That Elie Halévy's The Growth of Philosophical Radicalism is a classic text of history and theory is a judgment repeated too often to be in doubt. But what makes it a classic? The most obvious sign—that it is widely recommended as a standard work in its field generations after its publication—raises the question of why and how a text becomes a leading work or “master” piece. Literary classics are sometimes said to fuse style, substance, and significance in a mysterious alchemy that continues to stimulate thought beyond the original context. Similarly, discussions of historical works that enlarge the imagination sometimes center on the literary qualities of these texts. Most famously, Hayden White dwells on their allegedly fruitful exploitation of a preexisting “linguistic protocol” such as tragedy or irony. White also notes, however, that a necessary condition for any work of history to resonate powerfully with its audience is that readers are subconsciously prepared to be moved by it.
1 Jones H. S., Victorian Political Thought (New York, 2000), 5, 20, for instance, proclaims La formation du radicalisme philosophique “a classic work” that “remains a sure guide” on Benthamism and Ricardian political economy. Melvin Richter, “Etude critique: Elie Halévy,” Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale (1997), 271–93, 279, does not hesitate to call it “a classic book” even as he surveys the many recent criticisms of it. It is, according to Thomas William, “Recollections of A. J. P. Taylor,” Contemporary European History, 3 (1994), 61–72, 66, “a still unsurpassed classic.” Fontana Biancamaria, Rethinking the Politics of Commercial Society: The Edinburgh Review 1802–1832 (Cambridge, 1985), 2, notes that current historical research on the complex genesis and development of political economy is correcting the conclusions of “classical studies like Elie Halévy's The Growth of Philosophic Radicalism.” The book also still features in the training of graduate students in history. For example, see Mark Poster, “Field Preparation: European Intellectual History since 1800,” University of California, Irvine Libraries, Irvine, CA, at http://dspace2.nacs.uci.edu:8080/bitstream/handle/10575/5761/FIELDPRP.pdf?sequence=1. Only four works on liberalism during the period are included, one of which is La formation.
2 White Hayden, Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe (Baltimore, 1973), 426. Although Halévy's prose is forceful and sometimes felicitous, his book does not seem an obvious fit for this literary interpretation. See Clive John, Not by Fact Alone: Essays on the Writing and Reading of History (New York, 1989), 21–6, however, for an argument that Halévy's success stems from his mastery of a different narrative form: the novel of suspense. Halévy structures his histories, Clive argues, to provoke curiosity; he satisfies the reader only by providing the solution to a puzzle at the end.
3 White Hayden, “The Historical Text as Literary Artifact,” in Richardson Brian, ed., Narrative Dynamics: Essays on Time, Plot, Closure, and Frames (Columbus, OH, 2002), 191–210, 195.
4 Ibid., 197.
5 Ibid., 194.
6 See the articles in this forum by Joel Revill, Ludovic Frobert, and Steven Vincent.
7 Halévy to Brunschvicg Léon, 31 Aug. 1891, in Elie Halévy, Correspondance (1891–1937), ed. Guy-Loë Henriette (Paris, 1996), 65.
8 See Joel Revill, “A Practical Turn: Elie Halévy's Embrace of Politics and History,” in this issue.
9 Elie Halévy to Florence Halévy, 28 Dec. 1906, in Correspondance, 382.
10 Elie Halévy to Florence Halévy, 28 Dec. 1906, in Correspondance, 382.
11 François Furet, “Préface,” in Correspondance, 29.
12 Halévy to Célestin Bouglé, 15 May 1898, in Halévy Elie, La formation du radicalisme philosophique, ed. Canto-Sperber Monique, 3 vols. (Paris, 1995), 3: 423. Note that Pierre Rosanvallon has made exactly the opposite claim about French politics in the nineteenth century, i.e. he has argued that its sharp polarities and conflicts make it a laboratory for studying the tendencies of modern democracy that are obscured in other national contexts. See Rosanvallon Pierre, The Demands of Liberty: Civil Society in France Since the Revolution, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Cambridge, MA, 2007).
