of ‘the century of Napoléon IV.’”
Chapter XIII
The worst of states is the popular state.
Corneille.
After a pause, the old man continued his story in these terms:
“I ought not, however, to pass over in silence the war that broke out in 1960 between Japan and England, in which the latter was submitted to rude proofs and was vanquished rather than victorious. These are the circumstances in which those remarkable events occurred.
“In contrast to China, which had not engaged in politics for centuries, except when incomers put her in a situation in which it was necessary for her to fight and sustain her interests against foreigners, the Japanese, having become unitary monarchists instead of feudal or federal, and having borrowed all their military arts from Europeans—appropriating them with an intelligence and marvelous rapidity, and even improving them—did not take long to expand outwardly. Their commerce came of its own accord to seek in European products in our ports, and their flag was soon floating over all seas. On the one hand it crossed the Pacific and visited San Francisco, Valparaiso and the Antilles, passing through the Panama Canal that linked the oceans; on the other, it traversed the seas of China and Indian and passed via Suez to reach Marseilles.
“That maritime movement caused the Japanese to feel the necessity of having staging posts for rest and reprovisioning, and colonies. They therefore cast their eyes first upon Formosa, which is near the Liou-Tchou islands and linked by them to the large Japanese islands; they remembered that at the beginning of the eighteenth century they had founded establishments in Formosa, and the conquest was resolved.
“Brawls having taken place between Japanese merchants and Formosans that the authorities had supported, and the cabinet in Peking not having given the government the satisfactions demanded, the latter announced its intention to ‘occupy’ Formosa until the dispute was settled. Words were swiftly followed by action, and without overmuch noise, but resolutely, fifteen thousand well-armed Japanese, supported by a few armored frigates and two monitors, disembarked at Kiloung, rapidly took possession of the principal points of the country and fortified them.
“England was violently moved by that assumption of possession, which clearly threatened to be permanent, and was surely only the first step on a path at whose end her colonial and commercial interests and her influence might well be compromised, since Formosa controlled the route to Shanghai. She supported the representations of the Chinese government and made her own. It was in vain; long negotiations had no other effect than to permit the Japanese to install themselves strongly in their new territory. England then armed, and, in spite of the pacific offices of France, war broke out.
An Anglo-Chinese expedition attempted, unsuccessfully, to expel the Japanese troops from Formosa. Considerable forces bombarded Yeddo; but at the same time, an armored Japanese squadron suddenly appeared at the mouth of the Thames and sowed fear there.
“England judged that the proportions the struggle was taking were no longer in proportion to the importance of the motive, great as it was, and peace was made under our mediation. Formosa was neutralized, and China, Japan, England and France would have the right to construct identical maritime establishments there. But it was agreed that in case of conflict between Japan and Korea, none of the signatories of the treaty would intervene. Since then, Korea has become Japanese territory. The objective of the Japanese statesmen was not attained, however, and now it is the Philippines that are menaced.
“It remains for me to say a few words about other important transformations that have been accomplished among various peoples.
“Firstly, let’s talk about Canada. A long infiltration by people from the United States rendered that territory, originally so French, Anglo-Saxon, at the same time as, by virtue of an analogous fact, corroborated by cunning and violence, Mexico was subjected to the same fate. In that event, England applied the colonial politics that she had commenced to practice in 1863, when she had renounced Corfu; she meekly allowed the link to be broken that united her with her offspring, being of the opinion that there was no more advantage to be gained, by sustaining a formidable and uncertain war in order to keep it in hand, than by peacefully exchanging its products with it and with the great Republic, and importing and exporting merchandise of every sort under the British flag.
“Those various annexations had an expected effect on the Pacific coast; the United States were revolutionized from top to bottom. Radical differences of race, mores, tastes, ideas and, above all, interests, emerged between the North, the South and the West, which had been rapidly populated and enriched. In those respects, the people of each region had almost nothing in common any longer with those of the other two, and the common institutions, laws and measures were ineffective, imperfect and bastardized, either inconveniencing everyone or oppressing one part of the State to the profit of the other two. A double secession took place and three republics were founded. In their turn, too vast to have any need of a central government capable of a certain action, a certain unity of conduct and a certain coherence of views, and the threat of decomposition into elements too small not to produce a general debilitation, fatigued by the excesses of an absolute liberty—which is to say, a theoretical liberty contrary to practical life, apparent, fictitious and deceptive—the three republics were gradually transformed into monarchies governed by princes descended from European dynasties.
“The republics of South America suffered the same fate.
