Benjamin Constant and the Birth of French Liberalism by K. Steven Vincent

Abstract

favorable to him. When they in turn fell, he supported Napoléon Bonaparte, an option that his principles or his self-interest could not sustain to the end. He eventually engineered the return of the Bourbons, and later their departure. Meanwhile, his proverbial role at the Congress of Vienna demanded all his talents to restore the balance of power in which he firmly believed. Pflaum does not spare the details on Talleyrand’s personal life, especially the many women who became his mistresses and possibly the mothers of his children. Although only Charles de Flahaut can be documented with any certainty, three others may qualify. Talleyrand’s infatuation with Catherine Grand, his mistress and later his wife, was eclipsed by several other women, including his niece-in-law, Dorothée Courland, Duchess de Dino, whom he named his principal heir. Despite his questionable morals in many spheres, Talleyrand died reconciled to the Church, which he claimed to have served faithfully. This biography is quite readable and even gripping, assuming the proportions of a novel. Precise in detail and often poetic, it engages the reader throughout . However, the Ciceronian style sentences often separate the antecedent far from the pronoun, so that one needs to reread to follow the thread. In addition misprints (such as mis-en-scène, Mére, “principle” claim to fame) distract the reader. Louis XVI was crowned in 1775, not Louis XV (402). Inaccuracies, especially regarding religious matters, appear throughout. St-Lazare is the cathedral at Autun, not at Reims (13) where kings were crowned. Secular priests do not make vows at ordination, and the festivities of Mardi Gras are pre-Lenten, not postLenten (206). The Latin words of absolution are “Ego te absolvo,” not “absoudre” (430). While the bibliography lists most of the published literature on Talleyrand, the text does not contain any notes, with the exception of those documenting direct quotations. It is therefore impossible to trace any information. The author frequently states that current research has disproved a commonly-held belief, but unfortunately does not indicate the source. She indicates dates, but often omits years. A number of colored plates, all well-documented, complement the work, but there is no reference to them in the text. Despite these shortcomings, this biography does achieve its goal of presenting Talleyrand and his world. At the end the reader appreciates the many sides of a colorful personality that becomes an intriguing presence not easily forgotten. Chestnut Hill College (PA) Mary Helen Kashuba VINCENT, K. STEVEN. Benjamin Constant and the Birth of French Liberalism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. ISBN 978-0-230-11009-0. Pp. 288. $85. The origins of French liberalism, and the variants into which it later evolved, are the topic of ongoing debates. Vincent’s innovative approach is to consider those authors who originated the use of the term libéral in a political context: “the first calls for a ‘liberal’ politics were offered in the 1790s” (2). The earliest specific expressions of political liberalism thus arose during the French Revolutionary period, more precisely in the aftermath of the Terreur (1793–94), when France seemed to be in danger of lurching from the worst excesses of Jacobinism to a vengeful aristocratic reaction. By contrast, political centrists or moderates were seeking to salvage what they saw as the positive legacy of the Revolution: Reviews 205 “Constant first labeled his position ‘liberal’ in 1795. He and Germaine de Staël were the first in France to use this term to define a political stance” (76). Vincent’s study correspondingly emphasizes the contributions of Constant (1767–1830)— partly in association with Staël—to the development of political liberalism in France (as opposed to other putative fathers of the liberal tradition, such as Guizot). Vincent also highlights Constant’s influence on, and affinities with, subsequent exponents of liberalism: “There are marked similarities [...] between Constant’s stance and that of his famous successor Alexis de Tocqueville” (63). Throughout his book, Vincent associates close readings of Constant’s voluminous political works (along with his famous novel, Adolphe) with the contextualization of his public and private life. In this perspective, the biographical details are not secondary. As a partial outsider...