13 Schatz Albert, L’individualisme économique et social, ses origines, son évolution, ses formes contemporaines (Paris, 1907). Based on a course on the history of economic doctrine at the University of Dijon, the book not only reconstructs the origins of classical economic liberalism beginning with Smith and Hume—Schatz also wrote a book on Hume's political economy—but also attempts a reconstruction of the links between economic and political liberalism in France with attention given to Constant, Dunoyer, Bastiat, Tocqueville, Humboldt and J. S. Mill (and their influence in France), Laboulaye, Prévost-Paradol, and Vacherot, among others. Although the Revue de métaphysique et de morale review of his book (March 1908) is unsigned, it is almost certainly by Halévy.
14 Revue de métaphysique et de morale (March 1908), 2.
15 Collini Stefan, English Pasts: Essays in History and Culture (Oxford, 1999), 74.
16 The phrase is also Collini's. See ibid., 75.
17 Halévy to Celestin Bouglé, 16 Feb. 1900, in Correspondance, 276. After reading Stephen's three volumes, however, Halévy thought they were complementary rather than competing. See Halévy to Ludovic Halévy, 18 Nov. 1900, in Correspondance, 285. For the very kind letters Leslie Stephen wrote to Halévy on receiving the volumes of his book in 1901 and 1903 see Halévy, La formation du radicalisme philosophique, 3: 433–5.
18 Frobert Ludovic, Elie Halévy : République et économie (Villeneuve d’Ascq, 2003), 22.
19 W. G. Pogson Smith, “Review of Books: The English Utilitarians by Leslie Stephen, La Formation du radicalisme philosophique by Halévy Elie,” English Historical Review, 17 (1902), 385–91.
20 In 1929 Emery Neff decried the quarter-century interval between the publication of La formation and its first English translation “as discouraging evidence of the slowness of the international communication of ideas.” He also bemoaned the relative ignorance of such an important work on the part of “the intelligent public.” As this section of the essay hopes to show, it is unlikely that this latter complaint, at least, would have sounded credible to an Englishman; Neff was an American literary critic working at Columbia University. See Neff's review of The Growth of Philosophic Radicalism, trans. Morris Mary, Journal of Philosophy, 26 (1929), 414–17, 414.
21 It is generally thought today that these late nineteenth-century commentators overestimated the homogeneity of the philosophic radicals, their importance, and their influence on policy, although this consensus was a powerful current of thought and feeling during the period. See, for example, Collini, English Pasts, 71–2.
22 “Our Library Table,” Athenaeum, 4107 (14 July 1906), 40–42, 41.
23 The Historical Association, Leaflet No. 18: “Recent British History” (London, 1910), 5.
24 Halévy, La formation du radicalisme philosophique, 1: 6. This translation is from Mary Morris, The Growth of Philosophic Radicalism (London, 1952), xvii–xviii. Citations of Halévy will reference both these editions. For such nonhistorical analyses see e.g. Birks Thomas Rawson, Modern Utilitarianism (London, 1874); Watts Robert, Utilitarianism (Belfast, 1868); Henry Sidgwick, The Methods of Ethics, 1st edn (London, 1874); Mill J. S., Utilitarianism (London, 1863); Sorley W. R., On the Ethics of Naturalism (London, 1885). This list is very far from exhaustive.
25 “The philosopher and the agitator will alike be considered . . . The intellectual state of man, his beliefs, speculations, and opinions, must, in any case, shape and direct the future of the race; they will always more or less determine great political events.” Kent C. B. R., The English Radicals (London, 1899), 1.
