Revolutions have a terrible arm and a happy hand， they strike firmly and choose well. Even incomplete， even debased and abused and reduced to the state of a junior revolution like the Revolution of 1830， they nearly always retain sufficient providential lucidity to prevent them from falling amiss. Their eclipse is never an abdication.
Nevertheless， let us not boast too loudly; revolutions also may be deceived， and grave errors have been seen.
Let us return to 1830. 1830， in its deviation， had good luck. In the establishment which entitled itself order after the revolution had been cut short， the King amounted to more than royalty. Louis Philippe was a rare man.
The son of a father to whom history will accord certain attenuating circumstances， but also as worthy of esteem as that father had been of blame; possessing all private virtues and many public virtues; careful of his health， of his fortune， of his person， of his affairs， knowing the value of a minute and not always the value of a year; sober， serene， peaceable， patient; a good man and a good prince; sleeping with his wife， and having in his palace lackeys charged with the duty of showing the conjugal bed to the bourgeois， an ostentation of the regular sleeping-apartment which had become useful after the former illegitimate displays of the elder branch; knowing all the languages of Europe， and， what is more rare， all the languages of all interests， and speaking them; an admirable representative of the "middle class，" but outstripping it， and in every way greater than it; possessing excellent sense， while appreciating the blood from which he had sprung， counting most of all on his intrinsic worth， and， on the question of his race， very particular， declaring himself Orleans and not Bourbon; thoroughly the first Prince of the Blood Royal while he was still only a Serene Highness， but a frank bourgeois from the day he became king; diffuse in public， concise in private; reputed， but not proved to be a miser; at bottom， one of those economists who are readily prodigal at their own fancy or duty; lettered， but not very sensitive to letters; a gentleman， but not a chevalier; simple， calm， and strong; adored by his family and his household; a fascinating talker， an undeceived statesman， inwardly cold， dominated by immediate interest， always governing at the shortest range， incapable of rancor and of gratitude， making use without mercy of superiority on mediocrity， clever in getting parliamentary majorities to put in the wrong those mysterious unanimities which mutter dully under thrones; unreserved， sometimes imprudent in his lack of reserve， but with marvellous address in that imprudence; fertile in expedients， in countenances， in masks; making France fear Europe and Europe France! Incontestably fond of his country， but preferring his family; assuming more domination than authority and more authority than dignity， a disposition which has this unfortunate property， that as it turns everything to success， it admits of ruse and does not absolutely repudiate baseness， but which has this valuable side， that it preserves politics from violent shocks， the state from fractures， and society from catastrophes; minute， correct， vigilant， attentive， sagacious， indefatigable; contradicting himself at times and giving himself the lie; bold against Austria at Ancona， obstinate against England in Spain， bombarding Antwerp， and paying off Pritchard; singing the Marseillaise with conviction， inaccessible to despondency， to lassitude， to the taste for the beautiful and the ideal， to daring generosity， to Utopia， to chimeras， to wrath， to vanity， to fear; possessing all the forms of personal intrepidity; a general at Valmy; a soldier at Jemappes; attacked eight times by regicides and always smiling. brave as a grenadier， courageous as a thinker; uneasy only in the face of the chances of a European shaking up， and unfitted for great political adventures; always ready to risk his life， never his work; disguising his will in influence， in order that he might be obeyed as an intelligence rather than as a king; endowed with observation and not with divination; not very attentive to minds， but knowing men， that is to say requiring to see in order to judge; prompt and penetrating good sense， practical wisdom， easy speech， prodigious memory; drawing incessantly on this memory， his only point of resemblance with Caesar， Alexander， and Napoleon; knowing deeds， facts， details， dates， proper names， ignorant of tendencies， passions， the diverse geniuses of the crowd， the interior aspirations， the hidden and obscure uprisings of souls， in a word， all that can be designated as the invisible currents of consciences; accepted by the surface， but little in accord with France lower down; extricating himself by dint of tact; governing too much and not enough; his own first minister; excellent at creating out of the pettiness of realities an obstacle to the immensity of ideas; mingling a genuine creative faculty of civilization， of order and organization， an indescribable spirit of proceedings and chicanery， the founder and lawyer of a dynasty; having something of Charlemagne and something of an attorney; in short，a lofty and original figure， a prince who understood how to create authority in spite of the uneasiness of France， and power in spite of the jealousy of Europe. Louis Philippe will be classed among the eminent men of his century， and would be ranked among the most illustrious governors of history had he loved glory but a little， and if he had had the sentiment of what is great to the same degree as the feeling for what is useful.
