MODERN LITERATURE--BAYLE'S CRITICAL DICTIONARY

A new edition of Bayle in France is an event in literary history which

could not have been easily predicted. Every work which creates an epoch

in literature is one of the great monuments of the human mind; and Bayle

may be considered as the father of literary curiosity, and of modern

literature. Much has been alleged against our author: yet let us be

careful to preserve what is precious. Bayle is the inventor of a work

which dignified a collection of facts constituting his text, by the

argumentative powers and the copious illustrations which charm us in his

diversified commentary. Conducting the humble pursuits of an Aulus

Gellius and an Athenæus with a high spirit, he showed us the _philosophy

of Books_, and communicated to such limited researches a value which

they had otherwise not possessed.

This was introducing a study perfectly distinct from what is

pre-eminently distinguished as "classical learning," and the subjects

which had usually entered into philological pursuits. Ancient

literature, from century to century, had constituted the sole labours of

the learned; and "variæ lectiones" were long their pride and their

reward. Latin was the literary language of Europe. The vernacular idiom

in Italy was held in such contempt that their youths were not suffered

to read Italian books, their native productions. Varchi tells a curious

anecdote of his father sending him to prison, where he was kept on bread

and water, as a penance for his inveterate passion for reading Italian

books! Dante was reproached by the Italians for composing in his

mother-tongue, still expressed by the degrading designation of _il

volgare_, which the "resolute" John Florio renders "to make common;" and

to translate was contemptuously called _volgarizzare_. Petrarch rested

his fame on his Latin poetry, and called his Italian _nugellas

vulgares_! With us Roger Ascham was the first who boldly avowed "_To

speak as the common people_, to think as wise men;" yet, so late as the

time of Bacon, this great man did not consider his "Moral Essays" as

likely to last in the moveable sands of a modern language, for he has

anxiously had them sculptured in the marble of ancient Rome. Yet what

had the great ancients themselves done, but trusted to their own

_volgare_? The Greeks, the finest and most original writers of the

ancients, observes Adam Ferguson, "were unacquainted with every language

but their own; and if they became learned, it was only by studying what

they themselves had produced."

During fourteen centuries, whatever lay out of the pale of classical

learning was condemned as barbarism; in the meanwhile, however, amidst

this barbarism, another literature was insensibly creating itself in

Europe. Every people, in the gradual accessions of their vernacular

genius, discovered a new sort of knowledge, one which more deeply

interested their feelings and the times, reflecting the image, not of

the Greeks and the Latins, but of themselves! A spirit of inquiry,

originating in events which had never reached the ancient world, and the

same refined taste in the arts of composition caught from the models of

antiquity, at length raised up rivals, who competed with the great

ancients themselves; and modern literature now occupies a space which

appears as immensity, compared with the narrow and the imperfect limits

of the ancient. A complete collection of classical works, all the bees

of antiquity, may be hived in a glass-case; but those we should find

only the milk and honey of our youth; to obtain the substantial

nourishment of European knowledge, a library of ten thousand volumes

will not avail nor satisfy our inquiries, nor supply our researches

even on a single topic!

Let not, however, the votaries of ancient literature dread its neglect,

nor be over-jealous of their younger and Gothic sister. The existence of

their favourite study is secured, as well by its own imperishable

claims, as by the stationary institutions of Europe. But one of those

silent revolutions in the intellectual history of mankind, which are not

so obvious as those in their political state, seems now fully

accomplished. The very term "classical," so long limited to the ancient

authors, is now equally applicable to the most elegant writers of every

literary people; and although Latin and Greek were long characterised as

"the learned languages," yet we cannot in truth any longer concede that

those are the most learned who are "inter Græcos Græcissimi, inter

Latinos Latinissimi," any more than we can reject from the class of "the

learned," those great writers, whose scholarship in the ancient classics

may he very indifferent. The modern languages now have also become

learned ones, when he who writes in them is imbued with their respective

learning. He is a "learned" writer who has embraced most knowledge on

the particular subject of his investigation, as he is a "classical" one

who composes with the greatest elegance. Sir David Dalrymple dedicates

his "Memorials relating to the History of Britain" to the Earl of

Hardwicke, whom he styles, with equal happiness and propriety, "Learned

in British History." "Scholarship" has hitherto been a term reserved for

the adept in ancient literature, whatever may be the mediocrity of his

intellect; but the honourable distinction must be extended to all great

writers in modern literature, if we would not confound the natural sense

and propriety of things.

