Auguste Comte: An Intellectual Biography

This page intentionally left blank

This volume begins to explore the life and works of Auguste Comte during his so-called second career, the controversial period that began in 1842 and lasted until his death. This volume covers the years from 1842 to 1852, when Comte transformed his positive philosophy into a political and religious movement. It represents the first in-depth study of that movement. Focusing on key books, such as the Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, Mary Pickering connects Comte’s intellectual development to the tumultuous historical context and to episodes in his personal life, especially his famous relationship with Clotilde de Vaux. The book examines for the first time why workers, doctors, women, and famous writers, such as John Stuart Mill, George Henry Lewes, and Emile Littr´e, were drawn to his thought. Mary Pickering is Professor of History at San Jos´e State University. The author of Auguste Comte: An Intellectual Biography, Volumes I, II, and III, she has published in Journal of the History of Ideas, Journal of Women’s History, Historical Reflections, Revue philosophique, and Revue internationale de philosophie.

Auguste Comte

AUGUSTE COM TE An Intellectual Biography, Volume II

mary pickering San Jos´e State University

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo, Delhi, Dubai, Tokyo Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521513258 © Mary Pickering 2009 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provision of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published in print format 2009

ISBN-13

978-0-511-59491-5

eBook (EBL)

ISBN-13

978-0-521-51325-8

Hardback

Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of urls for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. Information regarding prices, travel timetables, and other factual information given in this work are correct at the time of first printing, but Cambridge University Press does not guarantee the accuracy of such information thereafter.

To Hank

Contents

Acknowledgments Abbreviations and Notes

page xi xiii

Introduction 1 1843–1844: The Battle against the Pedantocracy 2 Tensions in Comte’s Relationships, 1842–1846 3 Clotilde de Vaux and the Initial Encounter with Comte 4 The Muse’s Tragic End 5 Pain and Recognition 6 The Revolution of 1848 7 Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme 8 Personal and Professional Disappointments 9 The Early Development of the Religion of Humanity 10 The Development of the Positivist Movement Conclusion

1 15 70 133 183 230 266 335 414 453 516 581

Bibliograpy Index

587 615

ix

Acknowledgments

Bringing this thirty-year enterprise to a close requires at least thirty pages of thanks. However, to spare the reader, the publisher, and myself that ordeal, I will limit my words of gratitude. I would like to thank the late Donald Fleming, my history adviser at Harvard, for first suggesting that I write a biography of Auguste Comte. Little did we know in 1978 that it would take almost my entire life to cover Comte’s. I am very grateful to all the people at the Maison d’Auguste Comte with whom I have worked: Sybil de Acevedo, Isabel PratasFrescata, Gilda Anderson, and more recently, the extremely helpful and kind Aur´elia Giusti. Bruno Gentil, the current president of the International Association of the Maison d’Auguste Comte, has also been very generous with his knowledge and support. The former president, the late Trajano Bruno de Berrˆedo Carneiro, encouraged me too. My thanks also go to the staffs of the Biblioth`eque Nationale, Biblioth`eque de l’Arsenal, Archives Nationales, Archives de Paris, Archives D´epartementales du Rhˆone, Archives Municipales de Lyon, archives of the Ecole Polytechnique (especially Claudine Billoux), Bancroft Library at the University of California (especially Susan Snyder), Balliol Library at Oxford University, Bodleian Library at Oxford University, Harris Manchester College Library at Oxford University (especially Susan Killoran), British Library, British Library of Political and Economic Science at the London School of Economics, University of Birmingham Library, New York Public Library, and Houghton Library at Harvard University (especially Jennie Rathbun). I am grateful to these libraries for permitting me to publish material from their archives. In addition, I reworked material from an essay in the New Biography (published by University of California Press) and from articles that I published in the Journal of Women’s History, Historical Reflections, Revue internationale de philosophie, and Revue philosophique. I thank UC Press and these publications. The Comte scholars Shin Abiko, Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent, Michel Bourdeau, Jean-Franc¸ois Braunstein, Anastasios Brenner, Ze¨ıneb Ben Cherni-Sa¨ıd, Laurent Clauzade, Jean Dhombres, Maria Donzelli, Mike Gane, Juliette Grange, the late Oscar Haac, Johan Heilbron, Ang`ele Kremer-Marietti, the late Mirella Larizza, Annie Petit, H´elgio Trindade, Jean-Claude Wartelle, and Kaat Wils have helped me a great deal. I have appreciated their insights and friendship. xi

xii

Acknowledgments

Moreover, I am grateful for the assistance I received from the French government and the Institut Franc¸ais de Washington, which supported my research in Paris during the academic year 1983–4. Later I was very fortunate to receive a Fellowship for College Teachers and Independent Scholars from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), which allowed me to begin writing this volume in 1991–2. I would also like to thank Pace University and especially San Jos´e State University for granting me released time from teaching. San Jos´e State has given me two sabbaticals to write this book. At every step of the way, colleagues, chairs, and deans at San Jos´e State have been remarkably supportive of my research. Both the History Department and the College of Social Sciences have given Cambridge University Press substantial subventions to facilitate the publication of this book. I am extremely grateful in particular to Jonathan Roth, George Vasquez, and Tim Hegstrom for finding ways to give me time and financial backing. In addition, my colleagues Mike Conniff, Jack Bernhardt, Margo McBane, and Diane Baker, as well as my former students Thomas Abel and Laura Laife, have aided me in innumerable ways. Outside of San Jos´e State, Jo B. Margadant, Karen Offen, Londa Schiebinger, Lorenza Sebesta, Kathleen Kete, Lynn Wardley, George Sheridan, Edward Castleton, Takashi Sugimoto, and Christine Williams have given me important insights and tips on finding letters and other sources. Naomi Andrews and Jonathan Beecher gave me outstanding advice at all stages of the writing of the manuscript. David and Nicole Manson and Jim and Sylvie Owen always graciously welcomed me to their apartments during my research trips to Paris. My editor, Frank Smith, wins kudos for waiting patiently for fifteen years for this second volume. I thank him profusely for allowing me the space to develop Comte’s story in the proper manner. He has been an exemplary editor. William H. Stoddard, Peter W. Katsirubas and Donna Weiss were gracious and wise in polishing and preparing the manuscript for publication. Steve Siebert at Nota Bene helped with the index. Others who have been encouraging include John and Dawn Pickering, Peter and JoAnne Blasko, Hank and Betty Lauricella, Sherling Lauricella, Sheila Asher, Trish Kubal, Juana Schurman, Tony Ligamari, Edith Tobin, Lucy Gray, and David Thomson. I would also like to remember my parents, Helen and Alec Pickering, who sadly died before this biography was completed. Finally, I give a huge thanks to my three children, Nicolas, Natalia, and Michael Lauricella, and most of all to my husband, Hank Lauricella, who for thirty years has teased me about the “other man” in our marriage. Words cannot express my gratitude to him for never doubting that I would finish this biography and for helping me graciously every step of the way.

Abbreviations and Notes

abbreviations Although short titles have generally been used in the citations, several abbreviations warrant explanation: AN BN CG

EP MAC RO

Archives Nationales Biblioth`eque Nationale Auguste Comte: Correspondance g´en´erale et confessions. Edited by Paulo E. de Berrˆedo Carneiro, Pierre Arnaud, Paul Arbousse-Bastide, and Ang`ele Kremer-Marietti. 8 vols. Paris: Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, 1973– 90. Archives of the Ecole Polytechnique Archives of the Maison d’Auguste Comte, Paris La Revue Occidentale note s

The correspondence of Comte has been moved to the Biblioth`eque Nationale, where it is available on microfilm.The letters from Comte are in N.a.fr. 27092–27096. The letters to Comte are in N.a.fr. 27099– 27120. Copies of the letters are kept in the MAC. I have referred to them in the MAC, where I first consulted them in their original form in the 1980s. For pictures of Comte and his apartment, see the Web site of the Maison d’Auguste Comte: http://www.augustecomte.org. Emmanuel Lazinier, the president of the International Positivist Society, also maintains an interesting Web site: http://membres.lycos.fr/clotilde.

xiii

Introduction

The task of the modern era was the realization and humanization of God – the transformation and dissolution of theology into anthropology. Ludwig Feuerbach

In 2005, an American conservative weekly, Human Events, published a list of the “ten most harmful books of the 19th and 20th centuries.” Not surprisingly, Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, and Mao Zedong’s Quotations (Little Red Book) earned the first, second, and third spots, respectively. What was remarkable was that the eighth most dangerous book was the Cours de philosophie positive (1830–42), Auguste Comte’s first masterpiece. This book introduced Comte’s philosophy of positivism, which Human Events considered a threat to society because it denied the existence of God, asserting that “man alone, through scientific observation, could determine the way things ought to be.”1 Curiously, in 2003, the well-known French author and critic of liberalism Michel Houellebecq commended Comte: “Of all the structures produced by a society which do their part in establishing it, religion appears to him to be the most important, the most characteristic and the most threatened: man according to Comte can be defined approximately as a social animal of a religious type.” Comte was “one of the first to realize that the foundations of the social world were going to disappear” and that “religion as a system of explanations of the world” was obsolete. He was also “one of the first to have understood that the rational explanation of the universe must henceforth restrict itself to a more modest discourse” and “the first, absolutely, to try to give the social world a new religious basis.” This is the wonder of Auguste Comte: in a time of growing skepticism, he both opposed and favored religion, a stance that continues to confound scholars and social critics. In 1832, he proclaimed his “radical and absolute opposition to every kind of religious or metaphysical tendency.”2 Religious beliefs were 1 2

“Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries,” Human Events, May 31, 2005, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=7591 (accessed August 24, 2006). Comte to Michel Chevalier, January 5, 1832, Auguste Comte: Correspondance g´en´erale et confessions, ed. Paulo E. de Berrˆedo Carneiro, Pierre Arnaud, Paul Arbousse-Bastide, and Ang`ele Kremer-Marietti, 8 vols. (Paris: Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, 1973–90), 1:229. Hereafter, this work will be cited as CG.

1

2

Introduction

anachronistic in an age of science when “human reason” had reached its “virile state.”3 But by the 1850s, he was urging everyone to worship Humanity, creating a new religious system replete with sacraments, and referring to the increasing religiosity of humankind throughout history. The transformation of Comte’s philosophy of positivism into the Religion of Humanity, thanks to his personal experiences and the impulses of the period, is the main subject of this volume and the following one. Although the notion of worshipping Humanity has often been criticized, Michel Bourdeau recently wrote, “In a period where we speak increasingly of crimes against humanity, it is surprising that no one or almost no one thinks to ask himself what there is so singular in humanity that crimes committed against it are the object of such reprobation, as if the response is self-evident. . . . It is time to make room for a central concept of positivist sociology,” that of humanity.4 Whereas the first volume of this biography of Comte focused on his early life from his birth in 1798 to the completion of his seminal Cours de philosophie positive in 1842, the second and third volumes investigate the remaining years of his life, from 1842 to his death in 1857. This fifteen-year period constitutes the most controversial years of his development, one that is often seen to be at odds with the concerns of his younger period. One of the main arguments of this biography is that there was no sudden break in Comte’s trajectory. There was simply a “new phase of positivism,” as he pointed out himself in 1847.5 This phase saw the blossoming of the positivist doctrine that he had established in the Cours and in his various early articles. In 1847, he started transforming this philosophical system, which was founded on the sciences, into a religion, the Religion of Humanity. He remained committed to the new field of study, sociology, which he had established in the 1830s, but he now added another science to his knowledge base: morality. Cultivating “altruism,” a word he coined in 1850, morality would be the seventh science in the positivist hierarchy, which already consisted of mathematics, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, and sociology. Comte asserted that these branches of knowledge had reached their definitive form because they were based on the positive, or scientific, method. Thus their scientific laws must be based on observation and must explain how, not why, natural and social phenomena function. He tweaked his scientific system into a religion by demonstrating that all the sciences, as well as all our activities and feelings, should in the future be directed toward 3 4

5

Comte to Armand Marrast, January 7, 1832, CG, 1:233. Michel Bourdeau, “Science de l’homme ou science de l’humanit´e,” Auguste Comte et l’id´ee de science de l’homme, ed. Michel Bourdeau and Franc¸ois Chazel (Paris: L’Harmattan, 2002), 294. Comte to Henri de Tholouze, December 18, 1847, CG, 4:130. See also Comte to Barbot de Chement, September 13, 1846, CG, 4:130.

Introduction

3

society, the subject of sociology. Comte had always believed that a unifying creed regulated the social order. Now he complemented that single belief-system based on the sciences with social practices founded largely on the emotions. Social harmony depended not only on intellectual consensus but also on emotional solidarity. The positivist religion encompassed both a common belief-system and the ritualistic, socializing processes that brought people together around the worship of society. Michel Foucault portrays the importance of the social body as a replacement for the king’s body after the latter was decapitated during the French Revolution: “It’s the body of society which becomes the new principle in the nineteenth century. It is this social body which needs to be protected, in a quasi-medical sense.”6 Lynn Hunt likewise points to the “sacred void” that was left after the king disappeared.7 Comte in a sense put society in that space; society needed to be venerated, just as the king had been. From that worship could emerge essential moral values and emotional bonds. Comte dared suggest that religion could exist without God and that a secular religion could embody a moral system.8 Comte brilliantly underscored the specificity of society as a real entity with its own regularities that could be captured by scientific laws and as a possible object of worship. Donald Levine writes, “In Comte’s view, . . . society is ‘essential’ in three senses: the term refers to a real being with essential properties, it is required as an object of attachment in order to establish moral guidelines, and it is necessary for instilling the moral values needed to sustain the social order.” In Comte’s opinion, moral values were needed not only to secure order but to guide progress. They thus helped maintain the cohesion of the social body and its advancement. Moral values were inculcated by “social institutions” such as the family, which developed feelings of attachment and veneration, and religion, which cultivated the love of Humanity.9 In the future positivist society, everyone would worship Humanity, working to improve society as a whole; the earth, upon which society depended; and even human nature itself. The story of Comte’s last fifteen years thus fits into competing interpretations of the narrative of the nineteenth century. First of 6

7 8

9

Michel Foucault, Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977, ed. Colin Gordon, trans. Colin Gordon, Leo Marshall, John Mepham, and Kate Soper (New York: Pantheon,1980), 55. Lynn Hunt, The Family Romance of the French Revolution (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992), 3. Michel Bourdeau perceptively notes that Comte deserves credit for having seen “the necessity of asking the question: which religion will exist after the death of God?” Michel Bourdeau, “Auguste Comte et la religion positiviste: Pr´esentation,” Revue des Sciences philosophiques et th´eologiques 87 (2003): 20. Donald Levine, Visions of the Sociological Tradition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), 167. See also 169.

4

Introduction

all, his tale attests to the growing “secularization of the European mind.”10 The Church itself had been under attack since the French Revolution for abusing its wealth, power, and position. Many critics of the Establishment sought to create a more tolerant, just, and pluralistic society and found religion to be a hindrance in their campaign. Industrialization and the accompanying process of urbanization led to a decline in churchgoing. Advances in Biblical scholarship and increasingly compelling scientific explanations of natural phenomena challenged Christian revelation. Thinkers such as Karl Marx and Thomas Huxley completely removed theology, if not God, from their philosophies. Ludwig Feuerbach suggested that man created God. As one scholar has noted, philosophers of the nineteenth century believed that “the duty of the modern age was the humanization of God, who was merely a projection of man’s own inner nature.”11 Indeed, man himself was increasingly the focus of knowledge.12 With the science of society at its core, Comte’s doctrine is often labelled secular humanism. Claude Nicolet, the French historian of republicanism, commended Comte’s positivism for being humanistic because it confirmed the power of man to save himself and to reach his potential by using his reason, a human faculty.13 There was nothing beyond man, that is, humanity, and everyone had to work to improve life on this earth rather than pray for eternal salvation.14 As suggested above, secularization was linked to the growing domination of the sciences, which formed the core of positivism. The nineteenth century saw the triumph of scientists, who had taken power for the first time in the French Revolution. Michel Serres writes about this period, An astronomer was Mayor of Paris, the inventor of topology was at the head of the Committee for Public Health, the scholars occupied the institutions before the people did and in their place, and a geometrician, although a minor, gained the title of Emperor. The nobility and the clergy collapsed, society no longer lived according to the same divisions or the same offices, scientists at last formed a class or a genus, replacing the clerics and forming a new Church.15 10

11 12 13 14 15

This phrase comes from Heinrich Hermelink. See Owen Chadwick, The Secularization of the European Mind in the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 11. Richard Tarnas, The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding the Ideas That Have Shaped Our World View (New York: Ballantine Books, 1991), 310. Michel Foucault, The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences (New York: Random House/Vintage Books, 1973), 386–7. Claude Nicolet, L’Id´ee r´epublicaine en France: Essai d’histoire critique (Paris: Gallimard, 1982), 501. Juliette Grange, Introduction to Politique d’Auguste Comte (Paris: Payot, 1996), xi. Michel Serres, Introduction to A History of Scientific Thought: Elements of a History of Science, ed. Michel Serres (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1995), 13.

Introduction

5

Comte’s promotion of positivist philosophers as the new spiritual power in the coming “positive era” – the third stage of history when positivism would triumph – attests to the importance of scientists in the nineteenth century. Their status was changing; the old patronage system was dying as scientific careers were becoming professionalized.16 Comte tried to find his place among the new scientists, as reflected in his various campaigns to enter the Academy of Sciences and to land a position at the Ecole Polytechnique and the Coll`ege de France in order to bolster his authority. But his attempt to achieve academic recognition foundered, and he ended up a scientific bohemian, living at the margins of the scientific establishment and caught in a series of vicious circles. Unconnected by family ties or powerful friends to the scientific elite and unwilling to compromise his integrity, he could not make the patronage system work for him. Nor could he meet the new impersonal professional standards that required specialization and research publications without sacrificing his philosophical mission. His ambivalence toward scientists, which was apparent early in his career, became more marked. He wanted scientists to advance but also to become less specialized, less isolated, and less interested in their own careers – in effect, to reject the demands of professionalization. He urged scientists to become more devoted to the needs of the entire community, an idea that ran against the new individualism of the capitalist, liberal age. He may not have been a democrat in politics but in a sense he was one in the academic world, for he believed the interests of the people should be at the forefront of research. The true scientific spirit had to be an extension of common sense. With their jargon and arrogance, scientists distanced themselves too much from the public. Comte’s constant criticism of scientists on these points incurred their enmity. But the positivist doctrine, which was based on the sciences, could not triumph if it did not get the stamp of approval of the scientists. He could not gain legitimacy for his anti-elitist views, which prioritized the needs of the entire community, unless he was part of the elite body of scientists. Unable to resolve the quandary, he presented himself as a martyr, persecuted by scientists, especially mathematicians, who he believed were fearful of positive philosophy because it criticized their dominance and threatened to rob them of their prestigious posts once it triumphed and rearranged society so that social interests prevailed over individuals’ selfish concerns. Besides fitting into the narrative of the growing importance of the sciences and their influence on the emerging secular mind, 16

Robert Fox, “Science, the University, and the State in Nineteenth-Century France,” in Professions and the French State, 1700–1900, ed. Gerald L. Geison (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984), 66–7, 73; Maurice Crosland, Science under Control: The French Academy of Sciences 1795–1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 28–30.

6

Introduction

Comte’s system demonstrates in an apparently contradictory fashion the inherent religiosity of the period. The French Revolution and Napoleon’s efforts to control, if not persecute, the Catholic Church, had caused a dip in religious practices. During the Restoration, religion made a comeback, but the vehement anticlericalism of twenty years had left its mark. Religious ideas became truly acceptable and widespread again only beginning in the 1840s. New religious orders were founded, and new religious schools proliferated thanks to the Loi Falloux of 1850, which allowed freedom of instruction. Religious fervor was reflected in the apparitions of the Virgin in 1846 and 1858. The notion of the Immaculate Conception became a dogma in 1854.17 Even leftist movements registered the revived Christianity of the period. Eager to help the working class and women, many early socialists tried to reestablish Christianity in a new, more egalitarian form.18 Beginning in the1830s, new churches were established, most notably that of the Saint-Simonians, who were inspired by the Nouveau Christianisme (1825) of Henri de Saint-Simon, Comte’s former employer.19 Influenced by conservative thinkers and their own Catholic upbringing, Saint-Simon and other French socialists, such as Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, wanted society to be directed by moral values. K. Steven Vincent writes, “Employing notions of ‘civic virtue’ and ‘civil religion’ . . . , the socialists were able to fashion a progressive social theory which was strongly moral – even spiritual.”20 Although Comte preferred the value of fraternity to that of equality, he felt much affinity to these republican socialists, whom he saw as his chief rivals in trying to guide society to do more for the common people. But unlike many of them, he boldly sought to disassociate morality from a religion based on God. As Michel Serres points out, Comte glimpsed that “there exists something exterior even to the self-sustaining totality, and the second is founded upon the first. He calls this foundation religious. And he is right, even if it is no more than the immanence of humanity or of the Great-Being in itself.”21 Working for the benefit of humanity in a spirit of fraternity became the basis of the positivist morality. In an age preoccupied with the ability of the sciences to transform the world, he reminded people of the ethical dimensions of 17 18 19 20 21

G´erard Cholvy, Etre chr´etien en France au XIXe si`ecle, 1790–1914 (Paris: Seuil, 1997), 29, 30, 168. Naomi J. Andrews, Socialism’s Muse: Gender in the Intellectual Landscape of French Romantic Socialism (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, Lexington Books, 2006), 17. Paul B´enichou, Le Temps des Proph`etes: Doctrines de l’ˆage romantique (Paris: Gallimard, 1977), 269. K. Steven Vincent, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican Socialism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984), 6. Michel Serres, “Paris 1800,” in A History of Scientific Thought: Elements of a History of Science, ed. Michele Serres (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1995), 453.

Introduction

7

their employment. Comte might have been impressed by the sciences, which helped us explain the world on rational, demonstrable grounds, but he was adamant about recognizing the limits of their power. Thus contrary to the opinion expressed in Human Events, he asserted that we need to adjust to an age of diminished expectations because he realized there was a great deal that individuals could not change, as Houellebecq pointed out. Although he seemed to uphold the importance of the individual as a contributor to civilization, he worried about rampant individualism, as many republican socialists did as well.22 To him, egoism was the typical nineteenth-century disease – a disease that had to be overcome by altruism. Struck by the alienating effects of the Industrial Revolution on workers and the new imperialistic drives of his fellow Europeans, whose exuberant nationalism he found disturbing, Comte seemed to be among the few nineteenth-century thinkers eager to promote cosmopolitanism and what Daniel Gordon calls the “culture of sociability,” which was prominent in the eighteenth century. The philosopher Paul Henri Thiry, baron d’Holbach, for example, wanted the feeling of humanity to be universal.23 Comte condemned individualism, specialization, liberalism, unregulated capitalism, imperialism, and nationalism because he believed that they diminished sociability or the sentiment of our common humanity. Although a prophet of progress, he seemed dismayed by the future direction of the world. According to him, people were too enamored of rationality and had forgotten the importance of the emotions and of human connections. More than other political theorists, such as Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, and Montesquieu, he attempted to find ways to bring people together on an affective plane.24 His emphasis on the interconnectedness of individuals reflects the new forms of civil society that were emerging after the French Revolution. Comte sought to channel the growing impulses toward sociability that appeared in the bourgeoisie’s exclusive reading clubs, salons, and cercles as well as in the vibrant voluntary associations and clubs that grew up among workers in the first half of the nineteenth century.25 He wanted to accelerate and direct this proliferation of new social organizations by fostering positivist salons, clubs, temples, and so forth. Andrew Wernick recently criticized Comte not only for creating a system where people seemed connected mainly by their devotion to Humanity but also for not exploring different types of 22 23 24 25

Vincent, Proudhon, 6. Daniel Gordon, Citizens without Sovereignty: Equality and Sociability in French Thought, 1670–1789 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 42, 66. On these philosophers, see Hunt, Family Romance, 4. Maurice Agulhon, “Working Class and Sociability in France before 1848,” in The Power of the Past: Essays for Eric Hobsbawm, ed. Pat Thane, Geoffrey Crossick, and Roderick Floud (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 51, 58–9.

8

Introduction

loving, face-to-face ties between people; Comte’s notion of the social, according to Wernick, was surprisingly not very deep.26 There is some truth to Wernick’s criticism. Nevertheless, Comte did try to foster familial relationships and relationships in the workplace. He organized society in an almost maniacal way to create spaces where sociability could blossom. Comte endeavored above all to create a tightly knit positivist movement. Deeply affected by the Revolution of 1848, he wished to participate more actively in the new political culture that was evolving at the time. He longed to be a respected leader. He yearned for disciples. Inspired by the clubs that were proliferating in Paris, he launched the Positivist Society in March 1848 to promote his ideas and prepare for the positivist takeover of power. Volumes two and three represent the first study of his movement, focusing on the means he used to attract, affect, and shape his disciples. These volumes are based on almost thirty years of research, many of them spent in the archives of Comte’s former apartment in Paris, which contain his large correspondence, and in archives in other places in France, Britain, and the United States. They look in depth at Comte’s followers, friends, and enemies to see what was attractive and offensive about his philosophy and his personality, which were intertwined. His tendency toward manic-depression often led him to tweak his ideas in sometimes offputting directions and to alienate potential followers and friends. Comte made a point of exposing his private life to public scrutiny to show that he was transparent and thus pure. This appearance of transparency was a pose of the revolutionaries, such as Maximilien Robespierre, who likewise sought legitimacy in virtuous selfrepresentations to assert their authority. Indeed, Comte’s life is a series of poses. The scholar Kali Israel recently mocked the whole biographical enterprise for being a “refuge from postmodernity, a haven in an epistemologically unsettled world.” By presenting individuals as “coherent and continuous subjects,” biographies offer “a reassuring faith in the knowability of past subjective experience and the existence of unified, if mobile and adventurous, selves.” Israel challenged biographers to recognize that they can never know their subjects because “selves are made and remade and unstable and discontinuous.”27 It is indeed hard to “know” Comte because he was constantly refashioning himself to appeal to many different audiences: workers, women, aristocrats, conservatives, and so forth. A kind of nineteenth-century drama queen, he was as inventive with regard 26 27

Andrew Wernick, Auguste Comte and the Religion of Humanity: The Post-Theistic Program of French Social Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 216–20, 263. Kali Israel, Names and Stories: Emilia Dilke and Victorian Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 17.

Introduction

9

to his own person as to his doctrine. He simply loved melodrama, which was deeply embedded in nineteenth-century French culture. The story of his life lends itself perfectly to the postmodern or “new” biography, which, according to Jo Burr Margadant, looks at “an individual with multiple selves whose different manifestations reflect the passage of time, the demands and options of different settings, or the variety of ways that others seek to represent that person.”28 This volume covers ten years of Comte’s life, from 1842 to approximately 1852. In 1852, shortly after the coup d’´etat of Louis Napoleon, Comte increasingly accentuated the conservative strain of his thought, which had begun to emerge in 1850, flummoxing many of his followers. His pursuit of new disciples, especially among conservatives, during the last five years of his life will be the subject of volume three. Volume two highlights his efforts to reforge his identity after the disappointments stemming from the poor reception of the Cours de philosophie positive and his failed marriage. During the ten-year period from 1842 to 1852, Comte was very productive, partly because unpredictable encounters and events enriched his doctrine. His relationships with new women, particularly Sarah Austin and Clotilde de Vaux; his mentorship of young men in need of guidance both professionally and spiritually; his interest in the working class; his commitment to an intellectual elite to replace the traditional clergy; and his excitement regarding the Revolution of 1848 encouraged the transformation of his doctrine into a religion and a political movement that vied with leftist reformers in attempting to solve the “social question.” Comte would elaborate on his religious and political ideas in the Syst`eme de politique positive, published in four volumes between 1851 and 1854. This work, which many scholars regard as his second masterpiece after the Cours de philosophie positive, will be analyzed in volume three. Before writing it, Comte composed four shorter works on both the sciences and on his philosophy, which will be discussed in volume two. The first two chapters of this volume discuss the works that Comte published after the Cours de philosophie positive, the problems he faced at work, and his tense personal relationships. The Cours (1830–42) consisted of six volumes covering the major sciences, including the new one, sociology. It presented a unified system of knowledge. Comte was convinced that if people had common ideas, derived from demonstrable scientific explanations, and if they learned to think in a similar, rational fashion, social unity would be enhanced. Inculcating these common ideas, education was one of the 28

Jo Burr Margadant, introduction to The New Biography: Performing Femininity in NineteenthCentury France, ed. Jo Burr Margadant (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), 7.

10

Introduction

keys to the regeneration of society. In 1843 and 1844, he published the Trait´e e´l´ementaire de g´eom´etrie analytique, a textbook on geometry; the Trait´e philosophique d’astronomie populaire, which derived from the astronomy course that he had given to workers and others since 1831; and the Discours sur l’esprit positif, which contained the philosophical preamble to that course in 1843 and summed up the tenets of positivism. Anticipating the religion that he would found several years later, he insisted in the Discours that knowledge be unified around Humanity and its needs and that it was time to reorganize morality. These chapters also investigate the challenges he faced at the Ecole Polytechnique, where he had worked since 1832. He was an admissions examiner and a r´ep´etiteur, that is, teaching assistant, for one of the two courses in analysis and mechanics. Despite Comte’s claim to be an expert on educational matters, the administrators at the Ecole Polytechnique were not pleased by his performance. In 1844, he was fired from his job of admissions examiner, although he was allowed to remain a teaching assistant. Based on archival work at the Ecole Polytechnique, these chapters treat Comte’s tense relationship with the faculty and administration, pinpointing weaknesses in his claim that his enemies were out to starve him into oblivion in revenge for his attacks on the scientific regime in the Cours. Many of their complaints about his methods and outside publications, which went against school rules, had a solid foundation. Minutes of the faculty meetings underscore the fairness of the professors in dealing with the obdurate founder of positivism. These chapters also shed light on Comte’s relationships with his old friend, Pierre Valat; his wife, Caroline Massin, from whom he separated in mid-1842; John Stuart Mill, with whom he had been corresponding since 1841; and Sarah Austin and her husband, who were friends of Mill. All of these relationships foundered. Chapter two discusses at length the effect of Comte’s friendship with Mill on the evolution of both men’s thoughts. One subject that was a frequent source of friction between the two men was “the woman question.” Their arguments over woman’s equality led the exasperated Mill to write The Subjection of Women (1869), where he indirectly condemned Comte’s misogynist position, which originated partly in wrangling with the decidedly insubordinate Caroline Massin, his wife. Sarah Austin, a famous translator whom Comte met in 1843, was similar to Massin in that she was an intelligent, independent woman who stood up to Comte and refused to accept his patronizing attitude. Nevertheless, frustrated by her reclusive husband, she enjoyed Comte’s company. Despite her constant scolding, Comte liked to be with her because he encountered few women after his wife left him. Their friendship ended when she fled France in 1848. Chapters three and four focus on one of the most dramatic episodes of Comte’s life: his unconsummated affair with Clotilde de Vaux, a young woman who died in 1846, shortly after they met.

Introduction

11

Their relationship was one of the most famous of the nineteenth century, comparable to that of John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor. Using the tools developed by feminist historians, this section makes her out to be a multidimensional figure, not the bland virtuous madonna usually featured by Comtean scholars, who present her solely as the philosopher’s muse. Henri Gouhier, the great Comtean scholar and Academician, for example, maintains that de Vaux had “nothing to teach him” except for the “education of the heart.”29 She did indeed reveal to him the richness of emotional life, which was crucial to the evolution of the Religion of Humanity. However, she was not solely responsible for the creation of that religion, which Comte imputes to her time after time. Comte’s religion would have emerged without her help because of his longtime commitment to the emotions and society and his other close relationships, but it might have been more abstract and mechanical. Nevertheless, de Vaux should not be treated simply instrumentally. These chapters shed light on her struggle to imitate other women writers of the era like George Sand. Abandoned by her husband and humiliated by having to depend on her parents for support, de Vaux sought above all to make a name for herself as a novelist and resisted Comte’s attempt to imprison her in his image of the perfect woman. Her case enriches our understanding of the frustrations experienced by many nineteenth-century bourgeois women. Her plight also spurred Comte to undertake a more serious response to the “woman question.” Like the romantic socialists, he increasingly sought to feminize society to make its members less isolated, less egoistic, and more interdependent. As Naomi Andrews explains, “Unity was a compelling focus of romantic socialist discourse,” and the “depiction of womanhood” as selfless and dependent “reflects this priority.” Like French socialists, Comte used an idealized, relational image of woman to combat social fragmentation. Like them also, he did not think of giving women their political rights, thus dooming their so-called emancipation.30 Nevertheless, thanks in part to Mill, Austin, and de Vaux, Comte in the 1850s suggested that women would have a key role in the positivist republic. Chapters five through eight revolve around Comte’s reaction to the deaths of various friends, his estrangement from his family and others close to him, and his efforts to mentor young men to compensate for his disappointments and losses and to offset his growing isolation. In this age of romanticism, where one’s identity was increasingly based on one’s emotive state, Comte found many people eager to tell him their feelings and innermost secrets. He enjoyed playing the role of confessor. 29 30

Henri Gouhier, La Jeunesse d’Auguste Comte et la formation du positivisme, 3 vols. (Paris: J. Vrin, 1933–41), 1:28. Andrews, Socialism’s Muse, xvii, xxi–xxii, 72–3.

12

Introduction

Chapter five examines Comte’s response to the death of Charles Bonnin, one of his first disciples; his break with Lenoir, another close friend, his problems with his father, Louis Comte, and his sister, Alix Comte; his relationships with several young acolytes, such as CharlesGabriel Bernard, Barbot de Chement, Pierre Laffitte, and ModesteEtienne Claudel; and his difficult time with Henri de Blainville, a scientist who had mentored him in the past. This chapter also treats the spread of positivism. Comte began to attract disciplines in Holland, and his following grew in England. The scientist Alexander Williamson and the writer George Henry Lewes, who was later close to George Eliot, were two well-respected English enthusiasts. Their support gave Comte added credibility. The most important new follower was the brilliant French lexicographer and writer Emile Littr´e, whose adherence to positivism is also examined in depth in chapter five. He wrote many reviews of Comte’s works for leading journals as well as a number of books on positivism. He would become Comte’s most influential disciple in France, one who would later help make his doctrine a foundation stone of the Third Republic. Chapter six looks at Comte’s role in the tumult of the late 1840s, when he adopted a more militant role, cemented his ties to workers, called on women for support, and confronted challenges from socialism and communism, which shared his concerns with the “social question.” In 1847 and 1848, he transformed his philosophy into a religion to broaden its appeal; he sought to attract women, who were usually considered avid churchgoers, and working-class socialists and communists, many of whom sought moral solution to social problems. A number of reformers of the 1840s used religious rhetoric to reinforce their views. Pierre Leroux, a former Saint-Simonian, made Humanity into a god. Comte was also taken with Humanity. In 1847, he started referring to the Religion of Humanity that he wished to establish. He gave several lectures of a new course on the history of humanity before it was closed by the government. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the famous socialist, was one of the auditors. In short, responding to the religious fervor of the times, Comte sought to unite more closely the members of society around a common creed that had demonstrable principles and a strong humanitarian morality. His religion did not represent an aberration because since his youth, he had asserted that a system of beliefs was a crucial integrating force in society. Now he increasingly called that system a “religion.” This chapter also shows how he became more politicized during the Revolution of 1848, which he welcomed enthusiastically. In March, he founded his club, the Positivist Society, to prepare for the coming of the positivist era in a more direct manner. It eventually comprised approximately fifty lower- and middle-class members from Paris, the provinces, and abroad. Under his direction, the Positivist Society published several policy papers on elections, education, medicine, work,

Introduction

13

and the nature of a positivist revolutionary government. One paper was written by Charles Robin, an influential doctor of the period. In the wake of the Revolution of 1848, Comte also tried unsuccessfully to establish a positivist journal, the Revue Occidentale. In an attempt to spread positivist religious and political principles, especially among workers and women, who were to be allies of positive philosophers, he wrote Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme (1848), which is treated in chapter seven. Elaborating on his introductory philosophical lectures of his astronomy course of 1847, the Discours later became part of the first volume of the Syst`eme de politique positive. For the first time, Comte began to refer routinely to his positive philosophy as “positivism” in order to represent positivism as a complete system capable of taking on the other isms of the day: Catholicism, conservatism, liberalism, socialism, and communism. His philosophy was indeed both a religion and a political movement, joined together by devotion to Humanity. He presented the improvement of Humanity as the ideal focus of all thoughts, feelings, and actions, hoping to make people not only more logical intellectually but also more sociable and energetic. Condemning both the extreme right and the extreme left, but especially the former, he urged everyone to work hard to generate society in order to make it more harmonious and peaceful. Class oppression would end if a positivist republic was set up and proletarians were truly incorporated into society. These objectives would be attained when the positivist republic was ruled by a new positivist clergy and a triumvirate of enlightened dictators, who would originate from the working class at least until the industrialists were reformed. This chapter will point out that many of Comte’s ideas, such as the dictatorship of the proletariat, were similar to those of Karl Marx. One way in which they differed was that Comte saw women as agents of social unity. Influenced by Mill, Austin, and de Vaux as well as by the discourse of contemporary feminists, he utilized the rhetoric of republican motherhood for his own purposes. Though uninterested in granting them political rights, he wanted women to be given a better education and more authority so that they could spread love throughout society. They would act as moral guardians, helping workers and positive philosophers to counter the egoism and materialism of industrialists. The cult of Woman would in fact become part of the cult of Humanity. Trying to find a middle ground between the right and left and feminizing his doctrine, Comte summed up the nature of the positivist republic with the following slogan: “Love for the principle, order for the basis, and progress for the goal.” Chapter eight continues to treat the ways in which he propagated his ideas, and it shows the personal and professional costs of his dedication. The time Comte spent fine-tuning and spreading his religion detracted from his teaching duties. This chapter examines his

14

Introduction

failures to regain his post of admissions examiner in 1848 and to obtain a chair at the Coll`ege de France. In addition, it covers his dismissal from his teaching position at the Institut Laville (a preparatory school). Emile Littr´e was so worried about Comte that he created a fund – the Positivist Subsidy – to provide him with financial support. Besides looking at Comte’s unstable professional life, this chapter examines his fluctuating political views. He did not approve of the election of Louis Napoleon as president of the Second Republic. He soon became disillusioned with the regime, which he found oppressive, weak, and ineffective. When the government tried to shut down his new course on the history of humanity in late 1849, he was in despair. Thanks to the efforts of the ever loyal Caroline Massin, who helped him secure permission from the minister of public works, his course began again in April 1850. Several hundred people attended his long lectures. During this course, he perhaps used the term “altruism” for the first time. Chapter nine focuses on the development of Comte’s religion with its new calendar, cult of the dead, temples, sacraments, and flags, which owed much to the French revolutionary and Catholic traditions. To deepen his understanding of human nature, he created a chart or tableau of the mind. Besides classifying the organs of the brain, he categorized books: he devised a Positivist Library or canon, consisting of 150 books, which he hoped his followers would read in order to develop their minds and character. As he became more dogmatic about his own beliefs and his behavior, he infuriated to a greater degree his wife, old friends (including Blainville), and family members. His movement was burgeoning and his discourse was full of references to love and sociability, but he was growing more isolated. When Blainville died and he spoke harshly of him at his funeral, some people in the audience found Comte downright cruel. Chapter ten takes a long look at some of Comte’s leading disciples, including Joseph Lonchampt, Georges Audiffrent, Auguste Hadery, and Jean-Franc¸ois-Eug`ene Robinet. It also covers the spread of his movement to England, Scotland, the United States, Italy, Belgium, Germany, and the provinces of France. In particular, Comte gathered a large following among the workers in Lyon. In addition, the chapter sheds light on Comte’s curious turn to the right, beginning in 1850. As he became more volatile and eccentric, his position at the Ecole Polytechnique, deteriorated. He lost his last job, the minor post of r´ep´etiteur in 1851. He now depended to a greater extent on the Positivist Subsidy. This reliance on public support reinforced his picture of himself as a devoted, incorruptible priest of Humanity. Deeply aware of the power of visual culture, he sought out portrait artists such as Antoine Etex to immortalize his image. Comte was remaking himself into an iconic figure.

Chapter 1

1843–1844: The Battle against the Pedantocracy

If the time of butchers and poisonings or simply that of guillotines could come back, they [the members of the pedantocracy] would dare to do everything against me because they are always motivated by the same hatreds . . . The crimes of well-bred people have . . . undergone the same radical transformation as those of the rabble, who increasingly steal instead of kill: according to this . . . fortunate influence of our civilization, one no longer can oppress . . . except [through] the purse. This is what those people have attempted to do to me. Comte, July 22, 1844

comte’s thre e projects The year 1842 was a difficult one for Comte. He was upset that the Catholic press suddenly attacked him for promoting atheism in his weekly lectures on astronomy for workers. Most of all, the great push to complete the sixth and final volume of the Cours de philosophie positive before missing yet another deadline exhausted him. For twelve years, he had experienced difficulties in balancing his teaching duties with his commitment to writing this work, which he believed would provide the basis for a reorganization of Western society. His tendency to devote all his “free” time to completing the Cours had contributed to his estrangement from his wife, who threatened to leave him. The intensity of his intellectual life and the instability of his domestic situation made him fear he would experience an attack of madness similar to the one that had sent him to an asylum in 1826. He even began to learn Spanish as a way of releasing “cerebral” energy.1 Despite his problems, he was finally able to finish the last volume on July 19, 1842. His wife left him on August 5. Comte was relieved that their “civil war” was over, but he felt isolated and lonely.2 He yearned for some free time. During the past twelve years, he had written over four thousand pages on positivism and sociology. Since 1837, the year he became an admissions officer for the prestigious engineering school the Ecole Polytechnique, he had faced constant 1

2

Caroline Massin to Comte, March 29, 1843, MAC. Comte believed that languages could be learned in a year if one was not burdened by grammar books and teachers. Comte to Hadery, December 14, 1855, CG, 8:160. Comte to John Stuart Mill, August 24, 1842, CG, 2:76.

15

16

1843–1844: The Battle against the Pedantocracy

teaching obligations, even in the summer.3 In fact, four days after finishing the Cours, Comte had to begin giving oral examinations to three hundred young men, first in Paris and then in the provinces. Once again he did not get a real vacation. When the drudgery of giving examinations was over in October, Comte immediately threw himself into a suit against Bachelier, his publisher. Bachelier had inserted into the last volume of the Cours a statement repudiating Comte’s derogatory views of scientists, especially Franc¸ois Arago, whose books Bachelier published.4 A mathematician, physicist, and astronomer, Arago was a former professor at the Ecole Polytechnique, which he headed temporarily after the Revolution of 1830. In 1830, he was made perpetual secretary of the Academy of Sciences, which was a more important position than that of president. (The presidency was only a one-year, honorary position.) From 1832 to 1844, Arago represented the Academy of Sciences in one of the main administrative bodies of the school, the Council of Improvement (Conseil de Perfectionnement). As perpetual secretary of the Academy and its representative on the Council of Improvement, he exercised more influence over the school than any other scientist, especially in the appointment of its professors. Whenever a chair became vacant, the Academy of Sciences presented to the minister of war a list of the candidates it wanted to see appointed. Due to the prestige of the Academy, its decision about who should be appointed professor at the Ecole Polytechnique had taken on more weight than the opinion of the Council of Instruction, the administrative body of the school that oversaw the selection process.5 Arago and several other important scientists, such as Louis Thenard, Denis Poisson, JeanBaptiste Biot, and Louis-Joseph Gay-Lussac, all of whom had been promoted during the Napoleonic Empire, had shaped or blocked the scientific careers of aspiring young scientists for decades.6 In the sixth volume of the Cours, Comte attacked Arago, calling his influence on the Ecole Polytechnique “disastrous.”7 Comte suggested that Arago 3 4 5

6

7

Henri Gouhier, La Vie d’Auguste Comte, 2d ed. (Paris: J. Vrin, 1965), 178. Comte to John Stuart Mill, July 22, 1842, CG, 2:57. This power to present candidates was given to the Academy in the reorganization of the school after the Revolution of 1830. It was thought that the Council of Improvement, which up to this point had been the only body to present candidates, could not by itself resist the authority of the minister of war if the latter became too strong. (In 1822, the Council indeed had been deprived of its rights by a royal ordinance.) See “Acad´emie des Sciences,” Le National, August 21, 1844, 1. Bruno Belhoste, La Formation d’une technocratie: l’Ecole Polytechnique et ses e´l`eves de la R´evolution au Second Empire (Paris: Belin, 2003), 52, 91–2; Pierre Laffitte, “Mat´eriaux pour s´ervir a` la biographie d’Auguste Comte: Carri`ere polytechnique d’Auguste Comte,” Revue Occidentale [hereafter RO] 19 (1887): 314. Auguste Comte, Physique sociale: Cours de philosophie positive, lec¸ons 46 a` 60, ed. Jean-Paul Enthoven (Paris: Hermann, 1975) [hereafter Cours, 2], 670.

Comte’s Three Projects

17

made it impossible for him to secure an academic position. There may have been some truth to his assertion. According to Bruno Belhoste, Arago managed to get many of his friends appointed to professorships at the Ecole Polytechnique: Pierre-Louis Dulong (director of studies); Charles-Franc¸ois Sturm and Joseph Liouville (professors of analysis and mechanics); F´elix Savary and his replacement, Michel Chasles (professors of geodesy); and Gabriel Lam´e (professor of physics).8 Comte became so paranoid that he even imagined that Arago, along with his young friend Liouville, had conspired to delay the completion of the Cours.9 Though Arago held sway in political and academic circles, Comte won the suit against Bachelier in December. However, for months he had not been able to sleep because of his worries about the result of the trial. When it was over, he realized that to preserve his health, especially his sanity, he had to make 1843 his year of rest. Little did he know that his sense of mission would instead lead him to wage further battles against the scientific establishment or “pedantocracy,” a term invented by his good friend John Stuart Mill. Comte also felt the need to rest in order to prepare for his next major work, a book on his political philosophy, which he had announced at the end of the Cours. He had been thinking about it since the 1820s, but he had yet to organize his ideas and formulate an outline for the four volumes he knew it would entail. He decided that he would not write anything about his political philosophy in 1843 but would limit himself to preparing it “in bed, on walks, at the theater, in short, everywhere but . . . [at his] desk.”10 He imagined that as in the past, once he had all the details of a book firmly set in his mind, he would start writing at a furious pace. He planned to complete a volume a year in order to finish the project by 1848. Then he would devote himself to his other promised works, those on the philosophy of mathematics, positive education, and humanity’s influence on nature. His greatest fear was that he would die before completing them all. He thus considered 1843 the only year free from serious philosophical writing that he would ever have.11 8

9

10 11

Bruno Belhoste, “Un Mod`ele a` l’´epreuve. L’Ecole polytechnique de 1794 au Second Empire,” in La Formation polytechnicienne 1794–1994, ed. Bruno Belhoste, A. Dahan Dalmedico, and A. Picon (Paris: Dunod, 1994), 25. Curiously, Massin remembered how “aimiable” Arago was to Comte when they used to meet at the house of a friend, Turpin. Massin to Comte, February 13, 1845, MAC. Comte to M. Bailleul, August 8, 1842, in “Alcune Lettere in´edite di Auguste Comte,” by Mirella Larizza, Il Pensiero Politico 26 (September–December 1993): 410. This letter is not in CG. Comte to Mill, November 5, 1842, CG, 2:105. Comte to Mill, July 22, 1842, CG, 2:58; Comte to Valat, November 22, 1843, CG, 2:216; Cours, 2:788–90.

18

1843–1844: The Battle against the Pedantocracy

But Comte could not bear to pass the year in idleness. To divert himself, he decided to publish three books relating to his “fundamental function,” that is, teaching.12 He had been devoted to education since he had been a substitute for his own mathematics instructor at his lyc´ee in Montpellier. After having given private mathematics lessons for years, he had become a teaching assistant (r´ep´etiteur) for the course in analysis and mechanics at the Ecole Polytechnique in 1832. (Analysis was akin to calculus.13 ) There were approximately twenty-four r´ep´etiteurs, who assisted the twelve professors by presiding over discussion groups, clarifying the course material, correcting homework, and advising the students on how to improve their performance.14 In 1836, Comte also started teaching at the Institut Laville, a preparatory school for students aspiring to be Polytechniciens.15 Popular education attracted him as well. Since 1831, he had been giving a free course on astronomy to workers and other adults in the basement of the city hall of what was then the third arrondissement, located on the rue des Petits-P`eres near the church of Notre Dame des Victoires.16 As if he were competing with Mass, he gave the course on Sundays from noon until two o’clock. The course usually went from late January to the end of July. He counted on the lectures not only to raise the level of popular instruction but to display his superior morality, thus legitimizing his role as the regenerator of the West. To him, the “slightest speech,” even if it had to do with the driest parts of mathematics, had a musical component that came from the lecturer’s or orator’s emotions and thus displayed his “moral character.”17 The first work relating to education that he intended to write was a synopsis of part of the course that he gave at the Institut Laville. The course consisted of analytical geometry in two dimensions, analytical geometry in three dimensions, advanced algebra, and 12 13 14 15

16

17

Comte to Mill, July 22, 1842, CG, 2:58. Belhoste, La Formation d’une technocratie, 232. Terry Shinn, L’Ecole Polytechnique, 1794–1914 (Paris: Presses de la Fondation National des Sciences Politiques, 1980), 46. It was located on the rue du Faubourg Saint-Jacques. Comte taught there from November 1 to May 1. Belhoste, La Formation d’une technocratie, 60; Auguste Comte, Trait´e e´l´ementaire de g´eom´etrie analytique a` deux et a` trois dimensions, contenant toutes les th´eories g´en´erales de g´eom´etrie accessibles a` l’analyse ordinaire (Paris, Carillian-Goeury et Vor Dalmont, 1843), vii. The numbers of the arrondissements were rearranged in 1860. The city hall was destroyed during Haussmann’s remodeling of Paris during the Second Empire, but if still standing, it would be in the second arrondissement today. Pierre Laffitte, ed., “Mat´eriaux pour servir a` la biographie d’Auguste Comte: Des Confessions annuelles d’Auguste Comte,” RO 17 (September/November 1886): 191. Auguste Comte, Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, ed. Annie Petit (Paris: Flammarion, 1998), 316. This edition reproduces the original of 1848. Comte made some modifications when he transformed it into the first part of volume one of the Syst`eme.

Comte’s Three Projects

19

differential calculus. In 1836, he had made a detailed outline of the course and lithographed the fifty-page brochure for distribution because he thought he taught it in a clever manner. Convinced that his innovations were already influencing teachers, he now chose to publish the “most essential” lectures, those sixty-four lessons from the first half of the course that covered analytical geometry in two and three dimensions.18 Why, one might well ask, did the founder of positivism wish to waste his precious time on what amounted to a mere textbook? The answer lies partly in his synthetic drive. As early as 1824, Comte had expressed a desire to publish “several . . . works on fundamental points of mathematics” in the intervals when he was not writing his “great philosophical works.” By attaching his concepts of mathematics to his “general ideas of positive philosophy,” he reinforced the “unity of his thought, which was a great condition for the life of a thinker.”19 Comte’s paranoia was also at work. He claimed that people had been demanding the book for years and if he did not write it, some mathematical “hacks,” who were “lying in wait,” might make some “hasty, bad compilation” of his lessons in order to make money.20 As reflected in his denunciations of plagiarists throughout the Cours, Comte believed ever since his break-up with Henri Saint-Simon that his ideas were so valuable that people were constantly conspiring to steal them from him. The truth is that Comte himself wanted to profit from publishing a new mathematical textbook that targeted students who had little background in the subject and others who were eager to learn but had no teacher.21 As his wife, Caroline Massin, pointed out, students and professors would eagerly buy the book to help prepare for the admissions test for the Ecole Polytechnique. She figured that at least six to eight hundred copies would be sold each year, bringing him eventually twenty thousand francs.22 Comte also wrote the Trait´e e´l´ementaire de g´eom´etrie analytique to prove his didactic prowess and to regenerate the teaching of mathematics in France, which mired students in a “disastrous scholastic 18

19 20 21

22

Comte to Valat, January 5, 1840, CG, 1:332. See also the document, “Institution Laville: Programme du Cours de Mr . Ate . Comte, 1836,” Archives of the Maison d’Auguste Comte, Paris [hereafter MAC]. At the end of the Trait´e e´l´ementaire de g´eom´etrie analytique, Comte appended the detailed description of the twenty-five lessons on advanced algebra and the thirty-one lessons on differential calculus that he gave at the Ecole Polytechnique in 1836 and every year at the Institut Laville. Trait´e e´l´ementaire de g´eom´etrie analytique, vii. Comte to Valat, September 8, 1824, CG, 1:121. Comte to Mme Auguste Comte, November 4, 1842, CG, 2:103. Trait´e e´l´ementaire de g´eom´etrie analytique, vi. Students did seem to use this book to study. A copy in the library at California State University, Northridge contains a student’s small notebook of mathematical formulas pasted to pages 268 and 269. Massin to Comte, November 3, 1842, MAC.

20

1843–1844: The Battle against the Pedantocracy

routine.”23 In this way, he hoped to strengthen his own position at the Ecole Polytechnique and increase his influence over the students, who he believed were a potentially important source of support.24 He was certain they appreciated him. As he had repeated in every application he made for a chair in mathematics at the Ecole Polytechnique, he believed his teaching abilities were far superior to those of the full-time professors at the school. This treatise, he claimed, would show everyone the influence that the “philosophical spirit” could have on “scientific instruction.”25 In his opinion, geometry represented both scientifically and logically the first initiation into philosophical thinking. Geometers, however, worked in a vacuum. They were so negligent of philosophy that they did not even completely grasp the impact of Descartes’ work on their own science. He would show them how to teach geometry, especially analytical geometry, which he considered “the most important, the most difficult, and the most imperfect in terms of mathematical initiation.”26 Considering that Descartes was the founder of analytical geometry, Comte in effect wanted to pay homage to the philosopher whom he considered one of his most important predecessors. As one scholar has noted, Descartes was “the first systematic positivist, in mathematics as in philosophy.”27 The second book that Comte planned to write was a treatise on astronomy, which would derive from his course on this subject. The purpose of the course was to “initiate . . . the reason of the common people into the true spirit of philosophy” and into the “scientific spirit,” especially the scientific method, which was most purely displayed in astronomy.28 As with the work on geometry, Comte wished to use the book on astronomy to prove that he was a committed and original teacher, one who was devoted to popularizing scientific knowledge. He was, in a sense, challenging Arago, who had been giving a course on astronomy in the amphitheater of the Observatory to large crowds since 1812 and had published in 1836 Lec¸ons d’astronomie, which had gone through several editions.29 Sensing rivalry with him and other popularizers of this science, which was 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Trait´e e´l´ementaire de g´eom´etrie analytique, viii. See also Comte to Valat, January 5, 1840, CG: 1:332. Comte to Mill, February 27, 1843, CG, 2:137. Comte to Mill, November 5, 1842, CG, 2:106. Trait´e e´l´ementaire de g´eom´etrie analytique, vi. Fr´ed´eric de Buzon, “Auguste Comte, Le Cogito et la modernit´e,” Revue de Synth`ese 112 ( January–March 1991): 62. Comte to Vieillard, January 13, 1849, CG, 5:3, 4. Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent, “Auguste Comte, la science populaire d’un philosophe,” Corpus: Revue de philosophie, no. 4 (1987): 143.

Comte’s Three Projects

21

all the rage in the early nineteenth century, Comte hoped his Trait´e philosophique d’astronomie populaire would become the model of “the scientific instruction of the masses.”30 Popular education was important because it helped create an intellectual consensus, the necessary foundation of a “true social system.”31 Unlike many other lecturers, he wanted to popularize science not for its own sake but to bring up broader philosophical issues and ultimately to reform society.32 Interested in the formation of his students, many of whom were workers, Comte was happy to have the time to comply with their repeated request that he write up his astronomy lectures.33 He also believed that the workers, like the young students at the Ecole Polytechnique, were the natural supporters of positivism, which held the key to resolving class conflict because it sought to incorporate the proletarians into society. With the proper scientific background, they would make good converts. Auguste Francelle, a clockmaker, affirmed that the positive philosophy was already the “object” of all his “thoughts” and his “only spiritual nourishment” after losing his faith in Catholicism.34 Comte took his questions seriously and gave him all sorts of advice. Francelle told him, “[You are] as generous as you are illustrious. I cannot tell you how many times your sublime philosophy transports me, how many times it makes me dream, and how much it makes you loved. How is it possible for someone not to recognize you as a master and not to glory in being your disciple?”35 Comte’s phrase that “intellectual wisdom must one day be popularized” made his “heart vibrate” with joy. Francelle thanked Comte for working “to enlighten humanity.”36 Such enthusiasm boosted Comte’s confidence that he could acquire the support of other workers. The third work he intended to publish was an essay on the Ecole Polytechnique. Like the other two works, this one reflects his interest in teaching, for he wished to apply his philosophy of positivism to regenerate the “great positive school.” He was proud to be a former student of the Ecole Polytechnique and one of its teachers and admissions examiners, especially because it represented the “first kernel of 30 31 32 33 34

35

Comte to Mill, November 5, 1842, CG, 2:106. Comte to Mill, May 1, 1844, CG, 2:247. Bensaude-Vincent, “Auguste Comte,” 148–9. Comte to Valat, October 27, 1842, CG, 2:100. Auguste Francelle to Comte, July 30, 1842, MAC. Francelle was close to Lenoir, who was one of Comte’s oldest friends. He had learned to read and write at a school run by monks, but when he was twelve, he lost his faith in God. He became entranced by Baron Paul Henri d’Holbach’s atheistic system and the sciences. What he found most difficult to accept in Comte’s philosophy was the requirement that he give up the search for the “origin and essence of all things.” See Francelle to Comte, July 2, 1840, MAC. See also Francelle to Comte, June 14, 1840; September 16, 1849, MAC. Francelle to Comte, July 30, 1842, MAC. 36 Francelle to Comte, July 2, 1840.

22

1843–1844: The Battle against the Pedantocracy

a true speculative corporation.”37 But he found the “conception” of this institution too “vague and confusing.”38 Because the school prepared students for careers in public service, it should not make them specialize in one science or stress the rote memorization of “rarely applicable” abstract mathematical formulas. Instead, it should develop a curriculum of general studies, including courses in “the diverse political sciences,” which would inculcate “healthy logical habits.”39 If refounded along the lines of positivism, which favored understanding the interrelations of all the branches of natural philosophy and encouraged a devotion to the welfare of society, the Ecole Polytechnique would “exercise a great influence, both intellectual and social, on the great organic movement . . . in all of our Occident.”40 A recent scholar who has studied the Ecole Polytechnique in depth has pointed out that Comte was correct in underscoring the ossified, mediocre instruction of its professors, who were indeed too specialized; they gave lectures “without conviction” – lectures that students tended to skip.41 On the face of it, Comte’s three projects appear to be innocuous works, reflecting his interest in improving French education. Yet they must be seen in light of his provocative mood, already evident in his notorious preface to volume six of the Cours and his trial against Bachelier. In his preface, he had ascribed his failure to obtain a chair at the Ecole Polytechnique to power-hungry, egoistic scientists, who felt threatened by his philosophy. Besides Arago, he attacked mathematicians. Because the Academy of Sciences contained many doctors, physiologists, and naturalists, who were indifferent to the Ecole Polytechnique, the mathematicians in that organization often dominated the decision as to which candidates for vacant chairs were to be presented to the minister of war. In addition, some of the mathematicians in the Academy were also professors at the Ecole Polytechnique, where they sat on the Council of Instruction. They thus exerted an inordinate influence at the school. Feeling threatened, Comte maintained that mathematicians were particularly disgruntled with his view that every science had its own role to play in the scientific hierarchy and that prolonging or increasing the current domination of mathematics over the other sciences would hurt intellectual progress. In 37 38

39

40 41

Comte to Mill, July 22, 1842, CG, 2:58. Comte to Valat, November 22, 1843, CG, 2:216. See also Comte to the Pr´esident de l’Acad´emie des Sciences, July 13, 1840, CG, 1:347; Comte to the Pr´esident de l’Acad´emie des Sciences, September 19, 1836, CG, 1:265. Comte to G´en´eral de Rostolan, August 18, 1845, CG, 3:95. On Comte’s plan to reform the school, see Jean Dhombres, “L’Image ‘scientiste’ de l’Ecole Polytechnique,” in Belhoste, La Formation polytechnicienne, 286. Comte to Mill, October 5, 1843, CG, 2:203. Belhoste, “Un Mod`ele a` l’´epreuve,” 26.

Comte’s Three Projects

23

his preface, Comte also complained that he should not be subject to reelection as admissions examiner every year, for he was too vulnerable to the wrath of the powerful relatives or friends of rejected applicants. (Appointed according to the rules of 1832, Comte was the only “temporary” admissions examiner, which meant that he had to be reelected annually. His three colleagues were “permanent examiners,” who had their positions for life because they had been appointed according to the rules of the old system.) Oppressed by the 1832 rules, Comte wanted the issue of his reelection settled once and for all, and after insulting the scientists for being driven by their base passions and prejudices against him, he dared them not to reelect him in 1843. If they reelected him examiner and r´ep´etiteur after having been subject to his withering criticisms, he could rest assured that his double position at the school was indeed permanent. If they failed to reelect him, they would prove the veracity of his criticisms. Comte aggressively pursued his case against the scientists in the trial against Bachelier, which he used to prove his moral and intellectual superiority.42 He now chose to write these three works to continue to provoke them. Each of the three new works challenged the scientific establishment in a different way. Besides implicitly accusing mathematicians of teaching their subject poorly, the Trait´e e´l´ementaire de g´eom´etrie analytique suggested that individuals could learn mathematics in isolation on their own, without the aid of teachers hovering over them.43 As Jean Dhombres points out, Comte’s attitude went against the French educational tradition that people needed to be seated in classrooms with masters to initiate them into specialized knowledge, a process that could take years.44 Seeking to empower individuals to learn on their own, Comte wanted everyone to have an opportunity to imbibe scientific knowledge without intimidation. In addition, he defied the Ecole Polytechnique’s rule that the four admissions examiners could not write manuals helping students prepare for the entrance test. Antoine Reynaud, the examiner whom Comte had replaced at the Ecole Polytechnique, had been notorious for writing elementary textbooks to make money, and the rule had been created to prevent abuses in the future. Comte had had Reynaud as a r´ep´etiteur, knew this rule, and had even criticized other examiners for violating it. Only a few years before, in 1840, he explained to his good friend, Pierre Valat, that he could not publish his course at the Institut Laville as long as he remained an examiner because he would open himself up to “the reproach, so justly deserved by 42 43 44

Comte to Mme Auguste Comte, December 3, 1842, CG, 2:114. Trait´e e´l´ementaire de g´eom´etrie analytique, vi. Jean Dhombres, “La Pratique philosophique des math´ematiques chez Auguste Comte: Une conceptualisation de l’espace par l’analytique,” in Auguste Comte et l’id´ee de science de l’homme, ed. Michel Bourdeau and Franc¸ois Chazel (Paris: L’Harmattan, 2002), 25–6.

24

1843–1844: The Battle against the Pedantocracy

the other examiners, of using the influence of their functions to encourage the forced sale of their elementary treatises.” Because his position was already precarious, due to his being the only temporary examiner, he thought it best not to “expose” himself “to the least suspicion” in this domain. But two to three years later, “such scruples” vanished.45 Once again, he seemed to be deliberately daring the administration of the Ecole Polytechnique to fire him. His brochure criticizing this administration would only make his position in the school more tenuous. And the Trait´e philosophique d’astronomie populaire, which advanced the atheistic position that had enraged the Catholic press in 1842, would fail to allay his colleagues’ suspicions that his philosophy was dangerous.46 In short, instead of resting as he was supposed to do in 1843 to preserve his health, Comte was searching for battles. Why was he so defiant at this time? Why did he not fear, as his wife did, the destitution that would result if he lost his job at the Ecole Polytechnique? It is clear that he took some sort of existential pleasure in this type of gambling. He explained at one point that in his “year of repose,” his “struggle” against Franc¸ois Arago (the main object of his wrath) and other scientists at the Ecole Polytechnique was “a happy diversion that makes me feel [my] existence more acutely.”47 Comte’s apparently self-destructive actions may also be better understood if one remembers that he was profoundly marked by his seven-year association with Henri Saint-Simon. In 1802, Saint-Simon had written in the Lettres d’un habitant de Gen`eve a` ses contemporains that geniuses, the enlightened members of society who serve humanity, should be supported by a subscription fund to enable them to work without worrying about poverty and political persecution.48 Repeated in several of Saint-Simon’s other works, such as the Lettre aux europ´eens, this idea was taken up by Comte as early as 1817; he wrote in L’Industrie, Saint-Simon’s journal, that “the great producers,” members of the “rich class of society,” should give part of “their capital” to “poor, but honest scholars” who, motivated by their “love of Humanity,” did not want to “dirty their pen” by having to 45

46 47 48

Comte to Valat, January 5, 1840, CG, 1:332. Also, in 1818, when he worked in a boarding school, Comte had been forced to teach from Antoine Reynaud’s textbooks and complained about their mediocre quality. Comte to Valat, November 17, 1818, CG, 1:45–6; Comte to Valat, September 24, 1819, CG, 1:54; Mary Pickering, Auguste Comte: An Intellectual Biography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 1:132–3. Letters from Coriolis to his cousin Madame Benoist, written from August 26 to August 31, 1842, MAC. Comte to Mme Auguste Comte, December 3, 1842, CG, 1:114. [Claude-Henri de] Saint-Simon, Lettres d’un habitant de Gen`eve a` ses contemporains, in Oeuvres de Claude-Henri de Saint-Simon, 6 vols. (Paris: Anthropos, 1966), vol. 1, part 1:9, 13, 14.

´ ementaire de G´eom´etrie Analytique Trait´e El´ 25 49 work for people opposed to progress. In the Cours, Comte had also referred to this idea; he explained that “public munificence” would have to protect thinkers as their work became more general, abstract, and abstruse.50 This principle seemed to be endorsed by Mill, who wrote on March 22, 1842, that if Comte were unjustly persecuted by his scientific colleagues, “all impartial persons” would sympathize with him, and they could compensate him for his material loss.51 Imagining that Mill was ready to help him and having appealed to the public for support in his preface, Comte may have sought to lose his position so that he could be subsidized. Reliance on other people’s generosity was not a source of shame to Comte, but rather the distinguishing mark of the positive philosopher. Moreover, now that the Cours, which provided a firm foundation for his theories, was completed, he was ready to alternate “speculative life” with “active life.”52 Waging these battles against the Ecole Polytechnique and the scientific establishment in general was his form of activism, but he yearned for the greater freedom and time a subsidy would give him. He knew deep down that without a tenured position, he could not teach in one of the premier schools of science in the world and at the same time criticize the scientific and educational establishment in an unrestrained manner. trait e´ e´ l e´ me ntaire de g e´ om e´ trie analytique Angered by Bachelier’s betrayal in regard to the Cours, Comte sought another publisher before he began to write. On November 1, 1842, he signed a contract with Carillian-Goeury et Victor Dalmont, a publishing firm that worked with professors at the Ecole des Ponts et Chauss´ees. It agreed to publish 1,200 copies of the Trait´e e´l´ementaire de g´eom´etrie analytique and to pay him 1,200 francs. To avoid the dangers of stress to his mental well-being, Comte insisted on not being pressured by any deadline.53 49

50 52 53

Comte, “Programme d’un concours pour une nouvelle encyclop´edie,” in Ecrits de jeunesse 1816–1828: Suivis du M´emoire sur la cosmogonie de Laplace 1835 , ed. Paulo E. de Berrˆedo Carneiro and Pierre Arnaud (Paris: Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, 1970) [hereafter, this work will be cited as Ecrits], 48, 49. See also Saint-Simon, Lettre aux europ´eens, in Comte Henri de Saint-Simon, Lettres d’un habitant de Gen`eve a` ses contemporains [1803], r´eimprim´ees conform´ement a` l’´edition originale et suivies de deux documents in´edits – Lettre aux europ´eens [Essai sur l’organisation sociale], ed. Alfred Pereire (Paris: F´elix Alcan, 1925), 87–93. Cours, 2:679. 51 Mill to Comte, March 22, 1842, CG, 2:353. Comte to Mme Auguste Comte, December 3, 1842, CG, 1:114. Contract between Comte and Carillian-Goeury et Victor Dalmont, November 1, 1842, MAC. See also Comte to Mme Auguste Comte, November 2, 1842, CG, 1:102.

26

1843–1844: The Battle against the Pedantocracy

Satisfied by the arrangements, he began writing on November 2, 1842, when the new school year started at the Institut Laville. Each week he wrote up the four lessons he had given the preceding week. Although composing this treatise was supposed to be a diversion for him, he found it tedious and mechanical. As shown in his aversion in the 1830s to writing specialized works on mathematics to gain entry into the Academy of Sciences, he did not enjoy purely academic work. Like the paper he gave in 1835 on Pierre-Simon Laplace’s nebular hypothesis, the Trait´e e´l´ementaire de g´eom´etrie analytique represented a “boring voyage into a sad country” – “the country of pedants.” He realized that the new rules of professionalization required a solid record of research and teaching. His research paper on Laplace had been a flop. The Cours was too philosophical and did not help support his stature as a mathematician, which was further weakened by the fact that he lacked a higher degree because he had been expelled from the Ecole Polytechnique for insubordination in 1816. So he decided to write this textbook to meet the scientists partly on their own ground by displaying his teaching qualifications. He hoped this compromise would sufficiently strengthen his position so that he would never have to experience such “classic drudgery” again.54 While writing the treatise, Comte led a more sedentary life than usual. He no longer took long walks around Paris, his “large study,” because he was not meditating on weighty philosophical questions. When he finished the book in late February 1843, he complained that lack of exercise had upset his digestion and therefore his sleep. He reproached himself for having risked his health and expended his precious energy on such a “secondary work,” considering that he had so many other important books to write before the onset of senility.55 Nevertheless, he took pride in his treatise’s unified structure, its exploration of the essential harmony between the abstract and concrete in mathematics, and its detailed table of contents, where he explained systematically what was contained in each of the 168 paragraphs of the book to help confused students find immediate assistance.56 To direct future mathematical research, Comte also added his reflections on the philosophy of mathematics, showing areas of the 54

55 56

Comte to Mill, February 27, 1843, CG, 1:137–8. See also Comte to Valat, October 27, 1842, CG, 1:100; Comte to Mme Auguste Comte, November 4, 1842, CG, 1:102; Comte to Valat, December 13, 1842, CG, 1:118. On professionalization, see Fox, “Science, the University, and the State,” 66–7. Comte to Mill, February 27, 1843, CG, 1:137. Trait´e e´l´ementaire de g´eom´etrie analytique, vii. Comte was particularly pleased with his outline of what he called “comparative geometry,” a “new aspect” of geometry inspired by the model of biology. It studied geometrical “families” of similar forms, such as rectilinear shapes, and seemed to partake of his contemporaries’ eagerness to classify. Comte to Mill, March 25, 1843, CG, 1:144; Trait´e e´l´ementaire de g´eom´etrie analytique, 535. See also Comte to Mill, May 13, 1843, CG, 2:157.

´ ementaire de G´eom´etrie Analytique Trait´e El´

27

study that he thought were fruitful and those that he thought were sterile. (He had mused about writing something on the philosophy of mathematics as early as 1819, when he contemplated reforming pedagogy a few years after his expulsion from the Ecole Polytechnique.)57 As was his wont, he was eager to shed light on the history of science and thus often commented on the progress of mathematics. As Jean Dhombres points out, “Before W. Dilthey, and with a vigor that the latter recognized, . . . [Comte] historicized mathematical concepts and practices.”58 The Trait´e e´l´ementaire de g´eom´etrie analytique appeared in March 1843. Comte sent the work to his father, wife, friends (such as Mill), colleagues, the Ecole Polytechnique, and Laville, who ran the preparatory school. He did not forget to send a copy to the Academy of Sciences, which he still hoped would one day accept him as a member.59 However, the book was merely a well-composed textbook, “without originality,” as one modern commentator put it. Comte knew a great deal about the discipline but did not contribute to its advancement.60 Nevertheless, the book sold very well in the beginning. Comte acknowledged that many students bought it in the hope of doing better on the admissions examinations for the Ecole Polytechnique that he gave in the summer and fall. He hoped his treatise would “sow some philosophical seeds” in their minds.61 Other people, besides students, commended him. Gabriel Lam´e, one of Comte’s oldest friends and a professor of physics at the Ecole Polytechnique, read the treatise with “pleasure.” He told Comte, “This publication must consolidate and extend the incontestable influence that you have had on polytechnical teaching; your new views have come to light for several years; they had been adopted, like all really useful ideas, but people have been often silent about the name of their author. Your new work fills this unjust lacuna.”62 A German doctor named Luch found it “truly distinguished.”63 He 57 58 59

60

61 62 63

See his notes in Ecrits, 491–572. See also Annie Petit, “Conflits et renouveau de la psychologie comtienne,” in Auguste Comte et l’id´ee de science de l’homme, 87. Dhombres, “La Pratique philosophique des math´ematiques,” 61. See also ibid., 59, 79, 80. “G´eom´etrie analytique: Liste des exemplaires distribu´es par Comte entre le 19 mars 1843 et le 16 mai 1850,” in packet labelled “Circulation of Comte’s Works,” MAC. The original manuscript of this work is in N.a.fr. 17909, Bibioth`eque Nationale. Maurice Boudot, “De l’Usurpation g´eom´etrique,” Revue philosophique de la France et de l’´etranger, no. 4 (1985): 388. For more on this “elementary” treatise, see Jean Dhombres, “O`u observer la post´erit´e math´ematique d’Auguste Comte,” in Auguste Comte aujourd’hui: Colloque de Cerisy (3–10 juillet 2001), ed. Michel Bourdeau, Jean-Franc¸ois Braunstein, and Annie Petit (Paris: Kim´e, 2003), 33–5. Comte to Mill, March 25, 1843, CG, 1:145. Gabriel Lam´e to Comte, March 27, 1843, MAC. Dr. Luch to Comte, May 10, 1848, MAC.

28

1843–1844: The Battle against the Pedantocracy

insisted on translating it into German. Yet nothing came of his plan. The fact that the book was not republished for fifty years even in French suggests that it did not have a significant long-term impact on contemporaries.64 Perhaps, on the one hand, it was too abstruse as a textbook because it contained a hefty amount of mathematical philosophy; on the other hand, it may have frustrated philosophers of science because of the lengthy discussions of elementary geometry. the retort of the ecole polytechnique Comte intended to rest after completing the Trait´e e´l´ementaire de g´eom´etrie analytique, but after a month, he was disturbed by news of “active intrigues” against him at the Ecole Polytechnique.65 Although, during the trial against Bachelier, Claude-Louis Mathieu, a permanent examiner and Arago’s brother-in-law, had threatened to have him fired, Comte had been optimistic about his future at the school. He boasted that his “audacious preface” to the sixth volume of the Cours had frightened his colleagues to such an extent that they were careful to avoid all disagreement with him.66 Proudly adopting an “imposing attitude,” he assumed that they were treating him better because they recognized that his position at the school was growing more powerful.67 Thus he was surprised to learn in early April 1843, about a month after the publication of his Trait´e, that two mathematics professors, Joseph Liouville and Charles-Franc¸ois Sturm, were working to have him ousted. They were angry about Comte’s attacks on the Ecole Polytechnique and the Council of Instruction. In the infamous preface, Comte had complained that the Council wielded too much power, especially over the other employees of the school, who were often subject to “the most unjust animosities.” Reflecting the general incompetence of scientists, this “absurd” institution cowardly colluded in 1840 with the Academy of Sciences to prevent his appointment to a chair in mathematics at the school – the chair he believed was his “legitimate property.”68 Sturm had been the candidate who won the chair. Comte’s wrath over this loss had prompted him to write the brash preface. Deeply offended, Sturm had attended Comte’s trial against Bachelier.69 After hearing and reading Comte’s 64 65 66 67 68

It was republished in 1894 and has not been reissued since then. See Dhombres, “La Pratique philosophique des math´ematiques,” 33. Comte to Mill, May 16, 1843, CG, 2:150. Comte to Valat, October 27, 1842, CG, 2:99. Comte to Mme Auguste Comte, October 11, 1842, CG, 1:97. Cours, 2:470, 474. 69 Massin to Comte, December 23, 1842, MAC.

The Retort of the Ecole Polytechnique

29

harsh incriminations, neither he nor Liouville could tolerate Comte’s continued presence at the school. In addition, both scientists were upset because the Trait´e e´l´ementaire de g´eom´etrie analytique implicitly condemned the way they taught mathematics.70 As previously explained, there were two committees that regulated matters at the school, the Council of Improvement and the Council of Instruction. The Council of Improvement comprised three professors, five examiners (usually professors) in charge of final graduation examinations, the director of studies (usually a professor), the commander of the school, the second-in-command, and thirteen outside members, including three members of the Academy of Sciences and ten functionaries from the public services (both civil and military) that recruited graduates from the Ecole Polytechnique. These twenty-four members ensured that the school’s instruction was relevant to the public services and was coordinated with the curricula of graduate schools, called schools of application. The Council of Instruction, which had jurisdiction over the curriculum, had only fifteen members. These included the commander of the school, the second-incommand, the director of studies, the librarian, the secretary, and the ten professors who taught at the school. Since 1832, the Council of Instruction and the Academy of Sciences had presented lists of candidates for teaching positions to the minister of war, who had the final say in the appointment. After a long, often political process, these two bodies usually ended up presenting the same candidates.71 Powerful scientists often conspired to appoint one of their prot´eg´es to a post by imposing him on the Council of Instruction or Academy or by pressuring a high government official. In the case of r´ep´etiteurs, a former student of a scientist was usually appointed as the first step in a scientific career. Often the scientist who taught the course designated the person whom he wished to have as his r´ep´etiteur. Comte had been appointed assistant r´ep´etiteur in 1832 thanks to his friendship with Henri Navier, who wanted his help in teaching analysis and mechanics. Navier died four years later and was replaced by Comte’s former classmate Jean-Marie Duhamel. In 1838, Gustave-Gaspard Coriolis, who was the r´ep´etiteur for Duhamel’s course, became director of studies. Comte finally was promoted to take Coriolis’s place. In 1840, when Duhamel became an examiner of the graduating students, Comte had hoped to replace him as professor. Yet Sturm was instead named to fill this vacant chair of analysis; he was a friend of 70

71

Joseph Bertrand, “Souvenirs acad´emiques: Auguste Comte et l’Ecole Polytechnique,” Revue des deux mondes 138 (December 1896): 543; Comte to Mill, June 29, 1843, CG, 2:170. Laffitte, “Carri`ere polytechnique d’Auguste Comte,” 311–2; Shinn, L’Ecole Polytechnique, 1794–1914, 43, 46; Belhoste, La Formation d’une technocratie, 51–3, 86, 94.

30

1843–1844: The Battle against the Pedantocracy

Arago and a r´ep´etiteur for Liouville, who strongly lobbied for him.72 Liouville had been appointed over Comte to the post of temporary admissions examiner in 1835 and 1836, had attained the other chair of analysis in 1838, and had become a member of the Academy of Sciences in 1839. Comte considered Liouville to be Arago’s “principal auxiliary” and his “most redoubtable direct antagonist.”73 He was most eager for Comte’s ouster. Fortunately, Comte was r´ep´etiteur to the slightly lesser evil, Sturm. Comte portrayed Sturm and Liouville, the two professors who held the chair of analysis that he coveted, as his main enemies on the Council of Instruction. He had assumed in 1842 that they could not win over to their side more than two other members. Now instead, he heard that “weak and short-sighted” members were caving in to these “powerful” scientists and would give them their “passive cooperation.” Comte immediately ran to the minister of war, Marshal Nicolas Soult, who had jurisdiction over the Ecole Polytechnique.74 He was also president of the Council of Ministers, a post akin to prime minister. The previous year, when there had been complaints about Comte’s rejection of an applicant to the Ecole Polytechnique, Marshal Soult had defended him, commending his “impartiality and moderation” to the head of the school.75 In having denounced the leftist Arago and the Academy of Sciences in his preface to the Cours in 1842, Comte had unwittingly become an ally of the government, which wanted to extend its control over the Ecole Polytechnique and reduce the influence of the opposition in running the school. Comte now asked Soult to annul any hostile decision coming from the Council of Instruction.76 He also reluctantly begged various members for their support. By late April, he was sure he would receive a “striking majority” when the Council voted on his reappointment as temporary examiner.77 Yet the Council of Instruction was angry with Soult. In 1842, right before the publication of Comte’s infamous preface, Soult had objected to the Council’s nomination of a single candidate to the position of drawing teacher. Citing the need for a contest, Soult insisted on choosing from a list of candidates as he did for vacant 72 73 74 75

76 77

Pickering, Comte, 1:495–503; Belhoste, La Formation d’une technocratie, 86, 94–5. Comte to Mill, August 23, 1844, CG, 2: 276. For background on Soult, see Nicole Gotteri, Soult: Mar´echal d’Empire et l’homme d’´etat (Besanc¸on: La Manufacture, 1993). It seems that the candidate, named Rocher, did not appear for his examination. Letter from Mar´echal Soult, Minister of War, to the General Commander of the Ecole Polytechnique, August 19, 1842, Dossier A. Comte, Archives of the Ecole Polytechnique [hereafter EP]. Belhoste, La Formation d’une technocratie, 95; Peter Hayman, Soult: Napoleon’s Maligned Marshall (London: Arms and Armour, 1990), 259. Comte to Mill, May 16, 1843, CG, 2:150.

The Retort of the Ecole Polytechnique

31

academic chairs. He would not ratify the Council’s choice until he received such a list.78 The Council was still smarting from this insult. When the Council met on April 28, 1843, about a month after the appearance of the Trait´e e´l´ementaire de g´eom´etrie analytique, several members objected to Comte’s reelection as examiner, pointing out that “the terms” he had used to describe the Council in his personal preface were very “improper.” Other members, presumably Comte’s supporters, retorted that what was at issue was not his “misplaced expressions” in the preface but “his manner of examining.” In reply, some members of the Council suggested that Comte’s new treatise on geometry cast “doubts on his aptitude” as examiner because it showed that his knowledge of mathematics was poor.79 Unable after much argument to arrive at a decision, the Council concluded that it needed a better idea of Comte’s qualifications and appointed a special committee consisting of Coriolis (director of studies), Lam´e (professor of physics), Chasles (professor of geodesy),80 Sturm (professor of analysis and mechanics), and Charles Leroy (professor of descriptive geometry). They were to give the next month a report on the Cours and the Trait´e e´l´ementaire de g´eom´etrie analytique. When Comte heard about the result of the April meeting, he was disheartened that no vote had been taken and that his friends had defended him with so little energy. For example, L´eonce Reynaud, the professor of architecture, said he was willing to support Comte but missed the meeting.81 Sturm’s presence on the special committee worried Comte. Nevertheless, he was happy that two committee members were Coriolis and Lam´e, whom he considered his principal supporters in the Council. Coriolis had voted in 1840 for Sturm as professor of analysis because Comte’s atheism offended him. Yet perhaps because Coriolis shared Comte’s interest in reforming the school to make its teaching less abstract, he respected him and treated him well.82 Lam´e was one of Comte’s oldest friends and had on numerous occasions defended Comte in the Council, where he boasted that he refused to yield to 78 79 80

81 82

Belhoste, La Formation d’une technocratie, 95. Minutes of the meeting of April 28, 1843, Registre: Proc`es-Verbal du Conseil d’Instruction, vol. 8, EP. Chasles, who replaced Savary in 1841, was relatively supportive of Comte and frequently sent him autographed copies of books that he had written. He also sent him fifty francs in 1854, 1855, 1856, and 1857. See “Liste des livres d´edicac´es a` Auguste Comte,” MAC; Comte to Chasles, April 9, 1848, CG, 4:147; notebook entitled “Recettes et d´epenses courantes, 1854, 1855, 1856,” MAC; notebook entitled “Recettes et d´epenses courantes, 1857,” MAC. L. Reynaud to Comte, April 28, 1843, MAC. The other Reynaud in this file is Jean Reynaud, not L´eonce. Belhoste, “Un Mod`ele a` l’´epreuve,” 2; Dhombres, “L’Image ‘scientiste,’” 287; Massin to Comte, September 26, 1842.

32

1843–1844: The Battle against the Pedantocracy

the pressures of the dominating clique.83 But Lam´e was a bit peeved, for in 1842 Comte had given his nephew a poor grade on the admissions examination, complaining of his “mental weakness.”84 Perhaps trying to make amends for having prevented the boy from attending the Ecole Polytechnique, Comte acceded to Lam´e’s request for help with his career. In January 1843, Comte urged his friend, the scientist Henri Ducrotay de Blainville, to vote for Lam´e’s admission into the Academy of Sciences; Comte hoped that if he helped Lam´e become an Academician, Lam´e’s support for him would become more vigorous and more valuable.85 Lam´e’s bid succeeded, but whether he came to Comte’s rescue is unclear. When the Council of Instruction met again on May 12, 1843, the special committee read its report. Although in a letter to Comte, Lam´e had highly praised the Trait´e e´l´ementaire de g´eom´etrie analytique and promised to defend it against any attacks, the report to which he contributed was by no means favorable.86 Instead of proving his teaching abilities, Comte’s textbook in the end discredited him.The committee found the work badly written, full of errors, and poorly conceived as a teaching manual.87 Besides concluding that Comte’s knowledge of the subject was superficial, the committee decided that in volume six of the Cours, especially in the preface, his references to the Council and to several Academicians were so insulting “that one could not accuse this Council of too much severity if it used its right not to renominate him.”88 Some of the most belligerent comments came from Paul Dubois, the literature professor, who Comte had suggested in the preface was simply a French grammar teacher and did not deserve to be part of the Council.89 83 84

85

86 87

88 89

Lam´e to Comte, January 26, 1843, MAC. See the examination of Lam´e-Fleury, in the Examination Packet of 1842, MAC. For Lam´e’s annoyance, see Massin to Comte, December 8, 1842 and February 10, 1843, MAC. Coriolis to Madame Benoist, written from August 26 to August 31, 1842, MAC; Lam´e to Comte, October 19, 1842 and January 26, 1843, MAC; Comte to Blainville, January 27, 1843, CG, 2:135; Comte to Lam´e, January 28, 1843, carton I, Archives Bertrand, Acad´emie des Sciences. This letter from Comte to Lam´e is not published in CG. It may be found in Larizza, “Alcune Lettere,” 411–12. Lam´e to Comte, March 27, 1843, MAC. Pierre Laffitte later explained that Bertrand had found an error relating to Comte’s discussion of conic vectors. Laffitte, “Conversations avec Auguste Comte,” January 20, 1847, MAC. Minutes of the meeting of May 12, 1843, Registre: Proc`es-Verbal du Conseil d’Instruction, vol. 8, EP. Cours, 2:470. Comte had solicited Dubois’ help for a job (the chair in calculus) in 1836 and perhaps was angry with him for not securing that position for him. See Comte to Dubois, September 25, 1836, CG, 1:272; Dubois to Comte, September 27, 1836, MAC. Dubois had been one of the founders of the liberal journal Le Globe in 1824. He was not particularly liked at the Ecole Polytechnique, for he lacked finesse, spoke poorly, and

The Retort of the Ecole Polytechnique

33

A three-hour debate ensued. Some members wanted to be able to investigate Comte’s examination methods more thoroughly, whereas others, perhaps Lam´e and Coriolis, objected that it would be cruel to fire Comte so suddenly. The majority of the committee members concluded that the complaints against Comte did not warrant his immediate replacement, and they recommended reconsidering his case the following year. The Council asked the special committee to present at the next meeting the list of qualified candidates it had to vote on to send to the minister of war. Comte was worried. With no savings to speak of, he knew if he lost this position as admissions examiner, which accounted for half of his income, he would experience grave material difficulties. Moreover, he recognized that he would then be deprived of his post as r´ep´etiteur because his “enemies” would consider it “dangerous” for him to be in daily contact with young people.90 The Institut Laville would fire him as well, for the director prized Comte’s connections to the Ecole Polytechnique more than his teaching abilities. His situation was also weak at the Institut Laville because the school had close ties to the Catholic, reactionary party and had never approved of his political views. If he lost all three jobs, he would have to resume giving private lessons, which would be a far more precarious and tiring way of earning his living. Because of his anxiety, Comte uncharacteristically listened to his friends in the Council, who advised him to campaign vigorously in his own behalf, especially with the undecided members. His effort was partly successful. When the special committee presented its recommendations to the Council on May 19, his name headed the list of five names. Yet his opponents on the committee again brought up the issue of his examination methods. They criticized him either for asking the students to do excessively difficult problems or for repeating too many questions, which gave an advantage to the last applicants, those in the provinces.91 Massin liked to point out the contradictions

90 91

gave dull, poorly prepared lectures. Comte dismissed him as a “terrible metaphysician,” Comte to Mill, May 16, 1843, CG, 2:151. On Dubois, see Paul Janet, “Le Globe de la Restauration,” Revue des deux mondes 34 (August 1, 1879): 481–512; E. Mercadier, “Histoire de l’enseignement de l’Ecole Polytechnique,” in Ecole Polytechnique, Livre du centenaire, 1794–1894, 3 vols. (Paris: Gauthier-Villars, 1895), 1:59–60. Comte to Mill, May 16, 1843, CG, 2:152. As if responding to these criticisms, during his examination tour later in 1843, Comte did write down some questions that he felt he should delete and others that he decided to give only to strong students. During this tour, he gave 168 hours of examination in twenty-eight days for students in Paris and 82 examinations in fifteen days in the provinces. Each exam lasted fifty minutes. A study of his examinations reveals that he did repeat his questions, but not excessively. For example, questions about the Pythagorean theorem appeared often in 1840 but almost never in 1843. One must also wonder how he could avoid repeating questions, given the number of exams he had to give. For

34

1843–1844: The Battle against the Pedantocracy

in their arguments. Comte could not be both hard and easy at the same time! 92 Comte’s supporters on the committee contended that he had done a good job as examiner for the past six years. The students he admitted performed as well at the Ecole Polytechnique as the ones examined by his colleagues. Then his opponents brought up other reasons to get rid of him. One member, possibly Sturm, argued that it was improper for Comte to be both an admissions examiner and a preparatory school teacher. He pointed to “the danger of the publication of works which are in a way imposed on the candidates.”93 Some of the members of the special committee favored the second candidate on the list (an assistant r´ep´etiteur) as a model of exemplary behavior because he agreed to resign as a preparatory school teacher if named examiner. One Council member – Liouville, according to Comte – expressed the hope that next year the post of examiner would be rotated so that it would be truly temporary, as it was supposed to be according to the rules of 1832. Supporting his argument, most of the members of the Council favored making one-year appointments beginning in 1844. Coriolis, the director of studies, was to inform Comte of their intention, although as Comte pointed out, “no formal vote” was taken.94 The Council then unanimously reelected Comte to his post as admissions examiner. Taking a perverse pleasure in the fact that it had taken the Council three “stormy sessions” to decide on his fate, Comte was grateful to Lam´e, Coriolis, and Duhamel for having defended him.95 Like Lam´e, Duhamel had been his classmate at the Ecole Polytechnique. Comte also thanked Poinsot, his former professor, who had worked hard on his behalf, despite having been lambasted in the Cours.96 Though initially pleased with the unanimous vote, Comte determined that Sturm, Liouville, and his other enemies had agreed to support him only because they had designs for a more “systematic and durable attack.”97 The plan to make his post a rotating, annual one was really meant to eliminate him. Comte correctly concluded that the Council was firing him indirectly.

92 93 94 95 96

97

example, he often asked students to simplify fractions – an exercise that seems perfectly reasonable because it is a basic mathematical operation. See folder entitled “Examinations et tourn´ees,” MAC. Massin to Comte, December 8, 1842, MAC. Minutes of the meeting of May 19, 1843, Registre: Proc`es-Verbal du Conseil d’Instruction, vol. 8, EP. Comte to the Mar´echal Duc de Dalmatie, Minister of War, January 25, 1844, CG, 2:230, 234. Comte to Barbot de Chement, May 26, 1843, CG, 2:159. Comte said that he would commend Poinsot in the second edition of the Cours, where he would complete his preface by relating the story of his struggle of 1843. Comte to Mill, May 28, 1843, CG, 2:163. Ibid., 162.

The Retort of the Ecole Polytechnique

35

Comte believed that this battle within the Council reflected a power struggle, one in which he would become a “victim” of his own philosophy because of its criticism of mathematicians for lording it over other scientists.98 In his mind, the preface, his examination methods, and the Trait´e e´l´ementaire de g´eom´etrie analytique were false issues, used by his opponents to rally other members of the Council against him. Comte seems correct in recognizing their groping for pretexts to fire him. What he did not understand, however, is that his colleagues did not regard him highly enough to feel threatened by his philosophy. As reflected in his desire to publish the Trait´e e´l´ementaire de g´eom´etrie analytique to show off his skills, Comte yearned for their respect. But at the same time, he could not get himself to do the required academic work to be included among the outstanding scientists of the age. He preferred to think of himself as a “pure philosopher,” who was vastly superior to scientists with their “huge” fortunes made from “very frivolous materials.”99 His colleagues at the Ecole Polytechnique simply grew tired of his haughty, insulting behavior. What is surprising is that Comte expected that those whom he had vilified in public would treat him kindly.100 As a general said in 1930 in evaluating Comte’s career at the Ecole Polytechnique, it was more his “imperious character” than the “prejudices” inspired by “his doctrine” that caused his downfall.101 Unable to see what they were gaining in return for their irritation, his colleagues did indeed seek a roundabout way of letting him go. It could even be argued that they were being considerate in indirectly giving him a year’s notice. Comte refused to accept this warning. Instead, he condemned liberalism for giving too much authority to collective bodies, such as the Council; its members did not think independently and had no sense of personal responsibility when they voted. Such collective organizations should be limited to giving advice. Comte wished the school were run by a sort of enlightened dictator – “a single and responsible leader,” who was “honest” and “straightforward.” The minister of war was a good candidate for this position. Showing his general predilection for authoritarian solutions, Comte assumed that he would be treated better by such a person than by the “envious, narrow-minded, and cowardly members” of the pedantocracy.102 98 99 100 101 102

Comte to Mill, May 16, 1843, CG, 2:153. Comte to Valat, July 10, 1840, CG, 1:344; Comte to Valat, May 1, 1841, CG, 2:8. Mercadier, “Histoire de l’enseignement,” 65. General P. Alvin, speech for the “Centenaire de l’Institution de la Philosophie Positive,” June 22, 1930, in Comte’s dossier in EP. Comte to Mill, May 16, 1843, CG, 2:152–3. See also Comte to Mill, July 22, 1844, 263; Comte to the Mar´echal Duc de Dalmatie, Minister of War, December 19, 1844, CG, 2:298.

36

1843–1844: The Battle against the Pedantocracy

Little by little Comte convinced himself that the idea of rotating examiners would be abandoned by 1844.103 This delusion freed him to do once again what he pleased. Again, what is striking in his behavior is his defiance and lack of regard for his own well-being. Taking pride in his “courage,” he felt a deep need to act, even recklessly, in order to prove that his freedom of thought was not curtailed.104 In June 1843, about a month after he was reelected, he printed several hundred copies of the official judgment made in his favor against Bachelier, “the ignoble agent of Mr. Arago.”105 He sent these copies to various friends and acquaintances to keep “this strange incident” alive and to encourage discussion of his case.106 Despite his troubles at the Ecole Polytechnique, Comte kept dreaming of higher positions. He knew that the imminent death of Coriolis (the director of studies) would lead to a shift of positions, which might leave vacant one of the two chairs of analysis and mechanics – “my chair,” as he called it.107 (Comte had last applied for one of the chairs in 1840 and lost to Sturm.108 ) Before leaving on his examination tour in the fall of 1843, he informed the head of the school of his desire for this chair if it became available while he was away.109 Despite his problems and his awareness of his colleagues’ hatred for him, he was sure no one could offer him serious competition. Already someone who assumed Comte would attain the chair was maneuvering to take over his position as r´ep´etiteur.110 Acquiring this professorship was important for Comte, for it would increase not only his security and his entry into a privileged, powerful elite of notables in the capital but also his hold over “the elite of our youth,” the future converts to positivism.111 However, instead of being careful, Comte began to write his Discours sur l’Ecole polytechnique, which he considered to be “the most serious” and “most decisive” part of his battle against “the Arago coterie.”112 Massin argued in vain that in 103 104 105 106

107 109 110 111 112

Comte to Mill, May 28, 1843, CG, 2:163. Comte to Mill, October, 5, 1843, CG, 2:202. Comte to Barbot de Chement, May 26, 1843, CG, 2:159. See also Comte’s handwritten copy of the judgment, June 19, 1843, MAC. Comte to Mill, June 29, 1843, CG, 2:173. See Comte’s handwritten copy of the judgment, June 19, 1843, MAC. He sent several copies of the judgment to Mill so that he could distribute them in England. Comte to Mill, December 30, 1842, CG, 2:124. Comte wanted as many people as possible to know of the “cowardly violence” that had been committed against him and his philosophy. Ibid. See also Comte to Bordeaux, January 3, 1843, CG, 2:133. Comte to Mill, December 23, 1843, CG, 2:223. 108 See Pickering, Comte, 1:501. Comte to General Jean-Baptiste Gauldr´ee Boilleau, September 2, 1843, CG, 2:192. Hippolyte Colard to Comte, September 29, 1843, MAC. Comte to Mill, October 5, 1843, CG, 2:202. On the status of the scientist in early nineteenth-century France, see Fox, “Science, the University, and the State,” 66–7. Comte to Mme Auguste Comte, December 3, 1842, CG, 2:114. See also Comte to Valat, November 22, 1843, CG, 2:216.

Offshoots of the Astronomy Course

37

view of the fact that he was part of the school, he should communicate his ideas on reform privately to his superiors, not publicly: “You do not want to remain quiet. . . . It seems to me that you, who love order so much, are falling into anarchy and it is impossible that you are not aware of that. All the danger is in the publicity. It is thus war again.”113 But Comte countered that his essay would be “a powerful weapon.”114 Only in December 1843 did her words have the desired effect; he stopped work on it. By this point, Coriolis had died, and Comte reconsidered his approach to replacing him. The incendiary brochure on the Ecole Polytechnique was never published.115 offshoots of the astronomy cour se: discour s sur l’e sprit po sitif and trait e´ philo sophique d’astronomie populaire The year before, in December 1842, Comte had turned his attention to his third project, the publication of his lectures on astronomy, which he wearily considered boring “office work” on a par with the Trait´e e´l´ementaire de g´eom´etrie analytique.116 For a time, he considered publishing only the opening lecture, which outlined the positive philosophy, discussed its intellectual significance, and explained its social goals. This opening discourse seemed to him the most interesting part of the lecture series, especially in 1843, when he was not writing anything philosophical. It seemed to him to be an effective means of developing and propagating his views.117 In January 1843, the opening lecture went on for almost four hours.118 In keeping with his defiant mood and his growing activism, he criticized the scientific establishment more than before.119 He also boldly reiterated the position that had brought him trouble in 1842: the possibility of separating morality from religion. In discussing the basis of morality, he seemed particularly interested in seeing how far he could go without incurring the wrath of the authorities, who allowed him to use the large lecture room on condition that he continue his scientific course for workers. Critical of reactionaries, who absurdly thought they could maintain both the political and intellectual status quos, Comte seemed to be working out a deal with the government in his mind. He reasoned that if the government gave his new positivist movement free 113 114 115 116 117 118 119

Massin to Comte, March 29, 1843, MAC. Comte to Mill, October 5, 1843, CG, 2:203. There is no manuscript of the essay Comte began to write on the Ecole Polytechnique. Comte to Mme Auguste Comte, November 4, 1842, CG, 2:103. Comte to Mill, February 27, 1843, CG, 2:136. Comte to Mill, February 6, 1844, CG, 2:238. Comte to Mme Auguste Comte, December 3, 1842, CG, 2:114.

38

1843–1844: The Battle against the Pedantocracy

rein in reforming people’s ideas and opinions, the movement would repay the government by supporting the political status quo. Since the 1820s, Comte had expressed the view that he was willing to refrain from attacking political institutions – the “temporal” sphere – because he was sure of gaining control of doctrines and opinions, which represented the “spiritual” part of society.120 This compromise, he claimed, was modeled on that worked out by his “predecessors,” the philosophes of the eighteenth century, who were supported by the monarchy despite their reformist philosophy because they offered “guarantees against immediate agitation.” Similarly, the positive school would give priority to “the purely philosophical movement” because at this stage in the Western “revolution,” political life was comparatively sterile and unimportant.121 The positive school could thus counter subversion and help maintain the material order while slyly devoting itself to the far more important work of establishing a new intellectual system. New doctrines would give rise to a new political structure.This position was one that Comte upheld fairly consistently for the rest of his life, often to the frustration of his disciples, who sometimes demanded more direct confrontation with the government. Through his bold opening lectures, Comte attempted to gauge the effectiveness of his approach. He would consider himself victorious if the government gave him “liberty of exposition and discussion,” especially the freedom to challenge the strong religious currents of the period and “the right” to spread his ideas.122 He had previously criticized demands for “liberty” and “rights,” although they had earlier been integral to the liberalism of his youth. Now he revived these terms to defend his system, implicitly attacking the government for its failure to respect these ideals. In a sense, he could not escape politics, though he pretended to be able to do so; his study of the French revolutionaries should have taught him that everything was ultimately political. Comte’s eagerness to create a sensation with his opening discourse again underscores his enjoyment of gambling, of pushing matters to the extreme. Knowing him well, Massin pleaded with him to avoid undue bravado.123 But Comte wanted to see whether the government would react to him, the “priests” and the “geometers” would unite against him, and the press would support him. He wanted his doctrine to have center stage. As he explained to Mill: “After having mentally constituted the new philosophy, I must at last take charge of its social 120 121 122 123

Comte to Valat, December 25, 1824, CG, 1:148. Comte to Mill, December 30, 1842, CG, 2:125. Auguste Comte, Trait´e philosophique d’astronomie populaire (Paris: Fayard, 1985), 99; Comte to Mill, December 30, 1842, CG, 2:126. Massin to Comte, January 21, 1843, MAC.

Offshoots of the Astronomy Course

39

installation and try to have it take its recognized place in the current struggles.”124 Comte’s “little social experiment” went well in 1843. Four hundred men and women of all ages came to hear his opening discourse. Most of the audience was bourgeois.125 Although his lecture went on for almost four hours and severely criticized theology, Comte claimed that no one expressed the least sign of “impatience or dissent” and that not a single auditor left the room.126 Most importantly, neither the religious journals nor the government authorities objected. Comte felt victorious. In February 1844, he decided to do the lecture again, but this time devoted four sessions to it instead of the “monster” one he did in 1843.127 In the audience were at least three hundred men and women of all classes, who applauded him with great enthusiasm.128 Because the opening discourse had become the heart of the astronomy course and he was eager to proselytize, he decided to publish it separately, though he still included it as the introductory part of the Trait´e philosophique d’astronomie populaire. He started writing it in December 1843, and after giving it as a lecture once again, he finished and published it in February 1844. It was a hundred-page pamphlet entitled Discours sur l’esprit positif.129 Reflecting his growing militancy, the essay was, in his words, “a sort of systematic manifesto of the new [positive] school.”130 Comte had four hundred copies printed by Carilian-Goeury et Victor Dalmont and distributed almost a hundred of them to select friends and acquaintances. He even sent a copy to Alexander von Humboldt.131 The Discours provided a summary of positivism for those who did not wish to read or were incapable of understanding the “six enormous volumes” of the Cours. What is significant is that less than two years after having completed the Cours, Comte already seemed to be having second thoughts about its value. In the same letter to Mill 124 125

126 127 128 129

130 131

Comte to Mill, December 30, 1842, CG, 2:126. Fabien Magnin, speech, September 5, 1878, in “Le Vingt-et-uni`eme Anniversaire de la mort d’Auguste Comte,” RO 1, no. 4 (1878): 656. Magnin pointed out that during the course, an Englishman and his daughter were particularly noticeable in their enthusiasm for the new doctrine. Comte to Mill, February 27, 1843, CG, 2:139. Comte to Mill, February 6, 1844, CG, 2:238. [Hippolyte Phil´emon] Deroisin, Notes sur Auguste Comte par un de ses disciples (Paris: G. Cr`es, 1909), 3. See Comte’s note in the preface to the original manuscript of the Trait´e philosophique d’astronomie populaire, February 1844, N.a.fr. 17910, p. 5, Biblioth`eque Nationale [hereafter BN]. Comte to Mill, February 6, 1844, CG, 2:238. On Comte’s militancy, see Annie Petit, “La Diffusion des savoirs comme devoir positiviste,” Romantisme 19, no. 65 (1989): 15. See the list of people to whom Comte sent the Discours in the MAC. Humboldt had long before, in 1824, expressed his admiration for Comte’s work.

40

1843–1844: The Battle against the Pedantocracy

where he discussed the Discours, he explained that it had been necessary to publish the Cours in installments, for he had to “raise gradually the public, like myself, to the true final point of view of the new philosophy.” If all six volumes had been published simultaneously, the public would not have been “forced” to climb “this primitive ladder” with him. Instead, it would have read merely the last volumes, ruining his “plan of logical-scientific education.”132 Yet with the Discours, which represented a kind of shortcut to positivism, he seemed to acknowledge that his educational agenda was too difficult for others and had been necessary chiefly for him. Comte’s growing militancy made him more practical. Comte was particularly concerned about the intelligibility of his philosophy because he now more actively sought the support of the working masses. The Cours and Trait´e e´l´ementaire de g´eom´etrie analytique were aimed in different ways at the educated elite, whom he ironically called the “speculative mass.”133 The Discours, however, targeted the proletariat, for whom his astronomy lectures were written. It was, as Annie Petit aptly remarked, “a synthesis and an instrument of propaganda.”134 Although Comte’s audience consisted primarily of educated members of the bourgeoisie, the proletarian contingent was becoming more prominent. Before 1843, Comte had philosophical discussions with only Francelle and two other workers, a tailor and a printer. But one Sunday in the spring of 1843, Comte discovered in the first row of his audience a group of seven proletarians. They gave Comte the understanding that they could become converts and actively propagate his doctrines, doing more on his behalf than the bourgeoisie. One of the workers was the carpenter Fabien Magnin, who would become Comte’s principal working-class disciple. Magnin wrote, While we heard his friendly, ardent, and precise speech, . . . surprise and hope reflected in turn on our faces, [and] Auguste Comte understood very fast that a new element had been introduced in his audience. Without presumption on our part, it seemed to us that he kept our presence in mind, while we heard him frequently intersperse his lessons with moral and social reflections completely within our reach.

Soon, the group grew to fourteen members. By the end of the course, they felt “saved.”135 This experience, along with the growth of the 132 133 134 135

Comte to Mill, February 6, 1844, CG, 2:237. Trait´e philosophique d’astronomie popularie, 85. Annie Petit, introduction to Discours sur l’esprit positif, by Auguste Comte (Paris: J. Vrin, 1995), 14. Fabien Magnin, “Discours de Fabien Magnin ouvrier Menuisier. A l’occasion du vingtet-uni`eme anniversaire de la mort d’Auguste Comte,” in R. Paula Lopes, ed., Auguste Comte: Le Prol´etariat dans la soci´et´e moderne (Paris: Archives Positivistes, 1946), xxxviii.

Offshoots of the Astronomy Course

41

labor movement, no doubt led to Comte’s growing interest in the proletariat. Having all but given up on the scholarly world, which seemed to dismiss or neglect him, Comte was more than ever convinced that the ignorance of workers was an advantage; it meant that they were untainted by metaphysics, which infiltrated the “absurd” system of education unfairly reserved for the privileged few. Their “natural reason” protected them from the dangerous metaphysical principles spread by newspapers, novels, and plays.136 As Henri Gouhier pointed out, whereas Descartes had confidence in the capacities of the “honnˆete homme,” Comte trusted the “natural wisdom” of the proletarians.137 Because they were a kind of tabula rasa, they had the best chance of being properly initiated into the positive philosophy. The Discours offered them an excellent summary of the Cours. In one famous section, Comte defined “the positive” in simple terms, using six pairs of opposites: it designated “the real” as opposed to the “chimerical”; “the useful,” as opposed to the “pointless”; “certitude,” as opposed to “indecision”; “the precise” as opposed to “the vague”; the “organic” (with regard to the ability to organize), as opposed to the “negative” and destructive; and “the relative,” as opposed to “the absolute.”138 Partly because he had workers in mind, he stressed the concreteness and practicality inherent in positivism and the continuity and harmony between the positive spirit and universal common sense. The scientific spirit and common sense were similar; both had “the same experimental point of departure, the same goal of connecting and foreseeing, the same continual preoccupation with reality, [and] the same final objective of utility.” Positivism was in a sense the development of common sense, which was at the origin of every science because it guided its initial research; positivism made what was spontaneous, incoherent, and concrete in the workers more systematic, general, and abstract.139 In valorizing the common people’s qualities, Comte attempted to show how workers and positive philosophers could be allies in creating a new regime.140 Unlike the 136 138 139

140

Trait´e philosophique d’astronomie populaire, 90, 98. 137 Gouhier, La Vie, 178. Trait´e philosophique d’astronomie populaire, 50–52. Comte repeated these characteristics in Comte, Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 96–7. Trait´e philosophique d’astronomie populaire, 53. Comte also wrote, “Science always constitutes a simple extension of common wisdom. It never really creates any essential doctrine. Its theories are limited to generalizing and coordinating the empirical insights of universal reason in order to give to them a consistency and development that they could never otherwise acquire.” Auguste Comte, Cat´echisme positiviste [hereafter Cat´echisme] (Paris: Garnier-Flammarion, 1966), 133. Petit, introduction to Discours sur l’esprit positif, 24. See also Audiffrent to Comte, April 1, 1851, MAC. Audiffrent wrote, “Littr´e has said that science is the development of common sense; common sense is positivism. Its reign is thus not far away.”

42

1843–1844: The Battle against the Pedantocracy

scientists, Comte did not endorse the study of the sciences for themselves. He wished to open up the scientific world to the people and to mobilize them so that they could make sure scientific studies did not foster excess specialization and indifference to social needs. The people’s ultimate good sense could rein in the scientists and their elitist academies. According to Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent, Comte believed that “to make science a public thing is to prepare the true revolution.”141 Elevating the people as the supreme tribunal in matters of science was a “remarkable reversal of values” in a country that prized specialization more than others did.142 As in the Cours, Comte sought to prove that positivism was better qualified than other parties and movements to create a new society, especially because it could best satisfy the apparently contradictory needs of order and progress. “For the new philosophy, order always constitutes the fundamental condition of progress, and reciprocally, progress becomes the necessary goal of order.”143 Order and progress would become the main slogan of the positivist movement in 1848, when Comte was even more hopeful of gaining the support of the workers, who were in revolt against the government. The Discours was, however, more than a mere repetition of the themes of the Cours. It showed that Comte was developing the ideas of humanity and morality that he had introduced at the end of the Cours and would further discuss in the Syst`eme. Massin, who was in the process of reading it in March 1844, wrote to Comte, “If I am not mistaken. there are many deductions that are altogether new to me, and I am obliged to go very slowly.”144 Elaborating on ideas expressed in the Cours, Comte emphasized that positivism unified human understanding in two ways, objectively and subjectively. Objectively, that is, in terms of “the external destination of our theories as exact representations of the real world,” it brought knowledge together to a certain extent by means of the positive, or scientific, method. Yet even though this method provided homogeneity when used in all branches of knowledge, it could not effect “a true scientific unity.”145 The objective world was too complicated for the weak 141

142

143 144 145

Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent is correct in pointing out that Comte was at the same time an elitist, who was not eager to “abolish the distance between the amateur and professional.” There should be sharing of information, but a true “communion of minds” was “impossible.” See Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent, “L’Astronomie populaire, priorit´e philosophique et projet politique,” Revue de Synth`ese 112 ( January–March 1991): 56–7, 59. Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent, “Comte et la diffusion des sciences,” in Auguste Comte: Trajectoires positivistes, 1798–1998, ed. Annie Petit (Paris: L’Harmattan, 2003), 134. On the French scientific world and specialization, see Crosland, Science under Control, 28, 68–72. Trait´e philosophique d’astronomie populaire, 64. Massin to Comte, March 10, 1844, MAC. Trait´e philosophique d’astronomie populaire, 34.

Offshoots of the Astronomy Course

43

human mind to be able to formulate one unifying law that would encompass all phenomena.146 Positivism achieved true unity chiefly in subjective terms, that is, in terms of the subject, not object, of thought. All theories were human in that the subject, that is, the being doing the thinking, was man, or, collectively, humanity. Our knowledge would become unified and systematized if all of it related ultimately to humanity and satisfied individual or social needs. To Comte, there was only “one science,” the science of humanity or society, to which all the others were connected.147 He was already close to formulating his famous “subjective method.” Implicitly criticizing his colleagues at the Ecole Polytechnique and the professors at the Academy of Sciences, Comte also condemned specialization and “pure erudition” that prized “incoherent” facts and aimed at detailed studies. Rather than accumulating facts in a vain attempt to represent reality in an exact manner, a feat that would forever elude us, we should use facts and our ability to generalize and reason in order to build useful scientific laws or theories that related to our needs. Laws expressed the relations among facts in terms of their succession or similitude, that is, in time or space. “Thus the true positive spirit consists especially of seeing to foresee, of studying what is in order to determine what will be, according to the general dogma of the invariability of natural laws.” Laws were superior to observed facts, for they could direct our behavior, which should aim at improving the conditions of human existence as well as human nature. Subtly criticizing scientists, Comte insisted that even “the most eminent speculations” must have this “great practical destination.” He maintained that with its scientific laws, positivism could best transform the “milieu” by systematizing people’s action on society and nature, which included industrial development. In facilitating praxis, positivism could also improve human nature – within limits – by stimulating intelligence and sociability, the two traits that distinguished humans from animals. Several years before meeting Clotilde de Vaux, Comte seemed to be preparing facets of a new religion by promoting a human-oriented outlook. He pointed out, One can . . . see how the preponderant notion of Humanity must necessarily create, in the positive state, a full mental systematization, at least equivalent to the one that the theological age had finally composed based on the grand conception of God, which was then so feebly replaced . . . during the metaphysical transition by the vague idea of Nature.148 146 148

Gouhier, La Vie, 179. 147 Trait´e philosophique d’astronomie populaire, 34. Ibid., 27, 34–5, 38, 39, 72. See also Auguste Comte, Syst`eme de politique positive ou Trait´e du sociologie instituant la religion de l’Humanit´e, 4 vols. (Paris, 1851–4; 5th ed., identical

44

1843–1844: The Battle against the Pedantocracy

This was the first and only time in the Discours that Comte capitalized the “h” in humanity, as though to underscore its legitimacy as a rival to God and Nature.149 Moving toward the establishment of a new religion, Comte was led by his theory of humanity to consider the issue of morality because a moral system was “the principal application of every true theory of humanity.” Having completed the system of ideas in the Cours, which was crucial for “intellectual communion,” he maintained that the time had come to systematize morality: “The final reorganization . . . must take place first in ideas and then proceed to morals [moeurs], and in the last place, to institutions.” Once intellectual consensus was complemented by “a sufficient conformity of feelings, and a certain convergence of interests,” there would be “universal association.”150 Having concluded that his positive philosophy was at last a system, which prepared for the systematization of morality, he now gave the Cours the more weighty title Syst`eme de philosophie positive.151 It seemed to fit better with his next book, Syst`eme de politique positive, which would cover morality. One of the purposes of the Discours was to demonstrate that morality, which had to do with sociability and the feelings, did not need the underpinning of theology to be effective. Indeed, Comte argued that his secular morality was superior to any divinity-oriented morality. Whereas in the Cours, Comte had been somewhat tolerant of theology, which he believed had played a fundamental role in the development of the intellect, he now was more critical, as if to disqualify all previous theological systems from dominating society in the future.152 He emphasized throughout the Discours that there was a “final incompatibility” between science and theology both in terms of method and doctrine.153 He carefully avoided the use of the term

149 150 151

152 153

to the first, Paris: Au Si`ege de la Soci´et´e Positiviste, 1929) [hereafter, this work will be cited as Syst`eme], vol. 4, “Appendice,” 144; Robert C. Scharff, Comte after Positivism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 9, 88. Petit, introduction to Discours sur l’esprit positif, 29. Trait´e e´l´ementaire de g´eom´etrie analytique, 36; Trait´e philosophique d’astronomie populaire, 36–7, 62, 69. Comte called himself the “Author of the Syst`eme de Philosophie positive” on the title page of the Trait´e e´l´ementaire de g´eom´etrie analytique and the Discours sur l’esprit positif. He had been preoccupied with the systematic nature of his work since at least 1824, when he referred to his fundamental opuscule as the Syst`eme de politique positive. See also Comte’s worries about whether this title was justified in Comte to Blainville, February 27, 1826, in Auguste Comte, Correspondance in´edite d’Auguste Comte, 4 vols. (Paris, Au Si`ege de la Soci´et´e Positiviste, 1903), 1:19–20. Charles Bonnin, a good friend, assured him that the new title was legitimate. Bonnin to Comte, March 26, 1843, MAC. Petit, introduction to Discours sur l’esprit positif, 25. See also Annie Petit, “Des Sciences positives a` la politique positive,” in Auguste Comte: Trajectoires positivistes, ed. Petit, 110. Trait´e philosophique d’astronomie populaire, 42.

Offshoots of the Astronomy Course

45

“religion,” as if to leave open the possibility of creating a new religion that would not be theological, that is, not based on a belief in one or more gods. One proof of positivism’s superiority to theology in his eyes was that the latter was no longer respected intellectually. In terms of method, the theological spirit sought to understand the origin and first and final causes of phenomena, which the positivist spirit found “inaccessible to human reason.” In terms of doctrine, theologians’ emphasis on divine will was contrary to scientists’ stress on invariable laws. Without these invariable laws, which allow foresight, there could be no human intervention. The scientific spirit was concerned with maximizing the possibility for human intervention because it considered the natural order imperfect and in need of constant modification. This scientific belief was opposite to the “providential optimism” of theology, which sought periodic assistance from the realm of the supernatural.154 Targeting his talk at the workers, Comte also showed that the development of modern industry, which was associated with the positive spirit and the concern to improve conditions on this earth, was inimical to theology with its preoccupation with salvation and the afterlife. Theology was discredited not only because its intellectual doctrines were antithetical to “modern reason,” but because its moral doctrines were weak and corrupt. Like the various branches of human knowledge, rules of conduct could be made rational; they could emanate from a solid scientific understanding of human nature and humanity. But theologians ruined morality by making people behave according to “chimerical considerations” and supernatural injunctions, which were increasingly suspect. When people lost their faith, they often turned completely against moral precepts, which the spiritual power could not defend. Moreover, in bowing to modern pressures and allowing individuals greater freedom of examination, theology stimulated or endorsed “anti-social aberrations” (i.e., protests against the family and property), which were promulgated by “subversive utopias” (e.g., Saint-Simonians, Fourierists).155 Comte insisted that it was “above all in the name of morality” that people had to work for the triumph of positivism, which could determine through the scientific study of human experience, the “influence – direct or indirect, private and public – of each act, habit, and penchant or feeling.” From these determinations, it could assemble the rules of conduct that could best ensure happiness and social harmony. Positivist conclusions regarding morality would be as “certain as those of geometry itself.”156 Thus like Jeremy Bentham with his hedonic calculus, Comte believed that moral rules could 154

Ibid., 43, 48.

155

Ibid., 69, 71, 76.

156

Ibid., 76.

46

1843–1844: The Battle against the Pedantocracy

be determined in a straightforward, scientific manner. Problems of evaluating the complex results of acts, habits, and emotions did not concern him. Instead, Comte merely reasserted, as he did in the Cours, that the positive spirit would develop the social sentiment, the basis of morality. Unlike theology, which stressed the salvation of the individual, the positive spirit was social: “Man, strictly speaking, does not exist; only humanity can exist, since all our development is due to society.” Positivism would emphasize that each person was connected with humanity in both time and space. Once the prospect of an afterlife was eliminated with the disappearance of theology, people would develop their social feelings simply because sentiments of generosity, benevolence, and sympathy would give them much satisfaction and make them happy. “No longer being able to prolong themselves except by means of the species, individuals will be led therefore to incorporate themselves into it as completely as possible, by binding themselves to all collective existence, not only now, but also in the past, and especially future, in such a way as to make their lives more intense.” Comte’s celebration of the “identification” of the individual with humanity, which would develop sociability, was another indication of his movement toward the Religion of Humanity. He assumed that by developing the spirit of the whole, that is, humanity, positivism would stimulate the moral sentiment of duty. Also, intellectual life would strengthen rather than harm morality because all ideas would be linked and dominated by “the social point of view.” The opposition that had existed since the late Middle Ages between “intellectual needs and moral needs,” that is, between science and traditional religion, would finally disappear.157 Comte’s new aggressive outspokenness about the weakness of traditional religion shocked Massin. She told him that their mutual friend Armand Marrast, though personally in agreement with him, would never let his newspaper, Le National, include a word of praise for the Discours because it was far too atheistic and controversial. She begged him to make some sort of compromise, perhaps by putting in a good word about deism. Comte angrily refused.158 Besides expanding his ideas on morality and Humanity, Comte developed in the Discours his theory of class structure. He explained that with the organization of human action on nature in the modern period, there emerged “two distinct classes, very unequal in number, but equally indispensable.” One consisted of “entrepreneurs,” who directed the entire “operation,” and the other was composed of the “operators,” that is, the workers, who executed discrete activities 157

Ibid, 77, 80, 81.

158

Massin to Comte, March 14, 1844, MAC.

Offshoots of the Astronomy Course

47

without worrying about how they fit into the whole. Like Marx, who argued that one’s consciousness derived from one’s place in the economic system, Comte believed that a person’s work influenced his or her mental attitudes. The workers were in closer touch with nature and more sensitive to the concrete results of speculation than the entrepreneurs were. Their work was simpler and had clearer goals, faster results, and “more imperious conditions.” Once positivism penetrated “this vast social milieu,” the workers would be the most responsive to its teachings, especially because they were not ruined by a metaphysical education.159 For intellectual, political, moral, and social reasons, workers would flock to positivism. As in the Cours, Comte emphasized that the workers would be naturally drawn to the “contemplative class.” To a certain degree, he idealized the workers, though not in a condescending manner, and he sought out similarities between them and the positive philosophers.160 In contrast to the entrepreneurs, workers and philosophers did not care exclusively about money, tended not to be calculating and ambitious, had more leisure time and fewer worries, and sought more aesthetic diversions. The workers would be the natural supporters of the positive school chiefly because of their dissatisfaction with contemporary politics. Comte noted astutely that political debates were monopolized by the upper and middle classes, who sought power and wanted the lower classes to help them when political battles broke out. These wealthier members of society received assistance from philosophers and social reformers, such as Voltaire, Kant, and Saint-Simon, who insisted that the old theological moral precepts be inculcated in the people in the interest of social order, despite the fact that they were not demonstrable. Comte rejected this position as hypocritical. Aware of the new democratization of culture, he found it impossible to believe that the upper classes and their intellectual supporters could successfully keep a new secular moral system from the lower classes. But he showed his own ignorance and a disregard for the growing power of socialism in the 1840s when he claimed that the workers were bereft of views and goals of their own, indifferent to the metaphysicians’ stress on their rights, and uninterested in acquiring power for themselves. He wrote, “The nature of our civilization prevents evidently the proletarians from looking forward to, and even from desiring, any important participation in political power. . . . The people may be essentially interested only in the effective use of power, in whatever hands it resides, and not in its special 159 160

Trait´e philosophique d’astronomie populaire, 91. Petit, introduction to Discours sur l’esprit positif, 26.

48

1843–1844: The Battle against the Pedantocracy

conquest.”161 Comte naively assumed they would support positivism because of its moral agenda stressing people’s duties to humanity. In addition, Comte argued that workers would welcome positivism because it would emphasize the need to improve living conditions and would fulfill their “real social program,” which consisted of demands for “normal education” and “regular work.” He reserved further discussion of the right to work for the Syst`eme de politique positive, but he did discuss education. Comte believed that the lower classes needed a general education in the sciences, which would prepare them to understand positive philosophy. If the sciences were democratized, that is, allowed to seep into the lower classes instead of being considered the exclusive property of specialized scientists, Comte believed that there would develop a “vast” and “impartial” tribunal. Composed of “the mass of sensible men,” this tribunal would eliminate “false scientific opinions” and support philosophical work. Considering Comte’s pronounced elitist tendencies, this idea of a popular tribunal shows the extent of his anger at the scientists. He far preferred to put his trust in the people and their common sense than in his colleagues, who rejected him time after time. Common sense was not only a source of the positive spirit but a means of controlling scholars, who were often driven to extravagance by their lofty ambitions, abstractions, and isolation.162 Comte concluded his discussion of social structure by correlating the different classes and philosophical systems. He argued that theology suited only the “upper classes” because it prolonged their political dominance; metaphysics was embraced by the “middle classes,” which found it supportive of their ambition; and positivism was “destined” intellectually and socially for the proletarians. Only positive politics could constitute “popular politics.”163 Almost in spite of himself, Comte seemed to grasp the fact that the masses were about to take an important role in politics. He hoped to preempt socialism, whose appeal he attempted to dismiss. But Comte was not acting solely out of opportunism; his interest in the working class dated back to his youth, when he collaborated with Saint-Simon, whose ideas deeply influenced the aspiring socialists of the 1840s. After finishing the Discours, he was troubled by fatigue and stomach aches, no doubt brought on by his worries about his job, and he was forced to stop working.164 He could not begin thinking about the more mundane task of writing up his lectures on astronomy until July 1. He then rushed to complete the Trait´e philosophique d’astronomie populaire before his examinations began in late July. Writing a chapter 161 163

Trait´e philosophique d’astronomie populaire, 95. 162 Ibid., 43, 86, 110. Ibid., 94, 98. 164 Comte to Mill, May 1, 1844, CG, 2:247.

Offshoots of the Astronomy Course

49

a day, Comte was proud that he had covered “all the essential notions of astronomy” in less than a month, something “which maybe never before had occurred.”165 Comprising both the Discours, which was called the “Discours pr´eliminaire,” and the lectures on astronomy, the book was published by Carilian-Goeury et Victor Dalmont in September 1844.166 One thousand copies were printed – two hundred less than the Trait´e e´l´ementaire de g´eom´etrie analytique – and Comte was paid one thousand francs.167 Comte thought highly enough of it to send it to Humboldt, the Academy of Sciences, the Academy of Berlin, and the naturalist Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire. The latter had been sent to spy on his course in 1842.168 In the Trait´e philosophique d’astronomie populaire, Comte showed that astronomy, the first science to develop in a positive fashion, represented “the scientific spirit in its initial purity.”169 It studied the most general and simplest phenomena, those that caught the attention of everyone. Unlike mathematics, which taught pure reasoning, a characteristic of the metaphysical age, astronomy developed skills in observation, which was a leading attribute of the positive era.170 Astronomy was also important for inculcating in a broad range of people the “fundamental sentiment of the invariability of natural laws,” which opposed the theological reliance on supernatural wills. Thus one reason Comte stressed the importance of astronomy was that it powerfully demonstrated to the lower classes the “inevitable” collision between science and theology.171 Another major argument of the book was that astronomy must relate in some way to “man,” not the entire universe. Comte explained, “All our true studies are necessarily limited to our world, which, however, constitutes only a minimal element of the universe, whose exploration is essentially forbidden to us” because our idea of it is “too vague and indefinite.” Rejecting the position he took in his paper on Laplace, which discussed the motions of heavenly bodies, Comte declared that we will always remain ignorant of many cosmological laws. Astronomical phenomena should be studied only 165 166 167 168

169 170 171

Comte to Mill, July 22, 1844, CG, 2:270. The original manuscript of the Trait´e philosophique d’astronomie populaire, including the Discours, is in N.a.fr. 17910, BN. Contract between Comte and Carilian-Goeury et Victor Dalmont, January 27, 1844, MAC. See list of people to whom Comte sent the Trait´e philosophique d’astronomie populaire in the packet entitled “Circulation of Comte’s Works,” MAC. Also see Pickering, Comte, 1:541. Comte to Narcisse Vieillard, January 13, 1849, CG, 5:4. Bensaude-Vincent, “Auguste Comte,” 150. Comte was, in effect, trying to dethrone mathematics as the premier science. Trait´e philosophique d’astronomie populaire, 43.

50

1843–1844: The Battle against the Pedantocracy

in so far as they relate to human needs. They must serve to refine our action on nature and improve our understanding of our own nature and conditions of existence. The “solar point of view” was “the highest [point of view] that we could and must attain.” Comte used astronomy to underscore his main argument that all of the sciences must relate to humanity so that our understanding could be unified. His restriction of astronomical research to the immediate solar system, that is, “the world,” reflects his practical approach, one that preferred concrete results to speculation about remote objects, whether they be gods or other planets. This approach was part of his plan to make people comfortable with the concept of the limits of knowledge. Comte never expressed a triumphalist view of the sciences. His book showed, especially in its historical parts, how scientific progress was tentative at best. Once the positive era began, scientists would be told what they could and could not study. The people, acting through positive philosophers, would have some say. Comte was willing to sacrifice intellectual curiosity for its own sake in order to gain greater certitude and clarity on a small scale and to make the sciences serve larger social ends. His position represents another jab at the “vicious,” arrogant scientific regime, whose “mediocre intellectual efforts” went into specialized, isolated research.172 He anticipated the problem of the politics of scientific research. How in the modern era should public policy shape the ends of science, especially as research becomes more expensive and depends at least in part on government subsidies?173 Perhaps Comte’s approach seems authoritarian, but it is in keeping with the realities of the modern era. Comte was pleased with the publication of the Trait´e philosophique d’astronomie populaire, especially the philosophical introduction, that is, the “Discours pr´eliminaire.” He was particularly gratified that the government seemed to accept his compromise because the authorities gave him no trouble about his daring introduction. In 1845, he added another two introductory lectures, reflecting his desire to give purely philosophical ideas greater prominence in the course. He explained that in the new age of history, morality would be guided by positivist principles and all men would be brothers.174 He also took a “new public step.” In advertising his astronomy course in the newspapers, he mentioned specifically that he would devote six introductory lectures to the “philosophical preamble,” which he now considered part of 172

173 174

Ibid., 35, 481, 484. Bensaude-Vincent, “Auguste Comte,” 166. She also points out that Comte’s explanation of astronomy was difficult to understand. To Comte, popularization did not mean “dumbing down” the subject matter. Ibid., 164. Juliette Grange, Auguste Comte: La Politique et la science (Paris: Odile Jacob, 2000), 10. For a description of the contents of Comte’s lectures, see d’Yenne to Comte, February 16, 1845, MAC.

Comte’s Loss of Position

51

the “initiation” into positive philosophy itself.175 He also informed the authorities of his intentions and was pleased by their encouraging replies.176 But in truth, they had little reason to act, for in the Discours, he had repeatedly reassured them that he was working with them to preserve order and instructing the proletariat in the sciences to prevent the spread of “the metaphysical contagion” (e.g., the doctrine of popular sovereignty).177 In 1846, he expanded his introductory material on the positive spirit to twelve lectures, about half of the total number he gave.178 His “opening discourse” was taking over his course. Moreover, it was now his habit to speak without notes for three hours, instead of the usual two.179 Indeed, Comte boasted that he could keep the attention of his audience for “three big hours in a room without a fire.”180 By all accounts, he was a riveting speaker. comte’s lo ss of po sition While writing the Trait´e philosophique d’astronomie populaire, Comte was preoccupied by his position at the Ecole Polytechnique. His wife reminded him to exercise greater caution than usual when he gave examinations on his tour because he would certainly be carefully scrutinized. She had always believed his antagonistic preface to the last volume of the Cours would cost him his job and that his enemies were waiting to trap him.181 Worried that his feeling of oppression was hurting the development of his ideas, Comte looked to the government for protection. Though dreaming of attaining Coriolis’s chair, he wanted in the short term to guarantee his position as admissions examiner. His condemnation of “pedantocratic utopias” and his offers to help maintain order in the Discours would, he assumed, please government officials.182 His main hope was that Soult, the minister of war, would appear as a kind of deus ex machina, saving him from his persecutors, who he believed were growing in number as his fame augmented. 175

176

177 178 179 180 181 182

Comte to Grote, February 27, 1845, CG, 2:328; Comte to Jacquier Eusice (this is the way the man signed his name), March 5, 1845, CG, 2:337. The Moniteur and the Journal des D´ebats publicized his course in 1846. See Comte to Lewes, January 28, 1847, CG, 4:101. Comte sent the Trait´e philosophique d’astronomie populaire to the mayor of the third arrondissement and the minister of public instruction and told them to read the Discours. Trait´e philosophique d’astronomie populaire, 98. Comte to Mill, September 3, 1846, CG, 4:36. Coster to Comte, February 13, 1846, MAC. Comte to George Henry Lewes, March 20, 1847, CG, 4:107. Massin to Comte, September 9, 1842 and July 28, 1843, MAC. Comte to Mill, December 30, 1842, CG, 1:125.

52

1843–1844: The Battle against the Pedantocracy

Comte may have felt that he could count on Soult because the minister of war was still engaged in a quarrel with the Ecole Polytechnique. More loyal to its revolutionary roots than to royalism, the school favored radical causes, and it had had several clashes with the government since 1815. Soult had already been instrumental in the dismissal of the student body in 1832. More disorders had led to the suspension of over a hundred students in 1834. On November 6, 1843, Soult issued a new ordinance, partly stimulated by the problem with the drawing teacher in 1842. The ordinance stated that when the position of director of studies or any teaching or examining position at the school became vacant, the Council of Instruction must give him a list of three candidates. The Academy of Sciences also had to present a list of three candidates. He would make the final choice. (Previously each of the two bodies had often submitted one candidate, thus severely limiting the government’s options.)183 Comte rejoiced at the news of this controversial ordinance, exclaiming that the minister obviously wanted “to temper this pedantocracy, which for ten years has produced so many deplorable abuses.”184 He was sure the story of his own problems earlier this year had contributed to the minister’s decision to reduce the influence of academic corporations. According to Comte, Arago’s coterie furiously objected to the new regulation. Arago was a leftist deputy in the chamber, and he and his liberal friends did not approve of this government interference. The ordinance also produced an outcry among leftist journalists, including Comte’s old friend Armand Marrast.185 By supporting the government, Comte placed himself in the conservative camp, a decision that would prove to be unwise. After Coriolis died in mid-September 1843, Arago’s coterie lobbied for the appointment of Liouville as the new director of studies to replace him. Liouville’s chances of obtaining this position of director of studies were small, especially because he was seen as a liberal ally of Arago.186 Arago still dominated the liberal coterie at the Ecole Polytechnique.187 However, if he did become director, Comte could apply once again for the chair of analysis, which Liouville had held 183

184 185 186

187

Jean-Pierre Callot, Histoire de l’Ecole Polytechnique (Paris, Charles Lavanzelle, 1982), 82– 3; H. A. C. Collingham, The July Monarchy: A Political History of France 1830–1848, ed. R. S. Alexander (London: Longman, 1988), 241; Belhoste, La Formation d’une technocratie, 96. Comte to Valat, November 22, 1843, CG, 2:215. Comte to Mill, August 23, 1844, CG, 2:276. Liouville’s democratic convictions were well known. In April 1848, he was elected to the Constituent Assembly. See Ren´e Taton, “Liouville, Joseph,” in Dictionary of Scientific Biography, ed. Charles Coulston Gillispie, 16 vols. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1970–80), 8:381. Belhoste, La Formation d’une technocratie, 92–3.

Comte’s Loss of Position

53

since 1838. Comte tormented himself, pondering every angle of the situation. Yet he worried most about the problems he might have in committee meetings regarding his present position.188 In late January 1844, Comte wrote Soult a long letter, begging him to make his post of admissions examiner permanent and to raise his salary. Comte gave his job great importance, likening it to a judgeship, which required “rare moral energy.” He argued that the Council of Instruction’s idea of making the position an annual one was unwise because it would be impossible each year to find sufficient candidates who had the requisite “intellectual and moral qualities.” Moreover, examiners, if elected for a one-year term, would always be inexperienced and would not take their responsibilities seriously. Finally, the proposed new system would heighten, not solve, the conflict-of-interest problem, for the new admissions examiners would inevitably find work as preparatory school teachers elsewhere to make ends meet. Addressing one issue brought up in the Council, Comte admitted that he disliked having two different positions. But the reason he gave was not that he felt that their incompatibility adversely affected his performance – an incompatibility that concerned the Council. Instead, he explained that he found himself in an uncomfortable position because his job at the Ecole Polytechnique made him superior to the other teachers at the Institut Laville, who resented him. (Laville had informed him that they generally did not like him.) Comte explained that the Council’s real motivation in this affair was not to perform a public service, for scientists were not interested in the welfare of the country. The Council wanted merely “to satisfy unworthy private passions,” especially those of Arago and his friends. Liouville, Arago’s associate, was allegedly pushing for Comte’s ouster in order to replace him with his own prot´eg´e – “one of his creatures.”189 Comte ended his letter to Soult by pointedly reminding him that he was favored by all three heads of the Ecole Polytechnique under whom he had worked: generals Henri-Alexis Tholos´e, Jean Baptiste Philibert Vaillant, and Jean-Baptiste Charles Gauldr´ee Boilleau.190 It is hard to gauge Soult’s reaction to Comte’s letter. Was he impressed by Comte’s case, seduced by his sycophantic phrases, or bored by an internecine battle typical of academic life? Most importantly, did he really care? After all, Comte was only a minor figure at the school. Yet it seems that Soult used Comte’s case to oppose the 188

189 190

When Comte was on his examination tour, Lenoir went to see Liouville, who told him he wanted to be director of studies. Lenoir informed Comte. See Lenoir to Comte, Octobre 14, 1843, MAC. Comte to the Mar´echal Duc de Dalmatie, Minister of War, January 25, 1844, CG, 2:231–4. See the favorable letter from Vaillant to Comte, April 7, 1843, MAC.

54

1843–1844: The Battle against the Pedantocracy

Council and push forward his plan to give the Ecole Polytechnique another constitution.191 Like Comte, Soult, who had been one of Napoleon’s most successful and loyal generals, was a stern, serious man, who loved order and efficiency.192 He met with Comte briefly on January 30, and the two men shared their feelings of animosity toward “the Polytechnique pedantocracy” and Arago’s clique. In great confidence, Soult told him of his plan for a new constitution. Comte boasted that he was probably the only member of “the speculative class” to approve of Soult’s reforms.193 Even if the minister could not change the status of his job, Comte was sure his support would put an end to plots against him. But surely Comte was politically naive to think that his left-leaning colleagues would stop trying to get rid of him, particularly because he was allying himself with an unpopular regime. Moreover, Comte did not cease antagonizing them. His Discours appeared in February 1844. Reflecting the opinions he had planned to develop in his brochure on the Ecole Polytechnique, he was very critical of scientists, academies, and French education in general.194 As his wife pointed out, this work perhaps made more of an impact than anything that he had previously published.195 In March 1844, Comte found out that Liouville had lost to Duhamel (the permanent examiner) in the contest for director of studies.196 Although slightly disappointed that Liouville was not going to be vacating the chair in analysis, Comte was pleased that a friend, instead of an enemy, now occupied the powerful administrative position in a school run by “miserable pedants.”197 He now was so certain that he would not encounter any difficulties in being reelected to his old position that he intended not to campaign as he had in 1843. He felt confident that he could “allow a free course to the perilous experiment” that he had started in 1842.198 But there is evidence that he was becoming sloppy. One administrator admonished him in early 1844, complaining that he had given far fewer grades to students than the other r´ep´etiteurs had. Avoiding the burden of quizzing the students on the course material, he was not working as assiduously as he was supposed to.199 191 193 194 195 196 197 198 199

Pierre Arnaud, CG, 2:412nCCXXXVII. 192 Collingham, The July Monarchy, 40, 144. Comte to Mill, February 6, 1844, CG, 2:240. Trait´e philosophique d’astronomie populaire, 84–9. Massin to Comte, March 10, 1844, MAC. Coriolis had died earlier that year. Comte outlined the politics to Pierre Valat in a letter of September 28, 1843, CG, 2:196. Comte to Blainville, May 28, 1844, CG, 2:255. Comte to Mill, July 22, 1844, CG, 2:263. See also Comte to Mill, May 1, 1844, CG, 2:252–3. Michel Jacques Laurent Germain Guillemain to Comte, January 9, 1844, MAC. Some of Comte’s examination questions and analyses of students’ responses are reproduced in Pierre Laffitte, ed., “Mat´eriaux pour servir a` la biographie d’Auguste Comte: Auguste

Comte’s Loss of Position

55

In the meantime, the tense relationship between the Ecole Polytechnique and the government worsened. In March 1844, the students gave their support to a subscription begun by Armand Marrast’s republican journal, Le National, to present a sword of honor to Admiral Dupetit-Thouars. An ardent colonialist, Dupetit-Thouars had without authorization annexed and occupied Tahiti after the natives had revolted against the French protectorate established there in 1842. In doing so, he had chased their queen from the throne and insulted and expelled the English consul and missionary, George Pritchard, whom he accused of instigating the revolt. When the English government demanded reparations, Franc¸ois Guizot, the minister of foreign affairs, agreed to pay in order to avoid a war, which would lead to instability domestically. He returned Tahiti to its protectorate status and reprimanded Dupetit-Thouars for having taken possession of it. The opposition, including Arago and other republicans, many of whom tended to be Anglophobes, accused Guizot of cowardice in betraying French interests and avoiding war with the British. The Pritchard affair dominated politics for the next several years. The Ecole Polytechnique students considered Dupetit-Thouars a hero. Their support for the opposition exasperated the government, which confined them to their barracks for two weeks. Furious, the students sought an excuse to destroy the school. Soult, who ran the government along with Guizot, was not pleased and threatened to punish the students if they exhibited any more insolent behavior.200 Knowing her husband did not read the newspaper because of his regime of cerebral hygiene, Massin meticulously related the incident to Comte; she was sure that he would find that it smacked of “Saint-Simonian politics” in that the French seemed eager to increase their influence in developing countries. Making fun of the English missionaries, who were ever ready to preach and then enrich themselves, and mocking the Admiral, who was to receive a sword of honor for his troubles, she cleverly wrote, “I assure you that I find all this sad. Unlike you, I do not have the idea of posterity to shield me from what is happening right before my eyes; I cannot isolate myself, for I live only once.”201 Administrative appointments proved to be another bone of contention. On May 10, 1844, the Council of Instruction appointed a

200

201

Comte Examinateur d’admission a` l’Ecole Polytechnique,” RO, 2d ser., 11 (May 1895): 417–35. Soult was nominally in charge, whereas Guizot was in truth head of the cabinet. Philippe Darriulat, Les Patriotes: La Gauche r´epublicaine et la nation 1830–1870 (Paris: Seuil, 2001), 75; Fr´ed´eric Hulot, Le Mar´echal Soult (Paris: Flammarion/Pygmalion, 2003), 231; Collingham, The July Monarchy, 321, 322; Callot, Histoire de l’Ecole Polytechnique, 92; G[aston] Pinet, Histoire de l’Ecole Polytechnique (Paris: Librairie Polytechnique Baudry et Cie , 1887), 233. Massin to Comte, March 30, 1844, MAC.

56

1843–1844: The Battle against the Pedantocracy

special committee composed of Sturm, Lam´e, and Leroy to present a list of candidates for admissions examiner. The records of the meeting do not explain why Comte was not perfunctorily reelected at this time.202 But there were apparently many complaints coming in from all parts of France about his examinations. One man complained that several students had not answered Comte’s examination questions “in a satisfying manner” but seemed certain of getting a good ranking. He scolded Comte directly: “People say that it’s enough simply to tell you stories and to flatter you to obtain it.”203 Others again pointed out that he was not changing his questions, which were commended as brilliant in the beginning of his career but now were routine. Lyc´ee students who were to be tested by Comte merely studied his previous exams and practiced their responses to make them seem genuinely spontaneous. Comte knew all about these practices but thought he could still pick out the good candidates and not be fooled. One graduate of the Ecole Polytechnique later wrote that Comte succeeded in making the students think they were being tested only on their mathematical analysis while he was in fact assessing their “memory, skill in abstraction or generalization, initiative, penetration, etc.”204 Yet the administration did not see the situation that way. It repeatedly accused Comte of making terrible errors in ranking students on the admissions list.205 Members of the faculty also brought up again the issue that Comte had broken the rule prohibiting teachers from publishing elementary works that could be used to study for exams.206 Sturm and Liouville now were joined by Michel Chasles and Lam´e in claiming to find the Trait´e de g´eom´etrie analytique to be full of embarrassing errors. Finally, after having been continually attacked by Comte, who claimed he should be exempt from the rule that he had to be reappointed every year, some members of the Council wondered about his mental health and reminded their colleagues 202 203 204 205

206

Minutes of the meeting of May 10, 1844, Registre: Proc`es-Verbal du Conseil d’Instruction, vol. 8, EP. Du- to Comte, n.d., MAC. Testimony of V. Pomey, cited in “Auguste Comte, Examinateur,” Bulletin Auguste Comte 1 ( June 1922): 336. Bertrand, “Souvenirs acad´emiques,” 543; idem, review of Auguste Comte, fondateur du positivisme, sa vie, sa doctrine, by R. P. Gruber, in Journal des savants (August 1892): 689. See also Bertrand to Laffitte, March 20, 1892, MAC. One of Comte’s admirers and friends, Colonel Dussaussoy, wrote to him August 30, 1844, acknowledging that there were many complaints about Comte’s exams. Yet he gave different reasons for these complaints: “I know that people reproach you for having an excessively scholarly manner of examining by asking problems which bad students might know by heart and very good ones might be ignorant of.” Dussaussoy believed Comte had done an excellent job in raising the standards of instruction because his exams forced students to apply immediately the principles they had learned in school. Dussaussoy to Comte, August 30, 1844, MAC. Comte simply said the rule did not apply to him and that he had never promised to abide by it. Bertrand, “Souvenirs acad´emiques,” 544.

Comte’s Loss of Position

57

about his stint in an asylum in 1826.207 John Austin, who was residing in Paris, wrote to Mill, I fear, from what M. Dunoyer [Comte’s friend, the economist] told me, that there is a good deal of prejudice against Comte, as being a mere man of speculation, more intent upon impressing his own theories upon the students, than upon exactly performing the duties of his office. It is probable, too, that the fit of insanity under which he has suffered, coupled with the hostility of the men of science whom he has provoked, may have led to a general belief that he is half mad.208

Comte’s recent exalted claims to superiority gave rise to fears that it would be irresponsible to keep him on the faculty. A week later, the special committee gave the Council a list of five names, none of which was Comte’s. Surprised, one member of the Council asked why Comte’s name was omitted. Had the committee decided his examination methods were faulty or his impartiality impaired? These were the real issues. Yet the commission simply said that it had based its decision on the reasons brought up last year in the meeting of the Council, which had decided then not to reelect him in 1844. Evidence provided by the minutes of the official meeting suggest that the commission did not seriously consider Comte’s case in 1844. Everything had been decided in 1843, although no formal vote had been taken. Yet Comte’s supporter insisted that he be at least included on the final list of three candidates who were to be presented to the minister of war. Otherwise, Comte’s self-respect and ability to earn a living would be damaged. A heated discussion led to the postponement of the nomination of the candidates. On May 27, fourteen members of the Council of Instruction met. In the round of voting for the first candidate on the list, Comte received only three votes. And he received only two more votes, for a total of five, in each of the succeeding two rounds for the second and third candidates. The first candidate and eventual appointee was Pierre Wantzel, a brilliant young adjunct r´ep´etiteur of analysis, who never dreamed of supplanting his former teacher.209 Yet the fact that he had published in Liouville’s Journal de Math´ematiques undoubtedly helped him.210 The other two candidates were regular r´ep´etiteurs. 207 208

209 210

Ibid., 543. John Austin to John Stuart Mill, n.d., excerpt in The Earlier Letters of John Stuart Mill, 1812–1848, ed. Francis Mineka, vol. 13 of Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, ed. John M. Robson (Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1963), 653–4n5. Bertrand, “Souvenirs acad´emiques,” 537. J. J. O’Connor and E. F. Robertson, “Pierre Laurent Wantzel,” http://www-history. mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Wantzel.html (accessed December 8, 2006).

58

1843–1844: The Battle against the Pedantocracy

The next day, Duhamel informed Comte of the results.211 Though surprised and worried, Comte dramatized his situation, proudly declaring declared that he did not “fear” the “all-out war” desired by his enemies.212 The battle to him was philosophical. He figured that out of the nine hostile votes, one was from a person who was theological in outlook, several were metaphysicians, and the rest were mathematicians. All felt threatened by positivism and would do almost anything to eliminate him.213 He hoped his case would rally others against “the pedantocratic despotism” and in this way prove “useful to the public.”214 Caroline Massin wisely pointed out to Comte that pursuing the matter further would only irritate his enemies and create a “new scandal,” which would prove imprudent. The truth was that no one at the school really liked him, especially because of the damage he had done in his preface to the Cours. She begged him to be patient and self-controlled: “Deign to listen to me at least one time.”215 Heedless of her advice, Comte met with the minister on June 1 and personally gave him a letter that explained the situation. After complaining about the “odious persecution” of Liouville, who was acting under orders from Arago, Comte demanded an inquiry into the “corrupt practices” of the Council and urged Soult to intervene in his behalf. To boost his case, Comte pointed out that the three current “true heads” of the school – General Gauldr´ee Boilleau, Colonel Michel Jacques Laurent Germain Guillemain (the secondin-command), and Duhamel (the director of studies) – supported him; that the Council, motivated by personal passions, gave no reasons for omitting his name from the list of candidates; and that it was not fair that the new rule should begin with him. What he feared was that the public would think that all of a sudden after seven years of fine service, he was being fired for some grave infraction. His enemies were already telling “cowardly” lies about his mental illness as a way of hiding the true reason for their desire to fire him.216 Appealing to the minister’s authoritarian tendencies, Comte also reminded him that the unruly Council was usurping the government’s power to change ordinances and that the left-wing republican Arago was secretly gaining in strength. The state should seize the opportunity to take control of the school. 211 212 213 214 215 216

Duhamel to Comte, May 28, 1844, MAC. Comte to Maximilien Marie, May 28, 1844, CG, 2:254. Comte to Mill, July 22, 1844, CG, 2:264. Comte to Maximilien Marie, May 28, 1844, CG, 2:254. Massin to Comte, June 1, 1844, MAC. See also Massin to Comte, December 20, 1844, MAC. Comte to the Mar´echal Duc de Dalmatie, Minister of War, May 30, 1844, CG, 2:255; Comte to Blainville, May 28, 1844, CG, 2:255, 256; Guillemain to Comte, June 7, 1844, MAC.

Comte’s Loss of Position

59

In response, Soult promised to do as much as he could and set up a commission to examine the case; it was headed by General Moline de Saint-Yon, the director of personnel.217 General Tholos´e, the former head of the Ecole Polytechnique and a friend of Soult, and Colonel Peronnier, who had been second-in-command, said they also would do everything possible to counter the injustice done to Comte.218 Moreover, although he disregarded many of Comte’s most punitive recommendations, Soult wrote a letter to the Council of Instruction, in which he asked the reasons for the absence of his name on the list of candidates. It seemed “unjust” and contrary to the goal of public service to fire someone who had done his job well for seven years. Had Comte done something wrong to merit such a fate? Repeating Comte’s argument, Soult made it clear that he did not approve of the Council’s plan to elect new people to temporary posts each year. The career of admissions examiner would then be opened to “a crowd of ambitious people.”219 The minister hinted that he thought the Council was deliberately punishing his own candidate to take revenge. He demanded a new list of candidates. A special meeting of the Council was called on June 27, 1844 to consider this letter. A committee made up of Duhamel, Dubois, and Leroy was told to draft a response, which was presented at another special meeting on July 1. They wrote the following, “The council believes that it is impossible to review the different motives which determined the votes of its members in the presentation it made of candidates for the post of admissions examiner.” Comte had always performed his duties with “loyalty and zeal,” but it was in the interest of “the examinations and teaching” not to reappoint him.220 Avoiding in particular the issue of Comte’s mental well-being, which it felt was inappropriate to make part of the public record, the Council’s reply to the minister was deliberately vague and evasive.221 The Council showed its pique by resubmitting to him the same list of candidates. Before the meeting adjourned, the members of the Council voted to insert into the minutes a statement alluding to the “painful surprise” Soult’s interference caused them.222 217 218

219

220

221 222

Comte to General d’Hautpoul, April 30, 1850, CG, 6:147. General Tholos´e to Comte, June 2, 1844; Peronnier to Comte, June 1, 1844, MAC. On Tholos´e, see Cosseron de Villenoisy, “Infanterie et cavalerie,” Ecole Polytechnique, Livre du centenaire, 2:301–3. Mar´echal Duc de Dalmatie, Minister of War, to the Council of Instruction, Ecole Polytechnique, June [?], 1844, in the Minutes of the meeting of June 27, 1844, Registre: Proc`es-Verbal du Conseil d’Instruction, vol. 8, EP. Proposed Draft of Letter from Council of Instruction to Mar´echal Duc de Dalmatie, Minister of War, in Minutes of the meeting of July 1, 1844, Registre: Proc`es-Verbal du Conseil d’Instruction, vol. 8, EP. Bertrand, “Souvenirs acad´emiques,” 544. Minutes of the meeting of July 1, 1844, Registre: Proc`es-Verbal du Conseil d’Instruction, vol. 8, EP.

60

1843–1844: The Battle against the Pedantocracy

Comte was clearly caught in a political battle. His former classmate, Joseph L´eon Talabot, who was now a notable both in the Chamber of Deputies and in the metallurgy business, tried to help him but was taken aback by all the intrigue.223 Despite his earlier rift with Comte, Guizot, who was hated by the left, especially after the Pritchard affair, intervened and urged his colleague Soult to support Comte.224 In Comte’s words, Guizot supported him because he was “the only writer, who, in the scientific world, defends the just rights of the central government against pedantocratic ambitions.”225 But Comte later condemned Guizot for not doing more to help him, calling him a “miserable parvenu, or rather a pedant without a heart.”226 Comte did not fully recognize the complex political machinations at work in his case. The day before he was to begin giving examinations, Comte learned that his appeal to retain his position had failed. He accused the Council members of using the pretext of trying out a new system of changing examiners to hide their personal animosity toward him. To show his displeasure, Soult refused to appoint anyone in Comte’s place and named Wantzel only substitute-examiner to make sure someone gave the admissions examinations.227 Soult also wrote a letter to General Boilleau, praising Comte’s record as examiner and condemning the injustice of the Council. He could not understand how the Council could fire Comte after it agreed that he had done his job well.228 But nothing was done to help Comte. 223

224

225 226 227 228

Joseph L´eon Talabot to Comte, July 23, 1844, MAC. Talabot had flirted with SaintSimonianism in the 1820s. See Pickering, Comte, 1:417, 425, 430; Jean Lenoble, “Talabot (les fr`eres)” in Dictionnaire du Second Empire, ed. Jean Tulard (Paris: Fayard, 1995), 1235–6. Comte to Mill, July 22, 1844, CG, 2:266. Guizot was asked to intervene by John and Sarah Austin, close friends of Mill. When the Austins visited Paris, Mill had put them in touch with Comte, with whom they became very friendly. The Austins asked Guizot to intervene in July 1844 and then talked to him about Comte again in December 1844. To reinforce their case, they also alluded to Mill’s interest in Comte. Sarah Austin told Comte that Guizot supported him and promised to speak to the Minister of War in his behalf: “He spoke of you as one must.” Mrs. Austin to Comte, December 24, 1844, in Laffitte, “Correspondance d’Aug. Comte avec Mme Austin: Suite,” RO, 2d ser., 20 (March 1900): 280. See also Comte to Mme Austin, July 22, 1844, CG, 2:273. The letter that Comte wrote to Sarah Austin on January 6, 1845 to tell her of the disappointing final results of Guizot’s “kindly intervention” is not published in CG. See Comte to Madame Austin, January 6, 1845, in “Correspondance d’Aug. Comte avec Mme Austin: Suite,” RO, 2d ser., 20 (March 1900): 281. Also see J. S. Mill to Mrs. Austin, January 18, 1845 in Janet Ross, Three Generations of Englishwomen: Memoirs and Correspondence of Mrs. John Taylor, Mrs. Sarah Austin, and Lady Duff Gordon, 2 vols. (London: John Murray, 1888), 1:199. Comte to Mill, December 25, 1844, CG, 2:306. Comte to Mill, September 3, 1846, CG, 4:35. See also Comte to Mill, December 18, 1845, CG, 3:246. See Wantzel’s Dossier, EP; minutes of the meeting of July 10, 1844, Registre: Proc`esVerbal du Conseil d’Instruction, vol. 8, EP. Comte to Mill, July 22, 1844, CG, 2:266. This must be the letter that Comte mentions in the Discours, 421. The letter, according to Comte, was dated July 15, 1844. See also

The Recourse to Mill

61

Thus, Comte technically retained his title in 1844 but lost his salary of three thousand francs. His other job as r´ep´etiteur brought him only two thousand francs a year. (He also earned three thousand a year at the Institut Laville.)229 He sadly admitted that Soult had done everything legally possible for him. Nevertheless, his support as well as that of Boilleau gave Comte hope for the future.230 An opportunity for a redress of the situation would occur soon. Changing the time of year in which it elected admissions examiners, the Council declared that the next appointment would be made in November instead of the following May. With no savings and much of his yearly income gone, Comte would, in the meantime, have trouble making ends meet. He did not want to expend energy finding another position because he was sure he would get his regular job back. Nor did he seriously consider changing his own habits to reduce his expenses. He knew he could count on support from the only person besides himself he considered part of the spiritual power: John Stuart Mill. the recour se to mill Mill had initiated a correspondence with Comte in 1841 and had already offered to help him several times. In 1842, when Comte had contemplated writing the infamous “Personal Preface” and voiced his concern about possibly losing his job, Mill had encouraged him to go ahead with his plan, suggesting that he would take care of any problems that might arise. In June 1843, when Comte learned he had barely retained his job, Mill wrote, “Whatever future is reserved to you, all thought of real material distress is forbidden to you as long as I live and have a penny to share with you.”231 So when he lost his position in 1844, Comte immediately asked Mill for assistance. According to Comte’s theory of the separation of powers, members of the temporal power were the natural “patrons” of philosophers.232 Living in a country with more of a tradition of patronage than France had, Mill was assigned to find individuals who would loan Comte

229

230 231 232

Minutes of the meeting of July 17 1844, Registre: Proc`es-Verbal du Conseil d’Instruction, vol. 8, EP. See letter from Comte to Marielle, November 6, 1848, Dossier A. Comte, EP. This letter is not reproduced in CG. On Comte’s three-thousand-franc salary, see Ch. Peronnier (Colonel, second-in-command at Ecole Polytechnique) to Comte, September 8, 1837. In his letter to Lewes, Comte claimed he lost five thousand francs of annual revenue, but this sum seems incorrect. See Comte to Lewes, October 15, 1848, CG, 4:196. Comte to John Austin, July 20, 1844, CG, 2:261–2. Mill to Comte, June 15, 1843, CG, 2:387. Comte to Mill, June 29, 1843, CG, 2:169.

62

1843–1844: The Battle against the Pedantocracy

approximately six thousand francs. They were to be very wealthy men, preferably “true adherents,” so that he would not feel guilty about paying them back at his own “convenience.” He bluntly told Mill, “Gratitude has never weighed on me.”233 His attitude would soon alienate his colleague. Comte pressured Mill to seek help from George Grote. A historian, former member of Parliament, and one of Mill’s oldest and richest friends, Grote had met Comte in 1840 because of his interest in the Cours. Along with his wife, Harriet, Grote visited Comte whenever he came to Paris. They had stayed for a long time in Paris in 1844, when Comte became better acquainted with them. According to Harriet Grote, Comte’s “society afforded to Mr. Grote both pleasure and profit,” despite the fact that he was “uncouth” and “scarcely known to any one [sic] with whom we habitually mixed in Paris.”234 Her condescension could not have been clearer. As a banker by profession, Grote belonged to a higher social class than Comte. Comte recognized a tension in their relationship, which he attributed to his having insulted Grote by making derogatory comments about his writing.235 Uneasy about asking Grote directly for money, Comte had Mill do his dirty work. Within two days of receiving Comte’s letter, Mill secured three thousand francs (120 pounds) from Grote and shortly thereafter obtained an equivalent sum from his friends Sir William Molesworth and Raikes Currie. Molesworth was an agnostic, Philosophical Radical, and former member of Parliament. He and Grote had tried to build political alliances among reformers. Molesworth, who was working on a new edition of Hobbes, liked the Cours so much that he read it three times.236 Like Grote, Raikes Currie was a banker. He 233 234

235 236

Comte to Mill, July 22, 1844, CG, 2:268–9. Harriet Grote, The Philosophical Radicals of 1832, Comprising the Life of Sir William Molesworth and the Incident Connected with the Reform Movement from 1832 to 1842 (New York: Burt Franklin, 1866), 71. See also George Grote to Comte, January 17, 1840; Harriet Grote to Comte, April 15, 1842 and April 13, 1844, MAC; Comte to Hutton, January 7, 1854, CG, 7:167. Comte to Mill, July 22, 1844, CG, 2:269; Mrs. [Harriet] Grote, The Personal Life of George Grote (London: John Murray, 1873), 158; Comte to Hutton, January 7, 1854, CG, 7:166. Harriet Grote was a good friend of Molesworth until the mid-1840s, when she disapproved of his marriage. She later wrote a book about him: The Philosophical Radicals of 1832, Comprising the Life of Sir William Molesworth and the Incident Connected with the Reform Movement from 1832 to 1842. When the Grotes were in Paris, Molesworth had her ask Comte for details about his philosophy. Grote, The Philosophical Radicals, 71; Harriet Grote to Comte, April 15, 1842, MAC; Mill to Comte, August 12, 1844, August 14, 1844, August 20, 1844, August 23, 1844, CG, 2:420-21; Comte to Hutton, January 7, 1854, CG, 7:168; Alison Adburgham, A Radical Aristocrat: The Rt Hon. Sir William Molesworth of Pencarrow and His Wife Andalusia (Padstow, Cornwall: Tabb House, 1990), 16–21. On Grote’s contributions and relationship with Molesworth, see M. L. Clarke,

More Trouble at the Ecole Polytechnique

63

was also a member of the House of Commons. Both Molesworth and Currie fulfilled Comte’s criteria for donors: they were rich men and admirers of his work. In fact, Mill told Comte that these two individuals were so wealthy that he did not have to worry about ever reimbursing them.237 Very pleased, Comte gave their contribution added significance, calling it “the first collective manifestation of a real and decisive adhesion to the new general philosophy.”238 He intended to advertise their generosity so that other philosophers and their “oppressors” would learn that “useful and conscientious works” could count on being protected.239 Most of all, Comte was pleased to be able to show his enemies that they had not achieved their goal of destroying his “material existence,” which would have stopped his “mental action.”240 Indeed, because of his dismissal, he could fully devote himself to his second great work. He claimed to feel the usual signs of intellectual fermentation: insomnia and other physical troubles. But these problems were indications not so much of his mental activity but of his anxiety about his position – anxiety that he hated to admit. A few months later, in December 1844, he acknowledged that he had to exercise “constant discipline” over his “emotions” and “conduct” to maintain his mental health. He accused his enemies not only of attempting to destroy his material and intellectual life but also of trying to cause a “terrible and irreparable return to the fatal episode of 1826.” To prevent this occurrence, he decided to delay writing his new work because he knew if he experienced “a strong excitation . . . in the affective part and in the intellectual part of the brain” at the same time, the results could be “deadly.”241 He had to reserve his forces to deal with his increasingly untenable position at the Ecole Polytechnique. more trouble at the ecole polytechnique As mentioned above, Soult had chosen Duhamel as director of studies in March 1844; he was at the top of the lists presented by both the Council of Instruction and the Academy of Sciences,

237 238 239 240 241

George Grote: A Biography (London: University of London/Athlone Press, 1962), 55–7, 183. Comte did not find out about Raike Currie’s help until a little later. Comte to Raikes Currie, July 14, 1845, CG, 3:57. Comte to Barbot de Chement, September 1, 1844, CG, 2:284. Comte to Mill, June 27, 1845, CG, 3:50. Comte to Mill, August 28, 1844, CG, 2:280. Comte to Mill, December 25, 1844, CG, 2:307.

64

1843–1844: The Battle against the Pedantocracy

which preferred him to Liouville, Arago’s ally. The Council and the Academy then had to submit candidates for Duhamel’s former post of mathematics examiner for graduating seniors. But neither group was eager to do so because of their distaste for the new rules requiring them to come up with lists of three candidates. Finally, in July, the Council agreed to give the minister the required list, putting Lam´e on top. The Academy, which, according to Maurice Crosland, “favored the moderate left and the centre ground rather than the right wing of politics,” may have been eager to taunt Soult; it presented only one candidate, Lam´e.242 Soult did not consider him appropriate and chose Chasles, the second name on the Council’s list. But Chasles refused to accept, out of regard for Lam´e. Needing to make the appointment, the minister retaliated by following the usual procedure of temporarily giving the post to the official who had it before. Thus Duhamel became both director of studies and mathematics examiner for graduation.243 Even Comte admitted that the minister’s decision was imprudent. The students believed that their examiner could not be objective because his job as director of studies gave him so much information about them that he would have already ranked them in his mind. To show their displeasure, they revolted, refusing to let themselves be examined by him on August 16. They sent a delegation of students to Comte to seek his advice. Finding the students’ motives too “frivolous,” Comte advised them to cease complaining.244 Perhaps remembering what had happened in the spring regarding the Pritchard affair, he was sure they were being encouraged by outside agitators. Indeed, they sent a delegation to Arago, who gave them his support. Encouraging their resistance, he promised to explain their situation at the next meeting of the Academy, which ended up supporting the students. Comte’s recommendation was for naught. On the evening of August 16, the students began pouring out of the school to stage a protest. The next day the French cabinet, perhaps taking advantage of Soult’s absence from Paris, dismissed the entire school, for the fifth time since its establishment. A political scandal ensued. Without consulting Soult, the king then asked Admiral de Mackau, the man who had signed the ordinance condemning Admiral Dupetit-Thours, to become interim minister of war; he now countersigned the ordinance dismissing the students. Soult, 242 243

244

Crosland, Science under Control, 187. Belhoste, La Formation d’une technocratie, 96. The following year, in August 1845, Duhamel resigned from the post of examiner, which Lam´e finally procured. See Lam´e to Comte, August 20, 1845, MAC. Comte to Mill, August 23, 1844, CG, 2:277. Bonnin gave Comte a letter that the students sent to the government to express their complaints systematically. See Bonnin to Comte, November 24, 1844, MAC. See also Pinet, Histoire de l’Ecole Polytechnique, 233–4.

More Trouble at the Ecole Polytechnique

65

who felt shoved aside, resigned in indignation.245 Arago was accused in some journals of having manipulated the students.246 Yet left-wing periodicals, such as La R´eforme, lashed out at the “arbitrary act” of the government in naming Duhamel against the rules of the school; it supported the “fraternal solidarity of the students,” who were right to demonstrate.247 Le National also condemned the government’s illegal measures, singling out Guizot as the mastermind behind the dismissal.248 Comte believed that the government had acted too severely, but he was happy that it had an excuse to reorganize the school. He hoped the government would deprive the Council of the right to present candidates, a move that would favor his “cause.”249 This series of events underscores Comte’s own transformation. His attitude reflects a lack of sympathy for the young people, whom he considered his most promising supporters. It also shows how conservative he had become, for in 1816 he had headed a similar rebellion at the Ecole Polytechnique, against an unfair r´ep´etiteur. Now he opportunistically supported a government he disliked to maintain his principle of respecting the political status quo and, more importantly, to help his career. The Ecole Polytechnique was reorganized by royal decree on October 30, 1844. The government wanted to regain the power over the school that it had lost when it was restructured by Arago in the early 1830s. Although Soult was persuaded by the king to delay his resignation as minister of war, the school reopened under a new head, the severe General Louis de Rostolan, who came from the infantry. Comte immediately won him over to his side. One change in the school’s structure, which Comte believed was stimulated by his own case, was that Soult decided to increase the power of the administrators of the school. To that end, he reduced the authority of the Council of Instruction and Academy of Sciences by taking away their right to nominate candidates. This right was henceforth to be exercised by the Council of Improvement, which would present a list of two names to the minister of war, who would decide on the final appointee.250 This Council was less vulnerable to the intrigues of “scientific coteries” because its members were divided more evenly between professors 245

246 247 248 249 250

Gotteri, Soult, 602; “Paris 18 aoˆut,” La R´eforme, August 19, 1844, page 1; “France: Paris, 18 aoˆut,” Le National, August 19, 1844, page 1. There were other reasons for the resignations, including Soult’s poor health and worries about the war in North Africa. Callot, Histoire de l’Ecole Polytechnique, 93n1; Belhoste, La Formation d’une technocratie, 96. “D´epart des e´ l`eves de l’Ecole Polytechnique,” La R´eforme, August 17, 1844, page 2. “France: Paris, 17 aoˆut,” Le National, August 18, 1844, page 2; “France: Paris 19 aoˆut,” Le National, August 20, 1844, page 1. Comte to Mill, August 23, 1844, CG, 2:278. Mercadier, “Histoire de l’enseignement,” 55; Belhoste, La Formation d’une technocratie, 49, 97. The text of the ordinance reorganizing the Ecole Polytechnique is republished in “Nouvelles diverses,” La R´eforme, November 4, 1844, pages 3–4.

66

1843–1844: The Battle against the Pedantocracy

and administrators. The latter came from the Ecole Polytechnique and from the public services, the government sector where many graduates of the school worked.251 Arago, who did not agree with Soult’s measures, resigned from the Council of Improvement, where only three men could serve as representatives from the Academy.252 To Comte, this reorganization was a vindication of the criticisms of the scientific regime that he had made in the Cours. Indeed, an article in La R´eforme noted that the ordinance seemed motivated “uniquely by hatred of the Academy of Sciences.”253 Comte was optimistic that the new council would overturn the decision to fire him and reinstate him as admissions examiner. In recent months, he had even become something of a celebrity because Armand Marrast had published in late 1844 six articles on the Cours by Emile Littr´e, which were widely read. Keeping a careful list of who sat on the Council of Improvement, Comte figured that he could count on support from generals Rostolan and Vaillant, Colonel Lesbros (the new second-in-command), Duhamel, Lam´e, and Poinsot.254 But seven of the twenty-eight members who served that year had been his leading opponents on the Council of Instruction and were waging, according to one administrator, “a terrible war” against him.255 These included Sturm and Mathieu, who wished to punish him for 251 252

253 254

255

See the letter from Comte to General Rostolan, November 18, 1844, CG, 2:294–6. Belhoste, La Formation d’une technocratie, 52; Maurice Daumas, Arago, 1786–1853: La Jeunesse de la science, 2d ed. (Paris: Belin, 1987), 230. After Arago resigned, the Academy voted for Poinsot, Thenard, and Charles Dupin to serve on the Council of Improvement. See “L’Ecole Polytechnique,” La R´eforme, November 7, 1844, page 1. “R´eorganisation de l’Ecole Polytechnique,” La R´eforme, November 2 and 3, 1844, page 2. Comte, one-page sheet entitled “Conseil de Perfectionnement de l’Ecole Polytechnique,” August 14, 1845, MAC. For the list of supporters of Comte, see Duhamel to Comte, December 17, 1844, MAC. Comte had been rivals with Lam´e and Duhamel for a long time. According to Joseph Bertrand, Duhamel, Lam´e, and Comte were ranked second, third, and fourth respectively on the list of students admitted to the Ecole Polytechnique in 1814. Bertrand, “Souvenirs acad´emiques,” 529. Jonathan Beecher has recently discovered in Moscow two unpublished letters from Comte to Lam´e, written on October 6, 1818 and January 13, 1819. They pertain to various publishing and teaching opportunities that the two young men were trying to secure. In the first letter, Comte told Lam´e that he would not do the article that he, Lam´e, asked him to write and advises him on how to get his work advertised in a journal. In the second, Comte with great wit informs Lam´e that a wealthy man who Lam´e had hoped would be his student did not have time to take lessons. Beecher found a third unpublished letter from Comte written on August 4, 1837 to a mathematics teacher at the Coll`ege Charlemagne regarding a student who had recently passed his examination for the Ecole Polytechnique. Russian State Archives of Social-Political History, Fond 467, opis’ 1, delo 314. Lesbros to Comte, November 21, 1844, MAC. Baron Louis Thenard, who had taught Comte and had been insulted by him in the Cours, sat on the Council. See Pickering, Comte, 1:499. According to Bertrand, Paul Dubois, who taught French literature, and Mr. Hase, who taught German, were also tired of being insulted by him. Bertrand, review of Comte, by Gruber, 690. Neither of them was on the Council of Improvement.

More Trouble at the Ecole Polytechnique

67

his insults.256 Yet Comte hoped to receive support from the administrators of the public services, the majority of whom were military men supportive of the minister. However, when the meeting was called to order on December 16, 1844, nine administrators were absent. Their other responsibilities made their attendance erratic. To make matters worse, Comte’s name was only fourth on a list of candidates recommended by a special committee.257 After discussing Comte’s qualifications, the members of the Council voted, ten to nine, not to include him on the short list of final candidates that they were forwarding to the minister.258 Wantzel was the first candidate and eventually became admissions examiner. Considering the closeness of the vote, it is no wonder that Comte was shocked and rued the absence of the administrators, who might have changed the outcome. He was sure that “almost” all of them were on his side.259 To him, the pedantocracy had merely reestablished itself. He was particularly worried that the new council’s judgment seemed to confirm his enemies’ insinuations that he was mentally ill and consequently unfit to be examiner. Three days after his defeat, Comte wrote another letter to Soult, begging him to demand an inquiry into the entire affair and a new list of candidates. After all, the Council of Improvement had expressly rejected Soult’s July recommendation that Comte be appointed. The “spirit of disorder” was everywhere. 260 Comte urged Soult to reassert his authority. The government should guarantee his job by making it either permanent or dependent only on the minister. On December 20, 1844, Comte met privately with Soult, whose lassitude surprised him. The effort to reorganize the Ecole Polytechnique had clearly exhausted the aging minister, who by this time was seventy-five. Soult complained bitterly that problems at the school had taken up more time than all his other responsibilities combined. 256 257

258

259 260

Bertrand, “Souvenirs acad´emiques,” 543. The four names were Delaunay, Wantzel, Urbain Le Verrier (who would discover Neptune in 1846), and Comte. Wantzel and Delaunay were ultimately recommended for the post. Registre: Proc`es-Verbal du Conseil de Perfectionnement, volume 6, page 180, EP. In the end, Sturm may have acted on some level in favor of Comte. In her letters, Massin commended Sturm’s conduct with regard to Comte, which surprised her, because he was not at all a friend of her husband’s. She wrote to Comte, “People asked Mr. Sturm to provoke the revocation of your position as tutor [r´ep´etiteur] of his course; he refused to do so.” Massin to Comte, one letter dated simply 1845 and another dated December 20, 1844, MAC. See also her letter to Comte of December 23, 1842 (MAC), in which she pointed out that Sturm attended Comte’s trial against Bachelier. Laffitte also suggested that Sturm “refused to hurt Auguste Comte.” Laffitte, “Carri`ere polytechnique d’Auguste Comte,” 323. Comte may have also received support from Baron Charles Dupin, who had recommended him for a job in 1828. See Pickering, Comte, 1:413. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 421. Comte to the Mar´echal Duc de Dalmatie, Minister of War, December 19, 1844, CG, 2:298.

68

1843–1844: The Battle against the Pedantocracy

Discouraged by the paltry results of his endeavors, he told Comte that he sympathized with him but could do nothing more for him. He would not intervene in the affairs of the new Council.261 On December 30, 1844, he wrote to the new head of the school, General Rostolan, to tell him that he had named Wantzel examiner of admissions for 1845.262 Feeling abandoned, Comte condemned Soult’s “weakness.”263 General Tholos´e sorrowfully explained to Comte that certain “hatreds . . . are implacable” and that the school had caused the minister so much trouble that it was “rather natural” that he was “not disposed to challenge everything again.”264 Although Comte kept applying for other posts, such as that of director of studies in August 1845, he was never successful.265 On Christmas Day, Comte wrote Mill a sad, reflective letter, which showed his theatrical flair and Manichean bent. For the past two years, he felt that he had been the protagonist in a “great personal drama.” He represented the good philosophical spirit, while Arago symbolized the bad scientific one. Their conflict was inevitable. The preface to the sixth volume of the Cours had been the first act of the drama, the trial the second, his triumphant reelection in 1843 the third, and his loss of position in 1844 the fourth. The “somber” fifth and “final” act, that is, the denouement, occurred in January 1845, when Soult officially named Wantzel examiner and thus closed “this strange affair.”266 In Comte’s eyes, the clear moral of his story was that he was not an advocate of the scientific regime as his detractors claimed. Ever since Benjamin Constant had accused him of trying to set up a scientific theocracy, Comte had tried to dispel this suspicion, which he realized alienated the left from positivism. To appeal to the revolutionary school, which he considered his best source of support, he had tried to eliminate its fears that he was setting up a despotic system that gave 261 262

263 264 265

266

Comte to Mill, December 25, 1844, CG, 2:306. Letter from Soult, minister of war, to General Rostolan, December 30, 1844, Minutes of the meeting of January 4, 1845, Registre: Proc`es-Verbal du Conseil d’Instruction, vol. 8, EP. Comte to Barbot de Chement, January 5, 1845, CG, 2:315. General Tholos´e to Comte, December 31, 1844, MAC. See Comte to Lam´e, August 16, 1845, CG, 3:93; Comte to General de Rostolan, August 18, 1845, CG, 3:94. Responding to his alleged abuses, the Ecole Polytechnique eventually laid down a rule that no examiner could publish works on material contained in the exam. Bruno Belhoste, “L’Elitisme polytechnicien: Excellence scolaire et distinction sociale,” in La France des X: Deux si`ecles d’histoire, ed. Bruno Belhoste, Amy Dahan Dalmedico, Dominque Pestre, and Antoine Picon (Paris: Economica, 1995), 26–7. Comte to Mill, December 25, 1844, CG, 2:305, 308. Later, on April 18, 1845, the Council of Improvement ordered a committee composed of Duhamel, Mathieu, and Lam´e to present Wantzel as the Council’s choice of “examiner in active service.” See meeting of April 18, 1845, R´egistre du Conseil de Perfectionnement, volume six, EP. See also Comte to Mill, January 10, 1845, CG, 2:318.

More Trouble at the Ecole Polytechnique

69

scientists the power priests used to have. Thus beginning in the sixth volume of the Cours, he began to direct his energies more explicitly against the scientific class. In the Discours sur l’esprit positif, he said that “a philosophy derived directly from the sciences will probably find its most dangerous enemies among those who cultivate them today.”267 His battle against these enemies led to the sacrifice of his livelihood. But he hoped that he had at least satisfactorily laid to rest the left’s fears.268 What the left would undoubtedly remember, however, was Comte’s appeal to the reactionary government to protect him. Comte gradually realized how much he had estranged part of the left. By the summer of 1845, he contemplated seeking asylum in England if the government were taken over by the radical revolutionaries because he feared they would send him to the guillotine or gallows.269 267 268 269

Trait´e philosophique d’astronomie populaire, 84. Comte to Mill, December 25, 1844, CG, 2:308–9. Comte to Mill, June 27, 1845, CG, 3:47.

Chapter 2

Tensions in Comte’s Relationships, 1842–1846

One can, to an almost laughable degree, infer what a man’s wife is like, from his opinions about women in general. John Stuart Mill, The Subjection of Women

diff icultie s in comte’s frie ndship with mill Comte and John Stuart Mill had been corresponding since November 1841, when Mill sent Comte a letter expressing admiration for his work. Mill’s interest in Comte, however, dated back to 1828. At that time, Comte’s friend Gustave d’Eichthal had given Mill a copy of the fundamental opuscule, the Plan des travaux scientifiques n´ecessaires pour r´eorganiser la soci´et´e. (This essay, published in 1824, was one of Comte’s most important works.) For years, Comte had played a crucial role in Mill’s intellectual development. His influence peaked with the publication of volume six of the Cours, which caused Mill to revise his own System of Logic (1843). Impressed with Mill’s adherence to his doctrine, Comte told his friend Valat that Mill was “with me, the only thinker who can be seriously called a completely positive philosopher.”1 His correspondence with Mill became “a real need,” one that was not only intellectual but emotional.2 Yet their game of mutual admiration became increasingly problematic beginning in late 1842. Mill questioned Comte’s insistence on giving heads of industry the responsibility for maintaining temporal order. How was Comte going to ensure that an individual became an industrial leader because he had true talent rather than simply wealthy parents or some other fortuitous advantage? Moreover, what political role would the workers play in the positive era? Would there be representative institutions to help them voice their opposition to the industrialists? Comte was not interested in answering Mill’s astute questions. To him, these concerns about the temporal order were premature and insignificant.3 All that mattered was the regeneration of the spiritual order. But to Mill, who was far more inspired by 1 2 3

Comte to Valat, July 17, 1843, CG, 2:184. Comte to Mill, August 23, 1843, CG, 2:191. Mill to Comte, October 23, 1842, CG, 2:371; Comte to Mill, November 5, 1842, CG, 2:107.

70

Difficulties in Comte’s Friendship with Mill

71

democracy and would later lean toward socialism, these questions were of crucial importance. Another source of tension was the religious issue. Mill believed that positivism could fill the role once played by religion.4 Yet he was appalled that Comte flaunted his anti-theological stance. He did not dare to go as far as Comte without risking the loss of all his readers, for in England people deeply feared atheism. Mill suggested that positivism would gain more adherents if it avoided bringing up sensitive issues such as religion.5 But Comte boasted that the French were more advanced than the English in this respect. In fact, Comte seemed to redouble his attacks on established religions in the Discours to prove his audacity and the tolerance of the French. At one point, he suggested to Grote that Mill’s reserve on this issue was an excuse, covering motives of self-interest.6 But others, like Mill’s friend John Austin, also rejected Comte’s “cool contempt” toward religion. Austin believed that “even in impious France,” his attitude hurt “his worldly condition.” Comte’s “peremptory rejection” of religion and “all philosophy concerned with the insoluble and transcendent” raised “a presumption against his scientific capacities in many of the best minds not acquainted with his book.”7 Other British thinkers who found Comte irreligious were Frederick Denison Maurice and Charles Kingsley, who helped found Christian socialism, and William George Ward, a mathematics tutor at Balliol College and devotee of John Henry Newman, who headed the Oxford Movement.8 Comte’s egoism and arrogance in other matters began to grate on Mill. When he finished the Cours, Comte told him that he would make an exception to his regime of cerebral hygiene and would include Mill’s System of Logic (1843) among the “privileged” works he would read.9 In 1838, Comte had adopted a regime of cerebral hygiene, whereby he ceased reading contemporary books, poetry, journals, and newspapers. (Exempted from this rule were scientific reviews and bulletins.) Yet after having looked at Mill’s book, Comte 4 5 6 7 8

9

Mill to Comte, December 15, 1842, CG, 2:374. Mill to Comte, January 28, 1843, CG, 2:378. Comte to G. Grote, February 27, 1845, CG, 2:329. John Austin to John Stuart Mill, n.d., excerpt in Earlier Letters, ed. Mineka, 654n6. Ward, who became a Roman Catholic theologian, otherwise spoke well of Comte in The Ideal of a Christian Church (1844) and indeed found him more profound than Joseph de Maistre, the conservative Catholic thinker. Mill maintained that Ward had grasped Comte’s deep appreciation of Catholicism. Ward’s compliments, relayed by Mill, encouraged Comte to seek later an alliance between positivism and Catholicism. See Mill to Comte, April 26, 1845, CG 3:37–88; Comte to Mill, May 15, 1845, CG, 3:10; Alexander Bain, John Stuart Mill. A Criticism with Personal Recollections (London: Longmans, Green, 1882), 80; Charles D. Cashdollar, The Transformation of Theology, 1830–1890: Positivism and Protestant Thought in Britain and America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989), 47. Comte to Mill, August 24, 1842, CG, 2:73.

72

Tensions in Comte’s Relationships, 1842–1846

made few comments about its intellectual content. He approached it in terms of how it would help the positivist cause. Most of all, he was interested in Mill’s appreciation of his own work. Comte told one friend that he wanted to make sure the System of Logic was widely read “because of the brilliant and precious admiration” that Mill showed for the Cours.10 For weeks, Comte even prodded Mill to translate it into French. Comte feared that if someone else translated it, that person might be pressured by some metaphysical group to alter or omit the frequent references to the Cours as well as Mill’s proclamation that he (Comte) was the “general head of the new philosophy.”11 Comte knew very well that Mill was giving him the respectability he needed and making him famous. He intended to take full advantage of his good fortune. a major problem looms: the woman que stion In June 1843, Mill complained to Comte that he had been suffering for two months from “a sort of intellectual languor” and a “nervous weakness.”12 From his own experience, Comte immediately understood the signs of “oppressive melancholy.”13 What he did not know was that Mill was experiencing financial troubles because he had lost a thousand pounds of his own money and several thousand pounds of his family’s trust money in 1842, when some American states repudiated the public debt and would not honor their bonds.14 The shock of this blow made Mill physically ill. He also yearned to be closer to Harriet Taylor, the married woman whom he loved. She was having her own family and health problems.15 Mill never mentioned these concerns to Comte. Mill’s general feeling of malaise was aggravated by an intellectual quandary. After having published A System of Logic and heard Comte’s possessive reaction to it, he wished to clarify his own relationship to positive philosophy. He realized the time had come to 10 11

12 13 14 15

Comte to Pouzin, July 15, 1843, CG, 2:175. Comte to Valat, July 17, 1843, CG, 2:184. Uninterested in translating the work, Mill asked for a recommendation from Armand Marrast, who did not bother to consult Comte. Comte was miffed, for he wanted his young friend Thal`es Bernard to have the job. Mallet, a philosophy teacher and friend of Marrast, was finally hired. Comte was displeased, as he had never heard of Mallet and thus did not know “to which of our metaphysical coteries or schools he really belongs.” Comte to Mill, December 23, 1843, CG, 2:224. See also Comte to Mill, July 16, 1843, CG, 2:178. Mill to Comte, June 15, 1843, CG, 2:387. Comte to Mill, June 29, 1843, CG, 2:169. Nicholas Capaldi, John Stuart Mill: A Biography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 191; see Mineka, ed. The Earlier Letters of John Stuart Mill, 486n2. Michael St. John Packe, The Life of John Stuart Mill (London: Secker and Warburg, 1954), 288–9.

A Major Problem Looms: The Woman Question

73

make Comte realize that his adherence to positivism was not complete. Like their common friend Gustave d’Eichthal, Mill felt overwhelmed by Comte’s domineering personality and needed to take his distance. But standing up to Comte made him uneasy. In June 1843, Mill told Comte that although he agreed in general with his ideas of social dynamics, including his theories of history and the separation of temporal and spiritual powers, he could not condone his doctrine of social statics. This doctrine, unlike social dynamics, did not seem to have been invented by Comte. Instead, it derived from old social theories. Moreover, it was not yet sufficiently positive, that is, scientific. Contrary to Comte, Mill insisted that property and marriage, which were treated by social statics, should be modified, although he did not know precisely in what sense. But he felt, for example, that divorce should at least be examined as an option. Yet Comte, reflecting his Catholic upbringing, dismissed divorce as a Protestant concoction that dissolved social ties.16 Mill also brought up the fact that he did not believe in the “necessary subordination of one sex to another.” He recognized early on that this position would represent to Comte “the most fundamental heresy.”17 Convinced that their agreement on issues of methodology and historical development would extend to doctrines relating to social structure, Comte treated Mill’s dissidence very lightly and even encouraged him to continue his “naive heretical confession.”18 Mill was merely going through a phase experienced by all “emancipated minds”; they were inevitably affected at some point by the metaphysical “aberrations of our epoch” which led them to put too much faith in political solutions to current social problems.19 Remembering his liberal past, Comte admitted that even he had gone through this phase, but he felt he had been saved by his studies of biology. Mill would likewise emerge unscathed by his experience. Comte’s attitude annoyed Mill, who denied being naively devoted to political reforms. Mill attributed their disagreement not to a passing revolutionary phase or to his ignorance of biology but to their different views of morality. Thus, to Mill, their dispute was very grave. If he and Comte could not agree on moral issues, they would also be at odds on institutional questions. One of the most important moral issues was men’s treatment of women, which was much debated in the 1830s and 1840s as feminism reemerged, especially in France, where its proponents had been 16 17 18 19

Mill to Comte, September 10, 1842, CG, 2:367; Comte to Mill, September 30, 1842, CG, 2:93. Mill to Comte, June 15, 1843, CG, 2:388. Comte to Mill, July 16, 1843, CG, 2:179. Comte to Mill, June 29, 1843, CG, 2:172–3.

74

Tensions in Comte’s Relationships, 1842–1846

repressed during the French Revolution.20 Throughout the Cours, Comte had made derogatory comments about feminist reformers, such as the Saint-Simonians and Fourierists. He had argued that domestic life was founded on sexual and generational inequalities. In fact, all of society was one vast hierarchy, for he preferred the term “fraternity” to “equality” to describe human relations.21 Having been influenced in his youth by the Saint-Simonians, Charles Fourier, and Robert Owen, Mill strongly believed that women were equal to men and deliberately chose to confront Comte on this sensitive matter.22 As one of Mill’s biographers, remarked, “Throughout his life, that question [the woman question] was so much a passion with him that he often made it the final issue, the test on which depended his acceptance or rejection of a philosophic system.”23 For the next six months, the two thinkers covered “the woman question” from a myriad of perspectives: moral, biological, sociological, historical, and educational. Working out their specific positions, they knew at the time that their debate was significant. It changed their personal relationship forever and had a profound impact on their respective intellectual development.24 Objecting to Comte’s view of the family as a social unit based on sexual subordination, Mill began gingerly by arguing that “there was room . . . for equality in human affections.” He explained, “I find that the affection that a person of a slightly elevated nature feels for a being truly subordinated to his authority has something imperfect about it.”25 Moreover, the ideas and experiences of the superior individual overshadowed those of the inferior one. As a result, the two people could never enjoy feelings of sympathy for one another. Comte agreed with Mill that a complete feeling of sympathy could exist only in a relationship of equality. But reiterating what he once said to Valat, he insisted that such a relationship could occur only between “two eminent men, whose morality is strong enough to contain every serious impulse of rivalry.”26 Because a woman was morally weak and could not contain her competitive nature, she 20 21 22

23

24 25 26

Claire Goldberg Moses, French Feminism in the Nineteenth Century (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1984), 41. Comte to Mill, July 16, 1843, CG, 2:180. John Stuart Mill, Autobiography, in Autobiography and Literary Essays, by John Stuart Mill, edited by John M. Robson and Jack Stillinger, vol. 1 of The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, ed. John Robson, 33 vols. (Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1963–91), 62, 173–4. Packe, The Life of John Stuart Mill, 90. According to Packe, Mill had been disturbed in 1829 by an article written by Thomas Macaulay, who criticized his father, James Mill, for wanting to restrict the right to vote to men. See Comte to Mill, December 21, 1843, CG, 2:221–2; Mill to Comte, January 17, 1844, 411. Mill to Comte, July 13, 1843, CG, 2:391. Comte to Mill, July 16, 1843, CG, 2:180.

A Major Problem Looms: The Woman Question

75

would necessarily be in a position of rivalry with a man, who would invariably prevail. Comte looked to science to support his conviction that there could be no relationship of equality between a man and a woman. He insisted that biology, which he felt Mill knew poorly, showed that the female in all species, and even more so in the human species, was physiologically and anatomically in a “state of extreme infancy which renders her essentially inferior to the corresponding organic type.”27 Her anatomical differences in particular made her far from “the grand human type,” the male, who was, in Comte’s eyes, the standard.28 Thus Comte believed that gender differences were biologically determined. He stood on the “nature” side of the nature versus nurture debate. Reflecting his skeptical attitude toward biology as well as his own Benthamite upbringing, Mill leaned toward the “nurture” side of the debate. He argued that even if women were closer to children by their cerebral structure and nervous, muscular, and cellular systems, this finding would not be decisive. After all, children’s inferiority to men rested more on lack of exercise than on the size of their brains. Education helped develop their functions and made them adults. By implication, a better education could help women too. Mill believed that Comte exaggerated the importance of phrenology in ascertaining the functions of the brain. When Comte had had him read Franz Gall’s work in phrenology in early 1842, Mill had raised many objections, but both he and Comte were so enthusiastic about engaging in a joint mission, that they had glossed over their differences. Now in 1843, Mill repeated his disapproval of Gall’s theory that the anatomy of the brain corresponded to certain animal and mental instincts. This doctrine struck him as too vague, uncertain, and deterministic. Did not the environment play a part in the formation of character? Comte’s emphasis on general instinctual faculties did not leave room for individual differences.29 Moreover, he asserted that there were some physiologists who believed that despite the fact that women’s brains were smaller and thus weaker than men’s, they were, nevertheless, more active. Consequently, women were better able than men to accomplish more in a small period of time and to do things that required quickness. They should excel particularly in poetry and practical life. But they would be inferior to men in prolonged intellectual work, such as that required by science and philosophy. Mill felt that this biological theory was borne out in what he observed in life around him, but even this schema was still too 27 29

Ibid., 179. 28 Comte to Mill, October 5, 1843, CG, 2:199. Mill to Comte, October 30, 1843, CG, 2:401. See also Rick Rylance, Victorian Psychology and British Culture 1850–1880 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 100.

76

Tensions in Comte’s Relationships, 1842–1846

tentative. He did not believe, for example, that women were innately incapable of doing science. The basic problem was that women were not given the opportunity to develop their capacity for intellectual work because they had no education and passed their time doing mundane domestic chores. Men who did not study as boys or work as adults had no intellectual capacity either. Mill went so far as to say that in the regular activities of life that engaged women as much as men, mediocre women showed “ordinarily more capacity than mediocre men.”30 Again, he insisted that most gender differences could be eliminated or minimized if women had a better education and social position. Rejecting phrenology, Mill recommended a new science, which he called ethology. It would determine the influence of outside circumstances on the development of the emotional and intellectual character of the individual. This science of the formation of human nature or character, which would take up the work of Helv´etius, was necessary for a sound educational system. Without such a science, it would remain impossible to know which gender differences were innate. In opposition to Comte, Mill believed that the nineteenth century’s reaction against the Enlightenment had gone too far; the result was that too much importance was being given to socalled inborn dispositions. There had to be more space for individual liberty.31 Comte believed that the study of human nature should remain a part of biology and that one could not explain humanity simply by extrapolating from studies of man as an individual.32 Moreover, although Comte agreed that Gall had completely overlooked the importance of education, he believed that Mill exaggerated its impact. Because woman’s physical constitution, especially her “cerebral apparatus,” was substandard, no amount of exercise and education could change this basic condition.33 She would never arrive at the adult stage. Disappointed that Mill gave so little credence to biological theories, Comte recommended that Mill read the works of Gall’s disciple, Johann Spurzheim, to acquire a better understanding of the biological grounds of “the domestic hierarchy.”34 He also urged him to peruse Pierre Roussel’s Syst`eme physique et moral de la femme (1775), which stressed women’s physical, intellectual, and moral differences. Yet Mill believed that in many respects his own knowledge of biology 30 31 32 33 34

Mill to Comte, August 30, 1843, CG, 2:397. Mill to Comte, October 30, 1843, CG, 2:401. Chapter five of the System of Logic covered this new science. L. L´evy-Bruhl, ed., introduction to Lettres in´edites de John Stuart Mill a` Auguste Comte (Paris: F´elix Alcan, 1899), xxxv. Comte to Mill, October 5, 1843, CG, 2:199. Comte to Mill, November 14, 1843, CG, 2:209.

A Major Problem Looms: The Woman Question

77

was more extensive than Comte’s because he had studied more theories of intellectual and moral phenomena, which Comte disdained as part of psychology.35 Comte’s opposition to psychology owed much to his hatred of Victor Cousin’s philosophy of the unified self (le moi), which seemed too metaphysical, if not mystical; his distaste for Condillac’s sensationalism; his dislike of Helv´etius’s depiction of humans as essentially egoists; his unease with the Id´eologues’ excessive empiricism and portrayal of man as essentially rational; and the impact of counter-revolutionaries, such as Lamennais and Bonald, who took interior observation to be similar to Cartesian self-examination and thus too supportive of individualism. Although he himself frequently practiced introspection, Comte believed that one could best learn about human nature, and especially about the mind, by investigating the actual organs of the brain (phrenology) and people’s lives in society, which were covered by biology and sociology respectively.36 As Laurent Clauzade has pointed out, the “true human point of view” was sociological. The collectivity should take precedence especially in studies of the mind because the mind was, as Clauzade wrote, “a collective and historic reality.”37 In addition, Comte affirmed that gender differences could be confirmed not only by biology but by his new science of sociology. Cleverly using arguments from social dynamics, the part of sociology Mill claimed to favor, Comte stated, in a rather circular fashion, that women must be naturally inferior, for how else could their “constant social subordination” be explained. Slaves and serfs had been in a far worse social situation but had managed to free themselves, mainly because they were not organically different from their masters. But according to Comte, women had become increasingly subordinate to men throughout history and their “social subjection” would be “necessarily indefinite.”38 He believed that “modern life, characterized by industrial activity and the positive spirit,” would develop the differences between men and women at least as much as theological and military life had done.39 35 36 37

38 39

See Comte’s derogatory remarks on psychologists in Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 266. See Rylance, Victorian Psychology, 99. Laurent Clauzade, “Auguste Comte et Stuart Mill: Les Enjeux de la psychologie,” Revue d’Histoire des sciences humaines 8 (2003), 45–7, 51–3. On Cousin and the Id´eologues, see Pickering, Comte, 1:409–10, 597–8. On Comte’s own introspective tendencies and his opinions of Condillac and Helv´etius, see Petit, “Conflits et renouveau,” 89. One example of Comte’s introspective proclivities was his claim to find evidence for the law of three stages while examining his own journey from theology to metaphysics to positivism. Cours, 1:22. Comte to Mill, October 5, 1843, CG, 2:201. Comte to Mill, July 16, 1843, CG, 2:179.

78

Tensions in Comte’s Relationships, 1842–1846

Comte and Mill discussed these gender differences at great length, using their own observations for support. Mill argued that he knew women better than Comte did because in England they had a more normal relationship with men. French women were educated from childhood to act solely as sexual creatures in order to have a certain effect on men. English women, on the other hand, did not play this part all the time. They could better cultivate their faculties and could grow closer to men. Annoyed at Mill’s nationalism and boasting, Comte claimed, on the contrary, that women developed more fully in France because they lived “in more complete company with men.”40 Nevertheless, referring to the small size of women’s brains and his knowledge of women, he insisted that women could not think abstractly, generalize, or argue well, especially because they were dominated by their emotions. They could not even excel in the arts, which would seem to favor their qualities. Passive creatures, women should have no directing or governing role in any realm, including science, philosophy, aesthetics, or practical life (industrial and military life). They should not be allowed to govern even their own families. In short, women were “reserved for consultation and modification.”41 Like many other thinkers of his day who supported the ideology of the separation of spheres, Comte viewed women as primarily sympathetic, generous creatures. Their purity in the domestic realm was an important counterpart to the crass materialism of the public realm. In fact, he worried that the disorder of the present, transitional period might distance women from their homes. He did not, for example, approve of their holding jobs. They need not worry, for men would support and protect them. Forbidding women to have any pursuit incompatible with their “domestic destination,” Comte wanted to relegate them increasingly to the private sphere, deprive them of any outside responsibilities, and thus make sure they did not become men’s rivals.42 This strict separation of spheres was the proper way to ensure social harmony and women’s happiness. Unlike most advocates of the cult of domesticity, Comte was not primarily interested in women’s maternal function. He presented women as the “domestic auxiliaries” of the spiritual power, that is, the positive philosophers. In the new positivist state, they would fortify with their feelings “the practical influence of the intelligence to modify morally the natural reign of material force.” They would be an effective moral force because their interests naturally linked them “to the triumph of universal morality” and they were untainted by specialization and the “disastrous” educational system.43 Their 40 41

Comte to Mill, November 14, 1843, CG, 2:209. Comte to Mill, October 5, 1843, CG, 2:199. 42 Ibid., 201.

43

Ibid., 200.

A Major Problem Looms: The Woman Question

79

ignorance guaranteed their virtue and their subordination to positive philosophers. Mill admitted that he was unsure of the “natural divergences” between the sexes. But he, too, had an idealized, sentimental vision of women. They struck him as intelligent in a wider range of areas and less egotistical than men. Superior in sympathy to men, they always kept in mind the happiness and sufferings of their fellow human beings, who were very real to them. They might have more problems looking beyond their immediate, individual interests, but they were at least superior in this regard to philosophers, who often neglected to consider their own interests or those of anyone else. Since women were always forced to deal with practical issues, they rarely became “speculative dreamers.”44 In praising women in this way, Mill seemed to be criticizing Comte for not paying sufficient attention to his job and for losing his grip on day-to-day reality. Mill argued point by point against Comte’s portrayal of women. Contrary to Comte, he believed society would be better off if women had a governing role. After all, they did a good job managing households and modest industrial establishments, the only ones so far entrusted to them. Arguing against Comte, who found the idea of a queen “ridiculous,”45 Mill declared that women filled this governmental post admirably. Moreover, unlike Comte, Mill believed women had as much perseverance and patience as men. If they were capricious, it was only to get what they wanted from men, who treated them like “charming toys.”46 Whereas Comte found women to be driven by their desires, Mill found them to be far more selfsacrificing than men. Moreover, both men and women, according to Mill, had difficulty giving priority to reason instead of the emotions because doing so depended on excellent self-knowledge and selfcontrol, both of which were very rare. Nevertheless, many Englishmen would argue that women had more self-discipline and a stronger conscience, which would suggest that they subjected their passions to reason more ably than men. As for Comte’s historical arguments, Mill rejected his implication that women were naturally subordinate because other lower classes had achieved freedom from slavery, serfdom, and other inferior positions. Mill pointed out that domestic slaves, unlike other slaves, had never been able to liberate themselves but relied on others (i.e., other slaves and the Church) to emancipate them. The reason was that the dependence involved in domestic servitude was debilitating. Women’s dependence was worse than that of many other groups; their servitude 44 45 46

Mill to Comte, August 30, 1843, CG, 2:396–7. Comte to Mill, July 16, 1843, CG, 2:179. Mill to Comte, October 30, 1843, CG, 2:403.

80

Tensions in Comte’s Relationships, 1842–1846

was all-encompassing. The very gentleness of their servitude worked against women, who were less likely to strike out against a system that took care of them and encouraged human laziness and weakness. No other slaves had ever been so thoroughly socialized to believe that they would be always subjected to other humans. No other slaves were forced to be on such intimate terms with their masters. The system took advantage of women’s sympathetic nature to make them believe that they could find happiness only in male affection, which demanded their complete dependence. In addition, the man’s greater physical force compelled the woman to respect him. All of these factors delayed women’s “social emancipation.”47 Yet Mill believed that women had made progress in liberating themselves, especially in the realm of literature. Instead of imitating men, women now were beginning to write like women, that is, with “feminine feelings and experience.”48 Comte rejected Mill’s idea that there had been progress in female emancipation in the past hundred years. He argued that nineteenth-century female writers were not superior to such seventeenth-century figures as Madame de S´evign´e, Madame de Lafayette, and Madame de Motteville. He was particularly harsh with regard to George Sand, whom he considered inferior to these seventeenth-century women. He deplored the celebrity she attained and her assumption of a man’s name. Comte strongly condemned the women’s movement in general. Although in 1819, he had criticized men for using the “horrible law of the strongest” to dominate women, now he claimed that women’s attacks on men for abuse of power were groundless and “theatrical.”49 Women should be subordinate. He maintained that the women’s movement arose in part because the critical tendencies of his times had discredited the theological basis of the “domestic hierarchy” – the “weak” and “stupid” idea of Adam’s rib. This theological idea needed to be replaced by a more scientific principle. In the meantime, women’s rebellion reflected the anarchical, utopian atmosphere of the times. It was really an excuse for more licentiousness [“d´evergondage”] and would have appalling private and public consequences. Sexual equality, if ever instituted, would trouble women’s conditions of existence because they would never be able to compete with men. Moreover, it would “destroy the principal charm which today leads us toward women and which . . . assumes women [are] in an essentially passive and reliant situation.” Ultimately, the women’s movement would threaten men to such an extent that it would put an end to sexual relations and thus the reproduction of the species. 47 49

Mill to Comte, October 30, 1843, CG, 2:405. 48 Ibid., 405. Comte to Valat, September 24, 1819, CG, 1:56; Comte to Mill, October 5, 1843, CG, 2:201.

A Major Problem Looms: The Woman Question

81

Comte could not have more clearly shown that he wanted women to remain men’s submissive, “sweet companions,” devoted to their happiness.50 Given the heated nature of the debate, it is clear that Comte and Mill’s disagreement was more than political or moral; it was personal. Their differences could be attributed in part to their personalities. When Mill argued that human sympathies could be based on equality, he admitted the possibility that his judgment of human nature was perhaps based too much on his own which was “perhaps exceptional.”51 He taunted Comte in saying that those who insisted on relations of dependence in the interest of harmony were egotistical. Comte could in fact brook no relationship of equality. Also, both Comte and Mill suggested that they based their opinions on their own observations, which, of course, had to relate to the women closest to them. The debate thus reflected the relationship between Mill and Harriet Taylor on the one hand and that of Comte and Caroline Massin on the other. It became so acrimonious because it involved the two men’s deepest feelings about the most important women in their lives.52 Almost from the beginning of his marriage in 1825, Comte had had serious difficulties with his wife, who he complained was too domineering and rebellious. Although in his youth, he had been influenced by Mary Wollstonecraft and espoused women’s rights, he soon dropped his support for liberal feminism.53 Since the mid-1820s, he had dreamt about the ideal woman, one who would submit to his every wish and thus create domestic harmony. In the Cours, he had asserted that marriage rested on the “inevitable natural subordination of woman toward man.”54 To some extent, Comte’s vision of a hierarchy where man controlled the inferior woman was the result of his own disillusionment with married life. His comments to Mill showed that he feared rivalry in a male–female relationship; he disliked feeling challenged by Massin, who was a strong, opinionated, intelligent woman with an “impressive culture,” as Bruno Gentil recently remarked.55 Comte also acknowledged that he based his view of the predominantly passionate nature of woman partly on her example. 50 51 52

53 55

Comte to Mill, November 14, 1843, CG, 2:210–11. Mill to Comte, July 13, 1843, CG, 2:391. In The Subjection of Women, Mill begins by explaining how arguments about the equality of the sexes become intense because opinions are so “strongly rooted in feelings.” John Stuart Mill, The Subjection of Women, in Essays on Equality, Law, and Education, ed. John M. Robson, vol. 21 of The Collected Works, 261. Comte to Mill, October 5, 1843, CG, 2:198. 54 Cours, 2:185. Bruno Gentil, “Notes,” in Auguste Comte/Caroline Massin Correspondance in´edite (1831– 1851), ed. Pascaline Gentil (Paris: L’Harmattan, 2006), 294. Gentil bases his remark on Massin’s frequent references to such obscure literary figures as Oliver Goldsmith and Adam Billault (Maˆıtre Adam). The latter was a seventeenth-century worker poet and singer.

82

Tensions in Comte’s Relationships, 1842–1846

To accept Mill’s point of view, he would have had to admit that it was because of his character that his marriage had failed. He preferred to blame his wife, whose conduct reflected in his eyes the aberrant notions of sexual equality, encouraged by the metaphysical trends of the times. Comte not surprisingly agreed that Mill’s divergence on this sensitive issue of woman’s nature was his “principal heresy.”56 Using a biological analogy to make his point, Comte declared that this heresy was “incurable” only if Mill’s “intellectual deviations” were supported by his heart.57 Comte did not know that Mill’s heart and mind were in fact unified on this issue. Mill, however, recognized it, for at this time he was profoundly in love with Harriet Taylor, a married woman. Yet he had discretely never mentioned her to Comte. Mill considered her a “feminine genius,” a “woman of deep and strong feeling, of penetrating and intuitive intelligence, and of an eminently meditative and poetic nature.” If all careers had been open to women, she would have been “eminent among the rulers of mankind.” She could have also been a “consummate artist.”58 Considering Mill’s opinion of Taylor, who eventually became his wife, it is not surprising that he believed in women’s intellectual and artistic abilities and in the possibility of their having a governing role. Perhaps it was partly because of her that Mill’s discussion with Comte became increasingly bitter. Holding feminist views, Harriet Taylor accused Mill of being spineless with Comte. Mill did seem in fact often intimidated; he tried at times to appear less resolute or to attribute his opinions to others in order not to antagonize Comte.59 In commenting on Mill’s retort to Comte concerning the condition of women, Taylor said she was “disappointed” by Mill’s tone, which was “more than half-apologetic.” She told him: “Do not think I wish you had said more on the subject, I only wish that what was said was in the tone of conviction, not of suggestion. This dry root of a man is not a worthy coadjutor, & scarcely a worthy opponent.”60 Referring perhaps to Comte’s standpoint, she later wrote 56 57 59

60

Mill to Comte, July 13, 1843, CG, 2:390. Comte to Mill, June 29, 1843, CG, 2:172–3. 58 Mill, Autobiography, 193, 195. For example, in countering Comte’s argument that women were like children, Mill suggested that women suffered from excessive “nervous excitability” and resembled young men more than old men. Mill to Comte, August 30, 1843, CG, 2:397. See also the way Mill backed off from his arguments in his letter to Comte of October 30, 1843, CG, 2:403. Harriet Taylor, Note to John Stuart Mill, n.d., Mill–Taylor, GB 0097, vol. 2, item 327, folio 723, 723v., 724, 724v, British Library of Political and Economic Science, London School of Economics. This note is reprinted in Harriet Taylor to John Stuart Mill, about 1844, in F. A. Hayek, John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor: Their Correspondence and Subsequent Marriage (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1951), 114–15.