Louis Philippe had been handsome， and in his old age he remained graceful; not always approved by the nation， he always was so by the masses; he pleased. He had that gift of charming. He lacked majesty; he wore no crown， although a king， and no white hair， although an old man; his manners belonged to the old regime and his habits to the new; a mixture of the noble and the bourgeois which suited 1830; Louis Philippe was transition reigning; he had preserved the ancient pronunciation and the ancient orthography which he placed at the service of opinions modern; he loved Poland and Hungary， but he wrote les Polonois， and he pronounced les Hongrais. He wore the uniform of the national guard， like Charles X.， and the ribbon of the Legion of Honor， like Napoleon.
He went a little to chapel， not at all to the chase， never to the opera. Incorruptible by sacristans， by whippers-in， by ballet-dancers; this made a part of his bourgeois popularity. He had no heart. He went out with his umbrella under his arm， and this umbrella long formed a part of his aureole. He was a bit of a mason， a bit of a gardener， something of a doctor; he bled a postilion who had tumbled from his horse; Louis Philippe no more went about without his lancet， than did Henri IV. without his poniard. The Royalists jeered at this ridiculous king， the first who had ever shed blood with the object of healing.
For the grievances against Louis Philippe， there is one deduction to be made; there is that which accuses royalty， that which accuses the reign， that which accuses the King; three columns which all give different totals. Democratic right confiscated， progress becomes a matter of secondary interest， the protests of the street violently repressed， military execution of insurrections， the rising passed over by arms， the Rue Transnonain， the counsels of war， the absorption of the real country by the legal country， on half shares with three hundred thousand privileged persons，-- these are the deeds of royalty; Belgium refused， Algeria too harshly conquered， and， as in the case of India by the English， with more barbarism than civilization， the breach of faith， to Abd-el-Kader， Blaye， Deutz bought， Pritchard paid，--these are the doings of the reign; the policy which was more domestic than national was the doing of the King.
As will be seen， the proper deduction having been made， the King's charge is decreased.
This is his great fault; he was modest in the name of France.
Whence arises this fault?
We will state it.
Louis Philippe was rather too much of a paternal king; that incubation of a family with the object of founding a dynasty is afraid of everything and does not like to be disturbed; hence excessive timidity， which is displeasing to the people， who have the 14th of July in their civil and Austerlitz in their military tradition.
Moreover， if we deduct the public duties which require to be fulfilled first of all， that deep tenderness of Louis Philippe towards his family was deserved by the family. That domestic group was worthy of admiration. Virtues there dwelt side by side with talents. One of Louis Philippe's daughters， Marie d'Orleans， placed the name of her race among artists， as Charles d'Orleans had placed it among poets. She made of her soul a marble which she named Jeanne d'Arc. Two of Louis Philippe's daughters elicited from Metternich this eulogium: "They are young people such as are rarely seen， and princes such as are never seen."
This， without any dissimulation， and also without any exaggeration， is the truth about Louis Philippe.
