paris of the early sixties was a very different city from the paris of to-day. it was still in great part the paris of the old time, on both banks of the seine. its haussmannisation had barely begun. the palais royal retained much of its ancient celebrity for the cuisine of its restaurants and the brilliancy of its shops. but to get to it direct from what is now the place de l’opéra was a voyage of discovery. you went upstairs and downstairs, through narrow, dirty streets, until, after missing your way several times, you at last found yourself in the garden dear to the orators of the french revolution, and since devoted to nursemaids and their babes. much of central paris was in the same unregenerate state. even portions of famous streets not far from the grands boulevards, which were then still french, could scarcely be described as models of cleanliness. the smells that arose from below and the water of doubtful origin that might descend upon the unwary passerby from above suggested a general lack of sanitary control which was fully confirmed in more remote districts.
napoleon iii was a man of mediocre ability. his entourage was extravagantly disreputable. but he and his did clear out and clean up paris. the new quarters since built owe their existence in the first instance to the initiative of the emperor’s chief edile, baron haussmann, and his compeers. the great broad streets which now traverse the slums of old time were due to the same energetic impulse. whether such spacious avenues and boulevards were constructed in order to facilitate the operations of artillery and enable the new mitrailleurs more conveniently to massacre the “mob,” whether the[23] architecture is artistic or monotonous, clemenceau the doctor must for once be at variance with clemenceau the man of politics, and admit that the monarch who, as will be seen, imprisoned him in 1862, did some good work for paris during his reign of repression. at any rate napoleonic rule at this period represented general prosperity. business was good and the profiteers were doing well. the bourgeoisie felt secure and international financiers enjoyed a good time. nearly all the great banking and financial institutions of paris had their origin in the decade 1860-1870. law and order, in short, was based upon comfort and accumulation for the well-to-do.
but the peasantry and the workers of the cities were also considered in some degree, and the reconstruction of the capital provided, directly and indirectly, both then and later, for what were looked upon as “the dangerous classes”—men and women, that is to say, who thought that the wage-slave epoch meant little better for them and their children than penal servitude for life. constant work and decent pay softened the class antagonism, conciliating the proletariat without upsetting the middle class or bourgeoisie. such a policy, following upon two fairly successful wars, was not devoid of dexterity. a curbed or satisfied paris meant internal peace for all france. neither the miserable fiasco in mexico nor the idiotic abandonment of austria to prussia had yet shaken the external stability of the empire. napoleon iii and his vice-emperor rouher were still great statesmen. there was little or nothing to show on the surface that the whole edifice was even then tottering to its fall. the keen satire of rochefort, of the duc d’aumale, and the full-blooded denunciations of victor hugo failed to produce much effect. some genuine and capable opponents were beguiled into serving the government under the impression that the empire might be permanent, and in this way alone could they also serve their country. nor can we wonder at such backsliding.
such was the paris, such the france that saw the young medical student, georges clemenceau, enter upon his prepara[24]tion for active life as doctor and physiologist. he devoted himself earnestly to his studies in the libraries, to his work in the hospitals, and to careful observation of the social maladies he saw around him, which made a deep and permanent impression on his mind. but, determined as he was to master the principles and practice of his profession, the bright, active and vivacious republican from la vendée brought with him to paris too clear a conception of his rights and duties as a democrat to be able to avoid the coteries of revolt who maintained the traditions of radicalism in spite of systematic espionage and police persecution. clemenceau shared his father’s opinions in favour of free speech and a free press.
that was dangerous in those days. la ville lumière was obliged to hide its light under a bushel. friends of democracy and anti-imperialistic speakers and writers were compelled, in order to reach their public, to adopt a style of suppressed irony not at all to the taste of the vivacious republican recruit from mouilleron-en-pareds. then, as ever thereafter, he spoke the truth that was in him, regardless of consequences. in this course he had the approbation and support of his father’s friend, etienne arago, brother of the famous astronomer. arago the politician was also a playwright, an ardent republican who had taken his full share in all the agitations of the previous period, an active and useful member of the republican government of 1848 as postmaster-general, and a vigorous opponent of the policy of louis napoleon. he was sent into exile prior to the coup d’état. both then and nearly a generation later this stalwart anti-imperialist was exceedingly popular with the parisians, and, having returned to paris, was able to aid clemenceau in forming a correct judgment of the situation, at a time when a less clear-sighted observer might have striven to cool his young friend’s enthusiasm.
as it was, clemenceau contributed to some of the radical fly-sheets and then fêted the 24th of february. no date dear to the memory of republicans could be publicly toasted without conveying a reflection upon the empire, and as all[25] important events in french history, from july 14th onwards, are duly calendared according to the month and day of the month, clemenceau’s crime in celebrating february 24th by speech and writing was obvious. he therefore fell foul of the imperial police. the magistrate could admit no point in his favour, and there was in fact no defence. consequently georges clemenceau, interne de l’h?pital, had the opportunity given him of reflecting for two months upon the advantages and drawbacks of his political creed, during a period of buonapartist supremacy, in the prison of mazas. this was in 1862.