A Major Problem Looms: The Woman Question

83

in a celebrated essay, “What is wanted for women is equal rights, equal admission to all social privileges; not a position apart, a sort of sentimental priesthood.”61 She also convinced Mill that Comte’s biological determinism was equally dangerous for men. Reminding Mill that the differences between men and women derive from their different occupations, she added, “Neither you nor Comte seem to settle the other analogous question, whether original differences of character and capacities in men are to determine to which class of workers they are to belong.”62 If their characters were determined at birth, men would be deterred from trying to improve themselves. If one accepted determinism and the notion that nature was more crucial than nurture, the minds of not only women but workers would be permanently stunted, and neither group would ever be able to challenge their oppressors. Ultimately social science would regulate everything.63 Later, perhaps, Mill was referring to his interest in positivism when he claimed in his Autobiography (1873) that Taylor had cured him of his “tendency towards over-government, both social and political.”64 In short, Taylor appears to have checked Mill’s general enthusiasm for Comte and made him feel ashamed. He even admitted to his young friend Alexander Bain that he was upset that he had made so many concessions to the authoritarian Comte.65 Both his own individuality and his faith in individualism were in danger. Because this debate was not only doctrinal but personal, it had far more profound consequences than their discussion of psychology in 61

62

63 64 65

Harriet Taylor Mill, Enfranchisement of Women (1851), in Harriet Taylor Mill and John Stuart Mill, Essays on Sexual Equality, ed. Alice S. Rossi (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), 120. Harriet Taylor, Note, n.d., Mill–Taylor, GB 0097, Box III, Item 103, British Library of Political and Economic Science, London School of Economics. Hayek appended this note to the previously mentioned note found in another part of the archives. See Hayek, John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor, 115. Capaldi, Mill, 172; Jo Ellen Jacobs, The Voice of Harriet Taylor Mill (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2002), 110. Mill, Autobiography, 259. Bain left notes on his conversations with Mill about Comte’s position on women. Bain said, “Comte’s assertions about the sweetening and modifying influence of an inferior sex is a mass of vagueness, in my opinion, and his obstinately turning a deaf ear to every attempt at analysis and specific statement makes him quite impracticable.” See John Stuart Mill, “Bain’s Notes on My Controversy with Comte Respecting the Capacity and Social Position of Women,” n.d., Mill–Taylor, GB 0097, volume 41, Item #8, fol. 55 and 55 verso, British Library of Political and Economic Science, London School of Economics. See also Alexander Bain, John Stuart Mill. A Criticism with Personal Recollections (London: Longmans, Green, 1882), 74. Later, when Mill contemplated writing a review of Harriet Martineau’s translation of the Cours, he asked Harriet Mill for her advice. He wrote, “You dearest one will tell me what your perfect judgment & your feeling decide.” John Stuart Mill to Harriet Mill, January 9, 1854, in The Later Letters of John Stuart Mill, 1849–73, ed. Francis E. Mineka and Dwight N. Lindley, vol. 14 of The Collected Works, 126.

84

Tensions in Comte’s Relationships, 1842–1846

1842, which had touched on the same problems of education and biology. Mill now more fully recognized that Comte was a determinist who believed that each man and woman, because of his or her sex and innate dispositions, had a natural place in society. Mill, however, remained attached to what Comte would consider an anarchical image of society, where the individual – man or woman – could freely find and create his or her proper place. Comte’s opinions revealed, according to Mill, his ignorance of the laws of the formation of the human being. Mill later wrote sadly to his friend John Pringle Nichol, “He [Comte] assumes the differences which he sees between women and men, philosophers and men of action, rich people and proletarians (or rather between the limited specimens of each class which come within the scanty means of knowledge of a recluse, whose knowledge even of books is purposely restricted) – all of these differences he assumes as ultimate, or at least necessary facts, and he grounds universal principles of sociology on them.”66 Comte’s sociology struck Mill as anti-liberal, for it was regulated by ideas of destiny and order, instead of change and progress.67 Mill was prescient when he wrote to Comte, “This discussion has left . . . permanent traces on me, and I think it will have a certain effect on the direction of my works to come.”68 In 1861, Mill wrote a book against sexist opinions, such as those held by Comte. It was no accident that its title took up a phrase that Comte had used during their debate: The Subjection of Women. Filled with ideas culled from discussions he had had with Harriet Taylor, the book covered many of the issues brought up during his debate with Comte. (Mill had carefully copied the parts of his letters to Comte and those from Comte that dealt with the woman question in a special notebook.69 ) For example, in The Subjection of Women, Mill compared female bondage with black slavery, emphasized the importance of a married life based on an equal relationship, and spoke of the liberating effects of education on women, who should be given a full opportunity to develop their faculties. For his part, Comte found their “biological and sociological disagreement” about women a challenge to his entire system. He could not believe that two members of the “elite” who agreed on matters of logic could be at odds “on one of the most fundamental questions” of sociology, “the principal elementary basis . . . of every true social hierarchy.” If Mill did not relent, the “spectacle” of their 66 67 68 69

Mill to John Pringle Nichol, September 30, 1848, Earlier Letters, ed. Mineka, 739. However, Mill did not believe that there was inevitable progress in terms of necessary improvement. On this point, see Alan Ryan, J. S. Mill (London: Routledge, 1974), 93. Mill to Comte, December 8, 1843, CG, 2:408. Mill to Comte, January 17, 1844, CG, 2:411.

More Strains in Their Relationship

85

controversy would “inspire a sort of philosophical despair about the impossibility . . . of establishing a true intellectual concordance on purely rational bases.” The Church might prove to be correct in emphasizing the insufficiency of an entirely rational foundation for a unifying moral doctrine. Comte’s hopes for a future spiritual power, where positive philosophers would work together in harmony, seemed doomed.70 The only way Comte could remain optimistic was to reassure himself that Mill could change his mind, especially after reading the second volume of the Syst`eme de politique positive, which would further explain social statics. But when Comte told Mill that his own convictions were unshakeable, Mill responded that his had been, in fact, strengthened by Comte’s objections; the Syst`eme de politique positive could add nothing to change his mind. Comte was deeply insulted.71 more strains in their re lationship After covering the pros and cons of the woman question in such a heated fashion, the correspondence between Comte and Mill became less regular. The exhilarating sense of sharing a regenerative mission was replaced by a certain coolness. Mill was particularly less enthusiastic. He even canceled his planned trip to Paris, where he was to meet Comte personally for the first time. Comte was very disappointed.72 Henceforth, the letters between the two men had to do mainly with Comte’s monetary problems and his stories of persecution at the hands of the scientists. Having decided to be more assertive, Mill boasted about the success of A System of Logic and expressed his annoyance that Comte had not read it more carefully.73 He even told him that he was contemplating writing a book on political economy, although he knew Comte scorned this discipline.74 Comte’s prejudices and blanket statements increasingly exasperated him.75 As a result of his irritation, Mill dared to be more critical of Comte’s new works. In April 1843, before their disagreement emerged, Mill called the Trait´e e´l´ementaire de g´eom´etrie analytique “a true model of . . . mathematical teaching,” especially because it showed how mathematical analysis could develop “the scientific spirit.” Its 70 71 72 73 74 75

Comte to Mill, October 5, 1843, CG, 2:198. Comte to Mill, December 23, 1843, CG, 2:221. Comte to Valat, November 22, 1843, CG, 2:214. Mill to Comte, December 8, 1843, January 17, 1844, April 3, 1844, CG, 2:409, 411, 415. Mill to Comte, April 3, 1844, CG, 2:415. See, for example, Mill’s reaction to Comte’s anti-Catholicism. Mill to Comte, January 17, 1844, CG, 2:412.

86

Tensions in Comte’s Relationships, 1842–1846

symmetry made it not only “a perfect scientific treatise” but “a work of art.”76 But a few months after their argument, Mill did not hesitate to express his disapproval of the Discours sur l’esprit positif, which he opposed translating into English for fear that its attacks on religion and its abstruseness would hurt “our cause.”77 Moreover, he did not think the Discours was as good an introduction to positivism as Comte claimed it to be. A well-educated person, let alone a Parisian artisan, would have difficulty understanding it without having first read the Cours. Mill much preferred the Trait´e d’astronomie populaire, which he praised for giving intelligent nonscientists enough scientific background to enable them to comprehend the general spirit of positivism.78 Another source of irritation to Mill was Comte’s resolution not to become involved in a controversy regarding his astronomical views. In 1844, a scandal erupted in England after the publication of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, an anonymous book that boldly espoused a theory of evolution. Read by at least 100,000 people, the book was very popular. Yet many individuals criticized it for its amateurish scientific apparatus and its challenge to established religion. Explaining why it created a sensation, James Secord points out, “It suggested that the planets had originated in a blazing Fire-mist, that life could be created in the laboratory, [and] that humans had evolved from apes.”79 In the first chapter, the author, who turned out to be Robert Chambers, sought to support his theory of cosmogony by citing Comte’s verification of Laplace’s nebular hypothesis in the Cours de philosophie positive.80 This hypothesis allegedly proved that development was part of the logic of nature.81 Scientists throughout England were quick to respond to Chambers’s errors. While indirectly attacking Vestiges of Creation, the eminent physicist John Herschel criticized Comte publicly in his presidential address to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, which was printed in the June 21, 1845 issue of The Athenaeum. (Herschel had told Mill that A System of 76 77 78 79

80 81

Mill to Comte, April 20, 1843, CG, 2:384. Comte to Mill, April 3, 1844, CG, 2:414. Mill to Comte, November 25, 1844, CG, 2:427. James A. Secord, Victorian Sensation: The Extraordinary Publication, Reception, and Secret Authorship of “Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation” (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 1–2. See also David Knight, The Age of Science: The Scientific World-View in the Nineteenth Century (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986), 50–51; Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, 2d ed. (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1962), 216–19. Robert Chambers, Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation (New York: Humanities Press, 1969), 17–18. Chambers refers to Comte as “M. Compte of Paris.” On the popularity of the nebular hypothesis in the nineteenth century, see Peter J. Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, rev. ed. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989), 142.

More Strains in Their Relationship

87

Logic had inspired him to read the Cours in the first place.82 ) Herschel attacked the Cours as a “philosophical work of much mathematical pretension.” He challenged in particular Comte’s proof of the nebular hypothesis as a way of explaining the “origin of our planetary system.” Any college graduate could see that Comte’s argument was a “vicious circle.” Because it had been “eagerly received among us as the revelation of a profound analysis,” Herschel felt obliged to demonstrate that Comte’s “reasoning” was “baseless”; Comte had thrown “overboard as troublesome all those essential considerations” of important scientific laws, such as the law of cooling.83 In July, the Edinburgh Review featured a long review of the Vestiges of Creation by the geologist Adam Sedgwick, who abhorred its simplistic materialism. Sedgwick mocked Chambers for thinking that Comte was a “great mathematician” and for using his nebular hypothesis as the “basis” of his “system of nature.” Like Herschel, Sedgwick found Comte’s work “ostentatious” and the hypothesis ridiculously fallacious.84 Mill regarded both scientists’ remarks as offensive and even wrote a letter of protest to Herschel, whose criticism seemed particularly unjust and high-handed. “You have publicly imputed to M. Auguste Comte, not only a gross blunder in reasoning, but one inconsistent with the most elementary knowledge of the principles of astronomical dynamics.”85 Because Comte could never have made such an error, Herschel would do well to reexamine the Cours. Mill sent to Comte Herschel’s reply to his query as well as the issues of the Athenaeum and Edinburgh Review.86 Mill then asked Comte whether he intended to defend himself privately or publicly.87 He was shocked when Comte categorically refused to respond and discouraged him from acting in his place. Comte gave three reasons, which reflect his fundamental indifference to scholarship and his continuing problems with paranoia. First, he declared that he had made it a rule not to waste his time by getting involved in public debates, especially on scientific subjects. Second, he suggested that his scientific demonstration of Laplace’s theory was indefensible because it was full of errors and “not sufficiently positive.” Third, he attacked the two scientists personally, proclaiming 82

83 84 85 86 87

Mill had recommended the Cours to Herschel in May 1843. See his letter to Sir John F. W. Herschel, May 1, 1843, Earlier Letters, ed. Mineka, 584. On Herschel, see Secord, Victorian Sensation, 405–10. Herschel’s Presidential Address, as cited in “Fifteenth Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science,” Athenaeum, no. 921, ( June 21, 1845): 615–16. See [Adam Sedgwick], Review of The Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, Edinburgh Review, 82 ( July 1845), 11, 22, 23. Mill to Sir John F. W. Herschel, July 9, 1845, Earlier Letters, ed. Mineka, 673. Mill to Sir John F. W. Herschel, July 14, 1845, and July 17, 1845, in Earlier Letters, ed. Mineka, 675–77. Mill to Comte, July 18, 1845, CG, 3:399; Bain, John Stuart Mill, 81.

88

Tensions in Comte’s Relationships, 1842–1846

that they were unworthy of even an explanatory letter from him. Herschel was acting out of “ill-will” and feelings of “personal animosity.” He was simply offended that Comte had condemned sidereal astronomy, the area of science to which he (Herschel) and his father had contributed. As a result, Herschel wished to diminish Comte’s scientific authority in any way possible, including this attack on a minor point in the Cours. As for Sedgwick, Comte accused him of colluding with Arago. Sedgwick appeared to have read the original manuscript of the paper on Laplace that Comte had presented to the Academy of Sciences in 1835. Arago had been one of the three scientists assigned to write a report on this paper, which was never done. Comte assumed that Arago had allowed Sedgwick to read the paper, for the manuscript was still in the archives of the Academy. Comte feared that if Sedgwick engaged him in a public debate, Arago would seize the opportunity to write an unfavorable report on the paper, even if it was ten years late. Comte refused to fall into this “trap.”88 It is clear that although Comte knew that his argument was mistaken, he could not take criticism from scientists, who he always imagined were acting from feelings of malevolence. Mill’s reply to Comte was uncommonly terse and angry. He agreed not to become involved in any debate but said that Herschel would not appreciate Comte’s explanation for not responding and would take his refusal as an “indirect avowal of the irrefutability of his reasoning.”89 As a person who believed public debate was most “useful” in the pursuit of truth, Mill resented the fact that Comte had embarrassed him with Herschel.90 He refused to be humiliated again. When he was about to publish the second edition of the System of Logic, Mill asked Herschel to check it for errors. On Herschel’s advice, he removed information that he had received from Comte.91 the e nd of the re lationship These intellectual problems added much tension to their relationship. What precipitated the final break between the two thinkers was the mundane but ticklish question of money. Comte was at first grateful for the money that Grote, Molesworth, and Currie sent him as a stopgap for his lost salary. Indeed, in 1844, Comte’s income rose to 11,050 francs, which was about a thousand more francs than the year before. Although he knew the Englishmen’s subsidy would disappear 88 89 90 91

Comte to Mill, August 8, 1845, CG, 3:88–9. Mill to Comte, September 22, 1843, CG, 3:402. Mill to Comte, October 4, 1844, CG, 2:425. Mill to Sir John F. W. Herschel, December 19, 1845, and February 28, 1845, Earlier Letters, ed. Mineka, 688, 695.

The End of the Relationship

89

by August 1845, he never seriously considered looking for other work or reducing his expenses. The style of life to which he had become accustomed was, he claimed, crucial to his intellectual productivity. He had already more projects in his mind than he could possibly execute in his lifetime. Hoping to make ends meets through private tutoring, which he had not done since 1839, Comte once again turned to Mill for help in the winter of 1844–5. He begged him to find some rich Englishmen in Paris, who would be willing to pay ten to twenty francs an hour for private lessons. Even Comte admitted this fee was unusually high. When he had given lessons in 1818, he had charged three francs an hour.92 But he assumed that Englishmen were generous, especially because their industrializing nation was wealthy. By giving a small number of lessons, Comte hoped to minimize the amount of time he spent away from his philosophical works. Yet he worried that Arago and his coterie would blacken his reputation as a teacher.93 In contemplating other careers, Comte consulted Mill about launching a monthly review, the Revue positive, a project that his new French disciple, Emile Littr´e, had proposed.94 This journal accorded well with Comte’s increasing interest in propagating more actively the doctrines of positivism. Comte asked Mill whether he thought it would be a good idea to start this new journal and also begged him for financial aid. Littr´e figured that they would need 25,000 francs a year for the first five years.95 Comte also wanted Mill to join him and Littr´e in writing for the review. It would be important for the public to see three independent thinkers in agreement on the same doctrine. Comte pressured Mill, telling him that without his cooperation, he would not embark upon the project. Mill quickly rejected any form of collaboration. He found the whole idea of a review premature, for in his mind, all Comte had done was to establish a method and a couple of controversial principles. The only positivist rule upon which people seemed to agree was that of forbidding all speculation on first causes and limiting research to the determination of scientific laws. He reminded Comte of their divergence on other issues: “I think . . . we would find ourselves in disaccord more often and more seriously than you seem to believe and than I myself had at first hoped.”96 92 93 94 95 96

Comte to Valat, June 15, 1818, CG, 1:39. Comte to Mill, December 25, 1844, January 10, 1845, February 28, 1845, CG, 2:307–8, 319, 331–2. Comte to Mill, January 10, 1845, CG, 2:320. See also Comte to Mill, January 5, 1845, CG, 2:315. Comte to Mill, January 10, 1845, CG, 2:321. Mill to Comte, January 27, 1845, CG, 2:433. Mill later upbraided Comte for stressing too much the need to avoid all references to causes. Comte to Laffitte, October 2, 1849,

90

Tensions in Comte’s Relationships, 1842–1846

Mill was also pessimistic about acquiring financial assistance from the English. Very enthusiastic about positive philosophy, Grote would help, but Grote knew only two men who would subscribe: Molesworth and Neil Arnott.97 The latter was an inventor, philanthropist, and doctor, who occasionally took care of Mill. For pleasure, Arnott liked to organize all-male weekly dinner parties, where guests would discuss Comte’s works, especially to please his close friend, George Henry Lewes, who was a frequent guest and also an enthusiast of positivism. Arnott liked very much Comte’s classification of the sciences, which he eventually adopted.98 In his Biographical History of Philosophy, Lewes quoted from Arnott’s Elements of Physics, which he called “perhaps the most perfect specimen of positive philosophy this country has produced.”99 But outside of this circle, people were wary of positivism because they did not want to appear anti-religious. Comte’s proposed periodical might, in fact, encourage the forces of religious reaction. After receiving Mill’s letter, Comte sadly postponed his plans for the review. But he did not miss the opportunity to needle Mill about the superiority of the French, who he said were far more liberated from theology than the English. One sign was that more French people were becoming radical revolutionaries rather than Catholic reactionaries. With some astuteness, Comte noted that in France the times were favorable to a new review because a “decisive transformation” was about to occur.100 But unfortunately, he had neither the money nor the support to realize his project, which might have made positivism an important force in the Revolution of 1848. Comte did, however, seem open to Mill’s suggestion that he make money by writing for English journals. Mill offered to translate Comte’s articles and added that his friends Alexander Bain and George Henry Lewes could help too. In the summer of 1845, Comte sent

97 98

99 100

CG, 5:92. There are two chapters in Mill’s System of Logic on causes and causation. Recent scholars have also criticized Comte for pretending to abolish causality from sociology in order to achieve objectivity. “His attempt to get around Kantian relativity of knowledge by avoiding the use of causation is mere semantics. His motto, pr´evoir pour pouvoir (prevision to allow control), implies causal predictive power.” David Michael Orenstein, “Auguste Comte (1798–1857 ),” The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, ed. George Ritzer, 11 vols. (Oxford: Blackwell, 2007), 2:654. George Grote to Comte, January 29, 1845, CG, 2:432. Hock Guan Tjoa, George Henry Lewes: A Victorian Mind (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977), 19; Rosemary Ashton, G. H. Lewes: A Life (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 32, 51, 71; Alexander Bain, Autobiography (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1904), 154; Bain, John Stuart Mill, 44. Bain attended these dinners put on by Arnott. G. H. Lewes, A Biographical History of Philosophy (London: George Routledge & Sons, n.d.), 651n. Comte to Mill, February 28, 1845, CG, 2:333.

The End of the Relationship

91

Mill a copy of a sentimental letter that he had written to Clotilde de Vaux, whom he had been seeing regularly for the past two months. He called it his “Sainte Clotilde” and asked Mill if he thought it was appropriate for publication in a journal.101 The “epistle,” written in honor of the feast day of her patron saint, explained that despite positivism’s anti-theological stance, it would “popularize the worship of memories even more than Catholicism did.”102 Positivism would attract women in particular because it would call for their adoration, revive the social role they had played under Catholicism (especially during the Middle Ages), and make them the auxiliaries of the spiritual power in its constant struggle against the temporal power. Mill discreetly avoided reopening the woman question and quickly returned the essay, with the excuse that it was far too anti-religious for any English publication. Comte seemed disappointed. By mid-1845, Comte was very depressed, experiencing bouts of insomnia, stomach illness, and weakness. The difficulties of beginning his new work on political philosophy (the Syst`eme de politique positive) certainly contributed to this melancholy, as did the start of his relationship with Clotilde de Vaux. But he was also worried about Mill’s lack of enthusiasm in corresponding with him, for during the past three years, their “fraternal outpouring of emotions” had been one of his “most precious consolations.”103 Comte’s monetary situation was another cause of concern. No admissions examiner from the Ecole Polytechnique was about to resign to make room for him. And although he had contacted twenty people, including General Tholos´e, he had not had much success in arranging to give private lessons.104 From May to August, he had only one student, who gave him altogether 160 francs.105 Mill and Grote could not find him a single English student, for rich young men generally went to Oxford or Cambridge, which did not require any special preparation.106 Blaming the “meanness” of his enemies and the “deadly inertia” of many of his friends, Comte still refused to change his habits or economize in any way for fear of giving his oppressors the victory they sought.107 Suppressing his few diversions would make his solitary life even more 101

102 104 105 106 107

Comte to Mill, July 14, 1845, CG, 3:58. The essay’s formal title was “Lettre philosophique sur la comm´emoration sociale.” He included it in the first volume of the Syst`eme because he believed it contained the seeds of the Religion of Humanity. See Syst`eme, 1: xxii, xxxiv–xxxix. He also put it in his Testament. See Auguste Comte, Testament d‘Auguste Comte avec les documents qui s‘y rapportent: Pi`eces justificatives, pri`eres quotidiennes, confessions annuelles, correspondance avec Mme de Vaux. 2d ed. (Paris, 1896), 240a –240i . Testament (1896 ed.), 240f , 240g . 103 Comte to Mill, May 15, 1845, CG, 3:6. General Tholos´e to Comte, February 2, 1845, MAC. List entitled “El`eves priv´es d’Auguste Comte,” MAC. The student was M. Rebillot. Mill to Comte, April 26, 1845, CG, 3:387. Comte to Mill, May 15, 1845, CG, 3:7.

92

Tensions in Comte’s Relationships, 1842–1846

miserable and endanger his intellectual faculties. Full of self-pity, he thought it unfair that just as he was on the verge of executing his great works, he was stymied by pedestrian material problems. Unable to accept his unfortunate situation, he persisted in clinging to the illusion that he would regain his position at the Ecole Polytechnique. Comte’s behavior surprised Mill. In January 1845, he complained to his friend Sarah Austin that Comte was obstinately “following his own course, regardless not only of giving offence . . . but of compromising his means of livelihood.” Annoyed that Comte would not curtail his frankness in public, which brought him only more trouble, Mill concluded, “He is a man one can only serve in his own way.”108 Massin had reached the same conclusion years before. Comte continued to tax Mill’s patience. In late June, 1845, he admitted to Mill that he had been secretly counting on the continuation of the two-hundred pound subsidy he had received in 1844 from Grote, Molesworth, and Currie.109 Considering that the reasons for the subsidy had not changed, these “spontaneous elements of the new temporal power” should continue to support him until he was out of danger, for society should protect the spiritual power and its philosophical works.110 Indeed, their patronage constituted the “duty of the rich toward the poor.”111 He wrote, “I hoped, I must confess, that the souls of the elite would feel the necessity of not letting die or slacken, in the only favorable center, the unique seat of true philosophical energy that exists today, really the only one who provides people with solid intellectual guarantees against both anarchical unrest and retrograde tendencies.”112 Mill told Comte that he found it difficult to request more financial assistance from Molesworth because he had lost a great deal of money in the London and Westminster Review, a journal that Mill had asked him to help establish years before. Mill did not tell Comte that tensions also existed in his relationship with Grote. Moreover, he glossed over the fact that Grote vehemently opposed Comte’s social doctrines, philosophy of history, and religion.113 Instead, Mill gave Comte the impression that Grote as well as Currie might continue to subsidize him in order to spare him the trouble and loss of time he would experience in looking for other means of existence. Mill continued to remind Comte that if he needed financial help, he could turn to him 108 109 110 111 112 113

J. S. Mill to Mrs. Austin, January 18, 1845, in Ross, Three Generations, 1:200. Frederic Harrison, introduction to The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte, ed. Harriet Martineau, 2 vols. (London: George Bell & Sons, 1896), 1:xiv. Comte to Mill, June 27, 1845, CG, 3:48. Comte to Barbot de Chement, November 8, 1846, CG, 4:74. Comte to Mill, June 27, 1845, CG, 3:49–50. Bain, John Stuart Mill, 75, 80–84. See also Comte to Hutton, January 7, 1854, CG, 7:167.

The End of the Relationship

93

as well. “You know that in an emergency, I am there.”114 Mill’s words greatly heartened Comte, who was by this point having difficulty maintaining his mental stability. Now he was “almost” completely certain he would get the subsidy from the Englishmen for another year. To clinch the deal, Mill insisted that Comte assure them that he would not need their patronage after a certain date. In mid-July 1845, with his money rapidly running out and his new friend Clotilde de Vaux clamoring to borrow money, Comte wrote the required letter explaining to his English patrons that his situation was only temporary and they would not have to help him indefinitely.115 Comte was surprised when in late September 1845, he received the devastating news that no aid would be forthcoming after all from England, except for a six-hundred-franc gift from Grote, who explained that this sum was his final gift to the “cause” of “honesty and philosophy against oppression and cabal.”116 Grote, in truth, found Comte too opinionated and narrow-minded. Moreover, he told a friend that Comte’s “morality is the commonplace of Catholic divines of the present day – divinising chastity, and making light of individual prudence; and he applies this standard to judge of the morality of Athens and Rome, as if all the points on which they differed from it were points of comparative corruption.” As an ancient historian and a Protestant, Grote could not brook this approach. Grote further complained that Comte knew no history because he “has never gone through any careful study of the evidence, nor ever read anything beyond the expositions of Bossuet and Montesquieu, and a few such others.” They were too Catholic for Grote’s taste. He wrote to a friend, “Comte has banished the Gods, but he breathes and extols their atmosphere of morality as if it were purity itself.”117 Utterly shocked by Grote’s supposed lack of generosity, Comte begged Mill to ask Molesworth once again.118 Mill, very annoyed by 114 115

116

117

118

Mill to Comte, July 8, 1845, CG, 3:397. Comte to Mill, July 14, 1845, CG, 3:63–6. Mill also wrote supportive letters. See Mill to George Grote, July 1845, Earlier Letters, ed. Mineka, 679. On his expenses, see Comte’s entries for August, October, and November 1845 in his notebook entitled “Recettes et d´epenses courantes,” MAC. Grote to Comte, September 12, 1845, MAC. See also Mill to Comte, September 22, 1845, CG, 3:402. Comte later explained to a disciple that Grote furnished half of the 1844 contribution from the three Englishmen. Comte to Hutton, January 7, 1854, CG, 7:168. Grote’s contribution this time amounted to twenty-four pounds. Clarke, George Grote, 183. Grote to George Cornewall Lewis, 1851, excerpt in Clarke, George Grote, 183–4. Despite these criticisms, Grote’s History of Greece, published between 1846 and 1851, seemed to embrace Comte’s philosophy of history because it traced three stages in the development of the Greek mind. One reviewer even referred to it as positivist. T. R. Wright, The Religion of Humanity: The Impact of Comtean Positivism on Victorian Britain (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 62. Comte to Mill, September 24, 1845, CG, 3:133.

94

Tensions in Comte’s Relationships, 1842–1846

Comte’s pushiness, refused. He explained that the Englishmen did not consider Comte’s case an emergency and still worried that they would have to support him permanently. In addition, Molesworth and the Grotes had not been on speaking terms since 1844 because Harriet Grote had inadvertently insulted Molesworth’s new wife.119 Comte wrote Mill a remarkably insolent reply on December 18, 1845. Reminding Mill of the sacrifices he had already made in his private life to serve humanity, he refused to live on the three to four shillings a day that rich, avid men, living in “the midst of opulence,” prescribed to “thinkers.” He blamed his situation on “the meanness of my enemies, the weakness of my bosses, and the half-heartedness of my friends.” Most of all, he reproached his “opulent” English patrons, who could “easily neutralize with a few subsidies the persecution organized” against him. He felt obliged by the “high moral magistrature inherent” in his “philosophical character” to “judge” these three men. This judgment would appear in his next work. Boasting of his importance to the reorganization of the West, especially now that “communism” was becoming a great threat to order, Comte maintained that the three Englishmen’s dereliction of their duty to protect him reflected the “deplorable absence of true convictions” characteristic of the “present era.” Comte went further, casting aspersions on English intellectuals, English politicians, and English people in general, whom he accused of being selfish, narrow-minded, and anti-European.120 Comte concluded that his English patrons were more to blame for his cruel situation than his French employer, that is, the government, which had no awareness of his philosophical importance. Mill furiously countered his points one by one. First he insisted that Comte’s “severe moral condemnation” of the three Englishmen was unfair because they had never been his disciples, as Comte assumed, and thus were under no obligation to continue to help him. Their admiration for him was in fact limited; although they appreciated extending the positive method to the study of society and the substitution of the scientific viewpoint for the religious one, they, like Mill, strongly disagreed with his social doctrines. Thus their refusal to continue the subsidy was not due to weak convictions or nationalism, but to their differences of opinion. Again, Mill suggested that without the prior establishment of ethology, “the positive science of man,” which could reveal the laws of human nature, Comte’s sociological theories remained weak. Comte had failed to develop a viable theory of intellectual and moral faculties. Finally, Mill berated Comte for jealously and unkindly deriding the wealth of his patrons. Mill insisted that they 119 120

Grote, The Philosophical Radicals, 73–6. Comte to Mill, December 18, 1845, CG, 3:244, 238, 240, 243–7.

The End of the Relationship

95

had a “right” to suggest the possibility of his economizing, for they had helped him financially. In discussing their differences of opinion, Mill concluded, “We do agree on your incontestable right to work from now on for your private comfort, even if you have to delay the rest of your speculative works.”121 Comte’s angry response to this letter, written on January 23, 1846, was so significant that he made two copies for himself.122 Comte pointed out that Mill was wrong in arguing that people had to agree completely with positivism to lend him support. Even in that future stage, “an entire unity of doctrine can never reign” due to differences of character, social situation, and education.123 What was most important was that his collaborators agree on his method and his theory of history, not his doctrine. To Comte, his English patrons were in sufficient accord with his principles to make them morally obliged to support him, and Mill’s reasons for not helping him establish the positivist journal were unacceptable. The English, in Comte’s eyes, were simply acting in a nationalistic and xenophobic matter. Very insulted and hurt by Mill’s suggestion that he needed to save money, Comte laid out his financial situation. He explained that at the beginning of 1846, he cut his yearly payments to his wife from three to two thousand francs and reduced his own expenditures by a thousand francs. But especially as his fifty-franc loans to Clotilde de Vaux were increasing, a secret that he did not tell Mill, he could not further decrease his budget without falling into misery. Indeed, from January through October 1846, he spent 7,500 francs, which included 2,000 francs to his wife, 1,600 francs to his landlord, 1,500 francs for food, 400 francs to his maid (Sophie Bliaux), and 230 francs for his subscription to the Th´eaˆ tre Royal Italien, where he listened to opera.124 He claimed that his expenses were not unreasonable; he had a “right” to his few pleasures – pleasures that were far less numerous than those of his comrades.125 In his bitterness, Comte became threatening. He lambasted wealthy people for being egoistic and foolish in not allying themselves with thinkers such as himself who were seeking to mitigate the class conflict. They obviously wished to escape their “moral obligations.” As 121 122 123 124

125

Mill to Comte, January 12, 1846, CG, 3:413, 415, 416. The copies exist in the MAC. Comte to Mill, January 23, 1846, CG, 3:295. The date of January 21 in the Correspondance g´en´erale is erroneous. Comte, “Budget annuel,” October, 1846, MAC. Bliaux earned four hundred francs a year. See notebook entitled “Recettes et d´epenses courantes, 1854,” MAC. Sometimes Comte wrote her name Bliot. See signature for her on page one of his register of baptisms entitled “Religion de l’Humanit´e: Sacrement de la pr´esentation,” MAC. Also see Th´eaˆ tre Royale Italien, renewal notices, MAC. Comte to Mill, January 23, 1846, CG, 3:299.

96

Tensions in Comte’s Relationships, 1842–1846

a result, once the “legitimate demands of the proletarians” were systematized by positivism, the position of the upper class would be in danger.126 As Comte knew, this letter of January 23, 1846 marked a watershed in his relationship with Mill. He explained to Mill that he was “painfully affected by the display of the most unfortunate discord which has yet arisen between us, for it concerns feelings as much as ideas.”127 Comte’s anger had unleashed a torrent of insults aimed at Mill and his friends. Mill now was deeply ashamed. Rumors flew that he was aiding a crazy, rude man, whose superficiality was well-known to the French.128 He had to apologize to his friends for Comte’s ungrateful behavior. He told Grote, “In Comte’s position I think my conduct would have been different.”129 Mill wrote to Comte only a few more times. In a letter of March 1846, written in response to Comte’s offensive letter of January, Mill too acknowledged that their differences were grave because they now extended from “ideas” to “feelings.”130 He argued against all of Comte’s points, especially the thesis that he was an English chauvinist. As if reminding Comte how little he knew of him, he explained that he was famous for his criticisms of the English national character. In addition, Mill mocked Comte’s assertion that the positivist position on women was closer to “reality” because it accorded with popular ideas, culled from “universal experience.”131 Mill pointed out that Comte would not accept the truth of religious opinions simply because many people held them. A few months later, in May 1846, Comte informed Mill of the death of Clotilde de Vaux, whose name, he hoped, would become “inseparable” from his in the “memories of humanity.”132 When Mill did not respond, Comte became worried by this rare silence and wrote him again in August. Mill sent a terse letter of condolence. Comte was touched, but again complained, in a letter of September 3, 1846, of his material situation, blaming it partly on the “lukewarmness of almost all my friends.”133 In a period of depression, this time due partly to Taylor’s grave illness, Mill did not bother to reply or to visit Comte when he went 126 128 129

130 131 132 133

Ibid., 300. 127 Ibid., 292. Mill to George Grote, January 1, 1846, and Mill to John Austin, April 1, 1845, Earlier Letters, ed. Mineka, 690, 714. Comte to George Grote [ July, 1845], in Earlier Letters, ed. Mineka, 679. See also Mill’s embarrassment in his letter to George Grote, January 1, 1846, Earlier Letters, ed. Mineka, 690. Mill to Comte, March 26, 1846, CG, 4:217. Comte to Mill, January 23, 1846, CG, 3:297. Comte to Mill, May 6, 1846, CG, 4:6. Comte to Mill, September 3, 1846, CG, 4:35.

A Final Analysis of Their Relationship

97

to Paris.134 He was also preoccupied, for he was completing his twovolume Principles of Political Economy. In late January 1847, Comte begged their mutual friend George Henry Lewes to find out the reason for Mill’s silence.135 Lewes sought out Mill, who suggested that the differences between Comte and himself had dampened his enthusiasm for their correspondence. Lewes relayed this information to Comte.136 Finally, in May 1847, Comte received from Mill a very impersonal and perfunctory letter, concerning the practical measures that should be taken to save the Irish who were suffering from the famine. In a section denouncing paternalistic government, Mill criticized the philanthropy practiced by the rich because “in general what one does for people is not useful to them unless it reinforces what they are doing for themselves.”137 This letter represented, in effect, a rejection of Comte’s purely philosophical approach to regeneration as well as his reliance on charity to pursue his mission. Comte regarded Mill’s “economic screed on Ireland” as “strange” and realized their “liaison” was over.138 He refused to respond. Thus Mill’s letter of May 17, 1847 was the last communication between the two men. Comte later asked Lewes for news of Mill. Lewes sensitively responded, “Of John Mill, I have seen nothing; all his old friends seem dropping off one by one.”139 Lewes admitted he was “afraid to make any direct inquiry” as to Mill’s “real feelings” regarding Comte.140 a f inal analysis of their re lationship At first glance, it might seem strange that these two great thinkers, coming from very different backgrounds, should become friends. Yet their friendship fulfilled certain needs in their lives and careers. It is undeniable that each looked to the other for intellectual gain. But it is also evident that they sought to develop a close relationship for psychological reasons. Such reasons led to their estrangement as well. As Mill explained in his Autobiography, the differences between them would not have “led to discontinuance of intercourse” if they had 134

135 136 137 138 139 140

Bain, John Stuart Mill, 91. See comments from Lewes that confirm this impression, Lewes to Comte, February 18 (?), 1847, in The Letters of George Henry Lewes, ed. William Baker, 2 vols. (Victoria: University of Victoria Press, 1995), 1:142–4. See also Oscar A. Haac, “A Foreword to the Correspondence,” in The Correspondence of John Stuart Mill and Auguste Comte, ed. Oscar A. Haac (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1995), xviii. Comte to Lewes, January 28, 1847, CG, 4:98–100. Lewes to Comte, February 18 (?), 1847, in Baker, ed., Letters, 1:143. Mill to Comte, May 17, 1847, CG, 4:242. Comte to Lewes, April 12, 1848, CG, 4:150. Lewes to Comte, March 2, 1848, in Baker, ed., Letters, 1:165. Lewes to Comte, March 26, 1847, in Baker, ed., Letters, 1:144.

98

Tensions in Comte’s Relationships, 1842–1846

been on “matters of simple doctrine. But they were chiefly on those points of opinion which blended in both of us with our strongest feelings and determined the entire direction of our aspirations.”141 Thus psychological factors at times played a bigger role than intellectual factors in the development and demise of their friendship. These factors help explain the bitterness of their rupture. When Mill first wrote to Comte, the latter found himself very isolated. He was making no headway in gaining the respect of his scientific colleagues at the Ecole Polytechnique or admission into the Academy of Sciences. Worst of all, the Cours de philosophie positive attracted little attention. To create a protective barrier between himself and the external world, he had adopted the regime of “cerebral hygiene,” which had made him more reclusive than ever. His preoccupation with his own problems and unwillingness to communicate created havoc in his marriage, which finally ended in Massin’s departure from the household in the summer of 1842. Thus Comte had desperately needed a friend and disciple who could encourage him and give him moral support. Mill seemed the perfect candidate. He had the scientific background that was crucial for understanding Comte’s doctrine and did not share the shortcomings of Comte’s previous principal disciple, Gustave d’Eichthal, who was too young and undecided about the direction of his life. Most importantly, Mill responded to Comte’s desire for the esteem of a renowned, respected intellectual. Before meeting him, Comte had frequently expressed his respect for the Benthamite tradition in which Mill was brought up. Thus the admiration and friendship of a man such as Mill fulfilled Comte’s personal needs at a critical moment in his life. As for Mill, this friendship seems at first incongruous. Brought up in the English liberal tradition, he believed in the importance of the individual and his or her freedom of expression. Since his early childhood, his father, James Mill, and his father’s friend Jeremy Bentham had planned for him to carry on the principles of the Benthamite system, which stressed the individual’s selfish pursuit of his or her own pleasure and the need to limit government to creating the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people. Yet Mill found many of these ideas superficial and weak. The Benthamite doctrine did not seem to take into account complex moral questions or the multifaceted nature of the individual. Mill rebelled against a philosophy based on selfishness and a narrow view of happiness.142 Part of his dissatisfaction stemmed from the deep need he felt to revolt 141 142

Mill, Autobiography, 219. John M. Robson, The Improvement of Mankind: The Social and Political Thought of John Stuart Mill (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1968), 118–23.

A Final Analysis of Their Relationship

99

against his father as well as Bentham. In harmony with an age that looked with favor upon the sentiments, he faulted his father for a lack of affection. His desire to question parental authority shaped to a certain extent his discontent with liberalism. Disenchanted with the system in which he was brought up, Mill was attracted by the positivist system. Comte had demonstrated that an approach which stressed only the selfish pursuits and calculations of the individual was superficial, outdated, and insufficient. It did not take into account the innate benevolent affections that must direct the intellect or the new problems of the postrevolutionary epoch, when the consensus among individuals was fragile.143 After having read Comte, Mill was convinced that agreement on certain important principles was the key to a healthy society. He no longer believed in the Benthamite concept that each person was the best judge of his or her own interest.144 Thus an idea that was far from his own liberal tradition seemed most attractive to Mill – the idea of a spiritual power having supreme authority to dictate to others the intellectual and moral principles on which society depended. Comte was important in the intellectual development of Mill because he offered a new mission of reconstruction which seemed superior to the dry and critical analyses of his father and late-eighteenth century philosophers. In short, Comte furnished Mill with what he needed: theories about society and the importance of the emotions that contradicted those of his childhood. Such theories constituted a powerful weapon in his rebellion against his father. Because of the psychological needs of Mill and Comte, their friendship continued to grow, fed by the pleasures of intellectual discourse. In Mill, Comte found a brilliant man to whom he could explain his personal problems and expose his ideas. Mill gave him encouragement not only to face his persecutors at the Ecole Polytechnique but also to write his new works. Mill was enthusiastic about Comte’s positive method, his philosophy of science, his science of society, his law of history, his idea of relativism, his emphasis on construction and synthesis, his recognition of the need for strong beliefs in an age of transition, and his principle that an educated elite should have a large role in the direction of society. By 1843, Mill was telling his friends that Comte was “by far the first speculative thinker of the age.”145 Feeling themselves drawn closer together emotionally, Comte and Mill rejoiced in sharing a common mission of transforming the world through a new science of society. They were certain 143

144 145

Mill to J. P. Nichol, September 30, 1848, in Earlier Letters, ed. Mineka, 738–9. Moreover, Comte had shown that the intellect must serve benevolent emotions, which played an important role in human behavior. Packe, The Life of John Stuart Mill, 98. Mill to Sir Edward Lytton Bulwer, March 27, 1843, Earlier Letters, ed. Mineka, 579.

100

Tensions in Comte’s Relationships, 1842–1846

their accord signalled the beginning of the third era of history. This devotion to building harmony among members of the intellectual and scientific elite sustained their correspondence for six years. Yet as the years passed, differences arose. One source of continuing tension was that Mill, like Comte’s former mentor Saint-Simon, was cautious about bringing up religious issues, which he knew would estrange his audience. Comte, however, tended to flaunt his antitheological position. Politics was also a problematic issue, for Mill did not share Comte’s hatred for the parliamentary system and reform movements. At first, they tried to paper over such differences. This modus vivendi worked in the short run because Mill tended to be submissive and Comte self-protective; both were so hopeful about the possible consequences of their convergence on many points that they preferred to ignore signs of discord. But Mill felt increasingly uncomfortable with Comte’s enthusiasm about his being a disciple, for he suspected that their views on social statics varied to a dangerous extent. After almost breaking up over the question of phrenology, they finally realized that their intellectual alliance was over when they disagreed on the related issue of the equality of the sexes. Unlike Comte, Mill believed that most individual, gender, and national differences were not innate but were due to circumstances that could change. Training and education could eliminate many differences. Taking into account the effect of experience on the formation of the individual, the psychology of associationism, not physiology, should be the basis of the science of society; ethology could serve as the bridge between associationism and the human sciences.146 Mill never lost his faith in Helv´etius’s principle that all human beings were naturally equal in terms of capacity. Without this principle, there would be no reason to work for social reforms and progress.147 Mill’s view was anathema to Comte, the opponent of psychology and the advocate of social hierarchy. But Mill’s support of associationism, whereby consciousness derives from a combination of elements that can be traced to experience, would have pleased his father, who advanced this English psychology. Finally, relations between the two men worsened to the point where Comte became reckless in his treatment of Mill. In his Autobiography, Mill explained that he stopped writing to Comte because he saw it was no longer profitable. “I was the first to slacken correspondence; he was the first to drop it. I found, and he probably 146

147

Mill, Autobiography, 147, 233; L´evy-Bruhl, ed., introduction, xxix; David Lewisohn, “Mill and Comte on the Methods of Social Science,” Journal of the History of Ideas 33 (April–June 1972): 319; Rylance, Victorian Psychology, 100–101; Capaldi, Mill, 177. Bain, John Stuart Mill, 79, 84; Iris Wessel Mueller, John Stuart Mill and French Thought (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1956), 113–14.

A Final Analysis of Their Relationship

101

found likewise, that I could do no good to his mind, and that all the good he could do to mine, he did by his books.”148 He realized that Comte was closed-minded, ungrateful, and egotistical. Speaking about him to his friend Sarah Austin, Mill said, “[He] is disposed to like those who give him the appreciation he thinks unjustly withheld by others: reste a` savoir whether his liking would hold unless kept up by homage or services to himself.”149 Comte was similarly resentful. In 1844, he had been certain that his alliance with Mill was finally launching the positivist school. In the Discours sur l’esprit positif, the manifesto of this new school, he had even declared that his “eminent friend” John Stuart Mill was “fully associated . . . in the direct foundation of the new philosophy.”150 Thus Mill’s abandonment of this project was a source of great disillusionment. Littr´e would take Mill’s place as Comte’s most famous supporter, but because he, like Comte, was French, he did not give the movement the same European flavor that Mill did. Comte firmly believed that positivism had to be an Occidental movement; its mission was to generate all of Western Europe and from there, the world. Most importantly, the rupture with Mill challenged his conviction that positivism would inevitably achieve social harmony. At the time of their disagreement over the woman question, Comte had voiced his concern: “It would be a sad augury for the social efficacy of the new philosophy to see today its two principal organs unable to agree sufficiently on such a fundamental doctrine . . . ; the spectacle of such a divergence would constitute a powerful weapon for the logic of our serious adversaries.”151 Comte should have recognized that positivism was no better at creating consensus than conservatism and liberalism. Yet to explain this failure, Comte instead found faults in Mill’s personality. He believed Mill had turned against him because he was “ashamed” of his refusal to participate in the Revue positive and of his inability to persuade his friends to subsidize him.152 Mill was, moreover, fickle, disloyal, and passionless.153 Comte also worried about their divergent interests. He was certain that Mill’s strong fascination with political economy not only prevented him from embracing positivism more fervently but contributed to the year-long “cooling” of their relationship.154 Comte may have perused Mill’s Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political 148 149 150 152 153 154

Mill, Autobiography, 219. John Stuart Mill to Sarah Austin, February 26, 1844, Earlier Letters, ed. Mineka, 622. Trait´e d’astronomie populaire, 27n1. 151 Comte to Mill, December 23, 1843, CG, 2:222. Comte to Lewes, January 28, 1847, CG, 4:99. Comte claimed that an English person, perhaps one of the Grotes or Austins, had warned him that Mill was fickle and disloyal. Comte to Lewes, January 28, 1847, CG, 4:99. See Comte to Lewes, April 7, 1847, CG, 4:109.

102

Tensions in Comte’s Relationships, 1842–1846

Economy, which was published in 1844 and is still in his library.155 He concluded in 1848 that Mill was “only a metaphysician, who felt, in his way, the intellectual value of positivism, . . . without understanding its social significance.”156 To Comte, it was absurd to study political economy because in doing so, one artificially separated people’s material existence from their intellectual and moral life. The upshot was a neglect of social problems.157 A component of metaphysics, political economy could not be an independent science.158 Likewise, logic, though somewhat less metaphysical, could not be an independent science because a method could not be taught apart from a doctrine. Forgetting that he had peppered the Cours and the Discours with references to Mill’s partnership, Comte accused Mill of having simply used him “to decorate his Logic just as Cousin had used Hegel to rejuvenate himself in 1828.”159 In the years to come, Comte would be increasingly confronted with the phenomenon of people, such as Mill, who were enthusiastic about the scientific aspects of positivism but could not brook its political and social doctrines. The problem for him would be whether to accept such persons as disciples. He had insinuated to Mill that complete adherence was not necessary or desirable, but his final opinion of Mill suggests otherwise. Mill, for his part, could not tolerate their disagreements.160 As the years passed, enmity between the two thinkers grew. Comte knew Mill would not approve of the Syst`eme de politique positive. This book indeed confirmed Mill’s fear that despite their agreement on many theoretical points, their ideas on the practical and political aspects of sociology diverged. He accepted Comte’s idea that philosophers should be a kind of spiritual power, who would instruct the masses on political and social matters. However, he objected to Comte’s plan to organize them into “a kind of corporate hierarchy.” Overlooking the values of liberty and individualism, Comte wanted “the yoke of general opinion, wielded by an organized body of spiritual teachers and rulers” to be “supreme” over every thought and 155 156 157

158

159 160

See Comte’s Biblioth`eque Superflue, MAC. Comte to Lewes, April 12, 1848, CG, 4:150. Comte, Calendrier Positiviste, 4th ed. (Paris, 1852), 26. See also Congreve, “Personal Recollections of Auguste Comte and Account of French Reception,” n.d. Positivist Papers, vol. XXXVI, Add. Mss. 45259, fol. 6, British Library. See Pierre Arnaud, CG, 2:435nCCLXXIV. In constrast to Mill, Comte also did not think that political economy could make predictions. See Paul Weirich, “Comte et Mill sur l’´economie politique,” Revue internationale de philosophie 52, no. 203 (1998): 79–83. Comte to Lewes, April 12, 1848, CG, 4:150. Raeder points out the paradox that Mill seemed more bothered by their divergences than Comte, who suggested that complete conformity was not possible and that the Englishman should be less rigid. Linda C. Raeder, John Stuart Mill and the Religion of Humanity (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2002), 63.

A Final Analysis of Their Relationship

103

action of each member of society. Mill thus found the Syst`eme “the completest system of spiritual and temporal despotism, which ever yet emanated from a human brain.”161 Comte was clearly a “moralityintoxicated man.”162 For his part, Comte could not believe that Mill had once proclaimed “the intellectual superiority of the new philosophy, especially in regard to method,”163 but now found his political doctrines “a mystical and tyrannical deviation.”164 One could not dismember a system. In a way, Mill would agree with him. Their rupture was a failure for him as well. He had always assumed that political doctrines and methodology were inseparable, and if people agreed on the latter, they would accept the former. After all, the aim of A System of Logic was to create a method for induction that would mold unanimous opinions among the elite of educated people, who would thus be considered authorities. They would pass their opinions on to the common people.165 Comte was upset precisely because people at large were not reading about positivism. Depressed by the lack of interest his work was generating abroad, he accused Mill in 1855 of being largely responsible for “the conspiracy of silence against my Politique in the periodical press in England.”166 This attack was not completely warranted, for one of Mill’s philosophy students, William Henry Smith, had written a very long review of the Cours in Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine. His reaction to Comte’s oeuvre was mixed. He praised Comte’s “great intellectual power” and “singular originality” but criticized his “intolerable” style, gross generalizations, disregard for theology, and insufficient appreciation of the complexity of the mind.167 Comte responded in kind to such criticisms. He condemned Mill publicly for being a flighty literary hack, who remained stuck in the eighteenth century; he could not overcome his “revolutionary habits,” faith in practical reformism, and belief in individualism.168 Like many other French thinkers, Comte treated the liberalism and Protestantism of Mill as something foreign to France, a Catholic country, which had a tradition of a strong church and state. Because of Mill’s obsolete, metaphysical, political, and religious beliefs, he could 161 162 163 165 166 167

168

Mill, Autobiography, 219, 221. John Stuart Mill, Auguste Comte and Positivism (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1961), 139–40. Syst`eme, 4:540. 164 Comte to Audiffrent, August 23, 1855, CG, 8:104. Raeder, John Stuart Mill, 79–80; Mill to C´elestin de Bligni`eres, January 22, 1862, Later Letters, ed. Mineka and Lindley, vol. 15, 768–9. Comte to Henry Hutton, December 31, 1855, CG, 8:169. [William Smith], “Comte,” Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine 53 (March 1843): 397–414. See especially p. 398. See also Bain, John Stuart Mill, 71; Cashdollar, Transformation of Theology, 31–3. Syst`eme, 4:541.

104

Tensions in Comte’s Relationships, 1842–1846

not embrace the new generation’s mission of creating a “true moral power” and a more interventionist system for the nineteenth century.169 He was merely another timid supporter of the status quo.170 Confronted with all these vitriolic criticisms, Mill pointed out to his old friend Gustave d’Eichthal in 1864 that Comte was “unjust . . . in general against all those who had ceased to please him.”171 Mill’s and Comte’s comments reflect the fact that their personalities were indeed very different. Comte was quick to jump to conclusions and held tenaciously to his opinions. Mill did not share these dogmatic tendencies. He was able to live with doubt. Priding himself on having an open mind, Mill said at one point that his best mental habit was “that of never accepting half-solutions of difficulties as complete; never abandoning a puzzle, but again and again returning to it until it was cleared up; never allowing obscure corners of a subject to remain unexplored, because they did not appear important; never thinking that I perfectly understood any part of a subject until I understood the whole.”172 The clash of opinions that Mill found revivifying was a threat to Comte, who was not eager to learn from others because he thought he already possessed the truth. To Mill, one could not be original without this willingness to learn.173 He would never have followed Comte’s cerebral hygiene. If they had ever met each other, their personalities would have undoubtedly clashed with even greater force than they did in their letters. The influence that each thinker exercised on the other is difficult to gauge. It was Mill’s friendship, especially his encouragement, that most touched Comte, curing him of “a certain shame of appearing too sensitive.”174 This sentiment of fraternity was linked to Comte’s new intellectual enterprise because the Syst`eme de politique positive aimed to “systematize our essential feelings” and encourage social interaction.175 In a way, Mill helped to develop Comte’s emotional life. The Religion of Humanity, with its exaltation of the emotions, did not derive solely from Comte’s love for Clotilde de Vaux but also from his deep affection for John Stuart Mill, who shared his wish to shape the religious character of their age.176 Mill’s direct intellectual influence on Comte was limited because the Frenchman had deliberately set up barriers to prevent others from having an impact on his system of thought. His regime of 169 170 171 172 174 175 176

Comte to Lewes, October 15, 1848, CG, 4:195. Comte to Lewes, April 12, 1848, CG, 4:150. Mill to Gustave d’Eichthal., March 30, 1864, in The Later Letters, ed. Mineka and Lindley, vol. 15, 931. John Stuart Mill, cited in Bain, John Stuart Mill, 144. 173 Bain, John Stuart Mill, 146. Comte to Mill, August 8, 1845, CG, 3:90. Comte to Clotilde de Vaux, August 5, 1845, CG, 2:81. Raeder, John Stuart Mill, 41.

A Final Analysis of Their Relationship

105

cerebral hygiene was designed to protect his originality, which he felt had been belittled during his relationship with Saint-Simon and the Saint-Simonians. Because he had reached his intellectual maturity and the main outlines of his philosophy were set, debates over his ideas struck him as “unfruitful.”177 Having built a system, Comte believed that he could not concede one point without damaging all the other principles to which it was connected. And the whole thrust of his system was to prove that because of its scientific basis, it was stronger than all others and would not change in a era of instability.178 Nevertheless, Comte’s creation of a new science of morality and his stress on altruism in the 1850s seem to have been at least in part a response to Mill’s criticism that he neglected to create ethology and especially a theory of moral faculties. Comte intended to elaborate on his theory of morality in the second and third volumes of his last work, the Synth`ese subjective, which he never completed. He did, however, finish the first volume on positivist logic, which may have been inspired by the example of Mill’s System of Logic. In this work, Mill had battled against the intuitionists, who went beyond experience in their search for truth and tended to uphold conservative doctrines. Comte wished to show that although inductive thought and reasoning on the basis of experience were supremely important, emotions also played a role in scientific discovery. Mill was simultaneously attracted and repelled by Comte’s fairly closed system of thought. Mill told him as early as 1842, “You scare me by the unity and completion of your convictions, which seem . . . never to need confirmation on the part of any other intelligence.”179 Mill had already seen the same phenomenon of dogmatism in Comte’s predecessor in his life, Jeremy Bentham. Even John Austin, a mutual friend, had told Mill that Comte was “like Mr. Bentham (of whom he constantly reminds me)” because “he is so wedded to his own devices and so full of presumptuous contempt for all which has been done by others, that I fear he would not be moved even by your insinuations.”180 Mill’s ambivalence toward Comte explains his vacillations during the two phases of his experience with Comte. In the first phase of his encounter, which took place around 1829, he went from a cold initial response to a very warm reaction, while in the second phase, beginning in 1837, he followed the inverse direction, going from hot to cold. It seems that Mill’s overwhelming desire for certitude had led him to be temporarily seduced by the solidity of the positivist system, although Comte’s notion of an imposed consensus ran against 177 178 180

See, for example, Comte to Valat, October 5, 1841, CG, 2:20. L´evy-Bruhl, introduction, xii–xiv. 179 Mill to Comte, December 15, 1842, CG, 2:375. John Austin to Mill, n.d., excerpt in Mill, Earlier Letters, ed. Mineka, 654n6.

106

Tensions in Comte’s Relationships, 1842–1846

his liberal opinions. Positivism seemed to speak to different aspects of Mill’s psyche, for it combined elements of scientism, materialism, progressivism, and an emphasis on induction on the one hand with spiritualism, idealism, a concern for social order, and a stress on deduction on the other hand. Thus, very often, Comte confused Mill by appealing to the various sides of his character. Mill, whose openmindedness often led him to indecision, did not succeed in removing himself from Comte’s power until the disdain of Harriet Taylor and his friends helped him to see the dangers. In the end, Mill’s very critical judgment of Comte was very similar to what it had been in the beginning. Yet even after their break, Comte’s ideas continued to be a powerful force in Mill’s mind. As John Robson and Nicholas Capaldi have noted, Mill was forever an advocate of Comte’s scientific method; his inverse deductive method of beginning analyses in the social sciences with historical generalizations connected to the laws of human nature; and his philosophy of the sciences, including his hierarchic scheme. Mill believed only Aristotle and Bacon had done more to improve the “theory of scientific procedures.”181 Mill assimilated Comte’s ideas not only on philosophy but on society, history, morality, and religion.182 Although Mill never wrote on ethology or sociology as he had intended in order to complete Comte’s work, he did incorporate positivist ideas into his writings on political economy. Comte led Mill to recognize that generalizations about the economy had to take into account basic social truths.183 In his Principles of Political Economy of 1848, he applied Comte’s distinction between social statics and social dynamics to the science of political economy, which he told Bain was “a great improvement.”184 Comte’s associated distinction between order and progress appeared not only in this book but in a System of Logic and several of Mill’s later works.185 For example, in On Liberty (1859) he expressed the 181

182 183 184

185

See also Mill’s evaluation of his position in a letter to Comte’s young disciple, Barbot de Chement, August 7, 1854, The Later Letters, ed. Mineka and Lindley, vol. 14, 237. See also Robson, The Improvement of Mankind, 97, 105; Capaldi, Mill, 168; Ryan, J. S. Mill, 93–4. Frederic Harrison, “John Stuart Mill (Suite et fin),” RO, 2nd ser., 17 (November 1898), 359. Capaldi, Mill, 179, 196. These are Bain’s words. See Bain, John Stuart Mill, 88. Using Comtean expressions, Mill noted that the “Statics” of political economy was the study of production, distribution, and exchange, which were considered to be interdependent. This “theory of equilibrium” had to be complemented by a “theory of motion.” Thus the “Dynamics” of political economy studied the “progressive changes” in the economy of a society. John Stuart Mill, Principles of Political Economy with Some of Their Applications to Social Philosophy, ed. J. M. Robson, vol. 3 of the Collected Works, 705. Mill professed, however, not to believe in Comte’s conception of the “conditions” of order or of progress. Mill to Barbot de Chement, August 7, 1854, The Later Letters,

A Final Analysis of Their Relationship

107

Comtean view that the conflicting parties of order and progress shared the truth.186 In Considerations on Representative Government (1861), he again stressed that governments must take into account the necessity of preserving both order and progress.187 He was also taken with Comte’s relativist approach to history. In his famous Autobiography (1873), he gave his adherence to Comte’s idea that their period was an “age of transition in opinions.” Reflecting the impact of Comte’s thought, he declared that this period of “weak convictions, paralysed intellects, and a growing laxity of principle” could not end until beliefs had been renovated, “leading to the evolution of some faith, whether religious or merely human.”188 At the end of his life, Mill admitted that his opinions were “the closest to those of M. Comte” in matters pertaining to religion.189 Indeed, Bernard Semmel, who has written extensively on Mill’s notion of virtue, argued that Mill “sought spiritual perfection above all” and insisted on social obligations.”190 Mill believed that Comte was “justified in the attempt to develope [sic] his philosophy into a religion” in order to create a spiritual consensus.191 Mill embraced the Religion of Humanity as a substitute for Christianity for the rest of his life, though he had reservations about its authoritarian aspects.192 In his diary, Mill stated that “the only good thing” in the Syst`eme de politique positive was “the thoroughness with which he . . . enforced and illustrated the possibility of making le culte de l’humanit´e perform the function and supply the place of a religion.”193 No one before Comte had realized “all the majesty” in the idea of “the general interest of the human

186

187 188 189 190

191 192

193

ed. Mineka and Lindley, vol. 14, 237. See also Mill, System of Logic, 8:917–24. On Mill’s use of social statics and social dynamics, see Bain, John Stuart Mill, 71–3. John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, in Essays on Politics and Society, ed. J. M. Robson, vol. 18 of The Collected Works, 253–4. In this work, Mill also used the term he had coined during his correspondence with Comte: “pedantocracy.” He condemned the degeneration of the bureaucracy into a “pedantocracy.” Ibid., 308. John Stuart Mill, Considerations on Representative Government, in Essays on Politics and Society, ed. J. M. Robson, volume 18 of The Collected Works, 384–9. Mill, Autobiography, 4, 247. Mill to Barbot de Chement, August 7, 1854, The Later Letters, ed. Mineka and Lindley, vol. 14, 237. Bernard Semmel, “John Stuart Mill’s Coleridgean Neoradicalism,” in Mill and the Moral Character of Liberalism, ed. Eldon J. Eisenach (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998), 50. Mill, Auguste Comte and Positivism, 137. Allan D. Megill, “Mill’s Religion of Humanity and On Liberty,” in Mill and the Moral Character of Liberalism, ed. Eldon J. Eisenach (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998), 302; Maurice Cowling, Mill and Liberalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), 23; Raeder, John Stuart Mill, 1–3; Ryan, J. S. Mill, 230–39. Mill, Diary, January 24, 1854, in Journals and Debating Speeches, ed. John M. Robson, vol. 27 of The Collected Works, 646. On Mill’s concept of religion, see Megill, “Mill’s Religion of Humanity,” 304; Capaldi, Mill, 345.

108

Tensions in Comte’s Relationships, 1842–1846

race, both as a source of emotion and as a motive to conduct.”194 This cult of humanity, which was represented by “the minds and character of the elite, in the past, present and future,” could appeal to everyone, giving them a sense of unity and a narrative of meaning. It should be the model for all other religions.195 In his Three Essays on Religion, Mill recommended outright the Religion of Humanity as fulfilling the conditions of a religion. He explained, “The essence of religion is the strong and earnest direction of the emotions and desires towards an ideal object, recognized as of the highest excellence, and as rightfully paramount over all selfish objects of desire.” He thus agreed with Comte that religion should not worship a transcendent divine being and should be based on altruism, that is, on people’s friendly feelings toward their fellow beings at all times. Such sentiments could be cultivated by means of a universal system of moral education.196 People should learn to identify with others and overcome their hedonism and their selfish preoccupation with salvation.197 They should make “the happiness and dignity of . . . [the] collective body the central points to which all things are to trend.”198 In referring to Mill’s embrace of the structure of the Religion of Humanity, “constructed on the basis of men’s amiable feelings towards one another,” Bain remarked, “To this he had been led, I have no doubt, in the first instance by Comte, although the filling-up is his own.”199 Ultimately, Mill may have favored the Religion of Humanity because altruism seemed related to his old utilitarian principle of “the greatest happiness of the greatest number.”200 In addition, perhaps struck by Comte’s cult of Clotilde de Vaux, Mill constructed a version of it in honor of Harriet Taylor. Mill and Harriet Taylor married in 1851, but seven years later, she died. Like Clotilde de Vaux, she suffered from tuberculosis. Mill worshipped her and attributed many of his ideas to her. As he explained in his Autobiography, “Her memory is to me a religion, and her approbation the 194 195 196

197 198 199

200

Mill, Auguste Comte and Positivism, 135. Mill to Barbot de Chement, August 7, 1854, The Later Letters, ed. Mineka and Lindley, vol. 14, 237. John Stuart Mill, Three Essays on Religion, in Essays on Ethics, Religion, and Society, ed. John M. Robson, vol. 10 of The Collected Works, 422. On promoting feelings of fraternity, see Joseph Hamburger, “Religion and On Liberty,” in A Cultivated Mind: Essays on J. S. Mill Presented to John M. Robson, ed. Michael Laine (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991), 162. Hamburger, “Religion,” 163, 165; Raeder, John Stuart Mill, 36. Mill, Diary, January 24, 1854, in Journals and Debating Speeches, ed. Robson, vol. 27 of The Collected Works, 646. Bain, John Stuart Mill, 134. On Mill’s incorporation of his thoughts on Comte’s religious philosophy into a review of the first two volumes of George Grote’s History of Greece, see ibid., 85. John Plamenatz, The English Utilitarians (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966), 59.

A Final Analysis of Their Relationship

109

standard by which, summing up as it does all worthiness, I endeavour to regulate my life.”201 Yet Mill’s ambivalence to Comte continued to be a problem throughout his life. In 1865, he wrote to Comte’s English disciple Richard Congreve, “It is precisely because I consider M. Comte to have been a great thinker, that I regard it as a duty to balance the strong & deeply felt admiration which I express for what I deem the fundamental parts of his philosophy by an equally emphatic expression of the opposite feeling I entertain towards other parts.” He always considered Comte and Ruskin to be the most original thinkers of his era but felt compelled to distance himself from the former because of the practical applications of positivist philosophy, which were most evident in the “extravagances of his later writings.”202 Just as Comte tried to conceal the influence that Saint-Simon had had on his development, Mill sought systematically to downplay Comte’s impact on his evolution. In the second edition of A System of Logic of 1846, Mill eliminated approximately sixty references to Comte’s name, although he usually retained the idea Comte had expressed. In the third edition of 1851, he cut out ten more references to Comte, including the passage where he exclaimed that the Cours was “the greatest [book] yet produced on the Philosophy of the Sciences.”203 As previously mentioned, Mill indirectly condemned Comte’s views on women in The Subjection of Women (1869), where he argued that women’s subordinate status hurt progress. But the most significant repudiation occurred in 1865 when Mill was encouraged by John Chapman to write two essays for the Westminster Review, which were reprinted by Nicholas Tr¨ubner as a separate book entitled Auguste Comte and Positivism in 1865.204 Feeling responsible, if not guilty, for 201 202

203

204

Mill, Autobiography, 251. See also A. N. Wilson, God’s Funeral (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1999), 51. Mill to Richard Congreve, August 8, 1865, Later Letters, ed. Mineka and Lindley, vol. 16, 1085. See also Mill, Diary, January 21, 1854, in Journals and Debating Speeches, ed. Robson, 645. Mill also did not like the practical doctrines of Ruskin. John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic Ratiocinative and Inductive: Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence and the Methods of Scientific Investigation, ed. J. M. Robson, vols. 7 and 8 of The Collected Works, 8:1118. See also 7: xc–xci. Mill had the idea of writing this essay on Comte as early as 1854 because John Chapman wanted an article on the French philosopher for the Westminster Review after having recently published Harriet Martineau’s translation of the Cours. But Mill abandoned the project after Harriet Taylor expressed her fear that he would have to praise Harriet Martineau, whom she disliked as a horrid gossip. He wrote the articles after Taylor died and Emile Littr´e published his biography of Comte in 1863: “The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte,” Westminster Review 83 (April 1865), 339–405 and “Later Speculations of Auguste Comte,” ibid., 84 ( July 1865), 1–42. See also Packe, The Life of John Stuart Mill, 370; Capaldi, Mill, 235, 321; Wright, The Religion of Humanity, 46–7; John Stuart Mill to Harriet Mill, January 16, 1854, The Later Letters, ed. Mineka and Lindley, 14:134. Caroline Comte was relieved that Mill’s book was at least a “discussion” and did not

110

Tensions in Comte’s Relationships, 1842–1846

having to a large extent made Comte’s reputation, at least in England, he believed it was time to evaluate his ideas more critically. He tended to praise the Cours and called Comte as great a scientific thinker as Descartes and Leibniz. However, he criticized Comte’s opposition to interior observation, formal conditions of proof, and causal natural laws. He went so far as to deny that Comte created the science of society. Except his analysis of history, to which there is much to be added, but which we do not think likely to be ever, in its general features, superseded, he has done nothing in Sociology which does not require to be done over again, and better. . . . [H]is renown with posterity would probably have been greater than it is now likely to be, if after showing the way in which the social science should be formed, he had not flattered himself that he had formed it.205

In his illuminating book Comte after Positivism, Robert Scharff points out that the real problem was that Comte was not the same kind of positivist that Mill was. Unlike Comte, who viewed interior observation, formal proofs, and causal laws as prescientific holdovers that had to be transcended before positivism could be fully established, Mill maintained that the development of positivism was complete and that positivist philosophers now should lay down the conceptual and methodological requirements for science. He and other positivists after Comte refashioned positivism, making it an ahistorical philosophy with a formal epistemic system inspired by the sciences and a mission to produce permanent rules for directing scientific practices. Scharff argues persuasively that this version of positivism, which eventually triumphed, would not have met with Comte’s approval.206 Mill’s book also reveals his dislike of Comte’s personality and some of his views on religion and politics. Reflecting his own frustrations during the years they corresponded, Mill wrote that one impediment to the development of Comte’s thought was that his self-confidence, or “self-conceit,” was “colossal,” if not “outrageous.” Much of what Comte wrote in the years after their rupture, especially the Syst`eme, was, in Mill’s mind, patently absurd, for Comte’s plans for the future positivist regime, his utopia, were marred by a “frenzy for regulation,” excessive systematization, and “strange conceits.”207 He was particularly incensed that Comte rejected liberty of conscience, the basis of liberalism, and aimed to organize a priestly elite that would

205 206 207

declare “war” on Comte’s ideas. Madame Comte to no name, June 20, 1866, in Archives Bertrand, Carton F, Archives, Acad´emie des Sciences. Mill, Auguste Comte and Positivism, 123–4. Scharff, Comte After Positivism, x, 36–72, 120–22. Mill, Auguste Comte and Positivism, 130, 196.

A Final Analysis of Their Relationship

111

prove to be despotic.208 Thus although supportive of Comte’s stress on the leadership of a new kind of clerisy to mold opinions, Mill condemned his plan for an organized spiritual power because it did not rise naturally and permitted no liberty or “spontaneity on the part of individuals.” Moreover, thinkers should be allowed to sit in deliberative bodies and participate as advisors in the government. Mill, in short, disliked the way Comte strictly differentiated between the temporal and spiritual powers, and he rejected his insistence on institutionalizing the Religion of Humanity and providing it with all sorts of rituals.209 Social consensus and common doctrines were desirable but should not come about through coercion, as Comte believed, but through education and rational argument.210 Altruism should not mean abandoning one’s own interest for the collective good but promoting universal autonomy. Embracing everyone’s selfinterest was the best way to show one’s concern for others, which was of crucial importance.211 Mill, unlike Comte, did not believe that all individuals could be permanently mobilized for the general welfare.212 To Mill, social development depended to some extent on the individual’s self-development, and both required a critical spirit and practice.213 Mill’s defense of individualism grew stronger after his encounter with Comte and is evident in the book that gave him most pride, On Liberty. It was written in collaboration with Harriet Taylor and published in 1859.214 Even here, one notices Comte’s ideas on relativism, history, and the importance of opinions. Yet, Mill’s emphatic stress on individualism and diversity was at least in part a reaction to the dangerous homogeneity of the positivist system. He had told his wife in 1855 that he was concerned that Comte and other social reformers were promoting “liberticide.”215 Besides warning against the peril of the tyranny of the majority in a democracy, Mill wished to prove his opposition to Comte’s “despotism of society over the individual.”216 To Comte, society was more “real” than the individual, whose desires 208 209

210 212 213 214 215 216

Semmel, “John Stuart Mill’s Coleridgean Neoradicalism,” 63. Mill, Auguste Comte and Positivism, 123. See also Mill to C´elestin de Bligni`eres, January 22, 1862, Later Letters, ed. Mineka and Lindley, 15:768–9; Mill to Emile Littr´e , May 11, 1865, Later Letters, ed. Mineka and Lindley, 16:1046; Robson, The Improvement of Mankind, 138; Capaldi, Mill, 170; Raeder, John Stuart Mill, 78, 252. Cowling, Mill and Liberalism, 23. 211 Capaldi, Mill, 199, 211, 254. Fred Wilson, “Mill on Psychology and the Moral Sciences,” The Cambridge Companion to Mill, ed. John Skorupski (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 234. Gertrud Lenzer, introduction to Auguste Comte and Positivism: The Essential Writings, ed. Lenzer (New York: Harper & Row, 1975), xxix–xxx. Mill, Autobiography, 257. Mill to Harriet Taylor, January 15, 1855, The Later Letters, ed. Mineka and Lindley, 14:294. Mill, On Liberty, 227.

112

Tensions in Comte’s Relationships, 1842–1846

and freedoms had to be subordinated to the needs of the whole. Moreover, Comte tended to dwell on the notion that because there was no freedom of speech in the sciences, it should not exist in social and moral matters.217 But Mill believed society should aim at the development of each individual, for individual progress encouraged social development.218 He praised liberty of thought and expression as crucial for the self-development of each person and the progress of society.219 Each individual had the right to pursue happiness in his or her own manner.220 As Nicholas Capaldi has pointed out, Mill opposed “intellectual dictatorship” and “social technocracy” because he believed “personal autonomy and individual self-government were vital to a free society.” Yet as Gertrude Himmelfarb also remarked, Mill did seem “almost pathetic” in trying to “superimpose the principles of On Liberty,” that is, the importance of each individual’s freedom of thought and action, “upon the Comtean vision of an organic society so firmly based upon reason, morality, and a ‘general unanimity of sentiment’ as to preclude any further change.” On Liberty “represented, in short, not merely a rejection of all that, from Mill’s point of view, was the worst in Comte; it represented a rejection of all that Mill elsewhere took to be the best in Comte – community, fraternity, and morality.”221 After all, as Linda Raeder pointed out, he seemed elsewhere enthusiastic about Comte’s collectivist idea that all individuals are “public functionaries employed by society.”222 But in this book, Mill’s defense of individual liberty was so extreme that he was accused of contradicting his own elitism, suppressing the relations between the individual and society, and developing a negative definition of freedom, whereby the government can hardly ever intervene in the affairs of the members of society.223 In fact, his view of the social whole – the social whole that Comte put before the individual – remained vague.224 Nevertheless, in a famous passage, Mill explained Precisely because the tyranny of opinion is such as to make eccentricity a reproach, it is desirable, in order to break through that tyranny, that people should be eccentric. Eccentricity has always abounded when 217 218 220 221 222 223 224

Alan Ryan, “In a Liberal Landscape,” in The Cambridge Companion to Mill, ed. John Skorupski (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 535. Mueller, John Stuart Mill, 128. 219 Packe, The Life of John Stuart Mill, 400. Semmel, “John Stuart Mill’s Coleridgean Neoradicalism,” 74. Gertrude Himmelfarb, On Liberty and Liberalism: The Case of John Stuart Mill (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1974), 53, 91. Raeder, John Stuart Mill, 334. On this problem, see F. W. Garforth, Educative Democracy: John Stuart Mill on Education in Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980), 70–72. J. C. Rees, Mill and His Early Critics (Leicester: University College, 1956), 9–16, 36.

Old Friends

113

and where strength of character has abounded; and the amount of eccentricity in a society has generally been proportional to the amount of genius, mental vigour and moral courage which it contained. That so few now dare to be eccentric, marks the chief danger of the time.225

Yet, ironically, Mill himself could not tolerate unconventional men such as Comte, who often referred to himself as an “eccentric thinker.”226 old frie nds One reason Comte felt particularly bereft after the end of his relationship with Mill was that while it was going well and they were excited about their joint mission of regenerating the West, he had dropped an old friend, Pierre-Jacques Valat. They had been students together at the lyc´ee in Montpellier and the Ecole Polytechnique and had been correspondents since 1815. A mathematics teacher in Bordeaux, Valat eagerly read the first volumes of the Cours, which he called “the most remarkable work of our epoch.”227 But in offering his thoughts on why it had not attracted more attention, Valat inadvertently insulted Comte by suggesting that its focus was too narrow and its style tedious.228 Comte angrily retorted that “the age of discussion” was over for him. He would no longer permit Valat to bring up philosophical matters with him.229 Having in his own mind already established the positive system of indubitable ideas, Comte was no longer interested in debating intellectual matters. Instead, he felt deeply the need for “sincere affections, especially [those] dating from infancy.”230 He reassured Valat that they could remain friends because they understood “each other by means of the heart, in the absence of the mind.”231 Two years before he met Clotilde de Vaux, Comte was already more interested in cultivating other people in terms of what they could offer him emotionally rather than intellectually. Valat unwillingly limited his topics of conversation. Claiming that he was too busy, he did not read the last volume of the Cours and wrote to Comte less often. His letters covered only problems at work and domestic matters, such as the health of his wife and the upbringing 225 226 227 228 229 231

Mill, On Liberty, 269. Comte to Barbot de Chement, November 29, 1846, CG, 4:82. Pierre-Jacques Valat to Comte, April 26, 1841, MAC. Valat to Comte, August 25, 1842, MAC. Comte to Valat, September 17, 1842, CG, 1:86. 230 Ibid., 87. Comte to Valat, August 29, 1842, CG, 2:80.

114

Tensions in Comte’s Relationships, 1842–1846

of his children. Unable to be as open as he was before, he bitterly sensed that Mill had taken his place in Comte’s affections.232 It gradually became clear to both Comte and Valat that their friendship was in danger for other reasons as well. In July 1843, Valat finally admitted that for the past two years, he had returned to religion because of the “emptiness” in his soul.233 He had taken up, however, not the Protestantism of his upbringing but Catholicism. Comte tried to be sympathetic, attributing Valat’s surprising regression to the “mental and moral worries” that plagued their contemporaries. Fearful, however, that his friend’s reversion to religion might further strain their relationship, Comte warned him that the quietude and “mental stability” that he yearned for could be found only in positivism, which fulfilled the functions of the traditional religions without adopting such absurd doctrines as the eternal damnation of virtuous non-Christians.”234 Valat felt insulted. Yet despite being disappointed by the “profound disjunction” that had risen between them, he vowed to remain Comte’s friend.235 Comte sent him a copy of the Discours sur l’esprit positif in March 1844.236 It is not known how Valat responded to its anti-religious diatribe. It is known, however, that in the 1870s, he considered himself one of the “friends” of positivism, but not a convert.237 Comte grew increasingly tired of Valat’s resistance to positivism, his preoccupation with banal problems at work and home, and especially his tardiness in responding to his letters. Perhaps Valat found Comte’s intransigence, egotism, and atheism equally frustrating. In late 1844, he wrote Comte a critical letter, noting that Comte’s doctrine had made little headway in Bordeaux, where people either ignored or misunderstood it. Catholics considered his doctrine too impious and pantheistic, while rationalists disliked his disdain of psychology. The main problem was that Comte forgot that “men” were “frivolous” creatures who preferred to pursue money rather than spend long hours studying the six volumes of the Cours.238 Comte found such comments unkind and discouraging. Unable to put up with his friend’s lack of support, Comte bluntly wrote on the back of Valat’s letter: “Resolved on Sunday March 30 not to respond.”239 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239

Valat to Comte, July 23, 1843, MAC. Excerpt published in CG, 2:394. Valat to Comte, August 25, 1843, MAC. Excerpt also in CG, 2:394. Comte to Valat, August 25, 1843, CG, 2:188–9. Valat to Comte, July 23, 1843, MAC. The book, with Comte’s autograph, was found in a bookstall on the quais of Paris in 1890. See “Un Autographe d’Auguste Comte,” RO, 2d ser., 2 (November 1890): 371. Valat to Robinet, January 2, 1870, MAC. Valat to Comte, October 27, 1844, MAC. See Comte’s statement on the back of the letter from Valat to Comte, October 27, 1844, MAC.

Old Friends

115

When Valat later moved to Paris in 1853, he thought about calling on Comte but decided against it for “fear of encountering some differences of ideas incompatible with the confidence that must exist between two true friends.”240 Intellectual divergences coupled with insensitivity on the part of both men thus killed a friendship that was over thirty years old. After Comte died, Valat sadly regretted that he had alienated Comte by having questioned various aspects of positivism, especially because he had not read the entire Cours. He recognized that Comte had interpreted such questions as criticisms emanating from ill-will and short-sightedness. Nevertheless, like Massin, Valat came to realize that it was not pleasant to be associated with an increasingly irascible individual. Comte tried with even less success to exercise control over another old friend from Montpellier, Emile Tabari´e. In late 1826, Tabari´e had lent five hundred francs to Massin to help defray the cost of Comte’s stay in an insane asylum. But because perhaps he made disparaging observations about his marriage to Massin, Comte soon afterward stopped writing to him. Tabari´e had been very bitter about this rupture, which he denied having provoked. Experiencing financial problems, he finally decided to ask Comte in late 1843 to repay the money he owed to him.241 The request could not have come at a worse time, for Comte was worried about losing his post as admissions examiner. Another man had also recently demanded repayment of 250 francs that he had lent to Comte in January 1825.242 Comte had completely forgotten about this debt. While making arrangements to placate Tabari´e, whose money was finally reimbursed in December 1844, Comte proceeded to insult him. After Tabari´e claimed to have always expressed his appreciation for him, Comte retorted that it was only “intellectual.” Comte insisted that he deserved “moral appreciation,” which was “no less important” in his eyes than “intellectual appreciation.”243 Again reflecting his interest in feelings, Comte seemed upset that Tabari´e did not seem to have any true affection for him; he respected Comte’s brain, instead of loving his character or heart. Convinced that Tabari´e, like Valat, was intent on tormenting him, Comte then accused him 240 241

242

243

“Pr´eface,” September 1869, page 5, in letter of Valat to Laffitte, May 2, no year, MAC. Tabari´e to Comte, December 8, 1843, MAC. So as not to discredit Comte, Pierre Laffitte chose not to include the later letters from Tabari´e in an article containing the correspondence between these two men. See RO, 2d ser., 11 ( July 1895): 86– 139. Letter from “Illisible” (Charles Magloire B´enard) to Comte, July 16, 1843, MAC. Comte repaid him 130 francs on July 19, 1843. He had repaid him some of the money by giving lessons to his son in early 1826. Comte to Tabari´e, December 14, 1843, CG, 2:220–21.

116

Tensions in Comte’s Relationships, 1842–1846

of being cold, unimaginative, stiff, and touchy.244 Tabari´e was profoundly offended by Comte’s gratuitous remarks: “It is very sad, in effect, to see a man of your merit stoop to use the most insulting language possible to hurt someone who does not hurt you, to humiliate someone who honors you, and to affront someone who did you a favor. . . . We do not have, I see, the same ideas in fact of friendship and of gratitude.”245 It is ironic that Comte yearned to inspire affection but seemed capable only of alienating his friends. the sorrows of caroline massin Another person whom Comte estranged was Caroline Massin. She left him on August 5, 1842, after years of feeling neglected by a man obsessed with his work for humanity. She moved far away to a peaceful area in the ninth arrondissement called “Batignolles.”246 Out of his annual salary, which was at that time around 10,000 francs, Comte arranged to give her 3,000 francs a year through an intermediary, Lenoir. Lenoir had worked in the Ministry of the Interior and directed the Ath´en´ee, where Comte had given lectures in the early 1830s. Though Lenoir was an older man in his mid-sixties, he and Comte had become good friends, especially because Massin had often encouraged her husband to invite him to their house. Lenoir and Comte also dined once a month at the home of the scientist Henri Ducrotay de Blainville.247 Massin strongly objected to the fact that her husband not only refused ever to see her again but insisted on giving her an allowance in an impersonal fashion through an intermediary. “Never to have from you any other sign of life besides the money that I will receive 244 245 246 247

Comte said he perceived in Tabari´e “une s´echeresse vulgaire, une susceptibilit´e plate et gourm´ee, et un esprit de taquinerie sophistiqu´e.” Comte to Tabari´e, February 2, 1844, CG, 2:236. Tabari´e to Comte, February 20, 1844, MAC. Also in CG, 2:413. Massin lived at 37, rue Rochechouart. Massin to Comte, October 25, 1842, MAC. Lenoir may have been a former SaintSimonian. In a Saint-Simonian calendar, there is a note alluding to the celebrating of the first Saint-Simonian marriage on October 31, 1831. Lenoir is mentioned. See Calendrier S.S. (Paris: Carpentier-M´ericourt, 1833). This books has no pages. Both Comte and Lenoir were founding members of the Soci´et´e Phr´enologique de Paris in the early 1830s. See Soci´et´e Phr´enologique de Paris: Prospectus (Paris, 1831). This prospectus is in Comte’s Biblioth`eque Superflue, MAC. The Ath´en´ee ceased operations in the summer of 1847. Lenoir died in 1856. On Lenoir and the Ath´en´ee, see “Documents pour servir a` l’histoire de l’Ath´en´ee,” RO, 2d ser., 9 (September 1894):18; Pierre Laffitte, ed. “Mat´eriaux pour servir a` la biographie d’Auguste Comte: Des Confessions annuelles d’Auguste Comte,” RO 17 (September/November 1886):204; Deroisin, Comte, 6. The monthly dinners at Blainville’s house included Lenoir, Bonnin, Thal`es Bernard, and Comte. “Notes de Pierre Laffitte sur les Confessions annuelles d’Auguste Comte,” April 25, 1886, Archives of Sybil de Acevedo.

The Sorrows of Caroline Massin

117

is a thing to which I will never consent.”248 This system seemed designed to accentuate his scorn for her, and she found it unbearable. She never wanted a total separation and would certainly never consent to divorce even if it were allowed. (Divorce was made illegal in 1816.) Although she preferred to live apart from him rather than with him, she had hoped to see him at least once a month. She wrote him letter after letter, begging him to meet with her and not cause a complete rupture. Remember what I have been for you. Think about what I would still be if you needed me, and do not thoughtlessly take in my regard the position that you have taken with your family. Do not completely break the last tie that is not yet broken because that would have [serious] consequences.249

Being financially dependent on Comte hurt Massin’s pride. She knew she could earn a living with her “needle,” but her rheumatism ruled out this option. At one point, she almost took a position in a wealthy, powerful family; she would be the mentor of a young girl whose mother had died, and she would direct her education. Knowing she inspired “confidence,” Massin boasted that she could find “honorable means” to procure the “comfortable life” to which she had grown accustomed.”250 But she felt she could not accept a position without causing something of a scandal, cutting all ties to Comte, and giving up her hope of a reconciliation. To her, Comte would always be her husband. Massin’s situation reflected the predicament of the nineteenthcentury French bourgeois woman who was forced to live alone but had no real job opportunities to enable her to support herself. She knew that if she wanted the benefits of full employment, she would first have to go to trial and seek legal independence from her husband. The whole process, which would make their rupture public, seemed draining, humiliating, and “antipathetic.” Wars between married men and women were “odious.” Moreover, she risked losing her status as a bourgeois wife, who was supposed to be obedient and dependent. In the end, she submitted to the Napoleonic Code’s subordination of women but hated the way Comte “abused” his superiority and acted with “violence.”251 When an uncle died in 1846 and she wished to contest his will, which left nothing to her, she had to beg Comte to 248 249 250 251

Massin to Comte, October 1, 1842, MAC. Massin to Comte, August 26, 1842, MAC. Massin to Comte, October 28, 1842, MAC. See also Massin to Comte, October 24, 1842, MAC. Massin to Comte, October 28, 1842, January 17, 1843, January 21, 1843, MAC.

118

Tensions in Comte’s Relationships, 1842–1846

act in her behalf because she had no legal standing in French law.252 By law, she even had to seek an authorization from him whenever she switched apartments.253 What was most galling to her was that without any resources, she was obliged to accept Comte’s unfriendly financial arrangement. She was very bitter, for she was fully aware that his economic and legal privileges gave him “so many advantages” over her and left her with little or no leverage.254 When in late 1842 he accused her of harassing him, she reproached him for his “dryness” and “harshness” and pointed out: “The weakest . . . does not menace the strongest, and you are incontestably the strongest because I depend on you in all respects.”255 Resisting the hierarchical character that Comte wished to give to their relationship, she realized that during their marriage, her “great crime” had been to consider him “a husband and not a master.” He had always tried to capitalize on his intellectual superiority, but she had always found this strategy “absurd” because she did not feel that she was competing with him: “We did not have the same things to do.”256 Now it was difficult for her to grant that he was “the master” of the situation simply because of his economic power.257 She recognized that while he could take the “initiative” in arranging his life, especially in matters relating to their economic well-being, all she could do was “to submit” to the ramifications of his actions. Unable to make plans for the future, she wrote, “To predict when one can do nothing is a sad lot; for twenty years that has been my fate.”258 Her letters to Comte testify to her deep fondness for him. Besides warning him to pay attention to his physical and mental health, she gave him good advice on how to improve his relations with his family and how to avoid further antagonizing his colleagues at the Ecole Polytechnique. Although bossy, she had a better sense of politics and more tact than Comte did. When he prepared in 1843 to give the opening lecture of his astronomy course, which had incurred the wrath of the Catholic press the year before, she joked that “the good Lord” was “very fashionable” at the moment and told him to be bold but prudent: “I would like to see you raise yourself this year to a greater height, [to be] calm, dignified, and especially serious and 252

253 254 255 256 257 258

Massin to Comte, February 27, 1846, MAC. She discovered that because she was illegitimate, she had no right to substitute for her mother in matters of inheritance. See Massin to Comte, February 28, 1846, MAC. Massin to Comte, March 30, 1844, MAC. She moved from 37, rue Rochechouart to 40, rue de la Tour d’Auvergne, in what is now the ninth arrondissement. Massin to Comte, October 28, 1842, MAC. Massin to Comte, October 25, 1842, MAC. Massin to Comte, May 28, 1843, MAC. Massin to Comte, January 17, 1843, MAC. Massin to Comte, January 1845, no day mentioned, MAC.

The Sorrows of Caroline Massin

119

severe, like a man who knows the danger but who does not stop and fulfills his duty as he understands it. In short, I am counting on you.”259 She forced herself to go to his course alone, for she did not have time to find a chaperon, something that “cost her a lot.” After hearing his “beautiful” opening lecture, she voiced her approval: “You were no longer there the man of the preface with whom I will never be reconciled.”260 Comte was at first happy to be rid of his domineering wife, who he believed made his life difficult, disturbed his work, and did not appreciate him. He adamantly refused to give into her demands to see him, for he was convinced that she was scheming to get back together with him and was determined to destroy him in one way or another. His paranoia is evident in the fact that he constantly misinterpreted her letters, seeing “absolutely the contrary” of what she wrote in order to reinforce his view that she was trying to hurt him.261 However, even he had difficulties adjusting to their separation. The year before, in July 1841, he and Massin had moved into a large new apartment at 10, rue Monsieur le Prince in the sixth arrondissement. They had spent hundreds of francs for furniture, rugs, and drapes, which seemed to express their more settled, bourgeois life.262 Now the apartment seemed absurd. A year after their separation, Comte complained that the “perfect domestic quietude” that he had long desired was sadly tomb-like.263 His life was suddenly empty. One reason his situation was depressing was that he had finished his Cours and was about to start a new work on positive politics – a work that would be “more moral than mental.” He explained that at this point, the “needs” of his “heart, which had always been so energetic . . . due to their never having been suitably satisfied, soon had to acquire an irresistible preponderance.”264 The “aesthetic revolution” that he had fabricated in 1838 to cultivate his feelings did not seem adequate for the new emotional development required for his new work. Comte was already searching to fill the void left by Massin’s departure. Until he found this replacement, his relationship with Massin did not end. On August 25, 1842, he sent her the last volume of his Cours.265 Although he had acceded to her wish to write to her once 259 260 261 262 263 264 265

Massin to Comte, December 8, 1842, MAC. Massin to Comte, January 23, 1843, MAC. Massin to Comte, January 21, 1843, MAC. See also Massin to Comte, November 18, 1843, MAC. Entries from July 1841 to January 1842, Comte’s notebook of “Recettes et d´epenses,” MAC. Comte to Valat, July 17, 1843, CG, 2:181. Comte to Clotilde de Vaux, August 5, 1845, CG, 3:82. See Comte’s list of people to whom he sent the Cours, MAC.

120

Tensions in Comte’s Relationships, 1842–1846

a month, he found himself writing more often. From September to December 1842, he wrote her eighteen letters; in 1843, twenty-eight; and in 1844, twenty-four. Yet when he met Clotilde de Vaux in 1845, he wrote Massin only four times that year.266 It is evident that with few friends, Comte felt a great need to keep his wife informed about his troubles and triumphs. He knew she was concerned about him. As she pointed out to him, he found “the sentiment of affection” that she had for him “very convenient.”267 And sometimes, he even delighted her by returning the feeling. For example, on April 20, 1843, she thanked him for a recent letter, saying, “For many years, I had not received from you such an expression of confidence and affection and nothing which makes me remember as much that all our moments together have not been unhappy.”268 He also sought reassurance from Lenoir that she was not terribly ill.269 Although he was adamant about not seeing her, he occasionally begged her to maintain her correspondence with him. But at other times, he shocked her by angrily objecting to what she wrote. Once she retorted, “I hurt you without even knowing how I did it.”270 She had difficulties maintaining ties with someone who was so unpredictable, and once de Vaux appeared, Comte did effect the complete rupture she feared. sarah austin Comte liked the company of women. When his wife left, he went out more often, hoping to find a woman “to occupy” his heart.”271 About six months after their separation, he even incensed Massin by escorting a young, blond woman to the Th´eaˆ tre Royal Italien.272 But the woman who became most important to him before he met Clotilde de Vaux was Sarah Austin, who was introduced to him by Mill. Born in 1793, Sarah Austin was the daughter of John Taylor, a prominent businessman in Norwich, and the cousin of Harriet Martineau, the future translator of Comte’s Cours. As a very beautiful, 266

267 268 269 270 271 272

Emile Littr´e, Auguste Comte et la philosophie positive, 2d ed. (Paris, 1864), 508. The first edition of this work was published in 1863. Many of the letters between Massin and Comte were lost or destroyed. For example, Comte wrote Massin twenty-six letters in 1850. Only seven are in CG. Massin to Comte, January 17, 1843, MAC. Massin to Comte, April 20, 1843, MAC. The letter to which she was referring has not been found. Lenoir to Comte, October 14, 1843, MAC. Massin to Comte, June 21, 1843, MAC. Comte to Clotilde de Vaux, February 25, 1846, CG, 3:353. Massin to Comte, February 26, and March 23, 1843, MAC.

Sarah Austin

121

intelligent, and charming young woman, she shocked her family when she decided to marry the austere, if not gloomy, lawyer John Austin. Nevertheless, thanks to John’s brilliance in legal theory and Sarah’s vivaciousness, the ill-matched couple became friends with Thomas Carlyle, Jeremy Bentham, James and John Stuart Mill, William Molesworth, and George Grote. In fact, at one point, Sarah ran a salon chiefly for the Benthamites because her husband was a staunch believer in the principle of utility. The Austins were particularly friendly with the Mills, who were their neighbors. John Austin helped John Stuart Mill with his law studies in 1821 and 1822. Sarah taught him German. Indeed, she was so close to the young man that she considered him a son.273 Beginning in the 1820s, the Austins experienced one hardship after another. John proved to be a failure first as a lawyer and then as a law professor, and he found the little government work that he did unsatisfactory. Suffering from a nervous disposition and lack of self-confidence, he eventually became incapable of any type of work whatsoever and fell prey to various physical ailments, obvious symptoms of his discontent with himself. Sarah hoped that he would be at least able to write down his ideas, but even in this area he was singularly unproductive. It was only because she edited and published his manuscripts after his death that he became famous in jurisprudence. As the years passed, John Austin became increasingly despondent and reclusive. He rarely left his rooms except to dine occasionally with his wife and their daughter, Lucie. With her husband sick and cut off from the world, Sarah Austin was forced to take over practical matters. Above all, she had to find a way to support the family. Having learned German, French, Italian, and Latin as a young girl and having lived for six months in Bonn with her husband, she turned to translation, for which she proved particularly gifted. Her translations included Voltaire’s History of Charles XII and Leopold von Ranke’s The Ecclesiastical and Political History of the Popes of Rome during the Sixteenth and Seventeeth Centuries and History of the Reformation in Germany. Together with her articles for literary and political journals, her translating work earned her money to live on and also considerable fame. She was responsible for stimulating much interest in German literature. Unable to afford life in London, the Austins lived much of the time abroad. In 1843, they moved from Dresden to Paris, where John 273

Sarah Austin to Comte, March 3, 1844, in Pierre Laffitte, “Connaissances, amis, protecteurs d’Auguste Comte. Relations d’Auguste Comte avec Mme Austin: La Question feminine par A. Comte,” RO, 2d ser., 17 (November 1898), 439; Adburgham, A Radical Aristocrat, 177–8.

122

Tensions in Comte’s Relationships, 1842–1846

was elected a corresponding member of the Moral and Political Class of the Institut, perhaps due to his wife’s old friendship with Victor Cousin. (Ten years earlier, she had translated Victor Cousin’s Report on the State of Public Instruction in Prussia.) In Paris, Sarah Austin created a well-known salon, frequented by prominent foreigners passing through Paris and by many French academics, politicians, and literary people. Among her guests were Alfred de Vigny, Ary Scheffer, Alexis de Tocqueville, Augustin Thierry, Charles Dunoyer, Michel Chevalier, Barth´elemy St. Hilaire, and Franc¸ois Guizot. The latter became one of her closest friends.274 Comte had the opportunity of meeting Sarah and her husband in late 1843. Mill informed him that one of his most “precious” and intelligent friends, John Austin, was coming to Paris and had expressed a “strong desire” to meet the author of the Cours, which had much impressed him.275 Attempting to make jurisprudence an empirical science, Austin was evidently intrigued by Comte’s effort to create a science of society.276 Mill seemed, however, a bit hesitant about the match because he warned Comte that Austin was as reclusive as he was and had different political opinions. Perhaps to spark Comte’s curiosity, Mill mentioned that Sarah Austin was more well-known and more sociable than her husband. Flattered by this request and eager to prove he was not as misanthropic as Mill assumed, Comte overcame his “repugnance” for making new friends and was pleased to find the Austins to be an interesting couple.277 He saw them often throughout 1844, usually privately at their apartment, at the Grotes’ residence, or at their salon. He considered his relations with them “precious” in the middle of his “isolation” and loneliness.278 He sent them the Discours sur l’esprit positif and made an exception to his rule of cerebral hygiene in order to read the only important book Austin published in his lifetime, The Province of Jurisprudence Determined (1832).279 The Austins seemed equally pleased to make his acquaintance. John Austin told Mill that he was surprised to find Comte to be “a man of generous and 274

275 277 278 279

Alexis de Tocqueville gave Sarah Austin tickets to a session of the Chamber of Deputies. See Sarah Austin to Comte, March 6, 1844, “Mat´eriaux pour servir a` la biographie d’Auguste Comte: Correspondance d’Aug. Comte avec Mme Austin,” RO, 2d ser., 18 ( January 1899), 136. Information on the Austins may be found in Lotte and Joseph Hamburger, Troubled Lives: John and Sarah Austin (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985), ix–x, 3–34, 57–95, 120, 131–7; W. L. Morison, John Austin (London: Edward Arnold, 1982), 8–12, 14, 17, 20, 23, 28, 32; Ross, Three Generations, 1:iii–vii. Mill to Comte, October 21, 1843, CG, 2:400. 276 Morison, John Austin, 1. Comte to Mill, October 22, 1843, CG, 2:204. Comte to Mill, December 23, 1843, CG, 2:225. Comte to John Austin, July 20, 1844, CG, 2:261.

Sarah Austin

123

affectionate temper.”280 He and his wife eagerly accepted his invitation to attend the Sunday lectures of his astronomy course.281 John Austin served as an intermediary between Comte and William Whewell. The latter was a philosopher of science, who, like Comte, was intent on classifying the sciences and understanding their history. Comte had heard of him when David Brewster discussed him in 1838 in an article on the Cours in the Edinburgh Review. Brewster criticized Whewell’s History of the Inductive Sciences as vague, misinformed, and inferior to the Cours.282 Through Austin, Whewell sent Comte Answer to a Critique of the History of the Inductive Sciences (1837). This work was Whewell’s reply to another scholar who had criticized his History of the Inductive Sciences. Comte discussed the work with Mill and had him give Whewell a copy of his Discours sur l’esprit positif. According to Comte, Whewell was important for attracting thinkers to the problem of the relationship between the objective and subjective components of knowledge. Although supportive of induction, that is, data coming from the outside world, Whewell was a Kantian who believed that the individual mind helped formulate human knowledge by contributing “Fundamental Ideas,” such as space, time, and cause. Whewell argued that these Ideas, which were not founded on experience, were the bases of the physical sciences. When people discovered these Ideas through intuition and spread them, the sciences advanced. Comte believed Whewell had “obscured and exaggerated, or rather misunderstood the Fundamental Idea.”283 Comte preferred the approach of Whewell’s critic, who did not share this faith in a priori truth. Mill informed Comte that the critic was none other than John Herschel. Both Mill and Herschel argued with Whewell about the characteristics of inductive reasoning. Mill found Whewell’s brochure “very weak” – an opinion that is not surprising, given that Whewell opposed empiricism and utilitarianism and sought to use science to defend Christianity.284 280 281

282

283 284

John Austin to John Stuart Mill, n.d., excerpt in Earlier Letters, ed. Mineka, 654n5. Apparently Comte also met in 1844 John Austin’s younger brother, Charles. See Madame Austin to Comte, September 18, 1844, in Pierre Laffitte, “Correspondance d’Aug. Comte avec Mme Austin: Suite,” RO, 2d ser., 20 (March 1900):278. [David Brewster,] Review of Cours de philosophie positive, by Auguste Comte, in Edinburgh Review 67 ( July 1838): 271–308; Comte to Mill, October 21, 1844, CG, 2:29. For more on Brewster’s article, see Pickering, Comte, volume 1, 494. One person who read Brewster’s review with care was Charles Darwin, who became interested in Comte’s law of three stages, which may have helped give him the courage to break with traditional religion. See Daniel Becquemont, “Auguste Comte et l’Angleterre,” in Auguste Comte: Trajectoires positivistes, ed. Petit, 169. Comte to Mill, August 15, 1844, CG, 2:274. Mill to Comte, October 5, 1844, CG, 2:425. On Whewell, see Perry Williams, “Passing on the Torch: Whewell’s Philosophy and the Principles of English University Education,”

124

Tensions in Comte’s Relationships, 1842–1846

Although Comte and John Austin shared many interests, such as the construction of new sciences, it is clear that Sarah Austin most intrigued him. Yet at first Comte did not share Mill’s opinion that she merited her “reputation as a superior woman.”285 He preferred her nice feelings to her ideas, which seemed to smack of her “blue tendency,” a reference to the fact that she was generally considered to be a bluestocking.286 According to the historian Bonnie Smith, the term “bluestocking” usually referred in the nineteenth century to any “pedantic, ugly, mannish, and overly educated woman.”287 According to Comte, bluestockings had “no sex.”288 Comte’s attitude annoyed Mill, who was still smarting from their six-month discussion about the value of women. Although there were tensions in his relationship with Sarah Austin, especially because she did not approve of his relationship with Harriet Taylor, Mill wanted to use her example to prove to Comte that women were indeed equal to men.289 He thus retorted that Sarah Austin was “not only very nice, but truly superior.” Although he would later mock her intellect in an early draft of his Autobiography, he told Comte that her eminence derived from “the good sense” of her “ideas,” which she expressed clearly and elegantly in her writing and conversation.290 Mill brushed off the suggestion that she was a bluestocking. The reproach was meaningless, for any woman involved in literature could be accused of being a bluestocking. Mill’s use of Sarah Austin to defend the ideals of female emancipation is ironic, for her own opposition to the women’s movement contributed to the sudden end of their friendship in 1848.291 Mill’s ruse succeeded. After getting to know her better, Comte admitted that he had judged her too severely and that she was not a bluestocking at all. Although “very distinguished”292 and interesting, she was not at all pedantic in her “nature” or “habits.” What he

285 286 287 288 289

290 291 292

William Whewell: A Composite Portrait, ed. Menachem Fisch and Simon Schaffer (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), 122–3, 132–7. Mill to Comte, October 21, 1843, CG, 2:400. Comte to Mill, December 23, 1843, CG, 2:225. See also Lotte and Joseph Hamburger, Troubled Lives, 120. Bonnie Smith, Changing Lives: Women in European History since 1700 (Lexington: D. C. Heath, 1989), 80. Comte to Audiffrent, March 9, 1851, CG, 6:33. Tensions were evident in Mill’s statement to Comte that he knew women who were “infinitely” superior to her and that she was vain. See Mill to Comte, January 17, 1844, CG, 2:412. Other hesitations about her qualities are evident in Mill to Comte, October 17, 1843, CG, 2:400. Mill to Comte, January 17, 1844, CG, 2:412. On Austin, see also the early draft of Mill’s Autobiography in Autobiography and Literary Essays, 186. Morison, John Austin, 24–5; Lotte and Joseph Hamburger, Troubled Lives, 165–6. Comte to Mill, December 23, 1843, CG, 2:225.

Sarah Austin

125

most appreciated was her “good-heartedness” [“bonhomie”], which he found rare in women.293 The vivacious Sarah Austin had clearly won Comte over. The impression that she made may be gleaned from a description of her by Barth´elemy St. Hilaire, who was introduced to her in 1840 by Victor Cousin: She was still extremely handsome, and her complexion, which she preserved till the day of her death, was dazzling. Her vigour was extraordinary, and she was calm, although full of life and gaiety. Her conversation was delightful, intelligent and abounding in solid good sense.294

After a few months, Comte felt almost as much at ease around her as he did with his old friends and only wished that he could see her more often. As with Mill, he overlooked the “differences of opinions,” which she brought up, and he seemed to find in her words only signs of her approval.295 He gradually grew fond of her, particularly as he felt a deep need for female companionship. Pierre Laffitte later wrote: “The sympathy of Comte for Mrs. Austin coincided, according to the avowal that he made to me . . . , with a special affective disposition which he found he could put into practice only in his liaison with Madame de Vaux.”296 With her literary interests, Sarah Austin was a predecessor to de Vaux, who was a budding novelist. As de Vaux would do shortly, Sarah Austin appeared to combine the highest qualities of the mind and heart, which Comte found “equally indispensable” but which he lamented were “almost always in opposition” in their contemporary world. He particularly admired the way Austin maintained a balance between ideas and feelings because on the one hand, as a literary figure, she could easily become too intellectual and on the other hand, as a woman, she could fall into the trap of excess sentimentality. Reflecting his affection for her, he wrote in March 1844: “Although my life is very solitary, I previously have had several occasions to know women truly distinguished by their intellectual significance, but you are up to now the only one, Madame, who has given me the happiness of seeing moral tenderness joined with mental elevation.”297 It is clear that Comte, like Guizot, Charles Buller, and John Sterling, liked Sarah Austin because she was a beautiful intellectual woman who was warm-hearted and noncompetitive. Though her professional achievements were remarkable, her job as a translator of male 293 294 295 296 297

Comte to Mill, February 6, 1844, CG, 2:239. Barth´elemy St. Hilaire, quoted in Ross, Three Generations, v–vi. Sarah Austin to Comte, March 3, 1844, in Laffitte, “Relations d’Auguste Comte avec Mme Austin,” 438. Laffitte, “Relations d’Auguste Comte avec Mme Austin,” 439. Comte to Mme Austin, March 4, 1844, CG, 2:243.

126

Tensions in Comte’s Relationships, 1842–1846

writers’ works did not threaten men. She usually stressed the conventional image of woman as primarily a creature of feeling rather than a victim of feeling. In many ways, she seemed to be the opposite of George Sand, the hated epitome of the emancipated woman.298 Mill gave Austin a rather backhanded compliment when he heard that Comte liked her. “Comte’s taking to you is what I should have expected. I do not find that his profession of avoiding society stands good at all towards those who seek, or whom he thinks likely to value, him. He is at war with most of his contemporaries.”299 Unlike their contemporaries, Sarah Austin was fond of Comte, whose attention was undoubtedly flattering to her. She liked his stimulating conversation and respected the way he stood up for his ideas. Because of her friendship with Mill, the Grotes, and William Molesworth, she was aware of how much his boldness, or imprudence, was costing him at the Ecole Polytechnique. His plight spurred her to prevail upon her husband to call on their friend Guizot, now the prime minister, to help Comte keep his post.300 Most of all, she considered Comte a trusted confidant, who offered her relief from her sick husband.301 Her disenchantment with John Austin had been evident at least since the early 1830s, when she had a platonic affair with Prince P¨uckler Muskau, whose popular Tour in England, Ireland and France she was translating.302 In 1844 she frequently complained to Comte about her husband, who was experiencing yet another financial reversal and demanded more of her care for his ailments. He seemed a poor contrast with Comte, whom she congratulated for using his mind to overcome whatever physical troubles disturbed him.303 She did not know if she had the courage to support John any longer.304 By 1846, Austin was signing her letters to Comte “very affectionately,” but there were limits to how close she could get to the philosopher.305 Despite the fact that she was far from being an advocate of 298 299 300

301 302 303 304

305

Lotte and Joseph Hamburger, Troubled Lives, 150; Comte to Mme Austin, March 4, 1844, CG, 2:243. Mill to Sarah Austin, February 26, 1844, Earlier Letters, ed. Mineka, 622. Guizot’s reaction to this request is not known. Comte had been very critical of him in his preface to the sixth volume of the Cours, accusing him of nepotism. See Pickering, Comte, 1:549. See for example Madame Austin to Comte, June 4, 1844, in Laffitte, “Correspondance d’Aug. Comte avec Mme Austin: Suite,” RO, 2d. ser., 18 ( January 1899):438. Morison, John Austin, 23. Madame Austin to Comte, September 18, 1844, in Laffitte, “Correspondance d’Aug. Comte avec Mme Austin: Suite,” RO, 20 (March 1900):278. Madame Austin to Comte, March 11, 1844, in Laffitte, “Correspondance d’Aug. Comte avec Mme Austin: Suite,” RO, 2d ser., 18 ( January 1899):438. The date is not mentioned in the RO but is marked on the original letter in the MAC. Madame Austin to Comte, February 2, 1846, in Laffitte, “Correspondance d’Aug. Comte avec Mme Austin: Suite,” RO, 2d ser., 20 (May 1900):419.

Sarah Austin

127

women’s rights as Mill was, Comte’s misogynous tendencies bothered her. She was familiar with the feminist ideas of Mary Wollstonecraft, whose husband, William Godwin, had been a friend of her father’s.306 In truth, she seemed uneasy about her own position on women.307 Although she frequently mocked the femme libre and the movement for the “stupid emancipation of women,” she, nevertheless, demanded her own freedom and voiced her respect for intelligent, forceful women.308 At one point in the early months of their relationship, she wrote to Comte, “I see, Monsieur, you do not have a very high opinion of women.”309 She complained that he had very little respect for their intellect and thus did not take her as seriously as he did her husband.310 She was not as free from the ideas of Wollstonecraft as she may have pretended, for like her, she asserted that a wife should be her husband’s companion even in intellectual matters instead of a completely passive, dependent creature.311 But again she was careful not to be too belligerent in order not to threaten Comte: “Thus do not think that it is as an emancipated woman that I am taking the liberty of talking to you, admiring you, and even differing from you, Monsieur. I have not the least pretention of the sort.”312 She had no doubt that, compared with men, women were more dominated by their emotions, which rendered them “incapable of abstract meditation” and made them “more or less victims” in whatever they did.313 Yet she complained later that Comte was wrong in believing that “one is . . . a fool because one’s opinions are greatly influenced by one’s affections. The opinions of men are often influenced by worse things.”314 In the end, Sarah Austin did not like Comte’s patronizing attitude toward her. After hearing his praises about the way she balanced the mind and heart, she pointed out that in England women were part 306

307 308

309 310

311 312 313 314

Lotte and Joseph Hamburger, Troubled Lives, 21–2, 121–2; Mary Poovey, “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman and Female Sexuality,” in Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, ed. Carol H. Poston, 2d ed. (New York: W. W. Norton, 1988), 347. For Sarah Austin’s shifting views on women, see Lotte and Joseph Hamburger, Troubled Lives, 154–67. Madame Austin to Comte, February 26, 1846, in Laffitte, “Correspondance d’Aug. Comte avec Mme Austin: Suite,” RO, 2d ser., 20 (May 1900):421. See also Madame Austin to Comte, May 10, 1844, in Laffitte, “Correspondance d’Aug. Comte avec Mme Austin: Suite,” RO, 2d ser., 18 ( May 1899):441. Sarah Austin to Comte, March 3, 1844, in Laffitte, “Relations d’Auguste Comte avec Mme Austin,” 439. Mrs. Austin to Comte, March 4, 1844, “Mat´eriaux pour servir a` la biographie d’Auguste Comte: Correspondance d’Aug. Comte avec Mme Austin,” RO, 2d ser., 18 ( January 1899), 134. Lotte and Joseph Hamburger, Troubled Lives, 21–2. Sarah Austin to Comte, March 3, 1844, in Laffitte, “Relations d’Auguste Comte avec Mme Austin,” 439–40. Madame Austin to Comte, March 11, 1844, in Laffitte, “Correspondance d’Aug. Comte avec Mme Austin: Suite,” RO, 2d ser., 18 ( May 1899):438. Mrs. Austin to M. Guizot, May 9, 1858, in Ross, Three Generations, 2:57.

128

Tensions in Comte’s Relationships, 1842–1846

of the intellectual culture and “that this union of qualities that you believed almost incompatible is not rare in my compatriots.” Many Englishwomen, such as the mathematician Mary Somerville, were not only fine intellectuals but devoted wives and mothers and good housekeepers. In her own way, Sarah Austin was challenging the idea of the separation of spheres. After all, her husband’s paralysis and introversion forced her not only to manage the domestic sphere but to act in the public sphere to make ends meet and administer all family matters. Once when Comte asked her to get John Austin to arrange for his Discours sur l’esprit positif to be sent to London, Sarah retorted angrily, “Get the idea firmly in your mind that I am the businessman around here.”315 Comte was “very distressed” after she reproached him for underestimating women.316 Repeating what he had said in the Cours and to Mill, he insisted that moral and intellectual qualities of women were biologically determined and that their social function had to differ from that of men in order for both sexes to be happy. He did not see that the separation of spheres put women at a distinct disadvantage. Nevertheless, Comte became increasingly sensitive to the women’s movement in spite of himself. In a way, John Stuart Mill and Sarah Austin forced him to rethink his position and to come to a new appreciation of the opposite sex. Sarah Austin even introduced him to a fifty-year-old Polish woman, Mademoiselle J. de Haza, who had been a friend of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. She wrote a brochure about the emancipation of women, and her ideas impressed Comte.317 Considering her “very distinguished,” he even gave her a letter of introduction so that she could meet Mill when she went to London.318 In addition, to prove his respect for intellectual women and their existence in France, he lent Sarah Austin Consid´erations sur l’´etat des sciences et des lettres (1833), a posthumous work by Sophie Germain, the noted French mathematician who tried unsuccessfully to attend 315

316 317

318

Mrs. Austin to Comte, March 4, 1844, “Mat´eriaux pour servir a` la biographie d’Auguste Comte: Correspondance d’Aug. Comte avec Mme Austin,” RO, 2d ser., 18 (January 1899), 135. Comte to Mme Austin, March 4, 1844, CG, 2:242. Comte to Mill, September 2, 1846, CG, 4:34. Austin gave Comte the brochure Haza wrote on the women’s movement. Comte seems to have read it or something else she wrote, for she thanked him for his “amiable opinion . . . on my poor tablets.” J. de Haza to Comte, May 7, 1846. The first wave of Polish feminism occurred in the 1840s. Austin might have become friends with Haza when she wrote The Characteristics of Goethe in 1833. See Bogna Lorence-Kot and Adam Winiarz, “The Polish Women’s Movement to 1914,” in Sylvia Paletschek and Bianka Pietrow-Ennke, eds., Women’s Emancipation Movements in the Nineteenth Century: A European Perspective (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004), 208. Comte also added that he found her “eccentric.” Comte to Lewes, April 7, 1847, CG, 4:112. For the letter of introduction, see Comte to Mill, September 2, 1846, CG, 4:34.

Sarah Austin

129

the Ecole Polytechnique after its establishment and came to know Joseph-Louis Lagrange.319 Encouraging Austin to translate it, he was sure it would interest “all your ladies” because it was “one of the most honorable productions” of the female sex and women were “still so little preoccupied by this type of . . . elevated and reasonable philosophy.”320 Such statements reveal Comte’s contemptuous attitude toward the average women. But then, he was not much kinder to men, whom he generally considered mediocre intellectually as well. Moreover, Comte tried to demonstrate his respect for women in another way. He declared that they were better able to appreciate a “great mental revolution” because their situation made them “more impartial and more disengaged from philosophical prejudices.” He pointed out that Queen Christina and other women were “the first to understand” and “protect” Descartes, whom he fancied to be his predecessor. He assumed that in twenty years, there would be “a strong proportion of ladies” among the fifty people or so who would be won over to his cause. Indeed, he suggested that no philosophical system could be effective without the support of women. Thus the women’s movement undeniably affected the way he began to present his doctrine. Before even meeting de Vaux, he intended to devote part of the Syst`eme de politique positive to the woman question.321 Connected to the problem of gender was Comte’s appreciation of the emotions. Sarah Austin found Comte to be overly interested in intellectual matters. Born into a famous family of dissenters, she did not understand Comte’s lack of concern for the spiritual aspect of human existence.322 Nor did she consider him empathetic or warm. After telling him how sad she was that Guizot’s daughter was dying, she wrote, “I cry, and I pray to God; two things which will appear equally stupid to you. . . . You will think a bit less of my mind, but I defy you to scorn me – and you know whether I detest you for your anti-religiosity.”323 Forced to defend himself, Comte protested that he did have feelings and could cry if he thought about the pain of others: “God is not any more necessary . . . to love or to cry than to judge and to think.” Most importantly, he again voiced second thoughts about the Cours. 319 320 321

322 323

Louis Bucciarelli and Nancy Dworsky, Sophie Germain: An Essay in the History of Elasticity (Boston: D. Reidel, 1980), 11. Comte to Mme Austin, July 22, 1844, CG, 2:273. Comte to Mme Austin, March 4, 1844, CG, 2:242–3. See also Synth`ese subjective ou Syst`eme universel des conceptions propres a` l’´etat normal de l’humanit´e (Paris, 1856; Paris: Fayard, 2000) [hereafter Synth`ese], 729, 829. Lotte and Joseph Hamburger, Troubled Lives, 7. Mrs. Austin to Comte, April 3, 1844, “Mat´eriaux pour servir a` la biographie d’Auguste Comte: Correspondance d’Aug. Comte avec Mme Austin,” RO, 2d ser., 18 (January 1899), 137.

130

Tensions in Comte’s Relationships, 1842–1846

In a way, the text had trapped him, for it had given readers the wrong impression of his enterprise and of his own character. He admitted that he had devoted his life to a work that was “austere and methodical” in dealing with ideas, but he insisted that this undertaking had not prevented him from experiencing the “regular bursts of universal love and selfless contemplation” usually connected with religion. He argued that positivism would soon develop to the point where it could embrace the realm of the emotions and do away with the religious “costume that they had to assume during the infancy of human reason.” He wrote: “I feel . . . that all the noble sentiments of love and exaltation which were directed . . . by the theological philosophy will be able to find in other forms a nourishment that is at least equivalent in the new speculative regime.” As he had already suggested in the Cours, “tender and generous sentiments” could not be stimulated only by “vague, arbitrary, and nebulous ideas.”324 Thus Comte’s friendship with a woman such as Sarah Austin forced him to reconsider the importance of the emotions. Before even meeting de Vaux, he committed himself to formulating “the sentimental character” of positivism. It was already clear to him that positivism could not fully replace theology unless it went beyond the confines of speculation to include the domain of the emotions. Although Comte was still far from advocating the creation of a new religion at this point, it is interesting to note that he seemed to view certain religious practices, such as prayers, as expressions of “ecstatic emotions or general inspirations” that were basic to human nature.325 As the emotions grew more important to him, his appreciation of their religious forms would grow. And perhaps he became more willing to adopt a religious form for his own system once he realized positivism would in this guise have greater success with women, who were traditionally considered more religious by nature. As he was rejected by the males around him – Tabari´e, Valat, Mill, and his colleagues at the Ecole Polytechnique – he began to pin his hopes increasingly on the support of the opposite sex. He must have been pleased when Sarah Austin wrote him months after their religious argument: “There are a thousand ways of being a good Christian, and you, dear Monsieur Comte, you have your own way, which I love and venerate with my whole heart. To serve men, that is the best imitation of Jesus Christ. Despite what you think, I am imposing on you the character of an excellent Christian.”326 Comte and Sarah Austin saw each other and wrote frequently throughout 1844. Austin even introduced him to the painter Lady 324 326

Comte to Mme Austin, April 4, 1844, CG, 2:245–6. 325 Ibid., 245–6. Madame Austin to Auguste Comte, September 12, 1844, in Laffitte, “Correspondance d’Aug. Comte avec Mme Austin: Suite,” RO, 2d ser., 20 (March 1900):278.

Sarah Austin

131

Gordon ( Julia Isabella Levina Bennet).327 But their relationship was interrupted in April 1845, when Austin and her husband took a long trip to Germany and England. In December 1845, Comte voiced his annoyance to Mill that despite the fact that they had promised twice to write to him, he had not heard a word. Had John Austin died, he wondered.328 By this point, Mill was very displeased with Comte, who had in the same letter formally condemned Grote, Molesworth, and Currie for not continuing to subsidize him. Mill simply responded that the Austins were healthy and had already returned to Paris.329 But perhaps having heard of Comte’s offensive behavior from Mill and their other friends Grote and Molesworth, the Austins were not eager to renew their relationship. Sarah Austin waited until early February before inviting Comte to their apartment.330 Two months later, de Vaux died. Comte and Sarah Austin grew closer once again for a short period, as she sought to console him. Their conversations grew so intimate that she later regretted having told Comte so much about her marital problems.331 She showed her respect for him and his overall sensitivity when she pointed out that his sorrow would last a long time because he was a man of strong, deep feelings.332 Comte felt vindicated, for he had always suspected that she shared “the prejudices” of her metaphysical friends, who believed the triumph of positivism would lead to the “dryness of the heart.”333 Now she could see that her friends were wrong. The “vulgar” accusations that positivism was arid could be leveled only against the “dispersive specialties that had to prepare for the positive philosophy.”334 Despite this closeness, Comte’s relationship with Sarah Austin soon ended. In 1847, she was distracted by the death of her grandson and other relatives. The following year the Austins fled from Paris during the revolution and returned definitively to England. Besides the problem of distance, chauvinism may have played a part in their 327 328 329 330 331 332

333 334

Comte to Sarah Austin, September 11, 1844, Fonds Lacroix 9623, number 1511, Biblioth`eque de l’Arsenal. Comte to Mill, December 18, 1845, CG, 3:248. Mill to Comte, January 12, 1846, CG, 3:416. Madame Austin to Comte, February 2, 1846, in “Correspondance d’Aug. Comte avec Mme Austin: Suite,” RO, 2d ser., 20 (May 1900):419. Madame Austin to Comte, in Laffitte, May 5, 1846, “Correspondance d’Aug. Comte avec Mme Austin: Suite,” RO, 2d ser., 20 (May 1900):424. Madame Austin to Comte, May 25, 1846, Madame Austin to Comte, February 2, 1846, in Laffitte, “Correspondance d’Aug. Comte avec Mme Austin: Suite,” RO, 2d ser., 20 (May 1900):425. Comte to Mme Austin, May 26, 1846, CG, 4:13. “Programme raisonn´e du Discours prononc´e le 24 janvier 1847 pour l’ouverture de la 17e` me ann´ee du Cours philosophique d’astronomie populaire,” January 17, 1847, page three, MAC.

132

Tensions in Comte’s Relationships, 1842–1846

estrangement. Praising the tranquility and “good sense” of the English people, Sarah Austin condemned the violence and authoritarianism of the French and found Comte’s claims for French national superiority “astonishing” and “grotesque.” Because Comte believed Paris was to be the center of the positive regime, he must not have been pleased by her condemnation of his “national arrogance.”335 Her letter of September 1848 is the last one that remains of their correspondence. Sarah Austin played an important, albeit temporary, role in Comte’s life. After hearing Comte talk at length about her, Pierre Laffitte discerned his “noble and elevated affection” for the Englishwoman.336 It is evident that Austin was a transitional figure between Caroline Massin and Clotilde de Vaux. She was able to respond to his need for love at a critical moment in his life, a time when he had just separated from his wife and was losing his position at the Ecole Polytechnique. Because she resembled Massin and de Vaux in her intelligence and insistence on her own independence, she demonstrates the fact that Comte was drawn, in spite of himself, to nontraditional women, who in varying degrees refused to assume a passive role. She was at least partly responsible for changing his views on women. 335 336

Madame Austin to Comte, September 29, 1848, in Laffitte, “Correspondance d’Aug. Comte avec Mme Austin: Suite,” RO, 2d ser., 21 ( July 1900):128. Laffitte, “Relations d’Auguste Comte avec Mme Austin,” 432.

Chapter 3

Clotilde de Vaux and the Initial Encounter with Comte

A woman always inspires more or less the sentiments that she wants. Clotilde de Vaux, July 1845

introduction In late 1844, Comte met Clotilde de Vaux, the woman to whom he later attributed his emotional development and most important ideas. His disciples and most historians have generally accepted his judgment about the impact she had on his evolution. Yet analyses of their relationship have usually been from Comte’s point of view. We have already seen that his judgments about what influenced him are not always valid. To take the most salient example, Comte’s repeated denials that he was influenced by Saint-Simon were meant to hide the fact that he took the main outlines of positivism from his former mentor’s works. Similarly, Comte’s contrary assertion that the path of his “second career” was determined by his love for Clotilde de Vaux needs to be re-examined. Were there other factors at work that molded Comte’s general direction? Did de Vaux offer Comte the passive, dependent female companionship that he seemed to seek? Did she even love Comte? Because Comte overshadowed her and only spoke of her as the ideal woman, it is hard to answer these questions and even to fathom de Vaux’s character. Inasmuch as Comte’s campaign to integrate worship of de Vaux into his Religion of Humanity seemed demented, scholars who studied his intellectual development tended to dismiss her, considering his relationship with her an embarrassment. John Stuart Mill, among others, accused her of being responsible for Comte’s decline.1 Because Comte appeared mad or, at the very least, deluded by his love for her, de Vaux was deemed unworthy of serious attention. In 1928, Dr. Georges Morin called her a proud “little woman” with “literary pretensions” and a “surly,” “neurotic,” and “vain” character.2 Morin’s portrait of de Vaux contradicted Comte’s image of 1 2

John Stuart Mill, Auguste Comte and Positivism, 125. Georges Morin, “Auguste Comte, M´edecin de Clotilde de Vaux,” Paris M´edicale 4 (October 1928): 239, 243.

133

134

Clotilde de Vaux and the Initial Encounter with Comte

her. While Comte exploited her image to appeal to women and to show the importance of regenerating society by infusing it with feminine affection, Morin represented her in a disparaging manner to discourage intelligent women from seeking a profession. Thus, even when attention was focused on her, de Vaux served only as a useful instrument of a male-dominated culture. Yet feminist scholars have also neglected her, ignoring her voluminous correspondence with Comte, which was first published in 1884. Thus de Vaux seems to be at first glance to be a dull target of a man undergoing a midlife crisis.3 But if one analyzes her more closely, keeping in mind what Karen Offen has called “the sexual politics of the July Monarchy,” Clotilde de Vaux emerges as a woman intent on establishing her identity as a respectable woman of ideas free from the control of others.4 the young clotilde marie To understand Comte’s relationship with de Vaux, it is first necessary to review her background, which helps to explain the peculiar nature of her situation when she met Comte.5 Clotilde’s mother, HenrietteJos´ephine de Ficquelmont, came from an important aristocratic family from the Lorraine which had lost its estate and most of its fortune when it had been forced to flee to Germany during the French Revolution. While still an emigr´ee, Henriette, who sympathized to a certain extent with the left, met a poor captain in the Napoleonic army, Joseph-Simon Marie, who was something of a Casanova. By this time, she was thirty-two years old. Over the objections of her family, she married him in 1813. A product of the French Revolution, this marriage between a woman of noble background and a man of peasant origins would not, however, prove to be successful. Having moved with his wife to a poor section of the second arrondissement in Paris, Captain Marie was forced to retire from the army in 1815 with a small pension of 1,200 francs. His wife had a small supplementary income of six hundred francs thanks to her brother, Count Charles-Louis de Ficquelmont, the only member of the family who had any money. An emigr´e and former general in 3 4 5

Comte published their correspondence in his Testament, the first edition of which was published in 1884. Karen Offen, “Women’s History as French History,” Journal of Women’s History 8 (1996): 153. The information in this section is taken from Charles de Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire d’Auguste Comte et de Clotilde de Vaux (Paris: Calmann-L´evy, 1917), 2–94; Andr´e Th´erive, Clotilde de Vaux ou le d´eesse morte (Paris: Albin Michel, 1957), 7–37. De Rouvre’s book is the standard work. He was a relative of Clotilde de Vaux and based his research on family archives.

The Young Clotilde Marie

135

the Austrian army, he was appointed by Emperor Francis I minister plenipotentiary to Sweden in 1815, the first of his many important diplomatic posts. (In 1848 he replaced Klemens Wenzel von Metternich as Austrian foreign minister and then became first minister.6 ) Very wealthy, he helped the other Ficquelmonts as much as he could. But the Maries’ money did not go far, especially because the family grew rapidly. Clotilde was born in 1815, Maximilien in 1819, and El´eonor (L´eon) in 1820. As a strong Bonapartist, Captain Marie had difficulties finding a job in Restoration France. Finally, around 1824, his wife used her connections among the nobility to get him a position as a tax collector in Sainte-Genevi`eve near Beauvais and then in M´eru in the department of the Oise. This post brought in a mere 1,800 francs a year. Their daughter, Clotilde, was a quick-witted but nervous child, who suffered from intestinal and chest problems. Sometimes she annoyed people around her because she was demanding and petulant. She never got along well with her father, who was strict, rude, and stingy. As a chevalier of the L´egion d’Honneur, he was delighted to send Clotilde to a school of the L´egion d’Honneur in Paris, where he did not have to pay for her education or room and board. Before going to this school, which was run by the sisters of the Mother of God, Clotilde had to be baptized at the comparatively late age of nine. Like many other French people during the Revolution, her parents had lost the formal habits of religion. Only when Clotilde later spent a summer with her mother’s sister, an abbess, did she go through a pious period, which lasted until her departure from her school. Nevertheless, at the school, Clotilde refused to study or obey the strict nuns, who forced her to repeat a grade in 1829. When she turned nineteen, she went home to M´eru. She was happy to renew her deep ties to her mother. For hours, they would discuss ways to help the poor and improve society. But soon she found life at home almost as lonely as the one she had left behind in Paris. She hardly ever saw her brothers, who were away at boarding school in Orl´eans. Her wish for companionship was soon to be answered. In 1835, the marquis de Mornay, a deputy from the region, proposed to Captain Marie that he get help in tax collection from a young man, Am´ed´ee de Vaux. Coming from a respectable local family, de Vaux had returned the year before from a long stay in the colonies, mainly the island of R´eunion, where he had gone after having failed to complete his medical studies in Paris due to laziness and debauchery. Captain Marie agreed to the plan. Soon Am´ed´ee was wooing Clotilde with stories 6

Kenneth W. Rock, “Karl Ludwig Count von Ficquelmont,”in Encyclopedia of 1848 Revolutions, edited by James G. Chastain, http://www.ohiou.edu/∼Chastain/dh/ficquel.htm (accessed November 11, 2007).

136

Clotilde de Vaux and the Initial Encounter with Comte

about his adventures abroad. Not long afterward, the two young people decided to marry. However, they faced a huge obstacle: neither of them had any money. Amed´ee’s father had been secretary of the prefecture in Beauvais but had died a few years before. The family had no real income. To solve the problem and give Clotilde a kind of dowry, the marquis helped to formulate a plan whereby Captain Marie would retire and the thirty-year-old Am´ed´ee would take his place as tax collector. Henriette saw through this plan immediately. She knew that the de Vaux family, without making a single sacrifice, was working out a business deal whereby the shiftless Am´ed´ee would use his dubious aristocratic name to obtain finally a decent job and wife in the neighborhood. She wrote to her daughter: “The young man has none of the energy that a true attachment gives; he has none of the courage of the man who has self-confidence. He is gentle, but always indecisive; he fears everything, because he calculates too much.”7 According to Charles de Rouvre, the grandson of Maximilien Marie (Clotilde’s brother), Clotilde sought to marry Am´ed´ee not because she loved him but because she loved the idea of marriage. She wanted to escape from her father, who was becoming increasingly avaricious and tyrannical as he lost money in reckless financial adventures. Captain Marie did not like Am´ed´ee at all but was interested in retiring. Remembering perhaps her own pain caused by waiting until she was thirty-two to marry, Henriette then reluctantly agreed to the union. The marriage took place on September 28, 1835. Afterwards, Captain Marie and his wife moved to Paris, while Clotilde stayed with her new husband in M´eru, where he took over the tax collector’s office. As a spouse, Clotilde upheld the bourgeois ideal of the separation of spheres, which was being strongly promoted in the late 1830s, after having been questioned by the Saint-Simonians earlier in the decade.8 Clotilde undoubtedly imbued the traditional views of marriage espoused by her family. Her uncle, the Comte de Ficquelmont, reviewed the typical duties of a wife: “The condition of the woman is different from that of the man. The house . . . is her empire and her existence, it is there that all the duties of daughter, wife, and mother are placed; it is thus only there that she can find happiness.”9 Clotilde tried to adhere to this cult of domesticity. Though she was very frustrated by Am´ed´ee’s indecisiveness, she decided not to interfere in his affairs. 7 8 9

Henriette Marie to Clotilde Marie, n.d., in Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 55. Mich`ele Riot-Sarcey, La D´emocratie a` l’epreuve des femmes: Trois figures critiques du pouvoir, 1830–1848 (Paris: Albin-Michel, 1994), 121–8. Comte de Ficquelmont, quoted in Th´erive, Clotilde de Vaux, 28.

The Young Clotilde Marie

137

Nevertheless, she began to wonder if he was not peculiarly uncommunicative about his business dealings.The truth was that he was secretly gambling, sometimes going as far as Paris to amuse himself. Although she was unaware of his activities in this realm, it became clear to her that he had no interest in his work and no prospects for advancement. Disturbed by Am´ed´ee’s cold, strange behavior and afraid of the dangers of having children because of her poor health, Clotilde resigned herself to leading a monotonous, unfulfilling life. Listening to her complaints, her family thought she was neurasthenic.10 In June 1839, three days before an inspector of finances was to arrive to look at Am´ed´ee’s books, the young man suddenly disappeared. In the chimney of his office were found piles of burned papers, the accounts of the last three fiscal years. He had tried to destroy these records to cover up the fact that he had falsified them and taken taxpapers’ money to pay for his gambling debts. He had stolen tens of thousands of francs not only from the state and the commune, but from different individuals who had deposited their money with him for safe keeping. Clotilde was disgraced by this scandal, which was widely reported in the press.11 In an instant, she became known as the wife of a thief and fugitive. She was reduced to the clothes she wore on her back, for everything that she owned was sold to pay her husband’s debts. It turned out that Am´ed´ee had fled to Li`ege in Belgium, where he found work in a candy shop. In one long, melodramatic letter to her, he proclaimed his innocence, fended off rumors that he had had affairs, and blamed his woes on his family, especially on his allegedly adulterous mother. Declaring his love, he begged Clotilde her to pardon him.12 Horrified at seeing the true character of her husband, she resolved never to respond. After writing in vain and pleading with Clotilde’s brother Max for news, Am´ed´ee went to the Dutch East Indies and was never heard from again.13 Clotilde found herself in an impossible situation. Because divorce was prohibited, she was still married to her husband and had to use his last name even though she would never see him again and he had caused her much shame. The de Vaux family, keeping their distance, 10 11

12 13

Ibid. See Journal de l’Oise, no. 51, June 22, 1839, page 2; no. 52, June 26, 1839, 1; no. 53, June 26, 1839, 1–2, Archives d´epartementales de l’Oise, 120 PRSP 13. I would like to thank the archivist Jean-Marie Terrier for his kindness in sending me photocopies of these issues. See letter from Am´ed´ee de Vaux to Clotilde de Vaux, n.d., MAC. It is reproduced in de Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 70–85. Letter from Am´ed´ee de Vaux to Maximilien Marie, June 28, 1840, MAC.

138

Clotilde de Vaux and the Initial Encounter with Comte

did not offer any aid. Despite the fact that she was an attractive woman of twenty-four, she could not remarry unless he died. And if he died, it was improbable that she would hear about it because she had no contact with him. In any case, his imminent demise seemed to be an unlikely possibility. So what could she do? She was penniless but could not work without losing her status as a middle-class woman – a status that was already endangered by the scandal that marginalized her. And in truth, her poor health and lack of skills would not have enabled her to support herself in an independent fashion even if she had tried. Although the main reason she had married was to escape from her family, de Vaux now was forced to live with her parents. What made matters worse was that her parents were already struggling to survive.14 De Vaux could not ask her parents for a single sou for her own needs. Her mother begged for assistance from her own brother, now the Austrian ambassador to the court of Naples. In 1842, he began to give de Vaux an annual allowance of eight hundred francs.15 Her mother kept most of the money to pay for her room and board and gave her only three hundred francs as pocket money for the entire year to pay for clothes, toiletries, and so forth. She made de Vaux promise not to tell her father anything about this arrangement. Comte believed that the purpose of this secret was to increase her despotic hold over her daughter.16 Feeling as confined as she had in her boarding school and in M´eru, de Vaux decided after several trying years to realize her goal of independence by writing, an occupation that offered many nineteenthcentury women a way to earn money in a respectable fashion. We have already seen that Sarah Austin had recourse to writing to support herself. Due to the revival of the women’s emancipation movement and the rise of the popular press, the “woman of ideas” became an increasingly visible figure in the 1830s and 40s. George Sand, Delphine Gay de Girardin, the Countess Marie d’Agoult, and Flora Tristan were among the prominent French women writers and activists who sought to use the printed word to influence public opinion.17 De Vaux’s own mother also served as a role model. Henriette Marie published brochures on poverty that offered remedies for the 14 15 16 17

M´emoire of Madame Marie, n.d., M.A.C. There are several versions of this statement in the MAC. De Vaux to Comte, October 7, 1845, CG, 144. De Rouvre seems incorrect when he puts this sum at six hundred francs. De Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 93. Comte to Clotilde de Vaux, November 10, 1845, CG, 3:186. Janis Bergman-Carton, The Woman of Ideas in French Art, 1830–1848 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 1. On Sand’s influence, see Carolyn G. Heilbrun, Writing a Woman’s Life (New York: Ballantine Books, 1988), 37.

Comte’s First Meetings with Clotilde de Vaux

139

“social question.” In 1835, she wrote Proposition d’une association religieuse et perp´etuelle des femmes, pour travailler au soulagement des malheureux et a` l’extirpation de la mendicit´e, which aimed to create an association of women to help poor people so that they would not become beggars.18 In 1844, she published Le Sculpteur en bois, which underscored the need for philanthropy to help destitute people, who were not “dangerous” or immoral.19 Whereas Henriette Marie chose to speak out against social injustice on an abstract plane, de Vaux was attracted to writing as a means of catharsis; her stories allowed her to vent her feelings of frustration and anger at social codes that circumscribed her behavior. Writing not only helped her secure a new identity but also gave her life meaning and purpose. comte’s fir st me etings with clotilde de vaux Someone who both challenged and encouraged her decision was Auguste Comte. He met Clotilde de Vaux through her brother Max. Many years before, in 1837, Max had been denied admission to the Ecole Polytechnique by Comte, who felt he was too young and unprepared. Max was then admitted the following year. They soon became friends, for Max greatly admired Comte as a teacher and scholar. After Max graduated and became an officer at the Ecole d’Application in Metz, he sent Comte an essay he had written on mathematics.20 Comte gently informed him that the problem he was analyzing had already been solved in the eighteenth century. Encouraging him to send him more of his essays, Comte advised Max to deepen his knowledge of “intellectual history,” especially by reading original works instead of textbooks, whose value was grossly overstated in the educational system.21 Comte’s remarks on the need for greater creativity inspired Max to ponder quitting the army to become a true scholar.22 Comte tried to dissuade him. Speaking from experience, Comte warned him that attaining success as a scholar was difficult when one had “a pronounced character and an independent mind” as Max did. Moreover, Comte was not sure he could be of much help to him because people discounted him (Comte) as an “eccentric.”23 But after Comte visited him in Metz, where they discussed the young man’s plans, Max decided to go ahead with his 18

19 20 21 22 23

Mme Marie n´ee du Ficquelment, Proposition d’une association religieuse et perp´etuelle des femmes, pour travailler au soulagement des malheureux et a` l’extirpation de la mendicit´e (Paris, 1835), 12. Mme Marie, n´ee Ficquelmont, Le Sculpteur en bois, r´ecit enti`erement vrai (Paris, 1844), 56. Maximilien Marie to Comte, March 28, 1841, MAC. Comte to Maximilien Marie, April 15, 1841, CG, 2:4. Maximilien Marie to Comte, two letters both dated June 27, 1841, MAC. Comte to Maximilien Marie, July 4, 1841, CG, 2:13.

140

Clotilde de Vaux and the Initial Encounter with Comte

resignation. Captain Marie was furious that his son was following in Comte’s footsteps. Max had a hard time, as Comte had imagined he would. Yet Comte managed to get his prot´eg´e students to tutor as well as a temporary job at the Institut Laville.24 Besides teaching, Max became a scientific writer for the republican Journal du Peuple and published a controversial work on mathematics, Discours sur la nature des grandeurs n´egatives et imaginaires (1843). Again speaking from experience, Comte tried to prevent him from publishing the preface to this book, which criticized the Academy of Sciences and the entire scientific establishment, especially its teaching methods, but to no avail.25 Max, nevertheless, dedicated the work to him in the warmest possible terms, referring to Comte’s “touching goodness” and “encouraging words.”26 Comte reciprocated; in his Trait´e e´l´ementaire de g´eom´etrie analytique, he commended the “young geometer M. Marie” on his “profound” manner of approaching certain mathematical problems.27 Max further complicated his life in January 1844, when he married Philiberte-F´elicie Aniel, a penniless provincial pianist who was only fifteen years old. Because he did not earn enough money to support her, he and his wife moved in with his parents at 24, rue Pav´ee. (Their apartment was in the old Hˆotel Lamoignon, now the Biblioth`eque historique de la Ville de Paris.) Captain Marie fled from this crowded apartment and took a room far away at 18, rue Miromesnil. Fulfilling one of her dreams, de Vaux moved in February to her own small apartment on 7, rue Payenne, which was situated a block away from her mother and brother’s place.28 It was on the top floor of a fourstory building with a mansarde roof. Two of the rooms looked out on the street: the drawing room and her bedroom, which had a little alcove containing her bed. Although her apartment had a kitchen, she continued to take her meals at her mother and brother’s lodgings. Her mother still used about half of the money she received from her uncle to pay for the rent and food at the rue Pav´ee. 24

25 26 27 28

Comte to Maximilien Marie, December 18, 1841, June 14, 1843, September 26, 1844, November 2, 1844, CG, 2:24, 167, 286, 294; Maximilien Marie to Comte, June 15, 1843, MAC. Max also taught mathematics at the Institut Bourdon. Comte to Maximilien Marie, July 30, 1841, CG, 2:17; Th´erive, Clotilde de Vaux, 38–9; De Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 105–6. Maximilien Marie, Discours sur la nature des grandeurs n´egatives et imaginaires (Paris: CarilianGoeury and Victor Dalmont, 1843), vi. The book was republished in 1844. Trait´e e´l´ementaire de g´eom´etrie analytique, 25n. De Vaux’s apartment, which was on the top floor, is no longer in existence. Not long after her death, the landlords demolished it to add two more stories to the building. It is also worth noting that a plaque commemorating Clotilde de Vaux is misplaced on the building at 5, rue Payenne. Neglecting to verify her address, Brazilian positivists bought the house in 1903 and erected this plaque in her memory. In the house, they built a temple of Humanity, according to Comte’s model. It is still open to visitors. See Paolo Carneiro, introduction to CG, 3: p. xi, lxxxii; Th´erive, Clotilde de Vaux, 13–14.

Comte’s First Meetings with Clotilde de Vaux

141

After Max married, he invited his mentor to his apartment as often as he could. It was there that Max introduced Comte to his sister, Clotilde, in April 1844.29 By this time, she had lived almost five years in an undefined state, imprisoned in a sort of semi-widowhood. Although she was only twenty-nine, her bourgeois mores forbade her to pursue intimate relations with the opposite sex. According to Max’s wife, when de Vaux met the forty-six-year-old Auguste Comte, he was short, pot-bellied, and balding, with a bothersome strand of hair in the middle of his large forehead. Sometimes when he spoke, a bit of foamy saliva oozed out of one corner of his mouth. He squinted because of his extreme near-sightedness. One eye was sticky and teared constantly.30 He had various tics, such as twisting his neck from one side to the other. As usual, he was dressed all in black as if to replicate a priest’s frock. After seeing him for the first time, de Vaux could not restrain herself from giggling and whispering to her sister-in-law, “He is so ugly! He is so ugly!”31 Comte did not feel the same about her. He found her pale delicate face, light brown ringlets, and large blue eyes alluring. With her quiet charm and grace, she became yet another reason to frequent the Marie residence. Comte began to go there as often as he could, for he grew very fond of the entire family. He liked to discuss science and academic politics with Max, while listening to the lovely melodies his wife played on the piano. Henriette became a very good friend because her interest in social regeneration coincided with his. Comte read and complimented Le Sculpteur en bois; he could not help but notice her emphasis on the need to make “human fraternity” the “universal religion.”32 He also liked her paintings. She had made a pleasant 29 30

31

32

De Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 109. Comte said he met her in October 1844, but de Rouvre says Comte was mistaken. See Comte to Massin, January 10, 1847, CG, 4:96. Comte would not wear glasses because he did not like instruments that changed what was natural in the human organism. (Similarly, he was not enthusiastic about the telescope and microscope because they led to useless research.) But he did carry a lorgnette when he took a walk. In a copy of a note of Pierre Laffitte, made by Paulo Carneiro, there is an allusion to Comte’s having lost an eye around November 1846. Perhaps it was the same eye that was bothering him when he met Vaux. The original note appears to be lost, and there is no corroborating evidence. “Note of Pierre Laffitte to a letter of November 29, 1846 from A.C. to Barbot de Chement,” November 29, 1879, copy made by Paolo Carneiro, n.d., MAC. See also Deroisin, Comte, 90, 124. Clotilde de Vaux, quoted in de Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 110. See also ibid., 266; Deroisin, Comte, 91. Comte was small, but it is unclear how short he actually was. When he entered the Ecole Polytechnique, his records state that he was 5’2”. Yet according to Comte’s passport, he was just under 5’5” tall. Either the bureaucrat made an error, or he grew three inches from age sixteen, when he started Ecole Polytechnique, to adulthood. See Pickering, Comte, 1:24; Comte’s passport, dated August 12, 1844, MAC. Madame Marie, Le Sculpteur en bois, 19. See also Comte to Maximilien Marie, November 2, 1844, CG, 2:294. Henriette Marie gave Comte not only this work but her previous one, Proposition d’une association religieuse et perp´etuelle des femmes. They are both in the MAC. Comte gave her Gall’s works.

142

Clotilde de Vaux and the Initial Encounter with Comte

miniature of de Vaux when the latter was ten.33 Now she insisted that Comte sit for her so that she could do his portrait.34 By September, she assured him that he was “truly as much loved as [he was] respected” by the whole household.35 A year later, they considered him “a member of the family.”36 And he, too, marveled at how comfortable he felt among them. Partly fulfilling his need for “domestic affections,” they represented, in effect, his surrogate family.37 Apparently, Comte saw de Vaux less often than the other members of the family because she usually came for dinner, the time he felt obliged to leave.38 Sympathizing with her plight, he admired her from afar for months. He did not dare to write to her until April 30, 1845, a year after they had met. They had evidently been talking about literature, and he rushed to send her a good translation of Tom Jones. Thanking him, she hoped that in their conversation about the book, she would benefit from his “fine and noble lessons.”39 This first exchange is ironic on several levels. In reacting against his wife, Comte had once suggested to Valat that he did not care much for women who talked about novels; all that mattered was that they be sweet and self-sacrificing.40 Thus as with his wife, who had once run a cabinet de lecture, and with Sarah Austin, who wrote for a living, he was attracted to an intelligent woman in spite of himself. He was impressed by “the elevation of her ideas.”41 In fact, he told Massin that de Vaux’s mind was “no less distinguished than hers.”42 And as with Massin, who took mathematics lessons from him to improve her bookkeeping, Comte began his relationship with de Vaux as her teacher. This role was, after all, the one that suited him best and the one with which he was most familiar. But adopting this role made it clear that he was in a position of “superiority,” as de Vaux herself suggested.43 He later self-consciously signed his letters, “Your philosopher, Auguste.”44 As mentioned before, Comte waited a year before he wrote to her. It was as if he had planned for twelve months his whole strategy of how to win her, just as he mentally outlined his books in meticulous detail 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

De Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 30. Comte to Mme Marie, September 6, 1844, CG, 2:286. Madame Marie to Comte, September 6, 1844, MAC. Madame Marie to Comte, September 12, 1845, MAC. Comte to Mme Marie, June 8, 1845, CG, 3:39. Comte to de Vaux, May 14, 1845, CG, 3:5. De Vaux to Comte, May 1, 1845, CG, 3:4. Comte to Valat, November 16, 1825, CG, 1:167. Comte to Dr. Pinel-Grandchamp, November 20, CG 3:202. Comte to Massin, January 10, 1847, CG, 4:96. De Vaux to Comte, May 1, 1845, CG, 3:4. Comte to de Vaux, October 143, 1845, CG, 3:152.

Comte’s First Meetings with Clotilde de Vaux

143

before he actually sat down to write them.45 And as with the Cours, he had trouble dealing with the obstacles that stood in his way. One of the greatest impediments he faced was that his visits to de Vaux were not private.46 Partly because of this obstacle, he began to write her more often in order to go beyond the conventional conversation of her mother’s drawing room. And de Vaux too felt the need to express herself more intimately than she could in that environment. Their correspondence became an important outlet for each of them. During the year of this correspondence – from April 1845 to April 1846 – he wrote her ninety-five letters, many of which were long and bordering on the hysterical. She responded with eighty-six letters, which were usually shorter and less impassioned. She not only responded to the love he offered her but tried to find herself by transcending the traditional familial context that had fashioned her identity.47 Her letters showed greater talent than her other writings. Displaying both humor and wisdom, they were sincere and straightforward, whereas her stories tended to be melodramatic and contrived. Comte and the positivists liked to portray their relationship as one of great purity, harmony, and understanding. But, in fact, the correspondence smacks of sexual tension. Indeed, one scholar remarked that after not having had sex for years, Comte was so avid for it that he could have fallen in love with anyone; de Vaux’s character was immaterial.48 The story of Auguste Comte and Clotilde de Vaux is basically the tale of a man trying to force a woman to accept his sexual advances and his desire to be the center of her universe, while she makes every effort to resist him and create her own autonomous life. Their correspondence sheds light not only on Comte’s personal and intellectual development and de Vaux’s effort to construct a new self, but also on the nineteenth-century battle of the sexes. The fighting started early. One day after dinner in early May 1845, de Vaux went with her brother Max to Comte’s apartment. Comte, Max, and two other disciples talked about mathematics, philosophy, and the Academy of Sciences, leaving de Vaux out of the conversation.49 Comte wrote her a letter of apology on May 14 and asked if he could visit her in her apartment.50 Two days later, on May 16, 45 46 47

48 49 50

De Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 129–30. Comte to de Vaux, August 5, 1845, CG, 3:84. Comte numbered all of his correspondence with her because he worried about their letters being lost in the mail. De Vaux refused to do this. Comte to de Vaux, October 21, 1845, CG, 3:161; de Vaux to Comte, November 2, 1845, CG, 3:173. Gould also maintained that the “basic cause” of Comte’s madness was sexual. F. J. Gould to Dr. Hillemand, December 25, 1825, MAC. De Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 130–32. One of these disciples was Pierre Laffitte, who would become very important. Comte to de Vaux, May 14, 1845, CG, 3:5.

144

Clotilde de Vaux and the Initial Encounter with Comte

while walking with Henriette and F´elicie in the neighborhood, he accidentally bumped into de Vaux.51 He tried to make up for the awkwardness of her recent visit but in the midst of their conversation, which as usual involved the other family members, he suddenly exclaimed, “One cannot always think, but one can always love.”52 Though proclaiming what he had always believed, that happiness came from a full emotional life, he inappropriately betrayed his affection for her.53 Everyone was shocked. On May 17, the day after this odd episode, he received a letter from de Vaux in response to his apology of May 14. Insisting that she was simply an “old friend,” she made it clear that she “rarely” received men. But she agreed to see him in the evenings if her relatives were present, chiefly because she enjoyed discussing intellectual matters with him.54 This letter did not dampen his enthusiasm. Instead, it led him to expound on his love for her in the letter he immediately wrote in response. It is obvious that Comte was acting aggressively in accordance with a set plan, not according to her cues. From the start, he assumed that because they were both marginal figures, separated from unsuitable spouses who had not understood them, she was in as much need of love and affection as he was. As revealed in Comte’s relationship with Sarah Austin, he had been searching for a close relationship since his break-up with his wife. In October 1844, he had told Mill that he was very lonely and was disappointed that his “domestic projects” had failed: “Also, there exists in me an entire order of affectionate sentiments which have not been able to undergo sufficient . . . growth.” His work offered only “incomplete” compensation.55 He had seen one potential cause of this problem as early as the mid-1820s, when he lamented that his emotional needs, in contrast to his intellectual desires, were unfulfilled, and that people were more interested in his mind than his heart.56 Having always had difficulty finding people who were compatible with him both intellectually and emotionally, he craved human contact. This tone of desperation permeated Comte’s campaign to win de Vaux. In addition, he wanted her for his own sexual gratification. Perhaps due to impotence, Comte had enjoyed no sexual relations since 1834. He now discovered a “charming” reawakening of his strong sexual 51 52 53

54 55 56

Comte later maintained that their meeting on May 16, 1845 was the beginning of his moral regeneration. Comte, “Dixi`eme Confession annuelle,” August 19, 1855, CG, 8:98. Testament (1896 ed.), 146. In one of his first letters to Clotilde, he reiterated this point, proclaiming that the “sweet exchange of sentiments and ideas” was “the principal source of human happiness.”Comte to de Vaux, May 2, 1845, CG, 3:4. De Vaux to Comte, May 15, 1845, CG, 3:12. Comte to Mill, October 21, 1844, CG, 2:287. See for example, Comte to Valat, November 16, 1825, CG, 1:165.

Comte’s First Meetings with Clotilde de Vaux

145

urges. From the start, that is, in his letter of May 17, 1845, he did not hesitate to insist on his physical attraction to her, alluding to her “pretty hands” and overall beauty. He even suggested that his desire to have sex with her was keeping him up at night: These precious emotions, these intimate effusions, these delicious tears, this entire collection of affections, which is made more to be experienced than described, contribute today, in the silence of my long nights, to prolong . . . my passing physical trouble . . . : but I would not voluntarily exchange these ravishing [ravissantes] insomnias for the most perfect health possible.57

Alluding to the fact that he was seventeen years older than she, he assured her that he had preserved “in full physical maturity all the vitality and impetuosity of youth, with all the advantages of its spontaneity.”58 There was no doubt that he wanted an affair with her. All memories of the love that had once existed between him and Massin evaporated as he claimed he had married his first wife out of generosity, not real passion. De Vaux, he said, was the first person he loved in a “pure” and “profound” manner.59 To justify an extramarital relationship, he explained to de Vaux that because it was not their fault that they could not find love in the “regular” social order, they were “morally authorized” to seek satisfaction in an unconventional manner.60 Comte’s notion that his case and that of de Vaux were exceptions to the rules of morality would recur in many of his letters to justify his desire for an extramarital affair. No holds were barred for the philosopher in the midst of a midlife crisis. Moreover, he needed her to satisfy an intellectual objective, that of preparing for his next great work, the Syst`eme de politique positive. Throughout his life, whenever he had to face a difficult intellectual task, he underwent a physical and emotional crisis. In 1826, his discovery of his mission to create a new spiritual power, coupled with the discovery of his wife’s alleged affair, led to an attack of madness. In 1838, when he began writing about sociology, he had to abandon, in Laffitte’s words, “the strictly scientific point of view” and put himself “at the social point of view.”61 This effort led to another crisis, which involved a temporary separation from his wife, his greater interest in the arts, and his adoption of cerebral hygiene. He had a mild crisis in 1842, occasioned by his difficulties in concluding the Cours and 57 58 59 60 61

Comte to de Vaux, May 17, 1845, CG, 3:14, 15. Comte to de Vaux, May 28, 1845, CG, 3:21. Comte to de Vaux, May 22, 1845, CG, 3:390. Comte wisely decided not to send her this letter. Comte to de Vaux, May 17, 1845, CG, 3:13. Note from Laffitte’s correspondence with Comte, June 1, 1845, CG, 2:391. See also Laffitte, “Conversations avec Auguste Comte,” June 18, 1848, MAC.

146

Clotilde de Vaux and the Initial Encounter with Comte

by his wife’s desire to leave him.62 In 1844, he began to experience symptoms of yet another collapse.63 He became very weak; suffered from rheumatism, insomnia, and stomach problems; and broke out in sores, including an erysipelas, which spread throughout the right side of his face and sent him to bed for ten days. His illnesses were worse than usual because he was tired from his long work on the Cours and his two didactic books, worried about his job at the Ecole Polytechnique, and especially concerned about the Syst`eme de politique positive.64 He told Sarah Austin that he was patiently resigned to his illness in the same way “the most idiotic Christian” would be.65 But his poor physical condition and anxiety about his means of survival made him postpone work on the Syst`eme several times in 1844 and early 1845. If the “affective” and “intellectual” parts of his brain” were taxed at the same time, he feared the “terrible and irreparable return of the fatal episode of 1826.”66 The crisis that originated in 1844 and continued in 1845 was definitely linked to the Syst`eme; Comte knew he was approaching an intellectual watershed, that of introducing his political philosophy. In a rare moment of honesty, he admitted to Mill that he did not know how to make the Syst`eme “sufficiently distinct” from his first work.67 When he suddenly exclaimed to de Vaux and her family, “One cannot always think, but one can always love,” he was hinting at the fact that he felt tired of ruminating on this dilemma.68 The Cours had reorganized ideas and established the new discipline of sociology to eliminate social discord. It had ultimately demonstrated that “neither thought nor action can constitute the essential center of human existence, which must involve especially affection.” Upholding this argument, the Syst`eme was supposed to restructure affections, thereby completing the preparation for the new positive age of science and industry. To write effectively about the complex social and moral issues involved in the Syst`eme, Comte believed he needed more than an intellectual understanding of emotions; it was essential to have a personal experience of them.69 He knew his own 62 63

64 65 66 67 69

Comte never included this episode when he reviewed the serious crises of his life. See Laffitte, note from his correspondence with Comte, June 1, 1845, CG, 3:391–2. Comte to Audiffrent, January 3, 1856, CG, 8:176; Pierre Laffitte, ed. “Mat´eriaux pour servir a` la biographie d’Auguste Comte: Des Confessions annuelles d’Auguste Comte,” RO 17 (September/November 1886): 193. Comte to Mill, October 21, 1844, CG, 2:287–8. Comte to Sarah Austin, September 11, 1844, Fonds Lacroix 9623, number 1511, Biblioth`eque de l’Arsenal. This letter is not published in the CG. Comte to Mill, December 25, 1844, CG, 2:307. Comte to Mill, October 21, 1844, CG, 2:288. 68 Testament (1896 ed.), 146. Comte to de Vaux, January 27, 1846, CG, 3:305. See also Comte to de Vaux, August 5, 1845, February 25, 1846, CG, 3:79, 334.

The Battle between the Sexes

147

feelings would enter into his political philosophy, and he wanted to develop them to enhance his doctrine.70 Just as in 1838, when he had sought to develop his emotions and aesthetic senses by means of poetry and music to deepen his understanding of humanity, he needed, in effect, a period of emotional intensity to write the part of the Syst`eme treating social and “moral” life.71 Having only begun discussing feelings with Sarah Austin, he counted on an emotionally intense relationship with de Vaux to develop his affections, which he always believed had been stunted due to his poor family and marital relations.72 As Henri Gouhier once pointed out, there was a certain pattern to Comte’s crises; love for a woman was always involved in some fashion.73 Whereas in the previous three crises he had blamed his wife for his problems, in this period of mental instability, he relied on de Vaux to provide him with the requisite material for his second great work. Comte did not hesitate to tell de Vaux that she did indeed fulfill this function. As early as May 17, he explained that it was his feeling toward her, not the grand, abstract “sentiments of universal love,” that was finally developing his “moral life.”74 the battle betwe e n the sexe s Comte’s bold proclamation of love in his letter of May 17 surprised and pained de Vaux. After receiving two more letters from him, she coolly explained that she had been depressed for the past year and had hardly enough force to live from day to day, let alone indulge in impulsive acts, presumably such as accepting his invitation to become lovers. She felt Comte did not really know her at all. With a touch of sarcasm, she told him to use his “fine faculties” regarding her situation to determine the validity of his view that she was sad because of him. He would be better off if he followed her example and kept his feelings to himself. Comte quickly apologized, promising to restrain himself more in the future and attributing his problems with her to his lack of experience. He knew he had acted too fast.75 Yet this realization did not make him reconsider the wisdom of his plan of attack. Right away, Comte tried to make de Vaux feel guilty by telling her that his 70 71 72 74 75

Note from Laffitte’s correspondence with Comte, June 1, 1845, CG, 2:392. See also Comte to de Vaux, August 5, 1845, CG, 3:82–3. On the comparison between his love for Clotilde and the growth of his “aesthetic tastes,” see Comte to de Vaux, March 11, 1845, CG, 3:354. Comte to Mill, October 21, 1844, CG, 2:287. 73 Gouhier, La Vie, 185. Comte to de Vaux, May 17, 1845, CG, 3:12–13. Comte to de Vaux, May 21, 1845, CG, 3:18. See also de Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 146.

148

Clotilde de Vaux and the Initial Encounter with Comte

unfulfilled desire for her was the source of his severe problems with melancholy and insomnia. For months, he would press his demands for more intimacy on her. Young and relatively new to Paris, de Vaux was flattered to be wooed by an important individual. Yet her agenda was different from the one he was trying to impose on her. Comte, the man of ideas, was suffering from intellectual fatigue and wanted stimulation from newly discovered emotions. De Vaux, who he wrongly assumed was typical of the “affective sex,” demanded to be “spared” emotional burdens. For the past two years she had been infatuated with a married man, an experience that taught her that “love without hope kills the body and soul.” Now she sought to achieve something on her own and become a woman of ideas. Just as Comte liked to say to his critics that the age of discussion was over for him, she announced that she was through with the “deadly” business of dabbling in emotions. There was almost a reversal of gender roles in the way she exerted authority and ordered him to be reasonable, to avoid “strong emotions,” and to use his “manly powers” of self-control.76 Her sole desire was for the peaceful solitude that she needed in order to write. She had no intention of pursuing another fruitless relationship that would distract her from her new career – a career that she hoped would satisfy her quest for success and self-fulfillment. In short, she wanted a relationship with Comte only to stimulate her mind, not her emotions, which were the source of great pain to her. In effect, both de Vaux and Comte were in the process of changing their self-representations. Each hoped to use an image they had of the other to achieve this transformation. However, Comte’s image of de Vaux and her picture of him proved to be static, incomplete, and somewhat outdated in view of the fact that both of them sought to move beyond their previous selves. The situation with Comte required great delicacy on de Vaux’s part. It was not politic for her to tell Comte that she would not sleep with him because she found him unattractive and feared losing her bourgeois respectability by flouting convention. Instead, to maintain her distance and to escape the sexual anonymity that threatened her individuality, she used the nineteenth-century assumption that women were devoid of sexual desire.77 Forced to abandon the passive, vulnerable role that she had first adopted as part of her performance as his student, she made him aware that he must make his affection as “innocent” as hers.78 76 77 78

Comte to de Vaux, December 30, 1845, CG, 3:258; de Vaux to Comte, June 5, September 5 and 9, 1845, CG, 3:35, 108, 120. Comte imagined, in true Victorian fashion, that Clotilde, like other women, was “naturally” virtuous, that is, asexual. Comte to de Vaux, May 24, 1845, CG, 3:20. Comte to de Vaux, May 24, 1845, CG, 3:20.

The Battle between the Sexes

149

Comte found her rules of chastity “more painful” than de Vaux could ever imagine.79 Her resistance, in fact, seemed to excite him, and he repeatedly insisted that she give him the “authorization” to make “personal visits.”80 Having studied human nature for thirty years and listened attentively to statements made about her by her brother and mother, he claimed to know her better than she assumed. Nonplused, she continued to turn down his requests. Rejected as a lover, Comte hardly slept at all during the last two weeks of May. To avoid irritating his digestive tract, which he worried could aggravate his situation, he ate no solid food. Gradually, he became so weak that he missed work at the Ecole Polytechnique and for the first time in fifteen years could not give his Sunday course on astronomy.81 Writing the Syst`eme was out of the question. He was so depressed that he could hardly even read poetry, which was his usual source of distraction and consolation. All he could do was stay in bed. He cried often and found some comfort in his tears.82 Surprised by the extent of his collapse, he knew himself well enough to see that he was on the verge of another attack of madness, brought on by the congruence of his emotional and intellectual troubles. Because he had been suffering on and off from this “nervous” malady since August of 1844, recovery would be “slow.”83 He even began to think that Gall was correct in hypothesizing that men with a “feminine and delicate nervous system” like his own experienced periodic bouts of melancholy that corresponded to women’s experience of depression when they menstruated.84 In keeping with the moral beliefs of the century, he was convinced that renouncing immediate gratification improved one’s character and led to future benefits.85 Considering all improvements – moral, intellectual, and physical – to be mutually influential, he stopped drinking wine.86 By late May, he informed de Vaux, that he had mastered his sexual impulses. Morally “purified,” he now “merited” her.87 By having imposed her rules of chastity on Comte, de Vaux achieved, in his eyes, a new preeminence. A devotee of the theater and opera, Comte immediately dramatized her influence on him, 79 81 82 83 84 85

86

87

Ibid. 80 Comte to de Vaux, May 28, 1845, CG, 3:23. Comte to Maximilien Marie, May 30, 1845, CG, 3:24. Note from Laffitte’s correspondence with Comte, June 1, 1845, CG, 2:392. Comte to Maximilien Marie, May 30, 1845, CG, 3:24. Laffitte, conversation with Comte, excerpt in CG, 3:392. Peter T. Cominos, “Innocent Femina Sensualis in Unconscious Conflict,” in Suffer and Be Still: Women in the Victorian Age, ed. Martha Vicinus (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1972), 155. Comte to Maximilien Marie, May 30, 1845, CG, 3:24. See also Comte to Hadery, August 18, 1853, CG, 7:105; note from Laffitte’s correspondence with Comte, June 1, 1845, CG, 2:392. Comte to de Vaux, May 24, 1845, CG, 2:20n.

150

Clotilde de Vaux and the Initial Encounter with Comte

making her solely responsible for his moral rebirth. He claimed that by her superior virtue, she had rid him of his crude male sex drive and transformed him into the virtuous champion of humanity. He could also help humanity because he believed that she was leading him to express his emotions more fully. Before meeting her, he was ashamed of appearing “too sensitive.”88 Realizing that his heart was always “profoundly disposed to tenderness,” he feared that he had overcompensated by paying too much attention to intellectual matters in order not to appear insincere or dishonest.89 The result was that critics had found the Cours dry and positivism unemotional. Yet to him, only “cold pedants” promoted “stupid austerity.”90 He proudly insisted that “several privileged souls” had recognized the “profound implicit sentimentality” of the Cours and told him they had cried over certain passages – passages that he himself had written in tears.91 However, he recognized that the language codes of the day – those of the romantics – were demanding more effusiveness. He hoped the image of his philosophy would change once he addressed moral and social issues. Despite his claims to be indifferent to the opinion of his contemporaries, he wanted his work to be appreciated. Praising de Vaux for making him more benevolent and open, he was sure his moral improvement would benefit his new work because his philosophy sought to develop “the grandeur of human nature,” which depended more on “the generosity of sentiments” than on “the wide range of conceptions.”92 Comte emphasized that de Vaux inspired the “second part” of his “philosophic career,” which would be superior to the first because his ideas would be richer and more powerful, even if they might not be as original.93 His last works would reflect the personal advances he had made in uniting all the different tendencies of thought, feeling, and action within him. Months before she even became ill, he announced to her that he would dedicate the Syst`eme to her. Attributing both his moral and intellectual improvement to her influence on him, he proclaimed that she would one day join those women who had achieved immortality by acting as famous men’s muses.94 If he died before she did, her “noble duty” would be 88

89 90 91 92 93 94

Comte to de Vaux, August 5, 1845, CG, 3:84. See also Comte to Mill, August 8, 1845, CG, 3:90. Comte also mentioned the “shame” he felt in expressing his feelings in Comte to de Vaux, February 22, 1846, CG, 3:328. Comte to de Vaux, January 26, 1846, CG, 3:305. Comte to de Vaux, May 17, 1845, CG, 3:13. Comte to de Vaux, August 5, 1845, CG, 3:84. Comte to de Vaux, May 17, 1845, CG, 3:13. Comte to de Vaux, January 26, 1846, CG, 3:305. Comte to de Vaux, May 17, 24, 1845, February 22, 1846, CG, 3:14, 20, 327. See also Cominos, “Innocent Femina Sensualis,” 155.

The Battle between the Sexes

151

to tell people of his “profoundly sensitive heart, which, although was said . . . to exhibit austere coldness, was always at the level of . . . [his] mind.”95 In effect, she would make sure that people knew he had been kind and tender so that he would not be remembered as having been cold and aloof. There is something poignant about Comte’s insecurity regarding his character. Comte’s attitude toward de Vaux was in many ways typical of his epoch. Reflecting the impact of the cult of domesticity and the model of the “perfect lady,” most nineteenth-century men believed that women were “naturally” virtuous and morally superior, chiefly because they had no sexual desire.96 De Vaux both rejected and exploited this assumption. She performed her femininity to her advantage to get what she wanted from Comte. She understood his melodramatic, moral universe; like him, she was an enthusiast of literature and the opera and was drawn to the theatrical. Standing up to the great philosopher of positivism, de Vaux told Comte, “I place you . . . on the pedestal that you are erecting for me; it suits you better by far than it does me.” She was particularly angry that he kept asserting that he knew her and found her morally superior: “I have not yet found perfection in others nor in myself. There are large ulcers deep down in every human stomach; the key is to know how to hide them.”97 In effect, she refused to allow Comte to worship her. Such adoration she found disingenuous and constricting; it was further proof that he only wanted to know the side of her that fulfilled his ideal of the perfect woman, which coincided with the image of the empathetic individual he wished to be. According to psychologists, this projection of an idealized self-image onto the object of one’s affections is typical of manic depressives.98 To avoid “embarrassing talks,” de Vaux ordered Comte to discuss matters pertaining to their “heads,” not their hearts.99 She hoped that if they selected roles that privileged the pursuit of knowledge and to that end required emotional concealment, they could create a relationship that would not be based on gender stereotypes, tensions, and inequalities. In seeking independence through knowledge, de Vaux held onto this genderfree vision, despite the fact that she acknowledged artfully hiding her faults to reinforce her virtuous appearance and thereby increase the moral authority associated with being feminine. 95 96 97 98 99

Comte to de Vaux, December 9, 1845, CG, 3:227. Comte to de Vaux, May 24, 1845, CG, 3:20. See also Martha Vicinus, introduction to Suffer and Be Still, vii–xv. De Vaux to Comte, May 29, 1845, CG, 3:24. J. Mar`es, “Maniaque d´epressive ou maniaco-d´epressive (psychose),” Dictionnaire encyclop´edique de psychologie, ed. Norbert Sillamy (Paris: Bordas, 1980), 704. De Vaux to Comte, May 29, December 10, 1845, CG, 3:23, 24, 228.

152

Clotilde de Vaux and the Initial Encounter with Comte moveme nt toward the re lig ion of humanity

Censored by de Vaux, Comte reconfigured his positive philosophy to seduce her, catering to her original self-representation as a student eager for instruction. Extrapolating from his experiences with his mother and sister, he tended to associate women with religion and assumed that one large stumbling block to the development of their relationship was de Vaux’s fear that he was overly critical of Catholicism. This worry seemed unfounded, for by this point, she was not religious. In fact, Comte accused her at one point of being too Voltairian, that is, too skeptical and critical.100 Nevertheless, on June 2, he took advantage of the coming feast day of her patron saint, Sainte-Clotilde, to write an essay entitled “Lettre philosophique sur la commemoration social,” in which he sought to prove that he was not at all anti-religious. What was important, he said, was to distinguish between the forms of religion during each age of humanity and the functions of religion, which were usually universally valid. In reply to de Vaux’s dismissal of his attempt to put her on a pedestal, Comte declared that the need to imitate models was “inherent in the laws of human nature.” Taking this human tendency and others into account, positivism would develop more systematic religious forms in keeping with the present stage of civilization. In general, positivism would synthesize what was “great or useful” in all the previous stages of history in order to represent “the collective life of our species.”101 Comte pointed out that the ancient custom of apotheosis and the more simple Catholic practice of beatification, which improved it, had encouraged the growth of human sociability, that is, the feeling that each person is related to everyone else in the past and future and that all generations cooperate to produce society. The Catholic sacrament of baptism, which gave each individual a special patron and model to imitate, also increased human solidarity. Comte claimed that positivism would maintain this veneration of worthy ancestors, for the need to imitate models was “inherent in the laws of human nature.” For example, St. Clotilde’s “rights to the eternal gratitude of humanity” for having facilitated the conversion of her husband, Clovis, to Catholicism would be recognized in the positivist version of the Christian calendar. Thus already in 1845 Comte was contemplating the creation of the Positivist Calendar to institute a new system of commemoration, one that would be more inclusive than Catholicism’s. Whereas Catholics did not esteem those outside the bounds of their religion, positivism would respect people of all other times and 100 101

Comte to de Vaux, August 5, 1845, CG, 3:84. At times, she even made fun of “spiritualists.” De Vaux to Comte, September 9, 1845, CG, 3:120. “Lettre philosophique sur la commemoration social,” June 2, 1845, CG, 3:28, 30.

Movement Toward the Religion of Humanity

153

places. It would commemorate “all types of cooperation, whether public or even private.” Even “the most humble cooperators” would have “the feeling of universal convergence.”102 The “Lettre philosophique sur la commemoration social” is important because, according to Comte, it contained “the first distinct and direct germs” of the Religion of Humanity.103 In 1845, before the death of de Vaux, Comte was moving toward a new conception of worship, the cult of the Great-Being; it would represent the primary method of achieving immortality in the positivist stage of history. Instead of encouraging the typically religious preoccupation with one’s personal salvation, which he considered egotistical and foolish, Comte aimed to direct people’s attention to the improvement of human conditions and human nature. Already in this essay, he was arguing in favor of honoring anyone who contributed in some manner to philosophy, poetry, and social and political life, which corresponded, respectively, to the speculative, sentimental, and active aspects of human existence. (Comte followed Marie-Franc¸ois-Xavier Bichat’s schema, which had been also adopted by Saint-Simon, that there were three main kinds of human skills: thinking, loving, and motor.) By opening this path to recognition to everyone, no matter how apparently insignificant his or her contribution might seem, Comte sought to stress the “popular” side of positivism, as he had already done in the Discours sur l’esprit positif. Instead of appealing to the elite, he had his eyes set on the lower classes, whom he wished to incorporate into society and into his movement. Comte tried to convert de Vaux to positivism by convincing her that his doctrine also had a special appeal to women. Thanks to his arguments with Mill and Sarah Austin and especially his love for de Vaux, Comte’s attitude had slightly changed. Condemning the “foolish distinction between the public order and the private order,” Comte insisted that in the new positive age, women anonymously working in the domestic sphere would be honored for their contributions to civilization.104 Like many early feminists, he realized, in Carolyn Heilbrun’s words, that “the private is the public.”105 Moreover, he no longer dwelled on women’s weaknesses as he had in the Cours, for he knew this was a dangerous topic. Instead, he looked at their strengths, foreshadowing the Cat´echisme positiviste, a book he wrote in 1852 to display his solidarity with women. He held up St. Clotilde as the ideal woman; her qualities were more “moral” than “intellectual,” and she had intervened in society to counter the dominant material force by using her feelings, which represented the 102 104 105

Ibid., 28, 29, 31. 103 Comte to Mill, July 14, 1845, CG, 3:58; Syst`eme, 1:xxii. “Lettre philosophique,” June 2, 1845, CG, 3:31. Heilbrun, Writing a Woman’s Life, 17.

154

Clotilde de Vaux and the Initial Encounter with Comte

essence of the female sex.106 Comte maintained that positivism would be very open to women’s kind of moral or emotional influence because it stressed the importance of spirtual reorganization rather than institutional reforms. Thus, according to Comte, it would revive the forceful role women had played in the past – a role they had lost with the decline of Catholicism. Women would be the “intimate auxiliaries” of positivist philosophers. Because women represented feelings and philosophers were associated with thoughts, there was a “natural affinity” between them. Together they would disseminate moral principles throughout society. Modifying the stance he had taken in the Cours, where he had said that women remained throughout their lives in a “state of continued infancy,” he now devoted positivism to the “adoration of women.”107 Such changes were necessary to convince de Vaux that she had a historically dictated role to work closely with him. De Vaux suspected that his philosophy was not really addressed to women. She also recognized that women ultimately lacked the kind of power men possessed.108 Nevertheless, she was pleased with the “Sainte-Clotilde” as Comte called his essay. His depiction of the future strong role of women echoed in more conservative tones the demands of the women’s rights activists of the 1840s. As an aspiring writer who was not ensconced in the radical camp, de Vaux was flattered by his suggestion that she could make an important contribution to society even though the traditional roles of wife and mother were closed to her. She was indeed to achieve some measure of success, but not in the way Comte desired. In the meantime, Comte wished to publish his “Sainte-Clotilde” in a journal, reflecting the fact that he was trying to erase the line between the private and the public in his own life. Mill rejected it, claiming that Comte’s work was too critical of religion. Armand Marrast refused to publish it in Le National for fear that it was not sufficiently revolutionary. More importantly, he recognized that it was too intimate, long, and philosophical for a journal article.109 Yet Comte interpreted his refusal as a sign that positivism appeared “almost as odious to negative metaphysics as [it does] to retrograde theology.”110 He would move closer to the right in the years to come. Signs of the Religion of Humanity are also apparent in Comte’s “Lettre philosophique sur l’appr´eciation sociale du baptˆeme chr´etien,” which was written shortly afterward, on July 1, in response to Max’s request that he be the godfather of his son. Here too, Comte 106 107 108 109

“Lettre philosophique,” June 2, 1845, CG, 3:29. Ibid., 28, 31, 32, 33; Cours, 2:186. De Vaux to Comte, January 15, 1846, CG, 3:288. De Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 186. 110 Comte to Mill, July 14, 1845, CG, 3:59.

De Vaux’s Search for a Room of Her Own

155

explained, in effect, that positivism would appropriate Catholic rites because they fulfilled permanent spiritual needs of humanity. “The incorporation of a new being into the human mass” and “the imposition of names which have been chosen for him” were important in every society to mark a “new existence” and took on different forms according to “the dominant opinions.” In the wake of Catholicism’s decline, the temporal power had tried to take up this task, but it simply connected the individual and the state in a legal fashion. This purely civil connection, represented by some sort of state birth certificate, was solely materialistic and thus inadequate. “To spiritualize from the beginning every human life,” it was necessary to have an initiation ceremony, giving the individual the principles, morals, and feelings that directed society and led to happiness. This “system of social incorporation” should be linked to the positivist “system of commemoration.” The name chosen for the individual would provide him or her with a model of behavior. Foreshadowing again the Positivist Calendar, Comte asserted that positivism would offer a greater choice of names or models because it would include anyone who “really honored humanity, without any useless, restrictive prejudice.”111 Like Robespierre, Comte appropriated Catholic ceremonies for his own purposes. Yet unlike the French revolutionary, who sought inspiration in Rousseau, Comte admired Augustine’s City of God, which he was reading at the time, as well as works by Joseph de Maistre, Louis de Bonald, and F´elicit´e de Lamennais, who had shown him the value of the Middle Ages when he wrote his early opuscules. Though insisting on breaking with the Catholic belief system, Comte sought to recreate the so-called organic society of the Middle Ages. He told Mill in July 1845, “The more I scrutinize this immense subject [medieval Catholicism], the more I am reaffirmed in the sentiments that I had twenty years ago at the time of my work on the spiritual power, that is, that . . . systematic positivists . . . [are] the true successors of the great men of the Middle Ages.” Long before the death of de Vaux, who is said to be responsible for his religious revival, Comte declared his aim of realizing the “social work” of Catholicism.112 de vaux’s search for a room of he r own Comte considered his “Sainte-Clotilde” the true beginning of his friendship with de Vaux.113 For the first time in years, her self-esteem rose. To thank him in person, she persuaded her mother and brother 111 113

“Lettre philosophique,” CG, 3:99. 112 Comte to Mill, July 14, 1845, CG, 3:62. Comte to de Vaux, August 5, 1845, CG, 3:79.

156

Clotilde de Vaux and the Initial Encounter with Comte

to accompany her to Comte’s place. This was her second visit to his apartment. Evidently, he overreacted, and his ardor in explaining how he developed his “solitary emotions” by singing Italian arias alarmed her.114 To put a stop to his advances, she told him that she had been hopelessly in love with a married man and was resolved not to center her life around yet another man because it diverted her from her quest for success and self-fulfillment. Comte claimed to understand her frustration and declared his commitment to transforming their relationship into a simple friendship. He trusted her in turn with his main secret, his long battle against madness, including his suicide attempt of 1826, which he had not even told his closest friends. He reassured her that despite the fact that his “crisis” of the past three weeks (from May 14 to June 6, 1845) was similar to that of 1826 and that her rejection of his advances had given him a “cruel” blow, he was taking care of himself to avoid a recurrence. He deflected his love for her onto Humanity. “I will again, as in so many previous cases, seek in my public life the noble, but imperfect, compensation for the unmerited misfortunes of my private life. May humanity profit from this inevitable extreme sacrifice! I must henceforth redouble [my] love for it.” Again thinking about the process of commemoration, he lamented that he could receive Humanity’s “holy affection” only later, after he passed away.115 Having been rebuffed as a potential lover, Comte tried to adopt other roles. He particularly enjoyed acting as de Vaux’s “spiritual father,” a term that had decidedly religious overtones reminiscent of the traditional relationship between Catholic women and priests. In fact, like a cleric, he stated that he wished to work for her “improvement.” Expanding the role he had assumed in the beginning of their relationship, that of teacher or adviser, Comte decided to direct her literary career, which he recognized meant a great deal to her as an escape from her personal problems. But he distrusted such a career, for he feared she risked becoming a bluestocking. And as seen in his relations with Sarah Austin, he disliked these literary women, who sought to change women’s condition and seemed to belong to “no sex.”116 Comte told de Vaux: Be careful . . . of developing your talent at the expense of the correctness of your ideas and the purity of your sentiments, [which constitute] two attributes that distinguish you even more from this blue race. You should always know how to avoid letting degenerate into a simple job that which should emanate from a spontaneous inspiration; may 114 115 116

Comte to de Vaux, June 6, 1845, CG, 3:35. See also de Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 156–8. Comte to de Vaux, June 6, 1845, CG, 3:36. Comte to Audiffrent, March 9, 1851, CG, 6:33.

De Vaux’s Search for a Room of Her Own

157

you never become mixed up in the strange and dangerous hustle and bustle which will perhaps envelop you! Above all, my dear friend, I recommend to you true social principles. Leave to the writing crowd the too facile temporary demolition of a frail public morality for the sole profit of some private affections.

Comte feared that culture was becoming debased by its ties to the world of commerce and that writers sought fame by challenging the moral standards that upheld society.117 Evidently, he did not approve of the writers of the 1830s and 1840s, especially the “Bohemians,” who had many connections with the romantic movement. Henri Murger, one of the most famous of them, began to publish stories of Bohemian life in the Corsaire-Satan in March 1845. One of the writers associated with the Bohemians was George Sand, who had produced works quickly for money; some of them, such as La Derni`ere Aldini, investigated untraditional topics, including woman’s desire. Murger, Sand, and others living at the margins of society threatened the bourgeoisie by denouncing its norms, which they felt hampered their development as free individuals.118 Reflecting the typical view of them as closely associated with radical politics and criminality, Comte condemned them as “insane or reprehensible rioters” eager to defy the “domestic order” in order to give into their passions.119 De Vaux must not follow their example of erecting personal desires into universal social principles. He was convinced that post-revolutionary society was a fragile association of men and women, who had to act according to prescribed rules in order to preserve it. Comte’s real purpose in advising de Vaux seems to have been to dissuade her from writing at all. He wished to make sure she stayed the idealized woman she was in his mind. De Vaux sensed his desire to control her and wisely did not show him her main work, a short story called “Lucie.” Much to Comte’s chagrin, she forced him to wait to read “Lucie” until it appeared as a front-page feuilleton in Le National, the prominent republican newspaper run by Armand Marrast, on June 20 and 21, 1845.120 (This was the same journal that had published Littr´e’s articles on the Cours in late 1844.) Inspired by 117 118

119 120

Comte to de Vaux, June 6, 1845, CG, 3:37–8. Jerrold Seigel, Bohemian Paris: Culture, Politics, and the Boundaries of Bourgeois Life, 1830– 1930 (New York: Viking Penguin, 1986), 13–15, 18–19, 26, 37, 43; Curtis Cate, George Sand: A Biography (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1975), 437. Comte to de Vaux, June 6, 1845, CG, 3:38. See also Seigel, Bohemian Paris, 36. The first and second parts were signed respectively “Mme Clotilde,” and “Clotilde.” Her last name was omitted, reflecting the problems that nineteenth-century women writers faced in asserting their identity. See Le National, June 20, June 21, 1845 at the MAC. For problems of women writers, see Whitney Walton, Eve’s Proud Descendants: Four Women Writers and Republican Politics in Nineteenth-Century France (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000), 80–83.

158

Clotilde de Vaux and the Initial Encounter with Comte

the epistolary approach of Tom Jones, the book Comte had lent her, “Lucie” consisted chiefly of a series of letters.121 De Vaux was a gifted letter writer, but unlike her personal letters, her fictional ones were stilted and melodramatic. Yet Vaux did not want to hear Comte’s opinion about her style. She did not want him to tamper with what was essentially a story about her own life – a story that expressed her own anguish. In this tale, Lucie, a young beauty living in a village, is abandoned by her husband, a gambler who disappears after killing his associate and stealing valuable securities. His creditors auction off all their belongings, including her jewels and clothes, to pay his debts. At twenty, Lucie is “handed over to isolation, misery, and a position without hope.” Very high-minded and exceptionally intelligent and talented, Lucie soon realizes that men are interested in her only because of her beauty. Resolved to remain single and uninterested in challenging laws against remarriage, she uses “her chain” to her husband as a barrier to ward off men. She tries to lead an independent life by becoming a teacher in Paris. She prefers to read, listen to music, and study philosophy than to associate with men. Her “need to think and feel” becomes the main motivating force of her existence.122 Yet after describing Lucie as a kind of courageous intellectual and emancipated woman, de Vaux had her back away from her position. Lucie claims that she would give up the pleasures of the mind and all success for the superior, regenerating joys of motherhood. It is evident that Lucie is an untraditional woman chiefly because of force of circumstance. Her yearning to assume women’s conventional roles was de Vaux’s as well. Lucie’s neighbor, Maurice, eventually falls in love with her. De Vaux used him to vent her anger. Lashing out at the law that binds her to her hateful husband, Maurice, a “liberal,” calls Lucie a “beautiful martyr of social injustices.” He denounces the “apathy of men,” which generates such “unhappiness and oppression.” Maurice then abruptly ponders, Why does one see common women fascinate superior intellects and become the object of a true cult? How does it also happen that the generosity and nobility of certain women are so often seen battling egoism and coarseness? 121

122

Comte had also given her “the first two volumes of Sterne,” but it is not clear which work by the English novelist he lent her. Some of his books are composed of letters. See “Liste des livres figurant dans la biblioth`eque d’Auguste Comte a` son d´ec`es et prˆet´es par celui-ci a` Clotilde de Vaux,” MAC. The Sterne book is missing from Comte’s library today. “Lucie,” CG, 3:427–8.

De Vaux’s Search for a Room of Her Own

159

Not flowing naturally from the text, these questions reflect the extent to which de Vaux was disturbed by Comte’s crude worship of her. Nevertheless, she used the image of women’s moral superiority to advance the story. Dressed in white, which highlights her moral purity, Lucie is an “angelic woman,” who inspires “generous and elevated sentiments.”123 To de Vaux and to many of her female contemporaries, women’s supposed generosity and elevation were sources of empowerment. Lucie’s moral superiority, for example, drives Maurice to petition the government to change the unjust law prohibiting divorce. Women could not step into the public sphere to change laws affecting their own condition. De Vaux is reflecting political realities. After divorce bills were rejected by the Chambre des Paris in 1831–4, a petition was presented in 1836, but to no avail. Divorce was associated with the excesses of the Revolution, which had legalized it in 1792. Given that it was still a taboo subject, as reflected in Lamennais’s refusal to entertain talk of it in his periodical, de Vaux was bold to bring it up.124 Maurice and Lucie soon become lovers. But Maurice, like Comte, gradually wants to imprison Lucie in his view of what a woman should be. He objects to her copying music to earn money: Is not women’s true role to give to man the care and pleasures of the domestic sphere, and to receive from him in exchange all the means of existence procured by this work? I prefer to see a poor mother . . . wash the laundry of her children rather than see her fritter away her life in spreading the products of her intelligence outside [the home].

Maurice defends the traditional ideology of the separation of spheres, which denied women any economic rights, stressed their dependence on men, and belittled their minds.125 Yet at the same time he claims it is acceptable for an eminent woman to be “pushed outside the family sphere by her genius” in order to be able to find fulfillment in society.126 His inconsistency on the matter of woman’s proper behavior suggests that de Vaux was searching for a loophole in the ideology of the separation of spheres to allow exceptionally intelligent women to excel. With the model of George Sand in her mind, she was ruminating over the possibility of including herself among the 123 124 125

126

“Lucie,” CG, 3:428–31. Alison Finch, Women’s Writing in Nineteenth-Century France (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 157–9. “Lucie,” CG, 3:435. De Vaux showed herself to be her mother’s daughter when she suggested that unfortunate women who were not supported by men (i.e., husbands, fathers, or brothers) should be helped by government-funded establishments, where they could work on objects that demanded feminine skills. Ibid., 435.

160

Clotilde de Vaux and the Initial Encounter with Comte

women geniuses so that she would not feel obliged to repress her spirit and defer modestly to great men like Comte. Yet projecting her own ambivalence onto her protagonist, de Vaux made Lucie hesitant to question society. The fear of challenging “respectable” social institutions prevents Lucie from yielding at first to Maurice’s advances. Moreover, Lucie keeps her distance from the movement in favor of women’s political and economic rights, which she considers ridiculous. However, she admits, almost in spite of herself, that she is proud to play the part of a “true heroine,” fighting “against oppression where it is real.” To justify her rebellious feelings, she writes, “Laws undermine the . . . happiness of woman by pushing her out of her sphere and making her sometimes ignore her sublime destiny [of marriage and motherhood].”127 It is not her fault but society’s that she is unable to assume the role of wife and mother. In the end, Lucie dies abruptly of an illness born from sorrow after her husband is captured and she realizes she must put an end to her affair. Maurice, in a theatrical move, then shoots himself. De Vaux’s story reflects the complexity of the “woman question” of the day. The main problem, which had been at the center of public discussion since the Saint-Simonians and Charles Fourier helped revive feminist demands in the 1830s, was the nature of woman’s proper role in society. De Vaux shared Lucie’s desire to be an intellectual, self-sufficient, accomplished woman. Like George Sand, she wanted the freedom to wander unescorted through Paris and enjoy the sense of being “an abandoned woman.”128 But she also shared Lucie’s second desire, her longing to be a wife and mother. The tragedy was that society would not let her construct multiple selves along these diverse lines. It was not possible for a woman to achieve intellectual and emotional satisfaction simultaneously. Denouncing the “disorder” in society, de Vaux expressed her frustration through her various characters but was loath to challenge society and lose men’s respect. Above all, she did not want to resemble her feminist contemporaries, who foolishly “stamp their feet at the idea of never being a deputy and ride a horse to demonstrate that they would be . . . excellent colonels.” Unable to offer a solution to the oppression of women, de Vaux ended the story on a tragic, pessimistic note, pointing out that man has little power “to repair the evil he produces.” Here there is a telling silence on the issue of women’s response to mistreatment; what de Vaux would have liked to have said but felt she could not was that woman has no power to eliminate the injustice created by man. After witnessing Lucie’s death, a doctor in the story comments, “No woman felt more profoundly than she the grandeur of her role.” Lucie displays “grandeur” in courageously playing the 127

Ibid., 432, 433.

128

De Vaux to Comte, October 30, 1845, CG, 3:169.

De Vaux’s Search for a Room of Her Own

161

“victim” of social injustice in this melodrama. However, dying from weakness caused by depression, she could not be considered heroic because she did not overcome or even alter her situation.129 De Vaux was too conventional to allow her heroine to defy social norms completely. Perhaps de Vaux also feared that if she took a more radical stance, Marrast would refuse to give her story a prominent front-page position. As a result, she did not allow her heroine any alternative but death. It is paradoxical that de Vaux sought to profit from this tragic tale to become a recognized writer and thus avoid the same fate. Comte was so moved by “Lucie” that he cried. What impressed him – and moved him to tears – was de Vaux’s depiction of “the true social condition of women.”130 According to his interpretation, de Vaux was presenting the case for “the true emancipation” of her “sex” – an emancipation from the cares of work.131 Although less than three weeks before he had spoken out strongly against divorce, he now boasted of the relativistic strain in positivism that would enable him to make an exception and allow it in de Vaux and Lucie’s case.132 Yet he did not go further to alter the status quo. Overlooking Lucie’s conflicts, he was convinced that de Vaux was following the conservative principles of the Cours that supported marriage against the “deadly aberrations” of social reformers, who took their idea of female equality from Plato and other Greek metaphysicians.133 When Comte later appended “Lucie” to the dedication that he wrote to de Vaux in the first volume of the Syst`eme, he praised her “defense of the inviolable laws of elementary sociability,” which preserved the family. The most beautiful phrase in the story, according to him, was “It is unworthy for people with big hearts to spread the trouble they feel.”134 Thus Comte was attracted to her depiction of woman as a passive victim. Yet when he felt victimized, such as during his fights against the Academy of Science and the Ecole Polytechnique, he did not hesitate to lash out against the scientific establishment and spread trouble, especially in the “Personal Preface” to volume six of the Cours. It was only during the third reading of the story that it dawned on Comte that de Vaux was projecting her own sadness onto Lucie. Yet his interpretation was somewhat off the mark because he believed 129 130 131 132

133 134

Clotilde de Vaux, “Lucie,” CG, 3: 433, 437, 438. Comte to de Vaux, June 25, 1845, CG, 3:43. Comte, “Sixi`eme Confession annuelle,” May 30, 1851, CG, 6:95. Comte to de Vaux, June 6 and 23, 1845, CG, 3:38, 41–2. However, the republicans at Le National, seeking to make divorce an important political issue, criticized her for treating it in such a cursory manner. Comte to de Vaux, June 23, 1845, CG, 3:40; de Vaux to Comte, June 23, 1845, CG, 3:41; de Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 178. Comte to de Vaux, June 25, 1845, CG, 3:43. Syst`eme, 1:xii. See also “Lucie” in CG, 3:432.

162

Clotilde de Vaux and the Initial Encounter with Comte

that de Vaux was secretly describing her love for him. Calling her his “very dear Lucie,” he vowed to rival Maurice’s devotion. If one day I become free again, I am determined never to take any other wife but you, unless you do not accept me and I must remain alone. My heart sees . . . in you in reality a true friend, and, in my dreams of the future, a worthy wife.

In both cases, he promised to be pure, that is, chaste. De Vaux rejected his reading of her text. Emboldened by her success, she demanded that Comte respect her work. She wrote back angrily, “It is absolutely impossible for me to understand you. . . . Nothing is mysterious in my situation, and I have nothing more to confide [to you] than what I have told you.” She begged him once again to respect her commitment to her work. She had one “ambition” for the present and future, which consisted of making money by writing “interesting” stories.135 Thus once again, de Vaux tried to be strong in the face of Comte’s assaults. She had to prop up her ego in order to combat his, for she wanted to take control over her life and create her own story. Yet she did not wish to alienate him permanently; lacking other friends, especially female writer friends who might have bolstered her morale, and angry with her family for trying to limit her intellectually, she needed his support.136 By July 1845, Comte increased his visits to the Marie household from two to three times a week, yet he soon realized that he was becoming a nuisance. De Vaux took up his suggestion that he come by only on Mondays and Fridays. Carefully not committing herself, she promised to try to visit him in his apartment once a week. She warned him in advance not to visit her. Refusing to allow people to her apartment, she explained that she treasured her time alone. She unknowingly challenged the separation between spheres that emerged when work was no longer done in the house; she wrote, “I reserve my home for my workshop.”137 Foreshadowing the demands of such female literary figures as Virginia Woolf, she wanted, in other words, “a room of her own.” She called what she did at home her work in order to give value and meaning to her life. But Comte made light of her demand for independence; he insisted that he be allowed to see her “sanctuary,” a metaphor for her body.138 De Vaux was well aware of Comte’s physical desire for her; in one of her stories, a man 135 136 137 138

De Vaux to Comte, July 3, 1845, CG, 3:54–5; October 7, 1845, CG, 3:145. See also de Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 177. On the importance of a female network at this time, see Finch, Women’s Writing, 17–18. De Vaux to Comte, July 19, 1845, CG, 3:68. See also de Vaux to Comte, July 20, 1845, CG, 3:70. De Vaux to Comte, July 3, 19, 1845, CG, 3:55, 68; Comte to de Vaux, July 20, 1845, CG, 3:69.

De Vaux’s Search for a Room of Her Own

163

intrudes upon a woman in her “sanctuary” and talks her into having sex with him.139 Trying to keep their relationship on a different plane, de Vaux surprised Comte when she told him that Marrast had offered her the opportunity to write a weekly column for Le National. She was to discuss issues relating to education, particularly women’s education. This topic was important in the mid-nineteenth century, when many women were demanding the right to a better education as the first step to improving their condition and achieving sexual equality.140 Marrast’s job offers also reflects the fact that there were more women journalists as the number of female readers of magazines began to soar. Delphine Gay de Girardin, for example, wrote for La Presse, her husband’s newspaper.141 De Vaux decided to devote her first article to the “silliness and vices of religious education” – an article motivated by her own memory of the “abuses” she suffered as a student. Reflecting the growing importance of women writers, she was also assigned the task of reviewing their novels. She was delighted to have the chance not only to earn her living but to do meaningful work that allowed her to display her abilities. She yearned for fame, which would allow her to escape the “rut” in which she was stuck.142 De Vaux’s good fortune did not, however, please Comte. The battle between them now extended from their bodies to their minds, or psyches. De Vaux shared her contemporaries’ unease with accomplished women. On one hand, she boasted about not being flighty or flirtatious like other women, but on the other hand, she took pride in the fact that she had never been initiated into the “marvels of the square of the hypotenuse.” She deeply feared being called a pedant. Comte reinforced her insecurities to dissuade her from working at Le National. He warned her that the profession of journalism exerted a “disastrous influence,” for it would make her even more skeptical and critical than she already was.143 She risked turning into a femme auteur, who was linked in his mind to feminist demands for freedom and equality, domestic chaos, and political and social upheaval.144 Moreover, he argued that due to the “deplorable fecundity of our women writers,” de Vaux would have too much work to do. In other words, her writing would distract her from him. Emancipated women, such as the bluestockings, seemed to him unemotional and 139 140 141 142 143 144

Clotilde de Vaux, Willelmine (Paris: Edition positiviste, 1929), 7. James F. McMillan, Housewife or Harlot: The Place of Women in French Society 1870–1940 (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1981), 46. Finch, Women’s Writing, 130–31. De Vaux to Comte, July 20, October 16, 1845, CG, 3:69, 154. De Vaux to Comte, October 30, 1845, CG, 3:169; Comte to de Vaux, July 22, 1845, CG, 3:70. Bergman-Carton, The Woman of Ideas, 53, 87.

164

Clotilde de Vaux and the Initial Encounter with Comte

thus unfeminine. If Vaux became the reviewer of their books, she risked becoming “exposed to the cajoleries and animosities of the blue race [bluestockings]” and might pattern her own life after theirs. The unspoken evil in Comte’s diatribe was George Sand. She threatened Comte, who feared de Vaux might become impure by imitating her. Comte may have considered Sand’s love affairs scandalous, but ironically, he himself wanted sexual relations with de Vaux, which by his own standards were illicit. There was also a tinge of jealousy in Comte’s deprecating response, for success had recently eluded him, particularly in the field in which she was excelling. He had failed both to launch a positivist review and to publish his “Lettre philosophique sur la commemoration social” in Le National, the same newspaper that was printing her material. Railing against her appointment as quasi-minister of education, a job that “does not at all suit a woman,” Comte worried that if de Vaux wrote on the school system, which was a major, politically divisive issue, she would take on a public persona. Perhaps he felt slighted that he was not offered the job, for he suggested that he knew a great deal more about the topic than she and even planned to write a book on education once he finished the Syst`eme. Now she would wield more influence through her pen than he did. Moreover, his considerable displeasure at de Vaux’s being given the “entire feminine critique of Le National” betrays his fear that she might convert to the women’s movement, which posed a danger to positivism by taking away potential supporters.145 Another source of irritation was Marrast’s power over de Vaux. Comte and Marrast had been good friends in the 1830s. It was Marrast, in fact, who brought Comte and Mill together. Yet the two men had become increasingly estranged. Marrast was more to the left politically, and he supported Arago and the left-leaning professors at the Ecole Polytechnique whom Comte accused of persecuting him. Moreover, Comte suspected Marrast of having made advances to his wife. Indeed, once again he and Marrast were sexual rivals. A handsome man with a dashing moustache and dandy-style clothes, Marrast, according to Charles de Rouvre, was the man with whom de Vaux had been in love for the past two years. She had met him through her brother Max, who was active in the circle of left-wing journalists.146 145

146

Comte to de Vaux, July 22, 1845 and January 29, 1846, CG 3: 70, 72, 74, 308. On the growing popularity of journalism among women writers, see Smith, Changing Lives, 210. On the association between the private and the feminine, see Gary Kelly, Women, Writing, and Revolution 1790–1827 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 10. In 1843, Max worked for La R´eforme, a left-wing journal founded by, among others, Godefroy Cavaignac, who was one of Marrast’s republican colleagues. As a new recruit to the anti-government movement, Max was introduced to Marrast, and the two men

A New Closeness between de Vaux and Comte

165

But Marrast, who was married to an English woman, did not pay her much heed until he learned of Comte’s interest in her and decided to spite him. De Vaux was in a quandary as to what she should do; she opposed adultery and Marrast’s unchivalrous maneuvers, yet she needed him to help her achieve literary success. Her case was typical of many women of the time. Once they began to seek freedom in the public sphere, men assumed they wanted sexual freedom as well. Some men wanted them to prostitute themselves, in effect, to degrade themselves, to achieve their goal. De Vaux’s refusal to go to bed with Marrast when he came to her apartment to discuss “Lucie” may have been one reason that he denied her request to publish Comte’s “Sainte-Clotilde.” Having punished both de Vaux and Comte on that score, he now offered her the job of covering women’s issues for Le National in another attempt to possess her. Perhaps surmising the true intent of Marrast’s ploy, Comte tried to discredit him by calling him untalented, weak, frivolous, and emotionally superficial.147 De Vaux dismissed Comte’s derogatory remarks and immediately set to work on her first article. Comte suffered a relapse in late July and once again delayed beginning the Syst`eme. a new clo se ne ss betwe e n de vaux and comte Trying to find the courage to write his introduction, Comte sent an important letter to de Vaux on August 5 to express his “eternal gratitude” for the “permanent” mark she had left on his work. This letter extended his reflections of mid-May and was supplemented by another letter in October, all of which underscored her role in his life. To give her an idea of her impact, these letters provided her with an autobiographical portrait, which reveals that he was reconstructing his own “philosophic evolution” and struggling to put his second work on the same level of importance as his first. Comte explained that in his youth, he had thought the spiritual reorganization of society was one operation. Soon he realized that it comprised two parts, one relating to the reorganization of ideas and the other involving the reorganization of feelings. Thus his own development had to be divided into “two great epochs.” The first was primarily “mental, where the social point of view” dominated “only as the principal source” of the intellectual systematization. The second was principally “social” and

147

became friends. De Rouvre heard this piece of information about Marrast and Clotilde de Vaux from his grandmother, F´elicie. Th´erive doubted the story. De Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 161–3; Th´erive, Clotilde de Vaux, 106–9. Comte to de Vaux, July 22, 1845, CG 3:71.

166

Clotilde de Vaux and the Initial Encounter with Comte

consisted of reconstructing “the moral life of Humanity” based on the doctrine established in the first epoch.148 In this second part, feelings would play as important a role as intelligence. The reconstruction of human actions, that is, political and institutional reform, would come later. The sequence of developments was important, because systematizing feelings before ideas would have led to mysticism, vagueness, and anarchy. Comte suggested to Mill that his understanding of his mission was new, for he had not previously recognized the need for the nineteenth century to systematize both ideas and sentiments.149 But in truth, he attributed much influence to de Vaux in order to dramatize her impact on him. Even he admitted in his letter to her that he was finally returning to the incomplete work of his youth, where he had tried prematurely to effect the spiritual, or moral, reorganization of modern societies, which he had hoped would lead to the reconstruction of their political systems. He had abandoned his efforts because he decided, before ever meeting de Vaux, that reconstruction had to be first intellectual, then moral, and finally political and social.150 Thus in a sense, the path of his evolution was more a circular return than a linear progression. He had always believed that the second part of his mission would involve the moral aspects of social regeneration. Despite giving her the sense that he had experienced a significant revelation, Comte also acknowledged to de Vaux that he had always thought emotions were important. In truth, already in 1818, in a letter to Valat, Comte had commended Destutt de Tracy for pointing out that “tender affections” are “the source of the greatest happiness.”151 Increasing the “general happiness” was the goal of both morality and politics, which should no longer be considered distinct.152 The importance of the affections and morality was later proclaimed throughout the last lessons of the Cours. These last chapters as well as the events of 1842, particularly the writing of the personal preface and the experience of the trial, had shown that Comte was thoroughly convinced that the superiority of positivism was not only intellectual but moral. One of the most salient statements at the end of the Cours was his declaration that “true philosophers” had to present an example of the moral attributes of positivism, for they were the “natural precursors of humanity.”153 Comte’s evolution was marked, therefore, more by the continuity between the two great epochs in his life than by any abrupt break. 148 149 151 152 153

Comte to de Vaux, August 5, 1845, CG, 3:78, 80. Comte to Mill, July 14, 1845, CG, 3:60–61. 150 Syst`eme, vol. 4, “Appendice,” 80. Comte to Valat, May 15, 1818, CG, 1:33. Auguste Comte, “De la Division qui a exist´e jusqu’`a pr´esent entre la morale et la politique (1819),” Ecrits, 471. Cours, 2:779.

A New Closeness between de Vaux and Comte

167

But as a vibrant individual, he continued to develop and needed to feel he was in a constant process of evolution so that his ideas did not seem stagnant. Comte presented his private life as divided into two parts, coinciding with the two parts of his philosophical career. The first part of his private life was marked by “emotional lacunae” due to his unfulfilling domestic existence.154 But this want did not much affect his public life because his work at that time was primarily intellectual. However, now that his work was to focus on morality and involve the heart more than the mind, he felt it required emotional growth – the kind of emotional growth that de Vaux was conveniently giving him. He believed that her love was making him a better person. He was “more just” toward everyone, including his “inferiors” and his “enemies.”155 For the first time, his “personal affections” were improving his “social activity,” and his “private life” was in harmony with his “public life.”156 As mentioned before, he more fully realized that the domestic sphere was not completely separate from the public sphere. Thus de Vaux was important for improving his work, developing his personal happiness, and making his behavior more moral. Indeed, he made her into a paragon of morality, a perfect woman to reflect his own worth. Comte was, in truth, using her. “After having already conceived all human ideas, it now is necessary for me to experience also all sentiments, even those which are painful: this is a . . . condition [that is] naturally prescribed to all the regenerators of Humanity.” He could then develop “the moral grandeur of man in every sense.”157 As revealed in his fights over her literary career, Comte did not appreciate de Vaux as an individual with hopes and aspirations of her own. She existed only in so far as she played the role he had sketched for her in his own personal drama. And this role had been set long before he met her, for in the Cours he had already referred to the need for women to help the spiritual power.158 Comte used remarkably religious language to express his feelings of devotion to this muse who sparked his “best inspirations” and was the foundation of his “security.” As early as August 26, he called the red chair she used when she first visited him an “altar,” and he would often kneel down in front of it, reliving the significant moments in their relationship.159 When far from her, he wished he could prostrate himself before her and cry “tears of gratitude and joy” at her feet as 154 155 156 159

Comte to de Vaux, August 5, 1845, CG, 3:81–2. Comte to de Vaux, October 8, 1845, CG, 3: 146. Comte to de Vaux, August 5, 1845, CG, 3:78–9. 157 Ibid., 84. 158 Cours, 2:300. Comte to de Vaux, August 26, September 5, 1845, CG, 3:95, 107. See also Testament (1896 ed.), 19. The chair still exists in Comte’s apartment, which has been made into a museum. It is located on 10, rue Monsieur le Prince.

168

Clotilde de Vaux and the Initial Encounter with Comte

if she were a goddess.160 With her “divine ascendancy” over him, she was responsible for his “moral resurrection,” for he had to rid himself of all evil to be worthy of her love.161 Thanks to her, he had experienced “all that there is of most pure and most profound in human sentiments.”162 Comte was soon pleased to discover that de Vaux needed him, at least monetarily. She had a mounting pile of bills from her pharmacy and doctor, which she could not pay because she had spent all of her uncle’s money. Not wanting to look impoverished, she also had to have a new dress to wear to the baptism of Max and F´elicie’s new baby. On August 11, she coyly asked Comte for a loan, cleverly using religious language. I do not really know whether or not I am making you play a little the role of God toward me; but I believe you are so sensitive and good that I am going to ask you to do me a little favor as an intimate friend. I am undergoing a costly treatment which makes things a little tight for me but will probably be valuable; could you lend me fifty francs for several weeks, [for] they will help me make a name for myself at Le National.163

Carefully emphasizing her poor health and desire for a successful career instead of referring to her sartorial longings, de Vaux shamelessly flattered Comte to get him to help her. Such flattery went a long way with him. Although he had lost his main position at the Ecole Polytechnique and he knew that his English patrons were not eager to renew their subsidy in September, he obligingly told her to regard his “purse” as hers.164 If he began to have problems, he assumed he could go back to teaching in another capacity or find wealthy, powerful supporters. Questions of money were beneath his dignity. This insouciance was not shared by de Vaux, who depended entirely on family members for her daily existence and had not developed a network of friends or skills that she could fall back on in case of need. Her request for money from Comte proved compromising. Comte recognized that his economic power gave him more control over her than his intellectual superiority. At least if she was financially indebted to him, he had the right to see her. He demanded that she not tell her parents about his loans so they would not come up with the money. He wanted her all to himself. She was outraged but could 160 161 162 163 164

Comte to de Vaux, August 26, 1845, CG, 3:95. Comte to de Vaux, November 16, 1845, CG, 3:197; Comte to de Vaux, October 29, 1845, CG, 3:167. Comte to de Vaux, December 7, 1845, CG, 3:223. De Vaux to Comte, August 11, 1845, CG, 3:91. See also de Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 196–8. Comte to de Vaux, September 26, 1845, CG, 3:136.