To be Prince Equality， to bear in his own person the contradiction of the Restoration and the Revolution， to have that disquieting side of the revolutionary which becomes reassuring in governing power， therein lay the fortune of Louis Philippe in 1830; never was there a more complete adaptation of a man to an event; the one entered into the other， and the incarnation took place. Louis Philippe is 1830 made man. Moreover， he had in his favor that great recommendation to the throne， exile. He had been proscribed， a wanderer， poor. He had lived by his own labor. In Switzerland， this heir to the richest princely domains in France had sold an old horse in order to obtain bread. At Reichenau， he gave lessons in mathematics， while his sister Adelaide did wool work and sewed. These souvenirs connected with a king rendered the bourgeoisie enthusiastic. He had， with his own hands， demolished the iron cage of Mont-Saint-Michel， built by Louis XI， and used by Louis XV. He was the companion of Dumouriez， he was the friend of Lafayette; he had belonged to the Jacobins' club; Mirabeau had slapped him on the shoulder; Danton had said to him: "Young man!" At the age of four and twenty， in '93， being then M. de Chartres， he had witnessed， from the depth of a box， the trial of Louis XVI.， so well named that poor tyrant. The blind clairvoyance of the Revolution， breaking royalty in the King and the King with royalty， did so almost without noticing the man in the fierce crushing of the idea， the vast storm of the Assembly-Tribunal， the public wrath interrogating， Capet not knowing what to reply， the alarming， stupefied vacillation by that royal head beneath that sombre breath， the relative innocence of all in that catastrophe， of those who condemned as well as of the man condemned，--he had looked on those things， he had contemplated that giddiness; he had seen the centuries appear before the bar of the Assembly-Convention; he had beheld， behind Louis XVI.， that unfortunate passer-by who was made responsible， the terrible culprit， the monarchy， rise through the shadows; and there had lingered in his soul the respectful fear of these immense justices of the populace， which are almost as impersonal as the justice of God.
The trace left in him by the Revolution was prodigious. Its memory was like a living imprint of those great years， minute by minute. One day， in the presence of a witness whom we are not permitted to doubt， he rectified from memory the whole of the letter A in the alphabetical list of the Constituent Assembly.
Louis Philippe was a king of the broad daylight. While he reigned the press was free， the tribune was free， conscience and speech were free. The laws of September are open to sight. Although fully aware of the gnawing power of light on privileges， he left his throne exposed to the light. History will do justice to him for this loyalty.
Louis Philippe， like all historical men who have passed from the scene， is to-day put on his trial by the human conscience. His case is， as yet， only in the lower court.
The hour when history speaks with its free and venerable accent， has not yet sounded for him; the moment has not come to pronounce a definite judgment on this king; the austere and illustrious historian Louis Blanc has himself recently softened his first verdict; Louis Philippe was elected by those two almosts which are called the 221 and 1830， that is to say， by a half-Parliament， and a half-revolution; and in any case， from the superior point of view where philosophy must place itself， we cannot judge him here， as the reader has seen above， except with certain reservations in the name of the absolute democratic principle; in the eyes of the absolute， outside these two rights， the right of man in the first place， the right of the people in the second， all is usurpation; but what we can say， even at the present day， that after making these reserves is， that to sum up the whole， and in whatever manner he is considered， Louis Philippe， taken in himself， and from the point of view of human goodness， will remain， to use the antique language of ancient history， one of the best princes who ever sat on a throne.
What is there against him? That throne. Take away Louis Philippe the king， there remains the man. And the man is good. He is good at times even to the point of being admirable. Often， in the midst of his gravest souvenirs， after a day of conflict with the whole diplomacy of the continent， he returned at night to his apartments， and there， exhausted with fatigue， overwhelmed with sleep， what did he do? He took a death sentence and passed the night in revising a criminal suit， considering it something to hold his own against Europe， but that it was a still greater matter to rescue a man from the executioner. He obstinately maintained his opinion against his keeper of the seals; he disputed the ground with the guillotine foot by foot against the crown attorneys， those chatterers of the law， as he called them. Sometimes the pile of sentences covered his table; he examined them all; it was anguish to him to abandon these miserable， condemned heads. One day， he said to the same witness to whom we have recently referred: "I won seven last night." During the early years of his reign， the death penalty was as good as abolished， and the erection of a scaffold was a violence committed against the King. The Greve having disappeared with the elder branch， a bourgeois place of execution was instituted under the name of the Barriere-Saint-Jacques; "practical men" felt the necessity of a quasi-legitimate guillotine; and this was one of the victories of Casimir Perier， who represented the narrow sides of the bourgeoisie， over Louis Philippe， who represented its liberal sides. Louis Philippe annotated Beccaria with his own hand. After the Fieschi machine， he exclaimed: "What a pity that I was not wounded! Then I might have pardoned!" On another occasion， alluding to the resistance offered by his ministry， he wrote in connection with a political criminal， who is one of the most generous figures of our day: "His pardon is granted; it only remains for me to obtain it." Louis Philippe was as gentle as Louis IX. And as kindly as Henri IV.