“You know what became of those unfortunate countries: a perpetual mobility of legislation, an insecurity and continuous disturbance, disorders of every sort, a permanent civil war, interrupted by a few brief truces but never by peace—in brief, a bloody anarchy maintained by adventurers ambitious to the point of folly and ferocity: that, in broad, strokes, is the picture formed by the history of those countries since their foundation. Yes, even the War of Independence, for it’s necessary not to be seduced by the idea that their existence had its origin in a great act of emancipation. Of one look at that history closely one only sees, from the first days of the struggle, from 1810 onwards, petty rivalries of wretched individuals, cynical egotisms and atrocious and unjustified hatreds; everything is petty and repulsive; patriotism and ideas of independence counted for very little in the movement, to say nothing of the indecisions, the inconsistencies, the incapacities, and the illegality and illegitimacy of actions of every sort, of governments and constitutions.
“What was the superior and essential cause of the duration of that deplorable state? The deadly political regime that had been inflicted upon them: the Republic.
“In fact, the immediate and local causes of the
evil were the vastness of the territories, in consequence of which, the cities being situated at enormous distances from one another, the action of government needed to be very forceful in order to make itself felt; the sparseness and incoherence of populations; the antipathy of the juxtaposed races; the rivalry of cities that, by virtue of their desire for particular independence, tended to an infinitesimal fragmentation of States; the traditions of the former regime put in the presence of the most extravagant formulae of European demagoguery; the lack of political education; the effervescence, not to say the fermentation, of personal ambitions; and finally, the passionate vivacity of the Iberian race.
“Now, those principles, which had been mortal for the eight great Latin republics and the five small ones, had not been dangerous in Brazil, the State that, precisely because of its immensity, ought to have suffered the most. That was because it was sheltered by a crown.
“I have to hand an opinion emitted in 1853 before the Brazilian parliament by one Soares de Sousa,25 if I’m not mistaken, who strove to disculpate the Latin peoples of America. ‘Let us not condemn our neighbors,’ said the Minister of Foreign Affairs, ‘let us not blame them for their condition; let us remember the circumstances that have accompanied their emancipation; let us recall that we would probably have suffered the same fate, that the Empire would have been similarly broken up, that we would have fallen into the same dissensions, of, at the time of our independence, we had not a man born of royal blood here, and with that man a great principle. Let us remember that the same thing could still have happen to us if, at the time of his abdication, Dom Pedro I had not left a child here, and with that child the great principle that has saved us.’
“I will add that the Brazilian constitution, which dates from 1825, is in reality the most ancient that is in vigor in the entire world. For a long time, England’s has only been ancient from the historical viewpoint, for in reality, not the slightest fragment of it remaining standing in the nineteenth century.
“But what of Chile? If it was troubled between 1817 and 1830, at least it has maintained a relatively calm and prosperous situation since then. That is because of its geographical configuration: it forms a littoral strip some sixty leagues broad; it was not in one of those conditions that the republic has rendered mortal in all the other States; the population accumulated between the Andes and the sea was much more compact and much more in the hands of the government than any of the populations disseminated in the solitudes that extend from the Rio del Norte to Patagonia; the governmental bond was therefore able to relax with less peril. The Chileans however, have not been sufficiently exempt from sterilizing agitations not to understand the benefits of monarchy.
“As for Paraguay, if, since its emancipation, although a republic, it has found itself, with regard to internal order, in an entirely satisfactory situation, it is because the republican regime was only one in name, while the most absolute monarchy was the reality. Which proves that, outside of the constitutional monarchy exercised by a prince born in the purple, the unlimited despotism of an individual was the sole combination that permitted an American State to escape anarchy. Another proof in support of that assertion is that the brief periods of repose that the Latin republics have enjoyed from time to time have only been due to the energetic action of dictators.
“All those States, therefore, which are now as populous as Europe, have sagely formed monarchies and now enjoy the advantages that are only given by a political organization such that the power is strong enough to do good and prevent evil, liberty weak enough not to hinder the action of government toward good, but strong enough to stimulate it, the authority being the executive, and liberty being the control and the stimulant. The foremost of its advantages is peace, order and security, without which the liberty of labor, the liberty of expansion of all individual forces, true Liberty, does not exist.
“To complete what I have told you about that country—and, as you see, I am taking to you without much order and coherency, as facts and considerations present themselves to my mind—it is as well that you know that Brazil has completely absorbed Uruguay, and that its frontier extends to the Rio de la Plata.
“But let’s return to Europe.