A New Closeness between de Vaux and Comte

169

do nothing. Her lack of resources almost forced her to prostitute herself to him in order to save her life and self-esteem. She was not, however, the first woman to come to him with needs dictated by society’s unequal treatment of women. According to his statement in his Testament, which was published after his death, he had agreed to marry Massin, who had been abandoned by her family, because she felt obliged to turn to prostitution to support herself. This story may not be true. However, it reveals at the very least his penchant for representing himself as a savior of women in need. Control was of key importance to him. In early June, F´elicie, Max’s wife, had given birth to a son. Comte was given the “sacred engagement” to be his godfather and immediately tried to impose his own set of names on the child – names that would refer to models of behavior.165 Comte recommended three names: Paul, Charles, and Auguste. These names were significant, for they reflected his view of his own mission. Paul was Saint Paul, the apostle whom Comte considered the true founder of Christianity. Charles referred to Charlemagne, whom Comte called the “historical founder of the Western republic.”166 And Auguste was Comte himself. He would be the man who would complete the work of Paul and Charlemagne. Positivism would not, therefore, represent a break with the past. Max and his wife took Comte’s suggestions seriously and named their son Charles-Paul-Auguste-Maximilien-L´eon Marie. L´eon, which became the baby’s everyday name, was a reference to Max and Clotilde’s brother.167 The baptism of little L´eon gave Comte the opportunity to fulfill his “need for domestic emotions.”168 Besides being pleased to pretend he was a father and choose names for an offspring, Comte was enraptured to have the chance to play another role, that of the husband. Because de Vaux was to be the godmother, he imagined that the baptismal ceremony was a substitute for the marriage rite they could never have. It somehow linked them in a mystical union, where she would be his “spiritual wife.”169 And little L´eon would become the child they could not have.170 As Comte explained to F´elicie in his “Lettre philosophique sur l’appr´eciation sociale du baptˆeme chr´etien,” which he sent to her 165 167

168 169 170

Comte to de Vaux, June 25, 1845, CG, 3:42. 166 Syst`eme, 1:386. L´eon became an artillery officer and eventually died in an expedition in Tonkin around 1885. F´elict´e and Max had two other sons. The second died very early. The youngest, who became a captain in the artillery, died in 1884 at the age of thirty-two in a dispute over a woman. De Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 202–3; Arnaud, CG, 3:393, note CCXCI; baptismal certificate of L´eon Marie, MAC. The certificate was in the MAC in the early 1980s, but in 2007 it was misplaced. Comte to de Vaux, June 25, 1845, CG, 3:42–3. Comte to de Vaux, September 2, 1845, CG, 3:102. Comte to de Vaux, June 25, 1845, CG, 3:43.

170

Clotilde de Vaux and the Initial Encounter with Comte

in late August, this baptism would make his friendship with de Vaux “more intimate and sacred.”171 Comte’s language alarmed the Marie family, who received him with marked coldness during his next visit. De Vaux scolded him, suggesting that “every sentiment”– even “the most pure”–hides a fundamental egoism.172 Comte found her warning incomprehensible. But she seemed to understand that she was becoming a pawn in a war between her family and Comte, both of whom wanted her for themselves. Limiting Comte’s visits to Fridays, Clotilde chose to be loyal to her mother. Their relationship was a loving, but difficult one because Henriette was a rigid, austere individual.173 De Vaux portrayed some of the sources of tension in their relationship in her short story, where she has Maurice’s mother at first object to his love for Lucie because it went against “duty” and “honor,” aristocratic values that were held by Henriette as well. De Vaux knew that the declaration of these values was at least partly self-serving. She had Maurice write to a friend, “For the first time, I glimpsed what was bitter and implacable in feminine rivalries.”174 The issue was not so much social prejudice but the fact that Maurice’s mother was jealous of the passion between the younger couple. Likewise, Henriette was fearful of losing de Vaux to Comte. Having been initially closer to Comte than de Vaux had been, she was perhaps resentful that he found her daughter more appealing. Clotilde was aware of the unspoken in their relationship. Reflecting the fact that she felt stifled by her mother’s love and desire to retain power over her, she told Comte, “My mother has concentrated her tenderness and devotion too much on us not to fear that we will escape from her in some way. My situation has only increased her tendency in this direction; and although it makes me often unhappy, I respect it by going back to its source.”175 She seemed resigned to her mother’s possessiveness. Comte, showing that he was just as possessive, railed against Henriette’s “affectionate empire.” He worried that she would win the battle and deter de Vaux from visiting him. Although de Vaux had promised six weeks before to visit him once a week on Wednesdays, she had come only twice. And one of those visits was to get the fifty francs Comte promised to lend to her. Comte begged her to visit him more often, for their conversations were “indispensable” to his “heart.”176 On Wednesday, September 3, the baptismal ceremony took place in a chapel of the Church of St. Paul on rue Saint-Antoine in the Marais. 171 172 173 175 176

“Lettre philosophique sur l’appr´eciation sociale du baptˆeme chr´etien,” CG, 3:100. De Vaux to Comte, September 1, 1845, CG, 3:101. De Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 2. 174 “Lucie,” 430. De Vaux to Comte, September 2, 1845, CG, 3:103. Comte to de Vaux, September 2, 1845, CG, 3:104–5.

A New Closeness between de Vaux and Comte

171

Comte spent 215 francs on transportation, clothes, and gifts, including a glove box for Vaux, which would one day contain their correspondence.177 Comte initially believed the ceremony represented the happy culmination of his relationship with the Marie family, but in truth it marked the beginning of the decline of their friendship.178 Imagining that the baptism served as his marriage ceremony, Comte held de Vaux’s hand throughout the ceremony, then kissed her cheek. De Vaux likewise gave Comte a kiss. Comte, always ready to find symbolic meaning in her every gesture, took her “holy kiss” to be a sign of his triumph over her family and over her own scruples. He smugly remarked that it sealed their “happy spiritual wedding” in front of her entire family.179 At the end of the festive champagne dinner afterwards, he gave her yet another kiss. De Vaux had not much choice in the matter because of her desperate need for money.180 Henriette began to worry more about her daughter’s relationship with this man. Sensing the tension with de Vaux’s mother and aware that his visits were henceforth strictly limited to Fridays, Comte began to fear that “the most precious bond” of his “moral existence” was about to be cut off. His physical and mental health, which had slightly improved since early August, once again deteriorated; he was disturbed by convulsions, “insomnia,” and a “profound melancholy,” which were the same symptoms he experienced in May.181 His problems were aggravated by his acute financial troubles and the mental strain caused by working on the first volume of the Syst`eme, which he started in August and hoped to complete by November.182 After finishing on August 26 the “interesting” introduction, where he stressed that affective life was “the center of all human existence” and that love was socially supreme over force and intelligence, he was disheartened by his plan for the rest of the first volume, which was to treat solely logic.183 177

178 179 180 181 182

183

Comte bought for the Maries a silver coffee pot for one hundred francs as a gift. See “Baptˆeme: Rel`eve des d´epenses du baptˆeme du filleul d’Auguste Comte,” August 28. 1845, MAC; no author, “Achats et reparations d’objets et de meubles,” MAC. This list appears to be pulled from Comte’s notebooks of expenses for every year, which are in the archives of the MAC. See notebook entitled “Recettes et d´epenses courantes,” MAC. See also Testament (1896 ed.), 15n1. De Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 203. Comte to de Vaux, September 5, 1845, CG, 3:106. De Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 203. Comte to de Vaux, September 5, 1845, CG, 3:106. Comte to Mill, August 8, 1845, CG, 3:88. Comte did not start writing until August 18, 1845. See his records of his work, in Pierre Laffitte, ed., “Mat´eriaux pour servir a` la biographie d’Auguste Comte: Du Temps dans le travail intellectuel,” RO 6 (November 1888): 442. Comte to de Vaux, September 14, 1845, CG, 3:126; Comte to de Vaux, August 26, 1845, CG, 3:97.

172

Clotilde de Vaux and the Initial Encounter with Comte

While infatuated with de Vaux, he found it impossible to write a dry volume where his “affections” could not “aid” his thoughts.184 the problem of sex De Vaux, too, felt great inner turmoil after the baptism, for it made her acutely aware of the fact that she herself would never have a child. She asked Comte for his help. “Since my bad fortune, my only dream has been maternity, and I have always promised myself to associate in this role only a distinguished man, one who was worthy enough to understand it. If you believe you can accept all the responsibilities that are attached to family life, tell me, and I will decide my fate.”185 Just as he was using her, she decided to exploit him. She needed not only his money but his procreative power. Perhaps she wanted a sexual relationship as well. All this talk about maternity was a way to make her own sexual urges more ennobling and ladylike.186 Reading the “divine letter” on his knees before the “domestic altar” (her red chair), Comte was stupified.187 He praised sex as the “most extreme,” “natural,” and “irrevocable” guarantee of their commitment to each other.188 A close reading of their correspondence reveals that neither de Vaux nor Comte felt comfortable about adultery. Going against his own precepts, Comte rationalized that he and de Vaux had “morally exceptional rights” to go against the “sacred” rules of society and that marriage ceremonies were “really indispensable” only for the masses. Because he was constructing a humanistic philosophy, he needed to feel even vulgar drives to deepen his understanding of everyman. Nevertheless, he revealed his unease when he ordered de Vaux never to discuss their affair in public. De Vaux also had second thoughts. The impropriety of an affair might estrange her from her family, upon whom she depended completely for financial support. She was not at all attracted to Comte, who was old, poor, and sick. While Comte in his letters sometimes referred to her as “my adorable wife,” she could bring herself to write only “my tender old man [p`ere].”189 De Vaux arrived at Comte’s apartment on September 7, still perplexed as to the best course of action. Comte made every effort not to throw himself upon her. After a few moments, she recognized her 184 185 186 187 188 189

Comte to de Vaux, September 14, 1845, CG, 3:126. De Vaux to Comte, September 5, 1845, CG, 3:108. De Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 216. Comte to de Vaux, September 6, 1845, CG, 3:109; Testament (1896 ed.), 19. Comte to de Vaux, September 6, 1845, CG, 3:109; Comte to de Vaux, September 8, 1845, CG, 3:112. De Vaux to Comte, September 6, 1845, CG, 3:109–10, 112.

The Problem of Sex

173

imprudence; she knew she was “incapable of giving” herself “without love.” Her overwhelming desire for children suddenly disappeared. Telling Comte she would see him only at her mother’s apartment, she walked out. She warned him not “to abuse the power” that she had given him. Furious and in a state of collapse, Comte felt victimized by her power, the power she had over her body: “What! Friday you spontaneously made me the unforeseen promise of imminent happiness, Saturday you confirmed it, Sunday, you avoided it, and Monday, you took it back! Aren’t you abusing a little the feminine privilege?” He had paid for this pleasure by lending her money. In a letter to her, he renewed his demands for sex, the “sacred seal” of their closeness. De Vaux accused him of planning to rape her: If you constrained me, by whatever means possible, to yield to you on this point in question, I would never see you again. You do not know to what degree of exasperation violence of this type would push me; a woman who has been continent for a long time can give herself [to a man] only with enthusiasm or the resolution to become a mother.

Reminding him to treat her as a mature woman instead of a “little girl,” she added, sarcastically, “I know myself better than the leading scholar of the world.”190 De Vaux was not moved by the rhetoric of Comte’s arguments. All his talk about his “rights” or “sacrifices” was nonsense, for such ideas were “illusory.” Moreover, if, as he claimed, he found continence harmful, he should use his “manly powers” to control himself or find some other outlet besides her.191 De Vaux’s rejection of his advances caused him to experience another collapse, which sent him to bed. In the romantic language of the period, he wrote, “Almost insensitive to reversals of fortune, and even to wounds to my self-esteem, I feel very weak against all the pains of the heart.”192 To avoid straining his mind while his emotions were in turmoil, he immediately stopped working on the frustratingly dull first volume of the Syst`eme.193 De Vaux then gave Comte permission to visit her at her family’s again on Mondays and Fridays, indicating that she could not cut off her ties with him completely. In fact, she borrowed another fifty francs 190

191 192 193

De Vaux to Comte, September 8, 9, 1845, CG, 3:114, 116, 119–20; Comte to de Vaux, September 9, 1845, CG, 3:115, 116. See also his letter to her where he wants to see her as a “little girl.” Comte to de Vaux, October 10, 1845, CG, 3:149. De Vaux to Comte, September 9, 1845, CG, 3:119, 120. Comte to de Vaux, September 14, 1845, CG, 3:126. He stopped work on it on September 23, 1845. See Comte to de Vaux, September 10, 1845 and September 14, 1845, CG, 3:122, 126; Comte to Mme Marie, September 12, 1845, CG, 3:123. See also his records of his work, in Laffitte, ed., “Du Temps dans le travail intellectuel,” 442.

174

Clotilde de Vaux and the Initial Encounter with Comte

from him around the time of this episode.194 Moreover, in intellectual matters, which were important to her, she felt “privileged” to know him: “I experience pleasure in being able to be myself from time to time, and I feel that when I am near you I can think on a more elevated plane.”195 In addition, he made her feel that her work was important to his own, which was crucial to the salvation of humanity. Both of them studied human nature but in a complementary fashion. Her novels focused on the emotions of private life, whereas his work embraced “the collective life of Humanity,” which had more to do with intellectual speculation and material activity.196 De Vaux also needed Comte’s moral support and advice. With her family trying to limit her success, she viewed Comte as her only confidant.197 It is not by chance that Comte lent her the M´emoires of Mme de Motteville, the confidant of Queen Anne of Austria.198 To encourage her writing, he also lent her books by Madame de Lafayette, Madame Roland, and even George Sand.199 As he became her only real friend, De Vaux did begin to feel some genuine affection for Comte. She said repeatedly that she found him “the best of men and the most just.” He made her “very happy.”200 In late September, she even boldly cut off a lock of her hair at one of her visits to prove her gratitude for his attachment.201 It became part of his worship of her, for he placed it on the “altar” in front of which he prostrated himself every morning. Playing with his emotions, she must have known that such an act would raise his hopes once again for some bigger prize. On September 30, she flattered him by calling him a “perfect man” and asked him for another hundred francs.202 This large sum was, in a sense, his payment for her hair, which was in turn a substitute for her body. Although initially she had sought to keep gender out of their relationship, she now reminded him of her gendered self, engaging in a minor game of prostitution so that she could continue to work. De Vaux hated this game, but she was driven by her “need and love of independence.” Using the rhetoric of women’s rights activists, she astutely realized that she needed to write to gain financial independence, which represented the key to her personal “emancipation.” 194 195 196 197 199

200 201 202

De Vaux to Comte, September 25, 1845, CG, 3:135. De Vaux to Comte, February 12, 1846, CG, 3:318. Comte to de Vaux, September 16, 1845, CG, 3:130. De Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 222. 198 See Pierre Arnaud, CG, 3:401n315. The book by George Sand was volume fifteen – M´elanges – of the Oeuvres compl`etes of 1843. It contained Lettres a` Marcie. See “Liste des livres figurant dans la biblioth`eque d’Auguste Comte a` son d´ec`es et prˆet´es par celui-ci a` Clotilde de Vaux,” MAC. De Vaux to Comte, December 8, 1845, CG, 3:224. She first sent him a lock of her hair to cheer him up, but it never arrived. De Vaux to Comte, September 25, 1845, CG, 3:134. De Vaux to Comte, September 30, 1845, CG, 3:139; Comte to de Vaux, October 25, 1845, CG, 3:163.

Willelmine

175

She yearned for freedom from her relatives and others like Marrast and Comte, who gave her favors in return for her dependence. Money would give her the power “to be able to say ‘I want.’”203 wille lmine Her hopes were partly dashed in early October. Marrast rescinded his offer to make her a columnist for Le National, after having read her trial articles and received her refusal to engage in a more intimate collaboration. Not a leftist like her publisher, she confronted the difficult task faced by all French journalists at the time, that of matching her style and outlook to the newspaper for which she worked while remaining true to her own opinions and thus maintaining her integrity.204 As a woman, she also had to struggle to preserve her honor in the complex world of sexual politics. Incensed by Marrast’s decision to dismiss her, she felt “malice” in his handshakes.205 Nevertheless, she hoped that he would print excerpts of Willelmine, the new novel which she was writing, and that these excerpts would attract a publisher. Then perhaps she could find a job as a journalist. The more she wrote, the more she developed “a taste for the profession.”206 Growing in self-confidence, de Vaux was bolder in Willelmine than in her previous work. She adopted a public authorial voice, dropping the epistolary form used in “Lucie.” Willelmine is the principal narrative voice and tells the tale in the first person. During the midnineteenth century, it was still relatively rare for a woman writer to displace the traditional male subject, to make her female character the center of the narrative, and to write an autobiographical novel.207 Yet, de Vaux had a desperate drive to succeed and tell her story. She knew that her perennial problems with poor health might cut short the time she had to achieve her goal. The book originated in her desire to challenge George Sand. In August, Comte had lent de Vaux Sand’s Lettres a` Marcie, which he, Blainville, and several other friends had discussed one evening in 1844.208 Although he admired Sand’s eloquence and talent, he had considered her a danger to society for years, and this book struck 203 204 205 206 207 208

De Vaux to Comte, July 3, October 7, November 11, 1845, CG, 3:55, 145, 186. William M. Reddy, “Condottieri of the Pen: Journalists and the Public Sphere in Postrevolutionary France (1815–1850),” American Historical Review 99 (1994): 1556. De Vaux to Comte, September 27, 1845, CG, 3:137. De Vaux to Comte, November 11, 1845, CG, 3:187. Susan Sniader Lanser, Fictions of Authority: Women Writers and Narrative Voice (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992), 175, 177. See letter from Barbot de Chement to Comte, December 19, 1844. Barbot de Chement was also at this soir´ee, which was held at Blainville’s apartment. Apparently, Blainville had read the book and pointed out its aesthetic merits. Comte read it afterwards.

176

Clotilde de Vaux and the Initial Encounter with Comte

him as full of “dangerous paradoxes.”209 It was a compilation of the series of six articles, or “letters,” that Sand had contributed in 1837 to Lamennais’s journal, Le Monde, after he had requested her views on the “woman question.”210 Marcie, the fictional character, is an intelligent, beautiful, loving young woman, who fears that her poverty and lack of a dowry make it impossible for her to find a suitable spouse. Influenced by Saint-Simonianism, she wants a “male role in society” and lashes out at society for unjustly squelching her ambition.211 In response to her request for suggestions on how to deal with her loneliness and probable spinsterhood, a male friend addresses her these letters, giving her contradictory advice. On the one hand, he tells her it is better to stay celibate and become a writer than to enter a loveless marriage to a mediocre man who has the right to rule her.212 At other times, he advises her to wait for a suitable man to marry, although the possibility of such a man emerging was remote. It is difficult to ascertain Sand’s position on the “woman question” in the Lettres a` Marcie, especially because it is incomplete and shows the effects of Lamennais’s editing. (He cut out parts of letter three that criticized marriage.) When Lamennais refused to allow Sand to suggest the importance of separation and divorce in the seventh letter, she stopped the series with the sixth letter.213 Sand favored divorce by mutual consent but was most interested in fixing marriage to make divorce unnecessary.214 Francine Mallet explains, “Lettres a` Marcie aims to reinforce the autonomy of the married woman within marriage and guarantee her rights over her children.”215 Critical of gender relations in marriage and marital laws, Sand lashed out at men, who degraded women, especially by giving them a “deplorable education,” which ensured their inferiority.216 Sand seemed to argue that women should have the right to an education and the freedom to choose to pursue 209 210 211 212 213

214 215 216

Comte, “D´edicace,” CG, 4:55. See also for example his comments in the dedication to the Syst`eme, CG, 4:55. The six letters appeared between February 12 and March 27, 1837. Kristina Wing˚ard Vareille, Socialit´e, sexualit´e et les impasses de l’histoire: l’Evolution de la th´ematique sandienne d’Indiana (1832) a` Mauprat (1837) (Stockholm: Uppsala, 1987), 407. George Sand, Lettres a` Marcie, in Sand, Les Sept Cordes de la lyre (Paris: Michel L´evy Fr`eres, 1869), 173, 174. See also Vareille, Socialit´e, 407. The only “remedy for bloody injustices, ceaseless misery, and passions without any remedy which trouble the union of the sexes” is “the liberty to break and remake the conjugal union.” George Sand to Lamennais, February 28, 1837, in George Sand, Correspondance, ed. Georges Lubin, vol. 3 (Paris: Garnier Fr`eres, 1967), 711–14. For information on the discord between Sand and Lamennais, see Vareille, Socialit´e, 493–7; Joseph Barry, Infamous Woman: The Life of George Sand (Garden City, Doubleday, 1977), 223. Francine Mallet, George Sand (Paris: Bernard Grasset, 1995), 125. Mallet, George Sand, 126. Sand, Lettres, 230. On Sand’s concept of education as leading to equality, see Vareille, Socialit´e, 374–80.

Willelmine

177

a creative, fulfilling career and gain equality with men before the law. Yet as one critic put it, Sand was a “feminine reactionary,” for in her book she severely condemned adherents of the women’s rights movement (presumably the Saint-Simonian women) for being too aggressive in the public sphere and dismissive of the sanctity of marriage and motherhood. Women, Sand suggested, should at the moment be moderate, patient, and kind; they should courageously demand civil equality in marriage and the family, instead of militantly claiming their political rights, such as the right to vote, or the right to practice a profession. Their right to work was undeniable but would be attained later, once society was changed.217 Her position was indeed “paradoxical,” as a recent biographer put it.218 Comte gave de Vaux the book because he knew she would identify with Marcie, an unhappy intelligent woman struggling to succeed in the public sphere and unable to experience a true marriage and motherhood, which Sand considered essential to women’s fulfillment.219 Seeking to undermine de Vaux, he also wanted to underscore the dangers of devoting herself to a career. “True social principles” had to be defended against the “vulgar anarchical utopias” epitomized by Sand, who supported the socialism of her friend Pierre Leroux and had numerous love affairs.220 In early 1845, she had written a novel called Le P´ech´e de Monsieur Antoine, which expressed communist ideas.221 De Vaux, Comte proclaimed, could be “the woman destined to repair . . . the moral ravages resulting today from the deplorable use of a beautiful feminine talent.”222 Considering Sand a sexual libertine, de Vaux enjoyed reading Sand’s “eloquent refutation of herself,” especially on the issue of marriage. She took up Comte’s challenge and devoted herself to a story discrediting the idea of the independent, creative woman, toward which Sand had shown such “strange” ambivalence.223 Willelmine is a roman d’education. Willelmine, a repentant feminist, explains that she was originally taught to seek independence by her 217

218 219 220 221 222 223

Cate, George Sand, 419. See also Sand, Lettres a` Marcie, 230. On Sand’s feminism, see also Mallet, George Sand, 120–29; Naomi Schor, “Feminism and George Sand: Lettres a` Marcie,” in Feminists Theorize the Political, ed. Judith Butler and Joan W. Scott (New York: Routledge, 1992), 41–53. Belinda Jack, George Sand: A Woman’s Life Writ Large (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2000), 352. Mallet, George Sand, 126. Comte to de Vaux, Janaury 9, 1846, CG, 3:272. On her relationship with Leroux, see Mallet, George Sand, 117. Michelle Perrot, introduction to Politique et pol´emiques (1843–1850), by George Sand (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1997), 22. Comte to de Vaux, August 11, 1845, CG, 3:92. See also Comte to Barbot de Chement, September 13, 1846, CG, 4:42. De Vaux to Comte, August 7, 1845, CG, 3:86.

178

Clotilde de Vaux and the Initial Encounter with Comte

widowed mother, who was reacting against the poor treatment she received from Willelmine’s father. As I grew up, . . . [my mother] spoke to me about the happiness that a woman can find in an exceptional destiny. She showed me the glory that I would enjoy in obtaining the instruction and insights that are prohibited to my sex. Soon she depicted men and marriage to me in an odious light.

Whereas Sand criticized the limited education that men permitted women to receive, de Vaux suggested that Willelmine’s extensive range of studies, including the sciences, had repressed her emotions and turned her against the “true role” of women. Continuing to relate her life’s story, Willelmine reveals that she eventually became a celebrated writer devoted to the cause of women’s independence – “the only truly noble and grand sentiment that there is in us.” Her works also displayed a sincere interest in the downtrodden. When not involved in social crusades, Willelmine led a self-indulgent, decadent life and caused a scandal wherever she went. In rebelling against society and adopting the roles of novelist and poet, Willelmine represented, in effect, George Sand herself, the kind of woman Marcie was considering becoming. De Vaux had Sand’s affair with Alfred de Musset in mind when she depicted Willelmine’s involvement with another famous writer, Raoul. Willelmine’s lover turned out to be a shallow opportunist. When Raoul completely abandoned Willelmine one day, leaving evidence that he sought to peddle her love letters, she went mad. She was rescued from her asylum by a wealthy, conservative man who brought her to live with his widowed sister and niece in the country, where she could convalesce. De Vaux never finished the book, but she intended to make Willelmine realize her errors. Willelmine would return to “the tranquility and full life of the family,” recognize the importance of the roles of wife and mother, and “accept social institutions with their good and bad points.” Willelmine would, in addition, eschew her previous intellectual proclivities and adopt the “philosophy of the heart,” one that connoted loving “humanity for itself, without fear of the boiling pot down below,” that is, the lower classes. In its stress on women’s dependence on men, their emotional nature, and their intrinsic “need for protection,” Willelmine thus represented a diatribe against the liberated woman and the concept of free love. It was, as de Vaux put it, a “useful” critique of Sand.224 Like Lucie, Willelmine cannot be considered great literature. With Willelmine fainting on almost every page, the book is far too melodramatic. It is clear that de Vaux was copying other romantic novelists besides George Sand. Willelmine referred to the “delicious and 224

De Vaux, Willelmine, 2, 4, 23, 25; de Vaux to Comte, August 11, and October 30, 1845, CG, 3:91, 169; de Vaux to Comte, October 30, 1845, CG, 3:169.

Willelmine

179

terrible tears” that she shed in reading Goethe’s Sorrows of Young Werther, and Werther’s suicide evidently inspired her own attempt to kill herself. Willelmine also announced that she shared the “tender and sad emotions” of Paul, who watched his sister die in Paul et Virginie.225 Similar in its pathos to Werther, the novel was written by Jacques-Henri Bernardin de St. Pierre, one of the most popular writers of the literature of sensibilit´e.226 Willelmine’s recounting of her life to Sax is in an eighteenth-century style and is similar to Rousseau’s Confessions.227 Besides its derivative character, another problem with the book is that neither Willelmine nor any of the other main characters are well-delineated or convincing. Moreover, there are too many other characters and incidents that detract from the narrative line. Finally, the theme of the dangers of challenging social mores is developed in a flat-footed manner. For example, de Vaux described Willelmine’s lover, Raoul, as barren and devoid of feeling because of his leftist political stance. Feminism, as embodied in Willelmine’s mother, is likewise associated with the denial of feelings and nature, especially the nature of women. To improve the manuscript, Comte gave de Vaux all sorts of advice, from choosing the name of the characters to making the narrative line more convincing.228 His influence is apparent in the section where Willelmine, having been sent to an asylum, found herself at the mercy of a deceitful, incompetent doctor and his cruel, overbearing “lackeys.”229 The depiction of the abhorrent medical treatment of mental illness resembles Comte’s own description of his days in a madhouse run by Esquirol in 1826. Comte also inspired de Vaux in more indirect ways. He was clearly the model for St´ephane Sax, the wise philosopher who in the beginning of the story rescued Willelmine from her suicide attempt and patiently listened to her woes.230 Comte was on de Vaux’s mind when she had one character extolling moral revolutions as the only ones that produce “real fruit.”231 Comte was very pleased by the novel and despite his previous efforts to dissuade de Vaux 225 226 227

228 229 230 231

De Vaux, Willelmine, 5. For information on Bernardin de St. Pierre, see Emmet Kennedy, A Cultural History of the French Revolution (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 131–3. Maurice Wolff, Le Roman de Clotilde de Vaux et d’Auguste Comte suivi d’un choix de leurs lettres et du roman “Willelmine,” 3d ed. (Paris: Perrin, 1929), 201. In the M´elanges of Sand that Comte gave to de Vaux is a short article on Rousseau’s Confessions. See George Sand, “Quelques Reflexions sur Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Fragment d’une r´eponse a` un fragment de lettre,” Oeuvres de George Sand: M´elanges (Paris, 1843), 133–52. Perhaps Sand’s favorable words about Rousseau’s self-revelation influenced de Vaux. Comte to de Vaux, September 25, 1845, CG, 3:133–4; Document, Remarks of Comte on Willelmine, MAC. De Vaux, Willelmine, 21. The last name of St´ephane Sax is a veiled reference to Sand’s famous ancestor, the field marshal Maurice de Saxe. De Vaux, Willelmine, 30.

180

Clotilde de Vaux and the Initial Encounter with Comte

from writing, he congratulated himself for having “encouraged” the project, which was sure to bring her success.232 Unlike Comte, Madame Marie was not happy with Willelmine. She and de Vaux became involved in their “first serious war.”233 As an aspiring writer herself, she felt threatened by her daughter’s potential literary success. She could not believe that de Vaux preferred Comte’s advice to her own. Most importantly, she objected to Clotilde’s depiction of Willelmine’s mother as a cold man-hater, who misled her daughter into challenging the status quo.234 De Vaux did seem to project into the story her ambivalence toward her overbearing mother. She was clearly affected by the example of her mother, who had followed the traditional route for women but at the same time indirectly expressed her dissatisfaction with it by writing about social issues. Indeed, her mother’s interest in the “social question” emerged in Willelmine’s sympathy for a beggar, who was unjustly imprisoned at one point in the story. Yet just as Willelmine struggled to understand her “stormy destiny” and questioned her mother, de Vaux was trying to find her own identity.235 Like her mother and Willelmine, de Vaux took up writing, but the point of her work was not yet clear. What is most interesting about the book is that de Vaux unconsciously refuted herself in the same fashion Sand had. She made Willelmine into a kind, intelligent woman and ridiculed those who equated “a bluestocking” with “a lioness or poisoner.” Willelmine herself was full of contradictions, condemning marriage at one moment but seeking to wed Raoul the next. Her confusion regarding the ideal of domesticity seemed to mirror de Vaux’s. Perhaps reflecting her own sympathy for Sand, whose life was constantly observed and deemed scandalous, de Vaux made fun of biographers who represented Willelmine as “a bizarre being, inclined since . . . youth to odious penchants” and to passionate romances with “young mountain shepherds.” One “generally esteemed” male character finally announced at one point in the novel that “liberty of thought” should “exist for women as [it does] for men” and that “we all push too far the love of privileges that excludes any rivalry between us and women.”236 There was in both Sand’s and de Vaux’s stories a tension between their yearning to create independent women and their concept of women’s proper role in the social order.237 232 233 234 236 237

Comte to de Vaux, February 5, 1846, CG, 3:310. De Vaux to Comte, October 9, 1845, CG, 3:148. Comte to de Vaux, September 28, 1845, CG, 3:138. 235 De Vaux, Willelmine, 6. Ibid.,14, 15, 19. Claude Holland, “Mademoiselle Merquem: De-mythifying Woman by Rejecting the Law of the Father,” in The World of George Sand, ed. Natalie Datlof, Jeanne Fuchs, and David A. Powell (New York: Greenwood Press, 1991), 178.

Willelmine

181

Moreover, most of the men in de Vaux’s story were depicted as theatrical, superficial, or cruel. Their poor behavior lent support to Willelmine’s original argument in favor of women’s liberation. The main male character, Raoul, was a renowned poet, who was avid for power and wealth. He seduced Willelmine one night in her bedroom by convincing her that both of them were above normal social rules. She ended up alone the next morning. Nevertheless, they eventually had an affair for several months. During this time, Raoul used Willelmine’s works to make money for himself while having affairs on the side. What happened to Willelmine reflected de Vaux’s fears that Marrast, like Raoul, would regard her as an “instrument,” take advantage of her sexually, intellectually, and financially, and cause her to have a mental collapse. In addition, St´ephane Sax, the philosopher modelled on Comte, looked forward to the day when he would acquire “full control” over her. L´eonce Montgolfier, Willelmine’s supposed savior at the end of the story, tried to dominate her as well.238 All three men were intent on squashing one of Willelmine’s – and by extension de Vaux’s – defining characteristics, her desire for independence. As seen in her depiction of the poor female beggar unfairly imprisoned by policemen and of the fragile female patient in the asylum persecuted by doctors, de Vaux tended to see herself and other women as innocent victims of men’s desire for domination. The strongest, most admirable woman in the story was Montgolfier’s sister, Madame Rolland, who lived with her daughter in the countryside. After Henriette Marie objected to the depiction of Willelmine’s mother, de Vaux, with Comte’s encouragement, created Madame Rolland. (Around this time, Comte lent to de Vaux the memoirs of Madame Roland, whose last name may have inspired her.) De Vaux hoped to placate her mother by letting her identify with this good-natured, virtuous, competent mother instead of Willelmine’s evil mother.239 At the same time, de Vaux revealed her ambivalence toward conventional gender roles. Having lost her husband, Madame Rolland learned to rely chiefly on herself and promoted the importance of “independence,” “liberty,” and “solitude” – the same values that de Vaux extolled in her letters to Comte. She managed her estate in a profitable manner. Unlike Willelmine, who feared the study of the sciences, Madame Rolland relied on them to make her lands more fertile. Indeed, Willelmine was surprised that this “positive woman” was not “dry and austere” but the “sweetest” woman she had ever met. Here de Vaux was defending women’s study of the sciences, although earlier in the novel she had mocked Willelmine’s pursuit of this subject and in a letter to Comte written several months before, she had derided her own knowledge of mathematics. Through her kind heart and keen mind, Rolland, according to de Vaux, had also succeeded 238

De Vaux, Willelmine, 3, 19.

239

Comte to de Vaux, February 5, 1846, CG, 3:310.

182

Clotilde de Vaux and the Initial Encounter with Comte

in giving her daughter an excellent education, for she believed that the “most imposing task that a woman could embrace” was “that of bringing up another [woman].” Education taught women to exert an “empire over themselves,” that is, to subordinate their penchants to their reason. Madame Rolland’s discourse on the importance of the “education of women,” which sounds strangely similar to that of Willelmine’s mother, encapsulated material that de Vaux had undoubtedly planned to use for her column for Le National.240 Perhaps it was also a subtle critique of Henriette Marie. In sum, Willelmine seems to have several strands that are at cross purposes. The figure Willelmine herself is full of contradictions, condemning marriage at one moment and eager to wed Raoul the next. Her confusion seems to mirror de Vaux’s. Years before, in 1840, de Vaux explained to her brother Max, “There is often a lack of harmony between my heart and my character. One goes to the right, the other to the left.”241 The disjuncture is evident here. De Vaux wrote the book to condemn incipient feminism but ended by defending many of its precepts. Like many other women bothered by their inferior status, she sought a voice of her own. Like Madame Rolland, she was forced to assume a solitary life and wanted to re-create her existence in a manner that would make her proud. Yet breaking away from conventional gender roles made her anxious. The central problem faced by Sand and the protagonist of her work, Marcie, and by de Vaux and the female characters in her story, Willelmine and Rolland, was that of finding a worthy role in society for the intelligent woman. Sand’s and de Vaux’s inability to resolve this problem and their ambivalence toward the women’s rights movement may have contributed to the unfinished state of both of their works. There was a touch of irony in de Vaux’s ambition. Challenging Sand, one of the most compelling literary figures of the age, and debating the controversial subject of marriage – a “gold mine” – she believed the book would bring her success and wealth.242 To achieve celebrity as a woman writer, de Vaux took advantage of the liberty that the women’s movement was demanding only to use it against that movement. In effect, she sought independence through her writing to emphasize women’s need for a protector, and she yearned to be heard as a woman only to defend the silencing of women. However, the status quo that she hoped to maintain seemed tarnished and inadequate. Willelmine is telling in what it leaves out: any allusion to a happy marriage. 240 241 242

De Vaux, Willelmine, 27, 28, 30, 32. Clotilde de Vaux to Maximilien Marie, August 2, 1840, MAC. De Vaux, Willelmine, 17.

Chapter 4

The Muse’s Tragic End

You were . . . the most eminent woman from the point of view of your heart, mind and even character whom universal history has heretofore presented to me. Comte, “Onzi`eme Confession annuelle,” October 12, 1856

health, f inancial, family, and frie ndship problems As de Vaux labored on her book, she had to face myriad problems that would have proved daunting to any writer. She had to contend with the pressure from Comte to become more than a friend, though she told him frequently did that she not love him. She was disturbed not only by palpitations and fatigue but also by family fights. She loved her mother dearly for her selflessness but found her to be blind to what was going on around her. In de Vaux’s eyes, Madame Marie was overly suspicious of Comte and excessively solicitous of Max. Comte, who found Max presumptuous, aggravated the problem by severely criticizing the work on the sciences that he was writing. Max would no longer speak to him. Given these tensions with Madame Marie and Max, Comte seemed intent on estranging de Vaux from her family. But she felt she owed them the “justice that is due to them” for taking care of her.1 Nevertheless, she increasingly relied on Comte to supplement their care. He lent her money to pay for heat and clothes, which allowed her to keep up with the fashion of the day. Comte made no secret of the fact that he enjoyed her financial dependence on him, for he felt it strengthened their “sacred liaison.”2 Massin had always complained that he relished the power that being the breadwinner brought him.3 In fact, in terms remarkably similar to those used by de Vaux, Massin wrote at one point, “Only the habit of work gives independence.”4 Both women hated relying on him. When de Vaux, who favored openness with her family, informed Comte in November that she 1 2 3 4

De Vaux to Comte, November 9, 1845, CG, 3:184. Comte to de Vaux, November 13, 1845, CG, 3:192. Caroline Massin to Blainville, December 20, 1839, MAC. Massin to Comte, February 4, 1850, MAC.

183

184

The Muse’s Tragic End

finally told her parents of his loans, he was furious; he worried that her family would pay him back and then forbid him to see her. But he did not tell her about his concerns. Instead, he made fun of money, calling it the “great goddess of today.”5 However, he was in private very worried. The English subsidy was gone. The Ecole Polytechnique did not offer him a new position. No students were clamoring for private lessons. To accommodate the two women in his life, Comte decided to take up the kind offer that Massin had made to him on September 17 after learning of his financial problems. Ever grateful for his ensuring her survival, she wrote, If next year you must decrease my allowance, do not worry, [for] I can live on less and know very well that if you could give me ten thousand francs, you would; but if you have to exhaust yourself so that I do not have to suffer any changes, this would give me much pain, for I know how tiresome it is to give private lessons. Do not worry about me more than is necessary; that is my desire.6

Although slightly concerned about the difficulty she would face in changing her habits, he decided to reduce Massin’s “exorbitant” allowance beginning in 1846 from three to two thousand francs a year.7 That still left him with five or six thousand francs a year for his own expenses. This decrease proved difficult for Massin; her annual rent alone was 740 francs, and she could barely survive on one hundred francs a month for all her other expenses.8 When Comte’s financial troubles were acute, he was late in paying her. She wanted a monthly stipend. Comte dismissed her demands and her financial worries as frivolous and urged her to cut back on her expenses, although he would not do the same. The following summer she moved to a cheaper, smaller apartment, giving up half of her furniture. Because back problems made it almost impossible for her to move, she also hired a servant. Spending three times more than her husband gave her, she become increasingly anxious.9 Little did she know that Comte used at least part of the money he saved in this manner to entertain, help, and later bury de Vaux. All she knew was that his behavior was changing; he no longer answered 5 6 7 8

9

Comte to de Vaux, September 26, 1845, CG, 3:136. Massin to Comte, September 17, 1845, MAC. Comte to de Vaux, September 26, 1845, CG, 3:135. See also receipts signed by Massin, MAC. This was the rent for the apartment on the rue de la Tour d’Auvergne. See Massin to Comte, 1844, MAC. No day or month is given. She describes her difficulties in Massin to Comte, June 29, 1846. Massin to Comte, July 18, 1847, MAC. She moved to 23, rue des Martyrs. See also Massin to Comte, November 7, 1847, MAC.

Health, Financial, Family, and Friendship Problems

185

her letters. Still proclaiming her love for him, she was ignorant of the fact that Comte now was obsessed with another woman. In fact, he told de Vaux that he had never loved his wife at all and that the only woman he had cherished in the past was Ernestine de Goy, the object of an adolescent crush.10 De Vaux was his “first real love.”11 As his love for her increased, his hatred of Massin did as well. He admitted that Massin was by no means a “common woman”; she was, indeed, intellectually gifted. Yet her lack of “moral purity,” as seen in her “blind personality, extravagant pride, and limitless vanity,” stymied her intellectual growth. In contrast, de Vaux’s “moral perfection” meant her “intellectual future” would be “beautiful.”12 Whereas de Vaux was the positive model of female behavior, Massin was the negative example. Unlike de Vaux, she allegedly did not treat him well. He accused her of even respecting Marrast more than him – an accusation that completely exasperated her. He treated her with increasing hostility even when she faced difficult times. After her uncle died, she told Comte that she was sad that she could not procure for herself the portrait of her maternal grandmother, who had raised her, and that she could not claim any inheritance because she was illegitimate. Comte informed de Vaux that Massin was “vicious” and that he would write to her only when it was “strictly necessary,” which was certainly not the case in this situation.13 De Vaux showed a more generous spirit in telling Comte that “those who are mean often have more need for pity than those who are good.”14 Yet her words fell on deaf ears. Despite his financial problems, Comte did not hesitate to renew his subscription to the opera at the Th´eaˆ tre Royal Italien. Instead of going three times a week, as he had often done since the 1841–2 season, he eliminated the Tuesday night performance and went only on Thursdays and Saturdays. He purchased an additional subscription for de Vaux, so that she could accompany him on Saturdays.15 On Saturday, October 11, 1845, Comte took de Vaux to their first opera, Lucia de Lammermoor by Donizetti. They were both excited about the outing, particularly because the famous Madame Persiani sang the lead role. 10 11 12 13 14 15

Comte to de Vaux, November 24, 1845, CG, 3:206. Comte to de Vaux, December 26, 1845, CG, 3:252. Comte to de Vaux, February 15, 1846, CG, 3:323. Comte to de Vaux, March 4, 1846, CG, 3:345. See also Massin to Comte, August 13, 1849, MAC. De Vaux to Comte, March 2, 1846, CG, 3:343. He and de Vaux sat in seats sixteen and seventeen in the orchestra. Comte’s favorite seats were sixteen and eighteen, especially the latter. A season’s subscription cost 230 francs. See record of Comte’s subscriptions to the “Th´eaˆ tre Royal Italien,” in packet in Documents, MAC.

186

The Muse’s Tragic End

That night, however, after the performance, de Vaux became very ill. Feeling weak, she began coughing up blood and in the weeks to come suffered from lung congestion, migraines, insomnia, and high fever. Comte, an avid follower of Broussais, who advocated bleeding as the panacea for most illnesses, was pleased to learn that the Marie family doctor, Ch´erest, finally decided to treat her with leeches.16 But then not recognizing her consumptive state, Ch´erest also gave her digitalis because he thought she had a heart problem.17 The medication made her pulse race and further depleted her energy. Depressed and weak, she could hardly work on Willelmine, the chief diversion from her many problems. Nevertheless, she vowed to complete it and achieve her independence.18 Her illness was aggravated by the terrible quarrels she had with her mother, who did not take her illness very seriously; she later admitted that the family thought de Vaux was simply a hypochondriac.19 Without telling her relatives the full extent of her illness for fear they would further intrude on her life, de Vaux begged to receive the entire allowance from her uncle so that she would not have to eat at rue Pav´ee and could conserve her strength for her work. Henriette Marie would not hear of this arrangement. She wanted to keep her access to this allowance because she herself was in financial straits, caused partly by the fact that she was supporting her unemployed son Max and his family. She gave de Vaux only fifty francs, sarcastically telling her to wait for her writings to bring her wealth and liberation. De Vaux complained that her mother, resentful at being lampooned in Willelmine, wanted her to feel the “stumbling blocks of emancipation.”20 Desperate for freedom from her family, de Vaux leaned more on Comte, who was eager to help in every way possible, especially to increase her dependence on him and to show that he cared more about her than her family did. Having studied at the medical school at Montpellier, Comte must have recognized the signs of consumption in her coughing up blood and generally weak condition. He sent his maid, Sophie Bliaux, to cater to de Vaux when she was feeling particularly bad and to help her use a machine with cupping glasses that her doctor lent her from time to time to relieve her congestion. 16 17

18 19 20

Jean-Franc¸ois Braunstein, Broussais et le mat´erialisme: M´edecine et philosophie au XIXe si`ecle (Paris: M´eridiens Klincksieck, 1986), 77–81. Ch´erest had treated her for two years. Clotilde’s former doctor, Andral, had also thought she merely had a heart condition. He prescribed digitalis and a plaster of hemlock to be applied to Clotilde’s chest. This was the treatment that Ch´erest followed. See “Ordinance of Dr. Andral,” July 7, 1842, MAC. See also de Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 302. De Vaux to Comte, December 28, 1845, CG, 3:257. M´emoire of Madame Marie, no date, excerpt in de Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 385. De Vaux to Comte, January 4, 1846, CG, 3:268.

Health, Financial, Family, and Friendship Problems

187

Comte gave her books to distract her and different household objects. In late November, to gain more control of her, Comte persuaded her to stop seeing Ch´erest, who was in love with her, and to go secretly instead to his own physician, F´elix Pinel-Grandchamp.21 Referring to the happiness derived from mutual dependence, he relished the “noble office of protector” and called her his “only real wife.” Making her the central point of all his activities, he was full of “new energy.”22 He had never felt so generous, virtuous and happy as when he helped her. He was certain that he was undergoing a moral “revolution” and beginning “a second existence, [one that was] purer and fuller” than his previous life, which lacked this “noble love.”23 Finally, in November, after complaining about her relatives’ unhappiness with her relationship with Comte, de Vaux devised a new arrangement. Instead of going twice a week to her mother’s place on the rue Pav´ee, he would go only once a week (on Mondays) and then visit de Vaux at her apartment on Fridays or Saturdays. She would still visit him at his place on Wednesdays. (Eventually, they alternated; he visited her sometimes on Wednesdays, and she came to his apartment at the end of the week. However, it seemed that she went to his place more often than he visited her.) In effect, spurred by jealousy and suspicion, her mother and brother’s efforts to get de Vaux away from Comte ended by bringing them closer together.24 21

22 23

24

Dr. Ch´erest owned the house at rue Payenne and may have lived in her building. PinelGrandchamp lived on the rue Saint-Hyacinthe, next to the Place Saint-Michel. Curiously, M. Lenoir lived at 19, rue Saint-Hyacinthe-Saint-Michel, almost next door to PinelGrandchamp. Comte had known Pinel-Grandchamp at least since the early 1830s, when they both had been members of the Soci´et´e Phr´enologique de Paris. Lenoir was a member too. In 1831, the general secretary of this organization was Franc¸ois-JosephVictor Broussais, who devised a materialistic approach to medicine, which regarded irritation as the source of illness and recommended blood letting and leeches as the best remedy for illness. Comte and Pinel-Grandchamp were sympathetic not only to his theory but to the aims of one of the leading republican groups, the Soci´et´e des Amis du Peuple. Despite their common interests, the two men had had somewhat of a falling out around 1840, perhaps after Comte had hired him to take care of a friend of his, Jacques Montg´ery, who eventually died under his care. Pinel-Grandchamp had charged what Comte considered to be an exorbitantly high fee and had had troubles collecting it. Whether out of greed or out of a conviction that he could do nothing more for Montg´ery, Pinel-Grandchamp had wanted to stop seeing him. His actions had not endeared him to Comte. Nevertheless, Comte claimed to have forgiven him. They renewed their friendship, meeting from time to time for dinner. Comte took one of these opportunities to give the doctor details regarding de Vaux’s health. In late November, de Vaux then began to visit Pinel-Grandchamp. Braunstein, Broussais, 64-81.See also Pierre Arnaud, CG, 1:425, note CXXVI; CG, 3:422, note CDXV. Comte to de Vaux, October 19, 1845, CG, 3:156–7. Comte to de Vaux, November 11, 1845, CG, 3:188; Comte to de Vaux, October 19, 1845, CG, 3:157. See also Comte, “Sixi`eme Confession annuelle,” May 30, 1851, CG, 6:104. De Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 262.

188

The Muse’s Tragic End

Pleased at having access to her “sanctuary,” Comte nervously reminded her that he hoped for a more “complete union.” His increasingly frequent use of the informal pronoun tu [you] indicated his desire for greater intimacy. Infuriated, de Vaux demanded that he understand that she was weak, in fact “destroyed” by her illness. She did not welcome “new pains” that would add more turmoil to her already fragile existence. Yearning “to die without ties,” she cherished her independence and work above all else. She told him, “I made a marriage of convenience, and I admit that I like celibacy almost as much.”25 Yet he increasingly harassed her about having sex with him, though she was dying.26 At one point, he gave her a forbidden kiss on the lips but was then embarrassed because he belched while doing so. De Vaux seemed more amused than upset by his awkwardness. His nervousness affected his health; he felt incapacitated and could barely sleep again. He beseeched her to move into his apartment, where he could take better care of her. Reflecting his tendency toward delusions of grandeur that were evident when he went through periods of manic depression, he wanted to have in her regard “the function that religious people attribute to their Providence.”27 She quickly rejected his offer as improper. A little later, after having spent a good part of a day coughing up blood, she went to visit Comte. She fainted on his sofa. Lusting after her body, he checked himself, realizing at that moment that she would never see him as more than a friend. Nevertheless, he still hoped to persuade her to go further with him. He wrote, “Love has always seemed, without doubt, to constitute . . . a pre-condition that is even more indispensable in your sex than in mine. But your nature is eminent enough to merit an honorable exception to this general rule.”28 De Vaux grew so depressed that she agreed on November 23 to sleep with him out of gratitude for his kindness if that would make him happier. However, priding herself on being an “honest and pure woman,” she reminded him that she did not love him and did not relish the prospect. She wrote, “If you persist in considering as unfortunate for you my desire for emotional tranquility, . . . I will sacrifice it for you. I am tired of suffering or of making others suffer.”29 Ashamed and intimidated, Comte quickly retreated, boasting about his enormous self-discipline. He wished that outsiders knew of their sacrifices so they could see the high level of purity that humans could 25 26 27 28 29

Comte to de Vaux, November 20, 24, 1845, CG, 3:200, 207; de Vaux to Comte, December 5, 8, 11, 1845, CG, 3:221, 224, 231. De Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 284–6. Comte to de Vaux, November 11, 1845, CG, 3:188–9. Comte to de Vaux, November 13, 1845, CG, 3:191. De Vaux to Comte, November 23, 1845, CG, 3:205.

Health, Financial, Family, and Friendship Problems

189

attain. Yet the struggle to overcome his sexual urges was not over. His letters continued to be peppered with crude allusions to the “physical inconveniences” caused by his continence – inconveniences that kept him up at night.30 Until the end, his need to display himself as a man with formidable sexual prowess was at war with his self-representation as the virtuous regenerator of humanity. To complicate matters further, Comte could not fulfill his sexual desires without eliminating the divine status that de Vaux had assumed in his eyes. No other woman combined to the same degree “moral purity with mental superiority.” He made her into his muse, comparing her to Julie de Lespinasse, who inspired d’Alembert, and Elisabeth de La Live de Bellegarde, comtesse d’Houdetot, who stimulated Rousseau.31 However, he also considered her to be his collaborator, assuming the part that Emilie du Chˆatelet played with Voltaire. Having been abandoned recently by Mill, Comte needed another partner. He hoped that his collaboration with de Vaux would mark the end of the battle between men and women that both of them saw raging around them. The idea of this type of association seemed “to be in the air.” Just as Comte penned the dedication to the Syst`eme in honor of de Vaux, Mill surreptitiously wrote a dedication to Principles of Political Economy to his muse/collaborator Harriet Taylor.32 But whereas Mill did not publicize his illicit relationship, Comte, who prided himself on his boldness, could not wait to do so. He naively thought that his friends and colleagues would be impressed and no one would use this dedication to discredit his ideas. To encourage others to emulate her, he planned to make the “cult of woman” part of the secular religion that he was going to create for the imminent positive stage of history. Preparing the ceremonies for her “glorification,” he knelt down every morning in front of his “altar” and recited a “love prayer,” which consisted of passages from her letters charting the course of their “holy affection.” Part of this “morning prayer” was based on the Our Father. It affirmed that she was his “only real wife, not only in the future, but now and forever.” De Vaux played along with this farce. She started to give him items which Comte later called the “dear relics” of her existence.33 After a visit to the opera to hear Donizetti’s Don Pasquale on November 29, de Vaux sent Comte in “friendship” a basket of artificial red 30 31 32 33

Comte to de Vaux, November 24, 1845, CG, 3:206. See also Comte to de Vaux, December 2, 1845, CG, 3:212. Comte to de Vaux, October 29, 1845, CG, 3:168. Phyllis Rose, Parallel Lives: Five Victorian Marriages (New York: Random House/Vintage Books, 1983), 117. These “relics” included her poem “Thoughts of a Flower,” and “Lucie.” Comte to de Vaux, October 25, September 6, November 30, December 4, 1845, February 15, 1846, CG, 3:109, 163, 210, 216, 323.

190

The Muse’s Tragic End

roses that she made herself. These became a permanent fixture in his apartment and are there to this day.34 She also gave him an eightstanza poem, “Thoughts of a Flower” (“Les Pens´ees d’une fleur”).35 It signalled her fear that her lifelong desire for love would never be realized. Taking on the guise of a flower, she began the poem with this line: “I am born to be loved: oh! thank-you, just destiny!” Nothing could prevent a flower from fulfilling its destiny. Even during the “mortal cold” of winter, a flower endured, protected by “nature.” A flower knew “all” the secrets of love, whereas de Vaux lamented that she knew almost none.36 Comte cried when he read this poem, which was exceedingly “banal,” as even the normally enthusiastic de Rouvre admitted.37 Even Comte took the liberty of correcting some of the lines to make it clearer and more rhythmical.38 Struck by her “gracious sensitivity” and philosophical acumen, he began to read the poem every day.39 Talking frankly of his “adoration” and “glorification” of her, he was already preparing a religion in her honor, a religion that he had been considering since the early 1840s, before he had even met her.40 The poem not only launched Comte into spiritual ecstasy but also sexually aroused him. A few days after receiving it, he complained of insomnia to de Vaux. “You alone really knows where it comes from, and how I am unable to cure myself of it by myself.”41 Furious, she wrote, “My role of nonentity is really the only one that suits me now.” She insisted that “[we] forget about our sexuality to think about our hearts.”42 Comte replied that it was impossible for him to forget about 34 35

36 37 38

39 40 41 42

Comte would display them during public ceremonies when he established his religion. Testament (1896 ed.), 19. According to Th´erive, the poetry was later set to music by Brazilian composers and was sung in positivist churches. See Th´erive, Clotilde de Vaux, 156. Comte included the poem as well as “Lucie” and “Lettre philosophique sur la comm´emoration sociale” in the first volume of the Syst`eme. Clotilde de Vaux, “Les Pens´ees d’une fleur,” November 30, 1845, CG, 3:210–11. De Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 305. Comte also complained of her “prosodic” errors in another poem that she sent him later, a poem in honor of Elisa Mercoeur, a Breton writer who died of a chest illness at age twenty-six in 1835. Admired by Franc¸ois-Ren´e de Chateaubriand, Victor Hugo, and Alphonse de Lamartine, her poems, plays, short stories, and novels were republished in a three-volume set, in 1843, to much acclaim. Comte referred to her as a victim much beloved by de Vaux, who identified with her. Comte to de Vaux, January 6, 1846, CG, 3:271; de Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 309–10; Comte, “Sixi`eme Confession annuelle,” May 30, 1851, CG, 6:105. Clotilde’s poem is in her letter to Comte dated January 4, 1846, CG, 3:268. See Madame Veuve Mercoeur, “M´emoires sur la vie d’Elisa Mercoeur,” in Elisa Mercoeur, Oeuvres compl`etes d’Elisa Mercoeur de Nantes, pr´ec´ed´ees de m´emoires et notices sur la vie de l’auteur, e´crits par sa m`ere, 3 vols. (Paris,1843), 1:xvii–clxxxvi. Comte to de Vaux, December 2, 1845, CG, 3:212. Comte to de Vaux, December 4, 1845, CG, 3:215, 216. Comte to de Vaux, December 2, 1845, CG, 3:212. De Vaux to Comte, December 4, 1845, CG, 3:213–14.

Health, Financial, Family, and Friendship Problems

191

her body. In eloquent terms, he wrote, “To forget our sex, to live as if you were not in the world, in short, to give my soul to you and my body to others, all that is impossible for me.”43 However, he vowed he would not rape her and could exert self-control when he was around her. Protesting her rule that he not think of sex, he tried to reassure her with words that were, in truth, hardly reassuring: “It is never in your presence that I feel carnal desires; I am at that moment entirely bound up in the happiness of contemplating you.”44 Nevertheless, he assumed that they would have a “final union” once she achieved her “personal liberation,” that is, her economic independence from her parents.45 At this point, de Vaux became more irate and replied, “It is not, my dear friend, my material liberty which I need to have at my disposal; it is my full moral liberty. You love me, it is true, as I merit to be [loved]; and I give you back the same in my heart, but that ends there.” She refused his request that they should become more intimate, for she wanted “to die without ties,” which had caused her so much suffering.46 De Vaux’s response shocked Comte. He claimed it was the first time that she had really made it clear that she would never sleep with him. When he started arguing with her again, she insisted that she had never changed her position. Though she considered Comte “the best of men and the most just,” she had no desire to go further with him, especially because what she desired most at the moment was calm.47 In a sense, just as Comte practiced cerebral hygiene to avoid reading critics who could upset him, she was creating a kind of emotional hygiene to avoid “new pains” that would throw her fragile existence into turmoil.48 Because he could not establish her tie to him in the “natural” way, that is, by means of an “ineffable voluptuous pleasure,” Comte yearned for some other guarantee of that connection.49 His insecurity is evident in his worries about being abandoned by her and in his jealousy of others. He finally decided to take up and repeat as a kind of oath her statement that “death alone will break our ties.”50 This comment, to him, was a sign of their engagement for life. De Vaux was surprised that he took this casual remark so seriously as a commitment on her part. She reminded him once again that she disliked obligations that threatened her “liberty” and peace of mind and she disapproved of efforts to regulate the future trajectory of sentiments.51 43 44 45 47 48 49 50 51

Comte to de Vaux, December 5, 1845, CG, 3:219. Comte to de Vaux, December 7, 1845, CG, 3:224. Comte to de Vaux, December 5, 1845, CG, 3:219. 46 Ibid., 220–21. De Vaux to Comte, December 8, 1845, CG, 3:224. De Vaux to Comte, December 11, 1845, CG, 3:231. Comte to de Vaux, December 10 and December 12,1845, CG, 3:230, 232. Comte to de Vaux, December 10, 1845, CG, 3:230. De Vaux to Comte, December 12, 1845, CG, 3:235.

192

The Muse’s Tragic End

Although underscoring the “inequality” in their feelings for each other, this episode in their relationship ended by clarifying sexual matters and marked, to Comte, the finale to the “great crisis” that had begun in September, when the misunderstanding about sex had first emerged and his financial worries had increased with the bad news from his English patrons, who no longer desired to subsidize him.52 In December, Comte admitted that since September, he had been both psychologically and physically agitated, probably close to a complete mental breakdown. (In truth, signs of inner turmoil had appeared as early as 1844 and worsened in May 1845, shortly after he began writing to de Vaux.) He had been “tormented by the almost continual anxiety” that their relationship could end “at any instant.” This instability had led to gastric problems, insomnia, nervous agitation, and even convulsions. But now that he felt de Vaux had given him some kind of commitment for life, this worry disappeared, or so he said. He hoped to recover soon his “full cerebral health.”53 Now that he finally began to grasp her intractability on the issue of sex, Comte increasingly valorized chastity as a source of moral perfection.54 At the same time, he maintained that despite the fact that he and de Vaux – and by extension men and women – should rise above their bodily instincts, they should not forget their masculinity and femininity. Indeed, they should collaborate on developing their respective natures more fully. Freed in a sense from their bodies, they should redirect their energies into making themselves better, that is, fuller, human beings. Comte began to develop an androgynous ideal – an ideal that also appears in the works of contemporary feminists like Jenny P. d’H´ericourt. Inspired by such thinkers as Gall and Lamarck, she believed that both sexes were modifiable and that with the right education, men and women could develop in a similar fashion.55 Comte maintained that in general, men, who were eminent intellectually, should help women develop their minds. Women, who were experts in the emotions, should encourage men to cultivate their feelings. The “slow progress” of this “reciprocal culture” throughout the ages constituted, according to Comte, “one of the finest productions of our wisdom, both on the collective and personal level.”56 If he and de Vaux could develop traits in each other that were associated 52 53 54 55

56

Comte to de Vaux, December 10, 1845, CG, 3:228. Comte to de Vaux, December 12, 1845, CG, 3:233. Comte to de Vaux, December 10, 1845, CG, 3:229 Jenny P. D’H´ericourt, La Femme affranchie: R´eponse a` MM. Michelet, Proudhon, E. de Girardin, A. Comte et aux autres novateurs modernes, vol. 1 (Paris, 1860), 124–5. D’H´ericourt points out that through education, women in particular could become more rational and active. Comte to de Vaux, December 9, 1845, CG, 3:226.

Health, Financial, Family, and Friendship Problems

193

with the opposite sex, they could directly attach their own personal growth to all of human evolution. If they could reach an accord in the realms of ideas and emotions and work together, they could present to “Humanity” an example of “the salutary influence of the harmony of the sexes.”57 He pointed out in the “Lettre philosophique sur le mariage” that marriage was the best human association because it aimed at “mutual perfection, which consists of each sex developing more fully . . . the qualities which it possesses the least.”58 Comte was thinking in grand terms, as was his wont. He was also reevaluating the position that he had taken with Mill, when he had insisted that there was nothing women could do to alter their substandard position. Here he seemed to imply that nurture could undo what nature had done in giving each sex a “preeminence which is spontaneously lacking in the other.”59 This conclusion marked a watershed in his intellectual development. The fact that human nature could be shaped led Comte to rethink essentialism. In particular, de Vaux’s strength of character and “powerful reason,” as he himself put it, challenged his traditional assumptions about women. For example, he accused her at one point of changing her mind because she was not “exempt from all feminine fluctuations.”60 But he could hardly subscribe so easily to such a theory once she made it clear that she had not wavered in her stance. De Vaux refused to be confined to stereotypical images of women. She said, “There is no man who could reproach me for having a grain of coquetry or of feminine fickleness (l´eg`eret´e ).” In fact, she disdained the kind of behavior Comte displayed; his lack of self-control and vulnerability to strong emotions represented conduct typically associated with women. Her intelligence also challenged his belief in the inferiority of the female mind. Having met a “good number of women with distinguished minds,” he found her to be one of the few whose “heads had not spoiled their hearts.”61 De Vaux had clearly made Comte more respectful of women, more open to the concept that nurture was largely responsible for sexual differences, and less wary of the dangers of giving women an education. After all, he had seen that her mind had not made her less honest or virtuous. The books that Comte lent her are also indicative of his high regard for her intelligence. He gave her the first volume of Gall’s Sur l’organe des qualit´es morales et des facult´es intellectuelles, et sur la pluralit´e des organes 57 58 59 60 61

Comte to de Vaux, November 2, 1845, CG, 3:175. Comte, “Lettre philosophique sur le mariage,” CG, 3:279. He developed similar ideas about blending gender characteristics in the Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 300. Comte to de Vaux, December 9, 1845, CG, 3:226. Comte to de Vaux, December 7, 1845, CG, 3:222. Comte to de Vaux, December 28, 1845, CG, 3:258.

194

The Muse’s Tragic End

centraux, as well as Sophie Germain’s Consid´erations g´en´erales sur l’´etat des sciences et lettres aux diff´erentes epoques de leur culture.62 Her intelligence was also recognized by Marrast, whose wife visited de Vaux in mid-December, giving her the impression that she would be warmly welcomed back at Le National. Encouraged by this news, de Vaux suggested to Comte that she needed more time to herself to finish her novel to offer it to Marrast. Fame from her work would ensure that she would not die like the small light of a “candle-end.”63 But the real reason for her desire to eliminate their Wednesday visits for a month may have been that she was weary of Comte’s constant demands. Revealing his continued ardor, he signed one letter in January 1846 with these ambiguous words: “I hug you as I love you, with respect and fervor.”64 De Vaux’s effort to limit Comte’s visits offended him. If he could take two days a week from his precious work to devote to their oneto-one conversations, she could certainly do the same. Yet Comte was not fair. De Vaux, who was far younger than he, had not yet realized her goals. At the same time that he was arguing with de Vaux over this issue, he was writing Mill that during the first half of his career he had “fully sacrificed” his “private life” to his “public life” to accomplish his “fundamental mission” – an accomplishment that made him proud; now he wanted to return to a “normal state.”65 When he was with de Vaux in this so-called normal state, he was indirectly working because the “moral renaissance” that she was effecting within him taught him about “the most delicate emotions of humanity” and helped him “to perfect” his current “social mission,” which demanded “a growing preponderance of feelings over ideas.”66 To dissuade de Vaux from working, Comte bluntly told her that Marrast had offered her work at Le National in exchange for physical intimacy. Revealing a singular lack of self-knowledge, Comte denied his jealousy. It never occurred to him that both he and the “odious” Marrast were yearning for the same pleasure with the same convenient argument that as an abandoned wife, she was justified in seeking socially unacceptable pleasures. De Vaux sprang to Marrast’s defense. In his place, “many men might have done the same or worse than he had done.” It was the risk that ambitious women knew they had 62

63 64 65 66

See “Liste des livres figurant dans la biblioth`eque d’Auguste Comte a` son d´ec`es et prˆet´es par celui-ci a` Clotilde de Vaux,” MAC. Comte maintained that the only other contemporary figure who approached de Vaux in combining “moral purity with mental superiority” was the mathematician Sophie Germain. Comte de de Vaux, February 15, 1846, CG, 3:323. De Vaux to Comte, December 14, 1845, CG, 3:236. Comte to de Vaux, January 27, 1846, CG, 3:306. Comte to Mill, December 18, 1845, CG, 3:245. Comte to de Vaux, December 26, 1845, CG, 3:252.

Health, Financial, Family, and Friendship Problems

195

to take. She was confident she could use her charms to get what she wanted from Marrast: “I have always had intimate relationships with men; I know them better than I know women.”67 Marrast invited her to a soir´ee on February 18. Desirous of conserving her energy to complete her novel so that she could deliver it to him, she decided not to attend. She resorted to the pretext that she would be out of town, explaining to Comte that if she simply turned Marrast down without an excuse, she would appear to be a boor or “prude,” that is, a woman with no “self-confidence.” De Vaux’s insistence on fabricating an alibi angered Comte. She had recently refused to have dinner with him alone after her Wednesday visits on the grounds that “a woman who goes to dine at a man’s makes a little tour de force.” Appealing to her supposed fear of causing a scandal, Comte said tauntingly that Marrast must “know very well that a young woman cannot go alone to such parties” without suggesting that she could be taken home by “any available man.” Comte wanted her to break off her relationship with Marrast, though he knew she needed this connection to the publishing world. He stated in a very demanding tone: “You could not, Clotilde, remain at the same time my friend and that of a man whom I scorn, especially because of his behavior toward you.”68 De Vaux paid no attention. Her behavior tormented Comte, whose paranoia was at the root of his suspicions. One reason that Massin had left him was that she grew tired of the accusations generated by his mental illness. Like Massin, de Vaux stood up to Comte. She boasted that she would gladly attend Marrast’s party alone: “My look of the independent woman gives me my right of solitary entrance into the most decent houses.”69 After all, she was sure of herself in ways he was not, and her “conduct with other men” was “perfect.” She made it clear that she still considered Comte a very close friend or relative, nothing more: “There is no one else who rivals you in my esteem and affection . . . I like you a great deal; it is, unfortunately, not love any more for me than it is for you. . . . do not torment yourself, and let me pursue peacefully my enterprises.”70 His adoration of her was not real love, that is, a love based upon knowledge of what she was really like. She knew that he 67 68 69 70

Comte to de Vaux, December 12, December 26, 1845, CG, 3:232, 252, 253, 254; de Vaux to Comte, December 14, 1845, CG, 3:236. Comte to de Vaux, February 12, 1846, CG, 3:317. De Vaux to Comte, January 27, February 12, 1846, CG, 3:306, 319; Comte to de Vaux, February 10 and February 12, 1846, 315, 317. De Vaux to Comte, November 23, 1845, CG, 3:205; Comte to de Vaux, February 12, 1846, CG, 3:316. In “Lucie,” Maurice referred to Lucie as the “ideal of Galatea.” Galatea was the statue created and adored by Pygmalion, who prevailed upon Aphrodite to bring her to life. This reference reflects de Vaux’s awareness of men’s propensity to worship their idealized image of women.

196

The Muse’s Tragic End

loved only a certain image of woman that made him feel better about himself, that is, more tender and generous than other people saw him. Her frustration knew no bounds; she was adored by Comte, whom she did not desire, and she loved Marrast, who had no genuine passion for her. Nevertheless, she resisted both men, despite their financial and professional aid.71 She empowered herself by using conventional rules of gender behavior to her best advantage when she wanted and then making exceptions when it suited her. “lettre philo sophique sur le mariage” Unable to create a happy marriage in real or fictionalized form, de Vaux asked Comte in January 1846 to write a philosophical letter on the importance of marriage, which she intended to insert in her novel as part of Sax’s campaign to influence Willelmine.72 Comte agreed to do so but felt nervous about it. It was not simply the anxiety of wanting to impress her that plagued him; he sought to destroy the arguments of Saint-Simonism and Fourierism, which, unlike positivism, had many adherents.73 Once he pulled his thoughts together and started the essay, he finished it in one Sunday in bed in a single session lasting over ten hours. Entitled “Lettre philosophique sur le mariage,” the essay was directed against “anarchical utopias” that attacked the “triple universal foundation of social existence”: property, family, and marriage. Comte sought to show in particular that marriage was basic to human nature and society and was not an institution that had been arbitrarily created, as the Saint-Simonians, the disciples of Fourier, and other radical groups argued in order to dismantle it. Positivism could counter the arguments of all these people, especially by its ability to resolve the “fatal conflict that exists in modern people between the needs of their heart and those of their intelligence.”74 Positivism was thus not an arid doctrine concerned with only academic subjects; it had important positions on issues that affected people’s everyday lives. One surprising aspect of Comte’s essay is his utter naivete and blindness to the problems of marriage. Although both he and de Vaux had separated from their respective spouses, he spoke only vaguely of the “inconveniences” caused by marriage and vehemently rejected the possibility of divorce. To him, people were flexible because of their “native mediocrity,” and their adaptability came to the fore 71 72 73 74

De Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 317, 375. De Vaux to Comte, January 8, 1846, CG, 3:271. Comte sent it to her January 11, 1846. Comte to Mill, January 23, 1846, CG, 3:293. Comte, “Lettre philosophique sur le mariage,” CG, 3:277–8.

“Lettre philosophique sur le mariage”

197

particularly in unalterable situations. He said, “No one has chosen his father or his son, and yet these relations reflect complete harmony.”75 But Comte had never been on good terms with his father. He had not communicated at all with him since 1838. Besides a poor opinion of human nature, his theories reflected wishful thinking on his part. They did not seem as rooted in reality as he liked to claim. Boasting that his philosophy was the only social doctrine that had an understanding of the past and relativism, Comte first put the development of radical social doctrines into their historical context. He argued that they were products of the eighteenth-century metaphysicians’ successful and “indispensable” effort to emancipate human reason from theology. The problem was that because of their negative, critical spirit, these metaphysicians had not reestablished any principles on a firm base. Rousseau, with his “chimerical conception of a pre-existing state of nature” and his espousal of individualism, had been particularly destructive because he had condemned all forms of modern society.76 As a result of his influence and that of other metaphysicians, social doctrines were increasingly anarchic and utopian in their disregard for marriage, family, and private property. Unlike theology and metaphysics, which were more concerned with the individual, positivism was “eminently social.”77 Because it had a better understanding of reality and society, it could correct the anomalies of modern life. Revealing his conservative nature, Comte explained that most of the “elementary,” that is, traditional, moral principles relating to the family and marriage were legitimate. They had been merely clothed in religious forms that were outmoded, invalid, and ultimately antithetical to human intelligence and sociability. They were thus weakened by the disfavor into which religion had fallen. For example, it was impossible to maintain the principle of the subordination of the sexes by referring to the “puerile fiction of the physical origin of woman,” that is, the story of Adam’s rib. The positive spirit could consolidate this principle and others by providing them with a more respectable intellectual basis. Positivism’s “incontestable intellectual superiority” would be the guarantee of its “moral efficacy.”78 Comte paraded a myriad of arguments to support the legitimacy of marriage. Although disdainful of Rousseau’s idea of a primitive state of nature, Comte maintained that the family was part of the “fundamental” order. After all, man, like many animals, needed a 75 76 77 78

Ibid., 3:281. Ibid., 277. Comte mocked leftist social contract political theory, whose social model was an “alleged state of pure isolation, preceding all human growth.” Ibid., 3:x. The positivist recognized that “speculative growth is realized by and for society.” Comte, “Lettre philosophique sur le mariage,”CG, 3:278. Ibid., 278, 284.

198

The Muse’s Tragic End

fixed, stable union. Marriage suited him. With Sand and the Lettres a` Marcie in mind, he stated that “the people who most rebel against such ties ordinarily end by deploring bitterly their absence.”79 Comte also argued that marriage was valid because it helped humans develop their superiority, which lay in their powers of reason and sociability – powers that animals did not have to the same extent. Here he reinforced nineteenth-century representations of the two sexes as opposites. Women were emotional, weak, indecisive, and fickle, whereas men were rational, strong, resolute, and persevering. Based on such innate differences, the roles of men and women in society were complementary. Men, the active sex, were in charge of works relating to thought and action, and they made “final decisions.” The “affective sex” was better suited to directing the “culture,” that is, the upbringing and behavior, of the members of society. Their activities should be limited to observation, consultation, and modification. Because almost all women were wives and mothers, there was a “lack of variety” in their characters. It did not occur to Comte to change their preoccupations so that they could develop more fully. Indeed, he maintained that women’s demand to have the same careers as men was aberrant, for their development, instead of being encouraged, would be stymied in such an “unequal” struggle. Instead, women should be content with a life of “relative inertia,” living off men’s work. Despite this wide gulf between the sexes, Comte asserted, revealing again his androgynous proclivities, that marriage helped men become more emotional and sociable and enabled women to cultivate rationality.80 Marriage between men and women would then be presumably more solid. Romantic socialists of the time, such as Simon Ganneau, Pierre Leroux, and Abb´e Alphonse-Louis Constant, also embraced androgynous ideas to emphasize social unity, where competing forces found grounds for reconciliation.81 Comte glimpsed, however slightly, the importance of giving women more opportunities for development. Austin, de Vaux, and Sand, who reflected the new prominence of the “woman of ideas” in mid-nineteenth-century France, seemed to make him more respectful of the intellectual capabilities of women.82 Although his “Lettre philosophique sur le mariage” summarized much of lesson fifty of the Cours, which was written, in 1839, and was replete with misogynist sentiments, he did not dare repeat his statement about woman’s “fundamental inferiority” to man. His diatribe against careerism did suggest, however, that in his mind, women could never be men’s equals. 83 79 82

83

Ibid., 281, 283. 80 Ibid., 279, 282–3. 81 Andrews, Socialism’s Muse, 98–107. On the challenges posed by the “woman of ideas” in France, see Janis Bergman-Carton, The Woman of Ideas. Comte later lamented that he had not fulfilled her desire to learn more about history. Syst`eme, 4:549. Cours, 2:186.

“Lettre philosophique sur le mariage”

199

What is also significant is that he no longer celebrated same-sex associations as he had done previously.84 In the midst of his marital troubles in 1825, he had told Valat that only “attachments” between men were “complete” and “truly enduring.”85 Now, after breaking with Mill and Valat, he concluded that friendship between men was “not really any more satisfactory” than that between women because both types were perturbed by rivalry.86 Indeed, male–female friendships were the most intense and rewarding, presumably because the sexes were so different that they could not be rivals in the same sphere.87 He told Laffitte in March 1846, “The best friend of a man is always a woman. The friendship in this case has more intensity and devotion.”88 Later, when he wrote the dedication to the Syst`eme, he publicly stated that “complete friendship” was possible only between members of opposite sexes, between whom there was no “disturbing rivalry.”89 In addition, Comte stressed the importance of marriage as “the first tie of humanity”; it introduced a person to social life by developing the “affective faculties.” Feelings were more important than ideas or actions, the other two components of existence, because they inspired both of them. They also motivated people to serve others. As if tired of his own work, he announced that speculation and action caused “intolerable fatigue,” but benevolent affections were never the source of weariness; they only made people happy.90 The added attention that he gave to the subject of the emotions was of course partly related to de Vaux, but it also grew out of his own agenda. He had already systematized ideas. The foundation of sociology had in a sense marked the end of the development of the sciences, and its laws of history revealed the future direction of intellectual life.91 It now was time to systematize matters relating to the heart, that is, the emotions, which he had always thought were crucial to personal, social, and political life. 84 85 86 87 88 89

90

91

Comte to Mill, July 16, 1843, CG, 2:180. Comte to Valat, November 16, 1825, CG, 1:165. Comte to de Vaux, March 8, 1846, CG, 3:351. See P. Laffitte, Note on a conversation with Comte, March 29, 1846, CG, 3:419, notes CDIV and CDV. Pierre Laffitte, Notes from his conversation with Comte, March 29, 1846, MAC. Comte, “D´edicace,”CG, 4:52. See also Comte to Alix Comte, no date, in Auguste Comte, Lettres et Fragments de Lettres (S˜ao Paulo: Centro Positivista de S˜ao Paulo, 1926), 99. This is a fragment of a letter that is not republished in CG. “Lettre philosophique sur le mariage,” CG, 3:280. In his private correspondence, he told Clotilde that the happiness derived from “pure affection” was far greater than the “most sublime pleasures of contemplative life,” including the satisfaction of discovering “great truths.” Comte to de Vaux, February 22, 1846, CG, 3:327. Georges Audiffrent, A Propos du centenaire de la naissance d’un maˆıtre v´en´er´e (Paris: Paul Ritti, 1898), 5.

200

The Muse’s Tragic End

Comte ended his letter by reviewing the history of marriage and by extension gender relations. He pointed out that the transition from polygamy to monogamy in the ancient world did not translate into much “progress” in women’s condition because of “the social nullity of women in military nations”; the existence of domestic slavery, which maintained a sort of practical polygamy; and men’s “excessive privilege” to repudiate their wives.92 Marriage in the ancient world gave only physical, not emotional, satisfaction. Presumably because women had no standing or respect, they could not act fully as men’s companions. Thus Comte did not support the “almost unlimited despotism” exercised by men over women. Ironically, the word “despotism” had often been used by Massin to characterize Comte’s rule over their household; perhaps her rebellion made him more cognizant of domestic tyranny.93 At least, he seems to have understood to a greater extent that the balance of power in a marriage could not be totally in favor of the male. Reflecting the romantics’ admiration for the Middle Ages, as well as his own religious background, Comte praised Catholicism for having advanced the “sentimental education” of humanity. It recognized that love was the “true central motiving force of humanity.” It also first grasped the importance of domestic life and made the family the “center of human morality.” Indeed, Catholicism had made morality for the first time more important than politics. The social reformers of his own day erred by seeking to reverse this process. They sought to remove what was “sacred” and “spiritual” in marriage by transforming it into a “simple temporal contract,” which required state intervention.94 In his mind, they were reviving the ancients’ practice of subordinating the individual to the state. Comte did not expand on this idea, but it is evident that he believed that the institutions of marriage and the family protected the individual from the power of the state. Although he is sometimes accused of being a proto-totalitarian and staunch anti-individualist, it is interesting to note that he denounced state control over every aspect of its members’ lives; he was wary of despotism, whether it occurred in the state or the family. Comte never envisaged forcing people to join positivist organizations or adopt positivist slogans. Like Alexis de Tocqueville, Comte seemed to grasp the dangers involved in allowing the state to intervene more and more in the lives of its citizens; Tocqueville looked to private associations to buffer the individual from the increasingly centralized state; Comte put his hope in the family and in the spiritual power. The pressure of public opinion was 92 93 94

Comte, “Lettre philosophique sur le mariage,” CG, 3:283–4. Comte to Littr´e, April 28, 1851, CG, 6:64. Comte, “Lettre philosophique sur le mariage,” CG, 3:280, 284, 285.

“Lettre philosophique sur le mariage”

201

also a power independent of the state.95 Jean-Paul Frick has correctly pointed out that Comte is the opposite of what we call an authoritarian thinker because he did not believe that the “holders of power” should be the same individuals who set the political goals of society.96 In addition, Comte’s twin goals of pacifism and altruism were not those of totalitarian dictators, who were enamored of violence, often for nationalist or racist ends.97 Comte was neither a fervent nationalist nor a rabid racist. Besides Catholicism, Comte praised chivalry. Foreshadowing the position of twentieth-century scholars, such as Norbert Elias, he maintained that chivalry was a civilizing force.98 Because it emphasized “nobility” and “tenderness,” it made love less brutal and led to the “moral and even physical improvement of both sexes.”99 In fact, it seems that Comte modelled his love for de Vaux partly on a typical chivalrous relationship, where the man adored a married woman and felt uplifted by her. Comte asserted that the efforts of Catholicism and chivalry to change the relations between the sexes resulted in a vast improvement in the condition of women. The “supremacy” of men was restricted, and women gained “material and moral rights” that increased the “just liberty of their interior life.” Comte’s wording is significant. Despite his opposition to the women’s movement, he was affected by its discourse. When he worked for Saint-Simon, over twenty years before, he had renounced the words “rights” and “liberty” as metaphysical and dangerous. They were leftovers from the revolutionary era and had proved incapable of establishing a firm social and political system. But here, in a discussion of the “woman question,” these words seemed to sneak into his vocabulary. However, they lacked their usual punch. Women’s “rights” were “material and moral,” not political. Women’s “liberty” was “interior,” not public. Comte seemed deeply influenced by the new language of the feminists of the 1840s, yet at the same time, he turned their words to his own purposes, making sure women stayed in the domestic 95 96 97 98 99

Laurent Fedi, Comte (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2004), 160–61. Jean-Paul Frick, Auguste Comte ou la R´epublique positive (Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy, 1980), 43. Fedi, Comte, 159. Norbert Elias, The Civilizing Process: Sociogenetic and Psychogenetic Investigations, trans. Edmund Jephcott, rev. ed. (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000), 250. Comte, “Quatri`eme Confession annuelle,” May 31, 1849, CG, 5:32; Comte, “Lettre philosophique sur le mariage,” CG, 3:284. For more on chivalry, see Comte, Appel aux Conservateurs (Paris, 1855), 132; Annie Petit, “Auguste Comte et Clotilde de Vaux: Les Confidences de ‘l’ann´ee sans pareille’ (avril 1845–avril 1846),” Difficult´e d’ˆetre et mal du si`ecle dans les correspondances et journaux intimes de la premi`ere moiti´e du XIXe si`ecle, ed. Simone Bernard-Griffiths and Christian Croisille (Clermont-Ferrand: Presses Universitaires Blaise, 1999), 326.

202

The Muse’s Tragic End

sphere and that male “supremacy,” though restricted, remained “indispensable.”100 Nevertheless, it is telling that two weeks later when George Sand showed an interest in coming to his opening lecture of the course on astronomy to the workers, Comte was delighted and flattered. He immediately decided to welcome her and expressed his “regret” at having been rude to her in 1836, when she “spontaneously” made overtures to him – overtures that he had repelled due to a “fatal disgust.”101 Now he hoped to make up for his unfortunate reaction and give her a reserved seat near him at his next lecture. Calling her an “illustrious woman,” he intended to use her talent for “the active propagation of positivism.”102 Comte’s comments are rife with contradictions. On the one hand, he encouraged de Vaux to write against Sand; on the other hand, he obviously admired Sand and did not think she would discredit his philosophy by being associated with it. Perhaps, having expanded his experiences with women thanks to Austin and de Vaux, he had overcome his fears that she posed a danger to society. Yet Comte never met her, for she never made it to his lecture series. De Vaux thanked Comte for his essay, telling him that he was a real innovator, who had left her far behind. Bowing to his conventional attitudes and gratifying his smugness, she explained, slightly bitterly, that it was the “lot of a woman” to base her morality on her feelings, not on intellectual arguments, and to benefit by walking modestly behind great men even if she had to “lose some of her e´ lan.” She obviously felt that Comte’s system was closed to women, despite his insistence that he did not write for scholars or other male specialists. She stated, “If I were a man, you would have me as an enthusiastic disciple; I offer you in recompense a sincere admirer.” But maybe she could not be a complete disciple, for she suggested that she still had doubts about the subjects he was treating. She wrote that she was among those who still have “their foot in the air on the threshold of truth.”103 Either her enthusiasm or her interest was limited, for her comments on his “Lettre” were brief and revealed no real grappling with the issues that he had brought up. The perfunctory nature of her thank-you note also reflected perhaps her disappointment that his work was too heavy to be of much use in a novel.104 He, on 100 101 102

103 104

Comte, “Lettre philosophique sur le mariage,” CG, 284. Comte to Pierre Laffitte, January 26, 1846, CG, 3:303; Comte to Audiffrent, July 7, 1851, CG, 6:116. Comte to Pierre Laffitte, January 26, 1846, CG, 3:303. Comte even had his disciple Pierre Laffitte find out some information about Sand. Laffitte to Comte, January 26, 1846, in “Lettres de Pierre Laffitte a` Auguste Comte,” RO, 2d ser., 36 (March 1907): 226. See also Deroisin, Comte, 46. De Vaux to Comte, January 15, 1846, CG, 3:288. De Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 322.

Sickness and Death

203

the other hand, was excited that he and she seemed to be working together toward the same social goals. He was certain she would rework his material so that his “excessively systematic conceptions” would reach a wider audience, that is, “all sane minds that animate honest hearts – people who have no other philosophic education than that which derives spontaneously from all of real life.”105 As reflected in his Discours sur l’esprit positif, he worried that the Cours, which had not succeeded in attracting the respect of scientists, alienated the common reader. sickne ss and death De Vaux was somewhat hampered in being completely honest with Comte, for she still borrowed substantial sums from him. Much of this money went to pay Dr. Pinel-Grandchamp.106 Like her previous doctor, Ch´erest, Pinel-Grandchamp believed her condition was caused by a heart problem. He adopted a far more aggressive treatment, prescribing many strong drugs that caused her tremors but did not improve her health. In January 1846, the doctor’s prescription of heavy doses of cod liver oil made her feel as if she had fallen into “nothingness.”107 In February, she coughed up blood again and suffered from heart palpitations. Sophie Bliaux, Comte’s maid, began to take care of her two days a week and even slept overnight at de Vaux’s apartment if need be.108 Comte went to see Pinel-Grandchamp, who reassured him that de Vaux would make a full recovery. Despite her doubts, melancholy, and weakness, de Vaux tried to maintain her spirits. She was convinced that Willelmine was something special and remained hopeful about finishing it in March so that it could be published in Le National. But in late February, de Vaux’s health began to deteriorate rapidly. Besides continuing to experience lung problems, she suffered from terrible fevers and a rapid pulse rate. Once again, one of the doctor’s strong potions together with the cod liver oil made her even sicker by giving her severe intestinal problems. She lost her appetite and could not sleep. Comte, who liked to imagine himself as a doctor and even posed as one during his attack of madness in 1826, decided that Pinel-Grandchamp’s treatment was too harsh for her delicate constitution. To relieve the congestion in her lungs, the doctor seemed eager to direct the flow of blood to other organs in her body. Comte thought that this approach went against Broussais’s recommendation 105 106 107 108

Comte, “Lettre philosophique sur le mariage,” January 11, 1846, CG, 3:286. De Vaux to Comte, February 2, 1846, CG, 3:309; Pinel-Grandchamp to Comte, July 5, 1846, MAC. De Vaux to Comte, January 18, 1846, CG, 3:291. De Vaux left Sophie Bliaux a dress in thanks. De Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 397.

204

The Muse’s Tragic End

to be wary of irritating the stomach, the source of many ills. He agreed with de Vaux’s decision not to continue to take cod liver oil until her work was finished. Her weakness and exhaustion made it extremely difficult to write. Even getting out of bed became a challenge. Yet her humor remained. After Comte complained about Pinel-Grandchamp, she wrote, “These doctors have certainly their bad sides. . . . It seems that the patient’s explanations are a disappointment for them; and so they close his mouth with a sentence and his stomach by a pill. What vanity!”109 Comte finally begged de Vaux to stop work and rest. As a disciple of Gall, he believed that thinking and feeling were related and used different parts of the brain. (Intellectual functions were in the front of the brain, whereas emotional functions were in the back.) If the brain was overworked due to excessive emotional stress or intellectual labor, one’s health suffered.110 He claimed, not very convincingly, that her excitation was also partly caused by the approach of spring and would soon pass. He blamed his own excitation on the imminent change of seasons as well. Perhaps in reaction to his disagreement with de Vaux on how she should handle Marrast and her honest assessment of her limited attachment to him, Comte seemed to be going through yet another period of psychological unbalance. Another friend also died around this time, which made him sad.111 He seemed well aware of his emotional turmoil, charting in several letters written in February 1846 the vicissitudes of his psyche. He told de Vaux that the “crisis” that he underwent after meeting her the previous year had been “profound” and “dangerous” and that the “agitation” lasted until January 1846, when he finally overcame it by means of an “active interior surveillance.” His affection for Clotilde now was fully “incorporated” into his being and thus helped his morality, intellectual development, and health. He had fewer stomach problems caused by nervousness, and he was pleased to have surmounted his sexual drives, which struck him as animalistic. His habits had also changed. He went less often to musical performances, although his passion for de Vaux made him even more sensitive to “aesthetic emotions.”112 He led a more sedentary life, 109 110 111

112

De Vaux to Comte, February 24, 1846, CG, 3:332. Morin, “Auguste Comte,” 242. Madame F. L. Dussaussoy to Comte, February 23, 1846. The man who died was Colonel Dussaussoy, the director of artillery in Rennes and one of Comte’s great admirers. See Dussaussoy to Comte, February 2, 1838. Comte to de Vaux, February 25, 1846, CG, 3:334–5. In truth, Comte was very disappointed by the new Italian operas, chiefly those by Giuseppe Verdi, which he thought reflected a “radical” decline in “musical taste.” His library is full of libretti of operas by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Gioacchino Rossini, Gaetano Donizetti, and Vicenzo Bellini, whom he greatly admired. It also contains Nabucco by Verdi. Comte to de Vaux, March 1, 1846, CG, 3:340. See also Comte to Audiffrent, April 7, 1851, CG, 6:53; Comte’s Biblioth`eque Superflue, MAC; Maria Donzelli, “Auguste Comte et le g´enie

Sickness and Death

205

daydreaming about her instead of taking his usual long walks to flee a terrible “interior sadness.”113 By February 1846, Comte believed that he had surmounted the mental problems that had plagued him since he had met de Vaux; but his preoccupation with his psychological well-being belied his claim. In March, as de Vaux’s health worsened, he admitted that he was experiencing a “new perturbation.” He told her, “Your illness has slightly renewed my nervous symptoms of insufficient sleep and convulsive disposition, which had dissipated two months ago, as I explained to you.”114 According to an expert on manic depression, an individual suffering from this disease is generally “hungry for love” and “any frustration and loss of the object [of his love] precipitates him toward a manic or depressive disturbance.”115 As he watched de Vaux die, Comte’s illness became aggravated, and he became increasingly unbalanced. He wrote de Vaux one love letter after another, proclaiming repeatedly the “perfect purity” of his affection. Frustrated that she did not fit into a clear category, he gave her a myriad of roles, calling her his “perfect friend,” “saintly wife,” sister, daughter, and “mother” to his “second life.” 116 He even dreamt about legally adopting her so that she could at least take his name and reside in his house. This scheme infuriated Madame Marie, who overheard her daughter tell him with both humor and pride, “Mr. Comte, I do not want to be the daughter of a pope.”117 To show de Vaux his love, Comte also gave her a prized possession, a watch that had belonged to his “tender mother” so that she could take her medicine at the proper time.118 This object was all that he had inherited from his mother, and he had had to battle the other members of his family to get it. Just in case it did not function, he also offered her his own gold watch, which he had bought in 1831. But he hoped his mother’s watch would work because he was moved by the prospect of bringing together the “cherished memory” of his mother and his “dominant affection” of the moment.119

113 114 115 116

117

118 119

esth´etique italien,” Auguste Comte aujourd’hui: Colloque de Cerisy (3–10 juillet 2001), ed. Michel Bourdeau, Jean-Franc¸ois Braunstein, Annie Petit (Paris: Kim´e, 2003), 270. Comte to de Vaux, February 25, 1846, CG, 3:334–5. Comte to de Vaux, March 4, 1846, CG, 3:343. Mar`es, “Maniaque d´epressive,” 704. Comte to de Vaux, February 10, March 1, March 8, March 18, 1846, CG, 3:316, 339, 350, 361; Comte, “Septi`eme Confession annuelle,” May 28, 1852, CG, 6:277. See also Comte, “Huiti`eme Confession annuelle,” August 14, 1853, CG, 7:93. Madame Marie, “M´emoire de la m`ere de Clotilde sur les relations entre Clotilde et Comte,” delivered by the witnesses of the brother of Clotilde to the representative of Auguste Comte, n.d., MAC. Comte to de Vaux, March 17, 1846 CG, 3:358. See also Audiffrent to Dubuisson, January 26, 1897, MAC. Comte to de Vaux, March 17, 1846 CG, 3:385.

206

The Muse’s Tragic End

Depressed at not receiving more support from others, de Vaux was “very touched” by Comte’s “constant solicitude” but complained, as she had many months before, that “so many people have loved me on condition that I love them exclusively.” As the weeks passed, her insomnia, loss of appetite, and fever made it increasingly difficult for her to give to Comte and her family the attention they demanded. She began to retreat from the world, restricting their entry into her apartment, where she now was confined, and insisting on her “rights” as an invalid to do what she wanted. She would not give up the “bit of independence,” which she had worked hard to attain and which made her “so happy.”120 Indeed, she tried to use her illness to create more space for herself. Yet by incapacitating her, her illness reinforced her passivity and dependence, two key components of the traditional representation of womanhood that she had resisted. In trying to visit de Vaux, Comte found himself battling Madame Marie and Max, both of whom he tried to discredit. Max, he told de Vaux, was selfish and cold. Their mother was nervous and powerhungry. She displayed “unjust illusions” and “strange jealousies,” which limited her capacity to love.121 One reason for the increased tension between Comte and de Vaux’s family was their disagreement over her medical treatment. One day F´elicie, disobeying de Vaux’s orders, went up to her room and was shocked to discover just how sick she was. De Vaux immediately complained about Pinel-Grandchamp. She believed that she would have been cured if he had not added severe intestinal problems to her minor bronchial illness.122 F´elicie, Max, and Madame Marie tried to get her to go back to Dr. Ch´erest. Max met with the doctor to arrange everything. But feeling rejected as both a lover and a physician, Ch´erest would not treat her until she personally asked him to do so. De Vaux, not wanting to infuriate Comte, her financial backer, refused. However, even Comte became unhappy with Dr. PinelGrandchamp’s remedies, which he now also concluded had done her much harm, especially in inflaming her intestines, weakening her still further, and endangering her lungs. Alluding critically to Broussais’s approach to medicine, Comte regretted that “medical materialism had exercised its ordinary ravages” on Pinel-Grandchamp because this theory did not take into account the influences of the emotions, such as anxiety, on the body.123 Unable to do much about her emotional state, both he and Dr. Pinel-Grandchamp did agree that she 120 121 122 123

Comte to de Vaux, March 1, 1846, CG, 3:341; de Vaux to Comte, February 27, 28, 1846, CG, 3:336, 337. Comte to de Vaux, March 4, 1846, CG, 3:346. De Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 344. Comte to de Vaux, March 5, 1846, CG, 3:348. Syst`eme, 2:318. Pierre Arnaud, CG, 3:418, note CCCXCVI.

Sickness and Death

207

must eat very little in order not to cause greater harm to her digestive tract, but her family wanted her to eat to regain her strength. De Vaux protested that she had no appetite. Sometimes, she would eat only six oysters in an entire day. As de Vaux began to pass more blood and Dr. Pinel-Grandchamp did not bother to visit her, she wrote him directly to tell her of her displeasure. She commanded him to follow her illness until its “denouement.”124 While waiting for his reply, she gave herself enemas that resulted in her passing more blood and pus. She hoped that if she rid herself of this material, her fever would disappear and her appetite would increase. Comte congratulated her on taking command of her treatment but seemed slightly annoyed at her criticism of the doctor. He reasoned that the doctor’s absence could be explained by his conviction that he did not think her condition was dangerous. Though unkind, like other doctors, Pinel-Grandchamp was not negligent.125 However, as the weeks passed, and Comte read more medical textbooks, his worries increased. On March 8, de Vaux wrote what would be her last letter to Comte. It was a sad way to end their correspondence, for she expressed her regret that his love for her was so extreme that it perturbed his work and harmed their friendship, which had never developed the way she wanted.126 Comte found this letter “mysterious.”127 His work had not advanced since early September 1845, but he maintained that her love had helped him to conceptualize the Syst`eme, which he would soon take up again. He was most alarmed by her increased “serenity” and sense of “resignation.”128 She knew she was dying. After Pinel-Grandchamp continued to ignore her, de Vaux decided on March 10 to return to her original doctor, Dr. Ch´erest. Comte was in truth relieved, for he believed that this doctor would not give her such harsh medicine and would be more assiduous in following her case. Ch´erest, shocked by the state of her intestines, told Max that he did not think much could be done for her.129 De Vaux, growing weaker every day, no longer let Comte see her very often because his visits troubled and exhausted her. When he did come, his theatrical gestures, his wailing, and the way he knelt forlornly at her bed upset her as well as the members of her family. He began to write her less often because she lacked the strength to read. Having spent so much time on these missives, he now did not know what to do with himself. On March 19, he went to the opera to see the Barber of Seville, but after experiencing “convulsive agitation” and 124 125 126 127 128 129

De Vaux to Comte, March 5, 1846, CG, 3:347. Comte to de Vaux, March 5, 1846, CG, 3:384. De Vaux to Comte, March 8, 1846, CG, 3:352. Comte to de Vaux, March 9, 1846 CG, 3:352. Comte to de Vaux, March 11, 1846, CG, 3:353. De Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 360.

208

The Muse’s Tragic End

depressing thoughts during the first act, he had to leave.130 He read the M´emoires of Madame Roland, which he had not picked up since his youth. But in rereading it, he could only think about how de Vaux was superior in her social convictions to this prominent victim of the Revolution. On the morning of March 20, he visited de Vaux. Her mother, who was at her bedside, thanked Comte for having helped take care of her daughter. Comte was touched not only by this gesture but by the affection de Vaux showed him. She begged him for a lock of his hair.131 Comte described this last scene in his last letter to her. Finally adieu, my eternal companion. Today, you have made me feel profoundly the price of our noble purity, when you permitted me, in front of your mother, to hold your hand tenderly in my two hands, while contemplating this angelic physiognomy whose temporary alteration renders even more touching its suave beauty.132

Shortly after sending this letter, Comte realized that the end was near. According to de Rouvre, who heard the story from his grandparents, Max and F´elicie Marie, it was at this point that a full-blown battle broke out between Comte and the Maries over de Vaux. Comte came for a visit. Wanting her all to himself, he commanded Sophie Bliaux to guard her door and prevent her relatives from entering the sickroom.133 When they tried to barge in anyway, Comte intervened. Fancying himself the master of the household because of the five to six hundred francs he had given to de Vaux, he told Madame Marie that he had orders from her daughter to let only women servants into the room. Madame Marie replied, “Sir, I would be happy, in this case, to be a woman servant, but I am going to ask my daughter if these orders concern me.” Comte insisted again on having his orders from de Vaux. Exasperated, she cried, “But my God! . . . Do they pertain to [her] mother?”134 De Vaux grew tired of such scenes and uttered to F´elicie at one point, “Do you see, it is better that I die.”135 Henceforth, she said very little. On Sunday, March 28, de Vaux gave Comte a gift, the Journal d’un chr´etien, which she had received for her first communion at her convent school. In 1837, she had inscribed in it, “A precious souvenir of my youth. Companion and guide to the holy hours that have rung 130 132 133 134 135

Comte to de Vaux, March 20, 1846, CG, 3:362. 131 Testament (1896 ed.), 87. Comte to de Vaux, March 20, 1846, CG, 3:363. Sophie Bliaux tended de Vaux eighteen consecutive nights before she died. Comte to Massin, January 10, 1847, CG, 4:97. Statement of Madame Marie, no date, excerpt in de Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 388. Clotilde de Vaux, quoted in de Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 364.

Sickness and Death

209

for me. [It] always reminds my heart of the great . . . ceremonies of the chapel of the convent.”136 De Vaux was seeking consolation. By this time, that is, in late March, de Vaux was so weak that she could no longer exert any influence over Comte whatsoever. Everyone, including Sophie Bliaux, who had a genuine affection for de Vaux, felt uneasy in the presence of this grieving man, who seemed out of control. Fights broke out whenever the doctor arrived. As he believed he was the only competent authority, Comte did not want any medicine to be given to de Vaux. Once when Madame Marie tried to give de Vaux a prescribed drug, Comte would not let her; she had to get help from a doctor who lived downstairs. (The doctor was a colleague of Ch´erest; they both owned the building.)137 Other fights erupted over money and over the problem of whether de Vaux should be moved to another location. De Vaux told Comte in front of her mother, “I would very much like to go sleep at your place.”138 Comte relished this triumph and later included the statement in his daily prayers. On Wednesday, April 1, sensing the end was near, Comte asked de Vaux to give him the letters he had written to her. They were in a glove box that he had presented to her during the baptismal ceremony the year before. Taking the box, he promised to return it to her when she felt better or to keep it if she died.139 Yet desperate for a more significant souvenir, Comte asked de Vaux in front of the doctor to give him the manuscript of Willelmine, her most important possession. He promised to have it published if she consented. She was so despondent about not having completed the story that she could not bring herself to think about leaving it to anyone. She merely said, “I hardly care about my manuscript; people can do with it what they want.”140 After the doctor left the room, Comte disobeyed his wish as well as that of the family and coldly told de Vaux the dreadful news that she was soon going to die. He figured she was too intelligent not to guess, and he did not believe that she should be tricked. Moreover, it annoyed him no end that Max and Madame Marie continued to treat her like a “little girl.”141 He would show her respect by telling her the truth. At this vulnerable moment, Comte again asked her for the manuscript, this time in front of Max and the nurse. But she 136 137 138 139

140 141

See Comte, second copy of prayers in “Pri`eres quotidiennes,” MAC. M´emoire of Madame Marie, no date, MAC. See excerpt in de Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 387. Clotilde de Vaux, cited by Comte, Testament (1896 ed.), 88. Comte to Madame Marie, April 15, 1846, CG, 3:369. Later Madame Marie accused Comte of having stolen this box. Statement of Madame Marie, no date, excerpt in de Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 389. Statement of Madame Marie, no date, excerpt in de Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 389. Comte to Lenoir, April 14, 1846, CG, 3:368.

210

The Muse’s Tragic End

was too distressed to respond. Madame Marie would later take this response as a refusal, whereas Comte interpreted it as a sign of acquiescence.142 In fact, he claimed that she “formally declared” that she would leave him the manuscript.143 Their different readings of her last wishes would prove controversial after her death. The next day, despite the family’s indifference to religion, Madame Marie had the priest come to administer last rites to de Vaux. During the ceremony, de Vaux gazed outside the window without saying a word. She did not refuse the sacrament but did not seem engaged by it either. Comte was there at the head of the bed, holding her hand, while Madame Marie, F´elicie, and Sophie Bliaux knelt down on the floor. Once the ceremony started and he became overwhelmed by sorrow, he joined the women on the floor in prayer. Max, offended by the priest’s presence and annoyed at seeing Comte piously engaged in a Catholic sacramental ritual, contained his outrage in the drawing room. Captain Marie stood by the door, stunned that his daughter was dying. When the priest left, Comte went up to de Vaux and swore in front of her family that he would make her immortal; her reputation would surpass that of any other woman. That night, the night of April 2, he stayed next to her and did not return home. This was the only night they ever spent together.144 Comte called it “our only conjugal night.”145 Referring to Comte’s frequent demands for sex, de Vaux looked sadly at him at one point, saying, “You probably have not had a companion for a long time.”146 Comte took her statement to mean that she finally regretted not having had sex with him.147 When Comte informed Massin of his love for de Vaux, nine months after the latter’s death, he vindictively quoted this statement.148 In the days that followed the last rites, Comte made every effort to monopolize the last moments of de Vaux’s life, for he was sure that he alone knew how to take care of her and love her. His greatest rival was Madame Marie. At one point, he commanded her to leave the apartment, adding when she balked, “Madame, you are not here at your home; you are at Madame de Vaux’s house.”149 As Madame 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149

De Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 365; also note of Maximilien Marie on Statement of Madame Marie, no date, excerpt in de Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 389. Comte to Captain Marie, April 27, 1846, CG, 3:377. De Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 368. Comte, “Eternels Souvenirs p´eriodiques d’un vertueux amour,” “Souvenirs hebdomadaires,” May 27, 1846, MAC. De Vaux, quoted in Comte to Massin, January 10, 1847, CG, 4:97. He also inserted this statement in his dedication to the Syst`eme. Comte, “D´edicace,” CG, 4:52. Comte, “Deuxi`eme Confession annuelle,” June 2, 1847, CG, 4:117. Comte to Massin, January 10, 1847, CG, 4:97; Massin to Comte, November 18, 1847, MAC. Comte, quoted in M´emoire of Madame Marie, no date, MAC. See excerpt in de Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 386.

Sickness and Death

211

Marie pointed out, Comte was so irrational that he terrified everyone in the apartment. She told the “odious” man that he was truly mad.150 He replied that de Vaux had called him to protect her from her mother, who would let her die of hunger. A ghastly scene occurred on the night of April 4 in de Vaux’s room. Madame Marie insisted on her rights as a mother to watch over her daughter until the end came. Comte was struck by anxiety that he would no longer be able to be alone with his beloved, who was struggling for air. He reprimanded Madame Marie, saying “You love your daughter like an object of domination and not like an object of affection.”151 Suddenly Madame Marie felt an enormous wave of hatred for him. At one point, according to Madame Marie, she asked de Vaux to choose whether she wanted to be taken care of by Comte or by her, that is, her mother. De Vaux did not answer. Comte thought he had triumphed, but de Vaux quietly said to her mother, “I cannot tell him to go away, but ask my father to tell him.”152 Calling Captain Marie, she begged him to expel Comte. Captain Marie and Comte were on good terms because de Vaux did not care for her father and they were therefore not rivals for her love.153 Comte frequently gave him tickets to the opera. After some hesitation, Captain Marie finally persuaded Comte to follow him to the little drawing room, where Max was waiting. Finally, Madame Marie was able to be with her dying daughter. In the meantime, another scene ensued, this time between Max and Comte. Comte gave full vent to his anger and grief, accusing him of being ungrateful for all the help he had given him and insisting on his right to be with de Vaux after he had given her so much money, love, and moral support. After Max questioned the love between them as well as the large loans, Comte accused him of having sought to wend his way into Marrast’s good graces by introducing de Vaux to him. Max had allegedly used her beauty to acquire a position at Le National. When that ploy did not work, Max became jealous of his sister’s literary success and even hoped she would die.154 Max could not stand these base accusations and insisted that his father throw the man out. After trying unsuccessfully to get Comte to calm down, Captain Marie asked him to leave.155 At this point, Comte threw 150 151 152 153 154 155

M´emoire of Madame Marie, no date, MAC. See excerpt in de Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 386. Testament (1896 ed.), 88. M´emoire of Madame Marie, no date, MAC. See excerpt in de Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 387. De Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire. M´emoire of Madame Marie, no date, MAC. See excerpt in de Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 388. Comte to Lenoir, April 22, 1846, CG, 3:375.

212

The Muse’s Tragic End

himself at the Captain’s feet, kissed his hands, and told him he was very fond of him.156 He begged to be allowed to see de Vaux’s face one last time. Moved by the flattery and display of emotion but also eager to get rid of him any way he could, the Captain relented and promised to call him before the end if he would leave now. Reassured, Comte departed. The following morning, April 5, Dr. Ch´erest determined that she would die that very day. Captain Marie, keeping his promise, called for Comte. When he entered the apartment, the Marie family respectfully left the dying woman’s chamber so that he could have a chance to be alone with her for a few minutes. He went straight into her room without saying a word, bolted the door, and refused for hours to heed the pleas of desperate family members to let them enter. Madame Marie stopped them from breaking down the door to avoid another violent scene that might precipitate her daughter’s death. They could hear Comte talking to himself, perhaps in prayer. Around three o’clock, according to Comte, de Vaux finally uttered her last words, as though she were playing the death scene in the last act of an opera, “Comte! remember that I suffer without having merited it.” She uttered this sentence five times.157 A half hour later, he finally opened the door. The family rushed in only to discover that she was already dead. Comte had in a sense kidnapped de Vaux to have her all to himself.158 After her death, Comte went home and less than two hours later jotted down in the Journal d’un Chr´etien, which she had given him a few days before, her last words, which still resonated in his ears.159 Comte read a couple of pages from the journal every Sunday until he died.160 Clotilde de Vaux was only thirty-one years old. She died of the illness that had tormented her since she was a young girl. Comte attended the funeral, which was held on April 7 at Saint-Denis-duSaint-Sacrament, a church in the Marais. The funeral procession then made its way to the P`ere-Lachaise cemetery, where she was buried at noon in the Ficquelmont-Marie vault. Comte paid for the expenses of the burial, that is, 351 francs.161 He also gave the woman who took 156 157

158 159 160 161

Comte, quoted in de Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 372. Comte, “D´edicace,” CG, 4:58. In the Testament, Comte implied that Sophie Bliaux, his maid, heard de Vaux’s last words. She thus may have also been present. See Comte’s notes to the second copy of his prayers in packet of “Pri`eres quotidiennes,” MAC; Testament (1896 ed.), 88. 93. De Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 374. See Comte, second copy of prayers in “Pri`eres quotidiennes,” MAC. Testament (1896 ed.), 18. Comte was at the funeral until the last moment, when he had to leave for an appointment with an Englishman, who was probably George Henry Lewes. Audiffrent to Dubuisson, January 26, 1897, MAC. See the bill, “Quittance des fournitures faites pour son convoi,” April 7, 1846, MAC.

Sickness and Death

213

care of her ten francs in return for a locket of hair that she snipped off de Vaux’s head after her death.162 Thus ended what Comte repeatedly called “l’ann´ee sans pareille”– “the year without parallel.”163 Immediately after her death, recriminations flew. Who was responsible for her demise? The family blamed Comte for having changed doctors and put her in the hands of a quack. Madame Marie told Comte, “Monsieur, if my poor daughter had not had the misfortune of knowing you, she would still be alive.”164 Max accused Comte of killing his sister with his bad medical advice.165 Comte too criticized her medical treatment. He later expressed his bitterness to a friend, “My Beatrice succumbed not because of her malady, but because of her two doctors,” who misdiagnosed her.166 Out of shame, Comte paid out of his pocket the remaining forty francs de Vaux owed to Pinel-Grandchamp.167 De Rouvre, probably speaking for the family, blamed PinelGrandchamp the most for the tragedy. As de Rouvre points out, it seemed illogical for Pinel-Grandchamp to be trusted by Comte, who typically argued that it was preferable to let an illness run its natural course and to trust the body to cure itself rather than rely on doctors and their useless medicines. Comte had become friends with the person who regularly sat next to him at the opera, Samuel Hahnemann. This German doctor was distrustful of traditional medicine and had founded homeopathy.168 In short, Comte should have done more to prevent Pinel-Grandchamp from treating de Vaux in a harmful manner. Yet Comte maintained that Dr. Ch´erest was most to blame, especially because he gave de Vaux the “fatal potion” on April 3, 1846.169 162

163 164 165 166 167

168

169

Comte, “D´epenses exceptionnelles pour la maladie de Clotilde,” MAC. Comte paid this woman, Madame Hecquet, altogether fifty francs and gave de Vaux’s concierge another ten francs. Comte called de Vaux’s hair “the posthumous lock.” See Comte, “Eternels Souvenirs p´eriodiques d’un vertueux amour,” “Souvenirs hebdomadaires,” May 27, 1846, MAC. See also the notes in the glove box, MAC. Comte to Lenoir, April 22, 1846, CG, 3:374. Madame Marie to Comte, n.d. (April, 1846), MAC. De Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 2, 301. Comte to Madame N´ısia Floresta Brasileira, August 24, 1857, CG, 8:553. Comte to Dr. Pinel-Grandchamp, July 4 and July 21, 1846, CG, 4:21–2. PinelGrandchamp seemed annoyed that after all the “care and time” he had given to de Vaux, she “brusquely” left him. He denied having neglected her. See Pinel-Grandchamp to Comte, July 3, 1846, MAC. Comte also carried on conversations with Hahnemann’s younger wife, who practiced medicine too. Pierre Laffitte, ed. “Mat´eriaux pour servir a` la biographie d’Auguste Comte: Des Confessions annuelles d’Auguste Comte,” RO 17 (September/November 1886): 200–201. Comte wrote down the ingredients in that lethal potion: two decigrams of silver nitrate and ten drops of laudanum, mixed in forty grams of water with some quince syrup. See Comte’s handwritten note, “Souvenirs de costumes et attitudes,” September 10, 1846, MAC.

214

The Muse’s Tragic End

However, the two decigrams of silver nitrate in that potion was not lethal.170 Noting Comte’s eagerness to assign blame, De Rouvre accused him of bearing “heavy” responsibility for her death by insisting on having the final authority in the sickroom as in all other realms.171 Comte’s arrogance, harsh words, and cruel behavior deeply hurt the Marie family. Madame Marie, who died still grieving twenty months later, told F´elicie, “I will never pardon Auguste Comte for having stolen from me the last sigh of my daughter.”172 Max demanded a formal apology for the insults that he had endured. He considered the possibility of a duel. He engaged two intermediaries to negotiate with Comte on the terms. One was Dr. Ch´erest. The other was J. N. d’Aguiar, a thirty-year-old Portuguese man, who was studying mathematics with Max in preparation for a career in engineering. He had frequently expressed his admiration for Comte, whom he had met on several occasions.173 On April 8, one day after the funeral, Ch´erest and d’Aguiar wrote to Comte telling him of their intention to visit him the following day. When they arrived, Comte refused to receive either man. D’Aguair asked Comte to name two intermediaries to whom he and Ch´erest could address themselves. He appealed to Comte as the founder of a philosophy that celebrated respect for others as the basis of social order.174 Lamenting that he had lost more than anyone else, Comte insisted on his need for solitude. Despite “their wrongs,” the Marie family, according to him, had been given a “generous pardon” by de Vaux, and he would respect her wishes not to wrangle with them.175 He could not understand what Max could possibly want from him. Surely he was misinterpreting “some words that had escaped.”176 While continuing to ignore Ch´erest in particular, Comte finally agreed to appoint one intermediary. He told d’Aguair to see Mr. Lenoir, the liaison between himself and Massin. Because Lenoir was an acquaintance of the Maries, Comte hoped he could pacify the Maries to avoid a duel. 170

171 172 173

174 175 176

It is estimated that ten grams of silver nitrate is fatal. See U.S. Department of Energy, “Toxicity Profiles,” Risk Assessment Information System, http://rais.ornl.gov/tox/ profiles/silver_f_V1.shtml (accessed December 26, 2006). Dr. Thomas Abel has also informed me that only a large, single dose of ten to thirty grams of silver nitrate would have killed de Vaux. I thank him for this information. De Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 349–50. Madame Marie, quoted in de Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 381. Indeed, Comte was visited years later by Aguiar’s wife. Comte to Madame Aguiar, November 8, 1849, Collection A. Bixio, Autographes IIC, no. 182, N.a.fr. 22735, BN. This letter is not published in CG. J. N. d’Aguiar to Comte, April 10, 1846, CG, 3:421. Comte to Lenoir, April 14, 1846, CG, 3:367. Comte to d’Aguair, April 11, 1846, CG, 3:366.

Sickness and Death

215

Madame Marie detailed her complaints to Lenoir in front of Max, F´elicie, d’Aguiar, and Ch´erest.177 She explained that Comte had been a close friend of her family but had become crazed by his “brutal” passion for her daughter, who did not regard him the same way. According to Marie, she and her daughter had frequently laughed together at his exaggerated passionate expressions. Although he never won de Vaux’s heart, he finally obtained her confidence because he “fascinated her mind by a great appearance of devotion and incessant flattery.”178 Madame Marie repeated the family’s accusation that he had gone behind their backs in persuading her to go to his dreadful doctor. She described the horrible death scenes where Comte insulted them at every moment and called Max a liar and ingrate. Although she could forgive Comte because she was convinced that he was mad, she wanted him to retract what he had said to her son, who was very hurt by his attack. Madame Marie’s account shocked Lenoir. It confirmed what Sophie Bliaux, an eyewitness, had already told him.179 Lenoir and Comte had a heated conversation on Monday, April 13. Lenoir told him that Max and Madame Marie wanted to know what transpired between him and de Vaux, especially with regards to financial matters. Comte refused any “inquiry” into this “sacred subject.”180 After much protest, Comte agreed to respect the Maries’ demand that they pay him the sum that de Vaux owed him. They did not want to give him the pleasure of having helped their daughter. Comte accepted one payment for the 150 francs that he had lent her plus another payment of 36 francs that she had asked Comte to give to the nurse who attended to her last needs.181 Lenoir made Comte rewrite several times his note to Captain Marie acknowledging the receipt of this reimbursement because he used provocative language in alluding to his close friendship with de Vaux. After Lenoir still refused to deliver his revised note, Comte himself sent Captain Marie a letter referring to the “repugnance” he felt in accepting the 186 francs.182 This reimbursement turned out to be only a third of what Comte had really lent to de Vaux. Comte did not want to tell them the real sum, considering it a secret between himself and de Vaux, 177 178 179 180 181

182

There are several versions of Madame Marie’s m´emoire in the MAC. One of them is scribbled on her book Sculpteur en bois. See also de Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 383. M´emoire of Madame Marie, no date, MAC. See excerpt in de Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 384, 386. Statement of d’Aguair, reproduced in de Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 405. The original is in MAC. Comte to d’Aguiar, April 20, 1846, CG, 3:373. As mentioned in a previous note, Comte actually paid the woman forty francs for taking care of de Vaux and another ten francs for a locket of his beloved’s hair. See “D´epenses exceptionnelles pour la maladie de Clotilde,” MAC. Comte also gave de Vaux’s concierge a ten-franc tip. Comte to Captain Marie, April 19, 1846, CG, 3:371.

216

The Muse’s Tragic End

one that they could not discover.183 Although he had to borrow five hundred francs from Blainville and one thousand francs from J. Captier, a family friend, to make ends meet, it pleased him to know that the Maries were still indebted to him.184 He lorded it over Madame Marie, accusing her of having been a tyrant with de Vaux on issues regarding money. Shocked by his desire for “personal vengeance,” Madame Marie could not contain her wrath over this “new accusation.” It made her “fear” his “influence as a moralist.”185 Comte listened to the Maries’ case but refused to fight. He hoped his “adversary” Max would not try to assassinate him. Murder would be a “strange way of refuting the formal reproach of ingratitude toward me, which I addressed to him.” Nevertheless, Comte decided to take “reasonable precautions.”186 Lenoir continued to press Comte to meet with the family, who wanted to learn more about his relationship with their daughter. Comte dismissed him as an intermediary. Comte’s unilateral decision not to engage in a discussion of important issues was part of a recurring pattern in his life. He had broken with Valat, after refusing to dispute philosophical topics brought up in the Cours. Now he ended his old friendship with Lenoir, who had been won over by the Maries. After seeing a letter full of allegations against the Marie family that he sent to d’Aguair, Lenoir wrote to Comte, “Alas!! You upset me.”187 He could no longer tolerate Comte’s insensitivity. Yet somehow Lenoir succeeded in helping him avoid a duel. f inal analysis of clotilde de vaux It is not known if de Vaux managed to find some consolation in her dying moments. She was no doubt distraught at not having finished Willelmine, the key to her independence, and she could not have been happy about the unresolved tensions in her relationships with Comte and her family. She needed time to put her life in order but was caught unaware by the sudden severity of her illness, just as she had 183

184 185

186 187

See Comte’s comments in his notebook “Recettes et d´epenses courantes, mai 1838– septembre 1857,” MAC. De Vaux also confided to Comte that she was cauterizing herself to seek relief and asked Comte not to tell anyone. This was a “woman’s secret.” De Vaux to Comte, February 2, 1846, CG, 3:309. See notes of December 22, 1845 and March 26, 1846 in notebook “Recettes et d´epenses courantes, mai 1838–septembre 1857,” MAC. Madame Marie, “M´emoire de la m`ere de Clotilde sur les relations entre Clotilde et Comte,” delivered by the witnesses of the brother of Clotilde to the representative of Auguste Comte, n.d., MAC. Comte to Lenoir, April 22, 1846, CG, 3:375. Lenoir to Comte, April 21, 1846, MAC.

Final Analysis of Clotilde de Vaux

217

been surprised when her husband unexpectedly left her years before. De Vaux was a true victim. Manipulated in various degrees by those around her, de Vaux was a suitable figure for the drama concerning her role in his development that Comte replayed both in his mind and works until his own death. Yet she was not a completely passive, weak figure. After her failed marriage, she realized that by force of circumstance and the law, she had no identity; she had no family of her own, no status as a citizen in France, and no property. She decided to use the few means available to nineteenth-century women to construct an autonomous life and create her own story. An avid letter-writer, she chose to find respect and a public voice as an author. Yet her gender, her body (in terms of both her illness and her beauty), her peculiar status as a single married woman, her class, and even her talent conspired against her. Her difficulties shed light on problems faced by nineteenth-century women of ideas, especially “ordinary” women who were traditional in their views and limited in their abilities but who still sought prominence in the nineteenth-century literary world. Their quest was difficult in an age when women’s rights activism was waning after the initial experiment with the Saint-Simonian variant of feminism had proven risky.188 The new identity that literary women were carving out for themselves in the public sphere threatened both men and women. Everywhere they turned they found themselves involved in power struggles and cultural contests. In her fight to invent herself, de Vaux encountered conflicts with men who sought to monopolize their position as leading intellectuals. Max resented the fact that his mentor preferred her work to his. Marrast undermined de Vaux’s self-confidence by suggesting that the value of her articles depended on her conduct in bed. He wanted her body as a way of achieving victory over Comte. He too desired her body but also wanted her mind and heart. De Vaux’s aspirations involved competition with women. Jealous of her literary success, her mother refused to give her money to help her achieve her goal of independence and would not allow Willelmine to be published. At the same time, de Vaux was involved in a rivalry of sorts with George Sand, which came to involve Marrast and Comte. De Vaux was one of many woman writers who, according to Janice Bergman-Carton, tended to “identify themselves with and capitalize on Sand’s eminence and visibility.”189 To become famous, de Vaux decided to challenge the most important woman writer in France. Marrast approved of her objective because it would sell more newspapers. Comte set de Vaux against Sand in the first place to 188 189

Karen Offen, “Women’s History as French History,” 148. Bergman-Carton, The Woman of Ideas, 199.

218

The Muse’s Tragic End

buttress the social order. But in developing a more emotional strain of positivism to attract women supporters like de Vaux, Comte then sought to persuade Sand to use her literary talents to propagate positivism. (Along with Pierre Leroux and Louis Viardot, Sand had founded La Revue ind´ependante several years before.190 ) At the same time, Comte offered to make de Vaux a “regular collaborator” in his periodical, the Revue positive, once it was established.191 His aim was to exploit the femme auteur, whom he had at least initially disliked, to further his own agenda. Overshadowed by Sand and controlled by Comte, de Vaux would have been at a severe disadvantage if his plan had worked. With only one published short story, de Vaux did not succeed in establishing a public image for herself. Ultimately Comte had the victory as the man of ideas because it is due to his fame that she is remembered at all. Reflecting the essentialism and binary thinking of the day, he had offered her the two stock roles for women at this time, that of the fallen woman and that of the angel in the household. After she had rejected the first option, his male gaze fixed her as the perfect woman – docile, emotional, capricious, and dependent. He and her mother used this stereotypical image of woman to deter her from a full-time writing career. After she died, Comte represented her as his collaborator and muse, typical “feminine” roles contributing to someone else’s self-definition. As such, she was a “real model” for all women.192 De Vaux theoretically supported the conventional image of the woman that dominated early nineteenth-century society. Like other women trying to define themselves in the face of a hostile society, she worried that her success might jeopardize her desirability as a woman and her social status as a bourgeois lady. At a time when essentialism dictated that every woman was similar, the distinctiveness of women writers made them seem unfeminine.193 This danger was even more acute for de Vaux, who wished very much to remain feminine and already felt uncertain about her role as a woman because of her inability to have children in an age that exalted motherhood.194 Pressured to conform to the norms of female identity dictated by the culture at large and held by Comte, Marrast, her mother, and others in her entourage, she performed the role of the traditional woman when appropriate. She stressed her lack of sexual desire, her 190 191 192 193 194

Perrot, introduction to George Sand, 21. Comte, Testament (1896 ed.), 239; Comte to de Vaux, October 29, 1845, CG, 3:168. Comte to de Vaux, February 15, 1846, CG, 3:323. Sidonie Smith, A Poetics of Women’s Autobiography: Marginality and the Fictions of SelfRepresentation (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987), 9–10. Jo Burr Margadant, “The Duchesse de Berry and Royalist Political Culture in Postrevolutionary France,” History Workshop Journal, no. 43 (1997): 24–6.

Final Analysis of Clotilde de Vaux

219

deficient education, her financial dependence, her physical weakness, and her opposition to George Sand and Sand’s protagonist, Marcie. In “Lucie,” she projected an image of woman as innocent victim of society. In Willelmine, she played the fallen woman, who is saved by a man and revealed to be ultimately virtuous. In both works, she celebrated motherhood, which eluded her and her protagonists. Though de Vaux performed these conventional gender roles to survive, she played other parts as well in order to give herself the sense that she had some agency and control.195 In her writings and behavior, she presented herself as a savvy manipulator of men and came to challenge the traditional representation of women. Without a family, she felt she could not use the argument employed by other contemporary women, such as Jeanne Deroin, who claimed that women had a right to intervene in the public sphere on the basis of their maternal role.196 De Vaux wanted to construct a new female identity without reference to its traditional maternal and domestic grounding and without male control. Independence was her “id´ee fixe,” as she put it herself.197 This ambition to achieve individuality appeared masculinist because it was materialistic and self-serving, not spiritual and altruistic. It threatened men.198 Although de Vaux derided women’s rights activists who demanded gender equality, she tried, in effect, to realize their objective by insisting on the male privilege not only to have the economic wherewithal to live independently but also to affect public discourse through her writing.199 Through Lucie and Willelmine, de Vaux became a spokesperson for social justice, imitating to a certain degree both Sand and Madame Marie. This image of social nonconformist suited de Vaux as well as her traditional roles did. In sum, de Vaux was a collection of different selves, partaking of aspects of the many rich and diverse images made available by the culture at large. To conform to bourgeois convention, she played the abandoned wife, innocent victim, household angel, inspiring muse, and dependent invalid. To resist traditional representations of women, she performed the parts of enthusiastic student, rebellious daughter, independent woman of ideas, writer, and social reformer. These 195

196 197 198 199

On the importance of agency, see Sherry B. Ortner, Making Gender: The Politics and Erotics of Culture (Boston: Beacon Press, 1996), 2. On strategies of survival, see Judith Butler, “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory,” in Performing Feminisms: Feminist Critical Theory and Theatre, ed. Sue-Ellen Case (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990), 273. Bergman-Carton, The Women of Ideas, 95. De Vaux to Comte, December 28, 1845, CG, 3:257. Joan Scott, Only Paradoxes to Offer (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996), 69. For insights regarding the threat of the independent woman in the interwar period, see Mary Louise Roberts, Civilization without Sexes: Reconstructing Gender in Postwar France, 1917–1927 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994).

220

The Muse’s Tragic End

varied selves originated in, evolved within, or represented a reaction to the texts that surrounded her. These texts include her stories and letters, which portrayed women as victims of evil men, an unjust society, bad mothers, and a poor education; George Sand’s novels, which depicted transgressive female protagonists; Comte’s philosophical works and correspondence, which celebrated the role of women, especially de Vaux; and her mother’s articles, which directed her attention to broad issues of social reform.200 Having found satisfaction in performing her many parts, de Vaux did not want Comte to bolster his latest self-representation as the forlorn, emotional, virtuous lover by immortalizing her in a single, selfless image of what every woman should be. She resisted Comte’s making her forever into an exemplary moral agent, the role that many women of her day used to empower themselves and a role that she resorted to from time to time for her own benefit. At the end of their relationship, in her last letter to Comte, de Vaux announced with great bitterness,” I have never dared to be myself with you.”201 In a sense, she informed him that she had been acting throughout their relationship and that there was a real, fixed self behind her performances, one that countered his fraudulent representation of her. Whether such an essential, coherent self truly existed in de Vaux , or resides in anyone for that matter, poses an enigma that continues to be discussed at great length. If we grant that the concept of an essential self has validity, other vexing problems emerge: it is not clear whether de Vaux herself understood this self and whether scholars a hundred fifty years later can escape the preconceptions of their own age and use her correspondence, her writings, and the cultural resources of the period to reconstruct that self. But perhaps all of these difficulties are ultimately immaterial because de Vaux was not attempting to unveil her authentic self but to exploit the notion of it. By telling Comte that he did not know her “real” self, she sought to ensure her final victory over him and take her revenge. Angry that he had made no effort to inhabit her world or allow their relationship to develop on a more cerebral plane as she had desired, she insisted at the end on remaining mysterious and inaccessible to his male gaze. She resisted his project of transparency, which he had adopted from the French revolutionaries and realized in his major philosophical works, where he openly discussed his personal life.202 This project was important to reform-minded men like Comte, who felt obliged to prove their virtue and honesty, especially in mid-nineteenth-century 200

201 202

On this idea of a woman’s life caught up in texts, see Kali A. K. Israel, “Writing inside the Kaleidoscope: Re-representing Victorian Women Public Figures,” Gender and History 2 (Spring 1990): 40–48; Israel, Names and Stories, 3–18. De Vaux to Comte, March 8, 1846, CG, 3:352. Mary Pickering, “Rhetorical Strategies in the Works of Auguste Comte,” Historical Reflections/R´eflexions Historiques 23 (Spring 1997): 160.

The Aftermath of de Vaux’s Death

221

France, when codes of honor were still followed.203 But because she was a bourgeois woman who had not had the pleasure of great public acclaim, de Vaux did not feel as privileged and secure as these men to allow herself to revel in a public display of a fragmentary self.204 She reacted by resorting to women’s traditional sphere – the private – and making the very private – her perceived sense of inner identity – even more private. Just as Dora would later mystify Sigmund Freud, de Vaux delighted in this way in baffling the self-satisfied social scientist. Despite the pride that Comte took in his intellectual superiority, she informed him that he could not grasp her essence, which was hers to reveal or conceal. In this way, she subtly mocked his faith in reason and his other self-representation as a genius. She demonstrated that his image of her, which he was going to use to encourage women’s “innate sociability,” was a fraud; there was a limit to her sociability. In effect, de Vaux’s assertion that there was another self, a secret layer that lay beneath all the other performed ones, was a subversive performative act. As Judith Butler has pointed out, “gender performance always and variously occurs” in a “situation of duress.”205 De Vaux was working out her last survival strategy, which she felt was required to preserve the dramatic, transformative potential of her character. Her claim to possess an inaccessible, authentic self around which circulated multiple constructed selves was ultimately a ploy of self-identification, contributing to her sense of individuality, agency, and freedom. De Vaux’s battle with Comte demonstrates that nineteenth-century women were playing with complex issues of identity to resist their male contemporaries’ urge to create stable female allegories, which were used by these men to project a vision of a “better” society – a male-centered society that inevitably continued to make women subordinate. the afte rmath of de vaux’s death After de Vaux’s death, Comte was very much alone. He felt he had lost “the only person” who truly understood him and who loved him with the “purest, holiest, and most devoted friendship.” She had satisfied his “excessively developed needs for affection.”206 203 204

205 206

Robert A. Nye, Masculinity and Male Codes of Honor in Modern France (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 32. On the provocative question of whether socially disadvantaged people can find liberation in a completely diffused self, see Laura Lee Downs, “Reply to Joan Scott,” Society for Comparative Study of Society and History 35 (April 1993): 450. Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (New York: Routledge, 1990), 139. On the construction of selves, see Butler, “Performative Acts,” 279. Pierre Laffitte, Notes from his conversation with Comte, March 29, 1846, MAC.

222

The Muse’s Tragic End

No one thoroughly comprehended his position because he and de Vaux had carried on their relationship almost clandestinely. She had become very close to him, discussing with him intimate details of her illness, medical treatment, and financial situation, which she hid from her family.207 She had poured out her feelings regarding her mother and the other members of the family. She had let him see just how ambitious she was, how desirous she was to achieve fame through her writings. And yet for all this closeness, they had never consummated their relationship in the physical way he wanted. There was also no legal sanction of their feelings for one another. That is why he probably told people after she died that he had intended to adopt her as soon as he reached the legal minimum age of fifty, though she had two living parents and was no longer a child. He simply wished to have the closeness of their relationship legalized and publicized.208 On Tuesday, April 14, a week after her death, Comte made a visit to de Vaux’s tomb for the first time – a visit he would make every Wednesday until he died.209 The next day Comte sent the Maries a list of the various objects that he had lent to de Vaux and wanted returned to him. These objects were crucial to the “cult” of his “cherished souvenirs” that he had begun constructing in 1845 and now considered to be his sole source of consolation.210 Perhaps he thought regaining possession of his belongings – that he had shared with de Vaux – would give him some sense of closure. The items on the list included linens and handkerchiefs marked C.M. (Caroline Massin), a trestle bed, a nightlight, a crystal bowl, and twenty-six volumes of books. He also wanted the seven letters that he had written to de Vaux in March; they were not in the box that he had taken April 1 because they did not fit.211 Finally, he requested the manuscript of Willelmine. This dry, rather bureaucratic letter only reinforced Max and Madame Marie’s conviction that he was abnormal.212 207 208 209

210 211

212

De Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 165. Comte even mentions his scheme in the Cat´echisme positiviste of 1852. See Cat´echisme, 40. He later often combined a trip to her grave with a visit to the Church of St. Paul. Henry Dix Hutton, Comte, the Man and the Founder: Personal Recollections (London: Reeves & Turner, 1891), 10. Comte to Mrs. Austin, May 26, 1846, CG, 4:13. See also Comte, “Troisi`eme Confession annuelle,” June 25, 1848, CG, 4:158. These were the letters of March 1, 4, 5, 9, 11, 17, and 18. He had the last letter he had written her, the one from March 20. Perhaps it had been lying close to her bed, and he had taken it. De Vaux may have put the other letters in her papers, where her mother found them after her death. Look at the note that Comte glued to the inside cover of the glove box, which is in the Maison d’Auguste Comte. Max decided that Comte was indeed suffering from, in d’Aguair’s words, “one of those attacks of madness, which people said were habitual with him.” Statement of d’Aguair, reproduced in de Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 405. Comte could hardly have been

The Aftermath of de Vaux’s Death

223

Madame Marie quickly satisfied all of Comte’s demands for his possessions except for the return of his seven letters and the manuscript.213 She was “more than shocked” when she read the letters from a “man who presents himself as a philosopher and a moralist.” They revealed the secret of Comte’s youthful affair with a married woman and his illegitimate daughter, his sexual desires for de Vaux, his plans to adopt her, and his vicious hatred of Massin. Though insulted by his comments about members of the family, she was at least relieved to see that de Vaux had not been taken in completely by the conniving, hypocritical Comte and had “remained pure.” She refused to give Comte the letters or manuscript because they were all that she had of her daughter’s “heart.”214 After hearing Comte’s pleas, Captain Marie begged her to relent, but without success.215 Madame Marie’s viewpoint is evident in a “Response to Monsieur Comte,” which she entrusted to Lenoir to give to Comte: Thirty-one years of care, devotion, and sacrifice give me the imprescriptible rights to the dear remains that Mr. Comte claims. They will stay in the family without correction or publication; our feelings do not need the joys of pride. I will likewise keep all the papers that belonged to my daughter. They are indispensable to me in the interest of her memory. The justification that Mr. Comte himself has chosen for his unspeakable behavior and for his offenses against us give me the right to guard against the impudence and violence that attack his mind.216

Comte denounced Madame Marie’s “maternal tyranny.”217 It was clear to him that she did not want her daughter to succeed in the literary area where she had not done well.218 She would certainly never want to see in print the story that she had always hated because de Vaux seemed to criticize her as a mother. Her view prevailed, in

213

214 215 216 217 218

surprised when they deliberately did not tell him when Clotilde’s coffin was to be moved from its temporary grave to its permanent one. See Comte’s handwritten note glued to the inside cover of the glove box, MAC. After years of effort, Comte’s disciples finally persuaded descendants of de Vaux to give the letters and manuscript to the archives of the Maison d’Auguste Comte in 1928. Soon afterwards, they published a facsimile of the manuscript. See Paulo E. de Berrˆedo Carneiro, introduction to CG, 3:LXXXV, n. 2. Madame Marie to Comte, n.d. (April 1846?), MAC. Comte prided himself on having helped de Vaux in “the conception and elaboration” of this work. Comte to Barbot de Chement, November 8, 1846, CG, 4:78. Madame Marie, R´eponse a` Monsieur Comte, no date, MAC. See excerpt in de Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 398. Note of Comte written on letter from Madame Marie to Comte, April 26, 1846, CG, volume three, note CDXX, 422. See Comte’s comment on her “monstrous literary rivalry.” Comte to Barbot de Chement, November 8, 1846, CG, 4:78.

224

The Muse’s Tragic End

Comte’s eyes, because Captain Marie, enervated by “sexual abuses,” that is, by excessive sexual activity during his youth, was too weak to exert his authority as “head of the family.”219 Comte refused to have anything more to do with any of the family members. Yet in the fall of 1846, he was delighted when Captain Marie came by his apartment unannounced; this visit gave him the chance to talk about de Vaux once again.220 Yet for the most part Comte wished to be left alone. One reason was that two weeks after de Vaux’s death, “philosophical ideas” pertaining to the Syst`eme suddenly and “spontaneously” began to come to him.221 Although at first he felt too paralyzed by grief to write, he was excited that after almost eighteen months of struggling to focus on his work, he now could do so. As he told de Vaux in one of his last letters to her, his love for her was integral to his work. “To become a perfect philosopher, I lacked above all a . . . profound and pure passion that would make me appreciate the affective side of humanity.”222 Meeting her marked the beginning of his “second life.”223 On Sunday, April 12, 1846, he decided to throw out what he had written in August and September 1845 and start the book anew.224 He believed that he had considered the emotions only in a secondary manner in the Cours; he would make them dominate the Syst`eme, which would systematize “all human existence around its true universal center: affection!”225 Just as he believed that his emotions increasingly influenced his intellectual development, he argued that “affection must increasingly dominate speculation to lead to a true systematization of human existence.”226 Whereas in his “first 219 220

221 222 223 224

225 226

Comte to Lenoir, May 9, 1846, CG, 3:11. Comte, “Deuxi`eme Confession annuelle,” June 2, 1847, CG, 4:115. Comte also saw him by chance at de Vaux’s grave in November 1852. See Comte, “Huiti`eme Confession annuelle,” August 14, 1853, CG, 7:95. After Max and Madame Marie refused to give to Comte the papers he sought, the Captain broke with them in 1846. He eventually moved to rue de Penthi`evre and died in February 1855. The other members of the family moved from the rue Pav´ee to the rue du Petit-Bourbon in the same neighborhood. Madame Marie died on February 8, 1848. Max became a mathematics instructor. He eventually obtained the posts of r´ep´etiteur and admissions examiner at the Ecole Polytechnique – the posts Comte had held. See Comte to Captain Marie, October 10, 1846, CG, 4:63; Th´erive, Clotilde de Vaux, 185; J. N. d’Aguair to Maximilien Marie, April 4, 1850; Bertrand, “Souvenirs acad´emiques,” 547. Comte to Lenoir, April 22, 1846, CG, 3:374. Comte to de Vaux, March 11, 1846 CG, 3:354. Comte, “Sixi`eme Confession annuelle,” May 30, 1851, CG, 6:93. See Comte’s original notations on his personal notes regarding the time he spent writing his works at the Maison d’Auguste Comte. Parts of these notes are reproduced in Laffitte, ed., “Du Temps dans le travail intellectuel,” 442. Comte to de Vaux, March 11, 1846 CG, 3:354. Comte to Barbot de Chement, October 29, 1846, CG, 4:61.

The Aftermath of de Vaux’s Death

225

life,” he had encouraged the mind’s influence on the heart, the “second part” of his “philosophic career” would address chiefly the heart, which had to enlighten the mind.227 In this way, he would make sure that “positivism surpasses every religion in moral efficacy as much as it does in intellectual aptitude.”228 The gap between the needs of the mind and those of the heart would be finally overcome. Comte set to work to develop this moral aspect of his philosophy and eventually ascribed to de Vaux his interest in creating a new science, that of morality, as well as a new religion.229 As was his wont, he analyzed the different stages of his life and determined that “the age of private passions” was over for him. He would be henceforth completely preoccupied by his “social mission,” which would only partly compensate him for his loss but at least would prevent him from committing suicide. In a sense, Comte sought to sublimate his “noble” feelings of melancholy and to direct his energy to his work in the “service of humanity.”230 He presented this decision dramatically as a new development for him, as a kind of resurrection, but in truth he had stated years before that he was devoting himself to humanity because he had found no happiness with Massin.231 By September, he began writing his dedication to de Vaux, which was partly a funeral oration and partly an introduction to the Syst`eme.232 He used the dedication to ensure her immorality; though obscure on this earth, de Vaux did achieve the fame she desired, but not through her work, as she desired, but because of her connection with Comte, who wanted to make their relationship as well-known as the one between his beloved Dante and Beatrice. Indeed, Comte made de Vaux famous chiefly by emphasizing her role as his muse, an approach that robbed her of agency.233 In wallowing in his sorrow, Comte was similar to his contemporaries. Victor Hugo mourned the drowning in 1843 of his daughter, which inspired him to write many of the poems in his Contemplations.234 Comte gave in to his need to publicize his private life, which was already apparent in his infamous preface to the sixth volume of the Cours, written in 1842. In this dedication in the Syst`eme, he announced to the public – both male and 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234

Comte, “Quatri`eme Circulaire annuelle,” January 31, 1853, CG, 7:31; Comte, “D´edicace,” CG, 4:51. Comte to de Vaux, March 11, 1846, CG, 3:355. Comte, Synth`ese subjective ou Syst`eme universel des conceptions propres a` l’´etat normal de l’humanit´e., vol. 1 (Paris, 1856)[hereafter, Synth`ese], 833. Comte to Lenoir, April 22, 1846, CG, 3:374. On the influence of Catholicism, Annie Petit, “Du Catholicisme au positivisme,” Revue internationale de philosophie 52 (1998): 142. He finished the dedication on October 4, 1846. It is reprinted in CG, 4:47–61. Comte, “D´edicace,”CG, 4:47, 55. See also ibid., 61. George Chabert, Un Nouveau Pouvoir spirituel: Auguste Comte et la religion scientifique au XIXe si`ecle (Caen: Presses universitaires de Caen, 2004), 50.

226

The Muse’s Tragic End

female – the influence of his female “colleague” on his development. He used himself as an example to demonstrate concretely women’s impact on men. He stressed the nobility, purity, and chastity of their relationship – a relationship that he claimed made both of them more perfect beings. Pretending to address her, Comte wrote, “Your salutary influence spontaneously rendered me more affectionate toward my friends and more indulgent toward my enemies, gentler to my inferiors, and more subservient to my superiors.”235 She not only purified his affections, but broadened his thoughts and ennobled his conduct. He prided himself on his great energy, which was, thanks to her, more efficacious because he had learned moderation. Thus he claimed that all aspects of his character had blossomed under her guidance. His suffering from her death had also served to make him a “better” person “in all regards.”236 He was thus a better philosopher with greater authority to ensure the development “in all senses of the grandeur of man.”237 Claiming not to care about critics’ views of his writings, he affirmed that he derived his greatest satisfaction from improving his “own moral nature” and exercising “the same influence on many others.”238 Yet subsequent events would show that he had not changed much, if at all. Indeed, in the dedication, he punished in his usual vindicative way those whom he despised. He denounced de Vaux’s mother just as he had criticized Arago and other “enemies” in the Cours. Writing the dedication was a catharsis. By October, when he completed it, he had overcome his insomnia, convulsions, and stomach troubles and reached a “new situation of moral equilibrium.”239 By July 1847, he wrote to a friend that the period of personal mourning was over for him.240 He prided himself on his stoicism, that is, his ability to “dominate” his “irrevocable” sadness.241 Indeed, he recommended that everyone practice resignation, for there were many evils humans could not eliminate.242 Yet he worked hard at keeping 235 237

238 239

240 241

Comte, “D´edicace,” CG, 4: 49. 236 Comte to Lenoir, April 22, 1846, CG, 3:374. Comte, “D´edicace,” CG, 4:54. See also his “D´edicace” du Syst`eme de politique positive, where he claims that giving details of his private life will give humanity the “moral guarantees it must . . . require from true philosophers,” CG, 4:48. Comte to Alix Comte, November 10, 1848, CG, 4:206. Comte to Barbot de Chement, October 29, 1846, CG, 4:70–71. On Comte’s convulsions, which lasted six months, see Comte to Lewes, April 7, 1845, CG, 4:113. On October 22, Comte invited Laffitte to dine with him in order to read the dedication. Laffitte persuaded him to omit one note that could lead to unwanted “personal discussions.” See Pierre Laffitte, ed. “Mat´eriaux pour servir a` la biographie d’Auguste Comte: Des Confessions annuelles d’Auguste Comte,” RO 17 (September/November 1886): 184–5. See comment from Modeste-Etienne Claudel to Comte, July 7, 1847, MAC. Comte to Mill, May 6, 1846, CG, 4:7. 242 Comte, “D´edicace,” CG, 4:58.

The Aftermath of de Vaux’s Death

227

the influence of de Vaux strong in his life. Every year he wrote an “annual confession” to her, telling her his thoughts on contemporary events, which were both public and private, his feelings about her and those around him, and his progress in advancing their joint cause of moral regeneration.243 His notion of a confession was inspired by Rousseau’s Confessions, but he intended to display his private life in public in order to underscore his altruism, not his depravity and egoism, as he thought Rousseau had done.244 Comte fought off complete despair by taking pride in his own courage, decisiveness, energy, and virtue.245 He now felt especially prepared to display the “moral efficacy” of positivism. He began to lead an even more austere life and rarely left his apartment. He said prayers in de Vaux’s memory in the morning, afternoon, and evening.246 During his time of worship he focused in 243

244 245

246

There are eleven annual confessions, written from 1846 to 1856. Comte labelled them from A through K. They are included in his Testament. Comte wrote one every year to honor Sainte-Clotilde’s feast day and thereby his beloved Clotilde herself. He thus called some of them his “Sainte-Clotilde.” Reciting them at her gravesite, he usually wrote them on the feast day, June 2, but in later years he composed them sometimes later, in August or on the date of his feast day, October 12, because he was busy writing his philosophical works in the summer. He eventually decided to write them always on his feast day to show her influence on his life. The first Sainte-Clotilde was written to de Vaux on June 2, 1845, when she was still alive. Its formal title was the “Lettre philosophique sur la comm´emoration sociale.” The second “Sainte-Clotilde” was probably the Dedication of the Syst`eme, written in October 1846. It was probably the first “Confession annuelle,” because the Dedication is the first “Confession” inserted into the Testament. (However, there is much confusion regarding this first confession. Some of Comte’s testamentary executors agreed about the Dedication, but others maintained that the first “Confession annuelle” was the “Lettre philosophique sur le mariage” of June 1845; Carneiro found in 1829 an envelope among Comte’s belongings which originally contained all the confessions. A list written by Comte on the cover suggests that the first one was writen June 2, 1846, but Carneiro did not see it in the envelope and could not find it in the archives.) The third “Sainte-Clotilde” is the second “Confession annuelle,” written June 2, 1847, and so forth. Comte may have called his annual memoir about his life his “confession” because of his great admiration for Rousseau’s Confessions, especially the “freshness of emotions and descriptions” that pervaded its “best pages.” On Rousseau, see Comte to Hadery, September 11, 1854, CG, 7:261. See also Carneiro, introduction to CG, xx; “Confessions annuelles,” MAC; Comte, “Onzi`eme Confession annuelle,” October 12, 1856, CG, 8:309; Testament (1896 ed.), the green insert VIIbis . Laffitte erred when he proclaimed that the first “Confession annuelle” was written in June 1847. See Pierre Laffitte, ed. “Mat´eriaux pour servir a` la biographie d’Auguste Comte: Des Confessions annuelles d’Auguste Comte,” RO 17 (September/November 1886): 186, 190. Laffitte, “Conversations avec Auguste Comte,” April 29, 1848, MAC. Comte found courage to be one of the most important characteristics in a person. See Comte to Barbot de Chement, November 29, 1846, CG, 4:87. On Rousseau, see Chabert, Un Nouveau Pouvoir spirituel, 40. Comte had expressed his appreciation of prayers as early as 1844 in his correspondance with Sarah Austin. See Comte to Madame Austin, April 4, 1844, CG, 2:245–6. He instituted some morning prayers as early as Monday, June 9, 1845. In April 1846, he wrote more prayers and revised them in 1849, 1853, 1855, and 1857. By the end of his

228

The Muse’s Tragic End

a fetishistic way on the medallion of hair she had given him.247 As Jay Winter has pointed out, under stress, people tend to go back to “pagan or pre-logical” patterns of behavior.248 Besides being chaste, he continued to refrain from drinking wine or other forms of alcohol. He drank only milk for breakfast and ate a little meat and some vegetables for dinner. Meat, he said, was important for his cerebral processes. The reduction of his food intake by half also served to calm his stomach. Giving up dessert, he finished his evening meal with a bit of dry toast to remind himself of the unfortunate of the world. The one day a month that Bliaux went out, he dined at a restaurant on the rue de l’Ancienne-Com´edie, eating soup and chicken and leaving a good tip. He never worked at night and usually went to bed early. Every year he gave money to the poor, trying to follow the Catholic tradition of the tithe.249 Indeed, he received from time to time letters from people in need, who asked him for money to help them. He did not mind being generous, especially because he hated economizing, a trait that annoyed Massin, who was very worried about his financial situation.250

247 248 249

250

life, he spent an hour every morning, twenty minutes every afternnon, and half an hour every evening reciting them, partly in front of the chair, the “altar,” on which de Vaux had sat when she visited him and in front of the flowers she had made for him. He created at least four prayers in her memory. Most of them consisted of a blend of passages from their correspondence, their conversations, and his readings of literature. See Comte, “Eternels Souvenirs p´eriodiques d’un vertueux amour,” “Souvenirs de l’incomparable ann´ee,” May 27, 1846, MAC; packet of “Pri`eres quotidiennes,” in Comte’s handwriting, MAC; Comte to Laffitte, September 25, 1850, CG, 5:201; Comte to Profumo, March 7, 1851, CG, 6:29; Comte, “Huiti`eme Confession annuelle,” August 14, 1853, CG, 7:98. He reprinted the prayers in his Testament (1896 ed.), 81–99. Testament (1896 ed.), 12. Jay Winter, Sites of Memory, Sites of Mourning: The Great War in European Cultural History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 65. Comte to Mill, June 27, 1845, CG, 3:51; Joseph Lonchampt, Pr´ecis de la vie et des e´crits d’Auguste Comte (Paris, 1889), 79–80. Lonchampt claimed Comte gave up his usual forms of entertainment as well: walks, dinners, and the opera. Yet Comte continued going to the opera (though only once a week on Thursdays), taking walks, and dining with friends. His favorite places to walk, according to Laffitte were Sceaux, Chˆatenay, la Vall´ee aux Loups, and the Bois de Verri`eres. He often gave money to beggars during his outings. See Comte to Laffitte, March 2, 1848, CG, 4:140; Comte to Jacquemin, March 24, 1848, CG, 4:144; Comte’s subscription for the 1847 to 1848 season, notice from the Th´eaˆ tre Royal Italien, July 30, 1847, MAC; Comte to Captain Marie, October 10, 1846, CG, 4:63; 34e Circulaire de Pierre Laffitte, January 2, 1882, MAC; Pierre Laffitte, ed. “Mat´eriaux pour servir a` la biographie d’Auguste Comte: Des Confessions annuelles d’Auguste Comte,” RO 17 (September/November 1886): 205. Comte gave eighty-four francs to Sophie and various employees of his friends, such as Blainville, for New Year’s gifts in 1848. See manuscript in Comte’s handwriting, “Etrennes de 1848,” MAC; Deroisin, Comte, 92–93. See Philippe Legros to Comte, May 13, 1847; Lelerret to Comte, Dec. 13, 1848; Bastide to Comte, August 2, 1846, MAC; Deroisin, Comte,104–5. Massin confided to Gustave d’Eichthal, Comte’s former friend, that she could not bear to watch her husband in his

The Aftermath of de Vaux’s Death

229

The point of all these measures was to improve his private life as a means of developing his public life, a life devoted to others. Through de Vaux, he believed he had learned to love humanity, not simply to place it at the center of knowledge as he had recommended in the Cours.251 Now he not only knew intellectually the importance of social considerations but understood emotionally that happiness came from depending on others. Comte maintained that there was now the utmost solidarity between the “progression of my highest thoughts and that of my dearest sentiments.”252 Yet he no longer cared as much about cultivating the mind, which he believed was too much of a preoccupation of modern man. He wrote, “I am taken less and less by the simple satisfactions of the mind, and the union of hearts seems to me increasingly superior to those of intelligences.”253 He also claimed to prefer “a person motivated by good sentiments and distinguished by good actions (even when he/she does not know how to read) than the most scholarly egoist all the European academies could offer.”254 Simple pleasures such as gardening no longer seemed inane to him, although he did not engage in such pursuits.255 In the years to come, he would seek to express greater appreciation of his friends and family in the belief that sincere attachments led to greater happiness and self-improvement.256 Following the path of the romantic poets and novelists of his days, he claimed that the “cultivation of the heart” was of utmost importance.257

251 252 253 254 255 256 257

“sad” financial situation and that she could not cut back on her expenses to help him. She was worried that Comte had compromised himself, something she would never do. She asked d’Eichthal to find out from the liberal writer and editor Marc-Antoine Jullien (or perhaps his son, who was also involved in journalism) whether he had any work for Comte. When she found out that Jullien had misled her and there was none, she lamented that she could not figure out the key to success. See Massin to Gustave d’Eichthal, April 13, 1846 and May 6, 1846, Fonds d’Eichthal Ms. 13750, items 243 and 247, Biblioth`eque de l’Arsenal. Also see Comte to Mill, May 6, 1846, and September 3, 1846, CG, 4:7, 37. Jullien had written Comte several letters in the 1820s, asking him to read his work on the philosophy of science. See Marc-Antoine Jullien to Comte, November 5,14, 17, MAC. Comte to Alix Comte, October 22, 1848, CG, 4:204. Comte, “D´edicace,” CG, 4:51. Comte to Alix Comte, October 22, 1848, CG, 4:205. Comte to Alix Comte, May 12, 1849, CG, 5:20. Comte to Alix Comte, February 19, 1849, CG, 5:8–9. Comte to Alix Comte, October 22, 1848, CG, 4:204. Comte to Alix Comte, November 10, 1848, CG, 4:206.

Chapter 5

Pain and Recognition

How could a doctrine that clearly highlights the natural participation of every existence in the harmony of the universe tend to isolate us more from the general milieu? . . . I feel every day that my philosophical convictions make me increasingly sympathize with everyone who surrounds me. Although I am very isolated in my daily life, it is only because of personal taste and a sort of spontaneous routine; my philosophy combats them . . . and certainly does away with every nuance of misanthropy. Comte to Barbot de Chement, 1846

more disappointme nt According to J. Mar`es, manic-depressives become extremely melancholy or maniacal after the death of someone they love.1 Indeed, right after de Vaux’s funeral, Comte began to deal with a sadness that he said was “without equal” and would last forever.2 Yet matters shortly became worse. About a month after her death, Comte experienced more grief. One of his oldest and closest friends, Charles Bonnin, died on May 27, 1846 at the age of seventy-six. He prided himself on being Comte’s first disciple.3 Indeed, he had been corresponding with Comte since 1829 and for years had joined him and Lenoir once a month at Blainville’s home for dinner.4 A radical publicist and 1 2 3

4

Mar`es, “Maniaque d´epressive,” 704. Comte to d’Aguiar, April 11, 1846, CG, 3:366. Comte to Laffitte, July 28, 1849, CG, 5:41; Bonnin to Comte, September 25, 1841, MAC. Bonnin wrote L´egislation constitutionnelle, ou Recueil des constitutions franc¸aises: Pr´ec´ed´ees des D´eclarations des droits de l’homme et du citoyen publi´ees en Am´erique et en France, published in 1820. Comte referred to Bonin in his first letter to Proudhon: Comte to P.-J. Proudhon, August 5, 1852, reprinted in Pierre Haubtmann, La Philosophie sociale de P.-J. Proudhon (Grenoble: Presses universitaires de Grenoble, 1980), 288. Laffitte, ed., “Des Confessions annuelles d’Auguste Comte,” 197; Bonnin to Comte, October 5, 1842. See also Comte to Barbot de Chement, November 13, 1843, CG, 2:206; Bonnin to Comte, December 10, 1829, MAC. The letter concerns Comte’s series of articles on Broussais. Bonnin was also a friend of Gustave d’Eichthal, who had been one of Comte’s earliest and closest disciples but joined the Saint-Simonians in 1829. D’Eichthal dined with Bonnin in October 1843 and told him to give Comte his regards. He hoped to see his former mentor, but Comte, still bitter about the breakup in 1829, was not eager for such a meeting. See Bonnin to Comte, October 10, 1843.

230

More Disappointment

231

friend of Lazare Carnot, Bonnin demonstrated the “profound affinity” that could exist between the “pure spirit of the revolution” and positivism.5 Comte always appreciated this leftist’s support.6 Bonnin praised Comte’s articles on Broussais in 1829, heard him lecture on cosmogony at the Academy of Sciences in 1835, and urged him to refer in his “Personal Preface” to his 1826 attack of madness to disarm his critics.7 Greatly saddened by Bonnin’s death, Comte continued for several years to keep in touch with his widow, Antoinette, whom he found very self-centered. Later, he grieved when their daughter died at the age of thirty-two. Massin had suspected in 1843 that Antoinette had her eye on Comte in order to obtain “beautiful dresses” and become a “grande dame.” She warned him that the young woman was ridiculing him behind his back.8 Brushing aside their rivalry, Comte indeed seemed to take to her; he regarded her death as a grave loss to positivism because, like de Vaux, she seemed pure and eager to embrace his system.9 Because of the death of those close to him and his need for privacy to grieve and to go over his memories, Comte felt increasingly isolated.10 This feeling of solitude was aggravated by his estrangement from Lenoir, who used to visit him most evenings, but since August 1846 had been almost completely prohibited from doing so.11 The three times he had seen Comte, the philosopher showed his displeasure by speaking “almost in monosyllables.”12 In early October, Lenoir begged Comte to explain his reluctance to see him. Comte replied, “Our relations are no longer the same, and I dare to add that it is especially your fault.”13 He accused Lenoir of not having 5 6

7 8 9

10 11 12 13

Comte to Barbot de Chement, October 29, 1846, CG, 4:70. Bonnin and Comte discussed a wide range of topics. They even joked about the cowardice of Lafayette, whom Bonnin had known during the French Revolution. Comte confirmed his opinion because he remembered what Saint-Simon had said about Lafayette, whom he knew in the American Revolution: Lafayette showed character only when balls were whizzing about his head. Laffitte, “Conversations avec Auguste Comte,” June 18, 1848, MAC. He also encouraged Comte to persist in using the word “sociology” instead of “social physics.” Bonnin to Comte, March 26, 1843. Caroline Massin to Comte, 1843, MAC (no month). Comte to Laffitte, July 28, 1849, CG, 5:41; announcement of the death of CharlotteVictorine Bonnin, July 21, 1849 MAC; Comte, “Sixi`eme Confession annuelle,” May 30, 1851, CG, 6:95; Syst`eme, 4:50–51. Comte to Barbot de Chement, October 29, 1846, CG, 4:70. Lenoir was also a friend of Bonnin. Comte to Barbot de Chement, November 8, 1846, CG, 4:74. Lenoir to Comte, October 25, 1846, MAC. Comte to Lenoir, October 11, 1846, CG, 4:64. Comte called him a “friend without energy.” Comte, “Eternels souvenirs p´eriodiques d’un vertueux amour,” “Souvenirs de l’incomparable ann´ee,” September 14, 1846, MAC. See also Lenoir to Comte, October 10, 1846, MAC.

232

Pain and Recognition

been sufficiently aggressive with the Maries, of having secretly taken their side, and thus of having displayed a lack of affection for him. Lenoir told Comte that his words were “very hard, very cruel.” He challenged Comte: “If you are really a strong, energetic man with a solid and virile mind, as you consider yourself to be, you will have the force to hear me today.” Shocked that Comte had forgotten all that he had done for him, he reminded him of the “constant care” he had given him after Massin’s departure in 1842 and during de Vaux’s illness. Lenoir also defended his actions with the Marie family and his meeting with Aguiar and Ch´erest, which he explained was “only an official interview” and lasted no more than a half hour. Lenoir continued, They spoke with sadness and moderation; I was struck by the moderation of this doctor Ch´erest, whom, however, you had offended rather gravely. They did not condemn your sentiment, do you understand that? They did not censure it in itself; but they revealed how the M . . . family complained, first that you had wanted to alienate their daughter and sister from them, then that in the very last days of her life you had ignored all the rules of etiquette, and [finally] that you had voiced the most exorbitant imprecations against several persons and used wounding expressions in several circumstances. Ultimately, these sins alleged that all that went on had compromised the family.

Lenoir claimed that he had defended Comte against these charges and prevented the family, especially Max, from harming him. Comte should remember that he had “many enemies”and there were “a great number of people who did not like him.”14 In contrast, Lenoir greatly enjoyed Comte’s company and was devastated to be treated so coldly. Lenoir’s words, like those of Massin and Valat several years before, did not move Comte, who still felt betrayed and disappointed. Comte replied, “For a long time, I believed you were only intellectually superficial: I have learned, at my own expense, that you are even more [superficial] in matters of the heart. . . . As mobile in your sympathies as you are floating in your convictions, you are too much everyone’s friend to feel a strong and profound affection toward a single person.”15 In late October 1846, he refused to receive Lenoir ever again and relieved him of his obligation to give Massin her alimony every four months.16 Massin had troubles living from one payment 14 15 16

Lenoir to Comte, October 25, 1846, MAC. Comte to Lenoir, October 28, 1846, CG, 4:67. Lenoir had taken the money to Caroline Massin every trimester from November 10, 1842 to July 24, 1846. Littr´e started doing this chore January 23, 1847 and stopped July 9, 1852. Then the following pairs took turns: Jean-Franc¸ois-Eug`ene Robinet and Edouard Foley, Hippolyte Phil´emon Deroisin and Pierre Laffitte, Laffitte and Foley, and Laffitte

More Disappointment

233

to another, especially after 1846, when Comte reduced his yearly allowance to her from three thousand to two thousand francs. To Comte, Lenoir seemed overly concerned about not only her monetary situation but also her health.17 In addition, having lived transparently “as a true philosopher,” Comte worried about the secrets he had confided to him. Comte gave Lenoir a warning: “I hope you will never take advantage of these intimate revelations. . . . No one knows better than I how far I am from being perfect. Nevertheless, considering everything, I believe I am able to represent with regard to the heart as well as to the mind . . . a sort of type, not ideal, but real.”18 Comte feared that Lenoir might destroy his public image.19 For his part, Lenoir was bitter to be recompensed in this manner for having tried to help Comte even when he had wronged the Maries.20 Besides Mill and Lenoir, other friends disappointed Comte. Either they did not sympathize with his misfortunes, or they refused to accede to his request for financial assistance. His elderly friend J. Captier, whom he had known since he was a young boy in Montpellier, gave him only one thousand francs instead of the three thousand he had originally offered him.21 Likewise, Blainville had promised Comte two thousand francs but gave him only five hundred in late 1845.22 From this point on, Blainville’s relations with Comte deteriorated, especially after he published a new book that apparently belittled positivism.23 Thus Comte complained about the “unexpected lukewarmness of almost all my friends.”24 Another source of sorrow was his difficult relationship with his family. Comte had not communicated with his father and sister since

17

18 19

20 21

22 23 24

and Joseph Lonchampt. The last payment was June 27, 1857. See the receipts signed by Massin, MAC; letters from Massin to Laffitte, March 29, 1853, and June 29, 1855, MAC. Massin to Comte, November 7, 1847, MAC; Lenoir to Comte, October 10, 26, 1846, MAC; Comte to Lenoir, October 11, 28, 1846, CG, 4:65, 68; Comte to Massin, January 10, 1847, CG, 4:94–5. Comte to Lenoir, October 28, 1846, CG, 4:68. It was not until 1851 that Comte and Lenoir met together for a couple of hours, after the former sent him a copy of the first volume of the Syst`eme. Lenoir called him “the ardent friend of humanity,” and Comte remarked that their “long visit” was “special.” Lenoir to Comte, with note of Comte written at the top, July 7, 1851, MAC. Statement of d’Aguair, reproduced in Rouvre, L’Amoureuse Histoire, 405. Comte to Captier, March 22, 1846, CG, 3:363–4; J. Captier to Comte, July 10, 1846, MAC; Comte to Captier, July 8, 1848, CG, 4:22. See Comte’s reaction to Captier’s death, Comte to Ir´en´ee Captier (Captier’s son), January 21, 1852, CG, 6:222. Comte had still not repaid his debt when he died and asked his disciples to do so. Testament (1896 ed.), 13. Captier was in the cloth business and knew Comte’s family in Montpellier. Comte to Blainville, December 31, 1845, CG, 3:260–61; Blainville to Comte, December 30, 1845, and January 1, 1846, MAC. Comte stopped going to Blainville’s monthly dinners in December 1848. Comte to Magnin, December 2, 1848, CG, 4:210. Comte to Mill, September 3, 1846, CG, 4:35.

234

Pain and Recognition

1838, when he accused them of treating his wife poorly. (His mother had died in 1837.) Though Massin never forgave them, she urged Comte in 1843 to have a reconciliation with his father. “He will not live forever: Avoid having regrets.”25 Yet Comte first felt he had to deal with Alix, who he believed was trying to alienate his father from him in order to get a larger share of their inheritance.26 He did not actually mind letting her have more inheritance because he knew she was a spinster with no other resources and she had taken care of their father for years. What he resented was his father’s claim to have no money, which was patently false, and his sister’s active campaign to get more inheritance by making herself the sole object of “paternal tenderness.”27 Besides paranoia, sibling rivalry was at work in preventing a reconciliation. Indeed, Louis Comte felt compelled in June 1843 to write a statement refuting Comte’s allegations that he was rich, that he had disinherited him, and that Alix had caused the death of their brother Adolphe. These “calumnies” were “revolting.”28 In late May 1846, eight years after his rupture with his family, Comte’s cousin Victorine Boyer informed him that his father had been recently fired from his job as head clerk and treasurer in the tax collector’s office of the department of H´erault.29 Seventy-years old, he had extremely poor eyesight that made it impossible for him to keep the books. He himself admitted in another context that he could “not make out a single word.”30 Two years before, he had even hired someone to help him at the office. But Louis Comte rejected his growing blindness as a good reason for dismissal. 25 26

27

28 29 30

Caroline Massin to Comte, April 18, 1843, MAC. Louis Comte had written a will in January 13, 1828 in which he wanted deducted from his son’s inheritance the money he had paid for costs relating to his illness in 1826 and other advances. See Louis Comte, “Testament olographe,” January 13, 1828, p. 274, N.a.fr. 10794, BN. Alix Comte wrote Auguste a letter in 1843 to explain that she was favored in the testament of their father because her health did not permit her to work. She also attempted a reconciliation. She sneaked out of the house in October 1843 to surprise Comte at his hotel when he came to Montpellier on his examination tour. She threw herself around his neck, begging him to see their father, but he refused because she had still not apologized to his wife. See also Alix Comte to Auguste Comte, April 1843, in “Lettres d’Alix Comte a` son fr`ere Auguste Comte,” ed. Pierre Laffitte, RO, 3d ser., 2 (May 1910): 87; Alix Comte to Robinet, March 25, 1860, MAC.; Alix Comte to Audiffrent, August 19, 1868, MAC. Comte to Victorine Boyer, July 16, 1846, CG, 4:25. Comte’s father defended himself by explaining that he did not have as much money as he appeared to have because the money belonged to others who gave it to him to make deals. Victorine Boyer to Comte, August 16, 1846, in “Mat´eriaux pour servir a` la biographie d’Auguste Comte: Deux Lettres d’Auguste Comte a` Victorine Boyer sa cousin, et a` M. Fautrier son cousin,” ed. Pierre Laffitte, RO, 3d ser., 3 (May 1, 1911): 181. Copy of statement of Louis Comte, June 4, 1843, p. 276, N.a.fr. 10794, BN. Audiffrent made the copy. Victorine Boyer to Comte, May 29, 1846, in “Deux Lettres d’Auguste Comte,” 178–9. Louis Comte to Auguste Comte, June 5, 1846, CG, 4:223.

More Disappointment

235

To publicize his case, he wrote a M´emoire justificatif, a thirty-page statement that he printed and distributed. It bears a striking resemblance to the “Personal Preface” that his son, Auguste, had inserted in the sixth volume of the Cours.31 Perhaps the “Personal Preface” served as inspiration, or the two Comtes had a similar paranoid personality that admitted no wrongdoing and demanded public rectification. Just as Auguste presented himself in his preface as the victim of a large-scale conspiracy against him, Louis Comte made himself out to be a pawn in the political struggles of the corrupt regime of Louis-Philippe. According to his statement, which was full of sarcastic, caustic remarks about liberalism, he was dismissed by Roulleaux, the new prefect of the department of the H´erault, for continuing to support the Bourbons, who had lost the throne in the Revolution of 1830. Mr. Roulleaux [the prefect] accuses me of not doing anything to ensure the success of the election of the ministerial candidate [the candidate of the government], of trying on the contrary to influence the opinions of the tax collectors in electoral and political matters, . . . and of opposing the advancement of those who are most devoted to him.32

Roulleaux had allegedly been eager to dismiss Louis Comte since 1844, when he blamed him after his candidate for the Chamber of Deputies had lost the election by one vote. The minister of the interior, who was in charge of the elections, also desired Louis Comte’s “destitution.”33 Yet Louis Comte claimed he never spoke to anyone in the office about his legitimist politics and simply did his job in an honest, conscientious manner, as he had had for the past forty-seven years. Roulleaux was “hard” and full of “brutality”; he was a truly “implacable calumniator” and “implacable persecutor.” In fact, Louis Comte felt he had to defend himself in a public manner, for he feared that Roulleaux would have him arrested on charges of sedition. Just as Auguste openly described private matters in his preface, Louis made reference to his daily routines to let “the public . . . judge if this is the kind of life of a conspirator.”34 After hearing of his father’s troubles, Auguste Comte wrote him a very sympathetic letter, telling him that he had suffered from “an equivalent iniquity” two years before, when he lost his main job at the Ecole Polytechnique. Yet he tried to minimize his own pain and think of his father’s: The shameful act that I was just informed of affects me far more than the one of which I am momentarily the personal victim. I truly regret 31 32 34

Louis Comte even made references to the Barber of Seville, an opera that his son loved. Louis Comte, M´emoire justificatif (Paris, 1846), 7. 33 Ibid., 9. Ibid., 7, 9, 14, 16, 17.

236

Pain and Recognition

that my present financial position and especially the sad state of our mutual relations do not allow me to come soon to show my dear and worthy father the filial role that I take with regard to his misfortune and my strong desire to comfort him as much as it is in my power to do so.35

Comte’s father did not respond graciously. He said it was “very agreeable” to receive a letter from Auguste after eight years of silence, but he expressed his displeasure that his son had not mentioned one word about his sister. “I admit to you frankly that this silence made a far greater impression on me than the loss of my place: what would become of me without your sister?”36 Having hoped for an “affectionate greeting” from his father, especially because he felt the need for his love in the midst of his sadness stemming from de Vaux’s death, Comte was “cruelly surprised” by his father’s coldness.37 He had not seen the need to refer to his sister because he was focusing solely on his father’s grief. It was clear to him that his father strongly preferred Alix to him and had no interest at all in his own loss of employment. All hope for a reconciliation with his family vanished. Comte immediately wrote on the back of his father’s letter “Resolved . . . not to respond at least until the arrival . . . of a letter that is less unjust and less shocking in all respects.”38 He wrote a letter relaying his disappointment to his cousin, Victorine Boyer, who was to let Louis Comte read it. Comte felt more alone than ever. Though he was pleased to receive a rare letter from his old nurse from Montpellier in January 1847, her pointed reference to Louis Comte’s desire for a reunion must have pained him.39 me ntor ship To offset these losses and disappointments, Comte increasingly acted as a mentor to young men. Many were connected with the Ecole Polytechnique, where he had touched the lives of many students. He had examined and/or taught almost 3,000 young men before 1848. Many of them attended other schools after their graduation and spread positivist ideas in these places. These institutions included the Ecole des Ponts et Chauss´ees, Ecole d’Artillerie et du G´enie de Metz, and 35 36 37 38 39

Comte to Louis Comte, June 2, 1846, CG, 4:15, 16. Louis Comte to Auguste Comte, June 2, 1846, CG, 4:222. Comte to Victorine Boyer, July 16, 1846, CG, 4:23, 24. Comte, Note on back of letter from Louis Comte, June 10, CG, 4:222. Franc¸oise Jourdan to Comte, January 7, 1847, MAC; Comte to Jourdan, January 13, 1847, CG, 4:98. See also Auguste Jourdan to Comte, September 28, 1846. He too urged a “reconciliation.”

Mentorship

237

the Ecole Centrale des Arts et Manufactures.40 Comte was an adviser to many Ecole Polytechnique students, who became his followers. One was Maximilien Marie, but after the death of his sister, they no longer communicated. Now, especially because his career at the Ecole Polytechnique was increasingly tenuous, Comte began to gather around him more diligently a group of chiefly younger men (and some women) who could be his followers. Despite his isolation, he fancied himself to be “extremely sociable and very likable [ fort sympathique],” and he felt a “profound need for openness.” He enjoyed the role of “spiritual father,” because, extending the role he played with de Vaux, he felt obliged to give “spiritual care to everyone.”41 He welcomed the exchange of ideas and feelings with younger individuals, which he felt was difficult sometimes with men his own age, who challenged him more readily or disappointed him for intellectual or financial reasons. A number of these young men did not like their parents, especially their fathers, and turned to him for counsel. The attention that they lavished on him gratified his ego. His correspondence with them offers a glimpse of a nurturing middleaged man, who had no children and was eager to lavish advice about young persons’ choice of a spouse, diet, sexuality, readings, friends, career, and so forth.42 He even made arrangements so that his followers could meet and stay at each other’s homes if they were travelling. In 1851, Comte wrote to one young man the following words: I see myself now surrounded increasingly by an eminent elite of young disciples whose father I could be, although it is hard for me to behave with them other than as an older brother would, owing undoubtedly to my never having had any children. Their noble and sincere affection constitutes both the best compensation for my previous efforts and the surest guarantee of the prolongation of my efforts. Fatally deprived of the principal domestic pleasures, I must attach myself more to the great regenerated family of which I have become the center.43

Indeed, in the early 1850s, Comte decided to devote his evenings to meeting his disciples and friends on a one-to-one basis in order 40

41 42 43

Mirella Larizza shows that before 1848, Comte taught 1,305 students at the Ecole Polytechnique and examined 1,690 boys for admissions to the school. See her superb article, “Le Premier Rayonnement en France des id´ees d’Auguste Comte (1824–1848): Les Milieux, les institutions, les hommes,” in 1848: R´evolutions et mutations au XIX e si`ecle (Paris: Soci´et´e d’histoire de la R´evolution de 1848 et des r´evolutions du XIXe si`ecle,1993), 72–5. She points out that the Ecole Normale was too dominated by Victor Cousin and his influence to be affected by Comte. Comte to Barbot de Chement, October 29, 1846; November 8, 1846; February 27, 1847; February 21, 1848, CG, 4:70, 77,103, 135. Bligni`eres to Comte, March 20, 1853, MAC. Comte to Audiffrent, May 6, 1851, CG, 6:68.

238

Pain and Recognition

to encourage a level of intimacy that was lost in groups. He would spend almost every day of the week in close company with a different person.44 Many individuals responded favorably to his desire to probe their deepest feelings. One young man who admired Comte was Charles-Gabriel Bernard, nicknamed Thal`es Bernard. Born in Paris in 1821, he was an illegitimate child. His father may have been Joseph Allier, a republican agitator who had written for Le Producteur and had been a great admirer of Comte. Allier abandoned Bernard, his sister, and their working-class mother and fled to Russia, where he died in 1850. As a friend of Allier, Comte met the young man and became a kind of father figure to him.45 In the early 1840s, Bernard and Comte were very close. Lamenting the fact that Comte was often misunderstood, Bernard told him that to appreciate “the treasures of your affections, it was necessary to have lived with you, as I did, Sir, in the most tender intimacy.”46 Bernard sent him opera tickets from time to time, discussed his love affairs with him, and told him of his admiration for the Cours, which offered a clear, rational solution to the “sick condition” of “modern societies.”47 In 1846 he began to work for the ministry of war to support his mother and sister. Yet he was frustrated because he wanted to do something literary. In 1846, he translated from German into French the Dictionnaire mythologique universel of E. Jabobi. He then wanted to quit his job and become a writer. Comte, who by this time had lost one of his positions at the Ecole Polytechnique, advised him not to do so, just as he had told Max not to leave the army to become a scholar: “As for your disgust with your new job, let me persuade you to appreciate it more energetically. It is undoubtedly mechanical: but isn’t that the case with any regular basis of material existence . . . ? You must never think that you can make a living from the noble works to which you devote your essential activity.” What was important was to become less self-centered and “to serve . . . humanity.” Comte wrote, “Live then, my young man, as a worthy member of the great human being, whose moral and mental regeneration can be seriously advanced by your active cooperation. Do not let the real talents with which you are gifted become 44 45

46 47

Comte to Jacquemin, January 9, 1852, CG, 6:219-220. The circumstances under which they met are unclear. Massin mentions in one letter that Bernard met Comte through her. See Massin to Comte, April 23, 1844, MAC. Also see Pierre Laffitte, “Mat´eriaux pour servir a` la biographie d’Auguste Comte: Amis, Protecteurs, Correspondants d’Auguste Comte: Thal`es Bernard,” RO, 2d ser., 15 (September, 1897):191. Laffitte did not include all of Bernard’s letters in this article. Comte remembered Allier’s articles on the spiritual power, which appeared after his own in 1826. Comte to Audiffrent, June 29, 1857, CG, 8:506. There was an Allier who wrote to Comte in 1829, referring to his family problems. See Allier to Comte, March 1829, MAC. Bernard to Comte, March 19, 1850, MAC. Thal`es Bernard to Comte, January 13, 1844, MAC.

Mentorship

239

paralyzed by a disastrous melancholy.”48 Brushing away Comte’s advice, Bernard quit his position at the ministry of war and became a tutor of French language and literature.49 He occasionally joined Comte, Lenoir, and Bonnin at Blainville’s house for dinner.50 Another young man who sought Comte’s guidance and occasionally attended dinners with Lenoir and Bonnin was a wealthy young aristocrat, Barbot de Chement. They met originally in 1833 at Duhamel’s house, where Comte tutored him.51 He soon afterwards became one of his “devoted” students at the Ecole Polytechnique.52 They started corresponding in earnest after Barbot de Chement became an artillery officer and started studying the Cours in 1835.53 He remained “almost”obsessed by it for the remainder of his life.54 Comte even brought with him the manuscript of the fifth volume when he visited Barbot de Chement on one of his admissions tours. This volume taught the young man that “we are abandoned children.” He could not wait to read the sixth volume in order to learn how “to face the storms which come from all directions to surround us, us poor young people.”55 To supplement his education in the purely physical sciences at the Ecole Polytechnique and to train him to think in a nonmetaphysical fashion, Come recommended that Barbot de Chement read works on biology and history.56 Comte put him in touch with Blainville, who invited Barbot de Chement to his soir´ees, where he enjoyed meeting the biologist’s friends, including Pol Nicard, Lenoir, Abb´e Maupied, and Dr. Achille-Louis-Franc¸ois Foville.57 (A famous anatomist, neurologist, and psychiatrist, Foville had been a student of Esquirol, who had overseen Comte’s treatment when he was in an insane asylum. It seems that Blainville did not think much of Foville, who worked on improving Gall’s schema of the brain.58 ) After a while, whenever 48

49 50 51 52 53

54 55 56

57 58

Comte to Thal`es Bernard, May 26, 1846, CG, 4:14–15. At one point, Comte tried to get Mill to help him find a suitable position but to no avail. Comte to Mill, July 22, 1842, CG, 2:61. His correspondence with Comte stopped for unknown reasons in 1852. Laffitte, ed. “Des Confessions Annuelles d’Auguste Comte,” 197. Barbot de Chement to Laffitte, May 10, 1876, MAC. Barbot de Chement to Comte, November 14, 1843, MAC. Between 1835 and 1851, Barbot de Chement received thirty-four letters from Comte, which he later gave to Laffitte. Barbot de Chement to Laffitte, May 10, August 1, December 8, 1876, MAC. Barbot de Chement to Laffitte, July 27, 1886, MAC. Barbot de Chement to Comte, August 24, 1841, MAC. Comte to Barbot de Chement, October 7, 1836, CG, 1:274. Comte often commended him on his pursuit of knowledge. Comte to Barbot de Chement, June 17, 1846, CG, 4:18 Barbot de Chement to Comte, November 24, 1846, MAC. Barbot de Chement also went to several of Blainville’s lectures. Barbot de Chement to Laffitte, July 27, 1886, MAC. Foville and Pinel-Grandchamp had worked as interns at the Salpˆetri`ere hospital, studying localization in the brain. Their studies led to their writing a book on the nervous system

240

Pain and Recognition

Barbot de Chement came to Paris, he felt that he was in a “veritable pathological state” if he did not see Comte and Blainville for several days.59 His library at the end of his life included only their works.60 Yet Comte was not at all pleased when Barbot de Chement expressed enthusiasm for Blainville’s new three-volume work on the history of the organic sciences. The books were written with the help of Abb´e Maupied, a Jesuit, who made Blainville appear to be a staunch defender of Catholicism and included comments that Comte found critical of positivism.61 Barbot de Chement felt that Comte was too severe with Blainville. The passages in question were not significant, and the scientist was right to argue that affective life can be fulfilled only through religion.62 Comte, however, rejected Barbot de Chement’s attempt to reconcile science and religion and lamented that he was falling into eclecticism, Victor Cousin’s “doctrine of the powerless.”63 According to Comte, one should not neutralize positivism by marrying it with Catholicism, which it easily surpassed in fulfilling emotional needs and dispensing moral guidance. Indeed, he prided his philosophy on being able to end “the final divorce between the needs of the mind and those of the heart, which has been increasingly aggravated since the end of the Middle Ages.”64 Thus there was no reason for Barbot de Chement or anyone else to have recourse to Catholicism at all. Yet perhaps the young man and Blainville got along because both were Catholics. Indeed, he later related what Blainville had said to him about Comte, “Everything that Mr. Comte says is true, but everything is not there.”65 Besides educational and philosophical matters, Comte also gave Barbot de Chement personal advice. Like Bernard, Barbot de Chement suffered from melancholy and did not like his job.66 He complained that the other soldiers made fun of his “eccentricity.” Comte

59 60 61

62 63 64 65 66

together in 1823, which Comte mentioned in the Cours. Later, when Littr´e wrote Comte’s biography, Foville gave him information about his mental illness. He sent Massin a copy as well, thinking it might interest her because he was her doctor at one point. Foville read and admired Comte’s works but was not a disciple. See Comte, Cours, 1:836, 879; Massin to Comte, April 4, 8, 20, 1844, MAC; Madame Auguste Comte to Charles Robin, n.d., MAC; “Foville” in Alfred Dant`es, Dictionnaire biographique et bibliographique (Paris: Aug. Boyer, 1875), 346. Barbot de Chement to Comte, July 20, 1843 and December 19, 1844, MAC. Barbot de Chement to Laffitte, July 27, 1886, MAC. Published in 1845, the work was entitled Histoire des sciences de l’organisation et de leurs progr`es, comme base de la philosophie, r´edig´ees d’apr`es ses notes et ses lec¸ons faites a` la Sorbonne de 1830 a` 1841, avec les d´eveloppements n´ecessaires et plusieurs additions. Barbot to Laffitte, May 10, 1876, MAC. Comte to Barbot de Chement, December 26, 1846, CG, 4:87. See also Comte to Barbot de Chement, June 17, 1846, CG, 4:16. Comte to Barbot de Chement, June 17, 1846, CG, 3:17. Blainville, as cited by Barbot de Chement to Laffitte, May 10, 1876, MAC. Comte to Barbot de Chement, August 23, 1843, CG, 2:185.

Mentorship

241

bluntly told him that he was somewhat at fault in alienating these men.67 The problem was that he lacked energy, resoluteness, and tenderness, and he displayed a “reprehensible aristocratic tendency to scorn those who are not born rich or with a title.”68 Reflecting his own distrust of the upper classes, Comte did not like the way his disciple condemned the common people to accept “conceptions rejected by well-bred persons.”69 Moreover, because Barbot de Chement understood positivism only from an intellectual perspective, he had an “exaggerated sentiment” of his “personal superiority,” which further isolated him from the masses.70 He did not grasp that the proletariat was to be the principal support and object of the social regeneration that he, Comte, was effecting. Barbot de Chement needed to learn to use his intellect to make himself more open to everyone. Comte wrote, “The main goal of the intellect consists . . . of better developing sociability . . . not satisfying a puerile curiosity by stimulating an unsociable vanity.” As in his youth, Comte insisted that positivism was not simply an intellectual doctrine. It was not one of many “vain academic recreations.”71 It had a practical social mission to fulfill – a mission that would revitalize human morality. In this way, positivism linked “speculative life to active life and even to affective life far more completely than any other doctrine.”72 By only caring about the scientific side of positivism, Barbot de Chement risked becoming a reactionary opposed to the work of social regeneration that marked the nineteenth century. Indeed, Barbot later criticized Comte’s plan of giving a “monthly pension to every lazy worker” as indicative of his mentor’s incapacity to understand “human passions.”73 Yet Comte maintained that Barbot de Chement was the one who misunderstood the emotions. To rectify this problem and counter those who thought he was strange, Comte recommended that the young man marry. Repeating a conviction that he had often expressed as a young man, Comte insisted that happiness always depended “principally on the heart and not on the mind,” as Barbot de Chement assumed.74 The heart was “the true supreme motor of human existence.”75 Barbot de Chement needed to become revitalized by a passion that would bring an “active unity” to his existence, which 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

Barbot de Chement to Comte, August 23, 1844, CG, 2:422. Comte to Barbot de Chement, September 1, 1844, CG, 2:283. Comte to Barbot de Chement, November 8, 1846, CG, 4:76–7. Comte to Barbot de Chement, September 13, 1846, CG, 4:39. Comte to Barbot de Chement, November 29, 1846, CG, 4:83–4. Comte to Barbot to Chement, February 27, 1847, CG, 4:103. Barbot de Chement to Laffitte, May 10, 1876, MAC. Comte to Barbot de Chement, June 17, 1846, CG, 4:18. Comte to Barbot de Chement, November 8, 1846, CG, 4:77.

242

Pain and Recognition

had hitherto been too intellectual.76 As with Thal`es Bernard, Comte recommended that he find something to do that could in some way benefit others. If he married and started working to improve the human condition, he would be happier and appear less eccentric. Barbot de Chement finally confessed that he was living with a young proletarian woman, a servant, whom he refused to marry. This news shocked Comte, who urged him to recognize his moral obligations to her and to marry her despite his “prejudices of caste” and “fortune.” Eight years before, Comte had advised another aristocratic friend, Jacques-Philippe M´erignon de Montg´ery, to marry his mistress, who had had a child with him. According to Comte, Montg´ery could not overcome his “stupid aristocratic pride,” and after his death, his mistress and illegitimate daughter had suffered the most “frightful consequences” of his prejudices. He did not want Barbot de Chement’s mistress to have the same fate. Comte’s experience with de Vaux seemed to reawaken the empathy for women that he had had as a young man. Though he denied that he had ever changed his position on the condition of women, a subject he regarded as of “capital” importance, he had recently not seemed as interested in their plight as he had been when he had read Wollstonecraft’s Vindication of the Rights of Woman many years before. His struggles with Massin and the general reaction against Saint-Simonianism had certainly contributed to dampening his ardor in this regard. But now, perhaps inspired by his respect for Austin and de Vaux and aware of a growing interest in the women’s movement, he seemed more concerned with underscoring “men’s real duties toward women.”77 As previously mentioned, his disappointment with the men in his entourage may have also drawn him toward women. On the first anniversary of de Vaux’ death in April 1847, he delivered, often in tears, a three-hour lecture on women and “feminine positivism” in his course to the workers.78 He thus warned Barbot de Chement that no man should be allowed “to play with the moral and social future of any woman.” He added, “You would not be the first distinguished man to marry into a lower class and to have cause to congratulate himself.”79 Perhaps Comte was remembering how he felt when as a young man, he had married Massin, who had been poor. Barbot de Chement did not accept Comte’s criticism and attacked him in turn. He told Comte that he was unrealistic in counting on financial help from society, which in truth did not feel obligated to 76 77 78 79

Comte to Barbot to Chement, February 27, 1847, CG, 4:104. Comte to Barbot de Chement, November 8, 1846, CG, 4:75–6. On Montg´ery, see Pickering, Comte, 1:486–7. Comte to Lewes, April 7, 1847, CG, 4:111. Comte to Barbot de Chement, November 8, 1846, CG, 4:76.

Mentorship

243

him for having systematized the positive ideas that already existed. Moreover, with great insight, he wrote, You accuse me of fatalism but I am persuaded that you will be and you desire to be a martyr to your ideas . . . and that you want to sacrifice in the interest of the triumph of your cause the ease of your domestic life, which is the only kind of sacrifice possible today for people who are militant like you. You want to push goodness to martyrdom: this is what your precursors have done, and you want to do as much; it is almost a necessary conclusion to your system for posterity to say that you preached even by example.

Besides pointing out Comte’s need to be a hero of some sort, Barbot de Chement criticized his hypocrisy. “You give me advice that is different from the paths that you follow: you increase your solitude and [yet] you speak to me about the need to develop my sociability.”80 Never one to take criticism, Comte angrily complained that Barbot de Chement had belittled his achievement. Comte boasted that he “alone [had] created the positive state of a whole order of speculations that are the most difficult and important of all: those concerning social phenomena, whose reduction to natural laws was indispensable to permit a real systematization of the other scientific conceptions.” This service to humanity called for public gratitude and subsidies, not insults. Moreover, he was indignant that Barbot de Chement had offered to help him by giving him a place to stay in his house. This invitation reminded him of the “strange generosity of the great personages of the old regime toward the unhappy Rousseau.” In the more egalitarian age in which they now found themselves, Barbot de Chement’s offer of patronage was degrading; Comte felt it would put him in a position of “fatal powerlessness.”81 Displaying courage and resolution, contrary to what Comte believed he was capable of showing, Barbot de Chement replied that Comte’s axiom seemed to be “Those who are not for me in everything and for everything are against me.” Yet of all philosophies, positivism should be the one that least feared controversy. Undaunted by his mentor’s wrath, Barbot de Chement argued that positivism could not solve all needs, especially those relating to religion. Moreover, it seemed dangerously revolutionary because of Comte’s “appeal to the most anti-social passions” of the masses to get them to act against the egotistical upper classes.82 Positivism was a fine scientific doctrine, 80 81 82

Barbot de Chement to Comte, November 29, 1846, excerpt in CG, 4:236. Comte to Barbot de Chement, November 29, 1846, CG, 4:81–2. Barbot de Chement to Comte, December 21, 1846, CG, 4:238. The entire letter can be found at the MAC.

244

Pain and Recognition

not a spiritual or political one. Until it had priests and rituals, it could not answer people’s deep fear of social degeneration.83 Besides rejecting Barbot de Chement’s religious arguments, Comte vehemently denied ever displaying demagoguery, although he did admit he believed in the Jacobins’ goal of incorporating the lower classes into society. It was evident that Barbot de Chement was alienated from both the people and women, the “two social elements . . . [that] live above all by the heart.” He would never appreciate the “new phase of positivism” that would target them.84 This young man disappointed him in much the same way Gustave d’Eichthal had many years before. Comte now regarded him as a “true adversary” and threatened to cut off all ties with him.85 Shocked, Barbot de Chement professed his “sincere attachment” to his “spiritual leader” and begged him to reconsider. He wrote, “It is to you and not to me that it will be necessary to attribute this rupture if it takes place.”86 After all, Barbot de Chement believed he was only trying to be kind in offering Comte a place to stay. It was not fair of Comte to call him an egoist full of pride. Nor was it just for Comte to regard him as a criminal because he had a mistress. Most of all, Barbot de Chement was exasperated with the disdain Comte showed for him because of his embrace of Catholicism. And yet he resisted a break in their relationship because he felt Comte knew him better than anyone else did and he truly loved Comte. “You told me again to love someone. But I love you. I sincerely love several men.”87 Worried that he was a reactionary enthralled with Catholicism, Comte did not respond to Barbot de Chement’s letters for almost a year and would not see him. “I rarely accept discussions and never from those who do not openly acknowledge my fundamental principles.”88 Comte finally saw him in February, 1848, but the meeting could not have gone well. Not until two years later in late 1850 and early 1851 did they exchange a few letters and meet again.89 Comte could not brook the young man’s “grave heresies on the subject of women” and his insistence on marrying someone wealthy.90 Moreover, Comte was furious that Barbot de Chement asked to see one of his unpublished works as a recompense for having helped 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90

Barbot de Chement to Comte, April 20, 1847, MAC. Comte to Tholouze, December 18, 1847, CG, 4:130. Comte to Barbot de Chement, December 26, 1846, CG, 4:87. Barbot Chement to Comte, February 23, 1847, MAC. Barbot Chement to Comte, April 20, 1847, MAC. Comte to Barbot de Chement, February 21, 1848, CG, 4:135. Barbot de Chement also corresponded from time to time with Littr´e. See Massin to Comte, May 15, 1850, MAC. Comte to Pierre Laffitte, September 11, 1850, CG, 5:192; Barbot de Chement to Comte, August 19, 1850, MAC.

Mentorship

245

him financially. Comte denounced his behavior as typical of rich people.91 At one point, he even suspected Barbot de Chement of using positivism to wend his way into “British high society.” Barbot did indeed write to Mill to find out which English people adhered to positivism.92 After a five-year hiatus, Barbot de Chement wrote Comte a final letter in 1856, which remained unanswered.93 Their relationship had basically ended in 1847.94 But Barbot de Chement’s criticisms that positivism did not satisfy people’s emotional needs as well as Catholicism did not fall completely on deaf ears.95 Although Comte dismissed his remarks, he tried to answer his criticisms in the Syst`eme, which introduced the Religion of Humanity. Thus, within a period of one to two years, Comte lost de Vaux and Bonnin; broke with Maximilien Marie, Lenoir, Mill, and Barbot de Chement; and found his close relationship with Blainville rapidly declining. The Sunday night dinners at Blainville’s, which occurred once a month and which Lenoir (and Maupied) also attended, must have been a strain if indeed Comte still went at all. It is no wonder that he frequently referred to his increasing isolation and solitude. He was becoming more and more of a recluse fixated on the rectitude of his philosophy. Yet some people managed to break through the barriers he constructed around him and became Comte’s faithful disciples. One was Pierre Laffitte. A Gascon, born in 1823 in B´eguey (a town near Bordeaux), he came from a family of successful farmers and artisans. In 1839, he met Comte, who failed him on his examination to enter the Ecole Polytechnique. Laffitte then attended the University of Paris. He was for a time fascinated by the socialist doctrines of Pierre Leroux, but he eventually found his work unsatisfying.96 In 1841, he grew interested in positivism, especially because he liked mathematics, and it spoke to his problems with skepticism, which had plagued him since his break with Catholicism in 1837. He began to read the Cours in 1842 and met Comte again in 1844, when he attended his astronomy course. He declared himself a disciple in 1845.97 Laffitte 91

92 93 94 95 96 97

Comte to Barbot de Chement, December 9, 1850, CG, 5:221; Barbot de Chement to Comte, February 24, 1851, MAC; Comte to Barbot de Chement, February 25, 1851, CG, 6:23. Comte to Pierre Laffitte, September 11, 1850, CG, 5:192. Mill to Barbot de Chement, August 7, 1854, The Later Letters, ed. Mineka, 14:236. Comte to Barbot de Chement, February 25, 1851, CG, 6:23. See also letter from Barbot de Chement to Comte, June 22, 1856, MAC. Comte wrote on the latter, “No response.” When Blainville died, Massin was surprised that Barbot de Chement chose to correspond with Foville rather than Comte. See Massin to Comte, May 15, 1850, MAC. Barbot de Chement to Comte, April 20, 1848, MAC. Laffitte, ed. “Des Confessions annuelles d’Auguste Comte,” 198. When Laffitte entered Comte’s apartment for the first time one Sunday in 1844, he saw there Thal`es Bernard, to whom Comte was explaining an aspect of the Divine

246

Pain and Recognition

often went to Comte’s apartment, where they discussed many issues dealing with philosophy, mathematics, and science; Comte encouraged him, for example, to study biology to round out his education. Taking Comte’s advice, Laffitte followed courses by Blainville, Louis Auguste Segond, Charles Robin, and Claude Bernard. By 1847, Laffitte was Comte’s most frequent visitor and closest companion. The two men met several times a week in the evening beginning at seven o’clock. He talked privately with Comte on Mondays and then met with him and others on Wednesdays and Saturdays. Sometimes he was the only guest at Comte’s Sunday dinners. Comte found these conversations “precious.”98 Laffitte was a mathematics teacher, and Comte helped him find tutoring jobs.99 He also met Clotilde de Vaux before her demise and sympathized with Comte’s loss. Laffitte particularly treasured the moment when he accompanied Comte on May 1, 1847 to P`ere-Lachaise cemetery to visit de Vaux’s grave; afterwards they dined together at Restaurant Dagnaux, facing Caf´e Procope.100 Comte relied upon him a great deal after her death, the demise of Bonnin, and the breaks with Lenoir and Thal`es Bernard.101 For his part, Laffitte admired Comte’s “profound sincerity,” depth of emotion, and drive to improve himself morally. Comte displayed, moreover, a “grand simplicity”and keen sense of “irony” and “wit.”102 Comedy. See also Emmanuel Lazinier and Sybil de Acevedo, “Quelques disciples et sympathisants c´el`ebres,” Auguste Comte: Qui eˆtes-vous? ed. G´erard de Ficquelmont (Lyon: La Manufacture, 1988), 337–8; Testament (1896 ed.), 4; Frederic Harrison, “Vari´et´es: Pierre Laffitte,” RO, 2d ser., 14 (March 1897): 243; Pierre Laffitte, “R´eponse a` quelques objections,” RO 20 ( January 1888): 34. 98 Whenever Comte could not go to the opera, he offered his ticket to Laffitte. See also Comte to Laffitte, October 4, 1855, CG, 8:123; Comte to Pierre Laffitte, January 4 and February 6, 1845, CG, 2:313, 325; Comte to Laffitte, October 22, December 26, 1846 CG, 4:65, 89; Deroisin, Comte, 90; statement of Laffitte, n.d., MAC; Frederic Harrison, “Vari´et´es: Pierre Laffitte,” RO, 2d ser., 14 (March 1897): 243–4. On Laffitte’s recollections of visiting him in 1844, see Pierre Laffitte, “Mat´eriaux pour s´ervir a` la biographie d’Auguste Comte: Carri`ere polytechnique d’Auguste Comte,” RO 19 (1887): 309. 99 Laffitte to Marcellin Laffitte, May 8, 1848, MAC. Laffitte landed a posisition as a mathematics and physics teacher at the Institution Harant, which prepared students for the Ecole Polytechnique. See Annie Petit, “L’Oeuvre de Pierre Laffitte,” Revue internationale d’histoire et de philosophie des sciences et des techniques, 2d ser., 8, no. 2 (2004): 47. 100 Laffitte considered this day one of the “most beautiful” of his existence. See Laffitte, ed., “Des Confessions annuelles d’Auguste Comte,” 187. 101 Pierre Laffitte, “Notes sur la seconde du mercredi 2 juin 1847,” in packet entitled “Notes sur la Confession annuelle d’Auguste Comte,” MAC; Laffitte, ed. “Des Confessions annuelles d’Auguste Comte,” 197. 102 Referring to Dante, Comte displayed his moral preoccupation when he told Laffite one day, “I purge myself of original sin with him when I read the Purgatory.” Laffitte, ed. “Des Confessions annuelles d’Auguste Comte,” 187, 189, 190.

Mentorship

247

Laffitte became the philosopher’s most supportive disciple, for he was, in Comte’s eyes, both “judicious” and “docile.”103 In other words, he could be easily dominated. For example, in June 1849, Laffitte hesitated to return from Tours to Paris for fear of an outbreak of cholera in the capital. Comte, missing his company, chided him for his “excessive prudence.”104 As with Barbot de Chement, Comte continually lambasted him for lacking energy. In Comte’s mind, energy was the predominant masculine trait, whereas tenderness was the leading characteristic of women. He wrote, “The moral formula of woman is tenderness, purity, and energy; but that of man is . . . energy, tenderness, and purity.”105 Energy was crucial for making active decisions and even for cultivating affections. Men should develop at least some tenderness, but if they were tender but not forceful, they would be inept in “serious battles.”106 Laffitte agreed that he himself lacked “character” and “audacity,” and he tried to increase his energy.107 Despite his disappointment in Laffitte’s moral character, Comte felt closer to him than anyone else, and in September 1849, he expressed his hope that the young man could succeed him as head of the positivist movement.108 After all, he experienced with him a “full conformity . . . of sentiments and thoughts that no one else, since . . . Clotilde” had made him feel to the same extent. (Because Maximilien-Paul-Emile Littr´e, another disciple, was approximately the same age as Comte and was extremely busy with other matters, he considered him more of a “colleague” than a possible successor.109 ) Although “the most eminent among the theoricians” of positivism, Laffitte was not allowed to waver from Comte’s doctrine, come up with new ideas, or publish substantial works on philosophy.110 Forgetting the resentment he felt at Saint-Simon’s effort to dominate him, Comte insisted on controlling everything.111 103 104 105 106

107

108 109 110

111

Comte to Laffitte, October 15, 1845, CG, 3:154. Comte to Laffitte, June 11, 1849, CG, 5:34. Comte to Laffitte, September 12, 1849, CG, 5:71. Comte referred to the scientist Joseph Fourier as an example of such a weak man. Comte to Laffitte, September 18, 1850, CG, 5:193. On energy, see Syst`eme, 4:282; Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 143. Laffitte to Comte, September 15, 1849, CG, 237; Comte to Laffitte, September 18, 1850, CG, 5:193. In 1850, Comte again complained about Laffitte’s character after he insisted on prolonging his stay in the Gironde. See Comte to Laffitte, October 16, 1850, CG, 5:211. Comte to Laffitte, September 3, 1849, CG, 5:71. Comte to Laffitte, October 2 1849, CG, 5:93. Comte to Laffitte, August 18, 1854, CG, 7:245. See also Comte to Laffitte, September 3, 1854, CG, 7:259. Comte was worried, however, that Laffitte did not fully understand his doctrine of the separation of powers. Comte to Laffitte, October 2, 1849, CG, 5:100.

248

Pain and Recognition

Another young Frenchman who found inspiration in Comte’s works was Modeste-Etienne Claudel. Born in 1817, Claudel had a working-class background. He now was an employee of the Department of Public Works in the eastern part of France. His real passion was mathematics, which he enjoyed teaching. Apparently, he was very interested in education and in politics. He remembered that in a session of the Chamber of Peers in either 1843 or 1844, someone had alluded to Comte as the person who held the “solution to the great problem of teaching Humanity.”112 Shortly after writing a course on algorithms, Claudel wrote to Comte in 1844 to ask him he could dedicate the book to him. Comte declined the honor, but they met from time to time to discuss personal and academic matters.113 Claudel fancied himself “maybe” Comte’s “best friend.”114 He willingly put up with the persecution he encountered for embracing positivism.115 othe r admire r s During this melancholy period in his life, Comte found much solace in the fact that his work was becoming more widely appreciated. He boasted that in “all our West, the intellectual and social success of positivism is far more profound” than even his friends imagined.116 He was pleased that many diverse intellectuals seemed to embrace his doctrine, affirming his belief that fixed convictions capable of attracting unanimous support represented the first step toward social regeneration.117 Comte could cite many examples of increasing interest in his work since the completion of the Cours in 1842. In England, Mill had already spoken favorably of Comte in his System of Logic of 1843. Now support began to emerge in Holland. An aristocrat, Baron de Verscheur, applauded Comte’s work.118 Count Menno David van Limburg-Stirum, who was a captain and future minister of war, read Emile Littr´e’s articles on the Cours in Le National, which he then published in Utrecht in 1845. He had been in the military school in Delft with Baron Charles de Capellen, a Dutch cavalry captain, who 112 113 114 115

116 117 118

Modeste-Etienne Claudel to Comte, February 24, 1846, MAC. On his background, see Claudel to Comte, August 20, 1844, MAC. Claudel to Comte, March 20, 1844, MAC. Claudel to Comte, September 26, 1849, MAC. Claudel to Laffitte, August 4, 1859, MAC. In 1859, Claudel complained that he had been persecuted for his positivist beliefs for the past fifteen years. Claudel to Laffitte, August 4, 1859, MAC. Comte to Barbot de Chement, June 17, 1846, CG, 4:19. Comte to Barbot de Chement, September 13, 1846, CG, 4:40. Verscheur to Comte, December 25, 1845.

Other Admirers

249

now was a positivist sympathizer living in Paris. Capellen acted as a frequent intermediary between the Dutch positivists and Comte.119 In 1846, the Count of Limburg-Stirum, Lieutenant Hendrik Kretzer, and Sub-Lieutenant Jean Van Hasselt, all of whom were connected with the Dutch ministry of war, published their own translation of the first two chapters of the Cours in order to propagate positivist ideas in their country.120 In 1847, Kretzer and Van Hasselt published anonymously a short book, De nieuwe wijsgeerige school [The New Philosophical School], composed of selections from the Cours and Littr´e’s and Mill’s works. Yet like Mill, these Dutchmen and their publisher Kemink were wary of pushing positivism too much for fear of rudely challenging people’s religious beliefs.121 Religious influences were still so strong in their country that “the cruelest reproach one can make to a man is to tell him he has no religion.” Nevertheless, they believed that the “masters of science” had to try to develop positivism to take over the direction of society.122 Van Hasselt and Kretzer continued to write articles in journals, such as the liberal review, De Tijdspiegel, where they presented positivism as superior to religion and conducive to a progressive society. They also persuaded others to write articles discussing the merits of positivism and combating theological-metaphysical ideas. One of their literary friends, who was also close to Limburg-Stirum, was Jan Tideman. He entered into the debates and wrote La Philosophie positive face a` la foi et a` la speculation in 1848. According to Kaat Wils, an expert on positivism in Belgium and Holland, there was a huge outcry against positivism for espousing atheism, materialism, and socialism. Wils argues that because the proponents of positivism in Holland were “servile imitators of Comte,” positivism remained somewhat marginal and had only limited success as an intellectual movement that was critical of traditional religion.123 119 120

121 122 123

Kaat Wils, “Les Sympathisants de Comte et la diffusion du positivisme aux Pays-Bas (1845–1880),” in Auguste Comte: Trajectoires positivistes, ed. Petit, 334. Comte de Limburg-Stirum (Captain), Lieutenant H. Kretzer, and Lieutenant Jean Van Hasselt to Comte, April 11, 1846, “Lettre collective,” in RO, 2 ser., 35 (March 1, 1907): 213–214. The names in CG are wrong. See CG, 3:423 The book was called Algemeene Grondslagen der Stellige Wijsbegeerte, that is, General Foundations of Positive Philosophy. Pierre Laffitte, “Mat´eriaux pour servir a` la biographie d’Auguste Comte: Biblioth`eque d’Auguste Comte,” RO, 2d ser., 14 ( January 1897): 129. On Comte’s disciples in Holland, see Kaat Wils, “Gehuld in bet schitterend kleed der nieuwste Parijsche mode. Auguste Comte in Nederland (1845–1880),” in Bijdragen en Mededelingen betreffende de Geschiedenis der Nederlanden 112 (1997): 19–48. I thank Kaat Wils for alerting me to the correct spelling of Van Hasselt. The name is misspelled in the CG. Comte was loath to mention their names because he did not wish to get these employees of the Dutch government into trouble. See Comte to Hutton, May 4, 1854, CG, 7:210. H. Kretzer and Jean Van Hasselt, April 8, 1848, MAC. H. Kretzer to Comte, August 12, 1849, MAC. There was an attack on Comte in the journal Di Nederlander in 1848. Wils, “Les Sympathisants,” 335–8. Comte was upset

250

Pain and Recognition

As for France, responses to Comte’s philosophy were still mixed. A group of French doctors from Rennes announced their adhesion to positivism at a medical conference.124 Emile Saisset, a “fashionable psychologist” and student of Victor Cousin, wrote a long, serious article on Comte’s Cours, which appeared in an issue of the leftist journal, the Revue des deux mondes, published on July 15, 1846.125 Saisset commended Comte on his erudition and zeal but attacked positivism for being materialistic, atheistic, and Epicurean. Limiting everything to what could be observed ran counter to the best parts of human nature, especially people’s curiosity, drive to attain dignity and immortality, and desire to understand justice and wisdom. Comte offered individuals only a “life without any goal,” a “life without poetry.”126 Comte did not read the article, but one of his disciples gave him a detailed report, full of quotations.127 Nonplused, Comte boasted that at least “metaphysicians” had finally decided not to stifle his philosophy by continuing their regime of “silence” toward it.128 He was pleased that the press now was talking about him.129 Indeed, both the Univers, which was Catholic, and the Courrier franc¸ais discussed Saisset’s article.130 Religion did seem to play a key role in people’s response to Comte’s doctrine. Various mathematics and science teachers wrote to tell Comte of their support for his philosophy, which fought against “blind prejudices” and led some of them to abandon their religion.131

124 125

126 127 128 129 130 131

when Kretzer died suddenly in 1850. Comte to Limburg-Stirum, November 7, 1850, CG, 7:216. Wils also points out that the exponents of positivism in Holland had a somewhat conservative political agenda besides an anti-religious one. They promoted positivism to combat “metaphysical” notions of equality and popular sovereignty, which they feared would lead to anarchy. Some freethinkers had a hard time with this position. Comte to Barbot de Chement, September 13, 1846, CG, 4:40. Comte to Lewes, July 24, 1846, CG, 4:29; Modeste-Etienne Claudel to Comte, December 25, 1846, MAC. According to one of Comte’s friends (Modeste-Etienne Claudel), Saisset attempted to incorporate positivism into eclecticism, Cousin’s philosophy. Comte did not approve of Saisset’s psychology, and though he refused to read the article, he sent it to Mill, Littr´e, and Lewes to show that the Cours was finally attracting attention. Saisset wrote the article after Emile Littr´e published articles in support of positivism in Le National. See Emile Saisset, M´elanges d’histoire, de morale et de critique (Paris: Charpentier, 1859), 339n1. Saisset’s article on “La Philosophie positive” is reprinted on pages 339–425. Emile Saisset, “La Philosophie positive,” Revue des Deux Mondes 15 ( July 15, 1846): 185, 195, 196, 213–20. Claudel to Comte, December 25, 1846, MAC. Comte to Lewes, July 24, 1846, CG, 4:29. Comte to Mill, May 6, 1846, CG, 4:7. The article in Univers appeared September 21, 1846 and condemned positivism as materialistic. Claudel to Comte, December 25, 1846, MAC. See also Deroisin, Comte, 28. Henri Imbert to Comte, November 17, 1843, MAC. See also Alphonse Leblais to Comte, July 15, 1846, MAC.