Now， to our mind， in history， where kindness is the rarest of pearls， the man who is kindly almost takes precedence of the man who is great. Louis Philippe having been severely judged by some， harshly， perhaps， by others， it is quite natural that a man， himself a phantom at the present day， who knew that king， should come and testify in his favor before history; this deposition， whatever else it may be， is evidently and above all things， entirely disinterested; an epitaph penned by a dead man is sincere; one shade may console another shade; the sharing of the same shadows confers the right to praise it; it is not greatly to be feared that it will ever be said of two tombs in exile: "This one flattered the other."
革命有猛烈的臂膀和灵巧的手，打得坚定，选得好。即使不彻底，甚至蜕化了，变了种，并且降到了雏形革命的地位，例如一八三○年的革命，革命也几乎必定能保住足够的天赋的明智，不至于走投无路。革命的挫折从来不会是失败。
但我们也不能过于夸大，革命也一样能犯错误，并且有过严重的错误。
我们还是来谈谈一八三○。一八三○在它的歧路上是幸运的。在那次突然中止的革命以后建立的所谓秩序的措施中，国王应当优于王权。路易－菲力浦是个难得的人。
他的父亲在历史上固然只能得到一个低微的地位，但他本人是值得敬重的，正如他父亲值得受谴责。他有全部私德和好几种公德。他关心自己的健康、自己的前程、自己的安全、自己的事业。他认识一分钟的价值，却不一定认识一年的价值。节俭，宁静，温良，能干，好好先生和好好亲王。和妻子同宿，在他的王宫里有仆从负责引导绅商们去参观他们夫妇的卧榻（在当年嫡系专爱夸耀淫风以后，这种展示严肃家规的作法是有好处的）。他能懂并且能说欧洲的任何种语言，尤其难得的是能懂能说代表各种利益的语言。他是“中等阶级”的可钦佩的代言人，但又超出了它，并且，从所有各方面看，都比它更伟大。他尽管尊重自己的血统，但又聪敏过人，特别重视自身的真实价值，尤其是在宗枝问题上，他宣称自己属于奥尔良系，不属于波旁系；当他还只是个至宁极静亲王殿下的时候，他俨然以直系亲王自居，一旦成了国王陛下，却又是个诚实的平民。在大众面前，不拘形迹，与友朋相处，平易近人；有吝啬的名声，但未经证实；其实，他原不难为自己的豪兴或职责而从事挥霍，但他能勤俭持家。有文学修养，但不大关心文采；为人倜傥而不风流，朴素安详而又坚强。受到家人和族人的爱戴，谈吐娓娓动听，是一个知过能改、内心冷淡、服从目前利益、事必躬亲、不知报怨也不知报德、善于无情地利用庸材来削弱雄才，利用议会中的多数来挫败那些在王权下面隐隐责难的一致意见。爱说真心话，真心话有时说得不谨慎，不谨慎处又有非凡的高明处。