26 The English Radicals appears to have left only the barest of traces on the historiography of English radicalism, despite the fact that Kent wrote for several magazines and reviews and published a history of the early Tory Party and a volume of collected essays on politics. Despite this output, Kent does not even receive an entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. If (as seems most likely) Halévy knew of The English Radicals and yet judged it undeserving of mention in La formation, he would not have been alone in his low estimate of the book. Wallas wrote in The Speaker that Kent, despite demonstrating a wide range of reading, had “failed to make a good book.” Wallas Graham, “Review of The English Radicals: An Historical Sketch,” The Speaker, 1 (21 Oct. 1899), 68–9.
27 For a description of the prominence of John Stuart Mill's legacy in this burst of turn-of-the-century historical interest, see chap. 8 of Collini Stefan, Public Moralists: Political Thought and Intellectual Life in Britain, 1850–1930 (Oxford, 1993).
28 Ball Sidney, “Review of Books: La Formation du radicalisme philosophique. III,” English Historical Review, 21 (1906), 601–4, 601.
29 Though Stephen's own political commitments do occasionally come through in The English Utilitarians, it would be inappropriate to describe this work, as Dicey's Law and Opinion has been described, as a “disguised political pamphlet”; Orth John V., “On the Relation between the Rule of Law and Public Opinion. Review of The Rule of Law: Albert Venn Dicey, Victorian Jurist by Richard A. Cosgrove,” Michigan Law Review, 80 (1982), 753–64, 755.
30 Stephen, The English Utilitarians, 3 vols. (London, 1900), 3: 29, 41, 59, 72. This particular claim met resistance from Stephen's contemporaries; see e.g. “Literature: The English Utilitarians,” Athenaeum, 3816 (15 Dec. 1900), 785–6; Pogson Smith, “Review of Books: The English Utilitarians,” 389.
31 Halévy, La formation du radicalisme philosophique, 1: 6; 3: 251; Morris translation, xvii, 514.
32 Halévy, “The English Utilitarians by Leslie Stephen,” Revue de métaphysique et de morale, 9 (1901), supplément de janvier, 9.
33 “My object has been . . . to trace genealogically the descent of the present-day Radicals, and to show the changes which the party has undergone in the course of evolution . . . I venture to believe that to grasp thoroughly the history of the extreme party of movement and progression during the last hundred and thirty years . . . is the best way to obtain a clear understanding of the origins of contemporary politics.” Kent, English Radicals, v–vi. For MacCunn on Bentham and Mill, see Six Radical Thinkers (London, 1907), 3–90.
34 Halévy, La formation du radicalisme philosophique, 3: 238; Morris translation, 504.
35 Ibid., 3: 251; Morris translation, 514.
36 Chase Myrna, Elie Halévy: An Intellectual Biography (New York, 1980), 84, 81.
37 Sorley, “Review of La Formation du radicalisme philosophique,” Mind, 13 (1904), 268–73, 271; Sorley, A History of English Philosophy (New York, 1921), 221.
38 Ball, “Review of Books: La Formation du radicalisme philosophique,” 603.
39 Pogson Smith, “Review of Books: The English Utilitarians,” 385; Latta R., “Book Reviews: The English Utilitarians by Leslie Stephen,” International Journal of Ethics, 12 (1902), 376–89, 376. This characterization of the difference between Halévy and Stephen—the former philosophical, the latter biographical or personal—has certainly stuck: “it has been justly said that Leslie Stephen . . . spoke of utilitarians, while Halévy treated of utilitarianism.” Barker Ernest, “Elie Halévy,” English Historical Review, 53 (1938), 79–87, 86.
40 “M. Leslie Stephen, qui est un grand biographe, possède l’art de donner l’impression de la vie collective par l’accumulation des récits biographiques.” Halévy, “The English Utilitarians by Leslie Stephen,” 8.
41 Sorley W. R., “Critical Notices: The English Utilitarians by Leslie Stephen,” Mind, 10 (1901), 533–8, 536.
42 Pogson Smith, “Review of Books: The English Utilitarians,” 389. See e.g. Stephen, The English Utilitarians, 1: 301; 2: 90, 266, 378; 3: 332, 374.