Other Admirers

251

Even a priest who was a conservative professor of theology at the Sorbonne spoke well of Comte. He recommended the Cours for having attempted a “reconstruction” without falling into eighteenth-century negativism. Comte was amused that the cleric seemed to forget that the Cours was on the Index.132 Another priest, who claimed to be the last descendant of Joan of Arc, announced that he too was an adherent of Comte’s system.133 A lawyer and state prosecutor in Bordeaux and later P´erigueux, Henri de Tholouze adopted positivism as a substitute for Catholicism, which he had abandoned after studying philosophy at his Jesuit secondary school. His cousin, one of Comte’s former students at the Ecole Polytechnique, mentioned the Cours to him. After joining the bar in 1839, he started reading it and enjoyed discussing the principles of positivism with Valat, Comte’s former friend, who had been his mathematics teacher. Considering the Cours an “immortal” work of “genius,” Tholouze was grateful to Comte for having devised a replacement for Catholicism – a replacement that emphasized the importance of morality over science and prized transparency. In a time of confusion, positivism seemed to offer grounds for certainty as well as moral righteousness. Unlike Barbot de Chement, Tholouze found that positivism fulfilled his spiritual needs. Tholouze wrote, Where I sense especially . . . the . . . profound influence of positive philosophy is in its sound method. The positive method permits us to approach questions openly, by always establishing facts as the basis of any discussion. We are . . . in the reality of things; we have nothing to hide. We are freed . . . from this official hypocrisy to which all the other doctrines are condemned. We can express all our thoughts because the facts are there to justify them.134

In late 1848, Tholouze came to Paris and confided in Comte, treating him as a spiritual adviser. Comte was grateful, for it added luster to his own self-image as one of the “priests of humanity.”135 He was pleased to hear that Tholouze regarded him as the “greatest philosopher of our century” and recognized the moral thrust of the Cours.136 132 133 134 135

136

Comte to Mill, September 3, 1846, CG, 4:37–8. See also Comte to Barbot de Chement, September 13, 1846, CG, 4:41. Claudel to Comte, August 15, 1847. This priest had a long discussion with Comte about Christ’s divinity. Tholouze to Comte, September 13, 1849, CG, 5:235–6. Comte, Introduction (August 8, 1848) to Rapport a` la Soci´et´e Positiviste par la commission charg´ee d’examiner la nature et le plan du nouveau gouvernment r´evolutionnaire, by Littr´e, Magnin, and Laffitte, August 9, 1848, CG, 4:286. See also Tholouze to Comte, December 17, 1848, MAC. Tholouze to Comte, November 23, 1846, CG, 4:234–6. Tholouze and Comte corresponded until the latter’s death. From time to time, Tholouze sent him his own work to demonstrate positivism’s influence on his intellectual development.

252

Pain and Recognition emile littr e´

Most of all, Comte was proud of Emile Littr´e’s articles on the Cours, which were published in Le National in late 1844. They proved that his work was appreciated by leading intellectuals in France. Littr´e would soon become one of Comte’s most distinguished disciples.137 Littr´e was born in Paris in 1801 of parents who were enthusiastic supporters of the French Revolution. His mother was a daughter of a Montagnard and was a practicing Protestant. His father, who named him after Maximilien Robespierre, was the son of an artisan and worked as a mid-level bureaucrat in the tax office. A freethinker, he would not allow him to be baptized. Littr´e was a brilliant student, interested in many subjects. After studying medicine, he decided at the end of his program not to become a doctor, partly because he lacked the money to set up a practice.138 He then developed his interests in philosophy, history, lexicography, and foreign languages. He knew Greek, Latin, German, English, Italian, Sanskrit, and Arabic. At the same time, he devoted himself to scientific journalism, contributing to the Journal des d´ebats and the Revue des deux mondes. Between 1839 and 1861, he compiled, edited, and translated into French the complete works of Hippocrates – a massive ten-volume project that garnered him much fame. Littr´e’s literary achievements were also remarkable. He translated David Strauss’s Life of Jesus, which argued that the New Testament was essentially a myth. Appearing in 1839 and 1840, the two volumes created much controversy.139 He and Comte met around the time of this work’s publication, thanks to Caroline Massin. One day in late 1839, she visited one of Comte’s oldest friends, Alexandre Meissas, who had attended the Ecole Polytechnique and wrote geography books.140 Littr´e happened to be there, for he was a friend of Meissas as well. After introducing Littr´e to Massin, Meissas urged him to read Comte’s Cours and gave him a copy. When Comte heard that Littr´e was reading his book, he also sent him the six-volume set. Littr´e autographed a copy of his 137 138 139 140

Littr´e’s articles on the Cours appeared in Le National on November 22, 25, 26, and 29 and December 3 and 4, 1844. Jean-Charles Sournia, “Littr´e a` l’Acad´emie de M´edicine,” Bulletin de l’Acad´emie Nationale de M´edecine 165 (1981): 942. Comte had a copy of this book. See Comte’s Biblioth`eque Superflue, MAC. Deroisin, Comte, 36. Deroisin is wrong about the date they met. He asserts that they made each other’s acquaintance in 1843. Littr´e insists that it was 1840. But the date must be late 1839 because Littr´e sent Comte the two-volume translation of Strauss’s Life of Jesus on December 21, 1839. See the two autographs in the books, Comte’s Biblioth`eque Superflue, MAC. See also Littr´e, Auguste Comte et la philosophie positive, 2d. ed., i. Massin and Meissas had a falling out. Massin was not happy that his blond daughter was accompanying Comte to the theater. See Massin to Comte, November 9, 1842, February 26, 1843, March 23, 1843, MAC.

Emile Littr´e

253

translation of Strauss’s Life of Jesus on December 21, 1839 and gave it to Comte in thanks.141 In 1863, Littr´e explained the effect of Comte’s work on him: His book subjugated me. A struggle was established in my mind between my old opinions and the new ones. The latter triumphed, especially because they showed me that my past was only a stage and they produced not a rupture and a contradiction, but an extension and development [of my convictions]. I became from that time a disciple of the positive philosophy, and I remain so.

Having a decided animosity toward religion, as revealed in his decision to promote Strauss’s ideas, and having had difficulties recovering from the loss of a beloved brother in 1838, Littr´e was in a “negative state.”142 He found in Comte’s philosophy a rational, secular world-view that appealed to his own systematic mind – a mind that needed coherence. Positivism provided him with an optimistic vision of a future republic devoted solely to the interests of humanity. He himself was a liberal republican who had been involved in the Revolution of 1830. Positivism encouraged his activism. Besides its stance on progress and its republicanism, positivism’s emphasis on history and the natural sciences, especially biology, accorded well with his own wide-ranging interests. He was particularly seduced by the new science of sociology, which promised to unveil the secrets of social operations. Moreover, its synthesis of these subjects with a dogmatic twist satisfied his anxious, hesitating nature in much the same way that it pleased Mill. Positivism, in short, made his world seem more stable.143 Littr´e wrote, “The work of Auguste Comte, entirely captivated me.”144 His adhesion to positivism was indeed more complete and enthusiastic than that of Mill, who objected to certain parts of 141

142 143

144

See the Life of Jesus in Comte’s library at the Maison d’Auguste Comte. The pages are cut, so Comte may have read it. Curiously, another person interested in Comte, George Eliot, translated Strauss’s book into English. Littr´e, Auguste Comte et la philosophie positive, 2d ed., i, 662. Jean-Franc¸ois Six, Littr´e devant Dieu (Paris: Seuil, 1962), 22; Alain Rey, Littr´e: L’Humaniste et les mots (Paris: Gallimard, 1970), 73, 232, 246; Jean Hamburger, Monsieur Littr´e (Paris: Flammarion, 1988), 69. On the different approaches of Comte and Littr´e to the philosophy of history, see Annie Petit, “Philologie et philosophie de l’histoire,” in Actes du Colloque Littr´e: Paris, 7–9 octobre 1981 (Paris: Albin Michel, 1983), 215–43. Petit argues that as a philologist, Littr´e placed far more emphasis on history than did Comte and worried more about forgetting the past and effacing tradition. In his work, “history invaded sociology and subjugated it.” On the other hand, to the more optimistic Comte, history had a more specific task; it was supposed to be “dynamic sociology,” that is, the “study of societies from the point of view of progress.” Ibid., 227–8. Littr`e, “Etudes sur les progr`es du positivisme” (1876), in A. Comte, Principes de philosophie positive (Paris: J.-B. Bailli`ere, 1891), 211, cited by Ernest Coumet, “La Philosophie positive d’E. Littr´e,” in Actes du Colloque Littr´e, Paris, 7–9 octobre 1981, ed. Jacques Roger (Paris: Albin Michel, 1983), 180.

254

Pain and Recognition

positivism. Comte believed that Littr´e better understood the need for an intellectual system to satisfy both the heart and mind.145 A fellow Academician, Maxime du Camp, wrote of Littr´e: His ugliness was extraordinary but his gaze had a depth and form of penetration that was surprising. He was a saint, the Saint Vincent de Paul of atheism. Few others have led a life as beautiful or as productive as his. A critical and fervent mind, devoured by the need to believe, he [preferred to] trust in Auguste Comte and his fine visions, rather than believe in nothing.146

Comte and Littr´e soon became friends. Comte even urged Massin to vacation with the Littr´e family. Massin grew particularly fond of Littr´e’s mother and was devastated by her death in December 1842. Madame Littr´e had been a very domineering mother, and her closeness to Massin may have contributed to Littr´e’s sense of duty to protect her.147 In 1847, when Comte broke with Lenoir, he had Littr´e replace him as the go-between with Massin. Every three months, Littr´e delivered to Massin the money Comte earmarked for her support.148 Seeking distraction from his own sorrow at his mother’s death and anxious about Comte after the loss of his position at the Ecole Polytechnique, Littr´e decided to make positivism better known, especially in republican circles. He figured that Comte needed more supporters who could help him financially. Moreover, if Comte’s reputation soared, perhaps the school would rehire him or at least not fire him from his secondary position as r´ep´etiteur. Littr´e, frustrated at being recognized simply as a fine translator, may have also had an ulterior motive for promoting positivism: to make a bigger name for himself.149 This campaign began in November and December 1844, when Littr´e published a series of six articles on the Cours under the title “De la Philosophie positive” for Le National. He had started writing on science, medicine, politics, and history for this left-wing journal in 1835, when its editor was the famous Armand Carrel, who was killed in a duel a year later.150 Littr´e and Carrel were good friends, as were Carrel and Comte. Carrel had even told Comte that he admired 145 146 147 148 149 150

Comte to Limbourg-Stirum, Kretzer, and Van Hasselt, April 30, 1846, CG, 3:380. Description of Littr´e, Maxime du Camp, ca. 1881, Fonds Maxime du Camp, ms. 3747, Archives of the Biblioth`eque de l’Institut de France. Deroisin, Comte, 61. Caroline Massin to Comte, September 3, 1840, March 29, 1843, October 8, 1847, MAC. Dr. [ Jean-Franc¸ois-Eug`ene] Robinet, M. Littr´e et le Positivisme (Paris, 1871), 11. Littr´e also wrote for the Revue des deux mondes.

Emile Littr´e

255

Littr´e’s “beautiful soul.”151 Littr´e’s long collaboration with the journal and his solid reputation enabled him to persuade the publishers, who at first objected to his anti-religious stance, to devote a sizable part of the paper to this work of propaganda. Delighted to have helped Littr´e, Marrast, the editor of the Le National, sent the articles to Comte, hoping the philosopher would break his rules of “hygiene” to read them. Marrast explained, I have fulfilled one of my dearest wishes in publishing this review. It seemed to me to be shameful for the French press that a book of such great scope like yours would appear without attracting any public attention. Thus despite all the obstacles, it is a duty that we have filled, and I am proud that it has been with the help of such an eminent mind as that of Littr´e.

Proclaiming his deep “devotion” to Comte, he hoped the “publicity” would compensate him for all the “injustices” that had been done to him.152 At this point, Le National had a press run of about four thousand copies, many of which reached the provinces.153 Littr´e’s articles simplifying and summarizing the main ideas of positivism were very well regarded and had an enormous impact on Comte’s reputation. All the issues were sold out immediately, much to Littr´e’s and Comte’s surprise. Littr´e then published them in a single volume, De la Philosophie positive: Analyse raisonn´ee du Cours de philosophie positive, in early 1845 to give this doctrine a better chance to achieve the widest possible appeal among both intellectuals and the people.154 Comte later made members of the Positivist Society agree to adhere to the five conclusions Littr´e laid out in this work.155 The “essential points” of the Cours, according to Littr´e, were the determination of the law that regulates societies, going from the theological stage to the metaphysical stage to arrive at the positive stage; the nature of questions, which must cease to be absolute to become relative; the method, which goes from the world toward man and not from man toward the world; the hierarchical coordination of the sciences, which indicates their relations and reciprocal reactions; 151 152 153 154

155

Comte, “Pr´eface,” Syst`eme, 1:14n1. See also J.- B. Foucart to Laffitte, November 29, 1857, MAC. Marrast to Comte, December 5, 1844, Pierre Laffitte, ed., “Relations d’Auguste Comte avec Armand Marrast,” RO 10 (March 1883): 191. Larizza, Bandiera verde, 99. Comte to Limburg-Stirum et al., April 30, 1846, 380. They were republished in Littr´e’s Conservation, r´evolution et positivisme (1852) and Fragments de philosophie positive et de sociologie contemporaine (1876). Comte, “Le Fondateur de la Soci´et´e Positiviste a` quiconque d´esire s’y incorporer,” March 8, 1848, CG, 4:269.

256

Pain and Recognition

[and] the incorporation of the sciences into philosophy, and because of that, finally, the homogeneity of all our conceptions.156

Comte was pleased to have the adhesion of a famous member of the Institut, whom he called “the most eminent . . . of the erudite men living today.”157 He explained to John Stuart Mill that Littr´e’s articles, which could not be more “satisfying,” were a “sort of philosophic event”; they finally broke the “silence maintained toward me by the French periodic press with such strange unanimity” for the past twenty-four years.158 In an allusion to Mill’s promotion of positivism in the System of Logic, Comte thanked him for having served as a model for Littr´e to follow. Having once met this “solitary scholar” in 1836, Mill found Littr´e’s review articles “excellent” and likewise welcomed his assistance.159 He was, however, somewhat surprised by the degree to which Littr´e supported positivism. Grote also read with approbation Littr´e’s articles in Le National. He was pleased to see how well he abridged the Cours. Referring to the moral, social, and political parts that he disliked, he commended Littr´e above all for having indicated “with sufficient frankness the unpopular side of positivism, without, nevertheless, highlighting it too much.”160 According to his biographer, Littr´e served for approximately forty years as the “premier evangelist of positivism.”161 His superb journalistic abilities, his close connections with powerful people on the left and in academic circles, and the great respect given to him for his brilliance and general erudition constituted a great boon to Comte’s philosophy. Comte astutely noted that because of Littr´e’s support, he was entering into a “new phase” of his life.162 Although somewhat well-known in England, thanks largely to the efforts of Mill, positivism had been a fairly suspect doctrine in France, where Comte’s reputation as an atheistic eccentric and his obscurity as a scholar hindered its acceptability. Littr´e helped to make it one of the most important movements in nineteenth-century France. Comte was relieved that “fame [was] succeeding obscurity,” though he figured that his enemies would redouble their efforts to undermine him, especially by threatening his economic well-being. Nevertheless, he felt fortified 156 157 158

159 160 161

E. Littr´e, De la Philosophie positive (Paris, 1845), 102. Comte to Mill, October 21, 1844, CG, 2:292. Comte to Mill, October 21 and December 25, 1844, CG, 2:292, 303. Comte also expressed his appreciation in the first volume of the Syst`eme. See “Pr´eface,” Syst`eme, 1:14–15. Mill to Comte, November 25, December 31, 1844, CG, 2:427, 430. Grote to Comte, January 29, 1845, CG, 2:432. Working on a history of Greece, Grote was already an admirer of Littr´e’s work on Hippocrates. Six, Littr´e, 26. 162 Comte to Barbot de Chement, January 5, 1845, CG, 3:316.

English Enthusiasts: George Henry Lewes

257

by the way in which Mill and Littr´e were forming the intellectual elite – the “positive school” – that he had always sought to create.163 He was certain that other thinkers would soon join in this “serious propagation of positivism.”164 e nglish e nthusiasts: george he nry lewe s Advocates of positivism seemed to proliferate in England in particular, despite the fact that Comte felt ambivalent toward the English. After his experience with Mill, who refused to discuss his atheism openly, Comte concluded that there was not sufficient liberty of discussion in England. He also disliked England for a number of other reasons: its embrace of Protestantism and individualism, the strong position of its aristocracy, and its tendencies toward imperialism. Resentful of England’s industrial success, which he was certain would soon end, he, moreover, denounced its industrialists for their exploitative treatment of their workers, whom they tried to contain by “industrial triumphs, material preoccupations, and theological degradation.”165 The success of Thomas Malthus’s theories, which denigrated the working class, further appalled him. Despite these reservations, Comte was delighted, if puzzled, by the support of many Englishmen. One young enthusiast was Alexander William Williamson (1824– 1904), an Englishman of Scottish ancestry, who was later to become renowned for devising a method to prepare ethers.166 As a student, Williamson had pursued courses in mathematics, biology, and physics, and had also worked at the University of Giessen with Justus Liebig, the founder of modern chemistry.167 Mill, who was a friend of his father’s, advised him to further his “positive studies” with Comte.168 To supplement his earnings, Comte had started tutoring in June 1846, 163 164 165

166 167 168

Comte to Mill, December 25, 1844, CG, 2:304. Comte to Mill, May 6, 1846, CG, 4:4. Comte to Williamson, November 19, 1849, CG, 5:111, 113. See also J. Harris and W. H. Brock, “From Giessen to Gower Street: Towards a Biography of Alexander William Williamson (1824–1904),” Annals of Science 31 (1974): 109. Harris and Brock, “From Giessen to Gower Street,” 94. Comte owned one of Liebig’s books: Lettres sur la chimie et sur ses applications (1845). See Comte’s Biblioth`eque Auxillaire, I, MAC. In June 1845, Mill had asked Comte to accept as a boarder a young Englishman, who wished to live in Paris in the winter and have someone direct his scientific studies. This young man was no doubt Alexander Williamson. Comte refused, not wanting to accommodate a stranger in his apartment. Mill to Comte, June 24, 1845, CG, 3:395; Comte to Mill, June 27, 1845, CG, 3:44; Mill to Comte, June 24, 1845, CG, 3:395. See also Harris and Brock, “From Giessen to Gower Street,” 107. At one point, Williamson introduced Comte to Moriz Carri`ere, a student of Hegel and professor of philosophy at Giessen. See statement of Laffitte, n.d., MAC.

258

Pain and Recognition

several months after de Vaux’s death.169 Although Comte refused to take him as a boarder, he was happy to tutor him, especially after Mill pointedly told him that he, like his father, found religion “profoundly” repugnant.170 Williamson studied mathematics with Comte for three hours each week at a cost of ten francs an hour. When his father wondered about the expense and value, the young man replied, If my experience of Comte’s superior powers were insufficient to convince you that his lessons were worth their price, John Mill’s saying that he “would prefer him to any man in Europe to finish a scientific education” ought to carry the point, and induce you to consent to my continuing as I have begun.171

After a while, Williamson spent many evenings at Comte’s house among his disciples and read his works. He became eager to help propagate his ideas.172 He took his side against Mill, whom he saw on one trip to London in early 1848. Williamson’s biting references to Mill’s “great physical debility” and “great nervous irritability” were surely meant to please the disillusioned Comte, who hoped the young man would replace Mill as head of the positivist movement in England.173 Williamson became friends with Laffitte as well. The two young men often met Comte alone on Tuesday evenings.174 Once when Laffitte was away and delinquent about writing, Williamson wrote to him, “Your prolonged absence and silence since your first letter 169

170 171

172 173 174

Every year, Comte had one or two students, whom he tutored for several months. These lessons brought in approximately 180 francs a month. From June 1846 to September 1850, he tutored the following: Mr. de Saint-Charles, Mr. d’Arusmont (husband of Fanny Wright, the feminist) and his daughter, Mr. Emile Pascal, M. de Girardin, Mr. ChahataIssa, Mr. Campane, and Madame Baudoin. See “El`eves priv`es d’Auguste Comte,” document at MAC and Mademoiselle F. d’Arusmont (daughter of Fanny Wright) to Comte, August 5, 1846. Comte tutored Girardin in the mid-1840s. It is unclear if this was Emile de Girardin or one of his relations. See notebook “Recettes et d´epenses courantes, mai 1838–septembre 1857,” MAC. Mill to Comte, June 24, 1845, CG, 3:395. Alexander Williamson to Alexander Williamson (father), n.d., in E. Divers, Proc. Roy. Soc., 1907, xxviii–ix, quoted in Harris and Brock, “From Giessen to Gower Street,” 107. See also Williamson to Comte, November 5, 1849, MAC. Impressed, like Leibig, with Williamson’s abilities, Comte soon advised him to attend Blainville’s lectures on biology and arranged for the scientist to give him access to his laboratory devoted to anatomy. Comte to Blainville, November 23, 1846, CG, 4:79. See also comment of Laffitte, notes, December 2, 1846, CG, 4:237 and Harris and Brock, “From Giessen to Gower Street,” 107. See letter from Williamson to Comte, March 1, 1847, MAC. Williamson to Laffitte, March 19, 1848, MAC. Comte to Laffitte, May 7, 1849, CG, 5:20.

English Enthusiasts: George Henry Lewes

259

begin to hurt our dear master a great deal. . . . He is a tender soul who is easily hurt, especially by the object of his dearest affections.” Williamson urged Laffitte to write to “P`ere Comte” or return soon to “kiss love’s gentle tears away.”175 Given the closeness of their relationship, Comte was sad when Williamson left in September 1849 to go to University College London, where he became a professor of chemistry.176 Tensions in their relationship soon emerged. Williamson’s inaugural lecture, entitled “Development of Difference the Basis of Unity,” not only represented a profession of his Protestant faith, which he was forced to make, but celebrated England’s role in the coming regeneration of European society. Williamson believed the industrial might of London made it the temporal center of Humanity.177 France, in his opinion, was too contemptuous of practical activities, and its pretensions to international prominence were unacceptable.178 These ideas were heretical to Comte, who argued that Paris would never accept London’s leadership in regenerating society and that English religious and secular elites were engaged in “industrial conquests” to distract the common people from demanding necessary social reforms.179 Williamson wrote Laffitte to tell him how profoundly offended he was. After all, he had recently written to Comte the following words: “I respect and love you.”180 Now he felt he could not express his dissenting opinions without Comte making “unfavorable hypotheses” about his “character.” He objected to Comte’s accusation that he was “corrupted” by the English milieu, which implied that he was weak and dishonest.181 Moreover, he was angry that his inability to give money to support Comte was interpreted as a sign of dissent.182 Yet it is clear that Comte could not tolerate divergences and insisted on total control. His correspondence with Williamson soon ended, as did that between Laffitte 175 176

177 178

179

180 181 182

Williamson to Laffitte, October 8, 1848. Comte to Laffitte, September 4, 1849, CG, 5:70; Wright, Religion of Humanity, 70. On Comte’s influence on Williamson, see Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent, “Atomism and Positivism: A Legend about French Chemistry,” Annals of Science 56 (1999): 88. Williamson to Comte, October 26, 1849, MAC. Comte’s reply is lost. Williamson to Comte, n.d. (probably December 19, 1849), MAC. Williamson also insisted that England was correct to hold onto Gibraltar, a view that Comte rejected. Williamson to Comte, November 5, 1849, MAC. Comte to Williamson, November 19, 1849, CG, 5:116. See also Comte to Williamson, November 19, 1849, CG, 5:109; Williamson to Comte, October 31, 1849, MAC. Williamson felt that the views he expressed in his inaugural lecture were the opposite of those of Mill, who erred in preferring logic to philosophy. Williamson to Comte, November 5, 12, 1849, MAC. Williamson to Comte, November 5, 1849, MAC. Williamson to Laffitte, March 23, 1850, MAC. Williamson to Comte, July 15, 1850, MAC.

260

Pain and Recognition

and the young man.183 Nevertheless, in 1855 Comte still considered him one of his main disciples and a complete positivist.184 Another English admirer was George Henry Lewes, the wellknown journalist and future consort of George Eliot. Born in London in 1817, he briefly studied medicine and developed a deep interest in the sciences before deciding to become a writer. He was extraordinarily open to new ideas and read widely in literature and philosophy.185 While breaking into journalism, he became close friends with the famous man of letters Leigh Hunt, who shared his liberal, atheistic views. Hunt introduced him to Mill. In 1842, Lewes read Mill’s System of Logic, which he declared to be the “last and highest expression of English philosophy” and indeed “one of the most remarkable books of the epoch.”186 Thanks to Mill’s influence, Lewes became very interested in positivism in the early 1840s, and the two men spent long hours discussing the Cours. Lewes particularly liked the last volume, which introduced the idea of a Positivist Church and spoke in high-minded tones of humanity and morality without referring to God.187 By 1846, Lewes had read that last volume four times. He explained, “The Cours de Philosophie Positive is indeed a work which must form an epoch in every individual existence, & will form one in the history of thought.”188 Lewes, a great admirer of the pantheistic humanism of Spinoza, yearned for a universal philosophy. Positivism seemed to satisfy him because it was not only secular and scientific but comprehensive and abstract. Appealing to his attachment to Burkean traditionalism as well as to the new emerging socialist trends, the Cours’ emphasis on order and progress also sharpened Lewes’ political analysis. He now felt more confident in criticizing conservatives and leftists for not sufficiently comprehending that intellectual anarchy was the cause of most social ills. Comte had shown Lewes the importance of effecting unanimity on important issues, even to the point of suppressing minority opinions.189 Curiously, this form of authoritarianism, which was contrary 183

184 185 186 187 188 189

On July 7, 1850, Williamson wrote to Laffitte in sorrowful tones because the latter had not responded to his letter. Williamson’s last known letter to Comte is dated July 15, 1850. Although Williamson lost contact with Comte and Laffitte, he visited Comte in September 1850, gave to the Positivist subsidy in 1853, and welcomed certain positivists, such as Constant-Rebecque from Holland, when they visited England. His student H. L. Sulman became a positivist. See Harris and Brock, “From Giessen to Gower Street,” 109n50; Williamson to Laffitte, September 3, 1850 and October 7, 1853. Comte tried to get Richard Congreve, a leading positivist, to meet him. Comte to Congreve, February 4, 1855, CG, 8:25. Wright, The Religion of Humanity, 50; Tjoa, Lewes, 9. Lewes to Karl August Varnhaen von Ense, July 17, 1843, in Baker, ed., Letters, 1:89. Tjoa, Lewes, 105. Lewes to Comte, July 10, 1846, in Baker, ed., Letters of Lewes, 1:130. Tjoa, Lewes, 34–8, 105, 133; Ashton, Lewes, 49; Bain, John Stuart Mill, 76n.

English Enthusiasts: George Henry Lewes

261

to the English concern with individualism, had attracted Mill years before. Various scholars of Lewes have sought to pinpoint the appeal of positivism to this gifted autodidact. T. R. Wright explained, “Positivism imparted clarity, structure and a sense of certainty to his criticism while providing him with what amounted to a religious faith.”190 According to Hock Guan Tjoa, Lewes celebrated the new positivist “‘dogma’” because it “replaced intellectual anarchy with a unified and coherent view of the world.” Comte’s new morality represented a “new vision of a meaningful cosmos.” Indeed, Comte proved popular among many educated Victorians like Lewes because positivism combined “empirical probity,” based on the scientific method, and “philosophic breadth”; it offered not only insightful criticisms but constructive “conceptual and social wholes,” such as “humanity.”191 David Williams maintained that to the end Lewes adhered to Comte’s position that “social phenomena should be subjected to scientific observation” and that “social science would study the conditions, facts, and inter-relations of society and subject these to the laws of order and the laws of progress.”192 Excited about positivism, Lewes wanted to talk with Comte himself. Mill asked his friend Armand Marrast to arrange the meeting in May 1842.193 Comte found Lewes “a loyal and interesting young man,” though too interested in psychology.194 (During this same trip, Lewes was introduced to Cousin, whom Comte associated with psychology.) Mill duly apologized for his young friend’s poor scientific background and reminded Comte of how much Lewes admired him.195 Upon his return to England, Lewes wrote articles on Hegel as well as French philosophy.196 In “The Modern Metaphysics and Moral Philosophy of France,” published in July 1843 in the British and Foreign Review, Lewes commended Comte for his outstanding “philosophic power,” which was evident in the way in which he connected the sciences and showed how they must be the basis of the study of society.197 In a letter to a friend, Lewes explained, “He is to the 190 192 193

194 195 196 197

Wright, Religion of Humanity, 50. 191 Tjoa, Lewes, 113, 115. David Williams, Mr. George Eliot: A Biography of George Henry Lewes (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1983), 48. Ashton, Lewes, 45; Marrast to Comte, May 22, 1842, in Pierre Laffitte, ed., “Relations d’Auguste Comte avec Armand Marrast,” RO 10 (March 1883): 189; Comte to Mill, May 29, 1842, CG, 2:49. Comte to Mill, May 29, 1842, CG, 2:49. Mill to Comte, June 9, 1842, CG, 2:357. Ashton, Lewes, 331–2; Tjoa, Lewes, 1–13. George Henry Lewes, “The Modern Metaphysics and Moral Philosophy of France,” British and Foreign Review 15 (1843): 405.

262

Pain and Recognition

positive sciences what Hegel was to the metaphysical.”198 In another article, he hailed Comte as the “Newton” of history because of his discovery of the “fundamental law of human evolution.” Comte also exposed the “sophism” that “the reins of government should be in the hands of the wisest.”199 Shortly after the publication of this article, Mill wrote to Comte, “Our young friend Lewes . . . is increasingly siding with our common doctrine.” Mill hoped that Lewes’s “frank and vigorous praise” of Comte’s system would draw English readers to Comte’s “great work.”200 Though Comte refused to break his rules of cerebral hygiene to read Lewes’s articles, he asked Mill to thank him on his behalf.201 Comte’s lack of graciousness did not deter Lewes. While in Paris again in the spring of 1846 partly to meet George Sand, Lewes dropped in on Comte the day after de Vaux’s death and renewed their acquaintanceship. He also gave him the first two volumes of his Biographical History of Philosophy, which was a narrative of the history of ideas intended for a nonscholarly audience.202 Lewes began the book by explaining that it was “intended as a contribution to the History of Humanity.” He wished to show how philosophy became a “Positive Science,” marked by induction and a search for knowledge of laws instead of causes or essences. Comte “involuntarily” read the volumes in their entirety and was grateful to Lewes for his introduction, which praised the Cours as the “opus magnum of our age” because of its help in advancing the “empire of Positive Science.”203 Having used the law of three stages in conceptualizing the work, Lewes told Comte that he owed him “so much”204 and even signed his letters “your sincere friend and affectionate Pupil.”205 Lewes’s enthusiasm led him later in 1846 to end the fourth and last volume of his Biographical History of Philosophy with a chapter on positivism, which he regarded as the culmination of the entire tradition of Western thought. Around this time, other British writers, such as John Daniel Morell and Robert 198 199 200 201 202

203 204 205

Lewes to Karl August Varnhagen von Ense, March 2, 1842, in Baker, ed., Letters of Lewes, 1:73. George Henry Lewes, “State of Historical Science in France,” British and Foreign Review 16 (1844): 91, 98. Mill to Comte, July 13, 1843, CG, 2:392. Comte to Mill, July 16, 1843, CG, 2:179. Comte to Lewes, April 1, 1846, CG, 3:365. Lewes had originally gone to Comte’s house on April 1 but had missed him, for Comte was busy with the dying de Vaux. They finally met on April 6. See Lewes to Comte, April 1, 1846, in Baker, ed., Letters of Lewes, 1:124; Wright, Religion of Humanity, 52. Lewes, A Biographical History of Philosophy, xv, xxii; Comte to Lewes, July 4, 1846, CG, 4:20. Comte also criticized Lewes for omitting medieval philosophers in his history. Lewes to Comte, April 1, 1846, in Baker, ed., Letters of Lewes, 1:123. This letter is not reproduced in CG. Lewes to Comte, July 10, 1846, in Baker, ed., Letters of Lewes, 1:131.

English Enthusiasts: George Henry Lewes

263

Blakey, were beginning to include Comte in their very popular histories of philosophy.206 Although they acknowledged his brilliance and growing influence, they labelled him a materialist and atheist. Lewes was more laudatory. He called Comte “the Bacon of the nineteenth century” and the Cours “one of the mighty landmarks in the history of opinion” because it alone presented a scientific, or positive, doctrine that had the “desired generality of metaphysical doctrines, without possessing their vagueness, instability, and inapplicability.”207 Comte was pleased that Lewes’s book presented the history of philosophy as leading to the “necessary coming of positivism.”208 Republished several times and selling 45,000 copies by 1888, this book played a critical role in popularizing positivism.209 Lewes boasted to Comte, “My book is read at Oxford and Cambridge as well as by artisans and even women.” The first year it was published he estimated that it influenced “so large a mass as fifty thousand readers (for the sale of ten thousand copies implies at least that number of readers).”210 Thanks to Morell, Blakey, and Lewes, most British readers became familiar with Comte.211 At least one Oxford scholar did not like Comte’s doctrine. Benjamin Jowett, a graduate and future master of Balliol College at Oxford, read Comte for the first time in 1850 and later in 1882. Although at first he was drawn to Comte’s picture of the development of the mind and his discussion of the decadence of the Church and old beliefs, he concluded that his “ generalizations” were misleading: there was an “enormous difference between saying that things must be based on facts and showing how they are based on facts.” Not only was Comte metaphysical, but the “enthusiasm which he excited in some minds” was “characteristic of the metaphysical disorder.” 206

207 208

209

210 211

John Daniel Morell covered Comte, whom he calls M. “Compte,” in the six concluding pages (pages 480–86) of the first volume of An Historical and Critical View of the Speculative Philosophy of Europe in the Nineteenth Century, published in London in 1846. Robert Blakey devoted fifteen pages to Comte in the fourth volume (pages 307–22) of History of the Philosophy of Mind, published in London in 1848. See Richmond Laurin Hawkins, Positivism in the United States (1853–1861) (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1938), 11–12; Cashdollar, The Transformation, 40–45. Lewes, A Biographical History of Philosophy, 643, 645. Syst`eme, 4:540. Comte again criticized Lewes for various mistakes and omissions. See Comte to Lewes, July 24, 1846, CG, 4:27–8; Comte to Barbot de Chement, September 13, 1846, CG, 4:41. On the number of copies of the Biographical History of Philosophy that were sold, see Dr. Kaines, “Auguste Comte in Great Britain: An Address Delivered before the North London Positivist Society,” The National Reformer n.v. ( September 9, 1888):165. Lewes’s book was also immediately translated into German, popularizing Comte’s ideas there as well. Lewes to Comte, July 10, 1846, in Baker, ed., Letters of Lewes, 1:131. The book was republished in 1857, 1871, 1880, and 1891. See Ashton, Lewes, 50. Cashdollar, The Transformation, 45.

264

Pain and Recognition

Sociology itself was a “monstrous fiction” because it could not make predictions, the basic characteristic of a science according to Comte’s own definition. Referring to Lewes, Jowett declared that it was “a poor thing to have studied all philosophies and to end in adopting that of Auguste Comte.”212 Despite such criticisms, Lewes and Mill promulgated Comte’s ideas to such a great extent that many Frenchmen first heard about him when they went to England. Andr´e-Michel Guerry, a criminologist who blended statistics and the study of society, learned about Comte’s ideas in England and asked Littr´e to arrange a meeting. Guerry wanted Comte’s advice about his tables.213 It is not surprising that Frederic Harrison, one of the leading English Comtists, later called his friend Lewes the “chief representative to most reading Englishmen of the Positive Philosophy.”214 Indeed, Comte viewed Lewes as the Englishman whose “adhesion to positivism” was “the most complete and explicit, without excepting our eminent friend [Mill].” According to Comte, Mill feared losing his “natural” position as head of the English “promoters” of positivism to Lewes.215 Yet in truth Mill did not fancy himself to be the leader of English positivists. Nor did he feel threatened by Lewes’s relationship with Comte. Mill was definitely closer to Comte than Lewes was. Comte invited Lewes to dinner in July 1847, and they corresponded a few times in subsequent years without much assiduity. The age difference between Lewes and Comte played a role in creating a certain distance. Moreover, given the fact that Lewes already had other mentors and friends, he never felt the need to pour out his troubles to Comte.216 Indeed, he even felt sufficiently selfconfident to criticize him on various points, especially the style he used in the Cours.217 In his Biographical History, Lewes remarked that “Comte’s works are not calculated to be popular.” The “journey” through the “six stout volumes” of the Cours was “not lightened by any graces of style.” Comte used an excessive number of words “to 212

213 214

215 216 217

Benjamin Jowett to Frederic Harrison, April 30, 1861, Letters of Benjamin Jowett (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1899), 16; Benjamin Jowett, in Evelyn Abbott and Lewis Campbell, eds., Life and Letters of Benjamin Jowett (London: John Murray, 1897), 2 vols., 1:130, 261; 2:187. For more criticisms of Comte, see Jowett’s handwriten notebook called “Recollections of Comte,” Jowett Papers, IC30, Balliol College, Oxford University. Littr´e to Comte, February 3, 1849, MAC. Frederic Harrison, “Obituary: G. H. Lewes,” The Academy, 14 (December 7, 1878): 544. See also Comte’s comment of 1848, when he says that Lewes was becoming “the principal organ of positivism in England.” Comte to Lewes, October 15, 1848, CG, 4:195. Comte to Lewes, January 28, and April 7, 1847, CG, 4:100, 110. Ashton, Lewes, 129. Lewes to Comte, February 18 (?), 1847, in Baker, ed., Letters of Lewes, 1:143.

English Enthusiasts: George Henry Lewes

265

ensure intelligibility at the expense of some ennui.”218 In his article in the British and Foreign Review of 1843, Lewes also dwelled on Comte’s “bad” style, which hampered the diffusion of his ideas.219 Despite these harsh criticisms, Littr´e reassured Comte that Lewes was actively propagating positivism by writing articles on it and giving lectures in English and Scottish cities.220 218 219

220

Lewes, A Biographical History, 654. Lewes stated, “If M. Comte wishes to give his philosophy fair play, he will cut off the superfluous members of his periods, avoid his perpetual references to past and future chapters, and write a great deal less about his intentions.” Lewes, “Modern Metaphysics,” 406. Littr´e to Comte, February 18, 1852, MAC. See also Comte to Lewes, July 5, 1847, CG, 4:123–4; Lewes to Comte, July 6, 1847, CG, 4:246.

Chapter 6

The Revolution of 1848

All these various contacts . . . are developing within me a vivid sense of my present mission as the intellectual and moral director of the great socialist revolution that is rapidly approaching. Comte, September 1849

comte’s re lation to the worke r s: the challe nge of communism A gifted teacher, Comte eagerly responded to artisans’ widespread desire for education. The clockmaker Andr´e-Auguste Francelle, for example, not only audited his astronomy course, but studied mathematics with other teachers.1 As Edward Berenson has noted about this period, “Artisans looked to sympathetic members of the middle class for enlightenment. Far from resenting bourgeois republicans, workers respected their knowledge and, more often than not, they were glad to follow bourgeois leadership.”2 Comte was only too happy to play the part. He was always gratified whenever the workers wrote to him to express their gratitude for his lectures on astronomy. One of the workers, Jean-Fabien Magnin, began a long correspondence with Comte in August 1845. Born in 1810, he worked for a time as a weaver in Lyon, where he became politicized. He then became a carpenter like his father and eventually gained a solid knowledge of other crafts. After settling in Paris, he began to follow courses in the sciences at the Conservatoire des Arts et M´etiers. He also became interested in social reform. However, he kept his distance from Fourierism and communism, especially Etienne Cabet’s Icarian variety. In April 1843, he heard from a fellow worker, Pierre Buisson, about Comte’s lectures on astronomy. Magnin and six workers went the following month and sat right in the front row. After several lectures, he became convinced that positivism offered the best way 1 2

Andr´e-Auguste Francelle to Comte, December 20, 1840, MAC. Edward Berenson, Populist and Left-Wing Politics in France, 1830–1852 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), 47. See also Edgar Leon Newman, “The Historian as Apostle: Romanticism, Religion, and the First Socialist History of the World,” Journal of the History of Ideas 56 (April 1995): 239–61.

266

Comte’s Relation to the Workers

267

to regenerate society.3 He and his friends attended the lecture series again in 1844 and 1845. The number of workers increased to at least twenty. After each lecture, they met in a nearby “cabaret” to discuss Comte’s ideas. One day Alphonse Darche, a mechanic, suggested that they visit Comte. In his first letter to Comte, written in 1845, Magnin wrote, “Several people here would like to have the honor to be introduced to you to thank you in the name of their comrades who followed your course for your benevolence in wanting to devote so much time and work to the instruction of the public.”4 Comte graciously received Magnin and seven other workers, all of whom were struck by his kindness and concern.5 After a “long and interesting conversation,” Comte gave each of them a copy of his Discours sur l’esprit positif. In early 1846, Magnin and his friends created an association for the propagation of Comte’s teachings. They printed and distributed information about the astronomy course to other workers, explaining that it not only shed light on the scientific method but also showed the way to “a new system of social education,” which satisfied the “needs of Humanity.”6 In addition, Magnin began to teach Comte’s precepts to workers at his home.7 Magnin acted in many ways as a crucial conduit between Comte and the lower class, frequently filling him in on their conditions and aspirations. Comte’s hopes that other scholars would follow his example and devote themselves to popular education were disappointed. Already angry that scientists did not appreciate his philosophical work or his contributions to the Ecole Polytechnique, he took their indifference to public instruction as yet another sign of their “lack of general views and general sentiments.”8 In 1848, he was so disgusted by scientists that he stopped reading scientific reviews and bulletins altogether.9 3

4 5

6

7

8 9

“A la M´emoire de M. Fabien Magnin,” RO, 2d ser., 6 (December 1897): 419; Samuel Kun, “Fabien Magnin (1810–1884),” RO, 3d. ser., 2 (1910): 248; Fabien Magnin, Speech, September 5, 1878, in “Le Vingt-et-uni`eme Anniversaire de la mort d’Auguste Comte,” RO 1, no. 4 (1878): 656; Mirella Larizza, Bandiera verde contro bandiera rossa: Auguste Comte e gli inizi della Soci´et´e positiviste (1848–1852) (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1999), 133–4. Fabien Magnin to Comte, August 17, 1845, MAC. The seven other workers were Darche, Buisson, Jean-Pierre Fili, Lef e` vre, Guilbert, GrosJean, and Eug`ene Simon. They and Magnin would continue these yearly visits at the end of his course and also go to his apartment every New Year’s day, beginning on January 1, 1849. Fabien Magnin, Speech, in “Le Vingt-et-uni`eme Anniversaire de la mort d’Auguste Comte,” 661. On Fili, see Larizza, Bandiera verde, 131n51. Comte to Magnin, January 12, 1846, CG, 3:286–7; Fabien Magnin to Comte, January 11, 1846, MAC. See also Fabien Magnin, Speech, in “Le Vingt-et-uni`eme Anniversaire de la mort d’Auguste Comte,” 659–60. Magnin continued to give lectures on astronomy to workers after Comte stopped delivering them. Magnin gave his last course on the subject in 1881. Pierre Laffitte, Speech, April 6, 1884, Commemoration of Magnin, in “N´ecrologie,” RO 12 (May 1884): 401–2. Comte to Jacquier Eusice, March 5, 1845, CG, 2:337. Comte to Audiffrent, April 7, 1851, CG, 6:51.

268

The Revolution of 1848

French scientists were at the forefront in pushing publications as part of the credentialing process. Arago had launched the bulletins of the Academy of Sciences, called the Comptes Rendus, in 1835 because he thought scientists had a duty to publicize their findings.10 Like Arago, who had given popular lectures at the Observatory, Comte believed in spreading scientific learning, as reflected in his course on astronomy to workers. But unlike Arago, he resisted the movement toward professionalization, where scientists were evaluated on their publications and were eager to join academies. Not having published any specialized research and having been rejected at the Academy of Sciences, he did not wish to be reminded of his weakness in this arena. Nor did he wish to reflect on Arago’s success in shaping the field or enhancing the prestige of the Academy. As Maurice Crosland has pointed out, Comte was intent on writing philosophy and in the new increasingly professional world of the sciences, he appeared to be “an amateur.”11 As an amateur, he did not have much clout to hound scientists into following his example and addressing laymen. He sought to bring scientists and the common people closer together, countering the elitism of the former. Instead of reaching out to scientists, who snubbed him, Comte prided himself on cultivating relations with workers, which he believed revealed his broadmindedness and generosity. After being fired from one position at the Ecole Polytechnique, he felt closer to them than ever before. He did not construct sociology to uphold the bourgeois dominance of the government and attack the proletarians as some critics, such as Dominique Lecourt, assert.12 Comte believed that he and the workers were fellow victims of the temporal power, which oppressed and devalued them. They were linked by their vulnerability to dismissal and lack of financial resources (including savings).13 He might earn a bit more than workers, but his “obligatory expenses” were higher.14 Besides a precarious financial situation, they shared a similar secular morality that was less materialistic and 10 11

12 13

14

Crosland, Science under Control, 30, 280; Fox, “Science, the University, and the State,” 82. Maurice Crosland, “Scientific Credentials: Record of Publications in the Assessment of Qualifications for Election to the French Acad´emie des Sciences,” Studies in the Culture of Science in France and Britain since the Enlightenment, ed. Maurice Crosland (Aldershot, Hampshire: Variorum, 1995), 629. Dominique Lecourt, “On Marxism as a Critique of Sociological Theories,” Sociological Theories: Race and Colonialism (Paris: UNESCO, 1980), 272. Complaining bitterly about having trouble taking up his old profession of tutor due to his lack of connections and the “rage” of his enemies, who were conspiring against him, Comte claimed that he wished to “obtain, like every other proletarian, a continual exercise of the profession that I have practiced since my first youth.” Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 424. Comte to Mill, July 22, 1842, CG, 2:60.

Comte’s Relation to the Workers

269

self-interested than that of reactionaries, despite the latter’s embrace of Christianity.15 Of all the “French classes,” the workers were “more disposed than any other to adopt views of the whole and to make social sentiments prevail.”16 They were also the only class that did not support the “status quo.”17 Reflecting the way he idealized them as if they represented the Noble Savage, Comte insisted that workers had “excellent moral and mental qualities” that deserved greater recognition.18 The workers’ higher morality legitimized the role they would play in reorganizing society, especially because he believed that it was more crucial to resolve social and moral problems than political ones at this stage in history.19 In the 1840s, the “social question,” in particular, was on everyone’s mind as the abuses connected with the growth of industrial capitalism started to become more apparent. Artisans were threatened by the increasing division of labor, the introduction of new machinery, and laws giving employers greater authority. A sharp economic depression beginning in 1846 and leading to unemployment made workers’ lives even more miserable, as did an agricultural crisis caused by poor harvests. Opponents of the July Monarchy started to become more vocal in their demands for justice. Condemning a political system that allowed only a few hundred thousand wealthy people to vote, they wanted a regime based on universal male suffrage. Opposition to the government was heard everywhere: in the theater, press, popular songs, novels, and philosophical and religious works. Felicit´e de Lamennais and Charles de Montalembert wrote books promoting social and political reforms inspired by a liberal reading of Catholicism. Jules Michelet’s Le Peuple (1846) celebrated the creative energies of the lower classes. Alphonse de Lamartine and Louis Blanc published new celebratory histories of the French Revolution. In his caricatures, Honor´e Daumier made fun of the con men of the laissez-faire world of the July Monarchy. The novelists George Sand, Eug`ene Sue, and Victor Hugo praised the common people and embraced radical doctrines in favor of democracy or socialism.20 15 16 17

18

19 20

Comte to Jacquieur Eusice, March 5, 1845, CG, 2:338. Comte to Lewes, March 20, 1847, CG, 4:107. See Manuscript, “Programme raisonn´e du Discours prononc´e le 24 janvier 1847 pour l’ouverture de la 17e` me ann´ee du Cours philosophique d’astronomie populaire (1e` re ),” January 17, 1847, 2, MAC. Comte to Lewes, January 28, 1847, CG, 4:102. On Comte and Rousseau, see Paul Arbousse-Bastide, La Doctrine de l’´education universelle dans la philosophie d’Auguste Comte, 2 vols. (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1957), 1:227. Comte to Magnin, October 25, 1846, CG, 4:66. Madeleine Ambri`ere, Pr´ecis de litt´erature franc¸aise du XIXe si`ecle (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1990), 143–5; Jeremy Popkin, A History of Modern France (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1994), 105–27; Gordon Wright, France in Modern Times, 5th ed. (New York: W. W. Norton, 1995), 116–20; Christopher H. Johnson, Utopian Communism in France:

270

The Revolution of 1848

At this time, socialism was a vague term pertaining to diverse plans to create a cooperative, harmonious society by improving the conditions of the poor and eliminating bourgeois individualism and competition.21 Periodicals and books promoting socialist ideas had been popping up since a group of Saint-Simonian workers had launched La Ruche populaire in 1839.22 Former Saint-Simonians were instrumental in popularizing socialism. One of them, Philippe Buchez, inspired another working-class journal, L’Atelier, in 1840. It demanded a variety of social reforms as well as a mixed economy based on the workshop. Buchez’s attempt to fuse Christianity and a revolutionary agenda appealed to many craftsmen. Another former Saint-Simonian, Pierre Leroux established the Revue ind´ependante in 1841, after having achieved a measure of success with his book De l’Humanit´e (1840). Denouncing the egoism of his age, he affirmed the solididarity of individuals through the collective being Humanity, which he considered a god, and he made his philosophy of humanitarianism into a religion. Neil McWilliam points out, Like the Saint-Simonians, Leroux regarded sentiment as an essential element for achieving the religious and intellectual synthesis that would overcome the anarchic skepticism of the modern world. . . . Only by recognizing the value of sentimental modes of perception, embodied in religion, could true synthesis be achieved through the marriage of inductive and deductive thought processes. Similarly, in social relations, Leroux related sentiment to the impulse toward synthesis.23

According to Leroux, woman would play a large role in the regeneration of Humanity. Flora Tristan took up that role. Influenced by Saint-Simonianism, she combined socialism and feminism in her visionary book, the Workers’ Union, which demanded recognition of the workers’ rights to work and organize. After its publication in 1843, she travelled around France for a year trying to create a union that would take care of old and sick workers and educate children and women. In fact, she believed she had a mission from God to

21

22 23

Cabet and the Icarians, 1839–1851 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1974), 16; Christophe Charle, A Social History of France in the Nineteenth Century, trans. Miriam Kochan (Oxford: Berg, 1994), 43. Pierre Laffitte to Comte, August 26, 1848, in CG, 4:252; Collingham, The July Monarchy, 370; Iowerth Prothero, Radical Artisans in England and France, 1830–1870 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 126, 141, 145. Comte later received an 1848 copy of this journal put out by Franc¸ois Duquenne. See Comte’s Biblioth`eque Superflue, MAC. Neil McWilliam, Dreams of Happiness: Social Art and the French Left, 1830–1850 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 169. See also Ambri`ere, Pr´ecis de litt´erature franc¸aise, 144–5; B´enichou, Le Temps des proph`etes, 330–58; Collingham, July Monarchy, 378.

Comte’s Relation to the Workers

271

contribute to the progress of humanity. Like Buchez and Leroux, she displayed a humanitarianism inspired by religion.24 Hopes for a utopia based on democratic humanitarianism were not limited to those touched by Saint-Simonianism. A follower of Charles Fourier, Victor Considerant, launched La D´emocratie pacifique in 1843. Another Fourierist journal, the Phalange, began to appear in 1845. These periodicals popularized Fourier’s brand of social regeneration, which aimed to establish harmony in communities (phalansteries) by encouraging the satisfaction of the passions. Such associations would eliminate the sufferings caused by the competition inherent in capitalism.25 Whereas the Fourierists advocated the abolition of the family and marriage in their communities, Etienne Cabet and his followers did not. Cabet’s ideal community, which he called Icaria, was like an extended family in that it would exemplify close harmony. To create that kind of harmony, a democratic, egalitarian state would take charge of planning and would abolish private property. The lives of the Icariens would be very regimented. In 1841, shortly after publishing Voyage en Icarie, which explained his ideas, Cabet launched the Populaire. With a press run of 4,500 copies by 1847, it was the most popular journal in working-class circles, especially among artisans.26 Another reformer popular among workers was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who published his famous brochure, Qu’est-ce que la propri´et´e ou Recherches sur le principe du droit et du gouvernement in June 1840. He promoted the ideas that property was theft and that capitalism degraded and alienated workers. To him, the workshop had to be the basic unit of the economy and the government.27 The importance of the workshop was also embraced by the socialist Louis Blanc. In 1839, he published his very influential tract L’Organisation du travail, which traced the moral degradation of the poor to the poverty resulting from a competitive economic system. Blanc envisioned a capitalist-free society based on the “social workshop,” a kind of cooperative association. Regarding the workers as enfeebled by capitalism, he wanted the government to establish a network of these workshops to provide them with credit and coordinate their productive activities.28 Profits from the workshops would favor 24 25

26 27 28

Doris and Paul Beik, ed. and trans., Flora Tristan: Utopian Feminist (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993), ix, xviii, xxi, 126–27n. B´enichou, Le Temps des proph`etes, 360–70; William H. Sewell, Jr., Work and Revolution in France: The Language of Labor from the Old Regime to 1848 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 202; Jonathan Beecher, Victor Considerant and the Rise and Fall of French Romantic Socialism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001), 105. Collingham, July Monarchy, 375; Johnson, Utopian Communism, 49, 156. Collingham, July Monarchy, 378. Ibid., 371–2; Sewell, Work and Revolution, 234–5; Robert Tombs, France: 1814–1914 (London: Longman, 1996), 76.

272

The Revolution of 1848

the common good. Unlike Proudhon, whose ideas tended toward anarchism, Blanc considered the state the key agent of change. All of these social thinkers criticized the individualism, egoism, and materialism of the July Monarchy and demanded that more attention be paid to workers, who were caught in the difficult transition to an industrial economy. Their dreams of social democracy and a future era committed to humanity would inspire the Revolution of 1848.29 Underscoring the “new public fascination with labor” in the 1840s, William Sewell has rightly pointed out that it was not “an accident that Marx’s 1844 manuscripts, which present his most far-reaching statement of the creativity and moral power of labor, were written precisely in these years and in Paris.”30 Though eager to keep his distance from newspapers and other writings that could distract him from his work, Comte was aware of the ferment around him and even at one point expressed his hope that he would never be confused with Eug`ene Sue and Victor Hugo, whose politics were too socialistic for his tastes.31 However, the contemporary writer Emile Saisset and others did see many similarities. Saisset wrote, “I repeat . . . the philosopy of the positive school is the philosophy of socialism. What is glimpsed behind the apocalyptic mysticism of Mr. Pierre Leroux and the false and declamatory religiosity of Mr. Louis Blanc and what is disguised by the systematically obscure jargon of Fourierism and the capricious movement of the antinomies of Mr. Proudhon – all that becomes clear, precise, and significant in the doctrine of the positive school.”32 Like these authors and other socialist reformers, Comte was pained by the conflicts between the “heads” and “arms” of industrial enterprises and looked forward to a moral regeneration of society.33 In early 1842 Comte presciently told Mill that the “proletarian masses” would “soon without a doubt” make their appearance on the political scene, changing the “physiognomy of the present struggles.”34 No longer mere instruments of other groups, they would have a profound effect on politics. Positive philosophers, according to him, should take advantage of the rise of workers, ally with them, and preside over “this extreme revolutionary phase.”35 By stressing the importance of general ideas and generous feelings, instead of relying on politically outmoded institutions, they could preserve what was valuable in revolutionary doctrines and provide “positive education” to the “inferior classes,” who would learn to view positivism as their 29 30 31 33 34 35

Ambri`ere, Pr´ecis de litt´erature franc¸aise, 144–5; Tombs, France, 75. Sewell, Work and Revolution, 222. Comte to Deullin, November 18, 1852, CG, 6:424. 32 Saisset, M´elanges, 411. Comte to Mill, November 5, 1842, CG, 2:107. Comte to John Stuart Mill, January 17, 1842, CG, 2:33. Comte to Mill, November 5, 1842, CG, 2:108.

Comte’s Relation to the Workers

273

only salvation. Positive philosophers could also offer to the upper classes a doctrine that challenged “subversive utopias.”36 Comte figured that in so far as it guaranteed progress and order, positivism would appeal to both opponents in the class struggle, but he was naive in not seeing that because of that very joint appeal, each side might view it with suspicion. In the late 1840s, Comte sought to target the workers, postponing his appeal to the upper class to a later date. In October 1846, Comte informed Magnin that when his course started again in January, he would “characterize positivism as constituting the true philosophy of the people in a far more direct and more pronounced manner” than ever before.37 He was convinced that theology was the philosophy most appropiate to the upper class, while metaphysics was associated with the “middle classes.”38 Preoccupied by the class struggle, Comte knew that his audience expected him to assess publicly “what is today called communism.”39 The term “communism” was vague at this time and generally referred to the extremist variety of socialist ideas that emphasized egalitarianism and collectivism. Gracchus Babeuf had first formulated such a program during the French Revolution, when he sought to overthrow the Directory and install a dictatorship to make all property communal. Influenced by Babeuvism, Cabet called his system of thought “communism,” though he maintained a more moderate, pacific tone. It was chiefly Cabet’s Icarianism that Comte had in mind when he spoke of communism.40 Cabet had approximately 100,000 tightly organized followers, more than any other socialist group. Proudhon and Blanc were also often called communists, as were Blanqui and Barb`es, whose revolutionary activities caused much fear. Moreover, there were various minor thinkers, such as Th´eodore Dezamy, Jean-Jacques Pillot, Alphonse Esquiros, and Abb´e Constant, who embraced communist ideas and often added a terrorist and anti-clerical twist to them. Different clubs, such as the Soci´et´e Communiste R´evolutionnaire, called themselves communist as well. The middle-class press was very alarmed by the dangers presented by the communist movement, which appeared to be growing rapidly in 1846 and attracted artisans and the lower middle class in particular.41 36 37 38 39 40 41

Comte to Mill, January 17, 1842, CG, 2:33–4. Comte to Magnin, October 25, 1846, CG, 4:66. Comte to Barbot de Chement, September 13, 1846, CG, 4:41. Comte to Magnin, October 25, 1846, CG, 4:66. See Comte to Tholouze, September 17, 1849, CG, 5:79. Collingham, July Monarchy, 372–4, 375; Sewell, Work and Revolution, 220. On the vague meaning of the term “communism” in the early nineteenth century, see Albert S. Lindemann, A History of European Socialism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983),

274

The Revolution of 1848

Not wanting to break his regime of cerebral hygiene, which preserved the “purity, originality, and coherence,” of his own conceptions, Comte asked Magnin for information regarding the communist movement.42 Magnin quickly disabused Comte of his assumption that because he was a worker, he must be a communist. He explained that workers in the building trades, such as carpentry, which was Magnin’s area of expertise, were not well represented in the Icarian movement.43 Yet he obviously had friends who were so inclined, for he agreed to meet Comte several times in late 1846 and 1847 to give him some information and tell him how to obtain more.44 Comte also turned for help to Laffitte, who read Cabet’s Voyage en Icarie and gave him a “very detailed” report on its contents.45 Comte finally concluded that the “utopia” depicted by the communists was easy to refute and not likely in the end to acquire a wide following in a country like France, “where more than half the citizens are more or less property-owners and where the rest are trying to join them.”46 Feeling the need to direct his energies somewhere, especially after the completion of the Cours, the death of de Vaux, and the difficulties involved in writing the Syst`eme, Comte was ready to combat communism and other rival doctrines more vigorously when he began to give his astronomy course for the seventeenth time in January 1847. He asked Magnin to advertise the course in such a way as to connect positivism with the true “popular cause.”47 comte’s cour se of 1847 Despite his enthusiasm, Comte found preparing the lectures harder than he imagined; it took a supreme intellectual effort, one comparable to that of 1826, when he devised his course on positive philosophy. He had troubles expressing his views because as one of his disciples suggested, he shared in the “exaltation” of the period and was moving

42 43 44 45 46

47

xvi; Johnson, Utopian Communism, 46, 68–75, 235; Linda Orr, Headless History: NineteenthCentury French Historiography of the Revolution (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990), 72. Comte to Fabien Magnin, October 25, 1846, CG, 4:66. Johnson, Utopian Communism, 157. Magnin to Comte, October 28, 1846, MAC; Comte to Magnin, October 29, 1846, July 21 and 28, 1847, CG, 4:69, 124. Laffitte, ed. “Des Confessions annuelles d’Auguste Comte,” 194. Comte to Alix Comte, April 3, 1848, CG, 4:145. Comte often referred to the French people’s “natural taste for property,” which was nourished by the ease of acquiring land. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 194. Comte to Magnin, January 9, 1847, CG, 4:93. See also Magnin to Comte, January 5, 1847, in Pierre Laffitte, ed. “Correspondance d’Auguste Comte avec M. Fabien Magnin,” RO 7 ( July 1884): 3; Comte to Laffitte, July 28, 1849, CG, 5:44.

Comte’s Course of 1847

275

“from theory to practice,” just as many socialists were.48 Like them, he sensed the discontent in his country and sought to take full advantage of it. He was certain that the workers were tired of being “simple material auxiliaries of the middle classes against the old superior classes.”49 He hoped to persuade them to adopt his philosophy, which reconciled the “two great instincts of conservation and amelioration” in a new universal morality based on real knowledge, not revelation.50 He wanted to use his philosophy primarily to create “a true social regeneration, which would be first moral, then political.”51 At night he often sat in darkness next to his fire, meditating on how to launch this second phase of positivism.52 Later, he interpreted his deliberations as stemming from his effort in 1847 to work out positivism’s “religious point of view.”53 Reflecting the amount of thought that he gave to this new direction, his opening lectures introducing positivism grew in number and length. Whereas he had given one or two in 1831, he delivered twelve in 1847. Some lectures went on for four hours.54 During one of those opening lectures, he announced his plan for the transitional government that would lead the way to the positive era.55 Even before the Revolution of 1848, his thoughts were becoming more political, although he kept emphasizing the importance of first reforming morality and still insisted on the need to learn the scientific method. Finding interconnections among intellectual, moral, practical, and political issues and treating them in a novel, vigorous way to gain converts was taxing, even for a man like Comte who prided himself on his energetic constitution. Sometimes he even felt obliged to prepare detailed notes on topics he wanted to cover, something that was unusual for him because of his photographic memory.56 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

55 56

Leblais, “Comte,” 371. See “Programme raisonn´e du Discours prononc´e le 24 janvier 1847,” 2, MAC. Comte to Decaen, January 3, 1848, CG, 4:134. Comte to Jacquieur Eusice, March 5, 1845, CG, 2:338. Pierre Laffitte, “Notes sur la seconde du mercredi 2 juin 1847,” in packet entitled “Notes sur la confession annuelle d’Auguste Comte,” MAC. Comte to Laffitte, September 26, 1849, CG, 5:88. In his course in 1846, which was interrupted from February 22 to May 3 by the demolition of the lecture hall, Comte had already given eight or nine lectures on the philosophical aspects of positivism. See his outline of his course, 1846, MAC; Comte to Magnin, January 12, 1846, CG, 3:286–7. Laffitte says that he gave eleven such lectures in 1846. Laffitte, ed. “Des Confessions annuelles d’Auguste Comte,” 191. See also Fabien Magnin, Speech, September 5, 1878, in “Le Vingt-et-uni`eme Anniversaire de la mort d’Auguste Comte,” 658–9; Comte to Lewes, March 20, 1847, CG, 4:106; Joseph Lonchampt, Comte, 83; Comte to Vieillard, January 13, 1849, CG, 5: 4. Fabien Magnin, Speech, September 5, 1878, in “Le Vingt-et-uni`eme Anniversaire de la mort d’Auguste Comte,” 661. Comte to Magnin, January 9, 1847, CG, 4:94. See “Programme raisonn´e du Discours prononc´e le 24 janvier 1847,” MAC. Comte made another set of notes, which are slightly different from the first.

276

The Revolution of 1848

Thanks to the information from Magnin, Comte devoted one three-hour session to a “philosophical appreciation of communism.”57 More than a hundred communists came to hear what he had to say.58 According to Laffitte, “all the principal communist proletarians of Paris had agreed to meet at this lecture.”59 Comte had to be careful in his approach so as not to alienate these individuals. Comte’s views on communism can be gleaned from his Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, which was derived from his introductory lectures and was published in 1848 to gain a wider audience. Unlike the conservatives, he proclaimed that he did not fear the “celebrated” communist “utopia,” which he viewed as a product of the progress of the revolutionary spirit.60 To him, it was less dangerous than liberalism, which imported a foreign, parliamentary system into France.61 Like many French republicans, Comte distrusted this English system.62 He commended communists for instituting a progressive “politics that was directly popular” and for taking a new, “modern” approach to “the great social question,” which they alone highlighted; this new approach consisted of devising moral solutions to workers’ problems instead of relying on traditional politics.63 Communists also performed a “fundamental service” by showing the workers that changing property relations was more important than gaining power per se.64 Communism was correct about the social nature of property; it ultimately belonged to the community. Individuals did not have the right to use and abuse it as they saw fit. Adopting radical language, Comte wrote, “Because no property can be created or even transmitted by its possessor alone without . . . public cooperation, its exercise must never be purely individual. Always and everywhere, the community must more or less intervene to subordinate it to social needs.” Comte went so far as to suggest that despite the respect that must be granted to private property, it was legitimate 57 58

59 60

61

62 63 64

Comte to Lewes, March 20, 1847, CG, 4:107. Comte to Alix Comte, April 3, 1848, CG, 4:145. Robinet claimed that two hundred communists attended. Robinet [Jean-Franc¸ois Eug`ene], Notice sur l’oeuvre et la vie d’Auguste Comte, 3d ed. (Paris, 1891), 219. Laffitte, ed. “Des Confessions annuelles d’Auguste Comte,”194. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 185. Comte seemed to have in mind the adherents of Cabet’s communism because he mocked the followers of Saint-Simon and Fourier for calling their respective movements after their founders. Comte did not think that liberalism was a universal panacea for every country’s woes. In his youth, he thought that establishing a type of feudal system in Turkey would be more effective than liberalism, which would “probably only make a lot of blood flow.” Comte to Valat, September 8, 1824, CG, 1:129. Claude Nicolet, L’Id´ee r´epublicaine en France: Essai d’histoire critique (Paris: Gallimard, 1982), 137. “Programme raisonn´e du Discours prononc´e le 24 janvier 1847,” 2, MAC. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 186.

Comte’s Course of 1847

277

to confiscate it. Capitalists were as subordinated to the collectivity as workers were. Moreover, he agreed with leftists’ view of laissezfaire economics as harmful to the social order; it left workers hungry and homeless. He approved of leftist arguments that higher taxes should be levied to reinforce the link between individuals and the community. Comte pointed out that the name alone of communism showed the significance of social solidarity, which was fundamental to positivism as well. Both believed that “each citizen” was a “public functionary.”65 In sum, he considered communism an important preparation for positivism and recommended that workers adhere to it until they recognized that positivism could resolve social problems more effectively because of its firmer basis in reality. Like other members of the bourgeoisie, Comte worried that the communist solution, if implemented, would upset the “elementary laws of hierarchy and industrial activity.”66 To avoid unpleasant encounters with the government and reactionaries, he proclaimed the utmost importance of order. He also attacked the communists for their ignorance of sociology, which gave them an improper understanding of modern industry. Communists wanted to erase the division between entrepreneurs and workers, but their approach was absurd. Modern industry needed entrepreneurs and managers; it was not possible for every proletarian to be an administrator or businesses to be run by committees of workers. Influenced in his youth by Adam Smith, Comte insisted on the need for a division of labor between entrepreneurs and workers as the only “healthy organization of human work.”67 Moreover, he rejected as too drastic the communists’ proposal that a class or group take political power. Instead, he suggested modifying the present use of power; positive philosophers, representing the spiritual power, should intervene to ensure that employers fulfill their duties to workers. In this way, the proletariat’s material conditions would necessarily improve. Likewise, Comte condemned communism’s desire to abolish private property, explaining that it would be best to establish moral rules regarding the social use of such possessions. In any case, he believed it was a waste of time to threaten idle wealthy people because in the modern age, it would become almost impossible to exist without working. Finally, communists were too narrowly focused on the economy; they forgot other issues, such as the need to make individuals use their intellectual 65 66 67

Ibid., 188–9. See also G´erard Namer and Patrick Cingolani, Morale et soci´et´e (Paris: M´eridien Klincksieck, 1995), 32. “Programme raisonn´e du Discours prononc´e le 24 janvier 1847,” 2, MAC. Comte to Bosson, January 18, 1856, CG, 8:206. Reflecting again his liberal leanings, Comte supported the “abolition of the old corporations” at the beginning of the French Revolution. These old corporations, or guilds, hurt the “freedom of the worker.”

278

The Revolution of 1848

and artistic talent for the benefit of the community instead of for their private gain. Comte’s critique of the communist movement was wide-ranging but not at all vicious or demagogic. In the 1840s, he seemed genuinely convinced that it could help his movement. He hoped that positivism would eventually gain the support of most communists. As Patrick Cingolani has pointed out, his approach to private property as a social institution and his notion that capital should be directed by employers but not for their private ends were highly “original.”68 When the Revolution of 1848 broke out less than a year later, he would fend off those who sought to use the fear evoked by communism to gather support for the right. Besides seeking to convert communists directly to positivism, Comte began his course of 1847 to increase his appeal to women, whom Cabet had begun to target in the 1840s.69 Indeed, in August 1847, Cabet published the sixth edition of his book, La Femme, son malheureux sort dans la soci´et´e actuelle, son bonheur dans la communaut´e. Comte took a historical approach, underscoring the “necessity of associating women intimately to the universal movement of modern times.” He pointed out that the mind and the heart had been at war since the end of the Middle Ages. The heart had lost in this battle. But in his opinion, “the so-called reign of the mind” suited only periods of “revolutionary transition.” Positivism would reconcile reason and feeling because it alone recognized that only the mind could resolve “questions posed by the heart.” Indeed, positivism had the “fundamental aptitude” of being able “to subordinate . . . the mind to the heart, according to the necessary preponderance . . . that it procures for the social point of view on all . . . speculative issues.”70 Women, who were experts in the feelings and the social viewpoint, would thrive under such a regime. To emphasize women’s power, Comte even lectured on de Vaux’s influence on him. Laffitte, who was present, remarked on the “profound impression” that it made on the audience, which became distinctly silent.71 Finally one elegantly dressed auditor exclaimed in a loud voice,” It is all the same to me, but it is strange that such a man comes here to speak to us about his mistress.”72 Unflustered, 68 69 70 71 72

Namer and Cingolani, Morale, 33. Cingolani wrote the part of the book on Comte. Pamela M. Pilbeam, “Cabet,”in Encyclopedia of 1848 Revolutions, ed. Chastain, http:// www.ohiou.edu/∼Chastain/ac/cabet.htm (accessed May 5, 2005). “Programme raisonn´e du Discours prononc´e le 24 janvier 1847,” 3, MAC. See also Comte to Lewes, January 28, 1847, CG, 4:102. “Notes de Pierre Laffitte sur les confessions annuelles d’Auguste Comte,” April 25, 1886, Archives of Sybil de Acevedo. Comte, quoted by Magnin, in Fabien Magnin, Speech, September 5, 1878, in “Le Vingtet-uni`eme Anniversaire de la mort d’Auguste Comte,” 661. Magnin related that a worker,

Comte’s Course of 1847

279

Comte boasted that his lectures reflected the “moral regeneration” that he had undergone thanks to de Vaux – a regeneration that was responsible for prodding him to think more deeply about a positivist synthesis centered on the “dogma of Humanity.” By making him think more about Humanity, his course of 1847 was “decisive” in his development.73 Some illustrious women heard about these lectures and came to hear him. In April 1847, Comte boasted to Lewes, I have . . . a very small number of female auditors; but they are extremely assiduous, which counts more. The most assiduous has been pointed out to me as one of the most eminent female writers at the moment, especially since Madame de Sand is burnt out and . . . discredited. This woman is a relative of the celebrated Bettina of your worthy hero.74

Bettina von Arnim was a well-known German writer, feminist, and salonni`ere, who was a close friend of Goethe, the subject of Lewes’s biography. It is not clear which relative visited Comte’s course.75 Comte may have been referring to the wealthy countess Marie d’Agoult, who was better known as the author Daniel Stern. She was originally from Germany and was a regular contributor to La Revue Germanique. In April 1844, she had written in the Revue des deux mondes on von Arnim, though she was not related to her.76 According to Laffitte, she was one of the “most assiduous” of Comte’s auditors in 1847.77 This woman of ideas wrote articles for many leading journals, including La Revue ind´ependante, run by Sand and Leroux. She had recently published a novel, N´elida, in 1846, which reflected her ideas on women’s emancipation.78 Littr´e met her in 1847 and became a habitu´e of her famous salon.79 He advised her to study closely

73 74 75

76

77 78 79

Mr. Guilbert, made fun of the critic for thinking that Comte’s aim was solely to speak about his mistress. Syst`eme, 4:529, 546. Comte to Lewes, April 7, 1847, CG, 4:111–12. Von Arnim sometimes wrote for the feminist periodical, La Voix des femmes, founded in 1848. Joyce Dixon-Fyle, Female Writers’ Struggle for Rights and Education for Women in France (1848–71) (New York: Peter Lang, 2006), 11–12. Phyllis Stock-Morton, The Life of Marie d’Agoult: Alias Daniel Stern (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000), 97–8, 260. Perhaps by “relative ( parent),” Comte meant counterpart. Von Arnim and d’Agoult were among the most famous woman writers in their respective countries. Laffitte, ed. “Des Confessions annuelles d’Auguste Comte,” 194. Robert Kopp, “Agoult,” in Dictionnaire du Second Empire, ed. Jean Tulard (Paris: Fayard, 1995), 16–17. Rey, Littr´e, 117; Hamburger, Littr´e, 97–100. Later, in seeking financing for the Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, Littr´e offered to ask “a very rich woman” for help. He explained to Comte that she had attended several of his lessons, which had pleased her, and might be willing to give him the money. Littr´e seems to be referring to d’Agoult. Littr´e to Comte, May 27, 1848, MAC.

280

The Revolution of 1848

Comte’s Cours, especially to learn about mathematics, history, and sociology.80 D’Agoult’s daughter, Claire, also became excited about positivism.81 Another woman, who was a friend of Goethe, may have come to Comte’s lectures: Mademoiselle de Haza. She was a Polish friend of Sarah Austin, who had translated some of Goethe’s works. Comte found de Haza very “eccentric” but of a rare “moral elevation.”82 Comte also knew Juliette Ducos, the wife of the politician Th´eodore Ducos. At some point, Comte gave her tickets to a concert, calling her the “best and most gracious woman of the epoch.” It is possible that he met her when she went to his course.83 Marie d’Agoult or George Sand, who had earlier expressed an interest in positivism, may have brought to Comte’s course the leftist German poet Georg Herwegh. He and his wife became auditors.84 Famous for his Poems of a Living Creature (1841), which denounced feudalism, Herwegh had, by the mid-1840s, become the idol of German democrats. Later, in 1848, he was to lead German exiles on an ultimately disastrous military expedition aimed at liberating the Grand Duchy of Baden. Marx knew him but thought little of his plan.85 Laffitte remembered Herwegh very well. When Comte praised cabarets during the course, Herwegh led the round of applause, saying, “There is nothing suspicious about this because it comes from the mouth of a philosopher who drinks only water.”86 80 81 82 83 84 85

86

Littr´e to Marie d’Agoult, August 13, 1850, Archives Daniel Olliver, N.a.fr. 25187, fol. 349, BN. See auction catalogue, Lettres, Documents, Autographes: Paris, Nouveau Drouot Jeudi 27 octobre 1988 (Paris: Nouveau Drouot, 1988), 7. This catalogue may be found in CV 6861, BN. Comte to Lewes, April 7, 1847, CG 4:112–13. She received a copy of his Discours sur l’esprit positif in 1846. See the folder, “Circulation des ouvrages d’Auguste Comte,” MAC. Comte to Juliette Ducos, May (or March) 16, no year, Papiers Th´eodore Ducos 46 AP3, dossier ten, Archives Nationales [hereafter AN]. This letter is not in the CG. Comte to Constant-Rebecque, February 24, 1857, CG, 8:404. Curiously, Comte later took a position similar to that of Marx that premature armed intervention to establish republics was futile and indeed harmful to the larger goal of regeneration. See Comte to Profumo, August 8, 1851, CG, 6:125. Comte never mentioned Marx. Marx did not read Comte until 1866 and wrote to Engels: “I am now studying Comte as a sideline, because the English and French make such a fuss over the fellow. What they are attracted by is the encyclopedic, la synth`ese, but this is lamentable compared to Hegel (although Comte, as a professional mathematician and physicist is superior to him, that is, superior in matters of detail, but even here Hegel is infinitely greater as a whole). And this shit-Positivism appeared in 1832!” Marx to Frederick Engels, July 7, 1866, The Letters of Karl Marx, ed. and trans. Saul K. Padover (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1979), 213. I thank Jonathan Beecher for his help with Herwegh. For more on Herwegh, see E. H. Carr, The Romantic Exiles: A Nineteenth-Century Portrait Gallery (Boston: Beacon Press, 1961), 54–9. Herwegh, quoted by Laffitte, in Laffitte, ed., “Des Confessions annuelles d’Auguste Comte,” 194. Laffitte misspelled Herwegh’s name as Herweg in his artigle. On Herwegh, see Wolfgang B¨uttner, “Herweg, Georg,” in Encyclopedia of 1848 Revolutions, ed. James G. Chastain, http://www.ohiou.edu/∼Chastain/dh/herwegh.htm (accesed June 8, 2005).

Comte’s Course of 1847

281

As Comte grew in self-confidence and pondered more deeply the political side of positivism and as contemporaries, such as Louis Blanc, Jules Michelet, and Lamartine, began publishing important histories of the French Revolution, he sought to veer away from science. Accolades from workers also made him ponder enlarging the scope of his course to satisfy the wishes of his audience for more general knowledge.87 Mill’s timidity seemed to egg him on to become bolder.88 He decided to develop a new series of thirty lectures on the history of humanity, to be given every other year in lieu of his astronomy course. Developing more completely the material in his twelve-lecture introduction to his astronomy course, this new history course would reveal in a clear, direct fashion the principles of “positive politics.”89 In particular, it would show the “close tie” between the present and past in order to avoid the anti-historical animus of the French Revolutionaries of 1789 and to offer what the socialists and communists could not: a conception of the future without a utopia.90 Like Marx, who worked on the Communist Manifesto in Paris in 1847, Comte prided himself on being able to construct a more scientific approach to social reform, one that would avoid the “utopian” impulses of current radical movements.91 Representing his own system as the endpoint of a historical development was as crucial to Comte’s project as it was to Marx’s. Comte hoped to begin his course on the history of humanity in 1848. After writing the mayor for permission, he had the course advertised in the Moniteur in January 1848.92 Comte gave his first lecture on Sunday, January 30.93 The famous socialist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon came to hear him. He wrote afterwards in his diary that there were “some things” that he agreed with but in general he found 87

88 89 90

91

92

93

See letter of Jacquier Eusice, March 2, 1845, MAC. In this letter, Eusice, a medical student, asked Comte to give lectures on the other branches of science in order to give the audience a “complete system” of knowledge. On the length, see Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 37. See Comte’s subtle criticism of Mill’s reserve in his letter to the Englishman, February 27, 1843, CG, 2:140. Comte to Lewes, January 28, 1847, CG, 4:101. Comte to Decaen, January 3, 1848, CG, 4:133. Comte was interested in the utopian thinkers of his day. He owned Henry Macnab’s Examen impartial des nouvelles vues de M. Robert Owen (1821). See Comte’s Biblioth`eque Auxillaire, I, MAC. On Comte’s pride in refuting the “utopia” of the communists, see Comte to Alix Comte, April 3, 1848, CG, 4:145. On Marx in Paris, see his letter to Friedrich Engels, November 23–4, 1847, in Fritz J. Raddatz, ed., Karl Marx–Friedrich Engels: Selected Letters: The Personal Correspondence, 1844–1877, trans. Ewald Osers (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1980), 15–16. Comte to Decaen, mayor of the third arrondissement, January 3, 1848, CG, 4:133–4; De Gressot to Comte, January 28, 1848. De Gressot, a captain of artillery in La Rochelle, was enthusiastic about following Comte’s course after seeing it announced in the Moniteur. See Carneiro, introduction to volume four of CG, lix. Carneiro wrongly implies that Comte started his course immediately without any trouble.

282

The Revolution of 1848

Comte’s lecture to be full of “idle chatter and contradictions.” In particular, he noted Comte’s attack on savings banks as demoralizing, his idea of a coalition between workers and philosophers, and his preference for fraternity over equality. Comte even pointed out that dogs were unequal. Proudhon remarked, “This is stupid!” Besides disliking Comte’s stance on inequality, he abhorred his position on property. Comte believed property should be a form of administration, but he offered no sanction for its misuse except the unfavorable reaction of public opinion. According to Proudhon, public opinion was “very feeble compared with hell.” It would not work effectively to limit the governing authority, which Comte seemed eager to fortify. Moreover, Comte infused his ideas on social organization with Catholicism and was excessively devoted to rehabilitating the Middle Ages. He turned society into a “fiefdom.” Although he pretended to be for the workers, he offered them only moral dignity as compensation for their poor wages. Proudhon was disgusted, calling Comte “an old driveller, as crazy as P. Leroux.”94 The mayor did not like Comte’s lecture series either, but for other reasons. At the beginning of January, he had consulted Gabriel Delessert, the prefect of police, who wrote to Comte Narcisse Achille de Salvandy, the minister of public instruction. Salvandy was the official who had to give final permission for the course to run. Delessert advised Salvandy not to grant the authorization because the course would be “useless” and “even dangerous.” After all, Comte was “among the defenders of the accused men of April 1834.” (Comte had helped republicans who were arrested after the April riots of 1834; a trial ensued in 1835.) Commenting that it was not appropriate to give a course on the history of humanity to workers, Delessert added, “It seems to me that this type of instruction often ends by falling into politics or socialism.”95 Salvandy agreed, and on February 2, he told Delessert to inform Comte that permission would not be granted.96 The course could not continue. Rumor had it that the queen, Marie Am´elie, who was the niece of Marie Antoinette, had requested that the course be closed down because it was so dangerous.97 Jacquemin, a worker who was looking forward to the course because he thought science held the key to the emancipation of the proletariat, lashed out furiously at this “ridiculous and childish” measure.98 Pointing out the 94 95 96 97 98

P.-J. Proudhon, Carnets de P. J. Proudhon, ed. Pierre Haubtmann, vol. 2, 1847–8 (Paris: Marcel Rivi`ere, 1961), 361–2. Prefect of the Police (Gabriel Delessert) to the Minister of Public Instruction (Comte de Salvandy), January 6, 1848, F17 6688, AN. Minister of Public Instruction (Comte de Salvandy) to Prefect of the Police (Gabriel Delessert), February 2, 1848, F17 6688, AN. Deroisin, Comte, 4. See letter from Jacquemin to Comte, February 19, 1848, MAC. See also Larizza, Bandiera verde, 127.

The Outbreak of the Revolution

283

absurdity of forbidding him to teach what he had already included in the last two volumes of the Cours, Comte condemned the “shameful negligence of the governing classes regarding the general education that is so justly due to the people.” Like others, he demanded “liberty of teaching” and the “right of association.”99 He went back to teaching astronomy, but his course was soon closed once again, this time by the upheaval of 1848. the outbreak of the revolution The Revolution of 1848 came as a shock to Comte and indeed to most French people. Yet for years, diverse groups had expressed discontent with this “government of elites,” as Ren´e R´emond called it.100 Aristocratic landowners disliked Louis-Philippe, whom they still considered a usurper. Catholics hated the state’s policies on education, which limited the Church’s influence in secondary schools. Students and intellectuals complained about censorship. Workers and the urban poor criticized the government for doing nothing to relieve their misery, which had become more acute due to the famine and depression of 1846–7. Members of the upper and middle classes felt excluded from the government and accused it of corruption. In particular, the chief minister, Franc¸ois Guizot, rejected all suggestions to broaden the franchise, a stance that angered many bourgeois men eager to vote. In Paris, although 180,000 people subscribed to newspapers, only 18,000 could cast a ballot. Dissatisfied politicians and disgruntled middle-class men helped to organize a movement for electoral reform, which raised money and gained publicity by holding banquets. When the government ordered the cancellation of one such banquet on February 22, Marrast and other prominent republicans urged civilians to protest. The resultant demonstrations marked the start of the revolution. The next day army troops killed some of the rioters. Barricades went up throughout Paris as discontent spread. Louis-Philippe was finally forced to abdicate on February 24, giving up power to a provisional government, headed by the romantic poet Alphonse de Lamartine and made up of moderate republicans and democratic-socialists. Of the eleven members of the new government, only the socialist Louis Blanc and the worker Albert Martin (known by his first name Albert) were spokesmen for the lower classes. Two men Comte disliked were also included in the government: Marrast and Arago. The former was soon named mayor of Paris, whereas the latter became both minister of war and minister of the navy and the colonies. Later Arago would become president of the Executive 99 100

Comte to Jacquemin, February 21, 1848, CG, 4:136. Ren´e R´emond, Les Droites en France (Paris: Aubier Montaigne, 1982), 94.

284

The Revolution of 1848

Committee, in effect, the head of France.101 Liouville also became a member of the Legislative Assembly. For the second time in Comte’s life and the third time in history, constitutional monarchy died in France.102 Comte was delighted by the “marvelous transformation” of the regime.103 He eagerly accepted the Ecole Polytechnique’s request that everyone give up a day of pay to help the new government.104 When the widow Bonnin expressed her worries that Comte may have been hurt in the tumult, he replied humorously, “I am not dead, wounded, arrested, or even sick or worried.”105 The only inconvenience he seems to have suffered was that he was unable to attend the opera on February 24. Noting in a droll fashion the historical importance of that day, he wrote on his opera ticket, “Canceled due to revolution.”106 A week later he gave Pierre Laffitte his ticket to the “deroyalized Th´eaˆ tre Italien.”107 Comte welcomed the February revolution because he had always disliked the monarchical form of government, which “as a historian,” he was certain now was “destroyed irrevocably.”108 He had also detested the constitutional aspect of the Orleanist regime; to him, parliaments were imports from Britain and had no roots in France. Like all parliamentary governments, it was a regime “without any principles and without any feelings.”109 Materialistic and egoistic, the Orleanist regime had no interest in social reform – a reflection of its domination by bourgeois interest groups.110 Like many ancient Greeks and Romans, whom he had studied as a young boy, Comte 101

102 103 104

105 106 107 108

109 110

Franc¸ois Sarda, Les Arago: Franc¸ois et les autres (Paris: Tallandier, 2002), 275; Daumas, Arago, 263, 265; Maurice Agulhon, 1848 ou l’apprentissge de la r´epublique 1848–1852 (Paris: Seuil, 1973), 32; Roger Hahn, “Arago, Dominique Franc¸ois Jean,” in Dictionary of Scientific Biography, ed. Charles Coulston Gillipsie, 16 vols. (New York: Scribners, 1970–1980), 1:201; Moses, French Feminism, 127. Popkin, A History of Modern France, 128–9; Wright, France in Modern Times, 118–22; Tombs, France, 374. Comte, “Le Fondateur de la Soci´et´e Positiviste a` quiconque d´esire s’y incorporer,” March 8, 1848, CG, 4: 266. Comte to Marielle, an administrator at the Ecole Polytechnique, April 6, 1848, CG, 4:146. See also Marielle to Comte, April 6, 1848, MAC. During the uprising of February, the students were asked to help keep order but were generally on the side of the people. Shinn, L’Ecole Polytechnique, 1794–1914, 61. Comte to Madame Veuve Bonnin, February 28, 1848, CG, 2:138. See Comte’s ticket to the Th´eaˆ tre Royal Italien, February 24, 1848, MAC. Comte to Pierre Laffitte, March 2, 1848, CG, 4:140. The Th´eaˆ tre Italien was called before the 1848 Revolution the Th´eaˆ tre Royal Italien. Comte to Lewes, April 12, 1848, CG, 4: 149. Comte believed that since the execution of Louis XVI by the Convention, the monarchy had lost its legitimacy. None of the French rulers had had an effective government. Comte to Lewes, April 12, 1848, CG, 4:149. On Comte’s criticism of the regime, see Pickering, Comte, vol. 1, 432–3.

The Outbreak of the Revolution

285

believed that a legitimate republic was a nonmonarchical political organization that prized civic virtue and the common good. He was like other French republicans in that he celebrated the French Revolution, upheld French patriotism, disliked the Catholic Church, and sympathized with the lower classes. In his excitement over the ethical dimensions of his campaign to recreate a new order, he also asserted that a republic was inherently social and represented the correct vehicle for his philosophy, which privileged solidarity, that is, the inclusion of all classes in the social body.111 As Emile Littr´e wrote, “The revolution of February . . . excited M. Comte,” for the “socialist core inherent in positive philosophy” approved of the “greater influence given to the popular masses.”112 Indeed, after massive demonstrations, the lower classes succeeded in pressuring the Second Republic to promise work for all and to give workers the right to organize. At this point, Comte did not at all feel threatened by the lower classes or the communist movement. Indeed, during February, he argued that all the workers fighting in the “mobile guard” for the government should unite with the proletarians against the monarchy to make way for a republic.113 In a proper republic, everyone should participate in the political community; this approach was one positivism and communism shared.114 Alix Comte, however, wrote him in March, explaining that many people in the south were worried about the strength of the communists, who might take away their property. Whereas she and her father had nothing to lose and were thus not afraid, others did not feel similarly. “Those who have [property] will not let themselves be stripped without defending themselves. Thus will occur the civil war of which I have great horror.”115 Comte replied, “I am committed to putting you at ease about what is going on, principally with regard to communism, which, when seen from up close, is here [in Paris] far less terrible than the way it is represented from far away by [those motivated by] ill will and cowardice. . . . 111

112 113 114 115

Nicolet, L’Id´ee r´epublicaine, 24, 25, 26. Comte was also true to the Western republican heritage that he knew so well from his readings of Machiavelli, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Condorcet, Gibbon, Ferguson, and Adam Smith, all of whom discussed the importance of the common good. Larizza, “La R´epublique, la science et les passions,” in Auguste Comte: Trajectoires positivistes, ed. Petit, 225–6. Littr´e, Comte, 592. Georges Audiffrent, Une Conversation avec Auguste Comte (Lyon: A. Storck, 1908), 12. Frick, Auguste Comte, 42. Alix Comte to Comte, March 29, 1848, in “Lettres d’Alix Comte,” ed. Laffitte, 93. Victorine Boyer, Comte’s cousin, was happy to learn that he was not adversely affected by the fighting in Paris. She asked him to help her brother, who feared losing his bureaucratic job in the change of regimes. See Victorine Boyer to Comte, March 18, 1848, in “Mat´eriaux pour servir a` la biographie d’Auguste Comte: Deux Lettres d’Auguste Comte a` Victorine Boyer sa Cousine, et a` M. Fautrier son cousin,” ed. Pierre Laffitte RO, 3d ser. (May 1911): 184–5.

286

The Revolution of 1848

[Communists] seek to triumph only by persuasion, not violence.”116 He would not brook fear-mongering by the right. As one of Comte’s disciples later remarked, “Political positivism dates from the upheaval of February.”117 With clubs of all types proliferating throughout the capital, the Revolution of 1848 was significant for developing modern mass politics and spurring Comte to action.118 He immediately understood its importance. To him, the proclamation of this new republic was “in all respects the greatest event to happen in the West since the fall of Bonaparte.”119 Breaking with the past by eliminating the monarchy and introducing new freedoms, it could mobilize everyone’s energies toward the organization of the modern order.120 Positivism could explain how to “reorganize without God or a king.”121 Indeed, Comte was certain that the Revolution of 1848 – “this fortunate upheaval” – advanced “by a generation the . . . coming of positivism.”122 The revolution fortuitously occurred just as he was launching a new phase of positivism, and it seemed to reinforce his view that the positive era was about to begin, one that privileged morality and matters of the heart in order to bring together the members of society. Comte wrote, “The French republic thus tends to consecrate directly the fundamental doctrine of positivism in regards to the universal preponderance of sentiment over reason and activity.”123 As Mirella Larizza points out in her important book on Comte and the Revolution of 1848, he believed that the “institutional transformation realized in February” was the “legitimization of the political role that positivism arrogated to itself”124 Comte was particularly delighted that the Revolution of 1848 confirmed his view, stated in the sixth volume of the Cours in 1842, that the “popular point of view” would henceforth dominate political and social movements and that the people were the best agents of regeneration.125 Influenced by the romantics, he, like other revolutionaries, believed the people were inherently virtuous.126 He was particularly 116 117 118 119 120 122

123 124 125

126

Comte to Alix Comte, April 3, 1848, CG, 4:145. Hadery to Comte, April 21, 1857, MAC. Wright, France, 123; Tombs, France, 377–8; Popkin, France, 130. Comte, “Le Fondateur de la Soci´et´e Positiviste a` quiconque d´esire s’y incorporer,” March 8, 1848, CG, 4: 266–7. Larizza, “La R´epublique,” 224. 121 Comte to Lewes, April 12, 1848, CG, 4:149. Comte, “Le Fondateur de la Soci´et´e Positiviste a` quiconque d´esire s’y incorporer,” March 8, 1848, CG, 4: 265. On the opportunities afforded by a republic, see also Comte to Barbot de Chement, August 23, 1850, CG, 5:180. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 110. Larizza, Bandiera verde, 280–81. The translation is mine. Cours, 2:685. On this point, see Patrick Cingolani, Le Probl`eme de l’individualisme et de la d´emocratie aux origines de la sociologie en France au XIXe Si`ecle (Ph.D. Diss., Universit´e de Paris VII, 1991), 119. Darriulat, Les Patriotes, 9.

The Outbreak of the Revolution

287

delighted that the new government gave the people “the double right . . . of free education and free association,” whose denial by the July Monarchy had angered him, especially when it canceled his course. He was certain the people now could freely adopt positivist principles, which he intended to advance more vigorously in his astronomy course and elsewhere.127 But shortly after universal male suffrage was announced, the room where he taught was taken over in March by the government for the organization of elections. His lecture series and all the other free courses on the sciences were stopped.128 According to Magnin, Comte eventually found a way to give the last lectures in an abandoned small guardroom, filled with spiderwebs and detritus from its past.129 This conflict with officials infuriated Comte. He could not believe that the new republic was as indifferent to popular education as prior governments had been. He insisted that the new government go further to guarantee completely “liberty of discussion, which is indispensable to the final regeneration, by extending . . . to oral exposition the proper independence already given to written exposition.”130 There should be true “liberty of instruction” and “right of association.”131 Ironically, although since the 1820s, he had stayed clear of the concept of political rights and tended to mock liberal ideals, he now claimed the need for “liberty” to forge new doctrines.132 His increased stress on rights and freedom reflects the republican discourse of the moment. His republicanism was indeed a key point in attracting disciples at this point.133 Comte’s demand for the liberty to teach what he wanted also reflects the virulence of the debates on public education that were taking place in the 1840s. After having dominated the French educational system during the 1820s, Catholics claimed in the 1840s that their right to religious instruction was threatened by laws limiting Catholic secondary schools and by the rise of state-run primary schools, which originated in Guizot’s 1833 law in favor of freedom of education.134 To Comte, the heated arguments on the education issue represented the self-interests of the parties involved; in effect, both Catholics and anti-clericals used the rhetoric of freedom of 127 128 129 130 131 132 134

Comte, “Association libre pour l’instruction positive du peuple,” February 25, 1848, CG, 4:263. Comte to Vieillard, January 13, 1849, CG, 5:4. See also Comte to Cavaignac, November 20, 1848, CG, 4:209; Mairie du IIIe Arrondissement to Comte, April 27, 1848, MAC. Fabien Magnin, Speech, September 5, 1878, in “Le Vingt-et-uni`eme Anniversaire de la mort d’Auguste Comte,” 662–3. Comte, “Le Fondateur de la Soci´et´e Positiviste a` quiconque d´esire s’y incorporer,” March 8, 1848, CG, 4: 268. Comte to Jacquemin, February 21, 1848, CG, 4:136. Comte to Lewes, March 20, 1847, CG, 4:107. 133 Larizza, Bandiera verde, 120. Jean-Claude Caron, La France de 1815 a` 1848 (Paris: Armand Collin, 1993), 108–9; Tombs, France, 136.

288

The Revolution of 1848

education to their own advantage when it suited them. To him, the state should not be involved in organizing education because it was incompetent. Ideally, all state subsidies to Catholic schools and metaphysical institutions would cease.135 But he conceded that the state should encourage areas of education that were usually neglected by private enterprises, namely primary schools, and it should continue to maintain the institutions of higher education originally supported by the Convention. Comte did not want the Ecole Polytechnique to disappear while he was still working there. As Annie Petit has pointed out, the only liberty Comte tended to endorse was intellectual freedom.136 He feared that if a government curtailed freedom of thought and association, it would become reactionary and tyrannical. Liberty of thought and discussion was important to Comte because he believed that individuals would freely embrace positivist principles if through public debate, they could see that these theories were irrefutable and superior to those of other systems. Fear of being discovered deficient explained why other systems, such as Catholicism or conservatism, rejected freedom of examination. Moreover, he hoped that utopian doctrines such as communism would fade away if they lost their subversive appeal. People would recognize that their goals were illusory. In the end, public opinion would be the final judge of what doctrine was best.137 Ironically, Comte held fast to the principle of intellectual freedom despite the fact that he would not allow anyone, even the auditors of his course, to criticize any of his doctrines.138 Besides using his own course to promulgate positivist principles, he hoped to organize other venues. On February 24, the day the king abdicated, Comte conceived the idea of creating his own independent organization, the Association libre pour l’instruction positive du peuple dans tout l’Occident europ´een (the Free Association for the Positive Instruction of the People in Western Europe).139 As usual, he thought in large, European terms. Though centered in France, the organization would extend to Germany, England, Italy, and Spain.The next day Comte printed announcements asking people to join it 135

136 137 138

139

In the future, once the universal doctrine of positivism was in place, education could be regulated, but it should belong “exclusively” to the spiritual power. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 108, 156, 157. Annie Petit, introduction to Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 21–2. Lonchampt, Pr´ecis, 82; Frick, Auguste Comte, 360. Jules Mauviel, a well-known writer, was an assiduous auditor of the course of 1847. He made a number of objections to Comte’s doctrine. He remarked that Comte wrongly considered intelligence to be an “obsolete faculty” and sought to eliminate from discussion the “most noble part of ourselves” simply because it could not be grasped by science. He was surprised when Comte told him of his resolution “not to respond to any objection.” Mauviel to Comte, February 21, February 25, 1847, MAC. Littr´e, Comte, 592.

The Outbreak of the Revolution

289

and become either teachers or organizers. Members of this “political Society” would give free courses in mathematics, the sciences, and history.140 Laffitte would begin the first course in astronomy in May.141 Eager to avoid the appearance of authoritarianism, Comte insisted that he would not impose any program on the teachers. Yet to inspire them to relate their subject matter to humanity, he formulated a motto: “Order and Progress.” This slogan was already highlighted in the Discours sur l’esprit positif and henceforth became the phrase most usually associated with the positivist movement.142 It is featured today on the Brazilian flag. Comte’s Association libre pour l’instruction positive reflects his strong commitment to popular education. Like the radicals, he believed that the common people had to be given the proper instruction to make the political transformations long-lasting, especially if there were going to be elections by universal suffrage.143 The reshaping of the people’s “opinions and customs” represented the first step in the regeneration of social and political institutions. Most of all, individuals had to learn to subordinate their “intelligence to sociability, by always considering the mind as the main minister of the heart.”144 The social and moral aspects of education had been at the core of Comte’s program from the beginning. Now after the proclamation of the Second Republic, when there was a “total absence of systematic convictions,” he was certain that the irrefutable principles of positivism would be welcomed and social reorganization could begin.145 Comte’s plan soon foundered, as he could not persuade the authorities to give him a lecture room for his course. He blamed the antipathy of literary men and metaphysicians toward the sciences.146 Soon afterward, he decided he needed to improve his relations with the 140 141

142

143 144 145 146

Comte, “Le Fondateur de la Soci´et´e Positiviste a` quiconque d´esire s’y incorporer,” March 8, 1848, CG, 4: 265. Laffitte to Marcellin Laffitte (his uncle), May 8, 1848, MAC. Comte wanted him to give a course in arithmetic in 1849. He eventually gave a course in mathematics during the winter of 1852 to 1853 at Robinet’s apartment. See Comte to Laffitte, August 13, 1849, CG, 5:52; Annie Petit, “L’Oeuvre de Pierre Laffitte,” Revue internationale d’histoire et de philosophie des sciences et des techniques, 2d ser., 8, no. 2 (2004): 47. Comte, “Association libre pour l’instruction positive du peuple dans tout l’occident europ´een,” February 25, 1848, CG, 4:263. The original two-page announcement can be found in the MAC. In the Syst`eme, Comte explained that he had first used the motto “Order and Progress” in the course he gave in 1847 and that is represented the “social destination” of his Cours de philosophie positive, published five years before. Syst`eme, 4:397. Berenson, Populist Religion, xxi. Comte, “Association libre pour l’instruction positive du peuple,” February 25, 1848, CG, 4:263. Comte, “Le Fondateur de la Soci´et´e Positiviste a` quiconque d´esire s’y incorporer,” March 8, 1848, CG, 4: 267. Comte to General Cavaignac, November 20, 1848, CG, 4:209.

290

The Revolution of 1848

government, particularly Franc¸ois Arago. In the Cours and in the trial against Bachelier, who published it, Comte had accused Arago of nefarious maneuverings against him and of turpitude.147 Such a public attack on a prominent scientist and politician had already marginalized Comte in academic circles and made publishers wary of him.148 But now that he was about to become more militant and Arago was a very popular member of the government, Comte was afraid to be considered an enemy of the regime.149 A public apology was one way to show his loyalty to the Second Republic and to avoid punitive measures from a possibly vengeful minister. On February 26, Comte requested the aid of Littr´e in publicizing his apology and in persuading Marrast, his other old enemy, to provide him with the means to do so. Comte knew Littr´e was well respected in the new republic. Indeed, Littr´e was offered the post of administrator of the Biblioth`eque de l’Arsenal, which he turned down. Yet puzzled by Comte’s request, which did not strike him as the most crucial issue at the moment, Littr´e was reluctant to become involved. Although Littr´e was still working from time to time at Le National, both he and Marrast, its editor, were completely preoccupied by the recent political turmoil. Nevertheless, Littr´e gave Comte some suggestions.150 Following his advice, Comte publicly apologized to Arago at the next meeting of his astronomy course and praised his character and intelligence.151 Yet not wanting to appear to be courting the government for favors, Comte claimed that the reason he sought to make amends with Arago was to ensure that harmony reigned among all those working for the public welfare in the new republic. He was simply fulfilling his civic duty by putting aside personal animosities and showing respect for people in power.152 However, he let slip to Lewes his hope that Arago would help him regain his position at the Ecole Polytechnique.153 To make sure that “the reparation” was as “public” as the attack on Arago in the Cours had been, Comte immediately sent a copy of a letter he wrote to Littr´e about the apology to various newspapers, including the reformist Le National and the more moderate Journal des d´ebats, which had supported his case in 1842. He also mailed it to Grote in London, Humboldt in Berlin, and Limburg-Stirum in 147 148 149 150 151 153

See Pickering, Comte, vol. 1, 547–60. Patrick Tacussel, “Auguste Comte, l’oeuvre v´ecue,” in Calendrier Positiviste, by Auguste Comte (Fontfroide: Fata Morgana, 1993), 46. On Arago’s popularity, see Ren´e Audubert, Arago et son Temps, conf´erence faite au Palais de la D´ecouverte le 19 d´ecembre 1953 (Paris: Palais de la D´ecouverte, 1954), 19. Littr´e to Comte, February 26 and February 27, 1848, MAC. Comte to Littr´e, February 27, 1848, CG, 4:138. 152 Littr´e, Comte, 595. See Alix Comte to Auguste Comte, March 5, 1848, in “Lettres d’Alix Comte a` son fr`ere,” ed. Pierre Laffitte, 90. The first part of this letter is from Louis Comte.

The Outbreak of the Revolution

291

the Hague, hoping they would publicize the reconciliation.154 Grote, who was a friend of Littr´e and an enthusiast of the new French republic, was particularly pleased that the man whom he had supported financially had recognized his own ill will.155 Telling Comte that he would try to find a journal that would publish the letter, Grote wrote, This is a move which is a credit to you. No one who knows you will dream of attributing to it self-interested motives. I am even more delighted because Arago never seemed to merit the criticisms which you made of him. But even if he had fully merited them, the brilliant and patriotic conduct that he has shown during these last events should make one forget them.156

It is unclear whether Grote had any success in placing the letter. After being disappointed that Le National printed only part of his apology letter on March 1, Comte sent both a copy of his letter to Littr´e and a personal note to Arago that alluded to “the sincerity of the regrets” that he felt in having “offended” him. He added, “My former knowledge of your magnanimity permits me to count on the plenitude of the pardon for which I am asking you today.”157 Despite his many responsibilities, Arago wrote back immediately, “There has never been anything between us except misunderstandings. I am very pleased that they have ended. I embrace you with all my heart.”158 Comte was “very touched” by this “cordial reconciliation.”159 Comte represented his gesture to Arago as inspired by his muse, Clotilde de Vaux. Thanks to her, he had reinvented himself as a man of great moral integrity without having had to risk his life on the barricades. He was eager for more grand gestures. Therefore when his father and sister wrote to him on March 8, after having heard about the apology to Arago in Le National, Comte was receptive to their bid to renew their relations. Alix and Louis Comte knew Auguste very well. Relieved that he had not been hurt during the street fighting, they told him they were proud of the “great courage” and “noble heart” he had displayed in admitting publicly his wrongs.160 They used the language of honor of the time to flatter him and thus encourage him 154 155 156 157 158 159 160

Comte to Grote, February 28, 1848, CG, 4:138. Limburg-Stirum did succeed in having it published. See Limburg-Stirum to Comte, May 2, 1848, MAC. On Arago’s effort to persuade Comte to call on the Grotes in 1840, see Pickering, Comte, 493. Grote to Comte, March 9, 1848, MAC. Comte to Arago, March 2, 1848, CG, 4:139. Arago to Comte, March 3, 1848, CG, 4:248. Comte to Arago, March 3, 1848, CG, 4:140. Alix Comte to Auguste Comte, March 5, 1848, in “Lettres d’Alix Comte,” Laffitte, 90. The letter at the MAC shows more clearly that the top part was signed by Louis Comte and the bottom is from Alix Comte.

292

The Revolution of 1848

to admit his failure in their regard. Their strategy worked to a certain extent. The death of de Vaux had already reawakened his feelings of loss regarding his “tender mother,” whom he felt he had neglected in the last years of her life.161 He did not wish to repeat that mistake with his father.162 So promising to forget their past squabbles, he welcomed the reconciliation.163 However, he could bring himself to be only perfunctorily polite to Alix, whose letters struck him as cold and affected. She annoyed him because she had written to Massin in early March to find out how he was. Bad memories of the hypocrisy of his sister, who hated his wife, haunted him. In addition, he disliked being reminded that he was tied to Massin. He informed Alix that his “only real wife” was de Vaux.164 Although the correspondence with his sister was very unsatisfactory, especially because of her constant effort to make him renounce positivism and embrace Catholicism, he continued to write to her, pretending to be interested in her health. the po sitivist society and the re lig ious turn Comte’s actions demonstrate that he was genuinely moved by what Maurice Agulhon has termed “the conciliatory euphoria of the very first days” of the revolution.165 All adult men were given the chance to vote in an important European state for the first time in history, restrictions on associations and censorship were lifted, and clubs and newspapers quickly arose to use the new freedom to mobilize people. The optimism and dynamism of the moment meant that over seventy thousand people in Paris alone joined two hundred or so clubs. Paris was in a carnivalesque mode with people of all classes and parties engaged in a frenzy of meetings.166 In his novel Sentimental Education, 161

162 163 164 166

Comte, “Troisi`eme Confession annuelle,” 25 juin 1848, CG, 4:159. Curiously, another person who had had problems with Comte, Charles Chabrier, also wrote to him after reading his apology to Arago. Chabrier, a former student and currently an army lieutenant, explained that in 1845 that he had received a letter from Massin accusing him of “grave wrongs” and forbidding him to have any further relations with her. Chabrier alleged that these wrongs were never specified, and he had no idea what he had done to offend her. Yet because of his father’s illness and subsequent death around the same time, he never defended himself. He now wrote to Comte to apologize for having lost contact with him and to tell him that he still admired him. It is unclear whether Comte ever replied. Chabrier to Comte, May 2, 1848, MAC. “Quatri`eme Confession annuelle,” May 31, 1849, CG, 5:28. Comte to Louis Comte, March 8, 1848, CG, 4:141. Comte to Alix Comte, March 8, 1848, CG, 4:140–41. 165 Agulhon, 1848, 49. Roger Price, The French Second Empire: An Anatomy of Political Power (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 12; Pamela M. Pilbeam, Republicanism in NineteenthCentury France, 1814–1871 (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995), 192.

The Positivist Society and the Religious Turn

293

Gustave Flaubert describes the mood in March. He has an actor show the protagonist Fr´ed´eric the clubs in Paris: They visited . . . all [the clubs], or nearly all . . . the red clubs, the blue, the wild, the peaceful, the puritanical, the Bohemian, the mystical, the alcoholic, the clubs where the kings of the world were condemned to death. . . . Everywhere tenants cursed landlords, smocks attacked tail-coats, and rich conspired against poor. . . . there were plans for Fourierist communities, schemes for village bazaars, systems for universal happiness. . . . To obtain a reputation for common sense [in the clubs], it was necessary . . . to use the following expressions as often as possible: “Contribute one’s stone to the building . . . social problem . . . workshop.”167

Comte partook of the discourse of the times; he proclaimed to Arago that the “principal goal” of his “entire existence” had always been the “great social cause.”168 Excited by the possibilities for social reconstruction, Comte was keen to contribute to the new political culture. He was no longer simply interested in denouncing academies or his colleagues. Increasingly militant, he felt the need to create institutions.169 On March 8, several days after the government’s announcement that it would grant universal male suffrage, Comte transformed the Association libre pour l’instruction positive into his own club, the Soci´et´e Positiviste, or Positivist Society. Around the same time, Marx, who had recently arrived in Paris, organized a meeting of the Communist League and helped found the German Workers’ Club.170 According to the flier that Comte distributed after his astronomy course, the Positivist Society would issue writings, petitions, and speeches to influence the government and facilitate the coming of the positivist regime without seeking to intervene in a more activist manner.171 Aware of the recent proliferation of publications throughout France, Comte also revived his plans to launch a monthly positivist review. Just as the “great figures of the Convention passed before . . . [the] eyes” of Fr´ed´eric, Comte insisted in the flier that his club was a reincarnation of the Jacobin Club of the French Revolution.172 Indeed, three clubs created during the events of 1848 featured the word 167 168 170 171 172

Gustave Flaubert, Sentimental Education, trans. Robert Baldick (Middlesex: Penguin, 1964), 300. Comte to Arago, March 3, 1848, CG, 4:140. 169 Petit, “La Diffusion des savoirs,” 15. David McLellan, Karl Marx: His Life and Thought (New York: Harper Colophon, 1973), 193. Comte ordered one thousand copies of the flier. See bill from Firmin Didot fr`eres, March 11, 1848, “Documents: Factures acquitt´es,” MAC. Flaubert, Sentimental Education, 297.

294

The Revolution of 1848

“Jacobin” in their name.173 Besides Flaubert, historians have noted that the model of the new republic’s political culture was the French Revolution. Franc¸ois Furet remarked, Everything which had made yesterday’s political society had vanished in a trice: the king, the ‘chˆateau’, parliamentary life, the salons and even the questions so passionately stirred up by that world which had been sovereign yesterday, were as if they had never existed. One event had replaced everything, known to everybody because it had already taken place, and one which everybody re-enacted, because the scenario had been distributed beforehand: the French Revolution.174

According to Comte, the Positivist Society would have the same status the Jacobins had had, that of being an independent body advising the government on how to reorganize the state. Indeed, the original purpose of the Jacobin Club, according to Furet, was “to bring together for private discussions certain members of the Third Estate” in order “to develop a concerted legislative strategy.” It was “a unique sounding board for revolutionary politics.” Comte thus based his club on a version of Jacobinism that featured its role as a “debating society,” not a revolutionary party that usurped the power of the Convention and fomented the Terror.175 The fact that he dared to appeal to the Jacobin tradition at a time when the middle classes were afraid of the lower classes shows that he still situated himself on the left at this time. Indeed, he happily noted that the proclamation of the Second Republic was the culmination of the “negative part” of the French Revolution of 1789, for it destroyed “reactionary hopes and illusions” once and for all. Whereas the original Jacobins had presided over the negative part of the French Revolution, the positivists would watch over the last, organic, constructive phase. According to him, the positivists would be as devoted to truth and virtue as their predecessors had been.176 Thus he was sure that “the true Jacobins would be today zealous Positivists.”177 Besides an advisory body, the Positivist Society was the prototype of the spiritual power that would preside over the positivist era.178 One goal of this new organization was to launch the “cult 173 174 175

176 177

178

Pilbeam, Republicanism, 192. Franc¸ois Furet, Revolutionary France, 1770–1880, trans. Antonia Nevill (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992), 394. On the importance of the Jacobin model, see also Larizza, 46–58. Franc¸ois Furet, “Jacobinism,” in A Critical Dictionary of the French Revolution, ed. Franc¸ois Furet and Mona Ozouf, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press, Belknap Press, 1989), 704, 705, 706. Larizza, Bandiera verde, 55. Comte, “Le Fondateur de la Soci´et´e Positiviste a` quiconque d´esire s’y incorporer,” March 8, 1848, CG, 4: 267, 270. A copy of the original flier, printed by Firmin Didot fr`eres, can be found in the MAC. Audiffrent to Magnin, November 13, 1877, MAC.

The Positivist Society and the Religious Turn

295

of Humanity” by publicly commemorating the different phases of history. As mentioned previously, the word “Humanity” was popular among social reformers. The Saint-Simonians had often referred to “Humanity” and the “Religion of Humanity” in their sermons and books. Comte owned both volumes of the Religion Saint-Simonienne: Recueil des Pr´edications, published in 1832. Part of an 1831 sermon reproduced in the second volume reads: SAINT-SIMON, considering the decadence of the Church and the revolutions which overthrew the feudal organization, understood that on the debris of the double – spiritual and temporal – society which developed during the Middle Ages must arise today a unique society; and he announced the religion of humanity, a religion that is truly definitive, truly one and universal because, regulating the temporal order as well as the spiritual order, it will know how to reconcile all private interests with all general interests.179

In addition, the ex-Saint-Simonian socialist Pierre Leroux elaborated on his religion of Humanity in D’une Religion nationale ou du culte of 1848. Comte and Leroux had mutual friends and had met before, probably at the famous trial of republicans in 1835, where, according to Leroux, Comte had expressed his respect for him.180 Comte might have borrowed the idea of his Religion of Humanity from SaintSimon, the Saint-Simonians, or Leroux.181 Yet there are other possible sources. Louis De Potter, another socialist and a Saint-Simonian sympathizer, put out a journal called L’Humanit´e in Brussels in 1842. He worked with the socialist philosopher Baron Jean Hippolyte Colins de Ham, who, thanks to Littr´e, made contact with Comte in 1846. Colins sent Comte a new brochure entitled La Justice et sa sanction religieuse (1846) that Potter had published 179

180

181

Religion Saint-Simonienne: Receuil des Pr´edications (Paris, 1832), 2:64. See also Comte’s Biblioth`eque Superflue, MAC. Comte owned other works related to the SaintSimonians, including Jules Lechevalier’s Aux Saint-Simoniens: Lettres sur la division survenue dans l’association Saint-Simonienne (Paris, 1831); Nouveau Christianisme. Lettres d’Eug`ene Rodrigues sur la religion et la politique. L’Education du genre humain de Lessing traduit pour la premi`ere fois de l’allemand par Eug`ene Rodrigues (Paris, 1832); Doctrine Saint-Simon. Exposition, 2d. ed (Paris, 1830); and Religion Saint-Simonienne. Morale, R´eunion g´en´erale de la famille. Enseignements du P`ere Supr`eme. Les Trois Familles (Paris, 1832). Another book in his library, called Litt´erateurs franc¸ais, was part of a series entitled Galerie des contemporains illustr´es. The author, Louis L´eonard de Lom´enie, discussed Saint-Simon at length. This volume has no date but was published sometime in the 1840s. Comte, “Troisi`eme Confession annuelle,” June 25, 1848, CG, 4:157. Indeed, Deroisin heard Leroux speak of Comte in glowing terms. Yet Comte did not like Leroux. Deroisin, Comte, 122. In Comte’s library is a 1845 issue of his Revue ind´ependante. See Comte’s Biblioth`eque Superflue, MAC. Armelle Lebras-Chopard, “L’Effervescence des id´ees socialistes au d´ebut du XIXe si`ecle,” in Auguste Comte: Trajectoires positivistes, ed. Petit, 69.

296

The Revolution of 1848

in Brussels and R´esum´e des e´tudes sociales expos´ees dans la Revue des int´erˆets mat´eriels et moraux, pendant l’ann´ee 1844 (1845), which his colleague Ramˆon de la Sagra had composed. Comte made a “rare” exception to his rule of cerebral abstinence and read both works. He was happy to see that they agreed with his “own convictions about the true nature of the modern situation and on the remedy that it requires.”182 Potter in particular insisted on the need for the disappearance of God because “in his anthropomorphic form,” he had “served the exploitation of the people.” Nevertheless, people needed a “religious tie” and moral sanctions for order to exist. Potter wrote, “The social problem is focused . . . on the search for a new authority” to “save humanity from anarchy.” Without order, society could not exist.183 Comte found his work and that of de la Sagra ultimately too dogmatic – a judgment that rubbed the baron the wrong way.184 Comte suggested that he did not want a meeting with the baron because of their lack of accord on the importance of a scientific foundation, the loss of time a useless debate entailed, and especially the political fallout it entailed. Colins was considered dangerous, and Comte did not want trouble with the government. Nevertheless, not long after Comte read these works, the notion of establishing a cult of humanity and creating a religion began to germinate more rapidly in his mind. Up to the mid-1840s, he had discussed the manner in which religion would be “replaced” by the “positive philosophy,” and he did not refer to his philosophy as a religion.185 But in 1847, he began to rethink his position.186 He claimed that the “final transformation” of his doctrine occurred during his course to the workers in 1847, when he sought to go beyond matters relating 182

183

184

185 186

Comte to Baron de Colins, March 12, 1846, CG, 3:357. Both of these works are still in Comte’s library. Comte sent Potter and de la Sagra his Discours sur l’esprit positif. See the folder, “Circulation des ouvrages d’Auguste Comte,” MAC. Louis de Potter, La Justice et sa sanction religieuse: Question d’ordre social, 2d. ed. (Brussels, 1897), xxx, xxxi, xxxiii. See also Baron de Colins [listed as Corin in the MAC] to Comte, March 8, 1846, MAC; Comte to Baron de Colins, March 12, 1846, CG, 3: 357; John Bartier, Naissance du socialisme en Belgique: Les Saint-Simoniens, ed. Arlette Smolar-Meynart (Brussels: Pr´esence et Action Culturelle, 1985), 108–9. In response to his criticisms, Colins sent Comte an essay that he had written, probably one on the social sciences, which would be the subject of a four-volume work that he gave to Comte in 1854: Qu’est-ce que c’est la science sociale? Colins admitted that this four-volume work, published in 1853, was against Comte’s philosophy, but he insisted on its importance. Comte refused to read it because of his cerebral hygiene. Yet he sent Colins the four volumes of his Syst`eme. See Baron de Colins (listed as Colinso in the MAC) to Comte, August [no day], 1854 and August 23, 1854, MAC. Pierre Laffitte, “Conversations avec Auguste Comte,” March 29, 1846, MAC. Comte traced the origins of the religion to 1847 in the preface of the Syst`eme. “Pr´eface,” Syst`eme, 1:10. See also Syst`eme, 3:618. In the Appel aux Consevateurs, he stated that the beginning of his religious construction could be traced to his course of 1847. Comte, Appel, 11.

The Positivist Society and the Religious Turn

297

to astronomy.187 He called his doctrine a religion after “having seen it spontaneously employed [in that way] by some eminent proletarians.”188 As Bernard Pl´e suggests, Comte might have responded to people’s scientific interrogations touching on matters of religion and recognized their need for a “directing faith.”189 Some of these workers, such as Francelle, had learned to read and write in schools run by the clergy and were deeply marked by their religious experience, even if they later renounced their faith, as he did.190 Comte wished to offer them something similar to traditional religion, that is, a system of beliefs. This system was crucial in order “to terminate a revolution that [was] more intellectual than social.”191 His religion, however, embraced more than beliefs. It touched on the emotions and activities, which were affected by beliefs. Henceforth, he would consider scientific knowledge to be a “fundamental introduction to religion.”192 Comte suggested that his doctrine would satisfy the human demand for explanations and dogmas that he had shown was persistent in all historical eras, from fetishism to polytheism to monotheism to metaphysics; the latter, after all, insisted on the importance of Nature or Reason despite its promotion of doubt and skepticism. He might have been influenced in this regard by Giambattista Vico. Having read the Scienza Nuova in Italian in 1844, Comte thought Vico was a great thinker because he was one of the first to discern the “true evolution” of society, the “natural laws” of social phenomena, and the “cult of the dead” as one of the few universal customs of “humanity.”193 As his disciple and biographer, Joseph Lonchampt, indicated, Comte believed that 187 188 189 190 191 193

Comte to Audiffrent, May 28, 1857, CG, 8:478. See Laffitte’s notes on this course. Laffitte, “Conversations avec Auguste Comte,” early 1847, MAC. Syst`eme, 4:xviii. Bernard Pl´e, “Sur le Chemin du salut public: De la Disperson du savoir humain a` la gu´erison intellectuelle de l’homme,” in Auguste Comte: Trajectoires positivistes, ed. Petit, 219. Francelle to Comte, June 14, 1840, MAC. See also Larizza, Bandiera verde, 357. Synth`ese, 86. 192 Comte to Laffitte, October 18. 1849, CG, 5:98. In a letter to Mill of October 1844, Comte suggested that he broke his regime of cerebral hygiene and was reading the Scienza Nuova to prepare for the third volume of the Syst`eme, which would have to do with philosophy of history. Jules Michelet’s famous translation of Vico’s Scienza Nuova in 1827 had been reissued in 1835. Comte admitted that it had been quite the rage in France and that he had learned about Vico secondhand and by some extracts from his books that had fallen his way. But because he read the entire Scienza Nuova only after having writen the Cours, he claimed it did not influence him as much as some people thought. Yet even he underscored Vico’s connection to the development of sociology in the report on the Ecole Positive. In evaluating his greatness, Comte asserted that he would place Vico above Montesquieu, whose conceptions were not as scientific or systematic. However, he did not think Vico was as great as Condorcet. Comte maintained that Vico’s theory of social statics was ultimately more important than his notion of social dynamics because his theory of progress was problematic. Comte preferred Condorcet’s more scientifically grounded version of human advancement. See Syst`eme, 1:634, 2:589; Comte to Mill, October 21,

298

The Revolution of 1848

“religion” was one of the universal “elements of the social order” and that “everywhere and always” it had a “distinct organ: a clergy.”194 The idea of religion as an important integrating force in every society was basic to other eighteenth-century writers whom Comte knew as well: Voltaire and Rousseau. By transforming his philosophy into a religion, Comte hoped to give an “imposing universal character” to his “final construction.” In addition, he sought to reach a broader audience, especially in the romantic period, an age of revived spirituality. More people were interested in religion, and religion was associated especially with women, whom he wished to attract. But Comte added a twist to differentiate his religion from traditional ones. “While Protestants and deists always attacked religion in the name of God, we must do the opposite, finally eliminate God in the name of religion.”195 He announced to the audience of his lecture course that the “ultimate goal” of positivism was the establishment of the “Cult of Humanity,” underscoring the “superiority of demonstrated morality over revealed morality.”196 Sensing the workers’ unhappiness with the status quo, he thought he might get their support if he offered them moral instruction, rather than simple lectures on the sciences, which he increasingly recognized had limited appeal. After all, he was most hopeful at this time about creating an alliance between philosophers and workers; by taking up the standard of ethical and humanitarian reform, which had interested him at the start of his career, he hoped to establish common ground between these two groups.197 This program of moral reform might also attract socialists and communists, whom he considered his rivals. Partly inspired by these leftists, the Revolution of 1848, was the first political occurrence since 1835 that truly engaged Comte, and it encouraged his new religious direction.198 Lonchampt later explained, “It was the Revolution of 1848 that . . . constituted the official entry of the proletarians onto the political scene. It is especially at this date that Auguste Comte began his public sermons and the establishment of the Religion of Humanity.”199 In Lonchampt’s eyes,

194 196 197 199

1844, CG, 2:289–90; Segond, Antoine-Horace de Mont`egre, and Robin, Rapport a` la Soci´et´e Positiviste par la commission charg´ee d’examiner la nature et le plan de l’Ecole Positive destin´ee surtout a` r´eg´en´erer les m´edecins, CG, 5:283; Cat´echisme, 79. Later, Comte mistakenly told Holmes that he read Vico’s work in 1843. Comte to George Frederick Holmes, November 28, 1852, CG, 6: 431–2; Pierre Laffitte’s reminiscences, CG, 4:221, note CDXXIV. Lonchampt, Pr´ecis, 73. 195 Comte to Laffitte, October 18, 1849, CG, 5:98. “Programme raisonn´e du Discours prononc´e le 24 janvier 1847,” page four, MAC. Larizza, Bandiera verde, 346. 198 Comte to Tholouze, August 19, 1848, CG, 4:174. Joseph Lonchampt to Jean-Franc¸ois Eug`ene Robinet, 9 Mo¨ıse 92 ( January 9, 1880), MAC.

The Positivist Society and the Religious Turn

299

the Revolution of 1848, the activism of the working classes, and the Religion of Humanity were interconnected. Above all, the cult of Humanity reflects the religious nature of the Revolution of 1848. Whereas the Revolution of 1830 had been anti-religious and its vehement anti-clericalism had resulted in the destruction of sacred objects, the Revolution of 1848 was infused with a religious spirit, which enriched the republicans’ faith in fraternity.200 In Steven Vincent’s words, most political thinkers even on the left wished to “provide society with a religiously defined basis of social consensus. Socialist visions of progress were linked to religion.” Influenced by the philosophes, reformers assumed that “social unity demanded religious or philosophical unity.”201 Like others on the left, Comte used Christian language and moral concepts to assail the July Monarchy and to outline his new society marked by solidarity. Undoubtedly, the death of de Vaux inspired this tendency, but it is important to note that everywhere in France religiosity was widespread. Indeed, Edward Berenson has noted that “saint worship reached an intensity unknown since the Middle Ages [and] religious processions occurred more frequently and more fervently than in the recent past.” He explained, For intellectuals and workers, this religiosity promised the ideal of moral community as an ideological alternative to laissez-faire liberalism; for the peasantry, it expressed the desire to harness sacred power for material ends, and it asserted the right of the community to control religious practice. After 1848 this widespread religiosity would provide a common language with which intellectuals, workers, and peasants – groups separated by vast cultural differences – could communicate with each other.

Comte could not have been ignorant of the fact that the Icarians were proclaiming that Jesus was the first communist or that Louis Blanc, the socialist leader, insisted that his party alone possessed the moral legitimacy to rule because it upheld the true Christian principles of equality, freedom, and fraternity.202 George Sand also wrote in her Souvenirs de 1848: “But where is God? He is not longer enclosed in a golden or silver chalice. His spirit floats freely in the vast universe, and every republican soul is His sanctuary. What do you call religion? 200

201 202

Furet, Revolutionary France, 395–6; Jean-Louis Ormi`eres, Politique et religion en France (Brussels: Editions Complexe, 2002), 78. On the way that the Catholic religiosity of the republicans made progressive democratic principles meaningful and acceptable to a large number of Frenchmen, especially peasants, see Berenson, Populist Religion. K. Steven Vincent, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican Socialism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984), 12. Berenson, Populist Religion, 36, 37–8, 44, 48.

300

The Revolution of 1848

It is called the Republic.”203 Even Adolphe Thiers, who had called for the expulsion of the Jesuits in 1845, now argued in De la Propri´et´e, published in September 1848, that religion was the basis of society.204 Watching his rivals while setting up the Positivist Society, Comte urged all proletarians to join his “emergent church.”205 The Positivist Society was to be multifunctional. Magnin explained that it was “simultaneously, a school, a Church, and a party, because it had at its disposition a doctrine, a religion, and a politics.”206 Though clearly the dominating figure, Comte tried not to be heavy-handed about who would be admitted to his club. He retained the right to propose new members but would let existing members reject his candidates. Although he disliked equality because he felt it hid the “instinct of domination” and led to anarchy, he knew it was a very popular notion during this time of revolution.207 Nevertheless, he insisted that a sense of interconnectedness came more from fraternity than from equality; the members should see themselves as a “true family.”208 In the spirit of “fraternity,” Comte wanted the club to be all-inclusive with members from different classes and educational backgrounds.209 Each member of the Positivist Society would have to adhere to the principles outlined in his Discours sur l’esprit positif of 1844 and Littr´e’s De la Philosophie positive. Assuming that most members of the Positivist Society would be workers or other people active in industrial pursuits, he did not wish to impose the Cours on them. It was, above all, to be a club for the people, not simply intellectuals.210 It was important to him because along with his course, it gave him an opportunity to form “truly intimate relations with eminent workers.”211 Comte was similar to other intellectuals and writers in this “romantic generation” – people like George Sand, Victor Hugo, Alphonse de Lamartine, Alexandre Dumas p`ere, Jules Michelet, and Edgar Quinet – who took up the popular cause.212 He was eager to create the alliance between intellectuals and proletarians 203 204 205 206 207 208 209

210 211 212

George Sand, Souvenirs de 1848 (Paris: Calmann L´evy, 1880), 109. Ormi`eres, Politique et religion, 85. Comte to Laffitte, September 4, 1849, CG, 5:69. Magnin to Salmon, May 3, 1873, MAC. Syst`eme, 4:484. See also Comte to Laffitte, September 19, 1849, CG, 5:83; Comte to Hutton, August 24, 1854, CG, 7:258. Comte to Laffitte, September 4, 1849, CG, 5:69. See Comte’s comments when Littr´e invited Capellen, Fl´orez, Magnin, and Belpaume to dine with him at his property in Saint-Germain. Comte to Laffitte, September 26, 1849, CG, 5:87. Comte to Tholouze, August 19, 1848, CG, 4:174. Comte to Thal`es Bernard, March 25, 1850, CG, 5:144. Jean-Yves Mollier, “La Culture de 48,” in La R´evolution de 1848 en France et en Europe, ed. Sylvie Aprile, Raymond Huard, Pierre L´evˆeque, and Jean-Yves Mollier (Paris: Editions Sociales, 1998), 167.

The Positivist Society and the Religious Turn

301

that he had hoped to launch with the Discours sur l’esprit positif of 1844. Using the Jacobins as a model, he hoped the Positivist Society could speak in the name of the people. This posture was important, given that he rejected both popular sovereignty and democracy and founded the legitimacy of his system on science, not the people, though he contended that science was the continuation of common sense. The Positivist Society, as Mirella Larizza noted, was a “bizarre amalgamation of scientistic elitism and democratic populism.”213 Comte sought to make the members of the club feel important. Sensitive to the transformation of political culture, he ordered large coin-sized bronze medals with the name Positivist Society engraved in the center along with the founding month, March 1848. On the other side of the medal were to be printed the name of the member and the organization’s slogan “Order and Progress.” Optimistic about his ability to attract members, he requested that the printer make a hundred such seals.214 It is evident that in the context of the times, he felt obliged to have a material representation of his organization in order to give it a certain amount of legitimacy. In commenting on the fabrication of political emblems, such as playing cards, adornments, and money, during the French Revolution, Lynn Hunt has pointed out, “Such symbols did not simply express political positions; they were the means by which people became aware of their positions. By making a political position manifest, they made adherence, opposition, and indifference possible.”215 Like the revolutionaries, Comte saw the necessity of using tangible objects to reinforce a sense of belonging among his followers in order to add to his own power. The first meeting of the Postivist Society took place on Sunday, March 12. Afterwards, it met every Wednesday at Comte’s apartment from 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm. He continued to meet with some of the members who were closest to him, such as Magnin, on Sunday nights. (These gatherings did not occur the first Sunday of each month, when Comte went to Blainville’s soir´ee.)216 At the meetings, members would discuss strategies to propagate the movement, membership issues, matters of doctrine, and financial issues. Most members paid dues to defray the costs of such expenses as printing brochures. By 213 214

215 216

Larizza, Bandiera verde, 44, 56–7, 58. Comte to Jacquemin, March 10, 1848, CG, 4:142. A picture of this political seal as well other seals (the moral seal “Vivre pour Autrui” of 1849 and the practical seal of “Vivre au Grand Jour” of 1855) may be found in Jean Claude Wartelle, Condens´e et r´esum´e illustr´e de l’H´eritage d’Auguste Comte: Histoire de l’´eglise positiviste (1849–1946) (Paris: L’Harmattan, 2002), 11. Lynn Hunt, Politics, Culture, and Class in the French Revolution (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), 53. Originally meetings were to occur every Wednesday, but at the March 12 gathering, it was decided that Sundays were more convenient. See Comte to Mont`egre, March 27, 1848, CG, 4:144; Comte to Magnin, April 20 and May 29, 1848, CG, 4:151, 153.

302

The Revolution of 1848

means of publicity, Comte’s association soon became a recognized part of the larger network of clubs. For example, in early April, the president of the Club de l’Emancipation des Peuples called on the members of the Positivist Society to participate in the organization of a public “banquet of fraternity” uniting workers and soldiers.217 Otherwise occupied, Comte did not respond to this request.218 At the first meeting of the Positivist Society on March 12, 1848, Comte met with seven other men: Pierre Laffitte, Horace de Mont`egre, Alphonse Leblais,219 Emile Pascal, Etienne Jacquemin, Magnin, and Andr´e-Auguste Francelle. Five other men could not attend but were listed in the “first registration”: Emile Littr´e, JeanPierre Fili, Alexander Williamson, Adolphe de Ribbentrop,220 and Modeste-Etienne Claudel.221 By August 2, there were twenty-seven members. By October, 1848, there were twenty-nine participants.222 Eventually, approximately fifty men, including sixteen workers, belonged to this organization. There were no women members. The majority of the members were young middle-class French men who were divided almost equally between Paris and the provinces.223 217 218 219 220

221

222

223

Suau to Comte, April 5, 1848, MAC. On this club and the banquet, see Peter H. Amann, Revolution and Mass Democracy: The Paris Club Movement in 1848 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975), 271–2n54. On Leblais, see Larizza, Bandiera verde, 178. Ribbentrop apparently preferred to use the French particle “de” instead of the German “von.” It is unclear whether he was related to Joachim von Ribbentrop, Adolph Hitler’s diplomat. Comte asked Magnin to invite Fili, but he did not officially become a member of the Positivist Society until March 19, 1848. Comte to Magnin, March 10, 1848, CG, 4:143. See Laffitte, “Conversations avec Auguste Comte,” December 27, 1847, MAC. (This date is wrong.) See also the list of members at the end of his “Conversations”; the list of subscribers that Comte wrote up on September 13, 1848, in documents collected under the name “Soci´et´e Positiviste,” MAC; “Liste chronologie des membres de la Soci´et´e Positiviste,” in MAC; and the “Liste chronologique” in CG, 4:306–1309. There are some unexplained discrepancies between the lists. The “Liste chronologique” in CG, for example, is missing Charles Robin, Littr´e, Baron Alfred de Ribbentrop, Lafond, and Pinet. Moreover, Comte said in 1850, that there were forty-five members of the Society, but the “Liste chronologique” suggests that there were only twenty-nine members at that time. Comte may have made the list later and included only those people who were still members at the time he wrote it. Littr´e, for example, is not on the list, although he was a member until he resigned in 1852. What further complicates matters is that in a book written toward the end of his life, Audiffrent accused Laffitte of having erased out of hatred certain names from the records of the Positivist Society that Comte had inscribed. See Audiffrent, A Propos du centenaire, 29. See also Pierre Laffitte “Soci´et´e Positiviste,” Archives of Sybil de Acevedo. “Liste chronologique des membres de la Soci´et´e Positiviste,” MAC. See Comte to Jacquemin, March 10, 1848, CG, 4:142, and Comte to Mont`egre, March 27, 1848, CG, 4:144; Littr´e, Circulaire initiale, November 12, 1848, CG, 4:305; Comte, “Sixi`eme Confession annuelle,” May 30, 1851, CG, 6:104. Johan Heilbron, The Rise of Social Theory, trans. Sheila Gogal (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995), 255.

The Positivist Society and the Religious Turn

303

The members in late 1848 were an interesting group of men. There were five mathematics teachers (Comte, Claudel, Laffitte, Leblais, and Charles Jundzill) and five students. The latter were Williamson, who continued to take lessons from Comte; Emile Pascal, who was a philosophy student; Pedro Contreras Elizalde, who was a medical student; and Alfred Ribet and Pinet, who were law students. Presumably these ten people involved in academics (teachers and students) were attracted to Comte’s moderate, anti-metaphysical, intellectual approach to reconstruction. This approach may have also appealed to the three writers (Littr´e, Ribbentrop, and Don Jos´e Segundo Fl´orez), one architect (Alavoine), and one person whose profession is unknown (Lafond). What is more striking is the number of workers. The nine workers who belonged to the Positivist Society in late 1848 were Fabien Magnin (carpenter), Belpaume (bootmaker), Auguste Francelle (clockmaker), Etienne Jacquemin (mechanic), Fili (mechanic and a friend of Magnin), Louis-Joseph Mignien (a mechanic and work companion of Magnin), Jean Penot (a mechanic connected to Magnin), Joseph Bernard (a mechanic), and Eug`ene Simon (a worker, pattern-maker, friend of Magnin, and former companion of Barb`es).224 Three workers were artisans working in bootmaking, carpentry, and clockmaking, which were crafts requiring a high level of skill.225 Most of the workers seem to have been part of a close-knit group of skilled laborers, that is, mechanics, interested in reform movements. Often mechanics, who in Paris worked in small workshops, were considered artisans.226 Fili, Magnin, and Simon had followed Comte’s course in the city hall on rue des Petits-P`eres during the July Monarchy and reflected the workers’ faith that science would solve their problems.227 Whether interested in reform, science, or both, eight more artisans would join the Positivist Society in the years to come.228 As Larizza points out, these workers 224 225

226

227 228

For more on Mignien, who later went to work in Cuba to set up and maintain steam engines, see Comte to Fl´orez, May 12, 1853, CG, 7:73 These were Magnin, Belpaume, and Francelle. One letter from Francelle to Comte requests aid on how to apply electricity to clocks. See Francelle (in truth Francelle’s apprentice) to Comte, January 11, 1842, MAC. Mechanics were considered highly skilled workers. See Charle, A Social History, 249. On the problems of defining artisans, see Prothero, Radical Artisans, 2–3. Workers brought friends to join clubs and other organizations. Magnin brought in the mechanic Eug`ene Simon, who intended to persuade other friends to join Comte’s club. Fili was also a mechanic. See Magnin to Comte, June 6, 1848, MAC. C. H., “N´ecrologie,” RO, 8 ( July 1893): 335; Larizza, Bandiera verde, 131n51. C. H., “N´ecrologie,” RO 8 ( July 1893): 335; Larizza, Bandiera verde, 144. See “Liste chronologique,” CG, 4:307–8. In 1849, the new members included Auguste Magnin (a carpenter and brother of Fabien Magnin), Th´eophile Xavier Imbert (a tailor), and Auguste Oppert (a mechanic). In 1850, they included Lablanche (tablemaker) Pi´eton

304

The Revolution of 1848

formed the nucleus of the positivist movement, kept Comte interested in the left and the propagation of scientific knowledge, and reinforced the “ethical–sentimental” dimensions of his thought, especially his “doctrine of solidarity.” His desire to make positivists into a family appealed to these men, who felt alienated from capitalist society with its stress on the cash nexus.229 The fact that five doctors belonged to Comte’s club in late 1848 is also striking. These were Charles Robin, Horace de Mont`egre, Julien Penard, Charles-Emmanuel S´edillot, and Louis Auguste Segond. The last was a librarian at the Ecole de M´edecine de Paris, Comte’s doctor, and the secretary of the Soci´et´e de Biologie. He was also close to Laffitte, who later gave him mathematics lessons to help him become a positivist priest. Mont`egre was a member of the Paris medical faculty and Broussais’s former secretary. He had even been at Broussais’s side when he died. In addition, Mont`egre was a friend of Penard, who also admired Broussais. S´edillot was a famous surgeon, who helped make the use of anesthesia acceptable. He had taught at the Valde-Grˆace and then in 1841 had become a professor of medicine in Strasbourg.230 The doctors were no doubt inspired by Comte’s idea that sociology was like biology in that it cured society of its ills just as medical science rid the body of its diseases. In 1848, Comte wrote to Mont`egre a` propos of the Positivist Society, “We are basically doctors of the French Republic just as the psychologists were those of the

229 230

( jewelry maker) and Egret (miller). In 1851, Amed´ee Hanneton, who was a friend of Imbert and a tailor, joined. In 1855, Henry, a head cook, became a member. Larizza found another artisan, Gries, who supported Comte in 1850. Larizza, Bandiera verde, 122, 141–2, 415. Larizza, Bandiera verde, 143, 146. Comte’s patron Vieillard obtained the post of librarian for Segond, who was in charge of the commission. Comte praised Segond especially for his musical skills. He was both a composer and a singer. He wrote some songs based on the verses of de Vaux, which Comte liked very much. Letter of Captain Anfrie to Robinet, June 5, 1859, reproduced in Emile Corra, introduction to Lettres d’Auguste Comte au Docteur Robinet (Paris: Soci´et´e Positiviste Internationale, 1926), 71; Comte to Audiffrent, CG, 6:117; Comte to Audiffrent, July 29, 1851, CG, 6:121. Mont`egre was a friend of Littr´e and became close to Magnin. Comte to Hadery, May 18, 1857, CG, 8:468. Curiously, Robin was not listed as a member of the Positivist Society, although he joined in 1848 and gave money to support the society’s publications. Comte thought very highly of him, calling him one of the “very small number of these doctors, destined to become philosophers.” See Comte to Laurent, September 18, 1851, CG, 6:161. See also Comte, “Liste chronologique des membres de la Soci´et´e Positiviste, fond´ee en mars 1848” and Comte’s record of payments made to Thunot for publications of the Positivist Society, MAC and in “Documents: Factures acquitt´es,” MAC. See also Mont`egre to Comte, August 25, 1849, MAC. On Segond, see “N´ecrologie: Dr. Louise-Auguste Segond,” RO 37 (1908): 302; Robinet, Comte (3d ed.), 239. See also Larizza, Bandiera verde, 138–9, 160. She points out that Penard is spelled without an accent aigu.

The Positivist Society and the Religious Turn

305

Constitutional Monarchy and the Id´eologues were those of the first revolution.”231 Comte tried to appear nonauthoritarian, but his controlling personality led to problems. In August 1848, he and one member, the Prussian Adolphe de Ribbentrop, had an altercation that estranged the latter.232 A widower with four children, Ribbentrop was a wealthy baron, democratic activist, and writer. He had contributed to the Revue ind´ependente of Pierre Leroux and George Sand. Comte accused Ribbentrop of disturbing the atmosphere of the club, especially by his long-windedness and vanity. The two men exchanged hostile words. Ribbentrop was sorry afterward and persuaded Littr´e to act as an intermediary with Comte. Littr´e upbraided Comte for being too impatient with Ribbentrop, whose support, he believed, should be encouraged, not discouraged.233 Comte, in the paranoid style that he had displayed with Saint-Simon and many of his past friends, complained that Ribbentrop had personally attacked him, especially with regard to de Vaux. Ribbentrop was too aristocratic, arrogant, and metaphysical for his taste.234 There was obviously a clash of personalities. Although Comte reassured Littr´e that he did not wish to witness any “dismemberment [d´emembrement],” he and the “Germanic positivist,” as he called him, continued to fight during the next few years. Ribbentrop eventually left the club.235 Ribbentrop’s departure must have been somewhat of a disappointment because Comte was eager to extend his club throughout the West to create the “great Occidental Republic, composed of the five elite populations.”236 After Ribbentrop left, there were only five 231

232 233 234

235

236

Comte to Mont`egre, April 5, 1848, CG, 4:146. Mont`egre had been initiated into positivism in 1847. See Mont`egre to Comte, December 10, 1852, MAC. Comte maintained that the Ideologues replaced their rivals, the psychologists, in trying to direct society. See Comte to Carnot, May 25, 1848, CG, 4:152. Although Ribbentrop is not among the members on Comte’s chronological list (in CG, 4:306–9), he is included in the list Comte made up on September 13, 1848. Littr´e to Comte, September 21, 1848, MAC. See also Larizza, Bandiera verde, 195n306. Comte to Littr´e, September 22, 1848, CG, 4:183–4. Another positivist agreed that “Seigneur de Ribbentrop” was “haughty” and powerful and would make feeble excuses to Comte, explaining why he could not attend meetings. See Emile Pascal to Laffitte, September 6, 1848, MAC. Ribbentrop did dare to upbraid Comte from time to time about not paying enough attention to day-to-day political events. See Adolphe de Ribbentrop to Comte, April 15, 1847, MAC. Comte to Littr´e, September 22, 1848, CG, 4:183. Comte, “Neuvi`eme Confession annuelle,” August 20, 1854, CG, 7:250. Nevertheless, Ribbentrop eventually came to appreciate the positivist religion and contributed six hundred francs to the Positivist Subsidy for Comte’s maintenance from 1851 to 1856. See Littr´e’s and Comte’s annual lists of contributors to the Positivist Subsidy, MAC. Comte to Mont`egre, April 5, 1848, CG, 4:146.

306

The Revolution of 1848

members who were not French by birth.237 Some of Comte’s followers, such as the Dutchman Limburg-Stirum, declined to join his club because they felt they lived too far away to participate in its activities.238 Indeed, most members resided in Paris, which Comte considered the capital of the Occidental Republic.239 Backed by the authority of this club, Comte immediately set to work offering policy papers to the government. Many of these reports were published by the Positivist Society, whose members paid each year five to fifteen francs to defray expenses.240 The first paper dealt with the upcoming election for the Constituent Assembly, which was scheduled to occur April 9, 1848. It was the first time all adult men could vote since 1792. Comte was worried. If the election were held too soon, an “ill-advised assembly” of incompetent “metaphysicians” might take over the government. Giving workers the right to vote at the moment did not strike him as meaningful. He advised them not to vote for working-class members of the Assembly because the system was unworthy of such “statesmen.”241 Proletarians should participate in the political process only after a progressive central power was established. It seems that Comte, like other republicans, wanted more time to educate the new voters to make intelligent choices about the issues at hand and to remove them from the influence of the clergy, the notables, and their employers, for whom they mistakenly might vote out of deference.242 Many leftists feared that the results of the election could kill republicanism. On March 16, Cabet and other militants helped organize a 237

238 239

240 241 242

Fl´orez was a Spanish journalist and editor in charge of a journal called Eco HispanoAmericano. In the 1850s, he spoke about positivism at organizations for peace in London. Besides pacifism, the homeopathic aspect of positivism appealed to him. Pedro Contreras Elizade was a Mexican student who admired Fl´orez. Jundzill was Polish, Bernard was Belgian, and Williamson was English. On Fl´orez and Contreras Elizalde, see Comte to Fl´orez, July 28, 1855, CG, 8:85, Fl´orez to Comte, October 13, 1851, and July 28, 1855, MAC. Limburg Stirum to Comte, May 2, 1848, MAC. However, many members lived elsewhere. Mont`egre resided in Passy (near Paris), whereas his doctor friend Julien Penard lived in the Charente. Having retired in his twenties from the practice of law, Ribet lived usually in the Haute-Garonne in the Gironde, where he had a farm. Before becoming interested in positivism, Ribet had been a strong Catholic. Penot was from P´erigeux. Joseph Bernard lived in Lernes, Belgium. He may have gone into exile there after 1848, for in his letters he referred to working-class socialists and communists. See Joseph Bernard to Comte, January 30, 1850, MAC; Penot to Comte, February 16, 1851. For more on Mont`egre and Penard, see Larizza, Bandiera verde, 155n138, 158n152. For more on Ribet, see Comte to Audiffrent, January 20, 1853, N.a.fr. 10794, fol. 76 (verso). BN. The P.S. about Ribet is not included in the letter published in CG, 7. See for example, Comte to Hadery, June 26, 1852, CG, 6:305. Comte to Laffitte, July 28, 1849, CG, 5:44. See also Comte to Vieillard, February 28, 1852, CG, 6:242. Syst`eme, 2:459.

The Positivist Society and the Religious Turn

307

large demonstration of 150,000 workers, who demanded the deferment of the elections to late May. But elections were postponed only until April 23. One reason was that the republican government did not wish to seem bent on dictatorship and needed elections to guarantee its legitimacy at this difficult time, when it faced innumerable challenges. Conservatives, who were strong in the countryside, were worried about a working-class revolution and demanded a strong government. Tensions between the left and right and between urban and rural interests were exacerbated by the fact that the government had almost no money to deal with the many problems that it had inherited. Over half of the workers were unemployed and insisted on funding for the new National Workshops, which were supposed to create jobs. On March 18, the government imposed a 45 percent increase in direct taxes, which fell most heavily on the countryside. Peasants objected that they were paying heavier taxes to benefit workers in the cities. This decision would prove to be fatal to the new government.243 Conservatives rapidly began to outnumber republicans. Noting that France was at a crisis point, Comte prepared on April 1 a petition to be given to the new Constituent Assembly. The petition argued in favor of allowing the eleven members of the provisional government, who had “risked their lives in a noble fashion,” to continue in their positions until the republican constitution was ready.244 In his mind, now that a republic was installed, there could be no danger of regression to authoritarianism; the people could easily voice their disapproval if the government acted against their interests. For the sake of stability, it should remain in power. The truth of the matter is that Comte ultimately feared democracy, which he considered “vague”and “subversive.”245 Despite his enthusiasm for the status quo, Comte decided not to send this petition to the Assembly after he learned that the provisional government had engaged in a bit of nepotism. On April 8, 1848, the Moniteur published a list of eleven chairs created at the Coll`ege de France by the new government. A few days later Laffitte gave Comte the list. Lamartine, Armand Marrast, Alexandre LedruRollin, and Louis-Antoine Garnier-Pages, all of whom were part of the government, now had chairs. The new leftist minister of public instruction, Hippolyte Carnot, who had been a Saint-Simonian, also gave one to Jean Reynaud, a graduate of the Ecole Polytechnique,

243 244 245

Tombs, France, 379; Pilbeam, Republicanism, 194–5; Price, The French Second Republic, 116. Comte, “Projet de P´etition Politique a` l’Assembl´ee Nationale Constituante,” April 1, 1848, CG, 4:272. Comte to Laffitte, August 13, 1849, CG, 5:49.

308

The Revolution of 1848

another former Saint-Simonian, and his undersecretary in the ministry of education. Carnot and Comte were acquaintances. He had attended Comte’s lectures on positive philosophy in 1826. His father, the mathematician Lazare Carnot, had also encouraged Comte in his early career. His older brother, the physicist Sadi Carnot, had bought the first volume of the Cours before dying of the cholera epidemic in 1832.246 Comte thus felt personally insulted that the government, which included Carnot, had created “metaphysic-economic chairs” for its own members. Most of all, considering that he had been asking since 1832 for a chair in the history of science at the Coll`ege de France, he was upset that no one thought of giving him a position at this august institution. This “mistake” robbed him of his faith in the government.247 Comte was not the only Frenchman distrustful of the government. On April 23, over four hundred monarchists were elected to serve in the Constituent Assembly by a chiefly rural electorate. As result, the new government was more moderate, especially because the socialists Blanc and Albert were removed from office. Comte took a great interest in these events. He bought the Almanach de la Constitution franc¸aise, which contained a list of the representatives to the Assembly.248 He also began to plan for the government that would preside over the transition to positivism: “pure proletarians” would take over the temporal government, whose duties would be reduced to practical affairs, while the allies of the workers, “true philosophers,” would guide people’s minds and hearts.249 the commission on the ecole po sitive and comte’s views on me dicine After the election, Carnot was encouraged by Jean Reynaud to create a school for administrators modelled on the Ecole Polytechnique: the Ecole Nationale d’Administration. It opened in July 1848.250 The 246

247 248 249 250

On the Carnots, see Pickering, Comte, 1:247, 355, 371, 394, 417, 430, 456. See also Carnot to Laffitte, August 3, 1882, MAC. Marrast and Reynaud were going to give courses in law. See Decree from Minister of Public Instruction, Carnot, April 8, 1848, F17 13553, Archives Nationales; Pinet, Histoire de l’Ecole Polytechnique, 205; “Chaires cr´ees au Coll`ege de France pour l’Ecole Administrative,” April 8 or 11, 1848, MAC. See note of April 17, 1848, added to Comte, “Projet de P´etition Politique a` l’Assembl´ee Nationale Constituante,” April 1, 1848, CG, 4:273. See Almanach de la Constitution franc¸aise (Paris, 1848) in Comte’s Biblioth`eque Superflue, MAC. Comte, introduction to Rapport a` la Soci´et´e Positiviste par la commission charg´ee d’examiner la nature et le plan de l’Ecole Positive destin´ee surtout a` r´eg´en´erer les m´edecins, CG, 5:276. It closed the next year, due to hostility from the right. Belhoste, La Formation d’une technocratie, 307.

The Commission on the Ecole Positive

309

establishment of this new school may have inspired Comte to ponder how best to organize the “true philosophers” who would help the workers. In August 1848 he appointed a commission to plan the Ecole Positive.251 The commission consisted of three highly respected doctors, Mont`egre, Segond, and Charles Robin. One of the early members of the Positivist Society was Charles Robin. Born in 1821, Robin had received a medical degree in 1846 and a doctorate in 1847. In the fall of 1847, he set up a laboratory in comparative anatomy. Through the anatomist Pierre-Franc¸ois-Olive Rayer, who had studied with him at the Ecole de M´edecine, he met Littr´e, who introduced him to Comte. He even went to Comte’s course in the city hall on the rue des Petits-P`eres.252 Approving Comte’s explanation of the scope of biology and its relations to other sciences, Robin soon called him his “true venerated master.”253 When he launched the Soci´et´e de Biologie in mid-1848, his inaugural paper included an endorsement of Comte’s classification of sciences. Thus one could say that this very famous association of scientists was originally influenced by positivism.254 Indeed, it continued to popularize the term “biology” that Comte had started using in the Cours after Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and Gottfried Reinhold Treviranus coined it in 1802.255 Robin’s enthusiasm for Comte’s doctrine went beyond the sciences. He liked Comte’s anti-metaphysical stance, his idea that one could not discuss the essence of phenomena, and his politics, which pointed the way to “true socialism.” Robin also believed that Comte’s “feminine theory” and “religious theory” were important, albeit 251

252 253

254 255

Comte, introduction to Rapport a` la Soci´et´e Positiviste par la commission charg´ee d’examiner la nature et le plan de l’Ecole Positive, CG, 5:276. Comte earlier named a commission to make a proposal on how to ensure freedom of education in the new republic. Laffitte, Dr. de Mont`egre, and a mathematics teacher named Alphonse Leblais were assigned to this task. (Leblais lived on Comte’s street at 55, rue Monsieur le Prince.) Mont`egre was somewhat distracted because he was campaigning in the Charente to be elected to the Chamber of Deputies. Their report was never completed. It is not on Comte’s list, “Publications de la Soci´et´e Positiviste,” May 16, 1849, MAC. See also Mont`egre to Comte, March 31, 1848 MAC; Comte to Mont`egre, April 5, 1848, CG, 4:145–6. Victor Genty, Un Grand Biologiste: Charles Robin (1821–1885), sa vie, ses amiti´es philosophiques et litt´eraires (Lyon: A. Rey, 1931), 7, 20, 22, 23, 93. Robin to Comte, October 10, 1849, MAC. See also Deroisin, 109; Genty, Robin, 98; Georges Pouchet, Charles Robin: Sa Vie et son oeuvre (Paris: F´elix Alcan, 1887), v. For Comte’s influence on Robin’s concept of biology, especially his notion of an organism’s relation to its milieu, see Pouchet, Robin, vi–xv. Genty, Robin, 25. The president of the organization was Pierre Rayer. Robin and Claude Bernard were vice-presidents. Segond was a secretary. Genty, Robin, 24. In his first book, Du Microscope (1849), Robin wished to include several pages of the Cours that had to do with biology, but his publisher would not let him because Comte was held in such little regard. Ibid., 28.

310

The Revolution of 1848

“misunderstood.”256 Littr´e, according to one of Robin’s biographers, called Robin “the most authorized representative and propagator of positive philosophy.”257 On February 28, 1849, Robin and the other two positivist doctors completed their report, which was published in March 1849.258 In the preface to this report, Comte dwelled at length upon the Ecole Polytechnique, incorporating ideas that he had undoubtedly wished to include in the essay that he had hoped to write on the school in 1843. He lamented that the Ecole Polytechnique had never realized the “philosophical intentions of its eminent founders” because it had become too “monotechnical.” Mathematicians dominated the instruction to such an extent that the school was a “kind of algebraic seminary.” Students failed to learn the “positive method, especially its inductive aspect” because they did not study its applications in all the various sciences. Instead, they received instruction primarily in the “preliminary part of deductive logic,” found chiefly in mathematics. Even the teaching of mathematics was superficial, requiring only rote thinking on the part of students. Remembering his frustrations with the education that he received there, Comte also condemned the school for not offering students the study of biology, that is, “life,” in either its individual or social form.259 The result was that students were narrow-minded and egoistical. Because the Ecole Polytechnique was a failure and excessive study of the sciences led to superficiality and selfishness, Comte recommended the foundation of a new school based on positive principles.260 The Ecole Positive, supported by the French state, would offer a broad program of instruction to “true thinkers,” who had passed severe intellectual and moral tests. A third of these individuals would come from other European countries to give the school an Occidental character and to promote wider views. All students would spend three years studying the six basic sciences (mathematics, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, and sociology) and then 256 257 258

259 260

Charles Robin to Comte, October 10, 1849, MAC. See also Genty, Robin, 28. Pouchet, Robin, v. Another edition was printed in November 1850. See Segond, Mont`egre, and Charles Robin, Rapport a´ la Soci´et´e Positiviste par la Commission charg´ee d’examiner le nature et le plan de l’Ecole Positive destin´ee surtout a´ r´eg´en´erer les m´edecins, 2d ed. (Paris: L. Mathias, 1850). Rapport a` la Soci´et´e Positiviste, CG, 5:277. Inspired by the Convention, which had created his beloved Ecole Polytechnique, Comte also wanted to reform the existing institutions of higher education that formed doctors, administrators, civil servants, professors, diplomats, and judges. These specialized schools should adopt a more general education and prepare future positive philosophers. During the positive era, there would be no need for such specialized schools because the entire educational system would be at a high level. The spiritual power would “require no particular initiation except the spontaneous cultivation of vocations that were prepared by the common [educational] system.” Rapport a` la Soci´et´e Positiviste, CG, 5:276.

The Commission on the Ecole Positive

311

morality, so that they would acquire “the true philosophic spirit” and learn to focus on the needs of society or Humanity. To prevent the “dryness” associated with “scientific studies,” students would also study the arts.261 Graduates of this school would direct the spiritual transition to the positive era and plan the more universal system of positive education that would soon be established. Although many graduates would serve society as teachers, professors, judges, adminstrators, diplomats, and businessmen, most would become doctors. Comte derided his contemporaries who looked up to doctors as “rich celebrities.” They admired them only because they earned “one hundred thousand francs a year”; to earn such a sum meant these doctors treated ill people too quickly and ignored their “Hippocratic duties to treat the poor for free.”262 Instead of being corrupt money-grubbers, doctors should be true public servants. Medicine had fascinated Comte since his youth, when he studied for a short while at the medical school in Montpellier.263 His experiences in an asylum in 1826 and in confrontations with de Vaux’s doctors had convinced him of the inadequacy of medical training, which he found narrow, irrational, and often too theoretical. When his disciple Georges Audiffrent began to study medicine, Comte advised him to focus on his clinical work, for he could learn a great deal from studying patients directly and getting to know them.264 Just as Christians erred in looking only at the soul in evaluating a person, doctors made a fundamental mistake in focusing only on the human body.265 In their investigations of the source of illness, medical materialists, who proliferated at the medical school in Paris, were wrong to limit their investigations to organic, that is, physical disturbances. To Comte, the body could not be completely comprehended without understanding how it was influenced by the mind and by the milieu, that is, the material world and society. In contrast to Descartes, who separated mind and matter, Comte maintained that the main source of disturbance in a body was usually traceable to the “cerebral center,” which ruled over the other organs.266 Like Antoine-Louis Claude de Destutt de Tracy, he argued, moreover, that thinking was related 261 262 263

264 266

Rapport a` la Soci´et´e Positiviste, CG, 5:277, 278. Comte to Alix Comte, April 3, 1856, CG, 8:242. Comte decided to go to medical school after finding that his education in mathematics and the physical sciences was lacking. He later sent copies of his works to the library of the Ecole de M´edecine in Montpellier. See letters from the librarian Henri-Marcel K¨unholtz to Comte, October 30, 1852, to November 24, 1856, MAC. Comte to Audiffrent, November 18, 1854, CG, 7:270. 265 Cat´echisme, 60–65, 212. Comte to Audiffrent, November 18, 1854 and December 21, 1854, CG, 7:269, 271, 284. Comte also believed that medical materialists erred when they asserted that the mind was influenced only by the body.

312

The Revolution of 1848

to feeling.267 Referring to the findings of Gall, who was also influenced by Destutt de Tracy, Comte asserted that the dominant part of the brain was the affective region, which was chiefly responsible for bodily unity and thus health. Comte explained, “In making human progress, individual or collective, consist of the development and consolidation of unity, I feel more and more how it depends especially on the continued growth of the sympathetic instincts.”268 If something was wrong emotionally, especially in terms of how one related to others, one became ill.269 Comte had believed that his mental illness in the 1820s was a function of Massin’s infidelity and that his problems in the mid-1840s had something to do with his frustrating friendship with de Vaux, which never went as far as he wanted. Medicine was ultimately linked to morality because the physical was connected with the moral, which involved the emotions. Comte concluded that benevolence was the key not only to happiness but to good health. Excessive egoism often caused people to become sick. Something was wrong with their “soul,” and they became grim and closed to others.270 Doctors must be not only moralists but sociologists because they had to regard individuals as inseparable from their society. Doctors had often considered how the material milieu influenced bodies; now they had to recognize that it was more important to study the social milieu, which affected people’s brains, especially their sympathies.271 In explaining to a disciple why his hypochondria was fueled by his discontent with his job as a magistrate, Comte perceptively explained, “Despite being parcelled out to different sciences, the study of man is truly unique: the moral and the physical and private life and public life must be ultimately understood only in their total consensus, upon which depends each special prescription.” Comte’s friend suffered from hypochondria because his job of sending people to prison for violating the new press laws conflicted with his “best sentiments” and “principal convictions.”272 Social pressures were upsetting him, making him feel mean-spirited and thus ill. Likewise, Comte later wrote, An insufficient growth of altruism constitutes the secret source of a lot of perturbations that are very misunderstood. Some examples are especially the epidemics that follow political commotions, such as the 267 269

270 271 272

Pickering, Comte, 1:158. 268 Comte to Audiffrent, August 2, 1855, CG, 8:89. Comte wrote that a malady begins “in the affective region of the brain and troubles first the vegetative life and then the animal life and finally mental existence.” Comte to Audiffrent, January 3, 1856, CG, 8:176. Cat´echisme, 212. Comte to Audiffrent, December 21, 1854, CG, 7:284; Comte, “Septi`eme Circulaire annuelle,” January 15, 1856, CG, 8:200. Comte to Tholouze, July 13, 1850, CG, 5:168.

The Commission on the Ecole Positive

313

cholera outbreaks that occurred in this century after the anti-Bourbon upheaval of 1830, the republican crisis of 1848, and finally the dictatorial crisis [of 1851]. The necessarily cerebral source of all grave maladies becomes especially undeniable with regard to these vast perturbations, which materialist empiricism proclaims unintelligible.273

Comte was thus important in insisting that the search for the origins of maladies should be extended to include affective, cerebral, social, and political causes.274 His holistic approach seems very modern. Comte boasted that he had systematized the disconnected theories of the medical school of Montpellier and linked them to the study of society.275 He praised the vitalists at this school. “These vitalists are basically closer to positivism than the materialists here [in Paris] because they have always felt the indivisibility of human nature, in the name of which we will be able logically to conduct them to our point of view.”276 Jack Ellis, a historian of medicine of the nineteenth century, defines vitalism as the “notion that saw the physical organism as containing a vital life force, separate from body or soul and transcending physiochemical laws.”277 In asserting that it was impossible to reduce organic phenomena to material ones and in commending vitalists’ hostility toward materialism (and mechanism), Comte himself might appear to be a member of their camp. However, despite his conviction that biology could not be reduced to physics and chemistry, he was not a vitalist. The notion of a “life force” would have struck him as too metaphysical. As Annie Petit points out, he did not acknowledge that life in itself has an existence. Life could not be understood without taking into account its material environment.278 Agreeing that Comte was neither a vitalist nor a materialist, Juliette Grange nicely sums up Comte’s position: “Life is relation – positivism being a philosophy of relation – it is not a 273

274 275

276 277 278

Comte to Audiffrent, December 11, 1854, CG, 7:278. See also Jean-Franc¸ois Braunstein, “Auguste Comte et la philosophie de la m´edecine,” in Auguste Comte: Trajectoires positivistes, ed. Petit, 168–9. Audiffrent, A Propos du centenaire, 12. Comte to Audiffrent, December 21, 1854, CG, 7:284. In the 1850s he told Audifferent that the school of Montpellier was no longer an interesting place to study because it was a “weak reflection” of Paul-Joseph Barthez, the “best representative of synthetic biology,” that is, vitalism. (Other representatives of vitalism included Marie-Franc¸ois-Xavier Bichat.) Yet it was still more synthetic than the medical school of Paris, whose materialism he disliked. Comte to Audiffrent, May 1, 1855, CG, 8:48; Comte to Audiffrent, October 20, 1856, CG, 8:322. See also Comte to Audiffrent, January 16, 1857, CG, 8:383. Comte to Audiffrent, January 16, 1857, CG, 8:383. Jack D. Ellis, The Physician-Legislators of France: Medicine and Politics in the Early Third Republic, 1870–1914 (Cambridge University Press, 1990), 32. Comte to Audiffrent, July 18, 1857, CG, 8:529. See also Annie Petit, “Les D´ebats positivistes sur la notion de vie,” Ludus Vitalis 3 (1995), 161, 193.

314

The Revolution of 1848

principle, substantial force, or property of matter.” Living beings are defined by their delicate, complex relations to what is going on both inside and outside them.279 Petit points out that Comte always refused to define life itself. “Properly speaking there is no ‘life’ for Comte; there are only living beings who manifest the properties and functions of ‘vitality.’ One should stress the paradoxical position of Comtian biology.” He presents biology as a fundamental science but also finds it necessary to create an “abstract theory of life,” which proclaims that life “can be grasped only in concrete beings which manifest it.”280 In sum, the fact that medicine was different from pure biology had to be taken into account in reforming medical education. The “medical art” was as difficult to master as the “political art”; both studied dysfunctional bodies, the sick individual human body and the unstable social body, respectively.281 Just as biologists should not reduce the living to organic materials, doctors should not treat humans purely as animals. Nor should humans be considered machines or isolated beings. Future doctors needed to be grounded not only in biology but in sociology and morality, which gave new insights into the conditions of living beings, who had to be understood in relation to both their physical and social environments.282 Asserting that positivist doctors would be as distinctive in their holistic approach to illness as the new homeopathic specialists, Comte wrote, If their moral conduct is, as I hope, at the same level as their intellectual aptitude, they will be recognized by the public and by individuals as more synthetic and more sympathetic in such a way as to be able to prevail rapidly. Curing more and giving fewer drugs, they will obtain the confidence of families, which will soon extend from the physical to the moral, because they will reunite the two aspects of human nature.283

Because often unperceived moral, emotional, and intellectual changes led to a decline in health, doctors needed to gain the trust of their patients and their patients’ families in order to treat these individuals, especially if they suffered from “cerebral,” that is, psychological 279

280 281 282 283

Juliette Grange, “Du Corps politique a` l’organisme social: De la Philosophie politique a` la sociologie et la science politique,” Revue internationale de philosophie 52, no. 203 (1998):103. Annie Petit, “Les D´ebats positivistes,” 164–5. Cours, 2:775. See also Braunstein, “Auguste Comte et la philosphie de la m´edecine,” 162–5. Comte to Mill, September 3, 1846, CG, 4:37. Comte to Audiffrent, 23 August 1855, CG, 8:103.

The Commission on the Ecole Positive

315

illnesses.284 Proud of coming up with “many new views,” Comte underscored that sociology in particular would help illuminate the link between madness and the social order – a link that Emile Durkheim would later explore.285 With their knowledge of sociology, doctors would also be crucial in treating matters of “public hygiene,” which were important in mid-nineteenth-century France, as reflected in the campaign of Napoleon III and Baron Haussmann to clean up Paris.286 In their section of the report, Mont`egre, Segond, and Robin added their voices to Comte’s in criticizing the medical profession. Like Comte, they attacked medical spectacles and voyeurism. Comte condemned dissections for being imprecise, immoral, and even harmful to emotional health.287 The three doctors agreed, stating that human dissections in amphitheaters of anatomy showed disrespect for the dead. Dissections were too mechanical and should be done only if they were going to lead to new developments, not for routine teaching. Likewise, vivisections were executed in an abusive manner and should be supplemented by pathological explorations and experiments to expand the practioners’ knowledge of physiology. Medical education was dehumanizing. The three doctors wrote, “The deficiency of humanity, of which doctors sometimes give an example either in their dealings with those who suffer or by going into raptures over the beauty of certain illnesses, contributes to diminishing their influence and discrediting them.”288 Assuming that most graduates of the Ecole Positive in the near future would be doctors, Robin, Mont`egre, and Segond elaborated on the three-year program that Comte had outlined in his preface. Like him, they railed against the tendency toward specialization and 284

285

286 287

288

Comte to Hadery, August 30, 1855, CG, 8:107. See also Comte to Audiffrent, November 1, 1855, CG, 8:135. Here Comte was speaking from experience because he always thought that the doctors who treated him in his asylum had not truly understood him. Comte to Audiffrent, March 9, 1851, CG, 6:31. Still angry about his internment in an asylum, Comte condemned psychiatrists for their “mediocre minds” and “vulgar hearts.” Syst`eme, 1:568. Comte to Hadery, August 30, 1855, CG, 8:107. Reflecting the time he spent at the medical school Montpellier, Comte frequently expressed his “aversion for dissections, especially human ones, and principally ones involving the lower classes.” See Comte to Audiffrent, July 27, 1854, CG, 7:234. Because they were immoral, Comte believed dissections should be performed chiefly on people who committed suicide. Even dissections of “our unhappy zoological subordinates” – animals – should be restrained. Comte himself had never done any dissections and believed he could do a good job of reconstructing the body in space due to his “strong mathematical education.” See Comte to Audiffrent, May 6, 1851, CG, 6:70. See also Emile Pascal to Laffitte, September 6, 1848, MAC; Audiffrent to Comte, December 8, 1854, MAC. Segond, Mont`egre, Robin, Rapport a` la Soci´et´e Positiviste, CG, 5:291.

316

The Revolution of 1848

advocated a broad program of study.289 Even to be admitted into the Ecole Positive, students would need to display proficiency in three languages, literature, poetry, music, design, and history. By the end of their three years, students would know all five principal modern European languages as well as Greek and Latin. Like Comte, the three doctors Segond, Mont`egre, and Robin considered the study of literature, art, and history to be as necessary as that of science. Cultivation of the imagination and feelings was at least important as that of the sciences even for medical students. Only in this way could students develop general views and generous feelings. Upon graduation, students would spend three years as externs in hospitals and would spend more time with patients than was currently the case. Students would be watched to see how well they dealt with these sick people, for part of their preparation included reinforcing their morality. Moreover, graduates of the Ecole Positive could work only in public hospitals; they would be forbidden to have private clients in order to avoid the corrupt practices associated with wealth. In short, Comte and the three physicians who wrote the report wished to regenerate the medical profession to make doctors more knowledgeable about the whole human condition and thereby prepare them for an important role in the Occidental Republic, the positive regime of the future. Mont`egre, Segond, and Robin wrote, Initiated into the more intimate secrets of the family, . . . they [will] replace the old action of the priest. We have seen that in the past medical science emanated from the sacerdotal corps, then from philosophers; now medicine, which is today mercenary, must become philosophical again in order to become worthy one day of exercising a priestly function vis-`a-vis Humanity.290

Comte hoped that doctors who were given a positive, general education would become “true philosophers,” and as such, accessories to the spiritual power.291 In 1851, he went further, affirming that regenerated doctors could become positivist priests.292 As Mont`egre, Segond, and Robin suggested, doctors had in some respects replaced 289 290 291 292

They envisioned the creation of approximately seventeen Ecoles Positives (each with no more than 500 students) throughout France. Segond, Mont`egre, Robin, Rapport a` la Soci´et´e Positiviste, CG, 5:281–2. Comte, introduction to Rapport a` la Soci´et´e Positiviste, CG, 5:279. See also Syst`eme, 1:652. “Pr´eface,” Syst`eme, 1:17. See also Comte to Robinet, February 27, 1855, CG, 8:30. In this letter, he wrote, “The medical office is today the one which best permits the transformation of a career into a priesthood.”

The Commission on the Ecole Positive

317

priests in being confidential consultants to the family; now they needed to earn that position by becoming better medical practioners and better people. The nature of the medical profession was the subject of much debate in the nineteenth century as it is today. Comte’s approach appealed to many physicians, though he himself admitted he did nothing to attract them in particular and seemed indeed surprised at his success among these men.293 By 1855, a third of the members of the Positivist Society were doctors.294 Julien Penard, a friend of Mont`egre and a doctor in the Charente, told Comte that he was happy to be part of the Society because it made him feel he was a member of a “little regenerated family,” working to make people “better” individuals concerned about others.295 Besides Penard, Mont`egre, Segond, and Robin, positivism attracted others who became doctors or were interested in medicine: Littr´e, George Henry Lewes, Jacquier Eusice,296 Pedro Contreras Elizalde,297 S´edillot,298 Meynier,299 Neil Arnott, Dr. Radford,300 Horace Binney Wallace, Georges Audiffrent, Jean-Franc¸ois-Eug`ene Robinet,301 293 294 295 296

297

298

299

300 301

Comte to Hadery, September 11, 1854, CG, 7:261. Comte to Hadery, August 10, 1855, CG, 8:91. Penard to Comte, October 29, 1848 and June 9, 1851, MAC. Jacquier Eusice, a friend of Robinet, was a medical student who was hurt fighting for the republic in February 1848, exiled after June 1848, and later hired as a surgeon in the Ottoman army. Eusice attended Comte’s astronomy course. He wanted to be admitted into the Positivist Society but could not attend the meetings. Jacquier Eusice to Comte, January 5, 1850; April 23, 1851, MAC; Robinet to Comte, June 8, 1854, MAC. Contreras Elizalde was a medical student. He was born in Andalusia in October 1825, but he was of Mexican nationality. When he returned to Mexico in 1855, Comte hoped he would become a positivist missionary in Latin America. He did have an important career, but not exactly in the way Comte hoped. Contreras Elizalde married President Benito Ju´arez’s daughter and became a member of the Mexican republic’s Constituent Assembly. He made many contributions to the Mexican educational system. See Carneiro and Arbousse-Bastide, footnote DXLIX, pages 227–8; Larizza, Bandiera verde, 170–71. S´edillot wrote to Comte in 1848 to tell him about the medical brochure he had written and his support for positivism. S´edillot to Comte, March 4, 1848, MAC. See also Larizza, “Le Premier Rayonnement,” 89. Meynier followed Blainville’s course the same year Comte did. He became a doctor and a republican activist in Marseille. Meynier was introduced to Audiffrent in Aix by Denis Gaulin, a young advocate of positivism. Audiffrent found Meynier to be favorable to the positivist religion. Audiffrent wrote to Comte, “He is the first revolutionary whom I have seen admit without objection the necessity of letting superior people choose their successors. He told me, ‘Your positivism is even more radical than what I dare to conceive.’” Audiffrent to Comte, December 2, 1852, MAC. See also Audiffrent to Comte, January 27, 1853, MAC. On Radford, who lived in England, see Hutton to Comte, November 12, 1854, MAC. Robinet was close to several other doctors in the Positivist Society: Claude Carr´e, JeanS´eraphin Bazalgette, and Edouard Foley. The latter was his best friend. See Robinet to Comte, June 2 and June 8, 1854, MAC.

318

The Revolution of 1848

Ren´e Cousin,302 John Fisher, Arnault Costallat,303 Edouard Foley, Jean-S´eraphin Bazalgette, Auguste Hermann Ewerbeck, Eug`ene S´em´erie, Ernest Delbet,304 Claude Carr´e,305 Charles Marc Sauria, Lefebvre,306 Richard Congreve,307 John Henry Bridges, Requin,308 Alfred Sabatier, Fortun´e Lapierre, Bruno Jacques B´eraud,309 and a group of doctors from Rennes, including Revault and Goupil.310 Pierre Franc¸ois Rayer and his friend, Claude-Franc¸ois Lallemand, both of whom were prominent physicians and members of the Academy of Sciences, gave Comte money from time to time.311 Littr´e and Robin collaborated on a Dictionnaire de M´edecine (1855), which one scholar called “the medical code of the positivist doctrine.”312 After Comte’s death, two others doctors contributed to his movement. Dr. Gr´egoire Wyrouboff helped Littr´e direct the positivist journal Philosophie positive. Dr. Georges Clemenceau, a friend of S´em´eri´e, translated Mill’s Auguste Comte and Positivism into French 302 303

304

305 306 307

308 309

310

311 312

Ren´e Cousin was from Seine-et-Marne. Comte to Laurent, June 11, 1852, CG, 6:299. Costallat was from Bagn`ere de Bigorre in southwest France. He was interested in astronomy and later pushed to create an observatory in the Pyrennees. See Comte to Fl´orez, October 26, 1851. For more on him, see Larizza, Bandiera verde, 415n101. Delbet was Cousin’s brother-in-law. He first became interested in positivism after reading one of Littr´e’s articles in Le National. As a student, he met Comte, who advised him to study medicine because the training was encyclopedic in nature. At the end of his studies, he worked with Fr´ed´eric Leplay and at first thought the sociologist was applying positivist ideas. But ultimately, he concluded that Leplay’s ideas were incomplete and narrow compared with Comte’s. E. Delbet, Cinquanti`eme Anniversaire de la mort d’Auguste Comte (Paris: La Soci´et´e Positiviste Internationale, 1907), 16–19. Carr´e was sometimes Comte’s doctor. He sent him a notice of his son’s birth in 1855. See Faire-Parts de Naissances, MAC. Robinet, Comte (3d. ed.), 239. After his retirement from Oxford, where he taught history, Richard Congreve followed Comte’s advice and studied medicine. He and Bridges did not become members of the Positivist Society until after Comte’s death, though they were in communication with him at the end of his life. “Soci´ete Positiviste: Liste des Membres,” compiled by Comte, Isidore Finance, and Laffitte, MAC. Packet on the “Positivist Subsidy,” MAC. George Henry Lewes refers to the surgeon B´eraud as a disciple in Comte’s Philosophy of the Sciences: Being an Exposition of the Principles of the “Cours de philosophie positive” of Auguste Comte (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1853), v. About the doctors from Rennes, see Comte to Mill, September 3, 1846, CG, 4:37; packet on the “Positivist Subsidy,” MAC. Mont`egre wrote in 1851 that a doctor in his town, Dr. Dufour, could be counted on as a positivist, but nothing more is known about him. October 4, 1851, MAC. Rayer gave one hundred francs and Lallemand contributed two hundred francs. Packet on the “Positivist Subsidy,” MAC. Emile Chauffard, cited in Patrick Jucker-Kupper, “Charles Robin.” In Who Named It?, ed. Ole Daniel Enersen, http://www.whonamedit.com/doctor.cfm/23.html (accessed January 8, 2007).

The Commission on Work

319

in 1868.313 It is no wonder then that Comte counted on “the elite of this class as the natural breeding ground of the new philosophers” and recommended that young positivists enter the medical profession.314 the commission on work Comte appointed another commission to treat issues relating to labor. It was composed of three workers: Fabien Magnin, a carpenter and friend of Comte; Etienne Jacquemin, a mechanic and friend of Magnin; and Nicolas Belpaume, a shoemaker and friend of Littr´e.315 They prepared a report on May 24, nine days after a massive demonstration in the capital that increased social tensions. After the report was accepted by the Positivist Society, it was published on June 5, 1848.316 The tone of the report was defensive. The authors denied Thomas Malthus’s “immoral theories,” which suggested that poverty was a natural condition because the workers were undisciplined and had too many children. To Magnin and his friends, poverty and indeed most industrial troubles were caused by society’s and especially the industrialists’ “lack of foresight in the direction of work and public wealth.” This blindness was reinforced by unfounded bourgeois “prejudices” that workers were lazy. Repeating the cry of many radical and socialist workers, Magnin and his colleagues insisted that poverty was caused chiefly by a lack of jobs. This dearth of opportunities for work was illogical because people constantly consumed in order to satisfy their needs, and such a situation demanded high levels of production and thus employment.317 Comte later praised 313 314 315 316

317

Annie Petit, “Biologie et sociologie positives,” La Biologia: Parametro epistemologico de XIX secolo, ed. Maria Donzelli (Naples: Liguori, 2003), 118; Nicolet, L’Id´ee r´epublicaine, 231. Comte to Audiffrent, May 6, 1851, CG, 6:70. See also Comte to Robinet, August 19, 1851, CG, 6:144; Comte to Audiffrent, August 2, 1855, CG, 8:89. Jacquemin was a friend of Magnin but hardly knew Belpaume. See Magnin to Comte, May 31, 1848, MAC; Jacquemin to Comte, August 31, 1852, MAC. Comte to Magnin, May 29, 1848, CG, 4:152. Comte consulted a printer named E. Thunot in late May 1848 about publishing this report as a brochure. In early June, Thunot printed six hundred copies. See E. Thunot to Comte, May 30, November 8, 1848, MAC. See also Comte, “Publications de la Soci´et´e Positiviste,” May 16, 1849, MAC. There were at least three editions of this report. The third edition of March 1850 is in Vaillant, ed., “Une Page inconnue de l’histoire de la R´evolution de 1848,” RO, 11 (September 1883), 198–208. Magnin, Jacquemin, and Belpaume, Rapport a` la Soci´et´e Positiviste par la Commission Charg´ee d’Examiner la Question du Travail, March 8, 1850, CG, 274, 278. Comte also condemned Malthus’s theories as “immoral” for granting an “apparent scientific sanction to the shameful antipathy of the governing classes” in England toward schemes to help the working class. See Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 178. In Comte’s library is a French translation of William Godwin’s refutations of Malthus’s theories: Recherches sur

320

The Revolution of 1848

the “plebian statesman” Magnin for giving positivism the aphorism “Work can never be lacking.”318 According to Magnin, Jacquemin, and Belpaume, the solution to the social question was to rely on “enlightened” state intervention. The state should use public funds to create viable work opportunities for the unemployed. Perhaps in a subtle allusion to the controversial National Workshops, which were devising make-work projects to satisfy the demands of thousands of desperate laborers, Magnin, Belpaume, and Jacquemin insisted that the state should not create “artificial works,” which, though justified in “revolutionary crises,” were “ruinous and degrading” in the long run. The public works projects should not be menial but useful to society. If the government realized in a meaningful way its commitment to securing “the right to work” – the main demand of the people who took to the barricades in February – many other issues would be resolved: the fear of foreign workers, the lack of inventions, the use of war as a means of coping with “industrial crises,” the abandonment of the countryside, and the “shameful dispute” between Paris and the colonies.319 Magnin and his colleagues, moreover, emphasized that there should be public meetings of chiefly proletarian citizens to discuss and survey the work projects. The model of these “popular assemblies” seems to have been the Luxembourg Commission, which was created after the events of February under the direction of Louis Blanc to deal particularly with the worsening problem of unemployment.320 A concession to socialists, the Luxembourg Commission consisted of an elected assembly of workers that analyzed the social question, offered recommendations to the government, and arbitrated a number of conflicts.321 Such worker participation was what Magnin and his colleagues wished to reproduce in the positive republic.322 Finally, the positivist commission recommended that workers making a tour of the provinces be invited to the meetings to give their valuable advice. This suggestion refers to the practice whereby

318 319

320 321 322

la population et sur la facult´e d’accroissement de l’esp`ece humaine. He bought it October 20, 1847. See Comte’s Biblioth`eque Usuel, I, MAC. Syst`eme, 4:455. See also Comte to Hadery, May 15, 1856, CG, 8:255. Magnin, Jacquemin, and Belpaume, Rapport a` la Soci´et´e Positiviste par la Commission Charg´ee d’Examiner la Question du Travail, March 8, 1850, CG, 278. See also Scott, Only Paradoxes, 58. Magnin, Jacquemin, and Belpaume, Rapport a` la Soci´et´e Positiviste par la Commission Charg´ee d’Examiner la Question du Travail, March 8, 1850, CG, 277, 279. Pilbeam, Republicanism, 205. Magnin, Belpaume, and Jacquemin even quoted the testimony given by a worker to the “commissioners charged with making an inquiry into the situation of the workers.” Their statement reveals that they followed the work of the Luxembourg Commission very closely. Magnin, Jacquemin, and Belpaume, Rapport a` la Soci´et´e Positiviste par la Commission Charg´ee d’Examiner la Question du Travail, March 8, 1850, CG, 276.

The Commission on Work

321

young artisans usually made a tour of France to hone their skills and become part of the community of workers involved in the same trade. Although supported by compagnonnages, that is, workers’ societies, this tradition was disappearing in the 1840s.323 Magnin, Belpaume, and Jacquemin belonged to a dying artisanal culture and were trying to highlight its virtues, especially its associationism.324 Even George Sand sensed its end; she asked the minister of public instruction, Hippolyte Carnot, to send workers on a tour of all the departments to politicize them and make them more leftist.325 In his Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, Comte went further, insisting that the system of apprenticeship tours be extended throughout the West to develop workers’ feeling of brotherhood.326 Reflecting his faith in the working class, Comte was proud of the positivist report, which he called superior to “all the volumes consecrated to the so-called science of the economists.”327 It showed that “the reason of commoners” was better than “the corrupt culture of our educated people.”328 Yet Comte’s comments in the preamble to the report and in his correspondence reveal that his stance was more moderate than that of the report’s three writers. Instead of celebrating popular assemblies, he stressed modern industry’s need for a universal educational system to provide excellent instruction and moral principles to everyone.329 In addition, modern industry required a new spiritual power to arbitrate labor disputes. In this way, conflicts could be regulated by moral codes instead of legal ones. Comte wished to eliminate lawyers, for he believed they would work against the kind of government he favored.330 Also, reflecting the liberal biases of his youth, he did not like the way “metaphysical” laws were used to restrict industry.331 He opposed the centralized government’s proclivity to regulate industry, which he believed hurt the economy.332 323 324

325 326 327 328 329 330 331

332

Mark Traugott, ed., The French Worker: Autobiographies from the Early Industrial Era (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 126n10, 127n12. Jacquemin indeed alluded to his “slightly advanced” age in one letter. See Jacquemin to Comte, March 23, 1848, MAC. See also Cynthia Maria Truant, The Rites of Labor: Brotherhoods of Compagnonnage in Old and New Regime France (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994), 11. Perrot, introduction to Politique et pol´emiques, 26. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 210. Comte, Pr´eambule, Rapport a` la Soci´et´e Positiviste par la Commission Charg´ee d’Examiner la Question du Travail, March 8, 1850, CG, 4:274. Comte to Magnin, May 29, 1848, CG, 4:152. On this point, see Comte, Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 44. Comte to Laffifte, September 19, 1849, CG, 5:84. Comte gave many details on how he would do away with lawyers, judges, notaries, and so forth. Comte, Pr´eambule, Rapport a` la Soci´et´e Positiviste par la Commission Charg´ee d’Examiner la Question du Travail, March 8, 1850, CG, 4:273–4. On Comte’s earlier attitudes toward laissez-faire capitalism, see Pickering, Comte, 1:109–12. He thus disliked the Bank of France. Comte to Deullin, April 20, 1854, CG, 7:206.

322

The Revolution of 1848

Yet at the same time, he did not condone liberal capitalists’ and political economists’ indifference to the people’s interests. He did not believe that the market would benefit society if left entirely to its own devices. In his mind, the spiritual power could not intervene directly in the material realm without seeming oppressive, but it could use subtle pressure on significant individuals’ minds and hearts to advance public welfare.333 Both he and his commission seemed to agree on at least one salient point: workers should make industrialists more aware of the evils of capitalism. Yet he did not go as far in planning public works projects as Magnin, Belpaume, and Jacquemin did. He tended to be more theoretical and idealistic, whereas they sought to be practical. But perhaps because his stance and theirs complemented one other, he was convinced that he was successfully forging an alliance between the workers and philosophers. the occide ntal po sitive committe e Comte’s idealism in 1848 is also apparent in his effort to create the Occidental Positive Committee (Comit´e Positif Occidental). The closing pages of the Cours had briefly alluded to this committee, which he considered the “permanent council of the Positive Church.”334 In his Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, he elaborated on the significance of the Occident. He believed that the five Western European countries – France, Italy, Germany, England, and Spain – had been a “fundamental community” during the Middle Ages and had constituted since Charlemagne the “grand Occidental Republic.” (This community also included “annexes,” such as Holland, Portugal, Greece, and Poland.) Finding the growing antipathies among nations disruptive, he shared the nostalgia for the Middle Ages exhibited by conservative thinkers and the romantics. Although he believed that the Protestant Reformation and the decline of chivalry had weakened the sense of solidarity that had once existed among the Western European peoples, Comte was certain that the predominance of industrial life, the similar aesthetic evolution toward romanticism, and the spread of scientific advances had reawakened their spirit of confraternity. He used communitarian language to stress his opinion that despite their “natural” national differences, which they would preserve under positivism, these Western countries composed a “great modern family.” Maintaining Enlightenment cosmpolitanism and challenging the nineteenth-century tendency toward nationalism, Comte explained, “Despite the absence of systematic ties equivalent to those of the Middle Ages, the common ascendancy of true modern customs, which 333

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 115.

334

Cours, 2:696.

The Occidental Positive Committee

323

are both pacific and rational, has already created . . . a spontaneous confraternity . . . which no longer permits people to imagine any part of the final regeneration as purely national.” Many republicans in France shared Comte’s distaste for the xenophobia and exclusivity inherent in nationalism, although they advocated this creed. They hoped that once constituted on the basis of fraternity, nation-states would create a true universal republic. Comte did not approve of their nationalist zeal, though he too dreamed of a large-scale republic. Nevertheless, despite his dislike of nationalism, Comte believed that since the fall of Rome and especially since the reign of Charlemagne, France had been the “center” of “this elite of humanity.” Having destroyed the old regime, it should now take the lead in reorganizing Europe. According to him, the fact that the Revolution of 1848 had spread from France to other countries demonstrated that all nations were experiencing an identical “crisis,” which demanded a similar resolution, one that the French could produce.335 The Occidental Positive Committee should address this crisis. Comte had made up a preliminary list of the committee members on February 6, 1847, which he slightly modified on December 16.336 Now that he thought that the triumph of positivism was imminent, he modified the plan again on May 26, 1848.337 Whereas in 1842 and even in 1847, the central committee was to have at most thirty members, Comte now insisted that it have thirty-six. Reflecting his sensitivity to the “woman question,” the six new members would be women. On the committee would sit eight Frenchmen and two Frenchwomen, seven Englishmen and one Englishwoman, six German men and one German woman, five Italian men and one Italian woman, and four Spanish men and one Spanish woman.338 The fact that Comte allowed almost 20% of the members of the primary positivist committee to be women suggests that the demands of Jeanne Deroin, Eug´enie Niboyet, D´esir´ee Gay, Suzanne Voilquin, Pauline Roland, and other feminists of 1848 for a voice in public affairs had an effect.339 Indeed, he may have had contact with Pauline Roland, who was a friend of Thal`es Bernard’s sister. In 1847, Bernard told Comte of her “remarkable intelligence” and tried to get 335

336 337 338 339

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 116, 117, 118, 121; manuscript of the prospectus for the Revue Occidentale, entitled “Subside positiviste pour fonder la Revue Occidentale,” August 25, 1848, MAC. On republicanism in France at this time, see Darriulat, Les Patriotes, 9, 117–18, 192. See “Composition initiale du Comit´e Positif Occidental,” February 6, 1847, December 16, 1847, MAC. Comte, “Composition initiale du Comit´e Positif Occidental destin´e a` r´egulariser l’ensemble du d´eveloppement, mental et social, du positivisme,” CG, 4:280-81. Whereas in 1842 there were six Italians and five Germans, now he insisted on having six Germans and five Italians. Evidently Comte’s opinion of the Germans had risen. Scott, Only Paradoxes, 82; Moses, French Feminism, 128.

324

The Revolution of 1848

him to help her find a publisher. She hoped to translate into French Lewes’s Biographical History of Philosophy.340 By 1848, Comte would have agreed with the sentiment expressed in the first issue of the feminist Voix des femmes: “It is a mistake to believe that by improving the lot of men, that by that fact alone, the lot of women is improved.”341 Women had to become involved in fomenting change and promoting their own issues – issues that were increasingly attracting his attention. Instead of rejecting the “modern movement,” as they had previously done, women, according to Comte, could be persuaded to support it if it incorporated a religious element.342 He hoped that if they saw the suitability of worshipping Humanity, they could be won over to his side. Comte sought diversity in terms of not only gender but also occupations and religions. Of the three Englishmen, one had to be a banker, the second a philosopher, and the third a proletarian. Among the Irishmen, one had to be a Catholic proletarian, the other a Protestant theorician (intellectual). What is also noteworthy is Comte’s effort to be sensitive to the different provinces that made up the five countries involved. Among the Frenchmen, there would be only two Parisians. The other six had to be from Burgundy, Brittany, Normandy, Alsace, Provence, and the Languedoc. Among the “English,” there had to be three from England proper, two from Scotland, and two from Ireland. Similar diversity was sought among the Italians, Germans, and Spanish. In addition, the makeup of Comte’s committee reflected his increasingly global interests. There would be twelve adjunct members from the populations that had emanated from Western Europe: four from North America, four from South America, two from India, and two from Oceania. Moreover, there would be twelve associates from “backwards” populations. Although Comte did not usually use the word “race,” he stated that there should be two representatives of the black race, specifically from Haiti (a former French colony) and Africa, and four of the “yellow” race, from China, Japan, Malaysia, and Mongolia.343 Yet he did not suggest that blacks and Asians were inferior due to their skin color. Six “white” members also figured among the “backwards” group: one Russian, one Greek, one Turk, one Persian, one Hindu, and one Egyptian.344 He shared Cuvier’s opinion, one shared by many others in the nineteenth century, that 340 341 342 343 344

Thal`es Bernard to Comte, March 1, April 29, 1847, MAC; CG, 4:249, note CDXCVII. Voix des femmes, March 19, 1848, quoted in Moses, French Feminism, 128. Syst`eme, 3:619. Already in 1847 he had envisioned the need for members to represent other parts of the globe, but the number was smaller and there were no representatives from Africa. See the plan of 1848 in the MAC. The Turk is missing in CG. Considering that Comte already included representatives from India, the “Hindu” might be a reference to someone from outside those areas, perhaps Afghanistan.

The June Days and Comte’s Activism

325

Egyptians were probably not black. Comte also seemed to support the widespread theory that light-skinned Aryans from Central Asia invaded India and left a racial imprint.345 the june days and comte’s activism Comte was keen on organizing his movement. Hoping to attract support and, perhaps, protection, he sent his Discours sur l’esprit positif and his flyer on the positivist club to Marc Caussidi`ere, the prefect of the police. Two members of the Positivist Committee, Magnin and Emile Pascal, served as intermediaries. They undoubtedly knew Caussidi`ere from the days when this militant revolutionary had participated in conspiracies and secret societies.346 Yet soon after Comte sent the material to Caussidi`ere, workers, furious at the abolition of the National Workshops, took to the streets. Although he told his sister on June 9 that he expected “a storm” in the near future, Comte was taken aback by the “terrible anarchy” and deeply saddened by the death of “our brothers and our sons” who were working to regenerate the country.347 Dismayed by the “spectacle of death” and sympathetic to the workers’ cause, he gave ten francs to the “wounded” and “vanquished” combatants. He stayed inside his home, focusing on the details of his “utopia” in order to forget the “public trouble.” Not knowing what to do, he contemplated his “sad youth” and mourned the loss of de Vaux, to whom he began writing his annual “confession.” To convince himself that he was not being apathetic and that he was engaged in the project of regeneration in his own way, he dwelt on the image of de Vaux as the “ideal” woman and convinced himself that thinking about her was important in itself because it made him more loving.348 He told Alix that considering how revolutionary their epoch was, he had “the pure 345

346

347

348

Martin Bernal, Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization, vol. 1, The Fabrication of Ancient Egypt 1785–1985 (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987), 240–43, 269, 330; Padma Manian, “Harappans and Aryans: Old and New Perspectives on Ancient Indian History,” History Teacher 32 (November 1998): 23. On Caussidi`ere, see Furet, Revolutionary France, 398; Agulhon, 1848, 24. Apparently, Pascal had trouble reaching Caussidi`ere. See Comte to Magnin, May 29, 1848, CG, 4:152. The reason is that Caussidi`ere had had a conflict with Arago and left the Prefecture of Police in May. See Raymond Huard, “Renaissance et mort de la R´epublique,” in La R´evolution de 1848 en France et en Europe, ed. Sylvie Aprile, Raymond Huard, Pierre L´evˆeque, Jean-Yves Mollier (Paris: Editions Sociales, 1998), 26; Daumas, Arago, 266. Comte to Alix Comte, June 10, 1848, “Lettres d’Auguste Comte (suite et fin),” Action franc¸aise, 38 (March 15, 1914): 230; Comte, “Troisi`eme Confession annuelle,” CG, 4:157. Comte, “Troisi`eme Confession annuelle,” June 25, 1848, CG, 4:157, 159, 163. See also Comte, July 10 entry, notebook “Recettes et d´epenses courantes, mai 1838–septembre 1857, “ MAC.

326

The Revolution of 1848

satisfaction of feeling” himself to be a “conscientious collaborator in the final reorganization” to which he had devoted his whole life since his “first childhood.”349 He tried to be courageous. Sophie Bliaux, with whom he liked to converse, had a knack for clever sayings. During the June Days, she told him, “It seems that philosophers must stand up to swords without carrying them.”350 Comte stood up by launching another policy report. After the June Days, he assigned Littr´e, Magnin, and Laffitte to a commission that was to come up with a plan for a new government. Unlike the previous revolutions in France, which he viewed as negative, Comte was certain that this new revolution could become “positive” and that he should take measures “to regulate” it.351 In August 1848, the three men, guided by Comte’s suggestions, completed their report entitled Rapport a` la Soci´et´e Positiviste par la commission charg´ee d’examiner la nature et le plan du nouveau gouvernement r´evolutionnaire. Comte made the leftist tradition with which they wished to ally the positivists very clear: at the bottom of the title page appeared the words “August, 1848, the sixtieth year of the great revolution.”352 Comte wrote the introduction, whereas Littr´e, who had served as a member of the Municipal Council in Paris from late July to mid-October, composed the body.353 A thousand copies of the report were printed for distribution.354 The report elaborated on the plan that Comte had outlined to the Positivist Society earlier in the spring and included in the Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, a major piece of propaganda that he published ten days before.355 Reflecting Comte’s views, the report insisted on the necessity of setting up a provisional revolutionary government during the chaotic transitional period to the positive era. This transitional 349

350 351 352

353 354

355

Comte to Alix Comte, June 10, 1848, “Lettres d’Auguste Comte (suite et fin),” ed. L´eon de Montesquiou, Action franc¸aise 38 (March 15, 1914): 230. In a previous issue, L´eon de Montesquiou, a member of the Action franc¸aise, explained that 100 letters from Comte to his sister “recently fell” into his hands. L´eon de Montesquiou, “Lettres d’Auguste Comte,” Action franc¸aise, 32 (November 15, 1913): 333. These letters, which are nowhere to be found today, are the basis of many of the ones in the CG. This part of the letter was omitted by the editors of the CG. Bliaux, cited in James Winstanley to Mrs. Congreve, November 19, 1857, Positivist Papers, Vol. XV, Add. Mss. 45241, fol. 99, British Library. Comte to Tholouze, September 17, 1849, CG, 5:79. Littr´e, Magnin, and Laffitte, Rapport a` la Soci´et´e positiviste par la commission charg´ee d’examiner la nature et le plan du nouveau gouvernement r´evolutionnaire, August 9, 1848, CG, 284–304; see also the title page of the brochure, which is in the MAC. Littr´e to Comte, July 25, 1848, MAC. See also Littr´e to Comte, August 13, 1848, MAC. It was published with a slightly different title, Rapport sur le nouveau Gouvernement R´evolutionnaire qui convient maintenant a` la R´epublique Franc¸aise. See Auguste Comte, “Publications de la Soci´et´e Positiviste,” manuscript, MAC. The brochures were printed by E. Thunot and sold by the publishing house L. Mathias. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 405–7.

The June Days and Comte’s Activism

327

era would last for at least one generation.356 In words reminiscent of Robespierre’s famous defense of the Terror, the commission argued that “for a revolutionary period, what is needed is a government knowingly revolutionary.”357 The new government thus had to be founded on the model of the Convention, which had full control over all political measures. After all, according to Comte, the first, provisional government of the Convention had been founded by Danton out of “necessity.”358 However, to allay the fears of the bourgeoisie, who would not appreciate these references to the Convention, the report also stressed the importance of maintaining material order, without which modern civilization could not exist.359 Elaborating on Comte’s position in the Discours, the commissioners wrote, “In France, there are two great interests, two great social forces, the center and the circumference, Paris and the departments. This indicates to us first that there must be two powers answering to these two interests, to these two forces.” Paris had to be the seat of the central power, which had to have both executive and legislative authority. The local power, that of the provinces, would be represented by the Chamber of Deputies. It was not akin to the English House of Commons, for Littr´e, Magnin, and Laffitte, undoubtedly directed by Comte, dismissed the parliamentary form of government, accusing it of maintaining the privileged position of the upper class. The Chamber of Deputies could be dismissed by the central government and would have only the right to vote the budget, that is, to approve of government taxes, revenues, and expenses; this limitation would deter its members from engaging in superficial, theatrical performances to gain a reputation and thus more power. The positivist commission did not believe that this system would give rise to abuses. Proclaiming its allegiance to a “democratic society,” it put its faith in public opinion, which would allegedly express its approval or disapproval of political measures before they were made into laws. Thus the central power would have to submit its measures to clubs, popular meetings, the press, and thinkers for discussion.360 Clubs should meet regularly, for they were best suited to encourage debate among 356 357 358 359 360

Pierre Laffitte, ed., “Bibliographie positiviste: Second document pour servir a` l’histoire des vues politiques d’Auguste Comte,” RO, 2d ser., 1 ( January 1890): 70. Littr´e, Magnin, and Laffitte, Rapport, 288. Comte alleged that Robespierre later altered the government to establish his religion of the Supreme Being. Comte to Tholouze, August 9, 1851, CG, 6:135. See also Littr´e to Comte, August 19, 1848, MAC. Littr´e, Magnin, and Laffitte, Rapport, 292–4. See also Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 405–6. Audiffrent later wrote a short essay explaining Comte’s position on the need for a central dictatorship located in Paris. This government had to be unhampered by a parliament, which represented the power of the provinces. Docteur Audiffrent, Une Conversation avec Auguste Comte (Lyon: A. Storck, 1908), 5, 12, 13. Lonchampt was also defensive; he insisted that Comte wanted a central dictatorship that combined the

328

The Revolution of 1848

members of the lower classes. Although clubs and universal suffrage complemented each other, in the commissioners’ opinion, workers preferred to express themselves directly in the former rather than through the ballot box, which meant that someone else was acting for them. Magnin in particular was suspicious of universal suffrage after witnessing the June Days.361 Sharing that suspicion, Comte later promoted clubs as a replacement for the Chamber of Deputies.362 The report also explained how the central and local powers would be constituted. To avoid an absolutist regime, the central power in Paris would be divided among three functionaries, or “governors,” each of whom would be in charge of one of the following areas: foreign affairs, domestic affairs, and finances.363 These functionaries would be three workers because, again following Comte’s line of thinking, the commissioners maintained that the proletariat lacked a metaphysical education, the source of many prejudices, and that it would not seek to dominate the area of expertise of the philosophers, that is, intellectual and moral life.364 As the most numerous class, the workers also displayed the most general, disinterested views. In addition, the proletarians were the most enthusiastic supporters of revolution, whose goals they could best ensure because they understood the need for social regeneration. In light of the incompetent behavior of the bourgeoisie in the “catastrophe” of June, it was an opportune moment for the proletariat to help launch the positive era. The commissioners wrote, “Today, thanks to revolutionary progress, the most numerous and poorest class can ascend to power.”365 In effect, they advocated a dictatorship of the proletariat. By having workers close the revolutionary era, the state could henceforth avoid dangerous conflicts, which they often caused in the past because their interests were neglected. The central power, composed of these three proletarians, would be nominated by Paris, which had a fine “spirit of generality, wise impartiality, [and] energetic resolution,” especially because it drew its inhabitants from all over France.366 Parisian men would be divided according to their departments of origin. Members of the same department would meet in an electoral college and vote for an elector. The eighty-five electors would name the three governors.367 The terms of the governors would not be set. Instead, a petition filled with 361 362 363 364 365 367

legislative and executive powers because it was in the “historical tradition of France.” Lonchampt, Pr´ecis, 87. Littr´e, Magnin, and Laffitte, Rapport, 300. See also Larizza, Bandiera verde, 135. Comte to Tholouze, August 9, 1851, CG, 6:136. Each of these men would earn two hundred francs a day. Comte to Armand Barb`es, September 12, 1852, CG, 6:362. On this point, see Rapport a` la Soci´et´e Positiviste, CG, 5:276. Littr´e, Magnin, and Laffitte, Rapport, 295–6. 366 Ibid., 294. As a student at the Ecole Polytechnique, Comte had studied the United States government and may have modeled his plan on the American electoral system. In the fall

The June Days and Comte’s Activism

329

complaints, signed by two hundred Parisians, and displayed for three months would suffice to oust a governor. New elections would then take place.368 Whereas the central power would be in the hands of the poor, the local power would be dominated by the rich.369 The Chamber of Deputies would consist of approximately 250 well-off men because their positions would be unpaid and they would have to have knowledge of financial affairs to oversee the budget. Industrialists were good candidates for these positions.370 There would be universal male suffrage. Men in each department would vote for three deputies, who would have a three-year term. They would meet for three months every year.371 The commissioners recommended that the new government take up three measures. The first was to create public works projects to alleviate unemployment. These could be paid for by the second and third measures, which would simplify the government and eliminate unnecessary expenses. The second measure was to reduce the army. Comte regarded armies as reactionary, unnecessarily expensive, and supportive of nationalist, militaristic adventures. He often expressed the desire to replace them completely by a police force of 80,000 volunteers.372 The third measure was to suppress the budget of the religious orders and the University (except the primary schools and special schools). Comte later added that the Church as a whole and the academies should not receive government aid.373 The goal of this elimination of the “theoretic budget” was to promote more freedom of discussion, giving a chance for opinions and habits to be shaped along positive principles. In any case, the state should have nothing to do with intellectual and spiritual matters. Comte later summed up his notion of the future positivist government in a letter to Tsar Nicholas I of Russia: Its fundamental program will always be to maintain energetically material order, to promote industrial growth, and to respect scrupulously the intellectual movement. Such a government will prepare

368 369 370 371 372

373

of 1849, Comte modified this plan, replacing the departments by intendancies. The eighty-five electors would be replaced by sixteen intendants “to assure the responsibility of choice.” See Comte to Laffitte, October 18, 1849, CG, 5:99. Comte’s proposal caused some controversy in the Positivist Society. Comte to Laffitte, October 18, 1849, CG, 5:99. Comte to Laffitte, September 4, 1849, CG, 5:69. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme,406. See Comte to Armand Barb`es, September 12, 1852, CG, 6:362. Laffitte to Comte, August 16, 1849, in “49 Lettres de Pierre Laffitte a` Auguste Comte,” RO, 2d ser., 36 (March 1907): 249; Comte to Laffitte, September 12, 1849, CG, 5:74; Comte to Tsar Nicholas, December 20, 1852, CG, 6:467. Comte was very proud of his proposal to eliminate the army, which dated from the last volume of the Cours in 1842. Comte to Tsar Nicholas, December 20, 1852, CG, 6:467. Comte maintained that running the government would be less expensive without an army, clergy, and academies.

