human freedom. Each of these individuals got a paper at a certain hour,
which he read with as much manner as he could command, and with
singular perseverance as related to the difficulties to be overcome, to a
clientele of bleachers, who reasoned as he reasoned, swore by his
oaths, and finally arrived at all his conclusions. The liberals had the best
of it as to numbers, and possibly as to wit, the Moniteur possessing all
the dullness of official dignity under all the dynasties and ministries that
have governed France since its establishment. My business, however, is
with the effect produced on the pocket-handkerchiefs, and not with that
produced on the laborers. The two extremes were regular cotes
gauches and cotes droits. In other words, all at the right end of the
piece became devoted Bourbonists, devoutly believing that princes,
who were daily mentioned with so much reverence and respect, could
be nothing else but perfect; while the opposite extreme were disposed
to think that nothing good could come of Nazareth. In this way, four of
our number became decided politicians, not only entertaining a
sovereign contempt for the sides they respectively opposed, but
beginning to feel sensations approaching to hatred for each other.

{bleaching grounds = open spaces where newly woven linen is spread
to whiten in the sun; legitimist.... = this paragraph refers to
controversies, before the French "July Revolution" of 1830, between
rightist ("cote droit" = right side) legitimists, who read the official
"Moniteur" newspaper and supported the absolutist Bourbon monarchy
of King Charles X, and leftist ("cote gauche" = left side) liberals, who
read "Le Temps" and argued for reform or revolution; "nothing good
could come of Nazareth" = from the Bible, John, I, 46: "Can any good
thing come out of Nazareth"}

The reader will readily understand that these feelings lessened toward