43 On the historical-mindedness of the Victorian social and political thought see, among others, Jones, Victorian Political Thought. On the evolutionary viewpoint of the period, the classic study is Burrow J. W., Evolution and Society (Cambridge, 1966).
44 Halévy, La formation du radicalisme philosophique, 3: 214–15; Morris translation, 486.
45 “Foreign Philosophical Works,” Athenaeum, 3922 (27 Dec. 1902), 852.
46 Ball, “Review of Books: La Formation du radicalisme philosophique,” 601; the Historical Association, Leaflet No. 18: “Recent British History,” 5.
47 See e.g. “The Philosopher as Statesman,” Saturday Review, 146 (24 Nov. 1928), 690; Janes George Milton, “The Growth of Philosophic Radicalism by Elie Halévy, Mary Morris,” American Economic Review, 19 (1929), 428–30; Wright H. W., “The Growth of Philosophic Radicalism by Elie Halévy, Mary Morris,” Philosophical Review, 39 (1930), 92–5.
48 In an important review of the PUF edition of the La formation and the Halévy correspondence in 1997, Melvin Richter, “Etude critique: Elie Halévy”, 282–8, noted that there was no unanimity on Halévy's work among either contemporary historians of philosophical radicalism or among Bentham scholars: severe modern criticisms, especially of Halévy's account of Bentham's political development, coexisted with continued appreciation. Almost twenty years later, this judgment still stands. For a good recent discussion see de Champs Emmanuelle, “Elie Halévy: Bentham et l’Angleterre”, in de Champs Emmanuelle and Cléro Jean-Pierre, eds., Bentham et la France (Oxford, 2009), 227–42.
49 Dupuy Jean-Pierre, “Postface,” in Halévy, La formation du radicalisme philosophique, 1: 329–59, 332.
50 The editors decided that Halévy's work needed both contextualization for the French reader and updating, since contemporary utilitarianism is quite different from the historical doctrine dissected by Halévy. Hence, rather than having the work edited by a Bentham scholar, they decided to append an explanatory “postface” by a contemporary philosopher or economist to each volume.
51 This discussion of the fate of utilitarianism in nineteenth-century France draws on Welch's longer essay, “‘Anti-Benthamism’: Utilitarianism and the French Liberal Tradition,” in Geenens Raf and Rosenblatt Helena, eds., French Liberalism from Montesquieu to the Present Day (Cambridge, 2012), 134–51.
52 Jaume Lucien, L’individu effacé ou le paradoxe du liberalisme français (Paris, 1997), 40.
53 Dumont Etienne, Traités de législation civile et pénale, précédés de Principes généraux de législation, et d’une Vue d’un corps complet de Droit: terminés par un Essai sur l’influence des Temps et des Lieux relativement aux Lois. Par. M. Jérémie Bentham, jurisconsulte anglois, publiés en français par Et. Dumont, de Genève, d’après les Manuscrits confiés par l’Auteur, 3 vols. (Paris, 1802). On the influence of this work see Blamires Cyprian, The French Revolution and the Creation of Benthamism (New York, 2008), 254: Dumont “established Benthamism as a creed in the public mind and created its shape and form for posterity.” See also Lieberman David, “From Bentham to Benthamism,” Historical Journal, 28 (1985), 210. One of the aims of the Centre Bentham, engaged in a new translation of Bentham's works, is to distinguish the “esoteric” Bentham of the original manuscripts from Dumont's Bentham, a portrayal that contains many distortions, sometimes deliberate, sometimes inadvertent. See the essays in de Champs and Cléro, Bentham et la France, Part II, “Bentham et Dumont; les premières traductions françaises.”
54 For a discussion of the Idéologues as an indigenous form of French utilitarianism see Welch Cheryl B., Liberty and Utility: The French Idéologues and the Transformation of Liberalism (New York, 1984).
