Diary of Charles Francis Adams, volume 4
1832-12-25
Christmas and a beautiful day. I went to the Office. Occupied in writing, and read a portion of Lingard. In the account of the troubles, 428he writes with ease and fluency. And on the whole he does not attack the liberty of the subject. Yet where so much of public affairs was influenced by religious feeling, such an author is rather a dangerous guide. Took a walk with Mr. Peabody, and finding that I had some surplus time I went to the Athenaeum but found nothing.
Afternoon, made considerable progress in the book of M. Villemain. The summary of Cromwell’s character is most incorrectly drawn. He has just enough of the true qualities to puzzle himself and to be astonished by his far strained explanations. I do not know a historical character who has been less correctly drawn. It would be very well worth while to make an estimate of it. I will think of it perhaps if I ever feel encouraged to write again. But my hopes are low. I find my article written for the North American Review so long ago is put off for another three months and perhaps more.1 No success. Well, I will give up and take my ease.
Evening quiet. My Wife still in torture with her teeth. Read German.
CFA’s renewed defense of the Puritans in the form of an essay-review of Robert Vaughan’s Memorials of the Stuart Dynasty had been sent to the
North American Review
on 7 July. On 4 Jan. 1833 he asked for its return; on the 8th he began rewriting it, on the 15th completed it, and on the 26th dispatched it again. After further threatened postponements it was published in the issue for July 1833 (
North Amer. Rev.
, 37:164–189).
1832-12-26
Cloudy and dull day. I went to the Office and passed my time there in the usual way. First and most regularly writing up Diary. Second, making up Accounts for the close of the year. Third, reading Dr. Lingard. The days are so short, and I take my regular walk at one o’clock, that I have not three hours for all these occupations. The political news as to the state of the Country is gloomy. There seems to be hardly any prospect of saving the Union since the appearance of the Resolutions from Virginia.1
Afternoon, finished Villemain’s Life of Cromwell. I have seen no occasion to alter the opinion already expressed. The Author was not equal to his task. It required a knowledge of Constitutional Law of England, a study of the springs of human action, and a familiarity with preceding events, that he did not possess. His reliance is upon Hume et id genus omne.2 I afterwards read his Eulogy of Montaigne. Here he is on his legs. This is French literature, and many a Frenchman perfectly understands that for one who knows what the Institutions of England are.3 I was induced to look into Montaigne. He has 429been much admired for his originality and profoundness of thought. I confess in the two Chapters I read tonight I found nothing of them. Neither have I ever before.
Quiet evening. My Wife’s tooth ach was better. We were asked to pass the evening at Mrs. Gray’s but declined. Miss Julia Gorham dined here.
The first reactions expressed in the Virginia legislature to the President’s Proclamation were that “Virginia would not see South Carolina crushed” and that a convention of the states should be called (Boston Daily Advertiser & Patriot, 20 Dec., p. 2, col. 4). More moderate sentiments, though still opposed to the assertion in the Proclamation of the federal power, seemed, according to the latest reports, to be on the ascendant (same, 26 Dec., p. 2, col. 4). On the actions taken in the several states in the wake of Jackson’s Proclamation, see William W. Freehling, Prelude to Civil War, N.Y., 1966, p. 267–297 passim.
CFA expressed his disagreements with Villemain’s interpretation of Cromwell and of his times much more vigorously in the marginal comments and notes he wrote in his copy of the book (see above, entry for 17 Dec., note). These comments ranged from simple expletives: “humbug,” “you goose,” “flat Popery,” “lie,” “nonsense,” “what a man,” “stuff,” “all slander,” “brazen dog,” and “French humbug”; to a kind of dialogue with the author: “You are talking about men whose principles of action, wrong or right, you could never understand”; and then to generalizing animadversions: “No Frenchman knows much about English Constitutional History”; “A Frenchman cannot understand morality. He considers it all as policy.”
Another characteristic example appears in the facsimile of a page from CFA’s copy of Villemain reproduced as an illustration in the present volume; see above, p. xv.
In the edition of Villemain’s Mélanges philosophiques, historiques et littéraires at MQA (3 vols., Brussels, 1829), “Eloge de Montaigne” is in the first volume. CFA’s bookplate is affixed and his characteristic underlinings and markings appear throughout.