ve been so
conscientious as he was, in the labour that he bestowed upon subjects
which he held to be worthy of deliberate scrutiny and consideration. His
defect was in finding too few of such subjects, and in having too many
foregone conclusions. Turgot and Montesquieu are perhaps the only two
eminent men in France during this part of the century, of whom the same
defect might not be alleged. Again, Condorcet's impatience of underlying
temperament did not prevent him from filling his compositions with
solid, sober, and profound reflections, the products of grave and
sustained meditation upon an experience, much of which must have been
severely trying and repugnant to a man of his constitution. While
recognising this trait, then, let us not overstate either it or its
consequences.

The main currents of opinion and circumstance in France, when Condorcet
came to take his place among her workers, are now well understood. The
third quarter of the century was just closing. Lewis XV. died in 1774;
and though his death was of little intrinsic consequence, except as the
removal of every corrupt heart is of consequence, it is justly taken to
mark the date of the beginning of the French Revolution. It was the
accidental shifting of position which served to disclose that the
existing system was smitten with a mortal paralysis. It is often said
that what destroyed the French kingdom was despotism. A sounder
explanation discovers the causes less in despotism than in
anarchy--anarchy in every department where it could be most ruinous. No
substantial reconstruction was possible, because all the evils came from
the sinister interests of the nobles, the clergy, or the financiers; and
these classes, informally bound together against the common weal, were
too strong for either the sovereign or the ablest minister to thrust
them aside. The material condition of France was one of supreme
embarrassment and disorder, only curable by remedies which the political
and social condition of the country made it impossible to employ.

This would explain why a change of some sort was inevitable. But why was
the change which actually took place in that direction rather than
another? Why did not France sink under her economical disorders, as
greater empires than France had done? Why, instead of sinking and
falling asunder, did the French people advance with a singleness of
impulse unknown before in their history to their own deliverance? How
was it tha