330

The Revolution of 1848

for the normal ascendance of public opinion by submitting all its projects . . . to free universal consultation . . . to gather all worthy suggestions, even from outside.374

Comte was pleased by this plan, which he imagined would mitigate the competition between Paris and the departments as well as the class struggle. Yet there were problems. For example, why would not the clubs become as theatrical in nature as the present Chamber of Deputies? Could not the Chamber of Deputies, composed of wealthy men, influence the decisions of the three workers, especially by not voting for taxes necessary for the public works projects? Was not Comte naive in assuming that the three workers in charge of the government would be free from pressure from interest groups? Would not these individuals, supposedly unsullied by the poor educational system of his day, become subordinated to the spiritual power, whom they would tend to venerate as having more knowledge and thus higher authority?375 Did he not betray his own fear of the lower classes because he did not want proletarians to be elected mayors or deputies, all of whom, he believed, should come from the bourgeoisie.376 Why would middle-class men participate in the government if they were to receive no money or power? He stated at one point that the temporal power would become more decentralized. Why and how would this process occur? There were many unanswered questions and many potential problems. In the Discours, Comte brought up other ticklish points. For example, the conclusions reached in public discussions in the press and clubs would not be binding on the central government. This government could also convoke and dismiss the Chamber at will.377 These ideas indicate that Comte preferred a dictatorship with limited power for the people. Assuming the world was orderly and rational, he believed that freedom of discussion and education were sufficient to ensure a smooth-running society. Comte pinned much of his hope for the effectiveness of his government on the three key ministers. At first, he wanted the three men on the special commission, Littr´e, Magnin, and Laffitte, to be his triumvirate of provisional rulers.378 Thus only one worker, Magnin, instead of three, would be in charge of the central government. A few months later, he dropped Laffitte, who struck him as deficient 374 375 376 377 378

Comte to Tsar Nicholas, December 20, 1852, CG, 6:467. Arbousse-Bastide, La Doctrine, 1:327. Comte to Laffitte, September 4, 1849, CG, 5:69. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 405–6. Littr´e later criticized his own report for making the government unstable. Littr´e, Comte, 600–601. Comte considered Laffitte to be the theorician and Magnin the practician. He regarded Littr´e, who was a member of the Institut and of the Municipal Council of Paris, as both a theorician and practician. See Comte’s introduction to this plan, ibid., 284–6. See also Comte to Hadery, September 17, 1852, CG, 6:370.

The June Days and Comte’s Activism

331

in character, and replaced him by the leftist Caussidi`ere. The latter would be appointed to the ministry of the interior and justice; Littr´e to the ministry of foreign affairs and commerce; and Magnin to the ministry of finances and public works. Caussidi`ere did not seem interested, and Comte appointed Auguste Hadery, an ex-Fourierist banker, in his stead in 1852.379 Reflecting his desire to appeal to the left, Comte hoped that Armand Barb`es, the famous republican conspirator, who was outspoken in favor of social reform and was arrested in May 1848, would accept the position of head of the police. Comte had met him during the famous trial of republicans of 1835.380 In October 1848, Comte decided to publish pamphlets dealing with several other pressing matters. Magnin was to write one brochure to demonstrate the “necessity of conferring on Parisians the nomination of the central power.”381 Comte insisted on the crucial importance of Paris because from his point of view he was “the systematic center” of the “association of the elite.”382 He wished to silence individuals, especially in the provinces, who wished to move the capital from Paris, which they viewed as the perennial source of revolution.383 In effect, he wanted to stifle the voice of the conservatives, who were stronger in the countryside. Laffitte was assigned to write another pamphlet on the need to limit political assemblies to financial affairs. Otherwise, these assemblies might challenge the central power, creating anarchy or inspiring a reactionary movement.384 Yet at the same time that he was wary of the right, Comte seemed afraid of the other extreme. Criticizing the “sterile or dangerous discussions” taking place in France, Comte feared dissidence and “the crowd,” whose large size prevented any top-down control.385 Indeed, he worried that if the working class could not reassure the upper classes that it could 379

380 381 382 383 384 385

After the defection of Littr´e, Comte hoped Armand Barb`es would replace him. Hadery, who had only joined the Positivist Society in 1850, did not directly accept the position, for he wondered if he could be ready by 1856, when Comte intended to announce his decision publicly. Hadery had to prepare for this position by studying history, Italian, and Spanish. Learning these languages was essential to make him feel more of a southerner. Southerners were generally well developed from a moral and aesthetic viewpoint. Comte to Hadery, September 17, 1852, CG, 6: 370; Comte to Hadery, January 25, 1856, CG, 8:213; Hadery to Comte, December 13, 1852, CG, 7:309; Magnin to S´emerie, February 10, 1878, in “Lettres de Fabien Magnin,” RO, 3d ser., 4 (May 1912): 103; See also no author, “Correspondance de Fabien Magnin,” RO 6 ( July 1914): 204. Pickering, Comte, 1:455–9; Price, The French Second Republic, 13. Comte to Laffitte, October 12, 1848, CG, 4:190. Comte, “Troisi`eme Confession annuelle,” June 25, 1848, CG, 4:162–3. Mont`egre had told Comte of the hatred that people in the countryside felt for Paris. See Mont`egre to Comte, September 28, 1848, CG, 4:255nDXXVII. Comte to Grote, October 2, 1848, CG, 4:186. Comte to Alix Comte, August 22, 1848, CG, 4:175; Comte to Laurent, January 2, 1852, CG, 6:206.

332

The Revolution of 1848

guarantee order, the “popular cause” would fail and the proletarians would not acquire the “social ascendancy” they desired.386 Comte believed in the necessity of setting up a dictatorship to give France a progressive direction and impose order. This was an idea that he had already expressed in the Cours.387 He did not give the term “dictator” the pejorative sense it has today. He had a favorable impression of dictatorship from his classical education, which had given him a special admiration for Caesar, and from the French revolutionaries, especially Danton, who headed the Committee of Public Safety and sought to end the revolutionary wars.388 Indeed, according to Claude Nicolet, the Romans and early French Revolutionaries often employed the word “dictator” in a favorable sense to refer to someone who did not owe his power to heredity and acted as a savior. Comte was perhaps the “first” – “before Marx” – to speak of a “collective dictatorship” when he referred to the reign of the Jacobins in the Convention as a group of people who dominated society and public opinion.389 Now he wanted a dictatorship to dominate and regenerate France in the same fashion. He was worried that modern industrial society lacked a common goal that could coordinate everyone. As a result, classes were antagonists instead of allies.390 Comte spoke of a dictator as a strong, just executive, that is, a public official of the highest order who would not necessarily be authoritarian. Sometimes he suggested that three workers could hold a dictatorship. The dictatorship would suspend normal political rules to save the state from danger and rule in a moderate manner to help the people. It would maintain order and foster material progress, but the press, education, and opinions would be free of state control. Louis Blanc, Pierre Proudhon, and Gustave Flaubert referred in similar terms to the need for a dictator around 1848. Thus like many French people, including many republicans, Comte wanted a strong centralized executive power.391 Another sign of his engagement in politics and his move from theory to practice was his renewed effort to found a positivist journal 386 388

389

390 391

Comte to Laffitte, October 12, 1848, CG, 4:191. 387 Cours, 2:596. The ancients frequently instituted a dictatorship “when they wanted to construct systematic constitutions.” Comte to Laurent, January 2, 1852, CG, 6:205. Danton was a “dictator” for ten months, from May 31, 1793 to March 31, 1794. Nicolet, L’Id´ee r´epublicaine, 102, 103, 240; Claude Nicolet, “Jules Ferry et la tradition positiviste,” in Jules Ferry: Fondateur de la R´epublique: Actes du colloque organis´e par l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Science Sociales, ed. Franc¸ois Furet (Paris: L’Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, 1985), 36. For Comte’s discussion of the dictatorship of the Convention, see Discours, 104, 105, 107, 109, 403. Syst`eme, 3:363. Fedi, Comte, 133; Frick, Auguste Comte, 46; Nicolet, L’Id´ee r´epublicaine, 104–5, 240–41. Nicolet points out that Marx’s use of term in the phrase “dictatorship of the proletariat” was not original.

The June Days and Comte’s Activism

333

with Littr´e’s help.392 The power of the press in molding opinions and stimulating events was very apparent during the Revolution of 1848. Between February and December 1848, 479 newspapers were founded in Paris alone.393 Comte wanted to take advantage of the freedom of the press too. Instead of trying to attract wealthy subscribers as he had done unsuccessfully in 1845, he endeavored to appeal to men of more modest means. On August 25, 1848, Comte wrote a draft of an advertisement requesting contributions to a “positivist subsidy” intended to fund the Revue Occidentale, which was to have a press run of one thousand copies and appear monthly beginning in January 1849. This journal would apply positive principles to evaluate current events and assess European social and intellectual progress.394 He printed on October 12, 1848 an announcement advertising the Revue Occidentale and had it widely distributed.395 In explaining its finances, he declared that as editor-in-chief, he would pay himself four thousand francs a year, enough to offset his financial difficulties. Although Grote and Mill refused to contribute to the fund supporting the journal and said they did not know anyone who might do so, Comte did get the financial backing of his Dutch followers: Limburg-Stirum; Van Hasselt; Kretzer; Lieutenant Willem Anne Baron de Constant-Rebecque; Captain Baron Charles de Capellen; and Norbert, Comte de Wassenaer Starrenbur, who, like the others, was a naval officer.396 A nephew of Benjamin Constant and good friend of Limburg-Stirum, Baron de Constant-Rebecque had become interested in positivism in 1844 after reading Littr´e’s articles in Le National. He would become one of Comte’s most generous patrons.397 However, at this point neither he nor the other Dutchmen wanted their names mentioned because they did not want to appear 392 393 394

395 396

397

On this point, see Pierre Laffitte, ed., “Document pour servir a` l’histoire des vues politiques d’Auguste Comte,” RO 23 ( July 1889): 86–90. Priscilla Robertson, Revolutions of 1848: A Social History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1952), 55. See the manuscript of the prospectus for the Revue Occidentale, entitled “Subside positiviste pour fonder la Revue Occidentale,” August 25, 1848, MAC. Comte wrote a slightly different version on September 7, 1848. Comte insisted that each article be signed with the author’s full name, a point of contention between himself and Saint-Simon many years before. See the printed version, dated October 12, 1848, MAC. Comte, manuscript entitled “Subside positiviste en Hollande, pour fonder la Revue Occidentale,” November 9, 1849. Kretzer and Van Hasselt wrote an anonymous article in the Algemeen Konst-en Letterbode to drum up support for the positivist review. Their friend Tideman became the editor of the Dutch journal and kept the public current on Comte’s ideas. Yet Tideman never met Comte and did not like the Religion of Humanity. See Wils, “Les Sympathisants,” 336, 340. Constant-Rebecque was born in Berlin in 1806, and attended military school in Delft, where the aristocrats Limburg-Stirum and Capellen went as well. Constant-Rebecque lived in the Hague. He and Limburg-Stirum bought three subscriptions, while the other

334

The Revolution of 1848

to be opponents of religion and the monarchy.398 Eventually, between seventy and eighty people promised to subscribe. But Comte needed three hundred subscribers who would pay one hundred francs for three years. Littr´e finally persuaded him to cancel his plan.399 This failure rankled with him during the next few years, for he worried that he had no means of propagating his ideas. Arago and other scientists such as Guglielmo Libri frequently used the press for their battles to win public opinion.400 But Comte lamented that he was forced to rely on his annual circulars and prefaces to communicate important information that was not strictly philosophical.401 By 1851, he reacted to his defeat in a vengeful manner by insisting that the regular press should be suppressed along with the parliamentary regime with which it was connected. Journals should be replaced by notices or posters (affiches), which could work with clubs to disseminate positivism. Compared with journals, posters were more accessible to the common people and were able to cover the facts in a less tedious fashion.402 Comte wrote, “This is the true popular press, free, opportune, and independent: it alone will deliver the West from the curse of journalism.”403 His bitterness at yet another defeat was palpable.

398 399 400 401 402

403

men bought one. Limburg-Stirum was to become the head of the Dutch positivists. See Grote to Comte, October 13, 1848, MAC; Littr´e to Comte, June 20, 1849, MAC; Comte to Bligni`eres, January 31, 1856, CG, 8:218; Comte to Hadery, October 27, 1856, CG, 8:333; Pierre Laffitte, “Mat´eriaux pour servir a` la biographie d’Auguste Comte: Amis, Protecteurs, Correspondants d’Auguste Comte, “RO, 2d ser., 17 ( July 1898), 121–3; Wils, “Les Sympathisants,” 334; Synth`ese, 27. Limburg-Stirum to Comte, November 1, 1848, MAC. Littr´e to Comte, November 6, 1848, MAC; Comte to Tholouze, December 18, 1848, CG, 4:211; Comte to Audiffrent, March 18, 1852, CG, 6:256. P. Alessandra Maccioni Ruju and Marco Mostert, The Life and Times of Guglielmo Libri (1802–1869 ) (Hilversum: Verloren, 1995), 149–51. Synth`ese, 18. Comte to Erdan, December 22, 1853, CG, 7:152. Comte frequently saw posters plastered on walls around his apartment. For example, he read Napoleon III’s speech at the opening of parliament in March 1854. Comte to Hadery, March 9, 1854, CG, 7:195. Comte to Audiffrent, July 7, 1851, CG, 6:115.

Chapter 7

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme

The mind must always be the minister of the heart, never its slave. Comte, 1848

introduction: po sitivism as politics and as re lig ion Comte wrote one important work during the Revolution of 1848, the Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, which he had originally hoped to finish in May the year before. He finally started it on January 1, 1848 and completed it on June 18.1 Less than a week after he finished it, Paris was rocked by the workers’ rebellion. Just as the Revolution of 1830 caused delays in the publication of the Cours, the fighting during the “June Days” impeded the appearance of the Discours. Comte gave up finding a publisher and simply engaged a printer for all his remaining works.2 The Discours was finally printed by E. Thunot on July 29, 1848, thanks to the aid of a subsidy from his positivist disciples in Holland.3 The volume was four hundred pages and cost six francs.4 In a slightly modified form, it served as the first part of the first volume of the Syst`eme, which was completed in February 1850 but not published until July 1851.5 1 2 3

4

5

Comte wrote a postscript, “Appel au public occidental,” on July 9, after learning about the definitive loss of his job of examiner at the Ecole Polytechnique. Testament (1896 ed.), 14. Comte, notes on the time schedule of the Syst`eme, reproduced in Laffitte, “Du Temps dans le travail intellectuel,” 442–3. See also Comte to Barbot de Chement, July 30, 1848, CG, 4:171; Comte to Grote, October 2, 1848, CG, 4:185. The Dutch positivists LimburgStirum and Constant Rebecque sent him eight hundred francs to pay for the publication. See Limburg-Stirum to Comte, May 23, 1848, MAC; Wils, “Les Sympathisants,” 339. Comte finally finished paying Thunot in August 1850. See Thunot to Comte, November 8, 1848, June 5, 1849, and January 31, 1850, MAC; Thunot’s bills to Comte in “Documents: Factures acquitt´es,” MAC. Carillian-Goeury et Victor Dalmont, a publishing firm that had been involved in the first Discours, and L. Mathias sold copies of this new work. Comte had wanted Mathias to publish the Discours, but the editor was worried that he would not be paid and declined. See copy of frontispiece, in Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 37. See also Louis Auguste Mathias to Comte, April 8, 1848, receipt from Carilian-Goeury et Dalmont to Comte, August 3, 1848. Comte to Capellen, February 28, 1850, CG, 5:128. Comte did not write the preface until March 1851, three months before the volume went to press. See Laffitte, ed., “Du Temps

335

336

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme

The title Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme is significant. Comte made a point for the first time of regularly calling his positive philosophy “positivism” to underscore his argument that it was a complete system as well as a political movement.6 In the Cours, he had only occasionally used the term “positivism,” which had previously appeared in the writings of the Saint-Simonian Saint-Amand Bazard and in the letters of Enfantin.7 The term had also popped up in his letters to Mill and de Vaux. But disliking neologisms, he had generally employed the expressions “positive spirit,” “positive philosophy,” or “positive school.” Nevertheless, signs of dissatisfaction were evident; in the Discours of 1844, he began to use frequently the expression “positivity,” which had appeared before primarily in a few passages at the end of the Cours.8 Now, thanks to the events of 1848, Comte became a militant in the political process, considering himself not only the inheritor of the tradition of the “positive spirit” and the architect of the “positive philosophy,” but also the founder of a movement that was more than intellectual. Positivism, to Comte, was not simply a philosophy but a political program.9 He wrote, “Positivism is composed essentially of a philosophy and a politics, which are necessarily inseparable, as constituting on the one hand, the basis, and on the other, the goal of the same universal system, where intelligence and sociability are found intimately combined.” This interconnection had always been a source of inspiration for Comte because he had wanted from the start of his career to reconstruct the political world destroyed by the French Revolution. Systematizing ideas (i.e., opinions) and social practices (i.e., customs and morals), which involved the emotions, always represented in his mind the first steps in the regeneration of social and political institutions. “Mental and moral unity” had to be first created. Theory had to precede practice. Yet now, perhaps emboldened by the Revolution of 1848, which raised

6

7

8

9

dans le travail intellectuel,” 444. The alterations in the text that Comte made between 1848 and 1850 had to do with political references, especially communism, which he increasingly saw as the major enemy of positivism. See Syst`eme, 1:153. Petit, introduction to the Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 11. This discussion of the Discours is greatly indebted to her fine analysis. As she points out, Comte was increasingly obsessed by the “systematicity” of his work. Petit, introduction to Discours, 14. He even announced in a footnote that henceforth he wanted the Cours to be known as the Syst`eme de philosophie positive. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 44n. See lesson twenty-eight, written in 1834. Cours, 1:454. Bazard’s use of the term “positivism” can be seen in Doctrine de Saint-Simon, premi`ere ann´ee, 1829, 2d ed. (Paris, 1830), 416. Enfantin used the term in a letter to Bailly, April 1830, Fonds Enfantin 7644, fol. 107, Biblioth`eque d’Arsenal. See for example, Cours, 2:548, 567, 701. Apologizing for the neologism, Comte also used the term “positivity” in a letter to G. d’Eichthal, December 9, 1828, CG, 1:202. One Comtean scholar, Andrew Wernick, translates “positivity” into English as “scientificity,” which makes it more understandable. Wernick, Auguste Comte, 27. Petit, introduction to Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 14, 15.

Introduction: Positivism as Politics and as Religion

337

his consciousness of the modern problems of alienation and atomism, he became more outspoken about the pressing need for political and social restructuring. In their quest for independence, individuals, he believed, were forgetting their ties to one another. It was imperative, therefore, to create a political system that would help make people sociable. It would have to appeal not only to their reason but also to their feelings and imagination. In the process, it would create new ways of living. For the first time, he implied that the positivist transformation of opinions and morals did not have to be complete for the positivist reorganization of institutions to begin. Politics meant, to Comte, intervening in the evolution of society especially “to diminish a great deal the partial deviations, deadly delays, and grave incoherences inherent in such a complex growth.”10 It was time for activism. Therefore the term “positive school” that he used sometimes to refer to his incipient movement no longer seemed adequate, for it was too academic. He needed an “ism” to present this movement as a solid rival to Catholicism and conservatism on the one hand and liberalism, socialism, and communism on the other. Thus whereas the Discours sur l’esprit positif was the “systematic manifesto of the new school,” the Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme was a “fundamental manifesto” of “positivism.”11 Moreover, he insisted on using the term positivism instead of Comtism because he believed that it was clearer, less egoistic in nature, and more useful for the propagation of his system.12 In every arena of his life, Comte was eager to disseminate ideas. It is evident that his teaching informed his work. The Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme reproduced with some modifications the first twelve lectures of his astronomy course to the workers, given in 1847, whereas the previous Discours sur l’esprit positif had represented the opening part of his astronomy course of 1843. Both books were Comte’s way of staying in touch with readers and whetting their appetites for the bigger works of which they formed a part. Attracting attention was particularly important in 1848, when people were joining various reform movements.13 The two books were also attempts at popularizing positivism to make it more accessible to groups, like workers, who were becoming more militant in the 1840s. Comte was optimistic about positivism’s gaining in “popularity” 10 11 12 13

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 43, 49, 175. See also Annie Petit, “Des Sciences positives,” 109. Comte to Mill, December 30, 1842, February 6, 1844, CG, 2:126, 238; Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 39. Comte to Lewes, October 15, 1848, CG, 4;198. Lewes had told Comte the “present” offered “a very favorable opportunity” for a doctrine that offered solid principles. See Lewes to Comte, March 2, 1848, in Baker, ed., The Letters of Lewes, 1:164.

338

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme

among “the most progressive classes,” especially the “popular masses.”14 He wrote, “Now that positivism is finally epitomized in a true cult, it becomes equally accessible through spontaneity and reflection, without which it can have no popularity.”15 Whereas the Cours aimed to encourage intellectual systematization, which had limited appeal, these two Discours inspired the blossoming of feelings, especially feelings of sociability, something that everyone could appreciate. The works sought to develop the moral and social side of positivism, presenting the improvement of humanity as the object of scientific study, feelings, and actions, whether they were political or physical. Improvements could be made to the external environment (both natural and social) and to human nature itself.16 Comte wrote, somewhat defensively, “Although the new philosophy seems at first to propose only to form more systematic men, we see soon that it institutes this indispensable coordination only to make us more sympathetic and energetic, by establishing active habits on unshakeable convictions.”17 As he said to one of his disciples, “In making oneself more sympathetic, one becomes not only more synergetic but also more synthetic.”18 Increased sociability, activism, and ratiocination were interrelated. Because positivism would harmonize all aspects of human nature, Comte believed it should appeal not only to “meditative minds,” but to “tender souls” (women) and “energetic characters” (workers and businessmen).19 Despite the similarities, the two books differ. The second Discours went further than the first in insisting on the need to replace Catholicism. Although very aware of the appeal of socialism and communism, Comte was more worried about the threat from the right. He himself had a “growing respect for Catholicism” and knew that its following was very strong.20 He noticed that even many of his own disciples made a point of telling him that they had abandoned Catholicism for positivism.21 Others, like Lonchampt, for example, were still adherents of Catholicism, which they hoped could be reconciled with positivism because of the similarity of their doctrines.22 Comte felt obliged to address the myriad challenges posed by Catholicism. Although he assured Alix that he was simply providing a “moral culture” to people who had already abandoned Catholicism, Comte sought in this Discours to discredit traditional religions and aggressively 14 15 16 17 19 21 22

Comte to Grote, October 2, 1848, CG, 4:186–7. Comte to Tholouze, August 19, 1848, CG, 4:174. Comte did admit that our knowledge of the laws of human nature and society would never meet our needs. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 347. Ibid., 326. 18 Comte to Robinet, August 19, 1851, CG, 6:144. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 61. 20 Testament (1896 ed.), 9. See, for example, Alphonse Leblais to Comte, July 15, 1846, MAC. Lonchampt to Comte, January 20, 1847, MAC.

Introduction: Positivism as Politics and as Religion

339

promoted positivism as a replacement not only in the West but everywhere.23 He went beyond the historical overview of religion that he had given in the Cours – an overview that reinforced his belief in the political and social function of religion. He also went further than his demonstration in the first Discours that positivism would overcome the conflict between science and religion. He obviated this opposition by making his scientific system into a religion. He offered his version of religion in a militant fashion, arguing that his philosophy tackled more effectively the same difficult problem that traditional religions did, that of determining the relation between man and the world.24 Betraying his own Catholic prejudices, he quickly dismissed the “Protestant or deist metaphysics” advocated by Guizot, Victor Cousin, Andr´e Dupin (a lawyer with expertise in canon law, writer, and former president of the Chamber of Deputies), and Adolphe Thiers, whose hearts were “vitiated.” He focused on Catholicism because he considered it the “only real Christianity” and thus the only threat to his religion.25 He deliberately called his philosophy a religion to intensify the binary opposition between Catholicism and positivism.26 He wrote, “There are today only two camps, one retrograde and anarchic, where God presides confusedly; the other, organic and progressive, systematically devoted to Humanity.” The first camp, that of Catholicism, repressed the imagination, “feared reason,” and sacrificed all passions, except the love of a vague, absolute entity, who was akin to an autocrat.27 Degrading the human character, which it did not understand, and causing discord, Catholicism could not create unity within the individual and within society as positivism could. It functioned as the “other” in his worldview. 23

24

25

26 27

Comte to Alix Comte, January 26, 1849, CG, 5:7. In analyzing his letter to Alix and insisting that he was most eager to address people who had left the Church, Carneiro and Arbousse-Bastide seem to neglect Comte’s more virulent comments about Catholicism in the Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme. See their introduction to CG 5: xi. See also Comte to Tholouze, September 17, 1849, CG, 5:78. Fedi, Comte, 36; Annie Petit, “Le Rˆole du protestantisme dans la R´evolution occidentale selon Auguste Comte,” in Images de la R´eforme au XIXe si`ecle. Actes du Colloque de ClermontFerrand (9–10 novembre 1990), ed. S. Bernard-Griffiths, G. Demerson, and P. Glaudes (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1992), 143. Comte to Mill, May 15, 1845, CG, 3:10; Comte to Alix Comte, August 22, 1848, CG, 4:175. Comte boasted to his sister about his appreciation of Catholicism, which he claimed several people had said surpassed that of the counterrevolutionary thinker Joseph de Maistre. Among the many criticisms that Comte made of Protestantism was that it had an overly ontological bent. Syst`eme, 4:497. Comte, “Quatri`eme Confession annuelle,” May 31, 1849, CG, 5:22. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 375, 420. Comte maintained that the traditional God’s omnipotence did not mean He was necessarily intelligent or good. Humanity was a better representation of man because it could combine the human characteristics of activity, sentiment, and reason. On the autocratic nature of God and the superiority of Humanity, see Syst`eme, 1:408–9.

340

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme

Comte presented himself as one of “the true successors of the great men of progressive Catholicism.”28 Asserting his authority in this fashion, he announced on the title page the creation of the cult of Humanity, whose development was to be the goal of his recently created Positivist Society. In contrast to the first Discours, where he used a capital “h” to refer to humanity only one time, throughout this second Discours he used it continually, insisting that Humanity be substituted for God. Humanity, not God, should be the object of all thoughts, feelings, and actions. Worship of Humanity would be at the center of the new positive republic. Taking a naturalistic approach and grounding his sociology in biology, Comte maintained that this republic would be composed of four groups, whose functions were an outgrowth of the three aspects of human nature that positivism, unlike Catholicism, understood very well: reason, sentiment, and activity. Positive philosophers corresponded to reason, women to sentiment, and industrialists and workers to activity, especially material, practical activity that satisfied our urgent “crude needs.”29 In terms of activity, industrialists reflected the power of wealth, while workers embodied the more basic power of numbers.30 The social unrest of the 1840s led Comte to attack the upper class with renewed vigor and to elaborate on his plans to contain their abusive authority, that had been a concern of Mill’s. Comte emphasized that industrialists’ preoccupation with satisfying our base needs, their tendency toward specialization, and their assumption that they alone created material well-being made them proud, egoistical, and alienated from others in society. In addition, worrying about the details of their business and government made them forget about the requirements of the entire society. Yet reflecting his liberal biases, Comte imagined that industrialists could be refashioned into generous public servants like the Medici in the Renaissance or GuillaumeLouis Ternaux, Jacques Laffitte, and Casimir P´erier, wealthy men whom he had respected for their political engagement in his youth. Reflecting the power of anti-Semitism in nineteenth-century France, Comte even alluded to Baron Rothschild as an excellent model but lamented that people would be less likely to emulate him because he was “Jewish by nature and position.”31 The key to making the industrialists into a legitimate temporal power that would not exploit its authority was a strong spiritual power, which would use education, 28 29 30

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 375. Ibid., 348. Comte did not seek to deny the importance of these needs, which he believed gave our lives coherence, direction, character, and stimulation. Ibid., 235, 243. 31 Comte to Pierre Laffitte, September 4, 1850, CG, 5:187–8.

Introduction: Positivism as Politics and as Religion

341

persuasion, blame, and moral repression to change their behavior.32 Comte had been pondering the challenge of establishing a spiritual power for over twenty years – since his fourth and fifth opuscules, “Consid´erations philosophiques sur les sciences et les savants” (1825) and “Consid´erations sur le pouvoir spirituel” (1826).33 In the Cours, he had presented the sociologists, or positive philosophers, as the spiritual power. Now he insisted more vehemently that the “moral force” be composed of a coalition of people “foreign to political power,” that is, the “priests of Humanity” along with the proletarians and women. Indeed, it was to these two groups that the Discours seemed to be directed, whereas the Cours had targeted intellectuals. In the preface to the Discours, Comte wrote, “Henceforth the priests of Humanity will expect from workers and women the principal support for their systematic efforts to reconstruct opinions and regenerate customs in order to reorganize institutions.”34 Rebuffed by scientists and other scholars, who did not take him seriously, Comte, was evidently searching for new allies and chose to appeal to the two groups that had interested him in his youth, workers and women. It was ironic that he decided to target two practically uneducated groups to support his intellectual elite and its esoteric doctrine. Nevertheless, Comte was drawn to workers and women, for he believed that unlike the ruling male bourgeoisie, which he felt was “extremely gangrenous,” they were preserved from the corrupting effects of excessive wealth and the “artificial culture” of the day.35 He wrote to Tholouze, “You will soon feel that the triumph of positivism already depends and will increasingly depend on either feminine or proletarian natures, which are naively dominated by good sense and morality” and interested in social solidarity.36 In the aftermath of the Revolution of 1848, Comte joined the issues of class and gender, asserting that the liberation of both the proletariat and women was necessary for the advent of positivism.37 Following the lead of the Saint-Simonians, Flora Tristan was doing likewise 32

33 34 35

36 37

If the industrialists were particularly exploitative or irresponsible, they might face action by higher temporal authorities, but Comte did not give any details. Similarly, he thought of the possibility of “sacerdotal abuse” but did not offer any solutions to this problem. Comte to Laffitte, August 29, 1849, CG, 5:64; Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 397. Pickering, Comte,1:333–54. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 39. These three sectors of the population would be directed by the Occidental Positive Committee. Comte to Laurent, November 6, 1851, CG, 6:188; Comte to Tholouze, August 19, 1848, CG, 4:173. For more comments on the bourgeoisie, see Comte to Tholouze, March 31, 1849, 5:16–18; Comte to Tholouze, August 9, 1851, CG, 6:136; Comte to Papot, May 8, 1851, CG, 6:74. Comte to Tholouze, August 19, 1848, CG, 4:173. Comte to Laurent, November 6, 1851, CG, 6:188.

342

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme

when she joined feminism and socialism.38 Comte’s change of strategy meant that he lessened his stress on “the power of demonstration,” which he had used previously to persuade intellectuals to join his cause. For positivism to achieve real “universality” and embrace all of human existence, he would have to emphasize a spontaneous, emotional approach to positivism.39 Some critics later lambasted him for abandoning the importance of intellectual progress in his bid to find support among other groups. However, Comte always defended his abiding interest in the life of the mind.40 morality and human nature The mind, or philosophy, was very important in systematizing morality, which arose spontaneously from the emotions. The moral or spiritual reorganization of society was ultimately the principal goal of positivism. In the last part of the Cours, he had already announced that the spiritual power’s principal “mission” was to make “universal morality prevail in the whole social movement.”41 The first Discours had called for the development of the social sentiment as the basis of morality. The second Discours focused more intently on proving positivism’s connection to the feelings. The title page itself announced the importance of the mind helping the heart.42 The systematic nature of Comte’s thought is striking in the way he applied to almost every issue his tripartite division of human nature into ideas (the mind), emotions (the heart), and actions (the character). Philosophy corresponded to ideas, morality to sentiments, and politics to active life. Philosophy, morality, and politics were as interrelated in society as ideas, sentiments, and actions were in the individual. To achieve social unity, morality had to dominate philosophy and politics just as to realize unity within an individual, feelings had to dominate thoughts and activity by inspiring and guiding them.43 Likewise, Comte praised positivism for originating, not in a theoretical quest, as one might expect, but ultimately in active life, where practical needs stimulated mathematics and astronomy, the first two positivist sciences. Indeed, the positivist systematization of 38

39 42 43

S. Joan Moon, “Feminism and Socialism: The Utopian Synthesis of Flora Tristan,” in Socialist Women: European Socialist Feminism in the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries, ed. Marilyn J. Boxer and Jean H. Quataert (New York: Elsevier, 1978), 21, 41–5. See also Jean Rabaut, Histoire des f´eminismes franc¸ais (Paris: Stock, 1978), 103. Comte to Tholouze, August 19, 1848, CG, 4:173. 40 Syst`eme, 2:xi. 41 Cours, 2: 680. On the title page appeared the words: “The mind must always be the minister of the heart, never its slave.” Comte emphasized in the Syst`eme that people had to recognize that emotions excited and inspired reason and that reason affected feelings. Syst`eme 1:405.

Morality and Human Nature

343

knowledge derived ultimately from the demands of active life. At the same time, he condemned the theological system for emanating solely from the emotions and denounced the metaphysical system for focusing excessively on the intellectual sphere. Positivism was a superior moral system because it alone took into account and coordinated all aspects of human existence and social interrelationships – the intellectual, emotional, and active. By systematizing ideas, emotions, and actions in that order, it could create a harmonious, unified society – a society that combined “personal dignity” with “universal fraternity.”44 Toward the end of the Discours, Comte introduced his famous positivist slogan, which summed up the character of the future positivist republic and reflected the coordination among the three parts of human nature: “Love for the principle, order for the basis, and progress for the goal.”45 Love corresponded to the feelings, order to reason or the mind, and progress to activity or character.46 As in the Cours, where he freely discussed his private life, Comte explained in the preface of the Discours that he could address the issue of the emotions because of his experience with a “misunderstood” deceased “angel” – de Vaux – to whom he felt deep gratitude.47 He even quoted from letters he had written to her.48 In a sense, he was announcing his qualifications; the love for Clotilde, which he had purposefully cultivated against her own wishes, gave him the expertise and authority to analyze feelings in general. As he had done in his letters to de Vaux, Comte defended himself and his philosophy against charges of being dry. Repeating what he had often said in his youth, he affirmed that “private happiness . . . depended far more on the heart than on the mind.”49 To prove his own emotional development and depth, he also dwelt on his apology to Arago and promised to remove in future editions of the Cours the passages where he insulted his former professor, Louis Poinsot. Comte now was grateful to him for combating his persecutors at the Ecole Polytechnique. This forthrightness exhibited Comte’s dictate that to facilitate moral and intellectual improvements in the positive republic, there must be a “close alliance between private life and public life” and that it was important “to live as much as possible in the open [vivre, autant que possible, au grand jour].”50 Transparency was crucial to him as it was to 44 46

47 49 50

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 122. 45 Ibid., 345. Comte explained to de Vaux in 1846: “I placed affection between speculation and action to underscore its necessary tendency to dominate both.” Art, not writing, best expressed this relationship. See Comte to de Vaux, February 24, 1846, CG, 331. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 39. 48 Ibid., 248, 291. Ibid., 55. To support his contention that disinterested love was the true source of happiness, he also wrote, “It is even sweeter to love than be loved.” Ibid., 248. Ibid., 40. See also ibid., 372. In January 1855, Comte paid for a special stamp with the slogan “Vivre au grand jour.” See notebook entitled “Recettes et d´epenses courantes,

344

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme

the French revolutionaries. The private lives of public figures should be open to scrutiny because one’s “personal and domestic existence” was the “best guarantee of one’s social conduct.”51 Indeed, it seems that Comte was eager to publish the Discours partly to keep readers abreast of events in his personal life, which he assumed they were eager to know. Continuing to relate the life story that he had begun in the Cours, he told his readers about his travails at the Ecole Polytechnique since 1842, the year he wrote the infamous “Personal Preface.” In particular, he explained the “persecution” against him, which had led him to lose his job in 1844, although his behavior had been “irreproachable.” His enemies, he claimed, were trying to stifle his voice and destroy positivism itself by making him worry about earning a living once again. He made an arrogant, aggressive, off-putting public appeal at the end of the Discours, telling those who believed in his movement that they were “morally obliged” to support him financially.52 After all, positivism was the superior moral and political philosophy. Comte was convinced of positivism’s superiority because unlike theology and metaphysics, it promoted the “direct preponderance of the social sentiment” and the existence of good penchants in human nature. Catholics, for example, believed that sociability was a divine gift; to them, it was part of God’s grace and was not innate. They were too preoccupied by matters of personal salvation and were interested in loving only God. Metaphysicians looked too much at the individual, instead of society. Utilitarians in particular reduced morality to “simple calculations” of self-interest. To Comte, morality had to consist of duties based on social, not personal, interests. For example, temperance and chastity were important virtues primarily because they enhanced people’s ability to serve humanity, not because they strengthened a person’s constitution, though that benefit was undeniable. Comte was very dogmatic in his insistence that man had to “subordinate himself to humanity even in his most minor acts.”53 Positivism was superior to other religions because it not only emphasized sociability but insisted that sociability could be scientifically proven to be an integral part of human nature, thanks especially to the findings of the Id´eologue Pierre-Jean-Georges Cabanis; the animal behaviorist Charles-Georges Leroy; and the phrenologist Franz Joseph Gall.54 Indeed, the innateness of benevolent sympathies

51 54

1854, 1855, 1856, “ MAC. He often used this slogan as well as “Vivre pour autrui” (Live for others). Cat´echisme, 239. 52 Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 420, 425. 53 Ibid., 133. See Laffitte’s handwritten notes, “Cours sur l’histoire g´en´erale de l’humanit´e . . . a` partir d’avril 1850,” MAC. Comte often pointed out that Leroy, who was Louis XV’s gamekeeper, had determined through his studies of animal behavior that humans were naturally

Morality and Human Nature

345

was as important a scientific principle as that of the law of gravity.55 Admittedly, in the beginning of civilization and in the early stages of each individual’s life, feelings of “personality” – that is, egoistic feelings – were stronger than social sentiments because of the need for self-preservation. Yet one of Comte’s main principles was that “the artificial order consists always in consolidating and improving the natural order.”56 Thus humans had to have natural feelings of sociability from the start, even if these feelings were weak. Living in society, they had to develop habits that encouraged the evolution of their natural feelings of sociability and discouraged the growth of egoism, which would, according to Lamarckian theory, gradually atrophy.57 Following Lamarck, Comte also believed that the acquired feelings of sociability would be inherited by the next generation.58 Curiously, modern neuroscientists today tend to think of sociability, or altruism, as an instinct. Daniel Goleman in his book Social Intelligence argues that our “brain” is “hardwired” for altruism and that we inherit this biological impulse, a position close to Comte’s.59 One of the purposes of this Discours was to demonstrate the relationship between sociability and intelligence, humans’ two distinctive traits. The latter had to serve the former without being its slave. As he had suggested in the Cours, where he denounced the emphasis on pure rationality, Comte explained that when the intellect worked only for itself and pursued truth for its own sake, the result was an increase in egoism and selfishness. It was important to recognize that the mind was not the center of human unity and needed the energy arising from the emotions to sustain its efforts. Besides leading to happiness, the emotions had a beneficial effect on the mind and directed its researches. Comte called the “heart’s domination of the mind” the “subjective principle.”60 Yet he warned that if the heart had too much power, it would endanger the development of the intellect, for our ideas about the “universal order essentially independent of us” would be formed solely by our desires.61 Our intellect unveiled the “natural laws” of

55 56 57 58 59 60 61

good. Syst`eme, 3: 398; Cat´echisme, 224. On Leroy, see Philip Howard Gray, “The Early Animal Behaviorists: Prolegomenon to Ethology,” Isis 59 (Winter 1968): 377–9. Comte called the law of gravity “the first general basis of the direct study of the material order.” Cat´echisme, 112. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 273. Ibid., 128, 130. On Comte’s Lamarckian approach, see Pickering, Comte, 1:619. See Laffitte’s handwritten notes, “Cours sur l’histoire g´en´erale de l’humanit´e . . . a` partir d’avril 1850,” MAC. Daniel Goleman, Social Intelligence: The New Science of Human Relationships (New York: Random House / Bantam Dell, 2006), 60. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 62. “Programme raisonn´e du Discours prononc´e le 24 janvier 1847 pour l’ouverture de la 17e` me ann´ee du Cours philosophique d’astronomie populaire (2e` me ),” January 17, 1847,

346

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme

the external world, which was the fundamental “objective basis” that ultimately controlled our existence.62 Comte wrote, evidently in haste by the sloppiness of the sentence construction, Emotional harmony, even at the private level, but especially at the public one, is thus only possible by the evident necessity of subordinating human existence to this ascendant exterior, which alone renders disciplinable our egoistic instincts, whose preponderance would easily neutralize our sympathetic impulses if the latter did not find externally this fundamental support, which reason alone can put in the service of sentiment to regulate activity.63

In short, our obligation to conform to the external world, which reason revealed to us, reined in our selfish inclinations, made us go beyond matters relating to ourselves, gave us direction, stimulated our sympathies, and provided a source of emotional stability. In effect, the domination of this external world, which regulated our existence, encouraged sociability, that is, love. Thus, the mind and heart had to work together; the heart had to ask the questions posed by our needs, while the mind had to attempt to answer them. In this way, the mind would be working for humanity, not for itself. Thus, although Comte was entranced by the power of the emotions, there was no doubt in his mind that the synthesis of ideas laid the groundwork for their synthesis. Not denying his previous accomplishments, he maintained that the Cours’ systematization of knowledge was highly significant, for it encompassed this external world, which was the chief object and anchor of our speculations as well as the stimulus of sociability. In addition, humans’ activity, like their scientific studies, was driven by the desire to improve this world, to which it had to adjust. The fixity of this external world was salutary in all regards. “To the extent that we have become familiar with it, our conceptions have become less vague, our inclinations less capricious, and our conduct less arbitrary.”64 In sum, according to Comte, the intellect served the heart and thus sociability in several ways. First, it revealed the existence and domination of the natural world. The intellect revealed the laws not only of the natural world but also of the social world, both of which ultimately made up the objective world. It also shed light on the laws of

62

63

page one, MAC. Comte explained that this “spontaneous,” “natural” order was the “necessary basis of all artificial order.” Appreciating and improving this order was the goal of our contemplations and activities. Its preponderance regulated the growth of our feelings. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 63, 345. See also ibid., 64, 67, 75. Comte sought to do away with the division in knowledge between natural philosophy and moral philosophy, which had existed since Aristotle and Plato. Ibid., 64. 64 Ibid., 67–8.

Morality and Human Nature

347

human nature, especially its physical, intellectual, and moral aspects.65 This was the subjective world. In addition, the intellect pointed out the imperfections in the phenomena of the world, society, and human nature and the extent to which these phenomena were variable and open to modification. People could not perfect the world, society, or human nature; they could only modify them. The intellect demonstrated the kind of active intervention that was possible and desirable for the benefit of humanity, which Comte reminded his readers must remain at the center of their intellectual speculations. As he had suggested in the Cours, there was ultimately only one science, that of humanity, which encompassed all our knowledge. Now he asserted that improving the conditions of humanity had to be at the center not only of our thoughts and actions but of our emotional life as well. Indeed, the prospect of alleviating the “general miseries of the human condition” fortified social ties.66 Such statements demonstrate that positive philosophy was rising from its origins in science to a religion.67 Comte paradoxically transformed positivism into a religion to make it control science, whose moral, social, emotional, and political effects were increasingly clear to him. He deeply feared scientism and had no intention of creating a religion of science. Once the needs of humanity were at the center of his system, scientific research could be regulated and surveyed so that it would not become dangerous or worthless.68 He was truly a humanist when it came to science. Like other religions, positivism was grounded in the family and schools. To Comte, the immediate solution to the malaise attacking the Occident lay in creating a common educational system, run by positive philosophers who would promulgate positivist principles and thereby regenerate moral and intellectual life. His notion of education was all-encompassing. Education was rational, moral, and sentimental. Elaborating on the theory originally expressed in the Cours, Comte advocated educating people both privately and publicly in the ways of love so that their innate social affections would blossom. In order to strengthen the principle of “universal love,” which was the “unique principle” of positivism, Comte made it both a biological and sociological “fact.” The prescriptions of positivist morality always conformed “to the general laws of our individual or collective nature.” In effect, intervention in the natural order was necessary to help develop what was basically natural. People cultivated their natural capacity for love as they went through three stages in their 65 68

Ibid, 416. 66 Ibid., 71. 67 On this point, see Syst`eme, 1:405. This argument is cogently made by Annie Petit. See Annie Petit, “Le Corps scientifique selon Auguste Comte,” Sociologie de la science, ed. Ang`ele Kremer-Marietti (Sprimont, Belgium: Mardaga, 1998), 81. On Comte’s perception of the dangers posed by science and his realism, see Bensaude-Vincent, “Atomism and Positivism,” 94.

348

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme

lives. In the first stage, individuals were infused with “personality”; that is, they concentrated on their own needs. In the second stage, they learned to develop their affections in the family. Because of the importance of the domestic sphere in this learning process, Comte severely condemned the “utopia” of social reformers, who would do away with the family. There were four principal domestic affections: filial, fraternal, conjugal, and paternal. Filial affection taught individuals the “instinct of continuity and thus veneration of predecessors.” In this way, they became connected with the history of humanity. Shortly afterwards, they learned to love their brothers and sisters. This fraternal affection gave them “the direct instinct of contemporary solidarity,” that is, a feeling of interconnectedness with the rest of humanity in the present. Conjugal affection, which developed in adulthood, was the “most fundamental of all”; the “mutuality and indissolubility of the tie” led to intense devotion.69 Paternal affection taught the importance of loving one’s successors and thus represented a link to the future. Then, in the third stage of their development, people lived in society at large and were fully sociable. Comte maintained that positivist moral prescriptions, rooted in the nature of the human being and society, could be validated by rational demonstrations to show their superiority to all other precepts. The laws of human nature and society made it possible to understand the influence of each “affection, thought, action, and habit” on private and public life. Using the authority of science to substantiate his claims, Comte insisted that these rational demonstrations were similar to the “best scientific proofs” and made debate over the merits of positivist morality superfluous.70 It is clear that with his emphasis on proving the laws of positivist morality, Comte was moving closer to making morality a seventh science.71 Yet Comte was not completely taken with his own rational approach, for he knew that objective demonstrations of the validity of positive morality would not necessarily make people’s behavior moral. He maintained that the spiritual power had to use all possible “artifices” to cultivate, that is, manipulate, the social sympathies, which first emerged at a tender age in the domestic sphere but required further exercise to develop fully. The jurisdiction of the positive philosophers was large; they would work not only among individuals (from their youth to old age) but among “classes” and “nations” to change public and private behavior.72 To maintain their impartiality in interpreting moral and political rules, Comte insisted that the members of the spiritual power accept poverty, renounce income 69 71 72

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 129, 130, 134, 259. 70 Ibid., 134. On this point, see Annie Petit, Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 439, n115. Discours, 136.

A Defensive Posture

349

from their writings, and avoid any kind of involvement in active life, which could corrupt them.73 a de fe nsive po sture Transforming his philosophy into a political program and a religion, Comte went to battle to defend his doctrine against those who attacked it. He challenged the prevalent opinion that his insistence on making humanity the center of attention made him an atheist, a charge that the Saint-Simonians, Mill, and Lonchampt had brought up. Atheism, in his mind, contained remnants of the theological and metaphysical stances, for its repudiation of God repeated their error of delving into areas inaccessible to the mind.74 He wrote, “The true positive spirit consists . . . of always substituting the study of the invariable laws of phenomena for that of their causes . . . , in short, the determination of how for that of why.”75 Atheists were still futilely trying to solve the question of “why”; they continued to pursue the origins of man and the world. There was no way to affirm or negate the existence of God; one simply did not know if He existed. Comte condemned philosophers, scientists, and “utopian” reformers for adopting atheism, which he believed added to the anarchical situation of the day.76 Their “efforts to systematize morality” were particularly “dangerous.”77 Betraying his own Catholic upbringing, he wrote, angrily, “Far from counting on the support of presentday atheists, positivism must . . . regard them as natural adversaries.”78 Comte even tried to persuade women to become positivists by assuring them that “one can today not believe in God without being an atheist, strictly speaking.”79 Atheism was too negative. Besides challenging those who accused him of atheism, Comte denied the charge that his system smacked of materialism. This 73

74 75

76 78 79

Comte to Laffitte, October 2, 1850, CG, 5:204. Comte prided himself on declining personally to profit from his publications. He wished to prove his independence. Thus money coming from the sales of his work was used only to meet the cost of printing. Comte, “Septi`eme Circulaire annuelle, January 15, 1856,” CG, 8:194. See also Comte to Martineau, January 19, 1854, CG, 7:176; Comte to Constant, December 19, 1856, CG, 8:349-50. Comte to John Stuart Mill, July 14, 1845, CG, 3:58. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 86. Comte’s library was scattered with works by the famous eighteenth-century sceptics and atheists. He owned the six volume set of the Oeuvres philosophies et dramatiques and the Principe de la philosophie morale of Denis Diderot, d’Holbach’s Syst`eme social and Syst`eme de la nature, and David Hume’s Oeuvres philosophiques. See Comte’s Biblioth`eque Usuel, I, and Biblioth`eque Auxillaire, II, MAC. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 89. 77 Comte to Mill, July 14, 1845, CG, 3:58. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 89. See also Comte to Hutton, May 4, 1854, CG, 7:210. Comte to Mill, July 14, 1845, CG, 3:59.

350

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme

criticism, which he found completely unjust, was made frequently by the religious right. Yet the term materialism had several meanings. He believed that a “purely material regime,” that is, one founded on material self-interests, instead of moral convictions, would be certainly a failure.80 He also condemned scientific materialists, who sought to reduce a science, such as biology, to the one that preceded it in the scientific hierarchy, such as chemistry, in an illusory search for simplicity and universality.81 In the Cours, Comte had already insisted that each science maintain its place in the hierarchy. The problem with materialism, especially the variety that sought to explain all phenomena by mathematical laws, was that it usually did not include the human order at all.82 Moreover, materialists tended “to annul vital spontaneity by exaggerating the preponderance of inert milieux on organized beings.”83 Comte disapproved particularly of biologists’ efforts to explain sociological phenomena by referring them to climate and race. He regarded such explanations as not only deterministic but neglectful of more important social and historical factors. Positivism, he insisted, recognized that moral and political phenomena had their own laws and appreciated the force of ideas and emotions, which materialists often failed to acknowledge. In short, he condemned materialism as a “radical vice” leading to incorrect moral judgments and the “disorganization” of knowledge.84 To emphasize his animosity toward materialism, he started using the term “positive spiritualism” to refer to his system.85 As for another charge against him, the charge of fatalism, Comte maintained the positivism did indeed view the phenomena treated by mathematics and astronomy as unmodifiable. Yet he argued that phenomena covered by the sciences further up the scientific hierarchy could be modified to some extent by human beings. The more complex the phenomena, the more they were open to human intervention. Comte wrote, The positive spirit, which had to be fatalist when it was limited to mathematical-astronomical studies, necessarily lost this original character when it extended to physico-chemical research, and especially biological speculations, where variations become so 80 81

82 83

84

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 110. Ibid., 90. This reductionism was also apparent in scientists who sought to reduce one part of a science to another part. Comte railed against mathematicians who represented calculus as absorbing all of geometry and mechanics. Syst`eme, 3:333. Cat´echisme, 82. On Comte’s definition of the “vitality of life,” see Ze¨ıneb Ben Sa¨ıd Cherni, “L’Inaccessible dans les sciences de la vie et le ‘degr´e de libert´e en philosophie,’” in Auguste Comte aujourd’hui: Colloque de Cerisy (3–10 juillet 2001), ed. Michel Bourdeau, Jean-Franc¸ois Braunstein, and Annie Petit (Paris: Kim´e, 2003), 105–8. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 90. 85 Ibid., 176. See also Petit, 442n145.

A Defensive Posture

351

considerable. . . . [T]he sociological domain [has] the most modifiable phenomena.86

Comte reminded his readers of the positivist view of man as the “unique arbiter, between certain limits, of the whole of his destiny.”87 Thus positivism did not encourage passivity, as Christianity tended to do. Instead, it favored activism, especially social reformism. Likewise, positivism did not endorse a superficial optimism, as many people assumed. To Comte, the more complex phenomena were, the more imperfect they had to be. As he had done in his 1820 opuscule, the “Sommaire appreciation de l’ensemble du pass´e moderne,” he analyzed the “negative” and “positive” movements of the past five hundred years to demonstrate that he was not blind to the complexity and imperfections of French society. The “negative” or destructive phase of the history of humanity, which began in the fourteenth century, culminated in the French Revolution. This upheaval pushed France to seek “a total regeneration” and legitimized the notion of progress – a principle that was the basis of positive philosophy. As the “last product” of this negative stage of history, positivism now had to preside over the “positive” phase, which would construct the new social system.88 Yet after the “progressive dictatorship of the Convention,” it had been difficult to maintain this “organic” phase because of the “long retrograde reaction” that stretched from the Terror of 1794 to the Revolution of 1830. Reflecting a deeply felt need for order, this period included the launching of Robespierre’s ill-conceived “legal deism,” the “reactionary tyranny of Bonaparte,” and the “feeble” monarchs of the Restoration. This regressive period came to an end with the “memorable” Revolution of 1830 with its slogan “liberty, public order.” Yet the results of this uprising were disappointing because those who entered the government betrayed their principles and maintained a constitutional monarchy, a “futile imitation” of an English “political anomaly.” The monarchy stifled progress, failed to achieve order, and prevented the spiritual reconstruction of society by constraining independent thinkers like himself. Since 1830, France had been in an era of stagnation, where “miserable political agitation” was maintained by “personal rivalries.”89 Comte’s alienation from the political regimes of his lifetime could not have been clearer. Nevertheless, like Marx, who wrote the Communist Manifesto around the same time, Comte had faith that the “natural laws” of social development were leading to a new era. To Marx, the new era was that of communism. To Comte, it was that of positivism. Both 86 88 89

Ibid., 94. 87 Ibid., 70. Ibid., 100. See also Comte to Erskine Perry, March 3, 1853, CG, 7:48. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 104, 105, 107, 109, 403.

352

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme

labelled the optimistic visions of current socialists “social utopias.”90 Unlike the doctrines of the left, positivism, according to Comte, held the solution to the problem of instability and stagnation. His new slogan “Order and Progress,” which was foreshadowed in the first Discours, rejected the immobility associated with conservatism as well as the anarchism of the left.91 Order required consensus, while progress necessitated independence.92 Both were equally necessary for the happiness of the republic. Moreover, to Comte, order was the basis of progress because it took into account the natural laws on which society was founded and simply elaborated on what existed in rudimentary form. “Positivism represents directly human progress as always consisting of the simple development of the fundamental order, which necessarily contains the seed of all possible progress.” There was no creation, only evolution. By uniquely combining progress and order in this symmetrical fashion, Comte believed that positivism could end the Revolution of 1789, whose effects, he, like Tocqueville, viewed as still reverberating in mid-nineteenth-century France. With the “marvelous political transformation” that had occurred in February 1848 thanks to the workers’ actions, Comte was certain that the people were for the first time interested in launching the new organic phase of the “great revolution.” Politics would be finally subordinated to morality by consecrating all forces to the “service of the community.”93 The new republic would necessarily follow the positivist principle that sentiment – love for the whole society – must prevail over reason and activity.94 In the tense atmosphere of 1848, where there was much in-fighting among the different reformers, it was only sentiment that could bring society together; reason, or intelligence, was “far more a source of trouble than of harmony.”95 Comte used the rhetoric of republicanism to challenge critics who accused him of authoritarianism. Because of the separation between the spiritual and temporal powers, the positivist republic ensured “true liberty.”96 Comte defined liberty as freedom to associate and to discuss and examine moral and political issues orally, in print, and in the classroom without fear of censorship or any other type of reprisal.97 Comte’s definition of liberty indicated that he was chiefly 90 91

92 93 95 96 97

Ibid., 112. Ibid., 139. This slogan would replace “liberty, equality” of the French Revolution and “liberty, public order” of the transitional period to positivism. “Programme raisonn´e du Discours prononc´e le 24 janvier 1847 pour l’ouverture de la 17e` me ann´ee du Cours philosophique d’astronomie populaire,” January 17, 1847, (2e` me ), page two, MAC. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 390. Ibid., 110, 114, 141. 94 “Quatri`eme Confession annuelle,” May 31, 1849, CG, 5:31. Comte to Ernestine de Montfort, October 11, 1848, CG, 4:201. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 115. See also ibid., 377. See in particular the Discours of 1851 in Syst`eme, volume 1, p. 78, where he felt compelled to expound on his concept of liberty.

A Defensive Posture

353

concerned about the kind of freedom that he wanted for himself and his disciples to promulgate positivist ideas in discussions, publications, and lectures. As mentioned previously, Comte’s concept of liberty was limited. It was more intellectual and moral than political.98 He did not consider, for example, freedom to vote. This was a political right, which would fall under the domain of the temporal power, the authority that dealt with people’s behavior. It was also a right that he did not dwell on because he felt representative government was “discredited in France.” Comte predicted that once the right to vote was no longer a privilege, people would lose interest in suffrage. Moreover, on principle, he believed The word right must be withdrawn from the true political language as much as the word cause [must be dismissed] in the true philosophical language. Of these two theological-metaphysical notions, the former is . . . immoral and anarchical, whereas the latter is irrational and sophistic. . . . [T]hey were only suitable to the revolutionary transition because of their dissolving action on the previous system.

In other words, the term “right” was important as a tool to fight against oppressive authorities but was too negative and antisocial to be the basis of a new government. The only right one would have in the positive republic would be “the right to do one’s duty” and to criticize people who did not fulfill their duties.99 But was this criticism real freedom? Another way he promoted his case for the nonauthoritarian nature of his regime was to point to its popular base. He told a friend that “it is from below that the modern renovation must proceed.”100 He maintained that the spiritual power would draw its authority from its “powerful organization of public opinion.”101 Public opinion was made up of common thoughts. Although opposed to the democratic political system, he recognized the attraction of the “vulgar maxims on the social supremacy of public opinion,” which lay at the heart of it.102 At the same time, he had fixed ideas on what people should be concerned with: promoting the general welfare. Judging all conduct on whether it advanced the common good, public opinion would be the controlling moral force in his regime, where an individual’s life would be completely open to scrutiny by others. Seeking some form of eternity, people naturally wished to be remembered in a good 98 100 101 102

Syst`eme, 2:404. 99 Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 160, 385, 386. Comte to Thal`es Bernard, March 25, 1850, CG, 5:143. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 136. “Programme raisonn´e du Discours prononc´e le 24 janvier 1847 pour l’ouverture de la 17e` me ann´ee du Cours philosophique d’astronomie populaire (1e` re ),” January 17, 1847, page two, MAC. For more on public opinion, see Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 113–4, Syst`eme, 4:167.

354

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme

light. Positivism would use that desire to improve morality. In effect, Comte was pronouncing the significance of the politics of memory. Inspired by the Catholic calendar of saints, Comte devised a system of commemoration to encourage people to act for the benefit of humanity.103 He may have also been influenced by the example of Condorcet, who, as perpetual secretary at the Academy of Sciences, wrote eulogies of great scientists. Similarly, during the Revolution and Empire, the cult of the dead was very important, whether they were commemorated in statues, funerals, or other ceremonies. The Pantheon was especially set up to honor the dead. According to Thomas Kselman, statues and ceremonies were also used to remember the dead as “part of the program of civic education that these new regimes employed to legitimize their authority and mobilize public support.”104 There were three men in particular whom Comte wished to glorify with an ulterior purpose in mind: Caesar (the greatest leader of antiquity), St. Paul (the “true founder” of Christianity and the most important figure of the Middle Ages), and Charlemagne (the representative of the “Catholic link” between antiquity and the Middle Ages). According to him, these three men had participated in the construction of important large-scale entities: the Roman Empire, Christianity, and the Holy Roman Empire. He, of course, was going to supersede them by creating a global society devoted to one creed. To correspond to the three men whom he glorified, he named three men who he believed were the most inimical to progress and should be publicly scolded. The three “retrograde” men were Julian (the Roman emperor who tried to restore paganism), Philip II (the Spanish king who sought absolute power, carried on destructive wars against the other European powers, and supported the Inquisition), and Napoleon.105 Comte disliked Napoleon in particular for having gone against the French Revolution and used violence to oppress other nations. Driven by grotesque personal ambition, he was guilty of an “abominable abuse” of power.106 Comte considered him the man who had been most harmful to humanity’s evolution. Indeed he declared that May 5, the anniversary of the death of this “last retrograde hero,” should be the “Festival of the Outcasts.”107 By separating temporal and spiritual authorities and spreading the new positivist 103 104 105 106 107

Comte’s library contains two anonymous works on saints: Vie des Saintes Femmes (1822) and Vie des Saints (1844). See Comte’s Biblioth`eque Auxillaire, I, MAC. Thomas A. Kselman, Death and the Afterlife in Modern France (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 140. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 137, 138. Comte to Hutton, February 9, 1854, CG, 7:192. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 138. Comte later dropped the idea of a Festival of Outcasts. See Annie Petit, Discours, 443n118. In the version of the Discour republished as the introductory material in the Syst`eme, Comte omitted Philip II from the list of the most harmful men in history. As he became more dogmatic himself, perhaps he gained a greater appreciation of the Inquisition. Or perhaps he did not wish to alienate Catholics,

Order and Progress

355

morality and educational system, positivism would presumably prevent the appearance of similar dictators. This system of commemoration and reprobation, which would eventually become the Positivist Calendar, was one tool the spiritual power would use along with the pressure of public opinion to enforce moral behavior. Revealing his real view of human nature, Comte wrote that the control of public opinion was necessary after the demise of traditional religion to compensate for “the insufficiency of natural morality, even if wisely cultivated.” Yet if people were naturally sociable, as he believed contemporary biologists had discovered, it seems inconsistent for him to insist that they be subject to such coercion. He seemed cognizant of this problem because he stated that the “triumph of sociability over personality [egoism]” was difficult; knowing moral principles was not enough, for reason was “far” from having a “direct authority in our imperfect constitution.” Moreover “our feeble nature” tended to be marked by the domination of our egoistic instincts, which suggested that our social sentiments were an insufficient force for morality.108 Thus because both reason and feelings were wanting, peer pressure, or as Annie Petit mentions, a “coercive collective conscience,” was needed to reinforce correct behavior.109 orde r and prog re ss Although Annie Petit asserts that Comte preferred order to progress in this Discours, he did not switch clearly to the conservative side until the 1850s. In the 1840s, he still used different approaches according to what audience he had in mind. He remained eager to realize the “great program of the Convention,” although he admittedly wished to temper its “revolutionary spirit” with the “Catholic spirit” of the Middle Ages. Thus in the Discours, he frequently dwelled on the benefits of progress in order to attract reformers to his movement, while at other times he called order more important than progress to appeal to Catholics, whom he seemed otherwise to alienate by his attacks on the Church. His message at first glance seems thus ambivalent, if not downright muddy, because he sought, as usual, to distance himself from both the extreme right and extreme left. He wished above all to show that his ideas about progress were based more on the scientific study of history than those of reformers, whose “metaphysical utopias” attracted much support but were ultimately dangerous

108 109

who may have respected this king. Massin was also critical of his denunciation of Philip. See Syst`eme, 1:103; Massin to Comte, February 22, 1850 and April 16, 1851, MAC. Discours, 175, 178, 179. Annie Petit, Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 442n148.

356

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme

because they led to pointless political agitation and had no solid theoretical basis. Whereas those on the right feared the working-class movements, Comte wrote, “Our temporal leaders should . . . follow widely the popular tendencies that they claim to direct because they spontaneously conform to our true present needs, whether of liberty or public order.” Moreover, at the end of the Discours, Comte stated that the temporal power corresponded to egoism (“personality”) and developed activity, the basis of order, whereas the spiritual power was associated with sociability and instituted cooperation, the source of progress.110 His pairing of the spiritual power with progress reveals his true preference. Comte discussed progress at length. He broke it down into four components: material, physical, intellectual, and moral. They were in an ascending scale, based on the decreasing generality and increasing complexity of the corresponding phenomena, which were the same criteria he used for the classification of the sciences. Material or outside progress was the most general and simplest type of progress. Affecting humans and animals, it consisted of improvements in our surroundings, which were necessary for interior progress, that is, improvements in our physical, intellectual, and moral conditions.111 The second kind of progress, physical progress, related to health and longevity and was shared by some animals. Intellectual and moral progress was specific to Humanity. Intellectual progress involved both scientific and aesthetic refinement. Moral progress represented the growth of goodness, courage, tenderness, energy, and so forth. Moral progress was the most complex type of progress, embracing the personal, domestic, and social life of each individual. It was regarded by both men and women as the source of true happiness. Comte was most interested in the moral characteristics of tenderness and energy. The former, associated with women, would be developed by privileging sociability; the latter, seen especially in men, would grow once positivism eliminated sources of terror (e.g., God), raised each individual’s sense of dignity, and stimulated activity.112 Just as sociology depended on all the preceding sciences in the scientific hierarchy and had in turn an important directing influence on all of them, moral improvement rested on material, physical, and intellectual progress and also encouraged progress in these various realms. Comparing intellectual progress and moral progress, Comte concluded, “This double scale of the true and the good leads always to the same conclusion, whether by placing the social point of view above all others or 110 111 112

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 144–5, 155, 226–7, 358, 404, 420. Comte assumed that the “preponderance of material needs” diminished as we acquired more things. Syst`eme, 4:89. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 144. Comte also associated courage with men. He wrote, “A woman without tenderness constitutes a social monstrosity as much as a man without courage.” Ibid., 257.

Order and Progress

357

by making the sovereign good consist of universal love.”113 Comte’s obsession with systems, that is, with interrelations, connections, and correlations, could not be clearer. What could also not be clearer is his conviction that social interests were the keystone of all systematizations, even intellectual ones, for our knowledge was united only by having a common subject, humanity. Until the social point of view prevailed, Comte believed that the present political situation in France would be unstable. Creating a new constitution was a particularly futile enterprise. As he suggested in the “Rapport a` la Soci´et´e Positiviste par la commission charg´ee d’examiner la nature et le plan du nouveau gouvernement r´evolutionnaire,” which was published ten days after this Discours, Comte made it clear that he considered the Convention a model government. He praised the republicans of that time for having understood that their political construction had to be provisional as long as their spiritual reorganization of society was incomplete. They realized that the war made it necessary to suspend the constitution and create an “energetic dictatorship” that was both spiritual and temporal.114 Comte pointed out, however, that now that France was no longer at war, such a dictatorship was not necessary. The most useful approach to politics would be to set up a republican government, maintain public order, and implement measures, such as laws granting freedom of speech, which could lead to the creation of strong convictions and regular habits and thus facilitate the process of political reconstruction. The government should be concerned only with encouraging material order and industrial progress, not with matters pertaining to the mind or spirit, which should be dealt with by philosophers competing to establish convictions. Although claiming to oppose a strong dictatorship, Comte remained loyal to the Jacobins in insisting on diminishing the jurisdiction of local authority in favor of the central government, which he viewed as more efficient and practical. To Comte, the “metaphysical division” between the legislative power (representing local authority) and the executive power (representing the central power) was a mistaken imitation of the medieval separation of spiritual and temporal power. Because constitutions could not clearly demarcate the jurisdiction of these multiple authorities, they bickered constantly over governmental affairs. To Comte, the central government should represent all temporal authority and be limited in function to overseeing day-to-day matters and maintaining order.115 The representative assembly – a “vain imitation” of the English system – should be 113 114 115

Ibid., 144. Ibid., 151. Comte believed that the Convention’s devotion to progress distinguished it from a “true tyranny.” Ibid., 158.

358

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme

reduced to a quarter of “the exorbitant number that prevails today,” and its power should be limited to voting on taxes and managing the budget; it should have no legislative authority.116 What concerned Comte about the way the political system was set up was that politicians were more worried about acquiring power for themselves than discussing the social uses to which it should be put. The assembly was dominated by “speech-makers [discoureurs],” who had no political aptitude – people similar to the Girondins, whom Comte disliked.117 Like Tocqueville, Comte recognized that throughout history, the French had favored the centralization of power. Although Tocqueville regretted the disappearance of intermediate bodies that tempered the power of the central authority, Comte believed there was no need to fear centralization now that the monarchy was gone. Moreover, he argued that because the monarchy was abolished and God was not part of the governmental system, there was no need to be afraid that a central power would be reactionary. Yet although he despised the tyrannical Napoleon, Comte was blind to the dangers of dictatorship. He simply assumed that philosophers, who would renounce political power and represent progress, would be sufficiently independent and strong to act as a counterweight to the central power, which would be forbidden to have a say in intellectual and moral matters. Comte concluded, “True liberty requires today the energetic preponderance of a truly progressive central power, suitably reduced to a practical role by a wise renunciation of any futile spiritual supremacy.”118 What would be progressive about the central power would be its commitment to the welfare of the people. Ideally, the bourgeoisie would hold temporal power because it had replaced the aristocracy as the dominant class. Like Marx, Comte believed that the government was “only an expansion of the civil preponderance.” Yet to him, the bourgeoisie was too greedy for money and power. Industrial pursuits made industrialists in particular very nationalistic and eager to go to war. Moreover, the bourgeoisie, which was manipulated and dominated by lawyers, “regarded the revolution as terminated by the parliamentary regime.”119 The members of the bourgeoisie preferred parliaments to a central authority because they were avid for personal power.120 Like many other reformers, he criticized them for desiring only political reforms that benefited them, rather than social and economic reforms that would help the people. Their value system was askew as well, for they preferred to classify people on the basis of wealth rather than mental and moral merit. They were all too eager to show off their material success as a sign of their social, moral, and intellectual superiority. What made matters worse in his opinion 116 120

Ibid., 159. 117 Ibid., 232. 118 Ibid., 160. 119 Ibid., 230, 404. Comte to Tholouze, August 9, 1851, CG, 6:137.

Appeal to the Workers

359

was that both the upper and middle classes maintained the power of the Church, despite its reactionary nature, simply to ensure “the respectful submission of the masses.”121 The similarity of Comte’s and Marx’s criticisms of the bourgeoisie and religion is striking. appeal to the worke r s Disillusioned by the middle class, which he knew would not welcome the disciplining force of the positivist spiritual power, Comte turned to the proletarians, who struck him as superior in their natural good sense, keen sociability, and moral behavior. “Proletarians” included artisans, factory workers, and other workers, who represented different “necessary organs” of the social body.122 He maintained that they did not form a true class, but “the social mass” from which emanated “the diverse special classes,” including leaders of industry and, in the future, positive philosophers.123 Comte did not have the same idea of class as Marx, who spoke chiefly of the factory workers as the proletariat, aimed to make them conscious of belonging to a class, and yearned for them to become militant. In addition, Marx believed that changing their material conditions and making them atheists would bring them fulfillment. Comte maintained that they needed an education, an education in values and beliefs. Their happiness depended on remaking their culture to make them understand and appreciate their interconnectedness in time and space.124 Unlike Marx but like other early socialists, such as the Saint-Simonians, he brought in religion and its symbolic language because he recognized the limits of reason as a way of creating social coherence and mobilizing the masses to his side.125 Ironically, he seemed to embrace the position of his nemesis, Prosper Enfantin, who wrote in 1830, “We want people to feel that . . . [scientific] knowledge has no value except when it teaches them to love better, to love more man, humanity, the globe, [and] the entire universe.”126 Although he chose different means to do so than Marx, Comte aimed to create a close alliance between positive philosophers and the 121 122 123 125

126

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 164, 348, 357. Ibid., 229. As Annie Petit points out, Comte used organic, functional language to describe the workers. See ibid., 447n191. Ibid., 229. 124 Grange, “Le Positivisme comme religion s´eculi`ere,” 101. Mirella Larizza Lolli, “Raison et sentiment: Science et religion dans le socialisme franc¸ais de la premi`ere moiti´e du XIXe si`ecle. Quelques consid´erations a` partir du cas du SaintSimonisme,” Les Socialismes franc¸ais 1796–1866: Formes du discours socialiste, ed. J. Birnberg, (Paris: SEDES, 1995), 198. Enfantin added that science should teach people to love God, a position Comte would not like. See Enfantin to Bailly, April 1830, Enfantin, 7644, vol. 104v. Biblioth`eque d’Arsenal, Fonds.

360

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme

proletarians – the “two extreme elements” – to combat the egoism and oppressive behavior of the middle class, which would necessarily hold temporal power in the future because of its wealth and experience in running practical affairs. Besides sharing a disdain for social status and material goods, positive philosophers and workers had “the same instinct of reality, a similar predilection for utility, and an equal tendency to subordinate thoughts about details to the views of the whole.” Both were able to be truly happy because they were not worried about business responsibilities and could concentrate on their intellectual growth and emotional life. Just as positivism represented an extension of common sense, each proletarian was a “spontaneous philosopher,” and each philosopher represented a “systematic proletarian.”127 The main problem facing this alliance was that both partners relied on the material support of the middle class, who could make it difficult for them to object to bourgeois policies. It was hard to see how the workers in particular could be effective. Comte assumed that they would be a powerful moral force because they were energetic and their work taught them the necessity of cooperation and mutual understanding. However, although he did not want workers to be “spectators” of a political scene run by others and urged them to debate current issues, the fact that he objected to their direct participation in the government (e.g., rejected meaningful universal suffrage) indicated that his idealization of their intellectual and moral capabilities had a limit. The ultimate decision on any matter would be left to their so-called superiors, whether these superiors were in the temporal or spiritual sphere. Basically, workers were the helpers of the spiritual power, which had more clout. To offset the impression that he gave the people a subordinate position, Comte argued in favor of the right of revolution, which the proletarians could use in extreme situations. But he never explained when they could exercise this right. Another way he envisioned their usefulness in enforcing positivist moral guidelines was through their subtle use of public opinion. Proletarians were the true source of public opinion because they were more numerous than the members of other classes and represented the downtrodden, whom society was supposed to help. Yet even here they could not act independently. Comte wanted the spiritual power to guide public opinion and proclaim its judgments, thus robbing the workers of agency. Nevertheless, to encourage the workers’ movement and the formation of public opinion, Comte again recommended the proliferation of clubs. Since the 1820s, workers had been creating clubs, in a sense 127

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 164, 165. See also ibid., 246–7.

Appeal to the Workers

361

reproducing the associational life of the bourgeoisie. As Scott Haine has shown, caf´es, where many clubs met, were extremely important in the process by which workers became politicized. The new labor and socialist movements of the 1840s regarded popular caf´es as a source of potential adherents. During the Revolution of 1848, men and women established hundreds of political clubs to deal with such issues as the right to strike and the right to work.128 Comte was deeply impressed by the “memorable rush of our population to form clubs everywhere.”129 To counter the success of the socialists, who had over 150 associations in Paris alone, Comte advocated the creation of positivist working-class clubs. In the positivist republic, the clubs would meet daily, peacefully solving the problem of incorporating the proletariat into modern society. Dispelling worries that clubs would lead to further unrest, Comte did not present the workers as the “dangerous classes” as did the conservatives, who wished to maintain their marginalization and forbade their associations.130 Indeed, he wrote, “However violent the force of numbers may always seem, it ends often by being in truth much less than that of wealth.” He specifically condemned governmental repression of workers’ organizations as contrary to French habits. Their clubs should be encouraged because in fostering connections and stimulating generosity, they foreshadowed the kind of social solidarity that the positivist republic would embody. They also made the formation of public opinion more rapid and complete, and as mentioned above, public opinion was an important moral force. Appealing to the unfulfilled religious yearnings of the workers, Comte wanted each positivist club to become a “temple” to help spread the “cult of Humanity.”131 To woo the workers to his side, Comte launched into a systematic critique of communism. While commending it for its moral stance, he maintained that it shared the failings of other reform movements; that is, it still placed excessive emphasis on political means for achieving its goals, neglected the separation of the spiritual and temporal powers, displayed no sense of historical continuity (seen in the desire to limit inheritance132 ), and denied that social phenomena were subject to natural laws. Most of all, communism erred by repressing 128 129 130

131 132

Scott Haine, The World of the French Caf´e: Sociability among the French Working Class, 1789–1914 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996), 212, 215. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme,179. Louis Chevalier, Labouring Class and Dangerous Classes in Paris during the First Half of the Nineteenth Century, trans. Frank Jellinek (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1973), 361–72. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 180, 215. Comte believed inheritance was important in developing “favorable dispositions to the good use of fortune.” Ibid., 197. See also ibid., 388–9.

362

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme

“individuality.”133 Comte had recently read Charles Dunoyer’s De la Libert´e du travail (the 1845 edition), which criticized Owenism, SaintSimonianism, Fourierism, and other socialist doctrines for threatening liberty. Dunoyer had had a large impact on Comte’s development. He had been the editor of the liberal periodical Le Censeur during the early years of the Restoration and was a close friend of Saint-Simon. While working for Saint-Simon, Comte had met Dunoyer and later contributed to his journal. They had many fruitful intellectual exchanges regarding the benefits of industrialization and the limited role of the state in eradicating social ills. With his anti-state bias, Dunoyer was the writer who stimulated Comte’s “first political emotions.” Comte called him the “most advanced” economist of their times and the “only contemporary publicist who merits the attention of posterity in terms of intellect and morality.”134 From time to time, Dunoyer sent him his books, including De la Libert´e du travail.135 Breaking his rule of cerebral hygiene, Comte read it in ten days in March 1845 and found it “remarkable.”136 He happily noted the footnote where Dunoyer praised the Cours as one of the “most capital” works of “our times,” especially for having attacked the modern trend toward excessive specialization.137 Comte also commended Dunoyer’s stress on the 133 134

135

136

137

Ibid., 191. Comte, Calendrier Positiviste, 4th ed. (Paris, 1852), 26. In this edition, Comte gave Dunoyer a relatively high position a position as an adjunct of Adam Smith in the month of Descartes (modern philosophy). Comte appreciated the distinction he made between “industry that modifies the world and that which acts on man.” This idea was “the only important advance” that the “so-called science of the economists” had made. Ibid., 26. See also Pickering, Comte, 1:271–2; Annie Petit, Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 444n. Dunoyer had given him an autographed copy. See Biblioth`eque Usuel I, MAC. See also the list by Dr. Audiffrent, “Disposition des livres des deux biblioth`eques du cabinet d’Auguste Comte,” Nafr 10794, BN. Also consult “Liste des livres dedicac´es a` Auguste Comte,” MAC. Comte to Dunoyer, March 12, 1845, CG, 2:339. Comte was impressed by the consistency in Dunoyer’s approach, for the economist developed ideas he had first expressed L‘Industrie et la morale consid´er´ees dans leurs rapports avec la libert´e, published in 1825. Comte had referred to it in CG, 2;352. (Jean-Paul’s Enthoven’s footnote in the Cours and Annie Petit’s in the Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme on page 444 are incorrect in insisting that Comte was alluding to the Essai sur la libert´e du travail.) Charles Dunoyer, De la Libert´e du travail ou Simple Expos´e des Conditions dans lesquelles les forces humaines s’exercent avec le plus de puissance (Paris, 1845), 3:216–17n2. Comte believed that the division of labor was a source of cooperation, a part of progress, and an essential component of social growth, but at the same time it made people narrow-minded and selfish. Excessive specialization threatened social solidarity more than it pulled people together. To counter social fragmentation, it was imperative for the spiritual power to intervene and regulate society. Only in this way could the division of labor ensure true social harmony. Durkheim agreed with many of Comte’s criticisms but maintained that the division of labor in itself could lead to social solidarity. Pickering, Comte, 1:4–5,

Appeal to the Workers

363

interconnections among industrial progress and intellectual, social, political, and moral advances.138 Dunoyer optimistically proclaimed, “Progress in industry brings along that of morality” and ensures the decrease of social inequities.139 In addition, Comte appreciated his “judicious critique . . . of the so-called organization of labor dreamed of by our vulgar press.”140 In 1840, Louis Blanc had published Organisation du travail (Organization of Labor), which urged the state to establish social workshops, that is, democratic associations, which would cooperate among themselves to compete with and destroy private companies. Blanc’s criticism of individualism and his use of the old language of corporatism appealed to the workers, despite the fact that he tended to look down upon them as passive agents in need of state protection.141 In defending the benefits of capitalist competition, Dunoyer denounced plans to organize workers in the same way professions were. He believed such organizations would revive ancient corporations, hurt industrial growth, and fail to improve the conditions of the masses.142 Comte’s enthusiasm for Dunoyer’s work encouraged him to denounce communism for repressing “individuality” – a denunciation that at first glance seemed inconsistent with his own condemnation of “individualism” several pages before. Yet “individuality” and “individualism” had different meanings. According to Comte, individualism was part of the metaphysical doctrine that allowed all people to pursue freely their own self-interests and to consider themselves completely autonomous.143 Embraced first by Protestants, subsequently by deists, and finally by liberals, individualism encouraged every person to be an independent thinker, deciphering doctrines at will without “special interpreters.” It obviated, in other words, the

138

139 141 143

347, 349, 629; George Ritzer and Douglas J. Goodman, Classical Sociological Theory, 4th ed. (Boston: McGraw Hill, 2004), 170; Alan Swingewood, A Short History of Sociological Thought, 3d. ed. (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000), 21; Levine, Visions of the Sociological Tradition, 171. Comte to Mill, May 15, 1845, CG, 3:8–9; Leonard P. Liggio, “Charles Dunoyer and French Classical Liberalism,” Journal of Libertarian Studies 1 (1977): 166. Comte did not approve of Dunoyer’s insistence on maintaining economics as a separate science. Also, he disagreed with Dunoyer’s reducing religion to its aesthetic shell and keeping it for social reasons. For more on Comte’s critique of Dunoyer, see his letter to Mill, who read the book too. Mill found it ridiculous that Dunoyer did not understand the necessity of a spiritual power. Both Comte and Mill found Dunoyer naive because of his completely negative approach to the state. Yet Comte thought that at least this ultraliberal approach would allow for freedom of discussion. See also Mill to Comte, April 26, 1845, CG, 3: 386–7, note CCLXXVIII, Arnaud, CG, 2:435nCCLXXIV; Comte to Lewes, April 7, 1847, CG, 4:109–10. Dunoyer, De la Libert´e du travail, 1:12. 140 Comte to Mill, May 15, 1845, CG, 3:9. Sewell, Work and Revolution, 194, 232–6. 142 Dunoyer, De la Libert´e du travail, 1:442. Julien Freund, “La Politique d’Auguste Comte,” Revue philosophique de la France et de l’´etranger 110 (October–December 1985): 484–5.

364

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme

need for the spiritual power. Comte did not equate individualism with individuality, which meant to him a legitimate concern with oneself and one’s own needs. To him, the communists erred by not recognizing the “natural preponderance” of egoism or the division of labor, that is, the fact that society rested on a variety of separate tasks. Comte wrote, “Individuality is indispensable to our social nature in order to permit a variety of simultaneous efforts, which makes it [social existence] . . . superior to . . . personal existence.” If people did not feel their own individual lives were valuable, they would stop acting altogether. In addition, “metaphysical utopias” mistakenly exaggerated the importance of cooperation, “stifling independence” and destroying an individual’s sense of self-worth. They tended to deliver individuals to the “wills of legislators,” who, he suggested, could be arbitrary and dictatorial.144 The state would grow too powerful if it organized many social workshops. Uncannily echoing the criticism that Tocqueville was soon to make of the French in the Ancien Regime and the French Revolution, Comte wrote that social reformers ran into the danger of sacrificing “true liberty to a chimerical equality.” Like Tocqueville, Comte considered the pursuit of both liberty and equality to be absurd. Both had been useful tools in the battle against the ancien regime but now their “natural incompatibility” had become more apparent.145 He wrote, “For, a free growth develops necessarily all kinds of differences, especially mental and moral ones; as a result, if one wants to maintain the same level, one must always repress evolution.”146 Indeed, whereas liberty encouraged the emergence of superiority and advanced regeneration, Comte believe equality subverted sociability and progress. Too much social solidarity would lead to the end of society. Whereas previously he had focused on fraternity rather than equality or liberty because it fortified universal love, now the problem of securing liberty was also on his mind.147 He stated that to prepare for the advanced positivist slogan of order and progress, republicans should use “Liberty and Fraternity” as their motto.148 (This motto was also promoted by Marc Caussidi`ere.149 ) Comte went so far as to claim that “progress presupposes liberty.”150 The Revolution of 1848 had clearly made its mark on the way he represented his doctrine. As he became increasingly 144 145 146

147 149 150

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 181, 191, 393. Ibid., 191; Comte to Erskine Perry, March 3, 1853, CG, 7:48. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 402. See also “Programme raisonn´e du Discours prononc´e le 24 janvier 1847 pour l’ouverture de la 17e` me ann´ee du Cours philosophique d’astronomie populaire (1e` re ),” January 17, 1847, p. 4, MAC. Syst`eme, 2:185–6. 148 Comte to Jacquemin, December 12, 1852, CG, 6:450. Pierre Laffitte, “De la R´evolution de f´evrier 1848,” RO, 2d ser., 6 (November 1892), 333. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 404.

Appeal to the Workers

365

disinfatuated with socialism, his concern with the importance of the individual grew. In 1854, he even wrote to one of his disciples after hearing his description of a utopian community based on Fourier’s phalanstery that he preferred “complete and systematic individualism to vague socialism, which without being more reasonable, becomes more oppressive.”151 The Revolution of 1848 also made Comte ponder the ways in which workers expressed their grievances. Comte was not a socialist; as he was influenced by Dunoyer and liberalism, he was convinced that the accumulation of wealth benefited all of society in the long run. Each generation facilitated the work of the next by giving it its excess riches, and the “organs of this transition” were industrialists. Capital should accumulate in fewer hands to make it more profitable. Because of this concentration of wealth, he believed that class conflict, which he acknowledged was terrible, would continue to exist. Dunoyer had shown him the impossibility of completely overcoming it and the naivete of relying on the state to try to do so. Comte put his faith in moral and philosophical methods of mitigating social tensions. The positivist philosophers would make sure that both workers and employers received the same education, and they would teach them their respective obligations to each other. The proletarians would learn, for example, to support the spiritual power, to fulfill their special functions in the work force, and to participate in the formation of public opinion. “The least citizen” should have “social influence.” Moreover, the spiritual power would act as an arbiter in workerowner disputes. Such disputes would grow in intensity as workers finally achieved their deserved right to unionize, which would enable them to secure their own interests. In a somewhat patronizing tone, Comte maintained that the spiritual power would present “nobly” to the employers the “just demands of the proletarians.”152 Comte did not pretend that his revival of feudal patronage in an industrial setting would always be effective. Despite his concern about some types of workers’ organizations, which Dunoyer had uniformly condemned, Comte generally supported them as a way for proletarians to express their dissatisfaction. He reserved the right 151

152

Comte to Henry Edger, August 4, 1854, CG, 7:236. Comte owned the first and sixth volumes of Fourier’s Oeuvres compl`etes, published in the early 1840s: Th´eorie des quatre mouvements et des destin´ees g´en´erales and Le Nouveau Monde industriel et soci´etaire. He also owned the two volumes of his La Fausse Industrie morcel´ee, r´epugnante, mensongi`ere . . . (1836). The last volume of La Fausse Industrie ends with Horace’s statement “J’ai e´ lev´e un monument plus durable que l’airain: Exegi monumentum aere perennius.” Curiously, Comte wrote this same phrase on his worksheet when he finished the Cours several years after Fourier’s work appeared. See Comte’s Biblioth`eque Superflue, MAC and his original work-sheet called “Temps du Travail,” MAC. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 216, 226, 394.

366

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme

of workers to strike in extreme situations just as the people had a right to revolt if all others means of recourse failed. Because the worker was a “free agent,” he could make others recognize “the misunderstood importance of his habitual function” by refusing to work. Comte wrote, “The worker cannot be constrained to work any more than the entrepreneur can be forced to administer.”153 Indeed, workers should be respected because all of modern existence depended on them. If they engaged in a strike, they should even be paid a subsistence wage.154 By approving a strike, the spiritual power would grant it greater significance. The strike could spread to all the members of the same profession, then from one industry to another, and finally from one population to another. Comte was careful to add that the workers could strike even without the sanction of the spiritual power, whose function was to counsel, not command. Comte believed that positivism shared with communism and socialism a concern to incorporate the common people into modern society by granting them regular work and an education. What made positivism superior was its insistence on making education the most important aspect of this double reform. After all, in the modern economy, workers could not get good jobs unless they acquired instruction. In this section directed toward the proletariat, Comte chose to introduce his plans to reform education as a sign that he was most concerned about their welfare. He believed that positivist education could combine the moral training that was the forte of Catholic schools with the intellectual excellence that marked metaphysical institutions of higher learning. In the early years before puberty, children would learn languages and acquire physical and aesthetic training, chiefly at home. Art, music, and poetry would be stressed to cultivate their feelings and imagination. Like Rousseau, Comte insisted that children develop naturally and be free of unwise interference.155 Once puberty began, education would become systematic. Children would attend lectures on the sciences, learning them in the historical order in which they emerged: mathematics, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, and sociology.156 These six years of study would teach children the laws of inorganic life (the world), human nature (life), and 153 154 155

156

Ibid., 199, 200. Comte to Laffitte, August 13, 1849, CG, 5:50. He also wanted workers to be paid if they fell ill. As a young man, Comte had read much of Rousseau. Indeed, in 1854, he still praised the “freshness of emotions and descriptions” in the “best pages of the Confessions of Rousseau.” Comte to Hadery, September 11, 1854, CG, 7:261. Remembering his own unhappy years in the lyc´ee in Montpellier, Comte denounced boarding schools, which deprived children of family life. Comte also thought that all this knowledge could be expressed in 360 lectures. But, of course, his notion of a “lecture” was rather vague. After all, the six volumes of the Cours comprised only sixty lectures. His public lectures often ran four hours.

Appeal to the Workers

367

society (humanity), all of which were important to understanding rules of behavior and the art of politics in general. In the seventh and final year, children would study morality, the keystone of the whole system of education. However, all through the school years, parents and teachers would be developing the children’s morality and feelings, making sure that their minds were cultivating sociability. After all, the principle of positivist education was the “continual subordination . . . of intelligence to sociability.” Comte remained convinced of the “close solidarity between general thoughts and generous sentiments.”157 Comte’s schema reflects the fact that he believed that the education of each child should reproduce the history of the education of the human race in order to achieve the same “mental harmony” that the species had attained.158 It also reflected the religious history of the human race. Taking up the biological idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, Comte maintained that everyone was first a fetishist from birth to age seven and a polytheist from age seven to fourteen.159 Adolescents who liked to discuss and question went through a period of monotheism and metaphysics.160 By age seventeen, most children reached the positive stage of thinking. Comte insisted that all these stages be respected, especially to enable each person to sympathize with populations that were still fetishist, polytheist, and so forth. Again, he wished people around the globe to feel interconnected. It is important to remember that although he hated the leveling tendencies of equality, Comte intended his general program of education to be for everyone. The “theoretical studies of the philosopher and those of the proletarian” should be identical in these early years because of the fundamental similarity in their aptitudes. He went so far as to insist that “eminent practicians and theoricians differ only in the use that they make of the same faculties.”161 He reaffirmed his principle that positivism systematized what was spontaneous among the people in terms of both common sense and natural goodness.162 Despite his insistence that the current government should remove itself from the domain of education, especially because it tended to support Catholic and metaphysical doctrines, in this section of his book, he suggested that the positivist republic would one day pay for schools so that proletarians could attend them and thereby enhance 157 159 160 161

162

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 211. 158 Synth`ese, 184. Arnaud, Cat´echisme, 310n133. Some teenagers, however, would be able to skip the monotheist phase “spontaneously” and go directly to positivism. Cat´echisme, 256. Comte to Profumo, March 24, 1851, CG, 6:42–3. The exercise of the faculties of the theoricians was abstract and general, whereas that of the practicians was concrete and special. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 220.

368

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme

their self-respect, dignity, and employment possibilities.163 Considering in his own mind the battles that the workers had waged for the bourgeoisie, he stated that this education was a “sacred debt” that the republic owed them for their help.164 As for the wealthy classes, Comte could hardly contain his dislike of their idleness, lack of productivity, and pride. He believed that they as well as the middle classes could pay for whatever instruction they wanted that went beyond the general positive education. He recommended that they pursue apprenticeship in the professions rather than waste their time in elite schools that did not teach them very much. Comte optimistically stated that the current era of transition would last until the end of the nineteenth century, by which time his system of general education would be created and there would be no more need for professional schools, including the Ecole Polytechnique. He would, in a sense, finally have his revenge on his colleagues.165 Comte preferred to put his faith in the workers rather than in the middle and upper classes because he believed that the proletarians had made much progress toward emancipation. For example, they were not entranced by deism, which attracted educated people, who liked to study “words” and “entities” to no avail. Workers were fortunately liberated from theology. Aware of the moralizing efforts of the middle class, Comte urged the workers to resist their “ridiculous” and “odious” religious campaigns to make them submissive.166 He also severely criticized middle-class efforts to persuade the workers to be more thrifty by setting up savings banks. Comte thought that saving made more sense for capitalists than for workers, who lived from paycheck to paycheck and were more generous with their money than the bourgeoisie, whose avidity repelled him. He also defended cabarets against middle-class criticism because these places appeared to him to be “the only salons of the people,” the venues where commoners developed their important habits of sociability.167 Workers should be respected for who they were, not refashioned to suit the middle class. Although Comte stated that the proletariat was emancipated because it did not accept metaphysics, he did scold the workers for upholding some metaphysical principles and practices. They 163 164 165

166 167

See his comment that the professors would receive “an equal temporal assistance.” Ibid., 209. Ibid., 211. Comte’s hatred of the school never abated. In 1850, he criticized the Ecole Polytechnique for repressing the aesthetic development of young men and making them dry and arrogant. Comte to Audiffrent, November 22, 1850, CG, 5:220. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 216–17. Ibid, 224. Comte did, however, believe that positivist clubs would replace cabarets as the main arenas of proletarian public life.

Appeal to the Workers

369

demanded useless political rights and worried excessively about which individuals or coteries were gaining power and wealth. In addition, the workers mistakenly believed that only men with a lot of instruction, especially men of letters and lawyers, should govern.168 Middleclass people made a similar error when they put their trust in scientists and other scholars, whose complete immersion in their specialities made them actually indifferent to social matters and ultimately helped reactionary forces. To Comte, wisdom and rectitude had nothing to do with erudition and indeed stemmed more from practical activities than from studying. As in the Cours, Comte had little tolerance for those who pursued knowledge for its own sake or to gain prestige. Such scholars were idiots or egoists.169 Therefore he told the workers to pick more reliable guides among practical men or even ignorant fellow workers, who would have a better sense of reality and utility, both of which were essential to the positive spirit. They should also, of course, admire positive philosophers. In sum, Comte believed that in the positivist era, workers would be happy in their social niches because they would not have to worry about their material well-being. They would realize that aspiring to be entrepreneurs and gaining upward social mobility did not benefit them in the long run; talented, energetic workers were the ones who advanced, and in doing so, they abandoned their fellow workers, whose conditions thereby deteriorated. Workers should stop imitating the middle classes and cease fretting about social rank, power, celebrity, or money, none of which was the source of happiness.170 A sense of satisfaction was, in truth, linked to “the moderate exercise of sentiment, reason, and activity” and was something the workers could achieve, much to the envy of the intellectual and business leaders.171 Representing morality, the proletariat could teach other classes how to behave in a virtuous manner. Such naivete could not have won many workers to Comte’s cause. Comte concluded his section on the proletariat by describing the positivist government of the future. Three industrial leaders would become the heads of government. Temporal power would never in 168 169 170

171

To Comte, men who had great facility in written and oral communication lacked fixed convictions and could not discern the “true from the false.” Ibid., 218. Annie Petit, Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 456n317. Comte denounced academies again in the text of the first volume of the Syst`eme. Syst`eme, 1:422. See Comte to Laurent, September 14, 1852, CG, 6:362. However, Comte did admit that some movement from the lower to the middle class was necessary to replenish the bourgeoisie. Syst`eme, 3:522. Critical of “vagabondage,” Comte generally wanted “stability” in “industrial relations,” so that people did not change their “inferiors” and “superiors” unless there was some serious reason. At the same time, he did not want people to be forced to work in a place against their will. Cat´echisme, 248, 249. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 226.

370

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme

this era be “condensed into one single leader” because of the “diversity of practical works – agricultural, manufacturing, and commercial.” There would not be elections for these three positions; like other functionaries, the previous leaders would choose their successors.172 Yet just as the current scholars were unfit to assume the reins of the spiritual power, industrialists needed to undergo a process of regeneration. In the meantime, “eminent” members of the working class would have to take over the country, becoming the temporal leaders and one crucial source of members of the spiritual power.173 The working class, in his eyes, offered the best guarantee for both liberty and order, which were required for the period of transition, because of their mental emancipation, lack of nationalism, dislike of war, and indifference to parliaments, whose measures were usually antiproletarian. Their love of liberty would prevent them from becoming oppressive in any way, while their interest in centralized power would protect the country against anarchy. Parisians workers would have the responsibility of selecting the proletariat triumvirate that would hold central power. Thus, like Marx, Comte recommended a dictatorship of the proletariat as a transitional form of government. the role of wome n After examining the role of the proletarians both in the transition to the regime and in the regime itself, Comte turned his attention to women’s part in his republic. He regarded his “feminine theory” as “the most decisive part” of the Discours, one of whose principal aims was to persuade women to convert to positivism, which he believed was “eminently appropriate” to them.174 As reflected in the description of the Occidental Positive Committee (Comit´e Positif Occidental), which he wrote in May 1848, Comte was rethinking his position on women. As late as 1843, Comte still believed that woman was in a “state of extreme infancy,” which made her naturally inferior to the “grand human type,” the male, the standard human being.175 In the Cours and in his letters to Mill, he had used scientific arguments to prove that women’s weak reason, imperfect character, and excessive emotions disqualified them from having a directing role in any realm, 172 173 174

175

Usually, however, superiors would confirm the bureaucrat’s selection of his successor. Comte to Tsar Nicholas, December 20, 1852, CG, 6:461, 466. Comte to Thal`es Bernard, March 25, 1850, CG, 5:141; Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 231. Comte to Ernestine de Montfort, October 11, 1848, CG, 4:201; Comte, “Cinqui`eme Confession annuelle,” May 27, 1850, CG, 5:154. See also Comte to Mont`egre, August 24, 1848, CG, 4:176; “Quatri`eme Confession annuelle,” May 31, 1849, CG, 5:30. Comte to Mill, July 16 and October 5, 1843, CG, 2:179, 199.

The Role of Women

371

including the state, the Church, science, philosophy, the arts, industry, the military, and even the family itself.176 Women were thus excluded completely from the new emerging public sphere. Arguing against Mill’s feminist position, Comte believed that no amount of exercise and education could alter woman’s substandard physical and mental constitution.177 He also used his new science of sociology to prove that “industrial activity” and the positive, that is, scientific, spirit, both of which characterized modern life, would increase the inequalities between the sexes.178 In effect, men would become even more dominant. Comte’s sociological laws reflected his own prejudices and those of his times, which were encapsulated in the new bourgeois cult of domesticity.179 He had certainly wandered far from the position that he had held in his youth, when after having read works by Mary Wollstonecraft and Condorcet, he blamed men for using “the horrible law of the strongest” to lord it over women, whom they regarded as a “toy destined for all eternity for the good pleasure and usage of his Majesty Man.”180 He had hoped then that social regeneration would diminish inequalities.181 The misogynous tendencies in Comte’s thought of the 1830s and early 40s were challenged in the mid and late 1840s. The debate with Mill may have initially made him contemplate the ramifications of his rigid position with regard to women. While corresponding with Mill, he encountered Sarah Austin, whose drive to succeed and strong views impressed him. He boasted that she and several women from Paris and Holland looked with favor on this doctrine, a factor that made him respect women’s judgment more than previously.182 176 177 178

179

180 181

182

Comte made fun of the idea of a powerful queen and a papesse. Comte to Mill, July 16, 1843, CG, 2:179. Comte to Mill, October 5, 1843, CG, 2:199. Comte to Mill, July 16, 1843, CG, 2:179. According to Schiebinger, craniologists, whose judgments Comte was quick to stress, asserted that “the inequality of the sexes increases with the progress of civilization.” Londa Schiebinger, The Mind Has No Sex? Women in the Origins of Modern Science (Cambridge, MAS.: Harvard University Press, 1989), 212. The male bourgeoisie sought to alleviate the evils of the new industrial system, monopolize the best jobs, and satisfy women’s demands for a role in society by elaborating this myth of the pure woman at home creating a refuge from the individualism, competitiveness, and crassness of life in the marketplace. See Mary Poovey, Uneven Developments: The Ideological Work of Gender in Mid-Victorian England (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), 10–11; Susan K. Grogan, French Socialism and Sexual Difference: Women and the New Society, 1803–44 (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1992), 5. Comte to Valat, September 24, 1819, CG, 1:56–7. For the reasons that Comte changed his mind about women, see Mary Pickering, “Angels and Demons in the Moral Vision of Auguste Comte,” Journal of Women’s History 8 (Summer 1996): 19–25. Comte to Ernestine de Montfort, October 11, 1848, CG, 4:201. One of the “Dutch” women might have been Madame de Capellen, the wife of a wealthy supporter. She was actually French.

372

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme

One significant stimulus for Comte’s change of attitude was his love for Clotilde de Vaux, whose “eminent intelligence” and “angelic purity” he constantly celebrated.183 Comte increased his stress on women as part of his campaign to win her love.184 In addition, his relationship with her made him more aware of unjust laws which had led to her “painful dependence.”185 Moreover, his conviction that she exerted a beneficial influence on his career encouraged him to exhibit a more generous, open attitude. A few months after her death in 1846, he wrote in his dedication to the Syst`eme that it was time to ask her “sex” for its “active and powerful cooperation” in ensuring the triumph of positivism, especially because its victory required the growth of feelings of sociability – the arena in which they were experts. Advancing positivism offered women, especially women with literary talents, a “worthy career.”186 Another woman may have influenced his views. After de Vaux’s death, Comte became close to Sophie Bliaux, whom Massin had originally hired in late 1841 to look after their new apartment. She lived in Comte’s home, without her husband, Martin Thomas. When she had a son in 1844, she gave him to a wet nurse for four years in order to continue to serve Comte. As she helped him through his ordeal with de Vaux, he came to consider her more of a “companion” than a domestic. Indeed, he felt “morally inferior to this eminent proletarian who was deprived of all culture,” that is, education.187 The fact that she had not been touched by Parisian civilization and had no desire to learn to read but could speak about philosophical matters made her a kind of female noble savage.188 Comte came to prefer ignorant 183

184

185

186 187

188

Comte, “Troisi`eme Confession annuelle,” June 25, 1848, CG, 4:158, 162. See also Comte to Madame Comte, January 10, 1847, CG, 4:96; Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 296, 297. Reflecting his period’s revived interest in chivalry, he told de Vaux that her sex would be inevitably drawn to his doctrine because it made “the adoration of women dominant” and looked forward to the day when “the knee of man will bend only before the woman.” Positivism would revive the social role women had played during the Middle Ages. Comte to Clotilde de Vaux, “Lettre philosophique sur la comm´emoration sociale,” June 2, 1845, CG, 3:33. Comte also included this essay in his Testament. See Testament, 240a –240i . Comte, “D´edicace,” 48. Comte later wrote that “the thinking man” must be under “the inspiration of the woman.” Cat´echisme, 42. See also Genevi`eve Fraisse, Muse de la raison: La D´emocratie exclusive et la diff´erence des sexes (Aix-en-Provence: Alin´ea, 1989), 149. Comte, “D´edicace,” CG, 4:53–4. Comte, “Troisi`eme Confession annuelle,” June 25, 1848, CG, 4:158,160. See also Comte to Massin, January 5, 1850, CG, 5:125. Bliaux was born on September 14, 1804 in Oissy in the Somme, and as a young girl, she went to Paris with her aunt, who was a laundress. Her husband, Martin Thomas, was a deliveryman, who worked for a pharmacy located on rue Monsieur le Prince. Maurice Wolff, Un des Anges d’Auguste Comte: Sophie Thomas (Paris: Execution Testamentaire d’Auguste Comte, 1933), 6, 7, 17. Deroisin, Comte, 116.

The Role of Women

373

proletarian women to wealthy “privileged” women, who, he worried, sought excessive independence, often approved of radical changes in women’s condition, and lacked tenderness.189 After the Revolution of 1848, he asked Bliaux’s family to move into his apartment to enhance his own life. He wanted to adopt her, but as with de Vaux, this scheme to make her his daughter failed.190 On July 13, 1848, when Bliaux was forty-four, she bore a second son, Paul Martin, in Comte’s apartment.191 The “spectacle” of family life was “salutary” for him. His respect for the proletarian woman and appreciation of the “feminine nature” derived partly from his affection for her.192 He believed that he was a better person thanks to the “moral regeneration begun in him by a tender mother, developed by the saintly wife [de Vaux], and daily cultivated . . . by my noble servant.”193 To be buried in the same tomb as these women was his fervent desire. Increasingly aware of his old age, Comte was becoming nostalgic and avid for affection, which he associated with women. He looked back with greater fondness on his mother, whom he regarded as the source of his “essential qualities”of heart, mind, and spirit.194 He even renewed contact with the wet nurse he had had when he was born.195 In 1848, he also reminisced fondly about Ernestine de Goy (now Madame de Montfort) after learning that she was a grandmother. She was his “oldest memory of a woman” outside his family because as a young boy of fifteen, Comte had had a crush on her.196 Indeed Comte claimed that Goy represented his only previous experience in “true love” before de Vaux herself.197 She introduced him to 189 190 191

192

193 194 195 196 197

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 274, 276. Comte, “Cinqui`eme Confession annuelle,” May 27, 1850, CG, 5:162. See “Documents: Etat Civil,” for Sophie Bliaux, MAC and the inscription written by Comte to Paul Martin, July 13, 1855, in Fables de la Fontaine, MAC. Comte gave the book to the boy. The infant, who was her second son, was sent away to a wet nurse in the country for the first four years so she could serve Comte better. According to Henry Dix Hutton, both sons eventually resided with their parents in Comte’s apartment, at least between 1854 and 1856, when he visited him in Paris. Hutton, Comte, 10. See also Comte to Robinet, April 8, 1852, CG, 6:261; Comte, “Septi`eme Confession annuelle,” May 28, 1852, CG, 6:287. Syst`eme, 4:553. Comte even wished to act as a kind of father to one of her children. He knew, however, that assuming such a role would lead to suspicions that the child was his offspring. Indeed, later there were allegations that Comte and she were lovers. Comte, “Troisi`eme Confession annuelle,” June 25, 1848, CG, 4:160. See also Comte to Thal`es Bernard, March 25, 1850, CG, 5:144. “Quatri`eme Confession annuelle,” May 31, 1849, CG, 5:24. Comte, “Cinqui`eme Confession annuelle,” May 27, 1850, CG, 5:162. In the positive era, deceased mothers would be men’s main guardian angels. His wet nurse was Franc¸oise Jourdan. See Comte to Jourdon, January 13, 1847, CG, 4:98. Comte to Alix Comte, June 10, 1848, CG, 4:154. See also Pickering, Comte, 1:22–3. Comte to Clotilde de Vaux, November 24, 1845, CG, 3:206.

374

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme

the pleasures of music and Italian. In August 1848 he wrote to this “tender and noble woman,” proudly announcing that he would send her his “great chapter on women” in order to get her support. He wished to prove to her that through the influence of a woman (de Vaux), he had come closer to “moral perfection.”198 Yet though her influence was significant, de Vaux was not the only source of his growing preoccupation with the role of women and the importance of universal love. As suggested above, besides other women in his life, the Revolution of 1848 influenced him; the feminists of the time used the idea of innate sexual differences and the cult of motherhood to advance their demands for equality, education, and a public role. The new minister of education, Carnot, authorized Ernest Legouv´e, a writer, to give a series of lectures at the Coll`ege de France on the condition and history of women, which was published as a book.199 Carnot announced that “the next social movement will result in the modification of the position of women and will lift them from the minority state where they are now.”200 Comte himself gradually came to realize that the problem of anarchy would not be resolved “as long as the revolution does not become feminine.”201 Perhaps he was familiar with Pauline Roland’s articles “Etudes sur l’histoire des femmes en France,” published in La Revue ind´ependante in 1846 and 1847. She looked at women’s lives, especially in the Middle Ages.202 Like many feminist historians today, Comte recognized that women’s history did not replicate that of men. Though men had experienced many improvements in their conditions, women had not always seen similar progress in their lives. Comte began his survey of women’s history with the Greeks. Greek women’s condition, unlike that of Greek men, had been abominable. Women experienced some “emancipation” in the Middle Ages, when morality was more important than politics and they received help from convents. Their status had been fairly high, they had had some measure of “interior freedom,” and their influence had been strong.203 Indeed, they were more important than priests in ensuring moral progress at that 198

199

200 201 202 203

Comte to Ernestine de Montfort, August 3, 1848, CG, 4:172; Comte to Alix Comte, June 10, 1848, CG, 4:154. On de Montfort, see Comte to Audiffrent, April 7, 1851, CG, 6:52. Moses, French Feminism, 132, 134, 136; Karen Offen, “Ernest Legouv´e and the Doctrine of ‘Equality in Difference’ for Women: A Case Study of Male Feminism in NineteenthCentury French Thought,” The Journal of Modern History 58 (June 1986): 452–84. Hippolyte Carnot, cited in A. Vermorel, Les Hommes de 1848 (Paris, 1869), 211. Comte to Audiffrent, June 7, 1851, CG, 6:108. Edith Thomas, Pauline Roland: Socialisme et f´eminisme au XIXe si`ecle (Paris: Marcel Rivi`ere, 1956), 86. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 261, 323.

The Role of Women

375

time.204 Yet in the five hundred years since the Middle Ages, their participation in public life had declined just when politics became more important, at least for men. In contrast to men, women had grown increasingly passive and alienated from the modern world, especially as the mind began to be valued more than the heart.205 However, Comte believed that this situation was about to change, for the “long modern insurrection of the mind against the heart” was over, thanks to the development of sociology.206 Now, he said, any scheme for political reform would be discredited without female support because women were competent judges of philosophical systems and they had more “liberty” than they used to in terms of being able to think for themselves and voice objections. They also participated increasingly in the “universal movement” of regeneration.207 Here Comte seemed to be reflecting his familiarity with Sand and d’Agoult, both of whom had shown interest in positivism. He even knew the Owenite feminist Fanny Wright, whom he considered “one of the most distinguished” Britons because of her “wisdom” and “logic.” She and her French husband, William Phiquepal d’Arusmont, had lived in Paris in the early 1830s and had been friends of Comte and Massin.208 Massin even teased Comte that his ideas were close to hers: 204 205

206 207

208

Comte to Barbot de Chement, August 23, 1850, CG, 5:181–2. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 295. See also Comte to Tholouze, August 19, 1848, CG, 4:173. Comte believed women suffered in the modern age, which placed more stress on politics. They thus did not like metaphysical doctrines such as liberalism, for this philosophy regarded human happiness as a function of political rights, which were reserved for men. Syst`eme 1:405. Comte, “D´edicace,” CG, 4:60. See also Comte to Thal`es Bernard, March 25, 1850, CG, 5:141. Yet Comte pointed out later that women had “actively participated in all previous renovations.” Comte, Cat´echisme positiviste, 45. See also Comte to Madame Austin, March 4, 1844, CG, 2:242; Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 274. Comte to Mill, January 17, 1842, CG, 2:30. He informed Mill of Wright’s very positive impression of him. He also referred to her as Madame d’Arusmont, alluding to her French husband William Phiquepal d’Arusmont. Comte met William d’Arusmont while tutoring in the early 1820s at a school established by William Maclure, a Scottish follower of Pestalozzi. D’Arusmont, a friend of Maclure, directed the school. No record exists at the Maison d’Auguste Comte of Comte’s involvement with the school, but he did teach at various places to make ends meet. D’Arusmont and Maclure got in trouble with the Bourbon government for introducing a printing press into the school, and then they left France to go to the Owenite community at New Harmony in Ohio. Comte was tempted to go with them but chose not to do so. In the United States, D’Arusmont became acquainted with Fanny Wright, who had gone to New Harmony and admired the school he established there. In 1830, they moved to Paris, where Comte and Massin became their friends. In 1835, the d’Arusmonts returned to the United States. D’Arusmont later went back to France and renewed his friendship with Comte. Divorced from her husband, Wright died in America in 1852. On Fanny Wright and her husband, see Barbara Taylor, Eve and the New Jerusalem: Socialism and Feminism in the Nineteenth Century (New York: Pantheon Books, 1983), 65–70; William Randall Waterman, Frances Wright (New York: AMS Press, 1967), 231–40. On Comte and the D’Arusmonts, the

376

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme

“Madame d’Arusmont says the large family, you, social affection . . . the result is the same . . . You needed this kind of woman.”209 In general, he now believed that women represented “the unique sanction which consecrates definitively all the moral revolutions of humanity.”210 The logic of Comte’s own trajectory was also leading him to stress the role of women. Beginning in 1838, when he finished his volumes on the natural sciences and turned toward sociology, he became fascinated by the arts, emotions, and religion, which were traditionally associated with women, and he seemed to lose interest in science, reason, and politics, which were connected with men.211 The whole point of the Syst`eme was to establish the “moral superiority” of positivism, in contrast to the Cours, which demonstrated its “intellectual superiority.” He felt that “the heart must henceforth get ahead of and guide the mind,” which seemed to provide inadequate answers to the problem of social anarchy.212 If the intellect henceforth had to be subordinated to feelings, men had to be guided by women.213 Thus like the Saint-Simonians, Comte emphasized the importance of feeling and compassion in the new society and was led to acknowledge the critical role in unifying society played by women, who were traditionally represented as specializing in love.214 Love was important because it was the only “directly moral” element in our nature and led to the triumph of sociability over egoism.215 In sum, freed from the authority of science, Comte reshaped his doctrine to suit women, who were, he assumed, “more loving” and moral than men and more likely to be attracted to his social doctrine.216 In the Discours, he wrote, The fatal antagonism . . . between the mind and the heart can be resolved only by the positive regime; no other is capable of subordinating in a dignified fashion reason to sentiment . . . . In its vain present supremacy, the mind is ultimately our principal trouble

209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216

most informative work is A. J. G. Perkins and Theresa Wolfson, Frances Wright Free Enquirer. The Study of a Temperament (Philadelphia: Porcupine Press, 1972), 113–14, 148, 322–3, 343–4. There are two undated letters from Madame F. W. Phiquepal d’Arusmont to Comte in the MAC. She was very concerned about the health of Massin, whom she wished to visit. She also discussed the similarity between her views and Comte’s. Her daughter later took mathematics lessons from Comte. See F. L. d’Arusmont to Comte, August 6, 1846, MAC. Massin to Comte, September 7, 1838, MAC. Comte to Ernestine de Montfort, August 3, 1848, CG, 4:172. At the end of his life, Comte even expressed regrets about having published the Cours. See Comte to Audiffrent, May 28, 1857, CG, 8:477. Comte to Hadery, November 23, 1855, CG, 8:150. Comte to Harriet Martineau, December 29, 1853, CG, 7:160. Comte to Audiffrent, January 9, 1851, CG, 6:7; Syst`eme, 2:414. On the Saint-Simonians, see Grogan, French Socialism, 70-71. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 242. Comte to Alix Comte, October 22, 1848, CG, 4:205.

The Role of Women

377

maker. . . . Better judges than we in moral understanding, women will feel in several regards that the affective superiority of positivism . . . is even more pronounced than its speculative preeminence.

Thus like workers, women could spontaneously understand the importance of social interests, whereas intellectuals would have to have this principle demonstrated to them in a dry, rational, tedious fashion.217 Moreover, because Comte still believed that the state was based on the family, the fact that he was intent on highlighting the authority of the spiritual power in the positive regime forced him to pay more attention to the corresponding moral power in the family.218 Unlike conservative subscribers to the cult of domesticity, Comte did not dwell on women as mothers.219 He condemned the Napoleonic Code in particular for reducing women to egotistical, propagating animals.220 He insisted that women should have more power not simply because they were mothers but because they were the agents of morality and social unity. Yet he made women one-dimensional by claiming that they represented the essence of sociability. He had made this observation in the Cours, but he now considered sociability to be the most important human trait, ahead of intelligence. He wrote, “This sex is certainly superior to ours, as to the most fundamental attribute of the human species, the tendency to make sociability prevail over personality.”221 As Daniel Gordon has shown, sociability, a “key neologism in Enlightenment discourse,” referred to the ability “to adhere to norms of reciprocity that would sustain society even in the absence of a sovereign authority.”222 Comte used this term in a similar fashion. Repelled by “masculine coarseness” and convinced that social unity and harmony rested on feelings and social sympathies, he turned to women as representing the best way to unify 217 218

219

220

221 222

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 253–4. The family contained “all the essential germs of the true political constitution” because the separation of spiritual and temporal powers was reflected in the “temporal domination” of the man in the family and the “moral authority of the women.” Syst`eme, 2:170. Comte also stressed the roles of wife and daughter. Comte declared that motherhood only excited veneration and related to the past. The wife inspired feelings of attachment and made men think about the present. The daughter stimulated the sentiment of goodness and represented the future. Syst`eme, 1:234, 2:111, 3:516, 609, 4:110; Comte to Audiffrent, July 7, 1851, CG, 6:115–16; Joan B. Landes, Women and the Public Sphere in the Age of the French Revolution (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1988), 185. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 1:234. See also Syst`eme, 1:694–6; 2:184. The Napoleonic Code allowed divorce in the case of sterility. See Petit, Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 1:449n225. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 240. Daniel Gordon, “Philosophy, Sociology, and Gender in the Enlightenment Conception of Public Opinion,” French Historical Studies 17 (Fall 1992): 902.

378

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme

an increasingly fragmented society.223 His position was very different from that of the revolutionaries and even Jules Michelet, who sought to eliminate women from the new republican brotherhood.224 Comte dispelled leftists’ worries that women were reactionary by simply ascribing their conservatism to their understandable nostalgia for the Middle Ages, when they were treated better.225 In the process of putting woman at the center of his scheme for renovation in the Discours, Comte modified various aspects of feminist thought for his own purposes, differentiating himself from both traditionalists and revolutionaries. This last stage of his thought represents in some ways a compromise. Although still patriarchal, it is a step back in the direction of his first position, when he maintained as a young man that women should become engaged in the public sphere to ensure that moral force – “the law of common interests” – would supersede arbitrary physical forces – “the law of the strongest” – to become a directing power of society.226 In the positivist regime, women would be the “primordial element in the moderating power,” which could not function properly without them. They would help to bring together philosophers and workers and help correct flaws that these two groups of men could not rectify themselves. Philosophers were no more intrinsically moral than industrialists. Workers would counter the pretensions and vanity of the positive philosophers. Women would neutralize their dryness, personal ambition, and absorption in their work; in effect, they would make them more sociable. In comparison to philosophers, workers had more spontaneous and energetic affections, especially because their employment required some “convergence of feelings and thoughts.” Yet they were too anarchical and too concentrated on their own material needs. Philosophers would work to cure them of the first vice, while women would counter their second one, neutralizing their feelings of envy. Thus women, who, Comte believed, were not as reflective or as oppressed as philosophers and workers, were needed to make sure that reason and activity were subordinated to “universal love” and that morality was considered more important than politics.227 223 224 225 226

227

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 259. Th´er`ese Moreau, Le Sang de l’histoire: Michelet, l’histoire et l’id´ee de la femme au XIXe si`ecle (Paris: Flammarion, 1982), 170. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 237. Auguste Comte, “Lettre d’un ancien e´ l`eve de l’Ecole Polytechnique a` MM. les auteurs du POLITIQUE,” in Ecrits, 109, 110. Comte was very critical of the Napoleonic Code, which legalized the patriarchal system. See Comte to Valat, September 24, 1819, CG, 56. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 236, 242–3, 303. See also Comte to Polonceau, November 7, 1850, CG, 5:217.

The Role of Women

379

Women would act as moral guardians. In the ideal positive republic, women would work in the family to teach the importance of love and to increase their influence over men, whom they would make more tender and complete human beings. The moral education of their offspring would last until their children married. Once married, men would still be under the influence of women, but this time chiefly their wives, not their mothers. Yet memories of their mothers could help guide their behavior. This continual subordination of men to women in the moral arena represented the chief source of male happiness. Comte believed that he and de Vaux were the only members of the “progressive camp” who supported marriage.228 Seemingly overlooking Caroline Massin’s alleged desire to dominate him, he idealized marriage as a real friendship; spouses never felt any rivalry because their respective strengths were complementary.229 (Men had more intellectual and active force, while women were more tender.) Condemning socialists like Fourier, who wished to abolish marriage and believed in free love, he later wrote, “The most despicable of the ephemeral sects which sustained modern anarchy seems to be that which wanted to erect fickleness into the condition of happiness in the same way it wished to make the instability of occupations a means of improvement.”230 Comte’s denunciation of divorce seems particularly incongruous considering that Massin frequently made allusions to his desire for it, especially because he had no interest in resolving his marital problems.231 He displayed a stunning lack of self-knowledge when he wrote, “He who cannot attach himself profoundly to the being whom he had chosen for the most intimate association will always appear very suspicious in the devotion that he displays toward an unknown crowd.”232 Comte went so far as to insist not only on monogamy but on “eternal widowhood,” that is, on the indissolubility of marital ties even after the death of a spouse. Comte may have borrowed this idea from the Indian prohibition of widow remarriage and extended it to widowers. Discussion of the condition of Indian widows was so intense in Britain in the 1850s thanks to the reforming efforts of the Sanskrit scholar Ishwar Chandra Vidyasgar that a law was passed in 1856 to allow their remarriage.233 But in the positivist republic, all widows and widowers were to remain chaste as part of their “adoration of a memory.”234 Inspiring confidence and stability, 228 230 232 233 234

Comte, “D´edicace,” CG, 4:56. 229 Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 265. Cat´echisme, 232. 231 Massin to Comte, May 16, 1849, MAC. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 265. Dorothy K. Stein, “Women to Burn: Suttee as a Normative Institution,” Signs 4 (Winter 1978): 263. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 268–9.

380

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme

this approach, he believed, would not only stop men from seeing a woman solely as an “instrument of pleasure,” but fulfill marriage’s true purpose, that of improving the spouses’ hearts. In addition, the practice of eternal widowhood would develop the concept of subjective existence, that is, of a life beyond the tangible, material world, which would be a substitute for the notion of immortality.235 Women after death would become idealized, their faults would be forgotten, and in this way, they would become even more pure. After their deaths, they would continue to influence men.236 Loving couples should stay together even physically after both died. Comte insisted that the two spouses be buried in the same grave, just as Dante and Beatrice and Petrarch and Laura were.237 It is evident that Comte intended to remain chaste for the rest of his life and harbored the hope of being buried with de Vaux. To make women good wives and mothers as well as valued members of the community, Comte knew they needed a better education. Women’s education had been an important issue since the eighteenth century, when Condorcet and Wollstonecraft had embraced it. The feminists of the 1840s, including Flora Tristan, included it in their demands. In 1848, Carnot was working on a plan to give girls the same education that boys received.238 Comte wanted to give his support to this controversial plan. Unlike Proudhon, who mounted an attack on the plan in May, and Honor´e Daumier, who made caricatures of the participants in the endeavor, Comte looked forward to the day when “woman, like philosophers,” would have “the same education as the proletarians.”239 He was sensitive to this issue because Massin complained bitterly about how much she had missed in not having an adequate education, de Vaux disliked her religious school, and his sister suffered from a lack of instruction. Indeed, after receiving the Discours, Alix tried to read the section on women but grumbled, “The type of education that I have received, my instruction, which was very neglected, and my limited intelligence prevent me from understanding you well.”240 Alluding to her “painful ignorance,” Massin had trouble identifying the individuals in the Positivist Calendar.241 Eager 235 236

237 238 239 240 241

Comte to Benedetto Profumo, December 24, 1850, CG, 5:224. See also Comte to Profumo, March 4, 1841, CG, 6:25. Comte maintained that the relations beteen the husband and wife were in some respects better after the death of one of them because of the absence of the problem of sexual relations. Cat´echisme, 233 Comte may have been influenced by the reburial of the bodies of Abelard and Heloise together at the P`ere-Lachaise cemetery earlier in the century. Moses, French Feminism, 153. Carnot would lose his job in August as part of a conservative reaction against leftists. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 279. See also Moses, French Feminism, 153–4, 266n4. Alix Comte to Comte, August 18, 1848, in “Lettres d’Alix Comte,” ed. Laffitte, 108. Massin to Comte, February 22, 1850, MAC. See also Massin’s heartfelt complaints in her letter to Comte, March 23, 1843, MAC.

The Role of Women

381

for women to read and comprehend his works, Comte insisted that girls be given the same education as boys so that they could have “clear ideas about everything.”242 Moreover, their teachers should be the same as those of the boys to avoid giving the impression that female mental organs were inferior. Like certain feminists, Comte desired to give women knowledge as a way of displaying their “intellectual abilities,” which could bolster their authority.243 Although unable to think as systematically as men, especially because of their narrow domestic activities, women had greater synthetic abilities, which were related to their generosity. These abilities helped them make the general point of view prevail.244 Thus unlike contemporaries, who feared that if women were to acquire an education, they might become more demanding within both the state and the economy, Comte insisted that women needed an encyclopedic education to develop their special powers of sympathy and synthesis and improve their systematic abilities.245 They had to make sure that the system of public education did not devalue the emotions.Yet their studies also had to include fields traditionally associated with men: the sciences, which represented the basis of all knowledge, and history, which reinforced the notion of continuity. Because women were the source of continuity, thanks to their reproductive capabilities, they would be particularly gifted in history.246 Comte’s views on the education of women might have been influenced by his good friend Charles Bonnin, who was inspired by Condorcet’s feminism and insisted that his daughter, like all girls, be given the same education as boys to create more equality in marriage.247 In addition women needed wide-ranging instruction to preside over their young children’s education.248 Although using for his own purposes the revolutionary ideology of republican motherhood, which had been coopted by the Catholic culture of the Restoration, 242

243 244

245 246 247

248

Comte to Harriet Martineau, December 29, 1853, CG, 7:159. See also Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 255; Grogan, French socialism, 172. Comte maintained that there would not be a problem about admitting women to professional schools because such institutions would be abolished in favor of on-the-job training. Syst`eme, 4:63. See also Fraisse, Muse de la raison, 181–2. In studying the organs of the brain, Comte concluded that women had a more developed “contemplative apparatus,” which meant they could passively observe objects well, while men had a more mature “meditative apparatus,” which suggested that they could bring these observations together and produce laws more effectively. He also asserted that women were better at induction than men, who excelled in deduction. Cat´echisme, 142. Fraisse, Muse de la raison, 8, 32, 53, 72; Syst`eme, 4:70. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 279; Syst`eme, 2:206; 4:69–70, 410. See letter from Bonnin to his wife, December 1823, reprinted in Charles Bonnin, A Madame Bonnin (Paris, 1825), 39–44. He wrote this letter when he was in prison for his anti-religious views. Comte, letter to Tsar Nicholas, December 20, 1852, in Syst`eme, 3:xxxvi.

382

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme

Comte did not believe, however, that the purpose of this education was only to make women better mothers, as men on the right stated.249 Women had both “public and private” functions.250 Without an understanding of public life, which came partly from education, they could not make the new republican society more virtuous, especially by maintaining the general interests of the whole community. In the European republican tradition, the public took precedence over the private, and Comte wished to have women ensure this principle as a way of keeping the modern scientific and industrial society together.251 He wrote, Thus the influence of women on public life must in no way be solely passive because they must give their indispensable consecration to true common opinion, which is formulated by philosophers and proclaimed by proletarians. Besides this continual participation on an individual or collective basis, they must . . . exercise an active moral intervention in order to remind all people everywhere of the fundamental [positive] principle [of love], of which they will always be the best spontaneous organs, after having been the initial source.252

Comte’s commitment to women’s education is clear in a letter that he wrote to Etienne Jacquemin, a twenty-six-year-old worker, who enjoyed learning. His parents had died, and he asked Comte for advice about the upbringing of his eighteen-year-old sister, Josephine, who was a devout Catholic.253 Using the language of 1848, Comte emphasized the importance of her “emancipation” from Catholicism.254 Her conversion to positivism could be accomplished if she read widely and came to understand that positive philosophy performed the social and 249

250 252

253 254

Jane Rendall, The Origins of Modern Feminism: Women in Britain, France and the United States, 1780–1860 (New York: Schocken Books, 1984), 3; Dominique Godineau, “Filles de la libert´e et citoyennes r´evolutionnaires,” in Georges Duby et Michelle Perrot, eds. Histoire des femmes en occident: vol. 4, Le XIXe Si`ecle, ed. Genevi`eve Fraisse and Michelle Perrot (Paris: Plon, 1991), 39–40; Michela de Giorgio, “La Bonne Catholique,” in ibid., 170; Landes, Women and the Public Sphere, 129-38; Lynn Hunt, The Family Romance, 167–8. On Comte’s lack of interest in motherhood, see Bernadette Bensaude and Annie Petit, “Le F´eminisme militant d’un auguste phallocrate (Auguste Comte, Syst`eme de politique positive),” Revue philosophique de la france et de l’´etranger, no. 3 (1976): 300. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 257. 251 Larizza, Bandiera verde, 280. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 260. Comte deplored the fact that “modern anarchy” deprived “most men” and “all women” of “public life” and made them turn excessively inward. Everyone should learn to subordinate his or her private life to his or her public life even if the “best domestic affections” suffered. Comte to Audiffrent, January 29, 1857, CG, 6:393-94. See also Syst`eme, 4:291–2. Jacquemin to Comte, June 30, 1848, MAC. Pierre Laffitte gave Jacquemin some tutoring. See Ang`ele Kremer-Marietti, “Introduction,” CG, xxiii; Larizza, Bandiera verde, 127n25. Comte to Jacquemin, July 2, 1848, CG, 4:166.

The Role of Women

383

moral functions of traditional religion.255 He suggested reading in four areas: literature, history, moral prescriptive works, and science. The “great books” of poetry and imagination that he recommended included the Greek masterpieces of Homer, Aeschylus, and Sophocles; the classical French works of Jean Racine, Pierre Corneille, Moli`ere, Jean de La Fontaine, and Alain Lesage (Gil Blas); the Spanish masterpiece Don Quixote of Miguel de Cervantes; and the English works of Shakespeare, Milton, Henry Fielding, Sir Walter Scott, and Byron.256 In addition, the young woman was to seek inspiration in the Princesse de Cl`eves by Madame de Lafayette, who held a famous salon in seventeenth-century Paris. Although Comte regarded both Voltaire and Rousseau as “superfluous and dangerous,” he conceded that she should read at least some of the tragic, dramatic works of the former. Voltaire’s Zaire had “poetic” merit, while his Tancr`ede usefully evoked the Middle Ages.257 Rousseau was altogether too skeptical. Comte’s recommendations for history tended to be traditional. He listed the works of Plutarch, Tacitus, Suetonius, Jacques Bossuet, Arnold von Heeren (a G¨ottingen historian), Henry Hallam (an English specialist on the Middle Ages), William Robertson, Voltaire, David Hume, and Franc¸ois Mignet (a historian of the French Revolution).258 He also recommended the memoirs of Madame de Motteville and Madame Roland. The former was the seventeenthcentury confidant of Anne of Austria, whereas the latter was a powerful Girondin, who held a salon that Condorcet attended. Comte did not agree with her politics but admired her courage when she was guillotined. He had recommended her to de Vaux. Regarding the 255

256

257 258

In the fall of 1848, Comte even assigned three positivists to a commission examining the possibility of proceeding directly from Catholicism to positivism. He assigned to this commission the two positivists who lived in Spain, Fl´orez and Contreras Elizalde, as well as Ribet, a law student who had gone directly from “Catholicism to full positivism” in a “single year.” Comte to Mont`egre, October 3, 1848, CG, 4:189. Comte maintained that there were only three “great poets” in France: Corneille, Moli`ere, and La Fontaine. He far preferred Italian and Spanish writers, who, he believed, did more to develop the heart. Comte to Laurent, September 2, 1851, CG, 6:154. Not reading German, Comte left out Goethe and other major German writers. Comte to Jacquemin, July 2, 1848, CG, 4:166. In recommending only Mignet’s history of the French Revolution, Comte implied that he found it to be the only good, accessible account of this event. In this work, published in 1824, Mignet set forth a favorable interpretation of Revolution, arguing that it was a part of the evolution of freedom in France. He justified the Terror by explaining that it was necessitated by the demands of war. This view became the liberal interpretation of the Revolution. Comte apparently did not approve of or had not read other, more famous works dealing with the Revolution, such as those written by Guizot, Philippe Buchez, Adolphe Thiers, Michelet, Louis Blanc, and Lamartine. Volumes of the works of Lamartine, Louis Blanc, and Michelet appeared in 1847 – the year before Comte wrote this letter. Ernest Breisach, Historiography: Ancient, Medieval and Modern, 2d. ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), 242–3.

384

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme

third category of books, which had to do with morality, he suggested a work on advice to children written by Madame de Lambert, another salonni`ere; Pascal’s Pens´ees; and a book by Georges Leroy on animal intelligence. The last category was scientific works. Here Comte recommended only Geometry by the eighteenth-century mathematician Alexis de Clairaut, who could initiate Mademoiselle Jacquemin into abstract thought. If she liked the work, Comte would suggest other books. Comte’s list of recommended books to a working-class woman is significant, for it is clear that he had high expectations. His enthusiasm proved justified, for she became a teacher and writer.259 His program of instruction would prove to be the basis of the list of recommended books that later made up the “Library of the Proletarian.”260 It was in thinking about woman’s education that he came to ponder the kinds of books all working-class men should read. Despite his insistence on women’s potential, Comte was careful to delineate their weaknesses to disqualify them from taking on the most important directing role in society. Maintaining the complementary approach expressed in the Cours, he stated that although superior to men in terms of their morality and emotions, women were inferior to men in terms of their physical constitution, their intellectual capacity, and their energy. Because ensuring the material means of subsistence was such an important struggle and women lacked the proper intellectual capabilities and force of character, they should not be allowed to govern.261 Although influenced by feminism, which led him to play with the idea that women had a public role to play in society, Comte’s thought was shaped by the predominant ideology of the separation of spheres. He wrote, “It is thus that in all human societies, public life belongs to men, and the existence of women is essentially domestic.”262 This division of labor was a so-called natural phenomenon that civilization developed. Yet Comte’s exclusion of women from a directing role in the public sphere is difficult to assess in light of his disregard for business and politics and the fact that his authoritarianism cut across gender lines. Comte assumed that only wealthy practicians, freed from securing material necessities, could be fully involved in government. Workers, women, and philosophers did not have full control over their material 259 260 261 262

Josephine Jacquemin to Comte, July 29, 1855, MAC. In this letter, she announced that she had written a book about which she needed his advice. Pierre Arnaud, CG, 4:251n512. Laffitte, “Conversations avec Auguste Comte,” April 24, 1848, MAC. In this conversation, Comte also expanded on his pet peeve, women’s alleged love of domination. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 242. Comte asserted that women would lose their aptitudes if they left “the domestic sanctuary.” In contrast, men developed their aptitudes in “public life.” Syst`eme, 4:63.

The Role of Women

385

lives and thus could not govern the “real world.” Only in “exceptional circumstances,” could the common people actively participate in practical government. Philosophers had even less legitimacy to govern than women did because their theoretical activity was even more alien to the “real” world than the life of feeling that women embraced. The philosophers’ role, like that of women, would be to modify the active world and use their wisdom to advise practicians. The common role of philosophers and women brought them together. In fact, he insisted that both be financially supported by men involved in practical activities. If they worked, they would no longer think about the needs of the whole society.263 After having lived through three revolutions and countless constitutions, Comte seemed eager to minimize the role of politics in order to create a final regime that was rational, peaceful, and free from misery. In the positive state, the majority of men, not just women, would have very little political authority. To him the problem of the West was one of “mental and moral anarchy,” and the way to achieve order and harmony lay not in yet another political constitution but in a revival of the Enlightenment alliance between women and philosophers that had occurred in the salon.264 Moral and intellectual power was stronger and more important than pure governmental power. Politics had to be subordinated to morality so that “the strong” would learn to protect “the weak,” that is, the workers, women, and philosophers, who were marginalized by bourgeois society, which valued only those with a high earning power.265 If these groups governed in the strictly political sense, they would be corrupted by ambition and self-interest. Except for Pierre Leroux, none of the socialists of his day promoted political rights for women.266 Using Wollstonecraft’s strategy of empowering women by making them represent the moral element in society, Comte considered his approach to women to be political in the sense that virtue was politicized in the early nineteenth century.267 Like other early feminists, such as the Saint-Simonians, who may have shown him the way to 263 264

265 267

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 242, 299. Comte liked to say that “the active class must nourish the contemplative class.” Ibid., 399. Comte to Harriet Martineau, January 19, 1854, CG, 7:175. On the salon, see Dena Goodman, “Enlightenment Salons: The Convergence of Female and Philosophic Ambitions,” Eighteenth-Century Studies 22 (Spring 1989): 329–32. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 285. 266 Lebras-Chopard, “L’Effervescence,” 58. See Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, ed. Carol H. Poston, 2d ed. (New York: W. W. Norton, 1988), 4, 26, 29; Susan Groag Bell and Karen M. Offen, eds., Women, the Family, and Freedom: The Debate in Documents, ed. 2 vols. (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1983), 1:51; Elisabeth G. Sledziewski, “R´evolution franc¸aise: Le Tournant,” in Histoire des femmes en occident, ed. Georges Duby et Michelle Perrot, vol. 4, Le XIXe Si`ecle, ed. Genevi`eve Fraisse and Michelle Perrot (Paris: Plon, 1991), 54. On the “politicization of virtue,” see Landes, Women and the Public Sphere, 129–38, 172.

386

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme

valorize female activity by means other than the strictly political, he thus sought to broaden traditional political discourse to include issues of morality, emotional experience, and personal relations because to him, these issues were relevant to improving the quality of life of Humanity. To make nurturing the center of public life, Comte went so far as to argue that political life should aim to strengthen domestic life. As a result, woman’s authority seemed to increase; they would be “in first place in the normal society” of the future.268 With love and domestic life becoming public affairs,269 women had therefore an important claim to participation in the city.270 As Genevi`eve Fraisse, Michelle Perrot, and Robert Nye have shown, the distinction between the public and private spheres was a construct that appeared everywhere in the discourse of the time but was not really effective in practice.271 Indeed, Comte, as mentioned above, frequently referred to his conviction that women had both public and private functions. To open the boundaries of the private sphere and to increase woman’s influence in the public sphere, he argued in favor of reviving the salon of the ancien regime. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, upper middle class and aristocratic women had presided over discussion groups in the living rooms (salons) of their homes. Deciding whom to invite and directing conversation, women were mediators and powerbrokers. They had much indirect power in political life.272 Although 268

269

270 271

272

Comte to Harriet Martineau, December 29, 1853, CG, 7:160. See also his statement that women would be “at the head of the sociocracy” once the positive regime was in place. Syst`eme, 4:241. Comte was similar to Fourier. According to Fraisse, Fourier sought to make domestic chores part of the economic life of society. He also aimed to abolish the economic basis of marriage so that people would marry for love. Then love, like all pleasures, would become an “affair of state.” Fourier, quoted in Fraisse, Muse de la raison, 155. Grogan also points out that Fourier supported public roles for women because love and emotion were crucial for stimulating industrial production. Grogan, French Feminism, 42. Barbara Taylor, “Mary Wollstonecraft and the Wild Wish of Early Feminism,” History Workshop Journal, no. 33 (Spring 1992): 199; Fraisse, Muse de la raison, 133, 177. Fraisse, Muse de la raison, 178; Nye, Masculinity, 49; Michelle Perrot, “Women, Power and History,” in Writing Women’s History, ed. Perrot, trans. Felicia Pheasant (Oxford:Blackwell, 1992), 166–72. Fraisse, Muse de la raison, 130; Landes, Women and the Public Sphere, 18–40. Comte owned a copy of Essai sur le caract`ere, les moeurs et l’esprit des femmes dans les diff´erents si`ecles, written by the seventeenth-century feminist Antoine-L´eonard Thomas, who frequented Madame Geoffrin’s salon. Thomas connected the influence of women with progress and emphasized the role they played in creating social unity. On Thomas, see Gordon, “Philosophy,” 904, 906–7. See also Comte’s Biblioth`eque Auxillaire, I, MAC. Trying to be sensitive to women’s position, he worried that it would be difficult at the moment for a single woman to direct a salon, for she would be disturbed by the male gaze and challenged by men attempting to dominate the gathering. Instead, he recommended that two or three women direct the salons. See Comte to Mont`egre, August 24, 1848, CG, 4:177.

The Role of Women

387

many of his contemporaries believed that salons allowed women too much power and blamed them for creating the atmosphere that led to the French Revolution, Comte rejected the arguments that the role of women in them was “unnatural.” He deeply respected the salons as “laboratories of public opinion,” which encouraged a “free and regular exchange of sentiments and thoughts.” He lamented that this exchange was far greater in the past than it was now.273 Comte was, in a sense, institutionalizing the role de Vaux had played in his life, for a salonni`ere could be a kind of muse, a source of inspiration.274 By presiding over a space of her own creation, she could also be a propagandist. Comte wanted the role of salonni`ere to be available to all women, not only those from the aristocracy and bourgeoisie. In the positive republic, women of all classes would direct these salons in their homes, welcoming philosophers and workers. In this way, they would create ties among people, encourage vigorous discussion of ideas, and mold public opinion. Because academies and journals would be abolished in the positivist republic, these salons would acquire great importance.275 Comte also encouraged women to mix with the proletarians in their clubs and with the philosophers in their temples of humanity to enhance their role in the civilizing process.276 (These temples would eventually replace the abandoned churches.) In seeking to base the 273

274 275

276

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 261. His admiration for the salon led him to recommend to Jacquemin’s sister several works by leading salonni`eres. Comte was a great admirer of such salonni`eres and aristocratic writers as Lady Montagu, Madame Roland, Madame de Motteville, Madame de Lambert, Madame de S´evign´e, Madame de Lafayette, and Madame de Sta¨el. The wife of Condorcet was also a noted salonni`ere. Reflecting his interest in exceptional women of the eighteenth century, Comte owned the M´emoires of Madame de Staal-Delaunay, who was the companion of the duchesse du Maine; the Lettres of Julie de Lespinasse, one of the most successful of the salonni`eres; and a first edition ´ of the Principes math´ematiques de la philosophie naturelle of Emilie du Chˆatelet, Voltaire’s famous mistress. (The Principes is her translation of Newton’s Principia.) In May 1856, Audiffrent gave Comte Caroline de Lichtfield by Isabelle de Montolieu, who was a popular eighteenth-century novelist. Comte to Mill, November 14, 1843, CG, 2:210; Comte to Madame Marie, April 15, 1846, CG, 3:369; Positivist Library and Positivist Calendar, Cat´echisme, 55, 270. See Comte’s Biblioth`eque Auxillaire, I and II, and his Biblioth`eque Usuel, I, MAC; Pierre Laffitte, “Mat´eriaux pour servir a` la biographie d’Auguste Comte: Biblioth`eque d’Auguste Comte,” RO, 2d ser., 14 (January 1897), 139. Fraisse, Muse de la raison, 149; Bonnie Smith, Changing Lives, 131. Because of his hatred of the scientists, Comte intended to abolish the Academy of Sciences. Founded in 1666, the Academy had excluded women and left them marginalized intellectually. Erica Harth, “Cartesian Women,” Yale French Studies, number 80 (1991): 147–8. Landes argues that the salon declined with the rise of mass media. Landes, Women and the Public Sphere, 23. See also Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 360. Comte to Tholouze, August 19, 1848, CG, 4:174; Comte to Mont`egre, August 24, 1848, CG, 4:176; Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 261. Comte insisted that philosophers and women remain silent in clubs, and workers and women be quiet in the temples. The salon was the only place all three groups could speak freely.

388

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme

positivist “system of . . . initiation and propagation” on salons, temples, and clubs, he was renegotiating the separate spheres to which he had assigned men and women.277 He seemed to be conceding to women an intermediate space – in Estelle Freedman’s words, a “public female sphere” – where they could develop a culture of their own.278 This was an alternative space to the traditional state, a unique space where the public and private spheres were combined.279 It fit the positive republic, where the private and public were to be closely linked. Indeed, in the future positive state there would be no distinction between private and public function; in Comte’s eyes, such a distinction was irrational and immoral.280 Besides promoting the salon, Comte laid out other measures to win women to his side. He condemned dowries, which he believed submitted women to a “degrading” market, added to the corruption of men, hurt many families, and detracted from the institution of marriage.281 In the positivist state, the use of dowries would be voluntary, not obligatory.282 Here he was being true to his own principles, because when he married Massin, he boasted to his parents that she had not a single centime. Comte, like Fourier, criticized marriage for being too venal in nature.283 Most of all, he prided himself on creating a doctrine that advanced “the moral and social appreciation of the woman” in contrast to Catholicism, whose doctrine of celibacy alienated them. Catholicism’s “ridiculous” theory that the first woman came from Adam’s rib was equally degrading.284 To offer an alternative to Catholicism, Comte celebrated women as “the priestesses of humanity” and called for the establishment of a “cult of woman” in preparation for a cult of 277 278 279 280 281 283 284

Comte to Tholouze, August 19, 1848, CG, 4:174. Estelle Freedman, “Separatism as Strategy: Female Institution Building and American Feminism, 1870–1930,” Feminist Studies 5 (Fall 1979): 513. Landes, Women and the Public Sphere, 40. Syst`eme, 4:58. See also Laffitte, “Conversations avec Auguste Comte,” December 28, 1845, MAC. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 278. See also Cat´echisme, 234. 282 Cat´echisme, 234. Lebras-Chopard, “L’Effervescence,”59. Comte to Madame de Montfort, August 3, 1848, CG, 4:172; Cours, 2:186–7; Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 248, 263. Comte was critical of Catholicism for making purity the most important characteristic in both men and women and tenderness the least significant in men. The three traits in order of importance that would characterize a woman in the positive era were tenderness, purity, and energy, whereas Christians stressed purity, tenderness, and energy. As for a man, the three important traits in Comte’s opinion were energy, tenderness, and purity. In keeping with nineteenth-century norms of masculinity, Comte highlighted men’s virility or activism, but because of his androgynous proclivities, he also wanted them to be more tender or sociable. Likewise, women would become more energetic once they took up the challenge of actively uniting society. See manuscript, Comte, “Type normal, imparfait, et Chr´etien de la Femme et de l’Homme (Tableau),” September 9, 1849.

The Role of Women

389

Humanity.285 Recognizing the importance of images, Comte knew that Humanity could not be appreciated until it was personified. The change in Comte’s position on women is demonstrated concretely by his visual representation of them. Where he had previously declared that women were childlike and far from “the ideal type of the race,” he now suggested that because they embodied the greatest virtue of the human species, that of sympathy or sociability, they should represent Humanity itself.286 It was “necessary to personify in order to concentrate ideas,” and “the tendency of the human mind has always been to embody in a female form the model of what is most excellent and most lovable.”287 Because they were responsible for the social point of view and social unity, women should also represent “any composite existence,” including the nation.288 Maurice Agulhon has shown that in the 1830s and 1840s, the leftist opposition, borrowing from or contaminated by Catholicism, frequently resorted to the female image, as reflected in the new image of Marianne. While the Republicans made a cult of Liberty, the Socialists, such as Saint-Simonians, celebrated the female Messiah.289 Women were evidently nonpolitical, nonthreatening beings, who could represent the whole community, one that transcended social divisions.290 Comte was in a sense capitalizing on the growing importance of feminine iconography, as reflected also in the popularity of the Virgin Mary image, which he fully recognized.291 Both Dante’s and Thomas a` 285 286 287

288

289

290

291

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 238, 257. Comte called de Vaux a “priestess of humanity.” See Comte, “Troisi`eme Confession annuelle,” June 25, 1848, CG, 4:157. Cours, 2:186; Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 373. Comte, cited by E. Perry, in his article, “A Morning with Auguste Comte,” Nineteenth Century 9 (November 1877): 627. Comte gave several examples: ancient Rome was represented as a woman, Catholics were devoted to the Virgin Mary, and the revolutionaries worshipped the goddess Reason. Comte wrote, “Representing the spontaneous image of the family, she alone can represent in a worthy fashion all composite existences; the universal instinct [already] erected her as the emblem of the country, before the affective sex was appreciated sufficiently to personify Humanity. Thus she represents the private source where each servant of the Great–Being must habitually dip his soul in order to adapt himself better to his social destination.” Syst`eme, 4:109. Maurice Agulhon, Marianne into Battle: Republican Imagery and Symbolism in France, 1789– 1880 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 53, 58–9. See also Antony Copley, “Pierre-Joseph Proudhon: A Reassessment of His Role as a Moralist,” French History 3 (June 1989): 215; Grogan, French Socialism, 140–47. Joan B. Landes, “Representing the Body Politic: The Paradox of Gender in the Graphic Politics of the French Revolution,” in Rebel Daughters: Women and the French Revolution, ed. Sara E. Melzer and Leslie W. Rabine (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 29. Comte was obviously influenced by the Virgin Mary, a main figure in nineteenthcentury religious iconography. He even declared that his icon of Humanity in the form of a woman was “the last transformation of Notre Dame.” A cult in the Virgin Mary’s honor was widespread in mid-nineteenth century France. Tracing its origins to

390

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme

Kempis’s works, which Comte read regularly, were replete with Marian imagery.292 The romantics’ interest in the Middle Ages had also led to a fascination with chivalry, which Comte believed helped develop the worship of the Virgin and the cult of woman.293 Comte claimed that this important medieval cult of Mary, which he believed the Catholic male clergy mistakenly disdained and which had been particularly strong in his native southern France, foreshadowed his own cult of Woman and Humanity.294 In calling Mary “the Occidental goddess,” he seemed to be recognizing the deeper pagan roots of that cult and a universal image of the woman as redemptress.295 In short, just as the republic was represented by a woman to distinguish it from a monarchy, Comte’s new religion became feminine to distinguish it from Catholicism with its male God.296 His replacement of the “vindictive” God of Christianity by a feminized Humanity indicates his greater awareness of the importance of the female sex and of possible fissures in the nineteenth-century patriarchal system.297 In the same fashion, Flora Tristan created a new theology for her concept of women’s moral superiority and focused on the female nature of God.298 As Claire Moses has argued, the “romantic idealization of

292 293 294

295

296 297

298

the Crusades, he thought this cult showed how “Catholicism tended spontaneously to transform itself into positivism.” He hoped that his cult would facilitate the passage from Catholicism to positivism in the southern parts of Europe, where it was very popular and the people tended to be more religious than in the north. See Comte to Tholouze, September 17, 1849, CG, 5:80; Comte to Charles de Capellen, August 13, 1854, CG, 7:242; Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 380. For information about the Marian cult, see Anne Higonnet, “Femmes et images: Apparences, loisirs, subsistance,” in Georges Duby et Michelle Perrot, eds. Histoire des femmes en occident: vol. 4, Le XIXe Si`ecle, ed. Genevi`eve Fraisse and Michelle Perrot (Paris: Plon, 1991), 253; Giorgio, “La Bonne Catholique,” 188–9; Grogan, French Socialism, 9, 168; Kathleen Adler, “‘La France’ and ‘La Femme’: Thoughts from a Bicentenary Exhibition,” Gender and History 1 (September 1989): 331–3. Juliette Grange, “L’Utopie positive,” Raison pr´esente, no. 121 (1997): 72. See Comte’s comments on Cabanis’s dislike of chivalry, Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 93. Syst`eme, 3:486; Comte to Hadery, May 18, 1857, CG, 8:466. See also “Programme raisonn´e du Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme prononc´e le 24 janvier 1847 pour l’ouverture de la 17e` me ann´ee du Cours philosophique d’astronomie populaire (1e` re ),” January 17, 1847, p. 3, MAC. Syst`eme, 3:554. On pagan worship, see Carlo Ginzburg, Ecstasies: Deciphering the Witches’ Sabbath, trans. Raymond Rosenthal (New York: Pantheon Books, 1991). See also Grange, “L’Utopie positive,” 79. Hunt, The Family Romance, 83. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 287. One must also keep in mind that because of his experiences with a difficult father, Comte did not care for a paternal image of the Almighty. Pierre Piret, Les Ath´eismes et la th´eologie trinitaire: A. Comte, L. Feuerbach, K. Mark, F. Nietzsche (Brussels: Insitut d’Etudes Th´eologiques, 1994), 145–7. Grogan, French Socialism, 155, 165–9; Landes, Women and the Public Sphere, 196.

The Role of Women

391

women” challenged “negative views of women.”299 Acknowledging his urge to change these views, Comte wrote that because of this cult, “woman, considered in the condition of inferiority, ends up . . . in the happy ensemble of emotions corresponding to the relations of superiority and equality.”300 Comte set about creating a certain goddess to stand for Humanity. Imitating the ancients, he explained that despite their poor treatment of women, they erected goddesses to whom they gave an “admirable” amount of influence. These goddesses acted as “models” for women.301 Comte had a very specific person in mind as the goddess: de Vaux.302 All flags of the positive republic would display an image of a thirty-year-old woman (a woman of de Vaux’s age) as the symbol of Humanity.303 Later he insisted that in the positivist temples, Humanity was to be always depicted as a thirtyyear-old woman with a son, an image that is still on display in the Chapel of Humanity in Paris.304 Though de Vaux had no children, he wished to remind everyone that the “child’s veneration of his mother must become the first germ of the permanent cult of Humanity.”305 To be inspired to adore Humanity, people should worship women both in private and in public. The private cult of woman should revolve around women who had personally touched their lives, such as their mothers and wives.306 Comte later called such women “guardian angels.”307 Dabbling in the politics of memory, he pointed out the importance of worshipping dead women, for “to live among the dead 299

300 302

303

304 305 306 307

Claire Goldberg Moses, “‘Equality’ and ‘Difference’ in Historical Perspective: A Comparative Examination of the Feminisms of French Revolutionaries and Utopian Socialists,” in Rebel Daughters: Women and the French Revolution, ed. Sara E. Melzer and Leslie W. Rabine (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 242. Comte to Laffitte, September 4, 1849, CG, 5:68. 301 Syst`eme, 3:216. Comte to Laffitte, September 4, 1849, CG, 4:67. See also Comte, “Cinqui`eme Confession annuelle,” May 27, 1850, CG, 5:160. Comte was angry that Maximilien Marie would not give him de Vaux’s portrait, for he would have made it “perhaps the representation of Humanity on our Occidental banner.” Comte, “Sixi`eme Confession Annuelle,” May 30, 1851, CG, 6:102. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 409. Comte hoped to see de Vaux’s actual image on the flag. He wanted her to be worshipped as “best personification of the feminine type in the second principal festival of the cult of Humanity.” Comte, “Troisi`eme Confession annuelle,” 25 juin 1848, CG, 4: 163. Syst`eme, 4:62, 109. Comte also said that women were “the intermediaries between Humanity and men.” Ibid., 2:63. Comte to Laffitte, September 4, 1849, CG, 5:70. The Chapel is on the rue Pav´ee in the Marais. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 287. Comte to Laurent, November 6, 1851, CG, 6:184.

392

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme

constitutes one of the most precious privileges of humanity.”308 To him, “people render justice more willingly to the dead than to the living, and a woman always inspires less offense.”309 There was no element of rivalry as there was between men because, despite his suggestions to the contrary, Comte still considered women to be ultimately inferior to men. As for the public cult, Comte insisted that men meet in temples to honor exceptional women. These “anomalies” included women who excelled in intellectual and practical matters. Comte believed that in recognizing their high value in serving humanity, he went further than Catholicism, which was too inflexible about women’s nature and tended not to consecrate “august feminine memories.” One example he used was Catholicism’s neglect of Joan of Arc – the “heroic virgin who saved France.” Positivism would honor her on every anniversary of her martyrdom. Reflecting his own preoccupation with purity, he even called her “the positivist virgin.”310 The positivist cult of women chiefly served men. Comte asserted that the “ideal existence” represented by woman helped men find refuge from “the daily preoccupations of real life” and encouraged them to develop tenderness.311 Reflecting his interest in the unifying potential of androgyny, he increasingly judged his own disciples on whether they had developed this trait, which he usually associated with women.312 Comte acknowledged that women would not be involved in the cult of woman, for they did not need to find an escape from the travails of public life or develop tenderness. Yet they too required a preparation for the cult of Humanity as well as some practice that would develop what they lacked, that is, courage and energy. Comte admitted that he did not know the needs of women and that it would be presumptuous of him to dictate to them how they should go about achieving these characteristics. He left the task to a future woman, lamenting the fact that his colleague de Vaux had died prematurely. Indeed, he was sufficiently convinced of sexual differences that he worried that women would not appreciate his doctrine and flock to his movement because it lacked a “feminine organ, alone capable of adapting it fully to their nature and habits.”313 He longed for an exceptional woman to depict the model woman and to write a 308 309 310

311 313

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 290. Comte, “Troisi`eme Confession annuelle,” June 25, 1848, CG, 4:161. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 292–3; Comte, “Troisi`eme Confession annuelle,” June 25, 1848, CG, 4:161. Comte was no doubt inspired by his friend Claudel, who had a passion for Joan of Arc. Syst`eme, 4:109. 312 See for example, Comte to Bligni`eres, March 11, 1851, CG, 6:36. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 294.

The Role of Women

393

version of his philosophy that would appeal to the “opposite” sex.314 To compensate for her absence, he highlighted de Vaux’s adhesion to his philosophy, hoping her example would inspire other women to join him and spread his ideas.315 Priding himself on being Descartes’ successor, Comte attempted to revive the role that Cartesian women had played in propagating philosophical theories.316 At the same time that he appealed to women, he criticized social reformers for demanding women’s equality.317 If women competed with men in the workplace, the affection between the sexes would disappear. To Comte, equality was not possible or desirable. Men might develop tenderness, and women energy, but their lives would never be exactly the same. He held the typical nineteenth-century view that human evolution would ultimately accentuate gender differences. Searching for evidence, he pointed out that in the past women had been queens with political power and had been more involved in business. Now their lives were concentrated on the family, which Comte believed was part of the natural order. To enable them to maintain their focus on domestic life, he insisted that “Man must nourish woman,” the same line that Michelet had used in his popular Du Prˆetre, de la femme, de la famille (1845).318 Both Michelet and Comte were taken with the image of women as agents of universal love, though Comte seemed to give them a higher role within republican society. Comte also evidently remembered the problems that de Vaux had encountered in trying to support herself. The irony, of course, is that he diminished the amount of money he gave to his own wife, making her life painful. Nevertheless, in theory, he upheld the bourgeois cult of domesticity, which dictated that men support their wives as part of the display of their wealth. As with salons, he wished this practice to be extended to all classes. He wrote, “It is almost the only case where proletarians must imitate, 314 315

316

317 318

Comte, “Troisi`eme Confession annuelle,” 25 juin 1848, CG, 4:162. He was particularly hopeful that women in the very Catholic countries of Italy and Spain would join him. He figured that they would be the main helpers of positivism because of the strong influence they exerted in these Mediterranean countries. See Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 298; Comte to Barbot de Chement, August 23, 1850, CG, 5:182. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 380. See also Erica Harth, “Cartesian Women,” 149, 164; Comte to Madame Austin, March 4, 1844, CG, 2:242–3; Syst`eme, 1:225. According to Harth, Descartes’ philosophy had a strong female appeal because it freed the soul from “bodily and therefore sexual impediments” and “validated women as thinking subjects.” In his Discourse on Method, Descartes also wrote in simple prose to broaden his works’ appeal. Comte followed his example in changing his prose as well. See Harth, “Cartesian Women,” 146–50. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 273. He believed these reformers were inspired by Plato’s Republic and commended Aristophanes for ridiculing this work. Jules Michelet, Du Prˆetre, de la femme, de la famille, 4th ed. (Paris, 1845), 34.

394

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme

in the relations between the two sexes, the customs of their temporal bosses.”319 Proletarian women should quit their jobs, freeing themselves from “external work, that is, prostitution and misery.” They should devote themselves to their so-called natural role of keeper of the home, for the domestic sphere was the source of the best pleasures that their husbands could have. But proletarian women could achieve this “emancipation” only if their husbands were given a decent wage, in effect, a family wage. Thus once launched, the proletarian revolution would certainly inspire the feminine “revolution.” Comte’s insistence on men supporting their wives was his manner of linking “the feminine revolution to the proletarian revolution,” something Flora Tristan had tried to do but in a more egalitarian way.320 In sum, Comte struggled in the Discours to feminize his doctrine, making reason and imagination serve feeling just as he assumed they had always done in women.321 He was responding in part to the feminization of religion that occurred in the mid-nineteenth century.322 Pierre Laffitte himself noted that women were becoming increasingly religious as a means of freeing themselves from the “horrible isolation” caused by the growth of modern individualism. Laffitte encouraged Comte to appeal to women’s desire for a sense of connection.323 Comte recognized this desire as common to men as well. To bring together members of society, he gave women much indirect authority as the “natural source of the moderating power.”324 Yet although he challenged some patriarchal ideas and institutions that were unjust to them, he was far from being a feminist in the AngloAmerican sense because he allowed women no real authority in the public sphere. Women’s power was nonpolitical, noneconomic, and thus ultimately limited.325 They were not even allowed to be “the director” of the domestic sphere or to have control over their own wills; they could not leave anything to anyone after their deaths.326 319 320

321 322 323 324 325

326

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 277–8. Comte to Audiffrent, May 6, 1851, CG, 6:69–70; Comte to Audiffrent, March 9, 1851, CG, 6:34; Comte, “Sixi`eme Confession annuelle,” May 30, 1851, CG, 6:95. Comte hoped that all three revolutions – bourgeois, proletarian, and feminine – could be effectively combined. See Comte to Audiffrent, June 7, 1851, CG, 6:109. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 381. Caroline Ford, “Religion and Popular Culture in Modern Europe,” Journal of Modern History 65 (March 1993): 167–9. Laffitte to Comte, August 26, 1848, CG, 4:253. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 366. Comte kept women in a position of “secondary administration” where he had originally said they belonged in his correspondence with Mill. Comte to Mill, October 5, 1843, CG, 2:199. On the defining characteristics of feminism, see Karen Offen, “Defining Feminism: A Comparative Historical Approach,” Signs 14 (Autumn 1988): 151–3. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 257. See also ibid., 278.

Aesthetics

395

By condemning the movement for economic equality, he prevented women from gaining autonomy. Selfless creatures, they were to further men’s development and that of the community at large, instead of realizing their own potential. In a way Comte was caught in the central paradox of the period. He wanted women to strengthen the male bourgeois republic by bringing it greater unity, but he also wanted them to correct its severe injustices by regenerating morality and thus society.327 ae sthetics After having covered reason, activity, and feeling in treating positive philosophers, industrialists and workers, and women, respectively, Comte turned to imagination to demonstrate further that positivism’s understanding of human nature was superior to Catholicism’s. To him, “human life [was] destined to develop . . . reason, imagination, and especially feeling,” whereas base “practical needs always bring us back to a sad activity.” Not as interested in activity, which he associated with practical work, he turned his attention particularly to ending the opposition between “modern reason” on the one hand and sentiment and imagination on the other. Positivism should represent all aspects of human nature, including these three, which he believed must be brought closer together. Reason not only had to be subordinated to feeling, especially to help it direct activity, but it had to stimulate and control the imagination. At the same time, imagination had to grow in importance “without usurping the office of reason.”328 Referring to the importance of the imagination, the last section of the Discours covered the “aesthetic aptitude of positivism.” Comte, whose interest in music and literature had been growing since 1838, wished to prove that positivism was not opposed to the arts, as many of his critics alleged; there was, in his eyes, no necessary opposition between science and art, both of which would flourish in the future positivist regime. They dealt with the same reality. Whereas science sought to understand it, art tried to embellish it. Comte saw the animosity between the two as a function of the way science was pursued in his day, that is, without regard to society. The vices of scientists, that is, their “narrow views,” excessive analysis, and “abuse of reason.” were “deadly to moral development, which was the first source of any aesthetic disposition.”329 Under positivism, the sciences 327

328

Sandra Dijkstra points out this central paradox inherent in the concept of woman during the July Monarchy in Flora Tristan: Feminism in the Age of George Sand (London: Pluto Press, 1992), 1. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 302, 374, 395. 329 Ibid., 301–2.

396

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme

would take more seriously their moral and social responsibilities, which would bring them closer to the arts. The key characteristic of the arts was that they stimulated feelings, and like Diderot and many of his contemporaries, Comte assumed that feelings inspired social interaction and moral conduct.330 The components of the arts were organized according to an encyclopedic law just as the sciences were. Yet unlike the sciences, which went from the most general (astronomy) to the specific (sociology), the arts went from the specific to the general. Poetry, which included the writing of prose, was the highest of the arts because it was the most general and least technical art, the one that dealt with our entire existence. It was the art form most accessible to the common people, whom Comte sought to integrate fully into society. The other arts were ranked in descending order according to their degree of affinity with poetry: music, painting, sculpture, and architecture. Architecture, the lowest of the art forms, was the most specialized and practical and dealt with inorganic material, far from man.331 Comte believed that the negative movement of history of the last five hundred years had particularly hurt the arts, which were in a state of degeneration. The neoclassicists foolishly attempted to revive the elitist art of antiquity, the romantics idealized doubt, and writers and artists working in his own time were vain, ambitious, and avid for money. Comte publicly stated that as a rule he did not read contemporary writers, whom he found excessively productive. (He was partly resentful of their financial success and renown.) Only great poets of the past attracted his attention. However, he did praise Byron, Sir Walter Scott, Alessandro Manzoni, and Goethe, whose works he had perused at some point.332 The only contemporary French poet he ever cited with praise was Alfred de Vigny. 330 331 332

McWilliam, Dreams, 18–19. Comte highly praised the “admirable cathedrals” of the Middle Ages, reflecting the impact of the Gothic revival. Ibid., 321. Comte had commended the “genius” Byron in the fifty-seventh and sixtieth lessons of the Cours for his “aesthetic appreciation of the negative and floating state of contemporary society.” He considered him at that time (1842) the “most eminent poet of our century” because of his superior representation of “modern existence.” He believed Byron and Goethe (to a lesser extent) “presented the moral grandeur of man freed from all oppressive chimeras.” Yet he also rebuked these two writers for constructing negative “insurrectional types.” Comte in particular did not like Don Juan, which he would not allow in the Positivist Library, though it contained an 1841 edition of Bryon’s Complete Works. See Comte’s library in the Maison d’Auguste Comte; Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 324, 330, 365; Comte to de Vaux, September 10, 1845, CG, 3:401. Comte had ordered Goethe’s works in 1842. See bill from Vabois, October 21, 1842, “Documents: Factures acquitt´es,” MAC. This bookseller also sent him Dei Doveri degli Uomini (1835) of Silvio Pellico, the Italian revolutionary and romantic writer. See bill from Vabois, August 4, 1841, “Documents: Factures acquitt´es,” MAC. This book is still in Comte’s library.

Aesthetics

397

As he had done in the Cours, Comte emphasized that positivism would regenerate the arts and make them an important part of modern society, in fact more important than they had been in any previous society.333 His views reflect the romantic impulses of the age, which insisted on the arts’ ability to shape ideas and opinions and to express sentiments.334 The Saint-Simonians had similarly emphasized the social value of the arts, which together with religion, stimulated feelings, the key to an organic, cohesive community.335 Comte argued that positivism would best revive the arts by intensifying feelings and creating fixed, common principles that writers and artists could easily depict. The revival of the arts was important to Comte for several reasons. He believed that unlike the sciences, which were analytical, the arts were synthetic and constructive in nature, and thus eminently suitable to an age devoted to reorganization. They could be used especially to cultivate “benevolent sentiments.” Such sentiments were “far more aesthetic than the instincts of hatred and oppression,” which had heretofore predominated. In effect, the arts could be used to inspire people to work for others. Affecting all parts of every individual’s existence, the arts made scholars more cognizant of reality and more emotional; encouraged practicians to have more disinterested speculations; and even led affectionate people to develop a “taste for contemplation.” Finally, Comte stressed the arts to appeal to women, who he assumed were “the most aesthetic” of “all the social elements.” Women introduced men not only to their “instinct of the good” but also to their “instinct of the beautiful” because of their own physical, intellectual, and moral beauty and their search for perfection in their occupations. The arts were associated with women, for their purpose was to give “an ideal representation of what is” in order “to cultivate our instinct for perfection” and to make us “more tender and more noble.”336 Comte had in mind a social mission for art, in keeping with the politicized aesthetic culture of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Many of the revolutionary artists, such as Jacques-Louis David, and romantic writers, such as Victor Hugo, stressed the social, 333

334

335 336

Comte discussed the evolution of the arts, showing the weaknesses of each age. Reflecting the revival of the Middle Ages, he praised in particular medieval art, which he regarded as popular and original. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 321–4. Jean-Pierre Cometti, “L’Esth´etique positiviste: Un Dictionnaire des id´ees rec¸ues?” Auguste Comte aujourd’hui: Colloque de Cerisy (3–10 juillet 2001), ed. Michel Bourdeau, Jean-Franc¸ois Braunstein, and Annie Petit (Paris: Kim´e, 2003), 258; Peter Allen Dale, In Pursuit of a Scientific Culture: Science, Art, and Society in the Victorian Age (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989), 28. McWilliam, Dreams, 61, 65. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 303, 309, 314, 326, 344.

398

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme

political, and moral functions of art. Gustave Courbet was famous for his socialist politics. Interested in the common people, Comte saw the arts as key to mobilizing them in accordance with certain principles, in his case, positivist ones. The arts were in a sense a tool for propaganda. Neil McWilliam explains that in mid-nineteenth-century France, “critics across a broad ideological spectrum enthusiastically endorsed a functional aesthetic designed to instill normative moral values and secure harmony between classes.”337 However, Comte did not agree with several contemporary developments. He disliked Th´eophile Gautier’s new concept of “art for art’s sake” because it supported pure aestheticism and reflected a lack of direction.338 It was similar to the pursuit of scientific research for the sheer pleasure of doing it. Comte’s comments on the importance of idealization in the artistic process underscores his disapproval of the realism of Courbet, whose paintings were said to be ugly.339 In addition, he did not agree with those romantic poets who dreamed of playing a governing role in society. Literary men who sought political influence and power forgot, according to Comte, that imagination was supposed to charm and improve human life, not direct it.340 Imagination created concrete images that had profound emotional resonance. At most it could help philosophy; it could not establish the spiritual or intellectual foundation of a new society, a position that many romantics espoused.341 Thus Comte did not consider imagination to be the queen of the faculties, as the contemporary poet Charles Baudelaire did.342 Comte feared that like lawyers, poets believed they could express anything they wanted; they thus could be dangerously lacking in conviction.343 In the Revolution of 1848, the poet Alphonse de Lamartine became an important leader in the new government. Comte seemed to have him in mind when he condemned the “anarchical utopians of our century relating to a kind of aesthetic pedantocracy.” Citing the “atrocious” practice of castration 337 338

339 340

341 343

McWilliam, Dreams, 324. Comte repeatedly criticized artists and poets who were interested only in style, forms, sensual pleasures, and technical difficulties and those who were too specialized. Specialization was more acceptable in industry. Indeed, Comte believed that “the continuation of peace and the common gradual elimination of the protectionist regime” would lead each Western country “to prefer the industry which suits it the best.” Comte to Williamson, November 19, 1849, CG, 5:111. See also Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 334; Cat´echisme, 298; Syst`eme, 4:370. See also Cometti, “L’Esth´etique positiviste,” 252. Cometti, “L’Esth´etique positiviste,” 258. To support his case, Comte cited a scientific law that “our faculties of representation and expression are necessarily subordinated to our functions of conception and combination.” Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 304. Dale, In Pursuit of a Scientific Culture, 35. 342 Cometti, “L’Esth´etique positiviste,” 258. Comte to Thal`es Bernard, March 25, 1850, CG, 5:143.

Aesthetics

399

in Italian opera, Comte insisted that corruption and demoralization resulted when artists took over.344 He also differed from the Saint-Simonians, who made artists into priests.345 Comte’s priests were positive philosophers. They might become artists (especially poets), but artists could not become positive philosophers without the proper preparation. Like other groups, artists had to understand the niche that they filled in society. Comte considered philosophy, the arts (or poetry), and politics “the three great creations of humanity.”346 The arts occupied a position between philosophy (or theory) and politics (or practice) because they appealed to the emotions. Artists had to appreciate the subject matter of philosophy, which included science, in order to be able to idealize it; they had to make “fictions” that went beyond facts or reality and that highlighted certain traits. By exaggerating images of reality to make them more noble and thereby stimulate our emotions, the arts pushed us to take action to improve that reality.347 The improvement of both morality and the natural order was the goal of politics, which sought to realize art’s longing for perfection. In short, philosophy (and science) dealt with the understanding of reality, art was the idealization of reality, and politics was the practical realization of the ideals presented to it by art.348 Comte’s notion that artists should depict contemporary reality in an ideal manner rather than engaging in realism or naturalism, which might promote passivity, was later embraced by many republicans in the Third Republic.349 Just as artists had to know their function, so did scientists. As in the Cours, he warned against allowing them to run amok. Although positivism had its roots in science, “science will be reduced to its true office, that is, the construction of the objective basis of human wisdom, in order to furnish an indispensable foundation to art and industry, which must especially attract out continual attention.” Comte was more precise than he had been in the Cours about the necessity for the “study of the true” to be limited to helping “the development of the good and the beautiful.”350 Because of the prevalence of the encyclopedic law of ranking in science, morality, and the arts, “the 344 346 347

348

349

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 306–7. 345 McWilliam, Dreams, 65. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 309. Ibid., 310–11. See also “Programme raisonn´e du Discours prononc´e le 24 janvier 1847 pour l’ouverture de la 17e` me ann´ee du Cours philosophique d’astronomie populaire (1e` re ),” January 17, 1847, p. 4, MAC. Dale sees a real shift in emphasis between the “affective treatment of art offered in the Cours” and the “expressive treatment” in the Syst`eme. Dale, In Pursuit of a Scientific Culture, 37. Yet in the Cours, Comte already referred to art’s idealizing function. See Pickering Comte, 1:640. Art also constituted “the most complete representation” of “human unity” because of its connection with the three orders of human phenomena: thoughts (science and philosophy), sentiments, and acts (politics). Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 313. McWilliam, Dreams, 339. 350 Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 326.

400

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme

true” (the subject of science as well as philosophy), the “good” (the subject of morality as well as politics), and “the beautiful” (the subject of the arts) had to be in harmony. To ensure that harmony, the sciences should enhance the enjoyment of the arts, which Comte now considered part of public welfare because they were fundamentally linked to the blossoming of the emotions and the desire to improve the conditions of existence. Scientists, he suggested, could embellish their theories to make them more useful. In effect, the sciences could pay more attention to aesthetics. As Peter Dale suggests, Comte was forced by his own “intellectual honesty and comprehensiveness to take into account the operations of the aesthetic judgment in all areas of human thought,” including the sciences.351 In fact, Comte suggested that once the scientific functions had constructed “the exterior basis of all our conceptions,” the aesthetic functions would be better suited to our intelligence. In referring to the exercise of the aesthetic functions as “the most pleasant and salutary of our intelligence,” Comte revealed some weariness with his work in the sciences.352 Since the death of de Vaux, he had evidently found more consolation in the arts. More importantly, he anticipated the commonplace view in the twentieth century, held by such thinkers as Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, and Paul Feyerabend, that scientific theorizing includes imaginative projections.353 Comte provided more details than in previous works about the derivation and nature of artists in the positive republic. Poets and other artists would arise among women, workers, and philosophers and would be “accessory members of the intellectual power.”354 Remembering de Vaux’s aspirations, Comte insisted that women, whom he regarded as naturally aesthetic because of their emotional prowess, would be particularly adept at writing. Thinking about his great opera stars, Comte affirmed that women might also be involved in music.355 Proletarians had less aesthetic potential than women because of the demands of their work. Positive philosophers would make up the majority of artists because they would combine both aesthetic and scientific (or philosophical) abilities, which were not at all incompatible, and they would be as sympathetic as they were systematic.356 After 351 352 353 354

355 356

Dale, In Pursuit of a Scientific Culture, 30. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 327, 346. Dale, In Pursuit of a Scientific Culture, 53-4. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 307. Artists would have the same general education that others in the positive republic received and would immediately begin their vocations. To Comte, specialized schools of art produced mediocrities and stifled originality. Ibid., 333. Comte believed women could not specialize in the other arts, which required a long apprenticeship and technical abilities unsuitable to them. Curiously, Comte applied an economic law, the division of labor, to poetry, which was the area of the arts he preferred. He maintained that women would write about private, domestic life, which was, of course, the area to which they were confined. Workers

Humanity

401

all, both philosophers and poets used analysis and synthesis. Comte cited Diderot, Goethe, Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon, and Jacques Bossuet as examples of men who could have excelled as either philosophers (scientists) or poets.357 Comte generally saw himself as superior to these and most other eminent intellectuals. He wrote in a letter to a young friend, “I congratulate myself on the glorious privilege of being the only one among all philosophers to have been assigned a double career, for I constituted the moral superiority of the true religion, after having founded its mental superiority.”358 Using the word “priest” for the first time to refer to the positivist spiritual power, he asserted in the Discours, “The priest of Humanity will develop his necessary superiority over the priest of God only when his systematic reason combines . . . with the enthusiasm of the poet as with feminine sympathy and proletarian energy.”359 Seeing himself as the “first priest of Humanity,” Comte claimed multiple selves in an effort to display the entire gamut of noble human characteristics.360 These characteristics made him “superior in dignity” to the classes interested in wealth and grandeur.361 He sought to be the perfect being, in a sense a god on earth. His self-representation was logical to a point because to him, one’s heart, mind, and character developed together in a mutually reinforcing manner, especially if they were all concerned with improving society.362 Thus having been a scientist, philosopher, and founder of a religion, he could be a poet. He would present his poetic self in the Synth`ese subjective. humanity One reason that Comte emphasized his other selves was that he sought to diminish the scientific aspects of positivism and make his doctrine

357

358 359 360 361 362

would also write about private, personal life, though from the perspective of energy, not tenderness. Finally, philosophers would compose the “great poems, epics or dramas, destined to idealize public life.” Ibid., 338. Comte was particularly enthusiastic about Diderot, though he criticized him for having given into the negative impulses of his period. Nevertheless, he commended him for having inspired his revolutionary hero, Danton. Comte far preferred Diderot to Voltaire, whom he believed furnished the Girondins with their ideas, and to Rousseau, the hero of the Montagnards. After the Revolution, he maintained that followers of Rousseau and Voltaire dropped their republicanism and became the accomplices of Napoleon, whom he hated. See Comte to Laffitte, August 20, 1853, CG, 7:107; Comte, “Discours prononc´e aux fun´erailles de Blainville,” May 7, 1850, CG, 5:318. Comte to Thal`es Bernard, March 25, 1850, CG, 5:141. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 344. “Quatri`eme Confession annuelle,” May 31, 1849, CG, 5:23. Comte claimed that the spiritual power corresponded to “our most eminent attributes.” Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 348. Ibid., 347.

402

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme

“accessible to all hearts . . . and minds” so that he could attract more supporters. He decided that the “long and difficult scientific preamble” – represented by the Cours – was necessary only for “systematic” minds, that is, intellectual individuals.363 What should most interest common people was the entity celebrated by the Cours, that is, society, which he now increasingly called Humanity. Humanity was the “new Great-Being” that would replace God. Clearly indicating his affiliation with the revolutionaries, he also called it the “Supreme Being.” Yet whereas the revolutionaries were influenced by deism in creating the cult of the Supreme Being, which replaced the more abstract, unpopular Cult of Reason, Comte did not want his Supreme Being to be considered a traditional god. He wanted a “humanist cult,” as he put it. Comte’s Supreme Being was not “an absolute, isolated, and incomprehensible being.”364 Moreover, it was not a “purely subjective abstraction”; its existence in time and space could be fully demonstrated. In fact, it was “the most living of all known beings.”365 Using the biological language of the Montpellier school of vitalism, Comte argued that Humanity was a real, extremely complex “organism” with all the “attributes of vitality” and that it depended on the external world. He analyzed it from a static point of view; clumsily applying Bichat’s scientific theories, he showed that like other organisms, it had a nutritive system and a nervous system, which corresponded to the temporal power and spiritual power, respectively. He then provided a dynamic analysis of Humanity’s material, intellectual, and moral evolution. He wished to demonstrate that the Great-Being, the term that he later often used to refer to Humanity, was not immobile and passive, like a traditional god. During antiquity, patriotism reflected the only feeling of Humanity. During the Middle Ages, there was more of a sense of universal brotherhood, but the concept of the Great-Being became systematic only in the seventeenth century. The French Revolution gave a big boost to the notion of Humanity as a “new fundamental unity.”366 Positivism would realize the full potential of this concept. In the end, it was the collectivity that mattered more than the single individual. Modifying the famous statement that he made in the Cours, he stated that “Man properly speaking exists only in the excessively abstract brain of the metaphysicians. There is basically nothing real except Humanity.”367 Individuals had no reality in a sense because they could not be understood without a grasp of the larger social fabric. Moreover, families, not individuals, were the building blocks of society because like society, they were composite entities. Yet, despite his animus against individualism, Comte did not wish to 363 365

Ibid., 353. 364 Ibid., 353, 356–7. See also Petit, 455n301. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 357–8. 366 Ibid., 357, 360.

367

Ibid., 357.

Humanity

403

seem opposed to the individual, whose importance he believed the communists and Catholics belittled. He thus insisted that Humanity was composed of independent, “separable elements,” who were “honorable.” They were united by mutual love, which allowed them to work together.368 Indeed, the “Great-Being” could not function without its “organs.”369 Unlike the God of Christianity, Humanity would not be a domineering, inflexible, impassive being. Reflecting his hatred of the religion in which he was raised as well as his dislike of cold, vain father figures, Comte insisted that Humanity would “not annul us as the ancient omnipotence” did because each individual would be considered “indispensable to the great organism.” There would be no kind of mystical union, which led to the effacement of the individual. People would not have to adulate the Great-Being in a “degrading terror” or pray to it to get something they wanted. Nor would people have to consider it perfect. They would try, in fact, to improve it. Thus individuals would study the Supreme Being, love it in a “noble” fashion, celebrate it in the arts, and serve it through action. Humanity would in turn purify their feelings, clarify their thoughts, and ennoble their activity. As a result, there would be a “new man in the presence of the new god.”370 Comte concluded that by cultivating the “sacred preponderance of sociability over personality,” that is, egoism, positivism could settle “as much as possible” the “great human problem” left unresolved by traditional religions, the subordination of politics to morality. The phrase “as much as possible” suggested, however, that sociability, even when it became more pronounced, would always be inferior in strength to egoism and that it would be difficult for morality to regulate politics. Nevertheless, because positivism attempted to resolve this problem, it should be considered a “true religion.” Supporting the “affective principle,” positive philosophers should be considered the “priests of Humanity.” Just as previously he had sought to employ the prestige of science to highlight the validity of his doctrine, Comte now used the words “religion” and “priest” to strengthen the moral authority of positivism and the positive philosophers. He even said that positivism was a “faith,” that science would be “sacred” because it would be the foundation of the cult of Humanity, and that social “excommunication” would be the best punishment of wayward industrialists.371 The creation of Humanity would have a large impact on the arts. Whereas the philosophy of positivism unveiled the nature, condition, destiny, and tendencies of Humanity, the arts made sure people loved and served Humanity. For example, singing songs such as “La 368 370 371

“Quatri`eme Confession annuelle,” May 31, 1849, CG, 5:22. Discours, 364–5. See also ibid., 378. Ibid., 351, 354–5, 361, 392, 397. See also ibid., 382.

369

Cat´echisme, 94.

404

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme

Marseillaise” brought people together in celebration. Poetry in particular would be important in the future because it would place us “at the true humanist point of view, by making us feel . . . all the essential attributes of the Great-Being that we compose.” In fact, Comte predicted that in the future, poetry would be “the favorite occupation” of all intellectuals because of its idealization of that Great-Being.372 Although he had “poetic inclinations and aspirations,” Comte did not have time at the moment to establish positivist art. He prevailed upon his young friend Thal`es Bernard to realize the “great poetic destiny” that positivism offered him. Instead of associating with other literary men, Bernard should find inspiration among women and workers, the two groups which were to prevail during the transitional period to positivism. He should launch positivist art to lead “proletarian and feminine hearts toward the future.” Bernard hesitated because he did not completely agree with Comte’s doctrine. But his mentor reassured him that their differences were irrelevant and indeed guaranteed his “individuality,” which had to be respected.373 When this alliance with Bernard did not work, Comte repeatedly sought to impose the career of poet on Audiffrent, who denied having any talent whatsoever.374 Comte was desperate to find a “positivist poet,” for he was convinced that poetry was the “genre of propaganda that we need most, especially for women.”375 In the wake of the Revolution of 1848, Comte wanted his doctrine to become popular and realized that the scientific aspects of his enterprise were incapable of attracting the masses, who now seemed so crucial to political success. As Mirella Larizza pointed out, Comte deliberately created a “language of the heart” and emphasized ethics, aesthetics, and sentiments in response to a different political situation, which forced him to modify his doctrine in order to “make history.”376 Another method of propaganda was the organization of festivals. Comte regarded them as works of art, which expressed, stimulated, and idealized feelings and used all five art forms. To Comte, there had been no true festivals since the demise of Catholicism. The French revolutionaries had understood the “social function of art,” but their festivals were artificial and overly didactic. Comte believed he could succeed by giving responsibility for creating them not to the temporal 372 374 375

376

Ibid., 363, 416. 373 Comte to Thal`es Bernard, March 25, 1850, CG, 5:142. Audiffrent to Comte, July 17, 1853, MAC. Curiously, Jacquemin wanted to be a poet, a proposition Comte did not welcome. See Jacquemin to Comte, August 8, 1854, MAC. Comte to Lonchampt, October 1, 1854, CG, 7:266–7. Comte believed that the positivist poet should be married to know woman’s nature and should have a “strong aesthetic culture, consisting in the daily reading of the masterpieces of poetry” and listening to musical productions.” In addition, he should know Italian, “the language of poetry and music.” Ibid., 266. For more on this point, see Larizza, Bandiera verde, 276–7.

Humanity

405

power but to the spiritual power. Its members would design private and public festivals, which would make up the “major part” of the worship of Humanity and the continuing educational program.377 In this fashion, Comte tried to revive a feeling of the sacred in the positive republic, something he felt all people needed. Comte would have liked to have had festivals every day of the year, but he recognized the impracticality of this approach. With some exceptions, he limited his festivals to once a week on Sundays. To demonstrate that positivism was more universal in its system of commemoration than Catholicism, he stated that festivals should pertain to every time period and every place in the West. Whereas some festivals would honor topics pertaining to order and progress, like domesticity and fetishism, other festivals would honor the most significant individuals in history.378 Each month would be devoted to one of thirteen “great men,” such as Moses, Julius Caesar, Dante, and Johannes Gutenburg. Accessory festivals would be held each Sunday for related individuals. For example, in the month devoted to Frederick the Great, three other statesmen who prepared the way for “modern regeneration” would be honored as well: Louis XI, Cardinal Richelieu, and Oliver Cromwell. Again, Comte’s authoritarian predilections are evident. The only woman who would be celebrated was the “incomparable virgin of the fifteenth century”: Joan of Arc.379 The point of these continuous, beautiful festivals was to make our lives less “prosaic,” to inspire a love for Humanity, to encourage emulation of great persons from the past, and to develop our “natural” desire for eternity. Comte maintained that everyone who participated in society in a worthy fashion, no matter how trivial his or her function, would be recompensed by being incorporated into this “immense and eternal being,” Humanity, and thereby commemorated. He believed that people would find satisfaction in this prospect and would not be bothered by his elimination of heaven. He wanted, in effect, each person to use all his or her resources – imaginative, rational, emotional, and active – to live for the benefit of others, which would improve life on this earth and increase everyone’s happiness. The “unity founded on the love of Humanity surpasses in every way that which consisted of the love of God.”380 In short, positivism was superior to traditional religion and to metaphysical and utopian systems because it rested on and strengthened reason, the feelings, and the imagination. With its oppressive terrors 377 378

379

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 329, 365. Ibid., 367. For subsequent changes in Comte’s schema, see Petit, ibid., 457–8n322–9. Acknowledging his debt to Catholicism, Comte also insisted on the necessity of maintaining the popular cult of the dead and on improving the custom of using baptismal names to link private and public life. Ibid., 369. 380 Ibid., 366, 371, 375.

406

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme

and exorbitant rewards, Catholicism, in his opinion, had no concept of reality, simply fed men’s egoism and taste for the chimerical, and caused people to become passive. Positivism, by making politics serve Humanity, would spur people to action both to preserve and improve the Great-Being. Its principles could be proved both systematically and spontaneously, making it accessible to everyone. It also embraced “true liberty” because it reconciled independence and cooperation. Through their knowledge of science and their experience in industry, people would cooperate to modify the world, including the social world, while maintaining their independence. Inspired evidently by Rousseau’s Social Contract, which maintained that freedom came from everyone submitting equally to the same laws, Comte sought to convince his readers that his movement, not the socialist and communist varieties, would best satisfy their desire for true liberty. Positivism would make sure that “man is no longer a slave of man.” It would do away as much as possible with “arbitrary” commands and “servile obedience”; people would obey rules because they would be convinced of their correctness instead of being forced to do so.381 Most of all, they would submit voluntarily to the objective, demonstrable laws of the external world instead of being compelled to obey some capricious individual. As Thomas Kselman has pointed out, Comte’s separation of morality from traditional religion with its ideas of God and an afterlife had a huge impact in the late nineteenth century. Jules Ferry and his allies would stress the importance of teaching students a new morality, one based on an appeal to one’s inborn sense of altruism rather than hope for eternal salvation.382 Comte ended the Discours with his plan to create a provisional government consisting of an assembly of two hundred members and a central committee composed of three workers, who would oversee internal affairs, external affairs, and finances.383 Like the Convention, the government committee would be centralized with full power over all political measures. Yet before enacting any measure, it would have to submit it to newspapers, popular meetings, and thinkers for discussion. The result of this public discussion, however, was not binding on the government. The committee could convoke and dismiss the assembly at will. With no legislative power, the assembly would simply vote on taxes proposed by the government committee and audit the government’s accounts of the previous year. The government was clearly a dictatorship with limited power for the people. Assuming the 381 383

Ibid., 392–3. 382 Kselman, Death, 136–7. Eventually in the “normal” positivist state, this committee as well as the assembly would consist of regenerated industrialists. Industrialists were good candidates for these positions because they had an easy work schedule and could accept a job that did not pay them. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 406.

Public Reaction to the Discours

407

world was orderly and rational, Comte believed that freedom of discussion and education were sufficient to ensure a smoothly running society. Comte also recommended the formation of the Occidental Positive Committee as the foundation of the “new church,” to which he had briefly alluded near the end of the Cours. Besides inaugurating the cult of Humanity, it would enact measures affecting the entire West. One measure that Comte recommended was minting common coins to facilitate international transactions. His ideas seemed to foreshadow the European Parliament and Euro. Yet his vision was even more global because assuming that the “laws of human evolution” were the same for all races and climates, except for “simple inequality of speed,” he believed that one day his doctrine would be accepted everywhere in space just as it embraced all of time.384 Eventually this Committee would grow to sixty members and embrace the entire world. Comte’s vision was uplifting and ambitious, reflective of the optimism of the reformers of 1848. public reaction to the discour s The Discours reached a varied audience. The “noble Littr´e” helped promote its ideas by writing eleven articles summarizing the principal ideas of the Discours and their political relevance.385 Entitled “Application de la philosophie positive au gouvernement des soci´et´es et en particulier a` la crise actuelle,” these articles praised the Religion of Humanity for showing the way to incorporate the proletariat into society.386 Appearing every Monday from July to October 1849 in Le National, they attracted widespread attention and were published in January 1850 as a book with the same name. The librarian at the Sorbonne thanked Comte for sending two copies of the Discours, which he did not think excessive. The library had 110 to 140 readers a day. “Many of them will read you, I am sure, with no less interest than I.”387 Comte also sent his Discours to several leading reformers, politicians, military men, writers, and scholars, including Arago, Christophe de Lamorici`ere (Comte’s former student and the officer who helped conquer Algeria), Alexander Manzoni (the Italian 384 385 386

387

Ibid., 408, 412. Comte to Laffitte, July 28, 1849, CG, 6:44. See also Comte to Audiffrent, October 18, 1850, CG, 5:215. These articles appeared in Le National on July 16, 23, August 13, 20, 27, September 3, 10, 17, 24, October 1 and 15, 1849. See also Comte to Jacquemin, October 30, 1849, CG, 5:103; Littr´e to Comte, October 18, 1849, MAC; Robinet, Littr´e, 15; Emile Littr´e, Conservation, R´evolution et Positivisme (Paris, 1852), 168. Librarian at the Biblioth`eque de l’Universit´e a` la Sorbonne, March 5, 1850, MAC.

408

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme

novelist), Alexander von Humboldt, Jean Reynaud, Lamennais (Comte’s confidant in the 1820s), Dunoyer, Joseph Garnier (the editor of the Journal des e´conomistes388 ), Mill, Lewes, Grote, and the former English prime minister, Robert Peel, whose support of free trade had split his Conservative party. Comte called him the “only truly eminent statesman” in the West. He admired the way in which he maintained order (i.e., through the development of the London police, or “bobbies”) and promoted liberal causes such as laissez-faire. Yet Comte also tried to appeal to more radical men in France. He sent copies to Caussidi`ere, Durant-Savoyat (a leftist politician), Etienne Cabet, Auguste Blanqui, and “citizen” Barb`es.389 Laffitte personally gave copies to Leroux and Pierre- Joseph Proudhon, who sent Comte their compliments.390 Dr. Charles Robin delivered a copy to Lorenz Oken, the famous German philosopher of nature.391 One of the most enthusiastic recipients of the Discours was Lewes, who read the work twice. He wrote, “It has delighted me beyond measure, and given the highest expectations of the ‘Cours Politique.’ The number of new & important views it contains, & the convincing manner in which it displays the aptitude of the new philosophy to embrace every phase of social life will greatly tend . . . to the diffusion of positivism.” Lewes particularly liked Comte’s attacks on metaphysical speculation and his demonstration that positivism was not limited to “dry” science. Comte’s chapter on women was the first serious discussion in a book on “that great question.” Lewes believed the “Cours Politique” – the Syst`eme – would be “the greatest boon of our Nineteenth Century.” He boasted that with its aid, he had made “a great many Comtists.”392 Later, in 1852, when positivist disciples were hard to come by, especially after the defection of Littr´e, Comte called Lewes “the head of British positivism.”393 As the months went by, Comte was surprised that his work did not make more of an impact. Sales were very slow. Many of the important people to whom it had sent it were not quick to reply. After a long 388

389 390 391

392 393

Garnier had sent Comte a letter asking for copies of his Discours so that it could be reviewed in the Journal des economistes. See Joseph Garnier to Comte, May 4, 1850, MAC. Comte expressed his enthusiasm and explained that he had already offered the Discours to Garnier’s “eminent collaborator M. Dunoyer,” whom he had known for thirty years. He suggested, however, that his views were beginning to diverge more from those of Dunoyer. Comte to Garnier, May 5, 1850, CG, 5:148. See list of people to whom Comte gave the Discours, “Circulation des ouvrages d’Auguste Comte,” MAC. Comte to Laffitte, August 29, 1848, CG, 4:179. Comte spoke very highly of Oken’s “philosophic conceptions,” which he placed on the same plane as those of Lamarck. Syst`eme, 1:569. However, in general, Comte was very critical of the pantheistic tendencies of many German biologists. Ibid., 570. Lewes to Comte, October 9, 1848, in Baker, Letters, 1:170. Comte to Lewes, August 12, 1852, CG, 6:330.

Public Reaction to the Discours

409

silence, Grote gave Comte his negative opinion of it. Explaining that he did not share Comte’s ideas on moral, social, and political reforms, he concluded, “I must declare that in sincerely adopting positivism as a philosophical method, I can not adopt the body of the doctrine regarding the future of society that you seem to deduce from it. . . . It is not without pain that I recognize this disagreement with an author whose philosophical genius I esteem so much.”394 Comte was very disappointed, especially as he imagined that Mill, Grote’s friend, had a similar response. Both men were more attached, in his mind, to the eighteenth century than to the nineteenth century and would therefore not approve of his emphasis on emotions, his dislike of materialism and atheism, and his condemnation of metaphysics, including psychology and Id´eologie. Although a “positivist in philosophy,” Grote struck him as too negative in his approach to politics. Comte feared Mill’s “exceptional aberrations on women” and his inability to appreciate the need for a moral power and the “social intervention of the proletarians.”395 Mill did not express his reaction to the book directly to Comte. But he wrote to his friend John Pringle Nichol that he found Comte’s book “strange.” He did not approve of his neglect of ethology, his illiberalism, and, of course, his views on women. Yet he was more favorable than Comte imagined. He believed the book would create a stir because it was “the first book which has given a coherent picture of a supposed future of humanity with a look of possibility about it.” Comte made a clear case for substituting the worship of Humanity for traditional religion, even though the rituals were absurd. Moreover, Mill applauded the book for inculcating “the purely subordinate role of the intellect as the minister of the higher sentiments” and for its “socialist” demands for “an entire renovation of social institutions and doctrines”396 Many aspects of positivism still attracted him. Having waited “with anxiety” for women’s reaction to his “feminine theory, the principal basis of this [positivist] system,” Comte was pleased by the number of “feminine conversions.”397 In early 1849, a young woman grew so enthusiastic about the positive philosophy that Comte hoped she might become a new “priestess of Humanity,” helping him lead by “the heart” southern Europeans “to become the main supporters of the final religion.” This woman was Agathe de Lagr´en´ee Guichard, an “elegant friend” of Dr. de Mont`egre and 394 395 396 397

Grote to Comte October 13, 1848, MAC. Comte to Lewes, October 15, 1848, CG, 4:194–5. Mill to John Pringle Nichol, September 30, 1848, Earlier Letters, ed. Mineka, 738–9. “Quatri`eme Confession annuelle,” May 31, 1849, CG, 5:25; Comte to Mont`egre, August 24, 1848, CG, 4:176.

410

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme

the wife of a famous painter.398 The day after she gave birth in June 1849, she wrote to Comte describing her general worries but also the “moral calm” that she derived from positivism: “All my life is fragrant with it, Sir, and to you, I attribute all the good.”399 Impressed by her “exceptional” intelligence and morality and finding her heart on the same level as her mind, Comte hoped she would join the meetings of his club on Sundays.400 But her “fickleness” began to grate on him.401 He also suspected she might resent his love of de Vaux.402 Therefore he gave her a test: to read Lucie and explain the significance of the loss of de Vaux in the context of the positivist mission to regenerate the West. She did not succeed in doing so to his satisfaction. He was also disappointed that she was insulted when he criticized a portrait she had made of him and when she rejected his advice to bring up her sons to become workers. Finding her too “aristocratic,” Comte concluded that she was more a positivist in her mind than in her heart.403 He made up excuses to avoid seeing her.404 Yet Guichard begged him to hear her sad story, for she no longer had a “confessor” to guide her.405 After hearing her “most intimate secrets” in a kind of “positivist confession,” Comte decided that he had been too harsh and remained hopeful about her future as a positivist.406 She went frequently to positivist ceremonies in the 1850s.407 After another five years or so, Comte concluded that he was wasting his time on her and asked Laffitte to respond to her questions.408 Besides Guichard, other women responded favorably to his book. There were a number of women in Holland who became interested in positivism. The French wife of the Dutch baron, Charles de Capellen, became a positivist.409 He was also delighted that Madame Austin gave her full support to his theory of women in the Discours.410 He even quoted Austin’s letter to him to prove to others the popularity of his “feminine theory” among women: “On this subject [of 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410

Comte to Laffitte, July 28, 1849, CG, 5:41. Agathe Guichard to Comte, June 14, 1849, MAC. Comte to Mont`egre, October 3, 1848, CG, 4:188. “Quatri`eme Confession annuelle,” May 31, 1849, CG, 5:27. In general, Comte worried that women from the upper classes might feel an “indirect rivalry” with de Vaux. Comte, “Sixi`eme Confession annuelle,” May 30, 1851, CG, 6:95. Comte, “Cinqui`eme Confession annuelle,” May 27, 1850, CG, 5:154. Comte to Agathe Guichard, November 12, 1849, in “Alcune Lettere,” by Larizza, 413– 14. This letter is not in CG. Agathe Guichard to Comte, July 1, 1850, MAC. Comte, “Sixi`eme Confession annuelle,” May 30, 1851, CG, 6:96. Comte, register entitled “Mariages positivistes,” MAC. Agatha Guichard to Laffitte, April 21, 1855, MAC. Comte to Laffitte, August 29, 1848, CG, 4:180; Comte, “Cinqui`eme Confession annuelle,” May 27, 1850, CG, 5:155. Comte to Laffitte, October 13, 1848, CG, 4:192.

Public Reaction to the Discours

411

women], there is only you. The others either restrict us to a subaltern and material destination or call us to an existence contrary to our nature. You alone have known how to reconcile in a worthy fashion submission with ascendance, purity with tenderness.”411 Yet not all women were so enthusiastic. One of the most interesting evaluations of his doctrine by a woman came from Madame Allix Bourgeois, the president of the Comit´e des droits de la femme, a club founded in 1848 to extend suffrage to women. One of the first in the Second Republic to insist on women’s right to vote, she was an associate of many of the leading feminists of the day, including D´esir´ee Gay and Jeanne Deroin.412 One of Comte’s “most fervent disciples,” having noted the prominence that he gave to the “woman question,” had her read the Discours. Bourgeois wrote to Comte in September 1849. She told him that she approved of his replacement of traditional religion by positivism: “I adopt very sincerely your religion; it suits my sympathies. I reject . . . all metaphysical beings born of the human imagination; my reason could never understand them nor consequently accept them.” Yet she could not become a disciple because of his politics. Comte did not go far enough in making affection a more important “civilizing element” than the mind because he did not give it any means of action. Thus sentiment was ineffective “in the temples, clubs, deliberative assemblies, and even in its official center, the family, where the woman is to be directed by the man.” Using biological analogies as he did to give her argument greater weight, she protested that Comte’s idea of having “sentiment . . . directed by muscular force” represented “a reversal of natural law.” In effect, she told Comte that he robbed women of agency by not allowing them to produce wealth and earn money and by not giving them an important social function. Bourgeois concluded that if feelings were only to be passive and the “Great-Being” was to develop only from the “muscular” work of men, Comte’s society would be a “double monster.” It would suffer from paralysis and eventual dissolution because it would not be viable if women were not granted more power. She warned him that he would not have any women supporters unless he rectified his doctrine. Women had admittedly been “spontaneously passive,” but they would “never consent to become so systematically” passive as Comte seemed to desire.413 In effect, Comte’s utopia was not sufficiently feminist for Allix Bourgeois. 411 412

413

Sarah Austin, quoted in Comte to Audiffrent, January 9, 1851, CG, 6:9; “Pr´eface,” Syst`eme, 21. Ma¨ıt´e Albistur and Daniel Armogathe, Histoire du f´eminisme franc¸ais, 2 vols. (Paris: Editions des Femmes, 1977), 2:453; Moses, French Feminism, 140; Riot-Sarcey, La d´emocratie, 213; Alice Primi, “Die Frauen Zeitung et l’Almanach des Femmes, derni`eres tribunes des ‘femmes de 1848,’” Revue d’histoire moderne et contemporaine 52 (2005):134n27. Allix Bourgeois to Comte, September 22 (?), 1849, MAC.

412

Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme

Besides Bourgeois, Caroline Massin surprised him. She returned the volume that he had Littr´e deliver to her.414 She found this manner of delivery insulting. But she bought the volume herself to keep up with the development of his doctrine. Comte’s effusions about de Vaux shocked her. She could not fathom her husband’s insensitivity and indiscretion, especially in quoting passages from his own letters to de Vaux where he explained that he needed “a passion that was both profound and pure” to deepen his appreciation of the “affective side of humanity” and thus become a perfect philosopher.415 She exclaimed, “There is a publicity that I do not understand . . . you have been very cruel to me.” It had been hard enough for her to bear the thought that Comte no longer loved her. Now she feared that he had never loved her. It was unfair of him to call de Vaux his “real wife.” Massin defended herself with eloquence: I am the only woman who showed you devotion; as for the other points of comparison . . . you have not been fair; you have compared a connection that you just broke with a liaison which was beginning. The question is badly put; it is astonishing on your part. However, you were passionate. When I became your wife, I was twenty-two. You did not amount to much, as you had no position. I could easily foresee difficult days ahead . . . but that did not stop me, and I became increasingly attached to you as you became more and more unhappy. When you took me, you needed an active and devoted wife. I was not beneath my duties, and I had many difficult ones as you know.416

Despite all the hurt that Comte had caused her, she claimed to have pardoned him. In response, Comte thanked her for her impartial approval of the direction of his thought. He looked upon the support of “such a distinguished mind” as further proof that women were naturally drawn to his doctrine. Though he still found Massin crafty and egoistic, he told de Vaux in the Fourth Annual Confession: “Maybe her revolutionary inclinations, ripened by age and enlightened by the political situation, inspire in her some sincere ardor for the doctrine that she saw gestate but never appreciated.” He hoped she would contribute her “eminent skills in discussion and dissemination.”417 Although Comte assumed his doctrine held more appeal to more traditional women, Catholics, such as his sister Alix and his childhood friend Madame de Montfort, expressed their concerns about 414 415 416 417

See list of people to whom Comte sent the Discours in MAC. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 248. Massin to Comte, April 12, 1849, CG, 5:231nDLVI. “Quatri`eme Confession annuelle,” May 31, 1849, CG, 5:27.

Public Reaction to the Discours

413

his attacks on the Church.418 Madame de Montfort was evidently so displeased by Comte’s stance that she did not write him again. Comte was crushed to lose another “precious friendship” and attributed her coldness to her arrogant aristocratic tendencies.419 Alix tried to explain, “Your book was too irreligious to find many partisans in our area or even elsewhere. It is not the moment to deny the existence of God when everything in the events that led to the fall of the last regime has revealed a providential hand.”420 Limburg-Stirum, who was generally regarded as the head of the Dutch positivists, likewise said it was difficult to make converts because people were scared of reorganizing society without a god or king.421 All in all, Comte was disappointed.422 418 419 420 421 422

See Montfort to Comte, n.d., CG, 4:257; Comte to Alix Comte, September 28, 1848, CG, 4:184. Comte to Alix Comte, October 22, 1848, CG, 4:204. See also “Quatri`eme Confession annuelle,” May 31, 1849, CG, 5:26. Alix Comte to Comte, October 18, 1848, Alix Comte to Comte, September 6, 1848, in “Lettres d’Alix Comte,” ed. Laffitte, 116. Limburg-Stirum to Comte, August 22, 1848, MAC.On Limburg-Stirum’s support for Comte, see Comte to Foley, December 1, 1855, CG, 8:153. Pierre Laffitte tried to console him. See Pierre Laffitte to Comte, August 26, 1848, “Lettres de Pierre Laffitte a` Auguste Comte,” RO, 2d ser., 36 (March 1907): 227. This part of the letter is not reproduced in CG, 4:252–3nDXX.

Chapter 8

Personal and Professional Disappointments

You know that no matter what the risk, I have always nobly told the truth to individuals, classes, and even nations. Comte, June 1846

frustration as a teache r While the Revolution of 1848 was overturning political structures in France and forcing Comte to rethink the way he presented his doctrine, he, like other Frenchmen and women, also had to work. He had been suffering from the reduction of his salary since losing his post of admissions examiner at the Ecole Polytechnique in 1844. His position continued to be tenuous as he tried the patience of his colleagues. In the summer 1847, he had a serious argument with his old friend Duhamel, who was director of studies. Duhamel had requested that at the end of the course, r´ep´etiteurs lecture on the material that they intended to include in their final examinations. Comte objected that he was not given sufficient notice, that this review was absurd because it would give away the answers beforehand, and that it was not good for the students to “exercise [their] memory far more than [their] judgment.” Comte also objected to Duhamel’s demand that all r´ep´etiteurs attend professors’ classes, for it was a “waste of time” for him to do so.1 He claimed that “fifteen years of conscientious service” to his students and school exempted him from onerous duties that younger r´ep´etiteurs had to fulfill. Irritated, Duhamel responded by citing the rules that Comte was breaking. Most importantly, among the r´ep´etiteurs, Comte was the only one who “could not find the time to come and help students.” His dedication to his “work outside the school” seemed to be preventing him from finding “one hour to give” to them. In addition, Comte had missed giving examinations in his office nine times the past year. Duhamel wrote, “I think that . . . [you] would be happy to find an occasion to give some 1

Comte to Lieutenant-General Rostolan, June 29, 1847, CG, 4:121, 123. See also Duhamel to Comte, June 21, 1847, MAC; Comte to the Director of Studies (Duhamel), June 21, 1847, CG, 4:120–21.

414

Frustration as a Teacher

415

kind of compensation, as slight as it might be, for this extraordinary lacuna.”2 Comte did not respond to Duhamel but instead complained to Rostolan, the head of the school, who read his letter at a meeting of the Council of Instruction. According to the notes of the meeting, “The Council, far from acknowledging the incompatibility [between the explanatory lectures and general exams] indicated by Mr. Comte, finds on the contrary these explanations to be very necessary.” The Council “unanimously” rejected Comte’s recommendation to do away with this new system.3 Moreover, it insinuated that he was lazy in not wanting to think of final examination questions to replace the ones practiced in the lectures. Without naming Comte directly, Duhamel also brought up student complaints that their examinations lasted only fifteen minutes, which was not sufficient time to display all that they had learned. The Council decided to require that henceforth each examination endure at least twenty-five minutes. The Council’s rebuke did not deter Comte. In April 1848, two months after the Revolution broke out, he applied for his old job of examiner of admission. Dinet had retired, and Wantzel had resigned because he was extremely ill.4 (He would die several weeks later.) Comte wrote to General Jacques Aupick, the new head of the school, and to three members of the Council of Improvement who were in charge of evaluating candidates to replace Dinet: Poinsot, Chasles, and Lam´e. He asked them for their support, reminding them that they had always treated him favorably.5 He assumed that now that he had made amends with Arago, his allies (e.g., Mathieu) would not object to his reinstatement. Because he had already filled the job of examiner for seven years, from 1837 to 1843 in an “irreproachable” manner, he also believed he did not have to dwell on his qualifications.6 2

3 4

5

6

Duhamel to Comte, June 22, 1847, MAC. Duhamel originally claimed that Comte missed eighteen office examinations, but quickly rectified his mistake an hour later. He still tried to be friendly with Comte, arranging for him to give lessons three times a week at a school in November 1847. Yet nothing came of this offer. See Duhamal to Comte, November 6, 1847 MAC. Minutes of the meeting of July 2, 1847, Registre: Proc`es-Verbal du Conseil d’Instruction, vol. 8, EP. Lesbros, who was second in command at the Ecole Polytechnique and one of Comte’s supporters in 1844, informed him of the vacancy. See Lesbros to Comte, April 8, 1848, MAC. Joseph Bertrand, review of Comte, by Gruber, 692; Registre: Proc`es-Verbal du Conseil de Perfectionnement, volume 6, page 268, EP. Comte to General Aupick, April 8, 1848; Comte to Chasles, April 9, 1848; Comte to Lam´e, April 9, 1848; Comte to Poinsot, April 9, 1848, CG, 147–8. Chasles was always friendly to Comte. He sent him autographed copies of his books, including the Trait´e de g´eom´etrie sup´erieur, published in 1852. Comte put it in one of his main libraries. See Comte’s Biblioth`eque Usuel, II, MAC. Comte to General Aupick, April 8, 1848, CG, 147.

