Thesis--Catholic University of America. / Bibliography: p. 86-91.

Texte remanié de: Mémoire de maîtrise--Montpellier, 1997. / En annexes, quelques lettres de Guizot. Bibliogr. p. 251-259. Index.

Theses (Ph. D.)--University of Illinois, 1927. / Vita. "Reprinted from the University of Illinois studies in the social sciences, vol. XV, number 2." Bibliography: p. 226-230.

The problem of this study was to present an intellectual picture of a man who is too often written off as a mere politician and a failure at that. In approaching the problem, his works were used heavily, though availability was a problem. Francois Guizot, the man studied, wrote profusely, on a large variety of subjects, including philosophy, religion, history, political theory, and education. All of these areas were covered in the study. His private papers and correspondence are, for the most part, unpublished, though the eight volumes of his Me´moires were extremely helpful. There are many good biographical studies of Guizot, though few of them approach him from an intellectual viewpoint. One of the few that does, by Sister Mary Consolata O'Connor, is not sufficient. The conclusion of the present study is that Guizot is an excellent representative of liberal French bourgeois thought, especially in the first half of the nineteenth century, who is too often written off as a reactionary or, as Douglas Johnson says, a mere frustrated politician.

Si la loi Guizot du 28 juin 1833 a officiellement créé l'enseignement primaire en France, étonnament, l'historiographie de l'école y a porté peu d'intérêt. Notre thèse ambitionne de combler modestement ce vide en s'intéressant au positionnement de la législation scolaire par rapport à l'Ancien Régime scolaire, sous un angle pédagogique, l'organisation des classes, et structurel, à travers les écoles primaires supérieures.Dans un premier temps, les rares études consacrées à la loi nous conduisent à proposer une nouvelle lecture de la genèse du texte à partir d'une triple approche : politique, historique, et philosophique. La seconde partie est consacrée au lien pédagogique entretenu par la législation avec l'Ancien Régime scolaire. Indéniablement, certaines formes de modernité éducative émergent, même si elles resteront encore à un niveau théorique pendant de longues années durant. La troisième partie est réservée à la double influence européenne à l'oeuvre dans la loi : suisse et prussienne. Nous montrerons que François Guizot s'est appuyé sur le projet de 1798 du ministre suisse Stapfer et que Victor Cousin a importé les Bürgerschulen sur le sol français dans le but de protéger l'enseignement secondaire. À la suite, notre thèse s'attache à l'étude des écoles primaires supérieures fondées par la loi. Plutôt que de répondre à des besoins économiques nouveaux, la place qu'elles occuperont au sein de l'instruction intermédiaire permettra de réserver l'enseignement secondaire à une minorité d'élèves. Pour terminer, notre recherche se poursuit jusqu'à l'enseignement spécial de Victor Duruy, qui aurait prolongé les écoles primaires supérieures de Guizot. En conclusion, nous soulignons l'importance de la loi Guizot dans la construction de l'école moderne, mais aussi la fermeture de l'enseignement secondaire qu'elle a suscitée. / If the Guizot law of 28 june 1833 established officially the primary education in France, surprisingly, the historiography of the school had little interest in it. Our tesis aspires to fill modestly that void and is interested in the positioning of the legislation with the school of Ancien Régime, under an pedagogical angle, the organization ot the classes, and structural, through the écoles primaires supérieures.Firstly, the few studies dedicated to the law lead us to propose a new reading of the genesis of the text from a three approaches: political, historical and philosophical.The second part is devoted to the link pedagogical of the legislation with the old school system. Obviously, a certain educational modernity appear, even if they will stay at a theoretical level during many years still. The third part is dedicated to the double european influence to the law: Swiss and Prussian. We will show that Guizot relied on the school project of 1798 of the Swiss Minister Stapfer and that Victor Cousin imported the Bürgerschulen in the French ground with the aim of protecting the secondary education.Then, our tesis attemps to the study of écoles primaires supérieures funded by the law. Rather than to answer economic new needs, the place that they will occupy in the intermediate education will allow to reserve the secondary education for pupils' minority. Finally, our research goes on until the enseignement secondaire spécial of Victor Duruy, which would have extended les écoles primaires supérieures of Guizot. In conclusion, we stress the importance of the Guizot Law in the construction of the modern school, but also the closure of the secondary education it has generated.