善于随机应变，富于面部表情，长于装模作样。常用欧洲来恫吓法国，又常用法国来恫吓欧洲。不容置辩地爱他的祖国，但更爱他的家庭。视治理重于权力，视权力重于尊严，这种性格，在事事求成方面，有它的短处，它允许耍花招，并不绝对排斥卑劣手段，但也有它的长处，它挽救了政治上的激烈冲突，国家的分裂和社会的灾难。精细，正确，警惕，关心，机敏，不辞疲劳；有时自相矛盾，继又自我纠正。在安科纳大胆地反抗奥地利，在西班牙顽强地反抗英国，炮轰安特卫普，赔偿卜利查①。满怀信心地歌唱《马赛曲》，不知道有颓丧疲劳，对美和理想的爱好，大无畏的豪气，乌托邦，幻想，愤怒，虚荣心，恐惧，具有个人奋战的各种形式。瓦尔米的将军，热马普的士兵，八次险遭暗杀，仍一贯笑容满面，和榴弹兵一样勇敢，和思想家一样坚强。只在欧洲动荡的机会面前担忧，不可能在政治上冒大风险，随时准备牺牲生命，从不放松自己的事业，用影响来掩盖自己的意图，使人们把他当作一个英才而不是当作一个国王来服从，长于观察而不善于揣度，不甚重视人的才智，但有知人之明，就是说，不以耳代目。明快锐利的感觉，重视实利的智力，辩才无碍，强记过人；不断地借用这种记忆，这是他唯一象恺撒、亚历山大和拿破仑的地方。知道实况、细节、日期、具体的名字；不知趋势、热情、群众的天才、内心的呼吁、灵魂的隐秘动乱，简言之，一切人可以称为良知良能的那一切无形活动。为上层所接受，但和法兰西的下层不甚融洽，通权达变，管理过多，统治不足，自己当自己的内阁大臣，极善于用一点小小事物来阻挡思想的洪流，在教化、整顿和组织等方面的真正创造力中，夹杂着一种说不出的讲究程序、斤斤计较的精神状态。一个王朝的创始人和享有人，有些地方象查理大帝，有些地方又象个书吏，总之，是个超卓不凡的形象，是个能在法国群情惶惑的情况下建立政权并在欧洲心怀嫉妒的情况下巩固势力的亲王。路易－菲力浦将被列于他这一世纪中杰出人物之列，并且，假使他稍稍爱慕荣誉，假使他对伟大事物的感情能和他对实用事物的感情达到同样的高度，他还可以跻身于历史上赫赫有名的统治者之列。
①卜利查（George Pritchard，1796?883），英国传教士，毁坏他在塔希提岛的财产是引起一八四三年英法冲突的导火线。
路易－菲力浦生得俊美，老了以后，仍然有风采；不一定受到全国人的赞许，却得到了一般老百姓的好感；他能讨人喜欢。他有这么一种天赋：魅力。他缺少威仪，虽是国王，却不戴王冕，虽是老人，却没有白发。他的态度是旧时代的，习惯却是新时代的，是贵族和资产阶级的混合体，正适合一八三○的要求。路易－菲力浦代表王权占统治地位的过渡时期，他保持古代的语音和写法，用来为新思想服务，他爱波兰和匈牙利，但却常写成Polonois，说成hongrais。①他象查理十世那样，穿一身国民自卫军的制服，象拿破仑那样，佩一条荣誉勋章的勋标。
①正确的拼法应为polonais（波兰人）和hongrois（匈牙利人）。
他很少去礼拜堂，从不去打猎，绝不去歌剧院。不受教士、养狗官和舞女的腐蚀，这和他在资产阶级中的声望是有关系的。他没有侍臣。他出门时，胳膊下常夹着一把雨伞，这雨伞一直是他头顶上的光轮。他懂一点泥瓦工手艺，也懂一点园艺，也懂一点医道，他曾为一个从马背上摔下来的车夫放血，路易－菲力浦身上老揣着一把手术刀，正如亨利三世老揣着一把匕首一样。保王派常嘲笑这可笑的国王，笑他是第一个用放血来治病的国王。