416

Personal and Professional Disappointments

Yet there are signs that his performance was not considered “irreproachable” by everyone. In the fall of 1845, Mathieu had presented a report on the first-year students’ examination grades in his course on analysis and mechanics. He made a point that five of the best pupils in the class were ranked very low by Comte in his list of students admitted to the school. This “rather great discordance” was disturbing.7 Moreover, some professors still remembered Comte’s refusal to vary his examination questions from one year to the next, which, according to one observer, made it “easier and easier to prepare an ordinary student for a brilliant exam.”8 The Council of Improvement met on April 11, 1848. The “noble Poinsot,” as Comte called him, presented the committee’s choices for the two slots.9 Comte was the first name on the list, followed by Joseph Bertrand, Abel Transon (a former Saint-Simonian and Fourierist), and three other men. The Council then discussed how to present the candidates to the minister. It decided to make two separate lists for Dinet’s and Wantzel’s positions. On one list, Bertrand received nine votes and Comte six. On the other, Comte received eight votes, Transon five, and Wantzel two, perhaps out of politeness. But instead of presenting two lists, the Council decided to submit candidates only for Wantzel’s position to see what happened before presenting the other list.10 Thus it presented only the list with two names, with Bertrand’s first, then Comte’s.11 Arago, who held the position of interim minister of war, besides being head of the government, claimed he wanted to show his magnanimity by appointing Comte, but he decided not to do so because Bertrand was the first choice of the Council.12 So Bertrand was eventually appointed. Bertrand was a much younger man, who had been examined by Comte in 1839, when he applied to the Ecole Polytechnique. Comte gave the following report on him when he admitted him: “Although . . . inferior to what I had hoped of him and moreover spoiled by flattery and self-importance, he, nevertheless, . . . demonstrated, judging from this single examination, true intellectual power and very remarkable accuracy.” He had “the stuff of a superior mind” and 7

8 9 10

11 12

Mathieu, “Rapport sur les examens d’analyse et de m´ecanique des el`eves de la seconde division,” November 21, 1845, in Registre: Proc`es-Verbal du Conseil de Perfectionnement, volume 6, p. 198, EP. Joseph Bertrand to Laffitte, March 20, 1892, MAC. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 422. It may be that Dinet’s retirement did not become official until July and the Council could not technically consider his case until after this date. See Duban to Comte, May 27, 1848, MAC. Notes of the Meeting of April 11, 1848, Registre: Proc`es-Verbal du Conseil de Perfectionnement, volume 6, page 264–5 EP. Bertrand, review of Comte, by Gruber, 692-93; Georges Audiffrent, R´eponse a` M. J. Bertrand (Paris, 1897), 14.

Frustration as a Teacher

417

should worry only about showing off his knowledge.13 Later, in 1840, when Comte applied for a position as professor of analysis, Bertrand had been delegated by some students to solicit Poinsot’s support, which he tried unsuccessfully to obtain. (Poinsot voted for Sturm.14 ) Now in this campaign for admissions examiner, Bertrand had gathered support for himself. He was well placed, for he was Duhamel’s nephew and thus had many connections.15 In addition, he was already an adjunct examiner for admissions and an adjunct r´ep´etiteur for the course in analysis. After learning of Bertrand’s success, Comte was furious and accused him of gross egoism in a letter that became public. In the preface to volume one of the Syst`eme, Comte also lashed out at the “vile traitor” (Duhamel), who had sabotaged his attempt to be reinstated at the Ecole Polytechnique. Duhamel abused his office in order “to satisfy both his old envy and the precious egoism of his worthy nephew.”16 Bertrand now despised Comte. In 1856, he was appointed to the chair of analysis that Sturm vacated and that Comte had always wanted. When he eventually became perpetual secretary of the Academy of Sciences, he wrote an extremely critical account of Comte’s life and works for the Revue des deux mondes.17 Despite his disappointment, Comte was optimistic. Dinet’s position was still unfilled, and Bourdon, another examiner, retired in the summer. After the June Days, Arago lost his position in the government. The new head was General Eug`ene Cavaignac.18 A graduate of the Ecole Polytechnique, Cavaignac appointed as minister of war General Christophe Louis L´eon Juchault de Lamorici`ere, who had 13

14 15

16

17 18

Comte’s notes on Bertrand, quoted in Audiffrent, R´eponse, 24. See also Camille Monier, “Les Souvenirs de M. Joseph Bertrand sur Auguste Comte,” RO, 2d ser., 14 (January 1897): 1–9; Augustin Aragon, “Bulletin du Mexique: Auguste Comte et Joseph Bertrand,” RO, 2d ser., 15 (July 1897): 66–77. Bertrand, “Souvenirs acad´emiques,” 542. Duhamel had married the sister of Alexandre Bertrand, a classmate from the Ecole Polytechnique and the father of Joseph Berrand. E. Sarrau, “Duhamel,” in Ecole Polytechnique: Livre du centenaire, 129. On Bertrand’s appointment, see meeting of June 1, 1847, Registre: Proc`es-Verbal du Conseil de Perfectionnement, volume 6, page 236, EP. See also his dossier, “Joseph Bertrand X1839,” EP. “Pr´eface,” Syst`eme, 1:23n1. According to Bertrand, Comte wrote an angry letter to Duhamel, even though the latter had voted for him and had persuaded several of his colleagues to do likewise. However, it does not seem likely that Duhamel would have voted for Comte over Bertrand in these circumstances. Perhaps Bertrand meant that in the next round of voting in July, Duhamel voted for Comte. Bertrand, review of Comte, by Gruber, 692. Bertrand, “Souvenirs acad´emiques,” 528–48. After Arago’s departure from the government, Comte felt duty-bound to visit him in the Observatory. In discussing current events, Arago voiced a very skeptical position about people’s interest in working to advance Humanity’s welfare. This view saddened Comte enormously, according to Audiffrent. Audiffrent, R´eponse, 31; Belhoste, La Formation d’une technocratie, 399.

418

Personal and Professional Disappointments

recently taken part in the conquest of Algeria. Because Comte had tutored Lamorici`ere and had helped to get him into the Ecole Polytechnique in 1824, he was certain that the general would give him the position of examiner.19 In July, the general asked for a list of four candidates so that he could fill the two vacancies for the post of examiner. Duhamel, Lam´e, and Mathieu composed the search committee, and following the agreement of April, they nominated Comte as their first choice followed by five others.20 But when the entire Council of Improvement met, only four of the sixteen members voted for Comte. He needed a majority of nine votes. With Council members debating Comte’s case, several more rounds of voting occurred. Although first on the committee’s list, Comte’s name was absent from the Council’s final list of four candidates presented to the minister.21 Comte was furious because Duhamel had promised him that if did not push his case with Lamorici`ere, he would be the Council’s first candidate and get the job.22 Comte now was convinced that his so-called friend Duhamel had a “secret personal enmity” for him.23 According to Audiffrent, Duhamel indeed resorted to “perfidy” to make sure Comte was not nominated.24 After his defeat, Comte wrote several letters to Lamorici`ere demanding to see him. He wanted to convince Lamorici`ere that he should launch a special inquiry into his case and reform the Ecole Polytechnique, which was in a state of “rapid degeneration.” In one letter, instead of focusing on Arago as the ringleader as he had often done in the past, Comte accused three scientists, Mathieu (member of the Institut and examiner of the students), Liouville (member of the Institut and professor of analysis), and R´egnault (member of the Institut and professor of chemistry), of compelling the Council to act against him. The majority of the Council members acted out of “weakness or negligence.” Explaining the whole history of his ruination and pointing to the support of Soult, who, however, was probably not politically congenial to Lamorici`ere, Comte denounced the Council for acting out of personal animosity. 19 20 21

22 23 24

Lamorici`ere may have even lived with Comte at one point. See Pickering, Comte, 368; Georges Audiffrent, R´eponse a` M. J. Bertrand, 31. Notes of the meeting of June 19, 1848, Registre: Proc`es-Verbal du Conseil de Perfectionnement, volume 6, page 268, EP. See also Lam´e to Comte, July 7, 1848, MAC. Hermite, Serret, Transon, and Bonnet were the four candidates. Notes of the Meetings of June 19, 1848 and July 3, 1848, Registre: Proc`es-Verbal du Conseil de Perfectionnement, volume 6, page 268–9 EP. Poinsot was prevented from attending the meeting and giving his support to Comte because of the siege-like conditions in Paris. See Lam´e to Comte, July 7, 1848, MAC; Duhamel to Comte, July 11, 1848, MAC. Audiffrent to Deullin, December 30, 1896, MAC. Comte to General Bonet, December 1, 1851, CG, 6:191. The name is misspelled “Bonnet” in Pinet, L’Histoire de l’Ecole Polytechnique, 271. Audiffrent to Deullin, January 8, 1897, MAC.

Frustration as a Teacher

419

After all, how could the Council fill positions with young people who had no teaching experience, no knowledge of human nature, and none of the moral qualities of austerity and firmness that he did? It seemed to him that the Council was trying to punish him for trying to reform “our absurd scientific regime.” Comte made his personal grievance into a political crusade. “This case would furnish a good chance . . . to return to true administrative principles, which prescribe asking irresponsible assemblies, especially scientific ones, only for information or advice without conferring on them any decision-making power.”25 Comte also related his difficulties in the Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme.26 Because Lamorici`ere was working for a regime committed to representative government, Comte’s criticism of assemblies was not wise. Busy in the midst of the turmoil of the summer of 1848, the general had an underling tell Comte to wait for an interview in early August.27 In the meantime, Lamorici`ere confirmed the nomination of the first two candidates, the mathematician Charles Hermite, who married Bertrand’s sister in 1848 and entered the Academy of Sciences in 1856, and Joseph Serret, who would also become famous for his work in mathematics.28 When Lamorici`ere met with Comte on August 4, he claimed to be powerless to help him.29 Comte and his disciples always insisted that scientists persecuted him because they felt threatened by the growing fame of his doctrine, which criticized their dominance. Laffitte believed that their efforts to destroy his career reflected the “mediocrity” inherent in “an academic dictatorship.”30 Yet in 1930, General Pierre Alvin, who headed the Ecole Polytechnique, evaluated Comte’s case to see if scientists had acted vindictively. He concluded, If today a r´ep´etiteur, taking A. Comte as a model, accused the members of the Council of Instruction of incompetence, denounced the [annual] vote [on his appointment] as an absurd practice, posed as the candidate knowing the strength and weakness of science and of scientists better than anyone, declared that the mathematical education at the Ecole Polytechnique had never been so bad, even at the 25 26 27

28 29

30

Comte to General de Lamorici`ere, July 16, 1848, CG, 4: 169–71. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 422. The Minister of War, Lamorici`ere, to Comte, July 18, 1848, MAC. See Comte’s note about the meeting of August 4 written on the letter from the Minister of War, Lamorici`ere, to Comte, July 28, 1844, MAC. Notes of the meeting of July 19, 1848, Registre: Proc`es-Verbal du Conseil de Perfectionnement, volume 6, page 270, EP. Comte to Tholouze, March 31, 1849, CG, 5:14. Afterwards, Comte looked upon him as an “accomplice in the attack” against him. See the letter from Comte to each cooperator in the voluntary subsidy exceptionally instituted for him, March 14, 1850, CG, 5:134. Laffitte, “Carri`ere polytechnique d’Auguste Comte,” 326.

420

Personal and Professional Disappointments

time of Cauchy, if this same r´ep´etiteur openly demolished all competitors . . . and the most respectable members of the Institut, if he did not make even the most elementary steps, we could definitely predict the failure of his candidacy.31

According to Alvin, the faculty could not be faulted. the coll e` ge de france At the same time that Comte was jockeying for position at the Ecole Polytechnique, he was beseeching the minister of public instruction, Count Narcisse Achille de Salvandy, to create a chair in the history of sciences for him at the Coll`ege de France. He wanted compensation for the “infamous iniquity” of 1844, his loss of his post.32 If he obtained the chair, he did not intend to present “a sterile suite of biographical or bibliographical studies” but to show that each science depended on the preceding one and prepared the way for the one that came after.33 Besides revealing the hierarchy of sciences, he would demonstrate the impact of scientific theories on the modern worldview. Comte’s argument was compelling, but it would not work any more now than it had in 1832, when he had sent a similar request to Guizot. Guizot had refused, especially because he considered Comte’s ideas dangerous. Comte had taken his revenge by publicly airing his grievances in several leading journals.34 Yet when Comte asked the Comte de Salvandy, in early September 1846, to create this same chair, he insisted that Guizot had personally wanted to accede to his request but had given into the objections of an advisory council, whose members were part of the University.35 Comte hoped that Salvandy, who was a former Napoleonic general and politician, would be more independent of the pedantocracy than his predecessors had been.36 But just as Guizot had sought to evade Comte fourteen years before, Salvandy seemed to sidestep his request. Because he 31 32 33 34 35

36

General P. Alvin, “Centenaire de l’Institution de la philosophie positive par Auguste Comte,” speech of June 22, 1930, in Dossier Auguste Comte, EP. Comte to Barbot de Chement, September 13, 1846, CG, 4:45. Comte to the Comte de Salvandy, September 2, 1846, CG, 4:32–3. On this early campaign to get a chair at the Coll`ege de France, see Pickering, Comte, 1:445–7. Later, in a letter to Hippolyte Carnot, Comte called them “university psychologists,” referring to the followers of Victor Cousin. See Comte to Carnot, May 25, 1848, CG, 4:152. Comte to John Stuart Mill, September 3, 1846, CG, 4:35.

The Coll`ege de France

421

never received the first letter of September, he did not respond.37 After six months of silence, Comte sent him another request in early 1847.38 Six months later, in September 1847, Salvandy finally replied, telling Comte that he never received his original letter and would examine his proposition at a later date, especially because of the “proven talent of its author.”39 Comte then sent him a copy of the original letter, which contained his proposal.40 The minister never replied. Perhaps the minister was afraid to act because Louis-Philippe’s regime was becoming increasingly conservative, and he thought the religious right might come after him if he favored Comte, who had a reputation as an atheist.41 Comte’s hopes lifted after the Revolution of 1848, when his old acquaintance Hippolyte Carnot was appointed the new minister of public instruction. After Comte learned in April 1848 that he did not get any of the eleven new positions at the Coll`ege de France that the Provisional Government had created, he wrote Carnot a letter in May. Comte defended his proposal to represent the “positive spirit in . . . our historical studies” with this statement: “The immortal founder of the Ecole Polytechnique [Lazare Carnot], and also his worthy oldest son, would, without doubt, be surprised today to see the history of real knowledge entirely excluded from French upper education, where so many chairs are devoted to the history of metaphysical dreams.”42 Yet despite the fact that Comte addressed Carnot as “citizen” and closed the letter with the key word “fraternity” to show his adherence to the revolutionary tradition, Carnot did not fulfill his wish.43 Carnot thought that perhaps Comte might have some “satisfaction” if a proposal to create a “free Ath´en´ee” were realized.44 37

38 39

40 41 42 43

44

Notes on the original letter confirm that the Comte de Salvandy never received Comte’s first letter. See the note that Comte wrote on his letter to Salvandy on September 2, 1846, CG, 4:32. See also notes on the letter of March 4, 1847 from Comte to Salvandy in a packet labelled “Comte (Auguste) 1847” in a dossier containing requests for creation of chairs at the Coll`ege de France, F17 13554, AN. Comte to Salvandy, March 4, 1847, CG, 4:104–5. Copy of letter from Salvandy to Comte, September 18, 1847, in a packet labelled “Comte (Auguste) 1847” in a dossier containing requests for creation of chairs at the Coll`ege de France, F17 13554, AN. His original letter is indeed not in this file. Comte to Salvandy, September 23, 1847, CG, 4:125. Pierre Laffitte, “De la Fondation de la Chaire d’histoire g´en´erale des sciences au Coll`ege de France,” RO, 2d ser., 6 (September 1892): 172. Comte to Carnot, May 25, 1848, CG, 4:152. Original letter from Comte to Carnot, May 25, 1848, in a packet labelled “Comte (Auguste) 1847” in a dossier containing requests for creation of chairs at the Coll`ege de France, F17 13554, AN. Anonymous note, perhaps by Carnot, written on letter from Comte to “Citoyen Carnot,” May 25, 1848, in a packet labelled “Comte (Auguste) 1847” in a dossier containing requests for creation of chairs at the Coll`ege de France, F17 13554, AN.

422

Personal and Professional Disappointments

(Comte had given lectures at the Ath´en´ee in his youth.) But this option did not interest Comte. Hippolyte Carnot’s son, Sadi Carnot, eventually became president of the Third Republic and established a chair in the history of science at the Coll`ege de France in 1892. Laffitte was appointed to it.45 Hippolyte Carnot’s tenure as minister of public instruction soon ended after he alienated Catholics, conservatives, legitimists, and Orleanists with his project of laicizing primary schools to some extent and making attendance obligatory and free for both sexes. After the June Days, he was replaced on July 5 by Achille Tenaille de Vaulabelle, a republican journalist who had been Littr´e’s colleague at Le National. Two days later, Littr´e wrote an article for the newspaper, underscoring the need for a chair in the history of science. Littr´e went to see Vaulabelle and begged him to appoint Comte. After evading the issue, Vaulabelle resigned in October, around the same time that Littr´e gave up his position in the city council because he was discouraged by the reactionary direction of the government.46 This was the third and last time Comte tried to get a chair in the history of science. more instructional problems Comte experienced another blow in early October 1848, when he lost the teaching position he had held for the past thirteen years at the Institut Laville. Due to an economic crisis aggravated by the revolution, not as many students were attending this school, and Laville had to cut expenses. Comte’s annual three-thousand-franc salary was a good target. Now that Comte had failed to secure his old job of examiner at the Ecole Polytechnique, he was not as useful to Laville as a means of attracting students who sought expert help in passing the entrance exam. Indeed, his association with the Laville Institut hurt the school because the present examiners disliked him. Moreover, Comte’s politics were a nuisance because most of the students were right-wing Catholic legitimists.47 Laville, with whom Comte did not always get along, thus fired him. The upshot of this “new disaster” was that Comte’s only income was the two thousand francs that he earned each year as a r´ep´etiteur. He 45 46

47

Laffitte, “De la Fondation de la Chaire d’histoire g´en´erale des sciences,” 297. Ormi`eres, Politique et religion, 83; Jean Garrigues, La France de 1848 a` 1870 (Paris: Armand Colin, 1995), 22; Agulhon, 1848, 75; Rey, Littr´e, 93; Pierre Valat,” Document historique sur Guizot et Aug. Comte,” Actes de l’Acad´emie Nationale des Sciences, Belles-Lettres et Arts de Bordeaux, 3d ser., 36 (1874): 26. Littr´e to Comte, probably October 17, 1848, MAC; Comte to Lewes, October 15, 1848, CG, 4:196; Comte to Littr´e, October 21, 1848, CG, 4:202; Comte to Basan, July 24, 1849, CG, 5:39.

Financial Challenges

423

owed this entire sum to his estranged wife. Extremely distressed, he begged for help from Arago, who had resumed his post as perpetual secretary of the Academy of Sciences. Arago was amenable to the idea but said he could do very little.48 Perhaps for financial reasons or perhaps out of bitter despair, Comte decided sometime in 1848, that he would no longer read any “scientific review or bulletin.”49 Now that the Ecole Polytechnique and the Coll`ege de France had rejected him and the Academy of Sciences stymied his advancement, he felt no desire to keep up with discoveries related to the scientific establishment. He simply wished to retreat into his own world. Yet this pursuit of ignorance seems incongruous, considering that Comte was the primary exponent of progress. f inancial challe nge s In October 1848, Littr´e offered to create a fund to support Comte so that he could devote himself wholly to his intellectual activities without having to worry about having to resort to tutoring. Not having taught privately for over a decade, Comte was having difficulty finding students because of lost contacts and the economic downturn. Littr´e figured that to satisfy his basic necessities, Comte needed another five thousand francs a year, besides the two thousand francs that he earned as a r´ep´etiteur. Indeed, Comte’s list of annual expenses, which he made in October 1846, when he had problems with Lenoir, shows that he needed 5,500 francs for his personal needs, such as 1,500 francs for food and 600 francs for unforeseen reasons, and another 2,000 francs for Massin.50 Littr´e offered, in a sense, to be Comte’s financial manager. Littr´e was a faithful follower, eager to help Comte at every point. He even acted as a liaison between him and Massin. He relayed to the latter Comte’s latest writings, his allowance to her, and other notes. Littr´e was, in addition, a critical member of the Positivist Society, who had helped Comte with his various policy papers and the launching of a positivist periodical. Now he offered to collect the money from the subscribers and pay for various expenses. It was a tedious, time-consuming job for such an active, brilliant person. Massin, who was close to Littr´e, thought subsidizing Comte was a poor idea because it would be better for her husband’s mental health to find some work of his own – work that would distract him from his strenuous intellectual exertions.51 Such work would also make it harder for him to maintain his own little world apart from reality. 48 49 50

Comte to Arago, October 26, 1848, CG, 4: 205; Arago to Comte, October 28, 1848, MAC; Daumas, Arago, 275. Comte to Audiffrent, April 7, 1851, CG, 6:51. Comte, “Budget annuel,” October 31, 1846, MAC. 51 Littr´e, Comte, 616–17.

424

Personal and Professional Disappointments

Yet Comte accepted “without scruples, and even with pride” this “collective fund.” Having a “general aversion to change,” he happily noted that now he did not have to alter his habits and could fully devote to his work the “twelve years of full cerebral vigor” left to him.52 Comte wanted the fund advertised so that it would be a cooperative, reflective of “true republican habits.”53 All real positivists would be duty-bound to give because they would be helping Comte fulfill his philosophical mission – a mission that benefited all of humanity. Ever aware of appearances, Comte, moreover, maintained that the “spectators” who witnessed the generosity of his disciples might also be moved to develop their sociability.54 Attracted to the Middle Ages, he believed that this form of protection of intellectuals by those active in practical life was a modern form of “chivalry.”55 It was also a variation of Saint-Simon’s plan for a special subsidy for the intellectual elite – “the ELECT OF HUMANITY” – announced in his Lettres d’un habitant de Gen`eve.56 Indeed, Littr´e pointed out that Comte may have picked up from Saint-Simon this tendency to live off contributions from others.57 On November 12, 1848, Littr´e wrote up an announcement, four hundred copies of which were printed for distribution.58 In the notice, Littr´e spoke of Comte’s admirable hierarchy of the six sciences and his achievement in making history a part of positive science (sociology). Reflecting his own preference for his systematization of human knowledge, Littr´e mentioned only very briefly that Comte’s work was important from a social and political perspective. He mainly begged the public, especially “friends of science” and “enemies of injustices,” for support.59 This appeal was in some respects a natural 52

53 54 55 56 57 58

59

Comte to Littr´e, October 21, 1848, CG, 4:202; Comte to de Tholouze, December 18, 1848, CG, 4:213; Comte to Basan, July 24, 1849, CG, 5:40. Claudel encouraged the creation of a fund as well. See Claudel to Comte, April 10, April 21, 1849, MAC. Comte to Littr´e, October 21, 1848, CG, 4:202. Comte to Littr´e, November 7, 1848, CG, 4:206. Comte to Tholouze, December 18, 1848, CG, 4:213. One day, the state would have an official budget for the spiritual power. Saint-Simon, Lettres d’un habitant de Gen`eve, in Oeuvres, vol. 1, part 1, 14. Littr´e, Comte, 354. Littr´e decided to distribute the announcements after the presidential elections in December, which were uppermost in everyone’s minds. See Littr´e to Comte, November 26, 1848, MAC. Littr´e, Text of the announcement of the Positivist Subsidy, November 12, 1848, CG, 4:305. Comte generally approved of the announcement, although he made Littr´e use the term “sociology” instead of “history” to refer to the sixth science. History, he explained, was too specific because it referred only to the part of social dynamics within sociology. Comprising both social dynamics and social statics, sociology was more encompassing. Littr´e made the change, although he, as a lexicographer, was bothered by the neologism “sociology.” See Comte to Littr´e, November 13, 1848, CG, 4:207–8; Littr´e to Comte, November 14, 1848, MAC. Around this same time, Mignien led the workers in trying to

Financial Challenges

425

extension of Comte’s call for help in the preface to the sixth volume of the Cours. Indeed, Comte reiterated his need for contributions to the subsidy in volume two of the Syst`eme.60 Offering to be an example to inspire others to donate, Littr´e gave two hundred francs to the Positivist Subsidy.61 Despite the tensions in their relationship, Mill sent ten pounds, equivalent to 250 francs, with a warning that he would never give again and that he did not agree with Comte’s “sociological opinions.”62 Arthur Clough, who would become an important poet, gathered contributions from members of the Oxford community. The students at the Ecole Polytechnique were able to collect two hundred francs. Other early contributors consisted of the core members of the Positivist Society: four workers, Belpaume, Fili, Francelle, and Magnin; three students, Emile Pascal (philosophy), Alfred Ribet (law), and Contreras Elizalde (medicine); two mathematics teachers, Alphonse Leblais and Charles Jundzill (who was a Pole living in Paris); and two doctors, Segond and Charles Robin. These eleven men contributed eight hundred francs to the subsidy. Later Magnin persuaded another worker, Jean Penot, to contribute five francs. Dr. Penard, a friend of Mont`egre, also gave ten francs in October. Tholouze participated the following year.63 Comte figured that every positivist would have to sacrifice only “five francs a month” to ensure him a “modest revenue.”64 Littr´e launched a second fundraising campaign in January 1850 with seventeen supporters listed on the announcement.65 Comte thanked each of the participants in his subsidy, alluding to the necessity of

60 61 62 63

64

65

provide Comte with a subsidy, but they had troubles because the Revolution of 1848 had hurt the economy. Fabien Magnin, speech, September 5, 1878, in “Le Vingt-et-uni`eme Anniversaire de la mort d’Auguste Comte,” RO 1, no. 4 (1878): 662. Syst`eme, 2: viii. Littr´e to Comte, October 20, 1848, and November 13, 1848, MAC. Mill to Emile Littr´e, December 22, 1848, Earlier Letters, ed. Mineka, 741–2. Littr´e to Comte, April 14, 1849 and January 21, 1850, MAC; Comte to Magnin, September 30, 1848, CG, 4:184; Penard to Comte, October 29, 1848, MAC; Comte to Tholouze, March 31, 1849, CG, 5:13; Littr´e’s list of subscribers, December 1849, MAC. Penot was a mechanic. Larizza, Bandiera verde, 139. Comte to Tholouze, March 31, 1849, CG, 5:15. Comte wanted every positivist to give at least one centime a day to support him. Comte, “Quatri`eme Circulaire annuelle,” January 31, 1853, CG, 7:32. The participants in this subsidy of 1850 included the workers Magnin, Mignien, Fili, Belpaume, Francelle, and Imbert (a tailor, who joined the Positivist Society in 1849); people from the academic world Jundzill, Laffitte, Alexis-J.-Armand Mieulet de Lombrail (a student from the Ecole Polytechnique), Littr´e, Pascal, and Ribet; and medical students and doctors Robin, Segond, Contreras Elizalde, and Mont`egre. Another subscriber was Louis Edmond Pommier, an instructor of literature, who had taught in Russia. He moved back to Paris in November 1849. Littr´e, a close associate, brought him into the Positivist Society because his “democratic sentiments” seemed satisfied by Comte’s doctrine. Littr´e to Comte, November 15, 1849, and January 21, 1850, MAC. See also copy of lithograph of Littr´e’s call for support, January 20, 1850, CG, 5:316–17.

426

Personal and Professional Disappointments

supporting the priesthood of the Religion of Humanity in the same manner Catholics helped their clergy.66 Later he recommended that when the positivist state was set up, more thinkers and scholars should be given pensions to support them. Indeed, he wished to change the name of this fund eventually to the “sacerdotal subsidy.”67 Both he and Laffitte discussed the miserable condition of Pierre Leroux, who deserved some recompense for having endeavored to construct a viable philosophy of history. Beside Leroux, Littr´e and the Sanskrit scholar Eug`ene Burnouf would receive good stipends if Comte had his way.68 The system that Littr´e graciously set up for Comte, however, never garnered him the targeted annual income of five thousand francs, though the subsidy did grow. Comte received 1,020 francs in 1848; 2,928.30 francs in 1849; 3,268 francs in 1850; and 4,205 in 1851.69 Unable to make ends meet, Comte was so desperate in 1848 that in October he finally accepted a loan of six hundred francs from Bliaux and her husband – a loan that he still had not repaid by the time of his death.70 Throughout 1849, Comte frequently expressed his worries about losing his apartment and all his furniture because he was very behind in his rent. Littr´e encouraged him to move to a smaller, cheaper apartment to save money, but Comte refused. After having spent so many hours with de Vaux and writing his works in his apartment, he associated its very walls with many “images and sentiments” that now had “philosophic power.” He was, moreover, certain that his domicile was “destined . . . to become sacred for posterity.”71 Feeling very sorry for himself, he expressed his bitterness about his ruination to Laffitte: “So here is the ignoble extremity to which I 66 67 68 69

70 71

Comte to each contributor to the voluntary subsidy instituted for him, March 14, 1850, CG, 5:133–5. Comte to Bligni`eres, December 9, 1853, CG, 7:150. Laffitte to Comte, September 29, 1849, CG, 5:241. See Littr´e’s List of Subscriptions received by Comte December 31, 1849, and other materials relating to the Positivist Subsidy, MAC; Comte, “Troisi`eme Circulaire annuelle,” January 5, 1852, CG, 6:219. There were at least seventy subscribers, who gave from five to five hundred francs. The average donation was eighty francs. Testament (1896 ed.), 13. He asked his disciples to repay the six hundred francs to his servant. Comte, “Quatri`eme Circulaire annuelle,” January 31, 1853, CG, 7:34–5. Comte frequently fell behind in his rent. By July l849, he owed his landlord, Basan, over a thousand francs. In December 1850, he owed him two thousand francs. Comte believed that his apartment was a “sacred locale” that should be “dear to all positivists” because it was the place where “intellectual positivism” was installed and “moral positivism” was inaugurated. Basan finally let him stay. Basan to Comte, July 25, 1849, and December 15, 1850, MAC; Comte to Laffitte, July 28, 1849, CG, 5:42; Comte to Basan, July 24 and October 15, 1849, CG, 5:39, 95.

Politics

427

will soon be led by the meanness of some people, the weakness of many others, and the egoism of almost everybody!”72 Sometimes he was reduced to giving lessons again.73 In 1851, he complained loudly in his “Deuxi`eme Circulaire annuelle” about his supporters’ and former students’ lack of generosity.74 In fact by September 1851, only four graduates of the Ecole Polytechnique had joined the Positivist Society, much to Comte’s dismay.75 politics To add to his woes, the volatile political situation in France was unsettling. As the presidential elections loomed at the end 1848, Alix Comte expressed her concerns about further upheaval. Auguste tried to console her, claiming that all this social unrest was simply part of the revolution that had been going on in France since 1789. For his part, he was excited to be a “conscious collaborator in the final reorganization” to which he had devoted all his life.76 Nevertheless, Comte did not vote in the presidential elections. As he explained to his sister, his positivist principles forbade him to participate directly in practical affairs. Like women, philosophers could only give advice; they could not exercise temporal authority and thus could not cast a ballot. As a counselor, Comte urged his sister to do her utmost to prevent Louis Napoleon from winning. Angry at the “sad” choices given to France by “the insufficiency of our public spirit,” he wrote, I attach a great deal of importance to excluding the candidate who has no other claim [to the position] than that of being related to the fatal man (Napoleon) whose memory should be execrated . . . because he did more damage than any other person in history to France and to Europe. . . . I would find the political restoration of his race shameful for my country.77

Comte supported the other principal candidate, General Cavaignac, the current head of the government. With the assistance of 72 73 74 75 76 77

Comte to Laffitte, July 28, 1848, CG, 5:43. See Baudouin to Comte, April 10, 1850, MAC. He thanked Comte for the “precious lessons” that he gave to his wife and W. Campana. Comte, “Deuxi`eme Circulaire annuelle,” March 24, 1851, CG, 6:47. These were Laffitte, Lonchampt, Audiffrent, and C´elestin Bligni`eres. See Comte to Audiffrent, September 20, 1851, CG, 6:165. Comte to Alix Comte, November 10, 1848, CG, 4:207. Comte to Alix Comte, December 7, 1848, CG, 4:210.

428

Personal and Professional Disappointments

students from the Ecole Polytechnique, Cavaignac had repressed the working-class revolt in June.78 He now was the candidate of the moderate republicans but was disliked by the far left, which called him the “Butcher of June” and preferred Franc¸ois-Vincent Raspail and Ledru-Rollin. Yet although the names Raspail and Ledru-Rollin turn up sometimes in the letters of the positivist workers, they do not appear in Comte’s correspondence.79 Because he agreed with Alix Comte’s assessment of the electoral situation, which to her was really a contest between Cavaignac and Louis Napoleon, one may assume that these far-left candidates did not attract his support any more than they did hers.80 Comte was not happy that Louis Napoleon eventually had an overwhelming victory. Reflecting the fact that the rural vote had been important, Comte maintained that Louis Napoleon had won because the countryside had decided to revolt against the cities, whose domination was admittedly “often . . . abusive.” The “legitimate” needs of the peasants had not been respected. Nevertheless, Comte was a Parisian proud of his “anti-rural education” and scornful of the provinces. He maintained that the subordination of the countryside to cities should be resecured.81 Yet elections in May 1849 confirmed the defeat of the left. Louis Napoleon allied himself with the antirepublican legitimists and Orleanists on the right, who dominated the new conservative government. But all of them had different interests. Loyal to the Bourbons, the legitimists wished to restore the ancien regime, with all its absolutist, theological, and hierarchical aspects. The Orleanists were supportive of Louis-Philippe. Despite the fact that they were conservative in terms of social reforms, they acknowledged to some extent the heritage of the French Revolution and wished to preserve the parliamentary system, though with limited suffrage. Louis Napoleon had his own agenda, that of rising above the battling parties to help the people and develop the economy. He favored an authoritarian government, one not hampered by a parliament. Thus because of his differences with the legitimists and Orleanists and their own squabbles, his alliance with them was fragile. As for the republicans, they were gathering strength in different areas of France (most notably in 78 79 80

81

Shinn, L’Ecole Polytechnique, 1794–1914, 62. See Louis Mignien to Comte, October 8, 1850, MAC. Alix Comte explained that everyone agreed that one must vote for either Cavaignac or Louis Napoleon to avoid the election of Ledru-Rollin. Her brother seemed to agree. See Alix Comte to Comte, December 3, 1848, in “Lettres d’Alix Comte,” ed. Laffitte, 121. Comte to Tholouze, December 18, 1848, CG, 4:214; Comte to Alix Comte, February 19, 1849, CG, 5: 9. Already on his 1838 admissions tour, Comte had discerned the predilection of provincial bureaucrats for the “juste milieu with Napoleonic sauce.” Comte to Madame Auguste Comte, September 18, 1838, CG: 1, 301.

Politics

429

small towns and villages in the northwest and south), politicizing the common people. Many peasants, especially in Protestant or dechristianized departments, had become socialists, much to the surprise of the conservatives.82 Comte studied the makeup of the new government and took interest in the activities of the republicans, who represented a minority in the new assembly.83 Different republican groups asked him to attend their meetings. One group was the Comit´e des ecoles, which held a banquet of democratic-socialists from various schools with their “associates,” a group of cooks.84 Yet his multifarious obligations forced him to decline the invitation of these democratic-socialists, whom Comte warmly called “brothers” [fr`eres].85 He kept informed about the latest books on the “social question,” showing a marked preference for P. E. Morin’s De l’Am´elioration du sort de la classe ouvri`ere. Morin stressed the importance of giving useful work to the proletariat and pointed out Louis Blanc’s finding that a five-member working-class family needed an annual income of at least 360 francs to survive.86 In the summer of 1851, Comte met Alphonse Brulle, a friend of Magnin and Mignien. Comte gave some positivist literature to this worker, who distributed it to his friends. After the coup of Napoleon in December 1851, Brulle’s house was searched and the remaining brochures were confiscated. Accused of peddling, he fled to Belgium but remained loyal to Comte.87 Comte also followed the workers’ movement elsewhere in France. Laffitte, who was often in the Bordeaux region, highlighted the activities of a cooper named Vigier, who had a large influence there. Laffitte gave the worker positivist publications, hoping to convert him to Comte’s approach to social reform.88 Comte became increasingly critical of the new government, which he condemned as reactionary and weak. He denounced the retrogrades’ “egoism,” immorality, and “incapacity,” which he found 82

83

84 85 86 87 88

Roger Price, Napoleon III and the Second Empire (London: Routledge, 1997), 14; .Ormi`eres, Politique et religion, 88; Dominque Barjot, Jean-Pierre Chaline, Andr´e Encr`eve, La France au XIXe si`ecle, 2d. ed. (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1995; Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1997), 317–23. Comte had a list of the new members of the Assembly. See brochure entitled Liste g´en´erale des repr´esentatives du peuple composant l’Assembl´ee L´egislative, session de 1849 (Paris, 1849), MAC. The pages are cut, suggesting that he studied it. E. Meurizet to Comte, April 7, 1849, in Pierre Laffitte, ed. “Mat´eriaux pour servir a` la biographie d’Auguste Comte,” RO, 2d ser., 37 (1908): 299. Comte to the Comit´e des Ecoles, April 7, 1849, CG, 5:19. P. E. Morin, De l’Am´elioration du sort de la classe ouvri`ere (Rouen, 1848), 13–14; Comte to Magnin, September 17, 1849, CG, 5:82. Alphonse Brulle to Comte, February 6, 1852, MAC. Laffitte to Comte, July 25, 1849, “49 Lettres de Pierre Laffitte a` Auguste Comte,” 240; Comte to Laffitte, July 28, August 4, September 4, 1849, CG, 5:44, 47, 69.

430

Personal and Professional Disappointments

worse than in previous regimes.89 In his opinion, the bourgeoisie, who were running the government, did not know how to rule and had nothing to offer. The legitimists and Orleanists, who represented the party of order, obstinately refused to recognize that France had abandoned the monarchical form of government. Bonapartism was an “anachronism without coherence” and also threatened the republic. How could the Bonapartists depict Napoleon I as “the essential representative of the Revolution” while at the same time aiming to set up another empire? Louis Napoleon ultimately did not stand for anything. Comte wrote to a friend, “The political insignificance of a personage reduced almost to representation rapidly discredits him.”90 Like Marx, Comte did not take him seriously. Nevertheless, he remained hopeful that Louis Napoleon would go against the momentum to form an empire.91 After the laws reducing universal suffrage and increasing the censorship of the press were passed in late May and June, 1850, Comte became more incensed. He found the “stupid persecution” of journalists by means of fines and imprisonment “intolerable” and disgusting. “The best discussions” were being stifled. Comte insisted on freedom of discussion because he wanted open combat, especially against men of letters (“les lettr´es”), whom he viewed as more dangerous to positivism than the wealthy upper classes.92 The reactionaries’ repressive censorship law turned these “scoundrels” and “utopians” into heroic figures, which made matters even worse.93 In Comte’s view, the common people had been only the assistants of the bourgeoisie in the negative phase of the revolution, which overthrew the old regime. But since their defeat in June 1848, they had shown their desire “to direct to their own profit the positive part of the revolution.” Comte approved of their goal to take charge of the government, despite the fact that they were a bit disorderly. He was certain that the right was exaggerating the threat of the left to stay in power.94 89 90 91 92

93

94

Comte to Tholouze, July 13, 1850, CG, 5:170. Comte to Tholouze, March 31, 1849, CG, 5:17. On the safety of the republic, see also Tholouze to Comte, July 9, 1850, MAC. Comte to Barbot de Chement, August 23, 1850, CG, 5:182. Comte’s dislike of “les lettr´es” never relented. In 1857, he criticized them for hating discipline, indulging in argumentation without conviction, and profiting from the “modern revolution,” which they often led. They were the “most dangerous of the Western trouble-makers.” Comte to Landmann, July 10, 1857, CG, 8:522. Comte to Tholouze, July 13, 1850, CG, 5:168–9. Comte also thought that defending property “brutally” through prison sentences and fines was a mistake because it gave the impression that property had no real justification. Comte to Tholouze, April 23, 1853, CG, 7:66. Comte to Tholouze, March 31, 1849, CG, 5:17.

Course on the History of Humanity

431

He worried that the right’s strategy might backfire because if it increased its repressive measures, the common people would launch a new upheaval. There would be a “terrible . . . confrontation.”95 He feared the “levelers” would triumph, menacing property and the family, and that the “second part of the great revolution” would become a “vain imitation” of the first part.96 Like Marx, Comte could not help but draw parallels between contemporary events and the Revolution of 1789. It was hard not to be preoccupied with history. cour se on the history of humanity Comte was still eager to give the course on the history of humanity that had been closed in early February 1848. After Louis-Philippe fell and Hippolyte Carnot replaced Salvandy as minister of public instruction on February 24, he thought he had a chance to relaunch the lectures. The auditors of the course wrote to the minister to find another room for sixty to eighty people; after all, the course concerned “morality, not politics.”97 Comte then asked Marrast for help in reopening his course in a new location, but he had no reply even after Littr´e asked.98 In May 1848, Comte begged for assistance from the dean of the Faculty of Medicine in Paris, who wrote to Hippolyte Carnot.99 Then in July the new minister of public instruction, Achille Tenaille de Vaulabelle, called on Comte to give him more information about the course, which clearly worried him.100 But Vaulabelle was replaced by Alexandre Freslon in October. Finally, in November 1848, Comte asked Cavaignac, who by this time was head of the government, to overturn the decision of the previous administration. Because Cavaignac had attended the Ecole Polytechnique, Comte assumed he would favor this course, which popularized the 95 96 97

98 99

100

Comte to Barbot de Chement, August 23, 1850, CG, 5:182. Comte to Tholouze, July 13, 1850, CG, 5:269; Comte to the Comit´e des Ecoles, April 7, 1849, CG, 5:19. Letter from the auditors of Comte’s course to the Minister of Public Instruction, n.d., F17 13553, Dossier III, AN; Arnaud, CG, 4:258n539; Comte to General Cavaignac, November 20, 1848, CG, 4:208. Comte’s lecture room in the city hall of the third arrondissement had been converted into offices, and so these auditors asked for a place at the Sorbonne or the Coll`ege de France. Littr´e to Comte, May 27, 1848. J. B. Bouillaud to Comte, May 3 and 26, 1848, MAC. Bouillaud had in 1831 asked Comte to join the meetings of the Soci´et´e de la Doctrine de Gall. See Bouillaud to Comte, January 9, 1831. Official of the Ministry of Public Instruction to Comte, July 14, 1848, MAC.

432

Personal and Professional Disappointments

scientific spirit.101 Comte finally received an appointment with one of Cavaignac’s subordinates, but nothing came of their meeting. The general and his officials were preoccupied with the upcoming presidential elections. Comte was certain that the republic was seeking to prevent him from speaking to the public out of fear.102 “Rhetoricians and sophists” who had much “official power” in the new republic did not wish their “omnipotence” challenged by positivism’s success.103 In January 1849, shortly after Louis Napoleon became president, Comte tried again to obtain a new administration’s intervention to circumvent the bureaucrats who prevented him from giving a “philosophic course on the general history of humanity.”104 He was eager to give this course, which would mark the “oral inauguration of the new religion” that he was establishing.105 But the new minister of the interior, Alfred Fr´ed´eric, comte de Falloux, was a supporter of the old religion, Catholicism. Faced with this formidable opponent, Comte engaged an old friend, Narcisse Vieillard, to help him.106 Born in 1791, Vieillard graduated from the Ecole Polytechnique and then became a military officer, serving in the Napoleonic army. Hostile to the Restoration, Vieillard took an interest in new approaches to social reform; he had supported the Saint-Simonian publication Le Producteur in 1828. He had also audited the course Comte gave on positive philosophy from December 1828 to November 1829, attended Comte’s first astronomy lecture in 1831, and supported the publication of the Cours. They had remained on friendly terms for twenty years. More recently, in 1847, he had attended Comte’s astronomy course.107 Vieillard was well placed to help. Comte proudly presented him as the “former tutor and principal confidante” of Louis Napoleon.108 In truth, he had taught his older brother.109 Nevertheless, Vieillard became one of the new president’s closest advisers. He was also elected a representative from La Manche in the elections of 1848 and 1849, 101

102 103 104

105 106 107 108

To curry favor with him, he sent him as well as his secretary copies of the Discours sur l’Esprit positif. See list of people to whom Comte sent the Discours sur l’Esprit positif, MAC. Comte to Grote, October 2, 1848, CG, 4:187. Comte to Vieillard, January 13, 1849, CG, 5:5. See Comte, “Programme sommaire du cours philosophique sur l’histoire g´en´erale de l’Humanit´e,” CG, 6:483–5. This program was published by the Positivist Society on May 15, 1849. See Comte, handwritten note of “Publications de la Soci´et´e Positiviste,” May 16, 1849, Manuscripts, MAC; Littr´e, Comte, 620–22. Comte to Laffitte, July 28, 1848, CG, 5:44. Comte to Vieillard, January 13, 1849, CG, 5:5. On Vieillard, see F. Beaucour, “Vieillard,” in Tulard, ed., Dictionnaire, 1311; Pickering, Comte, 417, 419, 430, 451. See also Comte to Vieillard, November 22, 1849, CG, 5:117. Comte to Tholouze, April 22, 1851, CG, 6:56. 109 Deroisin, Comte, 67.

Course on the History of Humanity

433

although with some difficulty, according to Comte, because of his “advanced opinions.”110 Louis Napoleon would appoint Vieillard senator in 1852 despite the fact that he remained a fervent republican and was disliked by many conservatives. With his ties to the new government, it is not surprising that Vieillard finally succeeded in his mission in March 1849.111 A government banking official – the director of the Comptoir d’escompte – found Comte a room in the Palais Royal for his course. Although this room, the Salle d’Assembl´e G´en´erale, was on one of the top floors, difficult to find, and bereft of furniture, Comte was delighted, for he felt he had triumphed over his enemies.112 He quickly sent notices to the newspapers announcing that his new course would take place every Sunday at noon from March 11 to late August. With the help of Vieillard, who enlisted the assistance of a bureaucrat from the ministry of public works, he arranged for two hundred chairs to be moved from the garden of the Palais Royal to the lecture room.113 Comte’s optimism was not well-founded, for he was disappointed that far fewer auditors attended this new course than his astronomy course of 1847. The lecture hall, being on a higher floor, was less accessible, and workers in particular were less excited about the subject matter.114 One “assiduous” female auditor complained that his four-hour lectures were tiring. He tried to respond to such complaints and even gave his audience a fifteen-minute break. Yet it never occurred to him to simplify or alter his material to appeal to a wider range of people. He believed that the diminution of his audience was due not to the complexity of the material but to the “mean silence of the press,” which wished to stifle positivism because his doctrine threatened its “preponderance.”115 Also, the progressives’ reliance on the new republic to enact immediate solutions made people less interested in his proposals. Yet he noticed that as the new government of Louis Napoleon strengthened its alliance with the conservatives – the Party of Order – and started repressing the left to crush the democratic-socialist movement, some people began searching for means to acquire deeper, long-lasting reforms.116 Expressing his dislike of “our miserable conservatives,” he claimed 110 111

112 113 115 116

Comte to Laffitte, September 4, 1849, CG, 5:67. Vieillard met Comte January 15, 1849 to work out his strategy to help the philosopher. He had to overcome some administrative problems. See Vieillard to Comte, January 14, February 26, 1849, MAC. Comte to Vieillard, March 2, 1849, CG, 5:12. Vieillard to Comte, March 9, 1849, MAC. 114 Deroisin, Comte, 5. Comte to Jacquemin, June 29, 1849, CG, 5:36. During these months, new laws were passed giving the government the right to forbid clubs and public meetings and to increase censorship; Agulhon, 1848, 143; Barjot, Chaline, and Encr`eve, La France au XIXe si`ecle, 321–3.

434

Personal and Professional Disappointments

that the number of auditors rose in late July and early August.117 In addition, Comte admitted that Littr´e’s favorable series of reviews of the Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme in Le National beginning in July probably helped his course attract more attention.118 The auditors seemed very serious. Littr´e’s enthusiasm inspired Charles Robin to attend the course. Robin, Laffitte, and Contreras Elizalde (Comte’s Mexican disciple) would meet in front of the Caf´e Procope on Sundays to go together to the lectures.119 According to Comte’s disciple Deroisin, Robin was “the most assiduous” member of the audience. “He was there from the beginning to the end for three years, taking notes with a pen.”120 He waxed enthusiastic, writing to Laffitte in late September 1850, “The five or six last lessons of Comte, that of today among others, have been of an admirable power and elevation.”121 Robin kept the notes from all the lectures until he died, when his Catholic family burned them.122 Another auditor was a lawyer and government official, Alfred Ribet. He often met Laffitte at the lectures and went to Comte’s apartment afterwards to chat with other positivists. Like his friend Contreras Elizalde, Ribet was a practicing Catholic but did not feel that Comte disdained him for his beliefs.123 Dr. Louis Lacaze, who donated a celebrated collection of art to the Louvre in 1869, also came to Comte’s lectures.124 Other auditors included Massin and Lenoir. Comte’s decision to teach history, instead of the scientific method, as revealed in “its most perfect type,” astronomy, reflects the fact that ways of thinking in the nineteenth century were becoming increasingly historical.125 Although the sciences still held much authority, people were looking increasingly to history for answers. Some thinkers gave history an extra boost by infusing it with scientific language. Comte’s determination that he should devote more attention to the philosophy of history and set up a “cult” of history reflects 117 118 119

120 122

123 125

Comte to Laffitte, September 12, 1849, CG, 5:73. See also Comte to Mont`egre, August 2, 1849, CG, 5: 45. Comte to Jacquemin, October 30, 1849, CG, 5:103. Sometimes they would be joined by one or more of the following: Segond, Fl´orez, Ribbentrop, Robinet, Demetrius Zitzeos, and Neva Benedetti (from Ferrara). Laffitte attended Comte’s lectures with Contreras Elizalde for three years. Pierre Laffitte, speech, in “Bulletin de France: Banquet d’Adieux de M. Augustin Aragon,” May 16, in RO, 2d. ser., 17 (September, 1898): 218–19. Deroisin, Notes, 6. 121 Robin to Laffitte, September 30, 1850, MAC. Pouchet had hoped that Robin’s notebook would be found by the family, but it was never produced. Pouchet, Robin, vi, footnote; CL. For the influence of Comte’s ideas of education on Robin, see Poucet, Robin, CL–CLII. Alfred Ribet to Keufer, January 7, 1903, MAC. 124 Deroisin, Comte, 6. Comte, Announcement for the “Cours philosophique d’astronomie populaire pr´ec´ed´e de plusieurs s´eances sur l’esprit positif,” 1847, MAC. On the development of historical consciousness, see Hayden White, Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in NineteenthCentury Europe (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1973), 1–2.

Course on the History of Humanity

435

these developments.126 History had always been of central importance to his conception of sociology because he believed that one could not understand the nature of society (or any other phenomenon) without studying its history. History was not only a sociological method but the key to social dynamics, one of the main parts of the science of sociology. The history of an individual was replicated in the history of society, as seen especially in the law of three stages; every individual and every society went through theological, metaphysical, and positive phases in their development. As Emile Littr´e said, “History is a development determined by the conditions of the cerebral nature of man and by his manner of being in the world. What happens in the evolution of the individual is the root of which happens in the evolution of the collective being.” A “natural evolution,” history was thus intimately linked to biology.127 In addition, despite the fact that it was not one of the basic sciences in the positivist hierarchy, Comte seemed to consider history a science because it had its own objective laws and predictive capabilities.128 He even sought to make history sound scientific by using key phrases. He called the law of three stages his “first sociological law”; his theory of hierarchical classification, the “second sociological law”; and his theory of the importance of practical activity, the “third sociological law.”129 Comte’s growing interest in history and his scientific twist to it can be considered a reaction against the reformers of the 1840s. He wished to demonstrate that by using a “sound” historical base, he could accurately predict the future of society and guide the present without resorting to the kind of utopian thinking that he believed characterized the old-style socialist approach.130 His view was remarkably similar to that of Marx, who also sought to distinguish himself from other socialists by uncovering the scientific laws of history. Comte tended to the theatrical, as Marx noted was the tendency of many Frenchmen at this pivotal time.131 He presented his course as a “kind of great drama in three parts.” The first part covered the 126 127 128

129 130

131

Mont`egre to Comte, July 30, 1849, MAC. Emile Littr´e, Paroles de philosophie positive (Paris, 1859), 15–17. Comte insisted that “rational and positive history” is a “real science,” Cours 2:150. On Comte’s view of history, see Annie Petit, “La Sociologie positiviste: Entre histoire politique et religion,” Auguste Comte et la cultura francese dell’ ottocento: In ricordo di Mirella Larizza, ed. Marco Guena (Milan: Cisalpino, 2004), 22. Littr´e also said history was a science, one that was on the same level as biology. Littr´e, Paroles, 20. See Comte, “Programme sommaire du cours philosophique sur l’histoire g´en´erale de l’Humanit´e,” CG, 6:483–5. See his printed notice regarding his course on the history of humanity, “Avis: Order et Progr`es,” March 1849, MAC; “Avis,” in letter from Comte to the Editor of the Moniteur, March 31, 1851, Manuscripts, MAC. Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (New York: International Publishers, 1967), 15.

436

Personal and Professional Disappointments

general characteristics of human nature and social evolution. As he had implied in the Cours and in the Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, Comte insisted that there was no new creation in history; everything evolved from what had existed in the beginning. Thus “in the primitive order must be found in germination the definitive order.” Progress was simply the “development of order.”132 The second part of the course, covering his “philosophy of history,” reviewed the different stages of history. He began with fetishism and then discussed various aspects of polytheism, which he considered a conservative period. He now called the Greek version “intellectual polytheism,” whereas the Roman one was “social polytheism.” Five lectures were devoted to the Middle Ages and the “progressive monotheism” of Catholicism. The last lectures concerned the “modern double movement” – the negative and positive movements from the sixteenth century to the present.133 He briefly reviewed positivism’s appreciation of the past and then elaborated on its conception of the future and its treatment of the present. Since he first read Condorcet as a young man, Comte had always maintained that studying the past and then predicting the future had a social, practical purpose, that of determining the correct methods for improving conditions of life in the present. Although he frequently derided social reformers for being utopian, he argued that idealizing the future and creating a “utopia” could be considered “the poetry of politics” because it helped us focus our highest sentiments and ideas.134 In the Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, he defended utopian thinking as useful because it offered blueprints for the future.He explained, “In every human operation, execution presupposes imagination. . . . Man can construct outside of himself only what he has first conceived within himself.”135 Thus even utopian thinking had a place in Comte’s system. Indeed, the last volume of the Syst`eme would offer his utopian vision of the future. The emphasis of the course was on increasing sociability in the future. Indeed, Comte stressed the similarity of socialism and positivism on this issue. He believed that the brutal “coup d’´etat” of December 1848, coupled with Littr´e’s favorable review of the Discours, 132

133

134

135

See Laffitte, notes, “Cours sur l’histoire g´en´erale de l’humanit´e . . . a` partir d’avril 1850,” and Comte’s handwritten, “Cours philosophique (en 26 Dimanches) sur l’histoire g´en´erale de l’Humanit´e,” April 19, 1849, MAC. See Comte, “Programme sommaire du cours philosophique sur l’histoire g´en´erale de l’Humanit´e,” CG, 6:484. This concept of negative and positive phases of history was first outlined in Comte’s second opuscule, the “Sommaire appr´eciation de l’ensemble du pass´e moderne” of 1820. See Pickering, Comte, 166–72. See Comte’s handwritten notes at the MAC: “Cours philosophique sur l’histoire g´en´erale de l’Humanit´e profess´e gratuitement en 1849 au Palais-Cardinal par Auguste Comte.” On utopias, see Syst`eme, 4:273–5. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 312.

Course on the History of Humanity

437

fortified the alliance between these two movements.136 He assumed that virtuous socialist workers felt a sense of community with positivists.137 Dr. de Mont`egre encouraged this direction of Comte’s thought. After speaking with workers who had been unjustly imprisoned for their incendiary activities on June 13, Mont`egre concluded that they were “perfectly prepared” for positivism because they felt “the need for a connection or a social doctrine” and attached themselves “for this reason to socialism, not to communism, a distinction that all of them make very clearly and upon which I did not miss insisting also.”138 Charles de Capellen, a Dutch supporter, insisted that positivism was “the only realizable socialism.”139 Developing this line of thought, Comte was delighted that many workers had adopted “the happy expression socialism, which he took as a sign of their rejection of communism.”140 He emphasized that socialism was the sentimental, popular product of the negative phase of the Occidental revolution, whereas positivism was the doctrinal, philosophical result of this phase. He told Laffitte, “Socialism is spontaneous positivism, while positivism constitutes systematic socialism.”141 Indeed, positivism was the only doctrine that could direct “true socialists.”142 He thought he might have an opportunity to guide socialists because the leading communists – Cabet and other leading Icarians – had emigrated to Texas in late 1848. In September 1849, Comte wrote, “Already communism is essentially eliminated at the center of the Occident, whence its best organs have gone to crystallize miserably in America.” The result of this change was that the “old republicanism” now was transformed into “what one calls socialism, which, among the proletarians, who are its only real representatives, constitutes the positive version of the true republican principle.” This principle directed everyone to consecrate all their energy to the “continual service of Humanity.”143 136 137 138

139

140 141 142 143

Comte to Laffitte, August 29, 1849, CG, 5:62. See Comte’s notes at the MAC: “Cours philosophique sur l’histoire g´en´erale de l’Humanit´e profess´e gratuitement en 1849.” Mont`egre to Comte, July 30, 1849, MAC. Mont`egre was genuinely interested in the plight of the workers, who he said were unjustly treated because they had to work thirteen hours a day for two or two-and-a-half francs. Mont`egre to Comte, August 25, 1849, MAC. Charles de Capellen to Comte, March 1, 1850, CG, 5: 252. Capellen went to Comte’s course at the Palais Royal in 1849. Comte often visited his wife. See Comte to Deullin, July 21, 1855, CG, 8:77; Madame de Capellen to Comte, August 24, 1852, MAC; F. F. Velly, “Notes Biographiques sur Henri de Tholouze et sur Ch. Henri Fr´ed´erick de Capellen,” n.d., Archives of Sybil de Acevedo. Syst`eme, 1:153. Comte added this section to the Discours. Comte to Laffitte, August 31, 1849, CG, 5:49. See also Comte to Mont`egre, August 26, 1849, CG, 5:61. Comte to Mont`egre, August 26, 1849, CG, 4:61. Comte to Tholouze, September 17, 1849, CG, 5:79–80.

438

Personal and Professional Disappointments

Comte now more regularly referred to the “cult of Humanity” as the “Religion of Humanity.”144 By instituting this new secular religion, which he believed successfully linked the heart and mind, he sought to guide the “great socialist revolution” that he was sure was about to occur.145 Positivism could give socialism the direction it lacked and take over the “next immense revolution” that would “finally” terminate the Occidental revolution.146 To emphasize the closeness between positivism and socialism and the power of sociology to reform politics and morality, he created new expressions, revealing once again his propensity toward neologisms. In August 1849, he replaced the words “theology,” “theocracy,” and “theolatry” with the following expressions: “sociology” (pertaining to the dogma or doctrine of the final stage of history), “sociocracy” (relating to the political regime of the positivist era when sociologists would reign supreme), and “sociolatry” (concerning the religious rites of this period).147 System-making was indeed Comte’s forte. The new conservative legislature, in trying to limit freedom of assembly and liberty of the press, soon turned its attention to the supposed dangers of public education and reconsidered Comte’s course. The minister of public works, Baron Bertrand Th´eobald Joseph de Lacrosse, gave orders for it to be closed in late August 1849 after receiving complaints from the prefect of police.148 Whereas some people found the course threatening, others who lived in subsidized housing in the Palais Royal were simply bothered by the crowd coming to hear the lectures.149 Comte was understandably incensed, for he could not give the last two lectures on the temporal government. He finally delivered them without notes to an audience of thirty at his own apartment.150 He was also surprised because he believed he had purposefully taken a moderate tone in order not to 144

145 146 147

148

149 150

Comte to Jacquemin, June 29, 1849, CG, 5:37. In the Discours of 1848, Comte tended to refer to the “cult of Humanity,” not the Religion of Humanity. Petit, introduction to Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 33. Comte to Vieillard, November 22, 1849, CG, 5:118. See also Comte’s handwritten “Cours philosophique sur l’histoire g´en´erale de l’Humanit´e,” August 5, 1849, MAC. Comte to Tholouze, September 17, 1849, CG, 5:79–80. Comte to Laffitte, August 13, 1849, CG, 5:49. The mixture of Greek and Latin was important in his eyes for reminding us of the two origins – intellectual and social – of Western civilization. Comte to Fl´orez, August 23, 1849, CG, 5:57; T. Lacrosse to Comte, August 22, 1849, MAC. The name “Lacrope” is a misspelling; Minister of Public Works (Jean Martial Bineau) to the Minister of Public Instruction (Marie Louis Pierre F´elix Esquirou de Parieu), February 14, 1850, F17 6688, AN. Deroisin, Comte, 5. Comte to Laffitte, September 12, 19, 1849, CG, 5: 72, 83; Charles de Capellen to Comte, September 8, 1849, MAC; Fabien Magnin, speech, September 5, 1878, in “Le Vingt-et-uni`eme Anniversaire de la mort d’Auguste Comte,” RO 1, no. 4 (1878): 663; Congreve, “Personal Recollections of Auguste Comte and Account of

Course on the History of Humanity

439

give the government cause to proceed against him. He had told the workers in the course that they were wrong to demand the immediate implementation of radical measures, for such measures should be reserved for the future.151 Nevertheless, in the opening lecture, he had attacked traditional religions, calling Catholics, Protestants, and deists “slaves of God,” who were both “backwards” and “disruptive.”152 One anonymous auditor, perhaps on this occasion, protested, pointing out that he overheard a “worker with rough hands,” exclaim, “‘That really demolishes . . . the cur´es, to say that . . . every theological or metaphysical doctrine is dead.’” After all, “To show a dead faith, is to show the nullity of this faith.” The auditor was fearful about what would happen to morality and religion.153 In lectures in June, Comte had amazed Littr´e by boldly attacking Louis Napoleon’s military campaign to protect the Pope from republicans in Rome.154 Then in late July he had announced that the column of Napoleon in the Place Vendˆome should be replaced by one of Charlemagne, who was more “Occidental,” and he further insisted that the emperor’s “fatal cadaver” in the Invalides should be sent back to Saint Helena and replaced by the body of General Malet, a staunch republican who had conspired against Napoleon.155 Comte’s comments about the “deplorable monuments” erected to the cult of Napoleon and his opposition to the rising nationalism and militarism of the new regime could not have been well received by the men in power.156 Although he reluctantly acknowledged later that his course was closed because conservatives considered his radical ideas too dangerous, Comte preferred at the moment to blame his troubles on Emile de Girardin, the famous publisher, who had launched in 1836 a cheap, purportedly nonpartisan newspaper, La Presse, acquiring a

151 152 153 154 155

156

French Reception,” n.d. Positivist Papers, Vol. XXXVI, Add. Mss. 45259, fol. 8, British Library. See Comte’s notes, the “Cours philosophique sur l’histoire g´en´erale de l’humanit´e, profess´e gratuitement en 1849,” MAC. Comte, quoted in C. Rollier to Monsieur le Recteur [de l’Universit´e], March 3, 1853, F17 6688, AN. Anonymous auditor to Comte, n.d., MAC. Littr´e to Comte, June 20, 1849, MAC. Comte also refers to an “odious” expedition in the Syst`eme. See Syst`eme, 1:74. Comte to Mont`egre, August 2, 1849, CG, 5: 46. “Mallet” should read “Malet.” Comte considered Charlemagne the founder of the Occidental Republic. See also Comte to Sauria, October 30, 1855, CG, 8:133; Syst`eme, 4:397–8. Comte wanted new names for streets and squares, such as the rue Charlemagne and the Place Occidentale. On the conspiracies of Malet, who tried to outlaw Napoleon, see Martyn Lyons, Napoleon Bonaparte and the Legacy of the French Revolution (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994), 135–6. Comte to Laffitte, August 4, 1849, 5: 47. In support of decolonialization, Comte also wanted to end the French domination of Corsica. Comte to Laffitte, October 2 1849, CG, 5:94.

440

Personal and Professional Disappointments

large new middle-class readership. Dean de la Motte argues that in seeking to organize a new productive France on the basis of human and natural resources, “Girardin, almost single-handedly, adopted and popularized the broadest of the utopian socialists’ common concerns and, in the context of growing literacy and rapid industrialization, ultimately transformed them into a marketing tool.”157 Although he tended to be conservative while espousing a progressive France, he converted in 1848 to republicanism, hoping to receive a position in the new government. In his newspaper, he offered all sorts of reform proposals to the new republic.158 Comte had never liked Girardin because he had killed one of his closest friends, Armand Carrel, in a duel in 1836. Whenever Laffitte voiced his approval of Girardin’s proposals, Comte viciously attacked him for supporting such a “vile” opportunist, whom he accused of distorting the flawed plans of Louis Blanc and not truly embracing socialism though he pretended to do so. Both Girardin and Blanc failed to see the necessity of improving morality before undertaking the reform of industry.159 They stupidly sought to “organize industrial existence by isolating it from intellectual and moral life, despite the necessary indivisibility of the human or social question, where all aspects of our nature must be simultaneously embraced.”160 Comte also accused Girardin of stealing his theory of revolutionary government. Mont`egre once again helped shape Comte’s opinion. Conferring with a writer named Bernard, Mont`egre pointed out that Girardin followed Comte in demanding that all governmental power be concentrated in the hands of three men.161 Moreover, like Comte, Girardin sought the replacement of the army by a police force; the reduction of the power of the Chamber to voting on the budget; the suppression of the University and clergy; and the promotion of order and progress.162 In addition, a student at the 157

158

159 160 161 162

Dean de la Motte, “Utopia Commodified: Utilitarianism, Aestheticism, and the presse a` bon march´e.” In Making the News: Modernity and the Mass Press in Nineteenth-Century France, ed. Dean de la Motte and Jeannene M. Przyblyski (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999), 149. Ibid., 512; Gordon Wright, Notable or Notorious? A Gallery of Parisians (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991), 9; Collingham, July Monarchy, 174–8; Pierre Pellisier, Emile de Girardin: Prince de la Presse (Paris: Deno¨el, 1985), 257. Comte to Laffitte, October 18, 1849, CG, 5:101. Comte to Bosson, January 18, 1856, CG, 8:206. According to Girardin, there should be a directing minister, a minister in charge of taxation, and a minister of expenses. See Pellisier, Emile de Girardin, 244, 407–15. Mont`egre to Comte, May 21, 1850, MAC. Girardin’s name also appeared in the ComteLaffitte correspondence. See Laffitte to Comte, September 8, 1849, “49 Letters (Suite),” RO, 2d ser., 36 (1907): 331. Comte was far more critical of Girardin than Laffitte was. Both men, however, agreed that Girardin’s publication of Chateaubriand’s Memoires d’outre tombe would help discredit Napoleon.

Course on the History of Humanity

441

Ecole des Mines, who was hunted by the police, told Comte that Girardin had taken his ideas about the presidency of the republic and the coming of the proletariat.163 Comte concluded that Girardin was a scoundrel with ties to all parties. He figured that as a supporter of the presidency of Louis Napoleon in the elections of 1848, Girardin must have persuaded the Catholic minister of public instruction, Falloux, to talk his “weak colleague,” the minister of public works (Th´eobold de Lacrosse), into closing his course.164 Girardin allegedly feared that Comte would discuss political theory in the penultimate lecture and would upbraid him for stealing his ideas. He did not want to be humiliated and had Comte’s course shut down. To warn his audience of the closure, Comte sent letters to Le National and the Journal des d´ebats. He was happy that the “noble” Littr´e visited him to express his indignation.165 Comte’s difficulties with the government continued. In November 1849, he asked Vieillard to intervene in his behalf once again to ensure that he could give the course in 1850. Comte presented himself as a moderate republican, seeking to “form in a solid manner the reason of the people to preserve it from charlatans . . . and utopians.”166 Vieillard then arranged for Comte to meet with the new prefect of police, Pierre Carlier, on January 26, around the time the course was to start. Having been assured by Vieillard that the course would not incite disorderly conduct because of Comte’s insistence on “discipline,” “patience,” and “resignation,” the prefect decided to comply with Comte’s request.167 Yet the minister of public works, Jean Martial Bineau, had the final say. On February 11, 1850, Vieillard visited Bineau to secure his permission. Then Comte wrote the minister.168 Attaching Comte’s letter to his memo, Bineau wrote to the minister of public instruction, Marie-Louis Pierre F´elix Esquirou de Parieu, for advice.169 After almost three weeks of silence, Comte wrote again in early March. As a graduate of the Ecole Polytechnique, Bineau, in Comte’s opinion, should understand the value of his work. Comte claimed not to be a revolutionary seeking popularity but rather a conservative eager “to discipline revolutionary souls by means of 163 164 165 166 167 168 169

Ed. Demaret to Comte, n.d., MAC. Comte noted that he received the letter on April 21, 1851. Comte to Littr´e, August 24, 1849, CG, 5:59. For more derogatory comments about Girardin, see Comte to Laffitte, September 12, 1849, CG, 5:72. Comte to Mont`egre, August 26, 1849, CG, 5:60. Comte to Vieillard, November 22, 1849, CG, 5:117. Vieillard to Carlier, January 22, 1850, 333, Correspondance in´edite d’Auguste Comte, 3:333– 4. Comte to Bineau, February 12, 1850, CG, 5:127. The original letter may be found in F17 6688, AN. See also Vieillard to Comte, January 22, February 11, 1850, MAC. Minister of Public Works (Jean Martial Bineau) to the Minister of Public Instruction (Marie Louis Pierre F´elix Esquirou de Parieu), February 14, 1850, F17 6688, AN.

442

Personal and Professional Disappointments

demonstration.” His course taught the importance of order, property, and the family, thus giving moral guidance to his auditors, many of whom had rejected traditional religion. He accused Bineau and his colleagues of not being true conservatives because their policies ultimately reinforced anarchy.170 Comte’s letter was both bold and misleading, considering that to workers, he presented positivism as “the true party of progress.”171 Vieillard, to whom Comte sent the letter, scolded Comte for upbraiding the powerful minister.172 On March 4, Vieillard had written a letter to Parieu on Comte’s behalf and was not pleased to be undermined by such aggressivity.173 On March 6, Bineau once again asked Parieu for his advice.174 Comte found the situation “almost desperate,” for he feared that Bineau would decide to wash his hands of the matter and put Parieu completely in charge.175 Fed up, Parieu wrote on top of Vieillard’s letter, “We must terminate this affair.”176 But he was unsure about what to do. He submitted the case to the University. Curiously, the council directing the University concluded that it had no jurisdiction over Comte’s course and could not make a decision.177 It was up to Parieu. Comte did not trust Parieu, who supported the policies of his predecessor, Falloux, a defender of Catholicism. (Claiming to further freedom of education, Falloux and Parieu introduced laws giving the Catholic Church a larger role in schools.)178 After explaining the situation, Comte complained to Littr´e: “You see then how I have little chance of succeeding because my course is to be judged by the pedantocracy that detests my philosophy the most.”179 Parieu did seem to be stalling. Bineau wrote him again on March 16, begging him to respond and not to keep Comte waiting any longer.180 At this point, Caroline Massin stepped in. She was still one of Comte’s biggest admirers.181 She had been frustrated at not having 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181

Comte to Bineau, March 4, 1850, CG, 5:131. Comte to Jacquemin, October 30, 1849, CG, 5:104. Vieillard to Comte, March 12, 1850, MAC. Vieillard to the Minister of Public Instruction (Bineau), March 4, 1850, F17 6688, AN. Bineau to the Minster of Public Instruction, March 6, 1850, F17 6688, AN. Comte to Vieillard, March 13, 1850, CG, 5:132. See the annotation on Vieillard to the Minister of Public Instruction (Bineau), March 4, 1850, F17 6688, AN. Ministry of Public Instruction (Parieu) to M. Guigniaut, General Secretary of the Conseil de l’Universit´e, March 5, 1850, F17 6688, AN. Garrigues, La France, 37–8. For more information on Falloux, see Eric Vatr´e, “Falloux du Coudray,” in Tulard, ed., Dictionnaire, 520. Comte to Littr´e, March 18, 1850, CG, 5:137. Minister of Public Works (Bineau) to Minister of Public Instruction (Parieu), March 16, 1850, F17 6688, AN. Massin does seem to have interfered from time to time in Comte’s life. One admirer of Comte complained that in 1845 she had suddenly accused him of having done something wrong – something that he had never understood. He was not allowed to communicate

Course on the History of Humanity

443

understood his astronomy course and had stopped attending it. But she missed seeing her husband and promised to be submissive if they ended their separation. He was not moved and insisted on limiting their relations to mundane money matters.182 However, even this subject was the source of much tension. He was particularly incensed by a letter of January 1847, when she complained about having received no money from him in four months. She was embarrassed: “I assure you that it costs me a lot to have to write to you on this subject.”183 Yet she had no money and threatened to move in with him if she lost her apartment. Such a threat infuriated him. He took his revenge by telling her about his love for de Vaux.184 Very hurt, she hardly communicated at all with him for two years. But she then decided to go to his course on the history of humanity in 1849 and was delighted to see that he exhibited “the same energy, the same verve, and the same spontaneity” as always.185 She had not been so happy in years. Yet she could not resist complaining; she made it clear that she felt considerable unease at being unaccompanied, for she had “never” been alone in a “public place” – a statement that throws doubt on Comte’s later accusation that she had been a prostitute when he first met her. She hated having to keep her distance from him as if she were a stranger but also feared that her presence bothered him, especially when he spoke openly about his private woes.186 Although Comte continually insulted her in his letters to her, she decided to show her devotion and importance to him by intervening in this affair because she was acquainted with Bineau, whom she had tried to help in 1848.187 After a couple of attempts, she arranged a meeting with Bineau on March 17 by cleverly representing herself as a significant personage.188 She learned that he favored giving Comte the

182 183 184 185 186 187

188

with her and was so embarrassed about this accusation that he lost touch with Comte for three years. Chabrier to Comte, March 2, 1848, MAC. Comte to Massin, November 9, 1847, CG, 5:126. Comte was so angry about this letter that he reprinted it in his Testatment. See Massin to Comte, January 8, 1847, Testament, 37. Comte to Massin, January 10, 1847, CG, 4:96. He also reprinted this letter in his Testament. See Testament, 38–42. Massin to Comte, April 28, 1849, MAC. Massin to Comte, August 13, 1849, MAC. See also Massin to Comte, March 31, 1850, CG, 5:254. She reminded Comte that he too had met Bineau, who was his former student at the Ecole Polytechnique, worked with him in 1830 on the Association Polytechnique, and attended some of his lectures on astronomy. Massin to Comte, March 20, 1850, CG, 5:253; Littr´e, Comte, 626n1; Gentil, Auguste Comte/Caroline Massin Correspondance, 300–301, 315. Massin to Comte, March 20, 1850, CG, 5:253. Massin did seem to cultivate good connections. At various times, she was close to Marrast, Littr´e, and Blainville. She also talked at length with the famous scientist Pierre Flourens, after not seeing him for twenty-five years. See Massin to Comte, September 29, 1850, MAC.

444

Personal and Professional Disappointments

requested room but was afraid to do so after learning that the former prefect of police had the former minister of public works, Th´eobald de Lacrosse, halt the course. She speculated that the prefect was pushed into doing so by various professors or by a desire to save the column of Napoleon at the Place Vendˆome – the column Comte denounced in his course. Not knowing what to do, Bineau had sent the case to Parieu, who had done nothing. To alleviate Bineau’s worries, Massin tried to get him to see the difference between Comte’s serious course and the more demagogic ones given by other teachers, who were usually journalists and followers of Proudhon’s principle that happiness could be achieved in theft.189 Comte was caught up in the bureaucracy. Bineau, Carlier, and Parieu were newly appointed to their posts. In particular, Bineau appeared not to know that the new prefect of police, Carlier, had recently approved the course. Appealing to Bineau’s own masculine self-image, Massin chided him for not taking responsibility himself. She told Comte, “I took the liberty of telling him that I knew that he was by habit the master at home and I begged him to be the same as minister.” In effect, she humiliated him until he promised to make Comte’s case a “personal affair.”190 Comte was grateful to Massin, especially for finding out that the reason the course was closed stemmed from the objections of the former prefect of police. However, he did not think Bineau had enough “energy” to decide to move matters in his favor. Comte now said nothing about his earlier attacks on Girardin for having caused the “little coup d’´etat” with regard to his course.191 Massin wrote to Bineau on March 26 to renew her question. After five days of silence, she sent another letter – a “mean letter”–in which she stressed that Littr´e, Vieillard, and “three hundred honest” and serious Europeans desired the reopening of the course.192 Comte was somewhat annoyed that she sent it, though once it proved successful, he said he found it “very satisfying.”193 In early April, Vieillard visited Bineau again. Finally, after consulting the committee that ran the University about the issue of jurisdiction, Parieu decided that he 189 190 191

192 193

Massin to Comte, March 17, 1850, MAC. The name “Parien” in her letter is incorrect. Massin to Comte, March 20, 1850, CG, 5:253. Comte to Massin, March 22, 1850, CG, 5:138. A few months later, after having decided that Girardin was trying to help the positivist cause, especially by popularizing his idea of a proletarian government, Comte played with the idea of persuading him to present a plan to the government to allow more freedom of discussion via clubs and posters. Comte to Laffitte, October 16, 1850, CG, 5:211. See also Comte to Tholouze, April 22, 1851, CG, 6:58. Massin to Comte, March 31, 1850, CG, 5:254; Massin to Bineau, March 26, 1850, Correspondance in´edite, 4:309. Comte to Massin, April 2, 1850, CG, 5:145. See also Massin to Comte, April 1, 1850, CG, 5:255.

Course on the History of Humanity

445

would give Comte permission for the course and wrote to Bineau to that effect on April 5, 1850.194 On April 6, Bineau told Comte he could have the same room in the Palais Royal that he had had the previous year.195 Prodded by Parieu, Bineau also warned Vieillard to inform Comte that this authorization would be rescinded if he engaged in “critical observations.”196 The authorization to give the course had taken Comte approximately five months to secure. In telling others of his victory, he ascribed it to the “civil intervention” of Vieillard rather than to Massin, but Littr´e maintained that if Massin had not directly intervened, Vieillard would have “obtained nothing.”197 When he thanked the minister, Comte suggested that the temporal power should in the future respect “spiritual liberty.”198 Comte’s use of this curious phrase was deliberate, for the Catholics were using this slogan to push for educational reforms that favored their religion. Comte’s “religious course” started on April 21, almost two months late, and ended on October 13, 1850.199 Comte referred to sociability as “altruism” perhaps for the first time in this 1850 course. He may have borrowed the term from Franc¸ois Andrieux, one of his professors at the Ecole Polytechnique. The word comes from the Italian term, “altrui,” for others. One of the positivist slogans featured on the cover page of the first volume of the Syst`eme, published in 1851, was “Vivre pour altrui.” The term “altruism” was introduced into English by George Henry Lewes in his 1853 work on positivism, Comte’s Philosophy of the Sciences: Being an Exposition of the Principles of the “Cours de Philosophie Positive” of Auguste Comte.200 194

195

196 197 198 199 200

Minister of Public Instruction (Parieu), “Note pour le Conseil de l’Universit´e,” March 29, 1850, and Minister of Public Instruction (Parieu) to Minister of Public Works (Bineau), April 5, 1850, F17 6688, AN. Massin to Comte, on April 9, 1850, MAC; Bineau to Comte, April 6, 1850, CG, 5:256. The original letter from Bineau is in MAC. Vieillard called on Bineau on April 6, the day Bineau sent Comte the letter of authorization. Massin went to thank Bineau on April 9, 1850. See Massin to Comte, April 8, 1850, MAC. Comte wrote the minister a thankyou letter, which was published in the Madrid newspaper, El Clamor publico on May 10. Comte thanked both Bineau and Vieillard in the Syst`eme. See “Pr´eface,” Syst`eme, 1:18. Minister of Public Works (?), “Note,” n.d., F17 6688, AN. Comte to Tholouze, July 13, 1850, CG, 5:169; Littr´e to Comte, April 10, 1850, MAC. Comte to Bineau, April 7, 1850, CG, 5:146. Comte, “Sixi`eme Confession annuelle,” May 30, 1851, CG, 6:98. See Laffitte’s notes, “Cours sur l’histoire g´en´erale de l’humanit´e . . . a` partir d’avril 1850,” MAC. On Andrieux, see Deroisin, Comte, 130n139. Comte may have first used the word “altruism” in his correspondence in a letter to Laffitte. See Comte to Laffitte, October 2, 1850, CG, 5:204. As for his books, Comte first used the words “altruisme” and “altruiste” at the end of the first volume of the Syst`eme, published in 1851. See Syst`eme, 1:693, 700. He did not use it first in the Cat´echisme (1852), as implied in some dictionaries. See Le Tr´esor de la langue franc¸aise informatis´ee, s.v. “altruisme,” http://atilf.atilf.fr (accessed February 9, 2007). In his Dictionnaire de la langue franc¸aise, Littr´e claims that Comte

446

Personal and Professional Disappointments

In planning the first lecture, Comte did not want to be particularly altruistic; he proposed to attack “les rouges,” that is, the reds, despite Massin’s plea to remain on the level of “generalities” and to leave their “application” to his audience.201 Learning of his intentions, Dr. Segond informed Littr´e, who became very alarmed. Usually the term “reds” was used interchangeably with “socialists,” “communists,” and utopians, and it reflected the bourgeoisie’s fears that leftists were destructive and sanguinary. France was awash with anticommunist propaganda between 1849 and 1851. However, democratic-socialists refused to be lumped with the communists. Unlike the latter, democratic-socialists wished to reconcile the rights of the individual to liberty, private property, secular education, and work with government management of the collectivity (especially by means of producers’ cooperatives).202 Making a distinction between the communists and the “reds,” whom he probably considered the democratic-socialists, Littr´e advised Comte on how to proceed: However confused may be the mental state of the reds, it is, nevertheless, among them that positivism, at least for the moment, recruits . . . adherents; they are adopting the great revolution of the end of the last century, without knowing . . . how to prolong it, even less how to terminate it . . . The result is a true advance of the reds toward positivism. In any case, I propose to you only what you did in the Discours sur le positivisme; you combated communists without any diplomacy in the content, but with all diplomacy . . . in the form. In my opinion, you must treat the reds the same way.

Littr´e urged Comte not to alienate “the people among whom we find ourselves little by little in active sympathy.”203 At the moment, Littr´e was pushing positivism among leftists by writing a series of articles on the progress of socialism that appeared in Le National from June 1849 to October 1851. He stressed that socialism’s interest in improving the condition of the people could be best realized in Comte’s scientifically demonstrable “religion of the future,” that of Humanity, which was the “only providence which works for us.”204 He included these articles, those he wrote in 1844 on the Cours, and those

201 202

203

invented the term. However, Le Petit Robert states that the word was invented in 1830 and does not name who coined it. The word does not appear in the first volume of the Cours, which was published that year. See “altruisme” in both of these works. Caroline Massin to Comte, May 15, 1850, MAC. Franc¸ois Fourn, “1849–1851: L’Anticommunisme en France: Le Spectre rouge de 1852,” Comment meurt une R´epublique autour du 2 D´ecembre 1851, ed. Sylvie Aprile, Nathalie Bayon, Laurent Clavier, et. al. (Paris: Cr´eaphis, 2004), 138–40 144; Michele Riot-Sarcey, “Du Mot a` la chose, ou Comment meurt la R´epublique de 1848,” ibid., 285; Roger Price, The French Second Republic: A Social History (New York: Cornell University Press, 1972), 202–3, 231–2. Littr´e to Comte, April 14, 1850, MAC. 204 Littr´e, Conservation, 326–7.

Course on the History of Humanity

447

he published in 1849 on the Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme in a volume called Conservation, R´evolution et positivisme, which came out in 1852. Also, Littr´e warned Comte not to provoke the suspicions of the government. Comte would be watched, as he had been the previous year, and on the slightest pretext the government would close the course. Showing much astuteness, Littr´e knew this danger would stimulate Comte to test the limits, but he entreated him to resist this “temptation.” He wrote, “The more you are moderate in form, the more you will be inexorable in content.”205 Comte promised at least to postpone until the last session his “solemn reprobation of Bonaparte,” which he finally decided was what had precipitated the closing of his course in 1849.206 Recognizing that he had to develop his plan of action for the present, Comte stopped writing the second volume of the Syst`eme, which he had begun in April 1850. He enlarged the last part of his course from five to six sessions because he wished to cover the transition to positivism in as much detail as the final positive state. In early September 1850, he gave a five-hour lecture, revealing his theory of the French Revolution, an event that marked the starting point of the regeneration of society.207 He noted happily the increase in the number of auditors for this important lecture and was pleased that “almost no one left,” though it was the longest that he had ever given. The growth and attentiveness of his audience proved that positivism was increasingly regarded as “the only doctrine capable of seriously confronting head-on the difficulties of the fundamental situation.”208 Despite the tension between Comte and the government, he was able to give the entire course one more time thanks again to the intervention of Vieillard, who reassured Minister Bineau that Comte upheld order.209 Comte wrote an announcement for the Moniteur and printed fifty posters to advertise the program.210 The course began 205 206 207

208 209

210

Littr´e to Comte, April 14, 1850, MAC. Comte to Laffitte, September 18, 1850, CG, 5:194. See also Comte to Mont`egre, September 21, 1850, CG, 5:200. Because it was the “beginning of the final regeneration” and not the conclusion of the preparatory stage, Comte did not include the French Revolution in the Positivist Calendar. He defended his position in the Appel. See Appel, 117. Comte to Laffitte, September 18, 1850, CG, 5:194. Vieillard to Comte, August 7, 1850, MAC; Comte to Pierre Magne, Minister of Public Works, June 21, 1853, CG, 6:111. Vieillard told Comte that the minister wished to meet with him. Comte thanked Vieillard for his assistance in the Syst`eme. See Syst`eme, 3:vi. Comte thus gave his history course three times, in 1849, 1850, and 1851. His course of 1848 was interrupted. Syst`eme, 4:529. Vieillard to Comte, March 24, 1851, MAC; bill from “Entreprise G´en´erale d’Affichage.” March 31, 1851 in “Documents: Factures Acquitt´es,” MAC; Comte, “Programme

448

Personal and Professional Disappointments

with a five-hour lecture on April 6 and ended on October 19, 1851 with another five-hour lecture. Although he had earlier wanted to alternate between his history and astronomy courses, it is clear that he now believed his history lectures were more relevant.211 Indeed, he became so taken with history that on August 30, 1851 his favorite lecture on the French Revolution lasted almost six hours. He proudly proclaimed, In the name of the past and the future, the theoretical servants and practical servants of HUMANITY assume . . . the general direction of terrestrial affairs to construct finally the true moral, intellectual, and material providence, while excluding irrevocably from political supremacy all the different slaves of God – Catholics, Protestants, or deists – who are both backward and disruptive.212

Auditors seemed to flock to such lectures despite their length. The growth of the audience to two or three hundred people of both sexes pleased Comte enormously.213 The young E. Delbet remembered being seated between Littr´e and Robin, both of whom left the room several times out of fatigue. Delbet persisted, mesmerized by Comte’s performance. He spoke . . . very simply and with authority, without raising his voice, which was a bit dry and monotonous. Separated from the public by his extreme myopia, he spoke while facing it but he did not see it. It seemed that he thought on a high plane but expressed himself with a certain slowness that permitted us to follow the movement of his thought, using sentences that were slightly long but always correct and clear.214

Another auditor was Emile Ollivier, the future liberal statesman who served as premier under Napoleon III. He had met Audiffrent in 1848, when he was active in politics in Marseilles. It is not clear which year he attended Comte’s course, but he boasted in 1901 that he was the “last surviving auditor” – a statement that was untrue; Laffitte and Audiffrent were still alive at the turn of the century. Ollivier described Comte’s behavior: He arrived at two o’clock in a black suit, small, with a severe aspect, a little sickly looking, with a tilted head, a brow swollen by tension

211 212 213 214

sommaire de Cours Philosophique sur l’Histoire G´en´erale de l’Humanit´e,” printed announcement, MAC. See Comte to Decaen, January 3, 1848, CG, 4:133. Cat´echisme, 29. This statement was reproduced at the start of the preface to the Cat´echisme. See also Comte to Laffitte, September 1, 1851, CG, 6:146. Comte to Audiffrent, April 7, 1851, CG, 6:54. See also Cat´echisme, 29. Delbet, Cinquanti`eme Anniversaire, 18.

Course on the History of Humanity

449

stemming from seeking without rest, a prominent lip, and a stubborn chin. . . . He placed himself before a table, swallowed a mouthful of water, and began in an unchanging, monotone voice, without any effort to carry people along with him, as if speaking to himself, in long but clear and precise periods. At five o’clock he was still speaking, and no auditor had left.215

Another disciple, however, did not find his voice monotonous. To him, Comte spoke quickly with great assurance and “extraordinary verve” as if he was having an “animated conversation.”216 He was flippant, sarcastic, and ironic. When he wanted to emphasize a point, he reverted to his southern accent. His lectures mesmerized everyone. One assiduous member of his audience was Madame Eug´enie Delhorbe, a teacher who lived several houses away from him on rue Monsieur le Prince.217 During one of his lectures, she was so overcome by emotion that she almost left the room: “Your language is so powerful! You speak to the heart with so much eloquence.” Taken with his “profound love for humanity,” she told him that he was responsible for the development of her “good instincts.” She felt a sense of community when she shook hands in a “fraternal” matter with other auditors, who were likewise excited about the “new religion.” She learned more about it by picking up the Syst`eme and read the dedication to de Vaux with great interest. She was deeply moved not only by Comte’s loss but by his “delicacy of sentiment,” “tenderness,” and “sensitivity,” characteristics that were rarely seen in men. Inspired, she set her mind to spreading positivism among the proletariat. She talked to two workers for eight hours, and they finally agreed to come to Comte’s course. In addition, she attempted to convert her women friends to positivism.218 Delhorbe appreciated the regeneration that Comte offered her and other women, who, she believed, would keep his name alive in recognition of all that he had done for them. She was a frequent visitor to his apartment, where she told him her troubles. Comte appreciated her words and seemed to consider her a new positivist convert and a model for others.219 He assumed that she understood next to nothing, especially because her schedule made 215 216 217

218 219

Emile Ollivier, cited in Dr. G. Audiffrent, Quelques mots sur la vie et l’oeuvre d’Auguste Comte: R´eponse a` M. Emile Ollivier (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1901), 7–8. Deroisin, Comte, 7, 8. See her reference to her “students.” Madame E. Delhorbe to Comte, September 28, 1851, MAC. Also, Comte asks her advice about teaching credentials. See Comte to Madame E. Delhorbe, January 19, 1852, CG, 6:221. Madame E. Delhorbe to Comte, September 3, 19, 22, 28, October 23, 1851, MAC. Comte later invited her to the first Positivist wedding. Segond referred to “the new positivist woman” attracted to Comte in the fall 1851. Delhorbe seems to be the only one who fits Segond’s description. Segond to Comte, October 2, 1851, MAC.

450

Personal and Professional Disappointments

her arrive late and leave early, yet it was clear to him that positivism touched her heart: “This is the kind of efficacity that I desire to obtain the most with women and even proletarians. The importance of discussion must soon decrease a great deal, while allowing for the rise of silent adhesion derived from solitary meditations.”220 He repeated to her his conviction that “the loving sex” constituted “the best support for positivism.”221 Unlike others on the left, he sought to reassure her that Catholicism was not a hindrance to advanced thinking. At the same time, he attempted to disabuse of her conservative, monarchical leanings and persuade her to support the republic more fully.222 Another person who attended at least one of Comte’s lectures was Emile de Girardin. He was escorted by a Polish aristocrat, Comte de Leliva, who was so enthusiastic about positivism that he gave the Positivist Subsidy a total of eight hundred francs in 1851, 1852, and 1854.223 Comte suspected that Girardin was opportunistically interested in positivism because he thought it would one day triumph. Nevertheless, regretting that he had never encouraged Sand’s overtures in 1846 because she disgusted him, Comte decided to overcome his repugnance for Girardin, who was in fact friendly with Sand and another woman who had shown interest in positivism, Marie d’Agoult, alias Daniel Stern.224 Figuring that Girardin could help him, he now happily presented him as a “new positivist” and called him “the most clever and influential of contemporary journalists.” Noting that Girardin had adopted some of Comte’s social ideas, Laffitte pressured him to act in the movement’s behalf and to summarize positivism in La Presse, his periodical.225 Audiffrent filled him in on the positivist theory of revolutionary government.226 Because he could 220 221 222

223

224

225 226

Comte to Laffitte, September 12, 1851, CG, 6:160. Comte to Madame E. Delhorbe, September 19, 1851, CG, 6:163. Comte reiterated this idea to Laffitte. Comte to Laffitte, September 22, 1851, CG, 6:171. Comte to Madame Delhorbe, September 23, 1851, CG, 6:173–4; Madame E. Delhorbe to Comte, October 18, 1851, MAC. Apparently Delhorbe was helping a servant with a flag in favor of Henri V, the grandson of Charles X, who claimed the French throne. Packet, “Positivist Subsidy,” MAC; Deroisin, Comte, 45. Girardin had to leave one lecture after two hours; he made a sign to Comte, showing his regret. Pierre Laffitte, speech, in “Bulletin de France: Banquet d’adieux de M. Augustin Aragon,” May 16, in RO, 2d ser., 17 (September, 1898): 219. In fact, Marie d’Agoult was grateful to Girardin for having arranged a reconciliation between herself and Sand in 1851. Girardin joined Littr´e, Hippolyte Carnot, Lamartine, and Juliette Adam (Lamber) at her salon. See Pellisier, Girardin, 279; Hamburger, Monsieur Littr´e, 97–9. It is possible that Girardin’s wife, Delphine Gay, was interested in positivism, for her papers included a portrait of Comte and letters of Caroline Massin. See auction catalogue, Lettres, Documents, Autographes: Paris, Nouveau Drouot Jeudi 27 octobre 1988 (Paris: Nouveau Drouot, 1988), 2, 7. This catalogue may be found in CV 6861, BN. Comte to Profumo, August 8, 1851, CG, 6:126; copy of a letter from Laffitte to Girardin, November 3, 1850, MAC. Audiffrent to Comte, July 11, 1851, MAC.

Course on the History of Humanity

451

not go to all of Comte’s lectures, Girardin sent one of his writers, Romain Cornut, to attend the course on a regular basis and write a ten-part series on Comte’s Cours and Syst`eme for La Presse.227 Cornut wrote a favorable review, pointing out that many eminent people and the “popular masses” found Comte’s works “memorable,” even though his ideas were “essentially revolutionary.”228 Cornut’s writings on positivism in La Presse reached even Comte’s leading disciple in Italy, who found them admirable.229 Despite his growing fame, Comte was unable to give his course after Louis Napoleon’s coup d’´etat in December 1851.230 The atmosphere was tense in Paris in early 1852, and there were many worries about arrests. Comte asked Vieillard to intervene once again.231 However, it was not until May that Vieillard could get the police authorization that was required. The prefecture of police gave Comte strict instructions not to bring up any “political questions” that related to current events.232 People living close to Comte’s lecture hall objected to the resumption of the course, claiming that it caused too much commotion. Unable to find another room and perhaps frustrated by censorship, Comte decided to abandon his course.233 Because several hundred people attended various lectures every year, his public courses from 1831 to 1851 had enabled him to communicate his ideas to thousands of people.234 He now was very upset. He blamed the government for directing all its energy to maintaining order and displaying a “total lack of will” when it came to his case.235 Moreover, in their usual conspiratorial fashion, the positivists suspected that the new government was getting back at Comte for his derogatory remarks about Napoleon Bonaparte.236 After the cancellation of the 227

228 229 230 231 232 233

234 235 236

Romain Cornut to Comte, July 2, 1851, MAC. Comte’s library has seven of the ten issues containing the articles reviewing the course. Cornut entitled the series “Etudes critiques sur le socialisme.” The series appeared in October and November 1851. See Comte’s Biblioth`eque Superflue, MAC. Comte was hopeful that Cornut would join his movement. Comte to Laffitte, August 8, 1851, CG, 6:131. Romain Cornut, “Etudes critiques sur le socialisme,” La Presse, November 2 and 3, 1851, p. 3. Comte to Audiffrent, July 7, 1851, CG, 6:116. See also Profumo to Comte, August 4, 1851, MAC. He had hoped to do so beginning in April 1852. See Comte to Laurent, November 6, 1851, CG, 6:187. Comte to Laurent, March 25, 1852, CG, 6:258. Commissaire de Police de la Ville de Paris, May 22, 1852, MAC. Vieillard to Comte, June 29, 1852, MAC; Comte to Audiffrent, June 10, 1852, CG, 6:297. Comte tried again in 1855, but again no room was found for him. Comte to Papot, July 10, 1856, CG, 8:279. Larizza, “Le Premier Rayonnement,” 77. Comte to Audiffrent, July 6, 1852, CG, 6:312. Pierre Laffitte, ed., “Relations d’Auguste Comte avec Armand Marrast,” RO 10 (March 1883): 176. A young positivist lawyer, Deroisin intended to publish his lecture notes from

452

Personal and Professional Disappointments

course on the history of humanity, positivist teaching was limited to a course on mathematics that Laffitte gave at Robinet’s apartment between 1853 and 1854.237

237

the course and sent his hundred-page manuscript to another disciple, C´esar Lefort, who gave it to Belpaume to return. It is unclear what happened to the manuscript. Lefort to Comte, September 23, 1851, MAC; Comte to Audiffrent, July 6, 1852, CG, 6:313. Pierre Laffitte, “Commemoration fun`ebre de M. Auguste Hadery,” RO 13 (1884): 273.

Chapter 9

The Early Development of the Religion of Humanity

The natural existence of altruistic instincts [is] the principal discovery of modern science and the direct source of the positive religion. Comte to Tholouze, August 26, 1852

introduction In 1849, as Comte was preparing his lectures on the history of humanity, he increasingly devoted himself to planning in great detail different aspects of his new religious era. Figuring that it was more effective to prescribe “more austere rules” than give in to the concessions that people wanted, he maintained that “the positive regime regulates all of real life – the private sphere as much as the public one.”1 Touching on all aspects of existence, the positivist cult had three principal components: the “intimate or personal cult,” characterized by “the adoration of the guardian angels”; the “public cult of the Great-Being, represented as abstract and developed as concrete in . . . [the] Positivist Calendar”; and the system of seven sacraments.2 Yet Comte added many more components in an effort to convert people with all types of world views. memorie s: the cult of the dead and the po sitivist cale ndar Comte’s religion was rooted in his fascination with history. As Patrick Hutton has pointed out, history is the modern age’s “art of memory,” a way of maintaining lost worlds.3 Especially in the nineteenth century, when everything was changing because of the industrial and political revolutions, history was a source of stability. Although celebrating what was to come, Comte seemed more and more mired in the past, his own and society’s. He seemed eager to anchor his 1 2 3

Comte to Tholouze, July 13, 1850, CG, 5:172; Comte to Barbot de Chement, August 6, 1850, CG, 5:175. Comte to Audiffrent, January 29, 1851, CG, 6:14. Patrick H. Hutton, History as an Art of Memory (Hanover: University Press of New England, 1993), xvii.

453

454

The Early Development of the Religion of Humanity

future positivist society in the past, responding to people’s need for commemoration on a social and individual level – a need that was poignantly acute in the increasingly secular modern age, which he always heralded. Commemoration was a means of achieving some kind of individual immortality and was also a meaningful social ritual. Perhaps he remembered the yearning of revolutionaries like Robespierre and Danton for immortality. After all, Robespierre had remarked that “death is the beginning of immortality.” Danton had also insisted on living in people’s memories.4 By commemorating the same individuals in the past, people could be further united. According to Jean-Pierre Vernant, memory can be approached from three angles, historical, social, and individual. Memory is historical in so far as it seeks to be official, objective truth about the human past. Memory is social in representing the remembrances of the collectivity, whereas memory is individual when it involves reconstructing the singular, intimate past of a person.5 Comte’s view of memory embraced all three aspects. The Cours in particular embodied the memory of the great scientific discoveries of the past. The Positivist Calendar, as we will see, was social memory. His individual memories had to do with de Vaux. After her death, Comte told Laffitte, “I will no longer live the life of the heart except by memory. . . . I preserve religiously what belonged to her.”6 He became devoted to the art of commemoration. In his introduction to the famous Lieux de M´emoire, Pierre Nora insisted that there is something sacred in personal memory, which is affective, rooted in the concrete, and constantly evolving.7 This was certainly the case for Comte. By 1847, he referred to the “sacred cult” he was erecting to de Vaux’s “eternal memory” – a cult based on rites, prayers, and objects.8 To him, she was the “sacred intermediary between Humanity and its pontiff.”9 Every Sunday he sat on the “pontifical chair” – the armchair de Vaux sat in on her visits – and recited lines from their correspondence and elsewhere.10 Every Wednesday he visited her tomb. He fetishized items that she touched, such as a bouquet of flowers that she once gave to him. These objects were holy relics. Because de Vaux was removed from the tangible, “objective” world, Comte increasingly focused on her “subjective” life, and his 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Robespierre, cited in Chabert, Un Nouveau Pouvoir spirituel, 267–8. Jean-Pierre Vernant, “Histoire de la m´emoire et m´emoire historienne,” in Pourquoi se souvenir? ed. Franc¸oise Barret-Ducrocq (Paris: Bernard Grasset, 1999), 27. Laffitte, “Conversations avec Auguste Comte,” April 15, 1846, MAC. Pierre Nora, “Entre M´emoire et Histoire: La Probl´ematique des lieux,” in Les Lieux de M´emoire, vol. 1, La R´epublique (Paris: Gallimard, 1984), 1:xix. Comte, “Deuxi`eme Confession annuelle,” June 2, 1847, CG, 4:116; Comte to Clotilde de Vaux, March 18, 1846, CG, 3:360. See also Comte, “D´edicace,” CG, 4:60. Comte, “Cinqui`eme Confession annuelle,” May 27, 1850, CG, 5:160. Comte, “Quatri`eme Confession annuelle,” May 31, 1849, CG, 5:31.

Memories

455

efforts to conjure her up are evocative of spiritualism, which was a popular movement in the 1850s.11 Despite the fact that she had physically disappeared, she continued to live subjectively in his mind and heart, attesting to the solidarity of affections. Moreover, in Paris where the flˆaneur absorbed surrounding spectacles, the camera began to register daily life, and the public discovered the panorama and diorama, Comte felt the need to create a specific vision of Clotilde to reaffirm her reality.12 To remember de Vaux as a living person, Come had to persevere in bringing up her image in his mind. After much practice, he said he managed to imagine her palpitating with life.13 He told Laffitte that he was somewhat recovered after the loss of de Vaux because he constructed for himself “a life of memory [une vie de souvenir].”14 Love could continue to develop after death and was even purer then because there was no self-interest involved.15 Recreating the Catholic tradition of saints who intervened in people’s lives, Comte increasingly called de Vaux his patron to highlight her uplifting effect on him.16 He hoped her adoration would become “universal.”17 It was his way of ensuring her the immortality he promised her on her deathbed – an immortality founded on association with him, not on her own merits as a writer. Curiously, although Comte sought to get the support of women by underscoring their moral impact, more men than women wrote to him to tell him how touched they were to hear about his love for de Vaux. His personal accounts of his grief encouraged them to tell him about losses in their own lives. He acted as a counselor, helping friends and disciples deal with the loss of a loved one, whether it be a friend, spouse, parent, sister, daughter, or other relative.18 Making connections with these bereaved people and helping them as if they were family members was a way of dealing with his own sorrow.19 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19

Comte, “Huiti`eme Confession annuelle,” August 14, 1853, CG, 7:93. See also Kselman, Death, 150. Vanessa R. Schwartz, Spectacular Realities: Early Mass Culture in Fin-de-Si`ecle Paris (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 2. Statement of Laffitte, n.d., MAC; Testament (1896 ed.), 93. Laffitte, “Conversations avec Auguste Comte,” October 19, 1846, MAC. See Testament (1896 ed.), 81–9. Laffitte, “Conversations avec Auguste Comte,” April 23, 1847, MAC. Kselman, Death, 142. Comte, “Septi`eme Confession annuelle,” May 28, 1852, CG, 6:287. Laffitte was particularly frank about what Comte offered to him. After losing several friends, he wrote, “It is to me a consolation to be able to speak of these intimate sufferings of my private life with a Master whose amiable benevolence sympathizes with sorrows that are well known to him.” Laffitte to Comte, August 15, 1854, in Laffitte, ed. “49 Lettres de Pierre Laffitte a` Auguste Comte (Suite),” RO, 2d ser., 37 ( January 1908), 55. Others whom Comte helped include Ir´en´ee Captier, Laffitte, Audiffrent, Robinet, Julien Penard, and Bligni`eres. Captier had lost his father, whom Comte had known for thirty years. See Comte to Captier fils, January 21, 1852, CG, 6:222. Winter, Sites of Mourning, 30.

456

The Early Development of the Religion of Humanity

Drawing from personal experience, he told these men that maintaining a private cult of the dead was integral to their process of mourning.20 One disciple did not wish to think about his deceased sister for fear of reviving bad childhood memories. Comte referred to the allegory in The Divine Comedy, where Dante first drinks water from one river to erase all his memories and then drinks from another stream to acquire only good ones. This beautiful allegory contains the germs . . . of our positivist theory on the institution of subjective life. Far from stimulating your sad impressions of your childhood and adolescence, this cult of a worthy sister will lessen the bitterness of your memories of those about whom you have [much] to complain.21

Likewise, Comte explained to Audiffrent after the death of his father, For a true positivist, to pray is to love and to think at the same time, sometimes to think while loving, and sometimes to love while thinking, in order to develop the subjective life of those whose objective life is over. After this final transformation [of death], there always exists the best part of ourselves, that which links us to others.

By means of “exciting the imagination by feeling,” the private cult aimed “to reconstruct” the deceased person in one’s mind and heart “in order to live” with them for purposes of consolation and selfimprovement.22 Comte told Robinet that it was important to organize a private cult of his recently deceased mother through “the aid of images, memories, and monuments, especially written ones.”23 The existence of the deceased consists of “images that animate both the sentiments that the disappeared being inspires in us and the thoughts that he or she sustains.”24 If a person allowed these images to pervade his mind and cultivate his heart, his “altruism” would increase.25 Many grief-ridden individuals, such as Penard, who made his deceased daughter into a “guardian angel,” followed Comte in representing their loss as leading to their “moral improvement.”26 20 21

22 23 25 26

See Comte to Audiffrent, July 17, 1856, CG, 8:282. Comte to Bligni`eres, March 11, 1851, CG, 6:36–37. This allegory was from Canto XXVIII of Purgatory and describes the “Earthly Paradise,” that is, the state of innocence. See Dante Alighieri, The Comedy, trans. Dorothy Sayers, vol. 2, Purgatory (Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, 1955), 292. Comte also mentioned it in his letter to Littr´e, April 28, 1851, CG, 6:66. Comte to Audiffrent, January 9, 1851, CG, 6:6–7. Comte to Robinet, April 8, 1852, CG, 6:259. 24 Cat´echisme, 159. Comte to Audiffrent, January 9, 1851, CG, 6:7. Penard to Comte, March 6, 1853, MAC. In this letter, Penard admitted that he had only a “very imperfect” understanding of the Cours. He seemed more interested in the religious part of positivism and wished to express his gratitude to Comte by making “a pilgrimage to Paris,” just as Moslems visited Mecca.

Memories

457

In his 1850 course, Comte outlined his system of guardian angels to encourage the private Cult of Woman, which was the basis of the public Cult of Humanity. He was inspired by his own “holy trinity”: de Vaux, Rosalie Boyer, and Sophie Bliaux. Essential to his “improvement” and “happiness,” these guardian angels, who represented ideal women, helped his adoration of Humanity.27 What he admired about these three women was their subordination of their intellect and activity to their emotions. His “tender and ardent mother,” who represented “perfect Catholicism,” pushed him to celebrate sentiment. His maid, Bliaux, taught him sociability. De Vaux taught him love. He urged all men to commemorate three women who touched their lives. These “guardian angels” would be “first the mother, then the wife or friend, and finally the daughter, who could be real or adopted.”28 They would teach “three modes of solidarity, obedience, union, and protection”; stimulate “three sympathetic instincts, veneration, attachment, and goodness”; and demonstrate “three orders of continuity,” the past, present, and future.29 Once again one cannot help but be struck by Comte’s mania for interconnections. Proud of his system, which he believed reflected the family situation of individuals and helped women’s profile, he encouraged people to adopt it immediately. He told Laffitte in October 1850 that socialists could save themselves “from their imminent communist degeneration” by using the guardian-angel system, which incorporated “individuality” into “our most profound altruistic affections.”30 He believed that it was important “to live for others so that one relives in others for others.”31 Altruism made people’s existence more intense and enjoyable and ensured their immortality because after death they would live in others’ memories. As Jacques Muglioni pointed out, “Positive religion designates essentially the vigilance of human memory: its principal function is to save us from this ingratitude toward the past which would end by destroying all ties between the living.”32 27

28 29 30 31

32

Comte to Laffitte, September 4, 1849, CG, 5:68. See also Comte, “Cinqui`eme Confession annuelle,” May 27, 1850, CG, 5:152; Cat´echisme, 42; Comte to Laffitte, October 9, 1850, CG, 5:206. Comte to Laffitte, October 2, 1850, CG, 5:203. Comte to Audiffrent, January 9, 1851, CG, 6:8. Comte to Laffitte, October 2, 1850, CG, 5:204. Cat´echisme, 208. Comte commended Paul for having understood that the new Catholic maxim “Love your neighbor as yourself ” was simply a rewording of the ancient law, “Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.” In his eyes, both tended to increase egoism and stimulate self-serving calculations. Cat´echisme, 225. Yet in talking to Laffitte in 1847, he had posited a different position, insisting that the ancient law represented the basis of love and justice, while the Catholic rule represented benevolence and grace. Laffitte, “Conversations avec Auguste Comte,” December 18, 1847, MAC. Jacques Muglioni, Auguste Comte: Un Philosophe pour notre temps (Paris: Kim´e, 1995), 168.

458

The Early Development of the Religion of Humanity

Comte’s drive to cope with his grief and maintain his memories took on a systematic character in other ways as well. He wrote, “More than any other regime, positivism tends to develop the cult of all personal and social memories, by systematizing them more and more.”33 In May 1846, he made a table entitled “Eternels Souvenirs p´eriodiques d’un vertueux amour” (“Eternal Periodic Memories of a Virtuous Love”). It was a list of days of the week and months and the memories of de Vaux and key events associated with each of the dates.34 Later he made more tables of dates and memories. On Wednesdays, he would reflect on “her tender weekly visit” and “our chaste conjugal table.” For November, he wished to remember certain characteristics and events on specific days. He would think about “her full confidence” on November 8; his “private protectorate” on November 10; their “sweet final regime” on November 18; and her “decisive medication” on November 20.35 Comte’s systematizing of his memories represented a blend of nineteenth-century preoccupations with classification and history. Three years later these preoccupations emerged again in the Positivist Calendar, which he wrote out on November 28, 1848.36 Hoping it would attract sufficient attention “to surmount the criminal silence of the press,” he read the explanation of the Calendar to the Positivist Society on December 17, 1848, made some revisions, and had it published in April 1849 so that people could begin the “public practice of this system of commemoration” in 1850.37 Like the reports 33 34 35

36 37

Syst`eme, 1:xvii. The key dates were July 2, 1845, August 20, August 27, September 3, January 14, 1846, February 11, and April 1. “Eternels Souvenirs p´eriodiques d’un vertueux amour,” May 1846, “Souvenirs hebdomadaires,” May 27, 1846, MAC; “Souvenirs de l’incomparable ann´ee,” September 14, 1846, MAC. There is another table written in Comte’s handwriting with days of the week and dates called “Souvenirs de costumes et attitudes!” September 10, 1846, MAC. See the original manuscript of the Positivist Calendar, signed by Comte November 28, 1848, MAC. Comte, “Quatri`eme Confession annuelle,” May 31, 1849, CG, 5:25; Comte to Tholouze, March 31, 1849, CG, 5:16. See Calendrier Positiviste ou Syst`eme g´en´eral de comm´emoration publique, destin´e surtout a` la transition finale de la grande r´epublique occidentale compos´ee des cinq populations avance´es, franc¸aise, italienne, germanique, britannique et espagnole, toujours solidaires depuis Charlemagne (Paris: L. Mathias, 1849), republished in CG, 5:292–314. Comte discussed the Positivist Calendar each of the three times that he gave his course on the history of humanity. He also distributed copies to members of the audience. After the first edition of April 1849, he published three more editions of the Calendar in separate brochures in April 1850, February 1851, and May 1852. The fifth edition appeared in October 1852 in the Cat´echisme. The sixth edition was inserted in the last volume of the Syst`eme, published in August 1854. The seventh edition was in the Appel aux Conservateurs of August 1855. There exist also the draft of an 1848 edition and an edition that was published posthumously from Comte’s notes in the first edition (1860) of Robinet’s Notice sur la vie et l’oeuvre d’Auguste Comte. So technically, there are nine versions of the Calendrier Positiviste. There were slight changes in each edition. Comte usually added or subtracted

Memories

459

on work, the revolutionary government, and the Ecole Positive, the Calendar was subsidized by the Positivist Society. The Calendar went through several cheap editions as Comte revised it almost yearly in response to suggestions. He was struck by the example of the mass press of Emile de Girardin, whose success he admired. Comte was, in a sense, constructing and mass producing a collective memory for the modern age.38 Comte had several motivations for creating a new calendar. It was linked to the cult of Humanity that he introduced in the Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme and in his course on history; the Calendar was a “system of commemoration” that sought to inculcate the sentiments of continuity and solidarity that were crucial to sociability.39 People would be brought together to worship together regularly in festivals honoring the individuals or connections featured on a particular day in the Calendar. The Calendar would also remind everyone that they belonged to the larger community, that of humanity as a whole. In a sense, humanity would die if it did not remember itself and make a spectacle of its greatest agents.40 The Calendar thus strengthened people’s knowledge of the past in a period of rapid progress and reinforced positivist morality, especially sociability.41 The Calendar also reflects Comte’s competition with the Saint-Simonians, who had published a calendar in 1833, commemorating their community. Each day of the year was devoted to one of the Saint-Simonians and sometimes an event in their movement. Thus January 9 was consecrated to Pierre Leroux, and on March 9, devotees were to reflect on Saint-Simon’s attempted suicide.42 The goal of Comte’s Calendar, however, was not to glorify his movement. He had another model, the calendar of the French Revolution, which was chiefly designed to wean people from Catholicism. Likewise, Comte hoped that his Positivist Calendar “would replace the Catholic cult by a noble systematic celebration.”43 Comte’s motivations were not tied completely to his love of history and desire to outshine his competitors, whether they be the SaintSimonians, revolutionaries, or Catholics. His interest in astronomy had made him dissatisfied with the Gregorian calendar because of

38

39 41 43

an honored figure or changed the placement of a figure. See also Pierre Laffitte, “D’Une Premi`ere Edition in´edite du Calendrier Positiviste d’Auguste Comte,” RO, 21 (July 1888): 94; Comte to Tholouze, December 18, 1848, CG, 4:214; Comte to Hutton, April 13, 1854, CG, 7:203; Massin to Comte, April 28, 1849, MAC; Comte to Hutton, April 13, 1854, CG, 7:203. See the six cahiers of the Calendrier Positiviste, Cahier A, MAC. On the need to construct traditions for political purposes, see Eric Hobsbawm, “MassProducing Traditions: Europe, 1870–1914,” in The Invention of Tradition, ed. Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 263–307. Calendrier Positiviste, CG, 5:293, 304. 40 Muglioni, Auguste Comte, 76. Tacussel, “L’Oeuvre,” 51. 42 Calendrier S.S., no page. Comte to Tholouze, December 18, 1848, CG, 4:214.

460

The Early Development of the Religion of Humanity

its irregularities. Comte was not alone. In 1834 an Italian priest the Abb´e Marco Mastrofini had published his suggestions for reforms, which included a 364-day year beginning on Sunday, January 1, with one or two blank days added at the end. Comte sought a similar regularity and rationality. He put forth the idea of creating thirteen months, each containing thirty days (364 days in total) with one or two extra days tacked on at the end, depending on whether there was a leap year or not.44 These days would be holidays devoted to “collective commemorations.”45 Copying to some extent the revolutionaries, Comte made the first year coincide with the beginning of the French Revolution itself. However, the revolutionaries were wrong, according to Comte, to start a new calendar on the official date of the first French republic – September 22, 1792. The first day of the republic was really the day the Bastille fell. Thus 1789 was year 0.46 This date marked the beginning of the final crisis and should be remembered so that Westerners could measure the subsequent course of the revolution.47 The cover of the Calendar stated, “April 1849: sixty-first year of the great revolution.” In this fashion, Comte represented the positivist era as the fulfillment of the history of the last sixty years, not a frightening rupture with the past, as the French revolutionaries had done in 1789. Moreover, whereas the revolutionaries created ten-day weeks, Comte kept the system of seven-day weeks to minimize upsets to people’s habits.48 He also took pride in the fact that the Positivist Calendar would be “perpetual,” that is, each month would begin on a Monday and end on a Sunday. (This approach was different from that of Mastrofini, who started his weeks on Sundays.)49 Such regularity would satisfy people’s need for fixity and permit a true system of communal commemoration of the past. In remembering anniversaries of significant events, they would at least be able to keep in mind the same day of the week every year. There were two parts to the Positivist Calendar, the “abstract cult of Humanity” and the “concrete cult of Humanity.” Corresponding to 44

45 46

47 48 49

For more information about these changes, see Syst`eme, 4:133–4. In the early twentieth century, George Eastman, the President of Kodak, was one of the leaders of a movement in favor of adopting the thirteen-month calendar, sometimes known as the “International Fixed Calendar” movement. P. W. Wilson, The Romance of the Calendar (New York: W. W. Norton, 1937), 258–66. Appel, 117. Annie Petit, “La Comm´emoration de l’h´eritage scientifique dans le positivisme: Th´eories et pratiques,” in La Mise en m´emoire de la science: Pour une ethnographie historique des rites comm´emoratifs, ed. Pnina G. Abrir-Am (Amsterdam: Archives contemporaines, 1998), 174n56. Syst`eme, 4:399. Comte also did not pull the names of months from nature or create festivals to celebrate great events, as the French Revolutionaries did. Calendrier Positiviste, CG, 5:292, 294.

Memories

461

social statics, the former reinforced solidarity and celebrated sociability in the future. It idealized the Great-Being in three different ways. The first six months of the year celebrated social statics, especially sources of order and solidarity: Humanity, marriage, paternity, filiation, fraternity, and domesticity.50 Months July, August, and September were devoted to social dynamics and glorified the beginning of Humanity by referring to its preparatory states, fetishism, polytheism, and monotheism.The last four months honored the four main groups in the positive era and the main aspects of human existence. October corresponded to the woman or affective life. November was associated with the clergy or intellectual life. December was devoted to the proletariat or active life. And the “Final” month – month thirteen – honored industry or practical power. The extra day at the end of the year was the Festival of Holy Women, honoring individual women of distinction, and the supplementary day for leap years was the Festival of the Dead.51 Because this abstract cult would be instituted when the positive era was firmly established to develop positivist habits, Comte focused more at the moment on the concrete cult that he designed chiefly for the transitional period. (During the positive era, the concrete cult would play only a secondary role.) Associated with social dynamics, the concrete cult venerated five hundred figures in politics, religion, philosophy, science, industry, and the arts.52 Most were real historical figures, though some, like Hercules, were fictional. Comte’s notion of collective memory did not encompass the type of images of events or places included in Maurice Halbwachs’ and Pierre Nora’s concept of collective memory. Nevertheless, as Patrick Hutton has pointed out, “images of . . . notable personalities” served as places of memory to nineteenth-century people and could be revised for various political agendas.53 In Comte’s scheme, these individuals functioned as icons 50

51

52

53

The four weeks in each month also had specific objects of worship. For example, during January, the month of Humanity, festivals would honor secondary associations, such as the Occident, the nation, the province, and the city or commune. Syst`eme, 4:137; Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 366. Calendrier Positiviste, CG, 5:296. Instead of the priesthood, the patriciate, and the proletariat, Comte’s Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme posited three festivals devoted to the scientific genius, aesthetic genius, and industrial genius (with secondary festivals for the “four essential degrees of the practical hierarchy,” the bank, commerce, fabrication, and agriculture). These seemed to disappear later. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 366. See also Annie Petit, Discours, 457n322. In the fourth volume of the Syst`eme, Comte made some changes and gave more details on the abstract cult. October was devoted to woman and moral life, reflecting his new science of morality. December was devoted to the patriciate, while the final month was consecrated to the proletariat. Syst`eme, 4:134–54. Toward the end of his life, Comte put forth a plan whereby seven authors would write a book composed of one-and- one-half-page summaries of the figures. Comte to Sabatier, June 23, 1857, CG, 8:490. Hutton, History, 7, 20.

462

The Early Development of the Religion of Humanity

more than anything else. He endeavored to shape society’s memory so that everyone would agree on the important figures of the past and worship them publicly and collectively. Consensus in thoughts, emotions, and activities held the key to social harmony. Comte’s preoccupation with categorization and fixity may have been partially inspired by his fascination with taxonomy. The famous taxonomists Linnaeus and Lamarck are featured in the Calendar. Referring to the “evolution” evident in “every part of the system of commemoration” because of the chronological arrangement of the names, Comte maintained that it was necessary that “each name be as exactly placed in this positivist hierarchy as was the case with every genus in the true animal series.”54 As George Canguilhem noted, Comte believed in the “idea of animal hierarchy . . . , a residue of the chain of being.”55 These concepts of the animal series and chain of being were much strengthened by Lamarck and upheld by Comte’s friend Blainville.56 Comte’s concern with fixity was also apparent in frequent admonitions to the workers not to try to move up the social ladder. Besides determining a chain of important figures to be worshipped, the purpose of the Calendar was “to popularize” in the “present generation the historical spirit and the sentiment of continuity” to make the second part of the “great Revolution” more organic and positive.57 Comte in a sense anticipated Tocqueville’s concern that the French were too fixated on ruptures and did not dwell sufficiently on the continuities of history.58 Gratitude for the “diverse services of all our predecessors” in the Occident would help develop “universal love, the unique principle of the final regeneration.” To challenge the “critical spirit” that was presently dominant, the Positivist Calendar would glorify “all human phases” – something the revolutionary calendar did not do because of its hatred of the ancien regime and Catholicism. Moreover, in judging the dead, people would learn to evaluate the living, which would reinforce morality in the positive republic. Only people who had fulfilled certain moral conditions were allowed in Comte’s Calendar.59 In the third edition, for example, he omitted 54 55

56

57 58 59

Calendrier Positiviste, CG, 5:300. Georges Canguilhem, “Emile Littr´e, Philosophe de la biologie et de la m´ed´ecine,” in Actes du Colloque Littr´e, Paris, 7–9 Octobre 1981, ed. Jacques Roger (Paris: Albin Michel, 1983), 278. Annie Petit, “L’H´eritage de Lamarck dans la philosophie positive d’Auguste Comte,” JeanBaptiste Lamarck, 1744–1829, ed. Goulven Laurent (Paris: Comit´e des Travaux Historiques et scientifiques, 1997), 546; Crosland, Science under Control, 161. Calendrier Positiviste, CG, 5:298–9. In referring to the “organic spirit” and the “critical spirit,” Comte reverted to the language used by Saint-Simon. Ibid., 299. See also Appel, 116. Calendrier Positiviste, CG, 5:301. The only exception was Francis Bacon. Comte felt he had to overlook his moral failings (taking bribes) because of his “philosophical grandeur.”

Memories

463

Andr´e Amp`ere because of his “moral inferiority” and replaced him with Joseph Sauveur, the physicist who invented the science of acoustics.60 This moral requirement also allowed Comte to eliminate great men whose policies he did not endorse: Luther, Calvin, Rousseau, and so forth. There were three degrees of veneration corresponding to the “sociologically available denominations,” gods, heroes, and saints.61 It is indicative of Comte’s deep respect for Giambattista Vico that he used these terms, for the Italian philosopher delineated three periods of history, those of gods, heroes, and men. The thirteen months would honor the gods of history, that is, the “principal organs of the great intellectual and social initiation” in chronological order. January stood for Moses (the initial theocracy); February for Homer (ancient poetry); March for Aristotle (ancient philosophy); April for Archimedes (ancient science); May for Caesar (military civilization); June for Saint Paul (Catholicism); July for Charlemagne (feudal civilization); August for Dante (modern epic); September for Gutenberg (modern industry); October for Shakespeare (modern drama); November for Descartes (modern philosophy); December for Frederick the Great (modern politics); and the “Final” month for Bichat (modern science).62 Comte regretted that he could not add the names of important individuals from periods before Moses, that is, fetishism and polytheism; their services had not been preserved by history.63 Fifty-two “heroes” would be venerated during the weeks. For example, in August, the month of Dante, who founded the modern epic, Ariosto, Raphael, Tasso, and Milton would be honored on the four consecutive Sundays. In the “Final” month, that of Bichat, who founded modern science, Galileo, Newton, Antoine Laurent de Lavoisier, and Gall would be venerated on Sundays.64 The other six days of the week would be devoted to the “saints,” the men and women associated with the individual of that week as predecessors or successors. For the week of Cromwell (in the month of Frederick the Great), the other six individuals to be worshipped were the Elizabethan poet and statesman Philip Sidney; the American politicians Franklin, Washington, and Jefferson; and the Latin American leaders Sim´on Bol´ıvar and Jos´e Francia.65 In sum, the Great-Being would be honored in three degrees in the daily, weekly, and monthly 60 61 62 64

65

Comte, Calendrier Positiviste, 3d ed. (Paris, 1851), 23. Calendrier Positiviste, CG, 5:299n1. Comte to Audiffrent, January 29, 1851, CG, 6:16. 63 Cat´echisme, 276. Annie Petit points out that of the thirteen months, two were devoted to “science and its heroes,” showing the importance Comte placed on scientific progress. Annie Petit, “La Comm´emoration,” 176. Francia was a Paraguayan leader who was involved in the revolution that threw the Spanish out of Buenos Aires in 1811; a few years later he became dictator of Paraguay and managed to keep it free from foreign domination.

464

The Early Development of the Religion of Humanity

celebrations of the “best personal types” who prepared the way for positivism during the great transition to this new era.66 The list reflects Comte’s global interests. One sign of his wide-ranging mind was his inclusion of Buddha, Confucius, and Mohammed as “weekly types” in the month of Moses ( January).67 Later in 1855, for the seventh edition, he added an Indian woman “Marina” as an adjunct of Joan of Arc “to prove to the Mexican race that we are concerned about it in Paris.”68 Yet ultimately, Comte, like his contemporaries, was obsessed with the roots of Western civilization. Of the thirteen months, three were “indispensable in order to glorify fully” the Greek origins of the West: the months of Homer (ancient poetry), Aristotle (ancient philosophy), and Archimedes (ancient science).69 For all of Comte’s interest in the Middle Ages, only two months were devoted to this period: the months of Saint Paul ( June), which was consecrated to Catholicism, and Charlemagne ( July), which was devoted to feudal civilization. Comte’s choices of whom to honor seem in many ways arbitrary. Why, for example, did he devote a week to Cromwell, whose work could be said to have been destructive? Comte seemed cognizant of the fact that he could be seen as imposing his selections, a mistake the French revolutionaries had made, and so he resolved to be open to criticisms, which led him to modify the Calendar several times. Several meetings of the Positivist Society were devoted to working out the details of the Calendar. Many people made suggestions as to which individuals he should commemorate on certain days. Claudel thought Madame de Sta¨el should be honored more than Madame de Lafayette and expressed surprise that Nicholas of Cusa, Rouget de l’Isle, and the Id´eologues Volney and Dupuis did not appear in the Calendar.70 Responding to this criticism, Comte replaced Girolamo Cardano with Nicholas of Cusa in the third edition.71 An Irishman insisted on adding Spenser near Tasso because both poets celebrated “chivalry and female influence.” He also suggested other candidates: Edward Jenner, Robert Burns, Bishop Joseph Butler, and John Bunyan. Comte finally agreed to add Spenser, Bunyan, and Burns and to look into Butler, whom a young positivist at Cambridge, Thomas 66 67

68 69 70 71

Syst`eme, 4:398. Calendrier Positiviste, CG, 5:302. In the month of Moses, other men outside the Western tradition were also to be honored: Fo-hi (founder of the Chinese empire), Lao-tse (founder of Taoism), Meng-tsu (Confucian philosopher), Manco-Capac (founder of the Inca empire). Comte to Audiffrent, August 2, 1855, CG, 8:88. See also Comte to Edger, July 26, 1855, CG, 8:83. Calendrier Positiviste, CG, 5:303. Claudel to Comte, May 13, 1849, and April 27, 1850, MAC. Calendrier Positiviste, 3d ed., 22.

Memories

465

Bendyshe, had already recommended.72 Yet Comte rejected Jenner because he believed that his invention of the smallpox vaccine had little scientific value or moral merit. Another topic that caused controversy was his extra day for leap years. Originally, he had wanted people to dwell on men’s disservice to humanity in a Festival of Outcasts. Julian, Philip II, and Napoleon Bonaparte would be particularly reproached for attempting to stop progress.73 Massin, who found his Calendar to be a splendid culmination of the enthusiasm Comte had displayed in his youth for solidarity and continuity, criticized his condemnation of Philip II for holding back Spain. Reflecting her perspicacity, she asked Comte, “Did he act out of self-interest? I had always thought that this man, feeling the old world was crumbling, believed he was called to prevent at all cost the fall of a system beyond which he did not see anything. . . . Did he not believe that he was fulfilling a duty?”74 Comte dropped his denunciation of Philip in the third edition of the Positivist Calendar of 1851 in response to a “complaint of a positivist lady,” thus suggesting that he recognized her loyalty to his system of thought. (He did not publicly announce who this “lady” was.) Aspiring to “historical impartiality,” he admitted that Philip had been “retrograde” only in Holland, where his nefarious measures provoked “the most pure and honorable of all political revolutions.” In Spain, he was simply conservative and erred only in excessively persecuting the Protestants. However, Julian was still a “sophist,” presumably for renouncing Christianity to return to paganism, and Napoleon was still a reckless “adventurer.”75 Comte was eager to counter the cult of Napoleon that had been encouraged after the emperor’s body was brought back to Paris in 1840. Later, however, an Irish disciple, Henry Hutton, objected to the Festival of Outcasts altogether. “How can a philosopher who makes love the basis of human action and even human freedom consistently uphold the idea of the reprobation of individuals?” The issue of responsibility was ticklish because the actions of individuals were determined by their nature, education, and “social influences.” Punishing individuals in this way made a bad impression. Comte did not wish to risk stimulating bad sentiments and decided to eliminate the festival in the last volume of the Syst`eme, where he explained that a woman’s and a 72

73

74 75

Comte put Spenser in the week of Tasso. Hutton to Comte, January 1, 1854, MAC; Comte to Hutton, January 7, 1854, CG, 7:169. See also Hutton to Comte, May 20, 1854, MAC; Comte to Hutton, July 6, 1854, CG, 7:224. This festival would occur on the extra day of leap years for only the first half-generation of the positivist era. After the festival was celebrated four times, people would worship what they were supposed to celebrate when the abstract cult was instituted, that is, Holy Women. Massin to Comte, February 22, 1850. See Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 411. Calendrier Positiviste, 3d ed., 23–4. See Massin to Comte, April 16, 1851, MAC.

466

The Early Development of the Religion of Humanity

British positivist’s complaints led him to change his mind. He agreed that it was dangerous to cultivate hatred on a regular basis.76 This is one of the few occasions when Comte listened to advice. Comte’s selection of religious icons caused some controversy. When he read his first draft of the Calendar to the Positivist Society on December 27, 1848, Comte devoted Saturday to Jesus and Sunday to Mohammed. Comte’s placement of Jesus in the week of Mohammed caused much debate in the meeting. At the end, an exasperated Comte cried, “Because he made himself God, let him remain so.”77 He then excluded Jesus from the Calendar of great men and women in subsequent editions. At first, he replaced him with John the Baptist, whom he considered “the only true Jewish precursor of Saint Paul.”78 Then in the second edition of 1850 he moved John to Friday and put in two Caliphs for Saturday: Haroun-al-Raschid (the main person) and Abd ar-Rahm´an III (as adjunct). One Irishman was surprised at Jesus’s lack of status. According to Comte, Jesus’s only “real utility” had been to allow Paul to dispense with having “to deify himself.” And even this benefit had been involuntary. Comte refused to change his opinion of Jesus, whom he denounced as a “charlatan” and a “religious adventurer.”79 Even Littr´e, who was a nonbeliever and translator of Strauss’s book, wanted to honor Jesus Christ, but Comte persisted in regarding Saint Paul as the true founder of Catholicism for having understood the need to work for the “universal propagation of monotheism and of a universal morality,” both of which originated in Judaism.80 Annie Petit is correct in pointing out that Comte disliked Jesus perhaps more than any other critic of religion, so much so that he wished to “de-Christianize Christianity.”81 In 1832, he had already expressed to Armand Marrast his desire to avoid at all costs fabricating a new religion, especially one that would be “a miserable parody of Catholicism.”82 Eager to 76

77

78

79 80 81 82

Hutton to Comte, February 12, 1854, MAC; Comte to Hutton, April 13, 1854; Syst`eme, 4:404; Ang`ele Kremer-Marietti, “Introduction,” CG, 7:xciv. In the Cat´echisme, written in 1852, Comte had also explained the reprobation of “two principal retrogradators” – Julian and Napoleon. Cat´echisme, 271. Comte mentioned his suppression of negative examples in the Calendar in the conclusion of the Appel. Appel, 116. Comte, cited by Laffitte “D’Une Premi`ere Edition in´edite du Calendrier Positiviste d’Auguste Comte,” RO 21 ( July 1888): 94. Laffitte added that Littr´e made some useful suggestions about the extra days of the year and some absurd recommendation about replacing Numa by Zoroaster. See ibid., 95. Comte to Hutton, September 27, 1853, CG 7:139. In this letter, Comte says he originally made Jesus an adjunct of John the Baptist. But in the original manuscript, one can see that he made John the adjunct of Jesus. Comte to Hutton, October 27, 1853, CG, 7:139. Laffitte, “Conversations avec Auguste Comte,” April 19, 1845. See also Tacussel, “Auguste Comte, L’Oeuvre v´ecue,” 52. Petit, “Du Catholicisme,” 152, 153n103. Comte to Armand Marrast, January 7, 1832 CG, 1:233.

Memories

467

outdo Jesus, he even boasted that his pain in remembering de Vaux’s death was more deserving of commemoration than Christ’s passion.83 One worker objected to Comte’s having included Ignatius of Loyola and Francis Xavier in the Calendar. According to this worker, Ignatius’s championship of Catholicism and Francis Xavier’s missionary work among the Indians and Japanese were dishonest and hypocritical.84 Acknowledging that others had voiced objections as well, Comte replied that his “two Jesuit saints” were not part of the “vast system of hypocrisy” that emerged in the next generation.85 Like St. Francis and St. Dominic, who were also great, they were simply trying to reconstruct the spiritual power at a time when the Catholic doctrine was worn out. Ignatius in particular surpassed “in all regards” Jesus Christ.86 There were some women among the great “heroes” of the past: Sappho (an alternative to Turtaios in the month of Homer), St. Monica, St. Pulcheria, St. Genevi`eve of Paris, Heloise, St. Theresa, St. Catherine of Siena (alternative to St. Theresa), Joan of Arc, St. Clotilde, St. Bathilde, St. Elizabeth of Hungary, Blanche of Castille, Madame de Lafayette, Madame de Sta¨el, Madame de Motteville, Madame Roland (as alternative to Madame de Motteville), Madame de S´evign´e, Lady Montague, Maria Edgeworth (Irish novelist), Madame de Lambert (as alternative to Vauvernargues), Sophie Germain (as alternative to Hegel), and Isabelle de Castille. Clotilde de Vaux was originally listed after Sophie Germain in the first, 1848 version, but then Comte decided that she was not yet sufficiently famous.87 He made one poet whom she admired, Elisa Mercoeur, an alternate to Byron.88 This talented “virginal muse” was twenty-five when she died in misery in 1835, and although Comte had never read any of her poems besides the one on her tombstone, he gave her 83 84 85 86 87

88

Comte to Edger, April 3, 1857, CG, 8:431. Laurent to Comte, November 1, 1851, MAC. Comte to Laurent, November 6, 1851, CG, 6:186. Comte to Sabatier, March 6, 1857, CG, 8:410. See original manuscript of the Positivist Calendar, November 28, 1848, MAC; Comte, “Quatri`eme Confession annuelle,” May 31, 1849, CG, 5:25. Comte made many several changes from November 1848, when he completed the first draft, to April 1849, when the Calendar was published. Later, after receiving some excerpts from the works of Shelley (Revolt of Islam and Prometheus Unbound ), Comte decided to add this poet as an alternate to Byron, although his knowledge of him was limited to these verses. He maintained that Mercoeur and Shelley complemented one another because both were unhappy geniuses. Alexander Ellis, a Scottish enthusiast of positivism, sent Comte the excerpts because Shelley seemed to speak about “subjective immortality” and “the cherished object” being reanimated “in a adoring brain.” He also referred to “universal love embracing and permeating even the concrete earth.” Ellis liked Shelley’s idea of the earth’s “realization of a sympathetic synergy.” Ellis to Comte, April 1, 1857, MAC; Comte to Ellis, April 6, 1857, CG, 8:438.

468

The Early Development of the Religion of Humanity

a large place in the Calendar out of deference to de Vaux.89 The vast majority of these women were either writers or religious women. He admired most of them for their “intellectual merit.”90 Yet many of Comte’s choices again seem arbitrary, if not strange. Why, for example, did he pick Maria Edgeworth instead of Jane Austen? Was it simply because she was a friend of one of his favorite writers, Sir Walter Scott? Although almost five percent of Comte’s great figures of the past were women, none of them were “gods” or “saints.” Moreover, there would be festivals for paternity and fraternity but none for maternity and sisterhood. Women would presumably benefit, however, from the festivals in honor of domesticity, but their service to men in the home would be undoubtedly emphasized. Despite the Festival of Holy Women, which was tacked on at the end of the year, Comte’s list reflects the fact that individual women’s contributions to civilization were not considered as important as individual men’s, although he maintained that as a group, women had contributed much to moral progress.91 It is important to note the importance he gave to religious women as if to stress the link between women and religion. He did not include a large number of religious men.92 One value associated with men for centuries was honor, which played a key role in the Religion of Humanity. William Reddy has pointed out that the revolutionaries of 1789 successfully democratized the aristocratic “honor code”; to be honorable, that is, altruistic, generous, and virtuous, was important in the nineteenth century especially for people outside traditional arenas of power who sought a basis for claiming a share in hegemony.93 Also seeking legitimacy, Comte was concerned with his own moral worthiness to found a new religion. Beginning with the end of the Cours, he increasingly referred to himself as a moral example to others. He talked repeatedly of his chastity and purity, especially after de Vaux’s death. As mentioned above, he also included men in the Calendar only if they led morally exemplary lives. He devoted one day a year to public humiliation and condemnation to dishonor men like Napoleon, who he believed had hurt the advance of civilization. In short, the aim of the 89

90 91 92 93

Comte read only the forty to sixty verses of Mercoeur’s poetry that were inscribed on her tomb. He frequently quoted them. His favorite one was “The stone of the tomb is my first altar.” Another verse that he liked was “Forgetfulness, that is the void; glory is the other life.” It showed that her “emancipation” was “more complete than that of Byron and clearer than that of Shelley.” See Comte, “D´edicace,” CG, 4:61; Comte to Ellis, April 6, 1857, CG, 8:438; Comte to Hutton, July 6, 1854, CG, 7:226. Comte to Edger, July 26, 1855, CG, 8:81. Comte to Barbot de Chement, August 23, 1850, CG, 5:181. Donzelli, “Auguste Comte et le g´enie esth´etique italien,” 278. William M. Reddy, The Invisible Code: Honor and Sentiment in Postrevolutionary France, 1814–1848 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), 11. See also Nye, Masculinity, 8.

More Thoughts on the Religion of Humanity

469

Calendar was to encourage men to lead honorable lives consecrated to Humanity in order to belong one day to the collective memory. This form of memory was the kind of eternity that would exist in the positive republic. Comte seemed to assume that women were naturally devoted to Humanity and did not need to be prodded by the drive for social recognition. Alfred de Vigny, whom Comte admired a great deal, would have approved of Comte’s views. Vigny maintained that honor was a type of secular religion that counterbalanced the amoral spirit of the nineteenth century. According to Vigny, Ernest Renan, and other writers, honor was a masculine religion because it inspired energy and action, which were prized by males, whereas Christianity was feminine because it encouraged charity, humility, and devotion.94 Comte tried to create a religion that would transcend this gender dichotomy. In the festivals devoted to the accomplishments of chiefly energetic men, the Religion of Humanity exemplified the masculine principle. In its stress on love, virtue, and concern for others, especially as seen in the festivals for human interconnections and in the inclusion of chiefly religious women and other great individuals on the basis of their morality, Comte’s religion incorporated the feminine principle. Positivists would have to participate in both types of festivals. The philosopher Michel Serres commends Comte on creating a calendar notable for its tolerance, pluralism, secular tone, and inclusiveness. It was, in his words, “a spell for inter-cultural reconciliation.” But Serres finds this openness to be also a weakness. The Positivist Calendar was so “universal” that it could not inspire a sect.95 After all, figures from different religions as well as academics and politicians, who once had been bitter enemies, found themselves on equal footing. Serres suggests Comte’s thinking was too optimistic, if not naive. more thoughts on the re lig ion of humanity: sacrame nts, temple s, and f lags Reflecting his desire for a regimented society, Comte determined in August 1849 that there should be seven positivist sacraments. He made a point of announcing that they were not obligatory in order to avoid sounding authoritarian.96 Extending the Catholic approach, 94 95 96

Reddy, Invisible Code, 227n95; Edward Berenson, The Trial of Madame Caillaux (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992), 191–2. Serres, “Paris 1800,” 449. The civil authority in the positivist state would develop “practical rules, naturally less severe,” for marriage and other events. Comte, “Discours prononc´e pour la cons´ecration d’un mariage positiviste,” July 18, 1850, CG, 5:332.

470

The Early Development of the Religion of Humanity

the positivist sacraments were intended to be “public consecrations” of the important “natural phases” of private life. Yet instead of underscoring people’s relationship to God as Catholic sacraments did, the positivist ones reminded them that at every stage of their existence, they formed part of a large human community.97 The first sacrament was that of “presentation,” corresponding to the Catholic baptismal rite. At this time, parents would present their child to a positivist priest and vow to prepare him or her to serve Humanity.98 Comte adopted the Catholic practice of giving children godparents and first names that would recall which people in the past they should admire. For boys, Comte insisted that one name be that of a practical person and the other be that of a thinker of some sort. Later that boy could choose a third first name from one of the “sacred representatives of Humanity.”99 Mothers would choose the name of a single patron for girls, whose natures Comte assumed were uniform. In effect, women were not important as individuals and thus were not to be inspired to imitate a variety of people in the past in order to form a strong sense of identity. The second sacrament was “admission,” which was similar to confession. Men would receive this sacrament at age twenty-one, when they finished their education and practical apprenticeship. This sacrament authorized them to serve Humanity. Later Comte allowed women to receive this sacrament around the time that they married because being a wife and mother was their vocation. The third sacrament, that of “destination,” was given to men at age twenty-eight after they had had seven years of experimentation with different careers.100 This sacrament consecrated their final choice of service to Humanity.101 It was akin to the Catholic rite of ordination of priests and the coronation of a king.102 But Comte wanted his version of the sacrament to recognize the validity of all professions, whether they were public or private, lowly or elevated. Yet women had no need for this sacrament because their vocations were identical and already fixed in their early twenties when they married. 97

98

99 101 102

Comte to Laffitte, August 20, 1849, CG, 5:54; Comte to Audiffrent, January 29, 1851, CG, 6:14. For more details on the sacraments, see also Comte, “Discours prononc´e pour la cons´ecration d’un mariage positiviste,” July 18, 1850, CG, 5: 329–32. Presentation had to occur during the first year or “at least before the end of breastfeeding.” During the time of transition, when the number of complete positivists was small, Comte allowed anyone who believed in his doctrine of Humanity, the separation of powers, and the law of eternal widowhood to become a godparent. Comte to Edger, March 12, 1855, CG, 8:35. Cat´echisme, 178. 100 For more on this sacrament, see Syst`eme, 4:126. Comte did allow people to receive this sacrament again if they changed their profession. It was the only sacrament that could be repeated. Cat´echisme, 179. Originally, Comte maintained that there was no Catholic equivalent, but in the Syst`eme, he changed his mind. See Syst`eme, 4:126.

More Thoughts on the Religion of Humanity

471

The fourth sacrament was marriage, which was undertaken by men from age twenty-eight to thirty-five and by women from age twenty-one to twenty-eight. (The upper limits of the age of marriage were flexible.) Both men and women were required to reach a certain advanced age because marriage was performed only once in a positivist’s lifetime. Men had to wait until they were at least twenty-eight in order to be sure of their career. Comte made women delay marriage until their twenties because he did not want them to be subjected to “masculine brutalities” before their “constitution was sufficiently formed.”103 Moreover, the age difference made “conjugal harmony” more likely.104 In truth, men could more easily dominate younger women. Reflecting his patriarchal attitudes, Comte also gave fathers the right to veto a marriage until their offspring reached the age of thirty. Comte performed the first positivist marriage on July 13, 1848, when he consecrated the union of two workers, Andr´e-Auguste Francelle, born in 1813, and P´elagie Pernot, who was fifteen years younger. Francelle had been a positivist the longest of all his proletarian disciples. Finding Pernot to be a “naive Catholic,” Comte believed the couple was acting precipitously.105 Nevertheless, he was eager to preside over their marriage, which he lauded was his “first pontifical act,” one that inaugurated the “new cult” in the aftermath of the June Days. He described the scene in his Fourth Annual Confession to de Vaux: I . . . celebrated a true positivist marriage, where the two spouses came, under my touching sacerdotal exhortation, to recognize voluntarily the mutual law of eternal widowhood, in mixing their tears with those of all the audience. Mine choked me too much to permit me to invoke openly your holy name. But this expressive silence was well understood.106

Shortly thereafter Pernot “converted” to positivism.107 103 105

106

107

Ibid., 4:303. 104 Cat´echisme, 180. P´elagie Pernot would not agree to the positivist ceremony until there was a Catholic ceremony first. So she and Francelle married in a civil ceremony and then in the Catholic Church the day before they went to Comte’s “chapel.” “Troisi`eme Confession annuelle,” June 25, 1848, CG, 4:163. See also Littr´e to Comte, July 14, 1850, MAC; Comte, register entitled “Mariages positivistes,” p. 1, MAC. On the problem of “mixed marriages” between a positivist and nonpositivist, see Syst`eme, 4:408–9. “Quatri`eme Confession annuelle,” May 31, 1849, CG, 5:26; “Troisi`eme Confession annuelle,” June 25, 1848, CG, 4:163. The witnesses included Belpaume, Laffite, Segond, Magnin, Fili, Leblais, Ribet, Jacquemin, and Emile Pascal. Littr´e was unable to attend and sent his regrets. “Explication du registre des mariages tenus par Auguste Comte,” RO, 2d ser., 35 ( January 1907):101. See also Comte, “Discours prononc´e pour la cons´ecration d’un mariage positiviste,” July 18, 1850, CG, 5:327; Laffitte, “Conversations avec Auguste Comte,” April 11, 1850, MAC. Comte to Tholouze, July 13, 1850, CG, 5:172.

472

The Early Development of the Religion of Humanity

There would be half a dozen or so of these positivist marriages before Comte died. So as not to incur the wrath of the authorities, he always insisted that couples have a civil ceremony first. One day a stranger appeared at his door and asked him to perform the ceremony so that he could marry immediately his “fianc´ee,” who was downstairs. Sensing that the man was an undercover policeman, Comte wisely refused to flout French law.108 The next two rites occurred late in life. The fifth sacrament was that of “retirement.” It was performed when one abandoned active life and became more of a consultant, that is, around sixty-three years of age. Like the sacrament of destination, it marked an important moment in a person’s practical career that was not acknowledged by Catholicism. It was chiefly for men, for women continued with their vocations. Corresponding to Catholic last rites, given at the final moments of life, the sixth sacrament was “separation,” which he renamed “transformation” in the Syst`eme.109 At least three years after death came the final positivism sacrament, that of “incorporation.” At this point, a positivist priest would evaluate that person’s “merit” in terms of fulfilling his or her function “relative to the preservation and improvement of the Great-Being.”110 Like Saint-Simon, Comte had no patience for those who led parasitical existences. Only “honorable” dead people, those who displayed some “noble” aspect in terms of their intelligence, activity, or passions, merited incorporation into the Great-Being.111 After a proper objective examination of the deceased, the priest would formally declare in the temple of Humanity, whether he or she would be taken from the municipal cemetery and reburied in the “field of incorporation,” a sacred grove surrounding the church. The tomb would be adorned with an inscription, bust, or statue according to the level of the person’s contribution to the human community. A cult would be established. If he or she had made no contribution to the human community, he or she would be reburied in the “field of exclusion,” the city graveyard. If the judgment was unusually harsh, the body would be thrown in a garbage dump to join the remains of people who committed suicide, engaged in torture or duels, or did other evil deeds.112 (Comte retained the Catholic animosity toward suicide, although he had tried once to kill himself.) These people were his version of the damned. Comte created, in effect, a hierarchy of dead individuals to remind people that even in death they belonged to 108 110 112

Hutton, Comte, The Man and the Founder, 11. 109 Syst`eme, 4:129. Comte to Bazalgette, March 11, 1852, CG, 6:255. 111 Syst`eme, 1:411. Suicides and duels were evil because they eliminated the Great-Being’s servants. Referring to ascetic practices among Egyptian monks in the early centuries of Christianity, Comte also condemned Catholic practices of self-inflicted corporal discipline, which amounted to a “kind of chronic suicide.” Cat´echisme, 226.

More Thoughts on the Religion of Humanity

473

“society and not to the family.”113 His plan, rewarding “true personal merit,” not birth, educational background, wealth, power, accidents of situation, and so forth, was classification taken to an extreme.114 Comte prided himself on doing away with the notion that death was the great equalizer. In his society, people who were “disdained or oppressed during their life” could in the end triumph over famous and powerful individuals.115 At least one disciple, Dr. Bazalgette, who was a modest supervisor in an institution, welcomed Comte’s stance. Explaining the attractions of positivism, he wrote to him in 1852, Not long ago, my metaphysical self-esteem suffered from having to experience an inferior position; but the [Cours de] Philosophie Positive taught me that in the economy of societies as in the human organism, there are no vile functions, even in our anarchic times, and that one must not be embarrassed to descend from superior degrees to inferior degrees of the social Hierarchy: the former rest on the latter and depend on them.116

In 1850, Comte added two more sacraments.117 The first was initiation, which came between presentation and admission. It would be given when a child started to become more serious about his or her studies, that is, around age fourteen. Reflecting his own renunciation of religion as a teenager, Comte hoped that this sacrament would help adolescents resist the mind’s rebellion against the heart, a danger that often accompanied dry theoretical education. The second sacrament was maturity, which was given to a man around age forty-two to mark his commitment to his career and his readiness for possibly higher temporal or spiritual public functions. For example, a man could not become a positive priest before forty-two. Comte 113 114 115 116

117

Comte to Laffitte, August 20, 1849, CG, 5:55. See also Appel, 26 on the development of the term. Comte to Bazalgette, March 11, 1852, CG, 6:254. See also Comte to Audiffrent, May 2, 1854, CG, 7:209. Comte to Laffitte, October 2 1849, CG, 5:93. Bazalgette to Comte, March 6, 1852, MAC. Later in July 1853, Bazalgette asked Comte to consecrate his marriage to Mathilde Lambrey, whom he had wed legally in 1848. This was the fourth positivist marriage, after the weddings of the Francelles, Segonds, and Robinets. Those present included Sophie Bliaux, P´elagie Francelle, Marie Robinet, Bourdoux, Foley, Robinet, V. de Capellen, Elise de Capellen, C. de Capellen, Joseph Lonchampt, Pierre Laffitte, C. Carr´e, Contreras Elizalde, Demetrius Zitzeos, and Huguet. Later Lonchampt and Madame Robinet would serve as the godparents of their child. Comte, register entitled “Mariages positivistes,” p. 4, MAC; “Explication du registre des mariages tenus par Auguste Comte,” RO, 2d ser., 35 ( January 1907):108; Dr. Balzagette to Comte, March 5, 1853, MAC. Comte to Barbot de Chement, August 6, 1850, CG, 5:175.

474

The Early Development of the Religion of Humanity

had decided that men, in contrast to women, needed positivist socialization more frequently. With this sacrament, men would realize that the next twenty-one years constituted their “second objective life,” one that would be decisive in determining whether they would be incorporated into Humanity and receive “subjective immortality.”118 Before this sacrament, mistakes could be corrected; afterwards they could not be. Thinking about the trajectory of his own life, Comte was filled with regrets about Massin and the Cours. Perhaps imitating Fourier’s sketches of his ideal community (the phalanstery), Comte also busied himself drawing various detailed plans of his positivist temples of Humanity.119 There would be two thousand of these temples throughout the West, one per ten thousand families.120 They would be run by twenty thousand priests in the West, who would be directed by a superior in Paris with assistance from the spiritual leaders of the four other major western states.121 Because priests would speak in the “name of the past,” each temple would sit at the edge of a “sacred forest” of five hectares (with twenty thousand trees), which would serve as the “field of incorporation,” containing five thousand “honorable tombs.” Each temple would be connected to two buildings, a positivist school and a presbytery for the seven positivist priests assigned to the area.122 The temples themselves would be in the shape of a medieval church. Comte was very specific about their dimensions: they would be 263 feet long, 131 feet wide, and 164 feet high. Inside, along the two long sides of the temple, would be erected fourteen chapels, thirteen of which would be devoted to the monthly “gods” of the Positivist Calendar. Each “god” would be surrounded by four related “heroes.” The fourteenth chapel would be consecrated to the “saints” of this Calendar or to Heloise, a favorite of romantics. In the fourth volume of the Syst`eme, he changed his mind and explained that the chapel would be devoted 118 119

120

121

122

Cat´echisme, 181. See also ibid., 179, Syst`eme, 4:125. Two of these still exist in the archives of the Maison d’Auguste Comte. The one drawn on August 13, 1849 is labelled “A,” whereas the modified version of September 6, 1849 is labeled “C.” Plan “C” allowed for more hectares, tombs, trees, and so forth. Comte had slightly different figures in the Cat´echisme. According to this work, there would be one priest for every six thousand inhabitants in the beginning. Once positivism triumphed throughout the world, there would be one temple per one hundred thousand people. Cat´echisme, 220. France would have a quarter of the priests and four hundred temples, one for each subprefecture and one or two for each major city. See Comte to Laffitte, August 20, 1849, CG, 5:56; Syst`eme, 4:254. Comte to Laffitte, August 20, 1849, CG, 5:56. These priests would have three helpers picked by a contest. Later he called these helpers vicars. The priests and vicars would live with their families in separate areas in the presbytery. The oldest priest would preside. For the gardens and courtyards enhancing the schools and presbyteries, see ibid., 5:54–6; Comte, “Plan g´en´eral d’un Temple de L’Humanit´e (C),” MAC. See also Syst`eme, 4:254.

More Thoughts on the Religion of Humanity

475

to a “group of feminine types.”123 In the choir or at the top of the hemicycle would stand the “sacerdotal chair” as well as a statue of the Great-Being, modeled on that of the Virgin Mary. It would consist of a thirty-year-old mother holding her son in her arms. This image would also be printed on positivist flags and banners, which would be used for marches.124 Positivists could wear a statuette of their goddess, Humanity, as a pin or pendant.125 Seating in the temple would be segregated. In the choir surrounding the priests and the statue of Humanity would sit one thousand women, the best representatives of the Great-Being.126 An audience of five thousand men would occupy the nave. Comte seems to have literally put women on a pedestal, giving them pride of place in his religion, yet nevertheless making priests the powerful celebrants of the rites. Comte borrowed “Oriental” elements in addition to Catholic ones. He seemed fascinated by Egypt. Indeed, he explained that he modeled the sacrament of incorporation on the ancient “Egyptian judgment of the dead.”127 He may have been familiar with the Egyptian guidebook for the soul, called The Book of the Dead, which was translated in 1842 into German by Richard Lepsius, who was one of many scholars encouraging the Egyptomania that had been growing in Europe since the Napoleonic Expedition.128 In the Cat´echisme, written in 1852, Comte called “ancient Egypt,” rather than Greece, the “venerable mother of all Occidental civilization.”129 It seems that this interest in Egypt derived partly from the fact that he tutored four Egyptian students and grew close to one or two of them.130 Comte also learned about Egypt when one of this closest proletarian 123 124

125 126 127 129

130

Syst`eme, 4:156. At first, Comte wanted the flag to be imprinted with a picture of Humanity. By 1851, he decided that there should be a statuette on top of the axis of the positivist flag. In the Cat´echisme, he imagined that one side would be white and feature Humanity’s image; the other side would be green and display positivist mottoes. See Comte to Audiffrent, January 29, 1851, CG, 6:17. See also Comte to Edger, November 2, 1855, CG, 8:141; Cat´echisme, 187. Comte to Edger, November 2, 1855, CG, 8:141. Cat´echisme, 186–7; Syst`eme, 4:156, 348. Comte would have included among these elite Congreve’s positivist wife. Comte to Congreve, April 23, 1857, CG, 8:444. Comte to Laffitte, August 20, 1849, CG, 5:55. 128 Bernal, Black Athena, 267. Cat´echisme, 275. Comte’s interest in Egypt is especially evident in the Syst`eme and the Cat´echisme, where he saw it as an example of conservative polytheism, that is, theocracy. However, as previously mentioned, he celebrated the Greek roots of Western civilization in the Positivist Calendar. Perhaps he thought that contemporaries were more amenable to celebrating these well-known figures rather than Egyptian sources, who were more obscure, if not unknown. His students were Mazhar Effendi, whom he recommended to Mill; Mazhar Bey (from Alexandria); Mustapha Maraendjy (from Cairo); and Mohammed Bayoumi (from Cairo). He tried to get them interested in positivism by giving them his publications. He was particularly fond of Mustapha Marandjy, who, he believed, had nothing of the typical “Oriental brutality.” The loss of his young wife drew the two men closer together. Telling

476

The Early Development of the Religion of Humanity

disciples, Jacquemin, voyaged in June 1849 to Alexandria to work for a year for a company building dams.131 Another possible reason for his interest was the fact that many graduates of the Ecole Polytechnique invested in businesses in Egypt or explored it from a scholarly point of view.132 In addition, a group of Saint-Simonians, many of whom had attended the Ecole Polytechnique, had gone to Egypt in 1846.133 They began to develop the plan for the Suez Canal. The Saint-Simonians had been interested in the East in the late 1820s, when Comte had worked with them. Enfantin had gone to Egypt at one point, for he associated the East with the female, whom he celebrated in his doctrine. Many Saint-Simonians believed that the female Messiah would be found in the East.134 They wished to bring together the West and the East. It is possible that now that Comte was also adding a female dimension to his philosophy, he followed their example. In 1849, he wrote, “There are great things to be done in Egypt, which can become the principal link of the Orient with the Occident in terms of moral and social relations as well as material and intellectual connections.”135 Comte was worried about East-West relations partly because of his opposition to French maneuvers in Algeria. The conquest of Algeria, France’s first formal colony in the nineteenth century, began in 1830. Abd el-Kader, who led the fight against the French, surrendered in 1847. In 1848, Algeria was officially declared a part of France, despite the fact that Kabylia had yet to be subjugated by the French military, who only succeeded in doing so nine years later. Comte was aware of much that was going on there because two men whom he admired,

131

132

133

134 135

him to find consolation in the new Religion of Humanity as he did, Comte urged him to contribute to the “holy coalition” between the East and West that positivism would create. Comte to Jacquemin, June 29, 1849, CG, 5:37. See also the list of people to whom Comte sent the Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, MAC; Comte to Mill, February 27, 1843, CG, 2:142. The captain of the ship on which Jacquemin traveled turned out to be a disciple of Fourier and knew of Comte because an article in a Fourierist journal La Phalange had alluded to him. Jacquemin to Comte, May 8, 1849, MAC; Comte to Jacquemin, June 29, 1849, October 30, 1849, CG, 5:36 and 103. Jacques Fr´emeaux, “Les Polytechniciens et l’Afrique (1798–1962): Rep`eres pour une recherche,” in Le France des X, ed. Bruno Belhoste, Amy Dahan Dalmedico, Dominque Pestre, and Antoine Picon (Paris: Economica, 1995), 110. There were approximately 130 Saint-Simonians or Saint-Simonian sympathizers who graduated from the Ecole Polytechnique. Antoine Picon, “Les Polytechniciens saintsimoniens,”in Behoste et al., Le France des X, 147. On the Saint-Simonians and Egypt, see Ghislaine Alleaume, “L’Economie politique saint-simonienne et les e´ lites techniques de l’Egypte moderne,” in Etudes saint-simoniennes, ed. Philippe R´egnier (Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon, 2002), 305–32. Robert R. Carlisle, The Proffered Crown: Saint-Simonianism and the Doctrine of Hope (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987), 206–7. Comte to Jacquemin, June 29, 1849, CG, 5:37.

More Thoughts on the Religion of Humanity

477

General Cavaignac and General Lamorici`ere, were instrumental in its conquest.136 In addition, his old nurse Suzette Bonastier had gone to Algeria with the “sixteenth convoy” of political expellees after the Revolution of 1848.137 The painter Antoine Etex, whom Comte met in 1851, also spent some time there in the 1830s to do some sketches of Arab women and criticized the French for disturbing the customs of the people.138 He became close to Comte and may have influenced him. Comte’s stance against the colonization of Algeria caused problems with his disciples. Republicans in France were avid colonizers because they believed in spreading the benefits of the French Revolution to all oppressed peoples.139 Littr´e shared the leftists’ civilizing mission. He wrote, “I have, I admit, no sympathy for the Arabs and Abd elKader, and I would like to see the French there more than them.”140 Paying no heed to such objections, Comte replied, I dare proclaim here my solemn wish . . . that the Arabs energetically expel the French from Algeria if the latter do not know how to give it back to them in a dignified fashion. I congratulate myself for having in my childhood ardently wished for the success of the Spaniards’ heroic defense [of their country against Napoleon].141

Reflecting his interest in the Islamic religion, the religion of Egypt and Algeria, Comte borrowed the notion of fixing a point like Mecca as a means of directing people’s ideas and emotions. He would make sure that the great axis shared by positivist temples and sacred woods would be directed toward Paris, the current center of the Occident. The axis of the private oratories in all positivist homes, which were reserved for private cults, would also be directed toward Paris.142 In this way, the private and public cults would be intertwined. Yet true to his relativist principles, Comte recognized that there could be a new center once positivism spread throughout the entire human species because he believed his religion would one day be universal. The axes would then have to be changed.143 136 137

138 139 141 143

Patricia M. E. Lorcin, Imperial Identities: Stereotyping, Prejudice and Race in Colonial Algeria (London: I. B. Tauris, 1995), 1, 6–7, 17–18; Fr´emeaux, “Les Polytechniciens,” 112. On Suzette, see Gouhier, La Jeunesse, 1:63n6. Her settlement in Algeria had something to do with a scheme concocted by a greedy nephew. Comte to Alix Comte, February 19, 1848, CG, 5:9–10. Antoine Etex, Les Souvenirs d’un Artiste (Paris, E. Dentu, 1877), 169. Darriulat, Les Patriotes, 68. 140 Littr´e to Comte, August 5, 1848, MAC. Cat´echisme, 297. 142 Comte to Henry Edger, November 24, 1854, CG, 7:275. As he considered himself the founder of a new religion, Comte referred with increasing frequency to “Mahomet.” See Comte to Audiffrent, July 29, 1851, CG, 6:119; Comte to Laffitte, August 20, 1849, CG, 5:56. On Islam, see Comte to Hutton, July 6, 1854, CG, 7:225; Cat´echisme, 186; Syst`eme, 4:156.

478

The Early Development of the Religion of Humanity

As Paris was currently the center of his religion because he was its spiritual leader, he began to elaborate on his dream of turning Notre Dame Cathedral into the first Occidental temple of Humanity within a generation. Affected by the Gothic Revival, he chose Notre Dame as the Positivist Vatican to make a smooth transition between the old and new religions and especially to “characterize the historic purpose of the cult of the Virgin, which since the twelfth century, increasingly represents among our brothers in the Midi the spontaneous introduction to the cult of woman and of Humanity.”144 In the “sacred wood” around Notre Dame he would place the twenty-four tombs of the positivist heroes honored every week during the last six months of the year. He would also place the seat of the positivist pope and a statue of Humanity at the altar and put the tombs of the thirteen gods of the months in the chapels. After revealing his plan to Laffitte, Comte wrote with excitement, You can easily imagine the incomparable movement of heart and mind that would be produced all over the Western surface by the sight of the solemn transportation of these admirable coffins, all directed toward Paris, through overwhelmed and supportive populations, whose free consent would . . . be at that moment obtained in a worthy fashion.145

A lover of opera, Comte delighted in pageantry and knew its power, especially because he had been in Paris when Napoleon’s coffin was brought to the Invalides with much fanfare in 1840. To add to the spectacle, he designed a variety of flags. There were to be three positivist flags.146 The “usual” or “political flag,” representing the entire Occident, would be green. A statuette of Humanity would be at the top. On one side of the flag would appear the political motto “Order and Progress.” On the reverse side would appear the moral phrase “Live for others.” These mottoes would also appear on monuments, coins, etc. to make sure that politics had a moral basis. Comte believed that the political motto would appeal chiefly to men, whereas women would like the moral one.147 As usual, persuading women to participate in his movement was of key importance to 144

145 146

147

Comte to Audiffrent, February 17, 1851, CG, 6:21. Comte believed that Catholics in the south could go directly to positivism thanks to this “intermediary cult.” Comte to Capellen, August 13, 1854, CG, 7:242. Comte to Laffitte, October 2, 1850, CG, 5:205. See also Comte to Audiffrent, February 17, 1851, CG, 6:22. Drawings of the temple and its areas are in Wartelle, Condens´e, 9–10. Comte to Laffitte: September 12, 19, 1849, CG, 5:72, 83; Comte to Tholouze, September 17, 1849, CG, 5:80. Comte sometimes slightly modified his design. See Comte to Jacquemin, October 30, 1849, CG, 5:102. Comte, “Cinqui`eme Confession annuelle,” May 27, 1850, CG, 5:159; Syst`eme, “Discours,” 1:388.

More Thoughts on the Religion of Humanity

479

him.148 The second flag, the national flag would add the country’s colors to the borders. For example, the French national flag would display the colors of the tricolor. Reflecting his respect for history, Comte insisted that white be dominant to remind people of the traditional flag of the monarchy. The third flag would be the sacred or religious one. It would be a banner hung as a picture. One side would be white for purity. On it would appear an image of Humanity – a woman of thirty with her son in her arms.149 The other side would be green with the positivist “formula”: “Love for principle, Order for base and Progress for goal.” As shown by this attention to detail, Comte explained that he recognized the “importance of signs . . . especially in a time where principles were lacking.”150 According to Maurice Agulhon, around 1849 there was much discussion of the colors of flags because they were associated with parties.151 One reason Comte chose the color green for his flags was to distance himself from the royalists, who took pride in their white flag, and the radical revolutionaries, whose bold flying of a red flag from the door of the Parisian city hall and the surrounding roofs on February 25, 1848 caused much alarm, especially because it reminded people of blood and violence. Red designated the “sanguinary attitude of the most backward revolutionaries.”152 Comte also did not wish to be considered a blue. Blues were moderate republicans like Cavaignac who accepted the liberal political philosophy of 1789 but rejected any movement toward socialism.153 Although Comte had much in common with their stance, he preferred not to think of himself as a centrist, for centrists struck him as devoid of principles. As Raoul Girardet has pointed out, by the mid-nineteenth century, France indeed witnessed a true war of colors.154 Comte ultimately chose green for positivism because it was the color of vegetation and thus symbolized hope and peace. Green was important not only in nature but in history. Comte explained, “It inaugurated the French 148 149

150 152 153

154

To reinforce this appeal, he wanted the top of the flagpole to feature a golden statuette of Humanity – a woman and her son. Comte to Audiffrent, January 29, 1851, CG, 6:17. Comte first described this positivist flag in the Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, but in this version there is no child. Discours, 409. Comte to Jacquemin, October 30, 1849, CG, 5:104. 151 Agulhon, 1848, 91. Comte to Fisher, December 6, 1855, CG, 8:157. Garrigues, La France, 33; Agulhon, 1848, 91. Agulhon further explains that the word “blue” was used during the French Revolution to refer to the struggles against the chouans to the West. Raoul Girardet, “Les Trois Couleurs: Ni Blanc, Ni Rouge,” in Les Lieux de la M´emoire, ed. Nora, vol. 1, La R´epublique, 5–35. Indeed, in September 1848, Alix Comte had told Comte of an ugly confrontation that had occurred in Montpellier, when the reds displayed their flag over the objections of the legitimists. Alix Comte to Comte, September 6, 1848, in “Lettres d’Alix Comte,” ed. Laffitte, 110–11.

480

The Early Development of the Religion of Humanity

Revolution because most of the besiegers of the Bastille had for rosettes [cocardes] only leaves ripped off of the trees of the Palais Royale,” where Camille Desmoulins had roused the crowd to take action two days before.155 The tricolor was adopted only later.156 Green was also the color of many Muslim turbans and was associated with Islam.157 Thus Comte viewed green as the color best suited for his progressive party, one that was to be open to all faiths and respectful of the earth.158 Henceforth, all of his works would be published with green covers.159 comte’s private life and its public manife stations Having designed his temples of Humanity, sacraments, and Calendar, and many of the rites of the new religion, Comte congratulated himself in September 1849 on his mental and physical state. The painful process of regeneration after de Vaux’s death was, he pronounced, recently completed now that “positivism was finally proclaimed and welcomed as a religion.” Proud that his heart and mind were finally at peace, he affirmed that no one in history had ever displayed such a high degree of harmony among “love, reason, and activity” as he did. This harmony was “simultaneously public and private.”160 It even extended to his physical condition. He was sure that he had never felt so good for so many consecutive weeks. With his passion for selfanalysis, he wrote that his fine health was due especially to the “entire termination of the great crisis of intimate regeneration caused by my saintly colleague in 1845.” He even boasted of his “almost youthful hairline.”161 In effect, Comte was celebrating his own perfect being, very much in keeping with his manic-depressive condition. Reflecting his own sense of importance, he had Joseph Guichard, a close friend of Dr. Mont`egre and the husband of Agathe, do his portrait in 155 156 157 158

159 160 161

Comte to Fisher, December 6, 1855, CG, 8:157. Comte believed that the Orleanists had insisted on the tricolor, which was an emblem of their dynasty. Comte to Fisher, December 6, 1855, CG, 8:157. Deroisin, Comte, 95. Comte to Jacquemin, October 30, 1849, CG, 5:104. Comte even used green wax to seal his letters. Fisher to Comte, December 2, 1855, MAC. Dr. Segond welcomed his choice because he said it would remind “true republicans of the famous journ´ee of July 12 when green became the official color of the spontaneous uprising.” Workers and “worthy bourgeois” would thus certainly accept the flag. Dr. Segond to Comte, September 24, 1849, MAC; Comte to Audiffrent, February 17, 1851, CG, 6:21; J. F. Bosher, The French Revolution (New York: W. W. Norton, 1988), xxxv. See the instructions Comte gave on the manuscripts of the Discours sur l’ensemble du positivsme and the Syst`eme, N.a.fr. 17911, BN. Comte to Laffitte, September 4, 1849, CG, 5:68. Comte, “Quatri`eme Confession annuelle,” May 31, 1849, CG, 5:29.

Comte’s Private Life and Its Public Manifestations

481

April 1850. A lithographed version, he maintained, would be a good means of propaganda.162 He wrote, “Although the good is not always the comrade of the beautiful, the divorce is rarely profound and is certainly curable.” He believed in the “harmony of the different natural beauties,” that is, in the coming together of moral, intellectual, and physical beauties.163 Yet in the end he was disappointed because he disliked Guichard’s portrait, which he found disfiguring.164 Comte’s sense of himself as a paragon of virtue did not preclude his treating his wife and sister with some cruelty. Massin was lonely, sick, and extremely depressed. She suffered from a bad back and rheumatism, which prevented her from working and distracting herself with her sewing needle.165 Fearing she would go mad from boredom, she wrote, “The moral effect of being deprived of work is, with my character and habits, what is most dangerous.”166 Whereas he appeared to her to be vivacious, she represented herself as old and feeble. She complained about the declining amount of money that he gave her – money that was also delivered to her with increasing tardiness. Whereas he appealed to his followers for money to pay the annual rent of 1,600 francs for his beloved apartment, she eventually had to move to a less desirable one for of fear of mounting debts.167 Nevertheless, she continued to admire him as a man of “honor and 162

163 164 165 166 167

Comte to Laffitte, April 1, 1850, CG, 5:144. The famous Lyonnais painter Joseph Guichard, who was a student of Jean-Auguste Dominique Ingres and teacher of Berthe Morisot, made the drawing of Comte in pencil or charcoal. Guichard’s wife, Agathe, who was enthusiastic about positivism, also painted a portrait of Comte, which he found lacking in expression. Comte was obviously vain about his looks. Her portrait of Comte no longer exists, whereas that of her husband is in the museum devoted to Comte, located on 10, rue Monsieur le Prince. The portrait is also reproduced in CG, volume five. See Comte to Etex, July 10, 1852, CG, 6:314; Bracquemond to Comte, July 13, 1852, MAC; Mont`egre to Comte, August 25, 1849, MAC; Carneiro and ArbousseBastide, CG, 5:LXXV, 254nDCIX; Jean Tulard, “Guichard,” in Tulard, Dictionnaire. Bracquemond might have done two etchings. See Numa Raflin, “Vari´et´es: Les Rapports d’Antoine Etex avec Auguste Comte,” RO, 32 (August 1905): 192. Clotilde de Vaux was an admirer of Ingres. See her letter to Comte, February 12, 1846, CG, 3:318. Comte to Audiffrent, April 7, 1851, CG, 6:53. Comte to Audiffrent, July 6, 1852, CG, 6:331. He tried to stop the circulation of lithographs made from it. Massin to Comte, January 17, 1850, MAC. Littr´e and Foville gave Massin medical advice. Madame Auguste Comte to Charles Robin, n.d., MAC. Caroline Massin to Comte, February 4, March 31, 1850, MAC. In April 1844, she moved from 37, rue Rochechouart to 40, rue de la tour d’Auvergne to save money. Then in July 1847, she moved to 23, rue des Martyrs. In October 1849, she moved to 15, rue des Martyrs. By 1855, her residence was at 14, rue de Puteaux in the Batignolles. This area is in the seventeenth arrondissement. Despite her monetary problems, she, like Comte, kept her maid, ’Toinette. See Massin to Comte, March 30, April 8, 1844; July 19, 1847; October 30, 1849; February 22, 1850, MAC; Comte to Foley, September 26, 1855, CG, 8:121.

482

The Early Development of the Religion of Humanity

political probity.”168 She suffered from her attachment to him and from her “constant desire” to write to him.169 She wrote, “I beg you to tell me what I should do. You are opposed to divorce; nevertheless, you have rejected for the past seven years all of my efforts at reconciliation. What should I do?”170 Telling her that she was incapable of doing him any good and indeed did him much harm, Comte was not moved to accept her request for a personal meeting.171 Yet in early 1850, he agreed to correspond with her on a more regular basis if she did not disturb his tranquility. He was pleased that she had intervened with Bineau, liked his course, which she attended again in the spring, and commented on his works, which she made a real effort to understand, perhaps for the first time.172 Her interest seemed to indicate that women approved of his ideas. He was also impressed that she engaged in “enormous propaganda,” distributing the brochures of the Positivist Society.173 So he wrote to her twenty-six times in 1850.174 However, he carefully kept her at a distance, reminding her often of his “just and profound” antipathy for her.175 In May 1850, their correspondence became more tense after she begged him, as usual, to be prudent in his course because the government had recently closed down several newspapers. She wrote, Circumstances are grave; I beg you to avoid descending from the heights of generality, where you are so fine and so invincible. Avoid . . . applications [of your theories]. Your audience will know how to make them. Do not believe that this is a mark of weakness. It is not to the government that you would be making a concession but to your audience, which needs to hear you. You will be less brilliant, perhaps, but people will not be deceived. . . . They will be grateful to you for this sacrifice, I’m sure. If you took what I am telling you the wrong way, I would be in despair.176

When he did not reply to her letters for several weeks, she nagged him about his silence, reiterated her desire for a personal meeting 168 169 170 171 172

173 174 175 176

Massin to Comte, April 1, 1850, CG, 5:255. Massin to Comte, February 22, 1850, MAC. Massin to Comte, October 30, 1849, MAC. She was now reduced to living on two thousand francs a year and was not well enough to supplement that amount by working. Comte to Massin, March 2, 1850, CG, 5:129; Massin to Comte, March 8, 1850, MAC. See for example, Massin to Comte, March 31, 1850, MAC. She also believed that Comte’s articles on the spiritual power in the 1820s were similar to the Discours of 1848. See Massin to Comte, April 8, 1850, MAC. Massin to Comte, August 7, 1850, MAC. Littr´e, Comte, 508. Most of these letters are lost. Comte to Massin, October 31, 1849, CG, 5:107. Massin to Comte, May 15, 1850, MAC.

Comte’s Private Life and Its Public Manifestations

483

with him, and complained about the drafts in his lecture hall, which prevented her from assiduously attending his course. Tired of her recriminations, Comte finally expressed his regrets at having agreed to correspond with her again. He warned her in June that “the third attempt to abuse my epistolary condescension” would end their relationship once and for all.177 Their correspondence, which had become increasingly perfunctory at least on Comte’s part, stopped after Massin wrote him an angry letter on April l6, 1851. She complained that people informed her that she was no longer allowed to attend Comte’s course: I dare say that I did not merit it [this expulsion]. My conduct was always reserved and polite with regard to everyone and discrete with regard to you. One time, while I waited for Mr. Lenoir, it was you who presented yourself to me, and I could not resist the desire to touch your hand. This meeting was the only one we had in two years, which proves that it was not deliberate. But let me tell you that it is as bizarre as it is sad to have to apologize for such things. Your course is public; the lowest woman can go to it. . . . Yours is chased away; this is not good. I was there, seriously; I made a study of your works that was as thorough as my intelligence permitted.178

Moreover, Massin was furious with Comte because he continued to talk about de Vaux in his lectures, reneging on an agreement that they had made. She strongly implied that he had not been able to turn love for Humanity into worship of Humanity; something was lacking. Comte did not answer and effectively ended their correspondence.179 The same day that she wrote to him, April 16, he marched into a meeting of the Positivist Society and turned everyone’s attention to Massin’s sins. Ten members were present: Laffitte, Segond, Jundzill, Fili, Magnin, Mont`egre, Lefebvre, Belpaume, Peyronnet, 177

178 179

Comte to Massin, June 12, 1850, CG, 5:165. Although the June letter is the last one in the archives of the Maison d’Auguste Comte, it is clear from his annotations on Massin’s letters that he wrote her again at least six times: July 15, August 8 and 14, September 3 and 30, and October 17, 1850. He was very annoyed when she asked to attend the marriage and baptismal ceremony of several of his disciples, for he suspected that she was simply seeking a pretext to see him. See Littr´e to Comte, July 14, 1850, MAC and Comte to Littr´e, July 15, 1850, CG, 5:173. Massin to Comte, April 16, 1851, MAC. This is her last letter to Comte that exists in the archives of the Maison d’Auguste Comte. He sent back whatever letters she wrote to him in the future. All in all, Massin wrote Comte at least 165 letters between September 16, 1831 and April 16, 1851. Comte wrote at least seventy-nine, but only thirty-five still exist. See Carneiro and Arbousse-Bastide, CG, 5:259–60nDCXVIII; Comte to Littr´e, April 28, 1851, CG, 6:60; Comte, “Sixi`eme Confession annuelle,” May 30, 1851, CG, 6:96.

484

The Early Development of the Religion of Humanity

and Pi`eton.180 According to Peyronnet, who worked in the finance ministry, Comte claimed that Massin “provoked” him into discussing his past after she criticized him for referring to de Vaux in his course.181 Comte felt compelled to explain why he was grateful to de Vaux and why he placed her above his wife in his affections. He accused Massin of neglecting him, cheating on him with other men, and caring more about his making money than creating a new philosophy. Peyronnet, who was a friend of Littr´e and had met Massin, was disturbed and embarrassed. He wrote to Comte, “Yes, Sir, everyone suffered. No one won during the Wednesday meeting. It did not dissipate any cloud; it did not lift any suspicion because there was basically no cloud or suspicion.”182 He was particularly relieved that Littr´e missed the meeting, for he knew that he would have been upset. In fact, Comte asked the members to spare Littr´e the details of his disclosure. Comte did not want to force Littr´e to break with Massin. He claimed that Littr´e cared about her, did her some good, and found conversing with her “agreeable.”183 In truth, Comte’s own self-interest was at work; who would deal with her and give her the quarterly allowance if Littr´e did not? The situation was delicate. The truth is that Littr´e had become more than a liaison between Comte and Massin; he had become her supporter. Littr´e and Massin had become close through their common interest in Comte. Massin frequently spoke to him about Comte’s life and new publications.184 From time to time, Massin offered Littr´e help on his articles, for which he was grateful. Littr´e often pushed Comte to give him her allowance on time and seemed genuinely concerned about her health.185 He was dumbfounded when he heard in late April that not one but two meetings (those of April 16 and 23) of the Positivist Society revolved around her relationship to Comte. On April 27, 1851, Littr´e wrote Comte a very critical, brilliantly worded letter. Understanding Comte’s paranoia, Littr´e began by explaining his “best feelings” for him: “I proclaim my indebtedness to you on every occasion.” If something was hurtful in his letter, he hoped Comte would not think he harbored ill will toward him. Littr´e then went on to tell him that Massin threatened not to accept Comte’s allowance any more because of the insulting manner 180 181 182 183 184 185

See Testament, 43n1. See also See Comte, “Soci´et´e Positiviste: Liste des membres pr´esents a` la s´eance du 22 Archim`ede 63,” Manuscripts, MAC. Peyronnet to Comte, April 18, 1851, MAC. Comte mentioned Massin as the one who provoked him. See Comte to Bligni`eres, May 12, 1851, CG, 6:82. Peyronnet to Comte, April 18, 1851, MAC. Comte to Littr´e, April 28, 1851, CG, 6:60. See also Comte to Peyronnet, April 17, 1851, CG, 6:55. See, for example, Massin to Comte, February 22, and April 9, 1850, MAC. Massin to Comte, May 15, 1850, MAC; Littr´e to Comte, September 30, 1850, MAC.

Comte’s Private Life and Its Public Manifestations

485

in which he treated her, especially in his meetings and public lectures. He was “convinced” that Comte did not wish her to suffer from abject poverty, which would invariably send her to a hospital, where she might die prematurely. He wrote, “This is therefore the real situation. The blows that you make here echo over there; if you think they have no effect, you are gravely mistaken; and my duty toward you is to dissipate this illusion.” Littr´e was even blunter, suggesting that Comte had no “right” to reveal details about his life with Massin. Littr´e’s own conscience objected. “Whatever authority a man has over me, he will never make me condemn an accused person without having heard him or her.”186 Littr´e cleverly used positivist precepts to argue against Comte. First, according to Comte’s own principles, one must accommodate oneself to “what is immutable,” and the past was certainly immutable. He could do nothing to undo his marriage. Littr´e referred to his own patience in dealing with his wife, from whom he wished to break as well but did not.187 Comte, he suggested, had at least physically separated from his, but that was as far as he should go. “Neither the laws of your country nor your own doctrine authorizes a step further; and if the positive doctrine permits exceptions, it is clear that the only person who is exempt from these exceptions is the Founder of positivism.”188 Littr´e begged him to stifle his hostility, following the principle of love that he recommended to others. Finally, Littr´e insinuated that not all was right with Comte mentally. Again, he used himself as an example. He said that after the death of his mother, he grew so distraught that he could not sleep and was “on the verge of losing his reason.” He wrote, “Perceiving the danger and desirous instinctively to save myself, I worked at breaking the chain of memories. As soon as one came to mind, I chased it as if it were a dangerous enemy. I ended by gradually triumphing over my obsession. . . . Systematic forgetting is a great way of preserving oneself from outbursts from the past.”189 In a sense, Littr´e foreshadowed Friedrich Nietzsche’s position that an obsession with the past can be harmful. He was going straight to the core of Comte’s psychological problems, which were leading him to make the Religion of Humanity a cult of the dead. Comte replied with a long list of Massin’s “fundamental wrongs” to justify his behavior, which he viewed as indulgent, not severe. Choosing contemporary images of loose public women to demean her, he accused Massin of being a “skillful actress, almost always on 186 187 188

Littr´e to Comte, April 27, 1851, Testament, 43–4. In 1835 he had married Pauline Lacoste, a young Catholic woman chosen for him by his mother. See Rey, Littr´e, 67. Littr´e to Comte, April 27, 1851, Testament, 45. 189 Ibid., 45–6.

486

The Early Development of the Religion of Humanity

the stage,” especially when she dealt with Littr´e.190 Her threats about refusing the allowance or going to the hospital were not believable. Moreover, Comte modified his theory of marriage. Now he said that marriage could be legally dissolved in “extremely exceptional cases,” such as that of de Vaux. He admitted that his problems were not so severe as to warrant this legal dissolution. But he added that the “moral union” of a marriage could be broken if one of the members was guilty of a “prolonged indignity.”191 Still tied legally to his wife, the husband would owe her only material support if there were no children. Comte felt this situation was his. However, he claimed that their marriage never even represented a moral union in the first place because Massin was an “anti-feminine type,” a woman who had a great deal of intelligence and energy but no tenderness. Hating every moral rule, she was domineering, “licentious,” “vicious,” and revolutionary. Reviewing all her alleged escapades and the reasons for the three separations before that of 1842, he wrote, “If she had been only impure, I perhaps might have pardoned her; but as she showed herself to be without heart or refinement, I finally had to scorn her.” Comte also accused her of being unsupportive and unable to appreciate his mind or his heart. She was interested in positivism only after Littr´e made it famous. Before, all she wanted Comte to do was to earn “money, titles, and positions.” Her nagging severely hampered his philosophical work. He, on the other hand, conducted himself in an exemplary fashion. “In my private life, I have never hated anyone, even less the unhappy one who will always bear my name, but the whole of her behavior does not allow me to respect her.” Comte saw himself as a generous man and represented Massin as an evil, ungrateful woman who failed to develop proper affection for him. If she pushed him, he would declare “war” on her and make arrangements for their “legal separation,” which would be far worse than the physical one they had now. Comte gave Littr´e permission to read this damning letter to Massin. He also reprinted it as well as Littr´e’s letter to him in his Testament to justify his behavior toward his wife.192 Despite his claim to the contrary, his hatred for Massin knew no bounds, and his treatment of her did not reflect well on his character or his mental state. Alix Comte did not fare much better. Like Massin, she tried not to offend Comte because she enjoyed their correspondence and hoped one day to see him. Yet Comte’s prickly nature coupled with Alix’s nagging ways caused much tension just as similar problems led to friction in his relationship with Massin. Indeed, the two enemies apparently talked about how to handle him. After Comte lashed out 190 192

Comte to Littr´e, April 28, 1851, CG, 6:61. 191 Ibid. Ibid., 62–6. See also Comte to Bligni`eres, May 12, 1851, CG, 6:82–3.

Comte’s Private Life and Its Public Manifestations

487

at Alix for rejecting his criticisms of Catholicism, she wrote, “You should know that I . . . will never tell you something that I believe will hurt you . . . I will never forget that it is the advice given to me by Caroline [Massin] to whom I owe it.”193 Nevertheless, Alix became exasperated by Comte’s arrogance. When Comte boasted that he could do more good than she, she angrily replied, “I am good and known for that. People do not find me brilliant, but they do find me solid.”194 She criticized Comte’s religion for not teaching humility. Comte found her “affectation of a strange moral superiority” extremely “inconvenient.” He warned her, “You must renounce frankly, my sister, these shocking pretensions of superiority, which I can’t accept with regard to the heart any more than I can with regard to the mind. On both counts, I believe I’m rather generous in conceding equality.”195 Such arguments smacked of juvenile competitiveness. One of Alix’s comments reveals her bitterness at being the sister of a genius: “I am very angry that you took all the brains and that my education was too neglected, [a fact] that prevents me from understanding you. But it is not my fault.”196 She imagined that the grisette at the corner was better educated than she was.197 Despite her protests of intellectual unpreparedness, she did not hesitate to criticize the publications that he sent her or to make fun of his doctrine. She taunted him by telling him that his Religion of Humanity would have “killed” their Catholic mother.198 She particularly disliked the Positivist Calendar, which she explained ignored the fact that the masses were religious and would not adopt it. She explained, “Many people are sincerely republicans, but they do not like it when someone touches their religion; they are Catholic before anything. We see it; it is truly unfortunate for you that you have formed this religion.”199 He may be “the master head of a sect” and “at the level of the Cabets, etc.,” but he did not have the number of adherents he should have.200 “People do not count on the duration of positivism any more than on that of Saint-Simonianism, which 193

194 196 197

198 199 200

Alix Comte to Comte, September 6, 1848, in “Lettres d’Alix Comte,” ed. Laffitte, 112. Alix wrote to Massin several times to thank her for her advice, but the letters never arrived because Massin had moved. Ibid., 113. 195 Comte to Alix Comte, July 14, 1849, CG, 5:38–9. Alix Comte to Comte, December 2, 1849, in “Lettres d’Alix Comte,” ed. Laffitte, 158. Alix Comte to Comte, September 17, 1850, in “Mat´eriaux pour servir a` la biographie d’Auguste Comte (Suite),” ed. Laffitte, RO, 3d ser. vol. 2 ( July 1 and September 1, 1910): 184. Alix Comte to Comte, August 25, 1850, in “Mat´eriaux pour servir a` la biographie d’Auguste Comte (Suite),” ed. Laffitte, 182. Alix Comte to Comte, June 22, 1849, in “Lettres d’Alix Comte,” ed. Laffitte, 140–41. Alix Comte to Comte, January 23, 1849, in “Lettres d’Alix Comte,” ed. Laffitte, 126.

488

The Early Development of the Religion of Humanity

people now only speak of with derision.”201 She astutely pointed out that his slogan of living for others was a formula already promoted unsuccessfully by the Saint-Simonians. She also mocked his flag, which she said might attract some peasants who would regard the statue as “the Holy Virgin holding Infant Jesus in her hands.”202 His performance of a positivist marriage only proved that “there are people who love anything that is new.”203 His effort to find people happiness on this earth was equally ludicrous. She wrote, Others have promoted this idea before you, and instead of making them happy, they have made people unhappy. This is because people have always tried to destroy the idea of the divinity and the immortality of the soul. If there is nothing after this world, why should one put oneself out? It is necessary for there to be a brake, especially in a century where egoism is so fashionable. One day, I hope, . . . you will see that I was right.204

Comte was extremely aggravated by her “indiscreet zeal.”205 But when he insulted her, she replied that he was simply taking out his disappointment in his movement on her. He was a typical man; the “heart of a man” is so “far” from that of a woman that he always misjudges females.206 Alix then cleverly attacked his masculinity by referring to his inability to support himself. She added that, because of his anti-religious position, people were never going to fund Littr´e’s subscription for him. Comte was “shocked” that she insinuated that he should sacrifice his principles for money. After she alluded to his penury twice, he warned her, unsuccessfully, not to do it again.207 Discussions of Comte’s poverty led to inevitable arguments about their father’s worth. As usual, Comte accused Alix and his father of pretending to be impoverished so that they would not help him in his moment of need. He even claimed that Jesuit priests were helping her monopolize their father’s affection to seize all the inheritance. Alix sent him financial reports to counter the information he was receiving from others that they were rich. Louis Comte’s highest annual salary was six thousand francs, some of which he had to pay to the government to make up for some inconsistencies in tax 201 202 203 204 205 206 207

Alix Comte to Comte, August 17, 1850, in “Mat´eriaux pour servir a` la biographie d’Auguste Comte (Suite),” ed. Laffitte, 178. Alix Comte to Comte, October 16, 1849, in “Lettres d’Alix Comte,” ed. Laffitte, 155. Alix Comte to Comte, August 17, 1850, in “Mat´eriaux pour servir a` la biographie d’Auguste Comte (Suite),” ed. Laffitte, 178. Alix Comte to Comte, November 13, 1849, in “Lettres d’Alix Comte,” ed. Laffitte, 156. Comte to Alix Comte, November 17, 1849, CG, 5:108. Alix Comte to Comte, July 11, 1849 in “Lettres d’Alix Comte,” ed. Laffitte, 144. Comte to Alix Comte, June 26, 1849, CG, 5:34–5. She taunted him by saying he should have written mathematics books instead of philosophy to ensure his material existence. Alix Comte to Comte, August 8, 1849, in “Lettres d’Alix Comte,” ed. Laffitte, 148.

Comte’s Private Life and Its Public Manifestations

489

accounts.208 According to her calculations, Louis Comte currently had capital assets worth 32,000 francs and an annual income of 1,630 francs.209 She promised her brother that she had never cheated him nor schemed to have him disinherited. Comte told her bluntly that he did not believe her; their father was worth at least twice the amount she claimed. He even sent a disciple to his father’s home to try to determine the truth.210 Comte’s frustration drove him to outline in the Cat´echisme positiviste (1852) the positivist approach to inheritance. He explained that in the positivist regime, fathers would choose a worthy son or someone else to whom they would leave their property, and that the clergy and public would have to approve of the selection. In this way, family life would be free from greedy inheritance schemes. “This is the only way to make the affection of sons toward their fathers if not as tender at least as noble as that of women for their husbands.”211 Domestic life might be improved by Comte’s scheme, but at the same time, he seemed to be attacking the legal foundation of the family by opening up the way for outsiders to gain control of family farms, companies, and wealth in other forms.212 Such moves would ultimately harm the family, though society might benefit from more efficient, generous managers. By late 1850, the correspondence between Comte and Alix was becoming very difficult to sustain and uncannily resembled the letters between Massin and him. Every letter seemed full of incriminations on each side. In terms similar to those that Massin used in trying to 208 209 210

211 212

Alix Comte to Comte, November 29, 1850, in “Mat´eriaux pour servir a` la biographie d’Auguste Comte (Suite),” ed. Laffitte, 190. Alix Comte to Comte, May 16, 1850, in “Mat´eriaux pour servir a` la biographie d’Auguste Comte (Suite),” ed. Laffitte, 173–6. Comte to Alix Comte, October 14, 1850, CG, 5:208. Audiffrent visited Comte’s family in Montpellier in October 1852. In trying to ascertain Louis Comte’s wealth, he spoke not only to him but to Mr. Guirard, a local notable; Mr. Fontanel, a banker; and Mr. Randon, an official in the tax office where Comte’s father used to work. These men confirmed Louis Comte’s account of his misfortunes. Apparently, Louis Comte originally had 32,000 francs in capital but 12,000 were lost in an industrial enterprise and 10,000 were on loan to a merchant. He thus lived on income from his remaining 10,000 francs, which came to 1,100 francs a year. This was a paltry sum to support two people, himself and Alix. Besides relaying this information to Comte, Audiffrent criticized Alix Comte, whom he accused of “cupidity” and “profound jealousy.”Audiffrent to Comte, October 15, 1852, MAC. Comte found Audiffrent’s account dubious because his father’s rent alone amounted to eight hundred francs, which left him hardly any money to live on throughout the year. Comte then went on a tirade, claiming that his sister had sent his brother to die in Martinique and had ruined the last years of their mother’s life. Comte to Audiffrent, October 21, 1852, CG, 6:409. Cat´echisme, 235. On the link between the family and inheritance, see Rachel Fuchs, “Seduction, Paternity, and the Law in Fin de Si`ecle France,” The Journal of Modern History 72(2000), 954–5.

490

The Early Development of the Religion of Humanity

reason with Comte, Alix expressed her exasperation at his determination to take everything the wrong way. “I do not know how to please you. If I speak, you get angry. If I keep silent, you get angry. What can I do? You attribute to me intentions that I do not have; I never feel the desire to dominate anyone.”213 He, on the other hand, found in the tone of her letters “the absence of all sincere and profound tenderness.” All she displayed was “oppressive fanaticism” and “indifference” to his situation. Like his enemies, she took pleasure in his bad fortune, hoping that it would hinder the growth of his religion.214 There was obviously no trust between them. As with Massin, he threatened to break with her unless she limited herself to discussing essentials such as health. Deeply insulted, Alix accused her brother of coldness, indifference, and impertinence. Perhaps he was even lying about his poverty. Having heard that he earned fifteen thousand francs a year, she figured that he must have saved a great deal of money because he had no children or illness. She reminded him that their father had spent “several sacks” of money to pay for his recovery from madness in 1826. Yet she begged Comte not to break with the family, sarcastically calling his attention to the fact that such a rupture would hurt the reputation of his religion because its “inventor” would seem to advocate the “destruction of all family affection.”215 After this barb, he addressed his letters to “Mademoiselle” and reminded her to convey only simple information, not her opinions.216 With their letters reduced “to a simple series of rare and cold news on the respective states of their health,” their relationship was strained to the utmost.217 After he lost his job as r´ep´etiteur at the Ecole Polytechnique in late 1851, she quipped that she and their father felt “much pain” at the loss of his “little position.”218 Then she switched the subject to their health problems, the usual topic of conversation. Not responding for six months, much to her consternation, Comte finally accused her of having reacted to his woes with “indifference,” if not antipathy. He decided to break with her. In his June 1852 letter, which he announced was his “last,” he wrote, “To maintain this fundamental condition of good use of the ten years of full cerebral vigor that still remain to me, I must carefully break all habitual relations that 213 214 215 216 217 218

Alix Comte to Comte, September 17, 1850, in “Mat´eriaux pour servir a` la biographie d’Auguste Comte (Suite),” ed. Laffitte, 184. Comte to Alix Comte, October 14, 1850, CG, 5:208–9. Alix Comte to Comte, December 21, 1850, in “Mat´eriaux pour servir a` la biographie d’Auguste Comte (Suite),” ed. Laffitte, 194. Comte to Alix Comte, December 22, 1850, CG, 5:222–3. Comte, “Sixi`eme Confession annuelle,” May 30, 1851, CG, 6:97. Alix Comte to Comte, January 19, 1852, in “Mat´eriaux pour servir a` la biographie d’Auguste Comte (Suite),” ed. Laffitte, 184.

Blainville

491

do not rest on respect and trust. You have become . . . the equivalent of Mme Comte, having only the sad power to trouble me; now I want to prevent that from all sides.”219 Although he asked friends to find out about the condition of his father, about whom he remained concerned, he would not even open a letter if she sent him one.220 Comte’s sole moral and emotional resource seemed to be Sophie Bliaux, whom he called his “best friend.”221 Once in 1856 when Bliaux left him to visit her family for ten days, Comte was extremely distressed.222 Later in the Syst`eme, he called for a public festival to be held annually in honor of proletarian women.223 blainville Comte’s sense of loneliness became increasingly acute as he cut himself off from more people, especially those close to him, and retreated within his own world. On May 2, 1850, Massin informed him of the death of Blainville, one of his oldest friends. Saint-Simon had introduced the two men in the early 1820s, and Blainville had become one of Comte’s staunchest supporters and his only “devoted friend,” according to Massin.224 For years, they had met once a month for a dinner of scientists and thinkers. Yet during the past five years, tensions had arisen in their relationship. Blainville gave five hundred francs to Comte, who, instead of repaying it, asked for greater financial support. Barbot de Ch´ement remarked that it was very “original” of Comte to ask Blainville, who only had a “modest” fortune, for two thousand francs, the amount of money he needed to pay Massin.225 Blainville’s inability to continue to help Comte in financial matters should not be underestimated as a factor in the deterioration of their friendship. Another cause of estrangement was Comte’s animosity toward F. L. M. Maupied, the Catholic priest who was Blainville’s disciple and friend. Maupied attended Blainville’s monthly dinners and had helped him with his three-volume Histoire des sciences de l’organisation et de leur progr`es comme base de la philosophie of 1845.226 An overview of the 219 220 221 222 224 225 226

Comte to Alix Comte, June 27, 1852, CG, 6:305–6. Comte to Audiffrent, September 21, 1852, CG, 6:390. Comte to Lewes, October 7, 1852, CG, 6:403. See also Comte, “Sixi`eme Confession annuelle,” May 30, 1851, CG, 6:97. Comte to Audiffrent, July 17, 1856, CG, 8: 282. 223 Syst`eme, 4:151. Massin to Comte, October 24, 1842, MAC. Barbot de Ch´ement to Nicard, January 14, 1863, MAC. See also Pol Nicard to Laffitte, December 11, 1889, MAC; Pickering, Comte, 1:230. Maupied had a doctorate from Paris and was a member of the Soci´et´e Litt´eraire de l’Universit´e Catholique de Louvain. There are several polite letters from Maupied to Comte in the MAC. Once Maupied asked Comte to help a young friend get into the Ecole Polytechnique. He also autographed the Histoire des sciences de l’organisation and sent

492

The Early Development of the Religion of Humanity

history of the organic sciences from the Greeks to the present, the work derived from lectures Blainville had given at the Sorbonne from 1839 to 1841. He did not have time to edit them in order to publish them as a book. Maupied volunteered to make “necessary developments and several additions.”227 Blainville wrote only the introduction, where he referred to Comte as one of the few “young people” who correctly considered the natural sciences a component of philosophy. Yet Blainville also added that he was indignant that his contemporaries assumed philosophers were “antireligious.” Even the “celebrated” Saint-Simon, whom he boasted he had known well, had told him that the “masterpiece of the human mind” was the “little Cat´echisme du dioc`ese de Paris,” which was put out periodically by the Catholic Church.228 Blainville wanted to present his own philosophy, that is, the history of the sciences, from the point of view of Christianity, which he much revered. Comte was aghast when he read the book. It seemed to offer “only an irrational succession of biographic and bibliographic notices” without any explanation of the connection between biological discoveries and theories.229 Besides being very unsystematic and superficial, it was altogether too religious. Comte might agree with Blainville’s remark that “philosophy and religion consisted really of one did the same thing,” but to him, the only religion that was valid was his secular one. Comte lambasted Blainville for relying too much on Maupied, who inserted into the text a number of comments underscoring the Christian ends of science and denigrating atheistic scientists. Maupied wrote the following passage about Pliny and his main work The Natural History: “The most complete absence of any true philosophy was replaced by a verve of acrimony, which was undoubtedly very natural at the time in the heart of a man who was individually, if not socially, virtuous, if one can use . . . that expression for an atheist.”230 An atheist himself, Comte complained of Maupied’s “insolence” to Blainville.231 Comte was further disturbed by the priest’s attack on his own philosophy. In criticizing Descartes’ work on the passions for being dominated by a priori impressions instead of scientific observations, Maupied wrote, “It is in this way that his animal and even human mechanics opened the way to the materialism of Broussais

227 228 230 231

it to Comte. See Maupied to Comte, August 14, 1843 and January 30, 1845, MAC. See Comte’s Biblioth`eque Usuel II, MAC. See cover page of H.de Blainville, Histoire des sciences de l’organisation et de leur progr`es comme base de la philosophie, 3 vols. (Paris, 1845). Blainville, introduction to Histoire des sciences, 1:iv., vii, viii, note 1. 229 Syst`eme, 1:571. Blainville, introduction to Histoire des sciences de l’organisation, 1:vii, and ibid., 338. Comte accused Maupied, however, of writing this line. Comte to Grote, February 27, 1845, CG, 2:329.

Blainville

493

and the mathematism of Auguste Comte; such consequences were very far from the spirit of Descartes.”232 This statement infuriated Comte, who admired Descartes and tried to keep his distance from materialism, which, he believed, had to be corrected by vitalism.233 Life was dependent on the physical world, as the materialists insisted, but it could not be reduced to material conditions alone.234 Prodded by Blainville, who did not agree with the priest’s remark, Maupied went to Comte’s apartment to apologize. He offered to paste a piece of cardboard over the “odious passage.”235 (It is not clear whether the cardboard was to cover the passage regarding Pliny or Comte.) He also tried to explain that he had meant that it was difficult for Pliny to be virtuous in a Christian sense because he lived before Christ.236 Yet Comte lectured the Jesuit priest for indulging in religious hatred and hypocrisy and making Blainville look ridiculous. An embarrassed Blainville visited Massin, who had relied upon him heavily when Comte was ill in 1826 and considered him a good friend.237 Massin was angry but was mollified by his chagrin. She urged him to see Comte. Gathering his courage, Blainville followed her advice. To repair the damage down to his “scientific reputation,” Comte suggested that Blainville buy all the marred copies with his fortune and rewrite the whole work himself. It would cost the scientist ten thousand francs, which would amount to an expensive lesson indeed.238 Though sorry about the whole affair, Blainville would not go that far. Comte lost much respect for him.239 Nevertheless, he still was fond of Blainville and went to his monthly dinners, despite the 232

233 234 235 236

237

238 239

Maupied and Blainville, Histoire des sciences de l’organisation, 2:289. Maupied was not completely dismissive of Comte. In the third volume, in explaining Gall’s phrenological doctrine, Maupied added a footnote with simply the name “Comte.” Apparently, he relied on Comte’s explanation of Gall’s notion of the function of the brain and wanted to acknowledge his authority on the matter. Ibid., 3:294. Comte praised the vitalism of Barthez in particular. Comte to Audiffrent, January 17, 1856, CG, 8:204. Grange, “Du Corps politique,” 103. Comte to Grote, February 27, 1845, CG, 2:329. It seems that Blainville did not have any objections to Maupied’s statement about Pliny. In his personal copy, which Laffitte bought at an auction in 1891, Blainville wrote, “One wonders if it is even permissible despite Plato to employ this expression [‘virtuous’] for a man who does not believe in God.” Pierre Laffitte, “Mat´eriaux pour servir a` la biographie d’Auguste Comte: Biblioth`eque d’Auguste Comte,” RO 2d series, 14 ( January 1897): 112. There were some tensions in their relationship, however. One example is that in April 1844, Massin felt Blainville had “compromised” her with their mutual friend Dr. Foville by not treating her seriously. See Massin to Comte, April 19, 1844, and March 31, 1850, MAC. Comte to Massin, February 28, 1845, CG, 2:336–7. See for example Comte to Barbot de Chement, June 17, 1846, CG, 4:16.

494

The Early Development of the Religion of Humanity

fact that he continued to have arguments over theology with other members of the party.240 However, the November 1848 dinner was the last one he attended.241 According to Maupied, Comte “dared” to humiliate Blainville by asking him if he really believed in God’s “presence.” Blainville leaned toward Comte, replying, “Yes, Sir, I do believe in it, Yes, Sir, I have faith; unfortunately, I am like other illogical people because I do not practice it.”242 Comte thought that Blainville’s “regression” towards religion had caused his “moral degradation.”243 Repeatedly challenged by Comte, Blainville labored on a work entitled Analyse de la religion du positivisme ou de l’Augusto-Comtisme compar´e au Christianisme, which was found among his unpublished papers after his death.244 Perhaps another cause of their estrangement was Comte’s campaign to win the favor of Arago, whom the royalist Blainville intensely disliked. Blainville disapproved of Comte’s toadying to the “Arago dynasty in power.”245 Blainville was also at the other end of the political spectrum from Littr´e, to whom Comte had grown closer.246 Whereas Comte was happy about the Revolution of 1848, Blainville was devastated by this turn of events. Over a year passed. Comte seemed to have a slight change of heart. In February 1850, he asked Massin to tell Blainville that he was going to add him to the next edition of the Calendrier Positiviste, although he tended not to include living people. Replacing Lorenz Oken, who was moved, Blainville became an alternative to Lamarck in the month of Bichat (modern science).247 Yet when Massin conveyed the news to Blainville via their mutual friend, Dr. Foville, she discovered that the scientist, though flattered, no longer felt attached to Comte. Very 240

241 242 243

244

245

246 247

L. E. Bott to Comte, September 10, 1847, MAC. In this letter, Bott apologized for having attacked Comte so violently at Blainville’s recent dinner. Comte had denied there was an afterlife, a position that infuriated Bott. Comte to Magnin, December 2, 1848, CG, 4:210. Comte and Blainville, cited by Maupied in a letter to Pol Nicard, June 8, 1850, MAC. Comte, “Quatri`eme Confession annuelle,” May 31, 1849, CG, 5:28. There was some “unfortunate affair” in March 1848 to which Blainville alluded in one of his letters, but there is no explanation as to what this problem entailed. See Blainville to Comte, March 22, 1848, MAC. Before 1848, the political gulf between Comte and Blainville did not seem to have mattered much. See Comte to Valat, September 17, 1842, CG, 2:87. Barbot de Chement to Pol Nicard, October 29, 1854, in materials relating to Blainville, MAC. This letter existed in the MAC in the early 1980s but appeared to be misplaced in 2007. See copy of letter of Blainville to Massin, 1848, MAC. Blainville did not approve of Comte’s public letter of apology to Arago, who had treated Comte so inhumanely. He wrote in his letter to Massin that even Littr´e saw through Comte’s apology and viewed it as a means of getting favors from Arago. See Comte’s comments in Comte to Mill, January 10, 1845, CG, 2:325. See Comte to Massin, February 16, 1850,CG, 5:128.

