"The speeches are made beforehand in a small society of young men and women， among them generally the fair friend of the speaker is one， or else the fair whom he means to make his friend，； and the society very politely give their approbation， unless the lady who gives the tone to that circle chances to reprehend something， which is of course altered， if not amended."It is not surprising， with customs of this kind， that professional philosophers should become men of society. At no time or in any place have they been so to the same extent， nor so habitually. The great delight of a man of genius or of learning here， says an English traveler， is to reign over a brilliant assembly of people of fashion[8]. Whilst in England they bury themselves morosely in their books， living amongst themselves and appearing in society only on condition of "doing some political drudgery，" that of journalist or pamphleteer in the service of a party， in France they dine out every evening， and constitute the ornaments and amusement of the drawing-rooms to which they resort to converse[9]. There is not a house in which dinners are given that has not its titular philosopher， and， later on， its economist and man of science. In the various memoirs， and in the collections of correspondence， we track them from one drawing room to another， from one chateau to another， Voltaire to Cirey at Madame du Chatelet's， and then home， at Ferney where he has a theater and entertains all Europe； Rousseau to Madame d'Epinay's， and M. de Luxembourg's； the Abbé Barthelemy to the Duchesse de Choiseul's；Thomas， Marmontel and Gibbon to Madame Necker's； the encyclopedists to d'Holbach's ample dinners， to the plain and discreet table of Madame Geoffrin， and to the little drawing room of Mademoiselle de L'Espinasse， all belonging to the great central state drawing-room， that is to say， to the French Academy， where each newly elected member appears to parade his style and obtain from a polished body his commission of master in the art of discourse. Such a public imposes on an author the obligation of being more a writer than a philosopher.
The thinker is expected to concern himself with his sentences as much as with his ideas. He is not allowed to be a mere scholar in his closet， a simple erudite， diving into folios in German fashion， a metaphysician absorbed with his own meditations， having an audience of pupils who take notes， and， as readers， men devoted to study and willing to give themselves trouble， a Kant， who forms for himself a special language， who waits for a public to comprehend him and who leaves the room in which he labors only for the lecture-room in which he delivers his lectures. Here， on the contrary， in the matter of expression， all are experts and even professional. The mathematician d'Alembert publishes a small treatise on elocution； Buffon， the naturalist pronounces a discourse on Style； the legist Montesquieu composes an essay on Taste； the psychologist Condillac writes a volume on the art of writing. In this consists their greatest glory；philosophy owes its entry into society to them. They withdrew it from the study， the closed-society and the school， to introduce it into company and into conversation.
II. ITS METHOD.
Owing to this method it becomes popular.
"Madame la Maréchale，" says one of Diderot's personages，[10]. "Imust consider things from a somewhat higher point of view." - " As high as you please so long as I understand you." - "If you do not understand me it will be my fault." - " You are very polite， but you must know that I have studied nothing but my prayer. book." - That makes no difference； the pretty woman， ably led on， begins to philosophize without knowing it， arriving without effort at the distinction between good and evil， comprehending and deciding on the highest doctrines of morality and religion.- Such is the art of the eighteenth century， and the art of writing. People are addressed who are perfectly familiar with life， but who are commonly ignorant of orthography， who are curious in all directions， but ill prepared for any； the object is to bring truth down to their level[11]. Scientific or too abstract terms are inadmissible； they tolerate only those used to ordinary conversation. And this is no obstacle； it is easier to talk philosophy in this language than to use it for discussing precedence and clothes. For， in every abstract question there is some leading and simple conception on which the rest depends， those of unity， proportion， mass and motion in mathematics； those of organ， function and being in physiology； those of sensation， pain， pleasure and desire in psychology； those of utility， contract and law in politics and morality； those of capital， production， value， exchange in political economy， and the， same in the other sciences， all of these being conceptions derived from passing experience； from which it follows that， in appealing to common experience by means of a few familiar circumstances， such as short stories， anecdotes， agreeable tales， and the like， these conceptions are fashioned anew and rendered precise. This being accomplished， almost everything is accomplished；for nothing then remains but to lead the listener along step by step， flight by flight， to the remotest consequences.
"Will Madame la Maréchale have the kindness to recall my definition？ " - "I remember it well-do you call that a definition？"- "Yes." -"That， then， is philosophy！ " - "Admirable ！ " - "And Ihave been philosophical？ " - " As you read prose， without being aware of it."The rest is simply a matter of reasoning， that is to say， of leading on， of putting questions in the right order， and of analysis.