在历史对路易－菲力浦的指责方面，有一个减法要做。有对王权的控诉，有对王政的控诉，也有对国王的控诉，三笔账，每一笔的总数都不同。民主权利被废除，进步成了第二位利益，市民的抗议被暴力平息，起义被武装镇压，骚乱被刺刀戳通，特兰斯诺南街①，军事委员会，真正的国家被合法的国家所合并，和三十万特权人物对半分账的政策是王权的业绩；比利时被拒绝，阿尔及利亚被征服得过分猛烈，并且，正如英国对待印度那样，野蛮手段多于文明方法，对阿布德－艾尔－喀德②的背信，白莱伊、德茨被收买，卜利查受赔偿，这些是王政的业绩；家庭重于国家的政策，这是国王的业绩。
①一八三四年四月十四日，政府军曾在巴黎特兰斯诺南街大肆屠杀起义人民。
②阿布德－艾尔－喀德（Abd el kader，1808?883），一八三二年至一八四七年阿尔及利亚人民反对法国侵略者的民族解放斗争的领袖。
可以看到，账目清理以后，国王的负担便轻了。
他的大缺点是：在代表法国时，他过于谦逊了。
这缺点是从什么地方来的呢？
我们来谈谈。
路易－菲力浦，作为一个国王，他太过于以父职为重；人们希望能把一个家庭孵化为一个朝代，而他处处害怕，不敢有所作为；从而产生了过度的畏怯，使这具有七月十四日民权传统和奥斯特里茨军事传统的民族厌烦。
此外，如果我们把那些应当最先履行的公职放下不谈，路易－菲力浦对他家庭的那种深切关怀是和他那一家人相称的。那一家人，德才兼备，值得敬佩。路易－菲力浦的一个女儿，玛丽·德·奥尔良，把她的族名送进了艺苑，正如查理·德·奥尔良把它送上了诗坛。她感情充沛地塑造过一尊名为《贞德》的石像。路易－菲力浦的两个儿子曾从梅特涅的嘴里得到这样一句带盅惑性的恭维话：“这是两个不多见的青年，也是两个没见到过的王子。”
这便是路易－菲力浦不减一分也不增一分的真情实况。
蓄意要作一个平等亲王，本身具有王朝复辟和革命之间的矛盾，有在政权上安定人心的那种令人担心的革命趋向，这些便是路易－菲力浦在一八三○的幸运；人和时势之间从来不曾有过比这更圆满的配合；各得其所，而且具体体现。这就是路易－菲力浦在一八三○的运气。此外，他还有这样一个登上王位的大好条件：流亡。他曾被放逐，四处奔波，穷苦。他曾靠自己的劳力过活。在瑞士，这个法国最富饶的亲王采地的承袭者曾卖掉一匹老马来填饱肚子。他曾在赖兴诺为人补习数学，他的妹子阿黛拉伊德从事刺绣和缝纫。一个国王的这些往事是资产阶级中人所津津乐道的。他曾亲手拆毁圣米歇尔山上最后的那个铁笼子，那是路易十一所建立，并曾被路易十五使用过的。他是杜木里埃①的袍泽故旧，拉斐德的朋友，他参加过雅各宾俱乐部，米拉波拍过他的肩膀，丹东曾称呼他为年轻人！九三年时，他二十四岁，还是德·沙特尔先生②，他曾坐在国民公会的一间黑暗的小隔厢底里，目击对那个被人非常恰当地称为“可怜的暴君”的路易十六的判决。革命的昏昧的灼见，处理君主以粉碎君权，凭借君权以粉碎君主，在思想的粗暴压力下几乎没有注意那个人，审判大会上的那种漫天风暴，纷纷质问的群众愤怒，卡佩③不知怎样回答，国王的脑袋在阴风中岌岌可危的那种触目惊心的景象，所有的人，判决者和被判决者，在这悲剧中的相对清白，这些事物，他都见过，这些惊险场面，他都注视过；他看见了若干个世纪在国民公会的公案前受审；他看见了屹立在路易十六棗这个应负责的倒霉蛋棗背后黑影中的那个骇人的被告：君主制；他在他的灵魂里一直保存着对那种几乎和天谴一样无私而又大刀阔斧的民意裁决的敬畏心情。
①杜木里埃（Dumouriez，1739?823），法国将军和十八世纪末资产阶级革命时期的政治活动家，吉伦特党人，一七九二至一七九三年为北部革命军队指挥官，一七九三年三月背叛法兰西共和国。
②路易－菲力浦原是德·沙特尔公爵。
③卡佩（Capet），找路易十六。因波旁王朝是瓦罗亚王朝（1328?589）的支系，而瓦罗亚王朝又是卡佩王朝（987?328）的旁系。国民公会称路易十六为“路易·卡佩”，意在强调封建君主制的政体是世代相传的，并着重指出互有血统关系的诸王朝是反人民的共犯。