Blainville

495

sad, Massin attributed this switch to Blainville’s old age, irascibility, and inability to love. Political differences were also a problem. Even she pointed out, “I am too red,” that is, left-wing for Blainville.248 In addition, financial pressures were a source of tension. Massin regretted that when Blainville received the Calendrier, he got a letter asking for more money for the Positivist Subsidy. Comte still hoped to squeeze a contribution from him. Shortly thereafter, Blainville died. Comte had not seen him for fifteen months. Yet, bound by old ties of friendship, Comte attended his funeral on May 7, 1850. After the standard eulogies were over, Comte rose to speak, a move that occasioned the brusque departure of the academics and Catholic officials who were in attendance. As a young man, Comte had read Condorcet’s Eloges des acad´emiciens morts depuis 1666 jusqu’en 1790 and seemed eager to speak about his friend who was a member of that illustrious body. But he also spoke as if he were a priest of Humanity at the new sacrament of incorporation, casting judgment on the deceased’s life.249 He had already incorporated de Vaux into the Great-Being on St. Clotilde’s feast day in 1849.250 Now he used the example of a great scientist to talk about the important relationship between the heart and the mind. Comte’s premise was that Blainville did not live up to his great intellectual powers because he did not understand the progressive movement of history and lacked moral fiber. First Comte evaluated his approach to science and politics. He praised Blainville for being the “last truly eminent thinker” of biology, of which he was one of the five founders. His work subordinating pathology to biology complemented the important theories of the other four pioneers in this field, Bichat, Lamarck, Cabanis, and Gall. Though a great teacher and a superb coordinator of ideas, Blainville failed, however, to write a treatise classifying living bodies because he rejected the “revolutionary” impulses that the other four founders of biology embraced. Blainville, a Catholic aristocrat, became increasingly reactionary after his Legitimist Party moved into the opposition during the regime of Louis-Philippe. Eventually, even his scientific work became reactionary, as reflected in the disgraceful book on biology that he wrote with Maupied.251 248 249 250

251

Massin to Comte, February 22, 1850, MAC. See also Massin to Comte, March 17, March 31, May 15, 1850, MAC. Littr´e, Comte, 638; Comte to Profumo, March 4, 1851, CG, 6:28. Comte to Audiffrent, July 29, 1851, CG, 6:117. Indeed, he considered de Vaux “the best personification” of Humanity and hoped one day to transport her body to the “tomb of the elite.” He was, however, disappointed that more people did not worship her as he did. See Comte, “Huiti`eme Confession annuelle,” August 14, 1853, CG, 7:92. Comte, “Discours prononc´e aux fun´erailles de Blainville,” May 7, 1850, CG, 5:319–21. See also Comte to Massin, May 15, 1850, CG, 5:149; Synth`ese, 73.

496

The Early Development of the Religion of Humanity

Blainville was susceptible to harmful “social influences” because his moral character had “grave lacunae.” According to Comte, “All great intellectual efforts emanate exclusively from sympathetic instincts.” Although courageous, firm, and indifferent to fame and profit, Blainville failed to develop his affections or an appreciation of sociability and did not create any social goals for his scientific endeavors. Moreover, he did not have enough “energy,” the crucial mark of masculinity in Comte’s eyes. His lack of appreciation of the arts and his lifelong celibacy offered further proofs of his dryness. To Comte, men could not develop fully, even intellectually, without a woman’s influence, which helped give them the needed ardor. Holding up women as better models of behavior than famous scientists, Comte wrote, “Blainville lacked the sacred fire which pushes people everywhere directly to the active pursuit of good. . . . With regard to this exclusive source of our true unity, the least woman worthy of her sex necessarily surpasses the most powerful thinker deprived of tenderness.”252 In the end, Comte seemed to resent the great scientist’s refusal to adopt positivism, despite their close friendship of twenty-five years. He concluded, “Here you see how moral insufficiency alone profoundly” influenced “one of the strongest intellects that ever existed.” His sudden death alone on a train while traveling was a fitting end because it prevented “this egoist” from “giving or receiving any goodbye.”253 Pol Nicard, Blainville’s friend, found Comte to be “brutal.”254 But Comte was very proud of his moral lesson. He made a longer version of the speech two days later. It was then published by the Positivist Society on May 23, 1850.255 After receiving it, Thal`es Bernard commended Comte for having stifled the tendency toward “heroification [sic],” which is so “natural” in speaking of the deceased. Comte’s courageous and “wise critique”offered a description of “the true existence of a thinker devoted to the cult of Humanity.”256 Yet those close to Comte must have trembled at his blunt judgment of one of his best friends. 252

253 254 255 256

Comte, “Discours prononc´e aux fun´erailles de Blainville,” May 7, 1850, CG, 5:322–4. Notice Comte’s criticism of Barbot de Chement for lacking a woman in his life. Comte to Barbot de Chement, August 23, 1850, CG, 5:181. Comte, “Discours prononc´e aux fun´erailles de Blainville,” May 7, 1850, CG, 5:324, 325. See also Littr´e, Comte, 638. ´ Pol Nicard, Etude sur la vie et les travaux de M. Ducrotay de Blainville (Paris: J. -B. Bailli`ere, 1890), 9. Comte reprinted it at the end of the first volume of the Syst`eme. Thal`es Bernard to Comte, May 30, 1850 (not 1849 as marked in RO), in “Mat´eriaux pour servir a` la biographie d’Auguste Comte: Amis, Protecteurs, Correspondants d’Auguste Comte: Thal`es Bernard,” ed. Pierre Laffitte, RO, 2d ser., 15 (September, 1897):232.

The Performance of More Sacraments

497

the pe rformance of more sacrame nts Shortly after having performed this sacrament of incorporation with regard to Blainville, Comte agreed to do a second positivist marriage on July 18, 1850.257 He viewed this one as more significant than the one he had done for the Francelles in July 1848 because it involved educated members of the bourgeoisie instead of “simple” proletarians.258 The groom, Auguste Segond, was an esteemed biologist and doctor, whereas the bride’s father, M. de Lanneau, was the Director of the Institut National des Sourds-Muets (an institution for the deaf and dumb) and a former mayor of the twelfth arrondissement. The bride, L´eonie de Lanneau, and groom were required to agree to the vow of eternal widowhood, but unlike the Francelles, who did so spontaneously after Comte asked them during the ceremony, this couple had the chance to think about it more deeply.259 Because such cultivated people finally accepted, Comte believed that the ceremony indicated the growing strength of his new religion.260 The couple was also more important to Comte because both members were disciples or closely related to disciples. They called Comte their “best friend.”261 Dr. Segond was a member of the Positivist Society, as was the older brother of the bride, Auguste de Lanneau, who was a merchant and friend of Audiffrent.262 Segond even called de Vaux the “second mother” to all positivists.263 In addition, Littr´e was to be Segond’s witness. Littr´e’s willingness to perform this function 257 258 259

260

261 262

263

Again, a civil ceremony preceded the positivist one. Comte, register entitled “Mariages positivistes,” p. 2, MAC. Comte to Barbot de Chement, August 6, 1850, CG, 5:176; Comte to Tholouze, July 13, 1850, CG, 5:172. Comte, “Cinqui`eme Confession annuelle,” May 27, 1850,154. Segond later composed music to go with the words of de Vaux that Comte cherished. Comte to Bligni`eres, August 11, 1851, CG, 6:142. Comte even requested that Segond and his wife visit his family on their trip south as a way of proving to his father and sister how important his position of priest was becoming. Alix artfully plied the Segonds with questions, found out that they had had a religious celebration at a church besides a civil ceremony, and reported to her brother that Segond denied that Comte had married them. She made a complete mockery of Comte’s claim to be a priest of the Religion of Humanity. Alix Comte to Comte, November 29, 1850, in “Mat´eriaux pour servir a` la biographie d’Auguste Comte (Suite),” ed. Laffitte, 192. L´eonie Segond to Comte, August 11, 1850, MAC. See Monsieur de Lanneau to Comte, December 16, 1851, MAC. He frequently invited Comte to dinner at his house. He gave the Positivist Subsidy ten francs in 1855. Finding his contributions derisory, Comte later accused him of wanting to join the Positivist Society simply to increase his own personal influence. Audiffrent to Comte, April 15, 1855, MAC; Comte to Audiffrent, December 7, 1856, CG, 8:345. Segond to Comte, October 2, 1851, MAC.

498

The Early Development of the Religion of Humanity

pleased Comte enormously, for it seemed to show the extent of his “eminent” colleague’s interest in positivism.264 Comte’s living room served as the “primitive chapel of Humanity.”265 It was adorned with the “holy bouquet” that de Vaux had given him.266 Before an audience of twenty-five men and women, Comte gave a speech on the positivist sacraments, which he began to revise afterward for publication by the Positivist Society.267 Yet the members of the Society decided that it was too dangerous to print the speech because it might hurt the careers of the groom and his father-in-law.268 A few months later, on November 28, 1850, Comte performed in his “chapel” the positivist sacrament of “presentation” for the Francelles’ baby boy in front of an audience of twenty-two people (besides the parents and godparents), who included Charles Robin, Elise de Capellen, and Agathe Guichard.269 As during the judgment of Blainville and Segond’s marriage, Comte gave a long speech; this one lasted two hours. Again he hoped to publish it to underscore the ascendancy of his religion, but again the positivists decided it was too threatening to the government and might harm the people involved.270 Instead, he made up an official looking document to register the baptism and proudly stamped it with the green “pontifical seal,” which he used for the first time.271 Although a bit hesitant about what was required, Littr´e agreed to be the godfather, especially as he had picked the name Alfred for the boy’s middle name.272 264 265 266 267

268

269 270

271 272

Comte, “Sixi`eme Confession annuelle,” May 30, 1851, CG, 6:96. Comte to Audiffrent, October 21, 1851, CG, 6:182. Comte to Tholouze, July 13, 1850, CG, 5:172. The people who were there included Littr´e, the Francelles, Charles Jundzill, Leblais, Mont`egre, P. Contreras Elizalde, Ribet, Laffitte, Charles Robin, V. Belpaume, Fili, Magnin, Charles de Capellen, Elise de Capellen, and Agathe de Lagr´en´ee Guichard. “Explication du registre des mariages tenus par Auguste Comte,” RO, 2d ser., 35 ( January 1907):103–4. See note at end of Comte, “Discours prononc´e pour la cons´ecration d’un mariage positiviste,” July 18, 1850, CG, 5:333. The Segonds had a son on May 2, 1851. See Faire Parts de Naissance, MAC. See the document called Comte’s register of baptisms, entitled “Religion de l’Humanit´e: Sacrement de la pr´esentation,” MAC. Comte, “Discours prononc´e par Auguste Comte, premier prˆetre de l’Humanit´e en conf´erant le sacrement de la Pr´esentation . . . ,” November 28, 1850, Manuscripts, MAC. Comte did not finish writing the speech because he realized it was not publishable, considering the politics of the times. Comte, “Sixi`eme Confession annuelle,” May 30, 1851, CG, 6:98. Littr´e to Comte, July 14, 1850, MAC; Francelle to Comte, November 16, 1850, MAC. The boy was called Paul Alfred Francelle. See Comte, copy of the document registering the Sacrament of Presentation of Paul Alfred Francelle, November 28, 1850, Manuscripts, MAC. Due to the illness of someone close to him, Littr´e was unable to attend the actual ceremony and was represented by another member of the Positivist Society. See Littr´e to Comte, November 26, 1850, MAC.

The Performance of More Sacraments

499

The new Madame L´eonie Segond was the godmother.273 Comte was pleased that the “affective sex” – Madame Segond – was able to cement “the philosophical element,” represented by Littr´e, with the “popular element,” personified by the Francelles.274 This cooperation would be a mark of the new regime. Indeed, despite Comte’s hatred of equality, there was a populist element in positivism. One reason Francelle was drawn to the Positivist Society was that many members had abandoned “what present society calls signs of distinction in order to be united with the simple proletarian and the ignorant man as in one family.”275 In the coming years, the Francelles had many difficulties. In 1851, their newly born baby daughter died, and Francelle, in keeping with his belief in positivism, refused to allow a priest at her burial.276 Later, when Francelle became gravely ill and Madame Francelle was forced to sew each day until midnight to make ends meet, Comte persuaded members of the Positivist Society to send her money. He promised to give her a hundred francs a year out of his measly subsidy. With this pension, which began in October 1852, she was then able to reduce her hours of labor and care properly for her son. This concern for her welfare was in line with Comte’s maxim that “Man must nourish woman.”277 When Francelle finally died in 1853, Comte performed the first positivist funeral, which took place in the Montparnasse cemetery. He was proud that no Catholic priest was involved. At first, he hoped P´elagie, who was a beautiful twenty-five-old woman, would be faithful to her vow of eternal widowhood, but then he decided to release her from it on the grounds that she had married too quickly. Nevertheless, she claimed she would remain devoted to the “service of humanity” and would raise her son in a worthy manner.278 Yet after a while, Comte accused her of not paying sufficient attention to the boy. She claimed she needed to send her son to school and to Catholic catechism classes to get him out of the house so that she could “earn the most possible money in her job as seamstress.” Financial assistance from the positivists was not sufficient. Comte found her “vulgar” and lacking in tenderness. He finally decided in 1856 that it was not worthwhile for the fifteen men to continue giving her a pension. He explained to one of them, “This woman is 273 274 275 276 277 278

Comte to Barbot de Chement, August 6, 1850, CG, 5:176. Comte, “Discours prononc´e pour la cons´ecration d’un mariage positiviste,” July 18, 1850, CG, 5:329. Francelle to Comte, June 1, 1850, MAC. Francelle to Comte, January 23, 1851, MAC. Comte to Mont`egre, November 13, 1852, CG, 6:421. See also Comte to Audiffrent, November 11, 1852, CG, 6:417–18. Madame P´elagie Francelle to Comte, January 31, 1853, in Pierre Laffitte, ed. “Mat´eriaux pour servir a` la biographie d’Auguste Comte,” RO, 2d ser., 37 (1908): 297.

500

The Early Development of the Religion of Humanity

not a positivist and does nothing to become one; she even regrets not having remained Catholic.”279 Yet, ever wary of appearing dignified, Comte continued giving her money until January 1857 when he stopped for unknown reasons.280 Littr´e, who remained supportive of her, was displeased.281 the po sitivist theory of the mind In early 1850, Comte completed his subjective theory of the mind, which he put in the form of a chart called the “Tableau c´er´ebral.” Reflecting his theory of human nature, this theory was so important in the evolution of his doctrine that he claimed that his “second public career” began on November 2, 1846, when he started this table classifying the cerebral functions.282 The tenth draft of it, completed on January 4, 1850, finally seemed satisfactory.283 He devoted one of his lectures to the theory in June 1850, and then in March 1851, he had Thunot print five hundred copies of the chart in a slightly different form to launch public debate on it.284 He elaborated on his ideas in the first volume of the Syst`eme, where he discussed the Tableau c´er´ebral at length.285 279 280

281 282 283

284 285

Comte to Papot, July 10, 1856, CG, 8:279. See also Deroisin, Comte, 103n1. Littr´e gave her five francs, Fisher one franc, and Cousin ten francs. These were the only men who contributed besides Comte in 1857. Comte gave her thirty-four francs in January 1857. The actual dates of the pension are from October 1, 1852 to January 29, 1857. Comte collected 2,328 francs for her. Comte to Littr´e, April 23, 1857, CG, 8:447; Comte to Papot, January 10, 1857, CG, 8:369; blue cardboard notebook entitled, “Pension faite, par la Soci´et´e Positiviste a` Madame Francelle, a` partir du 1er octobre 1852,” Manuscripts, MAC. Littr´e to Comte, April 23, 1857, MAC. Syst`eme, 1:679. See also Laffitte, “Tableau de la Nature Humaine,” March 14, 1850, Archives of Sybil de Acevedo. As if his voyage had ended, he penned the name “Ulysses” at the end of the tenth edition of the manuscript. See the tenth version of the “Classification positive des fonctions int´erieurs du cerveau, ou Tableau syst´ematique de l’existence morale,” MAC. The Positivist Society paid for it. See Thunot’s bills, “Documents: Factures acquitt´es,” MAC. There are eleven drafts of the Tableau c´er´ebral, which are in the archives of the Maison d’Auguste Comte. The last one is dated March 1, 1851. Volume one of the Syst`eme, which included the chart, was published in July 1851. The chart is between pages 726 and 727. It combines the tenth and eleventh versions.There were only minor differences between versions ten and eleven. For example, in the tenth, he simply wrote “perseverance.” In the eleventh, he wrote “strength, from which perseverance comes.” See “Classification positive des fonctions int´erieurs du cerveau, ou Tableau syst´ematique de l’existence morale,” MAC. On the printed proof page of the chart, Comte added several items, including the last sentence in the bottom section called “R´esum´e de la th´eorie c´er´ebrale.” See “Manuscrits,” MAC; Comte to Barbot de Chement, August 6, 1850, CG, 5:177. The reproduction on CG, 5:334 is the chart from the first volume of the Syst`eme. Comte

The Positivist Theory of the Mind

501

Comte put his cerebral theory into the form of a chart for purposes of propaganda. Struck by new types of advertisement and political campaigning, he maintained that “the era of posters” was coming and that it would eliminate newspapers and other journals. Indeed, the first commercial posters were created in the 1840s and were put to many uses. Republicans relied on posters a great deal to express their opposition to Napoleon III.286 Comte noted, “The quais of Paris have been for a long time a multitude of synopses that are graphic, historical, scientific, etc.; they have always struck me as much to the liking of the people, despite their empiric character.” Positivists needed to take advantage of this form of advertisement and offer to “the silent meditation of the people a series of pictures conceived and executed in a manner to procure, without any explanatory text, a sufficient notion of the whole of our doctrine and its principal elements. His “Tableau c´er´ebral” was an example of the kind of “synoptic chart” he believed would be an effective manner of gaining people’s attention, especially because he had no journal at his disposal.287 It was reflective of the culture of spectacle that appealed to him. In addition, he hoped to inspire more studies of the brain, which he believed were in a state of “shameful stagnation.” He was tired of the “sterile debates” between the “empiric materialism” of the Id´eologues (Cabanis and Destutt de Tracy in particular), who denied the innateness of intellectual and affective dispositions, and the “murky spiritualism” of Victor Cousin, who promoted psychology based on a single unified entity, the metaphysical Moi.288 As JeanFranc¸ois Braunstein has pointed out, there was something “iconoclastic” about Comte’s rejection of Cousin’s psychology, which was fashionable at the time, and his promotion of Gall’s phrenology, which was “in complete decline.”289 In 1826, Comte had already lashed out at psychologists such as Cousin for thinking that people could observe their own intellectual operations.290 Comte did not doubt that one could study the workings of the mind, but he believed biology, assisted

286

287 289 290

also published the chart in the third edition of the Calendrier positiviste, which appeared March 13, 1851. But there was a mistake regarding the placement of “prudence” and “courage” that bothered him. He blamed it on the typographer, but in his tenth draft he himself had inadvertently placed “prudence” before “courage.” See the tenth and eleventh versions of the “Classification positive des fonctions int´erieurs du cerveau,” MAC; Comte to Bligni`eres, March 11, 1851, CG, 6:40. Thierry Dehan and Sandrine S´en´echal, Les Franc¸ais sous le Second Empire (Toulouse: Privat, 2006), 52; Sudhir Hazareeshingh, The Saint-Napoleon: Celebrations of Sovereignty in Nineteenth-Century France (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004), 183, 196. Comte to Audiffrent, July 29, 1851, CG, 6:118. 288 Syst`eme, 1:569. Jean-Franc¸ois Braunstein, “Antipsychologisme et philosophie du cerveau chez Auguste Comte,” Revue internationale de philosophie 52, no. 203 (1998): 8. According to Jean-Franc¸ois Braunstein, the source of Comte’s criticism was Louis de Bonald’s Recherches philosophiques sur les premiers objets des connaisances morales of 1818. See

502

The Early Development of the Religion of Humanity

by sociology, offered the best means of doing so. Physiology, not psychology, could reveal the working of the mind, for thought was biological in nature. Gall rightly insisted that scientists study the multiple organs of the brain, which the psychologists would not recognize, and he acknowledged the natural predominance of the affections, which the Id´eologues did not admit. Yet Gall’s approach was unsatisfactory.291 Comte’s “phrenological chart,” as Massin called it, was supposed to replace Gall’s schema of the mind, which he believed had failed to put a definitive end to disputes because it was unscientific and shortsighted.292 According to Comte, Gall had correctly put all the superior functions – those relating to the affections (including morality) and intelligence – in one place, the brain, instead of accepting the traditional scientific principle that some could be found in the heart or intestines, but he did not sufficiently explore their interrelationships. In addition, his localizations were erroneous, he exaggerated the number of cerebral organs, and he failed to show the precise connections between the brain and the rest of the body.293 Ignorant of history, Gall also presented a static picture of the brain, not taking into account the impact of the development of the species on the mind.294 Priding himself on being an exponent of sociology, which he believed could advance the science of phrenology, Comte recommended a “subjective” approach to the brain, that is, studying people’s intellectual and moral actions in society to ascertain the number of cerebral organs and their positions. In effect, the laws of the mind could be determined not directly through introspection as was

291 292

293

294

Braunstein, “La Philosophie des sciences d’Auguste Comte,” Les Philosophes et la science, ed. Pierre Wagner (Paris: Gallimard, 2002), 806. Syst`eme, 1:16; Comte, Syst`eme, vol. 4, “Appendice,” 217–20. Massin helped distribute copies of the chart. Massin to Comte, April 16, 1851, MAC. Laurent Clauzade argues that Comte was really challenging Spurzheim, who had been far more interested than Gall in classifying the faculties. Laurent Clauzade, “Le Statut e´ pist´emologique du Tableau c´er´ebral et la notion de type chez Auguste Comte,” Auguste Comte et l’id´ee de science de l’homme, edited by Michel Bourdeau and Franc¸ois Chazel (Paris: L’Harmattan, 2002), 116. Yet Comte did commend him for at least showing the “solidarity between cerebral and corporal existence.” Syst`eme, 3:617. See also Comte to Barbot de Chement, August 23, 1850, CG, 5:180; Syst`eme, 1:670–73. Comte had subjected Gall to a long critique in the Cours. See Pickering, Comte, 1:598–604. Gall’s twenty-seven organs representing mental functions included vanity, pride, friendship, kindness, and firmness of purpose, some of which resembled Comte’s. For a list of Gall’s organs and his achievements, see Edwin Clarke and L.S. Jacyna, Nineteenth-Century Origins of Neuroscientific Concepts (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), 241. Cat´echisme, 299; Syst`eme, 1:732. Comte maintained that he was bringing together the complementary efforts of Gall and Condorcet. Gall provided the biological description of the individual, whereas Condorcet offered a sociological description of the species and its history.

The Positivist Theory of the Mind

503

commonly thought but only indirectly by studying what humans produced.295 Given that there were three main aspects of human existence, loving, thinking, and acting, he suggested as a provisional hypothesis that there were eighteen cerebral organs that were associated with them. These organs composed the central nervous system. Comte’s chart of the brain displayed ten affective organs, five intellectual organs, and three practical organs.296 His so-called discovery was that because the intellectual and emotional organs were close together in the brain, as Gall had pointed out, their functions were intimately linked. This physical proximity was the biological proof that he needed to assert that feelings directed the mind and activity.297 The heart, related to loving, thus propelled the living creature. The mind, associated with thinking, advised it. The character, linked with acting, executed projects. Purely internal organs with no immediate connection to the external world, the affective organs were in the back of the brain and were the most numerous and massive because they were the most influential. Through the organs of intelligence and activity, which were located toward the front of the brain, the affections received influential impressions from the outside world, which fed and stimulated the interior world. The affections also transmitted their own desires to the exterior world through these organs of intelligence and activity. Inner harmony depended on the affective organs, which directed the intellectual and active, practical ones.298 Come’s chart showed a hierarchy of affective organs. They were classified on the basis of their decreasing energy and their increasing dignity, that is, their ability to generate altruism. Far back in the brain, the lowest ones were close to the rest of the body and received impulses from it, making them the most energetic. These organs were most concerned with personal self-interest. Going from the lowest to the highest in dignity, they were the nutritional instinct, the sexual instinct, the maternal instinct, the military or destructive instinct, and the industrial or constructive instinct.299 (By instinct, Comte meant any 295

296 297 298

299

As Braunstein suggests, Comte considered the main products of the human mind to be the sciences and their history. See Jean-Franc¸ois Braunstein, “Bachelard, Canguilhem, Foucault: Le ‘style franc¸ais’ en e´ pist´emologie,” in Les Philosophes et la science, ed. Pierre Wagner (Paris: Gallimard, 2002), 929. In the Syst`eme, Comte labelled the affective and practical functions the “moral functions.” Ibid., 1:683. See also ibid., 1:678. Comte to Barbot de Chement, August 23, 1850, CG, 5:180; Syst`eme, 1:684; Comte to Audiffrent, January 9, 1851, CG, 6:7. Comte said that these ten affective motors could be viewed as penchants in the active state and sentiments in the passive state. Physically, they were between the intellectual and active ones in the brain. See also Syst`eme, 1:685, Cat´echisme, 264. They were located in the lower back of this cerebral region, closest to the motor apparatus. The nutritional instinct was related to the universal need for the preservation

504

The Early Development of the Religion of Humanity

“spontaneous” inner impulse that took a person in one direction.300 ) Then there were two intermediary instincts related to personal ambition: pride, which had to do with the need for domination in the temporal sphere, and vanity, which concerned the need for approval in the spiritual sphere.301 Besides these seven personal affective motors, which basically constituted egoism, there were three social affective motors, which made up altruism. The lowest was attachment, which normally involved two beings and was based on equality. Next came veneration, which could be directed at more people and involved submission. The highest was goodness, otherwise known as universal love, charity, sympathy, or “humanity.” It was directed toward the collectivity. Given that organs with more worthy, less selfish goals had less energy due to their greater distance from the body, “humanity” was weak, especially as it was extensive in scope.302 These three social or sympathetic organs were in the higher front and middle of the affective region, close to the intellectual organs.303 Thus, according to Comte, the intellectual organs were directed and stimulated more effectively by organs related to altruism than by those associated with egoism. Moreover, the organs related to altruism gained power when aroused by life in society because of their proximity to the mental organs. Thus egoism could be transformed into altruism if, as Ang`ele Kremer-Marietti explains, “its forces were canalized toward the social,” thus strengthening the social instincts.304

300

301

302 303

304

of the individual. The sexual and maternal instincts were associated with the need for the preservation of the species. The military instinct was an instinct of improvement by means of destruction, whereas the industrial instinct was an instinct of improvement by means of construction. Cat´echisme, 145–6. For more on these instincts and the relations between the mind and body, see Syst`eme, 4:238–9; Wernick, Auguste Comte, 142. Cours, 1:858. See also Annemarie Wettley, “Les Id´ees d’instinct d’Auguste Comte dans sa philosophie positive,” Bulletin et M´emoire de la Soci´et´e Internationale d’Histoire de la M´edecine, n.s. 6 (1959): 51. Both of these instincts could be satisfied only by social means. Pride used force and tried to command. It was common among the patriciate. Vanity relied on opinion and endeavored to persuade or convince. It was found especially among women and scholars. Comte maintained that this distinction between pride and vanity was “the first natural source of the division of the two elementary powers,” the temporal and spiritual powers. Temporal leaders were dominated by the more personal instinct of pride. Spiritual leaders were imbued with the more social instinct of vanity. Syst`eme, 1:698. Comte referred to Dante’s celebration of the sympathetic affections in the “three best cantos” of the Divine Comedy. Syst`eme, 4:48. See also Cat´echisme, 138–9. Comte was inconsistent on this point. At first he suggested that the practical organs were in the middle, separating the intellectual and affective organs, but then he painted a more complex picture of their locations. Syst`eme, 1:685, 704–5. In the Cat´echisme, he wrote more clearly of the “opposition between the posterior mass of the brain, where reside personal instincts, and the anterior region, where are located . . . sympathetic impulsions and intellectual faculties.” Cat´echisme, 136. Ang`ele Kremer-Marietti, “Auguste Comte et la m´ethode subjective,” Auguste Comte et l’id´ee de science de l’homme (Paris: L’Harmattan, 2002), 272. See also Kremer-Marietti,

The Positivist Theory of the Mind

505

Intellectual activity had to be directed toward helping us overcome our egoism and develop altruism. In one version of the Tableau c´er´ebral, Comte wrote, “Our life is destined to improve as much as possible the fundamental order by consecrating our intelligence to the continual service of sociability, first in regards to our exterior condition,and then in regards to our interior nature, [which is] physical, intellectual, and especially moral.”305 The intellectual organs should serve in particular the three organs of sociability that made up the crucial part of the brain: attachment, veneration, and goodness. Indeed, one could argue that the development of the intellect and the social sympathies, the two influences that moderated the personal instincts, constituted the essence of morality. Intellectual organs were in the very front of the brain and communicated with the outside world via the sensory nerves. In this manner, they grew familiar with the outside world. Of the five intellectual organs, four related to conception and one to expression. Conception had two parts: contemplation or the observation of facts, which tended to be passive, and meditation, which was active and involved the discovery of laws. (Facts and laws constituted the main parts of human knowledge. Facts corresponded to our objective approach, whereas laws were associated with subjectivity presumably because their discovery involved the interpretation of facts.306 ) Two organs had to do with the contemplation of objective materials: the synthetic and the analytic.307 The synthetic mode of contemplation referred to the manner in which the mind received impressions of objects in the outside world; these impressions were necessary for constructing ideas.308 Comte believed that he had provided biological proof that every idea was ultimately an image of an observed object and thus had a basis in concrete reality. The analytic mode of contemplation had a more abstract character; it constructed “artificial” general

305

306 307

308

introduction to The Correspondence of John Stuart Mill and Auguste Comte, ed. Oscar A. Haac (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1995), 15. See Comte’s version of April 28, 1847, in the archives of the MAC, which he labelled “Classification positive des fonctions int´erieures du cerveau ou Tableau syst´ematique de l’existence morale.” See also the chart reproduced in Clauzade, “Le Statut e´ pist´emologique,” and his commentary, 123, 129. Syst`eme, 2:81. Comte prided himself on showing by means of these two organs that there was a biological basis for the divisions between the abstract and the concrete and between theory and practice. Comte to Bligni`eres, June 27, 1857, CG, 8:497. The organ of synthetic contemplation was anatomically close to the eyes and ears to receive sense impressions. Comte also discussed this process of receiving impressions in the third volume of the Syst`eme, where he insisted that the brain was not a passive recipient of outside impressions. Besides modifying impressions coming from the object, it furnished hypotheses to coordinate those sensations in an attempt to understand the character of the object whence they emanated. Syst`eme, 3:19.

506

The Early Development of the Religion of Humanity

conceptions by breaking down images coming from concrete synthetic observations.309 After contemplation came meditation, which generated thoughts and involved two organs: the inductive and the deductive. Both were “equally necessary.”310 The fifth and last intellectual organ was that of expression, which had to do with communicating conceptions and feelings. This organ was basically that of language.311 Executing the projects that were formed, the practical organs, which were in the middle of the brain, communicated with and modified the outside world via the motor nerves.312 There were three practical organs. Courage was necessary to undertake the basis of undertaking a project. Prudence guided the project. Perseverance was the key to the completion of the project. Responsible for practical success, these three traits – courage, prudence, and perseverance – made up a person’s character. They depended on the intellect and the heart for efficiency. For example, the goals of activity were set by the emotions. Comte’s “organology” had a prescriptive purpose, that is, to explain how best to achieve mental health and therefore social harmony.313 The key was consensus. He asserted that in all areas, “Life is characterized especially by universal consensus.”314 The eighteen organs had to work closely together.315 Consensus, rooted in biology, was also social 309

310

311

312

313 314 315

Ibid., 1:718. Synthesis was found more in the technical and aesthetic arts, whereas analysis was associated with science. Yet every intellectual operation ultimately depended on both of them. Comte tended to associate women with synthesis. Closer to the observatory organs, which supplied it with data, the inductive organ involved comparisons, generalizations, and the establishment of principles. It tried to establish the relations among phenomena in order to group them. This approach was the static one of determining resemblance or similitude. The deductive organ was a dynamic one, which looked for relations of succession in order to create a hierarchical order of phenomena. It worked by means of coordination, systematization, and the determination of consequences. Ibid., 1:719. Later in volume two, Comte explained that people with a theoretical intellect tend to be more deductive, whereas practicians were inductive. Ibid., 2:322. Involving the learning and invention of signs, expression was usually mimetic (involving gestures), oral, or written. It worked in lower species by means of gestures or acts, which reflected impulses. In higher species, oral and/or written language was particularly important. But any voluntary movement, such as a gesture, cry, or song, could also be considered a language. “Each superior species” had its own language. Cat´echisme, 144. Comte maintained that the organs of sensation and motion were not nerves, strictly speaking, though he sometimes used that term. He believed that the composition of these organs would never be known. Syst`eme, 1:686. “Organology” was an early name for “phrenology.” Clarke and Jacyna, Neuroscientific Concepts, 221. Syst`eme, 1:776. Several of them usually worked together to produce emotions, thoughts, or actions. For example, envy arose from the association of the destructive instinct with one of the other six egoistic instincts. Cat´echisme, 145.

The Positivist Theory of the Mind

507

in nature.316 Central to existence, the affections provided the key to consensus among the organs of the brain and among the members of society. As Comte liked to point out, one could never tire from loving, only from thinking or acting.317 It was best for one’s own development and that of society if the five intellectual functions served the three weak social penchants rather than the seven strong egoistic instincts, whose energy was a big attraction. If pulled from the egoistic instincts, the five intellectual organs could discover the means of accomplishing what the more social affections wanted. In turn, the growth of these affections helped develop the intellectual organs, which were the least energetic. Stability and harmony were based primarily on the cooperation of sentiments and intelligence, whose impulses stimulated activity.318 Mental operations developed chiefly “to clarify the activity commanded by some passion.”319 Indeed, without the goals set by activity, our mind and emotions would degenerate.320 Comte summed up his schema with the phrase, “To act by affection, and to think in order to act.”321 Comte’s system worked by consensus, based on a division of labor, and yet it was in constant danger of being disturbed, just as his notion of society was based on harmony, but a harmony that was always very fragile because of competition. Altruistic forces were always battling egoistic impulses, in both the brain and society at large. Checks and balances were crucial to maintain an equilibrium. If, for example, in the self, there was too much emotional stimulation, madness would result.322 Comte worried in particular that the intellect would upset harmony.323 The intellectual organs, if left to themselves, produced idle thoughts. The brain should remember that “the least attention depends always on some affection” and that it relied on the qualities 316 317 318

319

320

321 322 323

Ze¨ıneb Ben Sa¨ıd Cherni, “La Philosophie d’A. Comte et la biologie au XIXe si`ecle,” in Donzelli, La Biologia, 50–55, 57. Syst`eme, 1:690. Cat´echisme, 146. The best scenario was if benevolence and communication worked together because they were the highest faculties respectively of the sympathies and the intellect. Syst`eme, 1:688. In particular, the development of the “sympathetic instinct” was “the best way to fortify the synthetic spirit.” Comte to Bligni`eres, January 4, 1852, CG, 6:208. If the mind lacked direction from the emotions, “vague and incoherent contemplations” would result. Likewise, the active functions would suffer from lassitude and “ennui.” Syst`eme, 1:686–7. Moderation was the key, just as it was for Sigmund Freud. Wettley, “Les Id´ees d’instinct,” 52. Syst`eme, 1:688. He put the phrase in the Tableau c´er´ebral itself. A copy can be found in between pages 727 and 728 in Syst`eme, 1. Wettley, “Les Id´ees d’instinct,” 51; Jan Goldstein, The Post-revolutionary Self: Politics and Psyche in France, 1750–1850 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 310. Richard Vernon, “The Political Self: Auguste Comte and Phrenology,” History of European Ideas 7, no. 3 (1986): 284.

508

The Early Development of the Religion of Humanity

of character.324 Intellectuals, who tended to be dry and prone to ramblings due to their exaggerated rationality, needed not only strong, preferably altruistic emotions but the practical qualities associated with activity: courage, prudence, and perseverance. Reflecting his dismissal of several colleagues for their lack of energy, Comte wrote, “I have often had to make it clear . . . that the failure of the mind is almost always due even more to the dissoluteness of the heart or the feebleness of the character than to mental deficiency.”325 Indeed, usually it was an affective problem that led to difficulties, especially illnesses. There had to be a balance between oneself and others. If that balance were disrupted and especially if a person became too egotistical, he or she would not love anything; would live in a state of torpor, madness, or agitated instability; and would become ill.326 To be cured, one needed to live more openly and develop social ties. Thus doctors ultimately had to be moralists.327 Comte’s interest in the moral and psychological ramifications of group ties would be taken up later by Emile Durkheim. Comte recommended his hypothesis on the basis of its “simplicity,” “beauty,” and “utility.”328 Seeking greater legitimacy, he claimed he showed his Tableau c´er´ebral to different biologists, who approved of it. One of the professors at the Faculty of Medicine allegedly cited him as “an authority on biology.”329 To add to the scientific representation of the Tableau c´er´ebral, he called it the “principal discovery” of the first volume of the Syst`eme.330 What is striking is Comte’s persistent use of scientific language to discuss matters that could be considered intangible, if not metaphysical and spiritual. His chart of the brain’s organs had no basis in experimental reality. He admitted that it came from his own personal experience of the importance of the affections and that it needed verification. He recommended that anatomists use the “objective method” to determine the form, size, and structure of organs, but he rejected dissection as a means of determining the workings of the mind.331 In short, there was no “biological proof ” of Comte’s arguments regarding “cerebral synergy.”332 Richard Vernon 324 325 326

327 329 330 331

332

Syst`eme, 1:727. Often the intellect sought freedom by choosing egoism over altruism. Ibid. See also Annie Petit, “Le Corps scientifique,” 80. The affections, practical activities, and intelligence were associated with three parts of the body: the viscera, muscles, and nerves respectively. Most illnesses thus affected the viscera. Braunstein, “Auguste Comte et la philosophie de la m´edecine,” 170–71. Ibid., 172. 328 Syst`eme, 3491:734. See also Cat´echisme, 143. Comte to Audiffrent, May 6, 1851, CG, 6:70. This professor may have been Pierre Franc¸ois Rayer, who contributed to Comte’s Positivist Subsidy. Comte, “Cinqui`eme Confession annuelle,” May 27, 1850, CG, 6:163. Syst`eme, 1:678. See also ibid., 1:730, 734; Cat´echisme, 143. To study the brain, Comte suggested using common sense and comparative anatomy, especially the study of the evolution of the human race and animals. Syst`eme, 1:727.

The Positivist Theory of the Mind

509

suggests that Comte simply “projects public dramas” of competing interests into the “private interior” of the self, where organs battle for dominance. In society, consensus comes through cooperation and checks and balances, and he assumed that the same was true with the self.333 Besides being influenced by his social and political views, Comte’s chart was reflective of current scientific trends. It partook of the fashion in biological classification that was widespread in the nineteenth century. Freud would later present a picture of the mind composed of the ego, superego, and id – a picture that he also thought was biological. Both men’s theories reflect the growing interest in neuroscience in the nineteenth century. In seeking to understand the relations between the human organism and the organic and inorganic worlds, this developing science was influenced in the early nineteenth century, according to Edwin Clark and L. S. Jacyna, by the “romantic philosophy of nature.”334 One of the foremost philosophers of nature was Lorenz Oken, who was featured in the Positivist Calendar. Blainville introduced his ideas to Comte, who approved of his notions of classification and animal hierarchy.335 Like Oken and the romantic biologists, Comte believed to a certain extent in the unity of living beings, for he asserted that the “highest” animals were similar to humans in having organs of sentiment, intellect, and activity, a position that was also embraced by Gall and the eighteenthcentury sensualists but disliked by psychologists (namely Cousin) and the Catholic Church.336 Moreover, Comte was very interested in comparative anatomy. Many people around him, including PinelGrandchamp, Achille Foville, and Blainville, had been involved in this field. He thus seemed eager to join in the ongoing scientific battles regarding the brain and nervous system. However, once again his refusal to keep abreast of recent developments hurt him. By the 1840s, theories of cerebral localization such as Gall’s had already been discredited in France. Comte’s effort to maintain this direction in scientific thought may have damaged positivism’s reputation.337 At the same time that he was trying to represent his theory of the brain as scientific, Comte could not free himself of theological baggage. He called this “Positive Classification of the Eighteen 333 335 336 337

Vernon, “The Political Self,” 272. 334 Syst`eme, 1:2. Jean-Franc¸ois Braunstein, “Comte, de la nature a` l’Humanit´e,” in Philosophies de la nature, ed. Olivier Bloch (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, Paris, 2000), 262. Cat´echisme, 141; Cours, 1:858. See also Clarke and Jacyna, Neuroscientific Concepts, 38–41, 269, 271. The theories of Gall’s critic, Pierre Flourens, who believed in the unity of intelligence and the “existence of the soul as a separate entity,” were on the rise in the 1840s. Clarke and Jacyna, Neuroscientific Concepts, 284–5.

510

The Early Development of the Religion of Humanity

Functions of the Mind” the “Systematic Tableau of the Soul.” In the Cours, Comte had rejected any reference to the soul, which he considered the theological predecessor of le moi, that is, the Id´eologues’ and Cousin’s unified self; both the soul and le moi were illusory.338 Convinced of the scientific basis of his schema, which he likened to a taxonomy, Comte now maintained that this “old term” – “soul” – was “purified” of “mystical” connotations and could be adapted to “modern reason.” His watchword was always continuity. As shown with the Positivist Calendar, he did not want to disturb people’s habits and have them shrink from his doctrine due to fear of the new. So he revived the term “soul.” The Positivist version of the soul did not allude to a unified self that existed from the start but to a state of equilibrium among intellectual and affective functions that was arrived at with difficulty. In effect, the term “soul” referred to the harmony between the mind and the heart (which controlled the practical organs).339 Comte’s cerebral theory had instrumental value to him precisely because of his religion. As a Lamarckian convinced of the importance of exercising organs to strengthen them, he believed that biology posed a question that sociology alone could solve, for only by living in society and “relating everything to Humanity” could one develop the superior but weak sympathetic instincts, those related to altruism, and repress “the most energetic” inferior instincts, those related to personal interests, without completely negating the latter. (After all, the personal instincts were important to material survival; they simply needed to be subordinated to penchants related to altruism.340 ) Thus Comte’s theory of the brain was, to him, the “principal basis of the demonstrated religion.”341 The reason is that “every religion necessarily has an identical basis and goal: to know and direct human nature.”342 His Tableau c´er´ebral was basically his picture of human nature in scientific guise. It represented in part his delayed response to Mill’s criticism that he had no theory of the formation of human nature. Although Comte had rejected such criticism before, he now wrote that theories of human nature “must always dominate or control the speculations” of sociology.343 Concerned about grounding his religion in biology, he sought to naturalize the love of Humanity, that is, to make it part of the brain and thus the human body. The 338 339 340 341 342

Cours, 1:857. Syst`eme, 1:683. See also Comte, “Cinqui`eme Confession annuelle,” May 27, 1850, CG, 6:161, Clauzade, “Le Statut e´ pist´emologique,” 118. Syst`eme, 1:692. Comte believed that the nature of most people was a combination of egoistic and sociable instincts. See also Cat´echisme, 64; Cours, 1:857. Comte to Profumo, March 7, 1851, CG, 6:30. Comte to Barbot de Chement, August 23, 1850, CG, 5:180. 343 Syst`eme, 2:348.

Positivist Library

511

love of this outside object, Humanity, was merely a development of a natural impulse, which he also called “humanity.” In effect, there was a perfect accord between our best innermost sentiment and the object of all our thoughts, actions, and feelings. Peter Bowler is mistaken in asserting that Comte “could not escape the Enlightenment’s belief that human nature is essentially fixed.” Comte did connect biological and social progress. This connection was not made later by Spencer, as Bowler maintains.344 In addition, Comte was eager to use his pseudo-biological theory to attack political economy, which Mill had upheld as important. Political economy presented men as driven by their calculations, a theory that implied that people’s conduct and social life in general were determined solely by intellectual operations. Comte insisted that the emotions also had a role in activity and social relations. Not everything was reducible to the cash nexus, against which Marx also railed.345 po sitivist library Besides devising a calendar and a set of sacraments and charting the brain, Comte devoted himself to classifying books in the 1850s. A young engineer asked him for a “small brochure” listing the books one needed to study in order to reform one’s education and understand positivism.346 Because he and many proletarians such as Jacquemin asked him for advice on what to read, Comte created a kind of positivist canon of 150 books, which he called the “Biblioth`eque du prol´etaire” or “The Library of the Proletarian.” In the Syst`eme, Comte changed the name to the “Positivist Library of the Nineteenth Century.” In October 1851, Thunot printed a three-page brochure to publicize it.347 Again, it reflects Comte’s interest in taxonomy, that is, classification. The first category of books was “poetry,” or literature, and included authors from different periods and nations: Homer, Ovid, Dante, Cervantes, Jean de La Fontaine, Jean Racine, Shakespeare, Fielding, and so forth. The only nineteenth-century authors on the list were Manzoni, Chateaubriand, Sir Walter Scott, Byron, and Goethe. The second category was science, and like the first, it contained thirty volumes. Almost all the books were by French scientists, such as 344 346 347

Bowler, Evolution, 99. 345 Lecourt, “On Marxism,” 271–2, 279. Charles Decomberousse to Comte, October 26, 1850, MAC. He hoped to come out with a new list of one hundred books once the educational system was renovated; being better educated, people could dispense with many of the manuals and read only the poetic and moral works on a regular basis. Syst`eme, 4:405.

512

The Early Development of the Religion of Humanity

Condorcet, Lavoisier, Charles Robin, Claude Bernard, Broussais, and Lamarck.348 Most works were on mathematics or biology.349 Comte featured his own two treatises on geometry and astronomy. The biggest category was the third one, that of history, with sixty volumes. Besides books by explorers and geographers, such as James Cook and Conrad Malte-Brun, Comte included many of the canonical works in historiography, including those by Herodotus, Thucydides, Tacitus, Benvenuto Cellini, Voltaire, Robertson, Hume, and Gibbon. There were some nineteenth-century historians. Henry Hallam’s book on medieval Europe and Arnold Heeren’s books on ancient and modern history graced the list. The work on the French Revolution that Comte chose to honor was that of Franc¸ois Auguste Mignet, a moderate who helped revive Danton’s reputation.350 Finally, the last section was called “Philosophie, morale et religion,” a category that he later renamed “Synth`ese.” It comprised thirty works, including those by Aristotle, Augustine, St. Bernard, Thomas a` Kempis, Bacon, Descartes, Pascal, Bossuet, Hume, de Mastre, Condorcet, Cabanis, and Gall. The Bible was also included. Moreover, Comte featured Littr´e’s essays on positivism and Lewes’s History of Philosophy. Comte’s effort to create a canon is in itself interesting. It reflects his encyclopedic interests, his urge to control, and his knowledge of human nature. He understood that humans liked to learn about individuals and were inclined to venerate them. Indeed, his list of books featured authors in the Positivist Calendar, which it intended to complement. In both the Calendar and the Positivist Library, he suggested that famous poets, scholars, and philosophers of the past should be remembered as models and fonts of knowledge. He did not dwell on larger social and intellectual movements as he did in the Cours, for such movements were more abstract and less compelling.351 Now he wanted the contributions of individuals to be recognized. He asserted that to remember these past heroes in a fully appreciative 348

349 350

Comte included Claude Bernard’s early work on physiology. Bernard would become a famous positivist scientist but was hostile to Comte’s dogmatism. Comte also added a German book published in 1845: Johannes M¨uller’s Manuel de physiologie. It was infused with assumptions of the “romantic philosophy of nature.” Littr´e wrote a review of M¨uller’s book for the Revue des deux mondes in early 1846. Comte promised to read Littr´e’s “audacious radical critique,” which attacked M¨uller’s references to the Creator’s “wisdom.” Comte to Mill, May 6, 1846, CG, 4:7. Despite this weakness, the book pleased Comte, who had his own copy rebound by Delano´e, a bookseller on November 1846. See Delano´e, bill to Comte for rebinding books, November 17, 1746, Documents: Factures acquitt´es, MAC; Comte’s copy of the book in his Biblioth`eque Usuel, II, MAC. On Bernard, see Canguilhem, “Emile Littr´e,” 279. On M¨uller, see Clarke and Jacyna, Neuroscientific Concepts, 138. For more on his selections, see Petit, “La Comm´emoration,” 180. Pilbeam, Republicanism, 24. 351 Petit, “La Comm´emoration,” 180.

Positivist Library

513

manner, one had to read their works. A demanding teacher who believed people were naturally undisciplined, Comte believed it was his sacerdotal duty to “direct the good minds”of the people in their choice of books in order to counter the “intellectual and moral ravages” of “disordered reading” habits.352 He was not alone in worrying about the spread of reading. Indeed, upon becoming minister of public instruction, Carnot had launched a program to create libraries for the people in the various arrondissements of Paris and communes of France, and there was much discussion as to what books should be included in them. Around the same time, Cavaignac, the new president, ordered the printing of a series of books targeting the working class in order to teach them duties and make them less threatening.353 For his part, Comte aimed to educate people by introducing to them books written in other civilizations and in other times in order to broaden their outlooks and sympathies.354 The Positivist Library also reflects the development of modern marketing; Comte wanted to replicate the success of Gervais Charpentier, who in 1838 came up with the idea of launching a series, called the Biblioth`eque Charpentier. It consisted of compact, inexpensive books that the public could easily afford. Comte wrote on the cover of his brochure that the books in his Biblioth`eque de prol´etaire were “equivalent to those of Charpentier’s collection.”355 Comte’s canon is not remarkable. It consists of books that were well respected, with a mix of conservative and more leftist writers. What is striking is his neglect of nineteenth-century contributions to thought. Many famous historical writers of his time were not featured: Louis Blanc, Guizot, Lamartine, Michelet, Thomas Macaulay, and Thomas Carlyle. The choice of books was Eurocentric and, moreover, nationalistic in featuring French authors. The weight of the ancients is also evident as many of the works, especially in the category of history, have to do with this period. But Comte’s interest in the Middle Ages is clear, especially in that the writer who has the most works is Sir Walter Scott. Seven of his novels are on the list. Comte’s interest in the “Orient” is also clear in that both the Koran and the famous collection of Arabian stories, Thousand and One Nights, are 352 353

354 355

Cat´echisme, 49. See also Syst`eme, 4:405–6. Isabelle Olivero, L’Invention de la collection: De la diffusion de la litt´erature et des savoirs a` la formation du citoyen au XIXe si`ecle (Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, 1999), 36, 39. Frederic Harrison, “Biblioth`eque positiviste d’Auguste Comte,” RO 19 (September 1887): 157. See first page of brochure published by Thunot. He also repeated this line in the Cat´echisme, 51.

514

The Early Development of the Religion of Humanity

included in the first and fourth categories.356 His list includes only two works by female authors: La Princesse de Cl`eves by Madame de Lafayette (in literature) and the M´emoires of Madame de Motteville (in history). Again, more modern novelists, such as Jane Austen and George Sand, were omitted. One large gap in the list relates to the arts. Only Johann Winckelmann’s book is included, and it concerns ancient art. There is nothing at all about music, although it was one of Comte’s passions. Finally, Comte’s concern with his own health is evident in the fact that his list includes the Art of Prolonging Human Life, which was by Christoph Hufeland, the founder of macrobiotics, and Louis Cornaro’s Discourses on the Sober Life.357 Comte revised the list in September 1852 and inserted it in the Cat´echisme, published the next month. He revised it yet again to add it to the fourth volume of the Syst`eme, published in July 1853.358 There was a fourth edition that was published from his annotations after his death in Robinet’s Notice sur l’oeuvre et la vie d’Auguste Comte (1860).359 The modifications in these four editions were minor. Comte removed the works of men with whom he had argued: Charles Robin, Littr´e, and Lewes. He added those of new favorites, such as Segond. He also inserted scientific works by Anthelme Richerand, Paul-Joseph Barthez, Adam Smith, and Georges Buffon.360 In literature, he added Chateaubriand’s Martyrs, and in the fourth category, he inserted Jacques Bossuet’s Histoire des Variations Protestantes, reflecting his own sense of persecution and his interest in religious ecumenism. He seemed to recognize the lacuna of the arts and so added Leonardo da Vinci’s book on painting, Andr´e-Ernest-Modeste Gr´etry’s work on music, and various works on aesthetics by Barthez and Diderot.361 Antoine Etex’s book on drawing was inserted in the list of 1852 but was then removed from the list published in the Syst`eme after the artist and Comte had a quarrel. In the fourth edition, Comte added his last work, the Synth`ese. Finally, he inserted one more book by a woman, Conseils d’une m`ere by Madame de Lambert, as if to remind his readers 356 357 358

359

360 361

Comte had both books in his library. See Comte’s Biblioth`eque Usuel, I, MAC. On Hufeland, see Comte to Audiffrent, June 22, 1855, CG, 8:64. Comte weighed his food according to Hufeland’s recommendations. Deroisin, Comte, 93. He made some modifications in these two lists. For example, he removed Littr´e’s essays on positivism. Comte did not mention the name of the book. It was probably Conservation, r´evolution, et positivisme. He called parts of it incoherent, and he did not appreciate Littr´e’s suggestion that there were socialist elements in positivism. Comte to Laurent, September 14, 1852, CG, 364–5; Comte to Deullin, November 18, 1852, CG, 6:424. Pierre Laffitte, “Bibliographie Positiviste: Des Diverse Editions successives de la Biblioth`eque positiviste,” RO 20 (May 1888): 312–54. Laffitte includes all four editions. See also his corrections in “Une Rectification,” RO 23 (September 1889): 173–83. Smith’s work was History of Astronomy. Comte added Diderot’s Essai sur le Beau. He also inserted Diderot’s famous Lettre sur les sourds et sur les aveugles. On Gr´etry, see Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 316.

Positivist Library

515

that his goal in creating the list was to encourage not only intellectual cultivation but a moral upbringing.362 As Frederic Harrison said, in judging the selections, Comte wanted to recommend books that would further “the development of all of human nature.”363 362 363

Cat´echisme, 52–5; Syst`eme 4:557–61. Frederic Harrison, “Biblioth`eque positiviste d’Auguste Comte,” RO 19 (September 1887): 157.

Chapter 10

The Development of the Positivist Movement

Thus true union depends far more on the heart than on the mind. Comte, “Deuxi`eme Circulaire annuelle,” March 24, 1851

popularity of po sitivism Since the Revolution of 1848, Comte had pushed the Positivist Society to publish policy papers and to garner converts. He had also done much proselytizing, refining the religious contours of his doctrine and printing a chart of the brain, a calendar, and a positivist canon; he wished to express the gist of his ideas in a visible fashion to enable even those remotely curious to take them in at a glance. He seemed to understand that in the more urban, industrialized society, people were increasingly pressed for time and did not want to expend the effort to read tomes of philosophy such as the Cours. Aspiring to popularity and recognizing the force of public opinion in the new, more democratic age, Comte was influenced by both Girardin and Charpentier, who taught him the importance of reaching out to a mass audience with reading material presented in a simplified, compressed format. Yet, despite Comte’s efforts, the positivist movement did not grow much. By November 1849, there were only thirty-five members in the Positivist Society; a year later there were forty-five.1 Comte’s friend Claudel, who liked Joan of Arc, left for unknown reasons.2 There was, however, one new member who pleased Comte: Joseph Lonchampt. Born in 1824, he had been one of Comte’s students at the Ecole Polytechnique. After graduating, he became an artillery officer, farmer, and medical student.3 At one point, he thought about joining the Franciscan order to help workers. Lonchampt began to write to Comte in September 1846, telling him that he was “the most eminent philosophical genius of our 1 2 3

Comte to C´elestin de Bligni`eres, November 1, 1849, CG, 5:107l; Comte to Audiffrent, October 28, 1850, CG, 5:215. In 1850, a third of the members resided outside of Paris. Comte to Laffitte, September 4, 1849, CG, 5:69. Fisher to Edger, June 8, 1856, MAC; Comte to Laffitte, October 9, 1850, CG, 5:207; Lonchampt to Comte, March 8, 1857, MAC; “N´ecrologie: Mort de M. Joseph Lonchampt,” RO, 2d ser., 2. (July 1890): 228.

516

Popularity of Positivism

517

epoch, the worthy successor of Bacon and Descartes.” Comte had a “great influence” on him because he made him see the weakness of the metaphysical stage in which he was stuck.4 Referring to his “true affection” for Comte, he announced his discipleship. However, he admitted that in many ways he remained a Catholic, for he believed in “supernatural facts.”5 He would not have joined Comte’s movement but for the Religion of Humanity, which greatly reassured him. He explained to another disciple, “I did not fully rally to Positivism until it took up a religious direction, for I have always profoundly felt the necessity of a religion and a spiritual power to put an end to the revolutionary crisis.”6 Like Barbot de Chement, he urged Comte to refrain from criticizing Catholicism. Lonchampt lamented the “bad impression produced by the numerous attacks [in the Cours] against the faith – an impression that makes many people confuse . . . positivism with immoral and subversive atheism.” To Lonchampt, positivism was very different from atheism because it was not destructive and did not seek to answer questions that it deemed irresolvable in an affirmative or negative manner.7 According to him, positivists need not renounce Catholicism; they simply had to liberate their politics and morality from theology. Even priests could be persuaded to embrace the “natural philosophy of the definitive state of human reason.”8 Hopeful about reorganizing society along positivist lines, Lonchampt joined the Positivist Society in 1850 and wrote a positivist brochure, Essai sur la pri`ere, which went through several editions.9 Comte was delighted when Lonchampt finally gave up his medical studies and devoted himself to banking because he could become a generous positivist patron.10 He did, in fact, become one of Comte’s most important disciples. Another key disciple was Georges Audiffrent. He was born in Martinique in 1823 of a French father and Creole mother. At age eleven, he came to France and eventually attended the Ecole Polytechnique, where he became fascinated by Comte and read the Cours.11 He enjoyed the first volumes, which revealed to him the growing domain of the sciences, but he resisted the last ones on sociology. He later told Comte, “I will not hide from you, Sir, the repugnance that I felt in reading about social physics, whose exposition overturned all my ideas. It was a new world that was presented before 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Lonchampt to Comte, September 1, 1846, MAC. Lonchampt to Comte, October 8, 1846, MAC. Lonchampt to Edger, November 8, 1855, MAC. Lonchampt to Comte, January 20, 1847. Lonchampt to Comte, October 8, 1846, MAC. It was first published in 1852 in Lyon; a second edition came out in 1853 in Paris. Comte to Henry Hutton, June 1, 1854, CG, 7:213. Syst`eme, 2:x. 11 Georges Audiffrent to Robinet, January (no day), 1878, MAC.

518

The Development of the Positivist Movement

me.” He did not approve of its anti-metaphysical stance, which was opposed to his two “idols,” Rousseau and Voltaire.12 Yet in 1845 he overcame his hesitation and became a positivist. Like others attracted to Comte, Audiffrent believed positivism held the solution to the anarchy of the times, resurrected “beliefs in the family,” and inspired people to leave aside their apathy.13 He liked Comte’s emphasis on cultivating one’s interior and his “religion,” which seemed to offer the only way to unite “hearts” in the midst of chaos.14 Audiffrent attended Comte’s course on astronomy in early 1848 but left Paris after the Revolution to devote himself to farming on his 140-hectare estate in Provence. He worked to convert others in his area to positivism. From time to time, he went to Paris, where he stayed for several weeks with Comte on rue Monsieur le Prince.15 In 1851, he joined the Positivist Society and began a regular correspondence with the master. Each wrote approximately one hundred letters. As with other young men, Comte acted as a father figure ready to dispense advice.16 He was concerned that Audiffrent lacked direction because his wealth had led to self-indulgence and relieved him of financial worry. He urged him to find a profession.17 He was delighted when Audiffrent decided in 1854 to become a doctor, following the example of many other positivists. He chose to study medicine for the “intellectual and moral discipline.”18 He started medical school in Marseille, visited the faculty at Montpellier, and finished his education in Paris.19 By 1857, Comte was referring to him as “my doctor.”20 12 13 14 15

16

17 18 19 20

Georges Audiffent to Comte, November 8, 1850, MAC. For his background, see Audiffent to Comte, January 17, 1851; Lefort to Comte, October 15, 1853, MAC. Audiffrent to Comte, July 24, 1851, MAC. Audiffrent to Comte, April 4, 1852, MAC. See Audiffrent’s reference to living in Comte’s “intimacy” for “some time.” Comte frequently urged him to spend three months a year with him to offset his sense of isolation in Marseille. Audiffrent to Comte, August 13, 1854, MAC. See also Comte, “Onzi`eme Confession Annuelle,” October 12, 1856, CG, 8:313; Comte to Hadery, May 15, 1856, CG, 8:255; Audiffrent to Comte, October 22, 1850, MAC. Comte also gave him advice about choosing a wife. Audiffrent did finally marry, but his wife died under mysterious circumstances, perhaps by suicide. One positivist described this marriage as having had a “deplorable ending” due to Audiffrent’s arrogant and controlling character. To avoid gossip, the family presented the death of the wife as a “fatal accident.” Lefort to Comte, October 15, 1853, MAC. On Comte’s fulfilling the role of father and the loss of Audiffrent’s own father, see Audiffrent to Comte, December 29, 1850, February 11, April 30, and July 14, 1851, MAC. Comte to Audiffrent, July 27, 1854, CG, 7:234. See also Lefort to Comte, July 30, 1852, MAC. Audiffrent to Comte, August 13, 1854, MAC. Audiffrent settled down in Marseille in 1854. Comte to Hadery, August 30, 1855, CG, 8:108. Comte to Louis Comte, January 26, 1857, CG, 8:390. However, Comte seemed to prefer Robinet, who he believed understood him better.

Popularity of Positivism

519

Another new member of the Positivist Society was Auguste Hadery, who was born in Lyon in 1818.21 His father, a wealthy businessman of peasant stock and an ultra-royalist Catholic, had sent him to a rigid Jesuit school. Hadery found it hypocritical and corrupt. Due to his “tendencies toward emancipation,” he was expelled.22 Afterwards, he was sent to live with a country priest, who tutored him. He eventually studied engineering at the Ecole Centrale in Paris. After graduating, he took a job in industry in Lyon but soon became tired of manufacturing. In 1840, he returned to Paris, where he enrolled in public courses in mathematics and the sciences. He eventually found a job in a railroad company in Lyon. One of the engineers in the company was Tourasse, who had written a book with Franc¸ois-No¨el Mellet, a former classmate of Comte’s at the lyc´ee in Montpellier and at the Ecole Polytechnique. Tourasse introduced Hadery to Mellet, who hired him to work in his railroad business in 1842. Hadery spent most of his evenings with Mellet, whom he found intelligent and kind, though somewhat cold. Mellet had been an adept of Saint-Simonianism and Owenism and encouraged Hadery’s budding interest in socialism.23 Hadery became part of a Fourierist circle in Lyon, where he was regarded as “one of the most practical members.”24 Besides Fourierism, Hadery became attracted to Proudhonism and eventually befriended Proudhon, whom he regarded as “one of the most remarkable thinkers of our epoch.”25 He agreed with Proudhon that the bourgeoisie was materialistic, wasteful, and cruel to the working class.26 Perhaps because of his increasing socialist convictions, he grew increasingly disgusted by the dishonest business dealings of Mellet and especially his partner Charles-Joseph Henry. After four years of working with them, Hadery left. He went to a “Phalansterian Congress” and was much affected by Victor Considerant, the chief Fourierist.27 After frequenting many Fourierist meetings in Lyon, he resolved to consume only what he 21 22 23

24 25 26 27

Shortly after joining Comte’s movement, Hadery made a “general confession,” which was a biographical sketch. Auguste Hadery to Comte, May 22, 1851, MAC. Auguste Hadery, “Histoire de ma vie,” first installment, January 16, 1854, MAC. Comte did not like Mellet, whom he considered an immoral egoist. He told Hadery that Mellet had been so entranced by Robert Owen in the late 1820s that he would have gone to New Harmony, the Owenite community in Indiana, if he had had more capacity for commitment. See Comte to Hadery, December 14, 1855, CG, 8:159; Hadery to Comte, December 8, 1855, and October 16, 1856, MAC. On Mellet, see Pickering, Comte, 1:371, 391, 396, 405, 417, 435n36, 454. Hadery to Comte, October 16, 1856, MAC. Hadery to Charles Sauria, May 29, 1849, November 17, 1849, MAC. Hadery to Comte, December 13, 1852, CG, 7:296–7, 301. See also Hadery to Comte, August 14, 1853, MAC. Hadery to Charles Sauria, November 11, 1848, MAC.

520

The Development of the Positivist Movement

produced with his own hands.28 He and another Fourierist enthusiast Edmond Sauria bought a farm of eighty acres at Vattis in the Auvergne.29 Like Audiffrent, he devoted himself to cultivating the land, much to Mellet’s disdain.30 Affected by the utopian socialists’ ideas of association, Hadery hired the “worst class”of proletarians, worked with them in the fields, and took care of all their needs, including their moral education. He wanted to rehabilitate practical work as socially beneficial and make good use of his wealth.31 But Hadery grew disillusioned with Fourierism, which he thought did not respond to the “pressing needs of the epoch.”32 He began to look around for other creeds. He had first become interested in positivism in 1842, when he and Mellet used to talk at length in the evenings. At the time, Mellet was reading the Cours. He had attended Comte’s lectures of 1826 and was curious to see how positive philosophy had evolved.After talking with him about positivism, Hadery decided to accompany Mellet in 1844 on a visit to Comte’s astronomy course.33 In 1845, he read Comte’s Discours sur l’esprit positif and his Trait´e d’astronomie populaire. When he was again in Paris in 1849, he assiduously followed Comte’s course, where he was struck by the idea that workers had to represent themselves. He also began to read the Cours, which made him immediately cognizant of the “inanity” of the phalanstery, “the miserable palliative that had seemed . . . the supreme panacea of the social crisis.” He recognized that people could not be united in a commune – a “community of material interests” – for it inevitably became disturbed by “a thousand divergent passions.”34 Hadery now believed that the Religion of Humanity represented the best way to unite men and women. Dropping his lukewarm deism, Hadery delighted in announcing that he was an outright atheist – a position that must have made Comte cringe.35 The worker Belpaume, who was a core member of the Positivist Society, persuaded him that even though he might not completely agree with Comte’s doctrine and did not wish to join another reformist 28 29

30 31 32 33 34 35

Pierre Laffitte, “Commemoration fun`ebre de M. Auguste Hadery,” RO 13 (1884): 280. Charles Sauria, “Commemoration fun`ebre de M. Auguste Hadery,” RO 13 (1884): 288. Charles Sauria was Edmond’s brother. See also Jean-Claude Wartelle, “Auguste Hadery (1818-1884), agriculteur positiviste dans l’Allier,” Etudes bourbonnaises 17 (Feb. 2004), 213–15. Hadery to Comte, December 8, 1855, MAC. Hadery was hurt by Mellet’s attitude because he was genuinely fond of him. Hadery to Robinet, June 21, 1858, MAC. Hadery to Sauria, February 24, 1849, MAC. Hadery to Comte, December 8, 1855, MAC. Hadery said that Mellet went “assiduously” to the first introductory lessons. Hadery to Comte, December 13, 1852, CG, 7:298. See also Wartelle, “Hadery,” 215. Indeed, Hadery said he was seen in his region as very “dangerous” because he did not espouse a religious position. Hadery to Comte, November 18, 1855, MAC.

Popularity of Positivism

521

organization, he should consider joining the club.36 Belpaume said, “Don’t you appreciate the course that you just took from Comte? Wouldn’t you be happy to express your gratitude to him in some way?” After all, “Mr. Comte does not demand from his adherents blind submission or entire conviction.”37 Although recognizing that he was “far more revolutionary than positivist,” Hadery decided to join Comte’s movement in March 1850.38 He was interviewed first by Comte, who queried him on his emancipation from theology. Hadery passed the “examination” and was allowed to join the Positivist Society.39 Eventually he became friends with other positivists, such as Audiffrent, C´esar Lefort, Fortun´e Lapierre, and C´elestin de Bligni`eres. Comte offered to be his “spiritual adviser” in May 1851.40 By 1853, Comte was calling Hadery “the best model of the positivist practician and patrician.”41 He called his plan of creating a workers’ association an “admirable model of practical positivism.”42 Hadery became increasingly open with Comte about all sorts of matters from his health to his visitors, whom he often attempted to steer toward positivism. One such visitor was Madame Reverchon, whom Hadery found “nearly emancipated” but very domineering. She came from Paris to visit him in 1854 and became excited about positivism, especially after reading Comte’s Cat´echisme positiviste, which targeted women.43 Emphasizing her enthusiasm for de Vaux, she sought to be initiated into positivism upon her return to Paris. She met Comte in October 1854, but she never seemed to become much involved in his movement. Perhaps her husband, Jacques, a well-known Fourierist, did not approve.44 Several years later, the Reverchons went to a Fourierist colony in Texas.45 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

44

45

Hadery to Comte, September 11, 1852, MAC. Belpaume, quoted by Hadery in letter to Comte, April 21, 1857, MAC. Hadery to Robinet, June 21, 1858, MAC. Pierre Laffitte, “Commemoration de Hadery,” 271. Auguste Hadery to Comte, May 22, 1851, MAC. Comte to Hadery, November 10, 1853, CG, 7:140. Comte to Audiffrent, July 29 and September 20, 1851, CG, 6:121, 166. See also Comte to Bligni`eres, May 12, 1851, CG, 6:84; Hadery to Comte, September 17, 1854, MAC. Hadery to Comte, September 5, 1854, MAC. Hadery tried to arrange a marriage between Edmond Sauria and Madame Reverchon’s seventeen-year-old daughter. But Comte was not supportive because he believed she was too young for him. See also Hadery to Comte, May 20, June 9, 1855, MAC; Hadery to Sauria, November 11, 1848, MAC; Comte to Hadery, September 11, 1854, CG, 7:261. Comte sent her a copy of his Cat´echisme in 1854. See the folder, “Circulation des ouvrages d’Auguste Comte,” MAC; Comte to Hadery, May 22, June 14, 1855, CG, 8:56, 61. Both Jacques Reverchon and his wife visited Comte in October 1856 because their dated calling cards are in the MAC. Jacques Reverchon (1810–79) was involved in the Fourierist community in Algeria in the 1840s, returned for a while to France, and then joined Victor Considerant’s Texan colony,

522

The Development of the Positivist Movement

Hadery had trouble finding a suitable bourgeois wife willing to settle down with him in Vattis. Comte recommended that he seek out peasant or working-class women in his area, but Hadery found them unworthy from a physical and moral point of view.46 His inability to find a wife tormented him. He worried that there was within him “something of the nature of the woman.”47 One positivist later called him a dreamy, timid Bohemian who was completely ineffective in dealing with others.48 Still another close disciple was Jean-Franc¸ois-Eug`ene Robinet.49 Born in Lorraine in 1825, Robinet began medical school in Strasbourg. He came to Paris in 1847 to continue his medical studies and was wounded in the Revolution of 1848, where he armed himself to help overthrow Louis-Philippe. In 1849, encouraged by his colleague Dr. Louis Auguste Segond, Robinet began to attend Comte’s public lectures. Wanting to meet the master, he prevailed upon Segond to introduce him in 1851. Dr. Robinet joined the Positivist Society in August of that year. By this point he had been married to Marie Weyer for three years. She soon converted to positivism. The Robinets had a second, positivist wedding in Comte’s chapel on Christmas day 1851 to sanctify and strengthen their ties to each other. Taking the vow of “eternal widowhood” had become “one of the best practical signs” of being a religious positivist.50 Their recently born daughter, suitably named Clotilde Sophie Virginie, was baptized at the same ceremony. The godmother was Sophie Bliaux, who agreed to the honor despite feeling socially inferior. The godfather was Dr. Auguste Segond.51 Besides Comte, the parents, and the godparents,

46 47 48 49

50

51

La R´eunion, in 1856. Charles Sauria, Edmond’s brother, introduced Hadery to Reverchon. Michel Cordillot, “Au Texas! Aperc¸us biographiques sur quelques membres de la colonie de R´eunion,” Cahiers Charles Fourier, 4 (1993):121–2. I thank Jonathan Beecher for this reference. See also Beecher, Victor Considerant, 326–45; Wartelle, “Hadery,” 216–8. Comte to Hadery, July 1, 1856, CG, 8:276. Comte then told him to remain celibate but to find a nice servant like Sophie Bliaux to whom he could grow close. Comte to Hadery, September 17, 1852, CG, 6:370. Lefort to Comte, July 30. 1852, MAC. Robinet eventually became a mayor of the sixth arrondissement in Paris during the siege of 1870, wrote various works of history, and occupied a high administrative position at the Mus´ee Carnavalet. He also wrote a biography of Comte in 1860, which he revised in 1864 and enlarged in 1891. In addition, he collaborated on La Politique positive, founded by S´emerie in 1873, and the Revue Occidentale, founded by Laffitte. For information on Dr. Robinet, see Corra, Lettres, 13–15. Comte to A.Laurent, January 2, 1852, CG, 6:206. Comte performed at least one marriage and two presentations in 1853 and changed some of the rules on administering them. See Comte to Audiffrent, July l4, 1853, CG, 7:84. Comte’s register of baptisms, entitled “Religion de l’Humanit´e: Sacrement de la pr´esentation,” p. 2, MAC. See also Comte, Baptismal Certificate of Clotilde-SophieVirginie Robinet, December 25, 1851, Papiers Emile Corra, 17 AS (7), Dossier 1, AN. See also Comte to Robinet, January 5, February 27, 1855, CG, 8:5, 32.

Popularity of Positivism

523

twenty-eight people were present at the double ceremony.52 Raising their children to be positivists, the Robinets represented to Comte the “model household.”53 Comte found Robinet “very interesting.”54 They became close as Comte took on the role of counselor when Robinet struggled with the death of his mother, Virginie Chardoillet, in March 1852. Robinet had persuaded her to convert to Comte’s Religion of Humanity before she died. Thanking Comte for being “so good” to him during the period of his mother’s illness and teaching him the importance of resignation, he wrote, “You have made me really feel in this sad circumstance what the cult of Humanity consists of and what to expect from it.”55 He took great consolation in Comte’s idea that even when his mother was gone, she continued to live in his heart and his memories. Indeed, she became “purer and more loved.”56 Comte’s own sentimentality seemed to allow Robinet to give vent to his emotions. Approving of Robinet’s effusions, Comte hoped he would pursue the encyclopedic studies necessary to become a positivist priest. Robinet hesitated because he felt unworthy of such a position. Once he received his final medical degree and settled down in late 1854 in a village near Meaux, he found he had little time for anything but attending to his new patients and growing family.57 He remained, however, an avid supporter of Comte and boasted about his family being the “most completely devoted to positivism.”58 Another daughter, Th`erese Elisabeth Robinet, had received the sacrament of presentation on July 7, 1853.59 When the oldest child, Gabriel, turned 52

53 54 55 56 57

58 59

Those who attended this third positivist marriage included Charles Robin, L. S´egond, Agathe Guichard, L. Bourdoux, Justine Pi´eton, Eug´enie Delhorbe, Charles and Elise de Capellen, H. de Mont`egre, Laffitte, Leblais, Francelle, Foley, Audiffrent, Pi´eton, Jacquemin, Fili, Lonchampt, Jundzill, and Pedro Contreras Elizalde. Comte, register entitled “Mariages positivistes,” p. 3, MAC; “Explication du registre des mariages tenus par Auguste Comte,” RO, 2d ser., 35 (January 1907):106; Corra, introduction to Lettres, 8–9. Marie Robinet had to sign for Sophie Bliaux, who could not write. See also Comte to Audiffrent, October 21, 1851, CG, 6:182. Comte to Audiffrent, “Septi`eme Confession Annuelle,” May 28, 1852, CG, 6:282. Comte to Henry Hutton, July 6, 1854, CG, 7:226. See also Madame Robinet to Comte, February 7, 1856, MAC. Comte to Laffitte, August 8, 1851, CG, 6:132. Robinet to Comte, August 17, 1851, MAC. Robinet to Comte, February 1, 1852, MAC. Robinet to Comte, August 20, 1854, December 9, 1854, MAC. At first he lived in Jouarre but then he moved to La Fert´e-sous-Jouarre because he was being harassed by a cur´e. See Hutton to Comte, March 25, 1855, MAC; Comte to Hutton, April 1, 1855, CG, 8:43. By 1855 he had three children. Comte to Deullin, July 21, 1855, CG, 8:77. Comte’s register of baptisms, entitled “Religion de l’Humanit´e: Sacrement de la pr´esentation,” p. 3, MAC. The godparents were Elise de Capellen and Edouard Foley, both of whom were called positivists.

524

The Development of the Positivist Movement

seven in 1856, he was taken to Comte, who reminded him to prepare for the sacrament of initiation, which he would receive at fourteen. To be worthy of this sacrament, he had to develop feelings of veneration, attachment, and gratitude to his parents; study poetry, music, and art; and pray on his knees three times a day. When he prayed, he had to begin with the “sacred sign” and end by repeating the following sentence “Submission is the basis of improvement.” The principle of submission now represented “the epitome of positivism.”60 Comte was happy to have Lonchampt, Audiffrent, Hadery, and Robinet join the Positivist Society. They were among his most prominent disciples. Although disappointed that his movement was not larger, Comte claimed that the number of disciples was irrelevant, for he figured that there were “many sincere and active adherents” who did not join the Society because they worried that associating themselves publicly with positivism could prove dangerous. One example was Mr. Picard, a banker in Avignon, who did not join for fear of compromising his career and family. Undaunted, Comte assured himself in 1852 that there were “about three hundred positivists” in the “Occident.”61 He saw himself increasingly as the head of a burgeoning progressive movement with “missions” in Great Britain, Belgium, Germany, Holland, Spain, and Italy.62 Comte was delightfully surprised by the progress of positivism in England. In 1850, he maintained that there were more “philosophical adherents to positivism” in that country than anywhere else.63 Indeed, when Williamson had gone to London in early 1848, three of the five young men with whom he dined knew of Comte’s method and approved of it.64 In 1849, two tutors and a student at Oxford gave Comte ten pounds.65 That fall, Richard Congreve, an English clergyman, sat in on one of Comte’s lectures. Born in 1818, he was educated at Rugby when it was under Thomas Arnold’s direction. He then went on to Oxford, where he took a first in 1840 and holy 60

61 62 63 64 65

Auguste Comte, Copy of “Religion de l’Humanit´e,” Prescription for Gabriel Robinet regarding the sacrament of Initiation, April 10, 1856, MAC. An excerpt may be found in Corra, introduction to Lettres, 10. See also letter and envelope with the words “Pour le jeune Gabriel Robinet, qui vient d’accomplir sa septi`eme ann´ee,” April 10, 1856, Papiers Emile Corra, 17 AS (7), Dossier III, AN. Comte to Bligni`eres, January 4, 1852, CG, 6:207. Comte to Williamson, November 19, 1849, CG, 5:116. Comte to Barbot de Chement, August 6, 1850, CG, 5:174. See also Comte to Laffitte, September 19, 26, 1849, CG, 5:85, 90; Syst`eme, 4:xii. Williamson to Laffitte, March 19, 1848, MAC. Williamson to Comte, November 5, 1849, MAC. The two tutors were Palgreve and Post, and the student was Brodie, who was a friend of Williamson. Williamson also sent Comte twenty-five francs from a M. Farrer of Oxford. See Littr´e to Comte, February 14, 1830, MAC.

Popularity of Positivism

525

orders in 1843. A promising career lay before him. In the mid-1840s, another Oxford man, Arthur Hugh Clough, who supported Comte, introduced Congreve to positivism.66 Congreve then read Mill’s Logic and Littr´e’s articles in Le National. While paying a visit to Comte in his apartment in September 1849, he told him that all the good students at Wadham College Oxford, where he taught, were reading the Cours.67 He later recalled that first meeting: “The interview was a long one and left on me the strongest impression of the power of the man. I had been under teachers of eminence, but I felt there was a difference between him and them. Here was a teacher, who was evidently prepared to take guidance of those who came to him, who at once grasped their position, and did not shrink from the responsibility of directing them.”68 Congreve soon became an important disciple, giving lectures at Oxford based on positivist theory.69 Besides Congreve, Lewes promulgated positivism. Comte thanked Lewes in 1852 for his numerous articles on his doctrine and congratulated him for finally assuming the leadership of British positivism.70 Comte was also still pleased that various women, namely Sarah Austin, were attracted to his “feminine theory,” which was “the most decisive element” of his moral and social philosophy.71 Comte even tried unsuccessfully to get in touch with Thomas Carlyle, whose philosophy Congreve intimated had many social and intellectual affinities with positivism.72 In 1851, Comte was pleased to receive a visit from James Hamilton, an Englishman whom he had tutored in 1836. Hamilton was surprised to see that Comte was no longer the “frigid” uncongenial man he 66

67

68 69

70 71 72

Congreve, “Personal Recollections of Auguste Comte and Account of French Reception,” n.d. Positivist Papers, Vol. XXXVI, Add. Mss. 45259, fol. 2, British Library. See also Wright, Religion of Humanity, 73. John Blackett also introduced Congreve to positivism. Williamson to Comte, October 31, 1849, MAC; Comte to Fisher, May 22, 1856, CG, 8:257; Congreve, “Personal Recollections of Auguste Comte and Account of French Reception,” n.d. Positivist Papers, Vol. XXXVI, Add. Mss. 45259, fol. 1–3, British Library; Congreve, informal notes on his life, Positivist Papers, Vol. XXXVIII, Add. Mss. 45261, fol. 33, British Library. To enrich his understanding of positive philosophy, Comte encouraged Congreve to read the anarchist William Godwin (the husband of Wollstonecraft) as well as the conservatives Burke and Maistre. Congreve to Comte, June 30, 1857, MAC. Congreve, “Personal Recollections of Auguste Comte and Account of French Reception,” n.d. Positivist Papers, Vol. XXXVI, Add. Mss. 45259, fol. 7, British Library. Hutton informed Comte that Congreve published four lectures on the Roman Empire based on positivist conceptions, though he neglected to mention Comte. Hutton to Comte, June 23, 1855, MAC. Comte to Lewes, August 12, 1852, CG, 6:330. Comte to Barbot de Chement, August 23, 1850, CG, 5:180. Comte to Capellen, September 28, 1852, CG, 6:397. Curiously, Comte had never read Carlyle, although both were interested in the “dictatorships” of Cromwell and Frederick the Great. Comte to Hutton, November 13, 1853, CG, 7:141.

526

The Development of the Positivist Movement

had remembered; his experience with de Vaux had made him “loving” and “warm.” Yet Hamilton was not a convert; he found Comte’s “childishness” and “pedantry” to be typically French.73 Several people in Scotland expressed interest in his philosophy, especially its religious aspects. There was a reading group in Aberdeen that was particularly enthusiastic. It consisted of John Duguid Milne, an Irish lawyer; Andrew Findlater, a lawyer and headmaster of Gordon’s Hospital (a school in Aberdeen); David Masson, a writer and friend of Thomas Carlyle; George Walker, a lawyer; and Alexander Bain, a budding psychologist and young Scottish friend of Mill’s. In 1843, Bain read William Smith’s review of Comte in Blackwood’s Edinburgh Review and began studying the Cours. He discussed almost every chapter with Mill. The positivist classification of the sciences, scientific method, and philosophy of history soon enthralled him and eventually led him to break with his evangelical past. Bain would become important in spreading Comte’s ideas in Scotland. He started his campaign by persuading the members of his reading group to study Comte. In 1848, Milne sent Comte a warm letter, thanking him for his writings.74 Not only have they been the subject of study to us in our own individual solitude, but we have had the great and never to be forgotten pleasure, at short intervals, of reading the most interesting parts (such as the sixth volume of the Cours) aloud together, whereby their effects on us have been greatly heightened and our sympathy with you as the writer of them rendered more intense and more connected with our everyday life.

Proud of their education but disgusted by metaphysics and disillusioned with the law, which produced no “positive habits of thought,” Milne and his friend Findlater had become “believers in the positive philosophy,” which now “guided” their lives. Positivism had affected not only their minds but their “character.”75 Already, after having read the Cours, Milne glimpsed Comte’s effort to harmonize the “head and the Heart.” Positivism was a superior moral philosophy because it sought to improve “emotional character and emotional 73

74

75

James Hamilton, Personal Recollections of Auguste Comte (London, 1897), 7, 9, 12. This is a reprint of an article originally published in Chamber’s Journal, June 19, 1858. Hamilton gave Comte a snuff box in which he kept his seals. See the interesting letter of Andrew Findlater to Comte, January 5, 1850, MAC. See also Comte to Tholouze, December 18, 1848, CG, 4:211; Cashdollar, The Transformation, 33– 6, 45–6; Rylance, Victorian Psychology, 165; Bain, Autobiography, 116, 150, 153–4, 157–8; Bain, John Stuart Mill, 71. Walker gave his notes on the Cours to George Henry Lewes, who used them to write his articles on Comte in The Leader. F. J. D. Milne to Comte, October 23, 1848, MAC.

Popularity of Positivism

527

enjoyments both in the individual and as a branch of social statics.”76 Milne, Findlater, and Walker agreed to give Comte three hundred francs in installments. Delighted, Comte met Milne and Findlater when they visited Paris in August 1850.77 Findlater went again to see Comte in May 1851, this time with Bain.78 David Masson wrote a favorable article on Comte in 1851 for the North British Review, where he noted that the name of Comte was “tolerably familiar to most British readers.” Masson believed Comte’s “luminous propositions” could help politicians.79 But Comte’s ideas were not welcomed by everyone in Scotland. James McCosh, the famous Protestant minister, philosophy professor, and future president of Princeton, attacked Comte in The Method of Divine Government, Physical and Moral, published in Edinburgh in 1850. According to McCosh, Comte was the head of the “French Atheistical School”; he could never get “beyond laws and developments” and thus could not espy the “Intelligence presiding over the universe.” Nevertheless, McCosh called his philosophy of the inductive sciences, along with Whewell’s, “the ablest” work on the subject.80 He placed him on a par with Hobbes and Hume. Other Scottish theologians who commented on Comte’s genius and his deplorable silence regarding God included Thomas Pearson in Infidelity: Its Aspects, Causes, and Agencies (1853), Peter Bayne in The Christian Life, Social and Individual (1855), John Tulloch in Theism (1855), Robert Anchor Thompson in Christian Theism (1855), and James Buchanan in Faith in God and Modern Atheism Compared in Their Essential Nature, Theoretic Grounds, and Practical Influence (1855). Comte had a chapter of the last book in his library. It mocked him for first espousing the relativism of all so-called truths and showing the various metamorphoses of the mind throughout the ages and then claiming as a fact that atheism is the endpoint of history.81 In an article in the North British Review, Buchanan also presented the Positivist Society as aggressively seeking to spread the worship of Humanity. 76 77

78 79 80 81

Milne to Comte, December 4, 1848. The interview may not have gone well, for Milne contributed only one more year to the Positivist Subsidy. Comte was saddened by his defection. Comte to Fisher, September 24, 1855, CG, 8:120. See Comte’s collection of calling cards, MAC. [David Masson], “The Social Science: Its History and Prospects,” North British Review 15 (August 1851), 291, 311. The book was republished a year later in New York. James M’Cosh, The Method of Divine Government, Physical and Moral (New York, 1851), 11n, 119, 173. The chapter of Buchanan’s book that Comte had in his Biblioth`eque Superflue was reproduced as “Theory of Social or Historical Development – Auguste Comte” in James Buchanan, Modern Atheism under Its Forms of Pantheism, Materialism, Secularism, Development, and Natural Laws (Boston: Gould and Lincoln, 1857), 84–115. See also Cashdollar, The Transformation, 36, 48.

528

The Development of the Positivist Movement

“Infidelity would fain become world-wide, like Popery, and it seeks to assimilate its organization and its rites to that masterpiece of Satan’s policy.”82 Such attacks on Comte made it hard for advocates of positivism such as Bain to find permanent positions in the academic world, which was dominated by traditional religious institutions. Nevertheless, noting the interest afforded to Comte and the fact that before 1853 he was the subject of more reviews in Scotland than in England, Charles Cashdollar notes, “Scotland was . . . more important than either Oxford or Cambridge to the pattern of transmission that emerged among British clergy by the 1850s. It was there that the chief disseminators of Comte’s idea were found.”83 The reason is that the Scottish were less wary of French thought and ecclesiastical authority than the English, Scottish education was more scientific, and the Scots were more accepting of positivism because of their own tradition of common-sense, inductive philosophy.84 The secular moral philosophy of the Scottish Enlightenment, which privileged the inherently social nature of man, was also close to that of Comte, who often acknowledged his debt to it.85 Comte was impressed by positivism’s growth not only in Scotland but in one of the “appendages” of England, that is, the United States. According to Comte, the United States was a peculiar blend of anarchy and reaction thanks to the influence of Protestantism, the lack of tradition of its people, its settlement by those who were persecuted and in revolt, and the absence of a standing army. He was hopeful that the “industrial habits” that were developing there would act as a “natural brake” on “subversive tendencies” and positivism would be welcomed as an alternative religion.86 Yet as Richmond Laurin Hawkins and Charles Cashdollar have demonstrated, Protestant clergymen, whom Comte generally found subversive, were ironically the first to take notice of him. They were not drawn to his religion but to his erudition, especially the scientific nature of his thought. They also liked the way in which his philosophy demonstrated the limits of man’s knowledge, showed the solidarity of peoples throughout the globe, and stressed altruism, which they saw as a form of Christian love. Perhaps the first American interested in positivism was William Henry Channing. He was a Unitarian clergyman, Transcendentalist, and supporter of abolitionism, the women’s movement, and 82 83

84 86

[James Buchanan], “Forms of Infidelity in the Nineteenth Century,” North British Review 15 (May 1851): 56. Cashdollar, The Transformation, 53. To support his case that the Scots were more interested in Comte than the English, Cashdollar mentions Bain, Masson, McCosh, Blakey (who was born and brought up in Scotland), Brewster, and John Pringle Nichol (who helped Harriet Martineau). Ibid., 53–6. 85 Pickering, Comte, 1:305–13. Comte to Audiffrent, May 6, 1851, CG, 6:71.

Popularity of Positivism

529

socialism.87 Beginning in 1830, he read each of the six volumes of the Cours as soon as they came off the press and discussed them with his friends, Theodore Parker, Orestus Augustus Brownson, and George Ripley, who were leading Transcendentalists and Unitarian ministers at some point in their lives. Channing wrote about the Cours’ admirable comprehensiveness in an article entitled “The Science of Unity,” which was published in the socialist periodical The Present on November 15, 1843. Ten years later, he still hailed Comte as the “most thoroughly scientific intellect now on the planet.”88 Yet he hated Comte’s skepticism and the Religion of Humanity, as did many other Protestant ministers and theologians, such as James Walker (a Unitarian, who became the president of Harvard in 1853), Thomas Hill (a Unitarian, who became the president of Harvard in 1862), and Robert Turnbull (a Baptist pastor in Hartford, Connecticut), most of whom regarded his attitude as atheistic and dangerous. They took up their pens to condemn his secular religion.89 However, at least one radical Unitarian theologian and Transcendentalist, Theodore Parker, who talked about Comte with Channing, was more favorable. After careful study of the Cours, he used Comte’s notions about the innateness of the religious impulse and the history of religion (especially the fetishist, polytheist, and monotheist phases) in his Discourse of Matters Pertaining to Religion, published in 1842. It was the first English-language book and theological work that was profoundly influenced by Comte. Parker wrote, “One of the most remarkable Atheists of the present day is M. Comte, author of the valuable and sometimes profound work Cours de Philosophie positive. . . . He glories in the name [Atheist], but in many places gives evidence of the religious element existing in him, in no small power.”90 Afterwards, Parker bought more of Comte’s works, including the Syst`eme, where he saw the blossoming of Comte’s “religious element.” In Sermons of Theism, Atheism, and the Popular Theology of 1853, he commended Comte’s humanitarianism, while continuing to 87

88

89 90

Richmond Laurin Hawkins, Auguste Comte and the United States (1816–1853) (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1936), 14; Cashdollar, The Transformation, 15; Hawkins, Positivism, 67–8. Channing, letter to Harrison, 1853, in Memoir of William Henry Channing, by Octavius Books Frothingham (Boston, 1886), 372, cited in Hawkins, Auguste Comte, 16. Like many Europeans who flirted with positivism, Channing was also drawn to Charles Fourier’s theories. Indeed, in the mid-1840s, he was associated with Brook Farm, the Fourierist commune organized by George Ripley. True to his Unitarian proclivities, he tried to Christianize Fourierism. Carl J. Guarneri, The Utopian Alternative: Fourierism in NineteenthCentury America (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991), 44, 281. See the many reviews in Hawkins, Positivism, 68n3. See also Hawkins, Auguste Comte, 16–25. Walker lectured on Comte’s ideas. Cashdollar, The Transformation, 98–9, 121–3. Theodore Parker, Discourse of Matters Pertaining to Religion, 4th ed. (Boston, 1859), 31n2. On Parker, see Cashdollar, The Transformation, 95–8.

530

The Development of the Positivist Movement

grapple with his denial of the supernatural. His ambivalence is clear in this statement: Is religion to die out of the consciousness of man! Believe it not. Even the protests against “Christianity” are oftenest made by men full of the religious spirit. Many of the ‘Unbelievers,’ of this age are eminent for their religion; atheists are often made such by circumstances. M. Comte must have a New Supreme [Being] – Nouveau Grand Etre, – and recommends daily prayer to his composite and progressive deity.

Parker provocatively presented Comte’s atheism as a challenge to Christians to deepen and modernize their faith. The Christian world has something to learn at this even from the Atheist; for he asks entire Freedom for human nature, – freedom to think, freedom to will, freedom to love, freedom to worship if he may, not to worship if he will not. And if the Christian Church had granted this freedom there would have been no atheism. If Theology had not severed itself from Science, Science would have adorned the Church with its magnificent beauty.91

Because Parker was very influential, he transmitted positivist ideas to many Unitarians, such as Lydia Maria Childs, who wrote The Progress of Religious Ideas through Successive Ages (1855), which contained many of Comte’s ideas about the history of religion but did not mention him in the bibliography.92 With their belief in the oneness of God instead of the Trinity, their social values, and their openness to new ideas, Unitarians were more interested in Comte than many other denominations were. In the nineteenth century, the rationalist edge of Unitarianism was no longer as dominant as it had been. Many liberal Unitarians were influenced by Transcendentalism and found Comte’s ideas valuable in their attacks on natural theology, that is, the religious approach that stressed humans’ ability to use their reason to learn about God. Comte had shown the limits of human knowledge, which suggested that the anthropomorphic image of God was faulty and that people had to learn about God in other ways than through their minds. Positivism strengthened these Unitarians’ use of evidence from history and society to show the impact of God; their emphasis on God’s humanity; their stress on the solidarity of people in various areas of the globe; and their social activism. In addition, many liberal Unitarians were attracted to Comte because they were interested in the task of bringing Christianity into the modern world, which 91 92

Theodore Parker, Sermons of Theism, Atheism, and the Popular Theology (Boston, 1853), lxii, lxiv. Cashdollar, The Transformation, 98.

Popularity of Positivism

531

meant reconciling their religion with scientific thought. To them, reason and religion were compatible.93 Comte spoke to Unitarians, such as Harriet Martineau, Sarah Austin, Channing, Parker, Walker, Hill, Childs, and Henry Dix Hutton (an Irish disciple), in many different ways. His relationship with the lawyer George Frederick Holmes was also complex. Holmes was born in 1820 in British Guiana. Later he attended school in England, emigrated to Canada, and ended up in Virginia, where he gave up the law to farm and write. He became a professor of history and taught at various universities, including eventually the University of Virginia. He was also for a short time president of the University of Mississippi. Throughout his intellectual life, he endeavored to reconcile science and religion, and though a fervent Christian, brought up in the Church of England, he refused to join an American church. He was fascinated by Comte, whom he first encountered in 1848. Perhaps he read John Henry Young’s excellent translation of Littr´e’s favorable articles on Comte that had appeared in Le National in 1844. The translation gave a good overview of positivism and was published as a series of four articles from February through May, 1847 in the United States Magazine and Democratic Review. Like Mill, Young found the Cours to be the most important work of the epoch. Holmes studied the Cours, which seemed to speak to his own uneasiness with the intellectual anarchy of the day. He then wrote seven articles on Comte between 1852 and 1854 that add up to over three hundred pages.94 One of the most important was a very critical sixty-page review of the Cours that appeared in the January and April 1852 issues of the Methodist Quarterly Review95 The review was entitled “Faith and Science – Comte’s Positive Philosophy.” He also wrote an article looking at the results 93 94

95

Ibid., 94, 100, 111, 374. Hawkins, Auguste Comte, 25–6, 62, 86n2, 95; Neal C. Gillespie, “The Spiritual Odyssey of George Frederick Holmes: A Study of Religious Conservatism in the Old South,” The Journal of Southern History 32 (August 1966), 300; Neil C. Gillespie, The Collapse of Orthodoxy: The Intellectual Ordeal of George Frederick Holmes (Charlottesville: The University Press of Virginia, 1972), 124. Information on positivism was scarce in the United States and chiefly came from British sources, including David Brewster, Mill, Lewes, and two historians of philosophy John Daniel Morell and Robert Blakey. Hawkins states that apart from Comte’s books, the only French works on positivism that were read in a serious manner in the United States before 1861 were Saisset’s unfriendly article and Littr´e’s De la philosophie positive. Hawkins, Positivism, 3n2, 11. Seba Smith, a mathematician who was corresponding with Comte, told him about Holmes. Smith to Comte, January 23, 1852, MAC. Holmes had written an introductory article called “Philosophy and Faith” in the April 1851 issue of the Methodist Quarterly Review. See also Holmes to Comte, July 8, 1852, in Hawkins, Auguste Comte, 109. For a list of his other articles on Comte, see Neal Gillespie, “The Spiritual Odyssey,” 300n29. Hawkins summarizes them in Auguste Comte, 87–95.

532

The Development of the Positivist Movement

of social science and examining the “claims of Comte to be regarded as the Bacon of the nineteenth century” in the issue published in July 1852.96 The editor of the Methodist Quarterly Review was John McClintock (sometimes spelled M’Clintock). He was a Methodist scholar and pastor, who specialized in mathematics and ancient languages and wanted his readers to keep abreast of European philosophy. He himself may have heard of Comte’s philosophy from British journals such as the Westminster Review or the Edinburgh Review. He wondered if it was not a new dangerous form of atheism. But he also lamented that this atheism kept people from appreciating Comte’s outstanding logic and his excellent application of the scientific method in the physical sciences. Moreover, it could be argued that Comte had shown the limits of scientific knowledge by pointing out that it had to rest on only observed phenomena. Science did not hold all the answers to human questioning. Given that science was restricted, there was more room for a spiritual realm, which made religion more attractive.97 McClintock welcomed Holmes’s clarification of such issues. Holmes’s article suggested that Comte’s atheism was a function of the lingering effects of his attack of madness in 1826. Comte’s criticisms of religion were false as was his attack on metaphysics, a kind of knowledge that Holmes believed was crucial to scientific reasoning. Nevertheless, Holmes commended Comte’s erudition, insights, and hard work. He even sent Comte his review, which the Frenchman thought was “conscientious.”98 The two men engaged in a two-year correspondence. Comte was flattered that Holmes, a fervent Christian, ranked him among the great philosophers of all times, on a par with Hobbes, Descartes, Leibniz, and Kant.99 Holmes explained that although he agreed with many of Comte’s scientific precepts, as well as his recognition that a scientific worldview was not sufficient in itself, he could not accept his new religion. Holmes had once repudiated Christianity because of his interest in science and now had come back to it because he thought that Christian truths did not have to be demonstrated but must be accepted on the basis of faith. He thus likened Comte’s “creed” to the “arid and thirsty 96 97

98

99

[George Frederick Holmes], “Instauratio Nova – Auguste Comte,” Methodist Quarterly Review 34 (July 1852), 360. Hawkins, Auguste Comte, 64–5; Cashdollar, The Transformation, 124–5, 131. McClintock bought Comte’s Cours by 1851 and reviewed Gillespie’s translation in the Methodist Quarterly Review in 1851. Comte to Tsar Nicholas, December 20, 1852, CG, 6:467. Comte wanted to respond to the review, but McClintock refused. John McClintock to Comte, June 29, 1852, MAC. Holmes sent Comte the review as well as the article published in July 1852. They are still in the MAC. Comte to John McClintock, August 7, 1852, CG, 6:323.

Popularity of Positivism

533

waste” that he had long ago “traversed.”100 Indeed, Holmes argued that Comte’s plan to eliminate theology and metaphysics from public discourse would not create the “common ground of agreement” that he believed it would. “Instead of unity of action proceeding spontaneously from precedent unity of thought and sentiment, it substitutes that transient agreement which springs from a previous determination not to disagree.”101 Although Comte’s approach to doing away with anarchy was ineffective, Holmes supported the positivist movement to regenerate the intellectual and social systems because it was the “highest, most consistent, and logical form of that semi-Baconism which has . . . characterized the last two centuries.” Holmes also had the “highest admiration” for Comte’s “remarkable genius,” “great originality,” and “self-sacrificing zeal.” He was to be commended for his application of the scientific method to society, especially for devoting himself to replacing the “false social system which is built upon the sandy foundations of pecuniary interests and unlicensed passions” with a “homogeneous, compact, and interdependent scheme of society founded upon the solid basis of imperative duty.”102 Holmes gave fifty francs a year to the Positivist Subsidy to help the “most illustrious philosopher of the day” and bought most of Comte’s works.103 Likewise, the spokesman for Methodism, McClintock, gave twenty-five francs in 1852 and received an autographed copy of the first volume of the Syst`eme.104 In 1852 McClintock sent the first part of Holmes’s review of the Cours to his old Episcopalian friend Horace Binney Wallace, who had studied the Cours and visited Comte the year before. A brilliant student of mathematics, Wallace graduated from Princeton, studied medicine for a while at the University of Pennsylvania, and then became a lawyer. He was, however, less interested in practicing law than in writing fiction and literary criticism. He prided himself on his conservatism and was drawn to positivism in part because it offered a bulwark against the destructive revolutionary inclinations of the age. 100 101 102 103

104

Holmes to Comte, October 30, 1852, in Hawkins, Auguste Comte, 121. See also ibid., 66–71. Holmes to Comte, June 20, 1853, in ibid., 131–2. Holmes to Comte, March 22, 1852, in Hawkins, Auguste Comte, 101. The original letter is in the MAC. Holmes to Comte, February 5, 1853, in Hawkins, Auguste Comte, 125. See also ibid.,103n2. John McClintock to Comte, June 29, 1852, March 12, 1853, May 17, 1854, MAC. See “Positivist Subsidy,” MAC. McClintock was not pleased to see that in the second volume of the Syst`eme Comte used his name to solicit funds. He thought Comte was arrogant and uncouth. Yet his opening the Methodist Quarterly Review to Comte’s ideas disgruntled subscribers, who in 1856 did not reelect him as editor. Nevertheless, his successor, Moncure Conway, was just as fascinated by Comte. Cashdollar, The Transformation, 129–32.

534

The Development of the Positivist Movement

On a trip to Europe in the spring of 1851, this “eminent citizen of Philadelphia,” as Comte called him, came to visit him three times. He and Comte undoubtedly talked in French about the wide range of subjects that interested them both.105 During their first conversation, Wallace proposed to give Comte every year five francs in appreciation of the Cours de philosophie positive.106 Applauding the law of three stages, the hierarchy of the sciences, and the notion of the separation of powers, Wallace maintained that Comte had “made more valuable contributions to truth than any one in this age.”107 In the winter of 1851, while traveling in Rome, Wallace met a friend, Julia Ward Howe, the famous writer and supporter of women’s and African Americans’ rights. Ten years later she penned the “Battle Hymn of the Republic.” In her Reminiscences, she wrote that Wallace excitedly told her all about his conversations with Comte. Wallace “asked the great positivist how he could account for the general religious instinct of the human race, so contrary to the doctrines of his philosophy. Comte relied, ‘Que voulez-vous, monsieur? Anormalit´e c´er´ebral.’”108 In December 1852, Wallace returned to Paris for medical treatment of his own cerebral abnormality, a brain disorder. He had another conversation with Comte, to whom he announced his “complete adhesion” to positivism. But three days later, he committed suicide at the age of thirty-five.109 He never had a chance to finish the letter to McClintock that he had begun after receiving Holmes’s review. He wished to emphasize that Comte’s genius lay in understanding that science itself changed when its method was applied to different subjects in the scientific hierarchy. Scientific reasoning as applied to politics and morality would be very different from that applied to mathematics. Holmes was thus incorrect to think that “scientific or positive methods are not applicable to society.”110 Wallace’s enthusiasm for the Cours was so great that in his last will, he 105

106

107 108 109 110

Although Comte had learned English as a young man, when he had thought of teaching in the United States, he had no oral comprehension. See Comte to Alexander Ellis, April 10, 1856, CG, 8:245. Comte to Audiffrent, May 6, 1851, CG, 6:71; H. B. Wallace to Comte, June 23, 1851, Synth`ese, 69; Hawkins, Auguste Comte, 48–9, 73–4. Comte mentioned Wallace in the third and fourth volumes of the Syst`eme and in the Synth`ese, where he republished one of his letters. See Syst`eme, 3:xvii–xviii; ibid., vii; Synth`ese, 27, 69–70. The Wallaces were a prominent family. Horace Wallace’s brother John was a friend of President Buchanan. See Comte to Audiffrent, March 2, 1853, CG, 7:45; John William Wallace to Comte, April 15, 1853, November 19, 1856, MAC; Cashdollar, The Transformation, 127. For more comments on the United States, see Syst`eme, 4:495. H. B. Wallace to Comte, June 23, 1851, Synth`ese, 69. Julia Ward Howe, Reminiscences (1819–1899) (New York: Greenwood Publishing Corp., Negro Universities Press, 1969), 199. Synth`ese, 27. Wallace’s unfinished letter to McClintock was published posthumously in John McClintock, “Horace Binney Wallace,” Methodist Quarterly Review 6 (January 1854): 132–42.

Popularity of Positivism

535

requested that the annual franc payments to Comte continue, much to the Frenchman’s delight.111 As Hawkins points out, Wallace was the American for whom Comte had the “warmest affection.” Comte was so touched that he was certain that Wallace had converted from Episcopalianism to the Religion of Humanity. However, Wallace had rejected Comte’s atheism, which he believed derived from Comte’s dangerously poor application of the scientific method to religious matters. If used correctly, the positive system could support Christianity.112 In his unfinished letter to McClintock, Wallace wrote, The “Cours de Philosophie Positive” is a monument of his prodigious powers in an abstract and analytic way: the “Syst`eme de Politique Positive,” in its bearing upon religion, an equally significant measure of his puny capacity as an original investigator. In applying Positivism to spiritual matters, he proceeds in a style directly repugnant to all his principles and teachings. He sets out by stultifying history, and the experience of forty centuries, and sets up the metaphysical contrivances of his own brain in opposition to the collective and traditionary sense of the race.

Boasting about being “a conservative of the conservatives,” Wallace did not want Comte’s ideas to spread to the masses, who might take them the wrong way in order to challenge the Establishment. “Until the positive scheme can be shown as a scheme tending to and ending in religion, identical with revealed religion, the public knowledge of it will only tend to evil.”113 Only the elite should work with his ideas. To that end, before he died, Wallace gave his friend Howe several volumes of the Cours and Syst`eme. Almost daily for over a year, she carefully studied the Cours and the first volume of the Syst`eme to learn about the sciences, which had been absent from her education, and to deepen her connection to Wallace, whom she dearly loved as a brother. He gave her an appreciation of Comte’s doctrine. But she

111 112

113

It was reprinted in Wallace’s Art, Scenery, and Philosophy in Europe (Philadelphia, 1855), 331–45. See the latter, p. 339. John S. Riddle to Comte, January 17, 1853, MAC. Riddle was the brother-in-law of John William Wallace, the executor of Horace B. Wallace’s estate. Hawkins, Auguste Comte, 48. Moreover, Wallace told Howe “to study the most important of Comte’s works, but by no means to become a convert to his doctrine.” Howe, Reminiscences, 199. Cashdollar also has evidence proving that Wallace found the Religion of Humanity to be metaphysical. Cashdollar, The Transformation, 108, 134–6. Hawkins points to a note from Edger that suggests that Wallace was going to convert to Catholicism. See also Hawkins, Auguste Comte, 53n1, 71–6. Wallace, Art, Scenery and Philosophy, 342, 343, 345. Holmes wrote a reply in which he denied that positivism and Christianity were reconcilable. See Holmes, “The Positive Religion, or the Religion of Humanity,” Methodist Quarterly Review 6 (July 1854), 329– 59.

536

The Development of the Positivist Movement

did not like Comte’s view of religion and found his attack on metaphysics to be contradicted by his own philosophy, which seemed to involve many “metaphysical distinctions.” Nevertheless, she approved of the “objectivism of his point of view” and his “synoptical,” “bird’s eye” approach to the sciences – an approach that made a lasting impression on her.114 Indeed, on February 15, 1853, she wrote a fourteen-page letter in French to Comte. She thanked him for his writings, which enriched her work and distracted her from the pain caused by Wallace’s inexplicable suicide. She wanted Comte to know that being such an “ardent, sentimental, misunderstood, and poorly placed” woman, she owed him an enormous debt. You have made . . . my sad and monotonous life tolerable. . . . Since I have been studying you, I think I have acquired the intellectual force and position that I lacked. I am no longer content to guess about matters that one can know. The poems that I write under your inspiration have more solidity and gravity than the effusions of my youth.

She wanted to elicit some reply from Comte because after Wallace’s death, she felt a deep need for someone to fill his shoes, that is, to direct her studies, critique her writings, and increase her selfconfidence. Her relationship with her husband was very strained, and she was tired of her limited role as a housewife. Wallace had encouraged her to develop her talents. Yet she now had no woman or family member who could play that role. “Women . . . resent and dislike me. . . . I am unfortunately one of these exceptional women who cannot find relationships with their children. Mine are very young and charming, but I do not enjoy them as I would like to enjoy them.” Complaining about the melancholy caused by Wallace’s sudden loss, she sought both Comte’s consolation and intellectual assistance. “It is not through vanity that I believe that the minds of the elite are the only ones that can help me. I know it. From mediocre people I have never been able to learn anything, not even mediocrity.”115 However, she must have thought twice about bothering Comte because she never sent the letter.116 Instead, she talked about his ideas with Theodore Parker, who was the minister of her congregation. In the 1860s, she gave a series of lectures on Comte that were very favorable. The fact that she, Holmes, McClintock, and Wallace studied Comte 114 115

116

Howe, Reminiscences, 211. Julia Ward Howe to Comte, February 13, 1853, bMS Am 2119 (613), Samuel Gridley and Julia Ward Howe Papers, Houghton Library, Harvard University. I thank Jennie Rathbun of the Houghton Library for procuring this letter for me. For more on Howe, see Cashdollar, The Transformation, 101–4. Gary Williams, Hungry Heart, The Literary Emergence of Julia Ward Howe (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999), 121–2.

Popularity of Positivism

537

and commended him shows the fascination his systematic scientific doctrine held even for those who were deeply religious. Jean-Jacques Amp`ere, after visiting the United States from 1851 to 1852, remarked, “I must say . . . that the Philosophie positive of Comte which . . . arrives at the negation of all religion, . . . is fairly often read in America, where people give him maybe more attention than in France. I have heard pious men speak of it with a certain esteem.” Amp`ere condescendingly explained that positivism’s narrowness seemed to fit American minds, which tended to be more rigid than “extensive.”117 For his part, Comte noticed that positivism was more appreciated by “the rich” and “well-educated elite” in the American “colony” than by the regular people. He figured that the reason for this upperclass support lay in the conservative nature of his philosophy.118 These Americans recognized the service that positivism could provide in upholding the family and property and in supplying “principles” and traditions, both of which were in short supply in the United States.119 It could especially protect people against “anarchical socialism,” that is, communism, whose “invasion” was “more imminent and dangerous than anywhere else” because Americans were Protestants in revolt.120 Comte was familiar with Horace Greeley’s “socialist work.” Holmes had sent Comte his review of Greeley’s Hints toward Reforms, published in the Southern Literary Messenger in May 1851.121 Comte 117 118

119 120 121

Jean-Jacques Amp`ere, Promenades en Am´erique (Paris, 1855), cited by Hawkins, Auguste Comte, 61n2. Comte also lamented that his “Yankee friends” did not have official power, which was more in the hands of the lawyers and the “lettr´es.” Comte, “Huiti`eme Circulaire annuelle,” January 15, 1857, CG, 8:377. Comte, “Huiti`eme Circulaire annuelle,” January 15, 1857, CG, 8:377. Comte to Papot, May 8, 1851, CG, 6:76; Comte to Bligni`eres, May 12, 1851, CG, 6:83–4. Comte to John Reuben Thompson, May 17, 1852, CG, 6:274. Holmes had his friend John Reuben Thompson, the editor of the Southern Literary Messenger, send Comte a copy of the May 1851 issue. In the article, Holmes praised Comte for having almost solved the social problems of the day. The solution escaped him because of his lack of religious faith. In referring to Greeley’s “communist speculations” and overview of social theorists in France, Holmes mentioned Comte as “the favored pupil of Saint-Simon, on whom the aged seer designed that the mantle of Elijah should fall.” Holmes, review of Horace Greeley, Hints toward Reforms, Southern Literary Messenger, May 1851, pp. 261–2, cited in Hawkins, Auguste Comte, 66. At the end of his book, Greeley inserted a whole chapter on “Humanity,” where he announced that “the watchword of the Nineteenth Century is BROTHERHOOD.” His enthusiasm for reducing warfare by stressing the connections between humans across the globe was similar to Comte’s. Greeley must have recognized a kinship with Comte because he was one of the original investors in Modern Times, an antistate community, where several positivists lived. See Holmes to Comte, March 22, 1852, in Auguste Comte, by Hawkins, 102; Horace Greeley, Hints toward Reforms in Lectures, Addresses, and Other Writings (New York, 1850), 396; Roger Wunderlich, Low Living and High Thinking at Modern Times, New York (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1992), 30.

538

The Development of the Positivist Movement

evidently found Greeley and American socialists to be dangerous. He was therefore delighted that Americans wanted him “to preach positivism” in their country.122 Comte was also optimistic about disseminating positivism in Italy. After an introduction to the language by Ernestine de Montfort, his childhood sweetheart, Comte had learned Italian thoroughly in 1839 to deepen his comprehension of opera and relieve his “excess of cerebral force.”123 He had long admired Dante for his style; his prophetic stance in the Divine Comedy, where he denounced the disorder of his era and called for a new order; his medieval spirituality; his use of symbols and allegories; his idealization of the love between a man and woman; his cult of Beatrice and the Virgin Mary; and his concern with immortality and the world of the dead.124 Comte was also a fan of Alessandro Manzoni’s I Promessi Sposi, one of the few romantic novels that he liked. Comte viewed Italy as one of the areas that was most open to positivist infiltration: it had not embraced Protestantism or “industrial individualism”; it exhibited great emotional warmth; it understood the need for a “true spiritual reorganization”; and it appeared free of military habits, “retrograde tendencies,” and “revolutionary prejudices.”125 With little patience for the revolutionary doctrine of nationalism, Comte did not approve of the Risorgimento; he made fun of the “metaphysical dreamers” who wanted to create a “Young Italy.”126 Comte intensely disliked their hero, Giuseppe Mazzini, who was an ardent democrat. Mazzini’s appeal to the common people’s faith in God at the same time that he tried to promulgate the notion of popular sovereignty (and increase his own celebrity) seemed to Comte to be an absurd combination of theology and anarchy. Comte supported Italian independence from foreign powers, especially Austria, but did not approve of Mazzini and the nationalists’ plan to incorporate incompatible, distinctive areas, such as Modena, into a new country – a plan that would lead to temporal upheaval and an “oppressive unity” harmful to both workers and the upper classes.127 122 123 124 125 126 127

Comte to Tholouze, August 9, 1851, CG, 6:137. Comte to Audiffrent, April 7, 1851, CG, 6:52. See Maria Donzelli’s superb analysis of Dante’s influence on Comte in Donzelli, “Auguste Comte et le g´enie esth´etique italien,” 280–88. Comte to Benedetto Profumo, December 26, 1849, CG, 5:120. See also Comte to Bligni`eres, March 11, 1851, CG, 6:39. Syst`eme, 4:481. Comte to Laffitte, October 2 1849, CG, 5:94. See also Comte to Profumo, March 24, August 8, 1851, CG, 6:45, 125; Comte to Congreve, October 18, 1856, CG, 8:322– 3. Comte did not sympathize with those who waxed nostalgic about the “collective nationality,” which was associated with the Roman Empire and was destroyed at least in part by the establishment of the papacy, the kind of institution he preferred. Syst`eme, 3:475. Yet he was sympathetic to the plight of Italians, who felt oppressed by foreign powers. In 1856, he argued that only positivists could persuade the Germans to pressure

Popularity of Positivism

539

The plan was also in his opinion contrary to historical trends.128 He believed that in the future, large centralized states would be broken up, not consolidated. He even wanted France itself eventually cut up into “seventeen positivist nations” to resemble the unintegrated condition of Italy, which to him was ideal.129 Tuscany, Sardinia, and Sicily were good examples of future positivist republics because of their small size. In short, positivism could provide the Italians with better direction than nationalism did because it offered a new religion that would lead to spiritual togetherness, the most important kind of solidarity. Indeed, positivism began to attract attention after the defeat of the Italian revolutionaries in 1848.130 In late December 1849, Comte received an enthusiastic letter written in the Italian language that he loved from Benedetto Profumo. A young resident of Genoa, Profumo had come to Paris in May 1848 to witness the revolution. He himself was a democrat and republican. After enjoying Littr´e’s articles on Comte in Le National, he read the Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, which seemed to speak to his “need for a new religion, or as you say, a new spiritual power.”131 To offer Comte more ideas, Profumo advised him to peruse his own work, Solution des principaux probl`emes qui agitent notre si`ecle, which was published in 1848. Comte broke his regime of cerebral hygiene to read it and was surprised by the similarity between their ideas.132 He viewed Profumo as a young genius, a potentially important theoretician who complemented the outstanding positivist in the practical realm, the worker Magnin. But after Comte discovered that Profumo was forty-two instead of thirtytwo and was simply a pasta maker, he thought he was too old to begin his studies to become a positivist philosopher and instead should be considered a statesman like Magnin.133

128 129 130 131

132

133

the Austrians into giving up Lombardy so that the Italians could finally achieve independence. Comte to Congreve, October 18, 1856, CG, 8:323; Comte, “Huiti`eme Circulaire annuelle,” January 15, 1857, CG, 8:378. Comte to Laffitte, October 4, 1855, CG, 8:125. Comte to Mont`egre, June 28, 1852, CG, 6:309. Cat´echisme, 241; Comte to Congreve, October 18, 1856, CG, 8:323; Lefort to Comte, September 23, 1851, MAC. Benedetto Profumo to Comte, December 26, 1849, CG, 5:120. The translation of the Italian is my own. See also Profumo to an unknown recipient, June 19, 1856, MAC. On Profumo, see Maria Donzelli, “Comte, l’Italie et la France entre le XIXe et le XXe si`ecles,” in Auguste Comte: Trajectoires positivistes, ed. Petit, 358. Comte to Benedetto Profumo. December 26, 1849, CG, 5:120; Comte to Profumo, March 7, 1851, CG, 6:28. In September, 1849, Comte had also received a visit from an artillery general from Piedmont, who had gone to the Ecole Polytechnique, worked in diplomacy, and recently retired from the army. Comte had been hopeful about his becoming a positivist, but nothing seemed to come of their meeting. Comte to Laffitte, September 26, 1849, CG, 5:90. See also Comte to Laffitte, September 11, 1850, CG, 5:191. Comte to Profumo, March 24, 1851, CG, 6:45. See also Comte to Bligni`eres, March 11, 1851, CG, 6:38.

540

The Development of the Positivist Movement

In October 1851, Profumo visited Comte, who gave him a big dinner party that included the leading positivists in Paris. Profumo endeavored to persuade Comte to look favorably on Mazzini, who, it turns out, was a close friend of his. In telling one of his disciples about how he might change his opinion, Comte made a surprising admission of weakness. He explained that he had decided to apply his “new resolution” to err on the side of softness rather than give in to his “natural tendency” to be excessively firm – a tendency that he now considered “dangerous.”134 He even had Profumo give volume one of the Syst`eme de politique positive to Mazzini.Yet in the end, his opinion of the Italian leader did not change substantially. In 1857 Comte lambasted the British government for giving asylum to Mazzini, an agitator and “director of assassinations.”135 Though they disagreed on Mazzini, Profumo still visited Comte whenever he came to Paris and gave him a variety of books, including Dante’s De Monarchia, which supported the concept of a world government. Profumo also told Comte of the ideas of Giuseppi Ferrari, whose La Filosofia della rivoluzione of 1851 set out a new theory of revolution.136 Ferrari’s federalist ideas may have encouraged Comte’s growing interest in regionalism as a way of combatting the dangerous use of force by huge states.137 This famous Italian skeptic was living in France, and Profumo tried unsuccessfully to arrange a meeting between Comte and him. Profumo did, however, succeed in putting Comte in touch with a friend, Fabrizio Fabiani from Genoa, who was interested in socialism and in spreading the Religion of Humanity among the workers.138 One of Profumo’s and Fabbiani’s friends was Emanuele Rossi, who also exchanged some letters with Comte. A big supporter of universal suffrage and other leftist ideas, Rossi spoke of the “new school” in France, consisting of Proudhon, Raspail, Victor Considerant, and Eug`ene Sue, which he said was commanding much attention in Italian circles. He seemed interested in Comte’s notion of a new spiritual power and liked the Positivist Calendar. However, Rossi would not become a committed positivist, perhaps because of his loyalty to Italian unification.139 134 135

136 137 138

139

Comte to de Mont`egre, October 7, 1851, CG, 6:176. Comte to Winstanley, July 16, 1857, CG, 8:527. He believed all European agitators should be sent to the United States; “there their shameful intrigues” would lose “all efficacity.” Profumo to Comte, November 27, 1851, May 3, 1852, MAC. Mirella Larizza, “La R´epublique occidentale dans la pens´ee d’Auguste Comte,” Il Pensiero Politico 27 (1994), 31. Fabrizio Fabiani to Comte, December 10, 1852. Fabiani was reading the Cat´echisme. His second and last letter to Comte, which discussed the plight of workers, is dated February 13, 1853. Rossi also informed Comte of Italians who had mentioned Comte in their writings: Mauro Macchi and Antonio Franchi. Rossi to Comte, November 9, 1851, MAC. See

Popularity of Positivism

541

Profumo in the end was the only Italian positivist whom Comte knew. He worked hard propagating Comte’s ideas in Italy in the 1850s, but Comte worried that like Laffitte, he lacked energy.140 Comte unfairly suggested that Profumo’s efforts were not sufficient, but as the historian Maria Donzelli has pointed out, Comte’s stance against the Risorgimento was really what hurt his prospects in Italy, where so many people were devoted to Italian nationalism.141 Comte was surprised that Profumo and other disciples had a literary background and yet seemed drawn to positivism, which he thought would attract more people with scientific backgrounds. Another literary type who liked his ideas was C´esar Lefort. Born in 1824 of Flemish origins, he was a democratic-socialist, who had been influenced by Saint-Simon and Fourier. He was also a poet who achieved some prominence in literary circles. One of Comte’s disciples called him a “genius.”142 He was certainly well read, having perused the works of Th´eophile Gautier, George Sand, Emanuel Swedenborg, Thomas a` Kempis, and Hegel. In 1841, he read articles on Comte in the Revue Britannique but found positivism to be excessively materialist. After the Revolution of 1848, Lefort joined the Club Blanqui, which was later called the Soci´et´e r´epublicaine centrale. He also became the secretary of another club headed by Jules Lechevalier, a disciple of Saint-Simon and of Victor Considerant. Lechevalier helped Lefort with his studies of political economy. Restless for more knowledge, Lefort began to follow Comte’s course at the Palais Royal in 1849. Though he was hesitant about the economic aspects of positivism, its historical laws and religious doctrines finally won him over, and he began to visit Comte.143 Comte found that his deficient scientific knowledge was offset by his “rare synthetic talent,” “true tenderness,”

140

141

142 143

also Profumo to Comte, August 27, 1852, MAC; Rossi to Comte, July, 1852 (no day), October 21, 1854, MAC. Profumo to Comte, May 12, 1851, MAC. An article on Comte appeared in Ragione, an Italian journal, in late 1856. Constant-Rebecque eventually went to Italy to propagate the positivist faith and died in Florence in 1860. Pierre Laffitte, “Mat´eriaux pour servir a` la biographie d’Auguste Comte: Amis, Protecteurs, Correspondants d’Auguste Comte, “RO, 2d ser., 17 (juillet 1898), 122. See also Comte to Edger, May 21, 1857, CG, 8:470. Donzelli, “Auguste Comte,” 272. For the reception of positivism in Italy after Comte’s death, see Maria Donzelli, “Lectures et interpr´etations d’A. Comte en Italie dans la seconde moiti´e du XIX`eme si`ecle,” Auguste Comte et le positivisme, deux si`ecles apr`es (Actes du Colloque du 27 au 30 avril 1999) (Carthage: Acad´emie Tunisienne des Sciences, des Lettres et des Arts “Be¨ıt Al-Hikma”: 2000), 187–206. Donzelli explains that positivism became more well-known in Italy in the 1860s, after the unification; it was mainly Littr´e’s scientific version that attracted attention, especially among those eager to find ways to legitimize the new order. Hadery to Comte, August 14, 1853, MAC. Lefort believed that Comte was too ambitious in arguing for the necessity of immediately changing the property system. To Lefort, the economy would inevitably change after the triumph of the positivist mental regime. See Lefort to Comte, March 4 and 31,

542

The Development of the Positivist Movement

and “great energy.”144 In short, Lefort combined the best male and female characteristics. In late 1850, shortly after his conversion to positivism, Lefort and Joseph Bernard, a positivist worker, fled to Brussels as political refuges.145 Lefort frequented a radical club called the Soci´et´e de la Louve and kept close ties to other democratic-socialists. He was dismayed to discover that although everyone seemed familiar with the “simplistic Cabet,” Comte was “not better known than the Grand Turk.”146 He was convinced that Belgium was ripe for positivist conversion.147 Everyone was discussing ideas. Refugees of all stripes kept up the discussions by their constant arguments, which often led to duels.148 “German thinkers and writers” were busy planting “ambitions rather than doctrines.” Proudhon’s doctrines were also becoming popular. Not to be outdone, the Fourierists were constantly engaged in meetings and were keen on penetrating the “two universities of Brussels and Louvain.”149 Lefort was hopeful; he imagined the Fourierists and Proudhonists were as curious about Comte’s ideas as the Hegelians were.150 He noted that some socialists, like Louis M´enard, who wrote for Le Peuple, and L´eopold Bresson, who was a graduate of the Ecole Polytechnique and wrote for La Phalange, were already espousing positivist ideas.151 Yet he worried that the difficulties of understanding the Cours would prevent many Belgians from embracing positivism. Such concern led him to write overviews of Comte’s ideas and movement in the socialist journal of Brussels, La Belgique d´emocratique, which appeared twice a month and had a

144 145 146 147

148 149 151

November 11, December 30, 1851, MAC; Comte to Bligni`eres, August 28, 1853, CG, 7:116. Comte to Bligni`eres, March 11, 1851, CG, 6:39. Bernard was a member of the Positivist Society. Lefort to Comte, December 2, 1850, MAC. Lefort to Comte, March 31, 1851, MAC. Hopeful that Lefort was correct, Comte later sent copies of his Appel aux Conservateurs to the king of Belgium and various ministers and other notables to attract their attention. See Receipt acknowledging the people to whom Comte sent the Appel aux Conservateurs, December 5, 1855, in Manuscrits, MAC. Comte to Laffitte, August 8, 1851, CG, 6:131. Lefort to Comte, October 8, 1850, MAC. 150 Lefort to Comte, June 7, 1851, MAC. Franc¸ois Cantagrel, Fr´ederic Laugrand (editor of La Voix du Peuple), and Pietro Sterbini (a Roman) were a few socialists whom Lefort mentioned. Lefort to Comte, June 17, 1851, MAC. See L´eopold Bresson, “Consid´erations positives sur la science sociale,” La Phalange: Journal de la Science Sociale 5 (1847): 537–62; 6 (1847): 48–71, 136–54, 275–96, 330–53, 441–64, 537–51; 7 (1848): 54–72, 137–54, 285–316, 466–500; 8 (1848): 77– 96, 161–74. Bresson wrote a favorable review of the Cours, pointing out that despite its “painful abstractions” and weak conclusions regarding social physics, Comte was a genius whose philosophy could usefully direct the modern “spiritual reorganization.” L´eopold Bresson, “Consid´erations positives sur la science sociale,” La Phalange 5 (1847): 543–4.

Popularity of Positivism

543

run of one thousand copies.152 Lefort thought that his work for this leftist journal was superior to Littr´e’s “stupid” article on positivism in the Revue des deux mondes.153 After Lefort completed his reviews, he arranged for Laffitte to do a series on positivism in the same journal, starting in March 1851. Lefort also secured a room to give a course on positivism. All of these activities incurred the suspicions of the police, who began to open Comte’s letters to him. But their increased surveillance made him only a more ardent propagandist; he began to work with seven to eight Belgians to advance Comte’s cause.154 Like Comte, he hoped to unite opposing “parties, interests, and classes” around the same principles.155 Yet in mid-1852, Lefort suddenly decided to return to France, giving up his work in Belgium. Disillusioned with Laffitte, Comte looked at Lefort as a possible successor and urged him to prepare to be a positivist priest.156 As Lefort had suggested, Germany was in an intellectual ferment, especially thanks to the Young Hegelians. Comte knew several leftist Germans interested in Hegelianism. One was Adolphe de Ribbentrop, who told him that positivism was making strides in Germany. Comte began to be hopeful about its prospects there because of the German “tendency toward general conceptions” and “aptitude for disinterested sentiments.”157 Yet another German whom he met, a 152

153

154

155 156

157

Lefort also wanted to write a summary of Comte’s doctrine because only two copies of the Cours were available in Brussels. In addition, he offered to help back the Syst`eme, which would give the socialists the historical theory they needed to guide them. Lefort to Comte, October 8, December 11, 1850, MAC. On November 15, 1850, an article that he wrote on the “Positivist School” appeared in the Belgique d´emocratique. He wrote another article on the “Positivist Doctrine” a few months later. See Larizza, Bandiera verde, 450n234. Lefort to Comte, October 8, 1850, MAC. Lefort was later offered the job of director of this journal. Louis Labarre at La Nation, another Belgian journal, supported Lefort’s bid to become editor of the Belgique d´emocratique. The main owner of the La Nation, Charles Potvin, who had also started the Belgique d´emocratique, was close to becoming a positivist, according to Lefort. For some reason, Lefort did not take up the offer to run the Belgique d´emocratique. Lefort to Comte, June 19, 1851, and April 15, 1852, MAC. Lefort to Comte, January 7, 1852, MAC. Another Belgian writer in favor of positivism was Guarin de Vitry, whose “Voltairian verve” was good for propagation. Comte to Laffitte, August 8, 1851, CG, 6:131. Yet Lefort informed Comte that de Vitry found the “positive creation of artificial rich people” to be a superficial way of dealing with the severe economic problems that affected Europe. Lefort advised Comte to avoid mentioning this topic, for it alienated socialists. Lefort to Comte, September 23, 1851, MAC. Lefort to Comte, March 15, 1853, MAC. Lefort to Comte, May 29, June 30, 1853, MAC. Comte worried about his lack of scientific training but was impressed by his understanding of his theory of the brain. Comte to Bligni`eres, August 11, 1851, CG, 6:142; Audiffrent to Dubuisson, February 24, 1900, MAC. Comte to Hutton, December 8, 1853, CG, 7:149.

544

The Development of the Positivist Movement

colleague of Ribbentrop, told him otherwise. This individual was a refugee, Dr. August Hermann Ewerbeck, who was a friend of Laffitte as well as of Marx and Engels. He introduced Marx to the German communist workers in Paris.158 He led the Paris chapter of the “League of the Just,” a working-class organization, whose headquarters was in Brussels, and he was a member of the “Communist League” until 1850. He encouraged the French to familiarize themselves with German philosophy and urged Germans to learn about French philosophy. To that end, he translated Cabet’s Voyage en Icarie into German. Ewerbeck became an enthusiast of positivism and upbraided Ribbentrop, whom he had known since 1842, for not doing more to advance the positivist cause in his native land. Secretly he told Laffitte that Ribbentrop knew nothing of German philosophy and was a “venomous beast” who liked to seduce “young girls.” Ewerbeck had even felt obliged to marry a servant whom Ribbentrop had impregnated but refused to wed.159 Indeed, in 1853, Comte’s disciple Emile Pascal broke with Ribbentrop, whom he accused of violating “all the rules of domestic morality.”160 Ribbentrop even mocked Comte when the latter upbraided him for not being able to control his appetites.161 To prove his point about Ribbentrop’s ignorance, Ewerbeck sought to query the Young Hegelians Georg Friedrich Daumer and Ludwig Feuerbach about the German people’s knowledge of positivism.162 Influenced by Hegelian pantheism and critical of Christianity, Daumer had published in 1848 Mohomed und sein Werke. Encouraged 158

159

160 161 162

When Marx lived in Paris in 1847, he saw Ewerbeck frequently and made fun of him, calling him a “schoolmaster.” See Marx to Engels, March 9, 1847, Karl Marx-Friedrich Engels, ed. Raddatz, 213. On Ewerbeck, see Saul K. Padover, Karl Marx: An Intimate Biography (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978), 15, 178, 182. Ewerbeck to Laffitte, July 29, 1852, MAC. Disgusted by Ribbentrop’s behavior, Ewerbeck married the servant and claimed the little girl that she had had with Ribbentrop as his own. Yet even after the marriage, Ribbentrop tried to ingratiate himself with her. Eventually, she left Ewerbeck, who condemned the baron as dishonorable. Positivists also found his character deficient. (Ribbentrop brought his daughter, Marie, to Comte’s course at the Palais-Royal, and she later helped spread positivism among Brazilians residing in Brussels.) Distraught by Ribbentrop’s betrayal, Ewerbeck left Paris in mid1853 to reside in Cabet’s Icaria in Illinois for a while before settling in Highland, Illinois with other Germans. Comte tried to get Henry Edger, an English disciple living on Long Island, to modify Ewerbeck’s “Germanic vagueness,” but due to a problem with the mail, the two men never met. Comte to Edger, August 4, 1854, CG, 7:238. See also Ewerbeck to Laffitte, May 15, 1854, MAC; Ewerbeck to Comte, September 18, 1853, October 21, 1854, MAC; Hawkins, Positivism, 230; “N´ecrologie: Mademoiselle Marie de Ribbentrop,” RO, 2d ser., 16 (January 1898): 144–5. Emile Pascal to Laffitte, November 22, 1853, MAC. Ewerbeck to Comte, September 23, 1853, MAC. Laffitte to Comte, September 29, 1850, in Laffitte, ed, “49 Lettres de Pierre Laffitte a` Auguste Comte (Suite),” 87.

Popularity of Positivism

545

by Ewerbeck, Littr´e wrote to Daumer for more information about the German reception of positivism and learned from him that the most advanced philosophers in Germany were not familiar with positivism at all.163 Daumer had read only Comte’s sermon excoriating Blainville. Ewerbeck translated Daumer’s reply to Littr´e so that Comte could read it. Writing to Laffitte, who was visiting his family in the Gironde, Comte expressed his distaste for the “Young Hegelians”: They have not really left the metaphysical fluctuation. Mr. Daumer wants . . . a natural doctrine that is both philosophical and religious, founded on the Stoic conception of the soul of the world. Yet he does not assert that that is indispensable to him. You see in what a vague state the last representatives of the spirit of the absolute find themselves.164

Daumer also gave Comte a dim picture of German politics. He complained of his fellow Germans’ negative position on social issues, which led to the failure of the Revolution of 1848. Comte ascribed their problems to Protestantism. Ewerbeck thought that Feuerbach might be more promising. He had recently published a translation of Feuerbach’s main works in a volume called Qu’est-ce que religion d’apr`es la nouvelle philosophie allemand? (1850).165 This volume included Feuerbach’s Essence of Christianity.166 Feuerbach argued that the real subject of religion was man, for humans project their capacities for loving and feeling onto the divine. Feuerbach had been influenced by David Friedrich Strauss’s 163

164

165

166

Daumer had been the teacher of the mysterious German boy, Kaspar Hauser, who had attracted a great deal of attention because of his unknown origins and peculiar behavior. Hauser had died in 1833. Comte to Laffitte, September 25, 1850, CG, 5:201–2. Comte might have later learned more about Hegel from Ewerbeck, who was very interested in him. In 1854, while in Illinois, Ewerbeck began to tackle the translation of Hegel’s Phenomenology into French, complaining how difficult he found this task. Ewerbeck to Laffitte, May 15, 1854, MAC. Lewes also included chapters on Fichte and Hegel in the last volume of his Biographical History of Philosophy, which Comte read. Ewerbeck gave Comte several of his books, Qu’est-ce que religion d’apr`es la nouvelle philosophie allemand (1850), Qu’est-ce que la Bible d’apr`es la nouvelle philosophie allemande (1850), and L’Allemagne et les Allemands (1851). See Comte’s Biblioth`eque Superflue, MAC. In the first book, Ewerbeck underscored the importance of Marx and discussed his views on religion, including the notion that religion is the “opium of the people.” See Qu’est-ce que religion d’apr`es la nouvelle philosophie allemand (Paris, 1850), vi, note 1; 26–7. Marx seemed always eager to ridicule Ewerbeck, fearing he would spread “arrant nonsense” about him. Marx to Engels, October 13, 1851, in Marxists Internet Archive, “Marx-Engels Correspondence,” from Marx/Engels Collected Works (USSR: Progress Publishers, 1975-2005),Volume 38, p. 472, http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/ works/1851/letters/51_10_13.htm (accessed June 21, 2006). Ribbentrop had written a review of it for the Revue ind´ependante. Comte gave this review to Lenoir in 1846. See Comte to Lenoir, October 28, 1846, CG, 4:68.

546

The Development of the Positivist Movement

Life of Jesus, which maintained that Jesus was no more than the product of the collective unconscious.167 As previously mentioned, Littr´e had translated Strauss’s book into French. Littr´e and Feuerbach were working along the same lines, investigating the legitimacy of traditional religion. It is unclear whether Ewerbeck or Littr´e successfully contacted Feuerbach. Comte seemed to have more respect for Feuerbach than for Daumer, but he admitted that he knew “little” about him. The prospects for converting Feuerbach to positivism were poor, Comte surmised, because he was too old, established, and set in his ways.168 In his usual tentative fashion, Laffitte tried to convince Comte that it was important to garner the support of Feuerbach, the most influential Hegelian. Feuerbach’s “historical application of the great notion of Kant about the double reality – objective and subjective – of our conceptions” was not typical of the German metaphysicians who dominated German intellectual life. Feuerbach was in many ways similar to Comte, who also played with Kant’s idea. Like Comte, Feuerbach believed that “true immortality” brings up moral issues because it “exists for each of us only . . . through the mediation of others, considering that the new life is subjective instead of objective.” Moreover, similarly to Comte, who was working out his theory of guardian angels, Feuerbach recommended the Virgin Mary as an intermediary between God and Humanity. Finally, like Comte, Feuerbach understood the “affective character of Catholicism” and attacked Protestants for their “dryness.” Laffitte concluded that because of the receptiveness of Germans to the philosophy of Feuerbach, they might adopt positivism.169 In the end, Comte decided that Ribbentrop had been telling him “great lies” about the advance of positivism in Germany.170 Of all the major countries, Germany seemed to him to be the least welcoming to his doctrine. Very disappointed, Comte and his disciples surmised that academics there were trying to preserve the German philosophical school and thus opposed the introduction of French positivism.171 He believed German metaphysicians in particular were writing against his philosophy.172 Thus German thinkers, whom he deemed inferior to the English, would continue to resist being directed by other philosophers such as himself. In the fourth edition of his Calendar, Comte even demoted some great German figures in the past such as Fichte and gave greater importance to British ones such 167 168 169 170 171

Tom Rockmore, “Feuerbach,” in Robert L. Arrington, ed., A Companion to the Philosophers (Oxford: Blackwell, 1999), 244–5. Comte to Laffitte, October 2, 1850, CG, 5:203. Laffitte to Comte, September 29, 1850, in Laffitte, ed., “49 Lettres de Pierre Laffitte a` Auguste Comte (Suite),” 87–8. Comte to Laffitte, September 25, 1850, CG, 5:201. See Hutton to Comte, December 11, 1853, MAC. 172 Syst`eme, 4:xvi, 498.

Popularity of Positivism

547

as William Robertson.173 Comte also abandoned his plans to learn German, having concluded that both German poetry and philosophy were mediocre.174 The Germans tended to “confuse vagueness with depth” and were too ontological.175 They were far too wedded to “Greek sources,” outdated theological and metaphysical beliefs, and old-fashioned militarism.176 They were simply backward. But as Comte grew more conservative, he lashed out more at German leftists. Referring obliquely to Marx, Comte argued that German metaphysicians were the “principal promoters of the most dangerous communism.”177 More hostility came from Comte’s pen when Baroness Bertha von Marenholtz-B¨ulow made contact with Comte in 1856.178 Upon meeting her, he thought he could “count on” this “noble German widow” for support.179 Marenholtz-B¨ulow promulgated the teaching methods of Friedrich Fr¨obel, who launched the kindergarten movement. She gave Comte her recently published book Les Jardins d’Enfants, nouvelle e´dition d’´education et d’instruction de Fr´ed´eric Froebel, which reviewed the life and teachings of the educator. She asked if 173

174

175

176

177

178

179

Demoting Fichte to a minor place in the Calendar, Comte stated that the only “eminent” Germans since Leibniz and Frederick the Great had been Kant and Gall. He promoted Robertson, whom he now regarded as equal to Adam Smith. Comte, Calendrier Positiviste, 4th ed. (Paris, 1852), 25. Comte to Audiffrent, April 7, 1851, CG, 6:53. Comte liked to learn languages to relieve stress. He had learned Italian while writing the fourth volume of the Cours and Spanish while composing the conclusion to the entire work. He first toyed with the idea of learning German in 1842, partly out of interest in its poetry. But nothing came of this first effort. In approaching the Syst`eme in 1847, he intended to try it again. He bought a copy of Goethe’s works and a dictionary to get started. But again he did not follow through on this project. Then he decided to learn Greek instead of German while writing the second volume of the Syst`eme. He thus knew only four of the languages of the five main Occidental nations: French, Italian, Spanish, and English. He had learned English in his youth when he wanted to emigrate to the United States. See Comte to Valat, October 27, 1842, CG, 2:98. Comte to Lewes, April 7, 1847, CG, 4:112. Syst`eme, 4:500. Comte also accused the Germans of lacking a proper sense of history. Their philosophers of history – by implication Hegel – were too vague, and they displayed a “vain erudition.” Syst`eme, 4:500. Cat´echisme, 88. See also Syst`eme, 4:xii, 490. In the Syst`eme, he also condemned Germans’ neutrality during the Crimean war, referring to their “oppression of Italy” as having pushed this country into a “tyrannical isolation.” Syst`eme, 4:499. Comte also criticized metaphysicians for displaying much social ineptitude during the democratic revolution of 1848. Presumably, they did not know how to help the workers in a way that did not threaten the forces of order. Syst`eme, 4:499. She was a friend of Marie d’Agoult, who may have introduced her to Comte. Marie d’Agoult to Bertha Marenholtz, September 19, 1874, mentioned in the auction catalogue Lettres, Documents, Autographes: Paris, Nouveau Drouot Jeudi 27 octobre 1988, found in CV 6861, BN. The year before, in July 1855, a philosophy professor from Bonn came to visit Comte: Jurgen Bona Meyer. His calling card is in the MAC. Comte, “Onzi`eme Confession annuelle,” October 12, 1856, CG, 8:314.

548

The Development of the Positivist Movement

his methods agreed with Comte’s principles of education.180 Comte admitted that as long as the “independence and the dignity of woman” were not guaranteed, especially in proletarian households, these “children’s gardens” would be a “necessary evil.” He did not like preschools because he believed mothers should educate their young children. Expressing his worries about ideas coming from Germany, he wrote that the “plan of this education” reminded him of “the vague and superficial mode in which Protestantism and metaphysics have imprisoned the German mind, which confuses only too often the form for the foundation and which tries to regulate in a puerile fashion that which must be abandoned systematically to full spontaneity.” Little children, whose feelings should be cultivated, should not have a rigorous upbringing with occupations that tax their minds. They should not be forced to think of public affairs or learn to question everything. Fr¨obel’s system might make children, even girls, “deists and communists.”181 Comte’s closedmindedness soon alienated Marenholtz-B¨ulow, who refused to communicate with him any longer. Because of his inability to connect with any prominent German and Germans’ tendency to associate him with Mill as simply another empiricist, Germans did not pay serious attention to him until after he died. Karl Twesten, a member of the Progressive Party in Prussia, wrote one of the first reviews of Comte’s life and work in 1859 for the journal Preussische Jahrb¨ucher.182 comte’s g rowing conse rvatism One factor that affected the growth of Comte’s movement was his turn to the right, which sent mixed signals to supporters and those who might have been thinking about becoming positivists. Comte considered socialists the “natural adherents” of positivism, but this closeness began to cause him anxiety.183 As reflected in his desire to attack the “reds” in his course on the history of humanity in 1850, he appeared to become increasingly conservative starting that year. One reason is that the bourgeoisie’s fear of a takeover by the democratic-socialists and their anticommunist propaganda to that 180

181

182 183

Baronness Bertha von Marenholtz-B¨ulow to Comte, June 16 and June 21, 1856, MAC. See also Comte’s Biblioth`eque Superflue, MAC. He wrote on the book that he received it in the positivist year 68, that is, 1856. It was published in Paris in 1855. Comte to Mme la Baronne de Marenholtz-B¨ulow, June 13, 1856, CG, 8:267–8. See also Comte’s advice to Edger, June 26, April 3, 1856, CG, 8:271, 434. For more derogatory comments on the “subtle wanderings” that distracted the German mind, see Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 217. Heilbron, Rise of Social Theory, 261. Comte to Bligni`eres, January 15, 1851, CG, 6:13.

Comte’s Growing Conservatism

549

effect profoundly influenced him. The peasant vote in the provinces had helped propel Louis Napoleon into power. But the democraticsocialists had made inroads in the countryside, particularly after new laws in 1850 disenfranchised over 30 percent of the French population. Peasants also resented the increased administrative interference in communal affairs and the rise of repression in the form of arbitrary arrests and searches of houses. Many people feared that if the peasants dropped their support for conservatives, the leftists might win in the legislative and presidential elections of 1852. There were even rumors that leftists were plotting to resort to violence to take over the country. Roger Price has pointed out that “conservative publicists” beginning in early 1848 combined “historical experience with myth to create a nightmare vision of social revolution involving not only a repetition of the Terror of 1793, but also the total dispossession of the propertied classes.”184 Since 1848, many fearful positivist disciples wrote to tell Comte that the leftists were gaining ground in their provinces. Alix Comte expressed her alarm at the growth of anarchy in the Midi.185 Comte wrote to Laffitte in October 1850 to tell him of his worries, “The advent of the reds seems as shameful and far more harmful than that of Mr. Bonaparte. We must do all we can so that such a base act does not happen to France nor such a calamity to the West.” In one of his last lectures, he declared “war on the levelers,” whom he presented as the “only dangerous enemies of the true republic.” Positivists had to make an immediate, clear “split” with these democratic-socialists.186 Such words were very different from ones he wrote to Williamson a short time before, in November 1849, when he claimed that the “independents and levelers were, under the great Cromwell, the true spontaneous precursors of our republicans and socialists” in the struggle for “emancipation.”187 Now Comte wished to lead the people and would not brook any rivalry with these leftists.188 He wrote, “Experience will prove more and more that they are our principal adversaries because we are in immediate competition only with them . . . [for] the trust of the people. On the other hand, the whites and the blues do not make any 184

185

186 187 188

Roger Price, Napoleon III,13, 18. Comte denounced the “ignoble cupidity” and “base jealousy” of the “so-called socialists” who were increasing their agitation in the countryside. Comte to Laffitte, September 22, 1851, CG, 6:171. See, for example, Alix Comte to Comte, February 13, 1849, in “Lettres d’Alix Comte a` son fr`ere,” 128. Alix complained frequently about the lack of public order, the bad economy, and the suffering of the various classes. See Alix Comte to Comte, January 21 and March 20, 1850, in “Mat´eriaux pour servir a` la biographie d’Auguste Comte (Suite),” ed. Laffitte, 166, 170. Comte to Laffitte, October 16, 1850, CG, 5:211–12. Comte again denounced “democrats” as dangerous at the time of the coup d’´etat of Louis Napoleon. Comte to Williamson, November 19, 1849, CG, 5:113. Comte to Laffitte, October 23, 1850, CG, 5:213.

550

The Development of the Positivist Movement

claims in this area.”189 There had to be a better way to combat the reds – the “anarchist party” – than to point out the similarity between his doctrine and theirs.190 Alphonse Leblais suggested that the positivists needed to embrace “fanaticism” as a spur to action. Comte agreed. A “worthy fanaticism” is “truly that which is most lacking today, even among the positivists. We are still too much reasoners, or rather debaters. . . . Our hearts are not yet leading us. We do not feel sufficiently . . . Heretofore, I have seen devotion only in communist proletarians.”191 Indeed, he looked upon the communists as the “most respectable of all sectarians” because they gathered together for an idealistic cause, to create a utopia.192 He wrote in 1852, reflecting the kind of threat that communism posed to him: “The example of the communists should . . . enlighten us because their comparative success derives solely from the fact that they are as superior to the positivists in terms of their heart as they are inferior in terms of their doctrine.”193 Positivists needed to display more emotional commitment and “enthusiasm” to supplement their superior reason and activity.194 Comte also argued that now that the Republic’s establishment in 1848 had ensured progress, it was time to let royalists and moderate republicans take care of the problem of order to give time for positivist statesmen to emerge and gather support from the workers.195 He spoke more often about the need to effect the “moral improvement of the proletarians themselves” as part of the process of incorporating them into modern society. This “improvement” consisted chiefly of socializing them into not aspiring to indulge in the “idleness” and “pleasures” that they now criticized the upper classes for enjoying.196 Comte did not think that the egotistical bourgeoisie was worth imitating. The workers should feel the dignity of manual work, which he suggested made them superior. They needed to understand that “the utopia where all men would live on some [outside] revenue is as immoral as it is absurd.”197 The “subversive utopias” of the left, which encouraged their envy of the bourgeoisie, reflected the “disorders of masculine reason,” from which women, who were more 189 190 191 192 193 194 195

196 197

Comte to Audiffrent, March 9, 1851, CG, 6:33. Comte to Bligni`eres, March 11, 1851, CG, 6:39. Comte to Leblais, January 15, 1851, CG, 6:11. Comte to Deullin, September 20, 1853, CG, 7:124–5. Comte to Bligni`eres, January 4, 1852, CG, 6:208. Comte to Tholouze, August 26, 1852, CG, 6:346. Comte to Audiffrent, March 9, 1851, CG, 6:35. Comte believed that the advances made by the Revolution of 1848 in ensuring progress had compensated for the delays caused by Napoleon’s “retrograde tyranny.” Comte to Tholouze, April 22, 1851, CG, 6:56. Comte to Hadery, May 9, 1851, CG, 6:78. Comte to Metcalf, July 20, 1857, CG, 8:532. Most people would receive a “periodic salary.”

Comte’s Growing Conservatism

551

conservative, could save France.198 Comte did not approve of upward social mobility because he wanted people to remain in the niches in which they were born. A rigid social hierarchy was, after all, more orderly and more controlling. His fear of anarchy prevailed over his interest in justice. Comte began to move further away from the workers as he noticed that the number of proletarians coming to his course on the history of humanity dropped in early 1851. He blamed this decrease on their unfortunate preoccupation with “subversive utopias,” which distracted them from “serious and prolonged meditations.”199 But the truth is that he had come out strongly against socialism and denounced some of the workers’ cherished goals, such as universal suffrage. His more outspoken stance against the “reds” gained him more nonproletarian auditors, perhaps people from the bourgeoisie.200 Concerned about the conservative aspects of Comte’s philosophy, Lefort joked that whereas before he was converting reactionaries into socialists in Belgium, now he was dedicating himself to transforming socialists into reactionaries.201 Comte boasted that he hoped to get the support of conservatives by appropriating “the three prominent words” of their “official program”: “property, family, and religion.”202 He already had a hold on order, another key component of their program. Lefort, Dr. Segond, Littr´e, and Laffitte frequently voiced their concern about Comte’s shift in position, which was estranging the workers. After hearing Comte close his course in 1850 with a denunciation of metaphysicians and leftists, Laffitte admonished him to use the “utmost prudence” in attacking the leaders of the people. It is important to attack the red leaders if you distinguish them carefully from the socialist leaders, who . . . are our true precursors; but I think it is dangerous to attack in general the Reds, because such a denomination is today accepted by all those who belong to the progressive party, and as you know, it is among them that we find serious, devoted adherents, capable of sacrifices.203

Indeed, many of Comte’s disciples told him that positivism attracted the support of local red republicans.204 198 199 200 201 202 203

204

Comte to Madame E. Delhorbe, October 23, 1857, CG, 6:183. Comte to Bligni`eres, May 12, 1851, CG, 6:83. Comte to Profumo, May 17, 1851, CG, 6:88. See also Comte, “Sixi`eme Confession annuelle,” May 30, 1851, CG, 6:99. Lefort to Comte, November 11, 1851, MAC. Comte to Laffitte, October 18, 1849, CG, 5:98. Laffitte to Comte, October 20, 1850, in Laffitte, ed. “49 Lettres de Pierre Laffitte & Auguste Comte,” 96–7. See also Comte, “Sixi`eme Confession annuelle,” May 30, 1851, CG, 6:98. See for example, Alphonse Leblais to Comte, January 9, 1851, MAC. Laffitte also told Comte that the socialist journal in his department, the Tribune de la Gironde, recently

552

The Development of the Positivist Movement

Laffitte worried that Comte’s attacks on the left might end up “indirectly aiding the reactionaries, whose miserable conduct is directed by no social motive whatsoever.”205 Like Littr´e, Laffitte was extremely critical of the right, whose conduct was “immoral,” repressive, and “odious.” Through a system of informers, they were creating such a terrible atmosphere of incrimination that Laffitte’s friends in the Gironde were even afraid to dine at his house because they did not want to be suspected of being reds. Good people were “daily accused of wanting to share lands and women.” But Laffitte insisted that “honest people who seriously want order today are socialists.”206 The socialists cared about social problems and were not necessarily communists. Indeed, their interest in the social question made them welcome Comte’s doctrine. Thus no “honest man” could ever belong to the right. Bonaparte in particular had an “ignoble entourage” and should be eliminated as president.207 In response, Comte accused Laffitte of being unduly influenced by his uncle and by newspapers, which made him “blind and unjust.” He exclaimed, “Look at you now momentarily arrived at a kind of fanaticism of opposition, which pushes you to admit to me, in the freest possible intimacy, that you consider it impossible to find a single honest man among those who support the present direction of the Government!”208 Comte decided that Laffitte’s lack of energy and indifference toward pursuing further theoretical studies disqualified him from being a positivist priest or his successor.209 Laffitte could be at most an “overly passive” apostle.210 Comte’s effort to present a more moderate position was a function of his new strategy for success. His plan was for positivism to take over the state, then topple the Church, and finally infiltrate society. Finding support among “practical commanders and theoretical advisers”

205

206 207

208 209 210

praised Littr´e’s recent work, explaining his adherence to positivism and the principles of this school. The article was by a Mr. Simiot, a “former representative of the people.” See Laffitte to Comte, August 13, 1851, in Laffitte, ed., “49 Lettres de Pierre Laffitte & Auguste Comte,” 102. Laffitte to Comte, October 20, 1850, in Laffitte, ed. “49 Lettres de Pierre Laffitte & Auguste Comte,” 96–7. See also Comte, “Sixi`eme Confession annuelle,” May 30, 1851, CG, 6:98. Laffitte to Comte, October 14, 1849, in Laffitte, ed., “49 Lettres de Pierre Laffitte a` Auguste Comte (Suite),” 97. The date of the letter in the RO is erroneous. Laffitte to Comte, August 10, 1851, in Laffitte, ed. “49 Lettres de Pierre Laffitte a` Auguste Comte (Suite),”104. Laffitte would always remain opposed to Bonaparte. See Pierre Laffitte, “De la R´evolution de f´evrier 1848,” RO, 2d ser., n.s., 6 (November 1892):321–44 Comte to Laffitte, October 23, 1850, CG, 5:213. Comte, “Sixi`eme Confession annuelle,” May 30, 1851, CG, 6:98. Comte to Bligni`eres, November 29, 1852, CG, 6:438. See also Comte to Audiffrent, August 19, 1852, CG, 6:341.

Comte’s Growing Conservatism

553

was crucial.211 Despite the fact that he considered Louis Napoleon a reactionary who threatened progress, Comte met in February 1851 with Vieillard to persuade him to help convert the emperor to the positivist cause. The emperor was a skeptic clearly in need of a religion, that is, a system of “fixed and common convictions,” in order to govern.212 This meeting was the third Comte had had with Vieillard, his “civic patron,” and he was pleased by his “complete adherence” to positivism.213 Vieillard apparently urged Comte to start a new party that would rise above the decrepit ones that existed and seize the direction of the new republic. Comte agreed to do so in the hope of “enlarging the field of the positivist public.” After all, he figured that sincere progressives were already in his camp. Now all he needed to do was attract sincere partisans of order.214 Perhaps to cover traces of his earlier, more leftist stance, he burned many of his own manuscripts.215 Comte believed that he could not achieve his goals unless he represented his doctrine as a strong tool against anarchy. He began his course on the history of Humanity in April 1851 with the launching of a “positivist party,” which he hoped to make “distinct from all the other current parties.”216 The “greens” would be the “outside” party, and they would attract everyone who was honest and sensible in the other parties, all of which were “equally anarchic and equally retrograde.”217 In his opening lecture, Comte “fully broke with the reds,” without showing “any partiality for the whites or even the blues,” whose positions he showed were inadequate.218 Although he acknowledged that the whites and blues, that is, the royalists and 211 212

213

214 215 216 217 218

Comte to Profumo, August 8, 1851, CG, 6:128. Comte to Laurent, February 16, 1857, CG, 8:403. Comte believed that the “rational and social religion” of positivism, which stressed “generality of thoughts and generosity of sentiments,” was a better choice than the Catholic religion that was being forced upon Louis Napoleon. He also maintained that Louis Napoleon would tire of the Catholics, who were causing him trouble. Comte to Laurent, February 16, 1857, CG, 8:403; Comte to Hadery, April 3, 1856, CG, 8:243; Comte to Louis Comte, January 26, 1857, CG, 8:391. Comte, “Septi`eme Confession annuelle,” May 28, 1852, CG, 6:285; Comte to Audiffrent, December 30, 1852, CG, 6:479; Comte, “Sixi`eme Confession annuelle,” May 30, 1851, CG, 6:99; Comte to Tholouze, April 22, 1851, CG, 6:56. Comte had met with Vieillard in 1849 and 1850. Comte to Bligni`eres, May 12, 1851, CG, 6:83. See Comte’s note written on March 17, 1850 on the top of the original manuscript of the “S´eparation entre les opinions et les d´esirs,” MAC. Comte to Bligni`eres, January 15, 1851, CG, 6:13; Comte to Tholouze, April 22, 1851, CG, 6:57. Comte to Audiffrent, January 29, 1851, April 7, 1851, CG, 6:17, 54. See also Comte to Bligni`eres, March 11, 1851, CG, 6:39. Auguste Hadery to Comte, May 22, 1851, MAC. Comte even claimed that he was “more firm than before with the whites and blues.” Comte to Bligni`eres, May 12, 1851, CG, 6:83. He also stated, “The positivist party must not treat the reds better than the whites and blues.” Comte to Bligni`eres, January 15, 1851, CG, 6:12.

554

The Development of the Positivist Movement

moderate republicans, provided a useful service in maintaining material tranquility, which was necessary for regeneration, he insisted that this order would remain reactionary as long as progress was random. Most of all, he spoke out against the reds, whom he considered the most threatening of all parties because they were the most anarchical and therefore made the reactionaries seem valuable. Adding a visual scenario, Comte announced his intention to raise the “green flag of the constructors” against the “red flag of the levelers.” He lashed out against the reds in the destructive manner that he claimed to despise. In his lectures, he characterized “the sovereignty of the people as an uprising of the living against the dead, equality as an immoral lie, and universal suffrage as a social malady.” He claimed that “two or three hundred revolutionaries” allegedly applauded his denunciations in a pronounced manner.219 Their response proved positivism’s power to discipline the “present revolt.” Excited by his success, he began to dream of preaching in Notre Dame within ten years.220 He was sure that the next crisis, which was close at hand, would bring about the triumph of the positivists. Comte succeeded in drawing some conservatives to his camp.221 He boasted in September 1851 that he had won over Charles Poisson, a former sous-prefect, whom he had met originally on an admissions tour in 1841 in Reims. Now Poisson was chief of statistics at the prefecture of police in Paris. Comte was delighted to have “penetrated” this office.222 Laffitte, undaunted by Comte’s criticisms, wrote The example of Mr. Charles Poisson proves, without doubt, that honest conservatives could truly rally to us; but you should observe that most really moderate men are attached to the republican party because of the excesses of a reactionary power. I now find a constant bad faith and a repulsive and avowed egoism in those who proclaim themselves exclusively partisans of order. There are only legitimists in the retrograde party because this portion of the bourgeoisie, having exploited France during the reign of Louis Philippe, laments bitterly the passing of a regime so . . . convenient for rapid fortunes.223

Laffitte reassured Comte that people who were republicans and progressives were for the most part very moderate. Indeed, as Roger Price 219 220

221

222 223

He admitted, however, that they did not like his idea of diminishing the power of the Assembly. Comte to Tholouze, April 22, 1851, CG, 6:59. Ibid., 58. He first announced his intention in 1847. In 1853, he repeated this pledge to preach in Notre Dame by 1857 to Erskine Perry, a baronet who visited him. Perry, “A Morning,” 628. Mont`egre to Comte, October 4, 1851, MAC. Mont`egre explained that the success had a great deal to do with the propagating efforts of a Mr. Bernard.This might be the worker Joseph Bernard. See Comte to Mont`egre, October 7, 1851, CG, 6:175. Comte to Laffitte, September 12, 1851, CG, 6:159. Laffitte to Comte, September 17, 1851, in Laffitte, ed. “49 Lettres de Pierre Laffitte & Auguste Comte,” 209–10.

“Complete Positivists”

555

explains, republicans, who were loyal to the “universalistic ideals” of the French revolutionaries of 1789, were not all radicals; they were split between moderates on the one hand and democratic-socialists on the other.224 Aware of such divisions, Laffitte told Comte that his ideas were welcomed most by the republican party and that it was absurd for him to seek adherents outside it. He explained, “Besides the proletariat, our soldiers are in the moderate mass of the republican bourgeoisie, and not in the so-called party of order.”225 Individuals who gave money to Comte and supported his doctrine explained repeatedly that they did so because they wanted to fight the moral decay around them without subscribing to the outmoded position of the conservatives.226 Laffitte’s words fell on deaf ears. In 1852, Comte decided to be even more aggressive in his course “to convert sincere conservatives to positivism.”227 Instead of following Laffitte’s advice, he hurled insults at him. He claimed Laffitte was degenerating because of the “revolutionary contagion,” and he likened him to a victim of cholera or some other disease.228 To counter the sickly, weak Laffitte, he quoted from a letter of Audiffrent, who stated that “sincere Catholics” were more open to positivism than “revolutionaries whose stupid pride rejected all discipline.”229 As for moderate republicans, they were, in Comte’s opinion, the guilty ones who contributed a great deal to the back-and-forth quality of French political life. In 1848 and 1849, such people supported reactionary programs and then voted for Louis Napoleon for fear of anarchy. In 1851, they were ready to support anarchists because of their hatred of the reactionaries and the repressive regime. Like the center party of his youth, the moderates contributed to the destabilization of the political arena. Comte was tired of them. “complete po sitivists” As Comte sought to distinguish his movement from that of the “reds,” he became preoccupied with determining what exactly a positivist was. In his “Deuxi`eme Circulaire annuelle” of 1851, he wrote, “The 224 225 226

227 228 229

Price, Napoleon III, 21. Laffitte to Comte, September 17, 1851, in Laffitte, ed., “49 Lettres de Pierre Laffitte et Auguste Comte,” 209–10. Ch. Ploix to Comte, June 9, 1854. He gave one hundred francs to the Positivist Subsidy because he disliked the apathy of his contemporaries and believed Comte expressed “truths of the future.” He railed against conservatives, who believed that their old doctrines were “infallible.” Comte to Laurent, March 25, 1852, CG, 6:258. Comte to Laffitte, September 22, 1851, CG, 6:168–9. Audiffrent, quoted in Comte to Laffitte, September 22, 1851, CG, 6:170.

556

The Development of the Positivist Movement

new universal doctrine now obtains two kinds of supporters.” There were the “insufficient” positivists, who came to the movement early on and accepted only Comte’s “philosophical principles.” The more recent adherents were “the only complete ones,” for they accepted his “social consequences,” that is, his moral and political position.230 Comte now would allow only individuals who spoke to him at length about positivist principles and proved they were complete positivists, that is, believers in the Religion of Humanity, to join the Positivist Society.231 One final proof of being a real positivist was contributing to the Positivist Subsidy. Indeed, Comte wrote in 1852, “I can no longer consider a positivist a person who does not at all contribute to sustaining my material existence.”232 Comte’s need to define what constituted a follower shows that his Religion of Humanity was already causing rifts among his supporters. However, he was surprised that people saw a fundamental change in his direction. Emphasizing the continuity in his intellectual trajectory, he wrote, in 1850, “My volume of 1848 and the great treatise that it launches do not contain . . . anything which is not the consequence or the development of . . . indications about the future . . . that were contained in the last volume of my fundamental work.” Only people who lacked the proper intellectual preparation or who approached problems solely through their minds, not their hearts, would find “complete novelty” in his doctrine. Their “astonishment” was “irrational,” in Comte’s eyes.233 He was particularly disturbed that his British disciples’ adherence did not go beyond theory to practice.234 In 1850, he considered Williamson his only “complete adherent” in England but after the publication of the Syst`eme, Comte realized that even he had wandered away from the creed.235 Comte went so far as to call him a “rake.”236 Bain did not appreciate Comte’s dismissal of psychology, which was his specialty. Through his friend Williamson, Bain sent Comte an autographed copy of his lecture entitled On the Application of Science to Human Health and Well-Being (1848). He then met Comte for the first time in 1851 at a reception given by Williamson’s father in Paris. Bain described him as “a short, paunchy figure, with a round cropped 230 231 232 233 234 235

236

Comte, “Deuxi`eme Circulaire annuelle,” March 24, 1851, CG, 6:47. Tholouze to Comte, October 13, 1850, MAC. Comte to Capellen, September 19, 1852, CG, 6:382. Comte to Barbot de Chement, August 23, 1850, CG, 5:179–80. Syst`eme, 4:xv. Comte was also disturbed that so-called British metaphysicians were eager to write long essays against him. Comte to Barbot de Chement, August 6, 1850, CG, 5:174. In 1855 Comte lamented that Williamson had married without even sending him an announcement. Comte to Laffitte, August 30, 1855, CG, 8:111. Comte to Fisher, May 21, 1857, CG, 8:473.

“Complete Positivists”

557

head and hard features.” Comte “talked freely when addressed, but otherwise sank into an abstracted mood, as if occupied with his own thoughts.” Bain and Findlater later visited Comte at his “modest” apartment. He received us in a bright-coloured dressing gown, – which only meant that, in regard to dress, he was a Frenchman. We sat with him, perhaps for an hour, while he poured out a monologue on the political prospects of the world, as viewed from the standpoint of his own philosophy. His utterance was vehement and rapid to a degree that I could scarcely follow. He had the same command of magniloquent diction which appears in his writing.

Comte talked obsessively about the coming age of positivism. Bain could not get over his lack of humor and his arrogance. “His whole attitude was that of severe denunciation or self-aggrandizement, and his only smile was a grin. Of such men as Aristotle, Milton, Bishop Butler, and Wordsworth, it may be safely said that they wanted the sense of humour, but, in sheer negation, probably, they never approached to Auguste Comte.” Bain had no desire to see him again.237 Many of Comte’s British adherents were intellectual positivists and thus incomplete positivists, for thanks to their desire to maintain the status quo and their fear of challenging Christianity, they did not take up the Religion of Humanity or accept his politics guiding the transitional period to a positivist state. Mill, Molesworth, and Grote were examples of men whose adhesion to the positivist philosophy was allegedly sterile because they refused to embraced Comte’s politics and religion.238 Comte believed that the manner in which his philosophy of history was taught at Oxford was also inadequate because it omitted the moral and political aspects of his doctrine.239 In general, he was wary of intellectuals, who, he believed, liked only the philosophical side of his work. He had a bit more faith in practicians, who had at least experience in business and contacts with other people, which gave them a deeper understanding of human nature; he 237

238

239

Bain, Autobiography, 223–5. A copy of Bain’s book, On the Application of Science, is still in Comte’s library. Bain had a more favorable impression of Littr´e, whom he found interesting. Comte to Congreve, February 17, 1853, CG, 7:41. Indeed, one of Comte’s disciples read the first volume of Grote’s recently published History of Greece in 1854 and was “delighted” to find a reference to the Cours and the law of three stages. Hutton to Come, January 1, 1854, MAC. Comte to Barbot de Chement, August 23, 1850, CG, 5:179. Comte seems to be alluding to Congreve, who was a history professor at Oxford. However, Congreve was supportive of Comte’s religious program.

558

The Development of the Positivist Movement

thought that they would reject a completely intellectual version of positivism.240 One tangible sign of the English people’s resistance to accepting his entire doctrine was, according to Comte, their refusal to give to the Positivist Subsidy. Comte pronounced this lack of generosity to be indicative of the “feeble practical efficaciousness of intellectual convergencies that are not linked to moral sympathies.” Supporting his work was the positivists’ social “obligation,” for one of his principles was that the active class must “nourish the contemplative class.”241 It was “obligatory” in his eyes for those who accepted his philosophy to give to the subsidy even if they did not approve of his politics and religion.242 Those who did not give money to him were not only intellectually weak but emotionally deficient: they were “shameful” egoists.243 Remembering Leblais’s reference to the need for dedication, Comte demanded that positivists look upon his doctrine as more than an intellectually satisfying system. They should be devoted to his politics, namely the “establishment of a new spiritual power, and the normal incorporation of the proletariat into modern society.”244 From the beginning, he had outlined his intellectual system with these political goals in mind, for he had always maintained that theory must be linked to practice.245 He wrote, “The only real positivists, theoricians or practicians, are those who embrace . . . the whole fundamental question, by always subordinating intelligence to sociability. In short, positivist philosophy emanates from real science only to result in the true religion.”246 It is true that Comte’s positivist system had always aimed to create a moral system to unify society. However, the precise form that this moral system took, the Religion of Humanity with its rituals and cults, was not evident from the beginning. It was hard for many of his disciples to accept the transformation of a spiritual power into a real clergy and his references to Humanity as “our goddess.”247 Yet using the fashionable terminology of his day, Comte assumed that these disciples suffered from “insufficient evolution” and were stuck 240 241 242 243 244

245

246 247

Comte to Hutton, November 13, 1853, CG, 7:141. Comte, “Deuxi`eme Circulaire annuelle,” March 24, 1851, CG, 6:47. Comte, “Cinqui`eme Circulaire annuelle,” January 22, 1854, CG, 7:179. Comte, “Quatri`eme Circulaire annuelle,” January 31, 1853, CG, 7:30–32. Comte, “Deuxi`eme Circulaire annuelle,” March 24, 1851, CG, 6:48. A third goal that he frequently mentioned was the liberation of women from outside work. See Comte to Audiffrent, May 6, 1851, CG, 6:67. Dunoyer had recently made him understand more clearly the social side of this division between theory and practice. Although distinct, theory and practice were “necessarily blended” beyond questions relating to cosmology. Comte to Audiffrent, February 12, 1857, CG, 8:401. Comte, “Deuxi`eme Circulaire annuelle,” March 24, 1851, CG, 6:48. Comte to Laffitte, August 19, 1852, CG, 6:342.

Comte’s Fluctuations

559

at the early stage when positivism presented itself as solely a scientific philosophy.248 Comte’s strategy of emphasizing his party’s difference from socialism and insisting that positivists adhere to his religion cost him in the end much support. He lamented the fact that he had only a few truly “capable and dedicated” positivist “apostles.”249 But his illusions of grandeur, of preaching from Notre Dame, for example, seemed to blind him to the need for diplomacy and flexibility – a need that was very clear to his leading disciples, many of whom told him that most positivists accepted his philosophy, not his religion.250 Finally, in his “Fourth Circular” of 1853, he conceded that because the “Occidental revolution” was “principally intellectual,” people in countries where the social order was not in an intense agitated condition could conceivably be satisfied with the simply philosophical aspects of positivism, which guaranteed them a kind of rationality. Yet he still insisted that once their environment became more disorderly, these “incomplete positivists” should recognize the futility of “a renovation that stopped at ideas without embracing feelings, the sole real source of conduct.”251 comte’s f luctuations: the g rowth of po sitivism among worke r s in lyon Although Comte mocked the moderates for their muddy positions, his politics were not crystal clear. He prided himself on being critical of anarchists at the same time that he was “inflexible” toward reactionaries. He disliked the disorder caused by the people as much as the retrograde direction taken by the upper classes who controlled the government.252 He thus maintained that the people who should be excluded from public affairs must include not only leftists who promulgated the sovereignty of the people and equality, but men who had nothing to do with industrial life and the scientific spirit and persons who still believed in God.253 He said in one of his lectures, “In the name of the past and future, the servants of Humanity must seize the general direction of terrestrial affairs, to organize the true providence, 248 249 250 251 252 253

Comte to Bligni`eres, January 4, 1852, CG, 6:207. Ibid. See for example, Mont`egre to Comte, March 3, 1853, MAC; Deullin to Comte, March 13, 1853, MAC. Comte, “Quatri`eme Circulaire Annuelle,” January 31, 1853, CG, 7:29. Comte to Laffitte, September 1, 1851, CG, 6:147. See also Comte, “Troisi`eme Circulaire annuelle,” January 5, 1852, CG, 6:216. Comte to Audiffrent, July 29, 1851, CG, 6:119; Comte to Laurent, November 6, 1851, CG, 6:188.

560

The Development of the Positivist Movement

while turning away from public life all the slaves of God as causing trouble and being backward.” Comte wanted this “audacious” idea to be propagated, but it undoubtedly alienated conservatives, whom he was beginning to woo to his movement.254 Likewise, conservatives would be hard put to accept the medical terms that he used in 1851 to describe “the two great social masses,” the women and workers, as “essentially healthy” and “the special classes” as “radically gangrenous.”255 He still believed that “the mission” of the Priests of Humanity was to promote the “intervention” of women and workers against the “bad wealthy people” and “undisciplinable educated people,” all of whom were drier and more unfeeling in comparison.256 Moreover, Comte agreed with Laffitte’s criticisms of the party of order’s repressive policies, which were inciting the people to take an extreme position. He went so far as to insist that all those who had participated in Louis Napoleon’s expedition to Rome should be punished. In May 1849, the president had sent French troops to Rome to save the Pope from leftists who had set up a republic. He did so to cement his alliance with conservatives. Comte’s condemnation of all those who participated in this expedition could only have alienated him from the right.257 Moreover, some of his conservative disciples did not like his continual insistence on the need for a “revolutionary government.”258 Yet Comte was still trying to persuade the leftist Caussidi`ere to be part of his triumvirate. Perhaps he was urged to do so by Laffitte, who once called Caussidi`ere the only politician who had the “capacity to be a statesman in the true sense 254

255 256

257

258

Comte to Laffitte, September 1, 1851, CG, 6:147. One person who disliked the phrase, which Comte used in the Cat´echisme, was Henry Dix Hutton, an Irish lawyer, who lived in Dublin. Comte justified his use of the term “slave” by emphasizing that God was an absolute being with limitless power. Thus people who worshipped him were slaves because they were “subject to the caprices of an impenetrable power.” Positivism made everyone “free” by liberating them from a “personal empire.” People would be subordinated only to “immutable and known laws.” Comte to Hutton, December 8, 1853, CG, 7:148. See also Hutton to Comte, December 4, 1853, MAC. Comte to Laurent, November 6, 1851, CG, 6:188. Comte to Bineau, April 7, 1850, CG, 6:146. Comte believed that women and workers were feeling, caring individuals, not harmed as much by the “dryness” growing in the West since the close of the Middle Ages; they could be devoted positivists. Comte to Bligni`eres, January 4, 1852, CG, 6:208. One worker had indeed recently sent Comte a poem he had written on positive philosophy to celebrate feelings. See J. J. Saumur to Comte, November 8, 1850, MAC; Comte to Audiffrent, January 17, 1856, September 18, CG, 8:205, 304; Audiffrent to Comte, January 21 and September 10, 1856, MAC. Comte to Laffitte, July 29, 1851, CG, 6:121. Curiously, by denouncing the reactionaries, Comte put himself on the same side as the Italian nationalists, whom he disliked. See also Laffitte to Comte, July 27, 1851, in Laffitte, ed, “49 Lettres de Pierre Laffitte a` Auguste Comte,” 98–100. Comte to Laffitte, August 8, 1851, CG, 6:129. Comte was referring to Tholouze.

Comte’s Fluctuations

561

of the world.”259 He alone understand the importance of reassuring the less well-off members of the bourgeoisie, who were frightened of the reds. Comte regretted having entrusted the mission of luring Caussidi`ere to the positivist camp to Williamson, who had trouble even finding Caussidi`ere’s address.260 Profumo was given the task when he visited Comte in October 1851.261 Yet Caussidi`ere could not be converted.262 Nevertheless, until Louis Napoleon’s takeover in December 1851, Comte was still trying, despite some hesitation, to address revolutionaries, who, he admitted, were the “only ones disposed up to now to change their opinions in a radical fashion.”263 Despite his desire to appeal to temporal and spiritual leaders, he still targeted workers, who were “superior to their alleged bosses.”264 Comte had success especially with workers in Lyon. At one point he believed they were superior to the Parisian ones because they were in a more industrial and more precarious environment, which led them to distance themselves from the “political phantasmagoria” and think more deeply about social issues.265 He was delighted by their enthusiasm. The head of the positivist workers movement in Lyon was JeanVictor Lucas. Born in Lons-le Saulnier in the Jura in 1816, he had come to Lyon with his family in 1833 and settled in 1841 in the Croix-Rousse, which was on a hill just north of Lyon and was the home and workplace of hundreds of silkworkers (canuts). (The site of the famous Lyonnais uprising of silkworkers in 1831, this village became part of Lyon in 1852.) After receiving a pharmaceutical degree in Lyon in 1846, Lucas set up a large pharmacy in the center of the Croix-Rousse.266 His attention was drawn to positivism by 259

260

261 262 263 264 265 266

See Laffitte, “De la R´evolution de f´evrier 1848,” 332. Curiously, Marx likened Caussidi`ere to Danton, Comte’s favorite figure from the 1789 upheaval. See Marx to Friedrich Engels, December 3, 1851, Selected Letters, ed Raddatz, 40. Comte to Laffitte, August 8, 1851, CG, 6:134. Comte ordered Belpaume to tell Emile Pascal to speak to Williamson about Caussidi`ere. Williamson sent his findings to Pascal, but there seems to have been much confusion. Pascal to Comte, July 2, 1850, MAC. Laffitte found Williamson’s trouble also worthy of note. Laffitte to Comte, August 10, 1851, MAC. Comte to de Mont`egre, October 7, 1851, CG, 6:176. Comte to Capellen, September 19, 1852, CG, 6:380. Comte said that he primarily targeted revolutionaries between 1848 and 1851. Comte to Vieillard, February 28, 1852, CG, 6:243. Comte to Laffitte, August 8, 1851, CG, 6:131. See also Comte to Edger, November 24, 1854, CG, 7:273. Comte to Laffitte, September 1, 1851, CG, 6:148. A positivist disciple told Comte that Lucas’s pharmacy was that largest that he had seen in Lyon and that Lucas had a clerk to help him run it. Charles Jundzill to Comte, September 20, 1853, MAC. For information on Lucas, see the police interrogation, Commissaire

562

The Development of the Positivist Movement

Littr´e’s articles in Le National. He then converted to positivism in 1850, partly because he found “in the study of the encyclopedic hierarchy of the sciences the source of the purest pleasures.”267 By 1852, he owned all of Comte’s works and three-quarters of the Positivist Library.268 He was convinced that Comte would become “more popular in Lyon” than the famous Lyonnais inventor Joseph Jacquard.269 According to Lefort, who visited him, Lucas was a true fanatic: “He cannot chat ten minutes with someone without talking to him about Positivism.”270 His fanaticism spread. By late 1851, Lucas gathered around him about twenty working-class leaders, who had been communists and socialists.271 Indeed, he told Comte that “it is the communist element which has first succeeded in appreciating positive philosophy in the right manner.” These converts to positivism included the silkworker Jean-Joseph Razur´e (or Razuret), who was the former head of the Democratic Club of the Croix-Rousse; Jean-Louis Olivier Naudet (or Naud´e), who was a “town councillor of the commune” and “one of the most eminent leaders of the industrial and political associations”; Jean-Franc¸ois Vasserat, who was another influential person in democratic circles; Raymond, the former president of the communist club; and the former chief of one of the leading workers’ clubs, the Central Democratic Club of Lyon.272 At least Razuret and Naudet were members of secret societies that were considered threatening by the government.273 One worker described what went on in one of the initial meetings of positivists: “In this meeting, it was agreed that two times a week we will meet . . . to develop little by little the positivist religion. These few members will then instruct all those whom they deem capable [of

267 268 269 270 271 272 273

de Police du 1er Arrondissement, “Interrogatoire du sieur Lucas Jean Victor d´etenu a` la maison de correction et mis a` la disposition du Monsieur le Pr´efet N◦ 270,” December 24, 1851, in Archives Municipales de Lyon, 0002I53, Dossier N◦ 2143. Also see page “Pharmaciens” in a little booklet with no title or date in Archives Municipales de Lyon, 0003WP127 1, dossier relating to the Croix-Rousse entitled “Listes nominatives, 1824–1847,” which is in another dossier called “Professions de Sant¨e 1816–1847.” I thank George Sheridan for his many helpful explanations of how to use the archives in Lyon. Lucas to Comte, December 21, 1851, MAC. Lefort to Comte, July 30, 1852, MAC. Comte to Audiffrent, September 20, 1851, CG, 6:165. Lefort to Comte, September 26, 1852, MAC. Lefort to Comte, March 26, 1853, MAC. Lucas to Comte, November 19, 1851, MAC. See also Laurent to Comte, November 1, 1851, MAC. Naudet was the head of the “Soci´et´e Fraternelle de la Croix Rousse” and a leader of the “Invisibles.” Razuret was a member of the “Comit´e des Voraces.” See files on socialists and members of secret societies, Archives Municipales de Lyon, 0002I063, Item #458 on Naudet and Item #503 on Razuret.

Comte’s Fluctuations

563

understanding it].”274 These working-class leaders were so efficient in spreading positivism that by 1853, several hundred people knew of it.275 Lefort, who went south to see what was going on in Lyon, was amazed by the progress of positivism there. He explained to Comte in mid-1852 that Lucas held meetings in different houses attended by twenty to thirty men, women, and young people, who were deeply moved by his sentimental propaganda. He reached out not only to “red proletarians,” but to teachers, dentists, wealthier members of the bourgeoisie, and even aristocrats.276 Two local politicians came to one meeting, where “contrary to their advice, it was decided that it was necessary to proceed first with the moral regeneration of the people before thinking about their material liberation.” Another worker also suggested that Comte’s message was one of moderation: “So you see, Mr. Comte, that the most ardent revolutionaries finally recognize the inanity of their doctrines that . . . misunderstand . . . the conditions of order necessary to any regular society.”277 Comte must have been pleased that the moderate approach that he had been recommending influenced at least some workers’ circles. He believed that the Lyonnais workers were attracted to positivism because of their strong family life, developed by the cottage silk industry. Their love of family made them hostile to the “antidomestic aberrations” of communism.278 Indeed, one Lyonnais follower informed Comte that there were numerous proletarians “initiated into the new faith” in Lyon, especially because they no longer trusted the leading philosophies of the past sixty years and were abandoning communism in particular.279 In late 1851, this worker, Alexandre Pierre Laurent, wrote to Comte to tell him of his adherence to positivism and his domestic woes.280 Born in Lyon in 1823, Laurent was orphaned as a teenager and was forced to become a silk worker (canut). A hard-working 274 275 276

277 279 280

Laurent to Comte, November 1, 1854, MAC. Lefort to Comte, March 26, 1853, MAC. Lefort to Comte, July 30, 1852, MAC. Lefort had long talks with a “profound Positivist,” Monsieur de Brins. This man was an aristocrat who had converted “another noble from the Place Bellecour [sic].” Laurent to Comte, November 1, 1854, MAC. 278 Syst`eme, 2:xiii. Comte to Laffitte, August 8, 1851, CG, 6:130. Laurent signed his letters A. Laurent. There is an Alexandre Pierre or Pierre Alexandre Laurent who appears in official documents, but it is not entirely clear that this is the same individual. A. Laurent told Comte he was born in 1823. A Pierre Alexandre Laurent is listed as born in 1824 in a registry of people arrested in 1852. This Pierre Alexandre Laurent, who was arrested for “abuse of confidence” and imprisoned for six months, might not be the same one arrested for political reasons in 1851, who could be the A. Laurent in Comte’s correspondence. See Registre d’ecrous pour la Maison de Correction de Lyon: Saint-Joseph du 6 avril 1854–11 d´ecembre 1854, page 244, entry #1926, in Archives d´epartementales du Rhˆone, 2Y370.

564

The Development of the Positivist Movement

man, Laurent was very intelligent and had his own library. He was also active in leftist politics.281 Converted to positivism by Lucas, whom he met on the barricades in a demonstration, Laurent carefully read the first volume of the Syst`eme when it was published in 1851. He was profoundly touched by Comte’s dedication to de Vaux. Comte’s openness about his plight inspired Laurent to express his own depression. He worried about his feelings of suffocation, his fatigue, and the sexual malaise that he experienced after his dreams. Because of the “weakness” of his physical condition due to frequent masturbation and excessive “pollutions,” which he believed depleted his allotment of sperm, he maintained that he could not procreate and thus could not marry.282 However, he yearned for emotional satisfaction. What is striking is the fact that lonesome or grieving people turned to Comte, who gave them an opportunity to connect with a colleague in pain, one who prided himself on his wisdom. Laurent felt so close to Comte that at one point he sent him a suicide note.283 Lucas finally talked him out of killing himself by telling him that his loss would hurt Humanity and that the Cours forbade it because suicide was an antisocial act. Lucas boasted to Comte that he had acted as a “priest of humanity” in deterring this act of self-destruction. The positive religion had proved its “moral and intellectual superiority.”284 Laurent, like others, was drawn to positivism not only because corresponding with a seemingly empathetic genius like Comte gave him pleasure but because its morality seemed indeed superior to that of Catholicism. Raised by religious parents, Laurent had been in the seminary from age ten to thirteen.285 Eventually he abandoned Catholicism because it seemed false and its rites limited. But without a creed to give him some sense of security, he felt lost and confused. 281

282 283

284

There is a Laurent who was active in clubs in the Croix-Rousse in 1848. See Petition of Garbolen (President), Laurent (Secretary), and others to the “Membres du Comit´e Libert´e Egalit´e Fraternit´e” (probably the municipal council of the Croix-Rousse), n.d., asking for permission to organize a “democratic” club and to obtain a meeting place. The petitioners refer to a law of March 18, 1848 relating to club organization. Another undated petition addressed to the “Citoyens du Comit´e” and signed by Laurent and about twenty other individuals requests authorization to plant a “liberty tree on our beautiful Place de la Croix-Rousse.” These requests are in the Archives Municipales de Lyon, 0003WP 126, dossier entitled “Troubles de 1848: Clubs, Soci´et´es.” Laurent to Comte, September 6, 1851, MAC. See also Lucas to Comte, August 25, 1851, MAC. Laurent to Comte, August 17, 1851, MAC. See also Laurent to Comte, August 1 and August 10,1851, MAC. Laurent also bequeathed to Comte five hundred francs. Yet the next day, he decided not to commit suicide. He explained that he had felt obliged to kill himself because he was being threatened. He was evidently in some kind of political trouble and was being surveyed. Laurent to Comte, August 18, 1851, MAC. Lucas, August 25, 1851, MAC. 285 Laurent to Comte, September 6, 1851, MAC.

Comte’s Fluctuations

565

Bereft of moral guidance, he embarked on an affair with a married woman.286 But once he adopted his “new faith,” that of positivism, he decided “to repudiate” this “illicit love affair.” He wanted to develop his feelings, not succumb to animalistic satisfactions. To him, the “cult of Humanity” would inevitably attract more and more people because it saved them from moral anarchy and offered them the “means to satisfy” their need “to know and especially to love.”287 To develop his feelings, Laurent begged Comte for advice on “pious” reading material.288 Comte gave him suggestions not only on poetry but on medical treatment for his sexual problem, about which he asked for more details so that he could get better advice from doctors.289 Comte finally had Dr. Charles Robin intervene.290 Later Comte learned that Lucas had won over a teacher, Charles Maynard, who had been the editor of a republican journal in Lyon in 1848.291 After having tried to apply rationalism to Catholicism and studied Protestantism in a theological school in Geneva, Maynard was welcomed into the “Lyonnais church” by Lucas in 1851.292 Initially Maynard resisted Comte’s ideas but then appreciated positivism for eliminating his illusions, bringing clarity to his world-view, and stopping him from trying to resolve unanswerable questions. Positivism offered him a “rational solution to the social problem.”293 He wrote to Comte in 1853, “ Thanks to you, Sir, I enjoy this perfect tranquility that always accompanies a sincere conviction, and I have before me a magnificent goal which must be attained. . . . Deign to count me among those who admire and love you.”294 But later he and Comte had a falling-out for unknown reasons.295 286

287 288 289 290

291

292 293 294 295

Lefort, who knew Laurent, suggested that this married woman was Laurent’s sister-inlaw. Yet Lefort did not like Laurent, whom he derided to prevent him from becoming a positivist apostle. Lefort to Comte, July 30 and September 26, 1852, MAC. Laurent to Comte, August 1, 1851, MAC. See also Comte to Laffitte, August 8, 1851, CG, 6:130. Comte to Laffitte, September 1, 1851, CG, 6:149. Comte to Laurent, September 2, 1851, CG, 6:152–4. Comte to Laurent, September 18, 1851, CG, 6:161. Robin gave Laurent sound advice about his physical problems and gave Comte recommendations about how to handle his moral treatment, the most important part of the cure. Robin to Comte, September 17, 1851 and September 29, 1851, MAC. Maynard was born in 1819. At various times in his life, he had taught Latin, Greek, French, physics, chemisty, and mathematics. He thus had a wide-ranging background, which he said, however, was more literary than scientific. Maynard to Comte, July 30, 1853, MAC. Lucas to Comte, November 19, 1851, MAC. Maynard to Comte, July 30, 1853, MAC. Maynard to Comte, June 3, 1853, MAC. Maynard to Comte, September 20, 1854, MAC.

566

The Development of the Positivist Movement the e nd of comte’s care e r at the ecole polytechnique

Ruptures continued to mark Comte’s professional life and left an imprint on his campaign to spread his religion. Because his troubles at the Ecole Polytechnique had started after he wrote the insulting preface to the last volume of the Cours in 1842, he had imagined that his scientific enemies, motivated by “hatred” and unhampered by any moral scruples, would one day succeed in ousting him completely from this institution.296 Yet even after losing his position as admissions examiner in 1844, receiving admonishments in 1847, and failing to regain his job of examiner in 1848, he had been careless about fulfilling his teaching duties. In June 1849, Duhamel, the director of studies, reminded him about the rule that interrogations should last twenty-five minutes.297 Not surprisingly, Comte felt growing animosity against him at the school. On March 15, 1850, the Council of Improvement discussed at length the duties of r´ep´etiteurs and the degree of their subordination to the professor whom they assisted, and it repeated the requirement that they go regularly to the professor’s classes.298 Comte remained defiant. He wrote to the minister of war, General Alphonse d’Hautpoul, to tell him to disregard complaints about his performance.299 Yet the Council of Instruction heard rumblings in May from Duhamel. He referred to one r´ep´etiteur in particular who refused “to prolong the duration of his exams to the prescribed limits, although they have been reduced by almost half and they cover a greater number of lessons.” The delinquent teacher, whom Duhamel did not name, claimed “to be the sole judge of the time he needed to appreciate the strength of students subject to his interrogations.”300 The Council members unanimously censured him. Comte was getting in trouble for the same problems he had encountered in 1847. In June 1850, the Council of Improvement, like the Council of Instruction, revisited this issue.301 The president reminded the members of the Council of Improvement that both Councils had approved of the rule that r´ep´etiteurs should test their students every month and that the examinations in analysis and mechanics (Comte’s course) had 296 297 298 299 300 301

Comte to Littr´e, October 21, 1848, CG, 6:202. Duhamel to Comte, June 22, 1849, MAC. Minutes of the meeting of the Conseil de Perfectionnement, March 15, 1850, Registre du Conseil de Perfectionnement, vol. 6, Archives of the Ecole Polytechnique. Comte to d’Hautpoul, April 30, 1850, CG, 6:147. Minutes of the meeting of May 2, 1850, Registre: Proc`es-Verbal du Conseil d’Instruction, vol. 8, Archives of the Ecole Polytechnique. Minutes of the meeting of June 7, 1850, Registre: Proc`es-Verbal du Conseil d’Instruction, vol. 8, Archives of the Ecole Polytechnique.

The End of Comte’s Career at the Ecole Polytechnique

567

to last at least twenty-five minutes. Only one unnamed r´ep´etiteur – obviously Comte – had objected. The notes of the meeting read: “One sole opposition was manifested; one r´ep´etiteur of the course of analysis and mechanics, claiming that he could judge the intelligence of a student after a small amount of time, limited the average duration of the monthly examination for each student, first to 17 minutes instead of 25; then after a warning from the Director of Studies, to 15 minutes; and finally after a new warning from the General Commander to only 13 1/2.”302 A discussion ensued. One member of the Council stated that the point was to measure not a student’s intelligence but his knowledge of the subject matter of the course. Another maintained that all r´ep´etiteurs should follow the same rules to improve teaching at the school. A third member insisted that the Council, to show its disapproval, should not reappoint the offending r´ep´etiteur. Others objected that that punishment was too extreme and that all means of persuasion should be used first. Another member reminded everyone that many means of persuasion had already been tried and had only aggravated the problem. A majority of the members of the Council of Improvement then voted to reprimand the r´ep´etiteur. Comte’s reaction is not known, but it does seem that once again he had provoked a crisis. He was, however, relieved that he did not lose his post, which he attributed to the government’s decision to put a stop to the “degeneration” of the school.303 Many others, besides Comte, were critical of the school, and a movement to reform its organization had arisen in 1848. Three laws were passed in early 1850 to simplify the curriculum and alter the admissions process to meet the needs of the public service sector in the new republic. The so-called Mixed Commission was appointed as an interim governing body to help reorganize the school. Headed by the chemist Louis Thenard and dominated by the astronomer Urbain Le Verrier, it temporarily replaced the Council of Improvement and included military men and professors from within and outside the school; their aim was to imprint a more practical direction on the curriculum so that students would become good officers and engineers. Members who worked in the public services wanted not only to eliminate the excessively abstract aspects of the courses but also to reduce the power of the professors in running 302

303

Minutes of meeting of the Conseil de Perfectionnement, June 21, 1850, Registre du Conseil de Perfectionnement, vol. 6, Archives of the Ecole Polytechnique. Joseph Bertrand corroborated the story. He explained that the tutor was to test eight students for two hours three times a week. Comte insisted that unlike the younger tutors, he had sufficient intuition of intellectual capabilities that he could gather information about eight students’ minds in an hour and a half. That works out to less than twelve minutes a student. Joseph Bertrand, “Souvenirs acad´emiques,” 545. Comte to Colonel Frossard, February 10, 1851, CG, 6:19.

568

The Development of the Positivist Movement

the school, something the government had been trying to do since 1843.304 With all the confusion going on, Comte thought he was safe at least until 1852. However, shortly after he was reappointed, new complaints were heard regarding the unwarranted absence of r´ep´etiteurs and their refusal to follow the new rules, which stipulated that they should give lectures, not simply examinations, on the subject matter.305 According to Bertrand, Comte refused to test students on the calculus of probabilities, a subject he dismissed as not scientific. When the professor of analysis (Sturm, according to Bertrand) ended his course with seven or eight lectures on this subject, Comte gave himself a holiday without telling the adminstration and would not cooperate in teaching it.306 Such infractions threatened the authority of the school administration.307 In February 1851, Comte wrote to Colonel Charles-Auguste Frossard, who was second in command of the school and the new director of studies.308 Taking the offensive and showing his concern about instruction at the Ecole Polytechnique, Comte complained that professors were not following the new rules requiring the teaching of infinitesimals in calculus. He offered to give three lectures on the “infinitesimal method” in the large amphitheater to all the students.309 Comte’s letter was read at the next meeting of the Mixed Commission. Frossard argued that the students had no time to attend additional lectures, which he suggested were a waste of time. Trying to shift the school toward more practical studies, the commission agreed.310 Several days after this meeting, that is, on February 22, 1851, a committee was appointed by the Mixed Commission to examine the qualifications of candidates to replace Liouville as professor of analysis. Objecting to the severity of the Mixed Commission, Liouville had resigned to become professor of mathematics at the Coll`ege de 304

305 306 307 308 309 310

Callot, L’Histoire de l’Ecole Polytechnique, 96; Mercadier, “Histoire de l’enseignement,” 65–6; Belhoste, La Formation d’une technocratie, 51, 100, 101; Pierre Miquel, Les Polytechniciens (Paris: Plon, 1994), 318; Bruno Belhoste, “Un Mod`ele a` l’´epreuve,” 28. One member of the Mixed Commission was Michel Chevalier, who had known Comte since his Saint-Simonian days and was hostile to him. Minutes of the meeting of the Mixed Commission, December 14, 1850, Registre du Conseil de Perfectionnement, vol. 6, Archives of the Ecole Polytechnique. Bertrand, “Souvenirs Acad´emiques,” 545–6; idem., review of Comte, by Gruber, 693. Minutes of the meeting of the Mixed Commission, December 14, 1850, Registre du Conseil de Perfectionnement, vol. 6, Archives of the Ecole Polytechnique. Cosseron de Villenoisy, “Notices Biographiques,” in Ecole Polytechnique, Livre du centenaire, 2:144; Callot, L’Ecole Polytechnique, 98. Comte to Colonel Frossard, February 10, 1851, CG, 6:19. Minutes of the meeting of the Mixed Commission, February 13, 1851, Registre of the Conseil de Perfectionnement, vol. 6, Archives of the Ecole Polytechnique.

The End of Comte’s Career at the Ecole Polytechnique

569

France. The applicants for Liouville’s chair were Comte, his old friend Lam´e, his young enemy Bertrand, and the relatively new admissions examiner Serret.311 Duhamel also applied. He had resigned in January 1851 his position of director of studies after being forced out by the Mixed Commission, which, like Liouville, he opposed. He had been the only mathematician on the Mixed Commission and presumably did not appreciate its criticism of the school’s teaching methods.312 Now Duhamel wanted a way back into the school as a professor instead of an administrator. The commission voted to recommend Duhamel first and Lam´e second. Comte received no votes. Duhamel was finally appointed.313 It must have been painful for Comte to be subordinated once again to his former friend, who had betrayed him in the past. On February 28, 1851, a meeting of the Mixed Commission was devoted to the strengths and weakness of the system of r´ep´etiteurs, which it had been discussing since November 1850, almost as soon as it was formed.314 The members concluded that instead of merely quizzing the students in their offices, the r´ep´etiteurs should return to their original mission of helping them understand the material. To become more actively engaged in their education, the r´ep´etiteurs had to attend the professor’s lectures in order to have a better knowledge of the course, give supplementary lectures for added clarification, and spend more time at school in case students needed extra help. Because their work load would increase, they would be given a raise of five hundred francs. Their salary of 2,500 francs would be half of that of a professor.315 These measures were all part of the new reforms intended to improve the level of instruction provided by the school. Comte was headed for more confrontations. 311

312

313 314 315

Minutes of the meeting of February 22, 1851, Commission Mixte, Registre du Conseil de Perfectionnement, vol. 6, Archives of the Ecole Polytechnique. Lam´e was the examiner of the students seeking to graduate. Encouraged by Littr´e, Comte had applied for the position earlier in the month. Littr´e even solicited help from Jean Victor Poncelet, head of the school from 1848 to 1850 and member of the Mixed Commission. See Littr´e to Comte, February 7 and February 8, 1851, MAC. Duhamel had been replaced temporarily by Frossard. The administration soon appointed an engineer, Bommart, to execute its desire for a less theoretical curriculum. E. Mercadier, “Histoire de l’enseignement de l’Ecole Polytechnique,” 70. See also E. Sarrau, “Duhamel,” Ecole Polytechnique: Livre du centenaire, 1:127; Callot, L’Ecole Polytechnique, 98; Belhoste, La Formation d’une technocratie, 99. Administration of the Ecole Polytechnique to Comte, February 28, 1851, MAC; Sarrau, “Duhamel,” Ecole Polytechnique: Livre du centenaire, 1:127. Minutes of the meeting of the Mixed Commission, November 23, 1850, Registre du Conseil de Perfectionnement, vol. 6, Archives of the Ecole Polytechnique. Minutes of the meeting of the Mixed Commission, February 28, 1851, Registre du Conseil de Perfectionnement, vol. 6, Archives of the Ecole Polytechnique.

570

The Development of the Positivist Movement

What triggered his dismissal was, however, his eccentricity. According to Bertrand, General Bonet, the head of the school, had kept aloof from Comte, not wishing to get involved in institutional intrigues.316 Comte wrote him a run-of-the-mill letter about getting a discount on the train as a civil servant and dated it 13 Aristote 63 (March 10, 1851). Curious about the weird date on official correspondence, Bonet made inquiries and was appalled to discover that Comte had created a new calendar. Fearing that Comte was deranged, he, along with Frossard, supported a proposal in the Council to replace him because he seemed to threaten the academic integrity of the program and compromised the school’s reputation.317 The condemnation was “almost unanimous,” according to Bertrand.318 When Comte received word several months later in November 1851 that his colleagues had not voted for the renewal of his appointment as r´ep´etiteur for the school year 1851–2, he said he was completely taken by surprise as there had been no warning. He claimed that “no motive” was given for his dismissal, and he insinuated that none could be because his service had been “irreproachable.”319 In the preface to the second volume of the Syst`eme, he blamed his defeat on the “vile intrigues” of the “algebraic couple” that is, Sturm and Liouville, who were aided by the “famous merchant of subjective planets to whom our anarchy now procures a deadly polytechnic ascendancy.” This “merchant” was Le Verrier, who discovered Neptune in 1846.320 Yet Comte’s increasing disregard of his duties and his disdain for his colleagues had certainly undermined his position at the school, particularly at a time when the institution was being reorganized.321 His dismissal was in a sense ironic, for it was part of 316

317 318 319

320

321

Bertrand maintained that Bizot was the head of the school, but he did not assume that position until October 23, 1852. See Cosseron de Villenoisy, “Le G´en´eral Bizot (1795–1855),” Ecole Polytechnique, Livre du centenaire, 3:614. Bertrand, “Souvenirs acad´emiques,” 546. In another article, Bertrand stated that the date was 4 Fr´ederic II, 57. Bertrand, review of Comte, by Gruber, 693. Bertrand, review of Comte, by Gruber, 694. Comte to Capellen, November 26, 1851, CG, 6:189. Comte was actually no longer considered part of the faculty as of November 1, 1851. See Dossier “Comte” at Ecole Polytechnique. The notion that he had been dismissed because of personal animosity against him, not dereliction of duties, was repeated by his disciple Alphonse Leblais in his article “A. Comte et le Positivisme,” Revue Moderne 1 (November 1857): 365. Syst`eme, 2:vi–vii. Annie Petit has an alternate reading; she maintains that the “algebraic couple” was a reference to Liouville and Arago. But after 1844, Arago’s influence was less dominant, and Comte had tried to make friends with him in the aftermath of the Revolution of 1848. Along with Liouville, Sturm, not Arago, now was Comte’s supreme enemy at the Ecole Polytechnique. Annie Petit, “L’Imp´erialisme des g´eom`etres a` l’Ecole Polytechnique: Les Critiques d’Auguste Comte,” in Belhoste et al, La Formation polytechnicienne, 70. Comte had also had two long meetings with the general in charge of the school, regarding his “service,” in April and June 1850. Presumably these meetings had to do

The End of Comte’s Career at the Ecole Polytechnique

571

a movement to reform the school, that is, to make its teaching less superficial, something he too had been desiring for years. (It was well known that the curriculum of the school had ossified and the instruction had deteriorated. There was a big governmental push to improve teaching after the passing of the Falloux Law in 1850, which allowed freedom of instruction.322 ) His dismissal was also ironic because he demanded from each of his disciples that they be models of behavior in their places of employment as a way of recommending positivism.323 His sloppy performance was inexcusable according to his own standards. The truth is that Comte could no longer brook staying at the Ecole Polytechnique, considering the new demands on his time and Duhamel’s superior position as the professor for whom he would have to work. Nevertheless, having been a student at the Ecole Polytechnique and having worked there for nineteen years, Comte felt a terrible sense of loss. In fact, two days after his dismissal, he wrote to the head of the school General Bonet, asking to be considered for two positions if they ever became vacant: professor of analysis and examiner of graduating students.324 Neither of these posts required the yearly elections or confirmations that he hated. In acknowledging his application, Bonet made several observations, which reflect the administration’s view of the founder of positivism. Bonet respected Comte, whom he judged very “distinguished.” He had even taken the trouble to read parts of the Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme. He was gratified to discover that Comte was not “a man of disorder and violence” and that he promulgated progress, order, and love. Yet he did not feel comfortable with the populist thrust of Comte’s approach. It was dangerous in his eyes to direct his philosophy at the “crowd,” which, driven by “bad passions,” could pervert his doctrine’s “true sense to make it serve its vulgar interests.” As a “public man,” Comte was not sufficiently careful about what others would do with his doctrine, which was fully comprehensible only to a tiny “intelligent Elite.” Bonet told Comte, “As a private individual, you have the right to profess doctrines which your intelligence in agreement with your conscience leads you to adopt as the best. As a public man attached to a celebrated school, a man whose tendencies have been called eccentric . . . you have more narrow obligations.”

322

323 324

with complaints regarding his tutoring duties and his ideas of reform. One meeting lasted five hours. See G´en´eral Commandant de l’Ecole, April 28, 1850 and June 28, 1850, MAC. Fox , “Science, the University, and the State,” 86–8; Robert Fox, “Scientific Enterprise and the Patronage of Research in France 1800–1870,” in The Culture of Science in France 1700–1900, ed. Fox (Aldershot, Hampshire: Variorum, 1992), 455. Comte to Deullin, June 12, 1852, CG, 6:301. Comte to General Bonet, November 28, 1851, CG, 6:189.

572

The Development of the Positivist Movement

Comte should have shown “greater reserve” in expressing his views, which conflicted with the principles of the “Establishment” to which he was attached. Bonet added, In this situation you do not have the right to march too far ahead of your century or to teach publicly a contestable system, one that is not in harmony with the direction that the Government, which named you, has the intention and right to impress on public education; principally in a School that forms functionaries for the entire administration.

In a sense, Bonet was admitting that the adminstration found Comte strange and subversive. One final word of advice that Bonet gave to Comte was not to use the Positivist Calendar when he wrote to officials at the school and ministry of war. His habit of employing positivist dates made him subject to “ridicule.”325 Comte wrote a polite letter in reply, refusing to allow a representative of the “material power” – the government – regulate the spiritual realm of thought and opinion. He had long claimed to have complete “independence” in matters of “thought and language.”326 Comte’s stance reflects the fact that there was a great deal of hostility between the professors and this military general, who was eager to tighten his hold over the teaching at the school.327 Indeed, after the Mixed Commission completed its work and disbanded in late 1852, the minister of war claimed the right to appoint most members of the reestablished Council of Improvement. As Bruno Belhoste pointed out in his outstanding work on the Ecole Polytechnique, the reign of scientists at the Ecole Polytechnique now was over. The government had realized Comte’s desire to reduce their power and independence, though at his expense.328 Comte’s final expulsion, which he called the “last act of persecution,” meant that he was free from the school he had grown to dislike chiefly because of the academic games that the scientists had played throughout his years there.329 He was no longer tied to an institution that limited his time and aggravated him.330 He was also happily not there in February 1856, when his young rival Joseph Bertrand was appointed to the chair in analysis that had been his goal for so long. (Bertrand replaced Sturm, who had died. Bertrand’s uncle, Duhamel, was still the other professor of analysis.331 ) 325 326 327 328 329 330 331

Bonet to Comte, November 30, 1851, MAC. Comte to Bonet, December 1, 1851, CG, 6:191. Callot, L’Histoire Polytechnique, 100. Belhoste, La Formation d’une technocratie, 53, 74. Comte to Capellen, November 26, 1851, CG, 6:189. He did not seem to apply for the position of examiner when the school added a fifth one in 1852. Belhoste, La Formation d’une technocratie, 55. Mercadier, “Histoire de l’enseignement,” 72.

New Routines

573

new routine s After losing his last position, Comte was forced to rely more on subsidies from others, which made him emphasize the significance of his work and his position as a priest, living in a dignified fashion off the generosity of others, who had a duty to support him. He refused to seek other financial resources; within a few months of his dismissal, he boldly proclaimed that he had “resolved never to accept any pension or official post, even if the latter were scientific.”332 He wanted to take full advantage of his lack of teaching duties to devote all of his time to writing the Syst`eme and promulgating the new “positive religion.”333 Yet he frequently lashed out at “friends” and “partisans” for their “half-heartedness” in giving him less money than he expected.334 He believed Madame Francelle, a single working mother with a child, could live on 800 francs a year, but he wanted for himself at least 7,000 francs a year, especially because he had to give 2,000 to Massin and pay 1,600 francs a year for his expensive apartment.335 Seven thousand francs a year was more than the salary of an Ecole Polytechnique professor.336 Intending to publish a book a year until 1865, he worked hard to feel justified in taking other people’s money. During the months of the year that he spent writing the Syst`eme, he left his house only on Wednesdays to visit de Vaux’s grave. On Thursdays, he rested, received visitors, and wrote letters. The other five days of the week were “exclusively consecrated” to writing.337 He awoke every day at five o’clock and worked until dinner at six o’clock. He received people from 7:00 to 8:00 p.m. (except on Wednesdays, when the Positivist Society met) and then went to bed at 9:00. According to 332 333 334 335

336 337

Comte to Vieillard, February 28, 1852, CG, 6:249. Comte to Audiffrent, September 20, 1851, CG, 6:163. Comte to J. McClintock, February 4, 1852, CG, 6:229. In 1854, Comte spent 7,151 francs, whereas in 1855, his expenses totaled 6,915 francs, and in 1856, 6,814 francs. He definitely spent less than he had in 1841, when his and Massin’s expenses totaled 10,031 francs, or in 1844, when by himself he expended 11,000 francs. Yet he was still a bit embarrassed by the large amount of money that he needed for his lodgings. He explained that he cut back on food to make up for it. In keeping careful track of all his expenses, he noted that he spent 1/18th less on food in 1854 than in 1853. Usually he spent 1,000 francs a year on food for himself and Sophie Bliaux. However, by 1856, he seemed to spend only nine or ten francs a week on food. He kept a record of everything he ate and all his expenses. Massin’s notebook entitled “Recettes et d´epenses janvier 1837 a` d´ecembre 1841,” MAC; Comte’s notebook entitled “Recettes et d´epenses courantes, 1854, 1855, 1856, “ MAC;. his notebook entitled “Recettes et d´epenses courantes, 1854” and his notebook on food expenses, 1856–7. MAC. Comte to Deullin, March 17, 1853, CG, 7:55-56. Comte to Laurent, March 25, 1852, CG, 6:257.

