condorcet: a biography. 215 



Bibliotheque de VTiomme puhlw, and in the exposition of his ideas on the 

 law which he presented later to the legislative assembly. 



Condorcet entirely abandoned the beaten tracks. Ho has submitted 

 to very careful examination even those institutions and methods 

 which by their universality seemed beyond question. He threw 

 new light upon the subject by considering it from points of view well 

 worthy the attention of the legislator, as an enlightened friend of 

 his country, on account of their novelty and importance. Whatever 

 may be the opinion of the matter, the impartial reader cannot fail to 

 render homage to the clearness of view, the largeness of conception 

 manifested by Condorcet in the various parts of his work. 



Here, according to date, should be mentioned a motion of Condorcet I 

 cannot fail to notice. The compass of this motion I am sure has been seri- 

 ously exaggerated. This assertion has not been made without mature 

 reflection, for it places me in direct opposition to one of the most illustri- 

 ous men of our time. It requires considerable confidence in the power 

 of truth to dare oppose alone an error, without doubt involuntary, but 

 supported by the prestige of the highest eloquence. 



Parliamentary history offers nothing more touching, more curious, 

 than the analysis of the session of the constituent assembly of the 19th 

 of June, 1790. The day when Alexandre Lameth solicited the removal 

 of four chained figures, then to bo seen in tho Place des Victoires at 

 the feet of the statue of Louis XIY, an obscure deputy of Eouergue, 

 M. Lambel, cried from his seat: "To-day is the tomb of vanity. I 

 demand that henceforth it shall be forbidden any one to take the titles 

 of duke, marquis, count, baron," &c. Charles Lameth supported the 

 proposition of his colleague; he desired that in the future no one should 

 be called noble. Lafayette considered tho two deinauds so evidently 

 necessary, that he thought it superfluous to support them by many 

 remarks. Alex, de Noailles agreed with the latter, but considered the 

 suppression of liveried servants equally urgent. M. de Saint-Fargeau 

 proposed that no one should bear any other name than that of his 

 family, and set the example by immediately signing his own motion, — 

 "Michel Louis le Pelletier." Lastly, Matbeu de Montmorency insisted 

 that armorial bearings, heraldry, which were among the most apparent 

 remains of the feudal system, must not bo spared, and demanded 

 their immediate abolition. These propositions were presented, dis- 

 cussed, adopted, almost in as short a time as I have taken to give an 

 account of them. In all this our confrere did not take an active 

 part, for the very simple reason that he was not a member of the 

 constituent assembly. If it was a fault to rui)ture so suddenly all con- 

 nection between the past and the present, Condorcet, at least, cannot 

 be blamed for it. We have, in fact, since learned, through the memoirs 

 of Lafayette, that upon the question of the abolition of heraldry, our 

 learned philosopher did not agree with Montmorency. It seemed to 

 him, on the contrary, more in accordance with the true principles of 