Le « père de l'histoire whig » Thomas Babington Macaulay a été dès son vivant, et après sa mort, traduit dans nombre de pays, en Europe (Allemagne, France, Pays-Bas), comme hors des frontières européennes (Mexique). Incarnant à partir de la fin du XIXe siècle une histoire libérale progressiste et surtout non scientifique, attaquée par les historiens « professionnels », il n'en demeure pas moins très présent dans les manuels scolaires et universitaires jusqu'après la Seconde Guerre mondiale voire jusque dans les discours politiques contemporains. En 1931, puis en 1944, Herbert Butterfield tente de définir son interprétation de l'histoire. Ce dernier veut démontrer comment action politique et vision de l'histoire whigs incarnent un modèle, pragmatique, réformiste, à l'antithèse du modèle révolutionnaire français, qui explique l'exceptionnelle stabilité politique anglaise, britannique voire impériale du Royaume-Uni, depuis la Glorieuse Révolution. Dès lors les successeurs de Butterfield, en premier lieu J. G. A. Pocock et John Burrow, éclairent cette tradition libérale whig, devenue nationale, bientôt synonyme d'interprétation burkéenne de l'histoire. Pourtant, en s'appuyant sur le dialogue entre libéraux britanniques (whigs comme Millar, Mackintosh, utilitaristes comme les Mill, père et fils) et libéraux français (comme Constant, Guizot et Tocqueville), illustrant par ailleurs les riches échanges entre Royaume-Uni et France au XIXe siècle – avant que l’oeuvre de Macaulay ne soit que très épisodiquement traduite et commentée au XXe siècle en France –, et sur une étude minutieuse des écrits de Macaulay portant sur la Révolution française, cette thèse entend démontrer qu'au - delà de la division politique du parti whig lors de la période révolutionnaire, l'histoire whig de Macaulay incarne une pensée politique, une interprétation des révolutions anglaises et françaises et une philosophie libérale de l'histoire nouvelles rompant avec Hume et avec Burke. En mettant au coeur de l'histoire l'émancipation politique et religieuse des individus, Macaulay défend la démocratisation et la laïcisation des sociétés et illustre une histoire libérale post-Révolutionnaire, un nouveau paradigme whig, qui ne peuvent être qualifiés de conservateurs ni de contre-Révolutionnaires. / The "father of Whig History", Thomas Babington Macaulay, was, during his lifetime and after his death,translated in numerous European countries ( Germany, France, The Netherlands ) as well as outside Europe(Mexico). Embodying, from the end of the nineteenth century, a liberal, progressive and especially nonscientifichistory, denounced by "professional " historians, he remained no less highly present in school anduniversity textbooks up to the Second World War, and even in contemporary and current political speeches.In 1931, and then in 1944, Herbert Butterfield attempted to define his interprétation of history and sought todemonstrate how political action and historical vision embody a pragmatic and reformist model, theantithesis of the French revolutionary model, which explains the exceptional English, British, even imperial,political stability of Great Britain since the Glorious Revolution. Since then, Butterfield's successors, andfirst among them, J. G. A. Pocock and John Burrow, have been shedding light on this liberal, becomenational, whig tradition, soon to be synonymous with the Burkean interpretation of history. However, basedon the dialogue between British liberals ( Whigs such as Millar and Mackintosh, Utilitarians such as theMills, father and son ), and French liberals ( such as Constant, Guizot and Tocqueville), while illustrating inother respects the fruitful exchange between Great Britain and France during the nineteenth century - beforeMacaulay's work was only very episodically translated and commented on in the twentieth century in France- and on a thorough exploration of Macaulay's work on the French Revolution, this study intends todemonstate that beyond the political division of the Whig party during the revolutionary period, Macaulay'sWhig history sanctions a new line of political thought, a new interprétation of the English and FrenchRévolutions and liberal philosophy of history, breaking with Hume and Burke. By placing the political andreligious emancipation of individuals at the heart of history, Macaulay defended the democratization and thesecularization of society and illustrated a post-Revolutionary liberal history, a new Whig paradigm, thatcannot be called conservative nor counter- revolutionary.