55 Germaine de Staël's critique appeared in De l’Allemagne (1810–13), one of the most important and widely read books in the postrevolutionary period. See De l’Allemagne, 5 vols. (Paris, 1959), 4: 283–317. Constant's discussions of Bentham appear in several texts written from 1806 through the 1820s. For a guide to these various texts see Gauchet's discussion in Benjamin Constant, Écrits politiques, ed Marcel Gauchet (Paris, 1997), 509.
56 Goblot Jean-Jacques, La jeune France libérale: Le globe et son groupe littéraire 1824–1830 (Paris, 1995), 312.
57 Quoted in Gall Philippe Le, “Economics,” in Columbia History of Twentieth-Century French Thought (New York, 2006), 188.
58 Dupuy Jean-Pierre, “Postface,” in Halévy, La formation du radicalisme philosophique, 1: 199–224.
59 While Halévy certainly can be read in the tradition of “British exceptionalism,” he resisted associating political and moral theories with notions of national character or race. See, for example, Halévy to Celestin Bouglé, 12 November 1896, in Halévy, Correspondance, 185.
60 Lalande André, Vocabulaire technique et critique de la philosophie: Revu par MM. les membres et correspondants de la Société française de philosophie et publié, avec leurs corrections et observations, 8th edn (Paris, 1960), 1176. There follows a scholarly “remark” on the early uses of utilitaire from Halévy's La formation, almost certainly composed by Halévy. In this dictionary the entry for philosophical radicalism is a distillation from the conclusion to La formation, probably also written by Halévy.
61 Bouretz Pierre, “Postface: Elie Halévy face aux ambivalences de la démocratie moderne: radicalisme et libéralisme,” in Halévy, La formation du radicalisme philosophique, 2: 289–317.
62 Revue de métaphysique et de morale 12 (1904), 8–10. Albert Schatz offers a similar caveat in the “Avant-propos” to L’individualisme: “I only pray that the reader will have no fear of the title. It is so often said that individualism means egoism, the isolation of the individual obliged to suffer by himself and to distance himself from his fellows, that the reader is entitled to be prejudiced against the word.”
63 Revue philosophique de la France et de l’étranger 53 (1902), 651–9; 58 (1904), 212–15.
64 Cahen Léon, “E. Halévy. La Formation du radicalisme philosophique: Tome III,” Revue d’histoire moderne et contemporaine, 7 (1905–6), 236–41. Cahen (1874–1944), almost an exact contemporary of Halévy, taught at the Lycées Condorcet et Fénelon. He published a book on Condorcet and the French Revolution in 1904 and a number of general works on the nineteenth century thereafter. His short L’Angleterre au XIXe siècle: Son évolution politique (Paris, 1924) includes in its bibliography the three volumes of Halévy's Histoire du peuple anglais that had appeared by then, but ignores La formation du radicalisme philosophique.
65 Philippe Mongin, “Postface: L’utilitarisme originel et le développement de la théorie économique,” in Halévy, La formation du radicalisme philosophique, 3: 369–94, 370–71, suggests that this reaction may be expected in the late twentieth century as well: “In the end, the characteristic that gives [the work] its particular historical tone, and that will doubtless disconcert the contemporary French reader, should he not be well acquainted with the sweeping changes that took place in Great Britain in the nineteenth century, is the sustained, even insistent, attention that it pays to seemingly haphazard social and political aspects of the utilitarian thesis.”
66 See for example, Frobert's argument that there is an impulse, observable in Halévy, Simiand, and Rist, to use a discussion of political economy to support a liberal republicanism alert to the need for social rights. He analogizes this view to the model of liberalism as non-domination proposed by Quentin Skinner and Philip Pettit. Ludovic Frobert, “Société industrielle plutôt que capitalisme: La réception française des débats allemands autour de 1900: Halévy Elie, François Simiand, Charles Rist,” Raison Publique 10 (2009), 237–58.
67 Halévy, La formation du radicalisme philosophique, 1: 96; Morris translation, 76.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
Full text views reflects the number of PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 20th October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.