Modern literature may, perhaps, still be discriminated from the ancient,

by a term it began to be called by at the Reformation, that of "the New

Learning." Without supplanting the ancient, the modern must grow up with

it; the farther we advance in society, it will more deeply occupy our

interests; and it has already proved what Bacon, casting his

philosophical views retrospectively and prospectively, has observed,

"that Time is the greatest of innovators."

When Bayle projected his "Critical Dictionary," he probably had no idea

that he was about effecting a revolution in our libraries, and founding

a new province in the dominion of human knowledge; creative genius

often is itself the creature of its own age: it is but that reaction of

public opinion, which is generally the forerunner of some critical

change, or which calls forth some want which sooner or later will be

supplied. The predisposition for the various but neglected literature,

and the curious but the scattered knowledge of the moderns, which had

long been increasing, with the speculative turn of inquiry, prevailed in

Europe when Bayle took his pen to give the thing itself a name and an

existence. But the great authors of modern Europe were not consecrated

beings, like the ancients, and their volumes were not read from the

chairs of universities; yet the new interests which had arisen in

society, the new modes of human life, the new spread of knowledge, the

curiosity after even the little things which concern us, the revelations

of secret history, and the state-papers which have sometimes escaped

from national archives, the philosophical spirit which was hastening its

steps and raising up new systems of thinking; all alike required

research and criticism, inquiry and discussion. Bayle had first studied

his own age before he gave the public his great work.

"If Bayle," says Gibbon, "wrote his Dictionary to empty the various

collections he had made, without any particular design, he could not

have chosen a better plan. It permitted him everything, and obliged him

to nothing. By the double freedom of a dictionary and of notes, he could

pitch on what articles he pleased, and say what he pleased in those

articles."

"_Jacta est alea!_" exclaimed Bayle, on the publication of his

Dictionary, as yet dubious of the extraordinary enterprise; perhaps,

while going on with the work, he knew not at times whither he was

directing his course; but we must think that in his own mind he counted

on something which might have been difficult even for Bayle himself to

have developed. The author of the "Critical Dictionary" had produced a

voluminous labour, which, to all appearance, could only rank him among

compilers and reviewers, for his work is formed of such materials as

they might use. He had never studied any science; he confessed that he

could never demonstrate the first problem in Euclid, and to his last day

ridiculed that sort of evidence called mathematical demonstration. He

had but little taste for classical learning, for he quotes the Latin

writers curiously, not elegantly; and there is reason to suspect that

he had entirely neglected the Greek. Even the erudition of antiquity

usually reached him by the ready medium of some German commentator. His

multifarious reading was chiefly confined to the writers of the

sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. With such deficiencies in his

literary character, Bayle could not reasonably expect to obtain

pre-eminence in any single pursuit. Hitherto his writings had not

extricated him from the secondary ranks of literature, where he found a

rival at every step; and without his great work, the name of Bayle at

this moment had been buried among his controversialists, the rabid

Jurieu, the cloudy Jacquelot, and the envious Le Clerc; to these,

indeed, he sacrificed too many of his valuable days, and was still

answering them at the hour of his death. Such was the cloudy horizon of

that bright fame which was to rise over Europe! Bayle, intent on

escaping from all beaten tracks, while the very materials he used

promised no novelty, for all his knowledge was drawn from old books,

opened an eccentric route, where at least he could encounter no

parallel; Bayle felt that if he could not stand alone, he would only

have been an equal by the side of another. Experience had more than once

taught this mortifying lesson; but he was blest with the genius which

could stamp an inimitable originality on a folio.

This originality seems to have been obtained in this manner. The

exhausted topics of classical literature he resigned as a province not

adapted to an ambitious genius; sciences he rarely touched on, and

hardly ever without betraying superficial knowledge, and involving

himself in absurdity: but in the history of men, in penetrating the

motives of their conduct, in clearing up obscure circumstances, in

detecting the strong and the weak parts of him whom he was trying, and

in the cross-examination of the numerous witnesses he summoned, he

assumed at once the judge and the advocate! Books are for him pictures

of men's inventions, and the histories of their thoughts; any book,

whatever be its quality, must be considered as an experiment of the

human mind.