Esta dissertação se dedica a uma comparação entre as interpretações da Revolução Francesa formuladas por dois autores e personagens políticos da França do século XIX: François Guizot (1787 1874) e Alexis de Tocqueville (1805 1859). Ambas as interpretações têm em comum o esforço intelectual de inscrever a Revolução Francesa na História de longo prazo da França e da Europa, em ruptura com a compreensão que tiveram da Revolução tanto revolucionários como contrarrevolucionários. Essa inscrição da Revolução na História implicava uma aceitação da sociedade pós-revolucionária como um produto irreversível de muitos séculos e não apenas de um ato isolado da vontade. O argumento desta dissertação tem como objetivo demonstrar que, para além dessa aceitação da sociedade pós-revolucionária a qual manteve Guizot e Tocqueville à distância tanto do discurso contrarrevolucionário, com seu projeto de restaurar na França a antiga sociedade pré-revolucionária, como do discurso socialista, com seu projeto de continuar a Revolução Francesa para levar a humanidade a uma sociedade diferente da que saiu diretamente da Revolução , os dois autores estudados legaram para a posteridade duas atitudes divergentes ou mesmo opostas diante da Revolução Francesa: Guizot celebrou o papel da Revolução na História como uma vitória das classes médias sobre o poder absoluto e o privilégio, ao mesmo tempo em que criticou suas bandeiras explícitas, com destaque para a da soberania do povo; Tocqueville, ao contrário, lamentou a obra da Revolução Francesa como uma realização inconsciente da cultura política centralizadora do Antigo Regime, mas, em vez de criticar a doutrina da soberania do povo, procurou reformulá-la em novas bases, inspirado pelo modelo americano. Para o autor de O Antigo Regime e a Revolução, a crítica à Revolução Francesa deve passar, portanto, de suas doutrinas explícitas para seu caráter implícito. Para construir essa hipótese, a dissertação faz o seguinte percurso: no Capítulo 1, são contrapostas a filosofia da História de Guizot, baseada no conceito de civilização, e a filosofia da História de Tocqueville, baseada no conceito de democracia. No Capítulo 2, compara-se o lugar que cada autor atribuía à Revolução Francesa em uma História francesa e europeia lida a partir das relações entre centro político e liberdades locais. O Capítulo 3, por fim, compara a recepção de cada autor aos chamados princípios de 1789, com destaque para o princípio da soberania do povo. / This dissertation is dedicated to a comparison between the interpretations of the French Revolution made by two authors and political figures of nineteenth-century France: François Guizot (1787 1874) and Alexis de Tocqueville (1805 1859). Both interpretations have in common the intellectual effort to inscribe the Revolution in France and Europes long term History, breaking with the understanding that both revolutionaries and counterrevolutionaries had about the Revolution. This inscription of the Revolution in History implied an acceptance of post-revolutionary society as an irreversible product of many centuries and not only of an isolated act of the will. As a result, Guizot and Tocqueville were critics both of the counterrevolutionaries, whose project was to restore in France the old pre-revolutionary society, and the socialists, whose project was to continue the French Revolution in order to lead humanity into a society deeply different from the one that emerged from the Revolution. Against this background, this dissertation aims at demonstrating that, beyond the acceptance of post-revolutionary society, Guizot and Tocqueville bequeathed to posterity two divergent or even opposite attitudes toward the French Revolution: Guizot celebrated the role played by the Revolution in History, as a victory of the middle classes against both absolute power and privilege, but at the same time he opposed its explicit flags, especially the sovereignty of the people; Tocqueville, on the other hand, deplored the Revolutions work as an unconscious realization of the centralizing political culture of the Ancient Regime, but, instead of criticizing the doctrine of popular sovereignty, he sought to reformulate it on new bases, inspired in the American model. According to the author of The Ancient Regime and the Revolution, thus, the criticism of the French Revolution should pass from its explicit doctrines to its implicit character. In order to build that hypothesis, this dissertation takes the following path: In Chapter 1, we will compare Guizots philosophy of History, based on the concept of civilization, with Tocquevilles philosophy of History, based on the concept of democracy. In Chapter 2, we will compare the place each author attributed to the French Revolution in French and European History, interpreted in the light of relations between political center and local freedoms. Chapter 3, lastly, compares each authors reception to what was called the principles of 1789, especially the sovereignty of the people.