574

The Development of the Positivist Movement

the testimony of someone who lived in his building, Comte was generally regarded by his neighbors as “cold and reserved.”338 To avoid disruptions from his stomach and to cut back on expenses, he ate simply. Beginning in 1852, his “diet was completely regulated.”339 He carefully weighed and recorded almost everything he ate. Every morning at 10:00 am, he had a bowl of milk, sixty grams of sugar, and sixty grams of bread. For dinner, he ate one hundred grams of meat and a plate of vegetables. He had no dessert. He drank only water, no coffee or wine.340 (Sometimes, however, he had a bit of port with his peaches.) He found that this regime helped him overcome the constipation that had bothered him since 1845.341 His existence was austere in other ways as well. He did not smoke, for he found it both unhealthy and unsocial; it was “one of the most striking indices of the Occidental anarchy.”342 He also had not left Paris since 1843 except for twelve hours. He read no contemporary literature or scientific journals. By maintaining this regular, spartan existence, he figured he wrote effectively for five to six hours a day.343 He tried to make time to see his disciples and others interested in his philosophy. But he was so intent on his work that he missed the visit of the “celebrated historian,” Jules Michelet, who stopped by his apartment in June 1853. He arrived during the day on a Tuesday, a time when Comte received no one. Michelet was a friend of one of Comte’s disciples, A. Papot, who was a mathematics teacher in Nantes, where the historian lived.344 On Papot’s recommendation, 338 339 340

341 342 343 344

Julien Vinson to unknown recipient, August 10, 1924, Papiers Emile Corra, 17 AS (7), Dossier 1, AN. Comte to Audiffrent, July 18, 1857, CG, 8:528. See also Comte to Tholouze, April 23, 1853, CG, 7:65. Comte started drinking only water in 1845. For Comte’s views on wine and diet, see Comte to Hadery, June 23, 1855, CG, 8:65; Comte to Edger, March 27, 1856, CG, 8:237. He viewed wine as a stimulant, which was healthy for some people, but not for him. Comte bought a scale in March 1848. Presumably this purchase indicates the year he began his dietary regime. See his notebook “Recettes et d´epenses courantes, mai 1838–septembre 1857,” MAC. Comte to Audiffrent, July 18, 1857, CG, 8:528. Comte to Fisher, December 4, 1856, CG, 8:343. Comte to Deullin, March 17, 1853, CG, 7:55–6; Comte to Hadery, August 18, 1853, CG, 7:105; Comte to Audiffrent, April 7, 1851, CG, 6:51. Papot met Comte in Lorient in 1837 when he watched him administer an admissions examination for the Ecole Polytechnique. He joined the Positivist Society in September 1850 and gave much money to the Positivist Subsidy. He explained that positivism made the “truth” appear to him “disengaged from all clouds.” It dispelled his doubts, supported his beliefs, and admirably blended reason and sentiment. He felt he had a “security of intelligence . . . whose absence is so painful.” Papot to Comte, May 4, 1851, MAC. See also “Liste chronologique des membres de la Soci´et´e positiviste,” CG, 4:308; Comte to Laffitte, September 18, 1850, CG, 5:195; Papot to Comte, June 29, 1853, MAC. Later, Michelet helped Madame Papot sell her late husband’s correspondence with Comte to Deullin. Michelet to Laffitte, May 20, June 1, July 13, 1870, MAC.

New Routines

575

Michelet went to Comte’s apartment to ask him to examine Mr. Joffroy, a young man who wished to become a mathematics teacher. Michelet, sorry to have missed Comte, promised to come again. Although he wrote to Comte to tell him of his admiration, he did not return.345 Comte was disappointed but surprised because he did not think that Michelet would be sympathetic to his ideas.346 Yet Comte was flattered by the attention, for he considered Michelet “the most celebrated contemporary writer.”347 Michelet seemed displeased. He later told Gustave d’Eichthal, “Woman is the most powerful cerebral vehicle. If Aug. Comte had had Mad. de Vaux earlier, he would have been less brutally abstract, less savage, more practical . . . [and more] human as St. Simon was.”348 Because of his strict adherence to his work schedule, Comte missed not only eminent visitors but important events. In July 1853, he refused to participate in the funeral procession of his disciple Francelle and told Laffitte to speak in his name. The members of the Positivist Society, who felt much fondness for this worker and would eventually help his wife financially, were outraged. Robinet and Antoine Edouard Foley wrote Comte a letter expressing their dismay. Foley had graduated with Lonchampt from the Ecole Polytechnique in 1841, where he had been one of Comte’s students. He joined the navy, spent four years in Oceania, and at age thirty, became a doctor.349 A great admirer of the Religion of Humanity, he joined the Positivist Society in 1851. Comte liked him and Robinet very much.350 He must have been surprised when they strongly advised him to attend Francelle’s funeral, despite the importance of working on the Syst`eme. They insisted because Francelle was the oldest member of the Positivist Society. They wrote, “The proletarians, . . . putting personal demonstrations above the best and 345

346 347

348 349

350

Michelet to Comte, June 30, 1853, MAC. It seems that Michelet later honored Comte in a letter relating to Joffoy. Comte to Papot, July 2, 1853, CG, 7:83; Comte, “Huiti`eme Confession annuelle,” August 14, 1853, CG, 7:98. Comte to Papot, July 2, 1853, CG, 7:83. Comte, “Huiti`eme Confession annuelle,” August 14, 1853, CG, 7:98. Several months later, Laffitte read Michelet’s Les Femmes de la R´evolution and told Comte about the passages where Michelet described the inspiring relationship between Condorcet and his wife and muse Sophie. Laffitte to Comte, September 27, 1854, in Laffitte, ed., “49 Lettres de Pierre Laffitte a` Auguste Comte (Suite),” 61–2. Michelet to d’Eichthal, January 12, 1870, Correspondance Michelet, Tome XV, Liasse A 4777bis (18), Biblioth`eque Historique de la Ville de Paris. Foley finished his medical studies in 1855. Comte to Hadery, August 30, 1855, CG, 8:107; Comte to Laffitte, August 30, 1855, CG, 8:109–10; Fisher to Edger, April 6 and June 8, 1856, MAC; Larizza, Bandiera verde, 430. Admiring his medical thesis despite its “grave imperfections in form and content,” Comte thought Foley could become a “true priest of Humanity.” Comte to Audiffrent, September 2, 1855, CG, 8:111.

576

The Development of the Positivist Movement

highest philosophic reasons, would be grateful to you for an interruption of a day in works whose importance they do not maybe understand right now.” Moreover, Francelle’s wife and parents would appreciate Comte’s words of consolation more than those of an “indifferent Priest.” As the leader of positivism, Comte must fulfill “the last duty of fraternity” and accede to the desire of “their adopted sister,” Madame Francelle.351 Feeling pressured, Comte finally agreed to perform his priestly function at this funeral.352 portraits of comte In May 1852, Comte took advantage of his “new leisure” to have his bust and portrait done by Antoine Etex.353 Born in 1808, Etex was a well-known sculptor and portrait painter. His reputation was established when he was commissioned by Adolphe Thiers in the 1830s to do the groups of sculptures called “War” and “Peace” on the sides of the Arc de Triomphe. He also did statues or busts of many of the leading nineteenth-century figures, including Chateaubriand, Alfred de Vigny, Leroux, Proudhon, and Cavaignac.354 Politically, Etex tended to be a leftist. According to one student of his life, he was successively an “exalted Catholic, Saint-Simonian, Fouri´erist, and Proudhonian.”355 He liked Saint-Simonianism best of all. In 1832, he preached Saint-Simonian ideas to sailors on the ship he took to Algeria, where he met the former Saint-Simonian, Lamorici`ere, who was stationed in the army there. Later, in June 1848, Etex stood as a republican for the National Assembly but garnered only 23,000 votes. During the Second Republic, he tried, according to Neil McWilliams, “to transform Paris into a monumental mnemonic of republic virtues.”356 Like other republicans, including Comte, he believed in the social function of art. 351

352 353 354

355 356

Robinet to Comte, July 15, 1853, MAC. Robinet claimed to have “profound sympathy” for “this general and noble social class” and wished to give the proletariat as much as he could. See Robinet to Comte, August 20, 1854, MAC. Comte, “Huiti`eme Confession annuelle,” August 14, 1853, CG, 7:98. Comte to Audiffrent, May 6, 1852, CG, 6:271. ”Etex (Aug.)” in Dictionnaire Biographique, ed. Dant´e, 307. Auguste was not Etex’s first name. In March 1844, Comte donated twenty francs to a fund to enable Etex to sculpt a statue of Rossini, “Statue de Rossini,” in Documents, MAC; Laffitte, “Conversations avec Auguste Comte,” March 29, 1846, MAC. Numa Raflin, “Vari´et´es: Les Rapports d’Antoine Etex avec Auguste Comte,” RO, 2d ser., 32 (August 1905): 190. McWilliams, Dreams, 330. See also Paul Foucart, “N´ecrologie: Antoine Etex,” RO, 2d ser., 21 (September 1888): 202–3; P. E. Mangeant, Antoine Etex (Paris, 1894), 5–36; Etex, Les Souvenirs, 153–7.

Portraits of Comte

577

Comte and Etex met in October 1851. Perhaps the intermediary in this connection was Joseph Guichard, Comte’s portraitist in 1850. Guichard knew Etex because they were both students of Ingres.357 Comte took an instant liking to Etex, whom he visited in his apartment from time to time. He thought highly of Etex’s Cours de dessin, which he added to the Positivist Library. Etex’s effort to synthezize the different branches of art and his sense of history impressed Comte enormously.358 He flattered Etex by telling him that he was the only artist whom he had ever met who had a “sign of true grandeur.” Comte wrote, “If then, I can have the happiness of converting you fully to the positive religion, I will regard this conquest as one of the most decisive for the coming of the great human regeneration.” Etex could help mold the social mission of “modern art.”359 Etex, for his part, enjoyed attending Comte’s third course on the history of Humanity and read the first volume of the Syst`eme. In despair after finding the Saint-Simonians and Fourierists to be marked by “revolting materialism,” he was at the “end” of his wits because he did not know “which saint” he should make the object of his devotion. He wrote in his memoirs, “I felt deeply that sentiment without science remained powerless, but the positive philosophy of Auguste Comte taught me that science without sentiment also remained a dead letter.”360 He instantly latched onto the “cult of humanity,” which he thought could help him “eliminate lies by moralizing men.”361 Comte put him “scientifically on the road to progress by order in humanity.”362 He converted to positivism around May 1852 and became a member of the Positivist Society in the fall of 1852.363 Lefort commented after Littr´e’s defection that Etex replaced him “as an intellectual and artistic” powerhouse in the positivist movement.364 After his conversion, Etex became involved in immortalizing Comte in art. To aid the spread of positivism, Guichard had had his own portrait of Comte made into a lithograph which circulated around France. Comte was angry, especially because he had done so without authorization and the portrait was “bad.” He told Audiffrent, “All the positivists who have seen me agree on the importance of destroying such an image; I would prefer to pass into posterity without any graphic representation than to find myself disfigured in this way, which is more than in the worst photographs.”365 Revealing his own vanity, Comte eagerly accepted in May 1852 Etex’s offer to do 357 358 359 361 363 365

Comte to Antoine Etex, January 18, 1852, CG, 6:221. Comte to Etex, February 26, 1852, CG, 6:240. Comte to Etex, January 18, 1852, CG, 6:221. 360 Etex, Les Souvenirs, 265, 266. Etex to Comte, September 13, 1852, MAC. 362 Etex, Les Souvenirs, 266. Foucart, “N´ecrologie,” 207. 364 Lefort to Comte, September 26, 1852, MAC. Comte to Audiffrent, July 6, 1852, CG, 6:311.

578

The Development of the Positivist Movement

a bust and portrait, humorously telling Audiffrent that they would efface “the sad image that you know.”366 As a disciple, Etex would not accept payment for his work.367 Comte went almost every day to Etex’s studio or somewhere else to meet him. Etex showed his allegiance to positivism by depicting Comte inspired by de Vaux and aided by his two other guardian angels.368 Comte proudly announced that this portrait was the only one he authorized.369 He liked it very much because it was also the “only” picture of him where he felt “complete.” Although a bit annoyed that Rosalie Boyer was “essentially sacrificed,” he liked de Vaux’s likeness and thought Bliaux’s was passable.370 Reflecting the importance of visual culture in the nineteenth century, Comte had the portrait made into a lithogragh and the bust made into replicas so that they could be distributed throughout France.371 He basically exploited Etex’s growing fame to add to his own luster.372 People had varied reactions to Comte’s portrait. One discipline exclaimed that it was “divine.”373 Another individual who saw it was Am´ed´ee Charles-Henri, Comte de No´e, known as Cham. The famous caricaturist was visiting Etex while he was working on it and was horrified to recognize the person in the portrait as the one who 366

367 368 369

370 371

372

373

Comte to Audiffrent, March 4, 1852, CG, 6:254. The bust and portrait were finished in late 1852 or early 1853. Etex’s portraits of Comte and de Vaux are on the cover of this volume. Etex to Comte and the Positivists, May 23, 1853, MAC. Foucart, “N´ecrologie,” 207; Comte, “Septi`eme Confession annuelle,” May 28, 1852, CG, 6:286. Comte was irritated that Etex, childishly sulking about something, refused to send the portrait to an exhibit in the summer of 1853. Comte to Audiffrent, August 25, 1853, CG, 7:112. Comte to Audiffrent, August 25, 1853, CG, 7:112. Comte placed the portrait and plaster cast of his bust in his living room. Paul Foucart, the son of the disciple Jean-Baptiste Foucart, remembered seeing them as a boy and remarked that the portrait resembled Comte more than did the bust, which presented a harder version of the philosopher. In 1858, Etex was paid a thousand francs to make a copy of the bust in marble, which softened some of the harsher features in the plaster cast. He sold a number of these busts when Comte’s reputation rose. The bust was displayed at the Universal Exposition 1867, along with that of Proudhon. It can be still found today at the Maison d’Auguste Comte. See Foucart, “N´ecrologie,” 209; Pierre Laffitte, ed., “Lettre d’Erdan a` Auguste Comte,” RO 10 (May 1883): 302; Raflan, “Vari´et´es (fin),” 395, 402, Receipt for five hundred francs for the marble bust September 1, 1858, signed Etex, MAC. Comte even mentioned Etex in the second volume of the Syst`eme. In gratitude for his services, Comte tried to help Etex find a place for his son, whose career aspirations amounted to no more than that of being a “flˆaneur.” Comte unsuccessfully begged Hadery to take the son as an apprentice on his farm. Comte to Hadery, January 29, 1853, CG, 7:24–5; Hadery to Comte, February 3, 1853, MAC. Edger to Comte, October 14, 1855, MAC. Curiously, Comte did not like the lithograph that Etex made of the original portrait. Comte to Edger, November 2, 1855, CG, 8:139.

Portraits of Comte

579

refused him admittance into the Ecole Polytechnique.374 One person who hated it was Caroline Massin. After Comte’s death, she would not let it go to the museum in Montpellier, as he had desired. Instead, she kept it, cut out the three accessory figures, and altered Comte’s head.375 Other people were eager to immortalize Comte in visual culture. One was F´elix Bracquemond, a young art student of Guichard. He lived with Mont`egre while pursuing his studies. In 1850, Guichard had done the drawing of Comte in front of Bracquemond. In 1852, Bracquemond used the drawing to make an etching of Comte that became very well-known. However, Comte did not like the image and put him in contact with Etex for further training. Curiously, Bracquemond’s wife, Marie, became a noted Impressionist painter, whose fame eventually exceeded his in some respects.376 There was one lithograph that Comte liked and displayed in his home. In 1851, a Dutch painter, J.-H. Hoffmeister, was paid by Baron de Constant-Rebecque to make a portrait of Comte.377 However, the artist never saw Comte and based his portrait on a daguerreotype of Comte taken in 1849. People thought it was a good resemblance.378 374 375

376

377

378

Raflan, “Vari´et´es (fin),” 394. Massin died without leaving a will or a testament. When her property was put up for sale by Mr. Bassot, who represented the state, Gr´egoire Wyrouboff, one of her friends and Littr´e’s associate, appeared with a letter she had given him, attesting to the fact that she left him the painting. Laffitte objected to his getting it, claiming that Massin enjoyed only the right to it but did not own it. Bassot kept the painting during this dispute. When Bassot died in 1882, his wife demanded that the case be settled. After much legal wrangling, Wyrouboff seized it. The following year, that is, in 1883, Laffitte finally took possession of it after his lawyer argued in favor of his having it. Laffitte was surprised to find that Massin, motivated by “hate,” had not only scribbled in black over the accessory figures but mutilated the portrait, leaving only Comte’s head, which she retouched. Moreover, the colors had become green. Etex wrote about the degradation without bitterness. The partially destroyed portrait was redone; it or a copy can be seen at the MAC. Laffitte, ed., “Lettre d’Erdan a` Auguste Comte,” 302–3; Raflan, “Vari´et´es (fin),” 400; Pierre Laffitte, ed. “Mat´eriaux pour servir a` la biographie d’Auguste Comte: Une Lettre d’Auguste Comte a` Andr´e-Alexandre Erdan,” RO 8 (1882): 242n1; Foucart, “N´ecrologie,” 202–9; Etex, Les Souvenirs, 266n1. See Comte to Etex, July 10, 1852, CG, 6:314; Bracquemond to Comte, July 13, 1852, MAC. Bracquemond might have done two etchings. See Raflin, “Vari´et´es,” 192. Comte sent Bracquemond in 1852 two volumes of the Syst`eme. Bracquemond’s portrait of Comte is featured on the cover of volume three of this biography. Constant-Rebecque had just sat in on one of Comte’s classes in 1850 and was very enthusiastic about his philosophy, though he thought that his idea of erecting a temple of Humanity was absurd. He ordered all in all six busts of Comte in Paris. Wils, “Les Sympathisants,” 341. Comte, “Huiti`eme Confession annuelle,” August 14, 1853, CG, 7:97; entry of June 13, 1853, in “Achats et Reparations d’objets et de meubles,” MAC; Comte to Hadery, October 27, 1856, CG, 8:333; Lefort to Comte, June 30, 1853, MAC; Raflan, “Vari´et´es (fin),” 401. Deroisin said this daguerreotype was lost in Holland. Deroisin, Comte, 89. An English disciple, John Fisher, said the portrait looked very much like Comte. He made

580

The Development of the Positivist Movement

Constant-Rebecque sent a print to John Chapman, the editor of the Westminster Review and publisher of Harriet Martineau’s English translation of the Cours. By 1856, Chapman had sold seventy of these portraits of Comte.379 By the mid-nineteenth century, the appeal of the visual could not be denied. Julia Howe explained to Comte that she regretted not asking Wallace for a daguerreotype or engraving of him, “You know that all women are physiognomists . . . I had heard you; I wanted to see you.”380

379 380

a daguerreotype of it to send to Henry Edger, one of Comte’s disciples in the United States. Fisher to Edger, April 6 and June 8, 1856. Hoffmeister’s picture is featured on the first volume of Pickering, Auguste Comte. Comte to Edger, November 2, 1855, CG, 8:139; Constant to Comte, December 17, 1856, MAC. Constant-Rebecque instructed Chapman to send Comte part of the profits. Julia Ward Howe to Comte, February 13, 1853, bMS Am 2119 (613), Samuel Gridley and Julia Ward Howe Papers, Houghton Library, Harvard University.

Conclusion

Only he who has learned everything is nowhere a stranger; robbed of his fortune and without friends, he is yet the citizen of every country, and can fearlessly despise the changes of fortune. Lorenzo Ghiberti, Secondo Commentario

This second volume of Comte’s biography has examined approximately ten years of his life, from 1842 to 1852, focusing on the transformation of his positive philosophy into a religious and political movement. It has shown that he became more confident about his philosophy, renaming the Cours de philosophie positive the Syst`eme de philosophie positive and more regularly referring to this belief system as “positivism” to compete with the other isms of the age. At the same time, he was not content with the achievement represented by this great work, which set the foundations of not only a new philosophy but also sociology and the history of science. He saw his life’s work as incomplete. The regeneration of society necessitated more than a scientific and philosophical treatise; it required a moral revolution that would usher in a political revolution. Like Saint-Simon, Comte believed that politics reflected current morality and that both ultimately expressed the reigning philosophy of the times. The Cours, in his mind, laid the foundation of a moral system based on demonstrable principles. It even outlined his ideas of a new spiritual power that would help regenerate society through education. But he worried that the Cours might be misunderstood, adding to the “positivity” or scientism of the day, which neglected social needs. This volume illustrates how Comte’s desire to privilege the welfare of the people led him to take a more activist approach to social regeneration. In the early 1840s, Comte had difficulty in deciding how to develop his philosophy in a meaningful way. While ruminating over his problem, he wrote two books on mathematics and astronomy, the elementary subjects he knew best. He also published in 1844 the Discours sur l’esprit positif, which summarized his positivist doctrine and led him to think more deeply about the shortcomings of Catholicism and the importance of establishing a secular morality. For the first time, he referred to “Humanity” as the desirable focus of all thought. 581

582

Conclusion

Three years later, after experiencing intense relationships with John Stuart Mill, Sarah Austin, and Clotilde de Vaux; fighting with scientists and his colleagues at the Ecole Polytechnique, whom he accused of being too specialized and socially indifferent; and familiarizing himself with the working class and its hardships, Comte began to transform positivism into a religion, the Religion of Humanity. This transformation was influenced by the cults of the French Revolution; Saint-Simon and the Saint-Simonians, who endeavored to revise Christianity; and the reformers of the 1840s, who emphasized a religious rhetoric during the Revolution of 1848. In addition, the romantics’ new appreciation of the spiritual and women’s and workers’ interest in religion played a role in this new development. This transformation represented a change in Comte’s approach, one that reassured him that his thought was still evolving. Nevertheless, signs of continuity were evident. Comte remained loyal to his initial idea that a moral revolution was necessary to solve the problems left by the French Revolution–problems of social fragmentation that he saw compounded by industrialization. He had written in 1825: “Now people who are intelligent enough not to belief in God are not lacking, . . . [but] hardly any of them are sufficiently intelligent to reconstruct . . . on other bases a fixed and positive morality, capable of influencing life in a useful direction and producing something other than argumentations.”1 The Religion of Humanity, by guiding people’s minds and hearts, would bring about the needed moral revolution. Systematizing feelings was the next step after systematizing people’s ideas. This approach was consistent with Comte’s position in the Cours that sociology demonstrated that individual and social progress involved the development of “our humanity over our animality, according to the double supremacy of the intellect over the penchants and the sympathetic instinct over the personal instinct.”2 Both rational ideas and benevolent feelings distinguished people from animals. Both had to be channeled by a new religion. Like all religions, the Religion of Humanity would shape people’s ideas and habits, influencing how individuals dealt with each other.3 In sum, in the Cours, Comte had introduced his positive philosophy, a world view that revolved around society. In the late 1840s, Comte decided that the positive world view that privileged society should be renamed a religion. This development was surprising because Comte had always criticized the first, theological stage of history, which was based on religion. But unlike Saint-Simon, who at the end of his life revived Christianity, Comte maintained his original principle that the concept of God was obsolete. He agreed with Saint-Simon’s 1 3

Comte to Valat, November 16, 1825, CG, 1:167. 2 Cours, 2:769. Comte stated in the Cours that the spiritual power was a “moral power” that shaped our “opinions” and “habits.” Ibid., 2:653.

Conclusion

583

disciples that man was an “eminently religious being” but he redefined religion, taking God entirely out of it.4 As one critic has pointed out, “Comte ultimately cannot allow the religious experience of belief at the theological stage to be obliterated by the rational knowledge achieved by positivism.”5 Comte was eager most of all to rescue the principle of love that was at the heart of Catholicism. Like Voltaire and other philosophes, he attacked Catholicism. Although it had helped develop “human sociability,” in the end it transformed love into a “motif of insurmountable hatred.” Comte’s “Positive Church,” mentioned in lesson fifty-seven of the Cours, was to revive the essence of the primitive Catholic Church.6 In some respects, Comte’s decision to launch a new religion based on the best aspects of Catholicism was pragmatic; he wished to appeal to conservatives who were tied to Catholicism and to leftists who were participating in the religious fervor of the post-revolutionary, romantic period. Yet he also profoundly grasped what scholars in the post-9/11 world are seeing more clearly, that secularization might be wrongly assumed to be at the heart of modernization and might not mean the end of religion per se. In his recently published Secularization and Cultural Criticism, Vincent Pecora suggests that “what had been called religious perspectives, once deeply embedded in social rhetoric, institutions, and traditions, may continue to function very well without any overt religious affiliations to justify or ground them.”7 Over a hundred and fifty years ago, Comte recognized that religion was basic to human nature. Indeed, one of the historical laws that he would announce in the Syst`eme was that “man becomes increasingly religious.”8 Convinced that society was inherently and increasingly religious, he then, in a curious twist, made society express its deep religious impulses by having it worship itself.9 Society was thus selfsufficient, having no place for a transcendent god that could terrorize it. In effect, Comte attempted to reenchant the world without resorting to mysticism, which seemed to demand the subservience of the human spirit.10 Society would be, in a way, finally liberated. But in Comte’s world, the human spirit would not revel in its freedom. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Doctrine de Saint-Simon, premi`ere ann´ee, 1829, 363. Thomas M. Temple, “L’Effet Comte: Recycling French Social Theory,” Journal of Classical Sociology 4 (2004): 365. Cours, 2:347, 653, 696. Vincent P. Pecora, Secularization and Cultural Criticism: Religion, Nation, and Modernity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 6–17, 23. Syst`eme, 3:10. Pecora mentions that in the writing of both Comte and Durkheim, “civic religion returns . . . as a religion of the social itself.” Secularization, 116. Later, German scientists, partly inspired by Goethe’s vision of wholeness, also sought to reenchant the world. See Anne Harrington, Reenchanted Science: Holism in German Culture from Wilhelm II to Hitler (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996).

584

Conclusion

It would not be triumphant, as one might expect. Instead, humans would be humbled by the enormous task of improving their social conditions and natural environment and creating ties to others in the classroom, the workplace, and family, all of which should be venues for helping others and developing altruism. He warned constantly against the dangers of egoism. With this new religion, Comte maintained that society could be finally cohesive. He believed that without an overarching religion to provide moral guidance and to deal with such sacred issues as death and immortality and without a concomitant institution (a church, that is, a spiritual power) to advance religious interests, people would remain miserable in doubt and uncertainty, and alienated and distant from one another. To be a well-functioning organism, whose parts were intermeshed and whose members were devoted to the common good, society needed a religion dedicated to cultivating human sympathies and an intellectual consensus. By creating a new religion, Comte maintained that he had also handed the sciences the distinct task of improving society. Giving moral direction to scientific advancements had motivated him since he was a young man. It is no wonder that Comte resisted the nationalist impulses of his age. Eventually nationalism would become a different sort of religion to the men and women of the nineteenth century. But he glimpsed that nationalism was not the way to bring people together. It would not lead to the peace that he deeply desired. Social relations were so sacred that no state should risk the occurrence of war that would destroy them. His was a profoundly pacifist, internationalist doctrine. This second volume demonstrates that Comte launched the positivist movement to shape the political revolution that he hoped would result in this new, peaceful world. In the Cours, he had warned against confusing theory and practice in politics. Positive philosophers should observe and study political phenomena, which were more complex than natural phenomena, and should refrain from becoming involved in practical politics. The spiritual power, composed of these philosophers, dealt with “education,” while the temporal power was involved in “action.” However, Comte did foresee a time when the “positive school” might have to participate in politics to increase “its fundamental influence.”11 That time came in 1848, when excited by the revolutionary turmoil around him, he launched the Positivist Society. He hoped that by issuing policy papers, it could influence politics. He was still committed to education, but he was becoming increasingly politicized and militant, as reflected in his eagerness to give specific advice on how to set up an activist revolutionary government. 11

Cours, 2:79, 333.

Conclusion

585

This volume offers the first overview of the people who were attracted to him and his philosophical, religious, and political vision. It shows that despite his misogynist tendencies, he appealed to strong women: his wife, Caroline Massin; his good friend Sarah Austin; and the muse whom he adored, Clotilde de Vaux. This volume provides a feminist interpretation of Clotilde de Vaux. It reveals that she was an abandoned woman trying to maintain her independence and achieve success in the world of letters while relying on Comte for intellectual, financial, and emotional support and thus indebting herself to him. She seems to have resisted to the end the sexual favors that he sought, contributing in her own way to his later stress on asceticism. She may not have been decisive in the evolution of the Religion of Humanity, but she did help Comte understand the plight of women. Women’s alleged religiosity, emotional nature, and inherent morality contributed to his decision to create the Religion of Humanity, which he assumed would have special appeal to them. Although in the Cours, he had praised women’s social affections and their moderating role, he increasingly highlighted their role as moral agents helping to pull society together. The volume also discusses the brilliant men in Comte’s life, ranging from John Stuart Mill to George Henry Lewes and Emile Littr´e. These three writers were instrumental in spreading his ideas. But his ideas also engaged less well-known men both in France and abroad. The fact that Comte was appreciated by so many people from different countries and classes reflects the richness of his thought. Nevertheless, the man who coined the term “altruism” and continually denounced egoism was himself excessively egoistic. The second volume ends by leaving the reader with a distinct sense of his domineering personality. In the early 1850s, he gave a funeral oration that shattered the reputation of his friend Blainville, broke off his correspondence once and for all with Massin, lost his last job at the Ecole Polytechnique, snubbed the famous historian Jules Michelet, and refused to attend the funeral of one of his main working-class disciples until his other disciples objected to his self-absorption. The third volume will continue to explore the development and dissemination of Comte’s thought. It will examine in depth his various works, especially the massive Syst`eme de politique positive, and shed light on the ups and downs of his movement. His disciples sought repeatedly to make his doctrine more accessible, suggested different ways of propagandizing, and resisted his turn to the right. Yet Comte refused to listen to their advice, always insisting on maintaining a tight grip on his ideas and his club. His controlling personality became increasingly problematic as did his confused attitude toward Louis-Napoleon. Comte’s initial support of Louis-Napoleon’s

586

Conclusion

takeover and then his reluctance to challenge him once disillusionment set in proved to be difficult positions for many of his disciples, most notably Emile Littr´e. Nevertheless, despite the fact that infighting within the positivist movement lasted until Comte’s death in 1857 and the movement itself fragmented shortly afterward, his philosophy, religion, and politics remained extremely influential. Positivism would constitute one of the main expressions of nineteenth-century European thought.

Bibliography

primary source s Works by Auguste Comte Ecrits de jeunesse 1816–1828: Suivis du M´emoire sur la cosmogonie de Laplace 1835. Edited by Paulo E. de Berrˆedo Carneiro and Pierre Arnaud. Paris: Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, 1970. Prospectus des travaux n´ecessaires pour r´eorganiser la soci´et´e. In Suite des travaux ayant pour objet de fonder le syst`eme industriel: Du Contrat social. By Henri Saint-Simon. Paris, 1822. Syst`eme de politique positive: Tome premier, premi`ere partie. Paris, 1824. Cours de philosophie positive. 6 vols. Paris, 1830–42. Most of the references to this work are from the recent edition Cours de philosophie positive. Edited by Michel Serres, Franc¸ois Dagonet, Allal Sinaceur, and Jean-Paul Enthoven. 2 vols. Paris: Hermann, 1975. Trait´e e´l´ementaire de g´eom´etrie analytique a` deux et a` trois dimensions. Paris, 1843. Trait´e philosophique d’astronomie populaire. Paris, 1844. The citations are from the edition published in Paris by Fayard in 1985. Discours sur l’esprit positif. Paris, 1844. The citations are from the edition published in Paris by the Union G´en´erale d’Editions, 1963. Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, ou Exposition sommaire de la doctrine philosophique et sociale propre a` la grande r´epublique occidentale compos´ee des cinq populations avanc´ees, franc¸aise, italienne, germanique, britannique et espagnole. Paris, 1848. The citations are from the edition published in Paris by Flammarion in 1998. Calendrier Positiviste ou Syst`eme g´en´erale de comm´emoration publique. . . . Paris, 1849. Calendrier Positiviste. 3d ed. Paris, 1851. Calendrier Positiviste. 4th ed. Paris, 1852. Syst`eme de politique positive ou Trait´e du sociologie instituant la religion de l’Humanit´e. 4 vols. Paris, 1851–54; 5th ed., identical to the first, Paris: Au Si`ege de la Soci´et´e Positiviste, 1929. Cat´echisme positiviste, ou Sommaire exposition de la religion universelle en treize entretiens syst´ematiques entre une femme et un prˆetre de l’humanit´e. Paris, 1852. The citations are from the recent edition published in Paris by Garnier-Flammarion in 1966. Appel aux Conservateurs. Paris, 1855. Synth`ese subjective ou Syst`eme universel des conceptions propres a` l’´etat normal de l’humanit´e. Vol. 1. Paris, 1856. The citations are from the recent edition published in Paris by Fayard in 2000. Testament d’Auguste Comte avec les documents qui s’y rapportent: Pi`eces justificatives, pri`eres quotidiennes, confessions annuelles, correspondance avec Mme de Vaux. Paris, 1884. Most of the citations are from the second edition of 1896, which contains the “Addition Secr`ete.” 587

588

Bibliography Letters of Auguste Comte

Auguste Comte: Correspondance g´en´erale et confessions. Edited by Paulo E. de Berrˆedo Carneiro, Pierre Arnaud, Paul Arbousse-Bastide, and Ang`ele Kremer-Marietti. 8 vols. Paris: Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, 1973–90. Correspondance in´edite d’Auguste Comte. 4 vols. Paris: Au Si`ege de la Soci´et´e Positiviste, 1903. Lettres et Fragments de Lettres. S˜ao Paulo: Centro Positivista de S˜ao Paulo, 1926.

Archives france Paris L’Acad´emie de M´edecine L’Acad´emie des Sciences Archives of the Coll`ege de France Archives de Paris (Archives D´epartementales de la Seine) Archives D´epartementales de l’Oise Archives of Madame Sybil de Acevedo Archives Nationales Biblioth`eque de l’Arsenal Biblioth`eque Historique de la Ville de Paris Biblioth`eque de l’Institut de France Biblioth`eque Nationale Biblioth`eque Thiers Ecole Polytechnique La Maison d’Auguste Comte (MAC) Lyon Archives D´epartementales du Rhˆone Archives Municipales de Lyon england Balliol College, Oxford University Bodleian Library, Oxford University The British Library British Library of Political and Economic Science, London School of Economics. Harris Manchester College Library, Oxford University University of Birmingham Library united states The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley Houghton Library, Harvard University Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library

Contemporary Newspapers and Journals Athenaeum. 1845. Journal de l’Oise. 1839. Le National. 1844, 1845. The National Reformer. 1888.

Bibliography

589

La Presse. 1851. La R´eforme, 1844. La Revue Occidentale. 1878–1914. Le Temps. 1892.

Other Primary Sources Abbott, Evelyn and Lewis Campbell, eds. Life and Letters of Benjamin Jowett. 2 vols. London: John Murray, 1897. Alighieri, Dante. The Comedy. Translated by Dorothy Sayers. Vol. 2, Purgatory. Harmondsworth,: Penguin, 1955. Audiffrent, Georges. Le Cinquantenaire de la mort d’Auguste Comte. Lyon: A. Storck, 1907. . Une Conversation avec Auguste Comte. Lyon: A. Storck, 1908. . A Propos du centenaire de la naissance d’un maˆıtre v´en´er´e. Paris: Paul Ritti, 1898. . Quelques mots sur la vie et l’oeuvre d’Auguste Comte: R´eponse a` M. Emile Ollivier. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1901. . R´eponse a` M. J. Bertrand. Paris, 1897. Bain, Alexander. Autobiography. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1904. . John Stuart Mill. A Criticism with Personal Recollections. London: Longmans, Green, 1882. Baker, William, ed. The Letters of George Henry Lewes. 2 vols. Victoria: University of Victoria Press, 1995. Bell, Susan Groag and Karen M. Offen, eds. Women, the Family, and Freedom: The Debate in Documents. 2 vols. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1983. Bertrand, Joseph. Review of Auguste Comte, fondateur du positivisme, sa vie, sa doctrine, by R. P. Gruber. Journal des Savants (August 1892): 685–95. . “Souvenirs acad´emiques: Auguste Comte et l’Ecole Polytechnique.” Revue des deux mondes 138 (December 1896): 528–48. Blainville, H. de. Histoire des sciences de l’organisation et de leur progr`es comme base de la philosophie. 3 vols. Paris, 1845. Blakey, Robert. History of the Philosophy of Mind. Vol 4. London, 1848. Bonnin, Charles. A Madame Bonnin. Paris, 1825. Bresson, L´eopold. “Consid´erations positives sur la science sociale.” La Phalange: Journal de la Science Sociale 5 (1847): 537–62; 6 (1847): 48–71, 136–54, 275–96, 330–53, 441–64, 537–51; 7 (1848): 54–72, 137–54, 285–316, 466–500; 8 (1848): 77–96, 161–74. [Brewster, David.] Review of Cours de philosophie positive, by Auguste Comte. Edinburgh Review 67 ( July 1838): 271–308. [Buchanan, James.] “Forms of Infidelity in the Nineteenth Century.” North British Review 15 (May 1851): 35–56. . Modern Atheism under Its Forms of Pantheism, Materialism, Secularism, Development, and Natural Laws. Boston: Gould and Lincoln, 1857. Calendrier S.S. Paris: Carpentier-M´ericourt, 1833. Chambers, Robert. Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. 1844. New York: Humanities Press, 1969. Comte, Louis. M´emoire justificatif. Paris, 1846. Delbet, E. Cinquanti`eme Anniversaire de la mort d’Auguste Comte. Paris: La Soci´et´e Positiviste Internationale, 1907.

590

Bibliography

Deroisin, [Hippolyte Phil´emon]. Notes sur Auguste Comte par un de ses disciples. Paris, G. Cr`es, 1909. D’H´ericourt, Jenny P. La Femme affranchie: R´eponse a` MM. Michelet, Proudhon, E. de Girardin, A. Comte et aux autres novateurs modernes. Vol. 1. Paris, 1860. Doctrine de Saint-Simon, premi`ere ann´ee, 1829. 2d ed. Paris, 1830. Dunoyer, Charles. De la Libert´e du travail: Ou Simple Expos´e des conditions dans lesquelles les forces humaines s’exercent avec le plus de puissance. 3 vols. Paris, 1845. Etex, Antoine. Les Souvenirs d’un artiste. Paris, E. Dentu, 1877. Flaubert, Gustave. Bouvard et P´ecuchet. Paris: Garnier Fr`eres, 1954. . Sentimental Education. Translated by Robert Baldick. Middlesex: Penguin, 1964. Gentil, Pascaline, ed. Auguste Comte/Caroline Massin: Correspondance in´edite (1831–1851). Paris: L’Harmattan, 2006. Greeley, Horace. Hints toward Reforms in Lectures, Addresses and Other Writings. New York, 1850. Grote, Harriet. The Personal Life of George Grote. London: John Murray, 1873. . The Philosophical Radicals of 1832, Comprising the Life of Sir William Molesworth and the Incident Connected with the Reform Movement from 1832 to 1842. New York: Burt Franklin, 1866. Hamilton, James. Personal Recollections of Auguste Comte. London, 1897. First published in Chamber’s Journal, June 19, 1858. Harrison, Frederic. Introduction to The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte. Edited by Harriet Martineau. Vol 1. v–xix. London: George Bell & Sons, 1896. .“Obituary: G. H. Lewes.” The Academy 14 (December 7, 1878): 543–4. [Holmes, George Frederick.] “Auguste Comte and Positivism.” North British Review 21 (1854): 247–95. .“Instauratio Nova – Auguste Comte.” Methodist Quarterly Review 34 ( July 1852): 329–60. .“The Positive Religion, or the Religion of Humanity.” Methodist Quarterly Review 6 ( July 1854): 329–59. Howe, Julia Ward. Reminiscences (1819–1899). New York: Greenwood Publishing Corp., Negro Universities Press, 1969. Hutton, Henry Dix. Comte, the Man and the Founder: Personal Recollections. London: Reeves & Turner, 1891. Leblais, Alphonse. “A. Comte et le Positivisme.” Revue Moderne 1 (November 1857): 365–87. Lewes, George Henry. A Biographical History of Philosophy. London: George Routledge & Sons, n.d. . Comte’s Philosophy of the Sciences: Being an Exposition of the Principles of the “Cours de philosophie positive” of Auguste Comte. London: Henry G. Bohn, 1853. . “Contemporary Literature of France.” Westminster Review, n.s., 1 ( January 1852): 346–56. . “The Modern Metaphysics and Moral Philosophy of France.” British and Foreign Review 15 (1843): 353–406. .“State of Historical Science in France.” British and Foreign Review 16 (1844): 72–118. Littr´e, Emile. Auguste Comte et la philosophie positive. 2d ed. Paris, 1864. . Conservation, r´evolution et positivisme. Paris, 1852. . Fragments de philosophie positive et de sociologie contemporaine. Paris, 1876. . Paroles de philosophie positive. Paris, 1859.

Bibliography

591

. De la Philosophie positive. Paris, 1845. . Principes de philosophie positive. Paris, 1868. Lom´enie, Louis L´eonard de. Galerie des contemporains illustr´es. 10 vols. Paris, 1840–47. Lonchampt, Joseph. Pr´ecis de la vie et des e´crits d’Auguste Comte. Paris, 1889. Marie, Mme , n´ee du Ficquelment. Proposition d’une association religieuse et perp´etuelle des femmes, pour travailler au soulagement des malheureux et a` l’extirpation de la mendicit´e. Paris, 1835. . Le Sculpteur en bois, r´ecit enti`erement vrai. Paris, 1844. Marie, Maximilien. Discours sur la nature des grandeurs n´egatives et imaginaires. Paris, 1843. Marx, Karl. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Translated by Ben Fowkes. Vol. 1. New York: Random House/ Vintage Books: 1976. . The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. New York: International Publishers, 1967. Marxists Internet Archive. “Marx-Engels Correspondence.” http://www.marxists.org/ archive/marx/works/1851/letters/51_10_13.htm. (accessed September 20, 2007). [Masson, David.] “The Social Science: Its History and Prospects.” North British Review 15 (August 1851): 291–330. McClintock, John. “Horace Binney Wallace.” Methodist Quarterly Review 6 ( January 1854): 132–42. M’Cosh, James. The Method of Divine Government, Physical and Moral. New York, 1851. Mercoeur, Madame Veuve. “M´emoires sur la vie d’Elisa Mercoeur.” In Oeuvres compl`etes d’Elisa Mercoeur de Nantes, pr´ec´ed´ees de m´emoires et notices sur la vie de l’auteur, e´crits par sa m`ere. Vol. 1. xvii–clxxxvi. Paris,1843. Michelet, Jules. Du Prˆetre, de la femme, de la famille. 4th ed. Paris, 1845. Mieulet de Lombrail, A. Aperc¸us g´en´eraux sur la doctrine positiviste. Paris, 1858. Mill, Harriet Taylor. Enfranchisement of Women. In 1851. Essays on Sexual Equality, by Harriet Taylor Mill and John Stuart Mill. Edited by Alice S. Rossi. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970. Mill, John Stuart. Auguste Comte and Positivism. 1866. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1961. . The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. Edited by John Robson. 33 vols. Toronto: University Press, 1963–91. Montesquiou, L´eon de, ed. “Lettres d’Auguste Comte.” Action franc¸aise 32 (November 15, 1913): 333–9. . “Lettres d’Auguste Comte (suite).” Action franc¸aise 33 (February 15, 1914): 133–44. . “Lettres d’Auguste Comte (suite et fin).” Action franc¸aise 38 (March 15, 1914): 229–36. Morell, John Daniel. An Historical and Critical View of the Speculative Philosophy of Europe in the Nineteenth Century. Vol. 1. (London, 1846). Morin, P. E. De l’Am´elioration du sort de la classe ouvri`ere. Rouen, 1848. ´ Nicard, Pol. Etude sur la vie et les travaux de M. Ducrotay de Blainville. Paris: J.-B. Bailli`ere, 1890. Padover, Saul K., ed. and trans. The Letters of Karl Marx. Englewood Cliffs: PrenticeHall, 1979. Parker, Theodore. Discourse of Matters Pertaining to Religion. 4th ed. Boston, 1859. . Sermons of Theism, Atheism, and the Popular Theology. Boston, 1853. Perry, E. “A Morning with Auguste Comte.” Nineteenth Century 9 (November 1877): 621–31.

592

Bibliography

Potter, Louis de. La Justice et sa sanction religieuse: Question d’ordre social. 2d. ed. Brussels, 1897. Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph. Carnets de P. J. Proudhon. Edited by Pierre Haubtmann. Vol. 2, 1847–8. Paris: Marcel Rivi`ere, 1961. . Correspondance de P. J. Proudhon. 14 vols. Paris: Lacroix, 1875. Quinlan, Susan Canty. Review of Nisia Floresta: A primeiro feminista do Brasil, by Constˆancia Lima Duarte. Luso-Brazilian Review 45, no. 2 (2008): 219–20. Raddatz, Fritz J., ed. Karl Marx-Friedrich Engels: Selected Letters: The Personal Correspondence, 1844–77. Translated by Ewald Osers. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1980. Religion Saint-Simonienne: Receuil des Pr´edications. Paris, 1832. Robinet, [Jean-Franc¸ois Eug`ene]. Notice sur l’oeuvre et la vie d’Auguste Comte, 3d ed. Paris, 1891. . M. Littr´e et le positivisme. Paris, 1871. Saint-Simon, Henri de. Lettres d’un habitant de Gen`eve a` ses contemporains [1803], r´eimprim´ees conform´ement a` l’´edition originale et suivies de deux documents in´edits – Lettre aux Europ´eens [Essai sur l’organisation sociale]. Edited by Alfred Pereire. Paris: F´elix Alcan, 1925. . Oeuvres de Claude-Henri de Saint-Simon. 6 vols. Paris: Anthropos, 1966. Saisset, Emile. M´elanges d’histoire, de morale et de critique. Paris: Charpentier, 1859. . “La philosophie positive.” Revue des deux mondes 15 ( July 15, 1846): 185–220. Sand, George. Correspondance. Edited by Georges Lubin. Vol. 3. Paris: Garnier Fr`eres, 1967. . Lettres a` Marcie. In Les Sept Cordes de la lyre, by Sand. 165–234. Paris: Michel L´evy Fr`eres, 1869. . “Quelques Reflexions sur Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Fragment d’une r´eponse a` un fragment de lettre.” In Oeuvres de George Sand: M´elanges. 133–52. Paris, 1843. . Souvenirs de 1848. Paris: Calmann L´evy, 1880. Sanders, Valerie, ed. Harriet Martineau: Selected Letters. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. [Sedgwick, Adam.] Review of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. Edinburgh Review 82 (1845): 1–85. Segond, Louis Auguste, Horace de Mont´egre, and Charles Robin. Rapport a` la Soci´et´e Positiviste par la Commission Charg´ee d’examiner le nature et le plan de l’Ecole Positive desitin´ee surtout a` r´eg´en´erer les m´edecins. 2d ed. Paris: L. Mathias, 1850. [Smith, William.] “Comte.” Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine 53 (March 1843): 397–414. Soci´et´e Phr´enologique de Paris: Prospectus. Paris, 1831. Valat, Pierre. “Document historique sur Guizot et Aug. Comte.” Actes de l’Acad´emie Nationale des Sciences, Belles-Lettres et Arts de Bordeaux, 3d ser., 36 (1874): 15–27. Vaux, Clotilde de. Willelmine. Paris: Edition Positiviste, 1929. Wallace, Horace Binney. Art, Scenery, and Philosophy in Europe. Philadelphia, 1855. Ward William George. The Ideal of a Christian Church. London, 1844. Whewell, W. “Comte and Positivism.” Macmillan’s Magazine 13 (March 1866): 353–62. Wollstonecraft, Mary. A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. 1792. 2d ed. Edited by Carol H. Poston. New York: W. Norton, 1988.

secondary source s Adburgham, Alison. A Radical Aristocrat: The Rt Hon. Sir William Molesworth of Pencarrow and His Wife Andalusia. Padstow, Cornwall: Tabb House, 1990.

Bibliography

593

Adler, Kathleen. “‘La France’ and ‘La Femme’: Thoughts from a Bicentenary Exhibition.” Gender and History 1 (September 1989): 330–34. Agulhon, Maurice. 1848 ou l’Apprentissage de la r´epublique 1848–1852. Paris: Seuil, 1973. . Marianne into Battle: Republican Imagery and Symbolism in France, 1789–1880. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. . “Working Class and Sociability in France before 1848.” In The Power of the Past: Essays for Eric Hobsbawm, edited by Pat Thane, Geoffrey Crossick, and Roderick Floud, 37–66. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Albistur, Ma¨ıt´e and Daniel Armogathe. Histoire du f´eminisme franc¸ais. 2 vols. Paris: Editions des Femmes, 1977. Alleaume, Ghislaine. “L’Economie politique saint-simonienne et les e´ lites techniques de l’Egypte moderne.” In Etudes saint-simoniennes, edited by Philippe R´egnier. 305–32. Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon, 2002. Amann, Peter H. Revolution and Mass Democracy: The Paris Club Movement in 1848. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975. Ambri`ere, Madeleine. Pr´ecis de litt´erature franc¸aise du XIXe si`ecle. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1990. Andrews, Naomi J. Socialism’s Muse: Gender in the Intellectual Landscape of French Romantic Socialism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, Lexington Books, 2006. Arbousse-Bastide, Paul. La Doctrine de l’´education universelle dans la philosophie d’Auguste Comte. 2 vols. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1957. Arrington, Robert L, ed. A Companion to the Philosophers. Oxford: Blackwell, 1999. Ashton, Rosemary. G. H. Lewes: A Life. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. Audubert, Ren´e. Arago et son Temps, conf´erence faite au Palais de la D´ecouverte le 19 d´ecembre 1953. Paris: Palais de la D´ecouverte, 1954. “Auguste Comte, Examinateur.” Bulletin Auguste Comte 1 ( June 1922): 336. Barjot, Dominque, Jean-Pierre Chaline, and Andr´e Encr`eve. La France au XIXe si`ecle. 2d. ed. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1997. Barry Joseph. Infamous Woman: The Life of George Sand. Garden City, Doubleday, 1977. Bartier, John. Naissance du socialisme en Belgique: Les Saint-Simoniens. Edited by Arlette Smolar-Meynart. Brussels: Pr´esence et Action Culturelle, 1985. Becquemont, Daniel. “Auguste Comte et l’Angleterre.” In Petit, Auguste Comte: Trajectoires positivistes. 317–31. Beecher, Jonathan. Charles Fourier: The Visionary and His World. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986. . Victor Considerant and the Rise and Fall of French Romantic Socialism. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001. Beik, Doris and Paul, ed. and trans. Flora Tristan: Utopian Feminist. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993. Belhoste, Bruno. “L’Elitisme polytechnicien: Excellence scolaire et distinction sociale.” In La France des X: Deux si`ecles d’histoire, edited by Bruno Belhoste, Amy Dahan Dalmedico, Dominque Pestre, and Antoine Picon. 19–32. Paris: Economica, 1995. . La Formation d’une technocratie: l’Ecole Polytechnique et ses e´l`eves de la R´evolution au Second Empire. Paris: Belin, 2003. . “Un Mod`ele a` l’´epreuve. L’Ecole polytechnique de 1794 au Second Empire.” In La Formation polytechnicienne 1794–1994, edited by Bruno Belhoste, Amy Dahan Dalmedico, and Antoine Picon, 9–30. Paris: Dunod, 1994. B´enichou, Paul. Le Temps des Proph`etes: Doctrines de l’ˆage romantique. Paris: Gallimard, 1977.

594

Bibliography

Bensaude, Bernadette and Annie Petit. “Le F´eminisme militant d’un auguste phallocrate (Auguste Comte, Syst`eme de politique positive).” Revue philosophique de la france et de l’´etranger, no. 3 (1976): 293–311. Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette. “L’Astronomie populaire, priorit´e philosophique et projet politique.” Revue de synth`ese 112 ( January–March 1991): 49–59. . “Atomism and Positivism: A Legend about French Chemistry.” Annals of Science 56 (1999): 81–94. . “Auguste Comte, la science populaire d’un philosophe.” Corpus: Revue de philosophie, no. 4 (1987): 143–67. . “Comte et la diffusion des sciences.” In Petit, Auguste Comte: Trajectoires positivistes. 127–34. . L’Opinion publique et la science: A Chacun son ignorance. Paris: Institut d’´edition sanofi-synthelabo, 2000. . “Les Savants au pouvoir.” Romantisme, no. 21–2 (1978), 63–75. Berenson, Edward. Populist and Left-Wing Politics in France, 1830–1852. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984. . The Trial of Madame Caillaux. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992. Bergman-Carton, Janis. The Woman of Ideas in French Art, 1830–1848. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995. Bernal, Martin. Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization. Vol. 1, The Fabrication of Ancient Egypt 1785–1985. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987. Bosher, J. F. The French Revolution. New York: W. W. Norton, 1988. Boudot, Maurice. “De l’Usurpation g´eom´etrique.” Revue philosophique de la france et de l’´etranger, no. 4 (1985): 387–402. Bourdeau, Michel. “Auguste Comte et la religion positiviste: Pr´esentation.” Revue des sciences philosophiques et th´eologiques, 87 (2003): 5–21. . “L’Autre Face du positivisme.” In Th´eorie g´en´erale de la religion ou Th´eorie positive de l’unit´e humaine, by Auguste Comte. 97–104. Paris, Fayard/ Mille et Une Nuits, 2005. .“L’Esprit ministre du coeur: Auguste Comte et la place de l’affectivit´e dans la vie morale.” Revue de philosophie et th´eologie 132 (2000): 175–92. . “L’Id´ee de point de vue sociologique: La Philosophie des sciences comme sociologies des sciences chez Auguste Comte.” Cahiers internationaux de sociologie 117, no. 1 (2004): 1–11. . Introduction to John Stuart Mill, Auguste Comte et le Positivisme. Translated by Georges Clemenceau. 3–4. Paris: L’Harmattan, 1999. . “O`u en est la politique positive?” Archives de Philosophie 70 (2007): 5–22. . “La R´eception du positivisme (1843–1928).” Revue d’histoire des sciences humaines 8 (2003): 3–8. . “Science de l’homme ou Science de l’humanit´e.” In Bourdeau and Chazel, Auguste Comte et l’id´ee de science de l’homme. 279–97. . Les Trois Etats: Science, th´eologie et m´etaphysique chez Auguste Comte. Paris: Editions du Cerf, 2006. Bourdeau, Michel, Jean-Franc¸ois Braunstein, and Annie Petit, eds. Auguste Comte aujourd’hui: Colloque de Cerisy (3–10 juillet 2001). Paris: Kim´e, 2003. Bourdeau, Michel and Franc¸ois Chazel, eds. Auguste Comte et l’id´ee de science de l’homme. Paris: L’Harmattan, 2002. Bowler, Peter J. Evolution: The History of an Idea. Rev. ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989.

Bibliography

595

Braunstein, Jean-Franc¸ois. “Antipsychologisme et philosophie du cerveau chez Auguste Comte.” Revue internationale de philosophie 52, no. 203 (1998): 7–28. . “Auguste Comte et la philosophie de la m´edecine.” In Petit, Auguste Comte: Trajectoires positivistes. 159–76. . “Bachelard, Canguilhem, Foucault: Le ‘Style franc¸ais’ en e´ pist´emologie.” In Les Philosophes et la science, edited by Pierre Wagner. 920–1065. Paris: Gallimard, 2002. . Broussais et le mat´erialisme: M´edecine et philosophie au XIXe si`ecle. Paris: M´eridiens Klincksieck, 1986. . “Canguilhem, Comte et le positivisme.” In Actualit´e de Georges Canguilhem: Le Normal et le pathologique: Actes du Xe Colloque de la Soci´et´e internationale d’histoire de la psychiatrie et de la psychanalyse, edited by Franc¸ois Bing, Jean-Franc¸ois Braunstein, and Elisabeth Roudinesco. 95–120. Paris: Institut Synth´elabo, 1998. . “Comte, de la nature a` l’Humanit´e.” In Philosophies de la nature, edited by Olivier Bloch. 259–69. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, Paris, 2000. . “Comte ‘in context’: L’Exemple de la sociologie.” In Bourdeau et al., Auguste Comte aujourd’hui. 291–314. . “Le Concept de milieu, de Lamarck a` Comte et aux positivismes.” In JeanBaptiste Lamarck, 1744–1829, edited by Goulven Laurent. 557–71. Paris: Comit´e des Travaux Historiques et scientifiques, 1997. . “La Critique comtienne du mat´erialisme.” In Pr´esences du mat´erialisme, edited by Jacques D’Hondt and Georges Festa. 179–93. Paris: L’Harmattan, 1999. . “La Philosophie des sciences d’Auguste Comte.” In Les Philosophes et la science, edited by Pierre Wagner. 787–822. Paris: Gallimard, 2002. . “La Religion des morts-vivants: Le Culte des morts chez Auguste Comte.” Revue des sciences philosophiques et th´eologiques, 87 (2003): 59–73. Breisach, Ernest. Historiography: Ancient, Medieval and Modern. 2d. ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. Bucciarelli, Louis and Nancy Dworsky. Sophie Germain: An Essay in the History of Elasticity. Boston: D. Reidel, 1980. Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge, 1990. . “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory.” In Performing Feminisms: Feminist Critical Theory and Theatre, edited by Sue-Ellen Case. 270–82. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990. B¨uttner, Wolfgang. “Herweg, Georg.” In Encyclopedia of 1848 Revolutions, edited by James G. Chastain. http://www.ohiou.edu/∼Chastain/ac/cabet.htm (accessed November 5, 2005). Buzon, Fr´ed´eric de. “Auguste Comte, le Cogito et la modernit´e.” Revue de Synth`ese 112 ( January–March 1991): 61–73. Callot, Jean-Pierre. Histoire de l’Ecole Polytechnique. Paris; Charles Lavanzelle, 1982. Canguilhem, Georges. “L’Ecole de Montpellier jug´ee par Auguste Comte.” Bulletin et M´emoire de la Soci´et´e Internationale d’Histoire de la M´edecine, n.s., 6 (1959): 46–9. . “Emile Littr´e, Philosophe de la biologie et de la m´ed´ecine.” In Actes du Colloque Littr´e: Paris, 7–9 octobre 1981. 271–83. Paris: Albin Michel, 1983. . Etudes d’histoire et de philosophie des sciences, Paris: J. Vrin, 2002. Capaldi, Nicholas. John Stuart Mill: A Biography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Carlisle, Robert R. The Proffered Crown: Saint-Simonianism and the Doctrine of Hope. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987.

596

Bibliography

Caron, Jean-Claude. La France de 1815 a` 1848. Paris: Armand Collin, 1993. Carr, E. H. The Romantic Exiles: A Nineteenth Century Portrait Gallery. Boston: Beacon Press, 1961. Cashdollar, Charles D. The Transformation of Theology, 1830–1890: Positivism and Protestant Thought in Britain and America. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989. Cate, Curtis. George Sand: A Biography. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1975. Chabert, George. Un Nouveau Pouvoir spirituel: Auguste Comte et la religion scientifique au XIXe si`ecle. Caen: Presses Universitaires de Caen, 2004. Chadwick, Owen. The Secularization of the European Mind in the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. Charle, Christophe. A Social History of France in the Nineteenth Century. Translated by Miriam Kochan. Oxford: Berg, 1994. Cherni, Ze¨ıneb Ben Sa¨ıd. Auguste Comte, posterit´e e´pist´emologique et ralliement des nations. Paris: L’Harmattan, 2005. . “Fonctions logiques et fonctions <sacerdotales> de l’´ecriture chez A. Comte.” Revue tunisienne des Etudes Philosophiques, no. 11 (December 1991): 17–24. . “L’Inaccessible dans les sciences de la vie et le ‘degr´e de libert´e en philosophie.’” In Bourdeau et al., Auguste Comte aujourd’hui. 91–110. . “La Pens´ee d’A. Comte entre la norme et l’historicit´e.” In Auguste Comte et le positivisme, deux si`ecles apr`es (Actes du Colloque du 27 au 30 avril 1999). 227–56. Carthage: Acad´emie Tunisienne des Sciences, des Lettres et des Arts “Be¨ıt Al-Hikma”, 2000. . “La Philosophie d’A. Comte et la biologie au XIXe si`ecle.” In La Biologia: Parametro epistemologico de XIX secolo, edited by Maria Donzelli. 35–58. Naples: Liguori, 2003. . “La Vie chez A. Comte, .” In La R´ep´etition, edited by Slaheddine Chaouachi et Alain Montandon. 146–55. Clermont-Ferrand: Association des publications de la Facult´e des lettres et sciences humaines de Clermont-Ferrand, 1994. Chevalier, Louis. Labouring Class and Dangerous Classes in Paris during the First Half of the Nineteenth Century. Translated by Frank Jellinek. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1973. Cholvy, G´erard. Etre chr´etien en France au XIXe si`ecle, 1790–1914. Paris: Seuil, 1997. Cingolani, Patrick. Le Probl`eme de l’individualisme et de la d´emocratie aux origines de la sociologie en France au XIXe Si`ecle. Ph.D. Diss., Universit´e de Paris VII, 1991. Clarke, Edwin and L. S. Jacyna. Nineteenth-Century Origins of Neuroscientific Concepts. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987. Clarke, M. L. George Grote: A Biography. London: University of London/Athlone Press, 1962. Clauzade, Laurent. “Auguste Comte et Stuart Mill: Les Enjeux de la psychologie.” Revue d’Histoire des sciences humaines 8 (2003): 41–56. . Le «Culte» et la «Culture» chez Auguste Comte: La Destination morale de la religion positiviste.” Revue des sciences philosophiques et th´eologiques 87 (2003): 39–57. . “Le Statut e´ pist´emologique du Tableau c´er´ebral et la notion de type chez Auguste Comte.” In Bourdeau and Chazel. Auguste Comte et l’id´ee de science de l’homme. 111–51. Coleman, William. “Blainville, Henri Marie Ducrotay de.” In Gillispie, ed., Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Collingham, H. A. C. The July Monarchy: A Political History of France 1830–1848. Edited by R. S. Alexander. London: Longman, 1988.

Bibliography

597

Cometti, Jean-Pierre. “L’Esth´etique positiviste: Un Dictionnaire des id´ees rec¸ues?” In Bourdeau at al., Auguste Comte aujourd’hui. 245–69. Cominos, Peter T. “Innocent Femina Sensualis in Unconscious Conflict.” In Suffer and Be Still: Women in the Victorian Age, edited by Martha Vicinus. 155–72. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1972. Copley, Antony. “Pierre-Joseph Proudhon: A Reassessment of His Role as a Moralist.” French History 3 ( June 1989): 194–221. Cordillot, Michel. “Au Texas! Aperc¸us biographiques sur quelques membres de la colonie de R´eunion.” Cahiers Charles Fourier, 4 (1993): 102–28. Coumet, Ernest. “La Philosophie positive d’E. Littr´e.” In Actes du Colloque Littr´e, Paris, 7–9 octobre 1981, edited by Jacques Roger. 177–214. Paris: Albin Michel, 1983. Cowling, Maurice. Mill and Liberalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963. Crosland, Maurice. “The Development of a Professional Career in Science in France.” In The Emergence of Science in Western Europe, edited by Maurice Crosland. 139–59. New York: Science History Publications, 1976. . Science under Control: The French Academy of Sciences 1795–1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. . “Scientific Credentials: Record of Publications in the Assessment of Qualifications for Election to the French Acad´emie des Sciences.” Studies in the Culture of Science in France and Britain Since the Enlightenment, edited by Maurice Crosland. 605–31. Aldershot: Variorum, 1995. Dale, Peter Allen. In Pursuit of a Scientific Culture: Science, Art, and Society in the Victorian Age. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989. Dant`es, Alfred. Dictionnaire biographique et bibliographique. Paris: Aug. Boyer, 1875. Darriulat, Philippe. Les Patriotes: La Gauche r´epublicaine et la nation 1830–1870. Paris: Seuil, 2001. Daumas, Maurice. Arago, 1786–1853: La Jeunesse de la science. 2d ed. Paris: Belin, 1987. Dehan, Thierry and Sandrine S´en´echal. Les Franc¸ais sous le Second Empire. Toulouse: Privat, 2006. Dhombres, Jean. “L’Analogie dans les math´ematiques analytiques selon Auguste Comte.” Revue philosophique, no. 4 (2007): 451–70. . “L’Image ‘scientiste’ de l’Ecole Polytechnique.” In La Formation polytechnicienne 1794–1994, edited by Bruno Belhoste, A. Dahan Dalmedico, and A. Picon. 281–96. Paris: Dunod, 1994. . “O`u observer la post´erit´e math´ematique d’Auguste Comte.” In Bourdeau et al. Auguste Comte aujourd’hui. 25–48. . “La Pratique philosophique des math´ematiques chez Auguste Comte: Une conceptualisation de l’espace par l’analytique.” In Bourdeau and Chazel, Auguste Comte et l’id´ee de science de l’homme. 21–80. Dijkstra, Sandra. Flora Tristan: Feminism in the Age of George Sand. London: Pluto Press, 1992. Dixon-Fyle, Joyce. Female Writers’ Struggle for Rights and Education for Women in France (1848–71). New York: Peter Lang, 2006. Donzelli, Maria.“Auguste Comte et le g´enie esth´etique italien.” In Bourdeau et al., Auguste Comte aujourd’hui. 270–90. . “Comte, l’Italie et la France entre le XIXe et le XXe si`ecles.” In Petit, Auguste Comte: Trajectoires positivistes. 351–62. “Lectures et interpr´etations d’A. Comte en Italie dans la seconde moiti´e du XIX`eme si`ecle.” In Auguste Comte et le positivisme, deux si`ecles apr`es (Actes du

598

Bibliography

Colloque du 27 au 30 avril 1999). 187–206. Carthage: Acad´emie Tunisienne des Sciences, des Lettres et des Arts “Be¨ıt Al-Hikma”: 2000. . Origini e declino del positivismo: Saggio su Auguste Comte in Italia. Napoli: Liguori, 1999. . ed. La Biologia: Parametro epistemologico del XIX Secolo. Naples: Liguori, 2003. Downs, Laura Lee. “Reply to Joan Scott.” Society for Comparative Study of Society and History 35 (April 1993): 444–51. Ecole Polytechnique. Livre du centenaire, 1794–1894. 3 vols. Paris, 1894–97. Elias, Norbert. The Civilizing Process: Sociogenetic and Psychogenetic Investigations. Translated by Edmund Jephcott. Rev. ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 2000. . What Is Sociology? Translated by Stephen Mennell and Grace Morrissey. New York: Columbia University Press, 1970. Ellis, Jack D. The Physician-Legislators of France: Medicine and Politics in the Early Third Republic, 1870–1914. Cambridge University Press, 1990. Fedi, Laurent. Comte. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2004. . “L’Organicisme de Comte.” In Bourdeau et al., Auguste Comte aujourd’hui. 111–32. Finch, Alison. Women’s Writing in Nineteenth-Century France. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Ford, Caroline. “Religion and Popular Culture in Modern Europe.” Journal of Modern History 65 (March 1993): 152–75. Foucault, Michel. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. New York: Random House/Vintage Books, 1973. . Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977. Edited by Colin Gordon. Translated by Colin Gordon, Leo Marshall, John Mepham, and Kate Soper. New York: Pantheon, 1980. Fourn, Franc¸ois. “1849–1851: L’Anticommunisme en France: Le Spectre rouge de 1852.” In Comment meurt une R´epublique autour du 2 D´ecembre 1851, edited by Sylvie Aprile, Nathalie Bayon, Laurent Clavier, Louis Hincker, and Jean-Luc Mayaud. 135–51. Paris: Cr´eaphis, 2004. Fox , Robert, ed. Science, Industry, and the Social Order in Post-revolutionary France. Aldershot: Variorum: 1995. Fox, Robert. “Science, the University, and the State in Nineteenth-Century France.” In Professions and the French State, 1700–1900, edited by Gerald L. Geison. 66–145. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984. “Scientific Enterprise and the Patronage of Research in France 1800–1870.” In The Culture of Science in France 1700–1900, edited by Robert Fox. 442–73. Aldershot: Variorum, 1992. Fraisse, Genevi`eve. Muse de la raison: La D´emocratie exclusive et la diff´erence des sexes. Aix-en-Provence: Alin´ea, 1989. Freedman, Estelle. “Separatism as Strategy: Female Institution Building and American Feminism, 1870-1930.” Feminist Studies 5 (Fall 1979): 512–29. Fr´emeaux, Jacques. “Les Polytechniciens et l’Afrique (1798–1962): Rep`eres pour une recherche.” In Le France des X, edited by Bruno Belhoste. Amy Dahan Dalmedico, Dominque Pestre, and Antoine Picon. 109–18. Paris: Economica, 1995. Freund, Julien. “La Politique d’Auguste Comte.” Revue philosophique de la France et de l’´etranger 110 (October–December 1985): 461–87. Frick, Jean-Paul. Auguste Comte ou la R´epublique positive. Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy, 1980.

Bibliography

599

.“Le Probl`eme du pouvoir chez A. Comte et la signification de sa philosophie positive.” Revue philosophique, no. 3 (1988), 273–301. Fuchs, Rachel. “Seduction, Paternity, and the Law in Fin de Si`ecle France.” The Journal of Modern History 72 (2000): 944–89. Furet, Franc¸ois. “Jacobinism.” In A Critical Dictionary of the French Revolution, edited by Franc¸ois Furet and Mona Ozouf. Translated by Arthur Goldhammer. 704–15. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, Belknap Press, 1989. . Revolutionary France, 1770–1880. Translated by Antonia Nevill. Oxford: Blackwell, 1992. Gane, Mike. Auguste Comte. London: Routledge, 2006. . “Engendering the End of European History: Auguste Comte’s Cult of Woman at the Heart of the Western Republic.” Renaissance and Modern Studies 39 (1996): 15–26. Garforth, F. W. Educative Democracy: John Stuart Mill on Education in Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980. Garrigues, Jean. La France de 1848 a` 1870. Paris: Armand Colin, 1995. Gentil, Bruno. “La Maison d’Auguste Comte, t´emoin de l’histoire du positivisme.” Sabix: Bulletin de la Soci´et´e des Amis de la Biblioth`eque de l’Ecole Polytechnique, no. 30 (April 2002): 21–38. Genty, Victor. Un Grand Biologiste: Charles Robin (1821–1885), Sa Vie, Ses Amiti´es Philosophiques et Litt´eraires. Lyon: A. Rey, 1931. G´erard, Alice. “1852–1902: Auguste Comte au purgatoire.” In Auguste Comte: Qui eˆtes-vous? 143–79. Lyon: La Manufacture, 1988. Gildea, Robert. Barricades and Borders: Europe 1800–1914. 2d ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. . The Past in French History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994. Gillespie, Neil C. The Collapse of Orthodoxy: The Intellectual Ordeal of George Frederick Holmes. Charlottesville: The University Press of Virginia, 1972. . “The Spiritual Odyssey of George Frederick Holmes: A Study of Religious Conservatism in the Old South.” The Journal of Southern History 32 (August 1966): 291–307. Gillespie, Neil C. and Gerald H. Davis. “Auguste Comte: Four Lost Letters to America.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 8 (1970), 49–63. Gillispie, Charles Coulston, ed. Dictionary of Scientific Biography. 16 vols. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1970–80. . Science and Polity in France: The Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004. Ginzburg, Carlo. Ecstasies: Deciphering the Witches’ Sabbath. Translated by Raymond Rosenthal. New York: Pantheon Books, 1991. Giorgio, Michela de. “La Bonne Catholique.” In Histoire des femmes en occident, edited by Georges Duby et Michelle Perrot. Vol. 4, Le XIXe Si`ecle, edited by Genevi`eve Fraisse and Michelle Perrot. 166–97. Paris: Plon, 1991. Girardet, Raoul. “Les Trois Couleurs: Ni Blanc, Ni Rouge.” In Les Lieux de M´emoire, edited by Pierre Nora. Vol.1, La R´epublique, 5–35. Paris: Gallimard, 1984. Giusti, Aur´elia. “Sur les traces du positivisme au Br´esil.” http://www.augustecomte. org/site/page.php?id=67 (accessed March 5, 2007). Godineau, Dominique.“Filles de la libert´e et citoyennes r´evolutionnaires.” In Histoire des femmes en occident, edited by Georges Duby et Michelle Perrot. Vol. 4, Le XIXe Si`ecle, edited by Genevi`eve Fraisse and Michelle Perrot. 27–42. Paris: Plon, 1991.

600

Bibliography

. The Post-Revolutionary Self: Politics and Psyche in France, 1750–1850. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Goleman, Daniel. Social Intelligence: The New Science of Human Relationships. New York: Random House / Bantam Dell, 2006. Goodman, Dena. “Enlightenment Salons: The Convergence of Female and Philosophic Ambitions.” Eighteenth-Century Studies 22 (Spring 1989): 329–50. Gordon, Daniel. Citizens without Sovereignty: Equality and Sociability in French Thought, 1670–1789. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994. “Philosophy, Sociology, and Gender in the Enlightenment Conception of Public Opinion.” French Historical Studies 17 (Fall 1992): 882–911. Gotteri, Nicole. Soult: Mar´echal d’Empire et l’homme d’´etat. Besanc¸on: La Manufacture, 1993. Gouhier, Henri. La Jeunesse d’Auguste Comte et la formation du positivisme. 3 vols. Paris: J. Vrin, 1933–41. . La Vie d’Auguste Comte. 2d ed. Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, 1965. . “La Vie d’Auguste Comte: Esquisse.” In Auguste Comte: Qui eˆtes-vous? edited by G´erard de Ficquelmont. 55–82. Lyon: La Manufacture, 1988. Grange, Juliette. Auguste Comte: La Politique et la science. Paris: Odile Jacob, 2000. . “La Continuit´e de l’id´ee de l’Europe.” In Instabilit´es europ´eennes, edited by Rapha¨el Dra¨ı et Cao-Huy Thuan. 207–13. Paris: Harmattan, 1993. . “Du Corps politique a` l’organisme social: De la Philosophie politique a` la sociologie et la science politique.” Revue internationale de philosophie 52, no. 203 (1998): 95–110. . Introduction to Auguste Comte, Philosophie des Sciences. 7–40. Paris: Gallimard, 1996. . Introduction to Politique d’Auguste Comte. i-xx. Paris: Payot, 1996. . La Philosophie d’Auguste Comte: Science, politique, religion. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1996. . “Le Positivisme comme religion s´eculi`ere.” In Spiritualit´es d’un monde d´esenchant´e, Actes du Colloque “Spiritualit´e profane, spiritualit´e religieuse,” edited by Gis`ele S´eginger. 93–107. Strasbourg: Presses de l’Universit´e de Strasbourg, 1998. . “L’Utopie positive.” Raison pr´esente, no. 121 (1997): 69–93. Gray, Philip Howard. “The Early Animal Behaviorists: Prolegomenon to Ethology.” Isis 59 (Winter 1968), 372–83. Grogan, Susan K. French Socialism and Sexual Difference: Women and the New Society, 1803–44. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1992. Guarneri, Carl J. The Utopian Alternative: Fourierism in Nineteenth-Century America. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991. Haac, Oscar A. “A Foreword to the Correspondence.” In The Correspondence of John Stuart Mill and Auguste Comte, edited by Oscar A. Haac. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1995. Hahn, Roger. “Arago, Dominique Franc¸ois Jean.” In Charles Coulston Gillispie, ed., Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Haine, Scott. World of the French Caf´e: Sociability among the French Working Class, 1789– 1914. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996. Hamburger, Jean. Monsieur Littr´e. Paris: Flammarion, 1988. Hamburger, Joseph. “Religion and On Liberty.” In A Cultivated Mind: Essays on J.S. Mill Presented to John M. Robson, edited by Michael Laine. 139–81. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991.

Bibliography

601

Hamburger, Lotte and Joseph. Troubled Lives: John and Sarah Austin. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985. Harrington, Anne. Reenchanted Science: Holism in German Culture from Wilhelm II to Hitler. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996. Harris, J. and W. H. Brock. “From Giessen to Gower Street: Towards a Biography of Alexander William Williamson (1824–1904).” Annals of Science 31 (1974): 95– 130. Harth, Erica. “Cartesian Women.” Yale French Studies, no 80 (1991): 146–64. Haubtmann, Pierre. La Philosophie sociale de P.-J. Proudhon. Grenoble: Presses universitaires de Grenoble, 1980. . Pierre-Joseph Proudhon: Sa vie et sa pens´ee 1849–1865. 2 vols. Paris: Descl´ee de Brouwer, 1988. Hawkins, Richmond Laurin. Auguste Comte and the United States (1816–1853). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1936. . Positivism in the United States (1853–1861). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1938. Hayek, F. A. John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor: Their Correspondence and Subsequent Marriage. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1951. Hayman, Peter. Soult: Napoleon’s Maligned Marshall. London: Arms and Armour, 1990. Hazareesingh, Sudhir. From Subject to Citizen: The Second Empire and the Emergence of Modern French Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998. .The Saint-Napoleon: Celebrations of Sovereignty in Nineteenth-Century France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004. Heilbron, Johan. The Rise of Social Theory. Translated by Sheila Gogal. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995. Heilbrun, Carolyn G. Writing a Woman’s Life. New York: Ballantine Books, 1988. Higonnet, Anne. “Femmes et images: Apparences, loisirs, subsistance.” In Histoire des femmes en occident, edited by Georges Duby et Michelle Perrot. Vol. 4, Le XIXe Si`ecle, edited by Genevi`eve Fraisse and Michelle Perrot. 246–61. Paris: Plon, 1991. Himmelfarb, Gertrude. Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution. 2d ed. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1962. . On Liberty and Liberalism: The Case of John Stuart Mill. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1974. Hobsbawm, Eric. “Mass-Producing Traditions: Europe, 1870–1914.” In The Invention of Tradition, edited by Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Holland, Claude. “Mademoiselle Merquem: De-mythifying Woman by Rejecting the Law of the Father.” In The World of George Sand, edited by Natalie Datlof, Jeanne Fuchs, and David A. Powell. 173–80. New York: Greenwood Press, 1991. Houellebecq, Michel. “Pr´eliminaires au positivisme.” In Bourdeau et al., Auguste Comte aujourd’hui. 7–12. Huard, Raymond. “Renaissance et mort de la R´epublique.” In La R´evolution de 1848 en France et en Europe, edited by Sylvie Aprile, Raymond Huard, Pierre L´evˆeque, Jean-Yves Mollier. 11–68. Paris: Editions Sociales, 1998. Hulot, Fr´ed´eric. Le Mar´echal Soult. Paris: Flammarion/Pygmalion, 2003. Hunt, Lynn. The Family Romance of the French Revolution. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992. Politics, Culture, and Class in the French Revolution. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984.

602

Bibliography

Hutton, Patrick H. History as an Art of Memory. Hanover: University Press of New England, 1993. Israel, Kali. Names and Stories: Emilia Dilke and Victorian Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. . “Writing inside the Kaleidoscope: Re-representing Victorian Women Public Figures.” Gender and History 2 (Spring 1990): 40–48. Jack, Belinda. George Sand: A Woman’s Life Writ Large. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2000. Jacobs, Jo Ellen. The Voice of Harriet Taylor Mill. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2002. Janet, Paul. “Le Globe de la Restauration.” Revue des deux mondes 34 (August 1, 1879): 481–512. Johnson, Christopher H. Utopian Communism in France: Cabet and the Icarians, 1839–1851. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1974. Jucker-Kupper, Patrick. “Charles Robin.” In Who Named It? edited by Ole Daniel Enersen, http://www.whonamedit.com/doctor.cfm/23.html (accessed January 8, 2007). Kelly, Gary. Women, Writing, and Revolution 1790–1827. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993. Kennedy, Emmet. A Cultural History of the French Revolution. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. Knight, David. The Age of Science: The Scientific World-View in the Nineteenth Century. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986. Kremer-Marietti, Ang`ele. “Auguste Comte et l’´ethique de l’avenir.” Revue internationale de philosophie 52, no. 203 (1998): 157–77. , “Auguste Comte et la m´ethode subjective.” In Bourdeau and Chazel, Auguste Comte et l’id´ee de science de l’homme. 257–77. . “Auguste Comte et la philosophie du langage.” In Auguste Comte et le positivisme, deux si`ecles apr`es (Actes du Colloque du 27 au 30 avril 1999). 137–55. Carthage: Acad´emie Tunisienne des Sciences, des Lettres et des Arts “Be¨ıt Al-Hikma": 2000. . “Auguste Comte et la s´emiotique.” Recherches s´emiotiques/Semiotic Inquiry 8 (March/July 1988): 131–44. .“La Biologie et le social chez Auguste Comte.” In Bourdeau et al., Auguste Comte aujourd’hui. 64–90. . “Comte et le retour a` une rh´etorique originelle.” Romantisme, no. 21–2 (1978): 91–104. . Le Concept de science positive: Ses Tenants et ses abouttissants dans les structures anthropologiques du positivisme. Paris: Klincksieck, 1983. . Entre le Signe et l’histoire: L’Anthropologie d’Auguste Comte. Paris: Klincksieck, 1982. . Introduction to The Correspondence of John Stuart Mill and Auguste Comte. Edited by Oscar A. Haac. 1–32. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1995. . Le Projet Anthropologique d’Auguste Comte. Paris: Soci´et´e d’Edition d’Enseignement Sup´erieur, 1980. Kselman, Thomas A. Death and the Afterlife in Modern France. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. Landes, Joan B. “Representing the Body Politic: The Paradox of Gender in the Graphic Politics of the French Revolution.” In Rebel Daughters: Women and the French Revolution, edited by Sara E. Melzer and Leslie W. Rabine. 15–37. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Bibliography

603

. Visualizing the Nation: Gender, Representation, and Revolution in EighteenthCentury France. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001. . Women and the Public Sphere in the Age of the French Revolution. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1988. Lanser, Susan Sniader. Fictions of Authority: Women Writers and Narrative Voice. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992. Larizza (sometimes Larizza Lolli), Mirella. “Alcune Lettere in´edite di Auguste Comte.” Il Pensiero Politico 26 (September–December 1993): 397–416. . “Archaisme et modernit´e dans la conception de l’intendance d’Auguste Comte.” In Du Provincialisme au R´egionalisme, XVIIIe –XXe si`ecle: Actes du Festival d’Histoire de Montbrison de 1988. 405–24. France, no publisher, 1989. “Auguste Comte e la Tradizione Giacobina.” Il Pensiero Politico 22 (September– December 1989): 418–32. . Bandiera verde contro bandiera rossa: Auguste Comte e gli inizi della Soci´et´e positiviste (1848–1852). Bologna: Il Mulino, 1999. “Le Premier Rayonnement en France des id´ees d’Auguste Comte (1824–1848): Les Milieux, les institutions, les hommes.” In 1848: R´evolutions et mutations au XIXe si`ecle. 69–101. Paris: Soci´et´e d’histoire de la R´evolution de 1848 et des r´evolutions du XIXe si`ecle, 1993. “Raison et sentiment: Science et religion dans le socialisme franc¸ais de la premi`ere moiti´e du XIXe si`ecle. Quelques consid´erations a` partir du cas du SaintSimonisme.” in Les Socialismes franc¸ais 1796–1866 – Formes du discours socialiste, edited by J. Birnberg. 189–201. Paris: SEDES, 1995. . “La R´epublique occidentale dans la pens´ee d’Auguste Comte.” Il Pensiero Politico 27 (1994): 18–34. “La R´epublique, la science et les passions.” In Petit, Auguste Comte: Trajectoires positivistes. 221–7. Lazinier, Emmanuel and Sybil de Acevedo. “Quelques disciples et sympathisants c´el`ebres.” In Auguste Comte: Qui eˆtes-vous? edited by G´erard de Ficquelmont. 327–49. Lyon: La Manufacture, 1988. Lebras-Chopard, Armelle. “L’Effervescence des id´ees socialistes au d´ebut du XIXe si`ecle.” In Petit, Auguste Comte: Trajectoires positivistes. 53–70. . “Une Statue de marbre. L’Id´eal f´eminin d’Auguste Comte: Convergences et dissonances avec ses contemporains socialistes.” In Bourdeau et al., Auguste Comte aujourd’hui. 170–83. Lecourt, Dominique. “On Marxism as a Critique of Sociological Theories.” Sociological Theories: Race and Colonialism. 267–85. Paris: Unesco, 1980. Legrand, Louis, L’Influence du positivisme dans l’oeuvre scolaire de Jules Ferry. Les Origines de la la¨ıcit´e. Paris, Marcel Rivi`ere, 1961. Lenzer, Gertrud. Introduction to Auguste Comte and Positivism: The Essential Writings. Edited by Lenzer. xvii–lxviii. New York: Harper & Row, 1975. Lepenies, Wolf. Between Literature and Science: The Rise of Sociology. Translated by R. J. Hollingdale. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Levine, Donald. Visions of the Sociological Tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995. L´evy-Bruhl, L. ed. Introduction to Lettres in´edites de John Stuart Mill a` Auguste Comte. Paris: F´elix Alcan, 1899. Lewisohn, David. “Mill and Comte on the Methods of Social Science.” Journal of the History of Ideas 33 (April–June 1972): 315–24.

604

Bibliography

Liggio, Leonard P. “Charles Dunoyer and French Classical Liberalism.” Journal of Libertarian Studies, 1 (1977): 153–78. Lindemann, Albert S. A History of European Socialism. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983. Lopes, R. Paula, ed. Auguste Comte: Le Prol´etariat dans la soci´et´e moderne. Paris: Archives Positivistes, 1946. Lorcin, Patricia M. E. Imperial Identities: Stereotyping, Prejudice and Race in Colonial Algeria. London: I. B. Tauris, 1995. Lorence-Kot, Bogna and Adam Winiarz. “The Polish Women’s Movement to 1914.” In Women’s Emancipation Movements in the Nineteenth Century: A European Perspective. Edited by Sylvia Paletschek and Bianka Pietrow-Ennke. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004. Lyons, Martyn. Napoleon Bonaparte and the Legacy of the French Revolution. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994. Mallet, Francine. George Sand. Paris: Bernard Grasset, 1995. Malone, Dumas, ed. Dictionary of American Biography. 20 vols. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1928–37. Mangeant, P.E. Antoine Etex. Paris, 1894. Manian, Padma. “Harappans and Aryans: Old and New Perspectives on Ancient Indian History.” History Teacher 32 (November 1998): 17–32. Manuel, Frank E. The Prophets of Paris: Turgot, Condorcet, Saint-Simon, Fourier, and Comte. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Mar`es, J. “Maniaque d´epressive ou maniaco-d´epressive (psychose).” Dictionnaire encyclop´edique de psychologie, edited by Norbert Sillamy, 703–4. Paris: Bordas, 1980. Margandant, Jo Burr. “The Duchesse de Berry and Royalist Political Culture in Postrevolutionary France.” History Workshop Journal, no. 43 (1997): 23–52. . Introduction to The New Biography: Performing Femninity in Nineteenth-Century France, edited by Jo Burr Margadant. 1–32. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. McLellan, David. Karl Marx: His Life and Thought. New York: Harper Colophon, 1973. McMillan, James F. Housewife or Harlot: The Place of Women in French Society 1870–1940. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1981. McWilliam, Neil. Dreams of Happiness: Social Art and the French Left, 1830–1850. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. Megill, Allan D. “History, Memory, Identity.” History of the Human Sciences 11 (1998): 37–62. . “Mill’s Religion of Humanity and On Liberty.” In Mill and the Moral Character of Liberalism.” edited by Eldon J. Eisenach. 301–16. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998. Miquel, Pierre. Les Polytechniciens. Paris: Plon, 1994. Mollier, Jean-Yves. “La Culture de 48.” In La R´evolution de 1848 en France et en Europe, edited by Sylvie Aprile, Raymond Huard, Pierre L´evˆeque, and Jean-Yves Mollier. 127–78. Paris: Editions Sociales,1998. Moon, S. Joan. “Feminism and Socialism: The Utopian Synthesis of Flora Tristan.” In Socialist Women: European Socialist Feminism in the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries, edited by Marilyn J. Boxer and Jean H. Quataert. 19–50. New York: Elsevier, 1978. Moreau, Th´er`ese, Le Sang de l’histoire: Michelet, l’histoire et l’id´ee de la femme au XIXe si`ecle. Paris: Flammarion, 1982.

Bibliography

605

Morin, Georges. “Auguste Comte, M´edecin de Clotilde de Vaux.” Paris M´edicale 4 (October 1928): 238–43. Morison, W. L. John Austin. London: Edward Arnold, 1982. Moses, Claire Goldberg. “‘Equality’ and ‘Difference’ in Historical Perspective: A Comparative Examination of the Feminisms of French Revolutionaries and Utopian Socialists.” In Rebel Daughters: Women and the French Revolution, edited by Sara E. Melzer and Leslie W. Rabine. 231–54. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. . French Feminism in the Nineteenth Century. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1984. Motte, Dean de la. “Utopia Commodified: Utilitarianism, Aestheticism, and the presse a` bon march´e.” In Making the News: Modernity and the Mass Press in Nineteenth-Century France, edited by Dean de la Motte and Jeannene M. Przyblyski. 141–59. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999. Mueller, Iris Wessel. John Stuart Mill and French Thought. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1956. Muglioni, Jacques. Auguste Comte: Un Philosophe pour notre temps. Paris: Kim´e, 1995. Namer, G´erard and Patrick Cingolani. Morale et soci´et´e. Paris: M´eridien Klincksieck, 1995. Newman, Edgar Leon. “The Historian as Apostle: Romanticism, Religion, and the First Socialist History of the World.” Journal of the History of Ideas 56 (April 1995): 239–61. Nicolet, Claude. L’Id´ee r´epublicaine en France: Essai d’histoire critique. Paris: Gallimard, 1982. . “Jules Ferry et la tradition positiviste.” In Jules Ferry: Fondateur de la R´epublique: Actes du colloque organis´e par l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Science Sociales, edited by Franc¸ois Furet. 23–48. Paris: L’Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, 1985. . “Littr´e et la r´epublique.” Actes du Colloque Littr´e: Paris, 7–9 octobre 1981. 463–96. Paris: Albin Michel, 1983. Nora, Pierre. “Entre M´emoire et histoire: La Probl´ematique des lieux.” In Les Lieux de M´emoire. Vol. 1, La R´epublique. xvii–xlii. Paris: Gallimard, 1984. Nye, Robert A. Masculinity and Male Codes of Honor in Modern France. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. . “The Medical Origins of Sexual Fetishism.” In Fetishism as a Cultural Discourse, edited by Emily Apter and William Pietz. 13–30. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993. O’Connor, J. and E. F. Robertson, “Pierre Laurent Wantzel.” http://www-history. mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Wantzel.html (accessed December 8, 2006). Offen, Karen. “Defining Feminism: A Comparative Historical Approach.” Signs 14 (Autumn 1988): 119–57. . “Ernest Legouv´e and the Doctrine of ‘Equality in Difference’ for Women: A Case Study of Male Feminism in Nineteenth-Century French Thought.” The Journal of Modern History 58 ( June 1986): 452–84. . “‘What! Such Things Have Happened and No Women Were Taught about Them’: A Nineteenth-Century French Woman’s View of the Importance of Women’s History.” Journal of Women’s History 9 (Summer 1997):147–53. . “Women’s History as French History.” Journal of Women’s History 8 (1996): 147–54.

606

Bibliography

Olivero, Isabelle. L’Invention de la collection: De la Diffusion de la litt´erature et des savoirs a` la formation du citoyen au XIXe si`ecle. Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, 1999. Orenstein, David Michael. “Auguste Comte (1798–1857).” In The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, edited by George Ritzer. 11 vols. 2: 650–56. Oxford: Blackwell, 2007. Ormi`eres, Jean-Louis. Politique et religion en France. Brussels: Editions Complexe, 2002. Orr, Linda. Headless History: Nineteenth-Century French Historiography of the Revolution. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990. Ortner, Sherry B. Making Gender: The Politics and Erotics of Culture. Boston: Beacon Press, 1996. Packe, Michael St. John. The Life of John Stuart Mill. London: Secker and Warburg, 1954. Padover, Saul K. Karl Marx: An Intimate Biography. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978. Pecora, Vincent P. Secularization and Cultural Criticism: Religion, Nation, and Modernity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006. Pellisier, Pierre. Emile de Girardin: Prince de la Presse. Paris: Deno¨el, 1985. Perkins, A. J. G. and Theresa Wolfson. Frances Wright: Free Enquirer. The Study of a Temperament. Philadelphia: Porcupine Press, 1972. Perrot, Michelle, Introduction to Politique et pol´emiques (1843–1850), by George Sand. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1997. . “Women, Power and History.” In Writing Women’s History, edited by Michelle Perrot; translated by Felicia Pheasant. 160–74. Oxford: Blackwell, 1992. Petit, Annie. “D’Auguste Comte a` Claude Bernard: Un Positivisme d´eplac´e.” Romantisme, no. 21–22 (1978): 45–62. . “Auguste Comte et Clotilde de Vaux: Les Confidences de ‘l’ann´ee sans pareille’ (avril 1845–avril 1846).” In Difficult´e d’ˆetre et mal du si`ecle dans les correspondances et journaux intimes de la premi`ere moiti´e du XIXe si`ecle, edited by Simone BernardGriffiths and Christian Croisille. 303–27. Clermont-Ferrand: Presses Universitaires Blaise, 1999. . “Biologie et sociologie positives.” In La Biologia: Parametro epistemologico de XIX secolo. Edited by Maria Donzelli. 87–119. Naples: Liguori, 2003. . “Du Catholicisme au positivisme.” Revue internationale de philosophie 52(1998): 127–55. . “La Comm´emoration de l’h´eritage scientifique dans le positivisme: Th´eories et pratiques.” In La Mise en m´emoire de la science: Pour une ethnographie historique des rites comm´emoratifs, edited by Pnina G. Abrir-Am.159–87. Amsterdam: Archives contemporaines, 1998. . “De Comte a` Durkheim: Un H´eritage ambivalent.” In La Socioloogie et sa m´ethode. Les “R`egles” de Durkheim un si`ecle apr`es. 42–70. Paris: Harmattan, 1995. . “Comte et Littr´e: Les D´ebats autour de la sociologie positiviste.” Communications, no. 54 (1992): 15–37. . “Conflits et renouveau de la psychologie comtienne.” In Bourdeau and Chazel, Auguste Comte et l’id´ee de science de l’homme. 85–110. . “Le Corps scientifique selon Auguste Comte.” In Sociologie de la science, edited by Ang`ele Kremer-Marietti. 69–91. Sprimont, Belgium: Mardaga, 1998. . “Les D´ebats positivistes sur la notion de vie.” Ludus Vitalis 3 (1995): 161–93. . “La Diffusion des savoirs comme devoir positiviste.” Romantisme 17, no. 65 (1989): 7–26.

Bibliography

607

. “Les Disciples de la religion positiviste.” Revue des Sciences philosophiques et th´eologiques, 87 (2003): 75–100. . “La Fin positiviste de la R´evolution.” In La L´egende de la R´evolution, Acts du colloque international de Clermont-Ferrand ( juin 1986 ), edited by Christian Croisille and Jean Ehrard. 509–40. Clermont-Ferrand: Adosa, 1989. . “La Fondation de la ‘Sociologie.’” In Auguste Comte et le positivisme, deux si`ecles apr`es (Actes du Colloque du 27 au 30 avril 1999). 87–115. Carthage: Acad´emie Tunisienne des Sciences, des Lettres et des Arts “Be¨ıt Al-Hikma”: 2000. . “L’H´eritage de Lamarck dans la philosophie positive d’Auguste Comte.” In Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, 1744–1829, edited by Goulven Laurent. 543–56. Paris: Comit´e des Travaux Historiques et scientifiques, 1997. . “L’H´eritage du positivisme dans la cr´eation de la chaire d’histoire g´en´erale des sciences au Coll`ege de France.” Revue d’histoire des sciences 48 (1995): 521–56. . “Hi´erarchie et complexit´es: la Classification comtienne,” paper delivered at the conference of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science, Ecole Normale Sup´erieure, Paris, June 14–18, 2006. .“L’Imp´erialisme des g´eom`etres a` l’Ecole Polytechnique: Les Critiques d’Auguste Comte.” In La Formation polytechnicienne 1794–1994, edited by Bruno Belhoste, Amy Dahan Dalmedico, and Antoine Picon. 59–75. Paris: Dunod, 1994. . Introduction to Discours sur l’esprit positif, by Auguste Comte. 13–36. Paris: J. Vrin, 1995. . “L’Oeuvre de Pierre Laffitte.” Revue internationale d’histoire et de philosophie des sciences et des techniques, 2d ser., 8, no. 2 (2004): 21–77. . “Philologie et Philosophie de l’Histoire.” In Actes du Colloque Littr´e: Paris, 7–9 octobre 1981. 215–43. Paris: Albin Michel, 1983. .“‘Pouvoir spirituel’ et ‘Pouvoir temporel’ dans le positivisme comtien.” In Impr´evue: Itin´eraires du positivisme, edited by Mich`ele Soriano, no. 1 and 2 (1997): 5–58. . “Quelle place pour la psychologie dans le positivisme?” Revue de synth`ese, 4th ser., 115 (1994): 393–415. . “La R´evolution occidentale selon Auguste Comte: Entre l’Histoire et l’utopie.” Revue de Synth`ese 112 ( January–March 1991): 21–40. . “Le Rˆole du protestantisme dans la R´evolution occidentale selon Auguste Comte.” In Images de la R´eforme au XIXe si`ecle. Actes du Colloque de ClermontFerrand (9–10 novembre 1990), edited by S. Bernard-Griffiths, G. Demerson, and P. Glaudes. 131–49. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1992. . “Des Sciences positives a` la politique positive.” In Petit, Auguste Comte: Trajectoires positivistes. 87–115. . “La Sociologie positiviste: Entre Histoire politique et religion.” In Auguste Comte et la cultura francese dell’ ottocento:In ricordo di Mirella Larizza, edited by Marco Guena. 3–32. Milan: Cisalpino, 2004. , ed. Auguste Comte: Trajectoires positivistes, 1798–199. Paris: L’Harmattan, 2003. Petit, Annie and Michel Bourdeau. “Pierre Laffitte, Un Disciple tr`es disciplin´e.” In Pierre Laffitte (1823–1903): Autour d’un centenaire. Special issue of Revue internationale d’histoire et de philosophie des sciences et des techniques, 2d ser., 8, no. 2 (2004): 7–20. Pickering, Mary. “Angels and Demons in the Moral Vision of Auguste Comte.” Journal of Women’s History 8 (Summer 1996): 10–40. . “L’Art de la m´emoire dans le syst`eme positiviste.” In Bourdeau et al., Auguste Comte Aujourd’hui. 223–39.

608

Bibliography

. “Auguste Comte et la Question du Genre.” In Auguste Comte et le positivisme, edited by Ze¨ıneb Ben Cherni-Sa¨ıd. 169–185. Carthage, Tunisia: Acad´emie Tunisienne des Sciences, des Lettres et des Arts “Be¨ıt Al-Hikma.” 2000. . Auguste Comte: An Intellectual Biography. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. . “Auguste Comte and the Acad´emie des Sciences.” Revue philosophique no. 4 (2007): 437–50. . “Auguste Comte and the Return to Primitivism,” Revue internationale de philosophie 52 (1998): 51–77. . “Auguste Comte and the Revolution of 1848.” In Consortium on Revolutionary Europe, 1750–1850: Selected Papers 1999, edited by Owen Connelly et al. 465–77. Florida: Institute on Napoleon and the French Revolution, 1999. . “Auguste Comte et la sph`ere publique de J¨urgen Habermas.” In Petit, Auguste Comte: Trajectoires positivistes. 229–37. . “Clotilde de Vaux and the Search for Identity.” In The New Biography: Performing Femininity in Nineteenth-Century France, edited by Jo Burr Margadant. 137–70. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. . “Introduction” to Auguste Comte/Caroline Massin, Correspondance in´edite: l’histoire de Caroline Massin, e´pouse d’Auguste Comte a` travers leur correspondance. Edited by Pascaline Gentil. 5–41. Paris: L’Harmattan, 2006. . “Rhetorical Strategies in the Works of Auguste Comte,” Historical Reflections/ R´eflexions Historiques 23 (Spring 1997): 151–75. Picon, Antoine. “Les Polytechniciens saint-simoniens.” Le France des X, edited by Bruno Belhoste, Amy Dahan Dalmedico, Dominque Pestre, and Antoine Picon. 145–56. Paris: Economica, 1995. Pilbeam, Pamela M. “Cabet.” In Encyclopedia of 1848 Revolutions, edited by James G. Chastain. http://www.ohiou.edu/∼Chastain/ac/cabet.htm (accessed May 5, 2005). Republicanism in Nineteenth-Century France, 1814–1871. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995. Pinet, G[aston]. Histoire de l’Ecole Polytechnique. Paris: Librairie Polytechnique Baudry et Cie , 1887. Piret, Pierre. Les Ath´eismes et la th´eologie trinitaire: A. Comte, L. Feuerbach, K. Marx, F. Nietzsche. Brussels: Insitut d’Etudes Th´eologiques, 1994. Plamenatz, John. The English Utilitarians. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966. Pl´e, Bernard. “Sur le Chemin du salut public: De la Disperson du savoir humain a` la gu´erison intellectuelle de l’homme.” In Petit, Auguste Comte: Trajectoires positivistes. 205–19. Po¨ey, Andr´e. M. Littr´e et Auguste Comte. Paris: Germain Bailli`ere, 1880. Poovey, Mary. Uneven Developments: The Ideological Work of Gender in Mid-Victorian England. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988. . “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman and Female Sexuality.” In Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, edited by Carol H. Poston. 2d ed. 343–55. New York: W. W. Norton, 1988. Popkin, Jeremy. A History of Modern France. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1994. Pouchet, Georges. Charles Robin: Sa Vie et son oeuvre. Paris: F´elix Alcan, 1887. Price, Roger. The French Second Republic: A Social History. New York: Cornell University Press, 1972. . The French Second Empire: An Anatomy of Political Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Bibliography

609

. Napoleon III and the Second Empire. London: Routledge, 1997. Primi. Alice. “Die Frauen Zeitung et l’Almanach des Femmes, derni`eres tribunes des ‘femmes de 1848.’” Revue d’histoire moderne et contemporaine 52 (2005):129–46. Prothero, Iowerth. Radical Artisans in England and France, 1830–1870. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. “A Quelle maladie a succomb´e Auguste Comte?” La Chronique m´edicale 9 (March 15, 1902): 190–91. Rabaut, Jean. Histoire des f´eminismes franc¸ais. Paris: Stock, 1978. Raeder, Linda C. John Stuart Mill and the Religion of Humanity. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2002. Reddy, William M. “Condottieri of the Pen: Journalists and the Public Sphere in Postrevolutionary France (1815–1850).” American Historical Review 99 (1994): 1546–70. The Invisible Code: Honor and Sentiment in Postrevolutionary France, 1814–1848. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997. The Navigation of Feeling: A Framework for the History of Emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Rees, J. C. Mill and His Early Critics. Leicester: University College, 1956. R´emond, Ren´e. Les Droites en France. Paris: Aubier Montaigne, 1982. Rendall, Jane. The Origins of Modern Feminism: Women in Britain, France and the United States, 1780–1860. New York: Schocken Books, 1984. Rey, Alain. Littr´e: L’Humaniste et les mots. Paris: Gallimard, 1970. . “La Th´eorie positiviste des langages: Auguste Comte et la s´emiotique.” Semiotica 4 (1971): 52–74. Riot-Sarcey, Mich`ele. La D´emocratie a` l’epreuve des femmes: Trois figures critiques du pouvoir, 1830–1848. Paris: Albin-Michel, 1994. . “Du Mot a` la chose, ou Comment meurt la R´epublique de 1848.” In Comment meurt une R´epublique autour du 2 D´ecembre 1851, edited by Sylvie Aprile, Nathalie Bayon, Laurent Clavier, et al. 285–94. Paris: Cr´eaphis, 2004. Ritzer, George and Douglas J. Goodman. Classical Sociological Theory. 4th ed. Boston: McGraw Hill, 2004. Robbins, L. “Packe on Mill.” In John Stuart Mill: Critical Assessments, edited by John Cunningham Wood. Vol. 4. 87–97. London: Croom Helm, 1987. Roberts, Mary Louise. Civilization without Sexes: Reconstructing Gender in Postwar France, 1917–1927. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. . Disruptive Acts: The New Woman in Fin-de-Si`ecle France. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2002. Robertson, Priscilla. Revolutions of 1848: A Social History. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1952. Robson, John M. The Improvement of Mankind: The Social and Political Thought of John Stuart Mill. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1968. Rock, Kenneth W. “Karl Ludwig Count von Ficquelmont.”In Encyclopedia of 1848 Revolutions, edited by James G. Chastain. http://www.ohiou.edu/∼Chastain/ dh/ficquel.htm (accessed November 11, 2007). Rose, Phyllis. Parallel Lives: Five Victorian Marriages. New York: Random House/Vintage Books, 1983. Rosenwein, Barbara H. “Worrying about Emotions in History.” American Historical Review 107 ( June 2002): 821–45. Ross, Janet. Three Generations of Englishwomen: Memoirs and Correspondence of Mrs. John Taylor, Mrs. Sarah Austin, and Lady Duff Gordon. 2 vols. London: John Murray, 1888.

610

Bibliography

Rouvre, Charles de. L’Amoureuse Histoire d’Auguste Comte et de Clotilde de Vaux. Paris: Calmann-L´evy, 1917. Ruju, Alessandra Maccioni and Marco Mostert. The Life and Times of Guglielmo Libri (1802–1869). Hilversum: Verloren, 1995. Ryan, Alan. “In a Liberal Landscape.” In The Cambridge Companion to Mill, edited by John Skorupski. 497–540. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. . J.S. Mill. London: Routledge, 1974. Rylance, Rick. Victorian Psychology and British Culture, 1850–1880. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Sarda, Franc¸ois. Les Arago: Franc¸ois et les autres. Paris: Tallandier, 2002. Scharff, Robert C. Comte after Positivism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. . “Comte and Heidegger on the Historicity of Science.” Revue internationale de philosophie 52, no. 203 (1998): 29–49. Schiebinger, Londa. The Mind Has No Sex? Women in the Origins of Modern Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989. Schor, Naomi. “Feminism and George Sand: Lettres a` Marcie.” In Feminists Theorize the Political, edited by Judith Butler and Joan W. Scott. 41–53. New York: Routledge, 1992. Schwartz, Vanessa R. Spectacular Realities: Early Mass Culture in Fin-de-Si`ecle Paris. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. Scott, Joan. Only Paradoxes to Offer. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996. Secord, James A. Victorian Sensation: The Extraordinary Publication, Reception, and Secret Authorship of “Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation.” Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Seigel, Jerrold. Bohemian Paris: Culture, Politics, and the Boundaries of Bourgeois Life, 1830– 1930. New York: Viking Penguin, 1986. Semmel, Bernard. “John Stuart Mill’s Coleridgean Neoradicalism.” In Mill and the Moral Character of Liberalism, edited by Eldon J. Eisenach. 49–76. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998. Serres, Michel. Herm`es III: La Traduction. Paris: Minuit, 1974. . Introduction to A History of Scientific Moral Thought: Elements of a History of Science, edited by Marchel Serres, 1–16. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1995. . “Paris 1800.” In A History of Scientific Thought: Elements of a History of Science, edited by Michel Serres, 422–54.Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1995. Sewell, William H., Jr. Work and Revolution in France: The Language of Labor from the Old Regime to 1848. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980. Shinn, Terry. L’Ecole Polytechnique, 1794–1914. Paris: Presses de la Fondation National des Sciences Politiques, 1980. Six, Jean-Franc¸ois. Littr´e devant Dieu. Paris: Seuil, 1962. Sledziewski, Elisabeth G. “R´evolution franc¸aise: Le Tournant.” In Histoire des femmes en occident, edited by Georges Duby et Michelle Perrot. Vol. 4, Le XIXe Si`ecle, edited by Genevi`eve Fraisse and Michelle Perrot. 33–47. Paris: Plon, 1991. Smith, Bonnie. Changing Lives: Women in European History since 1700. Lexington: D.C. Heath, 1989. Smith, Sidonie. A Poetics of Women’s Autobiography: Marginality and the Fictions of SelfRepresentation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987. Sournia, Jean-Charles. “Littr´e a` l’Acad´emie de M´edicine.” Bulletin de l’Acad´emie Nationale de M´edecine 165 (1981): 941–7.

Bibliography

611

Steegmuller, Francis. The Letters of Gustave Flaubert, 1830–1857. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980. Stein, Dorothy K. “Women to Burn: Suttee as a Normative Institution.” Signs 4 (Winter 1978): 253–68. Stock-Morton, Phyllis. The Life of Marie d’Agoult: Alias Daniel Stern. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000. The Student Council at the Government Law College, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India, “History.” http://www.glc.edu/history2.htm (accessed January 8, 2000). Swingewood, Alan. A Short History of Sociological Thought. 3d ed. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000. Tacussel, Patrick. “Auguste Comte, l’oeuvre v´ecue.” In Calendrier Positiviste, by Auguste Comte Fontfroide: Fata Morgana, 1993. Tarnas, Richard. The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding the Ideas That Have Shaped Our World View. New York: Ballantine Books, 1991. Taton, Ren´e. “Liouville, Joseph.” In Gillispie, ed., Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Taylor, Barbara. Eve and the New Jerusalem: Socialism and Feminism in the Nineteenth Century. New York: Pantheon Books, 1983. . “Mary Wollstonecraft and the Wild Wish of Early Feminism.” History Workshop Journal, no. 33 (Spring 1992): 197–219. Temple, Thomas M. “L’Effet Comte: Recycling French Social Theory.” Journal of Classical Sociology 4 (2004): 361–82. “Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries.” Human Events, May 31, 2005, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=7591 (accessed August 24, 2006). Th´erive, Andr´e. Clotilde de Vaux ou le d´eesse morte. Paris: Albin Michel, 1957. Thomas, Edith. Pauline Roland: Socialisme et f´eminisme au XIXe si`ecle. Paris: Marcel Rivi`ere, 1956. Tjoa, Hock Guan. George Henry Lewes: A Victorian Mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977. Tombs, Robert. France: 1814–1914. London: Longman, 1996. Traugott, Mark, ed. The French Worker: Autobiographies from the Early Industrial Era. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. Le Tr´esor de la langue franc¸aise informatis´ee. http://atilf.atilf.fr (accessed February 9, 2007). Le Tr´esor de la langue franc¸aise informatis´ee, http://atilf.atilf.fr (accessed February 9, 2007). Trindade, H´elgio. “La R´epublique positiviste chez Comte: Th´eorie et pratique.” In Petit, Auguste Comte: Trajectoires positivistes. 363–83. , ed. O Positivismo: Teoria e Pr´atica: Sesquicenten´ario da morte de Augusto Comte. Porte Alegre: UFRGS, 2007. Truant, Cynthia Maria. The Rites of Labor: Brotherhoods of Compagnonage in Old and New Regime France. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994. Tulard, Jean, ed. Dictionnaire du Second Empire. Paris: Fayard, 1995. U.S. Department of Energy. “Toxicity Profiles.” Risk Assessment Information System, http://rais.ornl.gov/tox/profiles/silver f VI.shtml (accessed December 26, 2006). Vareille, Kristina Wing˚ard. Socialit´e, sexualit´e et les impasses de l’histoire: L’Evolution de la th´ematique sandienne d’Indiana (1832) a` Mauprat (1837). Stockholm: Uppsala, 1987. Vermorel, A. Les Hommes de 1848. Paris, 1869. Vernant, Jean-Pierre. “Histoire de la m´emoire et m´emoire historienne.” In Pourquoi se souvenir? edited by Franc¸oise Barret-Ducrocq. 23–7. Paris: Bernard Grasset, 1999.

612

Bibliography

Vernon, Richard. “The Political Self: Auguste Comte and Phrenology.” History of European Ideas 7, no. 3 (1986): 271–86. Viel Castel, Horace de. M´emoires sur le r`egne de Napol´eon III 1851–1864. Paris: Robert Laffont, 2005. Vincent, Steven K. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican Socialism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1984. Waller, Margaret. “Cherchez la Femme: Male Malady and Narrative Politics in the French Romantic Novel.” PMLA 104 (March 1989): 141–51. . The Male Malady: Fictions of Impotence in the French Romantic Novel. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1993. Walton, Whitney. Eve’s Proud Descendants: Four Women Writers and Republican Politics in Nineteenth-Century France. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000. Wartelle, Jean-Claude. “Auguste Hadery (1818–1884), agriculteur positiviste dans l’Allier.” Etudes bourbonnaises 17 (Feb. 2004), 213–55. . “Charles Sauria (1812–1895) ami d’Auguste Hadery: Itin´eraire, du fourierisme au positivisme.” Patrimoine polinois, no. 20 (2005): 111–29. . Condens´e et r´esum´e illustr´e de l’H´eritage d’Auguste Comte: Histoire de l’´eglise positiviste (1849–1946). Paris: L’Harmattan, 2002. . L’H´eritage d’Auguste Comte: Histoire de «l’´eglise positiviste» (1849–1946). Paris: L’Harmattan, 2001. Waterman, William Randall. Frances Wright. New York: AMS Press, 1967. Webb, R. K. Harriet Martineau: A Radical Victorian. New York: Columbia University Press, 1960. Weirich, Paul. “Comte et Mill sur l’´economie politique.” Revue internationale de philosophie 52, no. 203 (1998): 79–83. Wernick, Andrew. Auguste Comte and the Religion of Humanity: The Post-Theistic Program of French Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. . “Auguste Comte (1798–1857).” In The Cambridge Dictionary of Sociology, edited by Bryan S. Turner. 85–6. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. . “Comte, Auguste.” Encyclopedia of Social Theory, edited by George Ritzer. 2 vols. 1:128–34. London: Sage Publications, 2005. . “Comte and the Encyclopedia.” Theory, Culture and Society 23, no. 4 (2006): 27–48. Wettley, Annemarie. “Les Id´ees d’instinct d’Auguste Comte dans sa philosophie positive.” Bulletin et m´emoire de la soci´et´e internationale d’histoire de la M´edecine, n.s., 6 (1959): 50–52. White, Hayden. Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1973. Williams, David. Mr. George Eliot: A Biography of George Henry Lewes. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1983. Williams, Gary. Hungry Heart, The Literary Emergence of Julia Ward Howe. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999. Williams, Perry. “Passing on the Torch: Whelwell’s Philosophy and the Principles of English University Education.” In William Whewell: A Composite Portrait, edited by Menachem Fisch and Simon Schaffer. 117–47. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991. Wils, Kaat. “Gehuld in bet schitterend kleed der nieuwste Parijsche mode. Auguste Comte in Nederland (1845–1880).” In Bijdragen en Mededelingen betreffende de Geschiedenis der Nederlanden 112 (1997): 19–48.

Bibliography

613

. De omweg van de wetenschap: het positivisme en de Belgische en Nederlandse intellectuele cultuur, 1845–1914. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2005. “Les Sympathisants de Comte et la diffusion du positivisme aux Pays-Bas (1845– 1880).” In Petit, Auguste Comte: Trajectoires positivistes. 333–49. Wilson, A. N. God’s Funeral. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1999. Wilson, Fred. “Mill on Psychology and the Moral Sciences.” In The Cambridge Companion to Mill, edited by John Skorupski. 203–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Wilson, P. W. The Romance of the Calendar. New York: W. W. Norton, 1937. Winter, Jay. Sites of Memory, Sites of Mourning: The Great War in European Cultural History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Wolff, Maurice. Le Roman de Clotilde de Vaux et d’Auguste Comte suivi d’un choix de leurs lettres et du roman “Willelmine”. 3d ed. Paris: Perrin, 1929. . Un des Anges d’Auguste Comte: Sophie Thomas. Paris: Execution Testamentaire d’Auguste Comte, 1933. Wright, Gordon. France in Modern Times. 5th ed. New York: W. W. Norton, 1995. . Notable or Notorious? A Gallery of Parisians. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991. Wright, T. R. The Religion of Humanity: The Impact of Comtean Positivism on Victorian Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Wunderlich, Roger. Low Living and High Thinking at Modern Times, New York. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1992.

Index

Abd ar-Rahm´an III, 466 Abd el-Kader, 476, 477 Abelard, 380n237 abolitionist movement, 528 abstraction, 48, 56, 402 academies, 42, 54, 329, 369n169, 387 Academy of Sciences in Paris, 32, 143, 231, 268, 318, 354, 419, 423 Comte’s attacks on, 22, 30, 43 Comte’s desire for membership in, 5, 27, 49, 88 Comte’s plan to abolish, 387n275 and the Ecole Polytechnique, 16, 28, 29, 52, 63, 65, 66 Maximilien Marie’s criticism of, 140 Action franc¸aise, 326n349 activity (and activism), 340, 342, 343, 346, 352, 388n284, 395, 503, 530 goals of, 506–7 actress, 485 Adam, 80, 197, 388 Adam (Lamber), Juliette, 450n224 Aeschylus, 383 aesthetics, 395–401, 404 see also arts affections, 246, 508n326 see also emotions, feelings Afghanistan, 324n344 Agoult, Marie d’(alias Daniel Stern), 138, 279, 280, 375, 450, 547n178 Aguiar, J. N. d’, 214–16 Agulhon, Maurice, 292, 389, 479n153 Alavoine, 303 Albert (Martin), 283, 308 Alembert, Jean Le Rond d’, 189 Algeria, 407, 418, 476, 477, 477n137, 521n45, 576 alienation, 337, 351 Allier, Joseph, 238, 238n45 Alsace, 324 altruism, 2, 7, 14, 105, 108, 111, 201, 227, 312, 345, 406, 445–46n200, 456, 457, 503–5, 507, 508n324, 510, 528, 585 Comte’s coining of the term, 2, 14 Alvin, Pierre (General), 419 Amp`ere, Andr´e, 463, 537 anarchy, 528 Andrews, Naomi, xii, 11

androgyny, 192, 198, 388n284, 392 Aniel, Philiberte-F´elicie, 140 animals, 198, 314, 315n287, 344n54 Anne of Austria, 383 annual confessions, 227, 227n243, 325 antiquity, 200, 332n388, 354, 396, 402 anti-Semitism, 340 Arago, Franc¸ois, 16–17n8, 20, 22, 24, 30, 36, 52–55, 58, 64–66n252, 68, 88–89, 226, 268, 290–91, 325n346, 334, 343, 407, 415–17n18, 423, 494 closeness to Marrast, 164 Comte’s apology to, 494n245 Arbousse-Bastide, Paul, 339n23 Archimedes, 463–64 architecture, 396 Ariosto, 463 aristocracy, 241–42, 358 Aristophanes, 393n317 Aristotle, 106, 346n62, 463–64, 512 army, 329 Arnim, Bettina von, 279 Arnold, Thomas, 524 Arnott, Neil, 90, 90n98 artists, 399, 400 education of, 400n354 arts, 145, 311, 343n46, 366, 371, 376, 395–97, 399, 399n348 classification of, 396, 400, 461, 496, 514 Comte’s interest in, 119, 146 social purpose of, 397 role of, 399, 403 and women, 78, 397 see also aesthetics Arusmont, William Phiquepal d’, 258n169, 375, 375n208 Aryans, 325 Asians, 324 Association libre pour l’instruction positive du peuple dans tout l’Occident europ´een, 288–89 association, right of, 283, 287 associationism, 100 associations, 288 astronomy, 2, 15, 310, 342, 350, 360, 396, 434 Comte’s course on, 9, 15, 18, 20–21, 37–39, 40, 48–51, 118, 123, 149,

615

616

Index

astronomy (cont.) 202, 245, 266, 267, 274–81, 283, 287, 290, 293, 309, 337, 520 Atelier, L’, 270 atheism, 15, 31, 46, 71, 249, 254, 349, 409, 520, 527, 529–30, 532 criticisms of, 256, 257, 527 dangers of, 517 Athenaeum, 86 atomic theory, 337 Audiffrent, Georges, 14, 302n221, 311, 317, 404, 427n75, 448, 450, 455n18, 456, 497, 517–18, 521, 523n52, 524, 555, 577-78 and the arts, 404 and marriage, 518n16 Augustine, 155, 512 Aupick, Jacques, 415 Austen, Jane, 514 Austin, John, 10, 57, 60n224, 71, 105, 121–24, 126, 131 Austin, Sarah, 9-11, 13, 22, 60n224, 92, 101, 120–32, 142, 144, 146, 153, 156, 198, 202, 280, 371, 410, 531, 582, 585 influence of, on Comte, 242 Austrians, 538n127 authoritarianism, 50, 307, 352, 353 Comte and, 35, 105, 111, 113, 118, 289, 305 Babeuf, Gracchus, 273 Bachelier (Comte’s publisher), 16–17, 22–23, 28, 36, 290 Bacon, Francis, 106, 462n59, 512, 532 Bain, Alexander, 83, 83n65, 90, 108, 526–28, 556–57 Bank of France, 321n332 bankers, 324 baptism, 152, 155, 170, 172, 405n378 Barb`es, Armand, 12, 13, 303, 331, 408 Barbot de Chement, 12, 175n207, 491, 517 Barth´elemy St. Hilaire, Jules, 122 Barthez, Paul-Joseph, 313n275, 493n233, 514 Basan (Comte’s landlord), 426n71 Bassot (lawyer), 579n375 Bathilde, St., 467 Baudelaire, Charles, 398 Baudoin, Madame, 258n169 Bayne, Peter, 527 Bayoumi, Mohammed, 475n130 Bazalgette, Jean S´eraphin, 317n301, 318, 473 Bazard, Saint-Amand, 336, 336n7 Beecher, Jonathan, xii, 66n254, 280n85, 521–22n45 Belgium, 137, 249, 429, 524, 542, 551 Belhoste, Bruno, 17, 572

Belpaume, Nicolas, 300n209, 303, 319, 320–22, 425, 471n106, 498n267, 520, 561n260 Bendyshe, Thomas, 465 Benedetti, Neva, 434n119 Bennet, Julia Isabella Levina (Lady Gordon), 130–31 Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette, 42, 42n141, 437n68 Bentham, Jeremy, 45, 75, 98–99, 105, 121 Berenson, Edward, 266, 299 Bergman-Carton, Janice, 217 Bernard, Charles-Gabriel (Thal`es), 238, 240, 246, 306n237, 323, 404, 496 Bernard, Claude, 246, 512 Bernard, Joseph, 303, 306n239, 542, 554n221 Bernard, St., 512 Bernardin de St. Pierre, Jacques-Henri, 179 Bertrand, Alexandre, 417n16 Bertrand, Joseph, 32n86, 416, 417, 567n302, 568, 569, 572 Bey, Mazhar, 475n130 B´eraud, Bruno Jacques, 318, 318n309 Bible, 512 Biblical scholarship, 4 Bichat, Marie-Franc¸ois-Xavier, 153, 313n275, 402, 463 Billault, Adam, 81n55 Bineau, Jean Martial, 441, 443–45n195, 447 biology, 2, 73, 75–77, 313–14, 501, 512 Biot, Jean-Baptiste, 16 black race, 324 see alsoabolitionist movement and fetishism Blackett, John, 525n66 Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine, 103 Blackwood’s Edinburgh Review, 526 Blainville, Henri Ducrotay de, 12, 14, 32, 116, 175, 175n208, 216, 230, 233, 239–40, 245–46, 258n171, 317n299, 443n188, 462, 491–94, 509 Comte’s funeral speech for, 495–96 death of, 495 support of Comte, 491 Blakey, Robert, 263, 528n83, 531n94 Blanc, Louis, 269, 271, 272–73, 281, 299, 308, 320, 332, 363, 383n258, 429, 440, 513 Blanche of Castille, 467 Blanqui, Auguste, 12, 13, 408, 541 Bliaux, Sophie, 95, 186, 203, 208–10, 215, 228, 326, 372, 372n187, 373, 426, 457, 473n116, 491, 522, 573n335, 578 lack of education of, 523n52

Index Bligni`eres, C´elestin de, 12, 427n75, 455n18, 521 bluestockings, 124, 156, 163 Bohemians, 157 Boilleau, Jean-Baptiste Charles Gauldr´ee, 53, 58, 60–61 Bol´ıvar, Sim´on, 463 Bommart, 569n312 Bonald, Louis de, 77, 155, 501n290 Bonastier, Suzette, 477 Bonet, General, 418n21, 570–71 Bonnin, Antoinette, 231, 284 Bonnin, Charles, 44n151, 64n244, 230–31, 245–46, 381 Bossuet, Jacques B´enigne, 383, 401, 514 Bott, 494n240 Bouillaud, Jean-Baptiste, 431n99 Bourdeau, Michel, xi, 2, 3n8 Bourdoux, L., 473n116, 523n52 Bourgeois, Allix, 411 bourgeoisie, 7, 221, 266, 319, 327–28, 341, 358, 360, 371n179, 394n20, 430, 446, 519, 548, 561 Bowler, Peter, 511 Boyer, Rosalie (Comte’s mother), 373, 457 Boyer, Victorine, 234, 285n115 Bracquemond, F´elix, 579 Bracquemond, Marie, 579 brain, 75, 204, 312, 345, 381n244, 503, 507, 508n331 Braunstein, Jean-Franc¸ois, 501, 502n295 Brazil, 140n28, 289 Bresson, L´eopold, 542, 542n151 Brewster, David, 123, 528n83, 531n94 Bridges, John Henry, 318, 318n307 Brins, Monsieur de, 563n276 Britain, 556–57n237 British and Foreign Review, 261 Brodie, 524n65 Brook Farm, 529n88 Broussais, Franc¸ois, 186, 203, 206, 231, 304, 512 Brownson, Orestus Augustus, 529 Brulle, Alphonse, 429 Buchanan, James, 527, 527n81 Buchez, Philippe, 270, 383n258 Buffon, Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de, 401, 514 Buisson, Pierre, 266, 267n5 Buller, Charles, 125 Bunyan, Paul, 464 Burke, Edmund, 525n67 Burnouf, Eug`ene, 426 Burns, Robert, 464 business, 338, 557 Butler, Joseph, 464

617

Butler, Judith, 221 Byron, George, Gordon Noel, 383, 396, 467n88, 468n89, 511 Cabanis, Pierre-Jean-Georges, 344, 495, 501, 512 Cabet, Etienne, 266, 271, 273, 274, 276n60, 278, 408, 437, 542, 544, 544n159 cabinet de lecture, 142 Caesar, Julius, 332, 354, 405, 463 Caf´e Procope, 434 Calendar (Positivist), 354, 355, 362n134, 453–54, 458–61, 465, 468, 510, 512 criticisms of, 487 Calendrier positiviste, 458n37 see also Calendar Calvin, John, 463 Cambridge University, 263, 464, 528 Campane, 258n169 Canguilhem, Georges, 462 Cantagrel, Franc¸ois, 542n151 Capaldi, Nicholas, 106, 112 Capellen Charles de (van), 248, 300n209, 333, 333n397, 437, 473n116, 498n267, 523n52 Capellen, Elise de, 371n182, 410, 473n116, 498, 523n52 Capellen, Victorine de, 473n116 capitalism, 277, 321n331 Comte’s critique of, 5, 7, 322 Captier, Ir´en´ee, 455n18 Captier, J., 216, 233, 455n18 Cardano, Girolame, 464 Carilian-Goeury et Victor Dalmont, 25, 39, 49, 335n4 Carlier, Pierre, 441, 444 Carlyle, Thomas, 121, 513, 525, 525n72, 526 Carneiro, Paolo, 339n23 Carnot, Hippolyte, 307, 308, 321, 374, 421, 431, 450n224 Carnot, Lazare, 308, 421 Carnot, Sadi, 308, 422 Carr´e, Claude, 317n301, 318, 318n305, 473n116 Carrel, Armand, 254, 440 Carri`ere, Moriz, 257n168 Cashdollar, Charles, 528 Castille, Isabelle de, 467 Cat´echisme positiviste, 11, 153 Catherine of Siena, St., 467 Catholicism, 4, 14, 91, 114, 244, 329, 337–38, 388, 392, 406, 464, 517, 581 Comte’s aim to regenerate, 155 Comte’s alliance with, 71n8 Comte’s attitude toward, 152, 288 Comte’s criticism of, 339, 388n284, 392 and morality, 200 as threat to positivism, 339

618

Index

Catholics, 114, 152, 283, 287, 288, 355, 403, 412, 422, 426, 439, 445, 448, 459, 479n144, 553n212, 555 and sociability, 344 Cauchy, Augustin, 420 Caussidi`ere Marc, 325, 331, 364, 408, 560–61 Cavaignac, Eug`ene, 164n146, 417, 477, 479, 513 Comte’s support for, 427 celibacy, 388 Cellini, Benvenuto, 512 Censeur, Le, 362 centralization, 200, 321, 330, 332, 357, 358, 406, 539 cerebral hygiene, 71, 98, 104–5, 145, 262, 267, 274, 297n193 Cervantes (Saavedra), Miguel de, 383, 511 Chabrier, Charles, 292n161 Chahata Issa, 258n169 Cham (Am´ed´ee Charles-Henri, Comte de No´e), 578 Chambers, Robert, 86 Channing, William Henry, 528, 529n88, 531 Chapel of Humanity, 391 Chapman, John, 109, 109n204, 579, 580n379 Chardoillet, Virginie, 523 Charlemagne, 169, 322–23, 354, 439, 463–64 Charpentier, Gervais, 513, 516 Chasles, Michel, 17, 31, 56, 64, 415 chastity, 14, 93, 149, 162, 192, 226, 228, 344, 379, 380, 458, 468 Chateaubriand, Franc¸ois-Ren´e de, 190n38, 440n162, 511, 514, 576 Chˆatelet, Emilie du, 189, 387n273 Chement, Barbot de, 239–43, 247 chemistry, 2 Ch´erest, Dr., 186, 187n21, 203, 206–7, 212–15 Chevalier, Michel, 122, 568n304 children, 367 Childs, Lydia Marie, 530–31 chivalry, 201, 322, 390, 424 cholera, 247, 308 Cingolani, Patrick, 278 Clairaut, Alexis de, 384 Clark, Edwin, 509 classes, 46, 47, 341 class conflict, 13, 21, 365 classification of the sciences, 435, 526 Claudel, Modeste-Etienne, 12, 248, 250n125, 303, 392n310, 424n52 departure from the Positivist Society, 516

Clauzade, Laurent, 77, 502n292 Clemenceau, Georges, 318 Clotilde, St., 152, 153, 154, 155, 165, 227n243, 467 Clough, Arthur Hugh, 425, 525 Clovis, 152 Club de l’Emancipation des Peuples, 302 clubs, 7, 8, 327, 334, 360–61, 368n167, 387, 444n191 Colins de Ham, Baron Jean Hippolyte, 295, 296, 296n184 Coll`ege de France, 5, 13, 307, 374 Comte’s desire for a chair, 5, 11, 420–22 colonialism, 320 see also imperialism Comit´e des ecoles, 429 commemoration, 155, 355, 405, 453, 459, 460 Committee of Public Safety, 332 common people, 20, 42, 103 common sense, 5, 41–42, 48, 360, 367 communism, 12, 94, 273–74, 276, 285, 293, 337–38, 363, 366, 403, 437, 446, 537, 550, 558, 563 Comte’s view of, 276–78, 285, 288, 335n5, 361, 553 and positivism, 285 Communist League, 544 Comte, Auguste aims with Clotilde de Vaux, 145, 156, 159, 167, 171, 185–190, 191, 194, 203, 204, 205, 210, 222 anti-intellectualism of, 146 apartment of, 8, 119, 426, 573n335 appearance of, 141 and attack of, 1826, 179, 315n284, 490 austerity of, 227 authoritarianism of, 68, 103, 244, 384 see also authoritarianism character of, 7, 101, 104, 110, 237, 245, 344, 574 childhood of, 113, 166, 366n156 conservatism of, 197, 548–55, 561 correspondence with de Vaux, 143 course in astronomy to workers, see astronomy course on history of humanity, see history of humanity criticisms of, 7, 15, 31, 71, 73, 83, 87, 94, 96, 103, 110, 222n212, 243, 259, 264, 282, 330, 341n32, 342, 349–52, 355, 358, 409, 411, 413, 487–88, 490, 527, 536 see alsopositivism, Religion of Humanity death of, 14

Index desire for interpersonal relations, 144 diet of, 228, 574 dislike of literary types, 430n92 as a doctor, 186 emotional needs of, 144, 167 emphasis on practicality, 41 employment see Coll`ege de France, Ecole Polytechnique, Institut Laville financial problems, 19, 61, 89, 91, 95, 115, 116, 168, 184, 192, 235, 423, 426, 573 health (physical problems) of, 17, 26, 48, 63, 72, 145–46, 149, 165, 171, 192, 204, 480 humanism of, 347 image of de Vaux, 148, 185, 281 image of himself, 5, 8, 10, 11, 15, 18, 35, 44n151, 68, 113, 139, 188, 225, 227, 233, 275, 373, 401, 480 influence of, 105 intellectual development of, 2, 11, 166, 224–25, 556, 558 interest in mathematics, 18 Massin, Caroline, hatred of, 185, 485 see also Massin, Caroline and melodrama, 68, 167 mental illness, 8, 15, 56, 63, 67, 72, 145, 146, 149, 192, 195, 205, 230, 234, 312, 485, 570 mentorship, 236 militancy of, 40, 293, 581, 584 mission of, 166, 336 Opuscules (early writings) “Consid´erations philosophiques sur les sciences et les savants” (fourth opuscule), 341 “Consid´erations sur le pouvoir spirituel” (fifth opuscule), 341 “Examen du trait´e de Broussais sur l’irritation” (sixth opuscule), 231 “Plan des travaux scientifiques n´ecessaires pour r´eorganiser la soci´et´e” (third or fundamental opuscule), 70, 44n151 “S´eparation entre les opinions et les d´esirs” (first opuscule), 553n215 “Sommaire appreciation de l’ensemble du pass´e moderne” (second opuscule), 351 oratorical skills of, 448, 557, 999 politics, 17, 54, 427–30 and the popularization of the sciences, see sciences, popularization portraits of, 142, 481, 481n162 see also F´elix Bracquemond, Antoine Etex, Louis-Eug`ene Signol, Joseph Guichard, J. H. Hoffmeister

619

praise of, 1–3, 238, 251, 262–63, 411, 518, 527, 528, 532–36, 541, 542n151 see alsopositivism, Religion of Humanity reading habits of, 423 see also cerebral hygiene routines of, 573–74 search for supporters, 40, 167, 189, 242, 385, 388, 455n18, 456 see alsoaristocrats, conservatives, women, workers second career of, 165, 167, 275, 286, 296 see alsointellectual trajectory sexual problems of, 144, 145 totalitarianism of, 200 women see women writing style, 17, 103, 113 workers see workers Works See Appel aux Conservateurs, Calendrier Positiviste, Cat´echisme positiviste, Cours de philosophie positive, Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, Syst`eme de politique positive, Synth`ese subjective, Testament d’Auguste Comte, Trait´e e´l´ementaire de g´eom´etrie analytique a` deux et a` trois dimensions, Trait´e philosophique d’ astronomie populaire Comte, Adolphe, 234, 489n210 Comte, Alix, 234, 236, 285, 291–92, 412, 427, 486, 549 Comte’s criticism of, 487, 488, 490 criticisms of Comte, 490 and education, 380 and Massin, 486 political views of, 549n185 and the Segonds, 497n260 Comte, Caroline (Madame Auguste Comte) seeCaroline Massin Comte, Louis, 197, 234, 236, 291 loss of job of, 234–35 wealth of, 489, 489n210 Comtism, 337 Condillac, Etienne Bonnot de, 77 Condorcet, Marie-Jean-Antoine-Nicolas Caritat de, 285n111, 297n193, 354, 371, 380, 381, 383, 387n273, 495, 502n294, 512, 575n347 Confucius, 464 Congreve, Richard, 109, 260n184, 318, 524, 525, 557n239 consensus, 105, 506, 509 conservatism, 71n8, 101, 322, 337

620

Index

conservatives, 433 and Comte, 560 Comte’s appeal to, 12, 583 rise of, 307 Conservatoire des Arts et M´etiers, 266 Considerant, Victor, 271, 519, 521n4, 541 Constant, Abb´e Alphonse-Louis, 198, 273 Constant, Benjamin, 68, 333 Constant-Rebecque, Willem Anne baron de, 260n183, 333, 335n397, 579 Contreras Elizalde, Pedro, 303, 317, 306n237, 383n255, 425, 434, 473n116, 498n267, 523n52 Convention, 310n260, 327, 351, 355, 357, 357n114, 406 Conway, Moncure, 533n104 Cook, Captain James, 512 Coriolis, Gustave-Gaspard, 29, 31, 33–34, 36, 51, 52 Cornaro, Louis, 514 Corneille, Pierre, 383, 383n256 Cornut, Romain, 451 cosmopolitanism, 7, 333 Costallat, Arnault, 318, 318n303 countryside, 307, 320, 428 courage, 227n245 Courbet, Gustave, 398 Courrier franc¸ais, Le, 250 Cours de philosophie positive, 1, 15, 17, 19, 22, 25, 26, 28, 32, 42, 44, 46, 58, 66, 68–70, 72, 74, 81, 86, 87, 98, 103, 145–46, 150, 216, 229, 252, 254, 256, 286, 332, 342, 344, 346, 347, 366n156, 369, 474, 520, 525, 526, 581, 584 appeal of, 262, 473 and the arts, 396n332, 397 Comte’s criticism of, 39–40, 129, 300, 376n211 and Cousin, 510 criticism of, 9, 88, 115, 123, 203, 250, 264, 517, 529, 542n151 editions of, 12 and education, 347 and emotions, 166, 224 and ideas, 346 influence of, 260, 520 and the intellect, 338, 341, 376 and memory, 454 and morality, 166, 342 and the people, 287 and “positivity,” 336 praise of, 109, 110, 113, 238, 239, 250–51, 255, 260, 262, 263, 264, 362, 408, 529, 531, 532–33, 534, 535, 537, 542n151 Preface, 161, 231, 235, 290, 344, 425, 566

purpose of, 1, 9 sales of, 543n152 as Syst`eme de philosophie positive, 336n6 and women, 154, 167, 198, 370, 377, 384, 585 see alsoHarriet Martineau Cousin, Ren´e, 318 Cousin, Victor, 77, 102, 122, 125, 240, 250, 250n125, 261, 339, 501, 509, 510 craniologists, 371n178 Crimean War, 12, 547n176 Cromwell, Oliver, 405, 463–64, 525n72 Crosland, Maurice, 64, 268 cult of the dead, 152, 405n378, 453–57, 485 Currie, Raikes, 62, 88, 92, 131 Cuvier, Georges, 324 Dale, Peter, 400 Dante, 225, 380, 389, 405, 456, 463, 504n302, 511, 538, 540 Danton, Georges Jacques, 327, 332, 332n388, 454 Darche, Alphonse, 267, 267n5 Darwin, Charles, 123n282 Daumer, Georg Friedrich, 544, 546 Daumier, Honor´e, 269, 380 David, Jacques-Louis, 397 De Tijdspiegel, 249 decentralization, 330 deduction, 106, 381n244, 310, 506, 506n310 deism, 46, 298, 363, 368, 402, 448 Delano´e, 512n348 Delbet, Ernest, 318, 318n304, 448 Delessert, Gabriel, 282 Delhorbe Eug´enie, 449, 450n222, 523n52 democracy, Comte’s attitude toward, 5, 47, 48, 301, 307, 327, 353 democratic-socialists, 283, 429, 433, 446, 542, 548–49, 586 Deroin, Jeanne, 219, 323, 411 Deroisin, Hippolyte Phil´emon, 232n16, 434, 579n378 Descartes, Ren´e, 20, 41, 77, 110, 129, 311, 393, 463, 492, 493, 512, 517 Desmoulins, Camilles, 480 Destutt de Tracy, Antoine-Louis Claude, 166, 311, 501 determinism, 84, 128 Dezamy, Th´eodore, 273 Dhombres, Jean, 23, 27 dictatorship, 35, 201, 327n360, 328, 332, 351, 357, 358, 370, 406 Diderot, Denis, 396, 401, 514, 514n361 Dinet, 415–16, 416n10 disciples, 8, 9, 237, 248, 251, 264, 319, 335, 449, 518, 524, 558n244, 559, 585

Index and Algeria, 477 background of, 302–305 and Catholicism, 338 Comte’s complaints about, 243, 244 Comte’s love for, 236–37 conservativism of, 554 dissension among, 11, 12 and the left, 551 in Lyon, 563 problems of, 102 residences of, 516n1 after Revolution of 1848, 516 sexual problems of, 13 support of Comte, 564 see also Alavoine, Georges Audiffrent, Barbot de Chement, Jean S´eraphin Bazalgette, Nicolas Belpaume, Charles Gabriel (Thal`es) Bernard, Joseph Bernard, C´elestin de Bligni`eres, Charles Bonnin, Charles de Capellen, Claude Carr´e, Modeste-Etienne Claudel, Richard Congreve, Baron de Constant-Rebecque, Pedro Contreras Elizalde, Ren´e Cousin, Eug´enie Delhorbe, Hippolyte Phil´emon Deroisin, Eug`ene Deullin, Henry Edger, Egret, Antoine Etex, Jean-Pierre Fili, John Fisher, Jos´e Segundo Fl´orez, Antoine Edouard Foley, Andr´e Francelle, Agathe Guichard, Auguste Hadery, Amed´ee Hanneton, Jean Van Hasselt, Henry, Henry Dix Hutton, Th´eophile Xavier Imbert, Etienne Jacquemin, Charles Jundzill, Hendrik Kretzer, Lablanche, Pierre Laffitte, Lafond, Auguste de Lanneau, Fortun´e Lapierre, Alexandre-Pierre Laurent, Alphonse Leblais, H. Lef`evre, C´esar Lefort, George Henry Lewes, Count of Limburg-Stirum, Emile Littr´e, Joseph Lonchampt, Jean Victor Lucas, Auguste Magnin, Fabien Magnin, John Metcalf, Mrs. John Metcalf, Alexis-J.-Armand Mieulet de Lombrail, Louis-Joseph Mignien, John Stuart Mill, Horace de Mont`egre, Auguste Oppert, A. Papot, Emile Pascal, Julien Penard, Jean Penot, AlexandreLaurent Pi´eton, Pinet, Louis Edmond Pommier, Adolphe de Ribbentrop, Alfred Ribet, Charles Robin, Jean-Franc¸ois-Eug`ene Robinet, Marie Robinet, Charles Marc Sauria, Charles-Emmanuel

621

S´edillot, Louis Auguste Segond, Eug`ene S´em´erie, Eug`ene Simon, Henri de Tholouze, Narcisse Vieillard, Henry Binney Wallace, Alexander Williamson Discours sur l’ensemble du positivisme, 13, 276, 322, 326, 335, 337, 338, 342–43, 355, 370, 407, 436 reception of, 407–13 and women, 378 Discours sur l’esprit positif, 10, 39, 40–48, 68, 69, 86, 101, 153, 289, 300, 337, 338, 342, 352 dissections, 315 division of labor, 277, 362n137, 364, 400n356, 507 divorce, 73, 117, 137, 159, 176, 379 doctors, 22, 312, 314 Comte’s criticisms of, 311 enthusiasm for Comte, 250, 304 in the positive era, 314, 315–16, 316n292 and morality, 508 Dominic, St., 467 Donizetti, Domenico Gaetano Maria, 185, 189, 204n112 Donzelli, Maria, 538n124, 541 dowries, 388 Dubois, Paul, 32, 32n89, 59, 66n255 Ducos, Juliette, 280 Ducos, Th´eodore, 280 Dufour, 318n310 Duhamel, Jean-Marie, 29, 34, 54, 58–59, 63, 64n243, 65–66n254, 68n266, 414–15, 417–18, 566, 569, 571, 572 Dulong, Pierre-Louis, 17 Dumas, p`ere Alexandre, 300 Dunoyer Charles, 57, 122, 362–63, 362n136, 363n138, 365, 408 Dupetit-Thouars, Admiral, 55, 64 Dupin, Andr´e, 339 Dupin, Charles, 66n252 Dupuis, Charles, 464 Duquenne, Franc¸ois, 270n22 Durant-Savoyat, 408 Durkheim, Emile, 315, 362n137, 508 Dussaussoy, Colonel, 56n205 Dutch East Indies, 137 duties, 48, 344 earth, 45 importance of, to society, 3 improvement of, 4 Eastman, George, 460n44 Ecole de M´edecine (Montpellier), 186, 309, 311, 311n263 Ecole de M´edecine (Paris), 311, 313

622

Index

Ecole des Mines, 441 Ecole Nationale d’Administration, 308 Ecole Polytechnique, 139, 368n165, 427, 476n133 abolition of, 368 and the Academy of Sciences, 16 administration of, 16, 29, 52, 55, 64–67, 68n265, 567 Comte as student there, 26, 65, 66n254 Comte’s career at, 15, 18, 237n40 Comte’s critique of, 21, 43, 310, 368n165, 568 Comte’s desire for a position at, 5, 20, 36, 68, 91, 92, 290 Comte’s dismissal from jobs, 14, 51–61, 67–68, 414, 419, 566–70, 572 Comte’s essay on, 21–22, 28 Comte’s problems at, 10, 22–37, 63, 343–44, 416, 419, 582 dismissal of students, 64 and Egypt, 476 history of, 52 reorganization of, 65 and the Revolution of 1848, 284 and Saint-Simonianism, 476n133 support for Comte, 427 see also Pritchard Affair Ecole Positive, 309, 310, 315, 316 economics, 106, 321, 362, 362n134 Edger, Henry, 544n159 Edgeworth, Maria, 467 Edinburgh Review, 87, 532 education, 21, 164, 178, 287, 289, 407, 581 Comte’s concept of, 9, 288, 347, 367 Comte’s criticisms of, 54, 78 Comte’s devotion to, 18–19 Comte’s idea of, in positive era, 288n135, 310n260, 366 Comte’s interest in popular education, 18, 21, 267, 359, 366 de Vaux and, 163 women, 380, 381 workers, 48, 368 see also astronomy, Ecole Polytechnique Effendi, Mazhar, 475n130 egoism, 312, 345, 355, 356, 360, 403, 504, 507, 508n324, 584–85 Comte’s critique of, 7 Egret, 303–4n228 Egypt, 324, 472, 475–76 Egyptians, 472n112 Eichthal, Gustave d’, 73, 98, 104, 230n4, 244 elections, 307 Elias, Norbert, 201 Eliot, George, 260 Elizabeth of Hungary, St., 467 Ellis, Alexander, 467n88

Ellis, Jack, 313 emancipation of women, 127, 394 emotions, 99n143, 104, 105, 129–30, 224, 336, 340, 342–46, 376, 409, 506, 507n320, 511, 525, 526 and health, 63, 173, 206, 312 and morality, 18, 297, 399 Comte’s new stress on, 11, 146–47, 166, 194, 199 Comte’s show of, 150, 156 Comte’s view of, 13 and happiness, 166 importance of, 99 as source of unity and harmony, 3, 7, 241, 462 and women, 78, 127, 192, 370, 384, 457 see also feelings energy, 241, 247, 275, 338, 356, 388n284, 392–93, 443, 469, 496, 504, 541–42 Enfantin, Prosper, 336, 359, 359n126, 476 Engels, Friedrich, 544 England, 12, 14, 55, 62, 78, 86, 90, 94–96, 103, 110, 245, 257–59, 71, 259n178, 264, 288, 319n317, 322, 324, 351, 357, 524 Enlightenment, 76, 99, 197, 322, 377, 385 entrepreneurs, 46, 47, 277, 366, 369 environment, 75 see also milieu equality, 6, 74–75, 80–82, 249n123, 299–300, 364, 367, 393, 559 Esquirol, Jean-Etienne Dominique, 179, 239 Esquiros, Alphonse, 273 eternal widowhood, 379 Etex, Antoine, 14, 477, 514, 576–77, 578n369, 578n371, 579n375 ethology, 76, 94, 100, 409 Eusice, Jacquier, 317, 317n296 evolution, 462, 558 Ewerbeck, August Hermann, 318, 544, 544–45n165 Fabiani, Fabrizio, 540, 540n138 facts, 43 Falloux, Alfred Fr´ed´eric de, 432, 441 Falloux Law, 6, 571 family, 3, 45, 74, 197, 200, 229, 347–48, 377, 379, 388, 389n288, 402, 431 Comte’s view of, 13 and the emotions, 3 family wage, 394 fatalism, 350 feelings, 2, 44, 46, 78, 104, 146, 165–66, 194, 199, 286, 316, 338, 340, 342, 376, 392–97, 403–5, 503, 511, 524, 548, 559, 582 associated with women, 4, 153, 278, 377 and happiness, 155, 199

Index and love of Humanity, 3, 13 see also emotions feminism, 13, 73, 160, 177, 182, 201, 323, 384, 394 feminization of religion, 394 Ferguson, Adam, 285n111 Ferrari, Giuseppi, 540 Ferry, Jules, 406 festivals, 404–5, 461n51, 491 fetishism, 13, 228, 367, 436, 463 feudalism, 464 Feuerbach, Ludwig, 1, 4, 544–46 Feyerabend, Paul, 400 Fichte, Johann Gottlieb, 545n164, 547n173 Ficquelmont, Charles-Louis de, 134, 136, 138 Fielding, Henry, 142, 158, 383, 511 Fili, Jean-Pierre, 267n5, 302, 303, 425, 471n106, 498n267, 523n52 Findlater, Andrew, 526–27, 557 Fisher, John, 138, 579n378 flags, 391, 391n303, 450n222, 475, 475n124, 478–79, 488, 554 Brazilian, 289 Flaubert, Gustave, 293, 294, 332 Fl´orez, Jos´e Segundo, 300n209, 306n237, 383n255, 434n119 Flourens, Pierre, 443n188, 509n337 Fo-hi, 464n67 Foley, Antoine Edouard, 232n16, 317n301, 473n116, 523n52, 523n59, 575, 575n350 Fontanel, 489n210 forecasting, 41, 45, 89n96 Foucart, Jean-Baptiste, 578n371 Foucart, Paul, 578n371 Foucault, Michel, 3 Fourier, Charles, 74, 160, 276n60, 365, 379, 386n269, 388, 474, 476n131, 529n88, 541 Fourier, Joseph, 247n106 Fourierism, 45, 74, 196, 415, 519, 520, 542, 576 Foville, Achille-Louis-Franc¸ois, 239, 239n58, 493n237, 494, 509 Fraisse, Genevi`eve, 386 France, 14, 78, 90, 94, 103, 118, 132, 250, 322, 327, 351, 357, 440 and religion, 71 decentralization of, 539 France, Anatole, 134n255 Francelle, Andr´e-Auguste, 21, 40, 266, 297, 302, 303, 425, 471, 471n105, 497, 498n267, 499, 523n52, 575 Francelle, P´elagie, 473n116, 499, 573, 576 Franchi, Antonio, 540n139 Francia, Jos´e, 463n65, 463–64

623

Francis, St., 467 Francis Xavier, St., 467 Franklin, Benjamin, 463 fraternity, 6, 74, 104, 141, 299–300, 323, 343, 364, 421 Frederick the Great, 405, 463, 525n72, 547n173 Freedman, Estelle, 388 freedom, 112, 287, 299, 352, 353, 406–7 freedom of discussion, 38, 329, 330, 357, 430 freedom of education, 6, 330, 442, 571 freedom of the press, 332, 333, 438 freedom of thought, 36, 45, 98, 112, 288 freethinkers, 249n123 French Revolution, 3, 38, 220, 273, 277n67, 281, 285, 294, 301, 332, 336, 351, 352, 387, 389n287, 402, 428, 431, 447n207, 448, 459, 479, 582 calendar of, 460 effects of, 3, 4, 6, 7 and religion, 4, 6, 14 Freslon, Alexandre, 431 Freud, Sigmund, 221, 507n320, 509 Frick, Jean-Paul, 201 friendship, 198 Fr¨oebel, Friedrich, 547 Frossard, Charles-Auguste, 568, 569n311, 569n312, 570 Furet, Franc¸ois, 294 Galileo, 463 Gall, Franz, 75, 149, 192, 204, 312, 344, 463, 493n232, 495, 502–3, 509, 512, 547n173 Comte’s critique of, 76 Ganneau, Simon, 198 Garnier, Joseph, 408, 408n388 Garnier-Pages, Louis-Antoine, 307 Gaulin, Denis, 317n299 Gautier, Th´eophile, 398, 541 Gay, D´esir´ee, 323, 411 Gay-Lussac, Louis-Joseph, 16 gender, 200, 341, 393 Gentil, Bruno, 81 Geoffrin, Madame, 386n272 Geoffroy St. Hilaire, Isidore, 49 geometers, 38 geometry, 20, 26n56 Comte’s view of, 26n56 Germain, Sophie, 128, 194, 467 Germany, 14, 280, 288, 322, 324, 408n391, 524, 538n127, 542–43, 546, 547n175, 548 Gibbon, Edward, 285n111, 512 Gibraltar, 259n178 Giessen, 257n168

624

Index

Gillespie, William Mitchell, 532n97 Girardet, Raoul, 479 Girardin, Delphine Gay de, 138, 163, 450n224 Girardin, Emile de, 258n169, 439, 440n161, 440n162, 441n164, 444n191, 450, 459 Girondins, 358, 383 Godwin, William, 127, 319n317, 525n67 Goethe, 128, 179, 279, 383n256, 396, 401, 511, 547n174 Goldsmith, Oliver, 81n55 Goleman, Daniel, 345 Gordon, Daniel, 7, 377 Gouhier, Henri, 10, 41, 146 Goupil, 318 government, 318 Comte’s concept of, 111, 268, 271, 307, 308, 357, 358, 360, 361, 385 Comte’s plan for, 275, 287–88, 326–31, 406 Comte’s support for, 65 and education, 367 of the positive era, 369, 384 see also politics Goy, Ernestine de, 185, 373 Grange, Juliette, 313 Great-Being, 6, 153, 402–403, 406, 411, 453, 461, 463, 475, 495 see also Humanity Greece, 284, 322, 324, 374, 436, 438n147, 475, 475n129 Greeley, Horace, 537, 537n121 green (color), 475n124, 479, 480, 480n158, 498 Gr´etry, Andr´e-Ernest-Modeste, 514 Gries, 303n228 Gros-Jean, 267n5 Grote, George, 62, 88, 90, 92–93, 93n117, 121, 126, 131, 256, 290–91, 408–9, 557 Grote, Harriet, 62, 94 guardian angels, 373n194, 391, 453, 456, 457 Guerry, Andr´e-Michel, 264 Guichard, Agathe de Lagr´en´ee, 409, 410, 480, 481n162, 498, 498n267, 500n280, 523n52, 577, 579 Guichard, Joseph, 480, 481n162, 577 Guilbert, 267n5 guilds, 928 Guillemain, Michel Jacques Laurent Germain, 58 Guirard, 489n210 Guizot, Franc¸ois, 55, 60, 65, 122, 126, 283, 339, 383n258, 420, 513 Gutenburg, Johannes, 405, 463 Hadery, Auguste, 331, 331n379, 519–22 Hahnemann, Samuel, 213, 213n168

Haine, Scott, 360 Haiti, 324 Halbwachs, Maurice, 461 Hallam, Henry, 383, 512 Hamilton, James, 525, 526n73 Hanneton, Amed´ee, 303n228 happiness, 46, 241, 343, 345, 352, 369, 375n205, 379, 405 elements of, 144n53 harmony, 480–81, 506 Haroun-al-Raschid, 466 Harrison, Frederic, 264, 515 Harth, Erica, 393n316 Harvard University, 529 Hase, 66n255 Hasselt, Jean Van, 249, 333, 333n396 Hauser, Kaspar, 545n163 Haussmann, Georges-Eug`ene, 315 Hautpoul, Alphonse d’, 566 Hawkins, Richmond, 535 Hayek, F. A., 83n62 Haza, Mademoiselle de, 128, 280 health, 312, 314, 506 heart, 335, 342, 345–46, 376, 473, 503 Heeren, Arnold von, 383, 512 Hegel, George Wilhlem Friedrich, 261, 541, 545n164, 547n175 Heilbrun, Carolyn, 153 Heloise, 380n237, 467, 474 Helv´etius, Claude-Adrien, 77, 100 Henri V, 450n222 Henry (Paris chef ), 303n228 Henry, Charles-Joseph, 519 Hercules, 461 Hericourt, Jenny P. d’, 192 Hermite, Charles, 418n21, 419 Herodotus, 512 Herschel, John, 87n82, 86, 88, 123 Herwegh, Georg, 280 Hilaire, St., 125 Hill, Thomas, 529, 531 Himmelfarb, Gertrude, 112 history, 73, 152, 351, 434, 436, 448, 453, 458, 462, 512, 547n175 discipline of, 424n59, 434 philosophy of, 92, 253n143, 426, 434, 436, 441, 526 history of humanity, Comte’s course on, 12, 14, 281–83, 431–52, 458n37, 551, 553 see also humanity history of science, 420, 422 Hobbes, Thomas, 7, 62, 527 Hoffmeister, J.-H., 579, 579–80n378 Holbach, Paul Henri d’, 7 Holland, 248–49n123, 322, 335, 371, 410, 524

Index Holmes, George Frederick, 531, 531n95, 532–33, 534, 536 Homer, 383, 463–64, 511 honor, 170, 221, 468, 481 Horace, 365n151 Houellebecq, Michel, 1, 7 Howe Julia Ward, 534, 535, 580 Hufeland, Christoph, 514, 514n357 Hugo, Victor, 190n38, 225, 269, 272, 300, 393 Huguet, 473n116 Human Events, 1, 7 human nature, 1, 4, 106, 150, 152, 338n16, 344, 346–48, 502, 583 Comte’s view of, 1, 129, 193, 196 improvement of, 3, 43, 50, 153 study of, 76 and the Tableau c´er´ebral, 510 humanism, 4 Comte seen as a humanist, 4 Humanit´e, L’, 295 Humanity, 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 14, 21, 24, 42–44, 46, 48, 147, 156, 279, 295, 297, 338, 347, 357, 470n98, 510 improvement of, 6, 11, 12, 150, 189, 225 Leroux’s concept of, 3, 12, 270 love of, 229, 510 nature of, 402 as replacement for God, 402 representation of, 390–91, 479 and unity, 8, 13, 14, 50, 581 and women, 389 see also Great-Being, history of humanity Humanity, Cult of, 108, 294, 296, 299, 340, 361, 389, 391n303, 392, 403, 405, 409, 438, 457, 478 see also Humanity Humboldt, Alexander von, 39, 49, 290, 408 Hume, David, 383, 512, 527 Hunt, Leigh, 260 Hunt, Lynn, 3, 301 Hutton, Henry Dix, 465, 531 Hutton, Patrick, 453 Huxley, Thomas, 4 Icarians, 299 ideas, 44, 46, 165–66, 336, 342, 343, 346, 350, 436, 505, 559, 582 Id´eologues, 77, 501 Ignatius of Loyola, 467 images, 456 imagination, 395, 398, 405, 436 Imbert, Th´eophile Xavier, 303n228, 425n65 Immaculate Conception, 6 immortality, 153 imperialism, 7 see also colonialism Index, 251

625

India, 324, 324n344, 379 individual, 46, 200, 344 Comte’s attitude toward, 75 individualism, 5, 7, 77, 99, 102, 197, 362–64, 394, 402 Comte’s criticism of, 5, 76, 402 Mill’s advocacy of, 76 induction, 103, 310, 381n244, 506, 506n310 industrialization, 4, 7, 43, 45, 257, 321, 322, 332, 453, 538, 582 industrialists, 13, 70, 319, 340, 341n32, 358, 365, 370, 378, 403, 406n383 Ingres, Jean-Auguste Dominique, 481n162 inheritance, 489, 489n212 instinct, 503 Institut de France, 256 Institut Laville, 4, 11, 18, 23, 33, 53, 61, 422 intellect, 21, 44, 166, 229, 241, 336, 345–46, 376, 502, 505, 508n326, 508n324, 558, 582 intellectuals, 341, 404, 508, 557 intendancies, 328–29n367 introspection, 502 Ireland, 97, 324 disciples in, 12 Islam, 477, 477n143 and green, 480 Israel, Kali, 8 Italy, 288, 322, 324, 374, 393n315, 524, 538–39, 541, 547n176 Jabobi, E., 238 Jacobins, 293–94, 357 Jacquemin, Etienne, 282, 302, 319, 320–22, 382, 404n374, 471n106, 476, 511, 523n52 Jacquemin, Josephine, 382, 387n273 Jacyna, L.S., 509 Japan, 324 Jefferson, Thomas, 463 Jenner, Edward, 464 Jesuits, 13, 300 Jesus, 130, 466 Joan of Arc, 251, 392, 405, 464, 467 Joffroy, 575 John the Baptist, 466, 466n78 Jourdan, Franc¸oise, 236, 373n195 Journal des d´ebats, Le, 290, 441 Journal du Peuple, Le, 140 journalism, 163 journals, 387 elimination of, 501 see also newspapers, press Jowett, Benjamin, 263, 264 Ju´arez, Benito, 317n297 judges, 321n330 Julian, 354, 465, 466n76 July Monarchy, 269, 272, 287, 299

626

Index

Jundzill, Charles, 303, 306n237, 425, 498n267, 523n52 June Days, 325–26, 328, 335, 327 Kant, Immanuel, 47, 89n96, 532, 536, 546, 547n173 Kemink, 249 Kingsley, Charles, 71 knowledge, 43 Kremer-Marietti, Ang`ele, 504 Kretzer, Hendrik, 249, 333 Kselman, Thomas, 354, 406 Kuhn, Thomas, 400 La Fontaine, Jean de, 383, 383n256, 511 La Live de Bellegarde, Elisabeth de, 189 Labarre, Louis, 543n153 Lablanche, 303n228 Lacaze, Louis, 434 Lacoste, Pauline, 485n187 Lacrosse, Bertrand Th´eobald Joseph de, 438, 441 Lafayette, Madame de, 80, 383, 387n273, 464, 467, 514 Lafayette, Marie Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert Motier, marquis de, 231n6 Laffitte, Jacques, 340 Laffitte, Pierre, 125, 132, 232n16, 245–47, 274, 278, 280, 284, 302–3, 309n251, 326–27, 330–31, 394, 425n65, 427n75, 429, 434, 452, 471n106, 473n116, 498n267, 523n52, 543, 551, 575n347, 579n375 Comte’s criticism of, 552, 555 founding of the Revue Occidentale, 522n49 Lafond, 302n221, 303 Lagrange, Joseph Louis, 129 laissez-faire, 277, 321–22, 408 Lallemand, Claude-Franc¸ois, 318 Lamarck, Jean-Baptiste, 192, 309, 345, 462, 510, 512 Lamartine, Alphonse de, 190n38, 269, 281, 283, 300, 307, 383n258, 450n224, 513 Lamber, Juliette, 450n224 Lambert, Madame de, 384, 387n273, 467, 514 Lambrey, Mathilde, 473 Lam´e, Gabriel, 17, 27, 31, 33–34, 56, 64, 66, 68n266, 415, 418, 569n311 Lamennais, F´elicit´e de, 77, 155, 159, 176, 269, 408 Lamorici`ere, Christophe de, 407, 417–19, 477 Landes, Joan, 387n275 language, 13, 18, 316, 331n379, 404n375, 506n311, 534n105, 538, 547n174 languages, foreign, 15 Languedoc, 324

Lanneau, Auguste de, 497 Lao-tse, 464n67 Lapierre, Fortun´e, 318, 521 Laplace, Pierre-Simon, 26, 49, 86–87 Larizza, Mirella, 237n40, 286, 301, 303, 404 Laugrand, Fr´ederic, 542n151 Laurent, Alexandre Pierre, 563, 564, 565n290 Laville, 422 see also Institut Laville Lavisse, Ernest, 811–12n4 Lavoisier, Antoine Laurent de, 463, 512 law of three stages, 77n37, 262, 435 lawyers, 321, 358, 369, 537n118 Le Verrier, Urbain, 567 Leader, The, 526n74 Leblais, Alphonse, 302, 303, 309n251, 425, 471n106, 498n267, 523n52, 550, 551n204, 570n319 Lechevalier, Jules, 295n179, 541 Lecourt, Dominique, 268 Ledru-Rollin, Alexandre, 307, 428 Lef`evre, H., 318, 267n5 Lefort, C´esar, 12, 521, 541, 541n143, 551, 565n286 left, the, 69, 197n76, 430 Comte’s search for support from, 12, 13, 68–69, 294, 299, 304, 326, 331, 352, 552, 560, 561n263k and revived Christianity, 6 legimitism, 495 legists, 428, 430 Legouv´e, Ernest, 374 Leibniz, Wilhelm Gottfried, 110, 547n173 Leliva, Comte de, 450 Lenoir, 53n188, 116, 187n21, 214–16, 230–33n19, 239, 245–46, 254, 434, 483 Leplay, Fr´ed´eric, 318n304 Lepsius, Richard, 475 Leroux, Pierre, 3, 12, 177, 198, 218, 245, 270, 272, 279, 282, 295, 305, 385, 408, 426, 459, 576 Leroy, Charles, 31, 56, 59 Leroy, Charles-Georges, 344, 344n54, 384, 389 Lesage, Alain, 383 Lesbros, 66 Lespinasse, Julie de, 189, 387n273 “Lettre philosophique sur l’appr´eciation sociale du baptˆeme chr´etien,” 154, 169 “Lettre philosophique sur la commemoration social,” 152, 153, 164 “Lettre philosophique sur le mariage,” 193, 196–203 “lettr´es,” 430, 537n118 see also“litt´erateurs”

Index Levine, Donald, 3 Lewes, George Henry, 12, 90, 97, 250n125, 257, 279, 285, 317, 324, 408, 512, 514, 525, 526n74, 531n94, 545n164 Biographical History of Philosophy, 262, 264 conversion to positivism, 260–65 liberalism, 13, 101, 103, 276n61, 277n67, 287, 321–22, 337, 340, 363, 365, 375n205 Comte’s criticism of, 7, 35, 38, 84 Comte’s early phase, 73 in the nineteenth century, 5 liberals, 363 liberty, 12, 38, 102, 110, 201, 283, 287, 288, 352, 358, 364, 370, 375, 406 definition of, 352 Library of the Proletarian, 384, 511 see also Positivist Library Libri,Guglielmo, 334 Liebig, Justus, 257 Limburg-Stirum, Menno David van, Count, 248, 290, 306, 333, 335n3, 413 Linnaeus, Carl, 462 Liouville, Joseph, 17, 28, 30, 34, 52–54, 56, 57, 58, 64, 284, 418, 568, 570 Littr´e, Maximilien-Paul-Emile, 12, 52, 66, 89, 101, 109n204, 157, 239n58, 247, 264–65, 279, 285, 290, 295, 300, 302n221, 305, 309, 317–19, 326–27, 330, 331n379, 332–33, 422–23, 424n58, 424n59, 425n65, 434–35, 441, 443n188, 444, 446–48, 450n224, 466, 471n106, 484, 512, 514, 525, 539, 545, 551, 557n237, 569n311, 586 background of, 252 Comte’s criticisms of, 543 Conservation, r´evolution et positivisme, 447, 514n358 conversion to positivism, 252–57 and Francelle subsidy, 500 as godfather, 498 and imperialism, 477 influence of, 248 and Massin, 484 and positivist marriages, 497 Littr´e, Madame, 254 Locke, John, 7 Lom´enie, Louis L´eonard, 295n179 Lonchampt, Joseph, 14, 232n16, 297, 338, 349, 427n75, 473n116, 516–17, 523n52, 575 London and Westminster Review, 92 Louis Napoleon see Napoleon III Louis-Philippe, 283, 421, 495, 554 Louis XI, 405

627

Louis XVI, 284n108 love, 146, 171, 201, 343, 343n49, 346–47, 352, 376, 379, 386n269, 393, 457n31, 462, 504, 583 lower classes, 49, 153, 285 Lucas, Jean-Victor, 561, 561n266, 562 Luch, 27 Luther, Martin, 463 Luxembourg Commission, 320 Lyon, 11, 14, 266, 519, 559–65 Macaulay, Thomas, 74n23, 513 Macchi, Mauro, 540n139 Machiavelli, Niccol`o, 7, 285n111 Mackau, Admiral de, 64 Maclure, William, 375n208 Magnin, Auguste, 303n228 Magnin, Fabien, 40, 266, 267, 274, 300, 303, 319–22, 325–27, 330, 425, 429, 471n106, 498n267 Maine, Duchesse de, 387n273 Maistre, Joseph de, 71n8, 155, 339n25, 512, 525n67 Malaysia, 324 Malet, General Claude-Franc¸ois de, 439 Mallet, 72n11 Malte-Brun, Conrad, 512 Malthus, Thomas, 257, 319, 319n317 Manco-Capac, 464n67 Manzoni, Alessandro, 396, 407, 511, 538 Maraendjy, Mustapha, 475n130 Marenholtz-B¨ulow, Bertha von, 548n180 Mar`es, J., 230 Margadant, Jo Burr, xii, 9 Marianne, 389 Marie, Charles-Paul-Auguste-MaximilienL´eon, 169, 169n167 Marie, El´eonor, 135 Marie, F´elicie, 144, 164n146, 206, 210 Marie, Henriette-Jos´ephine, 134, 136, 138, 141, 144, 170–71, 180, 182, 183, 186, 205–6, 208–11, 213–16, 219, 222–23, 224n220 Marie, Joseph-Simon, 135–36, 140, 211, 215, 224, 224n220 Marie, Maximilien, 135, 139–41, 143, 164n146, 183, 186, 206, 210–11, 214–17, 222, 224n220, 237, 245, 391n302 Marina, 464 Marrast, Armand, 46, 55, 66, 72n11, 154, 157, 163, 175, 185, 194–96, 217, 255, 261, 283, 290, 307, 308n246, 431, 443n188, 466 desire for Massin, 164 and de Vaux, 164, 165

628

Index

marriage, 73, 81, 161, 182, 196, 199–200, 348, 379, 380, 388, 471 Comte’s marriage, 82, 98 Comte’s theory of, 486 as positivist ceremony, 471, 473n116, 497, 497n260, 498n267, 522, 522n50, 523n52 purpose of, 193 “Marseillaise, La,” 403, 404, 448 Martineau, Harriet, 12, 109n204, 120, 282, 531, 579, 580 Martinique, 489n210 Marx, Karl, 1, 4, 13, 47, 222, 272, 280–81n91, 293, 332, 332n, 391, 359, 370, 430–31, 435, 511, 544, 545n165 masculinity, 192, 198, 247, 356, 377, 379, 388n284 masses, 48 Massin, Caroline (Madame Auguste Comte), 9, 14, 19, 46, 81, 132, 142, 225, 292n161, 412, 434, 442n181, 585 allegation that she was a prostitute, 14 allowance of, 184 analysis of Comte, 33, 36, 38, 42, 54, 55, 58, 67n258, 118, 423, 42, 502 apartments of, 481n167 and Thal`es Bernard, 238n45 and Blainville, 491, 495 character of, 443, 481 Comte’s affection for, 120 and Comte’s family, 234 Comte’s hatred for, 195, 379, 483, 486 Comte’s relationship with, 81 Comte’s view of, 119, 145 criticisms of Comte, 200, 228, 354n107 disillusionment of, 412 and education, 380 end of correspondence with Comte, 483n178 and Fanny Wright, 375 financial problems, 232, 254, 393, 481, 482n170 and Foville, 239n58 health problems of, 481 influence of, 312, 484 and Littr´e, 484–85 love for Comte, 55, 116–20, 185, 231, 482 monetary problems, 443 personality of, 118 separation from Comte, 15, 116, 145 sorrows of, 117 support for Comte, 442, 444, 445, 465 and women’s issues, 242 Masson, David, 526, 527 Mastrofini, Marco, 460 masturbation, 14, 564

materialism, 87, 106, 206, 249, 272, 311n266, 313, 313n275, 349–50, 409, 492, 493, 501, 577 as ruining public life, 78 mathematicians, 310 Comte’s criticisms of, 5, 22–23 mathematics, 2, 49, 342, 512 Comte’s interest in, 19 see alsoalgebra, geometry Mathias, Louis Auguste, 326n354, 335n4 Mathieu, Claude-Louis, 28, 66, 68n266, 415–16, 418 Maupied, F. L. M., 239–40, 245, 491–92, 495 Maurice, Frederick Denison, 71 Mauviel, Jules, 288n138 Maynard, Charles, 565, 565n291 Mazhar Bey, 475n130 Mazzini, Giuseppe, 538, 540 McClintock, John, 532, 532n97, 532n98, 533n104, 534n110, 535–36 McCosh, James, 527, 528n83 McWilliam, Neil, 270, 398, 576 Mecca, 477 medicine, 311, 314 Comte’s theory of, 312n269 theory of, 206, 311 Meissas, Alexandre, 252 Mellet, Franc¸ois-Mellet, 519, 520, 520n30 melodrama, 8, 151 memory, 354, 391, 453–54, 458–59 M´enard, Louis, 542 Meng-tsu, 464n67 Mercoeur, Elisa, 190n38, 467, 467n88, 468n89 M´erignon, see Montg´ery metaphysicians, 197, 344 metaphysics, 43, 47, 49, 102, 103, 154, 197, 249n123, 321, 343, 355, 364, 367–68, 375n205, 409, 548 Comte’s criticisms of, 73 and education, 41 and the middle class, 48, 273 Methodist Quarterly Review, 531n95, 532, 533n104 Metternich, Klemens Lothar Wenzel von, 135 Meyer, Jurgen Bona, 547n178 Meynier, 317n299 Michelet, Jules, 269, 281, 297n193, 300, 378, 383n258, 393, 513, 574, 575, 575n347, 585 microscope, 141n30 Middle Ages, 46, 91, 155, 200, 240, 278, 282, 299, 320, 322, 355, 374, 378, 371, 372n185, 390, 396n331, 397n333, 402, 424, 436, 513, 560n256 middle class, 47, 48, 273, 283, 369 in positive regime, 360

Index Mieulet de Lombrail, Alexis-J.-Armand, 425n65 Mignet, Franc¸ois Auguste, 383, 383n258 Mignien, Louis-Joseph, 303, 424n59, 425n65, 429 milieu, 43 see also environment Mill, John Stuart, 10–11, 13, 25, 60n224, 93, 121, 123–25, 128, 130–31, 133, 153–54, 189, 245, 250n125, 256–61, 264, 318, 333, 349, 409, 425, 531n94, 557, 582, 585 aid to Comte, 61–63, 92 arguments with Comte, 70–88, 94 attraction to Comte and positivism, 99, 105, 107, 409 Auguste Comte and Positivism, 109 and the Austins, 122 Autobiography, 83, 97, 107, 108, 124 Comte’s friendship with, 9, 70 Considerations on Representative Government, 107 end of relationship with Comte, 88–97, 100 Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy, 101 feminism of, 74, 75, 79–80, 370 and Harriet Taylor, 10 influence on Comte, 104, 105, 371 and the invention of the term “pedantocracy,” 17 On Liberty, 106, 111–12 personal problems of, 72 personality of, 104 praises of positivism, 409 Principles of Political Economy, 97, 106 The Subjection of Women, 10, 70, 84, 109 A System of Logic, 70–71, 72, 85, 89n96, 102, 103, 105, 106, 109, 260, 525 Three Essays on Religion, 108 Mill, James, 74n23, 99, 121 Milne, John Duguid, 526, 527n77 Milton, John, 383, 463 mind, 103, 278, 289, 311n266, 335, 338, 342, 346, 376 Comte’s theory of, 500–11 Mississippi, 531 Modern Times, 537n121 Mohammed, 464, 466 Molesworth, William, 62, 88, 90, 92–93, 121, 126, 131, 557 Moli`ere, 383 Moline de Saint-Yon, General, 59 monarchy, 284n108 Mongolia, 324 Monica, St., 467 Moniteur, Le, 281, 307, 447 monotheism, 367, 436

629

Montagu, Lady, 387n273, 467 Montalembert, Charles de, 269 Mont`egre, Agathe de, 409, 480, 481n162, 498, 498n267, 523n52 Mont`egre, Horace de, 304, 309n251, 315–17, 409, 425, 437, 440, 480, 498n267, 523n52, 554n221, 579 Montesquieu, Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Br`ede et de, 7, 285n111 Montesquiou, L´eon de, 326n349 Montfort, Ernestine de, 412 Montg´ery, Jacques Philippe M´erignon de, 242 Montolieu, Isabelle de, 387n273 Montpellier, schools in, 313, 315n287 morality, 2, 6, 10, 12, 42, 44, 45, 46, 50, 93, 105, 145, 167, 200, 225, 275, 312, 314, 316, 337, 344, 348, 400, 406, 462 Comte’s idea of, 11, 37, 44, 342, 505 importance of, 3, 103, 166, 251, 286, 298, 352, 378, 385, 395, 399, 403, 581 and positivism, 241, 354, 582 as science of the individual, 2, 13, 342, 347, 348 source of, 3 systemization of, 44 and women, 374, 377, 384, 585 Morell, John Daniel, 262, 263, 531n94 Morin, George, 133 Morin, P. E., 429 Morisot, Berthe, 481n162 Mornay, Marquis de, 135 Moses, 405, 463 Moses, Claire, 390 motherhood, 78, 219, 377n219, 382n249, 391, 475 Motte, Dean de la, 440 Motteville, Madame de, 80, 383, 387n273, 467, 514 Mozart Wolfgang Amadeus, 204n112 Muglioni, Jacques, 457 M¨uller, Johannes, 512n348 Murger Henri, 157 music, 18, 396 Muskau, P¨uckler, 126 Muslims, 456n26 Musset, Alfred de, 178 Napoleon I, 6, 354, 358, 401n357, 430, 439, 447, 465, 466n76, 468, 477, 478 Napoleon III (Louis Napoleon), 9, 11, 13, 315, 334n402, 428, 432–33, 439, 501, 549, 553, 555, 560n254, 585 Comte’s support for, 11 coup d’´etat of, 313, 436 elections of 1848, 427

630

Index

Napoleon III (cont.) empire-building, 12 expedition to Rome, 560 opposition to, 501 positivist disciples’ dislike of, 494 Napoleonic Code, 117, 377, 377n220, 378n226 National, Le, 46, 55, 65, 154, 157, 163, 164, 165, 168, 175, 182, 194, 211, 248, 252, 254–55, 290, 291, 222, 407, 422, 434, 441, 446, 525, 562 National Workshops, 307, 320, 325 nationalism, 7, 322, 358, 370, 538, 539, 541, 584 nature, 43, 197, 346, 399 improvement of, 45, 50 nature versus nurture, 75, 100, 193 Naudet, Jean-Lous Olivier, 562, 562n273 Navier, Henri, 29 nebular hypothesis, 26, 50, 86–87 neoclassicism, 396 New Harmony, 375n208, 519n23 Newman, John Henry, 71 elimination of, 501 see also journalism, journals, press Newton, Isaac, 387n273, 463 Niboyet, Eug´enie, 323 Nicard, Pol, 239, 496 Nichol, John Pringle, 84, 409, 528n83 Nicholas I, 12, 329 Nicholas of Cusa, 464 Nicolet, Claude, 4, 332, 332n391 Nietzsche, Friedrich, 485 nineteenth century, 76, 104, 453 No´e, Am´ed´ee Charles-Henri, Comte de, 578 Nora, Pierre, 454, 461 North British Review, 527 notaries, 321n330 Notre Dame de Paris, 478 Numa, 466n77 Nye, Robert, 386 objective method, 13, 42 observation, 49 Observatory, 268 Occidental Positive Committee, 322–23, 341n34, 370, 407 Occidental Republic, 305, 306, 316, 322 Occidental revolution, 559 Offen, Karen, xii, 134 Oken, Lorenz, 408, 408n391, 494, 509 Ollivier, Emile, 448 opera, 95, 149, 151, 185, 204n112, 207, 228n249, 235n31, 246n98, 284, 399–400 opinion, 336

Oppert, Auguste, 303n228 opuscules, 341 see alsoComte, Auguste: opuscules order, 3, 38, 42, 45, 47, 153, 289, 343, 345, 350, 352, 356, 357, 385, 408, 436, 442 and the family, 197, 393 importance of, 51, 84, 277, 327 improvement of, 399, 505 and progress, 106, 107, 260, 261, 273, 289, 289n142, 301, 332, 454, 352, 355, 364, 405, 436, 478–79 and working class, 379 see also progress “Orient,” 475, 475n130 Orleanists, 428, 430 Ovid, 511 Owen, Robert, 74, 519n23 Owenism, 519 Oxford Movement, 71 Oxford University, 263, 425, 524–25, 528, 557 pacifism, 201, 398n338 Palgreve, 524n65 papacy, 538n127 Papot, A., 574 Parieu, Marie-Louis Pierre F´elix Esquirou de, 441, 442, 444–45 Paris, 18, 26, 259, 327–28, 331, 478 Parker, Theodore, 529–31, 536 parliament, 100, 276, 284, 327, 358, 370, 428 Pascal, Blaise, 384, 512 Pascal, Emile, 258n169, 302, 303, 325, 325n346, 425, 471n106, 512, 561n260 patronage, 5 Paul, Saint, 169, 354, 457n31, 463–64, 466 Pearson, Thomas, 527 peasants, 307, 428, 549 Pecora, Vincent, 583 “pedantocracy,” 15, 17, 26, 35, 51, 52, 54, 67, 107n186 Pellico, Silvio, 396n332 Penard, Julien, 304, 317, 455n18, 456n26 Penot, Jean, 303, 425 P´erier, Casimir, 340 P`ere-Lachaise cemetery, 246, 380n237, 1042, 1093 Pernot, P´elagie, 471, 471n105 Peronnier, Colonel Charles, 59 Perrot, Michelle, 386 Perry, Thomas Erskine, 554n220 Persia, 324 Persiani, Madame, 185 Pestalozzi, Johann, 375n208 Petit, Annie, 40, 288, 313, 336n6, 347n68, 355, 359n122

Index Petrarch, Francesco, 380 Peyronnet, 484 Phalange, La, 271, 476n131, 542 Philip II, 354, 465 philosophers, 385 alliance with workers, 359 and the arts, 400n356 and reason, 340 philosophes, 38 philosophy, 399 philosophy of history see history phrenology, 75, 77, 100, 502, 506n313 physics, 2 Picard, M., 524 Pi´eton, Alexandre-Laurent, 523n52 Pi´eton, Justine, 523n52 Pillot, Jean-Jacques, 273 Pinel-Grandchamp F´elix, 187, 187n21, 203–4, 206–7, 213, 239n58, 509 Pinet, 302n221, 303 Plato, 161, 346n62, 393n317, 493n236 Pl´e, Bernard, 297 Pliny, 492–93n236 Ploix, Ch., 555n226 Plutarch, 383 poetry, 153, 396 poets, 400 Poinsot, Louis, 34, 66, 343, 415–16, 418n21 Poisson, Charles, 554 Poisson, Denis, 16 Poland, 322 political economy, 101, 102, 106 Comte’s critique of, 511 politics, 48, 50, 100, 103, 342, 352, 376, 399 Comte’s maneuverings, 65 Comte’s support for the status quo, 37 Comte’s theory of, 385 Comte’s view of, 12, 584 definition of, 337 goal of, 399 nineteenth-century, 47 Politique positive La, 522n49 polygamy, 200 polytheism, 436, 463 Pommier, Louis Edmond, 425n65 Poncelet, Jean Victor, 569n311 Popper, Karl, 400 popular sovereignty, 51, 249n123, 301 Portinari, Beatrice, 213, 380, 538 Portugal, 322 positive, 43 definition of, 41 Positive Church, 322, 583 positive (or positivist) era, 13, 49, 50, 70, 77, 275, 286, 310n260, 311, 326, 328, 373, 373n194, 388n284, 461 and the Revolution of 1848, 11 and the spiritual power, 5

631

positive method, 42, 310 definition of, 2 positive philosophers, 110 and the arts, 399 as artists, 400 character of, 340, 341, 378 function of, 41, 347, 348, 365, 385, 584 as moral examples, 85, 166 as priests of Humanity, 25, 403 and women, 13, 78, 79 and workers, 13, 41, 47, 50, 272, 277, 359, 360, 369, 378 positive philosophy, 336 question of the continuity of, 558 as a religion, 13, 347, 558 role of, 382 as a system, 44 as tool of seduction, 152 and women, 154 see also positivism positive republic, 340 and visual culture, 391 see also Occidental Republic “positive school,” 335–36 positivism, 5, 10, 46, 48, 106, 110, 528 benefits of, 196 and Catholicism, 240, 251, 339, 383n255, 405, 560n254 and causes, 45 criticism of, 1, 150, 243, 245, 250, 263, 409, 517, 528 definition of, 41, 41n140, 130, 300, 336 and emotions, 225, 240, 278 goal of, 298, 342 influence of, 12, 386, 447, 516–48, 586 as key to reconciling East and West, 475–6n130 and morality, 227, 240, 251, 376, 406 as more than an intellectual doctrine, 241, 351 need for scientists’ support, 5 new phase of, 2, 275 new use of the term, 13, 336, 581 and politics, 42, 286, 336, 340 popularization of, 337 praise of, 251, 253, 261, 310, 411, 450, 473, 517–18, 527, 533, 565, 574n344 and regeneration, 266, 352 and the regeneration of the arts, 395–401 and religion, 175, 249–50, 296, 298, 339–40, 347, 403, 581 role of, 241, 403 and socialism, 437–38 and spiritual needs, 251 superiority of, 42–43, 45, 197, 225, 243, 343–44, 405, 553n212 as a threat, 1, 5, 58, 249 and women, 370–95

632

Index

positivism (cont.) 370–95 and the workers, 47–48, 273, 360, 366, 367, 563 see also positive philosophy positivists definition of, 556–59 Positivist Calendar, 155 origins of, 152 see alsoCalendar, Calendrier positiviste Positivist Library, 511–15 see also Library of the Proletarian positivist movement, 8, 11, 39, 336, 516, 585–86 beginning of, 101 see also disciples, Positivist Society positivist (or positive) priests, 13, 475 responsibilities of, 475 roles of, in positivist era, 13, 474n122 see also positive philosophers positivist slogans, 13, 42, 106, 301, 343, 343n50, 352, 364, 385n263, 393, 478, 479, 499, 507 Positivist Society, 8, 292–94, 300–302, 306, 317, 319, 331n379, 425n65, 458, 464, 466, 482, 496, 498, 516, 521, 522, 527, 584 creation of, 12 dissension within, 11 meetings of, 573 political agenda of, 306 quarrels with Comte, 575 support for Francelle’s widow, 499 Positivist Subsidy, 14, 25, 423–26, 527, 533, 556, 558 and the Cours, 24, 25 origins in Saint-Simon, 24 positivity, 336, 336n8, 581 Post, 524n65 posters, 334, 444n191, 447, 501 postmodern, 8 Potter, Louis de, 295 Potvin, Charles, 543n153 practical activity, 435 practical needs, 342, 395 practice, 43, 336, 505n307 practicians, 330n378, 367, 367n361, 384, 397, 521, 557–58 prayer, 189, 212, 227 press, 327, 334, 387 silence of, 103, 256, 433, 458, 528 elimination of, 501 see also journalism, newspapers Presse, La, 163, 439, 450–51 Price, Roger, 549, 554 priests seepositivist priests Pritchard Affair, 55, 60 Pritchard, George, 55

the private and the public, 153 professionalization, 26, 268 Comte and, 5 Profumo, Benedetto, 539–40, 561 progress, 3, 22, 25, 27, 42, 50, 80, 84, 100, 106, 107, 112, 253, 260, 71, 273, 278m, 343, 352, 355–56, 364, 582 Comte as prophet of, 6–7 definition of, 436 see also order proletarians and the arts, 400 definition of, 359 see also workers propaganda, 40, 255, 326, 398, 404, 481–82, 501, 563 property, 45, 73, 274n46, 276, 277, 285, 430n93, 431 Protestantism, 93, 103, 298, 324, 339n25, 363, 448, 528, 538, 545, 548 Proudhon Pierre-Joseph, 6, 12, 271, 272, 281, 332, 380, 408, 519, 540, 542 Provence, 324 provinces, 320, 324, 327n360, 428 psychiatry, 315n285 psychology, 77, 83, 100, 114, 261, 501 public opinion, 38, 48, 200, 282, 288, 327, 330, 332, 353, 355, 360, 361, 365, 387, 516 public welfare, 5, 290, 322, 353, 358, 366, 400 public works, 329 Pulcheria, St., 467 Quinet, Edgar, 300 Racine, Jean, 383, 511 Radford Dr., 317 Raeder, Linda, 112 Randon, 489n210 Ranke, Leopold von, 121 Raphael, 463 “Rapport a` la Soci´et´e Positiviste par la commission charg´ee d’examiner la nature et le plan du nouveau gouvernement r´evolutionnaire, 319n317, 326 Raspail, Franc¸ois-Vincent, 428, 540 Rayer, Pierre-Franc¸ois Olive, 309, 318n311 Razur´e (Razuret), Jean-Joseph, 562, 562n273 reactionaries Comte’s criticisms of, 13, 37, 241, 429, 430, 559 realism, 398, 399 reality, 41, 43, 360, 395, 397, 399, 505, 546 reason, 2, 4, 43, 278, 286, 340, 342n43, 343, 352, 355, 359, 376, 378, 394, 395, 405, 480, 550

Index Rebillot, 91n105 Reddy, William, 468 R´eforme, La, 65, 66 R´egnault, 418 relativism, 41, 161, 197, 477, 527 religion, 1, 10, 12, 13, 14, 43, 45, 46, 49, 152, 225, 240, 296, 297, 339n27, 344, 376, 403, 405, 530 attacks on in the nineteenth century, 4, 6, 86 Comte’s avoidance of the use of the term, 44 Comte’s idea of, 1–3, 37, 45, 71, 130, 297, 298, 338–50 definition of, 1, 6, 108, 510 feminization of, 390, 394 function of, 339 in the nineteenth century, 6, 197, 299 origins of, 12, 225 and positivism, 250 positivism as, 480 problems with Comte’s stance on, 110, 249, 411 and science, 14, 240 secular aspects of, 3 weaknesses of, 344, 439 women and, 152 Religion of Humanity, 2, 3, 9–12, 91n101, 298, 407, 438, 468 appeal of, 517, 520 and Positivist Calendar, 460 and Clotilde de Vaux, 10, 11 criticisms of, 111, 487, 527, 529, 532, 536 festivals of, 469 and memory, 457 origins and development of, 11, 43, 46, 91n101, 104, 130, 152, 153, 154, 167, 190, 229, 270–71, 295, 298, 340, 477, 480, 497, 564, 575, 582–86 praise of, 250–51, 517, 520, 565, 577 source of rifts in the positivist movement, 556, 558–59 Renan, Ernest, 469 Rennes, 250, 318 republic, 285, 323, 390 republicanism, 285, 287, 323n335, 539 republican motherhood, 13, 381 republicans, 429 Requin, 318 Reshid Pasha, Mustafa, 12 Restoration, 6, 381 R´eunion, La, 521n45 Revault, 318 Reverchon, Jacques, 521 Reverchon, Madame Florine, 521, 521n43 Revolution of 1830, 299, 313, 335, 351 Revolution of, 1848, 8–13, 42, 90, 272, 278, 283–87, 292, 298, 299, 313, 323, 335, 336, 352, 361, 364–65,

633

374, 404, 414, 424n59, 494, 516, 550n195, 582 in Germany, 545 revolutionaries, 402 Revue des deux mondes, 250, 252, 279, 417, 543 Revue ind´ependante, 270, 279, 305, 545n166 Revue Occidentale, 13, 333, 522n49 Revue positive, 89, 101, 218 Reynaud, Antoine, 23, 56n206 Reynaud, Jean, 307–8, 308n246, 408 Reynaud, L´eonce, 31 Ribbentrop, Adolphe de (von), 302, 302n221, 305n234, 434n119, 543, 544, 545n166, 543, 546 Ribbentrop, Marie de, 544n159 Ribet, Alfred, 303, 383n255, 425, 425n65, 434, 471n106, 498n267 Richelieu, Cardinal Armand-Jean du Plessis, Duke de, 405 Richerand, Anthelme, 514 Riddle, John S., 535n111 right, the, 154, 331, 350, 338, 353, 355, 356, 382, 430, 560 Comte’s association with, 11, 548, 552 rights, 47, 201, 327, 353, 369, 385, 431 Comte’s critique of, 38 right of association, 287 right of education, 287 right to revolt, 360, 366 right to strike, 361, 366 right to unionize, 365 right to work, 320, 361 Ripley, George, 529, 529n88 Risorgimento, 538, 541 Robertson, William, 383, 512, 547n173 Robespierre, Maximilien, 8, 327, 327n358, 454 Robin, Charles, 12, 246, 302n221, 304, 309, 309n255, 315–16, 318, 408, 425, 434, 448, 498, 512, 514, 523n52, 565 and Laurent, 565n290 Robinet, Gabriel, 523 Robinet, Jean-Franc¸ois-Eug`ene, 14, 232n16, 317, 317n301, 455n18, 456, 473n116, 514, 522–24, 575, 576n351 career of, 522n49 as Comte’s doctor, 518n20 Robinet, Marie, 473n116, 523n52 Robinet, Ther`ese Elisabeth, 523 Robson, John, 106 Roland, Madame, 208, 383, 387n273, 467 Roland, Pauline, 323, 374 Romans, 284, 332, 354, 436, 438n147, 525n69631

634

Index

romanticism, 11, 150, 229, 287, 298, 322, 390, 396–98, 512n348, 538, 582 romantic socialism, 10 Rome, 389n287 Rossini, Gioachino, 204n112, 207 Rostolan, Louis de, 65, 66, 68, 415 Rothschild, Baron, 340 Rouget de l’Isle, Claude Joseph, 464 Roulleaux, 235 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 155, 197, 243, 227n243, 285n110, 298, 366, 383, 401n357, 407, 518 Roussel, Pierre, 76 Rouvre, Charles de, 136, 164n146, 208, 214 royalists, 553–54 rue Pav´ee, 140 rue Payenne, 140n28 Ruskin, John, 109 Russia, 238, 324 Russian Archives, 66n254 Sabatier, Alfred, 318 sacraments, 453, 469, 470, 472, 473, 497–99 Sagra, Ramˆon de la, 296 Saint-Charles, M. de, 258n169 Saint-Simon, Henri de, 6, 24, 47–48, 100, 105, 133, 153, 231n6, 276n60, 295, 362, 424, 459, 462n57, 492, 537n121, 541, 582 L’Industrie, 24 Lettre aux Europ´eens, 24 Lettres d’un habitant de Gen`eve a` ses contemporains, 24, 424 Nouveau Christianisme, 6 Saint-Simonianism, 176, 242, 487 Saint-Simonians, 6, 45, 55, 74, 105, 116n247, 136, 160, 176, 196, 217, 270, 295n179, 307, 336, 341, 349, 376, 385, 389, 397, 399, 416, 432, 459, 476, 476n133, 519, 568n304, 576–77 Saint-Simonian women, 177 Saisset, Emile, 250, 250n125, 272, 531n94 salons, 7, 368, 386, 387 Comte’s view of, 7 Salpˆetri`ere, 239n58 Salvandy, Narcisse Achille de, 282, 420 Sand, Georges, 11, 80, 126, 138, 157, 159, 164, 175–78, 182, 198, 202, 217, 219, 220, 262, 269, 279–80, 299–300, 305, 375, 514 Lettres a` Marcie, 175, 176, 198 Sappho, 467 Sauria, Charles Marc, 318 Sauria, Edmond, 520, 521n43 Sauveur, Joseph, 463 Savary, F´elix, 17, 31n80 Scharff, Robert, 110

Scheffer, Ary, 122 Schiebinger, Londa, xii, 371n178 sciences, 2, 5, 46, 289, 376, 420, 434 and art, 14, 397, 400 basis of positivism, 2, 4, 347 benefits of, 322 and common sense, 41n139 Comte’s critique of, 6, 7, 42, 50, 66, 267, 310 need for controls, 347 popularization, 21, 23, 42, 48, 268 in positive republic, 367 and religion, 14, 297, 532, 584 see also education scientific laws, 43, 45, 49 scientific method, 275, 526 scientism, 347 scientists Comte’s attitude toward, 5 Comte’s criticism of, 5, 37, 43, 48, 53, 54, 395, 582 disregard for Comte, 41, 341 in the nineteenth century, 4 role of, 399 Scotland, 324, 526–28 Scott, Walter, 396, 511, 513 Scottish Enlightenment, 528 Second Republic, 14, 285, 286, 289–90, 294, 429, 550 Comte’s view of, 432 Secord, James, 86 secular humanism, 4 Sedgwick, Adam, 87, 88 S´edillot, Charles-Emmanuel, 304, 317 Segond, L´eonie, 499, 523n52 Segond, Louis Auguste, 246, 304, 304n230, 315–17, 425, 434n119, 471n106, 497, 514, 522, 551 S´em´erie, Eug`ene, 318, 522n49 Semmel, Bernard, 107 sentiments, 144, 340, 523 see also emotions, feelings separation of powers, 61, 73, 470n98 separation of spheres, 78, 128, 136, 153, 159, 384, 388, 393 serfdom, 79 Serres, Michel, 4, 6, 469 Serret, Joseph, 418n21, 419, 569 S´evign´e, Madame de, 80, 387n273, 467 Sewell, William, 272 sex, 74, 149, 150, 172, 503, 564 Comte’s desire for, with de Vaux, 163–64 Shakespeare, William, 383, 463, 511 Shelley, Percy Bysshe, 467n88, 468n89 Sheridan, George, xii, 561–62n266 Simiot, 551–552n204 Simon, Eug`ene, 267n5, 303 slavery, 77, 79, 84 see alsoabolition movement

Index Smith, Adam, 277, 285n111, 362n134, 514, 547n173 Smith, Seba, 531n95 Smith, William, 103, 526 sociability, 8, 43, 46, 152, 161, 289, 336, 338, 345, 364, 367, 372, 377, 403, 436, 445, 459, 505, 558 Comte’s effort to create public spaces for, 8 definition of, 7 Enlightenment idea of, 7 innateness of, 345 and women, 389 social contract, 197n76 social dynamics, 13, 73, 77, 106 social harmony, 44 and positivism, 101 social mobility, 551 social question, 9, 12, 269, 276, 293, 320 social statics, 13, 73, 85, 106 Comte’s idea of, 9 socialism, 6, 10–11, 47–48, 71, 270, 272, 337–38, 366, 437–38, 446, 551, 559 socialists, 6, 11–12, 320, 379, 389, 429, 457, 519 alliance with positivists, 437 Comte’s critique of, 549n184 and positivism, 285 in the United States, 538 society, 46, 343, 348, 364, 402, 507, 509, 581, 583–84 Comte’s vision of, 7, 74, 407, 584 as object of religion, 3, 473, 583 as object of study, 3, 435, 582–84 Soci´et´e Communiste R´evolutionnaire, 273 Soci´et´e des Amis du Peuple, 187n21 Soci´et´e de Biologie, 309 sociocracy, 438 sociolatry, 438 sociology, 2, 3, 9, 77, 84, 110, 146, 199, 310, 315, 340, 371, 438, 502, 510, 581, 582 appeal to doctors, 304, 314 criticisms of, 102, 106, 264 and Humanity, 43 and medicine, 312 and phrenology, 502 and the scientific hierarchy, 199 term, 231n7 Somerville, Mary, 128 Sophocles, 383 soul, 312, 509n337, 510 Soult, Nicolas, 30, 51–55, 59–61, 63–68, 418 Southern Literary Messenger, 537 Spain, 288, 322, 324, 393n315, 524 language, 15

635

specialization, 42, 42n142, 43, 50, 78, 131, 340, 362n137, 398n338 Comte’s critique of, 7 spectacles and spectators, 360, 424, 455 Spencer, Herbert, 511 Spenser, Edmund, 464 Spinoza, Baruch, 260 spiritual power, 85, 102, 200, 356, 581, 584 appeal of, 99 characteristics of, 348 duties of, 165, 321–22, 342, 366 tools of, 340, 348 see also positive philosophers, positivist priests spiritualism, 455 Spurzheim, Johann, 76, 502n292 Staal-Delaunay, Madame de, 387n273 Sta¨el, Madame de, 387n273, 464, 467 state, 200, 364–65 role of, 320 see also politics Sterbini, Pietro, 542n151 Sterling, John, 125 Sterne, Laurence, 158n121 Strauss, David Friedrich, 466, 545 Sturm, Charles-Franc¸ois, 17, 28–29, 31, 34, 36, 56, 66, 67n258, 568, 570, 572 subjective method, 43, 345 Comte’s view of, 13 subjective existence, 380, 454, 456, 474, 546 submission, 359, 411, 504, 521, 524 Sue, Eug`ene, 269, 272, 540 Suetonius, 383 Suez Canal, 476 suffrage, 306, 327, 353, 360, 428, 430, 551 suicide, 156, 472 Sulman, H. L., 260n183 Swedenborg, Emanuel, 541 Synth`ese subjective, 14, 105, 401 added to the Positivist Library, 514 and women, 381 synthesis, 99, 279, 338, 346, 401, 505, 506 and Clotilde de Vaux, 527 and women, 381, 506n309 Syst`eme de philosophie positive, 44, 336n6, 581 Syst`eme de politique positive, 9, 13, 48, 104, 145–46, 585 and altruism, 445n200 and the emotions, 224 preparation for, 146 purpose of, 146, 376 and de Vaux, 150, 161, 189, 207, 225, 372 writing of, 91, 150, 171, 447 Tabari´e, Emile, 115, 130 Tableau c´er´ebral, 500–501, 505, 508 drafts of, 500–501n285 see also mind Tacitus, 383, 512

636

Index

Tahiti, 55 Talabot, Joseph L´eon, 60 Tasso, 463–64 Taylor, Harriet, 10, 72, 81–84, 96, 106, 108, 109n204, 111, 124, 171, 189 telescope, 141n30 temples of Humanity, 7, 140n28, 387, 474n120, 478, 478n145 temporal power, 268, 584 see also industrialists Ternaux, Guillaume-Luois, 340 Terror, 294, 327, 351, 383n258, 549 Testament, 169, 227n243, 486 Texas, 521 theater, 149 Th´eaˆ tre Royal Italien, 95, 185 Thenard, Louis, 16, 66n252, 66n255, 567 theocracy, 43 theology, 45, 48–49, 103, 197, 438, 533, 582 Comte’s critique of, 39, 44 and emotions, 343 and morality, 44 and the upper class, 273 theoricians, 247, 367, 367n161, 558 theory, 336, 505n307, 584 Theresa, Saint, 467 Thierry, Augustin, 122 Thiers, Adolphe, 300, 339, 383n258, 576 Third Republic, 399, 422 Tholos´e, Henri-Alexis, 53, 59, 68, 91 Tholouze, Henri de, 251, 251n136, 425 Thomas, Antoine-L´eonard, 386n272 Thomas a` Kempis, 389, 512, 541 Thomas, Martin, 372 Thomas, Paul, 373 Thompson, John Reuben, 537n121 Thompson, Robert Anchor, 527 Thousand and One Nights, 513 Thucydides, 512 Thunot E., 304n230, 326n354, 335 Tideman, Jan, 249, 333n396 Tjoa, Hock Guan, 261 Tocqueville, Alexis de, 122, 200, 358, 364, 462 totalitarianism, 200, 201 Tourasse, 519 Trait´e philosophique d’astronomie populaire, 9, 20–21, 24, 39, 48–50, 86 see alsoDiscours sur l’esprit positif Trait´e e´l´ementaire de g´eom´etrie analytique a` deux et a` trois dimensions, 9, 18–20, 23, 25–29, 31–32, 35, 40, 85, 140 Transcendentalism, 530 transition to positivism, 78, 368 Transon, Abel, 416, 418n21 transparency, 8, 220, 343 Treviranus, Gottfried Reinhold, 309 trial of 1835, 331 Tribune de la Gironde, La, 551n204

Tristan, Flora, 138, 270, 341, 380, 390, 394 triumvirate, 13, 330, 370, 560 Tr¨ubner, Nicholas, 109 Turkey, 276n61, 324 Turnbull, Robert, 529 Turpin, 17n8 Turtaios, 467 Twesten, Karl, 548 Unitarianism, 530–31 United States, 328n367, 528, 534n106, 537, 540n135 disciples in, 12 United States Magazine and Democratic Review, 531 unity, 9, 10, 13, 19, 42, 43, 95, 105, 108, 198, 241, 299, 312, 336, 339, 342, 345, 377, 389, 395, 402, 496, 509, 529, 533, 538 Univers, L’, 250 University, the, 329 University College London, 259 upper classes, 47, 48, 95, 273, 321, 340, 359, 368 Utilitarians, 344 utopias, 436 Vaillant, Jean Baptiste Philibert, 53, 66 Valat, Pierre, 9, 23, 74, 113, 130, 142, 251 end of relationship with Comte, 114 Van Capellen, Charles see Capellen Vasserat, Jean-Franc¸ois, 562 Vaulabelle, Achille Tenaille de, 422, 431 Vaux, Clotilde de, 9–11, 43, 91, 93, 104, 134, 137, 143, 146, 227, 245, 312, 380 ambitions of, 10, 148, 151, 161, 162, 163, 175, 181, 194, 217 appearance of, 141 and baptism of nephew, 168, 170 Comte’s desire for an affair with, 145 correspondence with Comte, 143 criticism of Comte, 202 apartment of, 140 bouquet of roses, 189–90, 498 childhood of, 135 Comte’s cult of, 454, 455, 497 and Comte’s demand for sex, 148 Comte’s love for, 145, 168, 292 death of, 212–13, 216 and education, 380 fame of, 225 financial problems of, 95, 138, 168, 183–84, 215 health problems of, 175, 186, 188, 202, 203, 209–11 as ideal woman, 167, 325, 343 image of, 134

Index image of herself, 193 and image of Humanity, 495n250 influence of, 9–11, 13, 22, 133, 136, 298, 205–208, 213, 221, 224–25, 227, 229, 242, 278, 291, 299, 312, 372, 454, 457, 582, 585 initial reaction to Comte, 141 intelligence of, 142 “Lucie,” 157, 158 and Massin, 443 meeting with Laffitte, 246 Michelet and, 575 as muse, 165, 166, 167, 189, 194, 218 “Les Pens´ees d’une Fleur,” 189n33, 190 personality of, 162, 182, 217–21 portraits of, 142, 578 resistance to Comte, 148, 149, 151, 156, 183, 188, 190, 194, 195, 207, 220 role of, 387, 392 and Testament, 14 view of Comte, 193 Willelmine, 175, 177, 182, 186, 203, 209, 210, 217, 219, 222–23 and women, 159–60, 163, 177–78, 180–82, 219 Vaux, Am´ed´ee de, 135–37 Verdeil, F., 595, 595n93 Verdi, Giuseppe, 204n112 Vernant, Jean-Pierre, 454 Vernon, Richard, 508 Verscheur, Baron de, 248 Viardot, Louis, 218 Vico, Giambattista, 297, 297n193 Vidyasgar, Ishwar Chandra, 379 Vieillard, Narcisse, 14, 432, 441–42, 444–45n195, 447, 451, 553 Vigny, Alfred de, 122, 396, 576 Vincent, Steven, 6, 299 Vinci, Leonardo da, 514 Virgin Mary, 6, 389, 475, 538, 546 Virginia, 531 Virgin-Mother seeutopia of the Virgin-Mother visual culture, 14, 391, 455, 501, 578, 578n366 see also arts, aesthetics vitalism, 313, 313n275, 493 Vitry, Guarin de, 543n154 Voilquin, Suzanne, 323 Voix des femmes, La, 279n75, 324 Volney, Constantin Franc¸ois de Chasseboeuf, Comte de, 464 Voltaire, Franc¸ois Marie Arouet de, 47, 121, 189, 298, 383, 401n357, 512, 518 Walker, George, 526, 526n74, 527 Walker, James, 529, 529n90, 531 Wallace, Horace Binney, 317, 533, 534, 536, 546

637

Wallace, John, 534n106, 535n111 Wantzel, Pierre, 57, 60, 67–68n266, 415–16 Ward, William George, 71, 71n8 wars, 358, 370, 584 Washington, George, 463 Wassenaer Starrenbur, Norbert, Comte de, 333 welfare of the people, 22, 53, 111, 290, 322, 353, 358, 366, 400, 581 see also public welfare Wernick, Andrew, 7, 8, 336n8 West, 407 Westminster Review, 109, 532, 579 Weyer, Marie, 522 Whewell, William, 123, 527 widowhood, 470n98 Williams, David, 261 Williamson, Alexander, 12, 257, 302, 303, 306n239, 524, 556, 561 Wils, Kaat, 249, 249n123 Winckelmann, Johann, 514 wine, 149, 228, 574n340 Winter, Jay, 228 Wollstonecraft, Mary, 81, 127, 242, 371, 380, 385 woman of ideas, 138, 198, 217 “Woman Question,” 11, 72, 73 women, 163, 202, 226, 409, 582, 585 and the arts, 397, 400 characteristics of, 247, 340, 379, 381n244, 384, 392, 470, 580 commemoration of, 461 in Comte’s Calendar, 468 and Comte’s search for supporters, 8, 11, 12, 91, 129, 130, 153, 167, 263, 279, 298, 302, 341, 372, 375, 393, 409, 410, 411, 455, 478 Comte’s view of, 74, 81, 83, 96, 125, 132, 161, 192, 193, 195, 198, 199, 201, 242, 278, 370, 471, 472 cult of domesticity, 151, 371, 377 Cult of Woman, 189, 388, 390, 392, 457, 461, 463, 467–70, 475, 478 and education, 75, 76, 163, 178, 381, 384 and emotions, 340 financial problems of, 169, 393 and government, 78 history of, 13, 80, 200, 201, 374, 375 and menstruation, 149 in the nineteenth century, 11, 117, 138, 148, 151, 163, 165, 198, 217–21, 391, 470 and positivism, 39, 91, 153–54, 323, 349 as representations of Humanity, 389 role of, 13, 78, 278, 323, 324, 370–95, 560, 585 and salons, 386–88

638

Index

women (cont.) women and sociability, 356 subordination of, 77, 79, 81, 84, 109, 197, 394n325 superiority of, 560n256 and the working class, 394 see also separation of spheres women writers, 11, 138, 156, 163, 175, 182, 217–18 women’s movement, 80, 127–29, 154, 160, 164, 174, 177, 178, 180–82, 242, 324, 341 Comte’s critique of, 80 women’s rights, 81 Comte’s attitude toward, 10 work, 48 Comte’s view of, 13 workers, 18, 46, 48, 266, 283, 298, 307, 320, 337–38, 437 and activity, 340 alliance with philosophers, 322, 360 and the arts, 400n356 characteristics of, 368 Comte’s alliance with, 10, 12, 41–42, 47 Comte’s image of, 269, 272, 328, 560n256

Comte’s search for supporters, 8, 21, 45, 47, 268, 272, 273, 275, 298, 300, 359, 368 emancipation of, 341 importance to positivism, 561 in Lyon, 14, 559–65 in the nineteenth century, 7, 269 and Religion of Humanity, 299, 582 role of, 13, 360, 369, 378 support for Comte, 41, 267, 303, 304, 341, 550, 551 working conditions, 307, 319 Wright, Fanny, 258n169, 375, 376 Wright, T. R., 261 writers, 157 see alsolitt´erateurs Wyrouboff, Gr´egoire, 318, 579n375 Young Hegelians, 543, 545 Young, John Henry, 531 Zitzeos, Demetrius, 434n119, 473n116 Zoroaster, 466n77