In controversies, in which he was so ambidextrous--in the progress of

the human mind, in which he was so philosophical--furnished, too, by his

hoarding curiosity with an immense accumulation, of details,--skilful in

the art of detecting falsehoods amidst truths, and weighing probability

against uncertainty--holding together the chain of argument from its

first principles to its remotest consequence--Bayle stands among those

masters of the human intellect who taught us to think, and also to

unthink! All, indeed, is a collection of researches and of reasonings:

he had the art of melting down his curious quotations with his own

subtile ideas. He collects everything; if truths, they enter into his

history; if fictions, into discussions; he places the secret by the side

of the public story; opinion is balanced against opinion: if his

arguments grow tedious, a lucky anecdote or an enlivening tale relieves

the folio page; and knowing the infirmity of our nature, he picks up

trivial things to amuse us, while he is grasping the most abstract and

ponderous. Human nature in her shifting scenery, and the human mind in

its eccentric directions, open on his view; so that an unknown person,

or a worthless book, are equally objects for his speculation with the

most eminent--they alike curiously instruct. Such were the materials,

and such the genius of the man, whose folios, which seem destined for

the retired few, lie open on our parlour tables. The men of genius of

his age studied them for instruction, the men of the world for their

amusement. Amidst the mass of facts which he has collected, and the

enlarged views of human nature which his philosophical spirit has

combined with his researches, Bayle may be called the Shakspeare of

dictionary makers; a sort of chimerical being, whose existence was not

imagined to be possible before the time of Bayle.

But his errors are voluminous as his genius! and what do apologies

avail? Apologies only account for the evil which they cannot alter!

Bayle is reproached for carrying his speculations too far into the wilds

of scepticism--he wrote in distempered times; he was witnessing the

_dragonades_ and the _révocations_ of the Romish church; and he lived

amidst the Reformed, or the French prophets, as we called them when they

came over to us, and in whom Sir Isaac Newton more than half believed.

These testify that they had heard angels singing in the air, while our

philosopher was convinced that he was living among men for whom no angel

would sing! Bayle had left persecutors to fly to fanatics, both equally

appealing to the Gospel, but alike untouched by its blessedness! His

impurities were a taste inherited from his favourite old writers, whose

_naïveté_ seemed to sport with the grossness which it touched, and

neither in France nor at home had the age then attained to our moral

delicacy: Bayle himself was a man without passions! His trivial matters

were an author's compliance with his bookseller's taste, which is always

that of the public. His scepticism is said to have thrown everything

into disorder. Is it a more positive evil to doubt than to dogmatise?

Even Aristotle often pauses with a qualified _perhaps_, and the egotist

Cicero with a modest _it seems to me_. Bayle's scepticism has been

useful in history, and has often shown how facts universally believed

are doubtful, and sometimes must be false. Bayle, it is said, is

perpetually contradicting himself; but a sceptic must doubt his doubts;

he places the antidote close to the poison, and lays the sheath by the

sword. Bayle has himself described one of those self-tormenting and

many-headed sceptics by a very noble figure, "He was a hydra who was

perpetually tearing himself."

The time has now come when Bayle may instruct without danger. We have

passed the ordeals he had to go through; we must now consider him as the

historian of our thoughts as well as of our actions; he dispenses the

literary stores of the moderns, in that vast repository of their wisdom

and their follies, which, by its originality of design, has made him an

author common to all Europe. Nowhere shall we find a rival for Bayle!

and hardly even an imitator! He compared himself, for his power of

raising up, or dispelling objections and doubts, to "the

cloud-compelling Jove." The great Leibnitz, who was himself a lover of

his _varia eruditio_, applied a line of Virgil to Bayle, characterising

his luminous and elevated genius:--

Sub pedibusque videt nubes et sidera Daphnis.

Beneath his feet he views the clouds and stars!

Curiosities of Literature, Vol. 2 · 第 203 / 233 题