“If one disengaged humanity from the various and multiple aspects with which time and place dress it, if, by exploring the route that it has traveled, one turns one’s eyes away from the obstacles it has encountered, the ruins of which persist, one is struck by the grandiose unity of its destinies. Almost simultaneously, all the peoples of a region—Europe, Asia, America—undergo the same transformation. To begin with, Greek civilization expands over Italy, Egypt and Asia Minor; everything there, at a given time—arts, letters, sciences, politics—is imprinted with the Hellenic genius. Later, it is Rome, military and juridical, that marks everything with its stamp. Then it is the reign of the Church and feudalism. Then comes the struggle between the lords and the king; unitary power is founded and everything fades away before it. But to triumph over the nobility it was necessary to raise up the commons and find support therein; a day comes when, after having been effaced by the majesty of the sovereign, they reappear, and, strong in their turn, demanding their share of liberty. Combat is engaged; the monarchy succumbs; power passes into the hands of a mixed and median aristocracy. Finally, the petty rise up, universal suffrage is attained; Europe is democratic. And in the principal stages of that long march, all the peoples have found themselves, at the same time or very nearly, feudal, monarchic, bourgeois and democratic.
“Russia, for it’s her that I want to come to, has gone through all these phases, like the other nations that live on our continent. Alexander II dealt the final blow to the nobility and emancipated the serfs; he found at first, among them, submission, gratitude and support, but when they no longer had anything to fear from the boyars, when they had received the benefits of their independence, when a large number of them had become rich tradesmen and important proprietors, when a middle class, previously unknown in Russia, had formed, it wanted, as it had an interest in it, to count in the State, and it was necessary to open the doors of power to it; an aristocracy of money was constituted, the true principle of which is broadly, if not radically, democratic, since nothing is more mobile than riches, and yesterday’s beggar might perhaps be tomorrow’s millionaire. Eventually, and rapidly, pure democracy replaced it.
“Russia, and with her England, Prussia, Austria, Italy, Spain, Turkey, Egypt and Persia thus became, like France, and shortly after her for the most part, monarchies based on universal suffrage, on equality and liberty.
Chapter XIV
Vox populi...
“Now you’ll ask me how, from so high, we have fallen so low?
“We slid down a gradual slope.
“But before acquainting you with the social history of Europe, before retracing the events that have led all the peoples to that condition in which you find us, I want to tell you a little about the internal history of France. That way, I shall detach from my story one of its particular aspects, and we can proceed from the particular to the general.
“1789 was a political and social revolution; it destroyed both the absolute monarchy and political and civil castes.
“The Empire consecrated its work while sacrificing the liberty of which the country as weary, by which it was horrified because of the crimes committed in its name.
“The hazard of battles overthrew the Empire; the Bourbons returned to France in the bloody footprints of the allies and remounted the throne of their forefathers under the protection of the bayonets of those that France had been fighting for twenty-five years.
“Certainly, Europe had not made war on us with the objective of restoring them, and had little enthusiasm for placing the crown of France on their head; but the mere coincidence of our defeat and their reinstallation left no room in the hearts of the majority of Frenchmen for the slightest favorable impression. Almost forgotten for ten years, accept with mistrust after the first impulse of
joy the change brought and above all caused by the prospect of peace, suffered with impatience and anger, the Bourbons did not take long to be hated. France could not be reconciled the idea that the scepter of the man who had covered it with glory, for whom so much blood had been shed, and who had been the incarnation of the revolution and the people, could be in the hands of those who had cursed our victories and the revolution. They were considered as enemies, as foreign conquerors, as oppressors. The presence of the Bourbons, a monument to our defeat, was a permanent outrage.
“The foreign habits and mores of the émigrés, their pretentions, their arrogance, their passions and their foolish threats aggravated those sentiments. And no matter what Louis XVIII, an arrogant but clever prince, did, conceding fairly considerable liberties, especially at the emergence from the imperial regime, containing and discontenting the Court and the Vendée, every day saw France’s aversion for its former dynasty increase.
“The situation soon became impossible. The liberties demanded were only pretexts for attacks; the liberties conceded were only weapons in the hands of the Bourbons’ enemies. There were conspiracies everywhere; they could not live with liberty. They tried reaction, which had no greater success. No, in addition to an incompatibility of humor, tastes and ideas that separated the people from the royal family, and above all its entourage, there was on the side of France an absolute, preconceived antipathy, ardently maintained, which it was impossible to cure. Those unfortunate princes could have given everything and it would have been deemed insufficient; people only wanted one thing: that they should go. Charles X issued his orders and was expelled; if he had not done so, if he had surrendered all liberties, he would still have been expelled. The July Revolution was a revolution of blind passion, a revenge taken by deeply wounded national sentiment—a grave fault, involving many dangers, which might have led liberty and France to ruin, if the era of revolutions had not subsequently been closed in time.
The Humanisphere Page 24