革命在他心里留下的痕迹是不可想象的。他的回忆仿佛是那些伟大岁月一分钟接一分钟的生动图片。一天，他曾面对一个我们无法怀疑的目击者，把制宪议会那份按字母次序排列的名单中的A字部分，单凭记忆，就全部加以改正。
路易－菲力浦是一个朗如晴天的国王。在他统治期间，出版是自由的，开会是自由的，信仰和言论也都是自由的。九月的法律是疏略的。他虽然懂得阳光对特权的侵蚀作用，但仍把他的王位敞在阳光下。历史对这种赤诚，将来自有公论。
路易－菲力浦，和其他一切下了台的历史人物一样，今天正受着人类良心的审判。他的案子，还只是在初步审查期间。
历史爽朗直率发言的时刻，对他来说，还没有到来；现在还不到对这国王下定论的时候；严正而名噪一时的历史学家路易·勃朗最近便已减缓了自己最初的判词；路易－菲力浦是由两个半吊子，所谓二二一和一八三○选出来的，就是说，是由半个议会和半截革命选出来的；并且，无论如何，从哲学所应有的高度来看，我们只能在以绝对民主为原则作出的某些保留情况下来评论他，正如读者已在前面大致见到过的那样；在绝对原则的眼睛里，凡是处于这两种权利棗首先是人权，其次是民权棗之外的，全是篡夺；但是，在作了这些保留后我们现在可以说的是：“总而言之，无论人们对他如何评价，就路易－菲力浦本人并从他本性善良这一点来说，我们可以引用古代史中的一句老话，说他仍将被认为是历代最好的君王之一。”
他有什么是应当反对的呢？无非是那个王位。从路易－菲力浦身上去掉国王的身份，便剩下了那个人。那个人却是好的。他有时甚至好到令人钦佩。常常，在最严重的忧患中，和大陆上所有外交进行了一整天的斗争之后，天黑了，他才回到他的寓所，精疲力竭，睡意很浓，这时，他干什么呢？他拿起一沓卷宗，披阅一桩刑事案件，直到深夜，认为这也是和欧洲较量有关的事，但是更重要的是和刽子手争夺一条人命。他常和司法大臣强辩力争，和检察长争断头台前的一寸土，他常称他们为“罗嗦法学家”。有时，他的桌上满是成堆的案卷，他一定要一一研究，对于他，放弃那些凄惨的犯人头是件痛心的事。一天，他曾对我们在前面提到过的那同一个目击者说：“今天晚上，我赢得了七个脑袋。”在他当政的最初几年中，死刑几乎被废除了，重建的断头台是对这位国王的一种暴力。格雷沃刑场已随嫡系消逝了’继又出现了一个资产阶级的格雷沃刑场，被命名为圣雅克便门刑场；“追求实际利益的人”感到需要一个大致合法的断头台，这是代表资产阶级里狭隘思想的那部分人的卡齐米尔·佩里埃①对代表自由主义派的路易－菲力浦的胜利之一。路易－菲力浦曾亲手注释贝卡里亚的著作。在菲埃斯基②的炸弹被破获以后，他喊着说：“真不幸，我没有受伤！否则我便可以赦免了。”另一次，我们这时代最高尚的人之一被判为政治犯，他在处理这案件时，联想到内阁方面的阻力，曾作出这样的批示：“同意赦免，仍待我去争取。”路易－菲力浦和路易九世一样温和，也和亨利四世一样善良。
因此，对我们来说，善良既是历史中稀有的珍珠，善良的人便几乎优于伟大的人。
路易－菲力浦受到某些人严峻的评论，也许还受到另一些人粗鲁的评论，一个曾熟悉这位国王、今日已成游魂的人③，来到历史面前为他作证，那也是极自然的；这种证词，不管怎样，首先，明明白白，是不含私意的；一个死人写出的墓志铭总是真诚的，一个亡魂可以安慰另一个亡魂，同在冥府里的人有赞扬的权利，不用害怕人们指着海外的两堆黄土说：“这堆土向那堆土献媚。”
①卡齐米尔·佩里埃（CasimirPérier），路易－菲力浦的内政大臣，大银行家。
②菲埃斯基（Fieschi），科西嘉人，一八三五年企图暗杀路易－菲力浦，未成被处死。
③指作者自己。作者写本书时正流亡国外，其时路易－菲力浦在英国死去已十年。