three years later he took his doctor’s degree. his formal essay on this occasion gained him considerable reputation. it was entitled de la génération des éléments anatomiques, and proved not only that he had worked hard on the lines of his profession but that he was capable of taking an original view of the subjects he had mastered. this work has been throughout the basis of clemenceau’s medical, social, political and literary career. i got the book not long ago from the london library, and on the title-page of this first edition i read in the author’s own bold handwriting, “a monsieur j. stuart mill hommage respectueux de l’auteur g. clemenceau“: a tribute to that eclectic philosopher and thinker which he followed up shortly afterwards by translating mill’s study of auguste comte and positivism into french. clemenceau was no great admirer of comte, and specially disapproved of the attempt of some of that author’s pupils and followers to limit investigation and cultivate agnosticism on matters which they considered fell without the bounds of their master’s theories and categories.
“we are not of those,” writes clemenceau, “who admit with the positivist that science can give us no information on the enigma of things.” this seems scarcely just to the modern positivists, for although comte himself wished to restrict mankind from the study of astronomy, for example, outside of the solar system, they have been as ready as the rest of the world to take advantage of discoveries beyond that system[26] which throw light upon some of the difficult material problems nearer at hand. and clemenceau, too, appears to fall into the line of reasoning with which he reproaches comte; for, as will be seen later, he views nature as a mass of matter evolving and differentiating and organising and vivifying itself with the interminable antagonisms and mutual devourings of the various forms of existence on this planet, and possibly on other worlds of the infinitely little, and then, when the great suns die out, disappearing and beginning all over again as two of these huge extinguished luminaries collide in space. this material philosophy, when carried to its ultimate issue, still answers no question and furnishes no clue to the strange inexplicable movement of the universe in which man is but a sentient and partially intelligent automaton. what explanation does this give of any of the problems of social or individual ethic, or of the impulse which led clemenceau the doctor to treat his patients in montmartre gratuitously, instead of building up a valuable practice in a rich quarter? and urged clemenceau the politician to pass the greater part of his life in an uphill fight against the domination of the sordid minority and the timid acquiescence of the apathetic masses rather than accept the high positions which were pressed upon him time after time?
such reflections would be out of place at this point, but for the fact that clemenceau has invariably contended that his career has been all of a piece, maintaining that the vigorous young physiologist and doctor of twenty-four and twenty-five held the same opinions and was moved by the same aspirations that have guided the mature man throughout. whether heredity and surroundings fully account in every particular for all that he has said, done and achieved is a question which clemenceau also might decline to answer with the definiteness he considers desirable in general philosophy. but that his doctor’s thesis of 1865 did in the main give the scientific basis of his material creed can scarcely be disputed.
the following year, 1866, was the year of the prusso-italian[27] war against austria. the success of prussia, which would quite probably have been a failure but for the incredible fatuity of the imperial clique at vienna, was one of the chief causes, unnoted at the time, of the downfall of napoleon iii. few now care to recall the manner in which the austrian commander-in-chief, marshal benedek, was compelled to abandon his entire strategy in deference to the pusillanimous orders of the emperor, or how benedek, with a loyalty to the house of hapsburg which it has never at any period deserved, took upon himself the blame of defeats for which francis joseph, not himself, was responsible. but louis napoleon was equally blind to his own interests and those of france when he stood aside and allowed the most ambitious and most unscrupulous power in the world to become the virtual master of central europe. it was a strange choice of evils that lay before the radical and republican parties in all countries during this war. none could wish to see upheld, still less strengthened, the wretched rule of reactionary, tyrannous and priest-ridden austria; yet none could look favourably on the growth of prussian power.
the further conquest by italy of her own territory and the annexation of venice to the italian crown were therefore universally acclaimed. but those who knew prussia and its military system, and watched the nefarious policy which had crushed denmark as a stage on the road to the crushing of austria, even thus early began to doubt whether the substitution of prussia for austria in the leadership of the old germanic bund might not speedily lead to a still more dangerous situation. either this did not suggest itself to napoleon iii and his advisers, or they thought that austria might win, or, at worst, that a bitterly contested campaign would enable france to interpose at the critical moment as a decisive arbiter in the struggle. probably the last was the real calculation. it was falsified by the rapid and smashing prussian victories of k?niggratz and sadowa, and napoleon could do nothing but accept the decisions of the battlefield.[28] but from this moment the second empire was in serious danger, and any far-seeing statesman would have set to work immediately to bring the french army up to the highest possible point of efficiency and prepare the way for alliances that might help the empire, should help be needed in the near future. neither louis napoleon nor his councillors and generals, however, understood what the overthrow of austria meant for france. they turned a deaf ear then and afterwards to the warnings of their ablest agents abroad, and thus drifted into the crisis which four years later found them without an ally and overwhelmed them.