Esta dissertação se dedica a uma comparação entre as interpretações da Revolução Francesa formuladas por dois autores e personagens políticos da França do século XIX: François Guizot (1787 1874) e Alexis de Tocqueville (1805 1859). Ambas as interpretações têm em comum o esforço intelectual de inscrever a Revolução Francesa na História de longo prazo da França e da Europa, em ruptura com a compreensão que tiveram da Revolução tanto revolucionários como contrarrevolucionários. Essa inscrição da Revolução na História implicava uma aceitação da sociedade pós-revolucionária como um produto irreversível de muitos séculos e não apenas de um ato isolado da vontade. O argumento desta dissertação tem como objetivo demonstrar que, para além dessa aceitação da sociedade pós-revolucionária a qual manteve Guizot e Tocqueville à distância tanto do discurso contrarrevolucionário, com seu projeto de restaurar na França a antiga sociedade pré-revolucionária, como do discurso socialista, com seu projeto de continuar a Revolução Francesa para levar a humanidade a uma sociedade diferente da que saiu diretamente da Revolução , os dois autores estudados legaram para a posteridade duas atitudes divergentes ou mesmo opostas diante da Revolução Francesa: Guizot celebrou o papel da Revolução na História como uma vitória das classes médias sobre o poder absoluto e o privilégio, ao mesmo tempo em que criticou suas bandeiras explícitas, com destaque para a da soberania do povo; Tocqueville, ao contrário, lamentou a obra da Revolução Francesa como uma realização inconsciente da cultura política centralizadora do Antigo Regime, mas, em vez de criticar a doutrina da soberania do povo, procurou reformulá-la em novas bases, inspirado pelo modelo americano. Para o autor de O Antigo Regime e a Revolução, a crítica à Revolução Francesa deve passar, portanto, de suas doutrinas explícitas para seu caráter implícito. Para construir essa hipótese, a dissertação faz o seguinte percurso: no Capítulo 1, são contrapostas a filosofia da História de Guizot, baseada no conceito de civilização, e a filosofia da História de Tocqueville, baseada no conceito de democracia. No Capítulo 2, compara-se o lugar que cada autor atribuía à Revolução Francesa em uma História francesa e europeia lida a partir das relações entre centro político e liberdades locais. O Capítulo 3, por fim, compara a recepção de cada autor aos chamados princípios de 1789, com destaque para o princípio da soberania do povo. / This dissertation is dedicated to a comparison between the interpretations of the French Revolution made by two authors and political figures of nineteenth-century France: François Guizot (1787 1874) and Alexis de Tocqueville (1805 1859). Both interpretations have in common the intellectual effort to inscribe the Revolution in France and Europes long term History, breaking with the understanding that both revolutionaries and counterrevolutionaries had about the Revolution. This inscription of the Revolution in History implied an acceptance of post-revolutionary society as an irreversible product of many centuries and not only of an isolated act of the will. As a result, Guizot and Tocqueville were critics both of the counterrevolutionaries, whose project was to restore in France the old pre-revolutionary society, and the socialists, whose project was to continue the French Revolution in order to lead humanity into a society deeply different from the one that emerged from the Revolution. Against this background, this dissertation aims at demonstrating that, beyond the acceptance of post-revolutionary society, Guizot and Tocqueville bequeathed to posterity two divergent or even opposite attitudes toward the French Revolution: Guizot celebrated the role played by the Revolution in History, as a victory of the middle classes against both absolute power and privilege, but at the same time he opposed its explicit flags, especially the sovereignty of the people; Tocqueville, on the other hand, deplored the Revolutions work as an unconscious realization of the centralizing political culture of the Ancient Regime, but, instead of criticizing the doctrine of popular sovereignty, he sought to reformulate it on new bases, inspired in the American model. According to the author of The Ancient Regime and the Revolution, thus, the criticism of the French Revolution should pass from its explicit doctrines to its implicit character. In order to build that hypothesis, this dissertation takes the following path: In Chapter 1, we will compare Guizots philosophy of History, based on the concept of civilization, with Tocquevilles philosophy of History, based on the concept of democracy. In Chapter 2, we will compare the place each author attributed to the French Revolution in French and European History, interpreted in the light of relations between political center and local freedoms. Chapter 3, lastly, compares each authors reception to what was called the principles of 1789, especially the sovereignty of the people.

