48 Chapter III
treme to another. With difficulty could one today change the means of arriving in
positions of government, without undermining the loyalty of those who now oc-
cupy these positions; and it is to be feared that they would arouse the people to
revolt.”^10 The latter, it may be observed, is precisely what happened in France in the
noble revolt of 1788 and in the counterrevolution after 1789.
Men are of course equal by nature, Real admits; but in civil society there must
be subordination. Some must give orders, others follow them. Real cites various
minor arguments, such as that variety makes the beauty of the world, that social
order is willed by God, and that all is “marvelously” disposed in a great harmony;
but he is willing to meet his adversaries on their own ground. “Degrees of depen-
dence have been established only for common utility.” (This is almost the language
of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen of 1789.) “Why not confer
this authority which must be respected upon merit rather than on external quali-
ties?” No one would choose a ship captain for his birth; why, then, choose our
governors in this way? Unfortunately, says Real, the critics of hereditary position
would be right only if men were always reasonable and just. Given men as they are,
there would be no agreement on merit; each would think himself or his own leader
more meritorious than others; conflict and even civil war would follow. It is better
to hold to some unmistakable even if arbitrary sign, such as birth. Moreover, if a
man really rose by merit, his equals and competitors would take offense, for his
success would be a constant and bitter reminder of their own failures. “But in mak-
ing position (la grandeur) depend upon birth, we soothe the pride of inferiors and
make high position much less difficult to accept. There is no shame in yielding
when I may say: ‘I owe this to my birth.’ This argument convinces the mind, with-
out injuring it by jealousy... .”^11 which is to say that a society which accepts heredi-
tary position is free from the tension, frustration, disappointment, and bitterness of
a society based on rivalry for “success.”
One looks up from Real’s book with a feeling that if the French had a revolution
it was not because they were not forewarned, and that if modern society has devel-
oped psychological difficulties, it is not because these were not foreseen. But no
attention was paid to Real at the time, nor was there much encouragement for
anyone to hold conservative opinions, outside of religion. This is because, in France,
the aristocratic school was not conservative. In France the aristocracy hoped for
change. It became disaffected toward the monarchy long before the middle class.
Not so in England. Here those who took part in the chief constituted bodies,
the Parliament and the established church, had won out in the preceding century
both against the King and against uprisings from below. Their problem was to
preserve the constitution as it was. It is worth a moment to glance at two represen-
tative thinkers who wrote just before the revolutionary disturbances began.
William Blackstone went to Oxford in 1758 to occupy the newly created
Vinerian professorship of law. The lectures he gave there developed into his Com-
mentaries on the Laws of England. In his opening lecture he explained why English
law could better be studied at Oxford than at the Inns of Court. It was because law
10 Réal de Curban, La Science du gouvernement (Aix- la- Chapelle, 1751–1764), VI, 73–77.
11 Ibid., III, 227–30.