attempt the impossible. Rather by granting the case for his opponents he
sought to controvert them the more effectively. He laid down as his
fundamental thesis that the Revolution was inevitable. It was the outcome
of the past history of France; it pursued the course which it was bound to
pursue. Individuals and episodes in the drama are thus relatively
insignificant and unimportant. The crimes committed may be regretted;
their memory should not produce any condemnation of the movement as a
whole. To judge the Revolution by the Terror, or by the Consulate, would
be wrong and foolish; to declare it evil, because it did not proceed in a
gentle and orderly manner would be to outrage the historical sense. It is
wiser and more profitable to look below the surface, to search out those
deep lessons which may be learned. And Mignet closes his work by stating
one of these lessons, that which to him was, perhaps, the most vital: "On
ne peut regir desormais la France d'une maniere durable, qu'en
satisfaisant le double besoin qui lui a fait entreprendre la revolution.
Il lui faut, dans le gouvernement, une liberte politique reelle, et dans
la societe, le bien-etre materiel que produit le developpement sans cesse
perfectionne de la civilisation."

It was not Mignet's object to present a complete account of the
Revolution, and while he records the more important events of the period,
he does not attempt to deal exhaustively with all its many sides. It is
accordingly possible to point out various omissions. He does not explain
the organisation of the "deputies on mission," he only glances at that of
the commune or of the Committee of Public Safety. His account of the
Consulate and of the Empire appears to be disproportionately brief. But
the complexity of the period, and the wealth of materials for its history,
render it impossible for any one man to discuss it in detail, and Mignet's
work gains rather than loses by its limitations. Those facts which
illustrate his fundamental thesis are duly recorded; the causes and