Thus Montaigne gives us a lesson, a useless lesson, but I state it all the same, because among the many unprofitable ones that have been written down, it is perhaps of greater worth than most.  I do not mean to underrate the gravity of the circumstances in which France is just now involved, for I believe there is pressing need to bring together all the energy, prudence, and courage she possesses in order that the country may come out with honour [Footnote:  This essay appeared April 28, 1851].  However, let us reflect, and remember that, leaving aside the Empire, which as regards internal affairs was a period of calm, and before 1812 of prosperity, we who utter such loud complaints, lived in peace from 1815 to 1830, fifteen long years; that the three days of July only inaugurated another order of things that for eighteen years guaranteed peace and in dustrial prosperity; in all, thirty-two years of repose.  Stormy days came; tempests burst, and will doubtless burst again.  Let us learn how to live through them, but do not let us cry out every day, as we are disposed to do, that never under the sun were such storms known as we are enduring.  To get away from the present state of feeling, to restore lucidity and proportion to our judgments, let us read every evening a page of Montaigne.

A criticism of Montaigne on the men of his day struck me, and it bears equally well on those of ours.  Our philosopher says somewhere that he knows a fair number of men possessing various good qualities—­one, intelligence; another, heart; another, address, conscience or knowledge, or skill in languages, each has his share:  “but of a great man as a whole, having so many good qualities together, or one with such a degree of excellence that we ought to admire him, or compare him with those we honour in the past, my fortune has never shown me one.”  He afterwards made an exception in favour of his friend Etienne de la Boetie, but he belonged to the company of great men dead before attaining maturity, and showing promise without having time to fulfil it.  Montaigne’s criticism called up a smile.  He did not see a true and wholly great man in his time, the age of L’Hopital, Coligny, and the Guises.  Well! how does ours seem to you?  We have as many great men as in Montaigne’s time, one distinguished for his intellect, another for his heart, a third for skill, some (a rare thing) for conscience, many for knowledge and language.  But we too lack the perfect man, and he is greatly to be desired.  One of the most intelligent observers of our day recognised and proclaimed it some years ago:  “Our age,” said M. de Remusat, “is wanting in great men.” [Footnote:  Essais de Philosophie, vol. i, p. 22]

How did Montaigne conduct himself in his duties as first magistrate of a great city?  If we take him literally and on a hasty first glance we should believe he discharged them slackly and languidly.  Did not Horace, doing the honours to himself, say that in war he one day let his shield fall (relicta non bene parmula)?  We must not be in too great a hurry to take too literally the men of taste who have a horror of over-estimating themselves.  Minds of a fine quality are more given to vigilance and to action than they are apt to confess.  The man who boasts and makes a great noise, will, I am almost sure, be less brave in the combat than Horace, and less vigilant at the council board than Montaigne.