This thesis concludes that (1) Immediately following the July Revolution, the Paris government refused to concede the right of search to British commanders. (2) Due to France's isolation in 1831-1833, she sought British support by negotiating the conventions of 1831 and 1833. (3) In response to Palmerston's insistence and to preserve France's influence Sdbastiani signed the protocol of a five-power accord to suppress the slave trade. Guizot accepted the Quintuple Treaty to facilitate an Anglo-French rapprochement. (4) Opposition encouraged by the Webster-Ashburton Treaty, however, forced Guizot to repudiate this new agreement. (5) As a concession to Guizot,Aberdeen dropped the demand for a mutual right of search and negotiated the Convention of 1845, establishing a system of joint-cruising.

Les explications politiques de la fin de la monarchie de Juillet demandent à être reconsidérées. L’historiographie, s’appuyant sur les témoignages des acteurs qui l’ont combattue a insisté sur le refus du roi d’accorder la réforme électorale et parlementaire, refus appuyé par le cabinet ministériel dirigé par Guizot et par la Chambre des députés. La Charte de 1830 définissait le cadre d’un régime où le roi avait sa place et où le gouvernement devait chercher l’appui et le concours des chambres parlementaires. Dans ces conditions, le pouvoir exécutif devait obtenir l’assentiment des assemblées pour mener sa politique. Le refus de la réforme s’explique alors par l’obtention d’une majorité parlementaire acquise au gouvernement par des moyens peu avouables (élections manipulées, corruption, pressions de toutes sortes sur les députés) et la présence massive de députés fonctionnaires a priori dociles et obéissants. Était-ce vraiment le cas ? La dernière Chambre des députés élue en 1846 voit une victoire ministérielle incontestable plus fondée sur les effets du suffrage censitaire que par des manipulations. Le comportement de cette majorité durant cette courte législature révèle en fait que le cabinet s’occupa plus de composer avec les dissensions qui sont apparues en son sein que d’essayer de la diriger et de la dominer. En réalité, on en vient à se demander si Guizot, loin d’imposer son point de vue aux députés ministériels n’était pas en fin de compte le porte-parole de leurs aspirations conservatrices. / The political explanations for the downfall of the July monarchy require re-examination. Relying on testimonies from the politicians who battled against it, historiography gives preference to the king’s refusal of parliamentary and electoral reform, a refusal that was backed by the ministerial cabinet under the direction of Guizot and the Chamber of deputies. The Charter of 1830 laid the foundations of a regime with a place for the king, and where the government had to solicit the assistance and cooperation of the assemblies. In these conditions, in order to conduct its policies, the executive branch had to first obtain the consent of the assemblies. The refusal of reform is thus attributed to the government’s winning the parliamentary majority by dubious means (corruption, rigged elections, and putting deputies under pressure of all sorts) and the immense presence of bureaucrats who were assumed obedient and docile. Was this really the case? The monarchy’s last Chamber of deputies, elected in 1846, reached an incontestable ministerial victory, due more to the effects of censitary suffrage than rigging. The behavior of this majority over the short course of this term of office actually reveals that the cabinet was more concerned with dissent from within than it was with trying to lead and dominate it. By this one is led to wonder if Guizot, far from imposing his point of view on ministerial deputies, wasn’t actually the spokesperson for their conservative aspirations.